Lake Pocotopaug Lake and Watershed Restoration Evaluation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 4. Lake Pocotopaug Bathymetry (Frink and Norvell 1984).Lake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluation 16May 2002
4.0 METHODS AND APPROACH4.1 Quality Control and Quality AssuranceThis Section presents the organization and objectives of the sampling activities and proceduresassociated with the Lake Pocotopaug, Lake and Watershed Restoration Evaluation. Specificprotocols for sampling, sample handling and storage, and laboratory and field analyses aredescribed. All QA/QC procedures were structured in accordance with applicable technicalstandards.All sampling was carried out in order to assure sample precision, accuracy, completeness, andrepresentativeness. Precision is a measure of the degree to which two or more measurementsare in agreement, and was assessed through the determination of duplicate samples, collectedor measured randomly, representing about 10% of the actual number of samples. Precisionwas measured as the relative percent difference (RPD) between sets of values:( Amount in Sample1−Amount in Sample 2)RPD =x1000.5 ( Amount in Sample1+Amount in Sample 2)A total of seven duplicate samples were collected for tributaries and storm drains, and seven forin-lake stations during the sampling period of April-December 2001. RPD values for waterquality ranged from 0% to 67%, for in-lake samples and 0% to 100% for tributaries and stormdrains (Table 6). In-lake RPD values higher than 20% resulted from small differences in resultsnear the detection limit for dissolved phosphorus (DP). Tributary and storm drain RPD valueswere much higher. Tributary samples were not “duplicates”; they were a second bottle placedon the same stake or in the same general area in an effort to collect first flush stormwater.Unattended stormwater sampling results in high variability.Accuracy or percent error is the degree of agreement between the observed value (i.e.,measured, estimated, or calculated) and an accepted reference or true value (i.e., the realvalue). The laboratory employed to analyze samples performs such tests on a regular basis.Percent error was below 10% for most of the accuracy samples (Table 7).( True−Observed)PercentError=x100( True)Lake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluation 17May 2002
Page 2 and 3: LAKE POCOTOPAUGLAKE AND WATERSHEDRE
Page 4 and 5: 11.3 Prevent algal blooms from occu
Page 6 and 7: LAYPERSON’S SYNOPSISLake Pocotopa
Page 8 and 9: The stocking of walleye in Lake Poc
Page 10 and 11: Lake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluat
Page 12 and 13: Period Covered 1988• Pollution fr
Page 14 and 15: Recommendations included• Algacid
Page 16 and 17: Major EventDecember 1999 - Fish kil
Page 18 and 19: Table 5. Land Use from the CT DEP G
Page 24 and 25: Table 6. QA/QC on Water Quality Dat
Page 26 and 27: Soils - USDA at MAGIC UCONN Geograp
Page 28 and 29: Table 8. Water Quality Variables Me
Page 32 and 33: Phytoplankton samples were collecte
Page 34 and 35: where many measurements would have
Page 36 and 37: Figure 7. 2001 Temperature and Diss
Page 38 and 39: Table 10 continued. 2001 Lake Pocot
Page 40 and 41: phytoplankton biomass (Wetzel 1983)
Page 42 and 43: Figure 9. Annual June, July and Aug
Page 44 and 45: elow 7:1 occurred on September 22,
Page 46 and 47: Table 12. 2001 Dry and Wet Weather
Page 48 and 49: Table 12 continued. 2001 Dry and We
Page 56 and 57: were identified to genus and enumer
Page 58 and 59: Table 13 continued. 2001 Phytoplank
Page 68 and 69: Figure 10. 2001 Phytoplankton Bioma
Page 70 and 71: The late summer bloom of blue-green
Page 72 and 73:
Table 15. 2001 Zooplankton DensityZ
Page 74 and 75:
Table 16. 2001 Zooplankton BiomassZ
Page 76 and 77:
7.0 RELATIONSHIPS AND TRENDS7.1 Pre
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 13. 1991-2001 Surface Water
Page 80 and 81:
Figure 15. 2001 Surface and Mid-dep
Page 82 and 83:
Figure 16. 1991-2001 Chlorophyll a
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 18. 2001 Chlorophyll a vs. S
Page 86 and 87:
Figure 20. 1991-2001 July and Augus
Page 88 and 89:
Table 17. Empirical Model Calculati
Page 90 and 91:
Table 18. Total Phosphorus Loading
Page 92 and 93:
Table 19. Wet Weather Loading Summa
Page 94 and 95:
With the best possible treatment of
Page 96 and 97:
water quality should focus on input
Page 98 and 99:
10.0 MANAGEMENT NEEDS AND OBJECTIVE
Page 100 and 101:
11.2 Reducing Total Phosphorus and
Page 102 and 103:
undeveloped forest land, an opportu
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 22. Buffer Strips for Pollut
Page 106 and 107:
Figure 23. Catch Basin with Sump an
Page 108 and 109:
early spring to capture what appear
Page 110 and 111:
Figure 26. Infiltration Systems.Lak
Page 112 and 113:
Figure 27. Constructed Treatment We
Page 114 and 115:
Chemical TreatmentIn-stream chemica
Page 116 and 117:
TABLE 21. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CO
Page 118 and 119:
TABLE 21 continued. MANAGEMENT OPTI
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
12.0 ADDITIONAL DATA NEEDSManagemen
Page 132 and 133:
13.0 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 134 and 135:
this point, but as a rough guide, a
Page 136 and 137:
14.0 REFERENCESAd Hoc Lake Advisory
Page 138 and 139:
Scheuler T.R., P.A. Kumble, & M.A.
Page 140 and 141:
Appendix B:Supplemental Tables and
Page 142:
Appendix D:Educational MaterialsLak
show all

Lake Pocotopaug Lake and Watershed Restoration Evaluation ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?