Lake Pocotopaug Lake and Watershed Restoration Evaluation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 6. QA/QC on Water Quality Data.QA/QC is expressed as RPD (relative percent difference), a measure of precision.Parameter (units)Tributaries and storm drainsRPDrange of valuesn min - max min average maxstd.dev.pH SU 5 5.9 -6.8 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.1Turbidity NTU 6 2.6 -93 0.0 16.8 56.3 16.5Spec. Cond us/cm 5 52 -140 1.5 21.2 81.0 33.7Alkalinity mg/L 7 4 -26 0.0 27.6 85.7 2.2Suspended Solids mg/L 7 3.7 -252 7.8 33.4 90.9 30.9Chloride mg/L 1 10 -11 9.5 9.5 9.5Total Phosphorus mg/L 7 0.012 -0.229 4.4 26.1 59.5 0.0Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 7 0.008 -0.05 0.0 28.3 63.4 0.0Ammonium-N mg/L 7 0.01 -0.17 0.0 61.5 133.8 0.0Nitrate-N mg/L 7 0.01 -0.81 0.0 19.4 56.3 0.1TKN mg/L 7 0.36 -1.989 1.8 8.7 18.2 0.1Parameter (units)nIn-lakeRPDrange of valuesmin - max min average maxstd.dev.pH SU 4 7 -8.5 0.0 1.3 4.2 0.1Turbidity NTU 4 2.1 -5.2 1.9 10.7 21.3 0.3Spec. Cond us/cm 4 91 -111 0.0 1.2 2.2 1.0Alkalinity mg/L 4 4 -10 0.0 2.9 11.8 0.5Total Phosphorus mg/L 6 0.008 -0.02 0.0 10.6 19.4 0.0Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 6 0.001 -0.004 0.0 22.2 66.7 0.0Dissolved Iron mg/L 1 0.01 -0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0Table 7. Laboratory Percent Error during the 2001 Lake Pocotopaug Investigation.Columbia Environmental Laboratory QA/QC% Error Max differenceParameter (units) n min average max True – Obs.Total Phosphorus mg/L 12 0 3.5 8.7 0.004Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 8 0 3.5 18.2 0.002Ammonium-N mg/L 3 0 6.8 13.1 0.014Nitrate-N mg/L 2 3.8 6.8 9.7 0.006Dissolved Aluminum mg/L 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.05Lake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluation 18May 2002
Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement systemcompared to the amount that was expected to be obtained under normal conditions (defined asthe conditions expected if the sampling plan was implemented as planned). Completeness iscalculated as( number of valid measurements)Completene ss =x100( number of measurements planned)and was 100% for in-lake samples. Stormwater sampling was variable. A total of 46 samplerswere set to capture first flush stormwater. Of the 46, 35 filled and were analyzed, resulting in76% completeness. Samplers either did not fill enough or were washed away due to heavyflow.Representativeness expresses the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent acharacteristic of a parameter, process, population, or environmental condition within a definedspatial and/or temporal boundary. Following the study design and applying the proper samplingtechniques and analytical testing maximized representativeness of the data collected. Wherechoices of stations to be sampled were made, effort was expended to ensure that those sitessampled were most representative of the conditions the study intended to assess.4.2 HydrologyHydrological data for Lake Pocotopaug included water inputs from tributaries, groundwater,direct precipitation, and runoff from the watershed. The hydrology was linked to water qualitydata to evaluate pollutant loads. General runoff from the watershed and incoming water fromthe tributaries were estimated from a combination of actual flow data and yields frommathematical models based on watershed characteristics. Direct precipitation on LakePocotopaug was calculated as the average precipitation (1994-2001 = 124.4 cm) times the lakesurface area. Precipitation data were obtained from East Hampton/Colchester Water PollutionControl Plant and the Weather Underground web site. Ground water balance was estimated by:1. using stormwater flow rate from the Environmental Protection Agency Rational Method(Q=CIA, where C=slope (0.05), I=rainfall intensity (1”/hr), and A=surface area (200 ac)),and2. using a rate of 20 liters/m 2 /day multiplied by area assumed to contribute direct groundwaterflow (200 ac).Information for physical characteristics of Lake Pocotopaug and its watershed were gatheredfrom the following:Topography – United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic maps atMAGIC University of Connecticut Geographic Information Center web siteWatershed Delineation – Field investigations, previous reports, and United StatesGeological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic mapsLand Use – CT DEP at MAGIC UCONN Geographic Information Center web siteLake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluation 19May 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 22 and 23: Figure 4. Lake Pocotopaug Bathymetr
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?