Grantee Research Project Results

Final Report: Real-Time Internet Visualization and Environmental Reporting Network (RiverNet): the Upper Susquehanna/Lackawanna American Heritage River

EPA Grant Number: R828581
Title: Real-Time Internet Visualization and Environmental Reporting Network (RiverNet): the Upper Susquehanna/Lackawanna American Heritage River
Investigators: Tomaine, James , Bruns, Dale , Krehely, Robert
Institution: Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority, PA , Wilkes University
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: December 1, 2000 through August 31, 2007
Project Amount: $399,909
RFA: Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT) (2000) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Ecological Indicators/Assessment/Restoration , Water , Air

Objective:

This project has four objectives: 1) to monitor key water quality parameters within the watershed and selected river and stream sites of the Upper Susquehanna/Lackawanna American Heritage River (AHR); 2) to use real-time water quality instruments (provided by Yellow Springs Instruments, YSI) to characterize environmental conditions in a river ecosystem with abandoned mine lands (AML), acid mine drainage (AMD), and mixed sewage from combined sewer overflows (CSOs); 3) to make these data available to the public and other community stakeholders, including local and state agencies, via real-time data loggers linked to a community-based GIS (geographic information system) that provides Web based Internet visualizations; and 4) to conduct environmental education and public outreach activities.

Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):

Major findings for the river – These data and findings are taken from presentations given to an international rivers conference held in Harbin, China. “A GIS watershed analysis of land cover (satellite imagery - Thematic Mapper) plus spatial data on AML, AMD, and CSOs provided a ranking of 42 tributaries within the study area. On this basis, a subset of key sites was selected for focused measurements of water quality, including conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO). Statistical differences were detected in a paired watershed comparison of a reference stream vs. mining-impacted stream. Data from an urban-mining influenced site on the river indicated the following trends: pH ranged mostly from 7-8 (indicating no acidification); DO showed instrument drift during high stormwaters in spring although stable readings in fall and winter were typically 10-16 mg/L, indicating no oxygen stress at those times; conductivity peaked in winter concurrent with salt used on roads with ice and snow; TDS reflected river discharge with dilution affects during stormwater events. Short term nitrate monitoring data correlated significantly with both river discharge and fecal coliform grab samples; about half of the coliform samples (n = 12 for correlation) exceeded 200 counts per 100mL - a reference EPA criterion for bathing waters. A RiverNet Web portal and Web-based GIS (ESRI’s ArcIMS software) allows for the communication (http://www.pagis.org/CurrentWatershedEPAdemo.htm Exit > Prototype Mapping Server) of watershed conditions relative to sources of pollution for towns, cities, and tributary watersheds in the study area.”

Major findings for two tributary streams (reference vs. mining) - These data and findings are from a paper presented in Atlanta, GA, for a national meeting on mining and environmental issues, including mining reclamation (reference provided in 2004 calendar year). “In a paired watershed comparison (AML-AMD vs. reference), conductivity and total dissolved solids were statistically higher and redox potential, pH, and dissolved oxygen were significantly lower in the impacted watershed; data on water quality and associated watersheds are made available to the public via a community RiverNet Web portal and Web-based GIS (ESRI’s ArcIMS software). Ongoing geospatial analyses of watersheds include use of CITYgreen software (American Forests) to demonstrate the benefits of reforestation as a reclamation strategy and 3-D CommunityVIZ software (Orton Foundation) to visualize land use and impact patterns relative to mining.”

Conclusions:

Our technical papers, both published and presented at conferences, have provided various conclusions on specific trends and patterns related to chemical water quality parameters measured in this EMPACT project. The following conclusions are more general, emerging from our overall experience with this project, and based on the conditions of streams and river sampled, and in the context of the analyses conducted on a watershed basis with GIS and remote sensing data in order to select key locations for the study:

As expected from basic stream and river ecology, hydrologic events like rainfall, runoff, or snowmelt was a major driver in the logistics of sampling and in the pattern of water quality parameters.
During periods of low flow with easy access and maintenance, most of the data did not indicate anything unusual or distressful, at least relative to chemical parameters and EPA criteria or standards; this was true of the river (modal or low flow) and of the streams with mining impacts.
However, parameters did change rapidly with runoff and stormwater, yet it was difficult to access the sondes safely at these times, and some data like DO were not as reliable as pH over these periods.
While most chemical parameters were within EPA criterion levels, there were strong indications of a “mining signature” (i.e., high TDS in mining streams) along with analogous “signatures” for urban runoff (TDS diluted with high runoff and high discharge, along with higher fecal coliform levels).
Physical habitat observations indicate larger impacts than reflected in the water chemistry measured with the sondes.
Also, GIS analysis of land use (natural, agricultural, urban, mining) vs. biodiversity in streams and rivers (spatial not temporal focus) indicated greater ecological impacts than those based on water chemistry alone (see Bruns, D.A. 2005. Macroinvertebrate response to land cover, habitat, and water chemistry in a mining-impacted river ecosystem: A GIS watershed analysis. Aquatic Sciences 67:403-423).
The EMPACT program guidelines provided a focus on repetitive, regular monitoring design and approach to monitoring - we followed this, but alternative “pulsed” rapid field assessments (mobile) might yield more useful results or be used on a complementary basis.
Pilot studies using kayak field transects longitudinally on the river seem promising for documenting a whole range of local and regional impacts not detectable with the repetitive, temporal sampling scheme promoted by the EMPACT program guidelines and based on more limited number of sampling sites (vs. spatially designed transects).
Most likely, communities need a combination of both approaches, especially on large rivers that can be dangerous, yet equipment can be susceptible to vandalism during low flows since they are located in an urban setting.

Journal Articles:

No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 24 publications for this project

Supplemental Keywords:

water quality, streams, rivers, watersheds, GIS, web based GIS, land use, urban runoff, mining,, RFA, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Scientific Discipline, Geographic Area, Water, State, Chemistry, Environmental Chemistry, Monitoring/Modeling, Hydrology, Wet Weather Flows, Environmental Monitoring, river ecosystem, water quality, acid mine drainage, sewage, ecological risk assessment, community-based approach, community outreach, public outreach, real-time monitoring, data management, data gathering, web site development, Wyoming, computing technology, GIS, public information, WY, hydrologic dynamics, bioterrorism

Relevant Websites:

http://www.pagis.org/CurrentWatershedEPAdemo.htm Exit and select Prototype Mapping Server
http://gisriver.wilkes.edu/ Exit
http://www.pagis.org Exit

Progress and Final Reports:

Original Abstract

The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.