[Carol ArmstrongParticipant]

A file of historical data-to-the-present on each of the Del River Basin sensor stations will be posted once or twice a week, and particular concerns will also be reported.  Each site will be marked with a ✔️if there are no issues, and with a yellow-highlighted ✔️if there is something that needs attention.  Let me know your feedback.

This week:
SL149 Marsh Creek U-Moore’s rd – This regularly transmitting site stopped today at 8:20 EST (updated on MoMW to 1/24).  At that time, turbidity was elevated >100 NTU, and battery was >4v.

SL151 Naylor’s Run – no data transmission since 1/25 at 13:40 EST (updated on MoMW to 1/24).  As of last transmission turbidity was 87 NTU and battery was 3.94 v.

[Carol ArmstrongParticipant]

Today is 2/1/19.

SL117-Sandy Run is still not transmitting though it is collecting data.  The battery was changed recently.  Perhaps the antenna was disconnected or the cellular board was disconnected.

SL151-Naylor’s Run is still not transmitting data since 1/25/19, and not recorded on MoMW.  Has the sd card been checked to see if data is being logged?

SL153-Hunter Ck U has not transmitted signals since 1/30/19 (first time for this station). At last signal battery was >4v.

[Carol ArmstrongParticipant]

Today is 2/4/19

There may be sediment coating the sensors, after the last storm even, as sediment is thick on many stream beds, and observed on in-stream sensors.

SL112 – Pennypack D, turbidity dropped to -5 and -6 once each day on 2/3/29 and 2/4/19.  It also went to -13 NTU on 1/23/19.  Does this indicate a malfunction with the sensor?  Should those values be deleted from the dataset for analyses?

SL151 – Naylor’s run, there is no data transmission since 1/25/19, and not transmitted to MoMW.  This gap is longer than others at this site.  Should the site be checked for problems?

[Carol ArmstrongParticipant]

Today is 2/9/19

SL118 – Wissahickon, the battery is below 3.7 v and very variable, which could indicate a problem.  Per Rachel Johnson, batteries are very sensitive to moisture, which can accumulate on the outside of the plastic packaging around the battery.  Check the battery and its space in the foam for moisture.  Consider recharging battery.

SL151 – Naylor’s Run, still no data transmission since 1/25/19.  This needs to be assessed.  At last transmission, battery was sufficiently charged.

[Carol ArmstrongParticipant]

Today is 2/15/19

Many stations need maintenance.  Many sensors are fouled as the storms of January and February have brought in a great deal of sediment and other debris.  Please check your batteries for moisture on the outer plastic wrappings, and check inside the logger box as well; this can make a big difference.

[Jim MooreParticipant]

Has anybody noticed a spike in conductivity this past week on 1/13/2019?  SL149 and SL150 showed EC peaks in that time frame as well as Pickering Creek.  This is the first time I have seen the EC increase with flow (depth) increase.  All the other data since March, 2018 has an inverse correlation.

I recently deployed two EC stations along the Pa Turnpike as part of an initiative by Great Marsh Institute to gather data on the impact of stormwater runoff.  PTC-2 showed a significant spike as well.  PTC-1 unfortunately died 1/8 so no data for the 2/13 event.

 

[Carol ArmstrongParticipant]

Interesting observations.  If you mean spikes of EC on 2/13/19, that coincided with a snow then ice then rain storm event that can let the big road salting done in advance, run to the streams with less infiltration along the way.  EC rising with depth, with less dilution, has been worst in the storms that end in rain.  My thought is that there is ice under the rain, reducing the infiltration in soil.  Also, the soils are super saturated, and little or no tree withdrawal.

[Carol ArmstrongParticipant]

See sensor station notes for 2/18 attached.

[David BresslerParticipant]

Jim Moore,

It’s interesting that you got those conductivity spikes at both Marsh Creek sites.  The hypothesis has been that BCMC4S (Marsh Creek at Fairview Rd) would receive turnpike influence (e.g., salt influence) because it’s downstream of where the turnpike gets close to Marsh Creek (and it’s also downstream of where one of those tribs you’re monitoring enters Marsh Creek…and that trib receives runoff directly from the turnpike).  But the upstream site (BCMC3S: Marsh Creek at Moore’s Road) had the higher conductivity spike on 2/13/19 and has less road influence.  It wasn’t a huge conductivity spike at either site (~480 and 550 uS/cm) but nonetheless it makes you wonder what’s happening upstream of BCMC3S.

Where is PTC-1 and PTC-2 located?  We scouted one of them but I’m not sure which is which.  Would you mind posting the data from those two stations?

 

[David BresslerParticipant]

As a follow-up to Carol Armstrong’s weekly report and notes on fouled turbidity sensors: even if you aren’t currently using your turbidity data, cleaning the sensors regularly (and especially before storms) will help to ensure that the basin-wide data set is usable.  If you clean your turbidity sensor and then fill out a Field Visit Data sheet it will provide valuable information on how quickly fouling occurs and will help with ensuring viable turbidity data for use in broad scale basin-wide comparisons.

 

[Author]

Posts