Water Chestnut Removal Program Summer 2015

Charles River Watershed Association
Water Chestnut
Removal Program
Summer 2015
October 2015
Report by:
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.
Project Goals ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.
Amount of Weeds Harvested................................................................................................................ 1
3.
Volunteer Hand-Pullers ......................................................................................................................... 2
4.
Mechanical Harvesting and Additional Efforts ..................................................................................... 4
5.
Outreach and Community Engagement ............................................................................................... 6
6.
Science and Research............................................................................................................................ 7
7.
Advocacy ............................................................................................................................................. 12
8.
Funding ............................................................................................................................................... 13
9.
Program Evaluation............................................................................................................................. 14
10. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 15
1
Executive Summary
CRWA's volunteer aquatic invasive plant removal program has been an incredible success. The primary
goal of the program is to improve habitat in the Charles River Lakes District by eradicating water
chestnuts. A multi-year combination of mechanical harvesting and hand-pulling is necessary to
accomplish this. The program also creates awareness about the infestation problem and actions that can
be taken to reduce nutrient pollution in the river. The program has also been instrumental in
encouraging the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to commit to large-scale multi-year
mechanical harvesting. During the 2015 pulling season, 417 volunteers spent roughly 1,200 hours
working to remove the invasive plants through CRWA’s Canoeing for Clean Water program, clearing vast
tracts of coverage. We estimate that volunteers removed 41 tons of water chestnuts. Just as
importantly, Canoeing for Clean Water builds support and a constituency for the river and creates new
river stewards.
1. Project Goals
The 2015 programmatic goals for the Aquatic Invasive Plant Removal Program were modeled after those
of the 2014 program, with some updates based on last year’s progress. The overall focus of the goals
was to reduce the area infested with water chestnuts in the Lakes District of the Charles River. More
specifically, this included:









Expand the educational component of the program by informing volunteers and community
members of the localized and overall impacts of water chestnut proliferation within the Lakes
District and throughout the Charles River Watershed.
Target the problem from upstream to downstream. Plants generally spread in the downstream
direction. If handled in the opposite way, the plants would quickly fill in as they were removed.
Protect downstream habitats by preventing the spread of invasive weeds to downstream areas
of the river through removal of excess plant matter.
Clear and maintain major recreational passageways for Boating in Boston (BiB) and Charles River
Canoe & Kayak (CRCK) customers, as well as other recreational river users.
Utilize mechanical harvesters to target removal in large, homogeneous patches of water
chestnuts.
Improve invasive species management in the Lakes District region to ensure efficient and
effective water chestnut removal and to prevent further habitat degradation.
Engage 500 volunteers in the program.
Remove 10 acres of invasive water chestnut, and reduce coverage by 10-15% annually.
Implement water quality monitoring to further investigate the impact of water chestnuts on
dissolved oxygen and water temperature from upstream to downstream.
2. Amount of Weeds Harvested
Volunteer hand-pullers with the Canoeing for Clean Water program removed approximately 3,842
baskets of water chestnuts from the river this summer. We determined this number through records
maintained throughout the season. This equates to approximately 81,000 pounds of plant material
removed (Figure 1). This conversion was determined by weighing a full basket of water chestnuts, of
1
which the average weight is 21 pounds. On average, volunteer groups consisted of 17 people who
worked for 3 hours to remove plants. The average amount of material removed at each event was about
160 baskets or 3360 pounds. The actual number of baskets pulled varied by group, depending on the
coverage of the area from which the group was pulling, physical ability of volunteers, canoeing ability
and experience, overall time spent on the water and motivation and energy levels, and staff availability
for off-loading. CRWA’s Volunteer Coordinator staffed all events and was assisted by members of
Citizens Alliance for Noxious weed Eradication (CANOE) and CRCK’s paid hand-pullers, all of whom
helped off-load baskets of pulled water chestnuts. Their participation reduced travel and off-loading
time for volunteers, allowing them to spend more time pulling.
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Cumulative Weight in Pounds
Figure 1. Cumulative number of pounds of water chestnut removed by volunteer hand-pullers in 2015.
3. Volunteer Hand-Pullers
During CRWA’s ninth summer of the Canoeing for Clean Water volunteer hand-pulling program, there
was a significant amount of interest in participating in removal events, either with a private group or
during one of CRWA’s advertised public volunteer events. 417 individuals participated in removal
events. Many volunteers participated in multiple public volunteer events.
After participating in a public or private water chestnut removal event with CRWA, volunteers are
invited to come back to the boathouse and engage in weed removal on their own, and may use the
equipment provided by Boating in Boston for no charge. Figure 2 shows the private groups and
organizations that participated in Canoeing for Clean Water events in 2015.
2
Date
Group or Individual Name
6/14/2015
Boston Volunteers
14
86
6/17/2015
Neighborhood group
3
15
6/18/2015
Takeda Pharmaceuticals
21
176
6/20/2015
Public Volunteer Group 1
22
115
6/26/2015
Boston Healthcare for the Homeless
22
231
6/27/2015
Public Volunteer Group 2
28
316
6/30/2015
Sproxil
8
77
7/8/2015
Number in Group
Baskets
Filled
Public Volunteer Group 3
19
239
7/11/2015
Boston Volunteers #2
16
150
7/12/2015
Jewish Community Resources
21
239
7/14/2015
Earthwatch
11
125
7/17/2015
Public Volunteer Group 4
11
115
7/18/2015
Boston Volunteers #3
4
30
7/21/2015
FedEx- Earthsmart
42
215
7/24/2015
Dunkin Brands + BiB Summer Camp
20
100
7/25/2015
Gay for Good (Boston)
15
140
7/28/2015
Vantage Partners
12
150
7/29/2015
EMC
28
315
7/31/2015
New England Aquarium (Bluewatch)
14
125
8/1/2015
Public Volunteer Group 5
15
135
8/2/2015
Penn State Alumni
12
85
8/2/2015
Intel
19
240
8/6/2015
WS Development & NEIWPCC
10
150
8/8/2015
Quincy Asian Youth Resources
20
120
8/9/2015
Public Volunteer Group 6
13
168
Figure 2. Public and private groups/organizations that participated in Canoeing for Clean Water events
in 2015.
Coordination of the program began in May. Volunteer opportunities were advertised on CRWA’s
website, in newsletters and through social media outlets. There was a slight decrease in the number of
private events compared to last year, with 19 events scheduled between June and August. One
corporate outing was cancelled due to weather, but was made up at the end of the season. Several
interested private groups were unable to schedule events this season, but are on CRWA’s wait list for
2016. Public events were held most weekends and on occasional weeknights throughout the summer,
and were advertised beginning in June. Unlike last year, instead of opening all events to enrollment
immediately, the first three events opened only two weeks prior to the event date in an effort to reduce
3
the number of no-shows. Event dates were announced in our first newsletter of the season, with
subsequent follow up e-mails when enrollment had opened for each event.
Seven public volunteer events were scheduled from June-August, but the first was cancelled due to
inclement weather. All volunteers were provided detailed instructions via email approximately one
week prior to the event, with follow-up both three days before and the day before the event. These
follow-ups were mostly for late sign-ups, but reminders also prompted an increase in formal
cancellations, allowing for more accurate expected attendance. Events were capped at 30 participants,
but public events rarely exceeded the limit. However, participation in the actual events was predicted
more accurately, allowing for reduced waiting time before beginning the events. Turnouts were
generally 90-100% of the expected amount of volunteers, with ranges from 4-42 people per group.
Boating in Boston staff supplied eight designated canoes for water chestnut removal, and was more
than willing to supplement with their rental fleet when needed. As in past years, CRCK generously
provided removal materials including baskets, barges, boats, and staff to accompany volunteers. CANOE
members also participated in many of the events as hand-pullers, off-loaders, group leaders, and
general assistants to the volunteer coordinator.
4. Mechanical Harvesting and Additional Efforts
Mechanical harvesters are capable of clearing large areas of coverage more quickly than hand-pulling
efforts. The machines are well-suited for removal in large, open areas with deep water. The mechanical
harvesters are not operational in areas of shallow water, close to the shores or places where water
chestnuts are closely intertwined with waterlilies or other non-invasive fauna.
4
This year’s mechanical harvesting efforts were focused on Kingsbury Cove, Roberts Bay, Forest Grove,
Fox Island, and areas upstream of the entrance to Purgatory Cove. See Figure 3 for a map of the
harvesting region.
Quinobequin Bay
Areas of hand-pulling and
mechanical harvesting in
2015
General flow direction and
progression of removal.
N
Figure 3. Areas targeted by volunteers, paid hand-pullers and mechanical harvesting. Target areas were
chosen based on high recreational activity and proximity to disposal sites. Removal efforts control the
infestation by working upstream and moving downstream.
Funding for the mechanical harvesting portion of the program, came from the FY2015 and FY2016 state
budgets, as well as the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Public Private
Partnership Grant. CRWA and CANOE raised $25,000 which was used to leverage a 2:1 match of DCR
partnership funds in FY2015 for a total of $75,000. The groups re-applied for this grant for FY2016.
5
DCR hired Aquatic Control Technologies (ACT) of Sutton, MA to conduct the mechanical harvesting. As in
2014, ACT harvested plants in a June phase (June 8-30) and an August phase (August 10-25). In addition
to the larger mechanical harvesters, ACT used hydrorakes again this year. A hydrorake is a floating
backhoe, propelled by wheels, with a large rake attached to its bow. It operates by scratching the
bottom of a selected area to remove plants. Hydrorakes are able to operate in shallow areas, and can
access the shores (see Figure 4). ACT harvested nearly all remaining plant material in August, but will be
releasing final numbers in a separate report. The August harvest used approximately $30,000 of the
FY2016 budget.
Figure 4. Example of a hydrorake owned by ACT.
In addition to the work conducted by ACT, Larry Smith from CRCK also conducted mechanical harvesting
with his “Eco-Harvester,” removing a total of 193,000 pounds of weeds this year. The CRCK harvester
has the ability to uproot plants with long stems, and, unlike ACT’s machines, it removes them from the
root. In addition, the Town of Weston provided $10,000 to CRCK to fund paid hand-pullers to work in
Kingsbury Cove. Paid hand-pulling coordinates well with mechanical harvesting and volunteer handpulling, because paid hand-pullers are able to target isolated plants that are difficult to reach with
mechanical harvesters or large volunteer groups, and they are able to fill in gaps to perform physically
demanding labor such as off-loading filled baskets for volunteer groups. Paid hand-pullers removed
1,300 baskets, or approximately 14 tons, of water chestnuts this season.
5. Outreach and Community Engagement
For the 2015 season, CRWA continued its partnership with CRCK and the Lakes District community,
expanding the program to include the new tenant of the Newton Historic Boathouse, Boating in Boston.
CRWA worked with numerous businesses and community groups to promote engagement in the
program and increase awareness and education about the issue. In terms of outreach, CRWA distributed
regular e-newsletter updates to program supporters, contributors and participants.
Citizens Alliance for NOxious weed Eradication (CANOE), is a group of friends and neighbors who came
together in 2012 to help the Lakes District by raising funds, holding “weeding parties,” and meeting with
6
local and state officials to lobby for the river. While CRWA has worked with the residents who formed
this group over the past several years, our relationship has become more established in the past two
years. CANOE has no formal membership; however, there is an active and organized core steering
committee which meets regularly. CANOE supporters contributed to the success of the removal
program in 2015 by lobbying state legislators to fund mechanical harvesting in FY2016 and volunteering
on the river.
In conjunction with the goal of educating and building awareness amongst the community, CRWA has
worked closely with local media outlets to draw press attention to the issue. On Thursday, August 20th,
CRWA invited members of the community, as well as local and state government officials and members
of the press, to attend a wrap-up event to celebrate the water chestnut harvesting season. The event
was well-attended, and comments were made by DCR Commissioner Carol Sanchez and CRWA’s
Executive Director Robert Zimmerman. An article was published by the Waltham News Tribune (see
Attachment 1).
6. Science and Research
Surveying Coverage
A pre-season water chestnut mapping survey took place on June 3rd and 4th, 2015 (see Figure 5). This
was conducted by CANOE members and CRWA staff who canoed through infested areas of the Lakes
District to assess the amount of plant coverage. Participants used an iPad and Measure Map Application,
plotted GPS points of the coverage areas and created a map showing the extent of water chestnut
growth. The pre-season survey determined that water chestnut plants covered 37.8 acres of water in
the region. Compared with the 2014 pre-season report, this shows a 10% decrease in coverage,
indicating that removal efforts from previous seasons were successful. The post-season survey
conducted by CANOE members and CRWA staff in late August 2015 found 1.5 acres of water chestnut
coverage remaining, which represents a 96% reduction in water chestnut coverage across the 2015
season, up from the 74% reduction achieved in 2014.
7
Figure 5. Comparison of June, 2015 pre-season water chestnut coverage survey and August, 2015 postseason water chestnut coverage survey.
Water Quality Monitoring
This year, CRWA personnel were able to monitor water quality at two locations in the Lakes District on a
semi-weekly basis from April 29th through August 12th. Using one of our YSI sondes, we measured water
temperature and dissolved oxygen at the Newton Historic Boathouse (BiB) and at the disposal site off of
Charlesbank Road in Waltham (CB). Other than on May 26th, water temperature did not vary
significantly between the two locations (Figure 6). However, dissolved oxygen content was consistently
higher at Charlesbank Road throughout June and July. We had expected to see higher dissolved oxygen
content at Charlesbank Road while water chestnuts and other aquatic plants were growing and actively
photosynthesizing from May through late July. Low water flow (18-25 cubic feet per second according to
the USGS stream gauge at the Moody Street dam in Waltham) from July 23rd through the end of
September may have impacted dissolved oxygen levels as well. A rainstorm hit the greater Boston area
on August 4th, which temporarily increased flow in the river. Unfortunately, monitoring at these two
locations through mid-August does not show water quality impacts associated with plant overcrowding
or seasonal dieback of water chestnut, which occurs between August and September. As described in
the following section, CRWA’s management site monitoring captures these impacts more clearly.
8
35
30
Temp (C)
25
20
Temp
(BiB)
Temp(CB)
15
10
Figure 6. Water temperature in the Charles River Lakes District, summer 2015.
13
DO(BiB)
DO(CB)
12
11
DO (mg/l)
10
9
8
7
6
5
Figure 7. Dissolved oxygen in the Charles River Lakes District, summer 2015.
9
Site Management
To evaluate the effects of water chestnut plants on aquatic habitat more directly, CRWA established
three experimental management plots in Kingsbury Cove. We unfortunately were not able to begin
experimental treatments until the first week of July, after ACT finished the first round of mechanical
harvesting, as we wanted ACT to have full access to all plants that could be removed via mechanical
harvesting. CRWA personnel demarcated 3 meter x 3 meter square plots using ropes, weights, and
Styrofoam buoys (Figure 8). In one plot, we hand-pulled all plants all the way down to the root. In a
second plot, we only removed surface vegetation. We left the third plot fully vegetated as a control.
Figure 8. Photos of
experimental management
plots on July 22, 2015. From
upper left to lower right:
control plot, complete
eradication plot, surface
eradication plot.
Every two weeks, we returned to the plots to evaluate the percentage of surface area that was covered
by water chestnuts and take water quality measurements. By mid-August, water temperature did not
differ significantly between the two experimental plots, but was significantly lower in the control plot,
which was still shaded by surface vegetation (Figure 9). Dissolved oxygen tended to be higher in the
complete eradication plot than in the partial eradication plot, but it was unexpected that in late August
dissolved oxygen would be highest in the control plot (Figure 10). However, to give some perspective,
note that all of the dissolved oxygen measurements from the plots in Kingsbury Cove were less than 1
mg/L, this indicates a severe low-oxygen condition known as hypoxia. The lowest dissolved oxygen
10
readings at the Newton Historic Boathouse and Charlesbank Road were still above 5 mg/L, the threshold
for anoxic conditions. The data we collected this year give a sense of the relative water quality
differences between the experimental plots, but more data that extend later into the season are needed
to make conclusive statements about water quality under these three treatments.
26
Partial eradication
Complete eradication
Control
25.5
Water temperature (°C)
25
24.5
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
8/2/2015
8/4/2015
8/6/2015
8/8/2015
8/10/2015
8/12/2015
8/14/2015
8/16/2015
8/18/2015
Figure 9. Water temperature in experimental water chestnut eradication plots in the Charles River Lakes
District, 2015.
1.1
Partial eradication
Complete eradication
Control
1
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
8/2/2015
8/4/2015
8/6/2015
8/8/2015
8/10/2015
8/12/2015
8/14/2015
8/16/2015
8/18/2015
Figure 10. Dissolved oxygen in experimental water chestnut eradication plots in the Charles River Lakes
District, 2015.
11
Visually, differences in vegetative cover remained apparent through the end of the water chestnut
growing season (Figure 12). As expected, the control plot was still fully covered by water chestnut
plants. However, while the plot in which we only removed surface vegetation from water chestnut
plants filled in with water chestnut plants and floating algae, the plot in which we removed water
chestnut plants from their roots largely remained clear, with some algal growth and a few water
chestnut plants shifting into the plot from the surrounding area. We have not fully investigated the
relationship between the growth of algae and water chestnuts, but it appears that parts of water
chestnut plants that are left behind mid-season can either serve as attachment points for colonial
diatoms to grow or trap floating algae that can grow into larger masses. The turnover from a habitat
dominated by rooted aquatic plants to one dominated by floating algae in our partial eradication
experimental plot shows that other vegetation can readily use the plentiful phosphorus and nitrogen in
the Charles River to fill in open spaces when water chestnut plants are not completely removed.
Figure 12. Photos of experimental
management plots on August 17,
2015. From upper left to lower right:
control plot, complete eradication
plot, surface eradication plot.
7. Advocacy
CRWA and CANoE have taken on several advocacy efforts related to the water chestnut removal
program, including writing letters to the state legislature regarding a $350,000 earmark for DCR for
invasive aquatic plant removal in the state’s FY2016 budget. This year, we collaborated with the Mystic
River Watershed Association to strengthen our case. A portion of the earmarked funds, in the amount of
approximately $90,000, will be available to support mechanical harvesting of water chestnut in the
Charles River in FY2016.
12
In 2012, a long-term strategy was developed by CRWA and CANOE. The resulting overall goal is to
prevent spreading and growth of the water chestnut from the Lakes District, and ultimately eradicate its
existence in the region (see Figure 13, below). Over the past two years, CRWA and our partners have
been successful in preventing the spread of the infestation. Overall coverage this season was reduced by
96% as compared to pre-season levels. However, even after the current infestation of water chestnut
has been eradicated from the Lakes District, we will need to continue to implement several advocacy
and outreach tactics outlined in the long-term strategy as preventative measures.
Immediately
•Keep water chestnut from spreading through the continuation of the existing volunteer hand-pulling
program
•Maintain recreational passage and access in the Charles River Lakes District
•Phosphorus source control measures implemented at the residential level: changes in landscaping
practices, river buffer plantings, rain garden construction, etc.
•Discontinue the use of phosphorus fertilizers on public lands in the Lakes District communities
•Eradicate water chestnuts from the Lakes District through annual mechanical harvesting
•Implement the Charles River Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollution budget
Summers 2013- analysis to reduce phosphorus inputs in stormwater runoff to safe levels
2023
Continuous/
Indefinite
•Ensure all new and re-development complies with the Charles River Nutrient TMDL to reduce
phosphorus inputs to the Charles River
•Detect and contain any further outbreaks of invasive weed infestations through river user and
resident training in plant identification
•Keep major recreational channels and access points clear of all nuisance vegetation
Figure 13. CRWA and CANOE’s long-term advocacy strategy.
8. Funding
Funding for Canoeing for Clean Water and the overall 2015 water chestnut removal program came from
a variety of sources. A two-year grant of $30,746 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
contributed toward staff time, program supplies and other expenses for Canoeing for Clean Water.
CRWA will expend the remaining funds available through this grant by June 30th, 2016. The Town of
Weston gave $10,000 to CRCK to support paid hand-pulling focused around Kingsbury Cove; it is
expected that the Town will do so again for the next harvesting season. Additional contributions came
from The Village Bank in Newton, Boating in Boston, Charlesbank Garden Apartments and through
individual contributions. In June, 2015, CRWA and CANOE applied for the DCR’s Public Private
Partnership matching grant, which would contribute $75,000 toward mechanical harvesting in FY2016.
For this grant, CRWA and CANOE raised $25,000. DCR spent approximately $90,000 in state funds on
mechanical harvesting in the month of June and $30,000 in August of 2015.
13
9. Program Evaluation
Water Chestnut Removal
CRWA’s water chestnut program has again been successful in maintaining active recreational passage
through the Lakes District and preventing further spread of water chestnuts. The 2015 post-season
water chestnut coverage was 87% lower than the 2014 post-season coverage, up from a 71% difference
between 2013 and 2014 (Figure 7). The intent was that by the completion of the mechanical harvesting
season, a 20-30% reduction of future growth potential would be achieved. As in 2014, DCR, ACT, and
CRCK assessed the rate of re-growth and coverage area, as well as environmental factors such as water
depth (the mechanical harvesters can only operate in areas greater than 6’ deep) to determine when,
where, and how long the end-of-season mechanical harvesting push should occur. Continued
mechanical harvesting by DCR in FY 2016 (post July 1, 2015) was, we believe, a direct result of the
tangible progress that was visible this year as well as the groundswell of public support and involvement
in this project over the past two years.
60
Acres of water chestnut
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-Season
2013
Post-Season
2013
Pre-Season
2014
Post-Season
2014
Figure 7. 2013-2015 pre- and post-season water chestnut coverage.
14
Pre-Season
2015
Post-Season
2015
Volunteer Engagement
For the 2015 season, CRWA’s goal was to continue engaging 500 volunteers. Based on the scope and
capacity of the program, it would not be practical to attempt to further increase the number of
volunteers. The summer 2015 water chestnut removal schedule was ambitious. Nineteen private events
and seven public events were held. The size of the groups varied in number. Based on recommendations
from the previous season, an emphasis was placed on the educational aspect of the removal efforts.
This was done in order to raise awareness and understanding of the issue.
Outreach and Engagement
CRWA continued to strengthen our relationship with many of the local residents who actively participate
in water chestnut removal and are concerned with the health of the Lakes District. Throughout the
majority of the season, CRWA was able to meet its goal of sending e-mail updates to the list of water
chestnut supporters. Additionally, CRWA has included members of CANOE in the events and funding
meetings. We paid close attention to the degree to which we were able to create support and interest
for this project. This was measured through responses to social media efforts (which reached 454
people, engaging 22% of viewers), the open rate of our twice monthly water chestnut e-newsletters (a
40% open rate), contributions to CRWA earmarked for this project, and volunteer participation. CRWA
also reached out to the public through the coordinated press event with DCR in August, attended by the
department's commissioner and the Waltham mayor and state representative’s office. Local press
published articles describing the program and its impact (see Attachment 1).
The water chestnut removal program has raised CRWA's profile in the adjacent communities and with
local businesses, drawing many new visitors to the Lakes District and promoting awareness about the
issues that threaten the river. It also demonstrated the public's strong support for the restoration of this
section of the river. A number of volunteers attended more than one event or returned to pull weeds on
their own. There has been significant public interest in this project, which has strengthened our ties with
the communities of Waltham, Weston and Newton.
10. Recommendations

It is highly recommended that the volunteer coordinator secure help for each event well before
the event date. Larry Smith’s paid hand-pullers were more than readily available to assist, but
there must be consistent communication. Using volunteermatch.com was also extremely helpful
for finding volunteer assistants when posting opportunities with an alternate description
explaining the additional off-loading work needed. Group leaders and assistants for helping
participants into boats are great to and were fulfilled mostly by CANOE members for larger
groups.
15




Having a clear understanding of ACT’s/CRCK’s Eco-harvester schedule for the season will provide
a good perspective of how to schedule and plan pulling throughout the season. There were
some coincidental events of harvesting and pulling, and while no harmful incidents occurred, it
is safer to know where the harvesters will be and plan events elsewhere.
It is highly recommended to follow-up with groups at least 3 times before each event. Followups give better insight into the correct number of expected volunteers and encourage those
who will not attend to formally cancel rather than not show up on the day of the event. It also
gives participants additional exposure to event information and decreases tardiness and
inefficiency.
Boating in Boston has been more than generous with staff, boats, life jackets, etc. and it is
important that volunteers help to clean and return BiB materials to alleviate extra work for the
staff. Stay in contact with managers and shift leads 2-3 times a week to ensure no confusion.
Continue to strive for regular water quality monitoring from early June through late September.
16