Assessment of Global Vision

International’s Impact on Water Quality

in the Bosque Protector Yachana
Preliminary Report
12 April 2009

Authors

Jonathan Escolar, Andrew Mercer, Hannah Urpeth

 Table of Contents

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii

1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

2.0 Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

2.1 Site selection…………………………………………………………………………………………………….....2

2.2 Collection………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

2.3 Identification…………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

2.4 Analyses………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3

2.4.1 EPT Index…………………………………………………………………………………………….....3

2.4.2 Sensitivity Index………………………………………………………………………………………3

3.0 Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

3.1 Upper Pump Stream……………………………………………………………………………………………..4

3.2 Lower Pump Stream……………………………………………………………………………………………..4

3.3 EPT Combined Results…………………………………………………………………………………………..4

3.4 Sensitivity Combined Results…………………………………………………………………………………5

4.0 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………7

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

Appendix I……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
Summary

This document is a preliminary report investigating the water quality of a stream directly impacted by
GVI’s presence in the Bosque Protector Yachana using benthic macro invertebrates as indicators. The
results show that water quality upstream is marginally better than that downstream, suggesting that the
effluents released by GVI have negatively affected water quality. However, two different analyses gave
different results, causing uncertainty as to which gives a true reflection of water quality. Further
investigation and consultation with local experts has revealed that the BMWP/Col index is a more
reliable way of determining water quality in this region. Recommendations for the future direction of
this investigation include:

1. Resample the same sites using the BMWP/Col index.

2. Use kick nets in combination with Surber nets to sample areas of deeper water in streams as
well as riffle sites.

3. Take more samples to obtain a large enough dataset to test statistically.

4. Sample the same areas long term to account for seasonal variation.

ii
1.0 Introduction

GVI has been using a research station based in the Bosque Protector Yachana in Napo Province, Ecuador

for approximately three years. The infrastructure of the site unfortunately lacks a proper grey water
system, and instead waste water from sinks and showers is drained into a large wooden-sided
subterranean tank where it gradually seeps into an adjacent waterway. Chemicals used on the site and
therefore released into the ecosystem include bleach, detergent, DEET, laundry soap and other personal
hygiene products. Fecal matter from toilets is contained in a similar tank and therefore must also slowly
leach into the surrounding soil and waterways. Figure 1.0 shows the layout of GVI base camp in relation
to the impacted waterways.

Figure 1.0 Map showing position of grey water and sewage tanks in relation to Pump Stream.

Two study sites were investigated that represented two different treatments: One pre-discharge
(sample site 2), that is not impacted by wastewater from GVI Base Camp and a second post-discharge
(sample site 1), located downstream from GVI and therefore exposed to any effluents. It is therefore
expected that sample site two, the upper Pump Stream, will have higher water quality as it is not
impacted by effluents discharged by GVI Base Camp.

Sampling benthic invertebrate communities is a reliable and economical way of determining water
quality (Feinsinger, 2001). Each invertebrate family has differing sensitivities to contaminants, and their
presence or absence as well as abundance can be used in different analytical indices to give an

1
indication of water quality. Over 50 different methods have been developed for the biological
assessment of water quality in temperate countries (Cota et. al., 2002) and some have been adapted for
use in tropical regions and their associated biota. The analyses selected for this investigation are
discussed fully in subsequent sections.

2.0 Methods

2.1 Site selection

Two study sites were selected, each representing a different treatment. One site was located before
waste water from the base camp entered the water system (upper Pump stream) and the other site
selected in an area downstream to where waste water was discharged (lower Pump stream). Study sites
were selected based on the presence of areas of fast flowing shallow water over rocky substrate known
as riffles. Valid study sites contained riffles of both suitable size and abundance to allow for the
collection of 30 samples to be taken from the selected study area.

2.2 Collection

Samples were collected by employing a modified kick sampling technique (Sutherland, 1996) with the
use of a Surber net (300mm x 300mm). The Surber net was placed upon the substrate of identified
riffles with the net positioned downstream, allowing for the collection of dislodged individuals. The area
of each sample was defined by the frame of the Surber net resting on the substrate, and all loose stones
within it were hand scrubbed before being placed outside of the sample area and the remaining
substrate disturbed thoroughly by hand to a depth of one inch. After the sample was completed any
removed stones were placed back in their original position so as to minimize disturbance.

After each sample, the contents of the Surber net were emptied into a large bucket with the net being
thoroughly flushed with stream water and then visually checked for remaining specimens. Collected
materials from the sample were divided into trays and searched for specimens with any individuals
found being removed with tweezers and placed in a killing jar containing 70% alcohol. A separate killing
jar was used for case-crafting Trichoptera to aid in the identification process.

The above process was repeated until 15 samples from each survey site were collected. A further 15
samples were taken at later dates from both the upper and lower Pump Stream.

2.3 Identification

Collected specimens were taken back to the field base and using a taxonomic key (Reyes & Peralbo,
2001) identified to family level before being tallied. Identification was performed using 10x hand lenses.

2
2.4 Analyses

Tallied results were then used in conjunction with both Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT)
index and an individual sensitivity index (Reyes & Peralbo, 2001) to determine water quality for the
selected study areas.

2.4.1 EPT Index

The EPT index measures the percentage of individuals from the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera against the total number of individuals in each sample. These three orders are used as they
are particularly sensitive to changes in water quality. The higher the percentage on this index, the higher
the quality of the water. Table 2.0 shows how the scores relate to water quality.

EPT Total Water quality

75 - 100% Very Good
50 - 74% Good
25 - 49% Moderate
0 - 24% Poor
Table 2.0 EPT Index scores.

2.4.2 Sensitivity Index

This index works on the presence or absence of different orders, sub orders or families that each have a
different degree of sensitivity to contaminants. Each group is assigned a value of 1 - 10, the groups given
a rating of 10 being the most sensitive and the ones rated 1, least sensitive. The score from the groups
present is added up and higher scores indicate a higher quality of water. Table 2.1 shows the values
given to each group.

Sensitive Species Total Water quality

101 - 145+ Very Good
61 – 100 Good
36 – 60 Moderate
16 – 35 Poor
0 – 15 Very Poor
Table 2.1 Sensitivity Index scores.

3
3.0 Results

3.1 Upper Pump Stream

The upper Pump Stream was sampled on two occasions, 25.02.2009 and the 04.03.2009. Each time, 15
Surber net samples were collected from different locations. Table 3.1 shows the results for water quality
from each sample day and a mean value for both on the EPT and Sensitivity indices. In all three the
water quality is rated as moderate by the EPT index and very good on the sensitivity index.

Sample EPT index score Sensitivity index score

25.02.2009 43.35 130
04.03.2009 34.81 109
Mean 39.08 119.5
Table 3.1 Water quality results for upper Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices.

3.2 Lower Pump Stream

The lower Pump Stream was also sampled on two occasions, 23.02.2009 and the 17.03.2009. Again, 15
Surber net samples were taken from individual locations on each sampling date. Table 3.2 shows the
results for water quality from each sample day and a mean value for both indices. According to the EPT
index water quality is poor in the sample taken on 23.02.2009, and moderate on both the 17.13.2009
and on average. On the Sensitivity index it is rated as very good for all three samples.

Sample EPT index score Sensitivity index score

23.02.2009 22.95 123
17.03.2009 29.35 143
Mean 26.15 133
Table 3.2 Water quality results for lower Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices.

3.3 EPT Combined Results

Results from the EPT index support the null hypothesis that water quality is higher in the upper Pump
Stream. Figure 3.1 shows the EPT scores from the upper and lower Pump Stream on both sample dates
and a mean score of the two.

4
Figure 3.1 EPT scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and mean score.

3.4 Sensitivity Combined Results

The results from the Sensitivity index analysis do not support the null hypothesis. Instead they indicate
that on average water quality is marginally higher in the lower Pump Stream. Figure 3.2 shows the
Sensitivity index scores from the upper and lower Pump Stream on both sample dates and their mean.

Table 3.2 Sensitivity index scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and mean score.

5
4.0 Discussion

The major surprise presented by the results of this study is that the EPT index and Sensitivity index gave
contradicting results for all the samples collected. The values obtained from the EPT index fit the null
hypothesis that water quality is higher on the upper Pump Stream, although the sample size is too small
to test for a significant difference statistically. With the Sensitivity index however, water quality was on
average higher in the lower Pump Stream, although again, the sample size was not large enough to test
for significant differences.

The reason for this disparity is that the analyses used are unsuitable for the Neotropical region, despite
the fact that these were taken from a source designed for use in Ecuador by Ecuadorians (Reyes &
Peralbo, 2001). The use of the EPT index gives unreliable results because the number of families of
stoneflies (Plecoptera) drops off to just one, Perlidae, the closer one is to the equator (Feinsinger, 2001).
After further research and consultation a more suitable analysis was found for the Neotropics, the
BMWP/Col index (Contreras et. al.,2008; Zarate, pers. comm., 2009) that uses more relevant families as
sensitivity indicators.

The use of the Sensitivity index is also questionable because unlike the EPT index it does not take
abundance into account. This could affect the accuracy of results as some samples yield substantially
more individuals than others. For example, the 17.03.2009 sample consisted of 620 individual
invertebrates, whereas the other three samples had a mean of 173 individuals. It should be noted
however, that the BMWP/Col index also ignores abundance and works solely on presence or absence of
families. The identification key provided by Reyes and Peralbo (2001) also limited the accuracy of the
study as a large proportion of the invertebrates collected could only be identified as ‘other’. A new key
(Contrera, et. al., 2008) that enables identification of a greater number of families will be used for future
studies.

The use of the Surber net to sample riffles was effective, although other studies have found kick nets to
yield better and more cost-effective results (Buss & Borges, 2008). A combination of the two methods
would enable sampling of both riffles and pools and may give a more complete sample of benthic
invertebrate assemblages.

Some other physical factors that may affect the lower Pump Stream and potentially skew results have
been noted. First, a landslide has blocked the flow of the stream in one area creating a large, still body
of water. The flow then returns to normal but the 17.03.2009 sample was taken downstream from this
site as there were not enough suitable riffles higher up the waterway. A road is also in close proximity to
a stretch of the lower Pump Stream, and although the level of traffic is low, runoff could potentially have
an impact on water quality.

Another factor that must be addressed in future studies is non-use of weather data in correlation with
these data. Precipitation levels can have a significant effect on benthic macro invertebrate communities,
as many may be washed away after periods of heavy rainfall. There was particularly heavy rainfall prior
to surveying the upper Pump Stream on the 04.03.2009 that may have washed away a significant
number of the invertebrates present.

6
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The main conclusion drawn from this investigation is that the analyses used were unreliable at giving an
accurate reflection of water quality as they are unsuited to Neotropical freshwater habitats. The sample
sites should be re-sampled and analysed using the BMWP/Col index and a more detailed identification
key, and deeper water areas should be sampled using kick nets in addition to the sampling of riffles with
Surber nets. Moreover, a greater number of samples should be taken to allow a statistical analysis of the
samples to be carried out. Ideally this should be conducted at regular interval throughout the year to
look for seasonal variations and these data should be correlated with weather data.

As the water quality results are unreliable the authors are unable to make recommendations regarding
changes to GVI practice and infrastructure.

References

Buss D. F. & Borges E. L., 2008. ‘Application of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates in Brazil: Comparison between Sampling Techniques and Mesh Sizes.’ Neotropical
Entomology 37 (3): 288-295

Contreras J., Roldán G., Arango A. & Álvarez L.F., 2008. ‘Evaluación de la calidad del agua de las
microcuencas La Laucha, La Lejía y La Rastrojera, utilizando los macroinvertebrados como
bioindicadores, Municipio de Durania, Departamento Norte de Santander, Colombia.’ Rev. Acad.
Colomb. Cienc. 32(123): 171-193

Cota, L., Goulart, M., Moreno, P. & Callisto, M. ‘Rapid assessment of river water quality using an adapted
BMWP index: a practical tool to evaluate ecosystem health’. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 28: 1-4

Feinsinger, P. (2001) Designing Field Studies for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press: Washington

Reyes , C.C & Peralbo K.F. (2001) Manual de Monitoreo: Los Macroinvertebrados Acuaticos como
Indicadores de la Calidad del Agua. EcoCiencia: Ecuador

Sutherland, W.J. (1996) Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press: UK

7
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following volunteers and staff who participated in the data
collection during the expedition 091b at the Bosque Protector Yachana: Katherine Allison, Chris Beirne,
Karina Berg, Sophie Cousins, Max Hardman, Amy Hill, Thomas Keating, Victoria Morgan-Hill, James Pitt,
Alan Rea, Rachel Reisinger, Piter Silvera, Glen Skelton, Natalie White, Mauro Yumbo.

Appendix I

This appendix contains the data sheets from each sample date.

Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT) Index & Sensitive Species Index

Survey Site Upper pump stream - 1st section

Date 25/02/09
Name of Surveyor/s Katherine, Hannah, Jon, Max, James, Natalie, Amy

Classification
Phylum / Class Order Family Abundance EPT Present Sensitive Species

Annelida Hirudinea Glossiphonidae 0 0

Oligochaeta Annelidae 0 0
Tubificidae
Aracnida Acari Hydrachnidae 0 0
Crustacea Decapoda Palaeomonidae 2 0 0
Pseudothelpusidae
Gammaridea Hyalellidae
Insecta Coleoptera Chrysomelidae
Elmidae (Adult) 4 0 6
Elmidae (Larva) 1 0 6
Gyrinidae
Psephenidae 0 0
Ptilodactylidae
(Larva) 39 0 10
Scarabidae
Diptera Caratopogonidae 0 0
Chironomidae 4 0 2
Ephydridae
Simuliidae 10 0 8
Stratiomyidae
Syrphidae
Tipulidae 12 0 3
Ephemeroptera Baetidae 0 0
Euthyplocidae 2 2 9
Leptohyphidae 0 0
Leptophlebiidae 55 55 9
Oligoneuridae 0 0
Other 2 2 0
Hemiptera Belostomidae
Naucoridae 11 0 7
Veliidae 0 0
Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0
Neuroptera Corydalidae 3 0 6
Odonata Anisoptera 9 0 8
Gomphidae
Libellulidae
Zygoptera 26 0 8
Calopterygidae
Coenagrionidae

8
 Plecoptera Perlidae 18 18 10
Other 0 0
Trichoptera Calamoceratidae
Glossosomatidae 3 3 7
Helicopsychidae
Hydrobiosidae 8 8 9
Hydropsychidae 4 4 5
Lampyridae
Leptoceridae 5 5 9
Odontoceridae
Philopotamidae 13 13 8
Polycentropodidae
Other 4 4 0
Mollusca Bivalvia Sphaeridae 0 0
Gastropoda Hydrobiidae 4
Physidae
Planorbidae
Other 0 0
Nematomorpha Nematoda Gordioidea 0 0
Platelminta Tricladia Planarida 9 0 0
Other (excluding EPT) 15 0 0

Total 263 114 130

EPT Total 43.35

Sensitive Species Total 130

Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT) Index & Sensitive Species Index

Survey Site Upper Pump Stream - Upstream from Access C

Date 4/3/2009
Name of Surveyor/s Andy M, Chris, Glen, Victoria, Rachel, Max, Dan, Piter

Classification
Phylum / Class Order Family Abundance EPT Present Sensitive Species

Annelida Hirudinea Glossiphonidae 0 0

Oligochaeta Annelidae 0 0
Tubificidae
Aracnida Acari Hydrachnidae 2 0 10
Crustacea Decapoda Palaeomonidae 5 0 0
Pseudothelpusidae
Gammaridea Hyalellidae
Insecta Coleoptera Chrysomelidae
Elmidae (Adult) 3 0 6
Elmidae (Larva) 0 0
Gyrinidae
Psephenidae 0 0
Ptilodactylidae
(Larva) 17 0 10
Scarabidae
Diptera Caratopogonidae 1 0 3
Chironomidae 11 0 2
Ephydridae
Simuliidae 8 0 8
Stratiomyidae
Syrphidae
Tipulidae 8 0 3
Ephemeroptera Baetidae 0 0
Euthyplocidae 4 4 9
Leptohyphidae 0 0
Leptophlebiidae 17 17 9
Oligoneuridae 0 0
Other 5 5 0
Hemiptera Belostomidae

9
 Naucoridae 0 0
Veliidae 0 0
Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0
Neuroptera Corydalidae 2 0 6
Odonata Anisoptera 5 0 8
Gomphidae
Libellulidae
Zygoptera 24 0 8
Calopterygidae
Coenagrionidae
Plecoptera Perlidae 10 10 10
Other 0 0
Trichoptera Calamoceratidae
Glossosomatidae 0 0
Helicopsychidae
Hydrobiosidae 0 0
Hydropsychidae 0 0
Lampyridae
Leptoceridae 2 2 9
Odontoceridae
Philopotamidae 4 4 8
Polycentropodidae
Other 5 5 0
Mollusca Bivalvia Sphaeridae 0 0
Gastropoda Hydrobiidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Other 0 0
Nematomorpha Nematoda Gordioidea 0 0
Platelminta Tricladia Planarida 2 0 0
Other (excluding EPT) 0 0

Total 135 47 109

EPT Total 34.81

Sensitive Species Total 109

Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT) Index & Sensitive Species Index

Survey Site Main Pump Stream Lower - 1st Sample

Date 23/02/09
Name of Surveyor/s Hannah, Andy M, Katherine, Sophie, Alan, Natalie, Mauro

Classification
Phylum / Class Order Family Abundance EPT Present Sensitive Species

Annelida Hirudinea Glossiphonidae 0 0

Oligochaeta Annelidae 0 0
Tubificidae
Aracnida Acari Hydrachnidae 0 0
Crustacea Decapoda Palaeomonidae 0 0
Pseudothelpusidae
Gammaridea Hyalellidae
Insecta Coleoptera Chrysomelidae
Elmidae (Adult) 5 0 6
Elmidae (Larva) 5 0 6
Gyrinidae
Psephenidae 0 0
Ptilodactylidae
(Larva) 23 0 10
Scarabidae
Diptera Caratopogonidae 0 0
Chironomidae 0 0
Ephydridae
Simuliidae 5 0 8

10
 Stratiomyidae
Syrphidae
Tipulidae 5 0 3
Ephemeroptera Baetidae 0 0
Euthyplocidae 5 5 9
Leptohyphidae 0 0
Leptophlebiidae 3 3 9
Oligoneuridae 0 0
Other 5 5 0
Hemiptera Belostomidae
Naucoridae 20 0 7
Veliidae 0 0
Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0
Neuroptera Corydalidae 1 0 6
Odonata Anisoptera 8 0 8
Gomphidae
Libellulidae
Zygoptera 15 0 8
Calopterygidae
Coenagrionidae
Plecoptera Perlidae 6 6 10
Other 0 0
Trichoptera Calamoceratidae
Glossosomatidae 3 3 7
Helicopsychidae
Hydrobiosidae 1 1 9
Hydropsychidae 1 1 5
Lampyridae
Leptoceridae 2 2 9
Odontoceridae
Philopotamidae 0 0
Polycentropodidae
Other 2 2 0
Mollusca Bivalvia Sphaeridae 0 0
Gastropoda Hydrobiidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Other 0 0
Nematomorpha Nematoda Gordioidea 1 0 3
Platelminta Tricladia Planarida 3 0 0
Other (excluding EPT) 3 0 0

Total 122 28 123

EPT Total 22.95

Sensitive Species Total 123

Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT) Index & Sensitive Species Index

Survey Site Lower pump Stream (2nd Section - Road)

Date 16/3/2009
Name of Surveyor/s Hannah, Jon, Karina, Sophie, James, Tom, Dan, Mauro, Victoria

Classification
Phylum / Class Order Family Abundance EPT Present Sensitive Species

Annelida Hirudinea Glossiphonidae 0 0

Oligochaeta Annelidae 11 0 1
Tubificidae
Aracnida Acari Hydrachnidae 0 0
Crustacea Decapoda Palaeomonidae 2 0 0
Pseudothelpusidae
Gammaridea Hyalellidae
Insecta Coleoptera Chrysomelidae
Elmidae (Adult) 7 0 6

11
 Elmidae (Larva) 17 0 6
Gyrinidae
Psephenidae 0 0
Ptilodactylidae
(Larva) 20 0 10
Scarabidae
Diptera Caratopogonidae 5 0 3
Chironomidae 127 0 2
Ephydridae
Simuliidae 43 0 8
Stratiomyidae
Syrphidae
Tipulidae 19 0 3
Ephemeroptera Baetidae 0 0
Euthyplocidae 5 5 9
Leptohyphidae 1 1 7
Leptophlebiidae 77 77 9
Oligoneuridae 0 0
Other 21 21 0
Hemiptera Belostomidae
Naucoridae 27 0 7
Veliidae 2 0 8
Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0
Neuroptera Corydalidae 3 0 6
Odonata Anisoptera 27 0 8
Gomphidae
Libellulidae
Zygoptera 61 0 8
Calopterygidae
Coenagrionidae
Plecoptera Perlidae 9 9 10
Other 0 0
Trichoptera Calamoceratidae
Glossosomatidae 7 7 7
Helicopsychidae
Hydrobiosidae 0 0
Hydropsychidae 30 30 5
Lampyridae
Leptoceridae 9 9 9
Odontoceridae
Philopotamidae 14 14 8
Polycentropodidae
Other 9 9 0
Mollusca Bivalvia Sphaeridae 0 0
Gastropoda Hydrobiidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Other 2 0 3
Nematomorpha Nematoda Gordioidea 0 0
Platelminta Tricladia Planarida 16 0 0
Other (excluding EPT) 49 0 0

Total 620 182 143

EPT Total 29.35

Sensitive Species Total 143

12