Environment

The LRCA is a company, but not a charity. The Loch Tay Association is an informal Association. i.e. neither a company nor a charity.

1. b) The concerns for each Loch

Loch Tay - there are concerns over chemical pollution due to the fish farm and sewage outflows. There have been regular algal blooms. Anecdotal evidence point to a reduction in fish numbers and insect numbers. The Loch Tay study will create a baseline of phosphate and nitrate pollution for a long term study. (John Cassidy will be able to provide technological help with sensors). Loch Tay is not a Hydro Loch and so changes in loch level are natural and are not of a major concern. Samples of water will be taken from 12 sites around the loch and Citizen Scientists will be trained by ‘Freshwater Watch’  https://www.freshwaterwatch.org/pages/about-us

Loch Rannoch - there is concern about the rapid changes in loch level caused by electricity demand as it is a Hydro Loch. John Cassidy will be able to provide technology to track water levels. Citizen Scientists will assess insect larvae at sites (number to be decided) around the loch. They will be able to use a machine learning program, created by John Cassidy, to allow them to identify caddisflies from photographs taken on their phones.

The sites used will be, in part, determined by the vegetation on the shores. John Cassidy can use his drone to identify tree types.

The LRCA is also concerned with water quality but Loch Rannoch has not experienced the algal blooms that occur on Loch Tay.

1. c) Use of Technology to gather data concerning the health of each loch

Sensors - Nitrate, Phosphate, Water Level, LiDAR

1. d) The involvement of Citizen Scientists in each study

The Loch Tay project is going to use the ‘Freshwater Watch’ training and protocols.

The Loch Rannoch project is going to use the ‘’Riverfly’ training and protocols and is considering also using the ‘Freshwater Watch’ training and protocols.

Contact has been made with Kelly Dodds for the instigation of ‘Riverfly’ training.

The Riverfly Partnership - https://www.riverflies.org/

1. e) Public enagagement -

Local publications, word of mouth and social media will be used to recruit Citizen Scientists from the following demographics -

Riparian Owners, Visitors, Residents, Fishermen, Schools (both primary and secondary).

The intention is to engage people irrespective of whether or not they volunteer to be citizen scientists.

From the LRCA point of view this will begin with a campaign to recruit people to be ‘Friends of Rannoch’. Some of these supporters may then volunteer as Citizen Scientists for the project.

1. f) The possible expansion of the twoprojects to become three, with the inclusion of Loch Tummel.

It was felt that pressure to ensure water quality that came from those concerned about three different, but adjacent Lochs, would carry weight with, SSE, SEPA and the Government. Colin Stanfield will be contacted, as he is on the Killiecrankie, Fincastle and Tummel Community Council, to assess whether residents there would be in favour of joining in with the Loch Rannoch and Loch Tay associations in their projects.

Next Friday John Cassidy is meeting with John Swinney (First Minister) to discuss the factors governing water quality across the Highlands. He will mention the Projects.

Richard Paul will supply the Loch Tay Association with a list of potentially useful contacts.

The Loch Rannoch and Loch Tay Associations agreed that continued cooperation would be mutually beneficial as they share common aims of achieving unpolluted freshwater and high biodiversity. They also like a degree of cooperation with HPCLT where their aims were convergent as in water quality and maintaining biodiversity.

Below - a comparison of the Riverfly Partnership and the Freshwater Watch methods and protocols for citizen scientists.

A comparison of the methods used by Freshwater Watch (FWW) citizen scientists, how they are trained, and how this contrasts with the Riverfly citizen science methods and training used in the UK.

Freshwater Watch (FWW) — Methods & Training

Methods Used

Freshwater Watch is a global citizen science water quality monitoring programme run by Earthwatch Europe that focuses primarily on water chemistry and contextual observations. Citizen scientists use standardised protocols to collect data that supports scientific research and local decision-making.

Key components of FWW methods include:

• Water chemistry testing:
  • Nitrate and phosphate measurements using low-cost colourimetric kits (e.g., Griess reaction for nitrate; enzymatic phosphate tests). Volunteers compare colour changes to charts to estimate nutrient levels.
  • Turbidity measurement using a Secchi tube to estimate suspended matter.
• Ecological and contextual observations:
  • Bank vegetation, waterbody type, presence of wildlife, visible pollution evidence, recent rainfall, and land use within a set radius.
• Hydrological estimates:
  • Flow category (e.g. slow vs steady), water level classification and photographic records.
• Use of technology:
  • Data are often recorded via the FWW app, which geo-tags and timestamps samples, and uploads results to a global database with real-time feedback.

Purpose: FWW provides broad water quality indicators (nutrients, turbidity, and observational context) that can inform local environmental action and contribute to larger datasets for scientific and policy use.

Training for FWW Volunteers

• Train-the-Trainer Model:
  Project leaders (community group leaders) are trained by Earthwatch scientists. They, in turn, train local volunteers in person.
• Training Materials:
  Participants receive manuals, videos, quizzes, and printed instructions with their kit. Training covers sampling procedures, safe handling, how to use test kits, and how to enter data.
• Support & Quality Control:
  • Data submissions are automatically checked for internal consistency by the online system.
  • Participants get immediate feedback via the app after uploading.
  • Project leaders and Earthwatch staff review datasets and follow up on anomalies.
• Accessibility:
  FWW emphasises that no prior scientific experience is required and training is designed to be inclusive and user-friendly.

Riverfly Citizen Science — Methods & Training

Methods Used

The Riverfly Monitoring Initiative (RMI) is part of the Riverfly Partnership and centres on biological monitoring rather than direct chemical testing.

Core elements of Riverfly methods include:

• Macro-invertebrate monitoring:
  Volunteers sample riverbed invertebrates that are indicators of water quality (especially sensitive groups like mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies).
• Kick sampling:
  Volunteers use a standard net to disturb the riverbed for a timed period (typically 3 minutes) to collect invertebrates, followed by a 1-minute stone turnover to sample those clinging to substrates.
• Identification & scoring:
  Monitors identify and count eight key invertebrate groups and derive an RMI score. This score is compared to a “trigger level” set for each site to detect sudden declines potentially indicating pollution.
• Variants:
  There are Urban Riverfly and Extended Riverfly options which include additional taxa, with Extended giving a more detailed picture of river stressors.

Purpose: Riverfly methods provide an early warning biological indicator of water quality, often triggering official investigation if thresholds are breached.

Training for Riverfly Volunteers

• Our Contact is Kerry Dodd (Email Kerry.Dodd@buglife.org.uk )
• Accredited Training Courses:
  Volunteers receive formal, accredited training through Riverfly Partnership hubs coordinated locally.
• Training Format:
  A typical training session includes a theory component (usually morning) on invertebrate ecology and identification, followed by a practical session (afternoon) at the river where sampling and identification are practised.
• Certification:
  After completing the training, volunteers are considered certified Riverfly Monitors and can collect and submit data.
• Ongoing Support:
  Local coordinators and the Riverfly Partnership provide ongoing support, refresher training and advanced courses (e.g., Extended Riverfly) for more detailed work.
• Skill Requirement:
  Identifying invertebrates to the correct group requires careful observation and often some practice; training ensures volunteers are competent before they survey independently.

Comparative Summary

Key Differences in Approach

• Conceptual focus: FWW is chemistry and context heavy; Riverfly is biology and biodiversity oriented.
• Training depth: Riverfly training tends to be more formal and technical, focusing on species identification, whereas FWW training prioritises accessibility and standardised procedures for chemical monitoring.
• Data interpretation: FWW provides direct field results fed back to volunteers instantly; Riverfly outputs are biological scores requiring context (trigger levels) set by ecological contacts.