• Reddit
• Digg
• Facebook
• MySpace
• del.icio.us
• StumbleUpon
• Technorati
• Furl
• Newsvine
• Google Bookmarks

Additional Article Content

• Table One
• So This is A River
• References

You may also be interested in...

What Comprises Comprehensive Sampling?
Since the early ’70s, Cobb County, GA’s municipal in-stream monitoring efforts have evolved into a program that conducts sampling across 21 sub-watersheds at 93 chemical sites per quarter, 24 macroinvertebrate sites per year, 24 habitat assessment sites biannually, and 24 fish sites every five years. Sites were selected considering land use, proximity to industries, and stream confluences of representative reaches.

The chemical data generate a water quality index (WQI) score derived from comparing the value for any parameter of interest with values for the same available parameter from sampling results recorded throughout the Atlanta region. The index itself is a value between 0.00 and 1.00, with 0.00 representing the best value in the database for each parameter. Table 1 shows the Cobb Stream Monitoring Program chemical data for an actual site with each parameter and applicable scores. The aggregate WQI for the site is calculated as the numeric average of the available WQIs shown.

Biological sampling produces macroinvertebrate and fish data, which are scored on an index of biotic integrity (IBI). Habitat assessments are scored on a standardized form following state of Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) protocol.

A Cobb County Water System Watershed Monitoring Program Annual Report is published containing all of the chemical, biological, and habitat data collected; many permits addressing surface waters impacted by wastewater discharge, stormwater, point and non-point sources are maintained by the data. In the report, narratives for each site summarize a year’s worth of changes to the stream channel, riparian zone, and watershed itself as personnel wade upstream and drive through the watershed on the way to each site.

How Comprehensive Is It?
Ions in the Stream. Chemical monitoring parameters and methods are long-established water-quality standards prescribed by the approved 20th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al. 1998) and are implicit in environmental regulatory sampling like National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wet-weather ambient trend monitoring. Cobb County Stream Monitoring personnel take extra measures to ensure accuracy and integrity. For example, rather than rely on precarious dissolved oxygen (DO) meter readings, Winkler titration method dissolved oxygen samples are “fixed” in the field for more consistent and accurate analysis by Cobb’s Georgia Association of Water Professionals certified wastewater laboratory. Quality-control samples are collected at the first site for a given stream, and all samples are collected mid-depth in representative flow when possible and preserved in the field before transportation to the laboratory. Field notes supporting chemical sample characteristics are made concerning weather, degree of flow, color, odor, and turbidity.

Success and Struggle; Soft Stomping Dance. Chemical sampling gives an immediate snapshot of the stream’s overall health, whereas biotic sampling crafts a long-term tapestry of success and struggle for the stream. A plethora of terrestrial adult insects spawn and mature in aquatic environments, and the relative numbers of one group compared with another indicates general trends in water quality for a site. Macroinvertebrate biotic evaluations are sanctioned in the state of Georgia Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) protocol and involve sampling in five distinct stream habitats.

A riffle kick, a kind of soft stomping dance, is performed in the rocky, high-flow area of a stream, upstream of a net held on the bottom, jostling insect larvae and nymphs (incompletely metamorphosing aquatic insect young) into the net. Because high flows push sediment on and DO is generated by the aeration of water over the uneven rocks, diverse and demanding (and thus, pollution-intolerant) orders of macroinvertebrates can be collected, including Megaloptera (dobsonfly) and Plecoptera (stonefly). Stream colleagues often comment on the physical beauty and all-too-rare sightings of one of the most sensitive freshwater denizens, the stonefly.

Photo: Lanse Norris

Adam Sukenick and Erin Feichtner, Cobb stream biologists

Coarse, particulate, organic matter (CPOM) and “leaf packs” of decaying matter snagged in areas of appreciable flow can be collected by hand and often include Tipulidae (crane fly) as well as stoneflies. The Tipulidae family in the order Diptera is somewhat sensitive to pollution and contributes toward average scores.

Large, woody debris and rocks are scraped with sensitive brushes, and often Trichoptera (caddisfly) and Ephemeroptera (mayfly) are swept into a collection bucket. Among caddisflies, classified as either sensitive or somewhat sensitive by Georgia Adopt-A-Stream (2006), family Hydropsychidae (net spinner) has a relatively high pollution-tolerance rating. This is probably because it has gills, and therefore, greater dissolved oxygen exchange surface area, as opposed to exercising simple cutaneous respiration through the body wall. Also, as a filter feeder, it can utilize degraded conditions as more suspended algae and particulate organic matter is generally available. Case-making caddisflies, family Leptoceridae, are also more tolerant than their gill-less, free-living cousins in family Rhyacophilidae, as they undulate vigorously within their stone or wood debris cases, augmenting flow and subsequent DO absorption.

Sand samples are collected in a similar manner to riffle kicks, with a shuffling upstream of a bottom net, taking care not to dredge too much sand. Family Gomphidae (burrowing dragonfly) and Hexagenia (burrowing mayfly) are often collected. Family Chironomidae (midge fly) in the order Diptera found here, particularly red chironomids, are classified as especially tolerant because their hemoglobin captures more precious dissolved oxygen in degraded conditions than that of their white chironomid cousins. Non-native mussels in the family Corbiculidae recovered here are somewhat sensitive according to the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Field Guide for Georgia’s Streams (Georgia Adopt-A-Stream 2006), yet are tolerant of silting conditions. When they are present in large numbers with chironomids and subclass Oligochaeta (worm), as compared with low numbers for other macros, we can infer deteriorated water quality, because sensitive and somewhat-sensitive groups are not well represented.

Photo: Adam Sukenick

Norris sampling in riffle-like area of a rock waterfall

Home, Stream Home, or Home Is Where the Harm Is? In their field notes for each site, stream personnel scrutinize transforming channel, buffer, and canopy, chronicling effective eons of scouring flow, scourging drought, and salvaged diversity, complex long moments in vulnerable watersheds of the developing Southern Piedmont. Therefore, appreciable comprehension is achieved in-stream sampling and concomitant habitat assessments. Cobb County Stream Monitoring personnel follow the Georgia EPD SOP for biological assessment as well as the US Geological Survey protocol, Methods for Characterizing Stream Habitat as Part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program.

Indeed, “habitat is an inclusive term that includes both shelter and food sources and thus, any physical structure that may be utilized as such. The Habitat Assessment section list for sampling and evaluation includes: rocks and riffle run, fallen trees/large woody debris, deep pools, shallow pools, overhanging shrubbery in water, large rocks, undercut banks, thick root mats, macrophyte beds, and deep riffles with lots of turbulence” (Bourne 2003). Also, results from habitat assessments “determine the ability of the stream to provide stable environment for macroinvertebrate and fish populations” (Sukenick 2003).

A sheet scoring each habitat is filled out and evaluated in order to better understand the aforementioned changes in the ability of a stream to provide stable biotic environment. Some significances of each habitat scored are detailed here.

The shallow water and turbulence of rocky riffles sponsor critical oxygen uptake and release of toxic gases. Rocks stabilize the stream and provide macroinvertebrate shelter from velocity for, especially, filter feeders relying on particulate food matter borne in swift currents. According to Romoser and Steffalano (1998), “Water currents often determine which species of insects will live in a given area … mayflies (Ephemeroptera) may be classified into still water or rapid water forms.” Gravel in these areas provides a breeding ground for many fish species.

The swift, deeper currents of runs transport microorganisms and organic particulate matter for filter-feeder macroinvertebrates.

Exposed roots from undercut banks provide shelter for macroinvertebrates and fish avoiding predators and storm event high flows.

Pool habitat provides slow, deep water for fish and can provide shelter for those migrating from riffle feeding areas. Lower velocities in depositional pools allow burrowing organisms to thrive.

Trees and shrubs are essential to stream ecology as demonstrated in the fibrous mats of roots’ “resilient matrix for attachment and for shelter for … vertebrates and invertebrates” (Bourne 2003). Leaf packs shelter and provide food for Tipulidae and other shredders whose discharged waste supports filter feeders downstream such as Dipteran (black fly) larvae in family Simuliidae as well as Hydrosychidae. In fact, “Stream ecology is fundamentally different from lakes and rivers in that CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter, not algae, is the most important food source” (Bourne 2003).

Somewhat rare in Cobb County, macrophytic (or macroscopic) vegetation found in glide pool streams stabilize sediment, cycle nutrients, and provide habitat when present.

Fish: Identification, Please. Cobb County conducts fish identification and release every five years in each of the four waste water plants’ service areas. Sampling follows the aforementioned Georgia protocol, and trained taxonomists identify the fish. Scores for each site are predicated on some of the following considerations concerning adaptability for different orders of fish.

Photo: Travis Neumeuller

Lanse Norris, Erin Feichtner, and Adam Sukenick assessing habitat

Minnows, shiners, suckers, and catfish belong to the super order Ostariophysi and occur extensively in all sizes of water bodies. Shiners and chubs in the family Cyprinidae can be specialized, requiring (and, therefore, good indicators of) desirable diverse habitat and macroinvertebrate populations.

Bass, sunfish, perch, and sculpins, the “percomorph” fishes, are found throughout Cobb County. Perch darters, in the family Percidae, of which the threatened Cherokee darter is a member, have adapted to use pectoral and pelvic fins like limbs as they stalk prey. The banded sculpin, Cottus carolinae, is particular about and a strong indicator of superior, rocky habitat and is “also reported to avoid lowland areas and turbid waters” (Wallus and Simon 2006).

Stream Monitoring personnel are trained in other disciplines relating to freshwater, including stream morphology and hydrology, riparian botany, ecology, soils, and construction erosion and sediment control measures.

Why Comprehensive Sampling?
“Water is a very good servant, but it is a cruel master.”—C.G.D. Roberts, Adrift in America, 1891

I could almost stop with this quotation, and some probably wish I would.

Dave Rosgen (1996) says “A number of United States government agencies [including] the Environmental Protection Agency, USDA Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land Management are engaged in a process of developing river design criteria and new management standards and guidelines related to resource values associated with rivers, riparian, and watershed areas.”

The short related answer for Cobb Water System Management is that, as regulations have evolved, the Cobb Stream Monitoring Program has covered, and indeed anticipated, new and more comprehensive regulations, including sampling aspects of Cobb’s Noonday Creek and other expanding wastewater reclamation facilities’ NPDES permits. Cobb’s program also supports Stormwater Management’s NPDES water-quality monitoring plan; NPDES fecal geometric mean sampling; MS4 Atlanta Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District biota sampling in HUC 12s; 303(d) list total maximum daily load (TMDL) sampling for metals, fecals, biota, and other parameters; as well as NPDES Phase I education requirements through Cobb Adopt-A-Stream. Stream Monitoring also supports Cobb Water System’s Capacity Management, Operation and Maintenance program sampling. Early in the history of the program, Stream Monitoring was instrumental in regulating, permitting, and closing some point sources discharging to waterways, and, in that way, dealt with its past as well as future.

So, considering the obvious point that municipalities never want to run afoul of regulators with direct permit oversight, environmental and general practicality can drive more intense sampling efforts as well. Because Cobb County is situated in the ecologically diverse inner Piedmont (USGS 2001), freshwater stakeholders share an especial sensitivity to anthropogenic pressures, ranging from impervious-surface-flow-sponsored stream bank erosion and thermal pollution to nonpoint-source pollution from vehicles, pets, and construction sites—things unwelcome in communities of invertebrates and vertebrates adapted to retain attorneys. As John Thorson, an author and attorney who deals extensively with water policy, has said, “Water links us to our neighbor in a way more profound and complex than any other.”

An anecdote illustrating unanticipated benefits of in-stream sampling demonstrates the acquired expertise of stream personnel and the high degree of interdepartmental coordination fostered by centralized stream monitoring and reporting. This example involves Adam Sukenick, Cobb County stream biologist, and I attempting to discern the source of a mysterious milky substance in 2002.

Stormwater Management and Stream Monitoring’s mutual support policy at that time involved Stormwater Management gathering approximately one-third of the chemical samples for a given stream, so when Stormwater Management discovered the illicit flow at one of its sites, the “stream team” was contacted in the field at one of their sites to break off and render their keener expertise in the identification of the substance and its source. Because Stream Monitoring GIS data delineate perennial streams in the county, and the flow was characteristic of a distinct light clay layer often disturbed in construction, Sukenick quickly discerned that the substance was flowing from a nondelineated section of newly diverted stream, probably from a construction site. Having traced the material to a construction site in the burgeoning Vinings area of Cobb County, and being skilled in the steps of best compliance practices, Sukenick and I then contacted Stormwater Management senior engineer Henry Mingledorff who produced plan review documents of the site where the developer had actually obscured the original stream on the topographical map in order to divert attention from his, well, diversion of the stream. Because Cobb Stream Monitoring is central to so many permits administered in the county, Sukenick enjoyed a direct relationship with Cobb’s Community Development division manager and was able to expedite a stop-work order on the site, expediting the reinstatement of a “blueline” perennial stream, not to mention the establishment of corrective BMPs obviating the illicit flow. It is problematic to consider how much slower and more awkward the process would have been, and if it would have occurred at all, without Stream Monitoring in the field in the first place, with a high degree of observational, diagnostic, and interdepartmental wherewithal.

Why Ask Why?
So, as we ask the question “why should municipalities attempt comprehensive in-stream monitoring?” the answer can be as simple as revising the question: Why wouldn’t they, considering that it assimilates into already-established, required sampling programs, enhancing them in gratifyingly comprehensive ways? Why wouldn’t permittees attempt as much ownership of their programs as possible, when the nature of in-stream sampling puts them in the control tower of civic, private, regulatory, and environmental traffic? Or, to evoke a different metaphor, in a world where municipalities struggle to maintain control and sovereignty over their kingdoms of contending civic, private, regulatory, and environmental forces, comprehensive in-stream monitoring can be the jewel in the crown of accountability.