Community stream surveying network results and recommendations

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COMMUNITY STREAM SURVEYING NETWORK

Results and Recommendations

M
Prepared by
michael Kakuska
Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland
P.O. Box 1634
Charlotte Hall, maryland 20622

TD August 1991
225
M32
K35 tion of this document was funded by the Coastal Resources
1991 n, M aryland Department of Hatural Resources, through a
rovided by the Coastal Zone Ilanagement Act of 1972, as
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
es Management, National Oceanic and Atmosk;heric
Adonlaistration.

Table of Contents

Page

Community Stream Survey

Results

Discussion
17
Conclusions 27
Recommendations 31
Appendices 34

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

COMMUNITY STREAM SURVEYING NETWORK

The Tri-County Council's Environmental Specialist organized with local

environmental coordinators, Maryland Save Our Streams (SOS), teachers and

others to incorporate stream surveying and aquatic resources education into

each county's public school curriculum. Although each county pursued the

effort in their own slightly different manner, many components were similar

and some very useful insights were able to be drawn.

The objectives of this surveying effort have been to:

- draw volunteer citizen support to assess water quality in the
three Southern Maryland counties,

- train team leaders,

- survey streams and identify and document environmental parameters,

- assess the overall health of the surveyed stream segments, discuss
the results, answer questions and suggest what can be done to
improve stream quality, and finally,

- make recommendations to improve and perpetuate the program based
on these trial experiences.

At the very outset, organizational meetings were held with teachers, hopefully

willing to volunteer their students, efforts and serve principally as team

leade rs - thereby laying the foundation for the stream surveying network.

Maryland SOS was very helpful and volunteered their support to describe stream

surveying and promote support for each of the counties, individual programs.

Nearly 30 different people became involved as active leaders throughout the

region. Many others showed interest but, for one reason or another, were

unable to participate. The participants reacted very enthusiastically at

first and in some instances steering committees were organized to develop more

specific logistical details.

Later, the local team leaders from each of the three southern counties were

brought together to be trained in the field procedures, discuss questions,

understand how the surveys would be conducted, and basically allow them to

become more familiar and confident with the exercises. Each county's program

actually became a unique synthesis of the individuals involved, specifically

tailored to their own particular purposes: Calvert County's program was aimed

at high school students, St. Mary's program targeted elementary and middle

school students, and Charles county pursued dual programs - the first,

composed of high school teachers and emphasizing biological diversity and

appreciation for human impacts on water quality; and the second program being

a "core" of dedicated volunteers to systematically sample the Mattawoman creek

for various chemical constituents.

In addition, teachers indicated that pre- and post-activities conducted in the

classroom would be useful for focusing students' attention on the task at hand

and also expand on what they learned in the field. Many of these can also be

easily performed at home. Hopefully their experiences will carry them into
their' adult lives where they may develop additional and more significant

opportunities for community involvement. We found that many students were

already involved in recycling and other environmental protection activities

and simply needed a previously developed framework, like the stream surveys,

in which to channel their interests. The fact that these activities can be

conducted in lieu of typical classroom studies also makes them even more

attractive.

RESULTS

Calvert Cop-p-ty

Encouragingly, the stream surveys coordinated in Calvert county went

exceptionally well. In all, over 40 sites were surveyed utilizing the efforts

of nearly 100 students, teachers and outdoor education specialists. After an

initial promotional/introductory meeting, four high school teachers

volunteered their classes to participate in the field surveys. From that point

on, three distinct components were orchestrated to develop the necessary

background materials and coordinate the operational details. These components

included:

- Local coordination,

- Student preparation,

- Technical assistance.

Local Coordination

Local coordination was provided by Joann Roberts, director of environmental

education at CHESPAX, a county/State outdoor education program. She was

principally responsible for developing the pre-activities, described below. In

addition, she arranged bus transportation, survey dates, organized equipment

and served as the local contact for problems and other details, working

closely with the teachers and with whom they trusted.

Student Preparation

Teachers were responsible for setting survey dates for their classes,

arranging permission with parents and other teachers. They conducted the

pre-activities, made sure the students would be available for the field

exercises and remained on hand to maintain the general conduct of the

students.

Technical Assistance

Technical assistance was provided by the Tri-County Council's environmental

scientist who, working through the guidance of Maryland SOS, determined proper

sampling sites, checked each sampling station for safety and accessibility

(Appendix A), and also educational content; he planned the days activities and

basically ensured the program would be conducted in a smooth, orderly and safe

manner and also have the students back at a pre-determined time to make their

connecting rides home. Most importantly, however, property owners were

contacted to obtain their pemission - and in all but one instance, they were

warmly receptive to the students surveying their streams.

Venturing onto private property without permission is trespassing; the owner

of a given property may easily be determined by:

0 Talking to folks who live nearby.

0 consulting property ownership maps prepared by the Maryland

Department of Assessments and Taxation, that may be viewed either

at the local Tax Assessor's office or Cou nty Planning and Zoning

Also, in our experiences, children and teachers were covered under personal

liability through their school's insurance policy, as it related to student

field trips and teacher inservice. Stream surveyors not similarily covered

should proceed with extreme caution because they will be responsible for their

own health, safety and well-being.

Program Execution

Prior to each of the field surveys, teachers conducted various pre-activities

with their students and also obtained permission from parents and other

teachers having conflicting classes. The pre-activities included a video

describing the biological survey, (supplied by Maryland SOS) and a mapping

exercise (Appendix B) conducted the week prior to the field surveys. In

addition, the day before each field exercise, the teacher walked the students

through the assessment procedures (Appendix I) and helped them identify sample

insects.

This last activity was particularly valuable and quite interesting. Prior to

the field surveys, samples of the various aquatic insects were collected in

separate vials and numbered. Unknown to the students, the insect samples were

separated into three groups representing excellent, good and poor water

quality streams (as described in Appendix E). Students were directed to go to

each of the three stationst identify the insects and, based on what they

found, assess the water quality of that sample and state their reasons.

Previously, the numbered vials had been arranged in a master list held by the

teacher indicating the types of insects within each vial. In this manner, the

students could check to see how well they identified the insects.

In most cases, the children were fascinated by the different kinds of strange

creatures found in their own backyards. Previously, they did not appreciate

the diversity of life living in these streams and the fact that these "bugs"

can actually reflect the quality of the water in which they are found.

overall, th is activity seemed like a welcomed departure from their routine

classroom activities, and generated both added interest and inquiry.

The day of each field exercise, the students boarded a school bus, taking them

to a central outdoor location near an introductory stream. There, the local

outdoor education specialist described the relationship between land use,

wate r quality and diversity of these so-called "index" insects. After the

presentation, the students were divided into groups of between 2 and 5

(depending on the ratio of adult team leaders to students) and issued a box of

equipment (hoop and bucket, sample vials, tweezers, assessment forms,

clip-board, etc ... ) and then boarded the bus. The bus traveled along a

pre-determined route, dropping off student teams at prescribed locations. By

the time the bus had released all the students (approximately 45 minutes) the

driver was instructed to go back to the beginning and pick them back up

again - in the same order. After this had been accomplished, the entire group

broke for lunch and the different insects they collected were passed around

for the others to see. After lunch, the entire drop-off and sampling

procedure continued once again, on different stream segments identical to the

circuit planned earlier that morning.

At the sampling stations, each team would familiarize itself with its

surroundings, find an adequate riffle to test for aquatic insects and then

begin the habitat assessment. After the habitat assessment was completed, the

students began the biological survey, using the "hoop and bucket" method (see

Discussion, page 20) - tallying and identifying the numbers and kinds of

inse cts they found in the stream. These two tasks can be done either

simultaneously or sequentially, depending on the students' preferences.

Forty-Five minutes seemed sufficient to perform both tasks successively, but

then there was little time left to relax. At the completion of the exercise

they went back to the nearby drop-off point and waited for the bus to come

around, pick them up and return them to school.

It became evident during the habitat assessment that the students often had

difficulty interpreting the questions based on their limited experiences. For

example, it was difficult for students to determine, for instance, "moderate"

versus "considerable" erosion potential; or "minor," "common" and "frequent"

bank failure. The students were able to progress through the assessment, but

with some difficulty. It would therefore be extremely helpful someday to have

picture presentations provided, showing students examples of the various

streamside conditions they are likely to encounter. Thus, "minor cut banks" or

"common bank failures," will no longer be so foreign to them.

Also helpful would be a simple dichotomous key, once again with pictures,

students could use to help them identify the insects. At first glance and

especially to the uninitiated, most insects look much the same. A dichotomous

key, featuring yes/no questions will help focus students' attention on key

anatomical characteristics and guide them through the insect I.D. if the

students have time, they could also take them back to school and identify the

insects in the lab.

At the completion of the habitat assessment and insect surveys, scores were

tallied and the stream's habitat and water quality rated based on the

students' findings. In addition, existing problems were discussed and

corrective measures were suggested.

Adult team leaders were asked not to coach the students but offer assistance

as needed. Students were told they were responsible for their own analyses,

and it was quite surprising to see the almost exaggerated activity the

students took to task. This seemed very much related to the excitement of

school being held outdoors, the novelty of the activity and, to be quite

honest, the overall general feeling that their participation was being

secretly graded and recorded. students, who otherwise probably refuse to

perform routine chores at home, actually jumped at the opportunity to

participate, and everyone performed well as team members. It was also

interesting to see how adept they were at coaxing free information from their

adult supervisors.

At one point, a newspaper reporter followed the students to get their

perceptions (Appendix C). Most of the students were surprised, and commented

with more than a little indignation on the poor water quality they found in

some areas. The survey was set up so that, where possible, student teams were

able to survey both a good and also degraded stream in order to contrast their

mental impressions as well as their survey results.

We found the "Hoop and Bucket" method worked very well. It was better suited

and easier to use in the often shallow streams we experienced: the results

were less time consuming to prepare, the procedure less vigorous and therefore

more interesting for the students and finally, the results seemed comparable

to the seining technique - especially for our purposes. Seining would have

been better suited for deeper streams where a more disciplined, and

statistically valid invertebrate assessment is required. In fact, we found

seining would have been cumbersome and would have probably distracted from

what we wanted to accomplish here.

Charles County

Each of the three counties was a unique experience, attempting to satisfy

their own particular needs. In Charles county, two approaches were taken: the

first was to promote stream surveying in the public school system. Meetings

were held with teachers from four high schools, Maryland SOS and county

employees. once again, a training session was held with the teachers at the

Nanjemoy Creek Environmental Center, where they surveyed the streams for

insects and become more familiar with the procedures.

In the second approach, seven other team leaders were trained to become

familiar with various additional chemical procedures. These included tests

for temperature, dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, nitrogen, biological oxygen

demand, turbidity, pH, and alkilinity - using portable chemical kits. one

complete set of kits cost approximately $200 and would probably allow 50

routine sample observations. The leaders would assist citizen volunteers in

the chamical analyses and essentially comprise the "core" element of this

second approach.

Initially, both the teachers and other team leaders showed strong interest

but, as summer arrived we seemed unable to sustain the necessary support. In

the first instance, the teachers went on vacation and unusually hot

temperatures made stream surveying a not all too attractive outdoor activity.

We anticipate pursuing this again this fall once school resumes and summer

temperatures drop.

In the second instance, an ad placed in the local newspaper did not draw

adequate citizen response, and the effort was temporarily set aside. Instead,

a high scho ol student volunteered his free time to perform the chemical

analyses. The student was taken through the chemical procedures and later

left to accomplish the surveys on his own.

He was later interviewed and stated the surveys went well, and that he

thoroughly enjoyed doing them. He was able to fulfill half of his parochial

community service requirements and surveyed nearly a dozen stream sites

throughout the Mattawoman Creek watershed. Concerns he had included: low

stream flows, safety considerations, and particularly - meaningless data.

Low stream flows often created stagnant stream conditions, and the student

questioned the validity of his data. Considering this, it might be best to

conduct the surveys in the future under more "representative" flow conditions

in the spring and/or fall.

Another concern his mother had was for the student's safety. Some of the

sample sites were located some distance beyond his parked vehicle; often he

fell in, and there are ample opportunities in which to break one's leg. It

would be prudent, therefore to conduct the surveys with a companion.

Lastly, the student had no idea what his results meant - is pH 7.3 good or

bad?, Water quality data is often extremely difficult to interpret and

surprisingly, college courses on the subject really makes things no easier.

One needs to take the entire picture into consideration and this can usually

only be accomplished through years of practical experience and sometimes

statistical analysis. Nevertheless, the student may be able to satisfy his

curiosity by contrasting his chemical results with those described in appendix

D. With some persistance, useful insights can nonetheless be drawn.

St. Mary.'s County

St. Mary's county took a somewhat different coarse of action. In the

beginning, eight teachers belonging to the PACE1 gifted and talented program

attended a promotional meeting to discuss stream surveying for their teachers

and students. The PACE teachers showed much interest and later participated

in a training session held on both Moll Dyer's Run and also Town Run located

just south of Leonardtown, Maryland. Moll Dyer's Run exhibits excellent water

quality and was chosen especially for this reason. Teams of between two and

three teachers went out separately and performed the habitat assessment and

also the biological survey. They were pleased with the outdoor educational

opportunities these activities offered their middle and elementary students.

The group then moved on to Town Run which also exhibits excellent water

quality - up to a certain point. This is where a small feeder tributary

enters the stream. The feeder creek drains a steeply sloped, intensively

developing area and there was much associated sediment transport. Simple hand

samples of rocks, twigs and leaf packs showed that the stoneflies and other

insects present upstream from the tributary were missing below. There were

also sediment bars, clearly the result of the ground disturbances located

nearly half a mile away. The teachers enjoyed the presentation and thought it

illustrated human impacts on stream quality in a manner children could

appreciate. They suggested we arrange another workshop with more teachers

1Program. for Advance Challenge and Enrichment.

early in the Fall. This would give them time to plan and get their students
involved. They particularly liked the mapping exercise, the video and

actually getting out and doing the field exercises. They also pointed out

that fellow teachers and students would not want to be lectured, and like that

day, would prefer similar "hands-on" experiences.

Also, downstream of this site there exists a wastewater treatment effluent

point, below which were found coatings of green algae resulting from effluent

loadings of phosphorous and nitrogen. However, this had to be described to

the teachers because we were unable to reach the site due to private property

restrictions, briars and lack of available time, Nonetheless, relationships

were able to be drawn between growth, urban sprawl, failing septic systems,

eutrophication and the fate of the Chesapeake Bay.

Although it was too late to incorporate stream surveying into last year's

curriculum, this year they said they would be better prepared; and despite the

short time frame, three of the participants were still able to get some of

their students out to survey streams and were anxious to start up again in the

Fall. In all, 38 elementary and middle school students became involved.

The teachers had mixed success. The first teacher took three separate classes

of 12 students each out to survey the stream behind their own school. Two of

the three occasions they did not find a lot of insects. She attributed this

to high water following recent storms, thinking it washed them away. It is

possible the insects burrowed into the mud to escape the current, or the high

water did not allow students to properly sample the stream. Less likely, they

were killed by something toxic washed into the water - although possible.

Nevertheless, the teacher suggested that sampling take place during low flow

conditions, when she seemed to have the most luck. Also,it seems that there

are far fewer insects in the stream during the summer months after most of the

aquatic larvae have hatched into winged adults.

As an aside and ideally, the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that

insects be surveyed while they are really stressed, and summertime is the best

time to take account of what will survive the dry season. on the otherhand,

we found it really doesn't make for a very interesting field trip.

Sampling is probably best during fall, winter or spring, although in the

winter the water is really cold. There were also other difficulties: the

second teacher somehow lost track of her two student's progress and another

teacher took a group of her students down to a local stream, but decided not

to let them survey because of unexplained substances in the water she thought

looked unsafe.

These difficulties will remain common, considering the limited background

those teachers have to explain or incorporate these unfamiliar circumstances.

This has not discouraged them, however. It is important to note that during

each field surveying exercise all kinds of questions and observations came up;

brought about by all kinds of strange kinds of insects, unusual circumstances

and other interesting events unique to each event: we found nests of spawning

brook lampreys, watched water striders, stumbled upon an occasional deer

skeleton or turtle shell; we walked through unusually large stormwater

culverts that had only a trickle of water flowing through them (anticipating
large storm'events from developed property), we made wishes on whirling water

beetles that write your wishes in the water, we kicked-up an occasional racoon

or whitetail deer, we witnesed destructive land uses, we talked about

employment opportunities outdoors, and occasionally someone fell in - all in

all it was great fun.

overall, the teachers were pleased with all the activities and have

volunteered their continued support. They are also talking with other

teachers who may also be interested in attending another training in-service

workshop this coming year. As the teachers gain more experience, hopefully

they will become more confident and stream surveying may become a more routine

clas s activity.

DISCUSSION

Lately there has been growing interest and activity concerning the development

of a community-based stream surveying network, being spread throughout

Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's counties. Clearly there is public need. At

this time little, if any water quality data has been, or is being collected

from the many stream systems draining the land and emptying into the

Chesapeake Bay.

The method outlined below is probably the most cost effective means of

obtaining large amounts of valuable water quality data, throughout the region,

while simultaneously heightening people's appreciation for the.relationships

between their actions and surrounding environmental quality. The effort here

reflects other successful experiences in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties

and other areas that have benefited from citizen involvement and especially

the experience and guidance supplied by Maryland Save Our Streams (SOS).

The methodology presented below is based on the principle assumption that

water quality is reflected in the numbers and types of insects living within a

particular stream segment, For example, pollution-tolerant insects thrive in

degraded waters and will usually exhibit misleading large numbers of

individuals, but low species diversity. Pollution-intolerant insects, on the

other hand, survive only in clean water, and upon closer inspection one will

find a more diverse array of these so-called "index species".

Biological monitoring, unlike chemical and physical analysis, is a simple and

inexpensive way to record a "snapshot" of a stream's health. Expensive

equipment and highly skilled people are not required and unlike most chemical

'examinations, this method allows detection of impacts from substances that

have quietly long since washed away. Examples of the stream insects and

crustaceans that can be used to assess stream quality and also their

sensitivity to pollution are included in Appendix E. As described earlier,

pollution-sensitive index organisms can only live in excellent or good quality

streams; somewhat tolerant index organisms will be found in fair quality

streams and finally, an abundance of pollution-tolerant orgamisms will reflect

poor water conditions.

According to another, simpler methodology developed by the Maryland Save our

Streams program (Appendix F), stream quality is rated excellent when

stoneflies, mayflies and caddisflies are present. An excellent quality stream
is suited for all human uses. If both mayflies and caddisflies are present,
but 6toneflies are missing, the stream is in good condition. Such a waterway

is suited for most human uses - except drinking. If only caddisflies are

present, stream quality is rated only fair. A fair quality stream is unfit

for swimming, but may be okay for wading; it probably supports few game fish

and would be a poor water supply source. If none of the insect groups are

present, the stream is rated poor. A poor quality stream is unfit for most

human uses. It is probably devoid of fish life. This method is not

"scientific," nor is it as detailed as the preceding technique; but it is easy
to perform and can provide useful information to help identify and target

pollution problems and corrective strategies.

Either of these two methods will yield similar results however, the former

accounts for a more diverse array of species that may be of interest, while

the latter may be employed in sake of time or participants less experienced

identifying insects. We chose the former, largely because it was more

challenging to the participants and also because it more clearly illustrates

the important relationship between insect diversity and environmental quality.

There are three methods, described below, that can be employed to collect the

insects - based almost entirely on one's ambitions. The first is the most

accurate, but is also more laborous and time consuming. This insect

assessment utilizes a "kick seine" that has small 3 in. x 3 in. squares marked

on it.

As indicated in the sampling procedure (Appendix G), the participants place

the seine in the water immediately downstream of a gravel riffle and then a 3

ft. by 3 ft. section of substrate is agitated: cleaning rocks, sticks,

sediment and other debris. Then, successive individual 3 in. x 3 in. squares

printed on the screen mesh are picked clean of insects, which are placed in
marke'd vials for later identification. Each individual square must be picked

entirely clean of insects before proceeding to the next one. This activity

continues until a minimum of 100 individuals have been collected. If 100

individuals cannot be found, the entire net should be examined, and duly noted

on the survey sheet. The sample vials are then marked and returned to the

laboratory where the insects are carefully identified and counted. Insects

can be tallied in the field howe ver, moderate experience is required to

quickly and correctly identify them. Appendix H describes the species

Diversity Index (d) as it relates to water quality, or another similar

approach that simply examines the number of taxanomic species. In effect, the

3 in. x 3 in. sections force the investigator to sample the stream in a

strict, statistically uniform manner, eliminating the natural tendency to bias

the sample by picking larger, and often more active insects.

This method offers valid "scientific" biological information and requi

significantly more time, experience and patience then the "Hoop and Bucket"

method we employed, described below. From our experiences, kick seining would

have been better suited for larger, deeper streams than we found, where a more

statistically valid assessment is required. Many of the streams we surveyed

were too shallow to allow kick seining and, for our principally educational

purp oses, the "Hoop and Bucket" method was sufficient to meet our objectives.

As the name implies, the "Hoop and Bucket" method for invertebrate assessment

utilizes exactly that: a 9 in. embroidery hoop fitted with fine mesh

screening available at no charge through Maryland Save Our Streams, and of

course, a bucket. The bucket is filled with water and then sand, leaf-packs,

stones and twigs are vigorously agitated in the water and subsequently

removed. The water sample is then poured through the hoop mesh where the

insects can be identified, counted and collected in small sample vials and

then recorded on a summary sheet.

This was the assessment technique that worked best for us.

A final and even simpler method is to simply grab handfuls of stones, clumps

of leaves or sticks, turn them and see what is living underneath: in general,

stone flies indicate excellent water quality, mayflies indicate good,

caddisflies can live in fair conditions and absence of all three insects

indicate poor water quality.

In order to make any meaningful sense of the biological survey, a Habitat

Assessment is also performed (Appendix I) and all this information included on

the final summary sheet that facilitates the data being fed into Maryland Save

Our Stream's central computer system.

The Habitat Assessment rates streamside characteristics like runoff potential,

streambank buffers and stability, channel capacity and sedimentation,

substrate and habitat diversity, etc. ...; on a principally objective basis to

arrive at an overall index score, or habitat rating. By comparing the habitat

rating with the biological survey, one can usually determine the relative

amount of impact to a particular stream segment.

For,example, a stream showing either good or excellent habitat but having only
fair or poor water quality tolerant insects, indicates a stream that is being

impacted. Very often it is possible to look at the mix of surrounding land

uses to determine the cause of impact. In other cases, more vigorous chemical

or biological scientific analysis may be necessary. sometimes poor insect

diversity is the result of poor habitat, that can either be natural, or

created by negligent human actions. Nonetheless, these impacted areas need to

be identified and documented. In this manner, often limited water quality

restoration efforts can be directed where they are needed most; through

measures such as stormwater and sediment control devices, buffers or

streambank stabilization.

Although our data is well suited as a rough estimate of stream quality, this

activity was principally designed to increase students' environmental

awareness. Nevertheless, our experiences show the students, data was very

often consistent with surrounding environmental parameters; but realistically,

quality assurance cannot be guaranteed working with inexperienced

school-children, often doing this for the first time. Also, it was a

tremendous amount of work finding acceptable sampling sites, obtaining
permission, etc ... ; and the sheer logistics of the exercise really does not

allow for many new sites to be sampled by more large groups of students.

Instead, those resources might best be used to employ a single trained

technician in the natural sciences, to compile the data in a disciplined and

more meaningful fashion (discussed later) - as a matter of fact, our purposes
were to inspire these students in exactly this, and also related type

professions.

As one would expect, the field work described above can be time consuming and
there are hundreds of miles of streams in each of the three Southern Maryland
counties. The question then becomes: how can this be accomplished given the
very limited staff resources and funding available for this far-reaching task?

One suggestion was to incorporate stream surveying into the public school

curriculum. The benefits are cl early evident:

employs an otherwise "captive" audience,

utilizes a formal organizational structure - the public school
system,

adult teachers are available to lead student teams, and conduct
field surveys,

opportunities exist for related post-activities like storm drain
painting, tree planting, etc.,

young adults offer a unique constituency for environmental
protection - now and in the future,

quality of the data is usually good since the students believe
they are being graded on their efforts,

manpower is freely available,

students employ practical applications to what they have learned
in school and finally,

it beats sitting in class.

one possible niche for stream surveying in Southern Maryland is in April, 1989
the Maryland State Board of Education enacted an environmental education bylaw

(Appendix J). The bylaw specifies the purpose of environmental education and

establishes the minimum program that local school systems must include within

existing curricular offerings. The bylaw places particular emphasis on
assisting students in applying knowledge learned in different subject areas,
at both a personal, home-based decision making level and at the community
level. outdoor education and science are particular areas in which the bylaw

is being implemented.

FY 92 will be the eighth year that the Department of Education has provided

funds for environmental education to the 24 school systems in Maryland. Funds

are used by school systems for program and curriculum development, teacher

training, and the purchase of instructional materials. Funding is coordinated

through the Department of Education specialist in environmental education and

is currently targeted at implementation of the environmental education bylaw.

In addition, teachers are always looking for interesting instructional

projects for their children that they do not otherwise themselves have time to

develop.

Another inc entive can be found in a new package of graduation requirements

proposed by the Maryland State Board of Education last March. One component

would make high school students perform 75 hours of community service as a

requirement for graduation. However, a decision on the proposed requirements

is not set until November 1991.

By proposing the community service and other increased course requirements,

the State Board of Education hopes to meet the goals of Maryland's education

reform program called "Schools for Success." The graduation requirements were
revised to prepare high school students for further education and employment.

Should the measure pass, Maryland will be the first state to have a public

service requirement. The first wave of students affected would be those

starting ninth grade in September 1993.

Opponents of the proposal say that, although they certainly appreciate the

spirit of doing something worthwhile in the community, students may face

trouble with transportation, especially in rural areas. They feel kids living

in rural areas do not have the same opportunities to do community service as

in urban areas.

But consider, Maryland is blessed with 17,000 miles of streams and rivers.

These waterways are so pervasive that anyone will find a stream within a

fifteen minute walk of every home in the State. Five thousand miles of

Maryland's streams have already been degraded, and we are losing more each

year. These streams are the source of a great economic and environmental

resource; serving actually as the circulatory system for the Chesapeake Bay.

Nonpoint pollution sources abound - many of which go completely unnoticed.

Students can therefore help monitor the pulse of the Chesapeake Bay and even

prescribe corrective measures. They can work individually, in teams or as

part of classroom field visits.

Historically, teachers simply informed students. But, the emphasis now is for

kids' to apply what they have been taught; taking established principles,

making decisions and acting upon them. simple awareness and information is no

longer enough. Rather, students need to be walked through the "doing" part.

The Department of Education is currently developing a statewide

criteria-referenced testing program for grades 3, 5, 8 and 11. Environmental

education will be integrated into the science and social studies component of
this,program that will begin in May 1992. This is the beginning of a

different education process that emphasizes more active involvement. Tests

will require students to apply what they have learned; and kids learn and

profit most when they are actively "doing" things. Hopefully, this system

will produce more active citizens and besides all that, it's fun.

Conclusions

Even though Maryland Save Our Streams takes three months to organize their 100

points monitoring effort (which has taken years and much commitment to

develop), their experiences and those outlined previously indicates that there

is another, possibly easier way - depending on one's objectives and especially

on the incentives that one makes available to the participants.

For instance, given the amount of time, money and effort to coordinate

something similar to a single 100 points stream surveying effort, it may be

much easier to fund a single position in each, or all three southern Maryland

counties. That employee would be responsible for sampling select sites

throughout each county for the typical chemical, physical and biological

parameters, and move around between watersheds. Given the relatively short

amount of time required to sample each site, the stream surveyor could

probably sample as many as ten sites per day. over a year's time, that is a

lot of valuable water quality and land use data. In addition, Maryland SOS

will incorporate this data into their central computer system. This

information would clearly be useful, by establishing baseline conditions and

also' "red-flagging" those areas where corrective strategies will have the most

benefit.

Assuming that stream quality data is a local priority, there are many positive

aspects associated with this type of approach:

- itFs simple,

- it generates large amounts of reliable information,

- and it is cost effective

Walking entire stream segments, on the otherhand, to gather the data and

identify nonpoint source pollution sources, we found, is cost prohibitive and

therefore not recommended. Time would be much better spent sampling strategic

points throughout the watershed, like at the mouths of tributaries and

subwatersheds. In this manner, more ground can be covered and less effort

will be wasted on sections that may not otherwise be impacted. Most stream

segments are adequately buffered, and one quickly begins to realize this after

they have spent time trying to fight their way through the thick undergrowth.

In addition, most disturbances originate beyond the 100 year floodplain.

Instead, sampling points at strategic locations will help identify human

impacts upstream and allows problem areas to first be identified, and then

targetted for more thorough investigation or corrective action, as necessary.

The single largest obstacle, of course, is lack of available funding. Charles

county attempted to avoid this difficulty by employing the volunteer services

of a parochial high school student seeking community service credits. The

Tri7County Council is also right now attempting to attract undergraduate

student interns from St. Mary's College. Regardless, lack of adequate funding
incentives does not allow any routine or continuous sampling program and so

far, hamstrings most efforts for meaningful data collection.

on the other hand, another possibility, as indicated in this report, is to
inco'rporate stream surveying into the public school curriculum, to develop a
more impressionable educational slant, and also attack the problem at the

source. This was accomplished very successfully in Calvert County and large

strides gained in St. Mary's and Charles counties. This success seemed

particularly dependent on the strong commitment and planning efforts

coordinated among the local participants.

However, there are still many difficulties to be overcome; the largest of

which centers around competing classes. It was difficult for teachers to

schedule an entire day for their students to go out and sample streams. other

classes had tests and important lessons that were missed and had to be made

up; and there were also music and sporting events, each with their own

conflicting interests. Nevertheless, if Calvert County can maintain the same

strong commitment it has received from its outdoor education director and

local teachers, it will have clearly established itself a successful model for

a self-sustaining stream surveying network. Also, the environmental bylaws

and the prospects for community service requirements can only enhance

participation, since stream surveying is easy, it's fun and not surprisingly,

many students are genuinely concerned for the condition the Chesapeake Bay

will be left for them.

Ideally, stream surveying to satisfy community service requirements needs to

be expanded and promoted throughout the three southern Maryland counties.

First of all and most importantly, there is strong incentive: it would be

required for students to graduate, it helps save the Chesapeake Bay and
besides all that, it's fun. community service would allow students to survey

streams on their own time and possibly team up with their friends. This would

allow much greater flexibility, reduce conflicts and open up more strategic
sampling sites that are otherwis e not available to the typically large groups

of students on field trips, limited by the relatively few stream crossings

accessible to school buses. Community service would encourage stream

surveying on students' own time, after school and on Saturdays - thereby

avoiding conflict with other classes. The activity would be less costly,

requiring far less adult supervision and organization and finally, stream

surveying has many educational and professional spin-offs. If nothing else,

students may receive a certificate recognizing their efforts (Appendix K).

Community service requirements need to incorporate and take advantage of these

many fine environmental and educational activities to monitor the pulse of the

Chesapeake Bay - at the same time harness the excitement and challenge of once

again being young, but otherwise confined to a desk sitting in school.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the limited funding for the project, it seemed tremendously successful:

an activity framework was developed and tested, valuable insights were gained,

and over 50 sites were sampled throughout the southern region in this very

first year. But most importantly, we gained a toe-hold for stream surveying in

the southern region by organizing a core of team leaders in each of the three

southern counties. As the word spreads, we hope that people will become more

curious about the stream quality flowing through their own backyards, and go

out and investigate their streams using the methodology described here that

their children may bring home.

But to begin with, we found initiating a successful surveying effort very much

centers around providing adequate incentives: it is very difficult to ask

someone else to work free of charge that you, yourself would be reluctant to

perform. Yes, people care for their environment and yes, there are those

select individuals that will without hesitation volunteer their Saturdays to

survey streams on a hot summer afternoon; but finding these individuals and

organizing single events takes considerable time and effort - witness the

Maryland Save Our Streams, 100 points monitoring program in Baltimore county,
which takes three months to organize and another two months to identify the

insects (Appendix L) - and they possess the funding, staff experience and
standing reputation for environmental activism, as well as a pre-existing,

centralized network for successfully drawing citizen support.

This became particularly evident last season. Local stream surveying events

advertised in Calvert and Charles counties drew not a single participant. Team

leaders, composed primarily of government employees were present, but no

private citizens showed up. This must in no way reflect the fine efforts of

the organizers but rather, human nature - after a hard weeks-work, people

probably find better activities to occupy their precious free time. Many of

the teachers involved were also reluctant to commit to any formal or routine

sampling program and preferred instead to remain very flexible and do much at

their own leisure.

Nonetheless, a few final simple guidelines will help get the most out of local

surveying programs:

0 Provide adequate incentives.

- Hire a single, full-time intern stream surveyor.

- Take advantage of environmental bylaws and community service

requirements to enlist interested students.

- Incorporate stream surveying as a classroom activity.

Identify and enlist the support of key community organizers: scout

leaders, science teachers, environmental coordinators, etc. - and

do not forget media exposure.

0 Ensure that momentum does not expire, through close coordination

and follow-up.

0 sample at strategic locations: near road crossings and at tributaries,

and look back up at the surrounding watershed.

0 Most importantly, have fun. Stream surveying is an excellent excuse to

get outdoors - you will find every event results in a tremendously

unique and satisfying experience.

Appendix A

SAMPLING STATION INVENTORY FORM

STATION NO DATE: TIME: AM PM

STREAM: LOCATION:

INVENTORIED BY:

YES NO Is there safe, convenient parking for at least one car? A car
should be able to pull fully off the road. The parking location
should be located within a convenient walking distance from the
stream. Please describe any other parking factors:

YES NO Are "No Trespassing" signs ABSENT on at least one side of the
stream crossing? If both sides of the crossing are posted then we
will either drop the sampling station or attempt to secure the
property owner's permission. Please describe where, if any, signs
are posted:

YES NO Is there a safe, easy way to get down to the stream? We want
to avoid sending people to stations where they have to climb steep,
dangerous, banks; crawl through dense patches of thorns; or come
in contact with vicious dogs. Please describe any accessibility
factors:

YES NO Can you see at least one riffle from the crossing? A riffle
is a place where the stream flows shallow and swift over stones or
boulders. Since the sampling can only be performed in riffles,
these channel forms must be present. If no riffle is visible from
the crossing, please give general location of first visible riffle:

Please note any other factors which may affect the suitability or safety
of the station:

Courtesy: Maryland Save Our Streams A-1

Appendix B

MAPPING THE WATERSHED

What is a Watershed?
Not everyone lives by a stream, but we all live in a watershed - the ultimate source of every
stream.
A watershed, or stream basin, includes the entire area - visible and invisible - drained by a
particular creek or river. The visible area is the landscape on which rain and snow fall.
Surface water then runs off into streams and rivers or collects in lakes or in shallow
depressions, which are collectively called wetlands.
The larger, invisible portion of the watershed lies beneath the surface, within the permeable
soils and rock which act like a giant sponge. There, rainwater that has infiltrated the surface
collects as groundwater above deep impermeable layers or rock or clay.
This underground water flows in tiny pores between the soil particles, through rock caviites
and fractures, and along underground channels, following the slope of the underlying solid rock
until it drains into a stream channel. If the water table (top of the groundwater) is above the
level of the stream bed, water flows from springs, seeps from the stream banks, or bubbles up
through the streambed into the stream channel to run out as stream flow.
The quality of a stream or a river is a product of what happens along the stream bank and in
the watershed. In a watershed which has been transformed into housing developments, parking
lots, farms, businesses, and highways, many potential water pollution sources exist.
Eventually, pollution from these sources will effect stream's ability to support fish or other
living things.

1. List some sources of point source pollution found in a watershed that may effect the
environmental "health" of a stream.

-------- ------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
2. List some sources of non-point source pollution found in a watershed that may effect the
environmental "health" of a stream.

------------------------------------------------------------ --

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose of activity:
� To map the watershed of the stream that you will survey
* To identify the land use of the watershed
� To predict any potential sources of pollution which may effect
the environmental quality of the stream that you will survey

Materials:
Topographic maps fine line magic markers or
Land Use maps colored pencils
Highway maps acetate sheet

Procedure:

1. Locate the stream that you will survey on the topographic map. Find where the stream starts
and where it empties into the next largest stream or river.

Courtesy: CHESPAX, Calvert County Environmental Education
Program B-1

2. Mark the stream and its tributaries with a fine line blue magic marker so that it can be
readily distinguished from the surrounding detail.
3. Using contour lines as your guide, trace the perimeters of the watershed with your pencil.
a. each of the contour lines around the stream represents a 20 ft. rise in elevation.
Approximately every fifth line is slightly darker than the rest. If you follow this line yo
will find a number printed on it. This is the elevation of that point above sea level.
b. Place your pencil on the stram at any point along its course. Move it uphill perpendicular
to the stream, as if you were walking uphill away from the stream. When you get to the
ridge or the highest point, put a mark there. Do this first on one side of the stream and
then the other.0
c. Repeat step 4 at the other intervals all along the stream from its mouth to the headwaters.
You will now have an irregular semicircle of dots froming a halo around the stream.
d. Connect the dots. All the land area within the halo drains into the stream that you are
studying. Any sources of pollution that you observe in the stream that you will survey may
come from anywhere within the area upstream from your survey location, but generally
from nowhere else.
e. When you are sure the watershed boundary is accurately marked, go over the pencil
marks with a red magic marker. You should have a picture looking something like this:
"- @5

---------- -
4. Place an acetate sheet on top of the watershed map and secure it with tape. Trace the stream
in blue and the watershed in red onto the acetate sheet.
5. Us ing Land Use maps and highway maps, add prominent land marks (highways, towns,
housing developments, sewage treatment plants, parking lots, shopping centers, etc.). You
may want to find out more about this area on your own to determine if there has been any
changes in land use in the last several years.
6. Using the map that you have constructed, list any potential sources of pollution which
may effect the environmental quality of the stream that you will study.

7. How could you possibly test the stream to see if these kinds of pollution where actually
present?

8. List any county, state, and federal agency that you would contact if you discovered a serious
pollution problem in a stream. ( You may want to use the blue pages of the phone book to
give you some ideas.)
County
State
Federal

B-2

Appendix C Calvert Independent, April 3, 1991

~qM~r~-~1~11~b ~0 ~0
~8qHa~8qis~8qi~4qng th~0qe~6qi~8ql~-
~'~J
consciousness
~8qD~qiviroii ~4qnien tally speaking
David Ropi~ski Ponds~, Battle Creek ~qC~qy
~6~, press
Stud
Staff ~qR~eporL~er Swan~ip ~i~n~(~q[ lite Calvert Marine
Musc~i~t~in ~t~o help educate t~qhe SURVEY,
On -Wednesday a group of
students about t~qhe ~environ- streams. "I w~qas
Calvert High School students n~i~cnL. pretty b~ad," lie
~~~qa~; vid~ed
~-~qt~,~. were sent o~u~t on a mission to The students were di
~t~i~l-~- ~Z~4qN- ~-~- ~ ~- ~3~'~-~-~-~- ~ ~ When asked
AV~% survey four different streams into four ~(~qi~qirf~er~en~t~. groups. Each
in Calvert County a~nd record group went to various streams ronmenLal sci
~A~4 ~- A
~6qy ~@~qJ~i~0qR~4qm Chris Perrygo
their he~a~qll~.h~. that surround the Battle Creek
I ~X
T~h~qis was o~ne of many groups watershed. Armed with strain- come more e
. . ....... ~-~.~;~F~, from both Calvert and North- ~ers, rubber boots, a~nd a clip- aware of the are
~ . . . . . . ~-~e cur a survey sh~e~c~qt~,~qthe
~ern high schools w~qho ~i~t - board with
ren~qtly enrolled in students went to work.
Paul Weil, 17
~.~11 science classes. To determine t~qhe health of enjoyed doing ~4qL
environment,
~X
T~qhe stream surveys are a w~ay Lite s~qLr~e~am~s,th~e students would "These field tri
-s~qt ~ql~i~and ~qt~qhe grab a handful of leaves arid ou learn some
~qy
that students see fi~t
7~_~qA
~n~Lw~qi~l~ql ~u~ql~qd- twigs in t~qh~e stream bed. They time."
effects of pollution ~th~.
~qW
m~at~e~ql~qy affect ~qt~qhe Bay or the p~u~qt ~qt~qhe leaves in a sLra~'~.~i~er to
PaLuxenLaiv~er. see what kind of org~inisms live Shawn Pete
~,~:~:~7~L~' peake Beach sai
"Too often we Leach ou~qt of in ~t~qhe stream. They also c~a~qlcu-
books," said Jo An~n Roberts, la~ted Lite water flow i~n the tal science cl~qas
coordinator of t~qh~e CHESPAX. stream by placing a small twig better unders~4qLa
~"~'~. ~T~,
Roberts s
~T i~n Lite water and ~qLi~jni~i~jg it for a ronmenL and t
aid Lite str~eim stir-
se~t distance. Other general ob- ment. "I kin
~~;~~ veys give a chance for Lite sLu-
dents to gain liands-o~n s~ervaLions about Lite stream environmental
~qQ
_~
~t~t
experience dealing with ~envi- a~nd t~qh~e surrounding arc~a were they were a bu
~F~@~,
ronmen~t~al problems o~n a local ~n~qiso used for~a~n~a~qlysis.
~qN~- said Peters.
~4
~Z
level. Many of t~qhe students ~v~;~q;~io sur-
T~qhe CHESPAX program, v~evc~(~ql Lite str~e~nn~is were sur- Michele Fuso
-is interested
started two years ago, is d~e pi ~Ised it their condition. "It w~,
signed to help sLud~e~nts in Cal- w~as pr~etLy bid," said 1~5-y~ear- issues before sh
vert County public schools have old Ron J~e~tn~ior~e of So~qlomons.
knew there we
~l~k~.~i~l~d a ~D~e~tter understanding of Lite J~et~inor~e said lite stream lie sur-
~~~~~ndi Mars~qtn~q1~ql~er~, a 1~q6~-y~e~ar-o~qld Calvert ~qI~qligh S~c~qI~l~o~o~ql e n~v~ir ~0 nm~en~qt.Th~e program, vcy~cd had very little lif~c:~,~l it.
which uses Kings Landing Park Craig Johnson, 17, of St.
~~~~qf~qt~~t~ checks for s~qig~iis of life in a stream off G~erM~a~n as its operating base, also uses I~con~ard said lie wasn't sur-
~~h~p~~l Road i~n Prince Frederick. A~ql~ar~sL~a~ql~ql~cr was ~A~vi~qth ~-~1 other local parks such as ~Jef- pris~ed~attl~i~ec~t~indi~ti~o~nof~th~e
r~up ~~f~2p~p~~p~p~. High Schools Students who spent part of ferson Patterson ~ql~1ark, Flag Sc~c ~SUR~VE~,Y, ~qV~ig~e A~-~q8
~1p~~morning on Wednesday survcying local streams for
~w~v~iro~n~i~l~i~e~l~i~qt~a~ql ~s~c~qi~c~l~i~c~e class..

Ius in Calvert
orne more velopment." Sediment run of
here were from construction siLes seem to b
lidn't even one of the major factors In th
health of the streams, he said.
teacher at After the surveys are complete
doing the . the finding will be shared with the
y to help Save Our Streams organization,
outside of which will add the information to
it's great a data base on the streams and
They learn provide baseline data for monitor,-
ould in the Ing the health of the streams.

vironmen-
Tri-County
aryland, is
surveys.
a the coun-
ornmunity
hree coun-
al streams
I st udied.
ny of these
counties,"

relirninary

Many of the
CTed by de-

C-1

'Appendix D

DESCRIPTION OF CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Water TEMPERATURE was measured with a YSI (Yellow Springs Instrument Corporation)
TELE-thermometer. The temperature of a stream is controlled bv shading vege-
tATion, groundwater inflow (which in this area averages 55)F year-round),
ail- tempera Lure, wind and the volume of the stream. I-IRA regulations state
that the temperature of natural trout waters (Class 111) may not exceed 68
F. Recreational trout: waters (Class IV) cannot exceed 75 0F and all other
waters cannot exceed 90 F. The Big Gunpowder Falls below Loch Raven and
its tributaries are classified as Class 1, waters. Additionally, Save Our
Streams recommends that factors, which would change natural stream tempera-
ture by more than 20C, not be allowed to occur. Such factors may include
heated discharges (cooling and process water), removal of bank vegetation,
storm water runoff from paved areas, and so forth.

Dissolved Oxygen was measured With a YSI Model 57 Dissolved OxYgen meter. The
meter Was calibrated, before and after the survey, with the air saturation
method. ThE amount of oxygen dissolved in a stream is primarily affected
by temperature, algae and:organic substances. For any given temperature
there is a limit to the amount of oxygen water can hold in solution. This
limit is known as the saturation value. For the temperatures occurring
during this study the saturation value averaged 10.0 mg/l. Normally, an
unpolluted stream will exhibit dissolved oxygen values within 80" to 120%
of the saturation point. Values lower than these, during the day, mav
indicate the presence of an excessive amount of organic wastes. Dissolved
oxygen levels in excess of 120% of saturation may indicate an excessive
amount of algae growth.

Specific Conductance (conductivity) was measured with a YSI S-C-T Meter. Th i s
parameter expresses the rate at which water will conduct an electrical
current. The conductivity of a solution is determined by the amount of
ions present. The greater the ionic content the greater conductivity will
be. In limestone areas conductivity will range between 100 to 400 micro
mhos per centimeter (umhos/cm). In other areas conductivity should be
between 50 to 150 umhos/cm. Values higher than these usually indicates
a pollution situation.

Ph Was measUred both in the field, with an Orion Specific Ion Meter and by the
I-IRA labratory. WRA regulations require that p1l be between 6.0 and 8.5 in
all water classes. Limestone streams normally exhibit oil values between
7.5 and 9.0, while other streams will usually range from 6.0 to 7.5. ph
values below 6.0 indicate the presence of acidic conditions which may be
due to industrial discharges, acid rain (possibly), mine drainage, and so
forth. Alkaline readings, above 9.0, may result from the presence of a
caustic pollutant such as concrete washings, industrial sodas, and others.

Suspe nded Solids was measured in the WRA labratory. Solid particles, suspended
in the stream, include any matter that is not dissolved and, therefore, will
not pass through a filter with 0.45 micron (0.0000176 inches) openings.

These solids usually -include algae cells, soil particles, particles of leaves
and other organic matter, and a variety or similar items. While the U.S. EPA
that suspended solids be less than 25 mg/l, unpolluted streams
normally have less than 10 mq/1 of suspended solids.

Courtesy: "Charles County Stream Quality Study," June, 1980;
Richard Klein, Maryland Save Our Streams
D-1

Dissolved Solids was measured in the WRA labratory. Being somewhat the opposite
of suspended solids this parameter includes all matter that will pass through
a filter having 0.45 micron openings. It may include small molecules or ions.
Usually, dissolved solids will be less than 200 mg/l. Although limestone
waters may exhibit concentrations greater than this under natural conditions.
When the level of dissolved solids exceeds 200 mg/1 a pollution source may
be suspected.

Turbidity was measured in the WRA labratory. Turbidity is a measure of the
amount of light water will transmit. It is affected by any matter present
in a suspended or colloidial state. As such, turbidity does not measure
a precise substance but a general characteristic. Substances such as
algae cells, suspended soil particles, and colloids such as milk, will affect
turbidity values. Normally, turbidity will be less than 10 FTU's.

Organic Nitrogen was measured in the WRA labratory. Generally, this parameter
reflects the quantity of nitrogen present in organic compounds such as
proteins and amino acids. But it does not include all nitrogeneous organic
material. Organic nitrogen serves as a source of nourishment for stream
dwelling micro-organisms and may account for tile bulk of oxygen depleting
materials in polluted streams. Normally, an unpolluted stream will have less
than 0.40 mg/1 of organic nitrogen as N.

Ammonia was measured in the WRA labratory. Ammonia is a decomposition product
of organic nitrogen. It may serve as a nutrient source for algae and other
aquatic plants. At high concentrations it can be toxic to aquatic life.
Usually, ammonia levels are below 0.05 mg/l as N. Levels higher than these
like high organic nitrogen levels, usually indicate a source of organic
waste.

Nitrite was measured in the WRA labratory. Nitrite is an oxidation product of
ammonia. It is quite unstable in the stream environment and is quickly con-
verted to nitrate. It may serve as a plant nutrient and can be toxic in
high concentrations. Normally, valuesin unpolluted streams are less than
0.010 mg/1 as N. Sources of high nitrite values may include organic waste
particularly when oxygen levels are depleted.

Nitrate was measured in the WRA labratory. Nitrate is the most readily utilized
nitrogen source for plant growth. It is converted from nitrite and can be
toxic in high concentrations. At levels above 10 mg/1 as N, nitrate can be
toxic to human infants. Sources of high nitrate values includes excessive
fertilizer use and organic wastes. Normal levels of nitrate are usually
less than 3.00 mg/1 as N, in freshwater streams.

Total Phosphate was measured in the WRA labratory. Phosphorus is a nutrient
essential to plant growth. And phosphate (PO4) is the most readily usable
form of phosphorus. Total phosphate includes all forms of phosphate occurring
in a stream sample. Values are usually less than 0.10 mg/1 as P. Levels
higher than this may indicate a source of organic waste or excessive fertilizer
use.

Ortho Phosphate was measured in the WPA labratory. Of the various forms of
phosphate the ortho is the most readily utilized. Values in unpolluted
streams are normally less than 0.10 mg/1 as P.

D-2

Total Or anic Carbon was mcasured in the I-IRA labratory. This parameter measures
a -ni -cany bound forms of carbon. It can be used as a measure of the
amount of food material available to micro-oraanisms. Sources of Hall TOC
readings include any input of organic wastes.- Sufficient data does @ot
exist to give maximum values in unpolluted waters.

Total Acidiy was measured in the VIRA labratory. Normally, total acidity will
be less than 4.0 m91l as CaC03. Sources of levels higher than this include
industrial waste, mine drainage, acid precipitation, sviamp drainaqe, and
so forth. Ail acidic input to a "free-stone" stream can exert considerably
more damage than an equal amount of acid released to a limestone water.
The high carbonate content of the limestone stream will buffer and neutra-
lize the acid. Free-stone streams lack this carbonate buffer. Additionally,
most headwater streams, except those draining limestone, have an appreciably
lower buffering capacity than larger creeks.

Sulfate was measured in the WRA labratory. Sulfate may st em from precipitation,
geologic weathering or normal biological activity. Levels are normally less
than 50 mg/l. as S. Higher values may be due to organic waste or mine drain-
age.

Total Alkali@i
_L@y was measured in the I-IRA labratory. Being the opposite of
acidity, alkalinity is defined as the ability of water to neutralize ail
acid. In limestone streams 'alkalinity may range from 50 to 200 mall as
CaC03. Freestone waters normally exhibit alkalinities of less than 50
mg/l as CaC03.

Total Hardness was measured in the WRA labratory. Hardness reflects the
quantity of calcium and magnesium present in a stream sample. Like
alkalinity, hardness is Qreater in limestone streams than freestone. It
is uncertain as to what @'normal" levels'should be. When hardness is hich,
yet alkalinity is low, a stream quality problem may be present.

Chlorides was measured in the 14RA labratory. Chloride is an ion of tile element
Chlorine. Under natural conditions it stems from the movement of water
through soil and rainfall. Usually, chloride levels will be between 8 to
12 mg1l as Cl-, in an unpolluted stream. Higher values may result from
sewage entry into a stream or-road salt applications upon the watershed.
In heavily developed watersheds it is not uncomon to find high chloride
values in mid-summer when sewage is not present in tile stream. Salt spread
upon winter streets can soak into adjacent soils and continually leach into
neat-by streams throughout spring, summer and into fall. Chlorides may become
toxic to aquatic life at levels as low as 400 mg/l as Cl-.

D-3

114q'jjUiJU1X L '8AVE
Stream insects &-Crustaceans.. OUR

GROUP I TAXA GOOD WATER QUALITY

STONEFLY:
ORDER PLECOPTERA

1/2 - 1 1/2",
6 legs with
hooked tips,
long ant'ennae,
nymph 2 hair-like
tails. larva

CADDISFLY:
ORDER TRICHOPTERA
DOBSONFLY (HELLGRAMMITE): Up to 1/2", 6 hooked
SUBORDER MEGALOPTERA
3/4 - 4", dark-colored, 6 legs legs on upper third of
body, 2 hooks at back
many long-feelers on lower half end. May be in a case,
of body, short antennae, 4 hooks with its head sticking
at back end. Out.

WATER PENNY: ORDER COLEOPTERA
1/4", saucer-shaped body with
a raised bump on one side and
6 tiny legs on the other side.
Immature riffle beetle.
"no

nymph RIFFLE BEETLE: ORDER COLEOPTERA
1/4", oval-body covered wiLh
tiny hairs, 6 legs, antennae.

1
A Y F L YORDER EPHEMEROPTERA
/4 V'% brown, Plate-like gills OTHER SNAILS:
PHYLUM MOLLUSCA
"Imph W@

sides of body, 6 large hooked
Us, many long feelers on lower Shell opens on
half of body, antennae, 2 or 3 right or in
=)ng hair-like tails. center.
0
=0 Courtesy: Maryland Save Our Streams E-1

GROUP 2 TAXA FAIR WATER QUALITY S01411UG: ORDER CRUSTACEA
1/4 - 3/4", gray oblong
body wider than it is
CRAYFISH: high, more than 6 legs,
ORDER CRUSTACEA antennae.
1/2 - 6", 2
large claws, 8
legs, resembles
small lobster.

SCUD: ORDER CRUSTACEA
1/4", fat body higher
than it is wide, swims
sideways, more than 6
DAMSELFLY: ORDER ODONATA legs, resembles small
1/2 - I", large eyes, 6 shrimp.
hooked legs, 3 broad
oar-like tails.
CLAM:

PHYLUM MOLLUC
BEETLE LARVA: DRAGONFLY:
ORDER COLEOPTERA ORDER ODONATA
1/2 - 2", large
1/4 - 1", light-colored, v
eyes, 6 hooked
6 legs on upper half of
body, feelers, antennae. legs.

Y-ph

WATERSNIPE FLY LARVA: CRANE FLY: ORDER ODONATA
ORDER DIPTERA (ATHERIX) 1/3 - 2", green or brown, plump
1/4 - 3/4'1 , green, man' -like legs, caterpillar-like segmented body,
'y caterpil I a r
conical head, feathery "horn" at back end. finger-like lobes at back end.

GROUP 3 TAXA - POOR WATER QUALITY POUCH SNAIL:
PHYLUM MOLLUSCA
Shell opens on
lef t

T
AQUATIC WORM: ORDER OLIGOCHAETA MIDGE FLY LARVA: ORDER DIPTERA
1/4 can be very tiny, thin Up to 1/4", worm-l-ike segmented
worm-like body. @body, 2 legs on each side.

LEECH:
"Ph

BLACKFLY LARVA:
ORDER HIRUDINEA ORDER DIPTERA
Up to 1/4", one end
slimy body, ends of body wider,
1/4 - 2", brown, C,
with suction pads- suction pad. E-2

Appendix F

Stonef lies Caddisf lies
(Order: Plecoptera) (Order: Trichoptera)

JK-

actual size

Roachlike body, 2 tails, and Maggotlike body and 6 distinct leg,
each leg tipped with 2 claws.

Mayf lies
(Order: Ephemeroptera)

Roachlike body, 2 3 tails, and each leg ends in a. fine point.

Illustrations from A FIELD GUIDE TO THE INSECTS by Donald -Borror
and Richard E. White. Copyright 1970 by Donald Borror and Richard
E. White. F-1

Appendix G
KICK SEINE SAMPLING PROCEDURES

1. Walk a 100-Foot section of the stream. -11c section should begin at least 100-fcet from any
human-made modiFication of the channel, such as a bridge, dam, or pipeline crossing. Avoid walking in
the stream, since this may dislodge insects and alter the sample results. Compare all of the riffles within
the 100-yard section in terms of speed of water flow and the size of stones lying upon the bed. The kick-
seine sample will be collected in the riffle with the greatest speed of flow and largest stones.

2. Select a 3-foot by 3-foot sampling area within the riffle where the speed of flow and stone size
is greatest.

3. Complete the "Habitat Assessment" form in the packet.

4. Wash the net off and check it to make certain no insects remain from the last time the kick-
seine was used.

5. Place the net along the downstream edge of the sampling area. The seine should be
perpendicular to the water flow. Hold the seine handles so they create at most a 45 degree angle with
the water surface. Make certain that the bottom of the net lies against the stream bed, otherwise insects
may wash beneath the seine.

PIREc--rlotj
o1RE--T10t-4
5 .4-1

L
OY,

6. While one person holds the seine the second person should pick up any stone within the
sampling area which has a diameter greater than 3-inches. Each stone should be held submerged against
the upstream surface of the net, while the entire surface is vigorously brushed with the hands to dislodge
any attached insects. Try to stay out of the sampling area to avoid biasing the sample. The thumbs should
be used to break off any bumps that may house insects on the surface of each stone. When you think
you've dislodged all the attached insects carefully examine the surface of the stone for any remaining
organisms. If you're satisfied that it's clean, then carefully place the stone back where you found it and
go on to the next.

7. When you've brushed all of the stones, then step into the sampling area at tile upstream edge.
Note the time on the second hand of a watch and begin vigorously disturbing the bed with your feet. Try
to dig down at ]cast 2-inches into the stream bed. Stir the bed sediments all around within the sampling
area. Continue working the bed for at least 60 seconds. At the end of tile 60 second period you should
have disturbed the entirety of the 3-foot by 3-foot sampling area. If at that time, the bed is not entirely
disturbed, continue working the bed for another 30 seconds.

8. Now remove the seine from the stream without allowing any of the insects to wash off the
netting. While one person holds the seine handles, a second person should grab each handle close to the
stream bed. Now, remove the seine from the stream with a forward scooping action. In this way you can
use tile force of flowing water to hold the insects on the net.

9. After removing the seine from the stream, carry it to a flat, sunlit spot on tile stream bank.

Courtesy: Maryland Save Our Streams G-1

10. Now, you're going to transfer insects from the net into one of the al cohol-filled vials you were
provided. Be certain to place the vial on a stable spot where it will not spill. The kick-seine is
marked off in 3-inch by 3-inch squares. Note which square has the AVERAGE amount of debris.
Remove all of the insects from this square. As you transfer each insect to the alcohol-Filled vial, call
out the type to a second person. This second person should record each insect type on tile Aquatic
Insect Tally portion of tile Sampling Station Data form. Use pencil to record this information and
all other information. When you think you've gotten all of the insects out of this first square, then
bring your eyes within a couple of inches of the net. Stare at the net for 15 seconds. If nothing
moves, then you're finished with that square. If you have less than 100 insects, go on to the next
AVERAGE dcbris-covcred square. Repeat the process described above. If you still have fewer than
100 insects after picking this second square clean, then go on to a third square, and so on. You may
need to pick insects off the entire net. Record which squares you picked clean on the "Insect Tally
Form".

11. Thcre are only four types of indicator insects we'd like you to note: stoneflics, mayflies,
caddisnics, and midges.

STONEFLIES have roach-like bodies, long tails, and scurry about the net when prodded with
the tweezers.

MAYFLIES also have roach-like bodies and long tails, but they tend to sit still when poked
with the tweezers while raising their tails in the air.

CADDISFLIES have maggot-like bodies (or worm-] ike/caterpillar-like), six distinct ]cgs, and
they curl up when poked with the tweezers.

MIDGES also have maggot-like bodies, but appear to lack legs or have two stubby looking
projections which might be legs. Midges also tend to be small; some look like a piece of hair
wiggling on the net.

All other insects should simply be recorded as "OTHER".

12. When you have removed the insects from the net, complete the "Sampling Station Data Form"
and fill out the small paper tag. BE CERTAIN TO USE A PENCU, NOT A PEN BECAUSE 71-IE
INK WILL RUN IN ITIE- ALCOHOL! Insert the paper tag inside the vial so that the writing can
be seen clearly.

13. Wish the net out in tile stream and check it to make certain that no insects remain attached.

14. Before leaving the site, make certain that you have tile forceps, magnifying lenses, pencils, and
the rest of your sampling equipment.

G-2

AQUATIC INSECT TALLY
Please use hatch marks to record each insect type.
For example: = 7

STONEFLIES:
(armor-like, 6 distinct legs, toes end in 2 claws, 2 tails, scramble about when prodded)

-TOTAL
MAYFLIES:
(roach-like, 6 distinct legs, toes end in I claw, 2-3 tails, raise tails when prodded
TOTAL
CADDISFLIES:
(caterpillar-like, 6 distinct legs, no tail, curl-up when prodded)

TOTAL
MIDGES:
(tiny, hair-like, no distinct legs or with stubby projections)

TOTAL
OTHER ORGANISMS:
(any other organism not belonging to above insect types)

TOTAL

TOTAL NUMBER OF INSECTS COLLECTED:

Please mark (x) on this representation of the
kick-seine the corresponding number and/or
letter section(s) of the seine used to
collect the aquatic organisms.
area above grid

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

area below grid

Initial Stream Quality Rating: (Please Circle One)
a. EXCELLENT: stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies, midges present
b. GOOD: stoneflies absent; mayflies, caddisflies, midges present
c. FAIR: stoneflies, mayflies absent; caddisflies, midges present
d. POOR: stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies absent; midges present

If you rated the stream FAIR or POOR, do you have any ideas what the reason for the
degradation might be?

G-3

Appendix H

DESCUPTION OF BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS EXAMINED-

Inlany healthy environment one normally f inds many different kinds of life
with each kind or taxa, represented by relatively few individuals. As environ-
mental quality declines the most sensitive organisms are eliminated. This leaves
a greater quantity of food and cover available for the more pollution tolerant
organisms. Additionally, the disappearance of other organisms reduces predation
and competition for the remaining creatures. As a result, a decline in environ-
mental quality normally produces fewer taxa but a areater number of individuals
per taxa - where be-fore 12 taxa may have been represented by 10 individuals each,
following degradation only 6 taxa may have remained but with 20-40 individuals
per taxa.

The relationship described above can be examined through an equation known
as the Species Diversity Index (_j). This equation yields -a number between 0.00
to 4.00. The lower the index value the more stressed the environment. The
diversity index can betranslated into a verbal rating according to the follow-
ing table.

SPECIES DIVERSITY INDEX RATING

4.00 - 3.00 EXCELLENT
2.00 - 2.99 GOOD
1.00 - 1.99 FAIR
0.00 - 0.99 POOR

Another approach is to simply examine the number of taxa. Through this
approach a quality rating can be determined as follows.

NUMBER OF TAXA RATING
11 or more EXCELLENT
7 - 10 GOOD
4 - 6 FAIR
0 - 3 POOR

Additionally, one should take a look at the number of organisms per square
foot of stream bed sampled- Normally, an "unpolluted" stream will support 15 to
30 organisms, per square foot of bed when all taxa are combined. A lesser number
of organisms, per square foot, may indicate stream quality degradation due to
a toxic substance or a physical impact- Grea-ter number of organisms usually
indicate an enriched stream condition such as that resulting from the entry of
livestock or human body wastes. High nutrient levels may also produce an
abundance of organisms per square foot. But, like all the approachs given, tile
use of these general "rules of -thumb" should be done carefully. A recent flood
COUld greatly reduce the number of organisms per square foot. And limestone
streams tend to naturally support a greater number of individuals.

Finally, one should examine the relative 'Dercent of sample population ac-
counted for by each taxa. When one kind of creature greatly outnumbers all
others a problem is usually indicated. Also each taxa has its o%%'n stream quality
pre fercricess .An abundance of dlean water organisms would obviously indicate a
healthy stream system.

Courtesy: "Charles County Stream Quality Stud
June, 1980; Richard Klein, Maryland Wave Our Streams H-1

Throughout Maryland some 230 genera of insects are knot-in to inhabit streams
and rivers. These genera are contained within 10 orders, seven of which
can be con�idered as common. When a stream sample is dominated by any one
ord& it is possible to make gross statements of overall quality. For in-
stance;

Diptera (True Flies) - generally prefer water of poor to fair quality. 'When
Chironomids (Midge Flies) or Simulium (Black Flies) dominate the sample the
stream is probably degraded. JI

Trichoptera (Caddisflies) - generally, when these insect larvae dominate the
sample the.stream is probably in fair condition particularly when one genera
greatly overshadows all others. When -two or more genera are present, in
roughly equal numbers, the stream is probably in fair to good condition.

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) - generally, these nymphs prefer good quality
streams. Although one mayfly seems particularly adapted to severely degraded
urban streams. This nymph may be present when all other life has been exter-
pated. Generally when two or more mayflies dominate the sample the,stream
is probably in good condition.
Plecoptera (Stoneflies) - the stoneflies appear to only occur in good to
excellent quality streams.

Generalizations concerning the remaining orders are.rather difficult to
make. The statements given above may be used when any one order accounts
foi- 50/'0 to 70% of the sample population.

H-2

Appendix I PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSM-E NTPROCED U RES
100 POINTS OF STREAM MONITORING
PIE-DMONT REGIONS

STATION NO: DATE: TIME: AM PM

STREAM: LOCATIO N:

HABITAT ASSESSORS:

PLEASE RECORD TI-IE MOST APPROPRIATE RESPONSE FOR EACH CATE-GORY.
YOU MAY FIND THAT 7711E BEST RESPONSE IS IN-BETWEEN THE GIVEN SCORES
TI-IEREFORE, CHOOSE TIJE BEST NUMBER BETWEEN THE SCORES
AND RE-CORD IT IN THE SPACE MARKED 'YOUR SCORE".
REMEMBER TO RECORD OVERALL SCORE AND RAT[NG AT END OFT14IS FORK
USETIM BACK OFTI-HS FORM FOR ANY ADDI[TIONAL COMMENM.

Lb W re P,

3ANK

rLooDPLIIN
S1 T? E A rl^
e,ED

LOCAL WATERSI-IED NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCES: High quality waterways occur when the
watershed is blanketed with forest. Nonpoint potential pollution increases as watershed land use shifts
from forest, to pasture, to cropland, to developed (homes, buildings, streets .... ). Based on what you can
see from the stream rate this habitat factor by estimating the percentages of the following land use:

EXCELLENT. No evidence of source. Stable woodland with vegetated
drainage ditch. Little potential. SCORE: 16
GOOD: Minor potential. Piped stormwater, minor residential, pasture,
fallow ground (plowed land that is left planted or unplanted). SCORE. 14
FAIR: Moderate potential. Piped stormwater drainage. Parking lots,
oi- up to 25% bare ground. SCORE: 10
POOR: Large Potential. Urban industrial paving, feed lots or greater
than 25% bare ground. SCORE: 8
YOUR SCORE:
LOCAL WATERSHED EROSION: Mud pollution occurs when rainwater transports large quantities
of eroded soil into a waterway. Rate this habitat factor by estimating the amount of land visible from the
stream which consists of bare, exposed soil.

EXCELLENT. Stable woodland with minor grassland/pasture. Minor erosion
potential. SCORE: 16
GOOD: Moderate erosion potential. Minor bare areas visible away
from stream. SCORE: 14
FAIR: Considcrable erosion potential. Moderate bare areas. Storm
event erosion. SCORE: 10
POOR: Almost continual heavy erosion. Substantial bare areas.
SCORE: 8
YOUR SCORE:
Courtesy: Maryland Save Our Streams 1-1

STREAMSIDE BUFFER: One of the most ef fective ways of protecting a stream is to maintain a buffer
of trees and,shrubs along both banks. Note the average and types of vegetation extending out from both
banks within 50 feet of the stream.

EXCELLENT: Dominant vegetation trees, with thick shrub/grass.
GOOD: Dominant vegetation trees, with sparse grass/plant. SCORE: 16
SCORE: 14
FAIR: Dominant vegetation woody shrubs and plants. SCORE: 6
POOR: Majority of plants present bloom and grow once a year.
SCORE- 2
YOUR SCORE:
STREAMBANK VEGETATION STABILIT'Y: Trees and shrubs are better at protecting strcambanks
than grasses. Estimate the percentage of the streambanks within 50 feet of the stream that are vegetated
with woody plants.

EXCELLENT: Majority of plants are trees/shrubs or grasses. Less
than 10171o of bank exposed erodible soil. SCORE: 20
GOOD: Plants at 5001o / grass at 5001o. Up to 30% of bank is exposed
sand, clay, or mud. SCORE. 14
FAIR: Plants (not grasses) in the majority. Up to 75% of bank is
exposed soil. Minor human alteration through channelization. SCORE: 8
POOR: No grass present, only plants. Greater than 75% of bank
erodible. Major concrete/stone channelization. SCORE: 2
YOUR SCORE:
STREAMBANK STABILITY: Based on the results above, estimate the erosion potential of stream
banks depending upon the the amount of the bank that consists of exposed (erosion susceptible) soil:

EXCELLENT: Little/no failure. Lower banks covered with root mat,
grasses and shrubs. Little potential. SCORE: 20
GOOD: Minor cut banks and bank failure. Erosion potential during
flood. SCORE. 14
FAIR: Bank failure common. Up to 50% cut banks. Considerable
erosion during high water. SCORE: 8
POOR: Bank failure frequent. Greater than 50% cut banks with almost
continual erosion. Channelized with > 50% concrete/stone. SCORE: 2
YOUR SCORE:
CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICSIDEPOSITION: As more mud pollution enters a stream, sediments
(gravel, sand,...) will accumulate within the channel. These accumulations will take the form of soft,
liq u icksa nd- like" deposits and unvegetatcd sand or gravel bars. Note the abundance of these formations
as you walk the channel.

EXCELLENT. Little/no point bar enlargement. Stable bottom, < 5%
affected by large storms. SCORE: 20
GOOD: Minor movement of gravel and channel during flood. Some scour
and deposition. 5-30% of bottom affected. SCORE: 14
FAIR: Considerable movement of gravel, sand and channel during high
wa'ter. 30-50% of bottom affected by flooding. SCORE: 8
POOR: Almost continual channel sand movement. Greater than 50% of
bottom affected. Severe channelization. SCORE: 4
YOUR SCORE:

1-2

CHANNEL CAPACITY: Transforming a forest to homes can increase flooding by 100-fold and cause a
stream channel to widen through erosion. As enlargement grows worse the water will wet smaller portions
of the stream bed. The water in a natural stream will rill the bottom of the channel from the base of one
bank to the base of the other bank. The amount of flooding can be estimated by using both visual clues
along the banks, such as erosion, as well as calculating how much water fills the stream channel during
dryer pcriods. Estimate the average percent of the stream bed which is covered with water, and determine
if overflows occur using vegetative clues on the banks.

EXCELLENT- Water reaches both banks, no vegetative loss,. overflows
rare. SCORE-: 16
GOOD: Water almost reaches, or does reach both banks. Little or no
vegetative loss, overflows occasional. SCORE: 14
FAIR: Water Fills the channel 20-80%. Substantial vegetative loss.
Overflows common. SCORE:- 10
POOR: Very little water in channel. Channelized, or little vege-
tation.. Peak flows contained or overflow every rain event. SCORE:_ 8
YOUR SCORE:
STREAMBED SUBSTRATE: The composition of the streambcd at the riffle can tell us what types of
landforms or how local watershed erosion is impacting the stream. Estimate how much of the following
is present in the stream bed within the sampling area:

EXCELLENT. Stable rubble, rocks with about a 4" diameter (cobble or
gravel) on bottom. Little or no sand, algae, or moss. SCORF_ 22
GOOD: Boulder/Bedrock with less rubble and gravel. Minor sand,
gravel and algae. SCORE: 16
FAIR: Mostly smaller gravel (.5 - 4"diameter) and course sand.
. Major amounts of sand, algae and moss. SCORE: 10
POOR: Completely imbedded rubble and smaller gravel, Concrete
channel, or streambed covered with algae. SCORE- 2
YOUR SCORE:
WA'IT--R VELOCITY/1-IABITAT VARIETY: Generalize the composition of the streambed and estimate
the length and width of the riffle sampled. Next measure the speed of water flowing through the 3' x 3'
sampling area. To do this, drop a small stick in the.stream and measure the number of seconds it takes
for the stick to travel 10 feet. The 10-foot section should overlap the kick-seine sampling site. Divide
10 by the number of seconds to determine water velocity in "feet per second" (fps).

EXCELLENT: Variety of particle size. Riffle longer than wide.
Velocity (fps) > 3. SCORE: 20
GOOD: Streambed with some limitations in rock size variety. Riffle
no longer than wide. Velocity (fps) 2 - 3. SCORE: 14
IF-AIR: Major substrate limitation. Velocity (fps) 1 - 2.
POOR: Little or no riffle. Little wave movement. No variety in SCORE: 8
rocks, channelized. Velocity (fps) 0 - 1. SCORE: 4
YOUR SCORE:

TOTAL SCORE: TOTAL RATING:

EXCELLENT. 156 or More GOOD/EXCELLENT: 133 - 155
GOOD: 112 - 132 FAIR/GOOD: 89 - III
FAIR: 68 - 88 POOR/.]FAIR: 52 - 67
POOR: less than 52

1-3

100 POINTS OF STREAM MONITORING
SAMPLING STATION DATA FORM

STATION DATE TIME AM PM
STREAM LOCATION
SAMPLERS

1. Please describe tile specific location where the sample was collected. For example:
"300 ft upstream of Rt. 1, next to a large sycamore, and in the center of the stream."

2. Dimensions of area sampled: - ft. by square ft.

3. Approximate number of seconds used to disturb stream bed:

4. Water Color: (Please Circle One)
a. medium brown b. dark brown c. reddish brown d. green brown
e. yellow brown f. green g. other (describe)
h. clear and colorless

5. Water Odor: (Please Circle One)
a.sewage b. oily c. musky d. fishy e. rotten eggs L none
g. chlorine h. other (describe)

6. Is there black color on deeply imbedded stones? YES NO

7. Is there any scum, foam, or other substance on the surface of the water? YES 1@0
If yes, please describe the color, abundance, any any other characteristics of the
substances:

8. Are there any growths or coatings on the streamb6d? YES NO
If yes, please describe tile appearancei

1-4

MACROINVERTEBRATE COUNT

Use letter codes (A = 1 - 9, B = 10 - 99, C = 100 or more) to record the numbers of organisms found in a
3 foot by 3 fool area. Then add up the number of letters in each column and multiply by the indicated index
Value.

GOOD FAIR POOR

caddisfly larvae beetle larvae aquatic worms
dobsonfly larvae clams blackfly larvae
mayfly nymplis crane fly larvae leeches
other snails crayfish midge larvae
riffle beetle adult damselfly nymplis pouch snails
stonefly nymplis dragonfly nyrnplis
water penny larvae scuds
sowbugs
atherix

# of letters # of letters # of letters
times 3 = times 2 = times 1 =
index value + index value + index value +

Now add together the three index values= total index value.
Compare this Total index value to the following numbers to determine the water quality of your stream. Good
water quality is indicated by a variety of different kinds of organisms, with no one kind making up the majority
of the sample.

Excellent(> 22) Good (17-22)

Fair (11-16) Poor (< 11)

Note: You should lest at least 3 different riffles within a 24-foot area to ensure that you have a truly
representative sample which includes all key organisms. You may also want to sample some of the rocks in
slower-moving water, nearer the banks, because mayflies and sloneflies are sometimes found there instead.

Fish water qualtiy indicators: Barrlers to
scattered individuals fish movement:
scattered schools beaver dams
trout(good) dams
bass(good) waterfalls
calyfish (poor to fair) other
carp (poor) none

Land uses in watershed:
factories farming fields homes stores woods

Are there any discharging pipes? no yes It so, how many?

Did you lest above and below the pipes to determine any change in water quality and were changes noticed?

Describe % and type of litter in and around the stream:

1-5
27

100 POINTS OF STREAM MONITORING
SUMMARY SHEET

STATION DATE TIME AM P M
STREAM LOCATION
MONITORS

Please summarize your findings from the Habitat Assessment, Sampling Station Data Form,
and the Aquatic Insect Tally on this chart.

ITEMS ASSESSED SUNVvLARY

Habitat Assessment Score

Habitat Assessment -Rating

Water Color (list letter choice)

Water Odor (list letter choice)

Black Color on Rocks (Y or N)

Surface Substance (Y or N)

Streambed Coatings (Y or N)

# Stoneflies

# Mayflies

# Caddisflies

# Other Organisms

Total # all Organisms

Initial Stream Quality Rating

Sections of Kick-Seine Used
(list letters, numbers)

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

File Number MDE Stream Code Watershed Level

1-6

Appendix J

MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION BYLAW

01 Program.
Each local school system shall provide a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary program of environmental education
within current curricular offerings to be taught at least once In the early, middle, and high school learning years.

02 Purpose.
Tho purpose of this environmental education program Is to enable students to make decisions and take actions that
create and maintain optimal relationship between themselves and the environment, and to preserve and protect the
unique natural resources of Maryland, particularly those of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.

.03 Goals.
The following environmental education goals and subgoals should be Incorporated in local school system
curricular offerings:
A. Understand and value the diversity and Interdependence of the biological and physical environment,
which Includes to:
(1) Observe and investigate the biological and physical environment,
(2) Understand that plants and animals that use the environment to satisfy their needs are linked with
biological and physical components of their environment,
(3) Understand that people have a powerful impact on and responsibility for environmental conditions,
(4) Recognize that as human population increase, Us impact on the environment becomes more
pronounced;
B. Understand and value tile interdependence between the environment and our health, economy, and
culture, which includes to:
(1) Participate in activities that demonstrate the relationship between personal health arid tile quality of
tile environment,
(2) Recognize that a viable economy is dependent on responsible use of natural resources,
(3) Understand that Impact of interaction of culture and technology on tile use arid alteration of the
environment,
C. Understand and value how aesthetic experiences provide Insight and enrich interactions with the
environment, which includes to:
(1) Develop an understanding of the aesthetic qualities that exist in the environment,
(2) Develop tile skills arid sensitivities to apply aesthetic criteria to environmental concerns,
(3) Develop the ability to formulate I. apply, and communicate personal aesthetic criteria for assessing
environmental issues.
D. Develop and apply their knowledge and skills to protect and sustain environmental quality, which
includes to:
(1) Understand how individual decisions arid actions impact the environment,
(2) Apply knowledge of environmental concepts to patterns of personal behavior arid choice,
(3) Apply responsible decision-making to home-related activities impacting tile environment,
(4) Explore arid evaluate careers in the environmental field;
E. Develop and apply knowledge and skills at tile community level for cooperative action to protect and
sustain tile environment, which includes to:
(1) Understand how cooperation aniong communities (including citizens, businesses, interest group,
governmental agencies, and others) is essential to maintain arid improve the environment,
(2) Work with others in groups arid organizations to maintain arid improve tile environment.

04. Certification Procedures.
By September 1, 1990, and each 5 years after, each local superintendent of schools shall certify to the State
Superintendent of Schools that the comprehensive programs of environmental education meets, at a minimum, the
requirements set forth in Regulations.01 and .03. This certification shall describe flow the regulations are being
met at each learning level In accordance with reporting standards developed by the Department of Education.

J-1

Appendix K

Certificate of Adoption

IOLA
+4

77tis is to certify that
John Doe

i.it accordance with the Adopl-A-Stream Prograin sponsored by the
Matyland Department of Nalural Resources, Tidewater Administration
and by Magland Save Our Sirenins, in conjunction will,
One Million Maiflanders for the Bay) has acloped

Moll Dyer's Run
and has laken active responsibility for the improvement of this waienvay
by conducting a

Water Quality Assessment, October 27, 1991

Barbara Taylo@l lDr. Torrey Brown
Executive Director, Maryland Save Our Strearm Secretary, MD Department of Natural Re-vourccv

Sa ve
Our

Pri-Ird (m mgde-d lwpff

"Appendix L TIMELINE FOR 100 POINTS OF STREAM MONITORING
BALTIMORE COUNTY - YEAR I

13 Weeks Before Workshop
Define goals event
Set date for event

12 Weeks Before Workshop
Write budget and submit for approval
Write grant proposal and submit for approval
kecruit planning committee members

11 Weeks Before Workshop
Select points
Make up tentative day-of-event schedule

10 Weeks Before Workshop
Secure event locations
Make initial invitations
Hold first planning committee meeting
Discuss agenda for workshop
Plan recruitment strategies and assign tasks
Have volunteers check sites for accessibility
Send out initial invitation to workshop participants and
members
Take minutes of meeting

9 Weeks Before Workshop
Mail minutes from meeting to those who did/did not attend
Send letters and invites to Baltimore County school teachers
Place orders for field supplies
Set date and recruit volunteers for kick-seining

8 Weeks Before Workshop
Send sites for approval

7 Weeks Before-WorkshoD

6 Weeks Before Workshop
check alternative/backup sites for accessibility to complete the
list

5 Weeks Before the Workshoio
Hold kick-seine assembly
Check out workshop locations
Make flyers

4 Weeks Before the Workshop
Distribute flyers to planning committee members for disbursement
in communities

3 Weeks Before the Workshoo
Finalize the day-of-event schedule
Prepare and send out press releases
Publicize to newspapers and'community newsletters
Complete all visual aids to be used during the training session
Prepare literature for inside packets

Courtesy: Maryland Save Our Streams L-1

2 Weeks Before the Workshop
Copy maps for site locations
Get list of all who received invitations
Copy literature for inside the packets
Hold second planning committee meeting
Finalize logistics for workshop
Place follow up phone calls for those who received invitations
Highlight maps of approved sites
Collate packets
Assign volunteers day-of-event tasks
Take minutes

1 Week Before the Workshop
Mail minutes to those who did/did not attend
Recontact VIPs and volunteers who will be included in the agenda
Prepare literature and materials to be distributed at event
Courtesy confirmation call to workshop locations
Write day-of-event press release

1 Day Before Workshop
Call press to encourage day-of-event coverage

1-2 Weeks After Workshop
Send out follow up evaluations to workshop participants
Organize field materials, packets and collected specimens
Go through packets and determine if all site assessments were
completed and summarize the ratings (insect and habitat)

4-5 Weeks After Workhop
Set up and recruit interested volunteers for the insect I.D. class
Assess evaluations as they are returned stressing strengths,
weaknesses, and recommendations
Assess field materials stressing strengths, weaknesses, and
recommendations
Assess training materials stressing strengths, weaknesses, and
recommendations
Assess actual budget as compared to' the projected budget

6-7 Weeks After Workshop
Arrange to have incomplete sites completed
Hold insect I.D. classes
Summarize results of data
Devise a timeline and workplan for site selection and assessment
of accessibiity
Revise the timeline and workplan for the initial 100 points
Devise a timeline and workplan for next phase
Begin to finalize overall report

L-2

I
,, 3 6668 14103 6725 @c I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I