Rapid Bioassessment in - CT.GOV-Connecticut's … Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers By Volunteer Monitors Year 2004 Summary Report State of Connecticut Department of Environmental

Rapid Bioassessment in

Wadeable Streams and Rivers

By Volunteer Monitors

Year 2004 Summary Report

State of Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Water Management

Planning and Standards Division

Ambient Monitoring Program

Regina McCarthy, Commissioner

Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers by Volunteer Monitors 2004 Summary Report

Page 2 of 23

Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers

By Volunteer Monitors Year 2004 Summary Report

By Mike Beauchene

January 2005

Executive Summary: Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers by

Volunteer Monitors (RBV), http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm ,

(Appendix A), is a macroinvertebrate collection protocol developed by the Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management, Ambient

Monitoring Program (herein referred to as DEP). The goal of RBV is to provide

volunteer monitoring programs with a quick, efficient, and standardized methodology for

the collection of macroinvertebrate community data from wadeable streams. This data

can be used to screen for either very high or very low water quality and augment

monitoring conducted by DEP. The DEP has 20 sets of equipment available for short-

term loan to groups who have sponsored at least 1-RBV training session and intend to

submit samples to the DEP.

During the fifth official sampling season (fall 2004) 19 volunteer groups collected 54

macroinvertebrate samples on 43 different waterbodies across Connecticut. The number

of "most wanted" types ranged from a high of 5 at 4 locations (Beaver Brook-Lyme, East

Branch Salmon Brook-Granby, and 2 sites on the Saugatuck River-Weston) to a low of 0

at tributary to Gages Brook, Vernon. The 4 samples with 5 different types of the most

wanted indicate full support of aquatic life use. Twenty-seven of 54 samples indicated

excellent water quality (3-4 different types of most wanted), 11 very good water quality,

and 11 fair/good water quality, and only 1 poor water quality. To obtain additional

information about RBV or to become involved, please contact Mike Beauchene,

volunteer monitoring coordinator, by phone (860) 424-4185 or email

[email protected]

Acknowledgements: Without participation from the following this program would

not be possible: Connecticut Audubon (Glastonbury and Pomfret), Connecticut Fly

Fisherman's Association, Connecticut River Watch (Bolton Conservation

Commission, Eightmile River Watershed and Hockanum River Watershed

Associations), Enfield Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, Farmington

River Watershed Association, Housatonic Valley Association, Manchester

Community Technical College Science Club, Mansfield Girl Scout Troop 5284,

Nature Conservancy-Devils Den, Salmon Brook Watershed Association, Stafford

River Watchers, Trout Unlimited-Thames Chapter, UCONN soil and water

conservation society, and Willington Conservation Commission. In addition the

following individuals submitted data independent of a formal organization; Alex and

Cody Lorentson, Jane Seymour, and Carrie and David Sinish. Introduction: The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection is an equal opportunity/affirmative action

employer, offering their services without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or

disability. In conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the DEP makes every effort to

provide equally effective services for persons with disabilities. http://dep.state.ct.us/

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm

http://dep.state.ct.us/



Page 3 of 23

Stream and River Water Quality Monitoring:

Staff assigned to the ambient water quality monitoring and assessment program

are responsible for monitoring Connecticut’s approximately 5,484 miles of perennial

streams and rivers (CT DEP 1999). The monitoring program supports activities of the

DEP by providing data (chemical, physical, and biological) and related expertise to assess

surface water quality conditions and trends. Monitoring activities are prioritized and

focus on the most significant resources, selected reference sites, and in response to

nuisance complaints or concerns regarding pollution impacts. Approximately 20% of

state rivers and streams are monitored (CT DEP 2004).

The ultimate use of water quality data is to provide an assessment of the level of

support for each designated use for each river segment. This assessment process is

documented and described in the CT-Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology

(CT DEP 2004 CALM). A simple workflow diagram of the major steps in the CALM

process is presented below. During step 1 data are collected and evaluated, in step 2 the

data are compared to water quality standards and each river segment is assigned a level of

support for each designated use, finally in step 3 the water quality assessments are

reported to the public via the Report to Congress 305(b) [CT DEP 2004 305(b)] and the

List of Connecticut Waterbodies not Meeting Water Quality Standards 303(d) [CT DEP

2004 303(d)]. The cycle is ongoing and repeats itself with the monitoring and assessment

cycle.

A generalized workflow for water quality assessments performed by the CT DEP

STEP 1

Water Quality Monitoring Data Acquisition from the following sources;

CTDEP, USGS, volunteer monitoring, consultants, and academic research. The most recent

monitoring strategy is the Rotating Basin Approach and is available via the Internet at:

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/rotbasinplan.pdf. An updated strategy is currently under

development and will be available in the fall of 2004.

Water Quality Assessments: The process of evaluating the environmental data and

turning it into a water quality assessment is described in The Consolidated Assessment and

Listing Methodology (CALM) document and is available via the internet at:

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/calm/calm.htm.

In general, data are compared to the appropriate water quality standard. The most recent

standards are available via the Internet at: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/wqs.pdf

Water Quality Assessment Reporting: The water quality assessments are

published every 2 years in a document called the Water Quality Report to Congress (305B

Report). The most recent are available via the Internet at:

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/305b/2002_305b.htm

Impaired Segments: Those waterbody segments that do not meet the designated

use as defined in the CALM document are presented in the List of Impaired Waters (303D

List). The most recent are available via the Internet at:

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/tmdlbrief.htm

STEP 2

STEP 3

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/rotbasinplan.pdf

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/calm/calm.htm

http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/wqs.pdf


http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/tmdlbrief.htm


Page 4 of 23

WATER QUALITY MONITOIRING ASSESSMENTS:

A primary component of the Ambient Monitoring Program utilizes the riffle-

dwelling benthic macroinvertebrate community as an indicator of biological integrity.

Methods follow the USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III (RBPIII) for Streams and

Rivers [http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp] (Plafkin et al 1989). The RBPIII involves

collecting, sub-sampling, and identifying macroinvertebrates collected from riffle areas in

wadeable streams. The variety and abundance of macroinvertebrates from each site are

converted into a series of community structure metrics. The metrics from each site are

then compared to metrics from a reference site. The final result is an assessment of the

impairment level of the benthic community for each site.

The primary use of RBPIII assessments is to determine whether a section of

stream supports or does not support goals for aquatic life use support (Figure 1) as

described in the CT Water Quality Standards [http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wqs.pdf]

(CT DEP 1997). These assessments are also used for priority setting, trend monitoring,

establishing baseline conditions, and evaluating the effects of wastewater discharges and

non-point source (NPS) pollution.

2004 alus.shpFull Support

Full But T hreatenedPartial Support

Not SupportingUnatta inable

Not Assessed for AQ life

Aquatic Life Use Support Assessments

2004 Report to Congress

Figure 1. The aquatic life use support assessments for river and stream segments reported in the 2004

Water Quality Report to Congress 305(b).

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp


Page 5 of 23

RIFFLE-DWELLING: A riffle is an erosional section of a stream or river characterized by rapid

turbulent flow, a stable rocky substrate, and is wadeable most of the time. Other major stream habitats

are pools and runs/glides. Dwelling means living at least part of the life cycle within the riffle habitat.

BENTHIC: Living in or on the substrate (bottom) of

an aquatic environment.

MACRO: Large enough to be seen with the unaided eye.

The US EPA further defines a macro-organism

as one retained by a Standard Number 30-mesh sieve.

INVERTEBRATE: An animal without a backbone.

Other terms used to describe the RBP III method

SUB-SAMPLING: A process to generate a non-visually biased statistically representative sample of 100,

200 or 300 organisms collected in a sample.

COMMUNITY STRUCTURE METRICS: Are calculations based on the variety and abundance of

Macroinvertebrates collected at a site. The values provide the mathematical basis for comparing biological

communities from 2 distinct samples.

REFERENCE SITE: a specific locality on a waterbody, which is minimally impaired and is representative

of the expected ecological integrity of other localities on the same waterbody or nearby waterbodies.

Biological Indicators:

The presence, condition, and diversity of fish, insects, algae, and plants can

provide accurate information about the health of a specific river, stream, lake, wetland, or

estuary. These types of plants and animals are called biological indicators. Several

different biological communities have been utilized to evaluate environmental condition.

Other common communities used to assess aquatic systems are fish and periphyton

(algae). Each community has advantages and disadvantage for use. Additional

information regarding other bioindicators can be obtained via a website maintained by the

US EPA. (http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/about.html).

RIFFLE-DWELLING BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES DEFINED: The terms

used to characterize the organisms used in this water quality assessment tool are critical

for understanding the type of organism and the habitat to be sampled. The RBV method

will not provide accurate water quality assessment data if the definitions below are not

met.

Riffle Habitat Pool/Run Habitat

http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/about.html


Page 6 of 23

Advantages for using macroinvertebrates: (http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators)

Macroinvertebrates are found in all ranges of water quality, even areas considered very poor.

Methods for sample collection, processing, and data analyses are widely accepted, established,

and documented.

One or 2 people can capture a representative sample of the macroinvertebrate community with

relative ease, in less than 1 hour, and with relatively inexpensive equipment.

Macroinvertebrate populations recover rapidly from repeated sampling.

Many macroinvertebrates are resident in a stream up to 2 years or more. This results in an

integration of water quality conditions over time.

Macroinvertebrates have a wide range of environmental requirements.

Knowledge of changes in the community structure and function of benthic macroinvertebrates

helps to indicate water quality status and trends in the aquatic environment.

Why use RIFFLE-DWELLING BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES?

Macroinvertebrates are good indicators of water quality because of the biology of

the organisms. First, there are a large number of different types with various

environmental requirements. This results in a wide spectrum of responses to

environmental stress. Second, the organisms are small and have limited mobility during

the aquatic life stage. This allows for efficient collection and the ability to assess water

quality including the recent past. Third, established scientific methods for using

macroinvertebrates to assess water quality are readily available.

The characteristics of the macroinvertebrate community serve as a useful tool for

detecting environmental perturbation provided that the habitat and other environmental

variables (including time of year) are controlled as much as possible. The composition of

the macroinvertebrate community usually reflects water quality during the recent past,

including any infrequently discharged pollutants and non-point sources of pollution that

are difficult to detect by periodic chemical sampling.


Page 7 of 23

THE RBV ORGANISMS

Additional information including Field Identification Cards can be found on the web at:

(http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm)

Each RBV organism has distinct shape, structure, color, or behavior and provides key ecological information about the

stream environment. Each of the organisms are grouped into one of three "wanted" categories; Most, Moderate, or Least.

Most Wanted: In general these organisms require a narrow range of high quality environmental conditions. When

found in abundance very good water quality can be inferred.

Moderately Wanted: These organisms can be found in a variety of environmental conditions from high to

medium quality. When found in abundance and in the absence of most wanted types, water quality may be less

than optimal.

Least Wanted: These organisms tend to be tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions including poor water

quality. When found in abundance and in the absence of either most or moderate representatives, some level of water

quality impairment can be inferred.

It is important to note that the "least wanted" are able to thrive in many environmental conditions while the "most

wanted" thrive only under non-impacted high quality conditions. Therefore the most definitive RBV data are the

collections with good representation of organisms in the "most wanted" category.

Volunteer Monitoring and Macroinvertebrates:

Due to the utility of macroinvertebrate data, some volunteer monitoring groups

have implemented programs similar to RBPIII used by the DEP. However, many

monitors will agree that this process is anything but rapid. Even the most dedicated

volunteers can struggle with the tedium of sub-sampling and family level identification.

RBV capitalizes on the utility of macroinvertebrate data while keeping the methods and

equipment straightforward, standardized, inexpensive, and most importantly “rapid”.

The RBV method may be less sensitive in terms of its ability to detect subtle

differences in the community structure because of reduced taxonomic rigor. However,

the ability to characterize a broad range of water quality conditions is good. We believe

the benefits of RBV in terms of the utility it provides to volunteer monitoring groups and

consequently the additional data they provide to DEP far offset any loss of sensitivity.

The RBV protocol includes 26 macroinvertebrates, each with distinct shape,

structure, color, or behavior. Detailed information about each organism can be found on

the field identification cards/panels (http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/rbvcards.pdf).

Each of these organisms has been placed into 1 of 3 categories most wanted (card/panels

1-8), moderately wanted (card/panels 9-14), and least wanted (card/panel 15). The most

wanted category consists of macroinvertebrates typically found in streams characterized

by high water quality. The moderately wanted category consists of those found in both

unimpaired and slightly impaired water quality. The least wanted category consists of

those found in all types of water from unimpaired to severely impaired. These 3

qualitative categories are intended to characterize water quality and are not intended to

imply that a specific group is harmful or result in nuisance conditions. No organism

included on the RBV list has higher or lower ecological value than any other.


Page 8 of 23

RBV Program Implementation:

Twenty volunteer monitoring programs or individual citizens participated during

the 2004 sampling season (September-December). Prior to collecting the

macroinvertebrates most groups sponsored a 3-hour training session in which the DEP

Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator described the program and introduced the participants

to the RBV methodology. Approximately 232 people attended at least one of these

training sessions. In most cases, the organization implemented RBV either immediately

following the training session or within a week. A quality assurance project plan (QAPP)

was written by DEP and approved by EPA in January of 2003. This document describes

all aspects of the RBV program and how controls are in place to insure the data collected

meets data quality standards. Any group participating in the program will be covered

under the QAPP until 2007.

Groups who participated in RBV were loaned all the equipment

necessary to complete the protocol; including, kick-net, sorting trays, forceps,

hand-lenses, vial and alcohol, and the list of macroinvertebrates (Appendix C).

Each organism on the list has distinct shape, structure, color, or behavior and

provides key ecological information about the stream environment. Following

the standard procedures, volunteers collected benthic macroinvertebrates in

the fall and determined the relative abundance (none, few, some or many) of

each macroinvertebrate on the list. At least one specimen of each type was

preserved in a labeled vial containing rubbing alcohol (voucher collection).

The final products from the RBV protocol were a completed data sheet and a

voucher collection. The datasheet was submitted to DEP via phone, fax, or

email. The voucher collection was delivered to DEP soon after the protocol

was completed. In general the entire process occurred at the stream site and was

completed by most monitors within a few hours. The most useful information for the

DEP came from those groups who completed the RBV process at multiple sites along a

reach of river not routinely monitored by DEP. Samples collected at 15 of the 54 sites

were at locations that were not prioritized for ambient monitoring by DEP personnel

(Figure 2).


Page 9 of 23

Figure 2. Location of the 54 RBV sampling locations collected by 20 organizations during fall 2004.

Specific location information for each site is listed in Appendix B.

"³

"¶

"³

"²

%O

&J

&J

"±

&J

"²"²"²

&D

"±

%x%x

'Q

#·

$y$y

$y$y

&J"³"³

%I

&D

%x

x|x|x|

x|

x|x|

x|x|

#·

(R(R(R&J

&J(F'Q'Q

"±

$B%C%C$Z"G'Q'Q

#

9-006

#9-004

#

9-005

#

9-008

#

9-007#

9-001#

9-003

#

9-002

#

48-002

#

48-001

48-003

# 48-004

#

7-004

#

7-005

#

7-003

#

7-006

#

46-001

#

7-001

#

24-002#

24-001

#

36-003

# 36-002#

36-001

# 21-007

#

21-005

21-006

#

21-008

21-009

#

21-004

#

43-001

43-003#

43-002

#

26-006

#26-008

#

26-007#

26-005

#

40-001

# 28-002

#35-002

35-003

#

44-001

#

41-001#

45-001

#

42-001

#

42-002#

38-001

#

20-002

#

32-004

#

32-006

47-003

#

47-002

47-001#

32-001

#

32-002

2004 RBV Sample Location and Collector (Collector Id number)

#· Bolton Conservation Commission (35)

%O CT Audubon- Glastonbury (28)

&J CT Audubon-Pomfret (21)

"¶ Cody and Alex Lorentson (40)

%C Connecticut Fly Fishermans Association (42)

(F David and Carrie Sinish (46)

$y Eightmile River Association (26)

%x Enfield Conservation Commission (36)

'Q Farmington River Watershed Association (7)

"³ Hockanum River Watershed Association (32)

x| Housatonic Valley Association (9)

(R Jane Seymour (47)

%I MCTC Science and Technology Club (20)

"G Mansfield Girl Scout Troop 5284 (44)

&D Salmon Brook Watershed Association (24)

$B Stafford River Watchers (45)

"² The Nature Conservancy-Devils Den (48)

"± Trout Unlimited-Thames Chapter (43)

UCONN Soil and Water Conservation Club (38)

$Z Willington Conservation Commission (41)

The 54 locations where the RBV Protocol

was completed during the fall of 2004

(collector id number - site number)


Page 10 of 23

Results:

As part of the EPA RBP III protocol, the DEP routinely samples a network of 10

reference sites. A reference site is a specific locality on a waterbody, which is minimally

impaired and is representative of the expected ecological integrity of other localities on

the same waterbody or nearby waterbodies. To provide some numbers for comparing the

RBV to reference condition, samples collected from 1995-2000 were applied to the RBV

"wanted categories". The summary statistics for the reference site community data are

presented in Table 1. The minimum number of most wanted for reference condition is 4;

the average is 7 and the maximum 9. For DEP aquatic life use assessment purposes any

site with 5 or more most wanted organisms was considered to be fully supporting the use.

This is a conservative criteria but one that combined with the method provides the most

conclusive conclusions for the RBV dataset.

Table 1. Summary statistics for the 10 reference station community data collected from 1995-2000.

A list of the RBV organism categories collected at each site during fall 2004 is

presented in Table 2. The variety of RBV organisms collected ranged from a high of 17

total types to a low of 3 total types. At least one representative from the "most wanted"

category was collected every site except for the Tributary to Gages Brook site. (The

Hockanum River behind Adams Mill, Manchester was sampled twice by the MCTC

science and technology club. During the first trip, 1 most wanted type was collected).

Four sites, (Beaver Brook 26-005, East Branch Salmon Brook 24-002, and 2 sites

on the Saugatuck River 48-001 and 48-002) had >4 most wanted and the DEP monitoring

staff are confident these sites are fully supporting the aquatic life water quality standard.

Samples with < 4 types in the "most wanted" category do not automatically indicate

impairment or water quality degradation. Those sites with 3 or 4 most wanted types are

probably fully supporting but lack the few extra taxa that make the four sites above

exceptional. In these situations additional review is conducted by DEP to determine the

particular species present, land use characteristics upstream of the monitoring location,

and the potential for sampling/methodology errors.

Statistic Most Wanted Moderately Wanted Least Wanted

Maximum 9 7 4

75th percentile 8 6 3

Median 7 6 2

Average 7 6 2

25th percentile 5 5 1

Minimum 4 3 1


Page 11 of 23

Waterbody Date bas

in i

d

site

nu

mb

er

Pan

el #

1

Pan

el #

2

Pan

el #

3

Pan

el #

4

Pan

el #

5

Pan

el #

6

Pan

el #

7

Pan

el #

8

To

tal

Mo

st T

yp

es

Pan

el #

9

Pan

el #

10

Pan

el #

11

Pan

el #

12

Pan

el #

13

Pan

el #

14

To

tal

Mo

der

ate

Ty

pes

Pan

el #

15

To

tal

Lea

st T

yp

es

To

tal

Nu

mb

er o

f T

yp

es

Beaver Brook 11/6/2004 4803 26-005 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4 4 15

East Branch Salmon Brook 11/6/2004 4320 24-002 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 13

Saugatuck River 11/20/2004 7200 48-001 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 5 5 17

Saugatuck River 11/20/2004 7200 48-002 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 10

Aspetuck River 11/20/2004 7202 48-004 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 5 3 3 12

Bungee Brook 11/20/2004 3201 21-008 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 8

Clatter Valley Brook 11/1/2004 6000 9-004 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 8

Knowlton Brook 9/25/2004 3205 38-001 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 10

Lee Brook 9/2/2004 6000 9-002 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 2 12

Morgan Brook 10/16/2004 4305 7-004 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 11

Tributary to Eight Mile River 11/6/2004 4800 26-007 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 12

West Branch Salmon Brook 10/30/2004 4319 24-001 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 10

Willimantic River 9/25/2004 3100 45-001 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 9

Barrows Brook 10/17/2004 4503 47-002 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 7

Cherry Brook 10/16/2004 4309 7-006 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 8

Gages Brook 10/2/2004 4503 32-006 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 7

Harris Brook 11/6/2004 4801 26-006 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 10

Kettletown Brook 9/12/2004 6021 9-003 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 11

Nod Brook 10/16/2004 4317 7-001 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 10

Pease Brook 10/2/2004 3905 43-003 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 10

Ratlum Brook 10/16/2004 4308 7-003 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 10

Scantic River 10/23/2004 4200 36-001 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 5 3 3 11

Scantic River 10/23/2004 4200 36-003 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 9

Tankerhoosen River 10/2/2004 4503 32-002 2 1 3 1 1 2 5

Tankerhoosen River 10/10/2004 4503 47-001 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 8

Terry Brook 10/23/2004 4200 36-002 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 4 9

Town Farm Brook 9/26/2004 6000 9-006 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 7

West Branch Saugatuck River 11/20/2004 7203 48-003 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 10

Willimantic River 9/25/2004 3100 42-001 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 10

Yantic River 10/2/2004 3900 43-001 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 6 2 2 11

Yantic River 10/2/2004 3900 43-002 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 11

Burhams Brook 11/6/2004 4800 26-008 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 10

French Brook 10/24/2004 4707 35-003 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 7

Hitchcock Mill Brook 9/22/2004 6000 9-005 1 1 2 0 2

Morgan Brook 10/16/2004 4305 7-005 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 7

Natchaug River 11/15/2004 3200 21-004 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 6

Pond Brook 9/12/2004 6000 9-007 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 8

Roaring Brook 9/25/2004 4009 28-002 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 10

Roaring Brook 9/25/2004 3104 41-001 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 8

Roaring Brook 9/25/2004 3104 44-001 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 8

Still River 11/17/2004 3202 21-009 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 8

Willimantic River 9/25/2004 3100 42-002 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 8

Blackledge River 10/24/2004 4707 35-002 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 8

Hockanum River 11/20/2004 4500 20-002 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 6

Hop Brook 9/15/2004 6000 9-008 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Little Pootatuck Brook 10/4/2004 6000 9-001 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Mashamoquet Brook 9/17/2004 3710 21-005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6

Mashamoquet Brook 10/6/2004 3710 21-006 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6

Pocotopaug Creek 9/6/2004 4709 40-001 1 1 1 1 1 3 4

French River 11/6/2004 3300 21-007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 7

Rattlesnake Brook 10/17/2004 4300 46-001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6

Tankerhoosen River 10/2/2004 4503 32-001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 7

Tankerhoosen River 10/2/2004 4503 32-004 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 8

Hockanum River 10/23/2004 4500 20-002 0 1 1 1 3 3 3 6

Tributary to Gages Brook 10/22/2004 4503 47-003 0 1 1 2 2 2 4


Page 12 of 23

The 3 most commonly collected organisms were Chimarra (97% of sites),

Hydropsychidae (94% of sites), and Perlidae (81% of sites). The 3 least commonly

collected were Drunella and Epeorus (0% of sites) and Corydalus (3% of sites). As

expected, moderately wanted organisms (panels 9-14) were the most commonly collected

category (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Percent occurrence of each type of organism included in the RBV protocol. Samples were

collected from 31 sites during the fall of 2003. "Most Wanted" organisms are blue (panel numbers 1-8),

"Moderately Wanted" are organisms are yellow (panel numbers 9-14), and "Least Wanted" organisms are

red (panel 15). *The panel number is an identification aid. The panel number refers to the category order

on both the identification card and the datasheet.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Dru

nella

Ison

ych

ia

Epe

orus

Pelt

oper

lidae

Perl

idae

Pter

onar

ycs

Mis

c. S

tone

fly

Apa

tani

a

Glo

ssos

oma

Rh

yaco

phila

Lepi

dos

tom

a

Hyd

rops

ych

idae

Ch

imar

ra

Ste

none

ma

Psep

hen

us

Cor

ydal

us

Nig

roni

a

Od

onat

a

Am

phip

od

Isop

od

Leec

h

Mid

ge

Sim

uliid

ae

Sna

il

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15

Panel Number and Organism Name

Sta

tio

ns

Pre

se

nt

(%)

N =

31


Page 13 of 23

In general high quality sites should have nearly equal representation of most

(blue) and moderately (yellow) wanted categories and some representation of least

wanted (red). As the amount of most (blue) is replaced by moderate (yellow) and least

(red) water quality may be limiting. The average percent contribution for the 54 samples

collected during fall 2004 was 31% most, 55% moderate, and 14% least wanted.

Most sites had good representation in the most wanted category. Eleven sites had

>40% most wanted types. with Gages Brook having the highest percent (50%). Sites

sampled in 2003 tended to be high quality small to medium size streams. Only 4 sites

had >40% least wanted with Hemingway Creek having the highest (83%). Additionally,

Hemingway Creek was the only stream not to have at least 1 representative from the most

wanted category. The sites at the low end of the scale were for the most part in high-

density residential areas with a large percentage of impervious surface land use (Figure 4

and Figure 5).

Figure 4. Distribution of each RBV category for 54 samples collected during fall 2004. A blue wedge

indicates the proportion of the "most wanted" types of macroinvertebrates, yellow "moderately wanted" and

red "least wanted". Each site is assigned a number for use within DEP. The number is based on the

following XX-YYY, where XX=an id assigned to the volunteer monitoring group and the YYY is the site

number assigned chronologically. For example, 24-001 is the first site monitored by the Salmon Brook

Watershed Association. A complete description of each site location by site number is presented in

Appendix B.

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

21-007

#

21-005

21-006

#

43-002

#

43-001

43-003

#

26-006#

26-008

# 26-005#26-007

#

40-001

#

28-002

#

35-003

#

35-002

#

21-004

#

38-001

#

21-009

#

21-008

#

36-003

#

36-002

#

36-001

#

24-001#

24-002

#

7-001

#

7-004

#

7-005#

7-003#

7-006#

46-001

#

48-001

48-003

#

48-002

# 48-004

#

9-003

#

9-002

#

9-001

#

9-007

#

9-008

#

9-005

#

9-004#

9-006

#

20-002

#

32-004

#

44-001#

45-001

# 41-001#

42-002

#

42-001

# 32-006

47-003#

47-002

47-001

#

32-002

2004 RBV SamplesMost Wanted Organisms

Moderately W anted Organisms

Least Wanted Organisms

Percent composition of each RBV category

for samples collected during the fall of 2004.

(collector id - site number)


Page 14 of 23

Upp er Tha me s Basin

Site Loca tio ns

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

Vernon

Manc hes ter

Bolton

South W inds or

East Hartford

#

32-006

#

32-001

#

32-002

#

32-004

#

35-001

#

35-002

#

20-002

#

38-002

Tankerhoosen and Black ledge

Site Locations

#

#

##

#

#

##

Suffield

Granby

Enfield

Ellington

Windsor

Simsbury

Barkhamsted

Bloomfield

East Windsor

South Windsor

East Granby

Windsor Locks

#

24-002

#

24-001

#

36-001

#

36-002

Upper C T River W atershed

Site loc ations

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Lym e

Sa le m

Ea st Ha dda m

#

26-006

#

26-008

#

26-007

#

26-005

Eight mile Rive r W ate rsh ed

Site Loca tion s

#

#

#

#

Avon

#

07-002

#

07-001

Nod Bro ok

Site Loca tio ns

RBV CategoryMost WantedModerately WantedLeast Wanted

# Sample location

Percentage of each "wanted category"by site for samples collected

Fall 2003

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

Po mf re t

Ashford

Man sfield

Coven try

Ea st ford

W ill in gto n

Broo klyn

Ham pto n

Pu tna m

Cha plin

#

21-002

#

21-005

#

21-003

#

21-004#

38-001

#

11-005

#

11-004#

11-002#

11-003

Figure 5. Distribution of each RBV category for selected samples collected during fall 2003. A blue

wedge indicates the proportion of the "most wanted" types of macroinvertebrates, yellow "moderately

wanted" and red "least wanted". These close-up maps were made because at a smaller map scale the pies

overlap. A complete description of each site location by site number is presented in Appendix B.


Page 15 of 23

Sites monitored consecutive years:

Eight of the 31 sites were monitored during consecutive years (Table 3). The

community structure remained stable or changed only slightly at all of these 8 sites. The

stream flows this fall were well above median values throughout the entire fall sampling

season. Sampling during high flows can and usually does reduce the sampling efficiency.

The Salmon Brook Watershed association noted very high flows with difficult sampling

conditions on their sample date. The Chaplin Conservation commission (3 year

participant) was unable to sample at all due to the continuous elevated flows on the

Natchaug River.

Macroinvertebrate community sampling is inherently variable. The data

presented below may be a reflection of this variability and not a reflection of subtle

changes in water quality. Additional sampling events at these locations are necessary to

determine long-term trends.

Table 3. A comparison of the 8 sites that have been monitored during consecutive years. The total

numbers of each RBV category are listed. The change in the community structure is noted.

(Macroinvertebrate community sampling is inherently variable. The data presented below may be a

reflection of this variability and not a reflection of subtle changes in water quality. Additional sampling

events at these locations are necessary to determine long-term trends).

Stream name Drainage

code

Site number Fall of

Year

Most Moderate Least Community

Structure

Tankerhoosen

River

4503 32-001 2003 4 5 1 Slight

Decrease 2002 6 5 0

Tankerhoosen

River

4503 32-002 2003 5 5 2 Stable

2002 5 4 4

Tankerhoosen

River

4503 32-004 2003 4 4 5 Slight

Increase 2002 2 5 4

Fenton River 3207 11-002 2003 4 5 0 Stable

2002 4 5 0

Fenton River 3207 11-003 2003 3 5 0

Stable 2002 4 5 2

2000 4 4 1

Fenton River 3207 11-004 2003 3 6 2

2002 6 6 1 Slight

Decrease 2000 6 7 2

Salmon Brook 4320 24-002 2003* 3 5 2 Slight

Decrease* 2002 5 6 1

2001 6 5 1

West Branch

Salmon Brook

4319 24-001 2003 4 6 2 Stable

2002 4 4 2 *Difficult sampling condition noted due to high flow


Page 16 of 23

Discussion The major success of the RBV program during the fourth sampling season was

the level of participation by volunteer monitoring programs. During the early to mid

1990's volunteer monitoring using macroinvertebrates was very popular. Most groups

implemented the family-level bioassessment method. Unfortunately the extensive time

commitment required to complete the process at a single site caused many groups to

abandon or reduce their monitoring activity. During the RBV field trial year (1999), the

DEP encouraged these programs to "try" the new RBV protocol. Following the first field

season (fall 2000), most groups were very successful and intended to participate in fall

2001. Only 3 of the 7 groups originally trained in either 1999 or 2000 participated in the

program during 2004. Of the 9 groups who participated in 2002, five returned to repeat

the sampling during 2003.

In 2004, 10 monitoring groups participated in the RBV program for the first time

(Figure 6). All 10 groups agreed the new method would enable their monitoring to start

and/or expand. All of the groups were able to take advantage of the equipment kits

loaned by the DEP in order to complete the protocol. For the fouth year the number of

groups returning for a consecutive sampling season increased. The number of stations

and waterbodies monitored also increased substaintially.

Figure 6. Level of effort for RBV program. The program started in the fall of 2000, thus there are

no returning programs.

RBV Program Effort

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Implementation Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Gro

up

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sit

es/W

ate

rbo

die

s

New Program Return Program Sites Sampled

Waterbodies Monitored New Site Re-Monitored


Page 17 of 23

Of equal if not greater importance, was the sense of accomplishment by the

volunteers. After completing the protocol many volunteers were satisfied that they had

(1) helped their program meet it's goals, (2) provided some useful information to the

DEP, and (3) successfully used a tool to obtain additional knowledge about a stream

based upon the resident aquatic life. Compared to traditional family-level bioassessment,

most participants agree the RBV program is better for their needs.

The most efficient implementation of RBV was through an "RBV day". An

"RBV day" is a daylong event sponsored by a volunteer group. All participants meet at a

central location where the morning is dedicated to training and the afternoon to collection

and data analysis. Each team of monitors are assigned a sampling site(s) and provided

with an equipment kit borrowed from the DEP. The participants then travel to their site,

collect, identify, and preserve their voucher collection. The samples and equipment are

then returned to the DEP. The entire "RBV day" lasts 6-7 hours. Additionally, on such

days, Mike Beauchene (DEP volunteer monitoring coordinator) was able to attend to

provide both technical assistance and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC).

The DEP encourages implementation of the RBV protocol through "RBV-days".

By having the day split between training (or refresher training) and actual sample

collection, DEP resources (loaner equipment and QA/QC support) are maximized while

reducing the time commitment for each volunteer. As the program organizers gain

confidence in the sampling methodology, the DEP encourages the veteran groups to

"strike out on their own". This enables DEP staff to focus on training new programs or

refreshing year 2 programs.

DEP Concerns and Potential Solution from year 5 and progress:

While some minor issues were discovered during these first 4 sampling seasons

the RBV method seems to be a useful tool. It has been observed that as each group gains

experience and confidence their effort becomes more efficient. They are successful at

implementing the program independently while borrowing the equipment from DEP.

Concern: "Organisms not accounted for" check off on the datasheet not in

voucher collection.

Potential Solution: Emphasize must have at least one of each type of organism

to count. When in doubt put it in.

Concern: "Too rapid": The major concern regarding the RBV protocol is the

volunteer's perception of "ease". One major advantage of RBV is the reduced total time

commitment for volunteers. The reduced time is a result of the elimination of post

collection processing (sub-sampling), family level identification, metric calculations, and

metric comparison. However, the field component of the RBV protocol (collection and

observation of the organisms) is not any less time consuming than more intensive

methods like family-level bioassessment. In fact, to collect high quality data, the

collection and observation of the organisms must involve more time than traditional


Page 18 of 23

methods. Participants must take significant time and care to (1) select an appropriate

riffle sampling location (2) perform an adequate kick sample, and (3) observe and sort

the organisms carefully to insure representation of all types of macroinvertebrates

present. Potential Solution: Additional support materials were developed to emphasize

"Good Technique". A Microsoft Power-point presentation was implemented during the

training sessions, which served to compare and contrast good vs. poor techniques.

Several "Good techniques" for the RBV protocol include; look for loosely embedded

cobbles in moderate to swift moving sections of a riffle, carefully rub each rock in order

to remove all organisms, and spread the collected debris thin enough with limited water

in each tray to optimize organism visibility. The integrity of the protocol is greatly

reduced by poorly selected riffles, limited kick effort, and/or hasty organism sorting.

Concern: "Other organism(s)": The potential for collection of organisms not

included in the RBV protocol is very high because RBV focuses on relatively few stream

macroinvertebrates. Some of the commonly collected "others" create some minor

confusion during identification and enumeration process.

Potential Solution: A new datasheet will be implemented in the fall of 2005. The

datasheet has a set of commonly collected organisms that are not part of the Most,

Moderate, or Least groupings. The organisms included are crayfish, crane fly larvae,

riffle beetle adult and larva, planaria (flatworms), and fingernail clams and freshwater

mussels. These can be checked off indicating presence at the site. These organism

should be contained in the voucher collection as well.

References: CT DEP 2004. 2004 Water Quality Report To Congress. Bureau of Water Management,

Planning and Standards Division, Hartford, CT.


CT DEP 2004 CALM. Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology for 305(b) and

303(d) Reporting. Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division,

Hartford, CT. http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/calm/calm.htm

CT DEP 2004 303(d). 2004 List of Connecticut Water Bodies not meeting Water Quality

Standards. Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division, Hartford,

CT. http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/tmdlbrief.htm

CT DEP 1999. Ambient Monitoring Strategy for Rivers and Streams, Rotating Basin

Approach. Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division, Hartford,

CT. http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/rotbasinplan.pdf


Page 19 of 23

CT DEP 1997. Water Quality Standards. Bureau of Water Management, Planning and

Standards Division, Hartford, CT. http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/wqs.pdf

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid

Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and

Fish. EPA/444/4-89-00.

Additional Sources of Related Information

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

DEP Web site: http://dep.state.ct.us/

DEP Bureau of water management: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/index.htm

RBV web page: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency:

Volunteer monitoring: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/vol.html

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/

Biological Monitoring: http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators

Regional Web Sites:

New England Regional Monitoring Collaborative:

http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/nermc.html

RBV Participant Program web sites:

Thames Chapter Trout Unlimited:

Connecticut Audubon

Pomfret, Contact: Paula Coughlin (860) 928-4948

http://www.ctaudubon.org/centers/pomfret/pomfret.htm

Glastonbury, Contact: Judy Harper (860) 633-8402

http://www.ctaudubon.org/centers/glastonbury/glastonbury.htm

Other Volunteer Monitoring Organizations In Connecticut Who Have Submitted

Wadeable Stream Data to DEP:

A national directory of volunteer monitoring organization can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/vol.html

Connecticut River Watch Program

Middletown, Contact Jane Brawerman (860) 346-3282.

Housatonic Valley Association Cornwall, Contact: Petra Volinski (860) 672-6678.

Windham County Soil and Water Conservation District

Brooklyn, Contact: Scott Gravatt (860) 774-8397.


http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/index.htm

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm


http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/

http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators

http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/nermc.html



Page 20 of 23

Nature Center for Environmental Activities Westport, Contact: Richard Harris (203) 227-7253.

Project SEARCH

Derby, Contact: Chris Sullivan (203) 734-2513.

Quinnipiac River Watershed Association: http://www.qrwa.org/

APPENDIX A: RBV resources available on the Internet: All of the materials for the RBV program are available on the DEP web page at these

addresses. HOME PAGE: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm

2002 Summary of Volunteer Monitoring Program (PDF, 1230K)



Part 1: Program Description (PDF, 750 K) - This document describes the Rapid

Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers by Volunteer Monitors (RBV)

program.

Part 2: Instructions (PDF, 1415 K) - This document provides step by step

instructions for the RBV protocol and provides a consistent method for volunteer

groups to use when submitting surface water quality information to DEP.

Macroinvertebrate Field Identification Cards (PDF, 676 K) - At the core of the

RBV program are the macroinvertebrates represented on these cards. Each

organism has distinct shape, structure, color, or behavior and provides key

ecological information about the stream environment. Each card lists the common

name across the top and the category at the bottom. These bands are color-coded

based on the ecology of each organism.

Blue = Most Wanted. In general these organisms require a narrow range of

environmental conditions. When found in abundance one can infer non-impaired

stream condition.

Yellow = Moderately Wanted. These organisms can be found in a variety of

water quality conditions. When found in abundance further information about

the upstream watershed may be necessary to infer water quality.

Red = Least Wanted. These organisms tend to be very tolerant of a wide range

of environmental conditions. As a result when these organisms comprise the

majority of a sample, one can infer some level of water quality impairment.

Data sheet (PDF, 133 K) - This is the official data sheet for the RBV protocol. It

should be submitted along with the collection of macroinvertebrate vouchers to

Mike Beauchene, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, at phone (860) 424-4185,

fax (860) 424-4055, or [email protected]

Macroinvertebrate Sorting Guide (PDF, 211 K) - This 1 page flow chart will

assist volunteer monitors in narrowing their macroinvertebrate identification

http://www.qrwa.org/

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/2002rbvsummary.pdf



http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/rbvpt1.pdf

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/rbvpt2.pdf

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/rbvcards.pdf

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/rbvdatasht.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/rbpkey.pdf


Page 21 of 23

choice. The flow chart is not designed to be a comprehensive key for

macroinvertebrates. The chart should be used for preliminary sorting and

grouping when implementing the RBV protocol.

Quality Assurance Project Plan (PDF, 163 K) - A Quality Assurance Project Plan is a document that

provides a plan to insure data collected for a specific project will meet a particular standard. A QAPP is

required for any water quality monitoring program that receives funding through EPA. This document is a

template that can be used by any volunteer monitoring program intending collect macroinvertebrate

community data using the RBV method. Standardized guidance for QAPP can be found on the EPA

volunteer monitoring web page: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/vol.html

Appendix B Table of locations sorted by Volunteer Group name and site number.

RBV participant site number Waterbody Basin id proximity landmark Municipality

Bolton Conservation Commission 35-002 Blackledge River 4707 500 downstream Deming Road Bolton

Bolton Conservation Commission 35-003 French Brook 4707 at French Road Bolton

CT Audubon- Glastonbury 28-002 Roaring Brook 4009 upstream Route 17 Glastonbury

CT Audubon-Pomfret 21-004 Natchaug River 3200 at Route 198 entrance to Natchaug SF Eastford

CT Audubon-Pomfret 21-005 Mashamoquet Brook 3710 500 meters downstream Route 44 in State Park Pomfret

CT Audubon-Pomfret 21-006 Mashamoquet Brook 3710 end paved section of road in state park Pomfret

CT Audubon-Pomfret 21-007 French River 3300 at Main Street (Red Bridge Road) Thompson

CT Audubon-Pomfret 21-008 Bungee Brook 3201 downstream Mill Bridge Road Eastford

CT Audubon-Pomfret 21-009 Still River 3202 behind Post Office at eastford center Eastford

Cody and Alex Lorentson 40-001 Pocotopaug Creek 4709 50 m upstream Route 16 East Hampton

Connecticut Fly Fishermans Association 42-001 Willimantic River 3100 upstream Roaring Brook Confluence Willington

Connecticut Fly Fishermans Association 42-002 Willimantic River 3100 behind I-84 Rest Stop at exits 69-70 West bound Willington

David and Carrie Sinish 46-001 Rattlesnake Brook 4300 upstream 200 meters from Dyer Ave. Canton

Eightmile River Association 26-005 Beaver Brook 4803 Downstream bridge at 55-123 Beaver Brook Road Lyme

Eightmile River Association 26-006 Harris Brook 4801 at Mouth Salem

Eightmile River Association 26-007 Tributary to Eight Mile River 4800 at trail crossing off MacIntosh Road Lyme

Eightmile River Association 26-008 Burhams Brook 4800 at Mouth East Haddam

Enfield Conservation Commission 36-001 Scantic River 4200 downstream 100 meters South Maple Street Enfield

Enfield Conservation Commission 36-002 Terry Brook 4200 Downstream footbridge Green manor Park Enfield

Enfield Conservation Commission 36-003 Scantic River 4200 downstream Route 83 at state line Somers

Farmington River Watershed Association 7-001 Nod Brook 4317 DS Route 10 Avon

Farmington River Watershed Association 7-003 Ratlum Brook 4308 downstream Farmington River Turnpyke at mouth New Hartford

Farmington River Watershed Association 7-004 Morgan Brook 4305 downstream East West Hill Road ADJ to Rte 44 Barkhamsted

Farmington River Watershed Association 7-005 Morgan Brook 4305 downstream Morgan Brook Road Barkhamsted

Farmington River Watershed Association 7-006 Cherry Brook 4309 upstream Route 44 Canton

Hockanum River Watershed Association 32-001 Tankerhoosen River 4503 DS Bolton Road Vernon

Hockanum River Watershed Association 32-002 Tankerhoosen River 4503 upstream Tunnel Road Vernon

Hockanum River Watershed Association 32-004 Tankerhoosen River 4503 upstream 100 m mouth at golf land Vernon

Hockanum River Watershed Association 32-006 Gages Brook 4503 at footbridge on Tolland Agricultural Center Property Tolland

Housatonic Valley Association 9-001 Little Pootatuck Brook 6000 adjacent Flat Hill Road near River Road Southbury

Housatonic Valley Association 9-002 Lee Brook 6000 at Lakemere Road Southbury

Housatonic Valley Association 9-003 Kettletown Brook 6021 at Mouth Southbury

Housatonic Valley Association 9-004 Clatter Valley Brook 6000 at Stone Bridge in Clatter Valley Park Bridgewater

Housatonic Valley Association 9-005 Hitchcock Mill Brook 6000 at Sunny Valley Preserve Bridge near camp silverman Bridgewater

Housatonic Valley Association 9-006 Town Farm Brook 6000 at Darwin Hill Road New Milford

Housatonic Valley Association 9-007 Pond Brook 6000 at Bridge at State Boat Launch Newtown

Housatonic Valley Association 9-008 Hop Brook 6000 at Barkwood Hill Road and Hop Brook Road Brookfield

Jane Seymour 47-001 Tankerhoosen River 4503 upstream Fish and Game Road and tributary Vernon

Jane Seymour 47-002 Barrows Brook 4503 upstream Confluence with Tankerhoosen Vernon

Jane Seymour 47-003 Triburary to Gages Brook 4503 between Rte 84 and confluence with Gages Brook Tolland

Mansfield Girl Scout Troop 5284 44-001 Roaring Brook 3104 upstream Polister Road Willington

MCTC Science and Technology Club 20-002 Hockanum River 4500 behind Adams Mill Restaurant Manchester

MCTC Science and Technology Club 20-002 Hockanum River 4500 behind Adams Mill Restaurant Manchester

Salmon Brook Watershed Association 24-001 West Branch Salmon Brook 4319 Adjacent Salmon Brook Park Granby

Salmon Brook Watershed Association 24-002 East Branch Salmon Brook 4320 Downstream Route 20 Granby

Stafford River Watchers 45-001 Willimantic River 3100 upstream Route 32 Ellington

The Nature Conservancy-Devils Den 48-001 Saugatuck River 7200 at DS end of Fly Fishing Only Area (1 Ford Rd) Westport

The Nature Conservancy-Devils Den 48-002 Saugatuck River 7200 at Keene Park Parking Lot Weston

The Nature Conservancy-Devils Den 48-003 West Branch Saugatuck River 7203 at Glendenning Parking Lot Weston

The Nature Conservancy-Devils Den 48-004 Aspetuck River 7202 Upstream Confluence with Saugatuck River at Lyons Plain Rd Weston

Trout Unlimited-Thames Chapter 43-001 Yantic River 3900 upstream Stanton Road Bozrah

Trout Unlimited-Thames Chapter 43-002 Yantic River 3900 upstream Stockhouse Road adjacent to Bozrah Cemetary Bozrah

Trout Unlimited-Thames Chapter 43-003 Pease Brook 3905 upstream 150 meters from confluence with Yantic River Bozrah

UCONN Soil and Water Conservation Club 38-001 Knowlton Brook 3205 downstream Upton Road Ashford

Willington Conservation Commission 41-001 Roaring Brook 3104 downstream Ruby Lake outlet Willington

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/qapp.pdf

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/qapp.pdf



Page 22 of 23

Appendix C: Ecological information for RBV organisms. The RBV protocol has 26 types of macroinvertebrates, each with distinct shape, structure, color, or

behavior. Detailed information about each organism can be found on the field identification cards/panels

(http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/rbvcards.pdf). Each of these organisms has been placed into 1 of 3

categories most wanted (card/panels 1-8), moderately wanted (card/panels 9-14), and least wanted

(card/panel 15). The "most wanted" category contains the macroinvertebrates typically found in streams

characterized by high water quality. The "moderately wanted" category contains those typically found in

both high and slightly impaired water quality. The "least wanted" category contains those typically found

in all types of water quality from high to severely impaired.

RBV Panel Taxa Common Tolerance Feeding RBV wanted

Number Name Name Value* Group** Category Order

1 Drunella Body Builder Mayfly 0 Scraper Most Ephemeroptera

2 Isonychia Minnow Mayfly 2 collector filterer Most Ephemeroptera

3 Epeorus 2-tailed Flat Head Mayfly 0 scraper Most Ephemeroptera

4 Peltoperlidae Roach-like Stonefly 0 shredder Most Plecoptera

5 Perlidae Common Stonefly 1 predator Most Plecoptera

5 Pteronarcys Giant Stonefly 0 shredder Most Plecoptera

5 Misc. Stoneflies Stonefly 1 shredder Most Plecoptera

6 Apatania Cornucopia Case Maker 0 scraper Most Trichoptera

6 Glossosoma Saddle Case Maker 0 scraper Most Trichoptera

7 Rhyacophila Michelin-man Caddisfly 0 predator Most Trichoptera

8 Brachycentrus Mid-size Plant Case Builder 1 shredder Most Trichoptera

8 Lepidostoma Mid-size Plant Case Builder 1 shredder Most Trichoptera

9 Hydropsychidae Common Net Spinner 4 collector filterer Moderately Trichoptera

10 Chimarra Orange Head Caddisfly 3 collector filterer Moderately Trichoptera

11 Stenonema Flat Headed Mayfly 4 scraper Moderately Ephemeroptera

12 Psephenus Water Penny Beetle Larva 4 scraper Moderately Coleoptera

13 Corydalus Dobsonfly larva 6 predator Moderately Megaloptera

13 Nigronia Fishfly larva 4 predator Moderately Megaloptera

14 Odonata Dragonfly and Damselfly Nymphs 5 predator Moderately Odonata

15 Amphipod Amphipod, Scud 8 collector gatherer Least Amphipoda

15 Worm Aquatic Earthworm 9 collector gatherer Least Oligochaeta

15 Isopod Aquatic Sowbug 8 collector gatherer Least Isopoda

15 Simuliidae Black Fly 6 collector filterer Least Diptera

15 Leech Leech 8 predator Least Hirudinea

15 Midge Midge 7 collector gatherer Least Diptera

15 Snail Snail 7 scraper Least Gastropoda

*Tolerance values are a relative scale from 0 (least tolerant) to 10 (most tolerant) these values were

developed to summarize overall pollution tolerance of the benthic arthropod community with a single

value. The values are used in the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) developed as a means of detecting organic

pollution in communities inhabiting rock or gravel riffles. Although it may be applicable for other types of

pollutants, use of the HBI in detecting non-organic pollution effects has not been thoroughly evaluated.

This scale forms the base for the RBV protocol. A stream segment supporting a diverse community of

organisms with low tolerance values indicates little organic enrichment and high water quality (EPA-600-4-

90-030 Marcroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Techniques).

**Feeding Group: Most aquatic insects are grouped into 1 of 5 general categories based on the type of

food utilized and the feeding mechanism. Predators are secondary consumers generally feeding on other

aquatic macroinvertebrates. Shredders use cutting mouthparts to feed on coarse organic matter like leaves.


Page 23 of 23

Scrapers use file-like mouthparts to feed primarily on microscopic algae. Collector-filterers and collector-

gatherers both utilize fine organic material as the primary food but differ in feeding mechanism. Filterers

allow the stream flow to carry the food to them while the gatherers actively search. Feeding groups can

reflect the food base of the riffle and provide insight into the nature of potential disturbance factors.

Proportion of feeding groups is important because predominance of a particular type may indicate an

unbalanced community responding to an overabundance of a particular food type. The predominant

feeding strategy reflects the type of impact detected. In general shredders and scrapers are dominant in

high quality stream while collector-filterers and gatherers dominate in disturbed systems.

Documents

Rapid Bioassessment in - CT.GOV-Connecticut's … Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers By Volunteer Monitors Year 2004 Summary Report State of Connecticut Department of Environmental