United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas NV 89193-3478
EPA/600/S4-88/023 Sept. 1988
SEPA Project Summary
National Stream Survey - Phase I
Field Operations Report
Cynthia A. Hagley, Cynthia L. Mayer, and Rainer Hoenicke
The National Stream Survey was con-
ducted during the spring of 1986 as a
synoptic chemical survey to characterize
streams in the mid-Atlantic and south-
eastern regions of the United States
which were thought to be potentially
susceptible to acidic deposition. The
survey included three distinct parts: a
Phase I survey of streams in the mid-
Atlantic region; a Screening survey
designed to assess the need for future
Phase I studies in the United States; and
an Episodes Pilot survey designed to pro-
vide a preliminary assessment of the fre-
quency, duration, and characteristics of
storm episodes in the mid-Atlantic states.
The Episodes Pilot survey was conducted
on a subset of Phase I streams and
replaced normal Phase I sampling during
rain events. It also served to evaluate
sampling designs and logistical protocols
for future episodes studies.
This report describes the survey plan-
ning, protocol development, personnel
requirements, field operations, and
logistical aspects of all three components
of the National Stream Survey. Because
of the large scope and geographical area
covered by the survey, sampling regions
were subdivided into four areas, each
containing approximately the same
number of streams. Samples were col-
lected, shipped at 4 °C, and received
within 24 hours by a central processing
laboratory. Sampling was completed on
schedule, and 447 out of a total of 479
streams were sampled. A detailed evalua-
tion of episodes sampling is provided
with recommendations for future
consideration.
This Project Summary was developed by
EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, to announce
key findings of the research project that
is fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report order-
ing information at back).
Introduction
The National Stream Survey (NSS), part
of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's National Surface Water Survey, was con-
ducted during spring 1986. The NSS includ-
ed three distinct parts: a Phase I survey in
the mid-Atlantic region designed to quantify
the chemistry of presently acidic streams
and those at risk from acidic deposition; a
Screening survey designed to assess the
need for future Phase I studies in the south-
eastern U.S.; and an Episodes Pilot survey
conducted on a subset of Phase I streams
designed to field-test protocols for sampling
during rain events.
The mid-Atlantic Phase I effort included the
area bounded approximately by the Catskill
and Pocono Mountains to the north, the nor-
thern margin of North Carolina to the south,
the western boundaries of Pennsylvania and
West Virginia to the west, and the Atlantic
Ocean to the east. This region was expected
to contain many areas of low acid neutraliz-
ing capacity (ANC) and is subject to relatively
high levels of acidic deposition. Results from
Phase I of the NSS will be used to determine
the percent, extent, and location of streams
that are presently acidic and of streams that
may be susceptible to acidification (low ANC
streams). Each of the 276 stream reaches
selected for mid-Atlantic Phase I sampling
was scheduled to be sampled twice during
spring baseflow conditions to quantify, to
some extent, the degree of temporal variance
within the spring sampling season.
Several areas thought to receive lower
levels of acidic deposition than the mid-
Atlantic region were selected for a Screen-
ing survey. The Screening area comprised
the southern Appalachians, the Piedmont,
-------
the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, and
parts of the Florida Panhandle and Penin-
sula. Screening sampling was conducted
concurrently with Phase I sampling. Identical
protocols were followed with the exception of
hydrologic measurements and sampling fre-
quency. Screening area streams were sam-
pled only once.
For logistical reasons the Phase I/Episode
sampling region and the Screening area
were each subdivided into two subregions.
The mid-Atlantic Phase I/Episodes Pilot
region was divided into the upper mid-Atlantic
and lower mid-Atlantic, and the Screening
area into the southeastern and Arkan-
sas/Florida areas.
Sampling for the Episodes Pilot survey
replaced normal Phase I sampling in the mid-
Atlantic regions during storm episodes. This
pilot study was intended to provide a
preliminary assessment of the frequency,
duration, and characteristics of episodes, and
to evaluate possible sampling designs and
logistical protocols.
Field Operations
Experience gained from preceding
surveys, particularly the National Stream
Survey Phase I Pilot Survey (NSS-PS) con-
ducted in 1985 on a subset of Phase I
streams, provided the foundation for planning
and implementation of the 1986 NSS effort.
All field techniques used in the NSS, except
for hydrologic measurement protocols, were
developed in the NSS-PS. A scheduling
priority based on the date of spring leafout
(phenology) was superimposed on the overall
sampling time frame. This was intended (1)
to provide sampling consistency among
subregions and (2) to minimize the influence
of external factors affecting stream chemistry
during the season of maximum plant growth.
An exception to the phendogical scheduling
occurred in Rorida where leafout was almost
completed by the time the survey began.
The subregion boundaries were drawn
around areas expected, on the basis of
historical water quality data, to be
predominantly below an ANC of 400 /teq L1
(in Florida, below 200 /*eq L1). In the mid-
Atlantic subregion, streams in the lowest
ANC strata were chosen with a higher pro-
bability. Streams for Phase I and Screening
areas were selected without regard to ac-
cessibility. For the Episodes Pilot survey, a
model-based sampling design was applied.
Only streams with low or moderate ANC and
with small to moderate watersheds were
targeted.
Planning involved choosing "base sites"
within each subregion, developing sampling
protocols, training field personnel, and pro-
curing equipment and supplies. Base site
selection for each subregion was based on
proximity to surrounding stream sites,
availability of express courier and counter-to
counter air freight services, accommodations,
and banking facilities.
All field personnel were thoroughly train-
ed in proper equipment and instrument
operation, collection and measurement pro-
cedures, sample handling, data reporting,
quality assurance practices, orienteering,
map-reading, and safety. A sampling team
consisted of two people who visited an
upstream and a downstream site for each
stream. Each team sampled one or two
streams per day, depending on the distance
from the base site and ease of access. In ad-
dition to the sampling teams, the field crews
in each of the four subregions included a
base coordinator and a logistics coordinator.
The base coordinator headed field operations
and had primary responsibility for schedul-
ing sampling itineraries, supervising the field
crews, maintaining communications with the
Communications Center operated by Lock-
heed Engineering and Management Serv-
ices Company, Inc. (Lockheed-EMSCO) in
Las Vegas, and assuring timely shipment of
samples. All pre-sampling field operation
planning, including reconnaissance, was
done by the base coordinators. The logistics
coordinator provided assistance to the base
coordinator, particularly by attending to the
details associated with frequent moving, call-
ing local cooperators at federal and state
agencies, obtaining permission to access
stream sites, maintaining supplies inven-
tories, and assisting in any other way.
Field Sampling Operations
The Phase I and Screening surveys fol-
lowed different schedules; however, daily
operations, sample collection procedures,
shipping, and sample processing were
essentially the same. Streamside measure-
ments differed only for hydrology. The
Episode Pilot had very different daily opera-
tions, yet sample collection, streamside
measurements, and sample processing re-
mained virtually identical to Phase I work.
After verifying the identity and correct
location of each sampling site, the sampling
team made a description of each site on the
first visit. The exact sampling location was
marked on 1:24,000-scale topographic maps
which the teams used to find and identify
each stream site. One sampler in each team
checked calibrations of instruments,
recalibrated the instruments if necessary,
took readings for pH, conductivity, and
dissolved oxygen, and recorded the data.
The second sampler collected the routine
water samples, a duplicate or blank sample
if it was required, and samples of stream
water for pH measurements. The second
sampler took hydrologic measurements as
well. Samplers alternated duties within each
team as desired, but team composition re-
mained consistent throughout the survey.
Samples consisted of a 4-L bulk sample
and syringe samples for pH, dissolved in-
organic carbon, and inorganic monomeric
aluminum determinations. Routine water
samples were collected through 1/4-inch
Tygon tubing held in the center of the stream
cross-section by a sampling arm. The water
was pumped with a portable, battery driven
peristaltic pump. The four 60-mL polycar-
bonate syringes, equipped with gaslight fit-
tings, were filled in such a way that the
samples were not exposed to the at-
mosphere. Care was taken to keep the
samples as cool as possible immediately
after collection. Sample containers were
transferred into coolers containing chemical
refrigerant packs when samplers had return-
ed them to the vehicle. Blank and duplicate
samples were collected on a regular basis
as required by the quality assurance (QA)
plan. Field observations and measurements
were recorded on multi-copy forms. After
return to the base site, samplers prepared
water samples and corresponding data forms
for shipping to the central processing labora-
tory in Las Vegas.
The forecast of an approaching storm front
into the mid-Atlantic region caused a switch
to episodes sampling. Immediately upon ar-
rival at the episode site and ever 30 minutes
during the rising stage of the episode, stage
height, cumulative rainfall, pH, temperature,
conductivity, and dissolved oxygen were
measured. Stream water samples were col-
lected at four times during the ideal event:
base stage, rising stage, peak stage, and fall-
ing stage. The base stage sample was col-
lected immediately after set-up and before
rainfall had begun. The rising stage sample
was taken when the pM had fallen to its
lowest level (a decrease of at least 0.3 pH
unit) below the base stage pH. The peak
stage sample was taken after increases in
stage height, but not until the reading on the
staff gauge had not risen between two suc-
cessive monitoring intervals. The falling stage
sample was taken after the stream had drop-
ped to one-third of its total peak stage rise.
A rising stage sample was not collected if a
pH depression was not observed. Flow was
measured four times during the event, as
close to the time of collection of the four water
samples as possible. Blank and duplicate
samples were assigned to episode sampling
when appropriate as part of the regular QA
program.
Phase I sampling was resumed as early
as 12 hours after the end of an event of 8
-------
hours or less, or a minimum of 24 hours after
a long duration event (more than 8 hours).
However, samplers returned to Phase I
sampling only after they had checked each
stream carefully for high turbidity or flow or
other signs of continued storm impacts.
Because of the large geographic area
covered by the NSS, mobile field laboratories
would not have been feasible. Previous
holding time experiments conducted during
the NSS-PS had indicated that samples from
a diverse group of surface waters could be
held for several days under appropriately
controlled conditions without undergoing ma-
jor changes in water chemistry.
In most cases, an express courier service
was used to send water samples to the cen-
tral processing laboratory in Las Vegas.
There the syringe samples were analyzed.
The bulk samples were aliquoted and
preserved before being sent to contract
laboratories for analyses. With very few ex-
ceptions, samples arrived at the processing
laboratory within 24 hours of collection.
Results
Sampling in all four subregions was com-
pleted on schedule, with an excellent safety
record. A total of 479 streams were visited,
and 447 streams were actually sampled.
Streams from which no samples could be ob-
tained, totalled 32. These streams were dry,
tidal, inaccessible, or they had conductivities
above 500 pS cnr1. Only nine episode
streams were sampled during six rain events,
because of an unusually dry spring and se-
vere time constraints.
Observations of NSS field operations and
recommendations for consideration by other
investigators are detailed in this report.
-------
Cynthia A. Hagley, Cynthia L. Mayer, and Rainer Hoenicke are with Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., Las Vegas, NV
89119.
W. Kinney is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "National Stream Survey - Phase I: Field
Operations Report," (Order No. PB 88-245 923/AS; Cost: $12.95, subject to
change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas. NV 89193-3478
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
V ft , . f\
^ ,c M ^J .
0 'I
' *~
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S4-88/023
OOOC329 PS
------- |