&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Montgomery County, Maryland
Uses Biological Monitoring to
Better Understand and Manage
Watersheds
Background
PENNSYLVANIA
Montgomery County faced a growing problem that has
confronted local governments across the country: the
cumulative impacts that population growth and resulting
land-use changes are having on local streams and their
accompanying ecosystems.
Land-use change brings with it an increase of impervious
(non-absorbent/non-permeable) surfaces. Studies show that
stream health is directly related to imperviousness.
As imperviousness increases, stream and groundwater
health decreases.
IMPERVIOUS VS. PERMEABLE SURFACES
INFILTRATION
Nutrients, pathogens,
sediment ana toxics filtered
through plants and soil
As IMPERVIOUSNESS increases,
quality decreases.
Pollutants
Erosion 4-
Sedimentation -^
Flooding
Aquatic Life
Temperature
GROUNDWATER
Infiltration
Pollutants 4,
Supply
As PERMEABILITY increases,
quality increases.
Montgomery County,'
Maryland, adjacent
and to the northwest of
Washington, DC
Population Growth and Projections
for Montgomery County
1,200,000
Montgomery County has:
Higher household income
than most counties in the
country
Resources for biomonitoring
and traditional monitoring
Very little "heavy" industry
Environmental compliance problems from small
shops and industries
Multi-media public environmental educational
program
Montgomery County stopped collecting data on its streams during
the 1980s when only chemical and physical tests of the water were
available. Many of these tests were expensive and did not measure
the cumulative impacts observable in county streams. County officials
needed an affordable tool to serve as a report card for stream
health. Local community groups in Montgomery County had begun
using biological monitoring (biomonitoring) techniques - drawing upon
knowledge of the abundance and diversity of plant and animal life in
local streams - to monitor stream health. Federal and state agencies were
also recommending biomonitoring as a cost-effective tool to assess the
cumulative impacts in streams and rivers. Living things integrate and
reflect the effects of physical, chemical and biological stressors, and can
be a major asset for evaluating ecological condition.
-------
Program Development
Montgomery County began its biomonitoring program in 1994. At that time, a wide assortment of many different
biological monitoring methods were in use by Maryland agencies. No one method was recommended over the others.
Montgomery County formed a work group to develop methods (protocols) that followed those recommended by EPA's
Office of Water, in Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers, http://www.epa.gov/owow/
monitoring/rbp/chO 1 main .html.
Provisional Montgomery County IBI
Invertebrate IBI
Fish IBI
Total number of taxa
Biota Index
Ratio of scrapers (scrapers + filtering
collectors)
Proportion of hydropsyche and
cheumatopsyche/total EPT individuals
Proportion dominant taxa
Total number of EPT taxa
Proportion of total EPT individuals
Proportion of shredders
Total number of species
Total number of riffle benthic insectivores
Total number of minnow species
Total number of intolerant species
Proportion of tolerant individuals
Proportion of omnivores/generalists
Proportion of pioneering species
Total number of individuals (excluding
tolerants)
Proportion of disease
In 1995, with guidance from the EPA Biological Criteria Team, the County began developing an Index of Biotic Integrity
or IBI on an eco-region basis. Benthic macroinvertebrate (bottom dwelling insects) and fish IBIs reflect the structure and
function of these communities as compared to those in the reference streams. Reference streams are the highest
quality streams found within the County and surrounding areas and are
generally found in heavily forested and less developed areas. Streams rated
excellent or good by the IBIs are considered healthy. Excellent streams are
comparable to the highest quality reference streams and good streams are
comparable to the remainder of the reference streams. Poor streams are
considered unhealthy compared to reference streams. These Indexes have
several measures that describe stream health. For example, the number of
species (a measure of community structure), the feeding mode (a measure
of community function), pollution sensitivity, and proportion of introduced
species, provides a picture of overall ecological stream health. (See the
Technical Appendix of From the Mountains to the Sea - The State of
Maryland's Freshwater Streams, EPA/903/R-99/023, http://www.epa.gov/
maia, for a more detailed explanation of the development offish and benthic
IBIs.) The County is in the process of finalizing the two interim indexes it
developed, one for stream fish and one for benthic macroinvertebrate s.
Montgomery County uses both targeted and probability-based (random)
sampling to support different management needs. Sites are selected in one
of three ways: (1) sections of streams (reaches) are randomly selected
and sites are randomly chosen within each section (reach), (2) sections of
streams (reaches) are targeted and sites are randomly chosen on the reach,
or (3) both reaches and sites are targeted. For the purposes of developing
integrated estimates of stream condition, only the probability-based samples
(selection methods 1 and 2) can be used. Targeted sites are useful for other
purposes (particularly to diagnose causes of stream degradation at specific Figure 1. Tony Prochaska, Maryland Department
local sites), but do not support area estimates with known precision. Over of Natural Resources, demonstrates techniques to
time, Montgomery County is shifting to random selection of reaches and
sites, but will continue to employ some targeted reaches and fixed sites tor
detection of trends in stream condition.
hands-on training
-------
The County also developed protocols to assess the
surrounding riparian and in-stream habitat. A rapid habitat
assessment is taken every time a monitoring station is
visited. A more quantitative physical habitat assessment (such
as stream gradient, width, depth, flow rate, stream side
vegetation, etc.) is also taken at each station.
Montgomery County's protocols were peer reviewed by state,
local and federal agencies and used for more than six
years. During this time, Maryland's Department of Natural
Resources developed the Maryland Biological Stream Survey
(MBSS), which included standardized field methods to
monitor fish and benthic macroinvertebrates.
In 2000, Montgomery County, Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), and EPA's Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA) program executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to establish a working partnership
and a commitment to work together to share information
and develop joint products addressing the County's various
activities to monitor and evaluate biological resource
conditions, prioritize stream protection needs, plan and
construct projects to retrofit urban stormwater controls and
restore degraded habitats.
In 2001, Montgomery County revised its field monitoring
methods to directly compare to those of the MBSS as a result of
a comparative study funded by MAIA.
Figure 2. Macroinvertebrate samples collected during stream
monitoring.
Figure 3. Angela Chaisson, Andrea Farley, and David Jordahl collect samples.
-------
Outcomes
In 1997, Montgomery County monitored every
watershed (23 in total) within its boundaries. The
biomonitoring program screened the watersheds,
identifying areas of healthy waters and areas of
impairment.
Impaired areas were assessed to determine if the
impairment was habitat-related or caused by other
stressors. Two primary stressors were identified: altered
flow and sediment. The County will monitor every 5
years to assess the condition and the success or failure
of management actions.
In 1998, Montgomery County published the first
Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS). This
document provides stream condition information on
more than 200 sub-watersheds within 23 watersheds
containing 1,500 miles of streams. An updated CSPS in
2003 will provide information on afl County streams.
Once the condition of the streams was determined,
Montgomery County combined the results with
information about current and future land-use to develop
five possible watershed management categories:
Watershed Preservation Areas
Watershed Protection Areas
Watershed Restoration Areas
Urban Watershed Management Areas
Agricultural Watershed Management Areas
O Insufficient Data
Figure 4. Montgomery County stream condition as determined by the
Biomonitoring Program.
Each category has an associated set of prevention or remediation efforts.
Before Rehabilitation
Paint Branch
Montgomery County,
Maryland
An excellent stream running through public lands would qualify as a Watershed
Preservation Area. Public policy for such an area could include dedication of
the area as parkland, creation of easements for conservation or agricultural
preservation, and restrictions on future land-use. Fair or poor streams running
through heavily developed/impervious areas qualify as Watershed Restoration
Areas. Policy responses could include
new stormwater controls, restoration
of stream habitat, public education
campaigns, or increased forested
buffers.
The County used the CSPS to prioritize
its watershed restoration efforts to those
areas most in need of immediate
remediation. Prioritization was based
on the stability of the stream channel
and the condition of the stream biotic
communities as a measure of the degree
of cumulative impacts in the upstream
drainage area.
After Rehabilitation
-------
Program Support
Six primary programs support or require the use of information
from Montgomery County's biomonitoring program:
The Federal Clean Water Act paved
the way for the use of biomonitoring
and assessment in public decision-
making. A municipal storm water permit
system administered by the states to
restore and protect U.S. watersheds,
was established as part of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). Montgomery County
uses biomonitoring to screen all
watersheds for areas of impairment at
least once every five years.
The Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS)
updates stream condition ratings every five years,
resulting in updated watershed management categories
and priorities. The Strategy provides a way for planners,
managers, and elected officials to understand and
consider environmental data as part of their planning
process. Montgomery County officials note that it is
crucial to provide this information in a timely, concise,
and understandable manner to elected officials to allow
a more considered understanding of the trade-offs
inherent in economic growth.
U.S. EPA's Science to
Achieve Results (STAR)
Grant Program. Montgomery County is a co-investigator with the University
of Maryland on an EPA STAR grant. The goal of this grant is to determine how
the timing, rate, and spatial configuration of land conversion influences stream
habitat and ecosystem health in four watersheds. The grant funds five University
of Maryland interns, serving as stream monitors, and the equipment to support this
monitoring. The County has timely access to the data being collected, allowing it
to be applied immediately.
K^Mom
Impr
Montgomery County's Capital
Improvement Program receives grants
for watershed restoration. As part of
the grant requirements, the County uses
biomonitoring to document the success
of its restoration programs. Restoration
goals are set and assessed through the
biomonitoring program.
The County's Special Protection Area Monitoring
Regulation is also known as the "Water Quality
Ordinance." This regulation assesses the impact of
development and designates Special Protection Areas.
These are areas with good quality water, but where
planned growth is coming. The County wants to
maintain the water quality while allowing growth
to occur. Under these regulations, the staff first
uses fee-supported biomonitoring to evaluate stream
condition and then developers provide on-going
Best Management Practice (BMP) monitoring.
0
Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS).
Montgomery County coordinates with the MBSS in the
monitoring and screening of County waters. Use of the
same field monitoring protocols used by Maryland
has allowed County watershed assessments to be
used for the State's 305(b) report on the condition
of State waters and its 303(d) list of impaired water
bodies.
-------
How Can Other Counties and Local
Governments Develop a Similar Program?
A good way to begin is to develop a benthic macroinvertebrate program, collecting
specimens and then identifying them in-house or sending them to a taxonomist's
laboratory for identification. A benthos-only program in Montgomery County would
cost from $1,000 to $1,500 per monitoring station per year in staff, equipment, and
analysis fees. Alternately, local officials could develop their budgets for a "benthos
only" program by assuming that each monitoring station requires 12 work hours
per year - four hours worth of collection, and another eight hours to transport
the benthos, identify them, and then develop a stream rating. For counties that
send their specimens to taxonomists for identification, assume that any sample
containing 100 organisms will cost between $120 and $250 to process. The cost
becomes more expensive depending on the specificity of identification (to family
or genus) requested.
Adding a fish component requires an additional level of
commitment in terms of staffing. It costs an additional $1,500 per station per year,
because of the expertise required to catch the fish and identify them immediately.
For the first few years of its fish program, Montgomery County relied heavily
on volunteer support, requiring a minimum of four people to collect, identify,
and release fish quickly.
Counties conducting habitat monitoring or additional chemical testing
usually require two- or three-person teams.
Much of the success of the
program depends on the
personal involvement and
Figure 5. Montgomery County leadership of local officials and
Geologists (Alicia Bachinsky, David capabie volunteers. Participation
Jordahl, and Mark Sommerfield) , , . j /^i i r>
taking fish samples. m statewide and Chesapeake Bay
watershed monitoring groups (the
Maryland Water Monitoring Council and the Tributary Strategy
Teams) has allowed County officials to interact with, and
learn from other experts. Leadership in the community is
essential. Community groups such as the Audubon Naturalist
Society, the Glen Preservation Society, and the Eyes of
Paint Branch, have helped secure and maintain funding
for biological monitoring by elevating the issue to the
County Council level, frequently attending the Council's
working sessions, and making statements in support of
the program. The Glen Preservation Foundation and the
Audubon Naturalist Society also run annual training programs,
preparing volunteers to help local officials conduct their spring
and summer macroinvertebrate monitoring programs in Maryland,
Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Montgomery County initially approved two full-time positions, a
monitoring vehicle, and necessary additional equipment. Today,
the County's Watershed Management Division is supported by a
$228,000 annual budget, of which about $180,000 goes toward
the salaries of four full-time biologists and two interns. The
remainder pays for equipment and other expenses.
Figure 6. Montgomery County ecologist, David Jordahl,
taking water samples.
-------
KEY LESSONS
That May Be Helpful to Other Local Jurisdictions:
Develop
PROGRAM GOALS
8
Decide on the LEVEL OF
EFFORT needed to begin
COORDINATE
with state officials
Be CREATIVE
when seeking FUNDING
THINK through the type of
reports that will be needed
Conduct PUBLIC
OUTREACH programs
BUILD SUPPORT with
elected officials and budget
staff
Maintain QA/QC control
throughout each stage
Because of the natural differences in water bodies, residential,
commercial and industrial developments, and political and budget
constraints, every county should develop its own goals and
parameters.
Goals should include the level of effort needed to begin and plans for
optimal levels in the future. In this regard it is important to determine
how much the community can afford to pursue. Start out small and
build the program in stages (see previous page). The level of data
obtained should not exceed that necessary to develop the minimum
amount of information needed to make decisions.
Interaction with state and federal monitoring programs can help to
facilitate data sharing in the future, saving time and money.
This includes the use of volunteers, partnerships, grants, and
developer fees.
Understanding your audience is an important aspect as well.
Knowing how the final report and presentation will be used can help
determine the number of hours and expertise needed on staff, saving
money in the long run. Strive to make reports understandable to
decision-makers and the public.
Public outreach programs allow the community to interact and
participate in the discussion and development of protocols and ideas
in their area. Public outreach can include materials posted on the
Internet, posters and brochures, media advertisements, and
coordination with other government outreach efforts.
The elected officials and budget staff should be included in the
decision-making process as well. The biomonitoring program must
be understandable and relevant because these officials will ultimately
decide whether the programs receive the resources they need.
The proper identification of species found in the local waters is
essential and requires on-going training and reviews of field, lab,
sample preservation and shipping, data entry, and data management
techniques. Everything from sampling design to the final report has
a margin of error that officials can predict and for which they can
prepare. Look to state monitoring programs for quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) assistance.
Practicing these steps and a little creative financial planning will ensure
the success of any biomonitoring program in every county.
-------
I
5
A
\
C3
EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EPA/903/F-02/005
August 2002
Wayne Davis
davis.wayne@epa.gov
410-305-3030
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
Environmental Science Center
701 MapesRoad
Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350
www.epa.gov/maia
Keith Van Ness
keith.vanness@co.mo.md.us
240-777-7726
Montgomery County
Department of Environmental Protection
255 Rockville Pike, Suite 120
Rockville,MD 20850
www.co.mo.md.us/dep
Brenda Ortigoza Batemen
bbateman@irgltd. com
202-289-0100
University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
Center for Urban Environmental
Research and Education
Research Seminar on Best Practices
in Environmental Management
1000 Hilltop Circle - TRC 102
Baltimore, MD 21250
www.umbc.edu/cuere
UMBC
CUERE
Partnerships and Coordination
Collection of stream data is a joint effort among the Montgomery
County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
(M-NCPPC), and the Maryland Biological Stream Survey
(MBSS). Watershed monitoring is coordinated so efforts are not
duplicated. Biomonitoring has become a widely accepted tool to
measure the degree of cumulative impacts in local streams and
rivers and an effective way to communicate the condition of these
waters to the public and decision makers within federal, state, and
local governments.
The data is used by DEP to assess the overall health of County
streams, while the M-NCPPC uses the data in the master- and
park-planning processes.
The Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS) has
become a vital and useful tool for County agencies to better
manage watersheds and to communicate the results of their
management programs.
Use of the same field monitoring protocols used by MBSS has
allowed County watershed assessments to be used for the State's
305(b) report and its 303(d) list.
Recently, County biologists have coordinated follow-up
biomonitoring of several point sources of pollution with the
Maryland Department of the Environment. This collaboration
enabled the County to better understand the condition of its
streams and possible stressors causing localized impairments.
Involvement with the academic community has provided the
County a new resource for the exchange of ideas, data, and
new ways of evaluating how land-use conversion impacts stream
habitat and ecosystem health. New ideas about stream processes
provide insights into the evaluation of stream restoration.
AIA Best Management Practice!
Case Studies Course
Organizations throughout the Mid-Atlantic region have developed and
implemented unique approaches to respond to environmental problems
and concerns. The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) has also
conducted considerable research in the region, much of which has been
used by managers to meet their responsibilities.
MAIA and UMBC initiated a graduate-level research seminar where
students document these success stories so that other managers and
organizations can also use these approaches and research.
Printed on chlorine free 100% recycled paper with
100% post-consumer fiber using vegetable-based ink.
------- |