Science of Water : Concepts and Applications

Environmental Biomonitoring, Sampling, and Testing 243
depending upon the quantity of material to be sampled, it is prudent to include several 3- and 5-gal
collection buckets in the stream sampling fi eld kit.
THE BOTTOM LINE ON BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING
This discussion has stressed the practice of biological monitoring, employing the use of biotic indices
as key measuring tools. We emphasized biotic indices not only for their simplicity of use, but also for
the relative accuracy they provide, although their development and use can sometimes be derailed.
The failure of a monitoring protocol to assess environmental condition accurately or to protect running
waters usually stems from conceptual, sampling, or analytical pitfalls. Biotic indices can be
combined with other tools for measuring the condition of ecological systems in ways that enhance or
hinder their effectiveness. The point is, like any other tool, they can be misused. However, that biotic
indices can be, and are, misused does not mean that the indices’ approach itself is useless.
To ensure that the biotic indices approach is not useless, it is important for the practicing freshwater
ecologist and water sampler to remember a few key guidelines:
1. Sampling everything is not the goal. As Botkin (1990), Pimm (1991), Huston (1994), and
Hillborn and Mangel (1997) note, biological systems are complex and unstable in space
and time, and samplers often feel compelled to study all components of this variation.
Complex sampling programs proliferate. However, every study need not explore everything.
Freshwater samplers and monitors should avoid the temptation to sample all the
unique habitats and phenomena that make freshwater monitoring so interesting. Concentration
should be placed on the central components of a clearly defi ned research agenda
(a sampling/monitoring protocol)—detecting and measuring the infl uences of human
activities on the water body’s ecological system.
2. With regard to the infl uence of human activities on the water body’s ecological system,
we must see protecting biological condition as a central responsibility of water resource
management. One thing is certain: until biological monitoring is seen as essential to track
attainment of that goal and biological criteria as enforceable standards mandated by the
Clean Water Act, life in the nation’s freshwater systems will continue to decline.
Biomonitoring is only one of several tools available to the water practitioner. Regardless of the
tool employed, all results depend upon proper biomonitoring techniques. Biological monitoring
must be designed to obtain accurate results—present approaches need to be strengthened. In addition,
“the way it’s always been done” must be reexamined and efforts must be undertaken to do what
works to keep freshwater systems alive. We can afford nothing less.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING (DRINKING WATER)
When we speak of water quality monitoring, we refer to monitoring practice based on three
criteria:
1. To ensure to the greatest extent possible that the water is not a danger to public health
2. To ensure that the water provided at the tap is as aesthetically pleasing as possible
3. To ensure compliance with applicable regulations
To meet these goals, all public systems must monitor water quality to some extent. The degree
of monitoring employed is dependent on local needs and requirements, and on the type of water
system; small water systems using good-quality water from deep wells may only need to provide
occasional monitoring, but systems using surface water sources must test water quality frequently
(AWWA, 1995).