Local Scientist, Volunteers Help Ensure Deep Brook Waters Run Cold

By John Voket

One breezy Saturday morning about three weeks ago Newtown scientist Ann Astarita directed a posse of volunteers from the Candlewood Valley chapter of Trout Unlimited trudged out across hill and dale, wading into some of the most pristine natural trout breeding grounds in New England. Their mission — to help ensure these sections of Deep Brook and the Pootatuck River stay that way.

(See a video of Ms Astarita explaining the sampling process and requirements at newtownbee.com under the “Features” tab.)

Ms Astarita’s roughly one dozen hearty assistants were contributing frontline field work that would eventually help scientists at the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) determine if there are measurable changes to the water quality and temperature.

In addition to the local scientist, who previously worked for Newtown’s Land Use Agency, Bill Bennett, George Hanson, Dick Rothe, Ms Astarita’s husband Steve Zakur, their son Sam, and Bill Dunn helped during the annual late October exercise.

At first glance, volunteers rolling into the group’s staging area at the water pollution control station on Commerce Road appeared to be handing off nearly empty jars. But a closer look revealed that each sample container full of Deep Brook or Pootatuck water was packed with pinhead-sized riffle-dwelling benthic macroinvertebrates.

These samples, organized and cataloged by Ms Astarita from the back of her Subaru station wagon, represented the 2011 sampling that DEEP requires under the Clean Water Act. By determining the number and health of these tiny water-dwelling creatures, the DEEP can help certify Newtown’s Class A trout breeding areas have the optimum water conditions so the native fish can thrive.

According to a report from the Connecticut River Watch Program (riverwatch.conservect.org), the analysis of collections like the ones taken in Newtown do not represent a definitive assessment procedure. Data are used primarily for screening purposes, to identify streams with either very high or very poor water quality.

There are 26 organisms included in the Rapid Bioassessment Volunteer (RBV) protocol, the report states. They are easily identified due to their distinct shape, structure, color, or behavior.

Ms Astarita explained that each also provides key ecological information about the stream environment. RBV organisms are categorized in one of three groups:

*Most Wanted — The most sensitive to pollution, requiring a narrow range of environmental conditions. When abundant they are a sign of a nonimpaired stream;

*Moderately Wanted — Less sensitive to pollution and found in a variety of water quality conditions. When abundant, more information is needed about upstream conditions to infer water quality;

*Least Wanted — Least sensitive to pollution and tolerant of the widest range of conditions. When they make up the majority of a sample, they indicate some level of water quality impairment.

The RBVs generally take samples in the fall, during October and November, to document the condition of the macroinvertebrate community following the summer, which the River Watch identifies as a “high stress” time for streams due to low flows and higher water temperatures.

Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected using a large flat-bottom net 12 inches high and 18 inches wide with a mesh size no large than a #30 sieve. Volunteers are trained to collect three replicate samples, each consisting of two one-square-meter collections or “kicks,” sort and identify the organisms in the field, and document relative abundance of key organisms on official field data sheets for the RBV protocol.

Volunteers also keep a representative voucher collection consisting of at least one of each type of organism found, preserved in 91 percent isopropyl alcohol. In Newtown, Ms Astarita handles the voucher collection, subsequently returning the samples to the DEEP along with the data sheets.

While each sample jar may have contained dozens of tiny species, the largest critter of the day to be caught and then released was a large crayfish. Ms Astarita said a sample of that relatively extreme size was of greater environmental benefit to the raccoons and other animals that also fish the local streams for food than it would have been for the annual study.