vvEPA
United States Region 5 December 1988
Environmental Protection 230 South Dearborn Street EPA-905/9-89/003
Agency Chicago, Illinois 60604
Proceedings of the
First National Workshop
On Biological Criteria
Lincolnwood, Illinois
December 2-4, 1987
-------
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST NATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
held in
LINCOLNWOOD, ILLINOIS
DECEMBER 2-4, 1987
Edited by:
Thomas P. Simon, Linda L. Hoist, and Lawrence J. Shepard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessments Comnittee
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Sponsored by
U.S. ENVIRONMEWTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INSTREAM BIOCRITERIA AND ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS COMMITTEE
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRCNyiENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY — CORVALLIS
CORVALLIS, OREGON
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson BlvA, 12th Floor
- j.- Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
NOTICE
This document does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Its purpose is intended for the objective
facilitation of information exchange between the States and Federal water
pollution control biologists for which it was intended. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recoirmendation for use.
When citing individual papers within this document:
J.W. Giese and W.E. Keith. 1988. The use of fish communities in ecoregion
reference streams to characterize the stream biota in Arkansas waters, pp.
26-42. In T.P. Simon, L.L. Hoist, and L.J. Shepard (eds.) Proceedings of the
First National Workshop on Biocriteria, Lincolnwood, IL. USEPA, Region V,
Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessments Committee, Chicago, IL. EPA
905/9-89/003
When citing this document:
T.P. Simon, L.L. Hoist, and L.J. Shepard (eds.). 1988. Proceedings of the
First National Workshop on Biocriteria, Lincolnwood, IL. USEPA, Region V,
Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessments Committee, Chicago, IL. EPA
905/9-89/003.
If requesting copies of this document:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication Distribution Center, DDD
11027 Kenwood Road, Bldg. 5 - Dock 63
Cincinnati, OH 45242
-ii-
-------
The purpose of the National Workshop on Biological Monitoring and Criteria
was to evaluate and articulate the role of instream biosurvey data in the
USEPA and State surface water quality programs. The Workshop participants
were from various State and Federal agencies throughout the country and
provided the needed perspectives to ensure that biological survey data will
be used to support the goals, objectives, and policies of the Clean Water
Act. The Proceedings provide a special forum, separate from the National
Biological Monitoring and Criteria Workshop Report, in which invited
speakers were asked to address recent biological criteria developments. We
thank each of the authors for their efforts.
The Region V, Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessment Contnittee
wishes to thank Deborah White, La Vennecy Brown, Charles Steiner, Max
Anderson, and Don Krichiver for their technical assistance and professional
attitude in ensuring that these proceedings were completed. Special thanks
also to managers which facilitated the IBEAC editorial committees duties by
changing schedules and allowing adequate time for completion of the papers:
James Luey, James Giattina, Kenneth Fenner, Charles Sutfin, Noel Kohl,
Curtis Ross, William Sanders III, Frank Thomas, and Andrea Jirka.
The impetus for this Workshop was provided by recent amendments in the
Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act policy "that the discharge of toxic
pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited" (section 101[a][3]) supports the
"national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be
eliminated" (section I0l[a][l]). The intent of the commonly cited "no toxic
discharge in toxic amounts" is to protect instream biological communities,
wild and domestic animal life, and human health.
In 1984, USEPA published the national "Policy for the Development of Water
Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants" (FR 49 [48]: 9016-
9019, March 9). The "Statement of Policy" included the requirements that
"states will use biological techniques and available data on chemical
effects to assess toxicity impacts and human health hazards based on the
general standard of 'no toxic materials in toxic amounts'", and "under
section 308 and section 402 of the Clean Water Act (the Act), EPA or the
State may require NPDES permit applicants to provide chemical, toxicity,
and instream biological data necessary to assure compliance with standards."
It continues by stating "where there is a significant likelihood of toxic
effects to biota in the receiving water, EPA and the States may impose
permit limits on effluent toxicity and may require an NPDES permittee to
conduct a toxicity reduction evaluation."
The Water Quality Act of 1987 requirements of Sections 308(c) and 308(d),
amend the Clean Water Act as follows:
Section 308(c) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 states that "Section
304(a) is amended by adding [that]...after consultation with appropriate
-111-
-------
State agencies and within 2 years after the date of enactment of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, [EPA] shall develop and publish information on
methods for establishing and measuring water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants on other bases than pollutant-by-pollutant criteria, including
biological monitoring and assessment methods."
In addition, Section 308(d) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 states that
"Section 303(c)(2) is amended by inserting...Where such numerical criteria
[for toxics] are not available, whenever a State reviews water quality
standards pursuant, to paragraph (1), or revises or adopts new standards
pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall adopt criteria based on
biological monitoring or assessment methods consistent with information
published pursuant to Section 304(a)(8)."
The preceding sections of the Clean Water Act clearly identify the need
for establishing and supporting water quality assessments and criteria based
upon direct measurement of the indigenous aquatic communities. As a result
of the Workshop, and a Region V Policy Statement presented at the Workshop,
USEPA is developing a National Biocriteria Policy and National Biocriteria
Guidance to support the Water Quality Act of 1987 Sections 308(c) and
308(d). USEPA is supporting those States using instream biological survey
data to establish and measure water quality criteria for toxic and
conventional pollutants, and is encouraging those States not active in this
process to develop program plans for implementation.
i
wa
f~~
Wayne S. Davis,
Local Conference Host
Chairperson, Instream Biocriteria and Ecological
Assessment Committee
-iv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreward
Author
Title
111
Page
Plafkin
Court emanch
and Davies
Ohio EPA
Langdon
Geise and
Keith
Bode and
Novak
Cunriins
Maret
Fiske
Shackelford
Penrose and
Overton
Davis and
Simon
Kite
Hocutt
Hughes and
Larsen
Surface Water Monitoring 1
Implementation of Biological Standards and
Criteria in Maine's Water Classification Law 4
The Role of Biological Data in Water Quality
Assessment 10
The Development of Fish Population Based
Biocriteria in Vermont 12
The Use of Fish Communities in Ecoregion
Reference Streams to Characterize the Stream
Biota in Arkansas Waters 26
Proposed Biological Criteria for New York
Streams 42
Rapid Bioassessment Using Functional Analysis
of Running Water Invertebrates 49
A Stream Inventory Process to Classify Use
Support and Develop Biological Standards in
Nebraska 55
The Use of Biosurvey Data in the Regulation of
Permitted Nbnpoint Dischargers in Vermont 67
Rapid Bioassessment of Lotic Macroinvertebrates
Communities: Biocriteria Development 75
Semiqualitative Collection Techniques for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates: Uses for Water Pollution in
North Carolina 77
Sampling and Data Evaluation Requirements for
Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities 89
Overview of Stream Quality Assessments and
Stream Classifications in Illinois 98
Perspectives in Fish Sampling and Analysis to
Monitor Biological Integrity in Receiving Waters 121
Ecoregions: An Approach to Surface Water
Protection
129
-v-
-------
Proceedings First National Biocriteria Workshop
SURFACE WATER MONITORING
James L. Plafkin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Monitoring and Data Support Division,
Office of Water, 401 M Street S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Introduction
Surface Water Monitoring
After focusing on technology-
based water pollution controls for
well over a decade, Federal and
State agencies are shifting the
emphasis to water quality-based
approaches for solving the remaining
(post-BAT) problems. As highlighted
in the 1987 Water Quality Act (WQA
1987), assessments of ambient
conditions (e.g., Sections 305(b),
304(1), 314 and 319) should play an
important role in implementing these
approaches. Ambient data are needed
to identify problem waterbodies, set
management priorities, develop water
quality-based controls, and document
the effectiveness of these controls.
However, as pointed out in EPA's
recent report, "Surface Water
Monitoring a Framework for Change"
(USEPA 1987), it is unlikely that
existing monitoring programs will
be able to fulfill these data needs.
Changing Needs
There are solid facts supporting
this prediction. One is that the
list of potentially important
pollutants has expanded tremendously
in the last decade. Many of these
pollutants are toxic substances that
can cause deleterious effects at
levels that are very difficult to
detect in the ambient environment.
Others, e.g. fine sediment loadings
and habitat loss, defy traditional
toxicological characterization and
measurement. Furthermore, the
impact of these stress agents is
not simply dependent upon exposure
concentration. Duration and
frequency of exposures and the
influence of site-specific water
quality factors are also important.
These factors interact in a
continually varying environment to
profoundly influence the actual
expression of effect. It is this
need to characterize the actual as
well as the predicted effect of
pollutants that poses the greatest
challenge to existing monitoring
programs.
Traditional programs have
focused almost entirely on
analysis of water column chemistry
using a mix of fixed station and
intensive survey monitoring. Fixed
stations supposedly provide the
broad geographical coverage needed
to screen for emerging water
quality problems and characterize
general trends. Intensive surveys,
on the other hand, supply the more
detailed information needed to
diagnose the causes of specific
problems and develop appropriate
controls. And when conventional
pollutants (e.g., BOD, TSS, pH)
emanating from point sources are
the principle concern, these
programs can work quite well.
However, the bewildering array of
pollutants and their complex
chemical behavior instream, coupled
with the sheer expense of analyzing
for them, makes routine monitoring
-1-
-------
Plaflrin
for all but a few of them
infeasible. Therefore, analytical
resources must be effectively
targeted on waterbodies where real
problems, not merely predicted
problems, actually exist.
Bioassessments
Bioassessments can help. Such
assessments measure the direct
responses of instream organisms
exposed to environmental pollutants
rather than just the exposures. The
rationale behind this approach is
that the resident organisms
(communities, populations, or
individuals) naturally integrate
variable exposures and complex
stresses, and are therefore the best
overall indicators of aquatic life
impact. Biosurveys, for example,
provide the most general measure of
ecological integrity (water quality
and habitat). They can be used to
guide planning and management
decisions, inventory aquatic
resources, describe attainable
aquatic life goals, screen and
prioritize problem areas,
characterize trends, and document
the "bottom line" results of control
actions. Bioassays, on the other
hand, integrate across pollutants
and are used more specifically i.e.,
to discriminate generic toxicity
from other types of impacts; and to
help interpret narrative "free from"
criteria. Finally, tissue residue
analyses can be used to identify
specific pollutants with
concentrations that are either too
low or too variable to detect in the
ambient medium. All of these tools
will be needed to meet the ever
increasing demand for meaningful,
but economical, monitoring data.
Implementation Issues
Despite the conceptual appeal of
broadening the use of bioassessment
approaches in water monitoring
programs, several practical issues
regarding implementation still need
to be considered before
bioassessments can be effectively
implemented on a national scale.
o Biocriteria
- Do biocriteria necessarily have
to be incorporated into
water quality standards?
- Do they have to be
quantitative and numerical to
be useful?
- Given an "average" ecoregion,
how many and what kinds
of evaluations are needed to
confirm its boundaries and
establish biocriteria? How
long does it take and how much
does it cost?
- Are different criteria needed
for different types of
water bodies; designated uses;
different subcommunities;
different geographical (e.g.,
subregional, local) scales;
different temporal scales
(seasons)?
o Monitoring biocriteria and
performing assessments
- Would methods used to assess
criteria differ from those
used to develop criteria? If
so, why?
- Should any nonbiological
parameters be routinely
monitored in conjunction with a
bioassessment?
-2-
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
- What is the role of biocriteria
in assessing toxics? Habitat
degradation?
These are only a few of the
issues that will need to be
considered before bioassessments
can be effectively implemented on a
national scale.
Literature Cited
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987. Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework for Change.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water and Office
of Planning and Procedure,
Washington, B.C.
Water Quality Act. 1987. Ainnendment
to the Clean Water Act. Public Law
92-500.
-3-
-------
IMPLEMENTATION OF BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA IN MAINE'S WATER
CLASSIFICATION LAW
David L. Courtemanch and Susan P. Davies
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
State House # 17
Augusta, Maine 0433
Abstract
Maine has established statutory biological standards in its water
classification. This was done with the intent of establishing a set of
impact standards which directly measure the biological integrity of the
water, a stated goal of both federal and state law. By using the biological
standards and associated criteria in a planning role, much of the
constraints on use and language, which might be imposed in a regulatory
system were avoided. This allowed for definitions and criteria to be written
from a technical-scientific perspective, and also allowed greater
discretionary use of professional judgement in making biological
evaluations. Maine's biological program is created with a set of three
narrative standards in its law which range from that sufficient to attain
the interim fishable/swinrnable goals of the federal act to full maintenance
of integrity in a natural status. These narrative standards are further
defined in statute with a set of scientific definitions for terms in the
standards. These defintions identify specific ecological attributes which
may be tested by a hierarchical scheme of tests of descending power and
increasing professional judgement to arrive at a decision as to whether a
standard is achieved.
Introduction
In the early 1980's, the State of
Maine found that its water quality
laws were deficient and a new water
classification law was passed in
1986 (Maine Revised Statutes
Annotated, Title 38, Sections 464 to
468). There were three significant
factors which created a need for
this change in the law. First,
radical improvements had taken place
in water quality over much of the
state. While improvements had been
predicted by water quality models
for dissolved oxygen, for instance,
it had always been unclear how these
improvements would affect the
aquatic biota. Within a few years,
observation of the reinvasion of
many pollution tolerant species was
documented. Direct observation
could also be made of how differing
levels of treatment and loading
rates affected the aquatic biota.
With this information, the water
classification law was found to be
deficient in describing the biotic
resources of the state.
Secondly, standards and criteria
in Maines law did not represent
the most current scientific
information. In addition to
revising standards for dissolved
oxygen and enteric bacteria, it was
decided that the current knowledge
of the aquatic community processes
was sufficient to enable
application of classification
standards and standardized methods
and criteria for Maines waters. Use
of community assessment is a cost
effective measure since it is a
direct, holistic evaluation of
water quality goals.
Finally, water quality
management was evolving in a way
which demanded new methods of
assessment and more integrated
evaluations of water quality. The
state is in its third round of
licensing. Licenses will
-------
Courtemanch and Davies
1. Aquatic life classification
for mine's rtv«rs and streams.
Ri
PeiapeL-Uve
of Biological
Integrity
AA
High quality uater for preservation of
recreational and ecological interests.
Mb diachaiueb or iapoundaents of any
penitted.
High quality water with Halted nunsn
interference. Discharges restricted to
nuiuiitact process water or highly
treated vastevater of quality equal to
or better than the receiving water.
iBiniiteani permitted.
Good voter quality. Discharges of well
treated effluents nth anpie dilution
penutted.
Lowest quality water, Rsquirenents
consistent with interia goals of the
Federal letter Quality Act (fishable
•nd avueable).
Aquatic life shall
be as naturally
Aquatic life shall
be as naturally
occurs.
Aabient water
quality sufficient
to support life
stages of all
indigenous aquatic
species. OUy
nondetrlaental
chauuus in
conwity
cooposition nay
occur.
Anbient water
quality sufficient
to support the life
stages of all
indigenous fish
species. Oianges in
species opposition
say occur but
structure and
function of tne
aquatic ocaauiity
auat be aaintained.
not be modified unless there is
demonstrated impairment of water
quality sufficient to affect uses.
Former water quality standardswere
limited in their ability to detect
use impairment. Thus, the biota
could offer a feedback mechanism to
assess the actual goals for habitat
improvement being sought through
the licensing system. Water quality
management was also evolving
through new amendments to the Water
Quality Act of 1987 requiring new
and added assessment requirements
for toxics and nonpoint source
pollution as well as traditional
assessment requirements. Because
toxics and nonpoint source
assessments often involve compound
pollutants and complex
interactions, the biota can lend
new insight into the effects of the
pollutants.
In order to change Maines water
quality program to place
significant emphasis on biological
assessment, systematic
accountability had to be provided.
First, a basis in state and federal
law for the use of biological
information in water quality
classification had to be
established. The law also needed
to be understandable to the public
and most notably the legislature.
Secondly, demonstration of
administrative accountability had
to be established. A new biological
program had to contribute needed
information that other standards
and criteria could not provide.
The standards also had to be
logistically.
-5-
-------
Maines Biocriteria and Standards
table 2. Osfintione of tans jEfropriate for establishing UBEST quality
criteria.
Definition
M naturally
Ocammiiity
cneewiity
structure
ZndigBxius
Nnural
Resident
biological
ity
Uniapeired
Without
dstriswntal
in the
eid«it
biological
ity
conditions with eeaentially the save physical,
claanml and biological cnaracteristics as fan!
In situations with siBilar Habitats free of
•elm am effects of hussn activity.
Mechanise of uptake, storage and transfer of function
life-sustaining eetsrials available to a
biological cosouiity >4uch determines tne
efficiency of use are! tne anunt of «port of the
••terials fron the omuiity.
Die organization of a biological cusuiity based
on nuters of individuals within different
taxonomic groups and the proportion each taxcnouc
group rapresarcs of the total ccsnuuty.
Supported in a reach of uater or kncui to have
been supported according to historical records
compiled by State and Federal agencies or
published aciaitific literature.
Living in, or as if in, a state of nature not
bly affected by nunn activity.
Aquatic life expected to exist in a habitat
is free from the influence of the discharge of any
pollutant. This shall be established by accepted
bicoonitoring techniques.
Without a dininished capacity to support aquatic
life.
Ho significant loss of species or excessive
dominance by any species or group of species
attributable to hum activity.
or ATDUMOIT or BICLOCICH. saataa
LZVHL OF HTDCIHY BCuUEICaL ATnBOTES
WTRICS
tnmaie BqualiCy
S^utliCy
of Intolerant tsxa •
of Tm.
Betencion of Nueberi—
of Hyperdoninanc
Presence of Intolerant Tota-
MO FUHCnCN
-I Similarity, Taxorenic Snularity, tichnest
• X Similarity, Abundance. Divertity, Bkjuitabilicy
-EFT, Indicator Tsa, Biotic Indices
-GaDBuoity Lota, Uchneaa
STHJCTtM-^—Resistance to Changi
-Abundance*
•Diveriity, Bquitabilicy,
-EFT, Indicator "uoa, Biotic Indices
Richnea*
Inertia
Divertity, Equitability,
Functional Feeding Group, Coamnity Loss,
Richneaa, Ahnrtanrt
•Trophic Group, Coaaunity Loss,
Richneaa, Abvnriance
Fecundity, Coloniution Rate,
r/k ratio.
Fig. i. Determination of Attainment of biological standards.
-6-
-------
Courtananch and Davies
Finally, there had to be scientific
accountability. The biological
standards and criteria had to have a
solid basis in ecological
principales. Field methods and
analytical techniques had to be
reproducible and accurate.
Development of Biological Standards
and Criteria— Four general
questions need to be addressed to
provide accountability to a system
of biological standards and
criteria: 1). what are the goals
and purposes, 2). how will the
biological standards and criteria
be used to achieve those goals and
purposes, 3). how can goals be
defined biologically, and 4). what
sort of decision process is
appropriate for biological
information.
Goals and Purposes: One of the
goals of the Federal Water Quality
Act, stated in section 101, is to
"restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters". The
problem is to define integrity. All
waters, even the most polluted have
integrity. Therefore, one must
examine the Act further to find
what is an allowable range for
integrity. Certainly, one standard
for integrity is conditions which
would be found in waters having no
discharges, since another goal of
the Act is to eliminate all
discharges. A second standard for
integrity may be found in the
interim goals of the Act which
requires water sufficient "for the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife".
Within these bounds set by the
Water Quality Act, Maine has
established three levels of
integrity for flowing freshwaters
in its water classification law
(Table 1). Class AA and A standards
require the biological community to
be "as naturally occurs". This is
analogous to conditions found
without discharges. Class B
standards require the aquatic
community to be unimpaired by water
quality conditions. Discharges are
allowed, however, they must only
result in changes to the community
regarded as benign (e.g.
recruitment of new species,
increased numbers). All indigenous
species must be supported and this
typically occurs where nontoxic
effluents are discharged into
waters with ample dilution. Class C
standards require that the
structure and function of the
aquatic community must be
protected. There may be
considerable replacement of
pollution tolerant species, by
tolerant species in Class C waters.
All indigenous fish species must be
supported by water quality,
however, they are not required to
be present in a given water body if
other factors of habitat or
biological interaction preclude
their establishment. Class C
standards in Maine law are
considered analogous to the interim
goals of the federal act. Tests for
attainment of classification are
based on effluent toxicity tests to
determine support for indigenous
organisms in Class B and C, and
measurements of the ambient
macroinvertebrate community to
determine the status of the
resident biological community.
fical
Uses fc
Water quality standards may be used
in two ways, a regulatory approach
or a planning approach. The
regulatory approach is traditional
and uses performance standards to
regulate selected outputs (e.g.
dissolved oxygen). They focus on a
single pollutant, are simple to
-7-
-------
Maines Biocriteria and Standards
Table 3. Criteria key to attainment of class A level of integrity "as
naturally occurs" (taxonomic equality, numerical equality, presence of
intolerant taxa).
1. Percent similarity > [0.7] A
[0.7] percent similarity > [0.3] 2
Percent similarity < 10.3] ..non attainment.(HA)
Comparison not possible 6
2. Taxonoauk similarity > [0.8J 3
Taxon^S^similarity < [0.8] and [0.6] .4
TaxonomVLc similarity < [0.6].... HA
3. Percent simi*»ity of * dominant taxa > [0.7] A
Percent si^ifarity of dominant taxa < [0.7] and [0.5] ..4
Percent similarity of dominant taxa < [0.5] HA
4. Taxonomic similacj^^^f dominant taxa > [0.9] 5
Taxonomic similar itjfof dominant taxa < [0.9] but may be attributable
to natural habitat differences ** • 6
Taxonomic similarity of dominant taxa < [0.9], but habitat similar HA
5. Community richness, diver^Of, and total abundance are all *_ [0.8],
of reference community.. ,\.. A
Community richness, diversity, and total abundance +_ [0.6 to 0.8]
of reference community ^^\ * Indeterminant
Community not as above \ TINr. HA
6. Epheneroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptejsa all present and EPT
richness > Diptera richness .^. 7
Epnemeroptera and Trichoptera presenter 9
Hot as above .1« ^
7. Diversity ^ [3.0]............«.....•••••• ..^>. .....««.•..«•«..«•••••••••A
Diversity < [3.0] 8
8. Equitability > [0.6] A
[0.6] > Equitability > [0.3] Indeterminant
Equitability < [0.6] »*
9. Epheneroptera and Trichoptera compose at least [50Z] of
dominant taxa • 7
Epnemeroptera and Trichoptera compose less than 50Z of dominant taxa...HA
* Dominant taxa are those vhich compose more than [5Z] of total
community population.
** Habitat differences exceed ranges recommended in "Methods for
Biological Sampling and Analysis of Maine's Water*".
[ ] denotes an undetermined value.
-8-
-------
Courtemanch and Davies
use, good for modeling and
enforcement, but are limited in
scope and not directly goal
oriented. Biological standards are
not suitable as performance
standards. The planning approach
uses impact standards which regulate
multivariate outcomes, such as
community response. They are an
integrative standard which focuses
on the state of the resource and are
a direct measure of goals. They are
not well suited to modeling, are
retroactive, and have limited
enforcement value. Impact standards
provide the manager with a direct
means to evaluate the progress of
water quality improvements gained
through the implementation of
various programs (e.g. NPDES,
construction grants, nonpoint
source).
Definitions of Biological Standards:
Integrity may have a multitude of
definitions, however, the Federal
Water Quality Act may be interpreted
as having bounds on the extent of
allowable degradation. Within these
bounds, Maine has established three
narrative biological standards of
integrity. These narrative standards
must be further refined by
establishing appropriate ecological
attributes specifically suited to
each standard. In Maine, this was
done in statute through a set of
definitions, which define critical
terms in each standard (Table 2).
It is important that each
definition be ecologically sound. By
identifying ecological attributes
uniquely associated with each
standard, specific metrics can be
identified for use in the
development of criteria (Fig. 1).
For example, the term "as naturally
occurs" is defined as conditions
with essentially the same physical,
chemical, and biological
characteristics as found in
situations with similar habitats
free of measurable effects of human
activity. From this definition, it
is apparent that various tests of
similarity are most appropriate for
testing integrity in Class AA and A
waters. Criteria are developed for
each class based on metrics
sensitive to the ecological
attributes associated with the
standard and will vary across
classes.
Decision Process: Maine's water
classification statute is explicit
in setting biological standards and
defining the terms in those
standards. From these definitions,
an array of metrics can be
identified. It is important that
these metrics be used in a
consistent manner to provide the
most reliable assessment. To do
this, the metrics are used in a
hierarchical sequence using the
most powerful metrics first, and
relying on secondary tests when the
primary tests do not yield clear
results. Ecological evaluation is
known for large variability in
results. To taJce this into account,
Maine's system of criteria
evaluation uses a series of
trichotomous tests (Table 3). Where
results of a metric show a strong
pass or fail value, that result is
considered valid. Where results are
in between, and significance of a
particular value is not clear, the
hierarchical sequence moves on to
other metrics, which test
components of the first test, or
provide other information about the
status of the community. The
hierarchical sequence also allows
for use of professional judgement
and escapes where samples are found
to be nonrepresentative due to
influences of sampling methods,
habitat differences or other
factors not associated with water
quality.
-9-
-------
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
THE ROLE OF BIOLOGICAL DATA IN WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment,
Surface Water Section,
1030 King Avenue,
Columbus, Ohio 43212.
Abstract
Although the principal goal of the Water Quality Act is to restore and
maintain chemical, physical, and biological integrity, the methods by which
regulatory agencies have been attempting to achieve it are primarily
chemical and toxicological. Difficulties with defining an ecological
approach to assessing biotic integrity have probably led to this reliance on
surrogate measures. One purpose of this volume is to define biotic
integrity as a practical and workable concept upon which objective
biological criteria can be based. Thus compliance with a major directive of
the Water Quality Act can be measured directly. This also responds to a
mandate of the Water Quality Act of 1987 for the development of biological
monitoring and assessment methods as both a supplement and an alternative to
the pollutant-by-pollutant criteria approach for toxic chemicals (Section
308).
This biocriteria approach can also be described as a systems approach in
which the focus is on the resource (i.e., aquatic life) and its response to
different environmental inpacts. This approach permits a variety of
different resource management options to be examined and used as a strategy
to restore or protect the performance of the resource. In contrast, the
current chemical specific/toxicity approach can be characterized as a
regulatory approach in which the focus is on specific pollutants with
specific rules for discharge being specified. This proposal advocates the
complimentary use of both approaches, not one to the exclusion of the other.
The use of biological comnunities, particularly fish and
macroinvertebrates, offers a holistic, systems approach to surface water
quality assessment and management. Aquatic organisms not only integrate a
variety of environmental influences (chemical, physical, and biological),
but complete their life cycles in the water body and as such are continuous
monitors of environmental quality. Focusing on major organism groups such as
fish and macroinvertebrates represents biological evaluation at the sub-
community level. This differs from past biological monitoring protocols
which advocated the resource intensive monitoring of a variety of different
organism groups (e.g., algae, macrophytes, zooplankton, diatoms, etc., in
addition to fish or maeroinvertebrates) at the same time. Another
attractive feature of the biocriteria approach is that sampling need not be
conducted under absolute worst case or critical conditions (i.e., Qvfio
flow) to determine attainment/non-attainment of aquatic life uses. This
certainly presents a powerful assessment tool compared to the steady state
-10-
-------
Olio Environmental Protection Agency Role of Biological Data
approaches inherent to commonly applied chemical specific and toxicity
methods. Including this type of biological field assessment along with
traditional chemical and toxicity tools can significantly enhance decision
making and regulatory resource allocation, particularly with complex issues.
The type of biological field assessments advocated by this document
(i.e., sub-community level analysis) is cost competitive with chemical
specific and toxicity testing methods. It is also equally cost effective
when the power of the information derived from each is considered. The cost
analysis presented in this document tends to refute the widely-held
reputation of biological surveys as being prohibitively expensive.
Biological criteria were developed for Ohio rivers and streams using the
biosurvey/ecoregion approach and the design of the Stream Regionalization
Project in conjunction with the U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory -
Corvallis. A set of least impacted reference sites from across the state
and within each of the five ecoregions of Ohio were carefully selected and
sampled for fish and macroinvertebrates. These sites represent watersheds
with the least disturbance from human activity within each ecoregion. Based
on these results criteria for three biological indices, the Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI, based on fish), the Modified Index of Weil-Being (l^,
fish), and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI, macroinvertebrates) were
derived. This design satisfies the definition of biological integrity as
the biological performance achieved by the natural habitats within a region.
Practical uses of this approach include determining appropriate and
attainable aquatic life uses for surface waters, extending antidegradation
concerns to nonpoint and habitat impacts, enhanced problem discovery for
toxics, prioritizing the use of regulatory resources (e.g., permits, grants,
304(1) lists), and as a check on the attainment of Water Quality Act goals
(e.g., 305(b) reporting).
Several examples from past Ohio EPA biological surveys are presented as a
demonstration of how the biological criteria can be used and the complex
combination of point source, nonpoint source, and habitat factors that are
common to most study areas. The problem discovery capabilities of
biological assessment are emphasized.
Previously Published as:
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological criteria for the
protection of aquatic life: Volume I. The role of biological data in water
quality assessment. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.
-11-
-------
THE DEVELOPMENT OF FISH POPULATION-BASED BIOCRITERIA IN VERMONT
Richard Langdon
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05676
Abstract
The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation is presently
modifying two fish population-level indicies for potential use as
biocriteria in permit compliance and stream classification. Modifications of
Karr's Index of Biotic Integrity and Pinkham and Pearson's similarity
coefficient (PPSC) were selected for use in defining the water quality
standard, "undue adverse effect on the aquatic biota". A modification of
Karr's IBI for the Northeast by Miller et al. provided a starting point in
adopting the IBI for Vermont's species depauperate wadeable streams.
Oner-nick's ecoregion format was used to establish ecoregional species
richness standards used by the Vermont version. The PPCS was modified to
more heavily weigh contrasts between the more dominant species. The
calibration of both indicies is in progress. The IBI has been applied to
data from 44 sites on 28 streams while the PPCS has been applied at eight
sites. The Vermont IBI has not responded fully to every type of cormunity
disturbance, i.e. flow regulation and some toxins. Aside, however, from
being a highly integrative index, scoring of the IBI does provide a
framework of metric assessment permitting analysis of individual community
attributes; an advantage in applying professional biological judgement. The
PPCS appears to be sensitive to any shift in compositional and abundance
changes, but computation of the index value reveals little descriptive
information on either contrasted community. The potential weakness of each
index seems to be compensated for by the other when used concurrently in
control-test comparisons.
Introducticn
Specific biocriteria have been
proposed by the Vermont Department
of Environmental Conservation which
use macro invertebrate conmunities
in determining in-stream compliance
of indirect dischargers through the
Indirect Discharge Program. A
macroinvertebrate sampling and
analysis protocol is in place which
defines "significant impact to the
aquatic biota" in making this
determination. Since activities
leading to the development of
appropriate fish population
descriptors have taken place at a
slower rate, formally proposed fish-
based biocriteria have yet to be
presented. The overall objective of
this effort is to generate a
systematic method of evaluating the
integrity of the fish community
which can be utilized in an
analogous manner to the
macroinvertebrates protocol but
which defines the less vigorous
Water Quality narrative criterion,
"undue adverse effect to the
aquatic biota". The Department also
recognizes the potential for fish
population assessment in monitoring
and stream classification
programs. This manuscript describes
the process by which two
biological indicies were selected
and are being modified for use on
fish contnunities in wadeable
streams in Vermont. This effort can
be partitioned into two steps: 1)
selection and verification of
indicies, and 2) integration of
these indicies into compliance and
monitoring programs as biocriteria.
-------
Table l. Ccnsicieraticns in Developing Fish Population Biocriteria in
Vermont.
Tnrtex Requirements
1. Must measure integrity of entire fish population;
2. Must accurately measure fish population responses to physical
habitat degradation as well as point and ncnpoint water quality
impacts;
3. Mist have low variability of known quantity;
4. Hist be applicable to a variety of stream habitats.
Requirements
1. Most develop standardized physical habitat assessment method for
site comparison;
2. Must establish sampling protocols
a. Sampling method
b. Sampling effort
c. Site selection
Biocriteria Considerations
1. Relate index results to narrative criteria (integrate use of index
into Water Quality Standards) .
2. Must systematically establish professional judgement as an input to
decision maJcing process.
Modifications of Karr's (1981)
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and
the similarity coefficient of
Pinkham and Pearson (PPCS) (1976)
were selected for use. The
verification and calibration effort
for both indicies is still in
progress. To date, the IBI has been
applied to 76 sites on 43 streams.
No in-depth evaluation of our
results will be presented here due
to the inconplete data base. The
discussion will include the
rationale used to modify both
indicies, some general interim
results and finally, information
needs to be addressed.
Methods and Materials
The development of fish
population-based biocriteria began
in 1986. In the first two years data
used in the index testing often
originated from other sampling
programs. For 1988, however,
significantly more time has been
allotted specifically for IBI-PPCS
verification. While general goals
were defined at the onset of th^se
activities, specific objectives and
concerns for data requirements
evolved as the work progressed.
Future efforts will address
specific information needs that
were generated from past work. The
principle data requirements and
general concerns appear in Table 1.
Vermont Stream Populations
In characterizing fish community
attributes of wadeable streams,
historical data was organized by
ecoregion (Qnernick 1987). Vermont,
a small state, contains only three
ecoregions, one of which, the
Northeastern Coastal Zone appears
to include too small an area to be
treated separately (Figure 1). Most
of the state is covered by the
Northeastern Highlands (NEH). This
ecoregion, characterized by
relatively high elevations,
includes the Green Mountains, the
Vermont Piedmont and the (Vermont)
-13-
-------
Vermont Biocriteria using Fish
MAXIMUM SPECIES RICHNESS UNE - NEH
Northeastern CMS til Zone
10 too
OKMNAGE AKA (•quora km)
600
MAXIMUM SPECIES RICHNESS UNE - NAPU
10 100
DUNNAGE AAEA (*quan km)
400
Fig. l. Ecoregions of Vermont from
Qnernik 1987.
Fig. 2. Maximum species richness
lines for NEH.
Fig. 3. Maximum species richness
lines for NAPU.
Northeastern highlands. The other
major ecoregion, the Northern
Appalachian Plateau and uplands
(NAPU) span the Eastern third of
the state, including the Champlain
Valley and lower elevations of the
Taconic Mountains.
Available data indicate that
Vermont stream communities are
relatively species-depauperate with
most streams supporting fewer than
ten species. Figures 2 and 3 plot
species richness by sampling site
drainage area for both major
ecoregions. Streams in the NEH are
generally dominated by
insectivores. Headwater reaches
often contain only brook trout.
Species additions, progressing
downstream, commonly include slimy
sculpin, blacknose and longnose
dace followed by creek chub, white
suckers, fallfish, brown and
rainbow trout. A small number of
additional cyprinids, tesselated
darter and one to three
centrarchids may complete the
community in the lower reaches of
-14-
-------
Langdcn
•able 2. A preliminary IBI for \*r»ont.
1. Total rutoer of fish species MDCUUI species richness lines
2. Nuaber and Identity of Tblerant Species >l 1 0
3. Muster and Identity of Banthic Insectivores >2 1-2 0
4. Proportion of Individuals as Wiite Sucker <10% 10-25% >25%
siti45%
6. Proporticn of Individuals as Insectivores >65% 30-65% <30%
Excellent 43-45
ODCd 36-39
Fair 29-33
Poor 22-25
very Poor 9-19
7. Proportion of Individuals as Ttop Carnivores:
Cold water
Harm water
3-10% <3%
1-5% <1%
initi
8. abundance in Sanple
9. Proportion of individuals with
disease, nmsrs, fin daaage and other
Moderate very
to high low low
0-1% i-n
larger streams. Species richness in
NAPU streams appears to be slightly
greater than in NEH streams of
similar drainage area. The total
species list from NAPU streams
includes most species from the NEH
plus an additional fifteen species
(mostly cyprinids and darters) not
found int he NEH streams. Data
collected to date suggests that
longitudinal species addition seems
to occur at a higher rate in NAPU
streams. Most streams of this
ecoregion support warmwater
populations, devoid of trout.
Ihe Vermont IBI
It was recognized early that if
the IBI concept was to be applied to
Vermont's streams that extensive
modification of the midwest original
(Karr 1981) would be required.
Following a review of two IBI
modifications from Karr's original
for Eastern streams, the
modification by Miller et al.
(unpublished manuscript) for
Merrimack (New Hampshire) and
Connecticut (Massachusetts)
drainages was selected as a
starting point. Tne present nine-
metric Vermont IBI (Table 2)
contains eight of twelve metrics
from Miller et al. Some of these
metrics were rescored or modified.
Cne metric was taken from the
modification of Leonard and Orth
(1986).
An IBI is applied by assigning a
score of 5, 3 or 1 to each metric.
A score of "5" denotes full
agreement with conditions from a
relatively unimpacted site while a
"l" represents the greatest
deviation from that expected. A
score of "3" reflects an
intermediate level of deviation.
Metric scores are summed, with the
resultant value placed into a
qualitative category ranging from
very poor (low score) to excellent
-15-
-------
Vermont Biocriteria using Fish
Table 3. Fish Species occurring in Vermont Streams considered as intolerant
to <3eneral habitat and Water Quality degradation based on published
literature accounts.
Brook trout
Brown trout
Slimy sculpin
Blackchin shiner
BlacJcnose shiner
Chain picteral
Cutlips minnow
Northern Redbelly dace
Silvery minnow
(high score). A brief discussion of
the rationale for each metric from
the Vermont IBI follows.
Metric 1. Total Number of Species.
Lines of maximum species richness
were generated from historical data
from 154 streams sampled by the
Vermont Departments of Fish and
Wildlife and Environmental
Conservation (Figures 1 and 2).
These lines represent ecoregional
standards. Following Karr's (1981)
methods, a fit-to-eye line was drawn
to include 95% of the data and to
follow the general slope of the
plot. Two other lines, approximately
trisecting 95% of the data below the
maximum species richness were scored
according to Karr. A general, though
not well developed, trend of
increasing number of species with
stream drainage area was observed
for both ecoregions. This metric
appears only to be sensitive at
moderate to severe levels of
degradation as reflected by the
present Vermont IBI data base.
Metric 2. Number and Identity of
Intolerant Species. This metric is
often scored by the use of a line of
maximum species richness (Karr 1981;
Miller et al. unpublished). Since
species richness in Vermont streams
is low, any variation in the numbers
of intolerant species expected
between sites and ecoregions has not
been detected as yet. As a result,
one set of scores has been assigned
to all streams. Eleven species have
been classified as intolerant based
on the available literature (Table
3).
Metric 3. Number and Identity of
Benthic Insectivores. Since stream
habitat degradation may represent
the greatest threat to aquatic
biota in Vermont, the inclusion of
metrics sensitive to a wide breadth
of feeding preferences is of
particular importance. An unstable
benthic macroinvertebrate community
in the presence of degraded
conditions threatens those fish
species which rely on that
community as a primary food base
(Karr 1986). Insectivores dominate
fish comnunities in healthy streams
in both Vermont ecoregions. As with
metric 2, no variation between
sites or ecoregions has been
observed and one set of scores has
been assigned to all streams. A
typical undisturbed stream supports
from one to three benthic
insectivores. Trophic
classification follows the
available literature (Table 4).
Metric 4. Proportion of Individuals
as White Sucker. This species was
selected due to its ubiqutous
distribution in both ecoregions.
The white sucker is commonly
-16-
-------
Langdcn
regarded as tolerant to many forms
of degradation (Trautman 1981;
Tworney 1984). As generalists
feeders (Miller et al. unpublished;
Leonard and Orth 1986) they are
better suited to a shifting food
base in the presence of degraded
conditions than are more
specialized feeders (Karr et al.
1986). Thus far white sucker have
only occurred in higher densities
in degraded sites. This metric
follows the substitution by Miller
et al. of white sucker for Karr's
green sunfish metric as a tolerant
species.
Metric 5. Proportion of Individuals
as Genralist Feeders. Leonard and
Orth (1986) substituted this metric
for Karr's omnivore metric because
1). the omnivore classification was
believed too restrictive in
defining species which were able to
shift food habits in response to a
variable food base, and 2). some
generalist feeders, i.e. creek chub
were not classified as omnivores
yet, were very tolerant to many
forms of perturbation. Use of the
omnivore classification resulted in
a conflict in scoring metrics (and a
less responsive index). The
placement of creek chub and fallfish
into the generalized feeder category
with true omnivores appears to be
appropriate in that Semotilus in
Vermont streams is generally
observed as a dominant only in
degraded stream reaches. This metric
will usually vary inversely in
scoring with metrics 3, 6 and 7.
Metric 6. Proportion of Individuals
as Insectivores. Miller et al.
substituted this metric for Karr's
insectivorous cyprinids metric due
to the paucity of insectivorous
cyprinid species in streams of the
Northeast. This was also deemed a
reasonable substitution for Vermont
streams. This metric is comparable
in function to metric 3 (benthic
insectivores species) but includes
surface and midwater feeders as
well.
Metric 7. Proportion of Individuals
as TOP Carnivores. This metric is
analogous to the top level
carnivore metric of Miller et al.
and others. Since a significant
portion of streams in Vermont
support naturally reproducing
trout, the three trout species (as
well as burbot) are included as top
carnivores. Since unimpacted
wadeable streams appear to contain
trout and warmwater piseivores at
different densities, two scoring
ranges have been established. For
sites represented by both groups,
the group scoring the highest will
be represented in the metric. The
modification of Miller et al.
excluded from consideration upland
coldwater sites which support
trout. The author does not believe
that the presence of trout and a
low number of other species at a
site precludes application of an
IBI. It is believed that enough
information exists to accurately
score the IBI if a generalist
feeder and at least three other
non-salmonid species are present.
This condition represents a
proposed minimum criterion for
applying the Vermont IBI.
Metric 8. Abundance of Sample. More
data is presently needed to
calibrate this metric. Since a wide
range of productivity exist in
Vermont streams and since yearly
variation in this parameter is
high, this metric will probably be
scored conservatively. Thus far, as
Karr et al. (1986) recommends,
catch per unit effort (CFUE) has
been used in scoring this metric.
-17-
-------
Vermont Biocriteria using Fish
Table 4. Trophic Classification of Vermont's Streaw Fishes
Oeter»lnations are based on the published literature.
TOP CARHIYORE
Chain Plckeral (Esox nlqer)
Northern P1ke (Esox lucius)
Large»outh Bass (Mlcropterus salnoIdes)
SmallBouth Bass (Mlcroptenj? dolom1eu1)
Rock Bass (Aaiblppl Ites rupes'trls)
Brook Trout (Salvellnus fpntlnalls)
Brown Trout (Salmp truttal
Rainbow Trout (SaTmo galrdnerl)
Burbot (Lota Iota"!
BEHTHIC INSECTIVORES
Blacknose Dace (Rhlnlchthys atratulus)
Longnose Dace (Rhlnlchthys cataractae)
Cutllps Minnow (Exoglossui maxlllIngUa)
SUmy Sculpln (Cottus cognatus)
Nettled Sculp1n~TEottus balrdT)
Shorthead Redhorse (Hoxostoma macrplepldotan)
Eastern Sand Darter (Aimocrypta pelluclja")
Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma oimstedl)
Logperch (Percina caprodes)
INSECTIVORE
Blackchln Shiner (Notrppls heterodon)
Ewerald Shiner (Nptropls atherlnoldes)
Rosyface Shiner (Nptropls
Spotfln Shiner (Nptroc
Spottall Shiner (Nptropls ...
Blacknose Dace (Rhlnlchthys atratuTus)
Longnose Dace (Rhlnlchthys cataractae)
Cutllps Minnow (Lxoglossuri maxminqu'a)
Flnescale Dace (Phoxlnus neoqaeus)
Bluegill (LepoHils macrochlrus)
Puapkinseed (LepomTT"gibbosus)
Redbreast Sunflsh (Lepomis aUrltus)
SUmy Sculpln (Cottus cognatus)
Mottled SculplnTtoHus baird<)
Eastern Sand Darter (AJJiBocrypta pelludda)
Iowa Darter (Etheostoma exile)
Tessellated Darter (EtTieostoaM olastedl)
Logperch (Percina caprodes)
Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)
Shorthead Redhorse (Hoxoste«ia~»acrolep1dotuB)
Banded K1ll1f1sh (Fundulus dlaphanus)
Brook Stickleback (Culaea 1 neons tans)
Trout-perch (PercopsTs^SlscoaaycusT
6ENERAIIZED FEEDER
Blacknose Shiner (Nptropls heterolepls)
Bluntnose Minnow (Flaapnales notatus)
CoMon Carp (Cyprlnus carpi o)
CoMmon Sh1ner"Tlotrop1s cornutus)
Creek Chub (Seaotlius atroaaculTtus)
Fallflsh (Se«otnui"corpora11s)
>« VhUVI ilIWI MCA /
pTs rubellus)
Ts"spnopterus)
pTs nudsonlus)
Fathead Minnow (Piltptiales proiielas
Golden Shiner (MptMMQonyl crysoleui
Lake Club (Coueslus piuabeusT
las)
eucas)
trgpls volucellus)
ly Dace (Phoxlnus 'eos)
Shiner
Northern RedbeT . . ....
Pearl Dace (SemotHus aargarlta)
Sand Shiner (Notropls straailneus)
Eastern Silver Minnow (HybognatHus reglus)
Black Bullhead (Ictalurus atlas)
Brown Bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)
Stonecat (Noturui~?iavus)
Longnose Sucker (Catastonus catastomus)
wlilte Sucker (Catastonus corner son 1)
Fantall Darter~TTtneostoaia~fTapenare)
Mudmlnnow
Metric 9. Proportion of Individuals
with Diseasp. Turrors. Damage and
Other Anomalies. This metric has a
relatively narrow range of
application in Vermont as it is
sensitive to only severe
degradation (Karr et al. 1986). The
most cannon anomaly thus far is
heavily infestations of black spot
(Neascus sp.). Steedman (1988)
substituted the occurrance of black
spot alone for Karr's original
metric, as this was the predominant
anomaly in streams in the Toronto
area.
Three metrics from the
modification of Miller et al. were
not used in the Vermont IBI.
Metric 2. Number and Identification
of Native Water Column Species.
This is a substitute metric for
Karr's original number of sunfish
species metric. It was not included
in the Vermont IBI because of the
probable conflict in scoring with
the generalist feeder metric, many
water column species, i.e. creek
chub, fallfish, common shiner and
golden shiner) are omnivores and
generalist insectivores. The two
metrics then would most likely
cancel each other by scoring, in
opposite directions, a species
which is both opportunistic and a
water column feeder. Low species
richness in Vermont streams may
also be responsible for the
preclusion of the water column
feeder metric.
Metric 4. Number and Identity of
Sucker Species. Cniy two sucker
species are known to inhabit
wadeable streams in Vermont. While
the white sucker is generally
regarded as tolerant to many forms
of degradation, the longnose sucker
is believed to have a narrower
range of habitat tolerances
-18-
-------
Langdcn
Tttile 5. An enable of the PK3 (Pinknan and Pearson 1976) (A)
weighted acdif ication of that version (B).
and the
Abundance
Site X Site B
Species A
B
C
D
100
10
1
1
75
50
10
0
75/100
10/50
1/10
1/0
0.75
0.20
0.10
1.05/4 • 0.26 - B
B. Abundance
Site A Site B
Species A 100
B 10
C 1
D 1
75
50
10
0
QUptj.ents
75/100 - 0.75
10/50 - 0.20
1/10 - 0.10
(not included)
4.25/1.85 «
Factor
x 2.00 -
x 1.25 -
x 1.00 »
4.25
0.44 - B
Quotients
1.50
0.25
0.10
1.85
(Edwards 1983). Karr's intent was to
equate greater numbers of sucker
species (most of which were
intolerant) with higher site
integrity. Clearly then, this metric
would be inappropriate for use in
Vermont streams.
Metric 11. Proportion of Individuals
as Hybrids. To date, few hybrids
have been identified in Vermont
streams. A problem exists in the
accurate field identification of
hybrid cyprinids, the group in
Vermont most likely to exhibit this
phenomenon.
A condition of the modification of
Miller et al. excluded exotic
species from the scoring of all but
one metric. Exotics were viewed as
part of the degradation. Because of
a general lack of severly irtpacted
sites combined with the existence of
physical barriers prohibiting
extensive upstream movement, exotic
non-salmonid species do not conprise
a significant component of wadeable
streams in Vermont. Exotic trout
species (brown and rainbow) are
included in the scoring of the
Vermont IBI under the following
conditions: l) the site or reach
sampled can support natural
reproduction of those species, and
2) sampling to take place at a
location and time, that is enough
removed from (1 km, 3-4 months)
from the stocking site and time.
Some Proposed Guidelines for the
Application of the Vermont IBI
A minimum criterion of four non-
salmonid species, including a
generalist feeder, must be met to
apply this index. In control-test
site conparisons this prerequisite
applies to the control populations
only. All sampling must be
conducted between mid-August and
mid-October. This period
corresponds to the yearly low flow
period permitting most efficient
sanpling. Since small fish are not
as vulnerable to electrofishing
gear (Nielson and Johnson 1985\
only fish larger than 25 rim total
length will be included in the
index. Stocked Atlantic salmon
fingerlings will be excluded' from
index consideration due to their
inability (as yet) to spawn in
streams. Abundance of fingerlings
on certain reaches can be high due
to high stocking densities and
absence of sportfishing mortality.
-19-
-------
Vermont Biocriteria using Fish
Fishing effort required remains a
less-easily defined guideline.
Minimum effort in the sampled reach
has not yet been determined. The
choice exists as one between a one
to two sweep CPUE and the multiple-
sweep population estimator of Carle
and Strub (1978).
Physical habitat conditions have
been shown to be an important
determinant of fish distribution
(Gorman and Karr 1979; Horowitz
1978; Schlosser 1982). Hendrick et
al. (1980) identified the process
of selecting control and test sites
that are similar in habitat as "one
of the most difficult problems
encountered in the biomonitoring of
fish". While trained professionals
can often select two sites, like in
habitat (Hendricks et al. 1980), it
is believed that a form of
documentation of that likeness is
necessary. A systematic method of
habitat analysis then, will likely
be required for all biocriteria
related population sampling. This
analysis will provide a measure of
habitat similarity between control
and test sites. This measure is of
importance in cases where: 1) water
quality impairment is suspected and
differences in physical habitat are
to be minimized, and 2) changes in
habitat are to be documented at
sites where a physical habitat-
related impairment is suspected.
Although the quantity of area
sampled varies in published studies,
most investigators strive to sample
all major habitat types in
attempting to produce a fully
representative sample (i.e. Mahon
1980; Berkman et al. 1986; Larson et
al. 1980; Leonard and Orth 1986;
Steedman 1988). Karr et al. (1986)
suggests a minimum length of 100 m
for structurally simple streams. For
larger, more complex (habitat
diverse) streams, Karr et al. (1986)
suggests a minimum of two habitat
cycles. Leonard and Orth (1986)
included two habitat cycles in
their 50 m length sites in small
West Virginia streams. Hankin
(1986) stressed the importance of
sampling with regard to habitat
type rather than pre-established
site length. He maintained that
sampling habitat-defined sections
minimized errors in estimating
abundance when compared to length-
defined site estimates. It is
likely that a combination of
minimum distance and number of
habitat cycles will be
incorporated into Vermont's
sampling requirements.
Index of Biotic Similarity
A modification of Pinkham and
Pearson's (1976) PPCS (B) is
proposed for concurrent use with
the Vermont IBI. Use of the Vermont
IBI to date, indicates that it may
not be completely responsive to all
pertebations, i.e. flow regulation
and some toxins. The PPCS appears
to be sensitive to any change in
species abundance or composition
within a community. A disadvantage
of the PPCS is that the index value
as well as the computation of that
value provide little information on
the nature of the community itself.
Simultaneous use of both indicies
would appear to combine the
positive aspects of sensitivity
(PPCS) and description of community
parameters (IBI) into the final
biocriterion.
The PPCS produces a measure of
similarity (0-total dissimilarity
to l.0-total similarity). For use
in water quality standards
compliance, the implicit assumption
is made that an altered or stressed
population will, when contrasted to
a control population, exhibit
progressively lower values (towards
-20-
-------
langdon
dissimilarity) with increasing
population impact.
The PPCS is:
1 ^_ min Xia .Xib
k i=l max Xia, Xib
where k = number of comparisons
between sites;
x = number of individuals
in taxon i;
a,b = Site A, Site B
An example illustrates the
computation of the formula in Fig.
5-A.
In its present form, the index
weighs contrasts between all
species equally, regardless of
their dominance in the community.
Pinkham and Pearson (1976) stated
that in cases where organisms from
the same trophic level are to be
contrasted, it may be more
desireable to weigh each contrast
according to the relative abundance
of that taxon. This author agrees
with that assertion that increased
significance should be attributed
to changes in the more abundant
species. The original un-weighted
PPCS has also been shown to be more
susceptible to sampling error
(Brock 1977). Pinkham and Pearson
noted this tendency as well, using
the example of: a change of one
individual will more profoundly
alter the index from a 3-3 to a 3-2
contrast than it would if the
abundance were higher: 324-325 to a
323-325. Though Pinkham and Pearson
proposed a weighted modifcataion
(B2) it was not selected for use
because of its inability to weigh
contrasts when one taxon was absent
from the pair. The following
modifications to the IBS are being
proposed by the author:
1. Species used in the paired
contrasts should comprise at least
1% of the total population or have
a density of at least 50
individuals/ ha (from a catch per
unit effort estimate based on two
electrofishing sweeps) from at
least one site.
2. Species used in the paired
contrasts will be weighed according
to their abundance at both sites
combined, using the following
factors:
For species comprising 1-5% of the
total, multiply the quotient by
1.0; for 5.1-10%, 1.25; for 10.1-
15%, 1.50, for 15.1-20%, 1.75; for
20%, by 2.0 (See Table 5-B for
example of application).
From the example demonstrated in
Table 5-B, species D was eliminated
from the contrast because it did
not meet the 1% criterion. The
remainder of the species were
weighted accordingly, resulting in
an increase in the PPCS from 0.26
to 0.44. The value from the
modified PPCS would intuitively
appear to better represent the true
changes between these two
hypothetical populations.
Results and Discussion
The process of developing
biocriteria in Vermont is in
progress. Subsequently, the
available data set is too small to
present a conclusive discussion of
the results. A few general trends
have been observed and will be
discussed together with specific
objectives for on-going work.
The Department has, thus far,
focused on extensively testing the
Vermont IBI over a number of
streams rather than intensively on
a few streams. The distribution of
IBI scores from 44 sites sampled
prior to 1988 is skewed towards
the higher values despite an
-21-
-------
Vermont Biocriteria using Fish
10
e-
7> 6-
U.
o
I 4-.
z
2-
i
I
I
E G-E G F-G F P-F P VP-P VP
SCORE
Fig. 4. Distribution of Vermont
Index of Biotic Integrity scores for
44 sites.
attempt to include more degraded
sites in the. testing (Figure 4).
Five of the six sites which were
rated very poor or poor are known
by the Department to be "trouble
spots". Substantial water chemistry
data exists from four sites which
verify the low IBI scores. The
Vermont IBI was judged to have
fully responded to disturbance from
chlorinated wastewater effluents,
physical habitat degradation and
ammonia toxicity. Sites which
scored poor to fair, fair, and fair
to good, seem to be exhibiting less
definable intermediate impacts from
cumulative nonpoint and point
sources as well as physical habitat
degradation. The six sites rating
excellent were all cold water trout
streams, five of which are located
in the NEH ecoregion. At this point
in the testing it appears that
streams in the NEK score slightly
higher than streams located in the
NAPU. It is presently too early to
speculate whether this tendency is
due to general habitat quality or
merely a result of differential
index scoring for streams with
inherently different trophic
composition.
The Vermont IBI has not shown a
sensitivity to all types and levels
of impacts. Abundance was
dramatically reduced (90%) at two
sites where the index failed to
respond fully. One test site showed
excessive BCD and chlorine levels
while the other contained high
levels of copper from mine
drainage. A third site was exposed
to routine dewatering from an
upstream hydrogeneration facility.
Below the facility all major
species were present, however,
overall abundance was reduced
nearly 50%. The Vermont IBI was
only 6 points lower at the impacted
site indicating "good" conditions.
The omission of three of Miller et
al.'s "original" metrics is not
considered responsible for these
inconsistencies in the Vermont
IBI. To determine this, the
modification of Miller et al. was
applied, as well as, the Vermont
version plus the three omitted
metrics. Neither IBI responded to a
greater degree than did the nine-
metric Vermont IBI at any of the
three cases.
The Department believes the IBI
concept to be sound and with
potential for use as Biocriteria.
The IBI not only integrates several
community attributes into a single
value, increasing the validity of
that value, but through scoring-
each metric individually, the
computation of the IBI also
provides the biologist with an
opportunity to examine various
community attributes separately.
This process facilitates the use of
professional judgement by the
biologist which is considered by
the Department to be a vital
-------
Langdcn
component of the total site
evaluation.
The weighted PPCS has not been
tested as extensively as the
Vermont IBI. This index has been
applied to eight contrasts (two
sites each) on eight streams.
Values at six degraded sites ranged
from 0.02-0.33 while values at two
uniirpacted replicate sites were
0.56-0.71. Tor the weighted PPCS
the question seems not whether it
responds to changes in community
integrity, but rather to what
degree it responds and how will
that translate into final
biocriteria?
Information Needs
Further sampling will include a
more intensive sample design which
will focus on the spatial and
temporal factors which effect the
scoring of the two indicies.
Specific objectives for further
sampling program (when data are
combined with the past years
information) are:
1. To characterize expected
variation in both indicies. This
will be attempted by sampling a
number of replicate sites which
will be similar in physical and
chemical characteristics.
2. To examine the effects of
temporal variability within the low
flow period of August to early
October. A number of sites will be
sampled once between mid-August and
early September and again between
late September and early October.
3. To better define the sensitivity
of both indicies. More sites which
vary in extent of degradation will
be sampled.
4. To evaluate the effectiveness of
using catch per unit effort data
(CPUE) in describing abundance.
5. To contrast results from fish
population indicies with those from
macro invertebrate populat ions.
Concurrent sampling of fish and
macroinvertebrate populations will
provide information on how
evaluations from each trophic level
may be used singly or together in
making site evaluations.
An additional concern yet to be
addressed specifically, is how to
systematically involve professional
judgement into specific
biocriteria. Critical to this
problem is quantifying the role Of
professional judgement in the
decision making process. Prior to
the anticipated 1989 completion of
the proposed Vermont fish
population biocriteria, other
issues such as data quality,
minimum sampling effort and habitat
analysis methodologies will also be
addressed.
Literature Cited
Berkman, H. E. , C. F. Rabeni, and
T. P. Boyle. 1986. Biomonitors of
stream quality in agricultural
areas: fish vs macroinvertebrates.
Environmental Management 10:413-
419.
Brock, D. A. 1977. Comparison of
community similarity indicies.
Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation 49:2488-2494.
Carle, F. L. and M. R. Strub. 1978.
A new method for estimating
population size from removal data.
Biometrics 34:621-630.
Edwards, E. 1983. Habitat
suitability index models: longnose
sucker. FWS/QBS-82/10.35. united
-23-
-------
Vermont Biocriteria using Fish
States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ft. Collins, CO.
Gorman, 0. T. and J. R. Karr. 1978.
Habitat structure and stream fish
conmunities. Ecology 59:507-515.
Hankins, D. G. 1986. Sampling
designs for estimating the total
number of fish in small streams.
United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range
Experimental Station Research Paper
No. 360.
Hendricks, M. H., Hocutt, C. H.,
and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980.
Monitoring of fish biotic habitats.
pp. 205-231 In C. H. Hocutt and J.
R. Stauffer, Jr., eds. Biological
Monitoring of Fish. D. C. Health
and Co., Lexington, MA.
Horowitz, R. J. 1978. Tenporal
variability patterns and the
distributional patterns of stream
fishes. Ecological Monographs
48:307-321.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of
biotic integrity using fish
communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L.
Angermier, P. R. Yant and I. J.
Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running
waters, a method and its rationale.
Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication 5.
Kovalak, W. 1981. Assessment and
prediction of impacts of effluents
on communties of benthic stream
macroinvertebrates. pp. 255-263 In
J. M. Bates and C. I. Weber, eds.
Ecological assessments of Effluent
Impacts on Communities of
Indigenous Aquatic Organisms.
American Society of Testing and
Materials, STP 730, Philadelphia,
PA.
Larsen, D. P., J. M. Omernik, R. M.
Hughes, C. M. Rohm, T. R. Whittier,
A. J. Kinney, A. L. Gallant, and D.
R. Dudley. 1986. Correspondence
between spatial patterns in fish
assemblages in Ohio streams and
aquatic ecoregions. Environmental
Management 6:815-828.
Leonard, R. M. and D. J. Orth.
1986. Application and testing of an
index of biotic integrity in small
cool water streams. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society
115:401-414.
Mahon, R. 1980. Accuracy of catch-
effort methods for estimating fish
density and biomass in streams.
Environmental Biology of Fishes
5:343-360.
Miller, D. L., R. A. Daniels and D.
B. Halliwell. unpublished
manuscript. Application of an index
of biotic integrity based on
stream fish communities for streams
of the Northeastern United States.
Nielsen, L. A. and D. L. Johnson.
1985. Fisheries Techniques.
American Fisheries Society.
Bethesda, MD.
Omernick, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of
the Northeast States. United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvalis, OR.
Pinkham, C. F. and J. G. Pearson.
1976. Application of a new
coefficient of similarity to
pollution surveys. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation
48:717-723.
Schlosser, I. 1982. Fish community
structure and function along two
-24-
-------
Langdon
habitat gradients in a headwater
stream. Ecological Monographs
52:395-414.
Smith, C. L. 1985. The Inland
Fishes of New York State. New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Albany, New York.
Steedman, R. J. 1988. Modification
and assessment of an index of
biotic integrity to quantify stream
quality in Southern Ontario.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences. 45:492-501.
Trautman, M. B. 1981. The Fishes of
Ohio. Ohio State University Press:
Columbus, OH.
Twcmey, K., K. L. Williamson and P.
C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat-
suitability index models and
instream flow suitability curves-
white sucker, United States Fish
and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82
110.64.
-25-
-------
THE USE OF FISH COMMUNITIES IN ECOREGION REFERENCE STREAMS TO
CHARACTERIZE THE STREAM BIOTA IN ARKANSAS WATERS
John W. Giese and William E. Keith
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
Abstract
The State of Arkansas has been subdivided into six ecoregions based on the
homogeneity of land surface forms, potential natural vegetation, soil types
and land uses. Within each ecoregion, reference streams of various sizes,
excluding the large rivers, and with the least amount of point source and
non-point source disturbances were selected for intensive physical, chemical
and biological sampling. This data was used to characterize the biotic
communities of these streams and establish water quality criteria which will
protect all stream uses. Fish communities of the reference streams were
distinctly different among the ecoregions. The average number of species
collected per sample site was similar among the ecoregions; however, the
total number of species collected per ecoregion is notably different. The
Arkansas River Valley and the South Central Plains ecoregions have the
greatest species richness and the Delta ecoregion is the lowest in species
richness. Species of fish sensitive to environmental change comprised 50% or
more of the community in the Boston Mountains, Ozark Highlands and Ouachita
Mountains ecoregions. Delta ecoregion fish populations contained less than
1% sensitive species. Comparisons of the ten most abundant species from each
ecoregion by use of a similarity index shows very little similarity among
the ecoregions.
Introduction
The delineation of regions that
are distinctly homogeneous has been
completed by resource managers for
decades in an effort to more
efficiently manage a variety of
natural resources. Many of the early
attempts established physiographic
regions based on geographic
characteristics, regions of similar
vegetation type and regions of
various land use patterns. These
were all single character
classifications with specific needs
in mind. Later, in an attempt to
characterize ecological
relationships, several workers
incorporated various combinations of
multiple characteristics such as
soils, climate, water resources,
vegetation, land uses and others
into ecoregion classifications (USDA
Soil Conservation Service 1981;
Bailey 1976; Warren 1979).
Most recently, Hughes and Omernik
(1981) and Omernik et al. (1982)
proposed methods for development
and uses for ecoregions. The
potential uses of these ecoregions
include: 1) comparisons of
land/water relationships within a
region; 2) establish realistic
water quality standards for
regional rather than a large scale
application; 3) location of
monitoring and reference sites; 4)
extrapolate from site specific
studies; and 5) predict effects and
monitor environmental changes
resulting from pollution control
activities (Omernik and Gallant
1986).
The ecoregions of Omernik (1987)
were developed from four small-
scale maps of interrelated land
characteristics. These include:
land uses, land surface forms,
potential natural vegetation and
soil types. The regions are
-------
Bcoregicn Reference Streams
Fig. l. Reference stream sample sites within Arkansas ecoregions. A-Ozark
Highlands, B-Boston Mountains, C-Arkansas River Valley, D-Ouachita
Mountains, E-South Central Plains, F-Mississippi Alluvial Plains (Delta).
delineated as.the areas of greatest
homogeneity. Within each region, the
areas which share all of the
characteristics that typify the
ecoregion are distinguished as the
most typical area. Areas which share
most but not all of the similar
characteristics are designed as
generally typical of the region.
The ecoregions within Arkansas and
surrounding areas were developed for
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI, Dallas and for
the Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology to assist with
Arkansas' stream reclassification
project. The ecoregions in Arkansas
include six distinct regions (Fig.
1): 1) Ozark Highlands; 2) Boston
Mountains; 3) Arkansas River
Valley; 4) Ouachita Mountains; 5)
South Central Plains; 6)
Mississippi Alluvial Plain (Delta).
These regions are very similar to
the natural divisions and sub-
divisions of Arkansas as described
in Arkansas Natural Area Plan (Foti
1974) and further refined by Pell
(1983). The natural divisions of
Foti were developed from factors
such as: primary vegetation,
topography, surface geology, soils
and surface hydrology.
Ground reconnaissance and field
investigations have resulted in a
slight modification of the western
segment of the ecoregion boundary
between the Arkansas River valley
and the Ouachita Mountains from
that purposed by Qnernik (1987).
Materials and Methods
In order to characterize the
physical, chemical and biological
features of the biotic environment
within each of Arkansas'
ecoregions, the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology
selected a series of streams of
varying sizes within each ecoregion
for detailed investigation. These
reference streams were selected,
where possible, within the most
typical area of the ecoregion, and
-27-
-------
Giese and Keith
only streams with the least amount
of point and non-point source
disturbances were chosen. A sample
site on each stream was
established, and both low-flow,
high-temperature summertime and
steady-state flow, springtime
sampling was done. The sampling
included detailed measurements of
the physical features of the
stream, analysis of 18 water
quality parameters, a 72 hr
continuous record of dissolved
oxygen and water temperature,
intensive sampling of the stream
macroinvertebrate population and a
comprehensive fish population
sample.
The summer fish population
sampling was done with the fish
toxicant rotenone or with
electrofishing devices. Most of the
spring sampling was done with
trammel nets of mesh sizes from 2.5
to 8.9 on. Spring fish sampling was
to identify migratory fishes in the
area and verify fish spawning
activities. The summer sampling
identified the total resident fish
population and established the
relative abundance of each species.
Sample sites with very small or
no flow, with reduced visibility
into the water and with numerous
instream obstructions were sampled
with rotenone. If flow existed at
these sites, a block net was
utilized at the downstream limit of
the sample area and rotenone was
detoxified with potassium
permanganate below the sample area.
Areas sampled ranged from about 0.1
to 0.4 ha.
Electrofishing gear was used at
sites which had substantial flow,
high visibility into the water and
where much of the stream could be
waded by workers in chest-waders. A
gasoline powered generator with
3500 watt AC output was used as a
power source. The electrodes were
energized directly from the
generator. Swift flowing riffle
areas were blocked with a seine and
stunned fish were allowed to drift
into the seine. Sampling was
conducted in an upstream direction
and the sample areas were usually
from 0.4 to 1.6 km in length. All
areas that could be efficiently
worked were sampled until it became
apparent that all existing habitats
had been sampled and the fish
species and their relative
abundance was well established by
the sample.
All possible fishes were dipped
from the water and preserved in 10%
formalin for later identification
and enumeration. When large numbers
of the same species were observed
while electrofishing, only an
occasional "dip" sub-sample was
made but notes on the species
abundance were recorded. Each fish
species from all summer samples was
given a relative abundance value as
described in Table 1.
These values were determined from
the number of fish in each species
size group, field observations of
fishes which were not collected,
general knowledge of fish species
life-history, selectivity of the
sample gear and limitations
existing at the sample site. No
extensive efforts were made to
determine an accurate separation of
the young and intermediate age
groups of each species. Such
determinations were based on the
presence or absence of a variety of
distinctive size groups. All
calculations of total community
percentage were made with the
relative abundance values.
A list of sensitive fishes for
Arkansas were developed from a
consensus of six ichthyologists who
were familiar with Arkansas fishes
and their habitat. Each was asked
to designate the species they
believed to be intolerant of
moderate environmental changes
-28-
-------
Ecoregion Refererce Streams
Table l. criteria for assigning relative abundance mluas to species
and age group at fiatias collected.
iptor
3.5
3
2.5
2
l.S tan to
l tan
Species or age group collected easily In a
leriety of habitats iMn species
•Hnrral; numerous individuals seen with
consideration of sailing gear mutations
•x] typical abundance of such species; a
dcaonant species of the species group.
Species or age groups collected in net
anas oer* sucti apecias yould «xist;
individuals frequently seen and anjiaiily
wall established in tne population; one of
the aon fraquant species of tna species
3p*ciaE or ag» gnx?» oollectad
•nouqh fraquancy to indicate the liJcely
praaance of an eBtablianad population but
daf initaly * •ubonlinBU apecies in the
apacias or age gro^a rapnsanted by only
ana or wry feu individuals in the
population; aon than litely a reanant,
•igrant or a x<^i»^n species.
Vteiues an aaaignad to the adult, incnadiate and young age groups of each
apecies; taenfon, the aaxljui value for a species is 12 and the einism is
Table 2. List of reference streams within each ecoregion with watershed
size, stream gradient and flows at sample sites.
now (m?/
Sim (Mr) OracUent (•/!•»
now
South Fork Spavinw 46.8
nirrt creek 49.4
Racist Creek 143.0
Long Creek 478.4
HU- Eagle creek 683.8
tings River 1367.6
4.8
3.7
3.4
1.3
0.8
0.9
0.04
0.14
0.16
0.29
0.75
1.46
0.51
0.81
4.86
5.49
3.06
7.56
Boerd Caap Creek
Little Missouri
River
S Fork Ouachita
CQBsatot River
Caddo River
Saline River
49.4
78.0
119.6
312.0
756.6
938.6
5.3
5.5
1.3
7.6
2.5
0.8
0.08
0.12
0.20
0.52
4.02
1.59
0
0
1
2
15
12
South Central Plains
Indian Creek
lUrricane Creek
Arcnay Creek
Illinois Bayou
Laa creek
Mulberry River
122.2
130.0
278.2
325.0
436.8
969.8
6.1
6.3
2.7
2.4
2.9
2.6
T
T
0.02
0.03
0.11
0.19
0.57
0.90
3.66
4.41
9.00*
9.00*
t far* Tulip Creek
Cypress creek
ttiiteuatar Creek
tog creek
Derrieueeeaux cr.
rreeo creak
•rtnas River Valley auflgin" Creek
Mil Creek
B. Caflron Creek
1«n Nile Creek
Dutcti creek
Petit Jean River
Cadron creek
44.2
54.6
127.4
2*6.0
626.6
•00.8
2.6
1.9
1.5
0.7
0.7
0.1
0
T
T
0.02
0.09
0.45
0.30
0.30
3.15
2.10
9.00*
15.00*
L'Aigle Creek
119.
189.
59.
153.
3*4.
405.
4*6.2
603.2
HJTO Creek 1172.6
Delta
Boat Ourvale Slash
Ssoorri Creek
village Creek
59.8
156.0
504.4
••you Deview 1196.0
T - flow lea* than 0
• - flow eetteted
.01
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.16
0.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.09
0.23
4.01
5.73
4
C
C
6
0
9
5
10
6
4
1
15
-29-
-------
Giese and Keith
FISH HABITAT
1C
DISTRIBUTION OF
OZH
OUM
I
&
•C* *8V «M OZH
CAT
CT
CCMT
KUC
Fig. 2. Type of fish habitat in
ecoregion reference streams as
percent stream cross section and
composed of either instream cover
(brush, logs,..debris) or substrate
types which offer valuable fish
cover (rubble, boulder, large
boulder).
Fig. 3. Distribution of fishes
within the families Cyprinidae
(CYP), Catostomidae (CAT),
Ictaluridae (ICT), Centrarchidae
(CENT) and Percidae (PEIC) for
reference streams within each
ecoregion.
which may include changes in
turbidity, water temperature,
dissolved solids, organic
enrichment, lowered dissolved
oxygen, as well as, physical habitat
modification (i.e. substrate
disruption, cover removal, water
level fluctuations and flow
modifications). There was a
surprising consistency among the
lists supplied.
Results and Discussion
General location of each sample
site on the selected reference
streams within Arkansas' six
ecoregions are depicted in Figure l.
A list of the reference streams with
the size of the watershed and stream
gradient at the sample site are
provided in Table 2. Also included
are the stream flows which existed
during the spring and summer sample
periods. The range of watershed
sizes among all sites was from 44.2
to 1367.6 km2. Stream gradients
were from 0.095 to 7.6 m/km.
Fish habitat was measured at each
site during the summer sampling
along numerous stream transects.
Instream fish cover such as brush,
logs, debris, undercut banks,
aquatic vegetation and low-
overhanging vegetation was measured
directly along each transect and
converted to percent of stream
width. Stream substrate was also
measured along each transect;
however, a value relative to the
value of different substrates as
fish cover was applied to the
percent of each substrate type.
These values are as
-30-
-------
Ecoregicn Reference Streams
3. Uat* at
within
Bcoregion indicator Species
dearie Highlands
Mltystripe shi«r
nogsuctopr
OranjeUiroat darter
Rainbow darter
bass
southern redbeiiy
Wiitetail shiner
C*arx
BoBtcn itjuntains
Ovanside darter
llaouth bass
Arkansas Rivw Valley
minnow Or
otted sunfiaft
Blackside darter
Tellow bullhead
rmjnur sunf ish
•edfin darter
Slotted bass
fountains
northern nogsucxer
Gravel
sunfish
lly darter
Jaouth bass
Typical SoutH Cantral Plains
^in shiner finx* perch
Hanouth
Sfcring««ter-InfluK»d South central Plain*
Mdf in ahiwr
Delta
Carp
dwiwl catfish
oretn sunf i*>
apxted ger
follows: mud/silt, sand and bedrock
= 0; gravel =0.5; rubble, boulder
and large boulder = 1. The
different fish habitat within the
ecoregions are demonstrated in
Figure 2. Both the Delta and South
Central Plains ecoregions are
dominated by instream fish habitat
such as brush, logs and debris. The
Arlcansas River Valley is highly
variable in the type of fish
habitat; however, from all sample
sites, approximately 30% of the
fish habitat is similar to that of
the Delta and South Central plains
region and about 70% is dominated
by substrate types which provide
desirable fish cover. The Boston
Mountains, Ozark Highlands and
Ouacnita Mountains ecoregion
streams are heavily dominated by
fish habitat provided by substrate.
These differences in fish habitat
among the ecoregions produce
distinctly different fish
communities.
The distribution of fishes within
the five major fish families of the
State are shown for each ecoregion
in Figure 3. The Delta and South
Central Plains ecoregions are
distinctly dominated by the
Centrarchidae. The Arkansas River
Valley is also dominated by
Centrarchidae but Cyprinidae is
only slightly sub-dominant.
Percidae dominates the Boston
Mountains fishes but are followed
closely by Cyprinidae and
Centrarchidae. The Ozark Highlands
are strongly dominated by
Cyprinidae followed by
Centrarchidae and Percidae.
Similarly the Ouachita Mountains
communities are dominated by
Cyprinidae although not as
distinctly as in the Ozark
Highlands.
The secondary trophic feeding
level (macroinvertebrate feeding
fishes) dominates the fish
-31-
-------
Giese and Keith
TROPHIC FEEDING LEVEL
SENSITIVE SPECIES
•Cf» AHV MM OZH OUM
Fig. 4. Distriixttion of fishes
within the trophic feeding levels of
primary feeders, macroinvertebrate
feeders and carnivores for reference
streams within each ecoregion.
Fig. 5. Ccrposition of sensitive
fish species from reference streams
within each ecoregion.
community of all regions {Fig. 4).
Primary feeding fishes are least
abundant in the South Central Plains
ecoregion where two samples
contained no primary feeders. They
are most abundant in the Ozark
Highlands. This region also contains
the highest levels of nitrogen in
the water of reference streams.
Sensitive fish species make up
less than 0.2% of the relative
abundance value of Delta ecoregion
communities (Fig. 5). South Central
Plains and Arkansas River Valley
fish communities contain
approximately 10 to 15% sensitive
species. In contrast, sensitive
species make up about 50% or more
of the communities in the Ozark
Highlands, Boston Mountains and
Ouachita Mountains ecoregions. Over
66% of the Ozark Highlands fishes
are sensitive species.
The average number of species
collected per site was very similar
among the ecoregions. However, the
total number of species collected
per ecoregion showed some variation
(Fig. 6). The greatest number of
species was collected from Arkansas
River Valley streams followed by
South Central Plains streams. The
Delta ecoregion was lowest in
species richness. Although it is
realized that not all species
present within each ecoregion were
collected, it is felt that the
majority of the more common species
within the least-disturbed streams
were identified. Areas inadequately
sampled within the ecoregions were
the large rivers.
All species collected within each
ecoregion by sample site are listed
in Appendix 1. The relative
abundance value for each species is
given for all sites where the
species was collected. The species
are listed in descending order of
abundance within all reference
streams of the ecoregion. From this
data, a list of key species was
-32-
-------
Ecoregicn Reference Streams
FISH SPECIES
ECOftCGtONS
SCP ARV
1771 TOTAL
BM OZH
AVERACC
OUM
Fig. 6. Average and total number of fish species collected from all
reference streams within each ecoregion.
Table 4. Similarity indices from comparisons of relative abundance values
of the ten most abundant fish species of all ecoregions.
Ecoregions
Arkansas South
Boston Ozark River Central
Mountains Highlands Valley Delta Plains
Ouachita Mountains 62
Boston MDuntains
Ozark Highlands
Arkansas River Valley
Delta
32 21
39 40
19
11
10
9
36
11
10
9
29
58
-33-
-------
Giese and Keith
developed for each ecoregion. This
list represents the species which
are dominant in most or all of the
samples from the ecoregion within
the five major fish families (i.e.
Cyprinidae, Catostomidae,
Ictaluridae, Centrarchidae and
Percidae) and the dominant predator
species. Also, a list of indicator
species was developed which may or
may not be numerically dominant and
may not occur exclusively within
one ecoregion, but their presence
more than likely indicates the
ecosystem from which they were
collected.
In the South Central Plains and
Delta ecoregions, different fish
comnunities were found in a notable
habitat variation within each
ecoregion. A few drainage systems
within the South Central Plains
ecoregion are substantially
influenced by springwater
discharges. Such systems are
represented by the East Fork Tulip
and Cypress Creek reference
streams. For these systems a
different group of key and
indicator species were identified.
Also, within the Delta Ecoregion, a
large majority of streams were
channelized to facilitate drainage
of agricultural lands. This severe
physical alteration of the fish
habitat has significantly changed
the fish comnunity. From a
satellite project of the reference
stream study and from numerous use
attainability analyses performed on
Delta ecoregion streams, key and
indicator species were developed
for the channel-altered Delta
streams. A list of key and
indicator species for the
distinctive ecoregion fish
communities is in Table 3.
A similarity index, modified from
Odum (1971), was used to compare
the 10 most abundant species within
each ecoregion. These groups of
fish included almost all key
species and several indicator
species from each ecoregion. Odum's
index compares the number of
species common in two populations
with the total number of species
from each population. This index
was modified to use relative
abundance values of the species as
follows:
C
SI =
A + B + D
x 100
Where, SI = similarity index (range
from 0 to 100; 100 =
identical populations) ;
A = total relative
abundance value of
sample A;
B = total relative
abundance value of
sample B;
C = sum of relative
abundance values of
species conmon to
both samples;
D = sum of difference in
relative abundance
values of species
conmon to both samples.
All possible comparisons among
the six ecoregions were made (Table
4). The greatest similarity exist
between the Ouachita Mountains and
the Boston Mountain fishes. The
least similarity is between the
Ozark Highlands versus South
Central Plains and between the
Ozark Highlands versus Delta
fishes. It is apparent from the
similarity indie ies that there is
very little similarity of the 10
most abundant fishes from each of
six ecoregions within the State.
This substantiates the
distinctiveness of these ecoregions
as reflected in the fish
communities of the least-disturbed
-34-
-------
Ecoregion Reference Streams
streams and supports the use of
fish communities as designated uses
of a waterbody. Such characteristics
may also be used as an indicator of
envi ronmental impacts.
Acknowledgements
This project was part of a wide
scope project funded under Section
205(j) of the Clean Water Act and
administered through the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Dallas Region. The field work was
performed by numerous members of
the Water Division of the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology and assisted by Fisheries
Biologist from the Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission.
Literature Cited
Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of
the United States. Map (scale
1:7,500,000). USDA Forest Service.
Intermountain Region, Odgen, UT.
Foti, T. L. 1974. Natural divisions
of Arkansas, pp. 11-34. In.
Arkansas Natural Area Plan.
Arkansas Department of Planning,
Little Rock, AR.
Hughes, R. M. and J. M. Qnernik.
1981. A proposed approach to
determine regional patterns in
aquatic ecosystems, pp. 92-102. In.
Acquisition and utilization of
aquatic habitat inventory
information, proceedings of a
symposium. October 28-30, 1981.
Western Division American Fisheries
Society, Portland, OR.
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundementals of
Ecology. W. B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia, PA. 574 pp.
Onernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of
the conterminous United States.
Annuals of the Association of
American Geographers 77(1):118-125.
Qnernik, J. M. and A. L. Gallant.
1986. Ecoregions of the Pacific
Northwest. EPA/600/3-86/033. 39 pp.
Qnernik, J. M. , M. A. Shirazi, and
R. M. Hughes. 1982. A synoptic
approach for regionalizing aquatic
ecosystems, pp. 199-218. In. In-
place resource inventories:
principles and practices,
Proceedings of a National Workshop.
August 9-14, 1981. Society of
American Foresters, University of
Maine, Orono, ME.
Pell, W. 1983. The natural
divisions of Arkansas: a revised
classification and description.
Natural Area Journal 3:12-23.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
1981. Land resource regions and
major land resource areas of the
United States. Agriculture Handbook
296. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington D. C. 256 pp., 1
map (scale 1:7,500,000).
Warren, C. E. 1979. Toward
classification and rationale for
watershed management and stream
protection. EPA-600/3-79-059. 143
pp.
-35-
-------
Haoregicn Reference Streams
Appendix Table 1. List of fish species with relative abundance values
at each reference stream where species collected within the OzarX Highlands,
Boston Maintains, Arkansas River Valley, CXaachita Mountains, and South
Central Plains and Delta Ecoregions.
Ozark Highlands Ecoregion
Fl» 8KCIES
SUnnolltr
Ntrtlwrn htpucttr
landed Kvlpin
Ulftb*w ttrttr
Unjtir
*(Nctury» mill) tttndtr MdtM
*liplitt* ewttllitu*) Ozrk fcm
*(Hicrtpm«» dtlMiwi) iMllMuth b*t(
(Notrtpn tvbilvt)
(Micrtptrm tttfictulttvt)
*(Nptuw alMttr) fert MdtM
Ma juliat) Y**t drttr
cyantilut) trtw unfiih
*(M»i»»tM* duivtwti) U«e* rtdhoru
(ftrctftt uirtdtt) Uyreb
Or*9tthr»it drtr
landtd i»rttr
bsyftct ihintr
Fntnl drttr
Ir twin d* drttr
Itothtri rtdbtlly dKt
9WU.B.
12.0
10.5
2.0
12.0
12.0
2.8
1.5
9.0
tOM Ildilt)
*(Nptropn rybtllul)
*(EthMttM4 flibtllrt)
*(EthnttM4 Utnnitidts)
trythrtynttr)
rtftttrit)
*(NtCMli
(Lt»MI»
tM« trytfiruria)
•tTMKVlltUt)
(Fimdului «li«Ktut)
l«ek bnt
dub
Itldtft rtdhtrw
Crtt* chub
12.
12.
J.
10.5
*(Hyb«pii( dittiailit)
*(F«adulut utttxtut)
(Notrtpis dtryMCfVhllgf)
*(Hetrtpn tetpt)
(Icttlurut »tmct*tvi)
*(EthNttlM Mt«««)
(6«6utii ifftiit)
Mtttllt)
pgnetulityi)
*(M»trtpi«
(0«r*t«M
ftivtr
StrmliM chub
Ntrthtm itNdfii
Striptd ttiintr
orpit)
*(CthM«tM4 I
(Ljbidwthtt tiecnl«i)
*(N»tirM flw»ttr)
*(Nitr»pil ttlttwput)
(Lt»Mi» hybrid)
(CjttttMUt OMBfTttftt)
(LniMttnt HIM*)
(Lnimtnt »euJ*t«i)
(Ictilurgi Mtiln)
(1cttl«r«« M!H)
Mliftr)
Ounntl eitfiih
ArliwtM uddltd drttr
Ntt^Miteftth
UvntMM •inntu
Stiipltd drtr
Mhitttail (hiittr
Sjjird thad
Lr jMouth Utt
8tttle»l*r tfuiir
Fltthtad catfish
Crp
Mtdjrtpit ihinr
tijtyt chub
(•tdiltd drttr
lr*ok tilwrtidtt
Chtcktrtd MdtM
Ttlttctpt tftinr
Hybrid Mmfiih
Mhitt weir
Utlltyt
LMfittt fr
Ifttttd f*r
Ttllw bullhtad
UK* tellhtad
Hi^hfin crpwckr
SPECIES*
1.0
FLINT a nan a UK a
12.0
12.0
9.0
10.5
9.0
18.5
10.5
(.0
7.5
12.8
1.5
9.8
12.0
12.8
1.8
C.8
C.O
4.5
10.5
9.8
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.5
1.8
9.8
12.8
I.S
1.8
4.9
f.8
1.8
C.O
12.8
S
S
18.5
C.8
4.8
1.8
1.9
12.
12.
12.
9.
12.
9.
(.
9.
4.
18.
12.
12.
12.
4.
18.
12.
9.
t.
9.8
9.8
3.8
1.8
.8
.8
.8
.0
.5
.5
7.5
C.O
i.S
1.8
1.8
1.0
1.8
EfiLE
12.t
12.0
10.5
7.5
12.0
18.5
3.8
9.0
1.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
12.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
4.5
9.0
C.O
2.0
1.8
4.8
1.8
5.5
4.0
S
1.0
1:0
1.8
4.9
2.8
1.8
1.0
1.8
IINGS
10.5
12.0
9.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
10.5
7.0
12.0
8.0
9.0
7.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
.7.5
9.0
(.5
8.0
1.0
9.0
8.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
1.8
1.8
C.O
4.0
1.8
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
W
70.5
7t ,5
54.5
51.0
4£.S
45.5
40.5
39.5
36 5
3t.S
36.0
33.0
33.0
31.0
30.5
27.0
27.0
25.5
24.
24.
24.
21.
a.
21.
19.5
18.5
17.0
1C.5
15.0
14.0
14.0
13.5
13.5
12.5
12.5
12.0
10.5
9.5
9.0
8.0
7.5
7.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
39 fO.O
VECIES
S - MINK OU£CTI« OKT
-------
Booregion Ref eraice streans
Boston Mountains Ecoregion
FISH series
*(Mct'ODit boors1 lipyr thin*r
(Lwomn Mjtlont)
*(Xctg'u» »ujit)
*(Eth*ctto»i birr'.ioidvt)
(Lnenit evanjJJut)
*(HieT«t»'ut tfclMirui)
(r1icropt»rut punctulatvt)
*(Eth*OltOft» lOftll*)
Hack rtdhert*
Hunt net* •innou
Sir.*'
»>•*« i
S»ettrd
notitjt)
(Laiidfttvt ticcului)
(FunOulut elivatf.s1
*(MvP»M»!!uw nijricaritN
*(Nttrojit fr**'.«,)
(EthtottoM w»:titilt)
*(Eth»ct;»t.« flafttiiar*)
(EthfttlMI Uhlppltl)
*
-------
Etoregicn Reference Streams
Arkansas River
FISH
(Lnm •rftlotn)
(PiMftttltt •etitui)
Valley Ecoregio
KCIES
Ucttlu'ui (laitlii)
(LMMIl MCTICtlimi)
*(Mt>ru( mill)
(L*i4nt(»s itenln)
(CMiitM mmtim}
(MtrMll •6'KUlt)
I Hilt)
(Eriiyttn it!•»$»«)
(EMI •tflCVUt)
rmi Ml«>«tt>
mt n»t«!Bia)
(Ntturvt jyriMt)
(Hicri»tff«» ulMidrt!
(Mpturvt mint)
(N>(rt*it f«Mt)
(Fmdului Mtitvt)
*(Ntirt(il Htiitllfi)
(Ictalvm twcutui)
(Mum i
(LJ*«it hwln)
(In mi inneiKut)
tffnit)
xlwtllit)
iM »««ctid«t«)
*(Ethntt«< urrvlMi
(Ethntim
. MMttM)
»(PtTCIM MCVlttl)
(PMIII •Mini)
(IctiMii tataln)
(IfHBit •iertli*««()
(ElMMM t«Mt«)
(Mi* calx)
(ttttmiftun i
OfctM* CtVfMfi)
> Ctriii)
(IC1«1»I\H MlM)
(EMi ujtr)
•(CthMttai hiitrn)
W.)
liM ClHMtlM)
(LtflMltNt MMtlt)
(Cv*ri»M erfiil
Off" wnfith
t»«"Hj kMI
Tell*. h,llh>xt
ItMfrillr
iMfm thinrr
lifty* I
Cr«*t chuftuarr
Imt iietrtl
Or»jrttirtn
mu o. N.FK.CW Tnm.
10.: to.: u.o
12.0
12.0
i.l
12.0
I.O
10.:
i.t
I.O
I.I
$
I.I
11.5
I.I
5.1
I.I
I.I
10.3
S
1.5
1.5
3.0
4.1
S
4.1
1.1
I.I
4.1
I.I
1.1
t
1.1
1.3
I.O
12.0
12.0
11.5
7.5
12.0
I.I
U.O
4.5
U.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
U.I
7.5
I.I
7.5
7.3
4.1
1.1
1.1
i.O
7.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
12.1
I.O
I.O
7.3
7.3
U.O
7.3
I.I
1.1
i.l
i.l
2.1
I.I
I.I
2.1
1.1
7.3
I.I
I.I
i.l
4.1
I.I
7.3
7.5
7.5
1.1
i.l
i.l
1.5
1.1
1.1
2.1
1.1
1.1
tUTCM *T XM CMIttX
12.0 U.O i.O
12.0
U.O
I.O
u.:
1.1
u.o
7.3
5.5
I.I
11.5
4.1
2.1
t.O
2.1
ll.l
11.3
2.1
1.1
I.I
1.1
i.l
I.I
I.I
U.I
3.1
7.1
1.5
4.1
7.3
i.l
i.l
i.l
I.I
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
1.3
t
1.1
S
S
t
12.1
U.O
i.O
i.O
i.O
2.0
i.O
12.0
I.O
i.O
i.O
i.o
1.1
7.3
2.1
4.0
i.l
2.1
12.0
7.3
i.l
1.1
7.3
7.0
4.3
4.1
1.1
i.l
i.o
7.5
I.I
7.5
1.1
4.1
2.1
2.1
1.1
1.1
$
$
4.1
7.5
2.0
I.O
12.0
i.O
2.0
1.0
4.0
12.0
I.O
7.5
4.0
2.0
4.3
12.0
i.O
12.0
4.0
I.O
4.0
i.O
1.0
4.0
12.0
1.0
2.0
I.O
i.O
4.5
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
3.0
2.5
U.O
u.o
57.1
53.:
51.:
4J.O
« :
41.0
47.:
44.:
3'. 5
X.C
».:
e.o
21.0
27.5
27.1
M.:
2i.5
25.0
24.1
24.0
22.:
a.o
2.0
21.0
2S.t
20.0
1J.5
U.O
11. t
17.0
K.:
u.o
is. e
14.0
13.3
13.0
12. t
10.0
j.:
J.O
J.O
7.3
7.:
7.5
7.0
7.0
i.:
i.O
i.O
5.3
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.:
2.:
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
I.O
0.0
0.0
MMCt V KC!tS>
75.0
-------
Ecoregion Reference strears
Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion
-.5*1
(Cawottaoa anoe>a.u»)
(l*poiMi «^iiotn)
^(Nctropit boopt)
*(Ethe«ttM* radiotw)
*(£theoito*a bltnnioidet)
*(Micropt»rut dolomieui)
(Notum nocturnut)
(Lepoftit cyantilut)
(Notropit chrytocwhalut)
*(Fi/ndulut catenatut)
*(Hypefit«liu» niyncant)
(PiMphalet notatut)
(Noiottow erythrur»)
*(Etheosto«a zonal*)
(Percma caprpdet)
(Nicroptew punctulatut)
(Fundulut olivaceut)
*(MoiottoM duquetnei)
*(Anblocilitet ariowut)
»(HyS«fiis t-punctata)
(Lepoir.it Mcrocrurut)
*(Notropit uriipplei)
(Ictalurut natalit)
(Hieroptew tainoidet)
(Etheottona krfnpplei)
(Labidetthet ticculut)
*(NowBit atper)
(Mmvtrema Mlanopt)
(Leponit ncroloptat)
*(Nctropii tneltoni)
(Etox aaencanut)
(Nctropit uabratilit)
(Dcrotoaa cepedianua)
*(Nctuw eleutherut)
*(EtheottoiM coUettei)
(Notropit athermoidet)
(Lepo«it julotut)
(Fundulut notatut)
*(Nowut taylon)
(Ichthyocyzon tp.)
(Lepoait hybrid)
*(PiMphalet tenellwt)
(Pylodictit oluarit)
(Noturut iiurut)
(Notropit fvawit)
(Eri*yton ablonjut)
*(Smotiluf atroMCiilatut)
*(Percina copelandi)
*(EtheottoBa hittrio)
(Lepotit punctatuf)
(lchthyo*yzon cattaneut)
(Etheottona chlorotonu*)
(Aohredoderut tayanut)
*(SalM ^airdneri)
*(Noturus lachneri)
*(rioiottofia carinatua)
(Poncsit nijrokaculatut)
(Lepitotteut ottfut)
(Ictalurut punctatut)
(Ictalurut Mitt)
(Ichthyonyzon )aqei)
SPtCliS
St»n»T«llrr
Lon^ear
Bifeyr thiner
Oran^ebelly darter
Greentide darter
SvallMuth batt
Freckled Mdton
Green tunfttrt
Striped thiner
Northern ttvd^ith
Northern h»jtgc*er
UmtMw aiMw
(oldeo rcdwte
Banded darter
Ujperch
Spotted batt
Blacktaotted tapa;ftA«w
Black redhort*
Shadow batt
Gravel Chub
Blu»9ill
Steelnlor thiner
Yellau bullhead
Larfewutft batt
ftedfin darter
Brook tilvertidet
fcedwot chub
Spotted tucker
wdear
Ouachita Ht. thiner
Gratt pickerel
Ifdfin thiner
Gizzard thad
Mountain Mdtot
Creole darter
Ekerald thiner
Maraouth
Blackttripe topainnou
Caddo Mdtooi
laaprey larvae
Hybrid tunfith
Slit 11 MOW
Flathead catftth
Brindled Mdto*
libbon thiner
Creek chubtucker
Creek chub
Channel darter
Harlequin darter
Spotted unfifh
Chettnut Ian? rev
Bluntnote darter
Pirate perch
tainbow trout
feacruta udtM
liver ledhorte
Black erappie
lenjnote jar
Channel catftth
Black bullhead
Southern brook laaprey
rtC.Cftt?
12.0
10.5
9.5
12.0
C.5
4.0
9.0
9.0
7.0
C.5
7.0
S
S
1.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
S
L.HO.
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
9.5
2.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 .0
.0
.0
C.O
S
7.3
1.0
C.O
1.0
7.5
C.O
1.0
1.8
S
S.FR.OUA
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.5
10.5
9.0
9.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
10.5
9.0
7.5
10.5
10.5
7.5
8.5
8.0
C.O
7.5
5.5
C.S
9.0
C.O
C.O
C.O
S
5.0
S
1.8
2.8
S
1.8
S
S
COSSAT.
12.0
12.0
7.0
12.0
8.0
C.O
B.O
7.0
S
C.O
7.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
8.5
2.0
S
CADOO
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.5
C.O
10.5
9.0
C.O
9.0
5.0
7.5
7.0
9.0
11.0
9.0
C.O
4.0
4.5
10.5
7.0
C.O
C.O
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
C.O
4.0
4.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
S
S
S
S
SALUC
12.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
7.0
12.0
2.0
C.O
C.S
C.O
7.3
12.0
1.0
9.0
2.0
7.5
5.0
12.0
2.0
4.0
12.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
4.5
5.0
1.0
S
-
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
S
S
S
SUi
72.0
C8.0
K.5
tt.O
St. 5
45.0
42.5
41.0
4C.O
38.5
34.5
X.O
30.5
25.5
26.5
28.5
28.5
27.0
27.0
22.5
2C.O
18.5
15.5
14.5
12.0
11.5
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.0
C.5
C.O
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
WK.K OF SPECIES'
21
18
37 Cl.O
-------
Ecoregion Heferaice Streans
South Central Plains Ecoregion
tr*f it awiu)
*(HyptM»llW lljriC»t)
*(F«ndvlvi catroatiit)
*(AHMcry*ta aiprtlla)
(Nptropu vMvttvi)
(Lavwif •lerilatlMi)
(ItpiMtttvt »evlatv«)
(PMHIII wmilarit)
(Icfithytayiin cntantvt)
Pirit» ptrcti
Haraouth
Uactwotttd tipauniu
Flitr
IT MI pietrrfl
SeottW ucttr
Y»lliu buUh*id
NoMu i tif i th
Sliufh drttr
Ittfin ViiKtr
Un*Jlll
firttn unfiih
l*dfin drtir
todrd >yyiy tunfith
Crnlt drttr
la«tt(d wnfith
Uaettidf darttr
UgittntM dritr
TU.1P
J
ij
AC
7
4
J
2
C
7
12
.0
.5
.3
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Larfaiouth bass 7 3
Ovtiy darttr
Uaetttript ttfatinnou
•Win
Cham pteltrtl
Striptd thintr
PgfMM ainntu
SlJvtrv «ir»i8y
Crttt ehibucitr
Uacttail rtdhors*
Cfprtsj ainnoy
libbtn ihintr
frtrtltfl ladtM
Cyprrti darttr
Tadpilt ladtM
(•1dm ihifirr
Mttd thintr
Spottta bass
ttldtn rtdhcru
Hack crappn
kaly tand dartr
IriAdltd •adtw
Ltfptreri
tr»»k tilwrtidts
iMTald WilAtr
IlllAtltM •1M10W
Frtttwattr dr*
ftillhtad IIADM
Savthtr* br»»i laaprty
tt*n«r«llr
total Minfish
Hybrid tvnfiih
AMriean ttl
Saddlcbae* dartr
fctctltd drttr
laldttriat darter
tivtr dartr
Carp
Pallid thiAtr
Narthrrn hp^sgcitr
Nirthtrn ttiidfisfi
Crystal dartr
llarttul shiKfr
todtr
la«tt*d far
Wit t« erippi*
CtWttAvt iMfrty
f.S
9.0
3-0
9.0
f.O
cms H.UTI us
10.5 1C
J.O 12
1? 8 »
i£ > V f
J.I 7
9.1 12
J.O
7.0
12.0
4.5
12.1
9.0
9.0
f.O
7.5
f.O
C.O
1.1
2.0
I.I
7.5
7.1
10.5
7.5
f.O
1.3
2.0 f
12.0
10.3
f.O
f.S
9
1
7.3
12.0
1.0 9
f.O
1.1
7.5
f.O
1.0
1.1
0 12.0
0 7.0
0 5.5
5 f'.O
11.0
9.0
1.0
2.1
}•
• 0
9.0
f.O
s.s
f.S
2.0
9.0
f
7.1
2.1
1.1
1
0
$
f.O
1.0
2.1
1 I.I
0
9.1
tens
J.O
12.0
J.O
12.0
J.O
11.0
12.1
ft
• 9
n. i
9.0
7 1
i n
f.O
4.0
1.1
5.1
5.5
f.O
4 II
4.1
f II
4.
2.
3.
7.
S.
7.
f.
f.O
4 V
I.O
4.0
1.1
FUEO
12.0
7.0
»ft
• V
10.5
f.l
9.1
3.1
f.l
2.1
il.S
1 1
4 n
7.1
4.1
9.1
9.1
I.I
f.O
2.0
7.1
1.1
i.l
2.1
5.1
2.1
f.l
9.1
W9C I '«.
12.
J.O
10.0 10.5
11.
1.
3.
12.
1.
12.
f.
f
4
3.
2.
2.
3.
•
12.
ft
4.
7
A
4.
f.
12.
1.
9.
2.
1 1
2.1
2.1
1 J.O
1 11.5
1 12.0
) 12.0
1 12.1
1 7.1
5
I 12.1
> f.O
f.l
1.1
7.1
9.1
HOKO
10.
10.
1.
S.
7.
12.
9.
4.
2.
•
4
7.
4.
11.
an
5 J4.0
0 M.O
0 77.3
0 77.0
0 7C.O
0 ».D
o te.o
0 C.O
0 M.O
0 54 5
0 V.O
3 50,5
0 48.0
1 47.3
4.5 4f.S
5.0 43.0
4.5
7.5
1.1
f.l
2.3
10.1
2.1
2.1
4.0
f.O
4.5
1.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
9.
7.
0 41.3
g IK n
9.0 36.5
f.
I 3f.S
f 5 3f .0
f.l 33.0
S.
7.
9.
%
2.
9.
12.
3.
4.
7
4.
12.
i.
7.
2.
10.5
1.1
l.S
2.1
1.1
4.5
1.1
4.1
34.3
33.0
31.5
£.5
30.5
21.0
2C.C
25.5
24.5
74 0
24.0
18.0
15.5
13.3
13.0
12.0
10.5
9.1 10.0
4.1
7.5
3.0
1
1
1
5
1.1
3.1
3.
3.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
S.I
4.1
2.!
2.1
2.1
I.I
1.0
1.1
9.5
1.3
7.5
5.0
4.0
4.0
4,0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
S 0.0
f
0.0
MJfitt ff SPECIES*
43 25
J2 37 S3 50 ff.O
-------
Eooregicn Reference Streams
Delta Ecoregion
FISH S
(Gmbusia iffinis)
(Aphredoderus sayanus)
(Lepooiis •acrochirus)
(FundUu* olivaceus)
(Iff c*i» punctatus)
(Lrpotiis w^alotii)
(Lepo«is gulosus)
(Micropterus saiwides)
(Ictalurus nitilit)
(Ethtostona ctdoroiMW)
(Pomoxis rugroiMCglatus)
(Notropis eailiae)
(Ethtostofia aspngene)
(Elastosa lenitum)
(Notrppit athennoides)
(EttwottoM gracile)
(Lepisosteus oculitus)
(Notenigonus cryseieucas)
(LtpMis cywtllus)
(EthmtoM proelrare)
(Jctalurus punctatus)
(Aplodinotus grunniens)
(Not TO? IS fUMUS)
(Noturus jyinus)
(Pimephales vigiiax)
(Esox ameucanus)
(ftoia calwa)
(Fundulut notatus)
(Notropit vtnustus)
(Eriayzon wcttta)
(Netrtpit ttxtnut)
(Dor»WM ctptdiwm)
(Ccntrrchut Mcropttrus)
(Pylodictit •h»«rit)
(Ictitbus nijn)
(Hybognithut hayi)
*(Ptreina tacuJata)
(HinytriM wlntopt)
(Hicriptrrus punctulatui)
(Cyprinus carpio)
(Hyboqnathus nuchalui)
(Ictiobus bubalus)
(Poaoxit annul an j)
(Lfpoeis Bicrplephus)
(Not top u aaculatut)
(Latoid*Jth«5 sicculut)
(IctaiuTut Mlat)
(LcpispstNt platostpnut)
(Ictiebut eyprintllus)
(Esox
>£C1ES
Hosquitofith
PiTatt p«Tch
Biu*9iii
Blaek(pott»d topninnow
Spotted tunfuh
\.tn<)ttr
Marnouth
LaTgcmouth bass
Ytllw bullhead
Bluntnos* danr
Black CTapptc
Pugnos* unnou
Hud darttT
Bard«d py^ny wnfish
EMTald thinfT
Slougri daTtfT
Spotted saT
60 1 den thineT
Green wnfith
Cyprns darter
Channel catfish
FTesrvateT drutt
Ribbon shiner
Tadpole ladtoo
Bullhead iinnow
Brass pickerel
Bowfin
BlackstTipe topninnoy
Blacktail shiner
Lake cfwbsuckeT
Heed shiner
Gizzard shad
Flier
Flat head catfish
Blac* buffalo
CypTess •innou
Blactside darteT
Spotted sucker
Spotted bass
Carp
Banta* sunfish
Silvery unnow
SmallMuth buffalo
White crappie
Redear
Taillifht shiner
Brook silversides
Black bullhead
Shortnose gar
Bigaouth buffalo
Chain pickerel
BOAT 6
12.0
10.0
6.3
B.5
7.5
(.0
9.0
(.5
8.5
2.0
1.0
12.0
9.0
2.5
12.0
(.0
(.0
1.0
£.0
9.0
10.0
9.5
(.0
9.0
S.5
1.5
S
1.3
1.5
S
S
1.0
1.0
1.0
S
S
S
BOAT 6
12.0
10.0
6.5
8.5
7.5
(.0
9.0
(.5
8.5
2.0
1.0
12.0
9.0
2.5
12.0
(.0
(.0
1.0
£.0
9.0
10.0
9.5
(.0
9.0
S.5
1.5
S
1.5
1.5
S
S
1.0
1.0
1.0
S
S
S
SECOC
10.5
12.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
10.5
9.0
12.0
9.0
12.0
9.0
7.5
9.0
2.0
7.5
2.0
7.0
1.0
4.0
9.0
2.5
4.5
8.0
6.0
S
9.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
VILSE CR.BY
12.0
12.0
8.0
10.5
C.O
8.0
5.5
2.0
1.0
7.5
3.0
5.5
4.0
5.0
(.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
S
1.0
S
DeVlEU
9.0
B.O
7.5
1.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
7.5
€.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
8.0
12.0
S
1.0
7.5
2.0
8.0
(.0
6.0
2.0
3.5
3.0
S
SUh
43.5
42.0
34.0
29.0
26.5
25.5
23.5
22.5
21.5
21.5
20.5
19.0
18.0
18.0
17.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.5
14.5
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
9.5
9.5
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NuflBCR OF SPECIES*
37
28
26 51.0
-------
PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR NEW YORK STATE STREAMS
Robert A. Bode and Margaret A. Novak
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Box 1397, Albany, New York 12233
Abstract
Criteria are proposed for measuring significant biological alteration in
New York State streams. The criteria are based on sampling benthic
macroinvertebrate communities, and are site-specific, measuring change from
conditions upstream of a given discharge. Sampling methods and the
parameters on which the criteria are based are taken from EPA-proposed
bioassessment methods which are presently being used in the New York State
biological monitoring program. Replication in sampling is recommended to
insure reliability of samples. Preliminary criteria were drawn from data
sets collected from New York streams over a 5-year period. Sites designated
as having significant biological alteration based on these criteria were
cross-referenced with the Priority Water Problem List. Adjustments in the
criteria were made to reflect levels consistent with the Priority Water
Problem List. It is recommended that the criteria and methods be field
implemented to insure proper levels of detectability.
Introduction
The Clean Water Act of 1972 was
enacted with the objective "to
restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters". To date,
the objective of restoring the
biological integrity of the nation's
waters has been approached by
regulatory agencies almost entirely
through chemical and physical
criteria. This manuscript advocates
the adoption of biological criteria
in the New York State regulations to
monitor and restore the biological
integrity of the State's waters.
The Water Quality Act of 1987
promoted the use of biological
monitoring, stating that when
numerical criteria are not available
for 307 toxics, the "... state shall
adopt criteria based on biological
monitoring or assessment methods
consistent with information
published pursuant to Section
304(a)(8)".
In September, 1987, the USEPA
Office of Water and Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
published the results of a major
study of the Agency's surface water
monitoring activities. The final
report of this evaluation was
titled, "Surface water monitoring:
a framework for change". Of the six
recommendation areas of this
document, recommendations area 2
was to "accelerate the development
and application of promising
biological monitoring techniques".
This recommendation was based on a
conclusion that the chemical-
specific approach cannot adequately
protect all surface waters, and
biological monitoring offers a tool
to help manage surface water
monitoring. In order to utilize
biological monitoring in an
important role in surface water
monitoring, biological criteria
must be proposed to determine if
significant biological alteration
is present, or if the biotic
integrity of a given waterbody is
achieving its full potential. This
paper presents tentative biological
criteria for New York State streams
based on macroinvertebrates, and
how they may best be applied to
play a vital role in the State's
surface water monitoring
activities.
-------
Bode and Novak
Table 1. Suinnary of presently known relationships between water quality
categories and fish.
Category
Effect on Contnunity
Nbn-impacted
Water quality not limiting to fish propagation
or survival.
Slightly impacted Water quality possibly limiting to fish
propagation.
Moderately impacted Water quality probably limiting to fish
propagation.
Severely impacted Water quality is limiting to fish propagation
and survival.
New York State has long been a
leader in the area of water quality
monitoring and achieving water
quality goals. At a recent EPA-
sponsored National Workshop on the
Development of Instream Biological
Criteria, it was evident that one of
the areas that will be in the
forefront of water quality
monitoring for the next few years
will be the application of
biological techniques to water
quality standards. This is an
important step in maintaining the
States in a leading role in water
monitoring.
Biological Criteria based on
Macro invertebrates
Freshwater organisms are
frequently divided into 3 major
groups: fish, periphyton (algae,
bacteria, and rooted aquatic plants)
and invertebrates. These 3 groups
are each essential components of the
freshwater ecosystem, and are
interrelated in the aquatic food
web. Of the invertebrates (animals
lacking backbones), the majority
are referred to as benthic
macroinvertebrates, those that are
bottom-dwellers, are large enough
to be visible without a microscope,
and are retained by a U.S. no. 30
sieve. The most ccnmon benthic
macroinvertebrates are aquatic
insects, worms, mollusks, and
crustaceans.
Macroinvertebrates are capable of
providing water quality information
that chemical sampling cannot
provide. Resident instream biota
reflect the integrated effects of
substances intermittently
discharged, substances reacting
synergistically with each other, or
substances present in levels too
low for chemical detection. They
have potential in this regard for
detection and evaluation for non-
point problems.
Compared to other monitoring
techniques, macroinvertebrate
assessment is relatively rapid and
inexpensive. With Rapid Assessment
methods, a typical 5-site stream
survey can be completed by a two
-43-
-------
New York Biocriteria
person team in five days, including
sampling, sample analysis, data
analysis, and report writing.
The public relates better to
biological criteria than to
chemical criteria as measures of
water quality. Especially organisms
such as mayflies, stoneflies, and
caddisflies are readily comprehended
as clean-water indicators, fish-food
organisms, and vital components of
the aquatic ecosystem.
With the establishment of
biological criteria, the detection
of significant biological alteration
could result in regulatory action.
Benefits in this area would be
substantial in instances of
exclusive detection, in which
chemical specific sampling was
unable to detect a violation.
Biological Criteria and Use
Impairment
The ultimate goal of the water
quality program in New York State is
to achieve and maintain the best
usage for the State's waters. Of
the best uses (e.g. drinking,
swimming, fishing), biological
criteria based on
macroinvertebrates are most related
to fish survival and propagation.
Macroinvertebrates are connected to
fish both as fish-food organisms and
as indicators of damage to fish
survival and propagation.
A recent study correlating fish
and macroinvertebrates communities
in New York State streams (Bode,
1987) found that levels of water
quality impact based on
macroinvertebrate communities are
related to fish propagation and
survival (Table 1). Since the
proposed biocriteria are based on
these levels of impact, they
ultimately are also related to best
use impairment. Although this does
not imply that a significant
biological alteration always
indicates use impairment, it does
provide basis for validity of
macroinvertebrate standards as
indicators of usage-related water
quality problems.
Development of Biological Criteria
Sampling methods for wadeable
streams with riffles followed
"Methods for rapid bioassessment of
streams (Bode 1988). These methods
are nearly identical to protocol 3
methods as described in the
proposed EPA Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (RBP). Using these
methods 214 data sets from 27
streams in New York State were
collected over a five year period
from 1983 to 1987. Non-wadeable
streams and streams lacking riffles
were sampled using artificial
substrate multiple-plate samplers,
as described in Simpson (1980).
Criteria based on artificial
substrate samplers have not yet
been developed.
Macroinvertebrate communities
from the 214 data sets were
assessed as to level of water
quality impairment using a four
tiered impairment system, as in EPA
proposed RBP level 3. Based on five
indicies (species richness, EFT,
biotic index, dominant species, and
field assessment) water quality was
assessed as either nonimpacted,
slightly impacted, moderately
impacted, or severely impacted.
Changes between levels of
irtpairment were averaged for all
records and used to calculate
significant biological alteration
(SBA), the amount of change which
would, on average, result in an
increase in one level of
impairment in a four tiered system
(Fig. 1).
-44-
-------
Bode and Novak
BIOTIC
INDEX IA0.8!
VIOLATION OF CRITERION FOR ANY
PARAMETER CONSTITUTES SIGNIFICANT
BIOLOGICAL ALTERATION
(0-5 scale)
EPT VALUE
SPECIES
RICHNESS
A8
SPECIES
DOMINANCE
A15
BASED ON 100-SPECIMEN
SUBSAMPLES OF
MACRO IN VERTEBRATE
KICK SAMPLES
Fig. 1 Proposed criteria for assessing significant alteration of biota.
Stream sites which were indicated
as having an SEA were cross-
referenced with the Priority Water
Problem (FWP) list. Of those not on
the list, twelve were considered
valid SBA's and new detection
records, three were considered
spurious, and six were not on the
PWP list for valid reasons (out of
state sites, and sites that were on
the list at the time of sampling
but have since been revoked). In
practice, spurious detections could
be invalidated by conflicting field
assessments.
Although the rapid assessment
methods utilized in 1983 to 1987
surveys are satisfactory for problem
detection, problem assessment, and
trend monitoring, the methods
proposed for compliance monitoring
differ somewhat, and have not yet
been field tested. The primary
difference in the two methods is
sample replication, which should be
required for compliance monitoring.
With this method, three kick
samples of two minutes duration
would be taken, compared to the
trend monitoring method of one kick
sample of five minutes duration.
Additionally, if compliance
monitoring should become the
responsibility of the discharger,
greater variability among sampling
methods will be introduced. Testing
is necessary to determine if, 1).
sample variability can be
controlled for three replicate
kicks, and 2). the proposed
criteria will be supported by three
replicate samples as they were for
-45-
-------
New York Biocriteria
single (non-replicated) kick
sampling. It is strongly
recommended that the proposed
criteria be tested over a range of
water qualities in several stream
systems using the proposed sampling
procedure.
Specifications of Proposed
Biological Criteria
Sampling methods — Sampling
methods for wadeable streams with
riffles will follow those described
in "Methods for Rapid Biological
Assessment of Streams (Bode, 1988).
These methods conform to the EPA-
proposed Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol three. To insure sample
validity, this protocol will be
modified for compliance monitoring
by collecting three replicate kick
samples of two minutes duration at
each site. Sampling methods for
non-wadeable., streams and streams
lacking riffles will follow
artificial substrate methods as
described in the EPA biological
field and laboratory methods (USEPA
1973), and as modified for use in
New York State streams as described
in Simpson (1980), and are currently
under development.
Site selection — The proposed
criteria are site-specific. Using
the paired site comparison method
(Green, 1979), significant
biological alteration will be
measured from a control, either
upstream, or if no suitable
upstream site is available, from a
comparable nearby stream. Sites are
selected to have similar current
speeds, substrate particle size,
degree of embeddedness, and percent
canopy.
Significant biological
alteration — Significant
biological alteration is measured
as statistically significant change
from a control site which exceeds
allowable levels of change in any
of 4 parameters (Fig. 1). These
parameters, species richness,
biotic index, EFT value, and change
in species dominance, were selected
from the 8 parameters listed under
the EPA RBP Protocol level three.
The parameters were selected on the
basis of: 1). ability to accurately
detect a wide range of biological
alterations, and 2). ability of the
parameter to be simply computed and
comprehended. Levels were
determined for each parameter based
on the amount of change measured
between the 4 levels of impact in a
four tier system.
The parameters and the proposed
criteria for each are as follows:
Species Richness: The total
number of species or taxa found in
the 100-organism subsample. The
criterion for this parameter is
eight; a decrease of eight or more
species constitutes significant
biological alteration.
EPT Value: This index from Lenat
(1988) is the total number of
species of mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), stoneflies
(Plecoptera), and caddisflies
(Trichopetera) found in the 100-
organism subsample. These are
considered to be mostly clean-
water organisms, and their presence
generally is correlated with good
water quality. The criterion for
this parameter is four; a decrease
of four or more constitutes
significant biological alteration.
Biotic Index; The Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index is calculated by
multiplying the number of
individuals of each species by its
assigned tolerance value, summing
these products, and dividing by the
total number of individuals.
-46-
-------
Bode and Novak
Tolerance values are listed in
Hilsenhoff (1982, 1987). On a zero
to five scale, tolerance values
range from intolerant (0) to
tolerant (5). The criterion for
this parameter is 0.80; an increase
of 0.80 or more constitutes
significant biological alteration.
Dominant Taxon Contribution, or
Species Dominance: This number is
the percent contribution of
individuals of the most numerous
taxon or species in the sample.
High percent contributions are an
indication of community imbalance.
The criterion for this parameter is
15; an increase of 15 or more
percent constitutes significant
biological alteration.
Applicaticn of the Proposed
Biological Criteria
In application, the following
tentative schedule would be the
reccmnended procedure for
implementing biocriteria. Sampling
is conducted at a comparable
control (upstream) site and an
iirpact (downstream) site by a
trained biologist. Sampling could
initially be conducted by NYS DEC
personnel, or ultimately be the
responsibility of the discharger.
Three replicates are collected at
each site, with equal effort being
assured at control and impact site.
All three replicates from each
site are laboratory processed and
identified, using 100 specimen
subsamples from each. The four
parameters (species richness,
biotic index, EFT, and species
dominance) are calculated for each
of the replicates.
To determine if the replicates
are within the proper range of
variability, similarity coefficients
are calculated between replicates.
If variability exceeds the maximum
amount, additional sub-samples are
taken and processed; if variability
between replicates persists, sites
are resampled.
The values for each parameter are
screened to determine if any exceed
the criterion for that parameter.
An experienced biologist examines
these values to check for spurious
results.
Valid sites having significant
biological alteration are reported
to NYS DEC.
Literature Cited
Bode, Robert W. 1987. The
correlation of macroinvertebrate
and fish communities in New York
State streams. NYS DEC Technical
Report. Albany, New York. llpp.
Bode, Robert W. 1988. Methods for
rapid biological assessment of
streams. NYS DEC Technical Report.
Albany, New York. 27 pp.
Green, R.M. 1979. Sampling design
and statistical methods for
environmental biologists. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a
biotic index to evaluate water
quality in streams. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
Technical Bulletin No. 132. 22 pp.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved
biotic index of organic stream
pollution. The Great Lakes
Entomologist 20(1).
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality
assessment of streams using a
qualitative collection method for
benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal
-47-
-------
New York Biocriteria
of the North American Benthological
Society 7(3): 222-233.
Sinpson, K.W. 1980.
Macroinvertebrate survey of the
Mohawk River-Barge Canal System,
1972. NYS Department of Health
Environmental Health Report,
AUbany, New York. No. 10. 43pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987. Surface water
monitoring: A framework for change.
USEPA, Office of Water and Office of
Planning and Procedures, Washington,
D.C.
Weber, C.I. 1973. Biological field
and laboratory methods for
measuring the Quality of Surface
waters and effluents. USEPA,
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA670/4-73-001.
-48-
-------
RAPID BIOASSESSMENT USING FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF RUNNING WATER
INVERTEBRATES
Kenneth Cummins
Appalachian Environmental Laboratory
University of Maryland
Frostburg, Maryland 21532
Introduction
Freshwater bioassessment
approaches using benthic
macroinvertebrates typically have
focused on the questions of "what is
it?" and "how many are there?" Most
frequently, the answers to these
questions are phrased in the form of
numerical indices. Clearly the
answer to the first question is
dependent upon how well the identity
of the species collected can be
distinguished. Although most
biosurvey reports, as well as most
of the published literature, purport
to present evaluations of "species"
diversity, richness, or some other
index, most frequently only a small
faction of the specimens are ever
actually classified to species.
Almost without exception, the
indices are based on a list of
miscellaneous taxa ranging from
class or order through families and
genera, and occasionally to the
species level. Often, as in the case
of the Chironomidae, there is an
inverse relationship between
numerical abundance and taxonomic
detail. Even though it may be
intellectually satisfying to view
the species as the basic unit in
freshwater benthic ecology, it is at
present operationally impossible.
Because of present limitations, it
seems prudent to consider alternate
strategies. First, the focus of
assays can be changed from "what it
is" to "what it does." Second, the
question of "how many", which
requires at least semi-quantitative
samples, such as kick samples or
catch per unit effort methods, can
be changed to "relatively how many"
which permits the use of qualitative
samples expressed as dimensionless
ratios. The relative abundance of
invertebrates categorized by their
functional roles in aquatic
ecosystems is the basis of the
approach discussed below.
Functional Organization of Benthic
Mfecroinvertebrate Assemblages
It should be noted that the
functional approach has been
incorporated in various forms into
a large number of research projects
published in the open literature
(e.g. Cummins et al. 1982; Minshall
et al. 1983). In these studies,
professional freshwater researchers
(including advanced degree students
and technicians) made the value
judgments necessary to complete the
analyses. I contend that if the
necessary expertise is available to
use numerical indices based on
various levels of taxonomic
determination, it must be available
for the functional analysis of
benthic comnunities.
The basic tenets of the
functional approach are that: 1)
the focus is on the functional
roles played by macroinvertebrates
in freshwater ecosystems, and 2)
taxonomic effort is directed toward
maximum resolution of these
functional roles. A major
consequence of the approach is that
no effort is expended in making
taxonomic separations below the
level that allows a functional
designation. For example,
determination at the ordinal level
of Odonata and Megaloptera is
sufficient to designate the
category of functional feeding
group, namely predator, at nearly
the 100% confidence level (the
exceptions being newly hatched
first instars (e.g. Petersen 1974).
-------
Cuimins
Table 1. Ponctional modules relating food resource categories and morpho-
behavioral food acquisition groups of freshwater macroinvertebrates
MDDULE
DESCRIPTION
Shredders-CPCM Coarse particulate organic matter (CPCM, particularly
leaflitter) - Microbes (especially aquatic hyphomycete
fungi) -Shredders (invertebrates with chewing mouth
parts)
Collectors-FPCM Fine particulate organic matter (FPCM, including
shredder feces) - Microbes (dominated by bacteria)
Collectors: Filtering Collectors (invertebrates that
remove particles from suspended load); and Gathering
Collectors (invertebrates that gather particles from
sediment surfaces or interstices or associated
structure)
Scrapers-Periphyton Periphyton (attached algae, especially diatoms, and
associated micro flora and fauna) - Scrapers
(invertebrates with adaptations for removing algae from
relative hard planar surfaces)
Predators-Prey
Prey (invertebrates available for capture) - Predators
(invertebrates specialized to capture and consume, at
least partially, live prey)
Similarly, designation of the
ephemeropteran family Heptageniidae
establishes the scraper functional
feeding group at about a 95%
confidence, exceptions being species
that function as filtering
collectors or shredders on wood or
leaf litter (Merritt and Cummins
1984). Although it is generally true
that in some groups, such as the
Chironanidae, the more refined the
taxonomy the better the resolution
in assigning animals to functional
groups, it is important to consider
how much increased resolution
accrues from additional effort spent
in taxonomic determinations. For
example, unlike the heptageniid
mayflies, separation of
ephemerellids into genera (recently
elevated from subgeneric status)
does confer significant increases
in functional group resolution
(Edmunds et al. 1976; Merritt and
Cummins 1984). Of course samples
can be preserved and taxonomic
analyses performed at a later date.
However, the method is designed
primarily for use in the field
(Cummins and Wilzbach 1985) so
that evaluations can be completed,
or the data gathered that will
allow the evaluations to be made,
before leaving the stream or lake
site.
It is important to emphasize that
the functional group designation
should be made as the initial
determination using an approach
such as that given by Cunmins and
Wilzbach (1985) with more detailed
taxonomy as a second step.
Presently the most common approach
is to make taxonomic determinations
on preserved specimens, which of
course excludes the use of many
-50-
-------
Rapid Bioassessment using Functional Analysis
SHREDDERS SCRAPERS COLLECTORS
rttiumo
IMMI «• rvoi T/UU
UTCKAl MOOWWAl
HOUT UTIIUI MOOHMMJA is
MvfWi mtr^
9TMIU VTM MHTIt LtM
MCOATOMS
COLLECTORS tHMEDDEMS PREDATORS
Fig. l. Sumnary of the separation of freshwater macro invertebrates into
functional feeding groups from Cummins and Wilzbach 1985. The bars shown
indicate the size ranges of full grown (terminal instars) animals
representative of each category.
helpful behavioral and natural color
pattern characters, and later assign
functional groups using the
ecological tables in Merritt and
Cummins (1984). A major difficulty
in the assignment of functional
group designations has been the
continued interchangeable use of two
concepts that are not synonymous.
One concept is the designation of
trophic levels, that is,
herbivores, detritivores, and
carnivores. These designations are
based on digestive tract analyses.
Such gut inventories convey little
information about the mechanisms
involved in acquiring the food. For
example, the presence of large
amounts of fine particulate
detritus in the digestive tract can
result from the material being
filtered from the passing water,
mined from the interstices of the
sediments or brushed from surfaces,
or harshly scraped from sediment
surfaces coated with sparse
attached algae and detritus trapped
among the cells and colonies. Thus,
in this example, the food type,
fine detritus, is similar but the
morphological-behavioral mechanisms
by which it was acquired would be
fundamentally different.
The other concept, functional
feeding groups, is based on the
system responsible for the
acquisition of the food.
Acquisition systems are separated
on the basis of morphological
structures and associated driving
-51-
-------
Cunmins
behavior according to general
classes of food resources that are
most efficiently harvested by a
given functional group (e.g.,
Cunmins and Klug 1979). A corollary
of this concept is that the
efficiency with which the acquired
food is converted to growth is
dependent on the coupled
assimilation system (Cunmins 1984).
A clear example of the difference
between the two concepts can be
found in Cummins (1973) where data
on the scraper caddisfly Glossosoma
nigrior is presented. Populations of
G. niorior from two streams had
distinctly different gut contents.
Larvae collected from an algal rich
stream had gut contents composed of
90 to 99% algae, while those from an
algal poor stream had digestive
tracts containing 48 to 93%
detritus. Larvae from the two
streams employed the same
acquisition system. They fed by
scraping rock (cobble and gravel)
surfaces, but they would have been
classified as herbivores in one
stream and detritivores in the
other. Similar studies with
glossosomatid caddisflies in
Michigan and Oregon confirmed this
type of variation in gut contents in
different populations all of which
were feeding as scrapers (Anderson
and Cummins 1979).
Based on gut contents (the trophic
system), essentially all aquatic
macroinvertebrates are omnivores if
all growth stages under a variety of
habitat and seasonal conditions are
considered. Virtually all early
stages (instars) of all species
ingest fine particulate organic
matter (FPCM) detritus. FPCM
includes such items as fine
macrophyte fragments, amorphous
organic matter (a significant
portion being derived by co-
precipitation of dissolved organic
matter), bacteria, fungal hyphal
fragments and spores,
protozoans, rotifers, nematodes,
diatoms, green and bluegreen algae,
microcrustaceans and a variety of
other microinvertebrates, and first
instars of some macroinvertebrates.
The most apparent continuity, given
such a diverse food resource, is
the nature of the morpho-behavioral
mechanisms employed in acquiring
such a slurry food source from the
water column or the sediments. If a
particle of this "detrital
porridge" is above a certain size
(probably about 1 irm) it will need
to be chewed up perhaps in addition
to, but usually instead of, the
filtering and gathering mechanisms
alluded to above.
The basic functional modules
linking food resource categories
and morpho-behavioral food
acquisition groups are summarized
in Table 1.
As the relative dominance of the
various food resource categories
changes, there is a corresponding
shift in the ratios of the
different functional groups. For
example, such adjustments between
food resources and
macroinvertebrate functional
groups was a basic component of the
River Continuum Concept (Vannote et
al. 1980; Minshall et al. 1983,
1985; Cummins et al. 1984). The
adjustments were shown to vary with
increasing stream and river size
(order) from headwater tributaries
to larger rivers (Cummins et al.
1981).
Functional Group Analysis
The method of analysis
recontnended is that presented in
the field manual by Cunrtiins and
Wilzbach (1985). This procedure is
intended for use in the field with
freshly collected live samples.
Following this rapid, field
bioassessment, samples can be
preserved for more detailed
taxonomic analysis in the
-52-
-------
Rapid Bioassessment using Functional Analysis
laboratory. A general summary of
the functional group separations
from Cumnins and Wilzbach (1985) is
given in Figure 1.
The procedure is based on
qualitative samples taken from
representative materials in five
general categories: leaf and other
plant litter, large cobble, fine
sediments from depositional areas,
large wood and rooted plants.
Because the results are calculated
as dimensionless ratios, these
habitat-food resource samples need
not be quantitative. The procedure
of functional group analysis given
in Cummins and Wilzbach (1985) is
organized by two levels of
resolution. The first level provides
for functional group separations at
a level of efficiency in the range
of 75 to 100%, depending on the
groups involved. The second level of
resolution, which requires more
taxonomic expertise than the first
level, increases the resolution
another 5 to 10%, again depending
upon the group in question, by
dealing with some of the most
commonly encountered exceptions. In
particular watersheds in which
repeated monitoring would be
conducted, additional levels of
resolution could readily be devised.
In evaluating the relative
abundance of functional groups as
dimensionless ratios in a given
aquatic ecosystem, several cautions
are important. First and foremost,
it is important to establish some
ratios for one or more reference
systems in a given drainage basin.
The data for these ratios should
come from the most undisturbed
streams in the basin and take into
account stream size (order). As
shown in the River continuum
studies, the ratios change in a
predictable fashion with increasing
stream order along a drainage basin
network (Cummins et al, 1981;
Minshall et al. 1983).
A second caution involves the
seasonal timing of sampling. For
functional group analyses, and any
taxonomically based numerical index
as well, it is important to sample
a given stream or river when the
greatest number of species are
present and feeding, and of as
large a size as possible. In the
Temperate Zone this usually means
avoiding the late spring through
early summer and the early autumn
through mid-winter periods. During
these periods many species are
present as eggs or newly hatched
immatures, or are entirely absent
from the stream as terrestrial
adults. It should be noted also
that there are definite spring-
summer and autumn-winter
communities of invertebrates made
up of populations with feeding
periods concentrated in one or the
other (Cummins et al. 1989). This
means that at least two sampling
times each year would be
advisable.
The above cautions are discussed
in Merritt and Cummins (1984) and
Cummins and Wilzbach (1985), and
some examples of expected ranges in
ratios by stream order are given in
the latter. However, as stated
above, the expected ratios need to
be regionalized to avoid the
"universally applicable index"
syndrome. Clearly, functional
feeding group analysis is not a
substitute for detailed taxonomic
studies of stream
macroinvertebrates, but it has been
used successfully to gain insight
into the organization of freshwater
communities as they are influenced
by changes in the resource base.
In summary, I offer the following
epilogue.
An Ode to Rapid Bioassessment
To inquire on the health
Of our native stream wealth,
We seek rapid assessment
-53-
-------
Cumnins
To reduce our investment.
Never mind if we blunder
Just give us a number.
Treat taxonomy chaotic
With an index biotic.
Is the system redundant?
Just rank midges abundant.
Is it a group you despise?
Use a coarser mesh size.
Never mind all the species
That's a whole different thesis.
So...with a lumper's devotion
I offer this motion-
Take a moment or two
Try the functional view.
Literature Cited
Anderson, N.H. and K.W. Cummins.
1979. The influence of diet on the
life histories of aquatic insects.
Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board Canada 36:335-342.
Cummins, K.W, 1973. Trophic
relations of aquatic insects. Annual
Review of Entomology 18:183-206.
Cummins, K.W. 1984. Invertebrate
food resource relationships. North
American Benthological Society
Bulletin 1(2):44-45.
Cummins, K.W. , M.J. Klug, G.M. Ward,
G.L. Spengler, R.W. Ovtnk,
D.C. Mahon, and R.C. Petersen. 1981.
Trends in particulate organic matter
fluxes, community processes and
macroinvertebrate functional groups
along a Great Lakes drainage basin
continuum. Verh. Internat. Verein.
Limnology 21:841-849.
Cummins, K.W., M.J. Klug. 1979.
Feeding ecology of stream
invertebrates. Annual Review of
Ecological Systematics 10:147-172.
Cummins, K.W., G.W. Minshall, J.R.
Sedell, C.E. Gushing, and R.C.
Petersen. 1984. Stream ecology
theory- Verh. Internat. Verein.
Limnology 22:1818-1827.
-54-
Cummins, K.W. and M.A. Wilzbach.
1985. Field procedures for the
analysis of functional feeding
groups of stream invertebrates.
University of Maryland, Appalachian
Environmental Laboratory-
Contribution 1611.
Cummins, K.W. , M.A. Wilzbach, D.M.
Gates, J.B. Perry and W.B.
Taliaferro. 1989. Shredders and
riparian vegetation. Bioscience
39:24-30.
Edmunds, G.F., Jr., S.L.Jensen, and
L. Berner. 1976. The mayflies of
North and Central America.
University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins.
1984. An introduction to the
aquatic insects of North America
(2nd ed.). Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque,
IA.
Minshall, G.W., R.C. Petersen, K.W.
Cummins, T.L. Bott, J.R. Sedell,
C.E. Gushing, and R.L. Vannote.
1983. Interbiome comparison of
stream ecosystem dynamics.
Ecological Monographs 53:1-25.
Minshall, G.W. , K.W. Cummins, R.C.
Petersen, C.E. Gushing, D.A.
Bruins, J.R. Sedell, and R.L.
Vannote. 1985. Developments in
stream ecosystem theory. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science. 42:1045-1055.
Petersen, R.C. 1974. Life history
and bionomics of Nioronia
serricornis (Say) (Megaloptera:
Corydalidae). unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Michigan State
University, Lansing, MI. 210 pp.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W.
CurrtTiins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E.
Gushing. 1980. The river continuum
concept. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science.
37:30-37.
-------
A STREAM INVENTORY PROCESS TO CLASSIFY USE SUPPORT AND DEVELOP
BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS IN NEBRASKA
Terry Maret
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Water Quality Division
301 Centennial Mall
Lincoln, NE 68509
Abstract
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (NDEC) is currently
conducting a five year inventory and classification process of the state's
perennial streams. The foundation of this effort is the collection of
physical and biological data by major river basin. This process consists of
four phase approach including a review of existing data, reconnaissance
survey, biological collection and standards revision. Once all perennial
streams are identified in a basin using topographic maps (1:24,000), a
reconnaissance survey is conducted. This includes a field visit to each
perennial stream. Physical stream factors such as flow, channel
characteristics, width, depth, substrate, streambank stability, habitat
quality; and surrounding watershed factors such as land use, buffer zone
characteristics and soil type are documented. Upon completion of the the
reconnaissance survey, sites are selected to collect biological data. These
biological collections include both qualitative fish and macroinvertebrate
collections representing the various stream types found in a basin. Emphasis
is placed on selecting "least impacted" reference streams so a benchmark can
be established for interpreting biotic integrity. The final phase includes
use class assignments and standards revision for the redefined stream
segments. This substantially increases the number of stream segments but
provides better water quality protection. Key fish species and cold water
indicators are currently being used to assign aquatic life use classes to
each segment. The biological data collected will be used to identify faunal
regions and develop biotic assessment tools. This process has other
applications including nonpoint source assessment, construction grants
prioritization and identification of impaired instream beneficial uses.
Introduction
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977
was ammended in 1981 to authorize
grants to states for water quality
management planning under section
205(j). The major effort of this
program in NebrasJca is the inventory
and classification of all perennial
streams (totaling some 10,212 miles)
based on their physical and
biological characteristics. This
approach is targeted at documenting
the beneficial uses of a stream
which is defined as "an existing use
of a water body or one that is
attainable based on the physical,
chemical or biological water body
characteristrics (NDEC 1987).
Beneficial uses recognized by NDEC
include recreation, aquatic life,
water supply, aesthetics and public
health (Table 1). Past monitoring
by the NDEC had been primarily
traditional ambient chemical
sampling. This indirect assessment
of the state's stream resources has
fallen short in assessing whether
waters are "fisnable and swimmable"
as mandated by Congress in the CWA.
Others including Thurston et al.
(1979) and Karr and Dudley (1981)
have also concluded that aquatic
resource assessments cannot be
based solely on physiochemical
sampling. According to the CWA one
-------
Maret
1.
Ouality
icial IMB of surface voters recognised in tne Nebraska Hater
(MZC 1987).
DBBCrtpUon
[CM
Class A
a
LIFE
QolcVater
Class A
Class B
teed on physical stream characteristics*
full body contact
Partial body contact
I on habitat, stream size and presence
of flan species and other aquatic life
25 C and colduater biota
Self-sustaining saJacmd fishery
Piesenca of no or acre ooldwater indicators
including flora and fauna
Often
Class A
Class B
WOSt SUPPLY
Public Drinking Hater
Agricultural
Class A
Class B
industrial
25 C and uamnat«r biota
now greater than 10 cfs and habitat good,
or one or gore key species present year
round*-
Flow less than 10 cfs and habitat limited,
no key species supported year round
Numeric
Livestock and irrigation
drone conductivity and nitrate
Htturally limited
Mrrative depending on specific use
GBBM.
KHJC HN2H
MD
• width, depth, •ftettrata and
6 As identified by MBC;
i Ifeble 3.
of the objectives is to maintain the
chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the nations waters.
Unfortunately, of these three
characteristics biological
monitoring has received the least
attention, but perhaps is the most
important because organisms
integrate all surrounding
environmental effects. They can be
thought of as a continuous barometer
of water resource quality.
Prior classification methods of
Nebraska streams have lacked any
standard procedures or
accountability system. This type of
information is necessary when
justifying the need for advanced
treatment by permitees or
classifying a stream as an
outstanding resource water.
Classification of aquatic life
is lacking in Nebraska with the
exception of a few research
projects and a fishery survey
conducted by Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission (NGPC) (Bliss and
Schainost 1973). A stream
classification map was developed by
NGPC (1978) to assist state and
federal agencies and water users in
assessing the impacts of proposed
water projects. The map displays an
appraisal of the relative value of
stream fishery resources. Most of
the stream fishery data collected
has been for sport fish appraisal
and management with little work on
habitat quality or comnunity
assessment. Current aquatic life
data is needed on what is
attainable in the various types of
-56-
-------
Stream Inventory Process in Nebraska
Fig. 1. Nebraska's thirteen major river basins.
streams in Nebraska. This connunity
data could then be used as a
benchmark to assess "biotic
integrity" defined by Karr and
Dudley (1981) as the "ability to
support and maintain a balanced,
integrated, adaptive cotnnunity of
organisms having a species
composition, diversity, and
functional organization comparable
to that of natural habitat of the
region."
The objectives of this five year
effort are to develop: 1). a
systematic, scientific approach to
classify perennial stream resources
according to existing or attainable
uses; 2). biological assessment
techniques to directly measure
aquatic life health based on
regionally expected fauna, and 3).
collected current data directly
applicable to standards revisions,
construction grants prioritization,
nonpoint programs and reporting of
impaired waters required by the
305(b) biennial water quality
report.
Methods and Materials
The inventory and classification
process is a four phase approach
including a review of existing
data, reconnaissance survey,
biological collections and
standards revision. The 13 major
river basins in the state (Fig. l)
provide a logical framework to
conduct a systematic sampling over
a scheduled five year period (1984
to 1989). This process began in the
Elkhorn Basin during 1984, which
served as the prototype for the
remainder of the state. This basin
was selected first because it
offered the greatest variety of
stream types, representing four
ecoregions according to Qnernik's
(1986) classification map. Due to
internal budgetary constraints,
three basins will be completed each
-57-
-------
Maret
Table 2. Habitat variables measured during field reconnaissarce surveys.
Habitat Quality
Riparian Zone
Temperature (coldwater or warnvater)a buffer quality
Cover occurrence % vegetation (trees, shrubs
grass)
Pool quality
Riffle/run occurrence
flow class*'
substrate typec
average depth0
average widthc
land use
channelized (yes or no)
bank stability
sand bar occurrence
streambank (sand or dirt)d
a As determined by water tenperature and aquatic life indicators
including aquatic flora and fauna.
Flow claSS CfS _ Flow class cfs
1
2
3
4
5
O.d < x <1
1-5
6-10
11-25
26-50
7
8
9
51-100
101-250
251-500
> 500
c Estimated by cross section transects
Used to document potential for partial and full body recreation
uses along with flow, stream width, depth and substrate.
of the remaining four years until
the entire state is classified.
The following steps sunnarize each
phase of the inventory and
classification process.
Phase 1 — Review Existing Data —
All perennial streams of a basin are
identified from topographical naps
(1:24,000). Sites are then selected
to represent homogeneous segments
which are identified using flow
records (i.e., Department of Water
Resources and United States
Geological Survey), physical
conditions (e.g., substrate and
land use), fishery data gathered by
I^)GPC and proximity of a stream to
other tributaries which may change
the flow regime.
Phase 2 — Reconnaissance Survey —
Once stations are selected, each
site is visited by a two man team,
with at least one being a trained
biologist. Qualitative descriptions
of habitat are made by assessing
specific variables both by
observation and transect
measurements. Approximately one-
-58-
-------
Stream Inventory Process in Nebraska
Taci* 3. Key fish sp«cia6 used in the classification of aquatic life uses.
Scientific
Late Sturgeon
PHlid sturgeon
«au»n redbelly Ac*
Pinescale dm
Pwrl dm
BUcknose shiner
e.
dub
Brook stickleback
lout darter
Jotmy darter
Cranjetftroat darter
Blacknose dace
Grass pickerel
acvelnoae sturgecn
Raddlefish
Brook trout
Brow trout
Rainbow trout
Northern pike
Blue catfish
Oiamel catfish
Yellow buiuiead
riatfteao' catfish
Striped bass
Itiite bass
Rock bass
ririjeMiitn bass
SBallKiuth bass
Spotted bass
Blueglll
sunfish
crappie
mite crappie
Tallow perch
leuiey*
half hour is spent on each site
visit. Direct measurements of
physical characteristics and
variables are assessed (Table 2).
Definitions used for the variables
were compiled from Armour et al.
(1983) and Platts et al. (1983).
Three transects are usually made of
the study reach which is 20 to 40
times the stream width. Stream
width is measured at each of three
points at each transect to the
nearest 0.5 ft. Stream depth is
measured to the nearest 0.1 ft at a
series of equally spaced intervals
across the stream. Substrate is
visually estimated to the nearest
10% using the categories recognized
by Platts et al. (1983).
Photographs upstream and downstream
of the study reach (usually a
bridge crossing) are taken for
further reference. To achieve
consistency all variable
measurements are recorded on a
standard field form.
Phase 3 — Biological Survey (Fish
and Macroinvertebrate) —
Biological sites are selected by
the staff who performed the field
reconnaissance on a particular
basin. The selection process is
targeted at least impacted reaches
which will serve as reference
streams (e.g. , wildlife management
areas, refuge or state park).
Collections from these stations
will document the best attainable
or "best expected" community found
in a basin. The selected sites
include the various stream types
found in a particular basin. Flow
class, substrate, temperature class
(warmwater or coldwater) and
habitat quality are the primary
characteristics considered to
represent the different stream
types. The selection process also
considers critical reaches defined
as having ecologically significant
-59-
-------
Maret
* t*o or me,t I«K,M M c*l*«t«r Muttle oimt*. flw, or •tcroimcrtokritw.
iM in Tltlo 11T - NBtrMU «•»•' Ouclltr •t«WJ*r«« f«r lurfoc* «tor« of tM «tlto.
• for Mlaoni« aiirttlan vl 11 M lOMoritlly •MiavtM M col«Mtor A«Mtic Llf* CIM* •-
• onMnfOrM. trirMtonM. or Mnoltiv* l*«elM: or »>roo or mart rwrootiajMI ly ivMrtont
fOerMtlOrHI ly iMMTtlnt IMCiM Of MUlt •><•.
lM af Mult
Fig. 2. Decision tree used by the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control to classify aquatic life uses of perennial streams in Nebraska.
fish species (e.g., salmonid
spawning, threatened or sensitive
categories) documented within the
last 20 years. Stream reaches with
these suspected attributes are
sampled to document the occurrence
of these key fish species (Table 3).
Once sites are selected a field
crew of five people collect
qualitative samples of both
macroinvertebrates and fish. Samples
are gathered during summer months
(June 1 to September 15) when flows
are stable and fish migration
movements are at a minimum. High
flows or unusual conditions
potentially affecting the community
or sampling effectiveness are
avoided.
A crew of three people using
electrofishing gear sample all
available habitats at a distance at
least 40 times the width. Sampling
is restricted to wadeable streams;
-60-
-------
Stream Inventory Process in Nebraska
T«M« 4. Exampto <* KM MTMID H«b*Ut Quality Indoi Ut*d to Evaluate
Naens*
RATING .TEM
CATEGORY
(Drrlt ttit aoproonata scora tor aacni
Mamam Cov»r
CofTIIIMJII
(I)
Occasional
(4)
Ran
(2)
Non«
(0)
Bank Stability
Flow Fluctuation
Riffle/Runs
Pool Quality
Bottom Substrate
Excellent
< 10% eroded
banu
(6)
Minor
little or
none from
base How
(4)
Common
(3)
Claas 1
or
Class 2
Pools
Common
(3)
>50%
gravel
or
larger
substrate
(3)
Good
11-30%
eroded
banu
(4)
Moderate
Evidence of
debns along
middle portion
of banu
(2)
Occasional
12)
Class 2
Pools
Occasional
or
Rare
12)
31-50%
gravel
or
larger
(2)
Fair
31-50%
eroded
banu
(2)
Severe
Evidence
of debris
nigh on
banu
10)
Rare
(1)
Class 3
Pools
Common
or
Occasional
(D
10-30%
gravel
or
larger
substrate
(1)
Poor
>SO% eroded
banu
(0)
Severe
Intermittent
Stream
(0)
None
(0)
Class 3
Pools Rare
or
CUSS 4
Pools only
(0)
Bottom
uniform
shifting sand
hardpan day
bedrock or
silt bottom
(0)
Total Score For AH Categories
20-25 ExcaMent
15 -it Good
10 - 14 Fair
< to Poor
extremely large rivers (e.g.,
Missouri River) are not sampled.
Fish species are identified and
enumerated in the field in most
cases. Total length is recorded on
all recreationally important species
to document possible nursery streams
having natural reproduction.
Representative specimens of most
species are preserved for voucher
specimens for the University of
Nebraska museum and further
identification made in the
laboratory if necessary. Field notes
including sampling time to estimate
abundance, anomalies of individuals
(e.g. disease and parasites) and
habitat conditions are made. In situ
measurements of dissolved oxygen,
conductivity, pH, temperature and
flow (measured by a Pygmy meter) are
also made at each biological site to
characterize the physiochemical
environment.
A crew of two people sample the
macroinvertebrate community at all
available habitats using various
collection methods (e.g. kick
sampling, debris picking and
sieving sediment or detritus). At
least 100 individuals of a
particular taxon are gathered
before the field sampling is
shifted to other less common taxa
at the site. Usually, one man-hour
is spent in the field to sample all
habitats. Samples are concentrated
in a sieve, preserved with 10%
formalin and returned to the lab
for identification. Samples are
sorted and specimens identified to
the lowest practical level (usually
genus). Large samples and
chironomids are often subsampled.
Normally at least a quarter of the
sample is used to extrapolate total
numbers. Common taxa are identified
and counted up to 100 individuals.
Field notes are made of habitats
sampled, substrate types and
habitat quality in addition to any
peculiarities observed at the site.
-61-
-------
Maret
Fig. 3. The EUchorn basin showing the stream segments delineated before
(above) and after (below) the inventory process.
Phase 4 — standards Revision —
Once all data has been collected for
a particular basin, stream segments
are identified. These segments are
catalogued by four hierarchial
levels including river basin,
subbasin, stream and stream segment.
Existing and attainable beneficial
uses for each stream segment are
determined (Table 1). A decision
tree is used in making a
determination of use classification
for aquatic life (Fig. 2). Similar
decision trees have been constructed
for state resource waters,
recreation, water supply,
agricultural and industrial uses.
Ml data is compiled, cataloged
and each stream segment categorized
in a stream inventory document. This
document serves as a reference and
accountability system for all
streams sampled.
Results and Discussion
In the Elkhorn basin a total of
1,770 mi of stream were represented
by 250 reconnaissance sites. These
streams were later classified into
134 homogeneous stream segments
based on physical and biological
characteristics, compared with 18
before the process (Fig. 3). This
substantially increases the number
of segments but provides better
protection to the resource because
segments are described by
individual characteristics. In
addition, 27 reference sites were
sampled to establish expected
biological communities for the
various stream types in the basin.
Upon completion of the statewide
biological collections this data
will be utilized to identify
-62-
-------
Stream Inventory Process in Nebraska
aquatic faunal regions using
methods outlined by Whittier et al.
(1987) and Hughes and Larsen
(1988). Aquatic species typically
found in the various regions, as
indicated by frequency of
occurrence, in addition to species
indicative of specific stream types
will be listed. This regionalization
will greatly reduce the natural
variability observed in biological
comnunities over a large geographic
area having a wide variety of stream
types. This will facilitate the
development of biotic assessment
tools specific to a particular type
of stream and region.
BIOS, a national Storet system
maintained by USEPA is currently
being used to store biological data
along with most habitat and physical
information. This data can be
integrated with SAS to automate
data assessment and also serve as a
national data bank for other users.
A list of fish and
macroinvertebrate species will be
compiled listing ecological
characteristics (e.g. tolerances,
trophic class and coldwater
adapted). This list will be compiled
by NDEC using the acquired survey
data, regional ichthyofaunal
references and expert review from
outside sources.
Once aquatic faunal regions have
been identified and expected faunal
lists finalized, then biotic
indicies can be developed. The index
of biotic integrity (IBI) devleoped
by Karr et al. (1986) using fish
communities provides a sound
approach at assessing biotic
integrity using fish. This index
provides valuable metrics
encompassing species and trophic
composition, abundance, and
condition, all of which are
ecologically related to stream
health. Its value in assessing
biotic integrity as it relates to
water resource degradation has been
demonstrated in the midwest
(Angermeier and Schlosser 1987).
Some modifications of the IBI
tailored to the identified regions
with similar fish faunas have been
developed (Miller et al. 1988).
Similar metrics which best indicate
degradation of the
macroinvertebrate community
integrity will also be formulated
into indicies.
Eventually, numeric biological
criteria can be developed once
enough data has been collected on
reference streams to describe the
variability expected in the various
regions. Percent deviation from
expected scores for the various
aquatic life uses can initially be
developed as indications of
community health and use support.
Until such time, the standards will
reflect primarily key fish species
occurrences and indicator species
(i.e. coldwater fauna).
Surrogates to stream size such as
stream order or drainage area have
been used to account for the
effects of stream size on the
number of species found (Karr et
al. 1986; Leonard and Orth 1986).
NDEC is currently investigating
flow class (Table 2) as a surrogate
to stream size to establish
"maximum species richness" lines.
Stream order and drainage area
appear to be of limited utility in
some Nebraska basins such as the
Sandhills where groundwater
contributions can be excessive.
Some measures of habitat quality
which summarizes the observations
and measurements taken in the field
is necessary when collecting
biological data. Habitat is
extremely important in determining
the attainable aquatic life uses of
a stream. If a stream has
sufficient flow and habitat quality
but does not support the expected
-63-
-------
Maret
aquatic life, it can be inferred
that water quality may be limiting.
Habitat assessment techniques
outlined by Ball (1982) and Platts
et al. (1983) were used to develop
this index. A habitat quality index
designed for Nebraska waters is
outlined in Table 4. Variables were
weighed according to their
importance in explaining the
diversity and abundance of aquatic
life found in Nebraska. A habitat
rating for a particular stream
reach used in conjunction with
biological sampling can be valuable
in determining the existence of a
water quality problem.
Other important uses for this
inventory and classification
process in water quality management
and planning activities include a
nonpoint assessment report mandated
by section 319 of the CWA of 1987.
Reconnaissance data including
riparian zone condition, streambank
stability and field observations
were utilized in this assessment
report. Future prioritization of
watersheds requiring nonpoint
abatement programs will utilize
fishery data (key species) and
physical factors measured during
reconnaissance surveys (i.e.
swimming use existing or
attainable) to arrive at a
consistent ranking mechanism.
Construction grants prioritization
takes into account existing or
attainable recreation or aquatic
life uses. This is necessary to
justify the expense of upgrades or
the type of treatment required
(e.g. chlorination). It can be used
for determination of mixing zones
which are used in conjunction with
wasteload allocations. The physical
data gathered from the various
stream segments inventoried is
utilized to assist in these cases.
Certification of water quality as
part of the 401/404 program. This
utilizes both physical and
biological data gathered to make
determinations on whether an
applicant is denied approval on a
particular project. It is useful
for tracking trends in ambient
surface waters. Reference streams
as identified by this inventory as
the "best expected" aquatic life
for a region can serve as the focal
point for long term trends if
monitored routinely. It is useful
for satisfying the requirement of
the antidegradation clause of
Nebraska's Surface Water Quality
Standards. Recent biological data
can be used as evidence to
identify outstanding or unique
resources requiring more stringent
protection. Finally, it can be
useful for identification of
surface waters not fully supporting
their designated uses, a
requirement of the 305(b) report.
The 205(j) stream inventory
process is an integral part of most
surface water quality management
programs. It provides a strong
basis for making decisions relating
to Nebraska stream resources. This
process will not only identify
problem areas where treatment is
needed but also provide framework
to develop biological assessment
tools. Ultimately, this process
will provide better protection of
Nebraska's stream resources by
furnishing information and
evaluation tools targeted at
instream beneficial uses.
Acknowledgements
There are a number of NDEC
employees involved with this
statewide inventory process. D.
Jensen and S. Walker were
instrumental in the development and
planning phases. Others involved
with the field and laboratory
analyses include: K. Bazata, D.
-64-
-------
Stream Inventory Process in Nebraska
Bubb, P. Brakhage, C. Christiansen,
J. Lund, F. Wbodwick and D.
Zaroban. Thanks are also extended
to the many seasonal employees who
have made the field collection
possible. A special thanks to B.
Hughes, D. Miller, and T. Whittier
of Northrop Services, Inc. and P.
Larsen from EPA, Corvallis, Oregon,
who made it possible for me to
exchange ideas and develop
procedures to assess biological
communities.
Literature Cited
Angermeier, P.L. and I.J.
Schlosser. 1987. Assessing biotic
integrity of the fish community in
a small Illinois stream. North
American Journal of Fisheries
Management 7:331-338.
Armour, C.L., K.P. Burnham and W.S.
Platts. 1983. Field methods and
statistical analysis for monitoring
small salmonid streams. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/CBS-83/33.
200 pp.
Ball, J. 1982. Stream
classification guidelines for
Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin,
Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, WI. 14 pp.
Bliss, Q.P. and S. Schainost. 1973.
Nebraska stream inventory report.
Report to Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission. Aquatic Wildlife
Division. Lincoln, NE.
Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1988.
Ecoregions: an approach to surface
water protection. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation
60(4):486-493.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981.
Ecological perspective on water
quality goals. Environmental
Management 5:55-68.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L.
Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and J.J.
Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biotic
integrity in running waters: a
method and its rationale. Illinois
Natural History Survey Special
Publication 5. 28 pp.
Leonard, P.M. and D.J. Ortn. 1986.
Application and testing of an index
of biotic integrity in small,
coolwater streams. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society
115:401-414.
Miller, D.L., P.M. Leonard, R.M.
Hughes, J.R. Karr, P.B. Moyle, L.H.
Schrader, B.A. Thompson, R.A.
Daniels, K.D. Fausch, G.A.
Fitzhugh, J.R. Gammon, D.B.
Halliwell, P.L. Angermeier, and
D.J. Orth. 1988. Regional
Applications of an index of biotic
integrity for use in water resource
management. Fisheries 13(5):12-20.
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control (NDEC). 1987.
Title 117-Nebraska Water Quality
Standards for Surface Waters of the
State. Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control, Lincoln, NE.
299 pp.
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
(NGPC). 1978. Stream evaluation
state of Nebraska map. Lincoln, NE.
Gmernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of
the conterminous United States.
Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 77:118-125.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and
G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for
evaluating stream, riparian, and
biotic conditions. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service,
-65-
-------
Maret
General Technical Report ZNT-138.
70 pp.
Thurston, R.W. , R.C. Russo, C.M.
Fetterolf, T.A. Edsall, and Y.M.
Barber (editors). 1979. A review of
the EPA redbook: quality criteria
for water. American Fisheries
Society, Water Quality Section,
Bethesda, MD. 313 pp.
Whittier, T.R., D.P. Larsen, R.M.
Hughes, C.M. Rohm, A.L. Gallant and
J.M. Omernik. 1987. The Ohio stream
regionalization project: a
compendium of results. US
Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR. 66 pp.
-------
THE USE OF BIOSURVEY DATA IN THE REGULATION OF PERMITTED
NONPOINT DISCHARGERS IN VERMONT
Steven Fiske
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Biology Laboratory, 6 Baldwin Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Abstract
High quality upland streams in Vermont are being increasingly threatened
by the use of nonpoint effluent spray and leachfields around developing
resort areas. In 1986 the Vermont Legislature addressed the problem by
passing Act 199, an Amendment to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 47. Act 199 placed
large (greater than 6,500 gpd) nonpoint (land-based) wastewater disposal
systems under strict regulatory guidelines, in the form of "indirect
discharge permits," to prevent their groundwater discharges from
"significantly altering" the aquatic biota of the adjacent receiving
streams. The macro invertebrate community is being used by the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as a tool to determine
compliance/noncompliance under the indirect discharge permit program. Four
macroinvertebrate metrics are presently being used to measure the
biological significance of changes to the aquatic ecosystems in high quality
upland streams. The metrics - Pinkham Pearson Coefficient of Similarity
(PPCS); Density; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EFT);, and a
Vermont modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, are used to measure changes in
the structure and function of control compared to evaluation sites on the
monitored stream.
Introduction
Act 199, a law passed by the
Vermont legislature during its
1985-86 session, seeks to prevent
ultra-oligotrophic upland streams
from being altered and enriched via
permitted groundwater discharges
from large land-based wastewater
disposal systems. The upland
streams of the Green MDuntains
typically contain very low
concentrations of nutrients and
minerals with concentrations of
total phosphorus often less than
0.015 and alkalinities less than 10
mg/1 (Scott 1983, unpublished data
DEC). As a result these streams are
very sensitive to change, even from
slight increases in nutrients,
minerals, metals and acidity from
both surface water runoff and their
groundwater aquifers. These chemical
changes can be due to land-based
wastewater disposal systems, altered
watershed land use activities, and
from acid rain.
A typical undisturbed drainage
often contains shallow soils, is
forested, and has steep gradient,
forming streams with substrates
that are dominated by boulder,
rubble, and gravel. The forest
canopy is usually complete, which
liinits light penetration and
maintains cool temperatures year
round. These conditions typically
result in aquatic communities that
tend to be heterotrophic with
comparatively low instream primary
production. Diatoms and mosses tend
to dominate the periphyton
communities. The macroinvertebrate
communities are comparatively
low in total species richness and
density, and proportionally high
in Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera species richness and
density. Overall, the
macroinvertebrate communities are
generally high in species
-------
Fiske
diversity. Fish contnunities are
often represented by low densities
of Brook Trout and Slimy Sculpin.
Characteristics of the aquatic
macroinvertebrate communities at
spatial control and test sites are
being used to evaluate changes to
the biological integrity of these
ultra-oligotrophic upland stream
communities caused by groundwater
discharges from nonpoint regulated
wastewater disposal sites. The VDBC
favors the use of the
macroinvertebrate community over the
other aquatic communities as a
compliance monitoring tool for the
following reasons: (a) the
macroinvertebrate community mirrors
changes at the primary trophic
level, (b) the macroinvertebrate
community is more complex and
diverse in small streams than the
fish community, and (c)
macroinvertebrate communities are
found in all types of aquatic
habitats, thus allowing for instream
biomonitoring to take place even in
the smallest high elevation mountain
brooks. In addition, the VDBC feels
that the following sampling and
analysis considerations favor the
use of the macroinvertebrate
community: (a) macroinvertebrate
sampling procedures can be
adapted to all habitat types and
standardized to a sufficient
degree to allow for comparable data
generation by different
dischargers, (b) the use of
artificial substrates often allows
for better evaluation of community
changes in paired site comparisons,
and (c) sampling and analysis
procedures allow for quantitative
sampling and quality assurance
procedures to be developed so that
metric variations and the precision
and accuracy of the data base can
be evaluated.
In order for the
macroinvertebrate community
assessments to become part of the
regulatory program, the assessment
protocols must be performed by the
discharger and be standardized
containing quality assurance
checks. Assessments must be cost
efficient. Representative samples
must reflect the instream
community being monitored and
optimally be precise. Assessments
must have standardize data analysis
and sample processing protocols,
including the level of taxonomy
performed and the metrics used to
demonstrate changes in the
biological integrity of the stream
community. Assessments must create
a vehicle by which biocriteria can
be incorporated into the
regulatory process so that
reasonable decisions on the extent
of compliance can be made.
Metlxxls and Materials
A project plan is required by
the VDBC prior to the issuance
of the State nonpoint discharge
permit. The plan must describe in
detail how the biomonitoring will
take place, personnel involved,
detailed site descriptions, sample
handling and reporting proto-
col, and quality assurance
procedures used in the field and
laboratory. The plan must follow
all VDBC recommended protocols
(VDBC 1987) or justify any
deviation. Review and approval of
the plan is necessary by biologists
prior to the initiation of
monitoring.
The discharger is responsible
for sample collection and
processing, and a final report. The
VDBC biologists are responsible
for data and metric review,
analysis of the site, and
compliance decisions. All work must
be done by an aquatic biologist or
by personnel under the supervision
-68-
-------
Vermont Nonpoint Source Regulation
of an aquatic biologist. The
supervising biologist must have
considerable background or
academic coursework in aquatic
macroinvertebrate ecology. The
qualifications of the personnel
involved are included in the
project plan.
The primary monitoring strategy
is the paired site comparison
with no temporal controls (Green
1979). Stream sites above and
below the zone of groundwater
influence are compared to determine
compliance. If an upstream control
site is unavailable, an appropriate
ecoregional control site is selected
from adjacent streams in the
drainage on a site by site basis.
The site selection objective is to
isolate the discharge as the only
potential disturbance between the
control and test sites and to
minimize intersite physical habitat
and longitudinal biological
variability.
Sampling takes place during the
months of August to mid-October.
This time period generally coincides
with the anticipated seasonal low
flow and high temperature period,
when the contribution and influence
on a stream's chemistry by its
groundwater aquifers is greatest.
It is essential to use a sampling
method that will both provide a
representative sample of the stream
biota and is capable of determining
the compliance criteria. The
recommended sampling device is a.
rock-filled (lo-boy) basket with
minimal dimensions as described in
the VDBC protocols. This sampling
device allows for quantitative data
generation and optimizes the
precision of the metrics by
reducing substrate related
variability between sites.
Precision of the VDEC metrics using
five replicates generally range as
follows: density 10 to 30%
standard error; epheroeroptera,
plecoptera, and tricoptera (EFT) 6
to 12% standard error; and biotic
index 3 to 6% standard error of the
mean.
In addition to the quantitative
sampling, a qualitative D-net kick
sample is collected at each site.
The VDBC rapid assessment protocol
is used (VDBC 1987). This sample is
submitted to the VDEC before
laboratory processing and is
utilized as a quality assurance
taxonomy check and a measure of the
gross compositional representation
of the quantitative sampling
technique. The information is also
being used in developing an
ecoregion expectation for
establishing water quality
biocriteria.
Field observations are useful in
the regulatory process when
recorded on standardized forms.
This insures that the sites habitat
are routinely observed,
categorized, and documented. The
field observations can then be
clearly interpreted facilitating
effective use in the regulatory
process. Two field sheets are used
per site, one documenting the
stream habitat characteristics and
the other documenting area specific
placement of the rock basket
substrates.
Sample processing is done in a
laboratory. Taxonomic
identification is made to the
lowest possible level consistent
between sites. It is essential that
the level of identification be
standardized within the program
since data is incorporated into
biological metrics of community
integrity to measure degrees of
biological change between sites.
Results and Discussion
Metrics — The data generated by
-69-
-------
Fiske
these methods are used to calculate
four metrics. The degree of change
between the control and test site
is used to determine the
significance of the alteration to
the aquatic biota of the stream.
The overall magnitude of the change
will be used in determining an
appropriate regulatory action.
Metric l — Pinkham Pearson
coefficient of Similarity (PFCS)
Index —The PPCS (1976) is used to
make an immediate compliance
decision when alteration of the
aquatic biota is extreme. The index
measures the magnitude of
intermediate effects. The PPCS
involves a stepwise comparison of
abundance and structural factors,
providing a numerical indicator of
changes in the standing crop and
taxonomic structure (biological
integrity) of the macroinvertebrate
community from control to impact
area. Values range from zero
indicating total dissimilarity to
one indicating total similarity. The
PPCS is calculated as follows:
K
B = lX~min(xia,xib)
K~~ max(xia,xib)
i = 1
where: B = Coefficient of
similarity
K = the number of
comparisons between
stations
xi = the number of
individuals in taxon i
a,b = site a, site b
The PPCS is calculated using the
major taxonomic components of the
macroinvertebrate community. A major
taxonomic component is a generic
level (or higher) taxonomic grouping
of organisms which compose greater
than 3.5% numerical density of the
community. The mean numerical
density of each major taxonomic
component of both the control and
evaluation sites are calculated.
The major component modification of
the PPCS Index is being applied
because the index is the mean of
the summed proportional quotients
of the values entered. Since
macroinvertebrate communities often
contain many rare taxa, loss from
the community creates zero
quotients which results in a skewed
rating of the rare taxa loss
compared to density shifts of
dominant taxa (Brock 1977). The
absence of rare taxa from a site
list may only be due to the
quantitative sampling methods
(Allen 1975). By only using major
taxonomic components of the
community the index is a reflection
of changes in the overall integrity
between the two communities.
PPCS values greater than 0.75
result as a function of natural
spatial variability in
macroinvertebrate distribution, as
well as sampling error. PPCS values
in the range of 0.25 to 0.75
indicate a possibility of a
significant alteration in the
biological integrity of the aquatic
macroinvertebrate community has
occurred. PPCS values less than
0.25 indicate a significant
alteration to the biological
integrity of the aquatic
macroinvertebrate community. Values
in this range indicate a large
change in abundance or a major
restructuring of the
macroinvertebrate community. Which
may include the reduction or
elimination of major taxonomic
orders or the reduction and
elimination of functional processes
within the macroinvertebrate
community. Alterations of this
magnitude may indicate profound
effects on the entire aquatic
ecosystem.
-70-
-------
Vermont Ndnpoint Source Regulation
Table 1. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index rating for assessing water quality
based on benthic macroinvertebrate collections.
Biotic Index
Value Range
Water Quality
Rating
BI < 2.0
2.0 < BI < 2.5
2.5 < BI < 3.0
3.0 < BI < 3.5
BI > 3.5
Excellent, Undisturbed
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Metric 2 — Biotic Index —
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (BI)
(Hilsenhoff 1982), with specific
modifications made by the VDBC for
the aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna
of Vermont (VDEC 1987) utilizes the
indicator organism concept. Each
taxa is assigned a tolerance value
based on response to nutrient
enrichment. As with the PPCS, the BI
is an integrating index which
utilizes information concerning both
the relative abundance and organic
pollution tolerance of individual
taxa. The evaluation involves the
analysis of each taxons pollution
tolerance to relative abundance in
the community. The following formula
is used to calculate the BI:
BI =
(ni
ti)
N
Where: N = total number of
individuals in sample;
n^ = number of individuals
of taxon i;
ti = tolerance value
assigned taxon i.
Tolerance values for individual
organisms and the community range
from 0 to 5 (0 = intolerant, 5 =
tolerant), as well as, the
community BI (0 = pristine, 5 =
extremely degraded). Biotic index
values of zero or five are unlikely
to occur, most often values range
between one and four. The driving
factor for the low to mid-range BI
values is related to changes in the
macroinvertebrate food base,
consisting primarily of periphyton
and particulate organic material.
Values at the upper end of the
scale are associated with extreme
organic degradation (i.e., high BOD
and NH3, low dissolved oxygen).
Values for the BI follow that of
Hilsenhoff (1982) with modification
based on VDEC data for interpreting
water quality (Table 1).
The following conclusions can be
drawn: pristine streams in the
Green Mountains of Vermont
typically have BI values less than
2.0. As more fine particulate
organic matter and periphytic algae
become available the community BI
value increases. This increases the
BI value from less than 2.0 to
greater than 3.0 depending on the
-71-
-------
FisJce
PPCS> 075 •
—0.5
A>20%
•P>0.05.
NSA-Bl
NSA-EPT
NSO-8I
OR
NSO-EPT
^
P<0.05
PPCS<0
X V > \ /
.25 P<0.05 P>0.05 P<0.05 P>0.03
- - ** ^ ^
J_
DATA
'REASSESS,
NSA
N-SAAB
SAAB
NSO
PPCS
81
EPT
REL AS
A
P
No Slgnlflctnt Altiritlon
No StgnlMctnt Atttrttlen of the Aqu«ttc Btoti
Significant Attention of the Aquttic Bloti
No Sl9ntf1c«ne* Decision-Possible due to Oiti VjrUblllty
Plnkha«-P«trson Coefficient of SlalUrtty
Slottc Index
tphe»eropteri-inecopter»-Tr1chopteri T»«i Richness
ReUtlve Abumhnce
Clunje froei Control to tBptct
Sl«t1«t(c«l hTioiOlllty - H»nn-Wh1lney U-T«st
-PASS
• PAIL
-DATA VARIABILITY
Fig. l. The macroinvertebrate biometric series and criteria used to
determine conpliance with the significant alteration of the aquatic biota
standard in Vermont.
magnitude of food increase. The mean
statistically significant (P < 0.05
Mann-Whitney U-Test) change in BI
is 0.3 units, thus a change greater
than 0.5 indicates a significant
alteration of the aquatic biota. An
increase indicates an enrichment
impact while a decrease indicates a
depressive influence on
productivity in the receiving
water.
Metric 3 — Ephemeropteraf
Plecoptera, Tricoptera (EPT) Index
— The EPT index is a sensitive
indicator index since mayflies,
stoneflies, and caddisflies are a
major proportion of most lotic
aquatic macroinvertebrate
comnunities in Vermont. Changes in
the taxa richness and diversity of
this subcomnunity provides a
reliable indication of changes to
the biotic integrity of the aquatic
biota (Penrose et al. 1980; Lenat
et al. unpublished data; Bode
unpublished data). The EPT index is
calculated as follows:
N
EPT = i = 1
EPTi
Where:
N
EPTi = number of EPT taxa
from replicate i
N = number of replicates
-72-
-------
Vermont Nbnpoint Source Regulation
The EFT metric measures
alterations to the integrity of the
aquatic biota from organic
enrichment (enhancement and
degradation), toxicity, and habitat
degradation (Lenat 1983). Taxa-poor
headwater streams will increase in
taxa richness as more food sources
become available (Vannote et al.
1980). Decreasing taxa richness has
been documented in cases of iron
precipitate coated stream beds,
toxic dissolved metals from old
copper mine drainages, and
siltation and substrate
embeddedness from development
activities.
The EPT index criteria presently
used to indicate a significant
alteration to the aquatic biota is
a 20% change from control to
evaluation site. If the EPT metric
is statistically significant (p <
0.05 two-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test)
using five replicates per site. If
the data set is statistically
inconclusive due to low control
richness values or high data
variability total EPT taxa or
changes in the percent composition
of the EPT orders are evaluated.
Metric 4 — Density Metric —
Changes in the density of aquatic
macroinvertebrates evaluates
changes in gross primary and
secondary biological production.
Density is the number of organisms
per replicate from a sampling area.
Estimates of density are relatively
imprecise (SE ranges between 10 to
40%), because of this any
statistically significant change in
density from control to impact area
presently constitutes an
alteration of the aquatic biota. A
decrease in density of 50% or
increase in density of 150% should
be considered biologically
significant. A decrease in density
criteria of 30 to 60% has been
considered a moderate stress by
other researchers (Penrose et al.
1980), and is presently being
recommended as a biologically
significant alteration of the
aquatic biota. The Mann-Whitney li-
test is applied to test
statistical significance of
observed changes at p < 0.05.
Regulatory Evaluation
A series of comparative metric
analyses will determine the
severity of alterations to the
aquatic biota. Exceedance of a
single metric constitutes a
significant alteration of the
aquatic biota outside the bounds of
natural variability. The process by
which the "significant alteration"
criteria is evaluated is detailed
in Fig. l. In order to establish
compliance all four parameter
values must be within the no
significant alteration range. If
the change in any one parameter
exceeds the criterion the
discharger will be out of
compliance.
Regulatory Actions
The severity of regulatory
response is based on the magnitude
of alteration to the aquatic biota,
the best professional judgment of
the VDEC biologist, and the degree
site-specific conditions indicate
the groundwater effluent was the
primary cause. The amount of change
between the control and evaluation
sites for the metrics out of
compliance and the number of
concurring exceedances determines
the magnitude of alteration.
The VDEC regulatory response has
ranged from forced abandonment of a
leachfield, correction of treatment
facility operating failures, to
increased biomonitoring
requirements in a discharge permit.
-73-
-------
Fiske
Compliance biomonitoring located in
rapidly developing resort areas
have documented stream
sedimentation problems which were
unrelated to the effects from the
groundwater discharges. The
biosurvey data was able to document
the degradation on the stream, and
focused the attention of the VDBC
and the developer on the problem at
the resort.
Literature Cited
Allen, J.D. 1975. The
distributional ecology and
diversity of benthic insects in
Cement Creek, Colorado. Ecology 56:
1040-1053.
Brock, D.A. 1977. Comparison of
community similarity indices.
Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation 49: 2488-2494.
Elliot, J.M. 1983. Some Methods for
the Statistical Analysis of Samples
of Benthic Invertebrates. 2nd Ed.
Scientific Publication No. 25,
Freshwater Biological Association,
Ferry House, V.K.
Green, R.M. 1979. Sampling Design
and Statistical Methods for
Environmental Biologists. John
Wiley and Sons, NY.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using Biotic
Index to Evaluate Water Quality in
Streams. Technical Bulletin No.
132, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Lenat, D.R. 1983. Qualitative
Sampling of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates: a Reliable,
Cost-effective, Biomonitoring
Technique. Biological Services
#108, Biological Monitoring Group.
Water Quality Section, Division
Environmental Management. North
Carolina Deptartment of Natural
Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh, NC.
Penrose, D., D. Lenat and K.
Eagleson. 1980. Biological
Evaluation of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams and Rivers,
Biological Series #103. Biological
Monitoring Group. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh, NC.
Pinknam, C.F.A. and J.G. Pearson.
1976. Applications of a new
coefficient of similarity to
pollution surveys. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation
48 (4): 717-723.
Scott, E. 1982. A study on the
productivity of Vermont upland
streams. State of Vermont
Department of Environmental
Conservation Technical Report.
pp. 1-27.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshull, K.W.
Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E.
Gushing. 1980. The River Continuum
Concept. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:
370-377.
Weber, C.I. 1973. Biological Field
arx3 Laboratory Methods for
Measuring the Quality of Surface
Waters and Effluents. USEPA,
Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH
EPA 670/4-73-001.
-74-
-------
Arkansas Rapid Bioassessment
RAPID BIOASSESSMENTS OF LOTIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES:
BIOCRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
Bruce Shackleford
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,
Biomonitor ing Section
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
Abstract
Traditionally, the examination of resident biota has been recognized as
perhaps the most straightforward method of assessing water quality since
conditions must be favorable for a balanced biological community to exist
and perpetuate. Biosurveys are an important method of identifying
impairment of aquatic life and can easily be used in conjunction with other
biological and chemical monitoring tools in the design of biocriteria.
However, from the regulatory standpoint, biological monitoring has had its
share of shortcomings. For statewide monitoring programs, the classical
intensive quantitative evaluations of biotic communities have been, in many
cases, too labor-intensive, time-consuming and expensive. Often, the
usefulness of the data has been limited since only aquatic ecologists could
understand it.
The increased emphasis on the receiving stream and water quality-based
limits created a need for the development of abbreviated methods of
generating useful biological data. In the early 1980's, aquatic biologists
produced rapid bioassessment techniques and provided information on the
concept at the 1986, 1987 and 1988 annual meetings of the North American
Benthological Society. Further development of these techniques has
continued by numerous state agencies and at the federal level with EPA
providing technical guidance (Plafkin et al. 1987). The realization that
rapid bioassessments can overcome previously ineffective applications of
biological methods is gaining acceptance in the water quality management
community. Impact assessment information can now be readily obtained in a
cost-effective manner. Rapid bioassessments are useful for screening and as
a good starting point when an integration of methods is appropriate.
The primary objective of this report is to convey information pertaining
to the validity and reproducibility of a rapid bioassessment technique
initiated by the Biomonitoring Section of the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) in 1986. A pilot study was conducted
whereby comparisons were made between the complete laboratory analysis of a
five-minute riffle samples and field processed 100-organisms rapid
bioassessments. Investigator subjectivity was tested through a sampling
regime of replicate samples collected at: 1). the same riffle by the same
individual, 2). the same riffle by two different individuals, 3). two
successive riffles in a minimally stressed stream by the same individual and
4). two successive riffles in a minimally stressed stream by two different
individuals. Examples of the data generated from these methods are included
in this report. A scoring system, using biometrics, was designed to include
-75-
-------
Arkansas Rapid Bioassessnent
qualitative and semi-quantitative measures of the aquatic macroinvertebrate
comnunity to develop biocriteria for determining aquatic life use status.
The biometric scoring criteria were structured from data generated by the
replicate samples which revealed variations between any two samples taken at
the same site.
Various levels of uncertainty have been encountered in the application of
numeric criteria due to the complexity of aquatic ecosystems. In some
scenarios the so-called "safe number" may not adequately protect aquatic
life, while in others, unnecessary regulatory requirements prevail. This
does not imply that numeric criteria have no place as a management tool, but
their application may be enhanced when supplemented with narrative
biological criteria developed from biosurveys of ambient fauna. There is no
better way to determine the aquatic life use status of a stream than to
examine its inhabitants.
Literature Cited
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter and S.K. Gross. 1987. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic
macroinvertebrates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Monitoring and
Data Support Division. (Draft manuscript)
-76-
-------
SEMIQUALITATIVE COLLECTION TECHNIQUES FOR BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES;
USES FOR WATER POLLUTION ASSESSMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA
David L. Penrose and Jimmie R. Overton
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Abstract
Semiqualitative collection methods for benthic macroinvertebrates have
been used in many types of water pollution studies in North Carolina. These
techniques emphasize multihabitat collections and the use of both coarse and
fine-meshed samples. These techniques have proven to be more cost-effective
and have generated more useful data than conventional collection techniques.
Examples of how data are used in several monitoring programs are presented
and include trend monitoring, point source surveys (including toxicity
reduction) and use attainability.
Introduction
Benthic macroinvertebrates have
been collected using a variety of
quantitative and qualitative
techniques by many state and federal
agencies. Quantitative approaches
(i.e. Hester Dendy multiplates or
Surber samples) are thought to be
more precise and more amenable to
statistical analysis; however,
quantitative techniques are both
time and cost intensive.
Quantitative sampling is also
usually habitat specific, resulting
in a large portion of the aquatic
conrtunity not being sampled. For
example, Allan (1975) found that
twelve Surber samples underestimated
total taxa richness (from a variety
of collection methods) by about 32%.
The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) uses
aquatic macroinvertebrates to assess
water quality in streams and rivers.
A large number of sites are sampled
each year (300+) and the information
gathered is used to document both
spatial and temporal changes in
water quality. To deal with this
large volume of work, a new
semiqualitative collection technique
was developed. This technique
samples most microhabitats using
both coarse-mesh and fine-mesh
samplers. Abundance values are
qualitative (rare, common,
abundant), but taxa richness
information is quantitative.
North Carolina Monitoring Programs
The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM)
conducts several types of water
quality assessment programs.
Emphasis has been directed towards
measuring the effects of point
source dischargers (and toxicity
reduction) and trend (or ambient)
monitoring. Water quality surveys
are also conducted to assess
non-point source pollution, water
use attainment and spill
assessment. The use of
semiqualitative collection
techniques for benthic
macroinvertebrates has allowed
biological monitoring data to be
incorporated into each of these
monitoring programs.
Semiqualitative Method Description
The method description presented
here is an excerpt from a paper (in
preparation) written by David
Lenat. This paper provides a
complete discussion of North
-------
Penrose and Overton
Carolina's qualitative collection
technique.
This technique is intended for use
only in wadable, freshwater streams.
Sampling is easiest during periods
of dry weather, as high flow
conditions may severely impair
sampling efficiency by making
critical habitats inaccessible.
Collections are designed to have a
fixed number of samples at each site
(10), although many of these are
composite samples. Six different
collection methods are utilized to
collect qualitative samples from a
variety of microhabitats. All
samples are picked in the field.
Kick nets: Two kick samples are
taken, usually in riffle areas. In
very small streams, or in sandy
areas without riffles, kicks are
taken from root masses, "snags", or
bank areas. All types of benthic
macroinvertebrates can be collected
with this sampling technique, but
emphasis is placed on the
collection of Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera. Kick net
samples are washed down in a large
bucket sieve prior to being
processed.
Sweep nets: Three samples are
taken by physically disrupting an
area and then vigorously sweeping
through the disturbed area with a
long-handled triangular net
(approximately 1 nm mesh size).
Sweeps are usually taken from bank
areas and/or macrophyte beds. Bank
areas are particularly important for
the collection of species which
prefer low current environments. In
particular, samples are inspected
for Chironomini, Oligochaeta,
Odonata, mobile cased Trichoptera,
Hemiptera, Sialis, Crustacea, and
Ephemeroptera. Large rocks or
bedrock areas with attached
macrophytes (especially river weed,
Podostemum) also may be sampled with
the sweep net to look for
Hydropsychidae, Baetidae and
Ephemerellidae. A sweep net can
also be used to collect gravel,
which is inspected for stone-cased
Trichoptera. The latter technique
is used principally in the
sandhills area of North Carolina,
an ecoregion with a diverse
trichopteran assemblage.
Fine-mesh sampler: Smaller
organisms, especially Chironomidae,
are sampled with a finer mesh (300
microns) and are field-preserved to
increase picking efficiency. Rocks
or logs with visible growths of
periphyton, Podostemum or moss are
washed into a large plastic basin
(or bucket) partially filled with
water, and the substrate is
vigorously brushed or rubbed to
dislodge all attached fauna. Any
large particulate material
(leaves, etc.) is washed and
discarded. A single composite
sample is made from several rocks
and logs. The material remaining in
the basin is poured through the
fine mesh sampler, which is
constructed of 4 inch PVC, and the
water drained completely. The
residue is quickly preserved in 95%
alcohol by placing the PVC cylinder
into another slightly larger
container half filled with 95%
alcohol. The sample soaks in
alcohol for about five minutes, and
then is backwashed with stream
water into a picking tray. This
method of field preservation
requires only a small amount of
reusable alcohol.
Sand samples; Sand habitats often
contain a very distinct fauna, but
extraction of this fauna, using
dredges, cores, etc., can be very
tedious. Sand substrates are
sampled with a large bag
constructed of fine mesh (300
microns) nitex netting. It can be
quickly constructed from a one
meter square piece of netting,
-78-
-------
Seniqualitative Collection Techniques
Table 1. Taxa richness criteria (10 samples) for assigning water quality
classification to free-flowing, wadable North Carolina streams and rivers,
July to September.
Class
EFT* Taxa Richness
Mountain Piedmont Coastal
Total Taxa Richness
Mountain Piedmont Coastal
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
>41
32-41
22-31
12-21
0-11
>31
24-31
16-23
8-15
0-7
>27
21-27
14-20
7-13
0-6
>91
77-91
61-76
46-60
0-45
>91
77-91
61-76
46-60
0-45
>83
68-83
52-67
35-51
0-35
* Most intolerant groups = Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera
folded in half and sewn together on
the opposite side and the bottom.
This bag is used like a Surber
sampler, but the lack of a rigid
frame allows for easy storage when
folded. The bag is held (open) near
the substrate, and the sand just
upstream is vigorously disturbed. A
composite sample is collected,
utilizing 2 to 3 locations. The
material collected (a lot of sand
and a few organisms) is emptied into
a large plastic container
half-filled with water. A "stir and
pour" elutriation technique is used
in conjunction with the fine mesh
sampler described above. After
field preservation, the elutriate is
checked for Chironomidae (especially
Rheosmittia, Harnischia group and
Polypedilum spp.), Oligochaeta,
Gomphidae and some Ephemeroptera.
Leaf-pack samples: A large,
coarse-meshed bucket sieve is used
to wash down "aged" (decomposing)
leaf-packs, sticks and small logs.
Such samples are particularly
helpful in large sandy rivers where
many of the species are confined to
"snags" (Benke et al. 1984,
Neuswanger et al. 1982). This
technique is good for finding
"shredders", especially Tipulidae,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera.
Visual search; Large rocks and
logs are visually inspected for any
associated invertebrates. Certain
tightly adhering organisms may be
collected only by this technique
(Lepidoptera, Blephariceridae,
Leucotrichia. Psychonyia). Decaying
logs are picked apart, especially
logs with loose bark. Freshwater
sponges are inspected for
Chironomidae (Xenochironomus),
Trichoptera (Ceraclea) and
Neuroptera. Rocks near the shore
(in negligible current) will harbor
certain Ephemeroptera and Odonata,
and leaves near the shore may be
primary habitat for some
Gastropoda. In addition, a mussel
search is conducted by careful
visual inspection of the bottom.
Sample processing/identification;
A standardized qualitative
-79-
-------
Penrose and Overtoil
collection consists of ten sanples:
two kicks, three sweeps, three fine
mesh sanples (two rock-log sanples
and one sand), one leaf-pack and
visuals (considered as one sample).
All sanples are field picked with
jeweler's forceps from white
plastic or enamel trays and
preserved in 6 dram vials.
Organisms are picked in proportion
to their abundance, but no attempt
is made to remove all organisms. If
an organism can be reliably
identified as a single taxon in the
field, no more than 10 individuals
need to be collected.
Samples are identified in the
lab, using species level
identification when possible.
Chironomidae and Oligochaeta are
sorted under a dissecting
microscope and representative
individuals are slide mounted.
During sample processing and
identification, it is fairly simple
to gdr| some measures of abundance.
As invertebrates are identified,
they are recorded as abundant (>9),
common (3-9), or rare (<3). Field
notes can also be used to label
exceptionally abundant (dominant)
species. Total taxa richness and
taxa richness for Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EFT)
are calculated and used to assign a
biological classification to each
station (see criteria development).
EFT surveys; A general assessment
of water quality can also be
obtained quickly using an
abreviated method which involves
collecting only four sanples (1
kick, 1 sweep, 1 leaf-pack and
visuals) and identifying only
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera. This technique, called
an EPT survey, is used to
supplement full qualitative surveys
at a greater number of locations.
The information can be used to
assign relative water quality
classifications and determine if
additional or supplemental surveys
should be conducted. In some
instances the EPT survey may be
used to assess impacts to the
intolerant EFT groups. At this
point, only preliminary comparisons
have been made between EFT values
collected during full qualitative
(10 samples) and EFT surveys (4
sanples). These comparisons (N=10)
suggest that full surveys collect
l.l to 1.3 times more EPT taxa.
More testing in specific ecoregions
and stream orders need to be
conducted.
Criteria Development
Criteria have been developed for
three major geographic regions (NC
DEM 1986, Table 1) to relate both
total taxa richness and EFT taxa
richness to five water quality
classifications: Excellent, Good,
Good-Fair, Fair and Poor. These
criteria have been used since 1983
with little modification. Upper
(Excellent classification) and
lower (Poor classification) limits
were established based on
collections in each region at both
unstressed and highly polluted
sites. The other three classes were
then defined by dividing the
remaining taxa richness ranges into
three equal groupings.
Data collected from unimpacted
sites suggest that there is a
relationship between region and the
taxa richness of the benthic
macroinvertebrate community. This
assumption was tested by comparing
average taxa richness data from
summer collections (July to
September) at unstressed sites in
the mountains (7 sites), the
piedmont (6 sites) and the inner
coastal plain (4 sites). Areas that
had intermediate characteristics
(upper piedmont) were not included
in this analysis. The majority of
-80-
-------
Senuqualitative Collection Techniques
the sites had been sampled in more
than one year (up to six years) and
average taxa richness values were
utilized. "Unstressed sites" were
defined as areas with no known
chemical/physical alterations,
having a high diversity of
invertebrates and/or fish. Going
east from the mountains to the
coastal plain, taxa richness
decreased for Ephemeroptera (20.6 ,
15.8 and 10.1, respectively) and
increased for Odonata (4.6, 8.2 and
ll.l, respect ively). Plecoptera,
Trichoptera and Diptera were most
diverse in the mountains, while
Coleoptera, Crustacea and IXbllusca
were more diverse in the
piedmont/coastal plain areas. The
EPT subtotal was clearly higher in
the mountains (44.7 as compared to
31.9 in the piedmont and 28.7 in
the coastal plain), but total taxa
richness differences were not as
great (mountain = 98.9, piedmont =
93.3 and coastal plain = 91.0).
Water Quality Assessments Using
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Semiqualitative collection
techniques have been used
successfully in a number of
monitoring programs. The most
ambitious program in North Carolina
is the Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN). However,
these collection methods are
flexible enough to allow for the
use of benthic macroinvertebrate
data in a number of other programs.
Several of these include point
source monitoring (including
toxicity reduction), use
attainability analyses and water
use classification.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BERN)
The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM)
maintains 350 ambient locations in
seventeen (17) major river basins.
Water quality data is collected
from each site by personnel in 7
regional offices on a monthly or
quarterly basis. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples have been
collected from a total of 208 of
these locations to assess long term
trends (since 1982) in water
quality. Samples are collected from
80-100 of these sites each year.
These locations are staggered each
year (collections are made either
on an annual, biennial or triennial
basis so that greater state wide
coverage is feasible). BM^JNJ samples
are collected during summer months
to lessen temporal variation
between years and document
worst-case (low flow, high
temperature) conditions.
Between-year changes in the
composition of the benthic
community structure, including
differences in total taxa richness
(ST and SEET, and subsequent
bioclassification) as well as the
occurrence of dominant taxa or
"indicator groups" are used in the
analyses. Between-year analyses
also include important flow related
variables. These include changes in
current velocity, changes in
non-point contributions and changes
in the length of recovery zones
below point sources.
Biological data are tabulated
each year summarizing trends in
water quality. In 1986 for example,
positive trends were noted at
eighteen (18) BMAN locations while
negative between year trends were
noted at only four (4) stations.
These data were collected during an
extremely low flow period in North
Carolina, which probably tended to
reduce the effects of non-point
sources of pollution. The effects
of point sources also may have been
increased at some sites by reducing
effluent dilution. Additionally,
-81-
-------
Penrose and Overton
(A) Tar River
I
CO
X
CO
80-
70.
60.
50.
40.
' 30.
20_
10-
Year:
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
(B) Horsepasture and Nolichucky Rivers
1982
flows (cfs)1-
Tar R at Tar River (A) 191/154
Tar R at Louisburg (O) —
90-
80.
Total Taxa
1983
1984
44/158
1985
188/441 —
1986
4/156
21/44
EPT Taxa
Year:
flows (cfs)1-
NoltehuckyCA]
HorsepastureCO)
1983
1984
1985
1986
54/149 86/150 140/148 21/146
261/242 134/240 70/238
Fig. 1. Trend analysis effects of flow and non-point source impact on
benthic taxa richness.
between-year changes in benthic
fauna are compared to changes in
chenucal water quality data.
Biological data have been useful
in documenting between-year changes
in water quality, although
interpretation can not be limited to
biological data. For illustration,
several examples are provided.
Figure 1A and IB illustrate taxa
richness data and flow at several
stations from watersheds having
significant non point source
(sedimentation) contributions. Data
from 1986 indicate that reduced
flows significantly reduced taxa
richness from the Tar River at Tar
River site (Fig. 1A) because flows
were almost negligible (3% of the
average flow), thus reducing the
number of taxa dependant on flow.
However, taxa richness values were
greater at the downstream Tar River
at Louisburg site in 1986 than in
1983. Flow, although reduced at
Louisburg in 1986, was sufficient
enough to maintain flow-dependant
taxa (i.e. fiIter-feeders), but
reduced the effects of non point
source pollutants. Low flow
conditions improved taxa richness
and, in this case, increased the
bioclassification from Good-Fair to
Good.
-82-
-------
Semiqualitative Collecticn Techniques
o
cr
03
X
TO
90
80.
70_
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10-
Year.
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
flows(cfs) :
Lower Little River (A)
So.Fk. Catawba (O)
Deep River CD)
1982 1983
530/417 —
33/90 —
— 43/357
1984
1056/427
100/91
230/357
1985
402/355
1986
26/415
6/89
131/354
Ftowi are expreeeed •• f$0/averafe 'low = average flow 30 day* prior to
•••tkoe collectloB/avenfe flow for period of record.
Fig. 2. Trend analysis effects of flow and point source impacts to benthic
taxa richness Lower Little, South Fork Catawba and Deep Rivers.
Data are illustrated from two
mountain rivers (the Horsepasture
and Nblichucky Rivers) in western
North Carolina in Figure IB. These
data indicate that during high flow
years (1984 and 1985) non-point
source contributions are greater,
thus reducing taxa richness values.
However, taxa richness values
increased in 1986 during extremely
low flow conditions. Much of the
Horsepasture River watershed is
currently being developed for second
homes and tourism and therefore
subject to impacts from
sedimentation. Continued monitoring
should detect the effect of these
activities on the instream fauna.
Figure 2 illustrates data from
stations selected below major
municipal dischargers. In 1984,
during high flow, the benefits of
dilution to instream fauna are
evidenced at both the Lower Little
and South Fork Catawba River
locations. Instream waste
concentrations were greater during
low flow years (1982 and 1986) and
taxa richness values were lower.
The exception to these trends are
data from the Deep River. Facility
upgrades have improved water
quality in the basin (NRCD 1988a),
resulting in increased taxa
richness and improved water quality
even during low flow periods with
less dilution of impacts.
In 1984, facility upgrades
(denitrification) were also
completed on the major municipal
above the South Fork Catawba River
station. Lower ammonia levels and
greater flow (dilution) in 1984
resulted in increased taxa
richness. Also, many toxic tolerant
chironomids (Cricotopus bicinctus.
-------
Penrose and Overton
Tojjcity Test Does Not Predict Effect/
Effects Measured Instream
7.50%
Toticity Test Does Not Predict Effect/
No effects Measured Instream
Tenacity Test Predicts Effect/
Effects Measured Instream
Fig. 3. Whole effluent toxicity measurements and resultant instream impacts
as reflected.by benthic macroinvertebrate populations.
C. tremulus, C. varipes and
Polypedilum illinoense) were
abundant in 1982, but absent or
reduced in abundance in 1984.
However, taxa richness was again
reduced in 1986 during low flow and
the toxic tolerant chironomids were
replaced by enrichment indicators
(Chrionomus sp., Tribelos sp.,
Tanytgrsus sp. and Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri). These latter
observations indicate the value of
using "indicator groups" in trend
analysis.
Point Source Monitoring Programs
The primary responsibility of many
state biological monitoring programs
is to assess point source impacts.
Simply assessing the effects of a
point source using the indigenous
aquatic fauna can be achieved using
several techniques. However,
qualitative collection techniques
have allowed biological data in
North Carolina to be used
effectively to direct and/or
supplement management strategies.
For example, benthic
macroinvertebrate data is used as a
screening tool to occasionally
direct more labor intensive
chronic toxicity studies, to
supplement effluent toxicity
testing, to assess the
effectiveness of facility upgrades
and also to supplement water
quality investigations of fish
kills or other episodic events
detrimental to water quality.
Currently the use of instream
benthic surveys to test for
toxicity are not required in the
NPDES permitting process; however,
benthic data has been collected to
supplement whole effluent toxicity
testing at 40 North Carolina
facilities. This information is
-84-
-------
Saniqualitative Collection Techniques
used to identify impacts not
addressed by numerical standards.
Figure 3 illustrates strong
agreement (85%) between results of
chronic toxicity testing using
Ceriodaphnia which predict instream
toxicity and benthic
macro invertebrate surveys which
have measured instream toxicity
(Eagleson et al. 1988). Only in six
of the 40 surveys (15%) did
effluent tests and benthos surveys
not agree. In two of the three
instances where benthos surveys did
not detect instream toxicity
predicted by assay, poor upstream
water quality was noted which masked
any downstream toxicity.
One goal of the 1972 amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act was to require
secondary effluent limits for all
wastewater treatment plants.
However, this requirement resulted
in a great deal of debate over
whether or not meeting secondary
effluent limits (at a considerable
expense to municipalities) would
result in better water quality. To
test the effectiveness of these
additional controls, seven
biological surveys were conducted
(and used to supplement chemical
surveys) before and after facility
upgrades (NRCD 1984). The results
of these investigations indicated
that moderate to substantial
instream improvements were observed
at six of the seven facilities.
Several more recent investigations
also have noted instream
improvements following facility
modifications and compliance. The
use of benthic macroinvertebrate
surveys to test for instream
improvements following facility
modification has proven to be an
efficient, cost-effective
monitoring tool.
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys
are also used to assess, and
identify causes, of fish kills or
spill events. If proper protocols
are taken, benthic information can
be collected and processed rapidly,
resulting in the information
getting to the enforcement agency
often times quicker than results of
chemical or fish tissue surveys.
Use Attainability and Water Use
Classification
The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) has
the responsibility of determining
water use classifications for all
North Carolina surface waters.
These uses include water supply,
fishing (trout and non-trout),
shellfish waters, water contact
sports and Outstanding Resource
Waters. DEM has the responsibility
to assess water use attainment
(i.e. are the uses being
supported?) and to assess any
proposed reclassifications. For
example, recent regulations
promulgated by EPA (November 1983)
require a "use attainability
analysis" to be conducted when uses
are removed from a stream
classification. Use attainability
and water use classification
involve a comprehensive analysis of
physical, chemical and biological
factors affecting the attainment of
a use. Benthic macroinvertebrate
data has played a key role in these
analyses and biologists have been
principle authors of reports
recommending appropriate
classifications by evaluating
attainable use.
The most recent Water Quality
Progress report in North Carolina
(NRCD 1988b) indicated that 60.7%
of the almost 37,000 miles of
freshwater streams and rivers
support their intended uses, 24.8%
partially support, 4.7% do not
-85-
-------
Penrose and Overtcn
Table 2. Comparison of biology (mostly benthic macroinvertebrate data) vs.
chemical data for freshwater stream water use evaluations (NRCD 1988b).
Final Evaluation
Based on
Chemistry Biology
River Basin
Both Biology & Chemistry
Data Available
Agree Disagree
Biology with Biology with
Lower Rating Higher Rating
Mountains
Little Tennessee 16% 84%
French Broad 48% 52%
New 0% 100%
Piedmont
Broad 28% 72%
Yadkin-Pee Dee 52% 48%
Neuse 42% 58%
Coastal
70%
17%
47%
88%
40%
58%
0%
19%
0%
0%
2%
0%
30%
64%
53%
12%
58%
42%
Chowan
Lumber
Roanoke
60%
45%
41%
40%
55%
59%
16%
0%
29%
0%
27%
0%
84%
73%
71%
Overall
41%
59%
41%
55?
support and 9.9% were not evaluated.
Much of this information was based
on biological data and, in
particular, taxa richness data from
several of the monitoring programs
noted earlier. A comparison of how
biological and chemical data were
used to support uses in several
watersheds is outlined in Table 2.
Biological data, mostly benthic
macroinvertebrates, were used
nearly 60% of the time to support
the intended use designations. In
instances when biology and chemistry
disagreed as to a particular use
category, 55% of the time biological
data were used to assign a higher
use support category.
A final water use classification
determination in which benthic
macroinvertebrate data are used is
the designation of Outstanding
Resource Waters (OFW). North
Carolina's Administrative Code
(1986) states that the
Environmental Management Conmission
may classify certain unique and
special surface waters of the State
as Outstanding Resource Waters
(QRW) upon finding that such waters
are of exceptional state or
national recreational or ecological
significance and that the waters
have exceptional water quality.
This new regulation gives benthic
biologists in North Carolina the
-86-
-------
Semiqualitative Collection Techniques
opportunity to collect samples from
unique habitat, to collect rare or
unusual taxa and use these and
other data sources (including
fisheries and fisheries habitat) to
recommend appropriate
classification.
Special Studies
The use of semiqualitative
collection methods to process
benthic samples rapidly has allowed
our biological monitoring group to
assist other federal or state water
pollution agencies. Cooperative
studies have been conducted with
the Forest Service (effects of
gypsy moth eradication methods to
non-target aquatic insects), the
Soil Conservation Service
(watershed protection programs and
non-point source implementation),
the U.S. Geological Survey (acid
rain effects on water quality and
establishment of a pristine streams
network) and local and state
councils of governments.
Summary
North Carolina's semiqualitative
collection technique for benthic
macroinvertebrates was developed to
provide a rapid, but reliable
assessment of water quality. This
technique has proven to be flexible
enough to allow biological
monitoring data to be used in a
number of monitoring programs.
These programs include a benthic
macroinvertebrate ambient
monitoring network which annually
summarizes trends in water quality.
Ambient data have noted temporal
variation in water quality,
including flow related variables
such as non-point source
contributions. Benthic
macroinvertebrate data are also
used to supplement toxicity testing
by measuring instream effects.
Effluent toxicity and instream
benthic data have an 85% agreement
rate and are used by managers to
identify impacts not addressed by
numerical standards.
Semiqualitative collection methods
for benthic macroinvertebrates are
also used to determine appropriate
use classification in use
attainability studies in addition
to assessing instream improvements
due to facility upgrades.
AcknowledgenieTts
Data for this review were
collected and processed by members
of the Biological Monitoring Group,
within the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management. These
individuals are D.R. Lenat, P. Finn
MacPherson, F. Winborne, D. Reid,
K. Lynch and S. Mitchell.
Literature Cited
Allan, J.D. 1975. The
distributional ecology and
diversity of benthic insects in
Cement Creek, Colorado. Ecology
56:1040-1053.
Benke, A.C., T.C. Van Arsdale, Jr.
and D.M. Gillespie 1984.
Invertebrate productivity in a
subtropical blackwater river: the
importance of habitat and life
history. Ecological Monographs
54:25-63.
Eagleson, K., D. Lenat, L. Ausley
and S. Tedder 1988. Ceriodaphnia
chronic toxicity tests and
resultant benthic macroinvertebrate
impacts. Presented at the 36th
annual North American Benthological
Society meeting at the university
of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality
assessment using a new qualitative
collection method for freshwater
-87-
-------
Penrose and Overton
benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal
North American Benthological
Society. 7(3)222-233.
Neuswanger, D.J., W.W. Taylor and
J.B. Reynolds 1982. Comparison of
macro invertebrate herptobenthos and
haptobenthos in side channel and
slough in the upper Mississippi
River. Freshwater Invertebrate
Biology 1:13-24.
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community
Development 1984. The before and
after studies. Report No. 84-15.
178 pp. North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community
Development, 1988a. Chemical and
biological assessment of the Deep
River 1983-1987. Report No. 88-01.
48 pp.
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community
Development 1988b. Water quality
progress in North Carolina.
1986-1987/305b Report. Report No.
88-02.
-88-
-------
SAMPLING AND DATA EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FISH AND BENTHIC
MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES
Wayne S. Davis and Thomas P. Simon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Sciences Division
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Abstract
During the planning of the Workshop, it was decided that the best way to
facilitate exchange of the many technical and program/policy-related issues
was to establish specific discussion groups of the major issues. From this
breakout of groups, two aquatic life discussion groups emerged: benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. The intent of separating these two groups was
not to discourage exchange between the two disciplines or establish
adversarial positions, but to gather those actively working within the
respective aquatic life groups in State and Federal programs for discussion
of specific issues. The knowledge and professional experience of a qualified
professional field biologist should be used to determine which group of
organisms may be best utilized in the various environmental assessment
projects. It is also realized that economic constraints sometimes
necessitate implementation and operation of a less than ideal program.
However, the experiences and knowledge shared at this Workshop convinced us
that evaluation of both aquatic life groups is necessary. We do not advocate
the use of one group over the other on a prograintatic basis. We wish to
leave this decision to the State and Federal field biologists.
Introduction
Recommendations from the two
workgroups dealt primarily with
Quality Assurance. There is a great
need to develop and implement Data
Quality Objectives, demonstrate
reproducibility of results, and
ensure that well-qualified
biologists (fisheries and benthic)
are preforming the sampling and
subsequent taxonomic
identifications, as well as data
analysis and interpretation. Generic
and specific recommendations for the
benthos and fish carmunity sampling
and data evaluation requirements
appear below. The following
documents provided insight and
language for some of the
recommendations that appear in this
report (Ohio EPA 1987a,b; Hellawell
1978; and Plafkin et al. 1987).
Sampling and Data Evaluation
Requirements
The following recommendations
apply to both the fish and benthos
field programs, thus, they are
incorporated together to eliminate
redundancy. Bioassessments should
be incorporated by the USEPA and
State regulatory agencies into an
integrated monitoring strategy that
can accurately assess instream
biological integrity use attainment
and measure the success of
pollution abatement programs.
The bioassessment program
supported by USEPA and the State
regulatory agencies should be based
on using both fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate community
analysis. Frequently, analysis of
biosurvey sampling results from
both aquatic life groups yield the
same water quality evaluations and
thus corroborates one another.
-------
Davis and Simon
However, when the results differ,
it has been due to the tolerance of
these groups to the various
environmental stresses that may be
reflected only by their trophic
level and place in the food chain.
Use of the two groups can integrate
perturbations to the system via
measurements of their structural and
functional shifts.
Bioassessments should be used for
surveillance, monitoring, and
enforcement of water quality
standards for point source
discharges. Their use identifies
synergistic and additive impacts.
Small incremental impacts can be
identified by quantitative shifts in
the community structure and function
even when the designated use is
being attained.
Bioassessments should be used for
screening areas impacted by non-
point pollution sources. Once
identified, these tools can
determine the extent and severity of
the impacts and be used to evaluate
long-term trends. Results from
previous biological surveys should
be incorporated into each
successive 305(b) report to identify
stream segments impact by non-point
sources. Whereas there are many
surrogate methods for estimating
point source impacts ~o the biota
(chemical and bioassay), a direct
measurement of the biological
communities by biosurveys is the
only practical method for assessing
non-point source impacts.
.Sampling and data evaluation
requirements: One sampling event is
adequate for screening purposes
(Angermeier and Karr 1984) with a
single exceedence of a narrative or
numerical biocriterion adequate for
initiating a control action.
Control sites should be selected
from upstream sites, for point
source impact determination. If the
upstream segment is impacted, a
control site may be chosen from an
adjacent stream of similar drainage
area and ecoregion. The ecoregion
concept (Larsen et al. 1986;
Cmernik 1987) may also be useful
for watershed evaluation and use
attainability categorization when
the entire basin may be impacted.
Field sampling must be
standardized to ensure
reproducibility (OEPA 1987a;
Plafkin et al. 1987), and carried
out by professional field
biologists who determine the
appropriate habitats to be sampled
and the types of sampling gear
necessary. The biologist should
participate in all aspects of the
field studies from planning, data
collection and interpretation, to
report writing or at a minimum
final document review. Long-term
monitoring should be conducted by
the discharger to evaluate the
effectiveness of the control
options.
When evaluating non-point source
influences, deficiencies in
baseline data should be identified
and remediated. This activity
should involve EPA. interaction with
other State, local, and Federal
agencies such as U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Forestry
Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
State ENRs, and DECS. Future
resource needs should be
coordinated among the agencies to
eliminate, or at least reduce,
duplication of effort. Other
actions include: support of
technology transfer between States
to enable the establishment of
reference control sites for States
or EPA regions which have common
ecoregions; coordination of
-90-
-------
Data Requirements for Fish and Macroinvertebrates
basin/watershed studies by the
Federal agencies to ensure complete
evaluation of transboundary
streams; coordination with the
State and Regional Superfund groups
who may be aware of data necessary
to support the non-point source
assessments.
If discharger self-monitoring or
consultant mediated monitoring is
advised by the regulatory agency to
support a decision, the following
items must be satisfied: the methods
used must comply with USEFA or State
regulatory agency methods; a study
plan must be approved by the
regulatory agency; the regulatory
agency will determine the level of
effort necessary including, but not
limited to, the number of study
sites, location, taxonomic effort
expended; and downstream sampling
should include locations within the
mixing zone if practicable, and at
locations further downstream at
discrete intervals to characterize
the extent of impact.
Biosurveys should be routinely
used to rank grant applications for
environmental improvement
(remediation) projects based on the
potential for environmental
improvement. This can be
accomplished by comparing the extent
and severity of degradation with the
potential for biological
improvement. The result would be a
ranking of where the funds for
building or upgrading treatment
plants or inplementation of Best
Management Decisions will result in
the greatest environmental benefits
for the funds expended.
Fish Community Survey
Fish should be used for
environmental assessments since: the
taxonomy of fish is well established
and allows professional field
biologists to identify most species
in the field, thus minimizing lab
time and speeding data analysis;
life histories and environmental
tolerances are well documented in
the scientific literature; fish
comprise the upper trophic levels
in aquatic ecosystems thus
integrating lower trophic level
energy transfer; species specific
tolerances to environmental
stresses result in measurable
shifts in community structure and
function; fish continuously inhabit
the receiving waters and integrate
the chemical, physical, and
biological history of the waters
that are not directly measured by
chemical or short-term bioassays
alone; most fish species have long
life spans (3-10 years and
frequently longer) and can reflect
both past and recent environmental
quality; assessment techniques now
permit determination of the type of
impact and incremental degrees
using numerical evaluations that
have meaning to non-biologists
(e.g. Index of Biotic Integrity
(Karr et al. 1987), Index of well-
being (Gammon et al. 1981), Shannon
diversity index, and others used in
the State programs); and fish are a
highly visible component of the
aquatic community to the public
sector.
An evaluation of habitat quality
must be conducted in conjunction
with the biological evaluation to
account for ecoregional
differences. A standardized
quantitative habitat evaluation
procedure should be developed.
Although sampling is not limited
by season for the purposes of
determining environmental impact,
sampling should be conducted during
the low-flow periods of summer and
early fall (Angermeier and Karr
-91-
-------
Davis and Simon
1986; Hilsenhoff 1987). This period
generally coincides with the period
of greatest environmental stress
(e.g. high tenperatures, lower DO,
lower flow) and ease of sampling.
Larval fish, or young-of-the-
year, not used in most indices
(Fausch et al. 1984; Karr et al.
1986) should be collected and
identified. Their presence should
be included in a narrative
discussion of the survey results
until further indicies can account
for impacts to the early life
stages.
Sampling should be standardized
to obtain a representative sample
from each site. Either distance or
time needs to be measured,
depending on gear type to ensure
that a sample is comparable.
The use of ecoregions to
delineate and establish reference
and control sites is strongly
encouraged.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community
Surveys
Benthic macroinvertebrates
provide the impetus for
environmental assessments based on
the following: most benthos are
sessile or have a limited migration
pattern, thus they the are
particularly well-suited for
assessing site-specific impacts
(upstream-downstream studies);
benthic communities integrate the
effects of short-term environmental
variations since most species have a
complex life cycle of two years or
less, the sensitive life stages will
respond quickly to stress; degraded
stream conditions can often be
detected with only a cursory
examination of the benthos in the
field since they are relatively easy
to identify to the family levels for
intolerant taxa; sampling is less
strenuous than fish, requiring few
biologists with inexpensive gear,
and has no detrimental effect on
the resident biota; benthos are a
primary food source for important
recreational and commercial fish,
and reflect the lower trophic
levels; many small streams of 1st
and 2nd order naturally support a
diverse macroinvertebrate fauna;
most State regulatory agencies that
routinely collect biosurvey data
have benthic data available.
State and Regional training is
needed on the use of the Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols to further
refine and evaluate these methods
for geographical-specific uses. The
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
should not replace the more
extensive State program methods.
State programs represented at
this Workshop demonstrated
technically successful data
generation for supporting water
programs. At a minimum, data
interpretation should include a
decision tree, and should include a
range that can be used to evaluate
data for the decision process.
The use of artificial or natural
substrates should be based on the
data needs within a particular
State program. Each method provides
necessary information for program
use and it may be preferable to use
the different methods when
encountering program or site-
specific requirements.
Habitat sampling preference (e.g.
riffle, run, pool, undercuts, CPCM)
should be decided on a site-
specific basis by the State program
field biologist. The overall
requirement of demonstrating
reproducible results negates
concern for this item.
Sampling in the mixing zone and
downstream of the mixing zone is
-92-
-------
Data Requirements for Fish and Macroinvertebrates
Table 1. The cooperative ability and "power" of various chemical, physical, and biological
assessment techniques to measure or Indicate key components of factors affecting
biological Integrity of surface waters
-------
Davis and Simcn
evaluated, in addition to the
utilization of in situ bioassays
(e.g. caged fish, clams, leaf-
packs) for use in toxicity
bioassessment.
The utilization of riparian
vegetation as a potential instream
assessment tool should also be
evaluated.
The EPA biological field methods
manual (USEEA 1973) should be
updated.
Program Development and Management
Transdisciplinary definitions need
to be established for the following
terms to eliminate potential
confusion over appropriate usage and
terminology: biosurvey,
biomonitoring, bioassessment,
bioassay, biosurveillance, and
biotic integrity. Standard
definitions may be required for
additional terms.
We recommend the use of the term
"bioassessment" to broadly enconpass
the other terms identified. The
terms survey (short time period)
and surveillance (continued
systematic surveys) generally apply
to the instream communities (fish
and benthos). Toxicity test, or
bioassay, are the preferred terms
to represent the exposure of test
populations in a laboratory setting
to ambient water or effluent
discharges. In situ toxicity tests,
or bioasssays, utilize placement of
test organisms in the ambient water
or effluent discharges for known
exposure periods. Biological
monitoring is surveillance
conducted to ensure instream
standards, or effluent permits, are
being met using either the instream
community or toxicity tests.
A successful biological
assessment strategy to provide the
information necessary to make
correct regulatory decisions
requires a knowledge and
understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of each environmental
tool employed. Table 1 depicts the
ability of various chemical,
physical, and biological assessment
techniques to measure the key
factors affecting the biological
integrity of the surface waters.
The relative use of each of these
techniques, and their relative
costs, should be carefully
evaluated prior to any field
sampling effort.
Bioassessments should be
incorporated by the USEEA and State
regulatory agencies into an
integrated monitoring strategy
that can accurately assess instream
biological integrity and measure
the success of pollution abatement
programs. One method for utilizing
biosurveys is presented in Figure
l, which is a conceptual framework
implemented by one of the State
regulatory agencies. The most
important point of this framework
is that when decisions are made on
aquatic life use attainability and
attainment, those decisions should
be largely based on a direct
determination of the aquatic
community structure and function.
A technical support or guidance
document should be developed by
USEPA to identify how the
biological criteria are implemented
into the variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory programs.
The data evaluation techniques
currently employed in State
programs should be the basis for
establishing minimum data
evaluation methods for new
programs.
Education of State and Federal
pollution control officials should
be focused on the advantages and
-94-
-------
Da±a Requirements for Fish and Macroinvertebrates
v • •• I T X^. ^^ ..-..- -i ........ |
1 1—K /<—.,L.». \ I menUerwg -hmrtee 1C Sr^Hy of "noxy
Attaiwnp Qmojinwi^i wTpmaniiyix ' .J :ir
V Qt tm? a retult. bleturveyi Infilcit*
tne type of inpact. and wnen coupled wltn receiving water •onitorln<)
provide creater retoluilon of me tourced) and type(t) of iapaets
Fig. i. A conceptual framework for assessing ambient biological performance
and the success of implemented pollution control strategies (Chio EPA 1987).
uses of biosurveys in the water
programs. Education of regulatory
agency biologists on the
appropriate uses of biosurveys
should be supported by USEEA
Headquarters through Office of
Research and Development (ORD)
training. Education of the public
and awareness of the biological
ecosystem components are needed to
-95-
-------
Davis and Simon
urge legislators to initiate
corrective programs through a
citizens monitoring network.
The cost effectiveness of
biosurveys for assessments has been
demonstrated by the State of Ohio.
Other States and regulatory
agencies need to corroborate this
finding to gain a more widespread
acceptance of using biosurveys.
The use of automated databases
and computer programs should be
encouraged through Federal
negotiations with States on their
monitoring programs. The use of
BIOS for storage and retrieval is
highly recommended, and funding
should be made available to support
PC-based data manipulation software
which would permit a free exchange
of data between the States and the
USEPA. Resources should also be
allocated for a rigorous evaluation
of the ERAPT program (Dawson and
Hellenthal 1985).
Acknowledgements
The professionalism of the
following people made the workgroup
sessions a success. Special thanks
to the fish workgroup, C. Hocutt,
M. Smith, R. Kite, R. Schacht, J.
Shulte, J. Kurtenbach, R. Langdon,
and C. Saylor. Thanks to the
benthos workgroup J. Plafkin, B.
Shakelford, J. Green, S. Fiske, J.
Freda, K. Cummins, G. Bright, S.
Davies, W. Matsunaga, R. Bode, J.
Hulbert, H. Howard, R. Hafele, G.
Jacobi, J. Roberts, and M. Gurtz.
Literature Cited
Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr.
1986. Applying an index of biotic
integrity based on stream fish
communities: considerations in
sampling and interpretation. North
American Journal of Fisheries
Management 6: in press.
Dawson, C.L. and R.A. Hellenthal.
1985. The Environmental
Requirements and Pollution
Tolerance Retrieval and Analysis
System (ERAPT). University of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN. Contract No.
CR-81070111-01-0).
Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr, and P.R.
Yant. 1984. Regional application of
an index of biotic integrity based
on stream fish communities.
Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 113: 39-55.
Gammon, J.R., A. Spacie, J.L.
Hamelink, and R.L. Kaesler. 1981.
Role of electrofishing in assessing
environmental quality of the Wabash
River, pp. 307-324. In J.M. Bates
and C.I. Weber (eds.). Ecological
assessments of effluent impacts on
communities of indigenous aquatic
organisms. American Society for
Testing and Materials, STP 730,
Philadelphia, PA.
Hellawell, J.M. 1978. Biological
surveillance of rivers. Water
Research centre. Stevenage,
England.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved
biotic index of organic stream
pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist
20: 31-39.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L.
Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J.
Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running
waters a method and its rationale.
Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication 5. 28 pp.
-96-
-------
Data Requiransits for Fisti and Macroinvertebrates
Larsen, D.P. , J.M. Qnernik, R.M. Environmental Monitoring and
Hughes, C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whittier, Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
A.J. Kinney, A.L. Gallant, and D.R. EPA 670/4-73-001.
Dudley. 1986. Corrspondence between
spatial patterns in fish
assemblages in Ohio streams and
aquatic ecoregions. Environmental
Management 10(6): 815-828.
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987a. Biological Criteria
for the protection of Aquatic life.
Vol. 1. The role of Biological data
in Water Quality Assessment. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency,
Columbus, OH.
. I987b. Biological Criteria
for the protection of aquatic life
Vol. 2. User's Manual for Biological
Field Assessment of Ohio Surface
Waters. Ibid.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of
the conterminous United States.
Annuals of the Association of
American Geographers. 77(1): 118-
125.
Plafkin, J.L. , M.T. Barbour, K.D.
Porter, and S.K. Gross. 1987. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in
streams and rivers: benthic
macroinvertebrates. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Monitoring and Data Support
Division, Washington, B.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1988. Report of the National
Workshop on Instream Biological
Monitoring and Criteria. USEPA,
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.C.
Weber, C. I. 1973. Biological field
and laboratory methods for
measuring the quality of surface
waters and effluents. USEPA,
-97-
-------
OVERVIEW OF STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENTS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION
IN ILLINOIS
Robert L. Hite
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2209 West Main
Marion, Illinois 62959
Abstract
Since its creation in 1970, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) has relied on aquatic macroinvertebrates in biosurveys conducted to
evaluate degradation from point source dischargers. Early stream surveys
utilized macroinveretebrates primarily as biological water quality
indicators with data interpretation and pollution assessments made on the
basis of presence or absence of intolerant organisms. Current water quality
assessments are made using biotic community structure, tolerance ratings
assigned to invertebrate taxa on a 0 to 11 scale, and Macroinvertebrate
Biotic Index (MBI) values calculated from the equation: MBI = (n^ * t-[)/N.
More recently, biosurveys have employed fish communities as biotic tools for
stream quality evaluations, use support assessments mandated by the Clean
Water Act, and for a cooperative interagency Biological Stream
Characterization (BSC) process. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and
associated fish community metrics are the foundation of data interpretation.
IBI values were calculated by a program written in BASIC for the IBM-PC.
Stream habitat quality assessments are now conducted in conjunction with
fish monitoring utilizing a procedure which measures depth, velocity, and
substrate type at eleven equally-spaced transects. Based on an equation
derived from a multiple regression of IBI values and stream habitat data,
the biotic potential of streams is estimated in the form of a predicted IBI
value.
Introduction
The assessment of water quality by
agencies responsible for pollution
abatement has historically been the
domain of the engineer, chemist, and
microbiologist. Early efforts relied
on analysis of dissolved oxygen,
biological oxygen demand, pH,
suspended solids, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Use of chemical analysis
was well suited for the evaluation
of surface water quality and
compliance of point source
dischargers with numerical standards
as these criteria were generally
chemical in nature. Pollution
assessment by chemical means,
however, relies on collection of
representative samples from a medium
known to display frequent
spatiotemporal variability. Chemical
samples additionally provide no
information regarding the degree to
which abiotic factors influence
biotic community structure and
function.
Rationale
Passage of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act in 1972 (PL
92-500), and most recently, the
Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments of
1987, stressed assessment of not
only water chemistry, but biotic
integrity of the nation's waters.
Focus on assessment of biotic
integrity as a means of evaluating
success of pollution control
programs prompted the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) to issue guidelines for
incorporation of biotic and abiotic
factors into water body assessments
for water quality standards
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
Table 1. Metrics used to assess fish communities in Illinois streams
(from Karr et al. 1986).
Scoring criteria
Category
Metric
1
Species richness and
composition
Trophic composition
Fish abundance
and condition
1. Total number of fish species
2. Number and identity of darter species
3. Number and identity of sunf ish species
4. Number and identity of sucker species
5. Number and identity of intolerant species
6. Proportion of individuals as green sunfish
7. Proportion of individuals as omnivores
8. Proportion of individuals as insectivorous
cyprinids
9. Proportion of individuals as piscivores
(top carnivores)
10. Number of individuals in sample
11. Proportion of individuals as hybrids
12. Proportion of individuals with disease,
tumors, fin damage, and skeletal anomalies
<20%
>45%
Expectations for metrics 1 -5 vary with
stream size and region and are discussed
in the text.
5-20% >20%
20-45% >45%
45-20% <20%
5-1%
Expectations for metric 10 vary with
stream size and other factors and are
discussed in the text.
0% >0-1%
0-2% >2-5%
evaluation (USEPA 1982) and use
attainment analyses (USEPA. 1983).
To accomplish, mandates of the
Clean Water Act, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) has conducted stream quality
surveys since its creation in 1970.
Surveys conducted in the early
seventies relied solely upon aquatic
macroinvertebrates as biological
water quality indicators. Since the
mid-seventies, stream surveys have
also included water and sediment
chemistry, and in recent years, the
Agency has assessed fish
communities and stream habitat in
small wadeable streams. This paper
summarizes the current use of
aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish
in IEPA stream quality assessments
and the Biological Stream
Characterization (BSC) process, and
describes the development of a
habitat assessment procedure for
prediction of biotic potential in
lotic environments.
Macroinvertebrates
Aquatic macroinvertebrates as
defined by Weber (1973) are
invertebrates large enough to be
seen by the unaided eye, can be
retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30
sieve (0.595 mm), and live at least
part of their life cycles within or
upon available aquatic substrates.
Invertebrates included in this
group typically consist of
annelids, macrocrustaceans, aquatic
insects, and mollusks (Isom 1978).
Although macroinvertebrates were
not routinely used in freshwater
bioassays in the past (Weber 1973),
they have been extremely useful in
water quality monitoring through
studies of community diversity and
as indicator organisms (Resh and
Uhzicker 1975). Some of the
-99-
-------
Kite
advantages of using
macroinvertebrates for
environmental impact assessments
include: limited mobility;
relatively long life cycles;
important members of aquatic food
chains; sensitivity to a wide range
of contaminants; known environmental
requirements for key indicator
groups; ubiquitous in distribution
(occur where fish may not be
present); and ease of collection.
While widely used for delineation
of impacts caused by putrescible
wastes, macroinvertebrates have
also been used as indicators of
heavy-metal pollution (Winner et al
1980), bioaccumulation (Mauck and
Olsen 1977), and acidification
(Mills and Schinder 1986).
Use of Macroinvertebrates in
Illinois — In 1970, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
adopted and expanded a list of
indicator organisms developed by
Shiffman (1953) and continued use of
a classification system in which
streams were classified according
to the percentage of intolerant
organisms present. Using this
procedure, the composition of a
macroinvertebrate community at
balanced stations consisted of more
than 50% intolerant organisms; at
unbalanced sites, less than 50% but
more than 10% intolerant; at
semipolluted sites, less than 10%
intolerant; and community structure
at polluted stations consisted of
100% tolerant organisms (Tucker
1961). The merits of this system for
stream quality classifications were
examined by Schaeffer et al. (1985).
Collection and Identification — In
1982 IEFA biological staff made
significant revisions to the IEPA
Macroinvertebrate Tolerance List,
updated field collections
techniques, and adopted new data
interpretation procedures for
wastewater irtpact assessments (IEFA
1987). Qualitative collections of
macroinvertebrates are made in the
field using a Mb. 30-mesh sieve, ID-
frame net, and/or by hand picking
of available substrates. Following
collection of a sample,
macroinvertebrate specimens are
identified to a level consistent
with survey objectives. In
screening level surveys conducted
to document impacts from wastewater
facilities, invertebrates are
identified in the field to family
level. In selected special surveys
or cooperative basin surveys
conducted with the Illinois
Department of Conservation (IDOC),
macroinvertebrates are identified
to the taxon and/or taxonomic level
which has been assigned a tolerance
rating by Agency biologists
(Appendix Table A).
Data Handling — Macroinvertebrate
data are presently interpreted by
an examination of community
attributes: community structure,
taxa richness, and use of the
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
(MBI). This index is a
modification of a biotic index
developed in Wisconsin (Hilsenhoff
1977, 1982). The MBI, similar to
the Wisconsin index, provides a
summation or average of tolerance
values assigned to each taxon
collected and weighted by
abundance; low values indicate good
water quality and high values
degraded water quality. This index
is on a 0 to 11 scale rather than
the 0 to 5 scale originally
proposed by Hilsenhoff. IEPA has
also assigned tolerance ratings to
several invertebrate groups not
rated by Hilsenhoff: Turbellaria,
Annelida, Decapoda, and the
Mollusca. The Macroinvertebrate
-100-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
TRANSECT
NO. J
-TOTAL TRANSECT REACH
DIRECTION OF SAMPLING
DIRECTION OF FLOW
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of IEPA. habitat quality assessment procedure for
wadeable streams. Sampling is initiated at the right edge of the water
at transect 1. Depth, velocity and substrate measurements start at the
proper increment width from REW (point l) and sampling proceeds across
transect. Additional transects are sampled at 10 yard intervals moving
upstream (IEPA 1987).
Biotic Index is calculated by the
following equation:
MBI =IT (ni ti)/N
where: ni =
N
No. individuals in
each taxon
Tolerance value for
taxon
Total no.
individuals
Fish
Over 180 species of fish have
been recorded in Illinois (Smith
1979) and a majority of these
species inhabit lotic environments.
They occupy upper levels of aquatic
food chains and are directly and
indirectly affected by chemical and
physical changes in their
environment. While use of aquatic
macroinvertebrates and water
chemistry are integral components
in the assessment of water quality
and documentation of constituents
causing impairment, the condition
of the fishery is the most
meaningful index of stream quality
to the general public (Weber 1973).
Use of fish to assess biotic
integrity of water resources has
received increased emphasis in
recent years by a number of
investigators (Karr 1981; Hocutt
1981; Stauffer et al. 1976; Karr et
al. 1986). Karr (1981) listed
several advantages for using fish
as indicator organisms in
monitoring programs: life-history
information is extensive for most
species; fish communities generally
include a range of species that
represent a variety of trophic
levels; fish are relatively easy to
identify; both acute toxicity and
stress effects can be evaluated;
fish are typically present, even in
the smallest streams and in all but
the most polluted waters; and
results of fish studies can be
-101-
-------
Hite
directly related to the fishable
waters mandate of Congress.
IEPA Use of Fishery Data — Early
fish sampling efforts organized by
IEPA were conducted largely to
assess contaminant levels in
selected fish populations in
conjunction with biosurveys of
Illinois river basins (Hite and
King 1977). The Agency has
subsequently placed greater
emphasis on fish communities as
indicators of stream quality.
Starting in 1981, IEPA utilized
fish data obtained in cooperative
basin surveys by the Department of
Conservation for water quality
standards development, aquatic life
use support assessments, stream
classification, and to develop a
stream habitat evaluation
procedure. In 1986, the Agency
initiated fish collections for the
first time in an assessment of
biotic integrity downstream from a
large refinery complex in
eastcentral Illinois (Hite et al.
1988).
Field Collection — For stream
quality assessments IEPA biologists
typically collect fish with a
combination of electrofishing and
seining. Small wadeable streams are
sampled using backpak or
electroseine apparatus for 15 to 30
minutes. If additional sampling is
required to obtain a representative
sample, the length of sampling time
is recorded for determination of
catch per unit of effort. Three
supplemental seine hauls with a
3/16 inch mesh seine are utilized
at each site when suitable habitat
exists. Larger streams are sampled
using boat electrofishing gear for
30 minute periods (IEPA 1987). All
fish collected are sorted,
identified to species, and counted
at the site. Those specimens which
cannot be identified (eg., various
cyprinids) are preserved in a 10
percent formalin solution for
subsequent laboratory
ident i f icat ion.
Data Interpretation — Fisheries
data are interpreted with the Index
of Biotic Integrity and use of the
12 IBI metrics (Table 1; Karr et
al. 1986). When fishery data does
not allow calculation of a "pure"
IBI value using all 12 metrics, an
alternate Index of Biotic Integrity
(AIBI) is calculated. Applicable
metrics (e.g., number of species,
intolerant individuals, etc.) of
both the IBI and AIBI have been
modified geographically for
Illinois streams and expectations
are determined by major river basin
(Bertrand 1985). To expedite IBI
calculations and fishery
assessments made by biologists, the
Agency developed a computer program
for use on the IBM-PC (Kelly 1986).
This program, updated in 1988
(Bickers et al. 1988) , provides
station location information, a
summary of IBI metrics, the IBI or
AIBI value (as appropriate), and a
list of species collected (see
Appendix Table B).
Stream Habitat Assessment
Biotic-Abiotic Relationship — The
abundance and distribution of
individual species in lotic
ecosystems is largely governed by
geographically related
physicochemical variables. Although
aquatic life is found almost
everywhere there is permanent
water, each species has its own
distribution or range; within that
range, a species has unique
environmental requirements and
occurs in certain settings that are
its habitat (Pflieger 1975).
-102-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
Stream habitat consists of
chemical and physical components.
Both suitable water quality and
desirable physical habitat (e.g.,
adequate depth, velocity, bottom
substrate and cover) must exist to
meet specific individual
requirements. Both habitat
components, while largely
determined by geography, climate
and local relief, may also be
influenced by activities of man. In
Illinois, few if any streams exist
that have not been altered to some
degree chemically or physically.
These hydrological modifications,
which include channelization and
alteration of flow regimes,
typically reduce the quality and
quantity of habitat available for
aquatic life, and ultimately biotic
integrity. Indeed, physical
alterations in the form of
channelization have been reported
to affect over 3400 stream miles in
Illinois (Conlin 1976). In stream
segments impaired by hydrological
modifications, pollution control
efforts to maintain and restore
biotic integrity through water
quality improvements may have
limited success.
Instream physical habitat
information was routinely recorded
for all IEPA stream quality surveys
in the past, but this limited data
was subjective in nature. Because a
systematic methodology for habitat
analysis was not used in early IEPA
stream surveys, it was often
difficult to determine which
habitat component - chemical or
physical - was most limiting to
aquatic communities.
Habitat Diversity
In 1982 a detailed stream habitat
assessment procedure was adopted to
complement fish, macroinvertebrate,
water and sediment chemistry data
normally collected in cooperative
IEPA/IDOC basin surveys (Hite
1982). This method was predicated
on the relation of habitat
diversity (HD) to fish species
diversity (FSD) demonstrated in
several Midwest and Panama streams
(Gorman and Karr 1978). This
procedure was initially used in
basin surveys conducted in the
lower Kaskaskia, Sangamon, and Fox
River Basins in 1982.
Habitat Diversity Field Methodology
— Stream habitat was measured in
wadable streams along three
dimensions considered important to
fish. This methodology employed
placement of transects along a
study area with depth, velocity and
substrate measured at equally
spaced intervals on each transect.
Location and length of the habitat
study reach was identical in most
cases to the IDOC fish sampling
reach in cooperative basin studies.
For 100 yard stream segments
sampled by rotenone, transects were
placed at 10 yard intervals
starting from the upstream end of
the study area; when available, the
first transect was placed across a
riffle area. This method resulted
in placement of 11 equally spaced
transects within the study area.
Depth, velocity and substrate were
recorded at equally spaced
increments across each transect
with increment spacing determined
by mean stream width (Table 2).
Water depth was measured with a
USGS top-setting wading rod or
fiberglass level rod to the nearest
tenth of a foot (0.1 ft). Mean
velocity at each transect increment
was measured to 0.01 feet per
second (ft/sec) with a Price AA
current or pygmy meter at 0.6 total
depth. Substrate or bottom type was
recorded at each transect increment
using appropriate substrate or
bottom type codes. Habitat sampling
-103-
-------
Hite
Table 2. Increment spacing as determined by mean stream width.
STREAM WIDTH (ft) INCREMENT SPACING
X W £ 10 1
X W > 10 but i 30 2
X U > 3O but £60 3
X W > 60 but <_ 100 5
X W > 100 10
z
o
03
O
5
D
Z
r
0 3 O.I
1.2 1 5
DEPTH (fl)
VELOCITr (ft/sec)
Fig. 2. Distribution of depth (A) and velocity (B) measurements at 52 lower
Kaskaskia River basin sites, sumer 1982.
-104-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classif ication
Table 3. In3trea.ii habitat categories developed from 52 lower Kaskaakia River sites, 1982.
CATEGORY DEPTH (ft) VELOCITY (ft/sec)
1 0 - 0.5 -0.15 - 0.15
2 0.5-1.5 0.15 - O. 45
3 1.5 - 2.5 0.45 - 0.75
4 2.5-3.5 0.75-1.05
5 3.5 - 4.5 1.05 - 1.35
6 >4.5 1.35 - 1.65
7 >1.65
a
9
10
SUBSTRATE (INCHES
SILT-MUD <0.002
SAND 0.02-O.08
GRAVEL 0.08-2.5
RUBBLE 2.5-9.8
BOULDER >9.8
BEDROCK
CLAYPAN
PLANT DETRITUS
VEGETATION
LOGS
mm )
<0.062
0.62-2
2-64
64-250
250-4000
was initiated at the right edge of
water (REW) at the most downstream
transect (transect 1), and proceeded
in an upstream direction until HD
dimensions were recorded at each
increment in the 11 transect reach
(Fig. 1).
In summer 1982 habitat diversity
measurements were recorded at over
5900 points at 52 lower Kaskaskia
fish collection sites. Study areas
varied from unmodified natural
stream segments, to fairly recent or
older channelized areas. Stream
size ranged from a few small 2nd
order streams to much larger 5th or
6th order streams. Over 2700 (47%)
depth measurements were within a
range of 0.5 to 1.5 feet (Fig. 2).
Stream velocities ranged from over
2.0 ft/sec to no detectable flow -
- a common occurrence in the lower
Kaskaskia Basin. Approximately 70%
of all velocity measurements were
less than 0.5 ft/sec. By bottom
type or substrate category, over
70% of all observations consisted
of silt-mud, sand or gravel.
HD Data Analysis — Using the
mainframe and discriminant analysis
program available in the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS
1982) package at Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale, depth and
velocity data were analyzed to
develop categories for calculation
of habitat diversity. From this
analysis, six depth and seven
velocity categories were identified
(Table 3). With the 11 substrate
categories, a possibility of 462
combinations existed for
calculation of HD using the
Snannon-Weiner equation. Habitat
diversity values for each lower
Kaskaskia River site were plotted
against FSD and IBI values
-105-
-------
Hite
Table 4. Substrate, bottom type, and other metrics used in IEPA habitat assessment
procedure (modified fron IEPA 1987).
CODE
1
2
3. 1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4 .2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SUBSTRATE
Silt/mud
Sand
Fine gravel
Medium gravel
Coarse gravel
Small cobble
Medium cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
BOTTOM TYPE
PARTICLE SIZE
10 in)
Solid Rock
OTHER METRICS
Depth (ft)
Velocity (ft/sec)
Instream Cover (*
Pool
Shading (X)
Claypan - conpacted soil
Plant detritus
Vegetation
Submerged logs
Other
Table 5. Habitat metrics used in stepwise multiple regression analysis.
WATER QUALITY (WUI)
DISCHARGE (CFS)
MEAN DEPTH
SUBSTRATE
SILT-MUD
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLE
BOULDER
BEDROCK
CLAYPAN
PLANT DETRITUS
VEGETATION
SUBMERGED LOGS
-106-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
• ••• • • •
• * • • •
8.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
HDI
Fig. 3. Relationship of the Index of
Biotic Integrity (A) and fish
species (B) to habitat diversity at
52 lower Kaskaskia River basin
sites, 1982.
calculated for the same location
(Fig. 3). Simple linear regression
analysis confirmed what wasvisually
evident: no significant
relationship existed between HD and
FSD or IBI for the 52 lower
Kaskaskia Basin sites. It was the
authors' opinion that the removal of
the few lower Kaskaskia Basin sites
thought to be water quality limited
would not have notably improved
this relationship.
Biotic Potential Assessment Strategy
— Following evaluation of HD and
the inability to demonstrate any
statistical relationship between HD
and FSD or IBI, alternative habitat
assessment and data analysis
techniques were examined. This
strategy involved four basic steps:
1). development of a statewide data
base consisting of sites with
fishery, water quality, and habitat
data collected within a similar
time frame; 2). determination of
sites where biotic comnunities were
impacted or limited by water
qitEsafflomt tbeydata base; 63). use 1 i m i-n
of statistical analysis to
determine which habitat variables
were most important in determining
biotic integrity as measured by
IBI, and; 4). development of an
equation which predicted IBI from
habitat metrics.
Field Methods — Habitat evaluation
efforts in 1983 in the upper
Kaskaskia River Basin and other
basin surveys utilized similar
field assessment methods employed
for habitat diversity but placed
less emphasis on velocity
measurements — the most time
consuming aspect of habicat
assessment. Several other habitat
metrics, however, were added to
habitat surveys conducted in 1983
and subsequent years: three
substrate categories, estimates of
instream cover, riffle-pool
development, and shading (Table 4).
In general, habitat assessments
conducted in conjunction with
cooperative interagency basin
surveys were restricted to flowing,
wadeable streams and sampling was
conducted with streams at base or
low flow condition.
Data Base Development — To develop
the data base necessary to
determine habitat-biotic integrity
relationships, water quality,
habitat, and IBI values from about
-107-
-------
Kite
250 sites in five Illinois river
basins were entered into the
mainframe at Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. In
addition to the metrics determined
from stream habitat evaluations,
stream discharge and water quality
information were added. Water
quality was measured by a STQRET-
generated index designated as WQI;
this index is on a 0 to 100 scale
with higher values indicating more
degraded water. Water quality
parameters used with this index —
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
total phosphorus, turbidity,
conductivity, and ammonia nitrogen
— were selected on the basis of a
matrix analysis which correlated
water quality constituents against
macroinvertebrate biotic index
values (Kelly and Kite 1984).
Statistical Analysis — Fifteen
stream habitat metrics, WQI, and
discharge data (Table 5) were
subjected to multiple regression
analysis using the PROC STEPWISE
procedure in SAS (1982). When all
data were included in the analysis,
water quality as measured by WQI,
was the most important variable
affecting biotic integrity. By
selectively eliminating sites from
the data set on the basis of WQI
values, an equation was generated
that selected habitat variables in
preference to water quality. It was
found when only sites with WQI
values less than 60 were included
in the regression analysis, habitat
variables became more important in
explaining variance in IBI values.
Following elimination of all sites
exhibiting WQI values > 60, 149
sites from the five river basins
remained in the data base with a
large number of these sites from
the Kaskaskia River Basin. Remaining
sites were not considered to be
water quality limited; any biotic
integrity perturbations now
evident were attributed to be a
function of physical habitat
quality.
Multiple regression analyses of
habitat metrics and IBI values for
the 149 sites indicated four
metrics appeared to exert the
greatest influence on biotic
integrity as measured by IBI. In
order of importance, habitat
variables accounting for the
greatest percent variance in IBI
values included: 1). Percent silt-
mud (r2 = 0.163), 2). Percent
claypan (r2 = 0.216), 3). Mean
stream width (r2 = 0.252), 4).
Percent pool (r2 = 0.282).
For biotic integrity prediction
it was necessary to develop either:
1). a matrix type evaluation
procedure with which applicable
habitat metrics influencing IBI
would be assigned arbitrary weights
for stream reach classification, or
2). use the regression equation
derived from the SAS PROC STEPWISE
procedure. To expedite use of
habitat data for aquatic life use
support assessment in the 1986 IEPA
305(b) report, the later course was
selected. The regression analysis
yielded the following equation for
prediction of biotic potential as
defined by a predicted IBI value:
Predicted IBI = 40.1-
(0.126*siltmud)-(0.123*claypan)
+(0.0424*pool)+(0.0916*width)
Using the biotic potential
equation or PIBI, predicted values
can range from about 27 to 53, or
from a BSC rating of a Limited
Aquatic Resource (D) to a Unique
Aquatic Resource (A). When applied
to typical Illinois stream habitat
data from 3rd to 6th order streams,
most PIBI values routinely fall
between 35 and 50. For 102 sites
sampled in the Kaskaskia River
-108-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
Basin in 1982 and 1983, having a
mean stream order of 4.3, the mean
predicted IBI was 40.4 (Kelly et
al. 1988).
Current Biosurvey Programs
Use of macroinvertebrate, fish,
and habitat data in current IEPA
surface water monitoring programs
falls into three general
categories: 1) stream quality
surveys for documentation of
impacts from point source
dischargers; 2) basin surveys for
determination of aquatic life use
support attainment and Biological
Stream Characterization; and 3)
Special Surveys. Point Source-
Related Surveys. The majority of
IEPA biosurveys are conducted to
document stream conditions in the
vicinity of industrial and
municipal wastewater dischargers.
One such program, termed Facility-
Related Stream Surveys (FRSS),
consists of the collection of
biotic, water chemistry, stream
flow and habitat quality data
upstream and incrementally
downstream from municipal or
industrial discharges.
Macroinvertebrates are utilized to
assess existing stream quality
and/or document degradation from
the discharge. Fish are
occasionally collected for
contaminant analyses or for stream
classification purposes. Water
chemistry parameters include water
temperature, dissolved oxygen,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), un-
ionized ammonia nitrogen, nitrate-
nitrite nitrogen, and total
phosphorus, and total metals. Biotic
and chemical data generated from
FRSS are used to assess:
representativeness of Agency and
discharger effluent monitoring data,
stream quality impacts, the need for
additional wastewater treatment, and
appropriate NPDES permit
limitations.
Biological Stream Characterization
— Historically, grant monies for
construction or renovation of
wastewater treatment facilities in
Illinois have been allocated to
metropolitan areas either willing
to enter the grant process or able
to fund their portion on
construction costs. Prioritization
for funding, while based on many
factors, rarely had any
relationship to potential aquatic
life use or value of the aquatic
resource to be protected. To
accomplish Clean Water Act
objectives and ensure that
important aquatic resources are
considered in the allocation of
limited pollution control monies
and staff resources, classification
of Illinois streams was necessary.
In 1983, IEPA biologists proposed
a stream classification system
based on the type and condition of
the fishery and macroinvertebrate
community structure. This
provisional classification
methodology was provided to IDOC
stream biologists for review and
was subsequently applied to the Fox
River Basin in northern Illinois in
fall 1983. In Spring 1984,
biologists from IEPA and IDOC met
and formed the Biological Stream
Characterization (BSC) Work Group
to address biotic classification of
Illinois streams.
The BSC Work Group developed a
provisional five-tier stream
classification system in 1984. This
stream classification system is
based largely on attributes of
lotic fish comnunities using the
Index of Biotic Integrity (Table
6). When suitable fishery data are
not available for calculation of an
IBI value, the site may be
classified on the basis of the
-109-
-------
Table 6. Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) criteria for the classification of Illinois streams.
o
RESOURCE
DESCRIPTION:
BIOTIC CLASS:
HE1RJC
FISHERY
Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI)
or Alternate (AIBI)
Sport
Fishery
Value
Spawn i ng
or
Nursery
Value
MACRO INVERTEBRATES
Hdcroinvertebrate
Biotlc Index (HBI)
Cotnmuni ty
Structure
Species Richness
UNIQUE AQUATIC HIGHLY VALUf D MOOERA1E
RESOURCE AQUAIIC RtSOUKCE AQUATIC RESOURCE
A B C
61 - 60 41 - 50 31 - 40
Good fishery for walleye. Smaller species of
sauger, smallmouth. spotted, sport fish predominate
or largmooth bass, northern In sport catch.
pike, Khfte bass, crapple, Bui Ihead/sunflsh.
catfish, rock boss, or put carp fishery. Diverse
and take trout fishery. forage fish corununlty
may be present.
Tributary to an "A" stream, Nursery or rearing
or used as nursery by above area for connon sport
sport fish species. fish. Young of year
or juveniles of above
species connion In
fish samples.
N/A N/A N/A
1
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
LIMI1ED
AQUAIIC RESOURCE
D
?1 - 30
Carp or other less
desirable species
support fishery.
Fr-w 1 f any fish of
other species caught.
Few If any young of
year 01 juveniles of
any spur t spec Ics
present.
,> 7.5 £ 10.0
Predominant macrolnvertebrate
ta*a/1ndtviduals consist
of facultative and/or
moderate organisms.
Intolerant organisms
are sparse or may
be absent.
Notably lower than
expected for geographic
area, stieam size 01
111 sum ii i) ir E
AljUAl 1C 1(1 Mlllltll
t
< 20
No sport f 1 she) y .
Few fish of any
species.
No young of year or
Juvcn 1 1 05 of spor t
spec 1 es pi cscnt .
> 10.0
Intolerant orgjinlsr
al>sri\t; benthlc
conmiunl ty consists
near ly all toleran'
forms, or no aquat
m.ici o Jnver ti'bt ates
may lie pt esent .
(Icstr Icted to few
taxa, or rro taxa
pi esent .
avatljble habitat; usually
limited to a modeiate or few
number of taxa.
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
sport fishery value.
Macroinvertebrates are factored
into the BSC process when fishery
data are not available and are used
to assign a limited or restricted
BSC rating (Class D or E
respectively) to stream segments
greater than five miles in length.
When using macroinvertebrate data
for stream classification purposes,
biologists may utilize MBI values
and/or other community metrics such
as species richness or community
composition.
Aquatic Life Use Support Assessment
— In addition to use in BSC, both
fishery and macroinvertebrate data
are used for aquatic life use
support assessments required by
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. In accordance with federal
guidance (USEPA 1987), use support
assessments are completed for each
stream reach sampled in conjunction
with cooperative IEEA/IDOC
intensive basin surveys. The degree
to which Illinois streams support
designated uses is determined using
a combination of biotic and abiotic
data, intensive survey field
observations, and professional
judgment. Because it is felt that
aquatic life is the best indicator
of the CWA goals of fisnable and
swimmable waters, the use support
process focuses on biotic data and
Biological Stream Characterization
(BSC) ratings when available.
Biotic data consist of fishery and
macroinvertebrate community data
which are evaluated using the index
of biotic integrity (Karr et al.
1986) and the IEEA
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
(MBI), respectively. Abiotic data
includes water chemistry, fish
tissue analysis, sediment
chemistry, and physical habitat
metrics.
Four levels of use support
assigned to Illinois streams
include: Full, Partial/Minor,
Partial/Moderate, and Nbnsupport
(IEPA 1988). A fifth category,
Full/Threatened, is occasionally
used to designate waters presently
considered in full support but
likely to change in the future
because of changing land use
patterns, new point sources, or a
continued decline in water quality.
Where fish, stream habitat and
water quality data are available
for the same site, the use support
category is determined using a flow
chart (Fig. 4). For waters with
limited data available, assessments
are made with general criteria
provided in a use support
classification matrix (Table 7).
Because the 305(b) use support
assessment process uses both fish
and macroinvertebrate data, use
support groups closely resemble BSC
categories. The general
relationship of the five BSC
categories to use support
assessment levels and other IEPA
assessment metrics and criteria is
depicted in Table 8.
Classification of Fisnable Waters -
- Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act also requires assessment of the
degree to which CWA
fishable/swimmable goals have been
attained. These goals are
considered separate and independent
criteria from designated use
assessment guidelines (USEPA 1987).
USEPA has defined fishable goals
for the 305(b) process as
"providing a level of water quality
consistent with the goal of
protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife." In Illinois,
criteria for evaluating attainment
of aquatic life use has
incorporated selected biotic
indices or classification systems:
-111-
-------
Table '( . Criteria arid use support classification matrix for Illinois streass.
BflSIS OF ftSSESSItfff RSSESSMENT DESCRIPTION
FULY SUPPORTING
LEVa OF USE
PORT IflL/HI NOR
SUPPORT
PORTIflL/KQDERflTE
NOHSUPPOHTING
EVflLUflTED
MONITORED
Biosurvey Data
N)
I
Mater Chemistry
Fish Tissue
Sediment Chemistry
No ambient or intensive data
available, ftssessient based
on historic data, location,
similarity of area to Bomtored
Haters Hithin geographic area
or ecoregion. fesesswnts are
predictions Hhich have not
been verified by recent
Bomtoring data.
Fish or Macroinvertebrate
cowiunity assessed by
professional biologist.
Assessment protocol includes
evaluation of species richness,
coimunity structure and/or
biotic integrity evaluation,
and a conparison of biotic
quality Hith biotic potential
as neasured by habitat data.
Fixed station anbient or
intensive basin Hater quality
saiphng. flssessment based on
Hater quality index values,
evaluation of ran water chei-
istry data and/or Nater quality
criteria excursions. Used when
biotic data are not available
and/or to suppleaent bio-survey
data.
Cooperative interagency fish
contaminant icnitoring pro-
grai; samples collected from
fixed statewide network and/or
from intensive studies. Tissue
analysis conducted for hunan
health inplications and
contaminant trend aonitonng.
Fixed station anbient or inten-
sive basin surveys. Used for
toxics screening or to supple-
No point or nonpoint sources
are present that could inter-
fere Mitti use support. Physio-
graphic similarities of area
to monitored waters or general
familiarity of Hater or reach
indicates full support.
No significant Modification of
aquatic couiunity structure and
function ((10X). Ccraunity
Hithin expectations for streau
size and physiographic region
or ecoregion. Index of biotic
integrity (IBI) usually HI
or HI thin 4 points of biotic
potential (P1BI) predicted by
stream habitat assessnent.
•acroinvertebrate biotic index
(«8I> values usually (E..O.
HOI values generally (30; index
values influenced primarily
by phosphorus, total suspended
solids (TSS) or unor DO
excursions. TSS coricentrat ions
usually
-------
Illinois Stream Assessmeit and Classification
t. IMUII of Jii mnw umuuT airnu roi luiioii inud
ni MPOIT tuciimoi / ciiruu
lain
until sniii/iini
«uun COIHTIM
(IH/ [MC HOIOC1CU
IHCI
NH lurroir HIM mittiri
Izcelleit itri Good Fur- Foor
Ui>i|» iKIil loderite Ulittd
l^iltic Viiyed 4^««tic 10.UUC
Kciotrce tcioirce l««oirce tefatrce
«0«-
IUPKUT
Verr
Poor
tquitic
leio«rce
Plll/lidti if liolic
llleltil) |lll/tlll|
URHl/l>croi»eittkriU
li.tic IMti ill!)
MTU ItOUT ««t«
I!ITIT/«uiUf [MM (Nil
Si-It
11-41 il-!t < 21
< s.i s.n-f t i.o-i s I.S-K.J ) it.t
I-II U-!0
s«-it i 11
UTU T.t.l
ilhil
ITIUI Pitntul lidti of
UlItlT/liotic liUlruj (Pill)
ITUU IIPI Stnu Mutit
IBIBIT/CluiidcjUM
< ii
Sl-(l
it-is is-ii M-4M ) (N
ll-il 11-4) < tl
•iiii»ui
llttltid
-lull!
lltfltri
Fig. 4. ?quatic life use support assessment flow chart for fish, habitat,
and water quality data.
-113-
-------
Kite
IBI, MBI, and Biological Stream
Characterization. For assessment
using macroinvertebrate data,
streams are considered not meeting
fishable goals if MBI values are >
10.
Special Surveys — Special stream
surveys are routinely conducted in
response to catastrophic events
(e.g., spills of toxic materials),
mineral extraction, nonpoint source
problems including agriculture and
abandoned mines, and in support of
enforcement proceedings. The scope
and design of the survey is
dependent upon the nature of the
stream system and type of
contaminant. In addition to use of
biotic and chemistry, special
surveys may utilize sediment
chemistry analysis as a mechanism
for screening organochlorine
compound and heavy metal
contaminants. The extent of stream
sediment contamination is determined
from an Agency sediment chemistry
classification (Kelly and Kite
1984).
General Biosurvey Problem Areas
Unfortunately in many states,
biosurveys and data are not
utilized to the extent they should
be in pollution control programs.
Biosurvey problems which are
evident from discussions with
biologists involved with water
pollution programs nationwide
include: compliance and facility
inspections programs measure
surrogates of aquatic resource
quality (i.e. effluent quality)
instead of the resource itself;
biotic data are frequently not
considered in decisions regarding
permitting activities, scheduling
facility inspections, and in the
awarding of construction grants;
biotic data are rarely used in the
decision process when siting new
wastewater treatment facilities or
in the relocation of existing point
source discharges; bioassays appear
to have been overemphasized by
USEPA in recent years as the
biomonitoring tool of choice.
Bioassays like other types of
biomonitoring, have their place in
pollution control programs, but
like effluent monitoring, do not
measure stream biotic integrity and
are useful only when representative
samples are taken.
The emphasis on use of effluent
data in lieu of actual stream
quality data by facility
inspection, compliance assurance
and permitting programs occurs
because: 1) the lack of biocriteria
has resulted in federal mandates
that require states to measure
success of pollution control
programs at the end of the pipe
rather than by improvements in
stream biotic integrity; 2) stream
biocriteria have not been developed
because of reliance on existing
effluent and water quality
standards; 3) water pollution
control programs are usually
managed by individuals who are
technology and hardware orientated
and who thus focus on facilities;
4) pollution control
administrators and engineers
frequently do not understand
biological data; and 5) Many state
water pollution control programs do
not have legislative authority to
address problems that are nonpoint
source in nature or to manage water
resources logically — on a
watershed basis.
Discussion
The macroinvertebrate, fish, and
stream habitat assessment
procedures presented here represent
the current use of these assessment
tools in biosurveys conducted by
the Illinois Environmental
-114-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
Protection Agency. The assessment
of biotic and abiotic factors as a
means of conducting lotic resource
inventories, pollution control
appraisals, or deriving aquatic
classifications is an evolutionary
process. Assessment procedures will
change just as certainly as will
the technology and advances in the
aquatic sciences which will
necessitate this change.
Modification of assessment
techniques will also be necessary
to accommodate institutional change
at the state level and never-ending
change from the federal
perspective.
Environmental
Aquatic Biota
Indicators
Fish Community Evaluations —
Assessment of biotic integrity
using fish populations will
undoubtedly receive more emphasis
in IEPA biosurveys in ensuing
years. Fish populations integrate
both chemical and physical
perturbations which affect stream
quality and are ideal environmental
indicators from the general public
perspective. Many additional
advantages exist for use of this
group as biological indicators
(Karr, et al. 1986; Hocutt 1981).
Their use in existing programs such
as contaminant assessments, aquatic
life use support determinations,
Biological Stream Characterization,
and probable use for future
nonpoint source assessments assure
a prominent role in Agency
monitoring activities.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates —
Macro invertebrates will continue to
be the primary biotic tool used for
IEEA point source related impact
assessments. The advantages of
using these indicator organisms to
assess differences in stream
quality in an "upstream-downstream"
fashion and to demonstrate
effectiveness of pollution control
programs via pre- and post-
wastewater facility construction
surveys are well established
(Cairns et al. 1972). The
macroinvertebrate biotic index
currently enpioyed provides an
adequate impairment assessment when
applied to data collected from
streams which receive organic
wastes discharged from the typical
municipal wastewater treatment
facility. Utility of this index
diminishes, however, when applied
to data collected from streams
impaired by inorganic suspended
solids, toxic contaminants, and/or
other abiotic perturbations. In the
future, development or adoption of
a multi-parameter macroinvertebrate
index conceptually similar to IBI
is desirable. The advantages of
incorporating several attributes of
community well being (e.g., taxa
richness, trophic composition,
etc.) into one index are obvious as
interpretation of biological data
must frequently be condensed down
to simplistic terms or index values
for understanding by water resource
managers with little time or
expertise to delve into complex
biological data. Development and
use of such an index has been
initiated by the Ohio EPA (Rankin
1986) and recently advocated by
USEPA as a rapid bioassessment
protocol (Plafkin et al. 1987).
Stream Habitat Assessment and
Classification
Habitat Diversity — The concept
that fish species diversity is
ultimately related to structural
and hydrological complexity in
lotic ecosystems is widely accepted
among practicing aquatic
biologists. Failure of the habitat
-115-
-------
Kite
diversity procedure to demonstrate
any significant relationship to
either IBI or FSD may have been
more attributable to a data set
restricted geographically than
error in theory. The relative
homogeneity (i.e. , lack of
diversity) of stream habitat in the
largely agricultural lower
Kaskaskia River Basin may have been
in part responsible for lack of any
relationship. A true test of this
relationship would be better
assessed by a much larger data base
of widely differing fish
cotttnunities and habitat types —
something that was lacking in the
data set used.
Habitat Assessment — Evaluation of
stream habitat quality will
continue to be an integral
component of IEPA biosurveys.
Prediction of biotic potential
(PIBI) by use of a single multiple
regression equation is not without
problems. The present predictive
equation was essentially based on
the relationship of the Index of
Biotic Integrity to physical
habitat variables in third to fifth
order central Illinois streams —
primarily the Kaskaskia River
Basin. This central Illinois
region, designated as the Central
Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion (Cmernik
1987), encompasses about 75% of the
State; because of general
physiographic similarities in this
ecoregion, use of the PIBI equation
may be applicable to many smaller
streams in this area. Caution is
suggested, however, in use of this
equation for predicting IBI in
physiographically dissimilar
regions in Illinois, or elsewhere.
Ultimately, continued use of a
predictive equation for use support
assessment or Biological Stream
Characterization will require a
specific equation be developed for
each ecoregion, physiographic
region, or river basin in Illinois
where this procedure is to be used.
An array of habitat evaluation
and data interpretation techniques
have been developed for both
warmwater and coldwater lotic
systems, although certainly
emphasis has been placed on the
latter. The habitat and data
assessment procedures detailed here
are by no means considered state of
the art or the best assessment
techniques. The need for uniform
habitat assessment techniques for
similar geographic areas and
program objectives is evident and
has prompted formation of stream
habitat assessment standardization
committees by the American
Fisheries Society at the national
and more recently division level.
These efforts have been proceeded
by publication of proceedings from
at least two major habitat
evaluation-related symposia
(Armantrout 1981; USF&W 1977) and
by significant efforts at habitat
quantification for aquatic life
instream flow needs (Bovee 1982).
Elaborate procedures for
documentation of habitat
requirements at the species level
(USF&W 1980) have also been
developed as have excellent and
detailed methods for the assessment
of stream habitat metrics (Platts
et al. 1983).
Biological Stream Characterization
Historically, classification of
streams in this country has been
based on a multitude of biotic and
abiotic variables. In Illinois,
fish community characteristics have
been used to rate the quality of
major Illinois river basins (Smith
1971). Recent use of the Biological
Stream Characterization (BSC)
system by the Illinois
-116-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessment and Classification
Environmental Protection Agency and
Department of Conservation has
emphasized biotic integrity
measured by IBI and/or the value of
the sport fishery resource. BSC is
intended to serve the somewhat
different objectives of two state
agencies: one delegated authority
for regulation of water quality
(IEPA) and the other, management of
aquatic life in Illinois (IDOC). It
is therefore not surprising that
BSC does not totally address the
needs of either agency as well as a
classification system dedicated to
a single agency's specific needs.
Because many important sport fishes
in Illinois — notably the
centrarchids and ictalurids — are
generally considered fairly
tolerant fishes, BSC ratings
predicated on sport fishery values
may not accurately reflect ambient
water quality or habitat quality.
In the future it will be necessary
to evaluate present IBI numerical
ranges used for BSC ratings and
their relationship to water
quality; and finally, it may be
necessary to incorporate other
stream quality metrics into BSC
such as water and habitat quality
before the full potential of this
classification procedure is
realized and ultimately used by
Illinois water resource managers.
Literature Cited
Armantrout, N.B.(ed.) 1981.
Acquisition and utilization of
aquatic habitat inventory
information. Proceedings of a
Symposium held 28-30 October.
Portland, Oregon.
Bertrand, B.A. 1985. Draft ratings
for streams. Biological Stream
Characterization Work Group
Memorandum. Illinois Department of
Conservation. Springfield,
Illinois.
Bickers, C.A., M.H. Kelly, R.L.
Hite, and J.M. Leuesque. 1988.
User's guide to IBI-AIBI: version
2.01. A BASIC program for computing
the Index of Biotic Integrity with
the IBM PC. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency. Springfield,
Illinois.
Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to
habitat analysis using the Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology.
Instream Flow Information Paper No.
12. FWS/OBS-82/26.
Cairns, J. Jr., K.L. Dickson, and
A. Hendricks. 1972. Pre- and post-
construction surveys. Industrial
Water Engineering 9(2): 33-35.
Conlin, M. 1976. Stream
channelization in Illinois - 1976
update. Illinois Department of
Conservation. Springfield,
Illinois. Unpublished manuscript.
Gorman, O.T. and J.R. Karr, 1978.
Habitat structure and stream fish
communities. Ecology 57(3):
507-515.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1977. Use of
arthropods to evaluate water
quality of streams. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
Technical Bulletin 100. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a
biotic index to evaluate water
quality in streams. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
Technical Bulletin 132. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Hite, R.L. 1982. Measurement of
stream habitat diversity. Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency-
-117-
-------
Kite
Springfield,
manuscript.
Illinois. Unpublished
Kite, R.L. and M.M. King. 1976.
Biological investigation of the
Crab Orchard Creek basin: summer
1975. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency. Springfield,
Illinois.
Kite, R.L. , M.M. King, M.R. Matson,
and C.A. Bickers. 1988. An
intensive survey of the Sugar Creek
Basin, Crawford County, Illinois.
Illinois Environmental Protections
Agency Report: IEPA/WPC/88-030.
Springfield, Illinois.
Hocutt, C.H. 1981. Fish as
indicators of biological integrity.
Fisheries 6(6): 28-31.
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987. Quality assurance and
field methods manual, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Section C:
Macroinvertebrate monitoring.
Springfield, Illinois.
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. 1988. Illinois Water
Quality Report 1986-1987:
IEPA/WPC/88-002. Division of Water
Pollution Control, Springfield,
Illinois
Isom, B.C. 1978. Benthic
macroinvertebrates. In Methods for
the assessment and prediction of
mineral mining impacts on aquatic
communities: a review and analysis.
US Fish & Wildlife Service:
FWS/OBS-78/30.
Karr. J.R. 1981. Assessment of
biotic integrity using fish
conmunities. Fisheries 6(6):
21-27.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L.
Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J.
Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biotic
integrity in running waters: a
method and its rationale. Illinois
Natural History Survey Special
Publication 5. Champaign, Illinois.
Kelly, M.H. 1986. Users guide to
BIBI: version 1.5. A BASIC program
for computing the Index of Biotic
Integrity. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency. Springfield,
Illinois.
Kelly, M.H. and R.L. Hite. 1984.
Evaluation of Illinois stream
sediment data 1974 - 1980.
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency Report: IEPA/84-004.
Springfield, Illinois.
Kelly, M.H. and R.L. Hite. 1984. An
evaluation of empirical
correlations between the
macroinvertebrate biotic index
(MBI) and the STORET water quality
index (WQI). Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
Springfield, Illinois.
Kelly, M.H., R.L. Hite, and C.A.
Bickers. 1988. An intensive survey
of the Kaskaskia River Basin
1982-1983. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency- Springfield,
Illinois.
Mauck, W.L. and L.E. Olson. 1977.
Polychlorinated biphenyls in adult
mayflies (Hexagena bilineata) from
the upper Mississippi River.
Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 17:
387-390.
Mills, K.H. and D.W. Schinrller.
1986. Biological indicators of lake
acidification. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 30: 779-789.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of
the conterminous United States.
-118-
-------
Illinois Stream Assessnent and Classification
Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 77: 118-125.
Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of
Missouri. Missouri Department of
Conservation. Jefferson City,
Missouri.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D.
Porter, and S.K. Gross. 1987. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in
streams and rivers: benthic
macroinvertebrates. USEPA,
Washington, B.C.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and
G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for
evaluating stream, riparian, and
biotic conditions. US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range
Experimental Station. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-138, Ogden, Utah.
Resh, V.H. and J.D. Uhzicker. 1975.
Water quality monitoring and
aquatic organisms: the importance
of species identification. Journal
Water Pollution Control 47: 9-19.
Schaeffer, D.J., W.H. Ettinger,
W.J. Tucker, and H.W. Kerster.
1985. Evaluation of a comnunity-
based index using benthic
indicator-organisms for classifying
stream quality. Journal Water
Pollution Control 57: 167-171.
Shiffman, R.H. 1953. A method of
cataloging bottom organisms in
respect to their pollutional
tolerance. Illinois Department of
Public Health, Springfield,
Illinois.
Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams:
a classification on their fishes
and an analysis of factors
responsible for disappearance of
native species. Illinois Natural
History Survey, Biological Notes
76. Champaign, Illinois.
Smith, P.W. 1979. The Fishes of
Illinois. University of Illinois
Press. Urbana, Illinois.
Stauffer, J.R. Jr., K.L. Dickson,
J. Cairns Jr., and D.S. Cherry.
1976. The potential and realized
influence of temperature on the
distribution of fishes in the New
River, Glen Lyn, Virginia. Wildlife
Monographs No. 50.
Statistical Analysis System
Institute. 1982. SAS user's guide:
statistics. SAS Institute Inc.
Gary, North Carolina.
Tucker, W.J. 1961. North Fork of
the Vermilion River survey,
Danville and Hoopeston. Illinois
Department of Public Health,
Springfield, II.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1982. Water quality
standards handbook. Draft. USEPA,
Office of Water Regulation and
Standards. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1983. Technical support
manual: waterbody surveys and
assessments for conducting use
attainability analyses. USEPA,
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987. Guidelines for the
preparation of the 1988 state water
quality assessment (305(b) report.
USEPA, Monitoring and Data Support
Division. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1977. Classification, inventory,
and analysis of fish and wildlife
habitat. Proceedings of a National
-119-
-------
Kite
Synposium. FWS/OBS-78/76.
Washington, B.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1980. Habitat evaluation procedures
(HEP). USFWS, Division of
Ecological Services, ESN.
Washington, B.C.
Weber, C.H. (Ed.) 1974. Biological
field and laboratory methods for
measuring the quality of surface
water and effluents. USEPA,
Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Winner, R.W., M.W. Boesel, and M.P.
Farrell. 1980. Insect community
structure as an index of heavy-
metal pollution in lotic
ecosystems. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and ft^uatic Sciences 37:
647-655.
-120-
-------
Appendix A. ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MACROINVERTEBRATE TOLERANCE LIST
MACROINVERTEBRATE
TOLERANCE
VALUE
MACROINVERTEBRATE
TOLERANCE
VALUE
PLATYHELMINTHES
TURBELLARIA
ANNELIDA
OUGOCHAETA
HIRUDINEA
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphonndae
Piscicolidae
Gnathobdellida
Hirudmidae
Pharyngobdellida
Erpobdellidae
ARTHROPODA
CRUSTACEA
ISOPODA
Aselhdae
Caecidotea
brevicauda
intermedia
Lirceus
AMPHIPODA
Hyalellidae
Hyalella
azteca
Gammandae
Bactrurui
Crangonyx
Gammarus
DECAPOOA
Cambandae
Palaemonidae
Palaemonetes
INSECTA
EPHEMEROPTERA
Siphlonundae
Ameletus
Siphlonunu
Oligoneunidae
Isonychta
Metre topodidae
Siphloplecton
Baetidae
Baetis
brunneicolor
flauistnga
frondalis
intercalaris
longipalpus
macdunnoughi
pmpinquus
p^gmaeus
trtcaudatua
CalUboetis
fluctuans
Centroptilum
Cloeon
Pseudocloeon
dubium
parvulum
punctiventris
10
8
8
7
7
8
6
6
6
6
4
1
4
3
5
4
0
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
7
6
4
4
4
1
4
4
2
3
4
4
4
4
Heptagenndae
Arthroplea
Epeorus
mtreus
Heptagenia
diabasia
•Tauescens
lebe
tucidipennis
macuiipennis
marginalia
perfida
pulla
Rhithrogena
Stenacron
candidum
gildersleevei
interpunctatum
mmnetonka
Stenonema
exiguum
femoratum
mtegrum
luteum
mediopunctatum
modestum
nepotellum
pudicum
pulchellum
quinquespmum
rubromacuiatum
scitulum
terminatum
vicanum
Ephemerelhdae
Attenella
Danella
Drunella.
Ephemerella
Eurylnphella
Seratella
Tncorythidae
Tricorythodes
Caenidae
Brachycercus
Caenu
Baetiscidae
Baetisca
Leptophlebiidae
Choroterpes
Habrophlebiodes
americana
Leptophlebia
Paraleptophlebia
Potamanthidae
Potamanthus
Ephemendae
Ephemera
simulans
3
1
0
3
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
0
0
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
5
7
4
1
2
3
5
2
3
5
2
1
4
3
2
2
1
2
4
1
4/85
-------
MACROINVERTEBRATE
Hexagenia
iimbata
munda
Palmgenitdae
Pentagema
vittigera
Polymitarcyidae
Ephoron
Tortopus
ODONATA
ANISOPTERA
Cordulegastendae
Cordulegaster
Gomphidae
Dromogomphua
Gomphua
Hagenua
Lantkus
Ophiogompfiua
Progomphua
Aeshnidae
Aeah.no.
Anox
Boaioeacfina
Boyeria
Eptaeachna
Nastaeschna
Macromndae
Didymops
Macromia
Cordulndae
Cordulia
Epitheca
Helocordulia
Neurocordulia
Somatochlora
Libelluhdae
CelUhema
Erythema
Erythrodiplax
Libellula
Packydiplax
Pantala
Penthemu
Plathema
Sympetrum
Tramea
ZYGOPTERA
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx
Hetaerina
Lestidae
Arc/ulestea
Lestes
Coenagnonidae
Amphiogrion
Argia
moesta
tibialia
Enallogma
signatum
lachnura
Nehalennia
TOLERANCE
VALUE
6
5
7
4
4
2
4
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
5
2
3
1
2
4
3
2
4
2
3
1
2
5
5
8
8
7
4
3
4
4
4
3
1
6
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
MACROINVERTEBRATE
PLECOPTERA
Pteronarcyidae
Pteronanys
Taeniopterygidae
Taemopteryi
Nemoundae
Nemoura
Leuctridae
Leuctra
Capnndae
AUocapnia
Capnia
Perhdae
Acroneuria
A toper la
Neoperla
Perlesta
placida
Perlinella
Perlodidae
Hydroperla
Isoperla
Chloroperlidae
Chioroperla
MEGALOPTERA
Sialidae
Sialis
Corydalidae
ChauLiodea
Corydalua
Nigronia
NEUROPTERA
Sisyndae
TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche
Diplectrona
Hydropsyche
annale
betteni
bidens
cuana
fraom
oma
phalerata
placoda
simuians
Macronema
Potamyia
Symphitopsyche
Philopotamida*
Chimarra
Dolophilodes
Polycentropodidae
Cyrnellus
Neureclipsia
Nyctiophylox
Polycentropua
Psychomyiidae
Psychomyia
Glossosomatidae
Agapetus
Protoptila
TOLERA^
VALUE
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
2
1
2
6
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
4
5
2
4
4
3
0
5
3
1
3
4/85
-------
MACROINVERTEBRATE
Hydroptilidae
Agraylea
Hydroptila
Ithytrichia
Leucotrichia
Mayatrichia
Neotrichia.
Ochrotrichia
Orthotricfua
Oxyethira
Rhyacophihdae
Rhyacophila
Brachycentndae
Brachycentrus
lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma
Umnephilidae
Hydatophylax
Limnephilus
Neopfiylax
Platycentropus
Pycnopsyche
Phryganeidae
Agrypnia
BanksioLa
Phryganea
Ptilostomw
Helicopsychidae
Helicopsyche
Leptocendae
Ceraciea
Leptocerus
Mystacides
Nectoptyche
Oecetu
Tnaenodes
COtEOPTERA
Gynnidae (larvae only)
Dineutus
Gyrinus
Psephemdae (larvae only)
Psephenia
hemcki
Eubrndae
Ectopria
thoracica
Dryopidae
Helichus
lithopfulus
Helodidae (larvae only)
Elmidae
Ancyronyx
variegatus
Dubirapfiia
bwittata
quadrinotata
vittata
MacronycHus
glabratus
Microcylloepus
Optioservus
avails
Stenelmis
crenata
vittipennis
TOLERANCE
VALUE
2
2
i
3
1
4
4
1
2
MACROINVERTEBRATE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
2
2
5
2
7
7
2
2
2
4
4
7
7
6
OIPTERA
Blephancendae
Tipuhdae
Antocha
Dicranota
Eriocera
Helius
Hesperoconopa
Hexatoma
Limnophila
Limonia
Liriope
Pedicia
Pilana
Polymeda
Pseudolimnophila
Tipula
Chaobondae
Culicidae
Aedes
Anopheles
Culex
Psychodidae
Ceratopogonidae
Atnchopogon
Palpomyia
Simuliidae
Cnephia
Prosimulium
Sunulium
clarkei
corbis
decorum
jenningsi
luggen
mertdionale
tuberosum
uenustum
verecundum
vittatum
Chironomidae
Tanypodmae
Ablabesmyia.
mallocfii
parajanta
peleensis
Clinotanypia
pinguia
Coelotanypus
Labrundirua
Larsia
Macrooelopta
Natarsia
Pentaneu.ru
Procladiua
Psectrotanyput
Tanypua
Thienenmnnimyia group
Zavrelimyia
Diamesinae
Diameaa
Pseudodiamesa
TOLERANCE
VALUE
o
4
5
4
7
5
2
4
4
3
7
4
4
2
2
4
8
8
8
6
8
11
5
2
6
4
2
6
4
0
4
4
2
1
4
6
6
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
6
7
6
3
8
8
8
6
8
4
1
4/85
-------
MACROINVERTEBRATE
Orthocladnnae
Cardiocladius
Chaetocladius
Corynoneura
Cricotopus
bicmctus
trifasciatus
Eukiefferiella
Hydrobaenus
Nanocladius
Orthoclodiua
Parametnocnemus
Prodiamesa
Psectrocladius
Rheocncotopus
Tfuenemanutta
xena
Chironominae
Chironomua
attenuates
nponus
Cryptochironomus
Cryptotendipes
Dicrotendipes
modestus
neomodestus
nervotus
Einfeidia
Endochironomus
Glyptotendipes
Harnischta
Kiefferulua
Microtendipes
Parachironomus
Paraciadopelma
Paralauterbornlella
Paratendipe*
Phaenopsectra
Polypedilum
fallax
kalterale
UUnotnse
scoiaenum
Pseudochironomua
Stenochironomut
Stictocturonomus
Tribelos
Xenochironomus
Tanytarsmi
Cladotanytarsus
Micropsectra
Rheotanytartui
Tanytarsus
Ptychoptendae
Tabamdae
Chryiiopn
Tabanus
Dohchopodidae
Empididae
Hemerodromia
TOLERANCE
VALUE
6
6
2
8
10
6
4
2
3
4
4
3
5
6
2
2
11
10
11
8
6
6
6
6
6
10
6
10
6
7
6
8
4
6
3
4
6
6
4
5
6
5
3
5
5
4
7
4
6
7
8
7
7
7
5
6
6
MACROINVERTEBRATE
Syrphidae
Ephydndae
Soomyzidae
Muscidae
Athenctdae
Atherix
MOLLUSCA
GASTROPODA
Vtvipandae
Campeloma
Lioplax
Vivipanu
Valvatidae
Valvata
Buhmidae
Amnicola
Pleurocendae
Goniobasis
Pleurocera
Physidae
Aplexa
Physa
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaea
Stagnicola
Planorbidae
Gyraulua
Helisoma
Planorbula
Ancylidae
Ferrissia.
PELECYPODA
Unionidae
Actinonaios
carinata
Alasmidonta
marginata
triangulate.
Anodonta
Caruncuima
Elliptic
Fusconaia
Lampsilis
Ligumia
Margaritifera
Micromya
Obliquarta
Proptera
Strophitus
Trttogonia
Truncilla
Utterbackta
Sphaerndae
Muscutium
Pisidium
Sphaerium
Cyrenidae
Corbicula
TOLEf
VAi
11
6
1C
£
4/85
-------
Appendix B. IBI SUMMARY TABLE
STREflK N8€: Beaver Creek STflTION CODE: QIB-02
STflTION DESCRIPTION:
COUNTY: Clinton T: 3N R: 3H 1/4 SECT: SW27
COLLECTOR(S): IDQC flIBI COMPUTED BY: R.L Hite
(CTHOD: RO STREW ORDER = 5
DflTE OF COLLECTION: 6-30-82 DflTE OF CflLCULflTION: 1-17-99
ftRER SflHPLED = .183 flCRES UNIT OF EFFORT:
Additional infornatiort:
Nmber of native species = 16 Species ietric factor = 3
Nuiber of sucker species = £ Sucker Metric factor = 3
Nuiber of sunfish species = 2 Sunfish netric factor = 3
Nuiber of darter species = 1 Darter netric factor = 1
Nuiber of intolerant species = I Intolerant metric factor = 1
Prop.(X) of Sreen sunfish = 23.78723 Green Metric factor = 1
Prop. (X) of Hybrids = 0 Hybrid metric factor = 5
Prop. (X) of owtivores = 6.808511 Onmivore metric factor = 5
Prop. (X) of insect, cypr. = 5.957447 Ins. cypr. metric factor = 1
Prop.(X) of carnivores = 3.B29787 Carnivore Metric factor = 3
I of fish/0.1 ac = 128.4153 Condition factor = 2.454546
flbundance factor (based on sampling nethoc) = 1
Total abundance = 235
Total nuiiber of species = 16
The ftlBI for- this site is: 29.45455
SPECIES OBUNDftNCE TOBLE
CoMK»n nane Scientific name Abundance
I grass pickerel Esox anericanus 9
2 carp Cyprinus carpio 4
3 golden shiner Notenigenus crysoleucas 12
4 red shiner Notropis lutrensis 1
5 sand shiner Notropis stranineus 1
6 redfin shiner Notropis uibratilis 12
7 unite sucker Catostcmas consersom 2
8 bignouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1
9 black bullhead Ictalurus nelas 3
10 yellow bullhead Ictalurus natal is 19
11 tadpole udto« Noturus gyrinus 11
12 pirate perch flphredoderus sayanus 76
13 blackstripe top«inno*» Fundulus not at us 11
14 green sunfish Lepo«is cyanellus 70
15 longear sunfish Lepoais wgalotis 1
16 slough darter Etheostoia gracile 2
-------
PERSPECTIVES IN FISH SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS TO MONITOR BIOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY OF RECEIVING WATERS
and Estuarine
Laboratories
Studies
Charles H. Hocutt
University of Maryland
Center for Environmental
Horn Point Environmental
P.O. Box 775
Cambridge, MD 21613
Abstract
There is a legal mandate as well as an ecological imperative to promote
biological monitoring of receiving waters. There are many tools available
to us, and certainly the conceptual basis of Karr's IBI model has made an
important contribution to water quality assessment. I view the IBI in the
context of an evolving process; the IBI is not the focal point, rather it is
the community concept upon which "biotic integrity" is based that is of
fundamental interest. Thus, from a national perspective it would be unwise
to center on a particular, single index or phylogenetic group to monitor
biological integrity; however every assessment should attempt to consider
structural, functional and population characteristics (Karr 1981) which
reflect water quality or habitat alteration. For several reasons, I continue
to prefer to use fish to monitor water quality. However, their usage
implies several constraints which I have emphasized. Precautions must be
taken to maximize representative sampling. Cairns' (1977) views are
appropriate: "It is evident that no single method will adequately assess
biological integrity nor will any fixed array of methods be equally adequate
for the diverse array of water ecosystems. The quantification of biological
integrity requires a mix of assessment methods suited for a specific site
and problem . . . What is needed is a protocol indicating the way in which
one should determine the mix of methods that should be used to estimate and
monitor threats to biological integrity."
The Legal Mandate
The environmental impact assessment
(EIA) procedure and the acconpanying
environmental impact statement (EIS)
process were legally mandated in the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Of 1970. NEPA was a
procedural reform to
institutionalize environmental
considerations into the Federal
planning and decision-making process
(Dickson et al. 1975). The basic
intent of NEPA was to require that
environmental considerations be
evaluated in relation to social,
economic and technological factors
in policy, program and project
determinations. Specifically, it was
required that all Federal agencies
prepare a detailed EIS for actions
that may affect environmental
quality; environmental impacts,
mitigating measures and alterna-
tives must be considered in the EIS
(Burton et al. 1983). A basic
assumption of NEPA was that
procedures (EIS) which generate
better information will result in
better decisions, however this is
not guaranteed. For instance, NEPA
did not prohibit authorization of
projects which have adverse impact,
rather it was concerned with the
procedural documentation of these
impacts (Fairfax & Burton 1983).
Most states have enacted similar
EIS/EIA requirements in recent
years. Additionally, a suite of
Federal legislation was passed
which strengthened NEPA in concept.
-------
Hocutt
Perhaps foremost among these from
an aquatic ecosystem perspective was
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 (PL92-500) which created
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and set effluent limitations
on industrial point-source dis-
charges based on availability and
economics of control technology
(Hocutt 1981). The stated intention
of PL92-500 was to "... restore
and maintain the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters."
Other legislation impinging on the
aquatic environment included the
Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances
Control Act and Ocean Dumping Act,
among others. The Clean Water Act of
1977 amended the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 and
broadened the regulations to monitor
and improve water quality. The Clean
Water Act defined pollution as ".
. . the manmade or man-induced
alteration of the chemical,
physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of water."
Equally important to the NEPA
spirit, but with a perspective of
expanding public involvement, was
the Freedom of Information Act of
1974 which assured public access to
all public records except those
falling under restricted classifica-
tions and granted citizens the right
to sue those federal agencies which
wrongly withhold information. In
this same vein, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1976 and the
Government in the Sunshine Act
sought to increase public
involvement in the decision making
process, ultimately requiring that
proposed Federal actions be publicly
announced in the Federal Register
(Fairfax & Burton 1983).
Section 304(a) of The Water
Quality Act of 1987, the most
recent amendment of PL92-500, has
focused on the development of
biological criteria and the use
of instream biological data to
monitor water quality. Section
304(a)(8) directs "The
Administrator, after consultation
with appropriate State agencies and
within 2 years after the date of
the enactment of The Water Quality
Act of 1987, shall develop and
publish information on methods for
establishing and measuring water
quality criteria for toxic
pollutants on other basis than
pollutant- by-pollutant criteria,
including biological monitoring and
assessment methods." In effect, the
amendment emphasized the broadening
of the range of criteria used to
ensure compliance of standards set
by the NPDES permits, and signifies
a shift from pipe standards
philosophy to receiving system
impact.
Bnvirormental Stress
Stress in the aquatic environment
is usually viewed as man-related.
However, stress may also be a
natural phenomenon (Hocutt 1985);
examples are (1) elevated seasonal
temperatures with a corresponding
decreased in saturated oxygen
levels, (2) shifting substrates,
and (3) fluctuations in salinity
regimes. Stress can act on aquatic
organisms either directly through
toxic modes or indirectly through
alterations in the food chain or
reproductive behavior, for example.
Also, stress can be viewed as being
selective or non-selective in its
nature. If selective, the
elimination of target species with
low thresholds may be observed,
however this could be accompanied
by increased productivity of
surviving taxa. If the stress is
non-selective, species richness may
not decrease although overall
-122-
-------
Fish in Ambient Monitoring
biomass would be expected to
decline.
Stress levels are usually
determined by the intensity (i.e.,
concentration), nature (e.g., the
half-life or bio-degradableness of
a pollutant), mode (e.g.,
temperature, pH, heavy metal,
pesticide, etc.), duration and rate
of exposure of the organism or
community to the stress. From a
biological perspective, stress will
be dependent upon the species, its
life stage and sex, and the presence
of other flora and fauna. A
low-intensity stress may result in
little damage even over a prolonged
period of time, however, if the
stress is increased either by
intensity, rate of exposure or the
introduction of a synergist, the
probability of ecosystem damage is
increased.
It is recognized that physical,
chemical, radiological and biologi-
cal perturbations can have a
deleterious, sometimes irreversible,
impact on the structure and function
of impacted systems. However, it is
also recognized that the environment
can be used as an extension of the
water treatment facility if the
assimilative capacity of the system
is not exceeded (Cairns 1977). Thus,
environmental assessment can be
viewed by two central themes: (1)
water resources management, and (2)
water quality assessment in terms of
stress and recovery of a damaged
ecosystem. It is always preferable,
however, to operate within the
limitations of the former to avoid
the latter.
Environnental Measurement of
Biological Integrity
Historically, physicochemical
parameters have been given
precedence over biology in the
study of stressed aquatic
ecosystems. Chemical evaluation of
stressed conditions allows
identification of the substances
involved and their concentrations.
This fact is central to the
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NFDES), and its
enforcement by the USEPA.. However,
such measurements are ineffective
in estimating the synergistic
affects of multiple effluents on
aquatic biota, or long-term
sublethal effects. Additionally,
physicochemical measurements may
well miss the short-term, highly
concentrated discharge critical to
assessment of biological irrpact, or
other man-induced physical altera-
tions of the environment (Karr
1981). As such "... pollution is
essentially a biological phenomenon
in that its primary effect is on
living things" (Hynes 1971).
Mackenthum (1969) and Hynes (1971)
outlined the history of aquatic
biology and its relationship to
pollution effects.
Biomonitoring for NPDES
compliance requirements has
centered on the use of bioassay
procedures rather than biosurvey
methodology. Biosurveys are
reported (e.g. Roop & Hunsaker
1985) to be too expensive and time
consuming to warrant consideration
for rapid site specific assess-
ments; however, these arguments are
weak in comparison to the fact that
aquatic communities in situ are
integraters of past and present
environmental conditions. As well,
bioassay procedures have several
restrictions in their use as a
holistic approach to environmental
assessment: (1) laboratory-based
toxicity studies may not adequately
reflect ecosystem impact of point
and non-point sources of discharge;
(2) multiple point sources can act
antagonistically or synergistically
in the ecosystem; (3) there can be
-123-
-------
Hocutt
a large inherent variability in the
toxicity tests themselves; (4)
effluents have high variability,
hence mean NPDES standards may not
be sufficiently protective; and (5)
preferred bioassay test organisms
are often chosen for their
tolerance to laboratory conditions,
and are not necessarily the most
sensitive species or life stage.
The quantification, description
and comparison of terrestrial plant
comnunities preceded similar
advances for aquatic communities.
Many of the biosurvey techniques
used to assess aquatic ecosystems
evolved from Kolkwitz and Marsson's
(1908, 1909) saprobien system and
Margalef's (1951) diversity index
based on information theory, and
resulted from the need to assess
the effects of pollution. Mare
recently James Karr and his
associates have attempted (Karr
1981; Karr and Dudley 1978, 1981) to
develop an index of biological
integrity (IBI) using fish
communities to measure stream
degradation. Karr's objectives were
not all together different than
those of many ecolegists [e.g.
Cairns and Dickson (1977); Stauffer
and Hocutt (1980)], i.e., to develop
a system which would have predictive
value for determining the amount of
stress a system could assimilate,
and the potential of a system to
recover once it was stressed.
Indeed, Karr's work (and that of
others) adds emphasis to the
pioneer aquatic ecology
investigations of Ruth Patrick
(1949), W. Beck (1954, 1955) and
John Cairns (e.g. 1974) in the
United States, who stressed the
importance of community assemblages
in data interpretation.
ihe emphasis of ecologists to
measure "biological integrity" has
been a direct consequence of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972 (PL92-500), the stated
intention (to repeat from above)
was to "... restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the
Nation's waters." Frey (1975)
defined biological integrity as
"the capability of supporting and
maintaining a balanced,
integrative, adaptive community of
organisms having a species composi-
tion similar to that of the natural
habitat of the region."
I (Hocutt 1981; Hocutt and
Stauffer 1980), like Karr (1981) ,
contend that fish communities
should be given preference when
assessing man-related impacts in
freshwaters. The most compelling
reason is that structurally and
functionally diverse fish
communities directly and indirectly
reflect water quality conditions at
a given locality in that their
community stability is indicative
of past and present environmental
perturbations (Hocutt 1981). The
value of fishes in environmental
assessment of estuarine and marine
systems is more limited when one
takes into account the large-scale
migrations of many species,
however, fish continue to have
great utility when their
seasonality of occurrence is
considered in relation to their
life history aspects. Stauffer and
Hocutt (1980) summarized the value
of using fish data in assessment of
ecological integrity, noting that
(l) fishes occupy the upper trophic
level in most aquatic systems, and
as such, the "healthiness" of the
fish community implies the
"healthiness" of lower trophic
levels and phyletic groups, (2) in
their development from larvae to
mature adults, fishes pass from the
primary consumer stages to subse-
quently higher levels, (3) fish are
relatively easy to identify, thus
-124-
-------
Fish in Antoient Monitoring
the use of fish data is made more
readily available, and (4) more is
generally known for the life
histories of fishes than other
phyletic groups, thus it is easier
to relate structural and functional
relationships in fish community
assemblages.
There are, however, some
restrictions to the use of
fisheries data for instream
biomonitoring. Karr et al. (1986)
identified four problem areas in
sampling stream fishes accurately
for an IBI analysis: (1) Purpose of
data gathering must be IBI oriented
to obtain a representative sample;
(2) sampling gear, water conditions
and fish behavior can affect
accuracy; (3) the range of habitats
sampled has a major effect; and (4)
atypical samples result when
unrepresentative habitats (e.g.,
beneath bridges) are next to the
sample site. Additionally, I have
emphasized the qualitativeness of
fish collecting (Hocutt 1981), and
the fact that fish may at times be
totally unsuitable for monitoring
ecological integrity. For instance,
fish data may not accurately
reflect (1) the biological purity
of the water, (2) the occurrence of
tastes or odors, (3) substances
physically or chemically harmful to
other life forms, (4) the
suitability of our water source for
specific industrial requirements,
or (5) the desirable use of a water
body for human consumption (Brown
1978).
The "advantages" of the IBI can
be debated, however it remains a
fact that the single most important
parameter of the conceptual design
of the IBI is its reliance on the
structural and functional
properties of the (fish community).
The advantages of the IBI are
reported to be: (1) It is
quantitative and provides criteria
to determine what is excellent or
poor; (2) It uses several
attributes to reflect conditions -
no single attribute can reliably
indicate degradation but the IBI is
correlated with degradation; (3)
There is no loss of information in
calculating the index value — the
metric values are available to
pinpoint the ecological attributes
that are being altered; and, (4)
Professional judgment is applied in
a systematically and ecologically
sound manner - this occurs when
establishing metric scoring
criteria, not when interpreting the
index value as with most assessment
methods (Miller et al. 1988). Due
to the flexibility of the IBI model
to be modified, it has been adapted
for regulatory use in Ohio and
Illinois and is currently being
considered for formal adoption at
the national level as a means of
monitoring water quality (Miller et
al. 1988).
It must be stated, however, that
professional judgment remains a key
issue from the moment of study
design, through the field phase and
especially in data interpretation.
Every professional is a product of
their schooling and experience;
thus, while professional judgment
can be a strength, it most
certainly may be a weakness - and
if not a weakness then a valid
contrast in opinion. For example,
Leonard & Orth (1986) used a
modified six-metric IBI for
Appalachian streams, but Angermeier
.$, Karr (1986) included all 12
original metrics in their
interpretation of the same data.
Literature Cited
Angermeier, P.C. and J.R. Karr.
1986. Applying an index of biotic
integrity based on stream fish
communities: considerations in
-125-
-------
Hocutt
sarrpling and interpretation. North
American Journal of Fisheries
Management 6: 418-429.
Beck, W.M. 1954. Studies in stream
pollution biology. 1. A simplified
ecological classification of
organisms. Quarterly Journal of
Tlorida Academy of Science 17(4):
211-227.
Beck, W.M. 1955. Suggested methods
for reporting biotic data. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 27: 1193-
1197.
Brown, V.M. 1978. Fish as
indicators of water quality, pp.
92-108. In: J.W.G. Lund & G.G.
Vinberg (eds.), Elaboration on the
scientific basis for monitoring the
quality of surface water by hydro-
biological indicators. Proceedings
First Joint Anglo and Soviet Conn.
Coop. Field Environmental
Protection, Valdai, USSR, 12-14
July 1976.
Burton, I., J. Wilson and R.E.
Munn. 1983. Environmental inpact
assessment: National approaches and
international needs. Environmental
Monitoring Assessments 3: 133-150.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1974. Indicator
species vs. the concept of
community structure as an index of
pollution. Water Research Bulletin
10(2): 338-347.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1977.
Quantification of biological
integrity, pp. 171-187. In: R.K.
Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia
(eds.). The integrity of water.
USEPA, Washington, B.C.; U.S.
Government Printing Office No. 055-
001-01068-1.
Cairns, J., Jr. and K.L. Dickson.
1977. Recovery of streams from
spills of hazardous materials, pp.
24-42. In: J. Cairns, Jr., K.L.
Dickson & E.E. Herricks (eds.),
Recovery and restoration of damaged
ecosystems. Univ. Virginia Press,
Charlottesvilie, VA.
Dickson, K.L. , D.W. Kern, W.F.
Ruska, Jr. and J. Cairns, Jr. 1975.
Problems in performing
environmental assessments. Journal
Hydraulics Division ASCE, 101
(HY7): 965-976.
Fairfax, S. and L. Burton. 1983. A
decade of NEPA: Milestone or mill-
stone? Fisheries 8(6): 5-9.
Fausch, K.D. and L.H. Schrader.
1987. Use of the index of biotic
integrity to evaluate the effects
of habitat, flow and water quality
on fish communities in three
Colorado front range streams.
Final Rept., Department Fisheries
and Wildlife Biology, Colorado St.
University, Ft. Collins.
Frey, D.G. 1975. The integrity of
water - a historical approach, pp.
127-140. In: R.K. Ballentine & L.J.
Guarraie (eds.). The integrity of
water: A symposium. U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
Hocutt, C.H. 1981. Fish as
indicators of biological integrity.
Fisheries 6(6): 28-31.
Hocutt, C.H. 1985. Stress and
recovery of aquatic ecosystems and
the use of fish to measure
biological integrity, pp. 45-51.
In: The fate and effects of
pollutants, a symposium. Maryland
Sea Grant Publ. UM-56-TS-85-02.
Hocutt, C.H. & J.R. Stauffer, Jr.
(eds). 1980. Biological monitoring
of fish. Lexington Books, D.C.
Heath & Co., Lexington, MA: 1-416.
-126-
-------
Fish in Ambient Monitoring
Hynes, H.B.N. 1971. The biology of
polluted waters. Liverpool Univ.
Press: 202 pp.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of
biotic integrity using fish
comnunities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-
27.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1978.
Biological integrity of a headwater
stream: Evidence of degradation,
prospects for recovery, pp. 3-25.
In: J. Lake & J. Morrison (eds.),
Environmental impact of land use on
water quality: Final report on the
Black Creek project (suppl.
comments). U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL.,
EFA-905/9-77-077-D.
Karr, J.R. & D.R. Dudley. 1981.
Ecological perspectives on water
quality goals. Environmental
Management 5(1): 55-68.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L.
Angermeier, P.R. Yant and I.J.
Schlosser. 1986. Assessment of
biological integrity in running
waters: A method and its rationale.
Illinois Natural History Survey,
Special Publication 5: 1-28.
Kolkwitz, R. and M. Marsson. 1908.
Okologie der Pflanzlichen
Saprobien. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges.
26a: 505-519.
Kolkwitz, R. and M. Marsson. 1909.
Okologie der Tierischen Saprobien.
Beitrage zur Lehre von der
Biologischen Gewasserbeurteilung.
Int. Rev. Ges. Hydrobiol.
Hygrogeogr. 2: 126-152.
Leonard, P.M. and D.J. Orth. 1986.
Application and testing of an index
of biotic integrity in small,
coolwater streams. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 115:
401-414.
Mackenthun, K.M. 1969. The
practice of water pollution
biology. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration:281 pp.
Margalef, R. 1951. Diversidad de
especies en las communidades
naturales. Publ. Inst. Biol. Appl.
(Barcelona), 9: 5-27.
Miller, D.L. and 13 others. 1988.
Regional applications of an index
of biotic integrity for use in
water resource management.
Fisheries 13(5): 12-20.
Moyle, P.B., L.R. Brown and B.
Herbod. 1986. Final report on
development and preliminary tests
of indices of biotic integrity for
California. Final Report, USEPA,
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR.
Patrick, R. 1949. A proposed
biological measure of stream
conditions based on a survey of the
Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the
Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia 101: 277-341.
Roop, R.D. and C.T. Hunsaker. 1985.
Biomonitoring for toxics control in
NPDES permitting. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation:271-
277.
Stauffer, J.R., Jr. and C.H.
Hocutt. 1980. Inertia and
recovery: An approach to stream
classification and stress
evaluation. Water Research Bulletin
16(l):72-78.
Thompson, B.A. and G.R. Fitzhugh.
1986. A use attainability study: An
-127-
-------
HOCUtt
evaluation of fish and
macroinvertebrate assemblages of
the Lower Calcasieu River,
Louisiana. Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State Uhiv.,
Baton Rouge. LSU-CFI-29.
-128-
-------
Hughes and Larsen
ECOREGIONS: AN APPROACH TO SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
Robert M. Hughes1 and David P. Larsen^
1Northrop Services, Inc. and 2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333.
Abstract
Many of our most important scientific and management questions require
some sort of regionalization. Problems are too widespread and numerous to
be treated on a site by site basis and ecosystems are too variable to be
treated the same way nationwide. This paper demonstrates the use of a
regional framework for determining chemical and biological goals for surface
waters. In four case studies, an ecoregion map drawn from landscape
characteristics was used to stratify the naturally occurring variance in
water quality and biological comnunities. An ecoregion framework helps us
apply sound ecological theory to setting goals for entire states or regions
of the country. Such a framework is an important bridge between site-
specific and national approaches. When combined with appropriate
statistical design, the ecoregional approach can provide precise
expectations about large numbers of water bodies that would not be possible
from traditional site-specific research or river basin surveys.
Previously Published as:
Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1988. Ecoregions: an approach to surface
water protection. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493.
-129-
------- |