vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/9-89-007
October 1989
Proceedings of the
1989 Midwest Pollution
Control Biologists Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
February 14-17,1989
-------
OF THE 1989
prTJJTrrfM CXUDO. HIClJOGISTS M3ZHNG
held in
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
FEBRUARY 14-17, 1989
Edited by:
Wayne S. Davis and Uiomas P. Simon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessment Committee
Sponsored by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessment Cormittee
Environmental Sciences Division
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
NOTICE
Onis document and it's contents do not necessarily reflect the position or
opinions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This document is
intended to facilitate information exchange between professional pollution
control biologists in the midwest and the rest of the country. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
When citing individual papers within this document:
Burton, G.A., B.L. Stenmer, P.E. Ross, and L.C. Burnett. 1989.
Discrimination of sediment toxicity in freshwater harbors using a
multitrophic level battery, pp. 71-84. In W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon (eds).
Proceedings of the 1989 Midwest Pollution Control Biologists Meeting,
Chicago, IL. USEPA Region V, Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessment
Committee, Chicago, IL. EPA 905/9-89/007.
When citing this document:
Davis, W.S. and T.P. Simon (eds.). 1989. Proceedings of the 1989 Midwest
Pollution Control Biologists Meeting, Chicago, IL. USEPA Region V, Instream
Biocriteria and Ecological Assessment Committee, Chicago, IL. EPA 905/9-
89/007.
To request copies of this document, please write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication Distribution Center, DDD
11027 Kenwood Road, Bldg. 5 - Dock 63
Cincinnati, CH 45242
Cover: Cover design and illustration by Elaine D. Snyder of EA Engineering,
Science, and Technology, Inc. Depicted is a fathead minnow, a bluegill, a
gammarid amphipod, and an emphemerellid mayfly superimposed on a drop of
water. This design was originally used for the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
program, directed by James PlafJcin, USEPA, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
-------
FORWARD
This meeting was held to facilitate the technical exchange of methods and
ideas among midwestern pollution control biologists, and to provide a forum
for both technical and social interactions. The success of regional
biologist meetings in other parts of the country prompted USEPA. Region V to
initiate a meeting in the midwest, with the hope that other local groups
would become interested in hosting a meeting annually in different States.
We did not view this as an "EPA." meeting, we simply took advantage of an
opportunity to start this process with generous support from EPA
Headquarters and Region V.
Regional biologists meetings, including our first meeting in Chicago, gather
professionals in various biological disciplines and responsibilities to
communicate on broad water pollution assessment and control issues. These
issues cross-cut membership and participation in professional societies and
associations. This meeting started to increase interaction with local
pollution control biologists that are members of the American Fisheries
Society, North American Benthological Society, Water Pollution Control
Federation, International Association for Great Lakes Research, North
American Lake Management Society, Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, and many others. The success of these regional biologists
meetings acknowledge that our water quality and environmental problems can
only be solved by integrating the practices of several biological
disciplines and being knowledgeable of each others professional and
programmatic roles.
The responsibilities we have as pollution control biologists are increasing,
but are also becoming better defined. As a result of the "National Workshop
on Biological Monitoring and Criteria", USEPA is well into the development
of a National Biocriteria Policy, including the production of technical and
program guidance documents to support the policy. These documents should be
finalized during 1990. The first major product from this overall effort was
the publication of the "Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers" which has brought attention to environmental managers throughout the
nation of the biological tools available for water quality assessments. As
a group, pollution control biologists will have greater impacts on the
assessment and control of water quality at the Federal, State, and local
levels. Although this first Midwest Pollution Control Biologist's Meeting
did not include many private sector groups, we certainly expect all future
meetings to welcome the participation of all professional pollution control
biologists in the midwest.
We gratefully acknowledge the participation and assistance of the following
individuals for supporting the Midwest Pollution Control Biologists Meeting,
as well as producing this document: Valdas Adamkus, William H. Sanders III,
Charles Sutfin, Jim Giattina, Noel Kohl, James Plafkin, Curtis Ross, Meg
Kerr, David Charters, Deborah White, and Ed Drabkowski. The members of the
Region V Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessment Committee are
thanked for their role in coordinating and hosting this meeting: Thomas
Simon, James Luey, Linda Hoist, Allison Hiltner, Carole Braverman, Larry
-------
Shepard, Denise Steurer, Charles Steiner, Max Anderson, Mardi Klevs, Glenn
Warren, Bill Melville, John Schneider, and Walter Redman. Special thanks to
all the authors of this proceedings, especially our keynote speaker, Dr.
James Karr whose knowledge and insight into the water quality issues we face
set the tone for the meeting.
S. Davis
Local Meeting Coordinator and Host
Chairperson, Instream Biocriteria and Ecological
Assessment Conmittee
-------
CF canmns
Author
Title
Page
Davis Forward
Karr Monitoring of Biological Integrity: An Evolving Approach
to Assessment and Classification of Water Resources
Szczytko Variability of Ccrmonly Used Macroinvertebrate Ccmnunity
Metrics for Assessing Biomonitoring Data and Water Quality
in Wisconsin Streams
Davis and Statistical Validation of Ohio EPA's Invertebrate
Lubin Community Index
Marshall, Black Earth Creek: Use of Biological Methods to Identify
Stewart, Non-Point Source Threats to a Naturally Reproducing
and Baumann Trout Fishery
Simon
Bascietto
Burton,
Stemmer,
Ross and
Burnett
Rationale for a Family-Level Ichthyoplankton Index for
Use in Evaluating Water Quality
Ecological Assessment at the EPA: Superfund Guidance and
EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines
Discrimination of Sediment Toxicity in Freshwater Harbors
Using a Multitrophic Level Test Battery
Kapustka Hazardous Waste Site Characterization Utilizing Jn Situ
and Linder and laboratory Bioassessment Methods
Kerr Overview of Citizen-Based Surface Water Monitoring
Sefton Volunteer Monitoring Data Applications to Illinois
Lake Management
Lathrop A Naturalist 's Key to Stream Macroinvertebrates for
Citizen Monitoring Programs in the Midwest
Bostrom The "Why" of Minnesota's Citizen Lake-Monitoring Program
Kopec The Ctiio Scenic Rivers Stream Quality Monitoring Program:
Citizens in Action
Rumery Wisconsin's Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program:
An Assessment from 1989 to 1988
Davis A Summary of the First Midwest Pollution Control
Biologists Meeting
111
12
23
33
41
66
71
85
94
100
107
119
123
128
137
-------
Monitoring of Biological Integrity: An Evolving Approach to
the Assessment and Classification of Water Resources
Jamss R. Karr
Department of Biology,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406 USA
Abstract
The ability to sustain a balanced biological ccnmunity is one of the best
indicators of the potential for beneficial use of a water resource. While
perception of biological degradation stimulated most current state and
federal legislation on the quality of water resources, that biological focus
was lost in the search for easily measured physical and chemical surrogates.
Development of concepts like "antidegradation" and "use attainability" have
strengthened the call for ambient biological monitoring. Further, the
development of an operational definition of biological integrity and of
ecologically sound tools to measure divergence from that societal goal have
stimulated increased interest in ambient biological monitoring. The Index
of Biotic Integrity has now been applied successfully throughout North
America. Some modifications of metrics are necessary for application
outside the midwest but its ecological foundations have been retained. The
success of IBI has stimulated the development of similar approaches using
benthic invertebrate communities. Expansion in the use of ambient
biological monitoring is essential to the protection of water resources.
Keywords: Biological integrity, biological monitoring, IBI, water
pollution, water resources.
Introduction
The assumption that surface waters
were in existence to receive the
discharges of human society was
common until relatively recently. In
1965, for example, an Illinois water
official noted "regardless of how
one may feel about the discharge of
waste products into surface waters,
it is accepted as a universal
practice and one which in Illinois
is considered a legitimate use
ofstream waters" (Evans 1965). While
that philosophy has yet to be
abandoned, the legal and regulatory
environments have changed, both in
terms of societal goals and in the
nature of monitoring programs
designed to protect water resources.
The Illinois water official quoted
above subscribed to the phrase
"dilution is the solution to
pollution." Even after the concept
of biotic integrity was first
explicitly incorporated into
federal water law (in PL 92-500,
the Water Quality Act Amendments of
1972), point source effluents were
the primary target of regulatory
efforts. Implementation of the
mandates of PL 92-500 narrowly
focussed on chemical parameters, or
when a biological perspective was
•used, the emphasis was on acute and
later chronic effects of chemical
pollutants from point sources.
Concern for non-point sources
increased after the mid-1970's but
they were (and remain today)
largely unsuccessful because of
difficulties involved in applying
point source approaches to diffuse
non-point source problems.
Within this chemically oriented
context, even the definition of
pollutants generated controversy.
In 1974, for example, I was
challenged by agricultural
scientists when I argued that
sediments were a pollutant that
-------
Karr
must be brought under control if the
quality of water resources was to be
protected. They argued, to my
dismay, that sediment must not be a
pollutant because USEFA had not
announced a criterion for maximum
tolerable levels.
Fortunately, the 1980fs have seen
a major shift in philosophy with
recognition of the inadequacy of
that approach. A 1987 USEF& report
entitled "Surface Water Monitoring:
A Framework for Change" included
among its recommendations the need
to accelerate the development and
application of promising biological
monitoring techniques. The Water
Quality Act of 1987 strengthened the
call for ambient assessment to
evaluate biological integrity.
Biological integrity was recognized
as a direct, comprehensive
indicator of ecological conditions.
Simply put, if water resources
are to be protected, a quantitative
and ecologically sophisticated
method is needed to monitor the
biotic integrity of running waters.
No non-biological techniques exist
that can serve as a surrogate for
the direct measurement of
biological conditions in a stream.
A principle impediment to the
development of an ecological
approach has been the dominance of
water-pollution engineers in state
and federal agencies. Because
engineers, agriculturists, and
biologists do not speak a common
language, they could not agree on
either common goals or approaches
to attain those goals. Even
biologists could not agree on
approaches to biomonitoring,
leaving water resource issues to
other interests and expertise.
Fortunately, an increasing number of
water resource scientists and
agencies recognize that an approach
that mixes chemical criteria, whole
effluent criteria, and biological
criteria is essential to restore
and maintain the quality of water
resources.
Assessing Biotic Integrity
But more than the dominance of an
engineering approach limited the
incorporation of biological
monitoring into water resource
programs. Other limits were the
lack of an easily defensible
definition of biological integrity,
lack of agreement on standardized
field methods, and lack of indexes
that could be generally applied in
a wide range of water resource
systems and that were successful
"in measuring attainment of the
biological integrity goals of the
Clean Water Act" (Ohio EFA 1987).
Finally, a major impediment to
incorporation of biological
monitoring was the misconception
that biological monitoring is
expensive relative to other
approaches, an issue that has
recently been put to rest,
especially by studies conducted by
Ohio EPA (Tatde 1).
I first recognized these problems
in 1974-75 during my participation
in a project: designed to examine
the role of agricultural non-point
source pollution in the degradation
of water resources (Morrison 1981).
My colleagues; and I first addressed
the problem in that project (Karr
and Schlosser 1977, Karr and
Dudley 1977) and then began to
generalize our results (Karr and
Schlosser 1978, Karr and Dudley
1981), eventually leading to the
development of an index of biotic
integrity (IBI) using fish
communities (Karr 1981). In
retrospect, a critical component in
that development was the challenge
involved in working with an
interdisciplinary team of water
resource specialists. The
challenging and questioning that
-------
Evolution of IBI
Table 1. Comparative cost analysis for sample collection, processing and
analysis for evaluation of the quality of a water resource. Data
from Ohio EFA, 1987.
Oiemical/Fnysical Water Quality
4 samples/site $1,501
6 samples/site $1,715
Bioassay
Screening (Acute - 48 hour exposure) $3,159
Definitive (LC50a and BC50^ - 48 & 96 hour) $5,901
Seven Day (acute and chronic effects -
7 day exposure single sample) $8,538
Seven Day (as above but with composite sample
collected daily) $12,642
Macroinvertebrate Comnnunity $ 699
Fish Community
2 passes/site . $ 673
3 passes/site $ 897
a - dose of toxicant that is lethal (fatal) to 50% of the organisms in the
test conditions at a specified time.
b - concentration at which a specified effect is observed in 50% of
organisms tested; e. g., hemorrhaging, dilation of pupils, stop
swimming.
accompanied that effort forced me
to think in more inclusive terms,
both in the development of a broadly
based index, and in the advocacy of
such an index to diverse audiences.
Why IBI?
Biologists have advocated the need
for direct biological assessment for
over two decades and a variety of
methodologies have been proposed
(Worf 1980, Fausch et al. 1989).
laboratory studies of acute toxic
effects dominated early work with
the goal of establishing criteria
for pollutants (USEFA 1976), an
approach that was challenged by many
(Thurston et al. 1979). Field
monitoring of selected (indicator)
taxa was also tried using fish
(bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas) or some salmonids),
benthic invertebrates, or diatoms.
These approaches identified two
important aspects of biological
monitoring: The ability of
individuals to survive stress from
a toxic compound and the pollution
tolerance of assemblages of species
(communities). More or less
independently, biologists
responsible for sport and
commercial fishery resources, dealt
primarily with physical habitat
degradation, and in western
watersheds, with the problem of
decreased flow.
The primary weakness of all of
these methods is clear. Limits to
the biological integrity of a water
resource vary in space and time and
none of these approaches can be
used to identify all types of
degradation. Sole focus on acute
toxicity in the laboratory misses
chronic effects in the field and
the synergistic effects of
-------
Karr
combinations of chemical
pollutants. A focus on community
structure such as species
composition of benthic inverte-
brates misses the opportunity to
evaluat9 a wider array of aspects of
biotic integrity such as individual
health, sizes of populations of
component species, or trophic
structure of the community. Thus, I
set out to develop a more compre-
hensive approach to the study of
biotic integrity. The result of
that effort was an index to assess
biological conditions in a river or
stream using fish communities and
referred to as the Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI). IBI is a multi-
parameter index which uses
attributes of fish communities to
evaluate human effects on a stream
and its watershed. Its use in a
variety of contexts (effects of
mine drainage, impacts of sewage
effluent) and in a diversity of
geographic areas demonstrate the
utility of IBI (Karr et al. 1986,
Steedman 1988, Miller et al. 1988,
Fausch et al. 1989).
A number of advantages of IBI
have been cited (Karr 1981, Karr et
al. 1986, Miller et al. 1988,
Fausch et al. 1989) including:
1) it is quantitative;
2) it gauges a stream against an
expectation based on
minimal disturbance in the
region;
3) it reflects distinct attributes
of biological systems;
4) there is no loss of information
from constituent metrics when
the overall index is
determined;
5) professional judgement is
incorporated in a
systematic and ecologically
sound manner.
IBI does not serve all of the
needs of detailed biological
monitoring (Karr et al. 1986,
Fausch et al. 1989) and certainly
cannot be advocated as a
replacement for physical and
chemical monitoring or toxic ity
testing. However, IBI, or some
other biological monitoring, must
be an essential part of all
monitoring programs because it
provides direct information about
conditions at a sample site
relative to a site with little or
no human influences or to the
expectation under a designated use
classification. Finally, IBI
illustrates a conceptual framework
for the protection of biotic
integrity of water resources.
What is IBI?
The index of biotic integrity was
conceived to provide a broadly
based and ecologically sound tool
to evaluate the biological
conditions in a stream. Twelve
attributes (Table 2) of a fish
community are rated in comparison
to what would be expected at a
relatively undisturbed site in a
stream of similar size in the same
region. The sum of those ratings
provides an integrative and
quantitative assessment of local
biological integrity. Three groups
of metrics are evaluated: species
richness and composition, trophic
composition, and fish abundance and
condition. Each metric reflects the
quality of components of the fish
community that respond to different
aspects of the aquatic system.
Further, the metrics have
differential sensitivity along the
gradient from undisturbed to
degraded. IBI is calculated for
each site and it is possible to 1)
evaluate current conditions at a
site; 2) determine trends over time
at a site with repeated sampling,
or 3) compare sites from which data
are collected more or less
simultaneously. IBI (or
-------
Evolution of IBI
modifications of IBI - see below)
has now been used by about 30
states and provinces and several
federal agencies. At least four
states and the Tennessee Valley
Authority have incorporated IBI into
their standards and monitoring
programs (Miller et al. 1988).
Evolution of IBI
IBI can and should change as more
is learned about the dynamics of
biological systems and the behavior
of IBI as an index. Even in its
current form, IBI does not
incorporate aspects of a fish
community that could be used to
improve evaluations of water
resources. Two such aspects are
species composition within major
taxa and relative health of
individuals within populations of
selected species. Both of these
were mentioned by Karr (1981) but
were not incorporated into the
index because the information
necessary to incorporate them was
not easy to obtain, especially on
historical data bases, the primary
data available for initial
development and testing of IBI. For
example, a site with johnny darter
(Etheostoma nigrum) and orange-
throated darter (E. spectabile) is
likely to be degraded relative to
another site with banded (E.
zonale) and slenderhead darters
(Percina phoxocephala). One
approach to scoring these
situations (Hughes and Gammon 1987)
is to give sites with a
preponderance of species that
indicate high quality a +. When IBI
scores are totaled, two or three
species richness metrics with a
plus appended wuld be scored by
adding one unit to IBI. Such
differences could be incorporated
into future IBI applications when
relative rankings of several
species as indicators of
degradation are known. As another
example, one could incorporate
information on health of individual
fish through metrics such as
condition factor (K) where L is
total length (mm) and W is weight
(gms) K=W/L3. Some effort must be
made to define a length class for
determination of K. Alternatively,
the age structure of the population
might be used by examination of the
weights and/or lengths of
individuals of selected species or
through reading of growth rings on
scales. Use of either of these
would improve the resolution of IBI
evaluations, although the
quantitative value obtained may not
change much. They might be
especially useful when sport
fishery goals are established to
supplement assessments of biotic
integrity.
Adaptation of IBI to geographic
regions outside the midwestern US
where it was developed requires
modification, deletion or
replacement of selected IBI
metrics. Miller et al. (1988)
provide the most up-to-date review
of changes needed to reflect
regional differences in biological
communities and fish distributions.
The kind of flexibility illustrated
J3y IBI results from an integrative
framework with a strong ecological
foundation. Areas as diverse as the
streams of Colorado, New England,
northern California, Oregon,
southeast Canada, and- Appalachia
and estuaries in Louisiana have
been evaluated with modifications
of IBI.
In California, the principle
attributes that must be
accommodated are reduced species
richness, high endemism among
watersheds, absence of midwestern
taxa such as darters and sunfish,
and high salmonid abundances.
Modifications in IBI needed for use
-------
Karr
in estuarine areas of Louisiana
included variation in salinity
regimes and estuary size. IBI
metrics were chosen to reflect
aspects of fish residency, presence
of nearshore marine fishes and
large freshwater fish, and a
measure of seasonal variation in
community structure. As in the
adaptation of IBI to other regions,
the principles established in IBI
are used to develop metrics that are
more meaningful in the estuarine
environment. Other special
considerations include the
importance of stream gradient in
Appalachia and geographic variation
in tolerance rankings of some
species. For example, the creek
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
varies appreciably in its tolerance
of stream degradation and food
habits from Colorado to Illinois to
the New River drainage of Virginia.
Modifications adopted by Ohio EFA
include the replacement of several
of the original IBI metrics with
alternates for analysis of
conditions in large rivers. They
propose replacement of darters with
round-bodied suckers in large
rivers sampled with boat-mounted
electrofishing gear, an excellent
suggestion in a situation where
darters are likely to be
undersampled. They . have, in
addition, field tested and
evaluated many aspects of IBI.
Anyone planning to use IBI should
be familiar with the approach of
Ohio EPA (1987).
Recent use of IBI by the
Tennessee Valley Authority has
demonstrated its value in assessing
declining biotic integrity (TVA,
unpulb. reports). In one case
release of cold water limited fish
communities and in another case low
flow periods left much of the
channel dry with degraded biotic
integrity. In both cases, IBI
detected this degradation when
general reviews of habitat
conditions did not alert biologists
to problems of water resource
degradation.
Perhaps the most innovative and
comprehensive recent use of IBI is
the work of Steedman (1988) in
southern Ontario. He sampled fishes
at 209 stream sites in 10
watersheds near Toronto. All are in
tributaries on the northwestern
shore of Lake Ontario. His 10
metric IBI included several
"adaptations to accommodate both
cold- and warm-water reaches. He
changed taxonomic metrics to
include both sculpins and darters,
salmonids and centrarchids, and
suckers and catfishes. He found
that wi thin-year variation at
sample sites on large rivers were
generally within 8% (4 points out
to 50) and most were within 2%. For
between-year comparisons, more than
80% of sample sites varied among
years by less than 10%. IBI was
strongly associated with
independently derived measures of
watershed condition whether he used
whole watershed IBI values or IBI
values derived for individual
stream reaches. He found that a
threshold of degradation for
Toronto area streams was reached
when 75% of riparian vegetation was
removed in areas with no
urbanization. Conversely, a similar
threshold existed with 0% removal
of riparian vegetation at 55%
urbanization. He noted that sites
with both high urbanization and
riparian destruction were
unrepresented in his study. Thus,
it was not possible to evaluate his
model in that situation.
His analysis reminds me of a
persistent but as yet unanswered
question about the percent of
riparian vegetation within a
watershed that should be protected
-------
Evolution of IBI
to inprove water quality and biotic
integrity (Karr and Schlosser
1978). His approach using IBI may
in fact provide an indirect
approach to answering that
question. It deserves considerable
study in a number of geographic
areas.
Miller et al. (1988) encouraged
modification of IBI to make it
suitable for a wide range of
geographical areas but they added
two cautions. First, avoid
idiosyncratic modifications unless
they really inprove the utility of
the index (Angermeier and Karr
1986). Second, modifications of IBI
should be undertaken only by
experienced fish biologists
familiar with the conceptual
framework of IBI, local fish
faunas, and watershed conditions.
Finally, efforts should be made to
develop IBI-type concepts for use
in other environments such as lakes
and terrestrial ecosystems.
Finally, the recent development
of the ecoregion approach (Hughes
et al. 1986, 1987) provides a
useful tool that encompasses many
of the regionalization goals that
were not possible just a few years
ago without great individual
effort.
Assessment of Biotic Integrity with
Invertebrates
Following development of IBI
several efforts were made to
develop biomonitoring approaches
like IBI but using benthic
invertebrates. Die most extensively
tested, integrative effort is the
Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)
developed by Ohio EPA (1987). ICI
is a ten-metric index (Table 2)
that emphasizes structural rather
than functional aspects of
community structure. Chio EPA used
this approach because of the
"accepted historical use, simple
derivation, and ease of
interpretation." Metric 10 is
scored based on a qualitative
sample while metrics 1-9 are based
on artificial substrate sampling.
As part of its effort to
establish biological metrics USEPA
has also supported development of a
hierarchy of methods for biological
monitoring using benthic
invertebrates. Their Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol III is most
similar to the ICI but has only 8
metrics (Table 2). Both structural
and functional metrics are
included, a strength relative to
ICI in my view. The method combines
sampling invertebrates from a
riffle/run habitat and from a grab
sample of coarse particulate
organic matter (CPCM) at each
sampling site. A major weakness of
Protocol III is the use of a 100
organism sample. First, the general
survey approach might be criticized
because of quality control problems
and second, the selection of 100
organisms at random is likely to
result in major biases among
individuals doing the subsampling.
Finally, I am not convinced that a
100 individual sample is sufficient
to represent a complex community of
invertebrates. I suspect that a
method will ultimately be developed
that is between the Ohio and USEPA
approaches. A compromise should
seek to reduce the time required in
analyses using Ohio ICI and improve
the quality control- problems
inherent in the Protocol III
approach.
Future of IBI
IBI and a number of derivative
approaches provide a powerful set
of tools for the improvement of
water resources and both state and
federal agencies have demonstrated
distinct shifts in the philosophy
and approach to the improvement of
-------
Karr
Table 2. Metrics used to assess biological integrity using fish or benthic
invertebrate communities.
A. Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) - After Karr igfii, Karr &- ai. IQBR
Ratings of 5, 3, and 1 are assigned to each metric according to whether
its value approximates, deviates somewhat from, or deviates strongly from
the value expected at a comparable site that is relatively undisturbed.
Species richness and composition
1. Total number of fish species
2. Number and identity of darter species
3. Number and identity of sunfish species
4. Number and identity of sucker species
5. Number and identity of intolerant species
6. Proportion of individuals as green sunfish
Trophic composition
7. Proportion of individuals as omnivores
8. Proportion of individuals as insectivorous cyprinids
9. Proportion of individuals as piscivores (top carnivores)
Fish abundance and condition
10. Number of individuals in sample
11. Proportion of individuals as hybrids
12. Proportion of individuals with disease, tumors, fin damage,
and skeletal anomalies
B. Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) - After Olio EPA, 1987a. Ratings of
6, 4, 2, and 0 are assigned to each metric according to whether its
value is comparable to exceptional, good, slightly deviates from a good,
or strongly deviates from a good community.
1. Total number of taxa
2. Total number of mayfly taxa
3. Total number of caddisfly taxa
4. Total number of dipteran taxa
5. Percent mayfly composition
6. Percent caddisfly composition
7. Percent Tribe Tanytarsini midge composition
8. Percent other dipteran and non-insect composition
9. Percent tolerant organisms
10. Total number of qualitative EFT0 taxa
C. Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III - After USEPA, unpublished'-'. Ratings
of 6, 3, and 0 are given based on values of each of the metrics with 6
being high quality and 0 being a heavily degraded site.
1. Taxa richness
2. Family biotic index
3. Ratio of scraper/filtering collector
4. Ratio of EFT0 and chironomid abundances
5. Percent contribution of dominant family
6. EFT0 index
7. Community loss index
8. Ratio of shredders/total
a - Metrics 1-9 based on artificial substrate sampler; metric 10 based on
qualitative stream sampling.
b - Metrics 1-7 based on qualitative riffle/run sample; Metric 8 based on
leaf-pack (CPCM) sample.
c - EPT - Emphemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Taxa.
-------
Evolution of IB!
water resources. Manitoring and
analysis of biotic conditions plays
a central role in those changes. As
a result, the opportunities for
biologists to influence, even
guide, decisions about water
resources has never been greater.
The time is ripe to turn the tide
on what I refer to as the
fundamental fallacy in water
resources management. That
fallacy, "making clean water will
solve water resource problems," with
its focus on physical/chemical
aspects of water systems has been
both short-sighted and damaging to
water resources.
The principle strength of TBI is
that it provides a mechanism that
illustrates the weaknesses of older
approaches, while it provides a
quantitative assessment based on
sound ecological principles. When
that value is combined with an
expanded concept in the management
of water resources, the prognosis
for the future is especially
gratifying. The end result, whether
it is a new approach to stream
classification or more enlightened
approaches to define the goals of
management of water resources, will
go beyond what could be developed by
any one organization/discipline.
A next level challenge will be the
integration of classification/
evaluation systems. Important
components must include recognition
of the alternative factors that may
be responsible for degradation and
that the relative influence of
these varies with human activity
(see Fig. 1, Karr et al. 1986). In
addition, stream systems may have
differential sensitivity as a
function of stream size and
geographic region (e.g. flow volume
in the west; toxic substances in
urban areas; destruction of
riparian zones, water table
depression, and agricultural
chemicals in agricultural areas;
habitat structure including
riparian zones everywhere).
However, it is important that
water resource specialists move
forward to use all the tools
available today. We do not have the
luxury of waiting until an ideal
system is available. Inevitably, a
.number of indexes will provide for
the most enlightened water resource
management for the same reason that
a multiparameter index like IBI is
better than a simplistic approach
such as measuring water quality or
sampling only a single indicator
species. For biological
assessments, monitoring programs
must include all levels from the
individual to the ecosystem.
Significant progress has been
made in recent years as evidenced
by workshops and other programs
sponsored by USEEA that have
focussed on recovery of damaged
ecosystems, development and
implementation of biological
monitoring, and major efforts to
incorporate "good science" at all
levels of water resource policy.
These advances are tied to
evolution of common understanding
of the inherently biological nature
of water resource problems and the
importance of water as a natural
resource to all components of
society.
I close with one final point that
might be considered obvious, but
with an importance that warrants
frequent repetition. The importance
of maintaining a watershed
perspective cannot be ignored
because of the influences of the
terrestrial environment on the
water resources of a watershed and
because of the connection across
river sizes within that same
watershed.
-------
Karr
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. N. A.
J. Fish. Mgmt. 6:418-429.
Evans, R. 1965. Industrial wastes
and water supplies. J. Amer. Water
Works ASSOC. 57:625-628.
Fausch, K.S., J. Lyons, J.R. Karr,
and P.L. Angermeier. 1989. Fish
communities as indicators of
environmental degradation. In
Biological Indicators of Stress in
Fish. American Fisheries Society
Special Symposium Series, Bethesda,
MD. in press.
Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon. 1987.
Longitudinal changes in fish
assemblages and water quality in
the Willamette River, Oregon.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 116:196-
209.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M.
Qnernik. 1986. Regional reference
sites: a method for assessing
stream pollution. Env. Mgmt.
10:629-635.
Hughes, R.M., E. Rexstad, and C.E.
Bond. 1987. The relationship of
aquatic ecoregions, river basins,
and physiographic provinces to the
ichthyogeographic regions of
Oregon. Cqpeia 1987:423-432.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of
biotic integrity using fish
comnunities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1977.
Biological integrity of a headwater
stream: evidence of degradation,
prospects for recovery. In: J. Lake
and J. Morrison (eds.). U.S.
Envi ronmental
Chicago, IL.
Pp. 3-25.
Protection Agency,
EPA 905/9-77-007D.
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 I.J.
Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running
waters: a method and its rationale.
111.Nat.Hist.Surv. Spec. Publ. 5.
Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser.
1977. Impact of nearstream
vegetation and stream morphology on
water quality and stream biota.
Ecological Research Series, U.S.
EPAgency- Athens, GA. USEPA-600/3-
77-097. pp. 90.
Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser.
1978. Water Resources and the land-
water interface. Science 201:229-
234.
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.
Fitshugh, J.R. Gammon, D.B.
Haliwell, 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.
Morrison, J.B. 1981. Final Report
-Black Creek II. Pp. 1-10 in
Environmental, impact of land use on
water quality: Final report on the
Black Creek Project - Phase II.,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, II. EPA 905/9-81-
03.
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987. Users manual for
10
-------
Evolution of IBI
biological field assessment of Ohio
surface waters. Ohio EFA, Division
of Water Quality Manitoring and
Assessment, Surface Water Section,
Columbus, OH.
Steedman, R.J. 1988. Modification
and assessment of an index of
biotic integrity to quantify stream
quality in Southern Ontario. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:492-501.
Tnurston, R.V., R.C. Russo, C.M.
Fetterolf, Jr., T.A. Edsall, and
Y.M. Barber, Jr. (eds.). 1979. A
review of the EPA Red Book: Quality
Criteria for Water. American
Fisheries Society, Water Quality
Section, Bethesda, MD.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for
Water, USEFA, Washington, DC.
Worf, D.L. 1980. Biological
monitoring for environmental
effects. Lexington Books, D. C.
Heath and Co., Lexington, IVPi.
11
-------
Variability of Commonly Used Macroinvertebrate Community Metrics
for Assessing Biomonitoring Data and Water Quality in
Wisconsin Streams1
Stanley W. Szczytko
College of Natural Resources,
Univ. of Wisconsin
Stevens Point, WI 54481.
Abstract
Six single and 6 paired community comparison metrics (including qeneric
(BI) and family (FBI) level biotic indices, Ephemeroptera-Plec )ptera-
Trichoptera (EFT) index, Margalef's diversity index, generic and species
richness measures, and similarity and distance metrics) were ari ied to
biomonitoring data from selected Wisconsin streams to evaluat* their
variability and potential use in biomonitoring programs. The biomonitoring
data were generated from biotic index samples as part of the WI 1 pt. of
Natural Resources Nonpoint Source Biomonitoring Program. The database
included a total of 250 samples with 5 replicates. The single metrics with
the exception of the EFT exhibited less overall variation (measun ' as the
coefficient of variation) among replicate samples than the c iimunity
comparison metrics. The BI and FBI had the lowest variability among
replicate samples of all metrics tested and appeared to offer t^.e most
reliable water quality determinations. The similarity and t istance
estimates between replicate samples varied widely (14 - 59%), offering
conflicting estimates of the degree of similarity or dissimilarity depending
on which metric was used. These community comparison metrics are not
recommended at this time for use with biotic index samples to evaluate water
quality changes.
Introduction
In 1979 the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WENR) began
using the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
(HBI) (Hilsenhoff 1977, 1982, 1987)
to evaluate stream water quality
state-wide. A standardized protocol
for sampling and laboratory
procedures, as part of a quality
assurance effort in biological
monitoring was implemented by the
WDNR in 1983 and statistical
procedures for applying the HBI were
developed (Narf et al. 1984). The
HBI was originally designed to
detect dissolved oxygen problems
caused by organic loading of
putrescrble wastes, and it appears
to work well for that purpose
(Hilsenhoff 1977, 1982, 1987).
Other biotic indices similar to
the HBI have also been used recently
by other states and agencies as
rapid bioassessment tools to
evaluate stream water quality
(Platts et al. 1983; Jones et al.
1981; Bode 1986, Shackleford 1988,
and Fisk 1987). The wide acceptance
and use of biotic indices by
aquatic biologists has occurred in
part, because of the ease in which
they can be applied, and also
because the organisms used are
continually exposed throughout their
aquatic life cycle to extremes in
environmental conditions, and Should
Study supported in part by the Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources
grant t8406.
12
-------
Benthic Metric Variability
therefore, theoretically serve as
effective barometers of
environmental changes. Because of
the above additional approaches to
rapid bioassessment of lotic
ecosystems have continued to utilize
aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Recently other approaches
utilizing different aspects of
macroinvertebrate community
structure have been used to evaluate
stream water quality (Berkman et al.
1986, Bode 1986, Boyle et al. 1984,
Courtemanch and Davies 1987, Johnson
and Millie 1982, Moss et al. 1987,
Ormerodad and Edwards 1987, Osborne
and Davies 1987, Perkins 1983, Pratt
et al. 1981, Rabeni and Gibbs 1980,
Rabeni et al. 1985, and Shackleford
1988). These approaches have
included similarity indices,
diversity indices, species and
generic richness, dominant species,
Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-
Trichoptera index (EPT), coefficient
of community loss index, percent
contribution of major groups, field
assessment and various ordination
and clustering techniques.
Applications of these techniques
have sometimes produced highly
variable, and conflicting results.
Most aquatic biologists agree that
additional testing and a better
understanding of the inherent
variability of these metrics are
needed before they can be used in
biomonitoring programs.
The main objective of this
research was to compare the
variability of 6 single and 6
community comparison
macroinvertebrate metrics among
replicate samples to determine their
usefulness in Wisconsin's Nonpoint
Source Biomonitoring Program (Bureau
of Water Resources). Replicate
variation is important since it can
be considered a measure of
"background or baseline noise" of
the index resulting from sampling or
processing inefficiencies related to
gear design or operator variability.
Paired comparisons between sites
should include a correction factor
for this inherent variation before
determinations of water quality
changes are made. This would
essentially provide a corrected
"zero point" for a specific study.
Methods and Materials
The Oconto River, a fifth order
Lake Michigan tributary of Green Bay
was the study area for this research
project. Seven sampling stations
were established by the WENR between
the towns of Gillett and Oconto in
Oconto Co., WI (Fig. 1). Two dams
(Oconto Falls and Mackickonae) were
located within this study section.
The sampling design of this study
was similar to the sampling and
laboratory protocol of the NPS
Biomonitoring Program to insure that
results and metrics used in this
study would be applicable to
historical and future biotic index
databases generated by the
Department. Macroinvertebrate
biotic index samples were taken by
WDNR biologists according to the
methods described by Hilsenhoff
(1982) on May 17, August 8, and
October 3, 1984, and June 5, and
September 13, 1985. Seven sampling
stations were established with wet
and dry (sites which were
periodically dry due to -the amount
of water released from the dams)
sites (Fig. l). A total of 290
samples (stations 1 and 7 did not
have dry sites and stations 2 and 6
did not have dry samples taken for
the first sampling period due to
high water levels) were collected
which included 5 replicate samples
from each wet and dry site for each
sampling period.
13
-------
Szczykto
Figure 1. Sampling locations for biotic index samples on the Oconto
River, Wisconsin (from Laura Herman, Lake Michigan District,
Dept. of Natural Resources)
Sanples were taken with a D-frame
net and the entire sanple was
preserved in 70% isopropyl
alcoholuntil sorted in the
laboratory. In the laboratory each
sanple was subsanpled by placing the
entire sanple in a transparent
sorting tray with 2 inch. ,
consecutively numbered grids etched
on the bottom. The debris and
macroinvertebrates were distributed
as evenly as possible in the tray
and grids were randomly selected
using a random number table. All
macroinvertebrates in each randomly
selected grid were picked and
placed in a sample jar for
identification and grids were picked
until at least 100
macroinvertebrates with biotic index
values had been removed. The last
grid was picked totally no matter
how many macroinvertebrates were
included in the subsanple and all
individuals picked were included in
the database regardless of whether
they had a tolerance value or not.
The single ccmnunity metrics used
in this study included: Hilsenhoff
(1987) biotic index (HBI);
Hilsenhoff (1988) family biotic
index; Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-
Trichoptera Index (EFT); species
richness (SP); generic richness
(GEN), and Margalef's (1957)
diversity index (DIV). The
community comparison metrics
included: coefficient of community
loss index (CCL) (Courtemanch &
Davies 1987); coefficient of
similarity index (CS) (Pinkham &
Pearson 1976); Stander's similarity
index (SIMI) (Stander 1970);
percentage similarity (PS)
(Whittaker 1952); coefficient of
similarity (B) (Pinkham & Pearson
1976), and ecological distance
(EDIS) (Rhodes et al. 1969).
A dBase III plus computer program
was developed to compute each of the
above metrics and to create
databases of sanple statistics. The
variability among replicate sanples
was estimated for each metric using
the coefficient of variation (CV)
(standard deviation/mean), which is
unit independent and therefore,
allows comparisons of metrics with
14
-------
Beithic Metric Variability
different values. Hie CV was
determined for each set of 5
replicate samples.
Results and Discussion
The FBI exhibited the lowest CV
(0.062) among replicate samples
(based on a mean of the 58 mean CV's
for each set of 5 replicates for
each sampling station, each sampling
period and each wet and dry site) of
all single metrics (Fig. 2). The FBI
and HBI had lower variability among
replicate samples than the other
single metrics and the EFT had the
greatest variability (0.436).
Species and generic richness
measures had similar levels of
variability (0.170 - 0.180). This
trend in variation was also evident
when the wet and dry sites were
separated, although all metrics were
more variable at dry sites than wet
sites (Fig. 3). This site difference
in variability was probably related
to the greater water level
fluctuations at dry sites, and was
not likely an anomaly of sampling
error.
The greatest overall mean
variation (CV = 0.210) of all single
metrics combined (including wet and
dry sites) occurred during sampling
period 4 (June 5, 1985), although
the variability (mean CV range =
0.143 - 0.210) was similar for each
sampling period (Fig. 4). There was
no obvious trend in variability due
to sampling periods or seasonality,
however wet sites generally had less
variability (overall mean for all
single metrics CV = 0.159) than dry
sites (overall mean of all single
metrics CV = 0.183). This same basic
trend in variability was observed
when wet and dry sites were split
for sampling periods.
The CCL had the highest
coefficient of variation (0.481)
among replicate sample comparisons
of all community comparison metrics
(based on 580 paired comparisons of
replicate samples - each set (N =
58) of 5 replicate samples had 10
rep comparisons) for combined wet
and dry sites for all sample
periods and stations (Fig. 5). The
CCL also had the highest mean CV of
wet (0.465) and dry (0.496) sites
analyzed separately (Fig. 6). The
EDIS had the lowest variation (CV =
0.180) of all community comparison
metrics for combined wet and dry
sites and also for wet (0.196) and
dry (0.164) sites analyzed
separately (Figs. 5 & 6). The SIMI
and coefficient B metrics had
similar variation and CS and PS
variations were lower (Fig. 5).
Generally the dry sites had greater
variability than the wet sites
except for EDIS metric which was
similar to that discussed above for
the single metrics (Fig. 6).
As in the single metrics discussed
above there was no obvious trends
for the community comparison metrics
in variability due to sampling
periods or seasonality. Sampling
period 4 (June 5, 1985) had the
greatest overall variation (mean CV
= 0.306) of all community comparison
metrics combined (including wet and
dry sites), however the variability
was similar (mean CV range = 0.264-
0.306) for all sampling periods
(Fig. 7).
The overall variability of the
community comparison metrics was
generally much higher than the
variability of the single metrics
with the exception of the EFT (mean
CV = 0.432), which was most similar
in variability to the CCL (mean CV =
0.481). This indicates that these
metrics may not be appropriate to
measure similarity or dissimilarity
between sites using biotic index
sampling methods.
15
-------
Szczykto
HBI FBI EPT SP GEN DIV
Fig. 2. Mean coefficient of
variation (CV) of single metrics
among repli-cate samples taken on
the Oconto River (based on a mean of
the 58 mean CV's for each set of 5
replicates for each sampling station
and sampling period including wet
and dry sites; HBI=Hilsenhoff biotic
index, FBI=family biotic index,
EPT=Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera index, SP=species
richness, GEN=gener ic richness,
DIV=Margalef's diversity index).
Fig. 3. Mean Coefficient of
variation (CV) of single metrics
among replicate samples at wet and
dry sites taken on the Oconto River
(based on 35 mean CV's for wet sites
and 23 for dry sites; stations 1 and
7 did not have dry sites, stations 2
and 6 did not have dry samples for
the first sampling period; HBI=
Hilsenhoff biotic index, FBI=family
biotic index, EFT =Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera index,
SP=species richness, (2N=generic
richness, DIV=Margalef's diversity
index).
16
-------
BentMc Metric Variability
HBI
GEN DIV
B EDIS
Fig. 4. Mean coefficient of
variation (CV) of single metrics
among replicate samples by sampling
periods from the Oconto River (wet
and dry sites and sampling stations
combined; HBI = Hilserihoff biotic
index, FBI = family biotic index,
EFT = Ephemeroptera, Piecoptera,
Trichoptera index, SP = species
richness, GEN = generic richness,
DIV = Margalef's diversity index;
sampling period 1 = May 17, 1984, 2
= August 10, 1984, 3 = October 3,
1984, 4 = June 5, 1985, 5 =
September 13, 1985).
Fig. 5.
variation
comparison
comparisons
Mean coefficient of
(CV) of community
metrics among paired
of replicate samples
tatoen on the Oconto River (based on
580 comparisons of replicate samples
- each set (N = 58) of replicate
samples had 10 rep comparisons for
each wet and dry site; CCL =
coefficient of community loss, CS =
coefficient of similarity, SIMI =
Stander's similarity index, PS =
percentage similarity, B =
coefficient of similarity (B), EDIS
— ecological distance measure).
17
-------
Szczykto
The mean values of the 6 community
comparison metrics for replicate
comparisons (each set of 5 replicate
samples had 10 comparisons for each
sample period, sampling station and
site) suggested that individual
samples from a replicate set
were more dissimilar than similar
(Fig. 8). The mean CCL value for
replicate samples was 0.649 + 0.279
for combined wet and dry sites and
0.640 + 0.291 for wet and 0.658 +
0.279 for dry sites (Figs. 8 & 9).
These values imply that some change
(benign or enriching effect) has
occurred between the replicate
samples, however they are close to
the limit (> 0.8) where harmful
damage to the community has occurred
due to high displacement of
indigenous taxa (Courtemanch and
Davies 1987). Since there is
significant overlap in the range of
values Courtananch and Davies (1987)
provided for pristine and enriched
sites it is difficult to determine
what these numbers actually mean in
terms of water quality changes.
Clearly the CCL did show a fairly
high level of background noise or
variation within the 10 paired
comparisons nested within each set
of 5 replicate samples.
Similarity measurements of
replicate samples ranged from
approximately 12 - 54% for combined
wet and dry sites, 14 - 59% for wet
sites and 10 - 50% for dry sites
(Figs. 8 & 9). The EDIS metric which
is a distance measure generally
indicated that replicate samples
were more similar than the other
metrics (combined sites - 54%, wet
sites - 59%, dry sites - 50%) and
the coefficient B metric showed the
least similarity (combined sites-
12%, wet sites - 14%, dry sites-
10%). The CS and PS metrics
generally had similar values and the
SMI values were slightly higher.
Overall the wet sites were
generally rated more similar than
dry sites by all community
comparison metrics except the CCL
(Fig. 9).
Conclusions
The results of this research
indicated that the single metrics,
with the exception of the EFT
exhibited less overall variation
among replicate samples than the
comtnunity comparison metrics. The
high variability of the EFT was
probably related to the fact that
enumerations, rather than richness
data were used to calculate the
metric. Enumeration measures may not
be appropriate with the biotic index
sampling methodology used in this
study. I recommend in the future
that this index be computed as a
simple generic richness estimate of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera.
Precision and variability are very
important components in aquatic
biomonitoring programs. Indices may
not indicate that a change has or
has not occurred in
macroinvertebrate communities if the
variability (CV) of the index does
not provide reproducible values.
These metrics may have desirable
theoretical foundations and would
have potential value in interpreting
change in macroinvertebrate
community structure, but they should
not be used in aquatic biomonitoring
programs because the results are
unreliable. Quantitative approaches,
including enumeration measures such
as some of the similarity metrics
used in this study, do not appear to
be useful in biomonitoring programs
which employ kick net samples due to
the high degree of replicate
variability.
The wide range of similarity
estimates for replicate samples
found in this study raises some
serious questions concerning the use
of these metrics in biomonitoring
18
-------
Benthic Metric Variability
to
CCL CS SIMI PS
PS B EDIS
Fig. 6. Mean coefficient of
variation (CV) of community
comparison metrics among paired
comparisons of replicate samples
taken on the Oconto River (based on
35 comparisons for wet sites and 23
comparisons for dry sites, each set
of replicate samples had 10 rep
comparisons for each sampling date
at each station; CCL=coefficient of
comnunity loss, CS=coefficient of
similarity, SIMI=Stander's
similarity index, PS=percentage
similarity, B=coefficient of
similarity (B), EDIS=ecological
distance measure).
Fig. 7. Mean coefficient of
variation (CV) of community compar-
ison metrics among replicate
samples by sampling periods from the
Oconto River (wet and dry sites and
sampling stations combined; CCL =
coefficient of community loss, CS =
coefficient of similarity, SIMI =
Stander's similarity index, PS =
percentage similarity, B=coefficient
of similarity (B), EDIS = ecological
distance measure; sampling period l
= May 17, 1984, 2 = August 10, 1984,
3 = October 3, 1984, 4 = June 5,
1985, 5 = September 13, 1985).
19
-------
Szczykto
CCL CS SIMI PS B EDIS
CCL
SIMI PS B EDIS
Fig. 8. Mean values of comnunity
comparison metrics for replicate
samples taken on the Oconto River
(based on 580 comparisons of
replicate samples including all
sites, sampling stations and
sampling periods-each set (I*=58) of
replicate samples had 10 rep
comparisons for each vet and dry
site; Cd>coefficient of community
loss, CS=coefficient of similarity,
SIMI=Stander*s similarity index, PS
=percentage similarity, B=
coefficient of similarity (B),
EDIS=ecological distance measure).
Fig. 9. Mean values of community
comparison metrics of replicate
samples taken at wet and dry sites
on the Oconto River (based on 350
comparisons of wet sites and 230
comparisons of dry sites); CCL =
coefficient of community" loss, CS =
coefficient of similarity, SIMI =
Stander's similarity index, PS =
percentage similarity, B =
coefficient of similarity (B), EDIS
= ecological distance measure).
20
-------
Benthic Metric Variability
programs. All metrics except the
EDIS suggested that replicate
samples were more dissimilar than
similar and the degree of
dissimilarity was variable depending
on the metric vised. In this study
replicate samples were taken by
thesame person at the same time and
place and therefore we can assume
that operator error was consistent
for all samples. Die similarity
estimates between replicate samples
should reflect the inherent error
associated with the sampling design
(laboratory error was reduced in
this study since the entire sample
was sorted and used to calculate the
biotic index, and one person did
most of the sorting and
identification). These estimates
must be subtracted from all other
non-replicate comparisons to zero
each index. If these estimates of
variability (generally >45%) are
subtracted from other comparisons to
zero the index there would be no
basis for comparison. The community
comparison metrics used in this
study are therefore not recommended
to estimate similarity of BI samples
due to the high variability of
estimates among replicate samples,
the wide range of similarity
estimates based on what metric is
used, and the general lack of
understanding of what values from
different metrics actually mean in
terms of similarity or
dissimilarity. Additional research
is needed to resolve these questions
before we can understand how these
metrics behave in relation to water
quality changes.
Literature Cited
Berkmanan, H.E., C.F. Rabeni and
T.P. Boyle. 1986. Biomonitoring of
stream quality in agricultural
areas: Fish versus invertebrates.
Environ. Mgmt. 10:413-419.
Bode, R.W. 1986. Methods for rapid
biological stream assessment in New
York. Report to New York State Dept.
Health 16pp.
Boyle, T.P., J. Sebaugh and E.
Robinson-Wilson. 1984. A hierarchi-
cal approach to the measurement of
changes in community structure
induced by environmental stress. J.
Test. Evaluat. 12:241-245.
Courtemanch, D.L. and S.P. Davies.
1987. A coefficient of community
loss to assess detrimental change in
aquatic communities. Wat. Res.
21:217-222.
Fisk, S.L. 1987. Biological
compliance monitoring methods
manual. Report to Agency Nat. Res.,
Dept. Environ. Conserv. 50pp.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1977. Use of
arthropods to evaluate water quality
of streams. Tech. Bull. WI. Dept.
Nat. Resour. No. 100 15pp.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a
biotic index to evaluate water
quality in streams. Tech. Bull. WI.
Dept. Nat. Resour. No. 132 22pp.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved
biotic index of organic stream
pollution. Great Lakes Entomol.
20:31-39.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field
assessment of organic pollution with
a family biotic index. J. N. Am.
Benthol. Sec. 7:65-68.
Jones, J.R., B.H. Tracy, J.L.
Sebaugh, D.H. Hazelwcood and M.M.
Smart. 1981. Biotic index tested
for ability to assess water quality
21
-------
Szczykto
of Missouri Ozark streams. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 110:627-637.
Johnson, B.E., and D.F. Millie.
1982. The estimation and
applicability of confidence
intervals for Stander's similarity
index (SIM) in algal assemblage
comparisons. Hydrobiologia 89:3-8.
Moss, D., M.T. Furse, J.F. Wright
and P.D. Armitage. 1987. The
prediction of the macroinvertebrate
fauna of unpolluted running^water
sites in Great Britain using
environmental data. Freshwat. Biol.
17:41-52.
Ormerod, S.J.
1987. The
classification
assemblages in
River Wye
envi ronmental
and R.W. Edwards.
ordination and
of macroinvertebrate
the catchment of the
in relation to
factors. Freshwat.
Biol. 17:533-546.
Osborne, L.L. and R.W. Davies. 1987.
The effects of a chlorinated
discharge and a thermal outfall on
the structure and composition of the
aquatic macroinvertebrate
cotnnunities in the Sheep River,
Alberta, Canada. Wat. Res. 21:913-
921.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan and G.
Wayne Minshall. 1983. Methods for
evaluating stream, riparian and
biotic conditions. Intermountain
Forest and Range Exp. Stat. Tech.
Rep. INT-138 70pp.
Perkins, J.L. 1983. Bioassay
evaluation of diversity and
conmunity comparison indexes. J.
Water Pollut. Control Fed. 55:522-
530.
Pirikham, C.F.A. and G. Pearson.
1976. Applications of a new
coefficient of similarity to
pollution surveys. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. 48:717-723.
Pratt, J.M., A. Coler and P.J.
Godfrey. 1981.. Ecological effects of
urban stormwater runoff on benthic
macroinvertebrates inhabiting the
Green River, Massachusetts.
Hydrobiologia 83:29-42.
Rabeni, C.F., S.P. Davies, and K.E.
Gibbs. 1985. Benthic invertebrate
responses to pollution abatement:
structural changes and functional
implications. Wat. Res. Bull.
21:489-497.
Rabeni, C.F., and K.E. Gibbs. 1980.
Ordination of deep river
invertebrate communities in relation
to environmental variables.
Hydrobiologia 74:67-76.
Rhodes, A.M., S.G. Carmer and J.W.
Courter. 1969. Measurement and
classification of genetic
variability in horseradish. J. Am.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 94:98-102.
Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid
bioassessments of lotic
macroinvertebrate communities:
Biocriteria development. AR Dept.
Pollut. Contr. Ecology. 45
Stander, J.M. 1970. Diversity and
similarity of benthic fauna of
Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State
Univ., Corvallis 72pp.
Whittaker, R.H. 1952. A study of
sunnier foliage insect communities in
the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol.
Monogr. 22,1.
22
-------
Statistical Validation of Ohio EPA's Invertebrate Community Index.
Wayne S. Davis and Arthur Lubin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V
Environmental Sciences Division
536 S. Clark Street
Chicago, JL 60605
Abstract
This discussion presents the results of a statistical review of the newly
developed Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) used by the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) to develop instream biological criteria. The
statistical tools used for this analyses included a simple ranking program,
correlation analyses, and factor analysis using the principle components
technique via the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The conclusions from
our review are: (1) the ten metrics which comprise the ICI seem to be valid
empirical indicators of water quality, (2) the identified 95th percentile
distribution factors for drainage area relationships are appropriate, (3)
the ICI metrics are minimally interrelated and therefore are not redundant,
(4) the use of equal weights for the metrics is not optimal, and (5) the
results obtained via the factor analysis-derived scale are similar to the
results obtained by the ICI metrics scale for both the 232 reference sites
and 431 ambient sites. It appears that the ICI is quite acceptable for
their stated use. In general, we could not find any substantial fault with
the ICI nor could we significantly improve upon the index.
Keywords: ICI, benthos, biocriteria, Ohio ERA, statistics, reference sites
Background
The Clean Water Act (CWA), as
amended in 1987, requires
assessments of the nation's
waterways with respect to designated
use attainment, including those for
aquatic life as indicated in
Sections 304(1), 305(b), and 391 of
the CWA. In recent years, the
national shift in water quality
management from general basin
surveys to water quality-based
controls through wasteload
allocations (WLAs) and water
quality-based effluent limitations
(WQBELs) has necessitated a change
in the way field biologists related
their results to "decision-makers"
and the public.
The Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) bases the attainment
of designated uses for aquatic life
on direct measurements of the
indigenous benthic macroinvertebrate
and fish community structure and
function. The development and the
success of the Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) for fish communities
prompted the OEPA to assess whether
a similar index was feasible for
benthic macroinvertebrates. Using
common and intuitive measures of the
benthic community used by OEFA to
reflect water quality, a basis for
the Invertebrate Community Index
(ICI) was established. After minor
modifications and intensive testing
and evaluation, the ICI has become a
routinely used index in Ohio and
part of the State's proposed
biological water quality criteria
(OEPA 1987a). Since the development
of the ICI, less complex, similarly
structured indices have been applied
throughout the country (Plafkin et
al. 1989; Shakelford 1988).
However, none of these indices
appear to have been rigorously
23
-------
Davis and Lubin
statistically tested to verify their
many assumptions and results.
Description of the Invertebrate
Gonnunity Index
OEPA collected artificial and
natural substrate data from 232
reference sites (least impacted
sites) to develop the biocriteria,
and used data from 431 ambient sites
to test the ICI (OEPA 1987a,b;
Whittier et al. 1987). The ICI is
derived by summing scores of 0, 2, 4
or 6, which were assigned to each
metric based upon its percentile
relationship of the 232 sites as
well as its relationship with
drainage area. The ten invertebrate
community metrics are:
1. Total number of taxa.
2. Total number of mayfly taxa.
3. Total number of caddisfly taxa.
4. Total number of dipteran taxa.
5. Percent mayfly composition.
6. Percent caddisfly composition.
7. Percent tribe Tanytarsini midge
composition.
8. Percent other dipteran and non-
insect composition.
9. Percent tolerant organisms.
10.Total number of qualitative EPT
(Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-
Trichoptera) taxa.
Each metric was evaluated for its
relationship to drainage area by
plotting the values for each metric
by drainage area and visually
interpreting the data. Once the
individual metric distributions for
each of the drainage areas were
developed, the metrics scores were
created based on a percentile
method. The 95th percentile values
(reflecting exceptional water
quality) for each metric were
identified. Each score was adjusted
for a drainage area range of values,
according to the drainage area
relationship with the metric. Once
the upper 95th percentile line was
established, the four scoring
categories (excellent, good, fair,
and poor) were derived by section-
ing the remaining data below the
95th percentile line into four
parts. In some cases this was done
by equal partitioning, and in others
it was modified by professional
judgement and known ecological
principals (Ohio EPA I987b). The ICI
was derived by adding the scores of
the ten individual metrics, assuming
an equal weight associated with each
metric. Thus, each metric was
assumed to be equally as important
in influencing the final ICI.
OEPA conducted a simple validation
of the ICI using 431 "test" or
ambient site data. These sites were
evaluated for water quality before
the ICI was developed and
categorized as either excellent,
good, fair, or poor. OEPA (1987b)
reported that there was excellent
agreement between the ICI values and
the prior water quality
classifications.
Objectives
Based upon a review of the ICI
documentation (OEPA 1987a,b,c), the
following objectives of this review
were determined:
1. Professionally evaluate the
reasonableness of the use and
derivation of the invertebrate
community measurements used to
establish the ten metrics.
2. Determine if the drainage area
relationships visually
interpreted by OEPA for the ten
metrics are reasonable.
3. Determine if any of the ten ICI
metrics are interrelated and,
thus, provide redundant
information.
4. Determine if the assumption of
equal weights for each metric
was optimal.
24
-------
Statistical Validation of ICX
5. Evaluate the overall accuracy of
the Id.
Data and statistical Procedures
The data used to statistically
evaluate the ICI were the original
data used by the QEFA to develop the
ICI and biocriteria (QEPA 1987a;
Whittier et al. 1987). The
procedures used to achieve each
study objective are as follows.
Professional judgement and a review
of literature were applied to
evaluate the reasonableness of the
ICI( objective 1). The determination
of the reasonableness of the
drainage area relationships was
achieved via comparisons of actual
rankings with the OEPA visually
interpreted results (objective 2).
The interrelationships among the ICI
metrics was determined via
correlation'analysis (objective 3).
The determination of whether or not
linear weights are optimal also was
accomplished via factor analysis
(objective 4). The overall accuracy
of the ICI (objective 5) was
assessed by correlating the QEFA
results with those derived via
factor analysis (results obtained
via the utilization of empirically
determined weights). The discussion
that follows describes the analysis
procedures. The drainage area size
categories evaluated in this study
were (1) less than 10 square miles,
(2) 10 to 100 square miles, (3) 101
to 1000 square miles, and (4) more
than 1000 square miles.
Correlation Analysis
The correlation analysis
coefficients were computed using the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS)
software package (SAS 1985; Steel
and Torrie 1960; Tabachnick and
Fidell 1983). Correlation
coefficients indicate the strength
of associations among pairs of
metrics. The correlation
coefficient (r) equals:
where:
(1)
:-:2 - (SUMXi^)/n
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis (Harmon 1976; SAS
1985) was used to determine the
appropriate weights for each of the
ten metrics and to create "new" ICI
scores. The new scores were computed
by multiplying the standardized
metric values by the factor analysis
determined weights. These weights
indicate the relative empirically
determined contribution of each of
the metrics to measuring water
qua 1 i ty . Pr inc ipal components
analysis was the selected factor
analysis technique because the
evaluation required summarizing the
interrelationships (correlations)
among the metrics via independent
factors. The basic principal
components model is shown below:
(2)
where:
Z = standardized ICI score;
Li = contribution (weights) for
each of the n metrics;
Fn = factors.
Each factor equals:
Fn =
(3)
where:
n = eigenvalues or the sum of the
weights for each of the
factors.
Due to the independence of the
factors, the resulting scale is the
sum of the factor weights multiplied
by the corresponding standardized
25
-------
Davis and Lubin
ICI metric values. In addition to
the rationale previously discussed,
principal components analysis was
selected because the technique does
not require particular data
distributions. Like the correlation
analysis, the factor analysis was
done via SAS.
Procedures
The comparison of the OEPA visual
evaluation with the actual data
distributions for each of the ICI
metrics involved two steps. The
first step used the SAS ranking
procedure to order the information
for each of the indicators. The SAS
listing included the actual data
values as well as the percentile
rankings. The second step used SAS
to determine the 95th percentile
values for each of the metrics to
compare with the corresponding
visually determined values. These
analytical steps were done for each
of the drainage size categories.
Results and Discussion
The results and ensuing
discussions are presented by study
objective.
Professionally evaluate the
reasonableness and derivation of the
invertebrate community measurements
VK-jfiri to reflect the metrics.
The ICI is basically composed of
two types of metrics: richness
measures (metrics 1,2,3,4, and 10)
and enumerations (metrics 5,6,7,8,
and 9). Richness measures are based
on the presence or absence of
selected taxa. Commonly used
measures include the total number of
taxa (metric 1) and the number of
EFT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera) taxa. Resh (1988)
showed that richness measures tend
to be highly accurate with low
variability.
The ICI further utilizes the EPT
concept by including the mayflies
and caddisflies as separate metrics
(metrics 2 and 3). Since stoneflies
are not abundant during summer in
Ohio (Ohio EPA 1987b), there was no
justification to give them equal
weight and were therefore not
included as a separate metrics. The
ICI did include the full EPT measure
from the natural substrate (metric
10). The other richness measure
(metric 4) was based on the number
of Dipteran taxa since the Diptera
are generally present in even the
most toxic conditions with increased
representation in good conditions.
This metric was justified by the
need to be able to address a wide
variety of water quality conditions.
Overall, the five richness metrics
appear to have been adequately
justified.
The enumeration metrics focus on
the numerical abundances of selected
taxa in relationship to the total
number of individuals collected at a
site. The percentages of mayflies
(metric 5) and caddisf lies (metric
6) were used since their numerical
abundances were observed to rapidly
change with water quality conditions
(OEPA 1987b). OEPA found that
mayflies were much more sensitive to
water quality changes than were
caddisflies, but that the
caddisflies provided an intermediate
indicator between the use of
mayflies and metrics 8 and 9.
Through Ohio EPA's - extensive
studies, they found that the
abundance of Qiironomidae belonging
to the Tribe Tanytarsini (metric 7)
was positively related to higher
water quality. The relative
pollution intolerance of Tanytarsini
midges has also been noted by
Hilsenhoff (1982, 1987) and Simpson
and Bode (1980).
The last two metrics are the only
two that have a negative relation-
26
-------
Statistical Validation of Id.
hip with the ICI and water quality.
The percent of the "other"
dipterans (non Tanytarsini midges)
and non-insects (oligochaetes,
crustaceans, gastropods, etc.) is
metric 8. This metric was chosen
because Dipterans are present in
even the most polluted areas, and
tend to predominant under such
conditions. Hart and Fuller (1974),
Pennack (1978), Hilsenhoff (1982,
1987) all support the observation
that the Dipterans and other non-
insect tend to predominate under
poor water quality conditions.
The other "negative" metric is the
percent tolerant organisms (metric
9). OEPA developed a list of
organisms tolerant to a wide variety
of perturbations, with the majority
of the list devoted to non-
Tanytarsini midges. The other
tolerant organisms include
oligochaetes, limpets, and the pouch
snail. This metric is consistent
with the literature regarding the
pollution tolerances of these
organisms (Bode and Simpson 1982;
Hilsenhoff 1982, 1987; Howmiller
and Scott 1977; Krieger 1984;
Pennack 1978; Saether 1979; Simpson
and Bode 1982). Further supportive
documentation can be found in Beck
(1977), Davis and Lathrop (1989),
Fitchko (1986), Rae (1989), and
Wiederholm (1984).
Each one of the ICI metrics
presented above are consistent with
common methods used to evaluate
water quality. OEPA biologists
developed these metrics based upon
the information they have collected
throughout the years of conducting
such assessments. The ICI reflects
the state-of-the-art for benthic
assessments within Ohio, and
complements the many other tools
available for use including biotic
indices, similarity indices, and
rapid assessment methods.
Variability in both the ICI and
each metric was determined using the
coefficient of variation (C.V. ). A
summary of the metric values for
the reference and ambient sites
appears in Tables 1 and 2 along with
the C.V. for each metric. In
general, it appears that there is
fairly low spatial variability with
the ICI for both the reference and
ambient sites. As expected, there is
greater variability among the
ambient sites than the reference
sites. Also, the metrics with the
greater variability are the
enumeration measurements since their
natural ranges are much greater and
populations within a community tend
to respond quickly to water quality
changes. Temporal variability was
not examined in this study, but
since OEPA has a summer sampling
program with restrictions on
conditions when the sample can
occur, temporal variability should
be somewhat controlled.
Determine if the drainage area
relationships visually determined
are
Data distributions derived via SAS
ranking procedures for each of the
drainage area size categories were
used to determine whether or not the
OEPA utilized appropriate percentile
values. The rankings yielded 95th
percentile results similar to the
results visually determined by OEPA
(Table 3). Therefore, the ranking
results supported the accuracy of
the original visual results.
Determine if anv of the metrics are
interrelated and, thus,, provide
redundytf information.
The SAS-derived correlations among
the pairs of metrics were uniformly
low (Table 4). The highest
individual coefficient is
approximately 0.73 (R square =
0.53). The majority of the
27
-------
Davis and Lubin
Table l. ICI metric values for
reference sites (n=232).
Table 2. ICI metric values for
ambient sites (n=431).
Metric
# Taxa
# Mayflies
# Caddisf lies
# Diptera
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Tanytarsini
% Dipterans1
% Tolerant
EFT
ICI
Mean
35.57
6.86
3.78
15.52
23.13
10.84
23.43
40.79
10.22
3.78
40.96
C.V.
19.51
34.52
61.14
30.95
72.60
120.89
78.80
52.05
109.93
42.83
20.51
-••and non- insects
Metric
t Taxa
# Mayflies
# Caddisflies
# Diptera
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Tanytarsini
% Dipterans1
% Tolerant
EFT
ICI
Mean
28.79
4.52
3.04
12.87
15.96
10.93
12.95
58.76
23.27
6.32
29.47
C.V.
32.82
65.35
89.48
37.17
109.24
142.39
119.92
53.42
121.84
68.40
53.72
-'•and non- insects
Table 3.ICI metric 95th percentiles.
Metric
# Taxa
# Mayflies
# Caddisflies
* Diptera
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Tanytarsini
% Dipterans2
% Tolerant
EFT
Drainage
A B
36
7
6
19
43
51
21
84
33
11
48
10
5
24
58
23
52
82
25
15
Area
C
47
10
8
22
53
39
68
72
1
19
(id/)1
D
39
10
8
14
54
57
47
56
2
17
1A=<10; B=ll-100; C=101-1000;D=>1000
Bother dipterans and non-insects.
coefficients were less than 0.5,
indicating that there was minimal
intercorrelation (and redundancy)
among the majority of the metrics.
Determine if the use of IJT^*-?1' yiu?i
weights was appropriate.
The principal components analysis
resulted in unequal weights,
demonstrating that the use of equal
weights is not optimal. The
alternative weights are shown in
Table 5.
pygii^te "frfr^ pvcyrgj.1 accuracy of the
ICI to develop biocriteria.
The evaluation of the overall
accuracy of the ICI required the
determination of whether or not the
original results closely
corresponded with those using the
factor analysis derived weights
(assumed to be the more opti'nai
values). The factor analysis scale
used for comparative purposes was
created using only the substantial
weights (metrics with low weights).
The basic idea was that if the
correlations among the pairs of
original (CEFA) and the factor
analysis derived scores were high,
there is substantial similarity
among the results. The correlation
analysis without exception yielded
high correlations among the OEPA
original results and the factor
analysis derived results. Table 6
presents results using the entire
28
-------
Statistical Validation of Id
Table 4. Correlations among the ICI metrics.
Metric Number-1-
23456
Metric
10
#
t
#
t
%
%
%
%
%
Taxa
Mayflies
Caddisflies
Diptera
Mayflies
Caddisflies
Tanytarsini
Dipterans2
Tolerant
EPT
*
.39
.29
.73
.04
-.12
.01
.01
.25
-.10
.39
*
.29
-.06
.32
.04
.14
-.41
-.15
.02
.29
.29
*
-.26
-.09
.50
.31
-.44
-.23
.12
.33
-.06
-.26
*
.01
-.37
-.17
.33
.45
-.16
.04
.32
-.09
.04
*
.-04
-.38
-.52
-.05
-.03
-.12 .
.04 .
.50 .
-.37 -.
.04 -.
* -.
-.20
-.38 -
-.22 -.
.09 .
01 .
14 -.
31 -.
17 .
38 -.
20 -.
*
.43
19 .
19 -.
01
40
44
33
52
38
43
*
32
18
.25
-.15
-.23
.45
-.05
-.22
-.19
.32
*
-.20
-.10
.02
.12
-.16
-.03
.09
.19
-.18
-.20
*
INumbered metrics are ordered as in vertical list.
2Other dipterans and non-insects.
Table 5. Factor analysis scale weights.
Metric
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
# Taxa
# Mayflies
# Caddisflies
# Diptera
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Tanytarsini
% Dipterans1
% Tolerant
EPT
_ _ — . __
-.08456
.14139
.23157
-.25057
.06978
.20729
.14237
-.28677
.22392
.12308
.45265
. 33058
.17111
. 29023
. 18929
-.03090
.02690
-.16418
.11371
.06188
.14775
-.04850
.19786
.06976
-.52270
-.16980
.50169
.09452
.00090
. 15082
.15932
-.18673
. 41300
.02050
-.28908
.59147
-.31282
.19557
.13188
-.18614
29
-------
Davis and Lubin
data set as well as each of the
drainage area size categories.
Table 6.Correlations among ICI and
factor analysis scales at
the reference sites.
Drainage
Area (mi2) n r r-square
All 232
<10 7
11-100 97
101-1000 107
>1000 21
.972
.903
.978
.969
.971
.945
.815
.956
.939
.943
To determine whether the ICI
developed for the reference sites
would be applicable to the ambient
sites, correlations were studied
between the ICI metrics calculated
for the 431 ambient sites and the
factor-derived scores for the same
ambient sites using the factor
scales from the reference sites. As
expected, due to the greater
variability among the ambient sites,
lower correlations were found with
the ambient site data than with the
reference site data (Table 7).
Table 7. Correlations among ICI and
Factor Analysis Scales
All
<10
11-100
101-1000
>1000
431
17
151
213
50
.914
.825
.926
.917
.813
.835
.681
.857
.841
.661
However, these correlations were
still relatively high with the
exception of the drainage areas
greater than 1000 square miles. We
feel that the ICI can be adequately
applied to non-reference sites, as
recommended by OEPA (1987b).
Therefore, it may be concluded
that the presented OEPA results are
acceptable and the OEPA scale is
accurate. Since the factor-derived
scale and OEPA-derived scales
yielded similar results, it does not
appear as though the use of equal
weights detracted from the ICI.
Summary and Conclusions
In summary,, the following
concluded:
was
1. The metrics which comprise the
Invertebrate Community Index
(ICI) seem to be valid empirical
indicators of water quality;
2. OEFA employed
percentile
factors;
appropriate 95th
distr ibution
3. The individual ICI metrics
minimally interrelated;
are
4. The use of equal weights is not
optimal, but is acceptable; and,
5. The factor analysis derived and
the OEFA scales yielded similar
results;
6. Consequently, both the overall
accuracy and adequacy of the
OEPA developed ICI were
determined to be acceptable.
Even though the results of the OEFA
effort were found to be reasonable,
factor analysis should be used to
develop empirically based weights
rather than relying on the
assumption of equality. Similarity
among the OEPA and factor analysis
scale scores was observed for both
the reference and ambient site data.
In general, we feel that OEPA has
done an excellent job in documenting
the ICI and in preparing an
extraordinary index for the State of
Ohio.
30
-------
Statistical Validation of Id
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the
assistance received from Jeff DeShon
at the Ohio EPA for providing the
data used for this study, reviewing
this article, and clarifying some of
the procedures used in the ICI
development. This document does not
necessarily reflect the opinions of
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Literature Cited
Beck, W.M. Jr. 1977. Environmental
Requirements and Pollution Tolerance
of Common Freshwater Chironomidae.
EPA-600/4-77/024, USEPA, Office Of
Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.
Bode, R.W. and Siirpson, K. W. 1982.
Communities of Chironomidae in Large
Lotic Systems: Impacted vs
Unimpacted. Unpublished paper
presented at the 30th Annual Meeting
of the North American Benthological
Society in Ann Arbor, MI, May 18,
1982. 15 p.
Davis, W.S., and Lathrop, J.E. 1989.
Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Community Structure and Function.
Chapter 7. In: Sediment
Classification Methods Conpendium,
Draft Final Report, USEPA Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. 47 p.
Fitchko, J. 1986. Literature Review
of the Effects of Persistent Toxic
Substances on Great Lakes Biota.
Report of the Health of Aquatic
Communities Task Force,
International Joint Conmission,
Windsor, Ontario, 256 p.
Harmon, H.H. 1976. "Modern Factor
Analyses." Third Edition, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hart, C.W. Jr. and Fuller, S.L.H.
(eds). 1974. Pollution Ecology of
Freshwater invertebrates. Academic
Press, Inc. London. 389 p.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An Improved
Biotic Index of Organic Stream
Pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist
20(l):31-39.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a
Biotic Index to Evaluate Water
Quality in Streams. Technical
Bulletin No. 132, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, WI, 23 p.
Howmiller, R.P. and Scott, M.A.
1977. An Environmental Index Based
on Relative Abundance of Oligochaete
Species. J. Wat. Pollut. Contr.
Fed. 49:809-815.
Krieger, K.A. 1984. Benthic
Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of
Environmental Degradation in the
Southern Nearshore Zone of the
Central Basin of Lake Erie. J.
Great Lakes Res. 10(2):197-209.
Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W.
(eds). 1984. An Introduction to the
Aquatic Insects of North America.
2nd edition. Kendall/Hunt Publ.,
Dubuque, IA. 441 p.
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987a. Biological Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Life:
Volume I. The Role of 'Biological
Data in Water Quality Assessment.
Division of Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment, Surface Water
Section, Columbus, OH 44 p.
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987b. Biological Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Life:
Volume II. Users Manual for
Biological Field Assessment of Ohio
Surface Waters. Division of Water
31
-------
Davis and Lubin
Quality Monitoring and Assessment,
Surface Water Section, Columbus, OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987c. Biological Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Life:
Volume III. Standardized Biological
Field Sampling and Laboratory
Methods for Assessing Fish and
Macro invertebrate Communities.
Division of Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment, Surface Water
Section, Columbus, CH.
Pennack, R.W. 1978. Freshwater
Invertebrates of the United States.
(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York. 803 p.
Plafkin,J.L., Barbour.M.T., Porter,
K.D. and Gross, S.K., and Hughs,
R.M. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates
and Fish. EPA/444/4-89/001, Office
of Water, Washington, D.C.
Rae, J.G. 1989. Chironomid Midges
as Indicators of Organic Pollution
in the Scioto River Basin, Ohio.
Ohio J. Sci. 89(1):5-9.
Resh, V.H. 1988. Variability,
Accuracy, and Taxonomic Costs of
Rapid Assessment Approaches in
Benthic Biomonitoring. DRAFT. Paper
Presented at the 1988 North American
Bentho logical Society Technical
Information Workshop,Tuscaloosa, AL.
Saether, O.A. 1979. Chiranomidae
Comrunities as Indicators of Water
Quality. Hoi. Ecol. 2:65-74.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. "SAS
User's Guide: Statistics." Version 5
Edition, SAS-Institute, NC.
Simpson, K.W. and Bode, R.W. 1980.
Common Larvae of Chironomidae
(Diptera) from New York State
Streams and Rivers - With Particular
Reference to the Fauna of Artificial
Substrates. New York State Dept. of
Health, NY State Museum Bull. No.
439, Albany, NY. 105 p.
Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H.
1960. "Principles and Procedures of
Statistics." McGraw-Hill, Inc., NY.
Tabachnick, B..G., and Fidell, L.S.
1983. "Using Multivariate
Statistics." Harper and Row Publ.,
New York.
Whittier, T.R, Larson, D.P., Hughs,
R.M., Rohm, C.M., Gallant, A.L., and
Qnernick, J.M. 1987. "The Ohio
Stream Regionalization Project: A
Compendium of Results." USEPA 600/3-
87/025, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Wiederholm, T. 1984. Responses of
Aquatic Insects to Environmental
Pollution, p. 508-557. In: V.H.
Resh and D.M. Rosenberg (eds.). The
ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger
Publishers, New York, 625 p.
32
-------
Black Earth Creek: Use of Biological Methods to Identify Non-
Point Source Threats to a Naturally Reproducing Trout Fishery
Dave Marshall, Scot Stewart and Jim Baumann
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Abstract
Black Earth Creek Watershed is one of 32 nonpoint source program priority
watershed projects in Wisconsin. The identification of impaired uses is an
important component of each watershed project. A variety of biological
methods were used to appraise threats to the naturally reproducing Brown
Trout fishery in Black Earth Creek. The water resources appraisal found
dissolved oxygen levels not meeting standards during storm events;
sedimentation degrading fish habitat; excessive aquatic vegetation; aquatic
insect populations dominated by sediment tolerant species; and a stressed
fish population.
Introduction
In 1985, a committee involving
several Wisconsin DNR programs,
USGS, and University of Wisconsin
was organized to assess the water
quality and fishery of Black Earth
Creek. Black Earth Creek is a
locally famous trout stream in the
backyard of Wisconsin's second
largest city and supports up to
1,800 adult wild Brown trout per
mile. The assessment committee
addressed the concerns of local
Trout Unlimited members, other long-
time anglers and users of Black
Earth Creek who perceived declining
water quality in the stream. A
monitoring strategy was designed to
characterize water quality and
document impacts of point and
nonpoint sources on the stream.
Strong public interest and support
among various public agencies
eventually lead to the selection of
Black Earth Creek as a Priority
Watershed for controlling nonpoint
source pollution. Uhder the
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program, the
original diagnostic study evolved
into a project of stream protection
and rehabilitation. Presently,
monitoring continues and focuses on
documenting success of the project.
Location
The Black Earth Creek watershed is
located in south central Wisconsin,
just west of Madison the state
capital. The watershed encompasses
106 square miles of mostly hilly
farmland and includes three small
communities. In addition to Black
Earth Creek, two other streams are
classified and managed trout
fisheries. Three more small streams
support low trout numbers but
mostly forage fish populations.
Another small stream displays poor
water quality and supports aquatic
connunities tolerant of organic
pollution. Oily one small natural
lake occurs in the watershed which
is on the fringe of a glaciated
region to the east and unglaciated
"driftless" area to the west. Along
its 21 mile length, Black Earth
Creek is divided into different
fishery zones. The eastern
headwaters section exhibits
relatively low flow and supports
mostly forage fish. The middle trout
fishery section begins at an area of
significant groundwater discharge
which is the "lifeblood" of the
33
-------
Marshall, Stewart, and Baunann
trout stream. Lower Black Earth
Creek has a diverse warm water
fishery supporting species that
migrate upstream from the Wisconsin
River but also trout in the colder
months.
Assessment Techniques
Monitoring and assessment involved
a two-phased approach. Phase one,
appraisal monitoring characterized
stream habitats and water quality
throughout the watershed. Appraisal
monitoring helped prioritize
management needs and identify stream
segments for intensive evaluation
monitoring, the second monitoring
phase. Evaluation monitoring will
focus on specific stream segments to
closely assess water quality trends
before and after implementation of
land use management. Along with
evaluation monitoring, the
appraisal monitoring techniques will
be duplicated at the end of the
project to help document nonpoint
source control effectiveness.
Appraisal Monitoring
Initially, appraisal monitoring
focused on the managed trout water
section of Black Earth Creek to
characterize general water quality
trends. Within that reach, USGS
operated four gaging stations to
continuously monitor dissolved
oxygen, temperature and flow. BCD,
suspended solids and nutrients were
frequently sampled as well. Water
Resources Management graduate
students UW-Madison also
participated on the Black Earth
Creek Assessment committee when they
selected the trout stream a "water
resources management workshop" in
1985. Ihe graduate students provided
valuable information while getting
experience at assessing water
resources conditions and stream use
potential. As part of the project,
the students performed habitat
assessments, conducted user surveys,
and reviewed historical information
on fisheries, water quality and land
use. Ihis information was compiled
in a Institute for Environmental
Studies Report..
ENR expanded appraisal monitoring
to include more of Black Earth Creek
and other streams in the water shed.
Tnroughout the water shed,
monitoring was aimed at assessing
the impacts of channel
strengthening, eroding cropland,
over-pasturing and animal waste
management problems. In Black Earth
Creek, we also looked at potential
impacts of construction erosion, a
poorly designed and operated
landfill, a wastewater treatment
plant and a gravel mining operation.
Appraisal monitoring involved a
number of sampling techniques.
Stream habitats were evaluated using
standardized habitat rating forms
and were supplemented with
photographs. Population densities
and size structure of trout were
estimated in the managed trout
streams. Fish populations were also
monitored in small streams (not
intensively managed by Fish
Management) using a backpack stream
shocker. Macrophotography
supplemented fish preservation and
laboratory identification of minnow
species which could not be
identified in the field.
A D-f rame net was used to sample
macroinvertebrate populations and
the (HBI) Biotic Index, developed
Hilsenhoff at UW-Madison, was
calculate for each semi-quantitative
sample. Ihe index is based on
varying tolerances of
macroinvertebrate species to organic
pollution. HBI values range from 0-
10; 0 indicating most intolerant
macroinvertebrates and 10 indicating
most tolerant macroinvertebrates.
Table 1 lists the HBI water quality
scale calculated from
34
-------
Black Earth Creek
macroinvertebrate communities. Ihe
HBI has been used in Wisconsin since
1978 and effectively demonstrated
impacts of moderate to significant
conventional pollutants on streams.
Dissolved oxygen and temperature
measurements supplemented biological
information collected from each
stream. Water column samples were
tested for conventional pollutants
below specific targets suspected of
degrading water quality.
In addition to D-frame "bug"
samples, quantitative suber samples
were taken at five sites along Black
Earth Creek to assess
macroinvertebrates habitat
preference and provide a closer look
at macroinvertebrate community
structure. Quantitative samples
compared macroinvertebrates in
substrates covered with aquatic
plants to macroinvertebrates
inhabiting bare substrates were part
of a broader picture to assess the
value of abundant aquatic plants in
Black Earth Creek.
Appraisal Results
USGS reported that major runoff
events had degraded the water
quality in Black Earth Creek.
Following a February 1985 warm spell
and rainfall. BQD5 concentrations
reached 21mg/l. During a major storm
in July 1985, dissolved oxygen
levels dropped to 3mg/l which is
below the minimum standard for trout
streams (6 mg/1). Although Black
Earth Creek displayed poor water
quality during a few major storms,
the HBI (a relatively long-term
water quality indicator) reflected
fair to good water in Black Earth
Creek and most of the water shed
streams. Brewery Creek, a small
tributary of Black Earth Creek, is
the only stream that displays poor
water quality based on the HBI. Die
HBI reflected the dominance of
Asellus intermedia-? which is very
tolerant of organic pollution. USGS
provided further evidence of the
poor water quality in Brewery Creek
when BQDc concentrations reached 37
mg/1 during the February 1985 thaw.
High BCD concentrations were the
result of animal waste management
problems in the Brewery Creek Sub-
watershed.
With the exception of Brewery
Creek, HBIs indicated that water
quality was not a limiting factor
for benthic communities. Instead,
habitat degradation caused by
agricultural land use had a greater
impact on aquatic invertebrates but
is not and HBI measurement.
Macroinvertebrates communities in
most of the streams exhibited low
diversity and were dominated by
Chironomids, intolerant of severe
organic pollution, and by Gaimarus
pseudolimnius which indicates good
water quality. These
macroinvertebrates appear to have a
high tolerance to siltation.
Consistent with macroinvertebrates
sampling throughout the watershed,
HBI's did not indicate significant
pollution below the landfill, gravel
mining operation or Cross Plains
wastewater treatment plant. The
landfill was closed in 1988 after
volatile organic compounds were
found in local private wells. Prior
to closure however, leachate had
reached the stream in a few
instances. Except for relatively
high CCD concentrations in a
drainage ditch below the landfill,
appraisal monitoring techniques
indicated no significant pollution.
Concern was expressed by anglers
that leachate may contain toxic
axitaminants that bioaccumulate in
trout. As a public relations
gesture, trout were tested for PCBs
and other possible contaminants.
Fortunately none were found, yet
concerns are still being raised over
35
-------
Marshall, Stewart, and Baumann
the long-term impacts of a leaking
landfill site.
During the »60's and early »70's,
inadequate wastewater treatment at
the Cross Plains plant reduced water
quality in the Black Earth Creek
trout stream and occasionally caused
fish kills. As recently as 1985, a
treatment plant upset caused high
BCD concentrations to reach the
stream. Since that time, mechanical
problems in the plant have been
corrected and effluent quality has
been good.
Two potential impacts of gravel
mining operations were identified
during the watershed appraisal.
First, impact of surface withdrawal
from a quarry into Black Earth Creek
during mid-summer increased by three
degrees centigrade. Temperatures
reached the upper limits for trout
survival in lower sections of the
trout stream. As a recourse,, the
WPDES discharge permit has been
temperature-dissolved oxygen
profiled, withdrawal of water for 15
feet depth will maintain maximum
discharge temperatures below 60°F.
The other concern was the impact of
gravel mining operations on ground
water flow and springs which are the
"life blood" of the trout stream.
The groundwater issue was beyond the
scope of the appraisal but will soon
be addressed with a groundwater
mapping effort.
Erosion from construction and
development was identified as a
problem, particularly in the Brewery
Creek sub-watershed. Impacts of
runoff and sedimentation could not
be distinguished from agricultural
sources, which occur throughout the
watershed.
Figure 1 is a watershed map
containing HBI data, with management
and water resources objectives for
each subwatershed.
Evaluation Monitoring
Evaluation monitoring techniques
and locations were identified as
part of the water resources
appraisal. Appraisal monitoring
identified Brewery Creek as a major
source of sediment and enrichment in
Black Earth Creek. The segment below
Brewery Creek was selected for
intensive evaluation monitoring
because most of the stream reach
contains substantial deposits of
silt, abundant: aquatic plants and
benthic community dominated by
Chironomids and Oligochaetes. A
major focus of the evaluation
monitoring is to map and quantify
silt deposits and evaluate habitat
loss for macroinvertebrates and
trout. Aquatic plants will be mapped
and numerous cliel dissolved oxygen
measurements will be taken to assess
respiration of abundant plants.
During June 1988, early morning
dissolved oxygen concentrations
dropped to 3.2 mg/1 and a
substantial trout kill occurred. It
was the first documented fish kill
caused by aquatic plant respiration
in Black Earth Creek.
Quantitative macroinvertebrates
samples will be taken to assess
community change and coincide
habitat assessment. Long-term trout
fishermen believe a greater
diversity of aquatic insects,
including numerous mayflies and
daccisflies, inhabited the stream
prior to recent habitat degradation.
Assuming habitat will be improved,
quantitative sampling should reflect
a community shift from Chironomids
and Oligochaestes to insects that
trout fishermen consider "quality
hatches".
Semi-quantitative sampling, used
for the HBI may not accurately
depict community structure. Table 2
contains preliminary comparison of
quantitative surber samples to semi-
quantitative D-frame samples. Over a
36
-------
Black Earth Creek
Black Earth Creek
Priority Watershed
Mershed Location
Dane County
Explanation
/V Municipal Boundary
N Road
N Stream
• lelland
• Lake
Sate "i Miles
0123
f
Figure 1. Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed.
37
-------
Marshall, Stewart, and Baumann
Table 1. A description of the Hilsenhoff (1987) Biotic Index.
Biotic Index
Water Quality
Degree of 'Organic Pollution
0.00-3.5
3.51-4.5
4.51-5.5
5.51-6.5
6.51-7.5
7.51-8.5
8.51-10.0
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Fairly Poor
Poor
Very Poor
No apparent pollution
Possible slight pollution
Some organic pollution
Fairly significant pollution
Significant organic pollution
Very significant pollution
Severe organic pollution
Table 2. Surber and D-frame H.B.I, and percent Chironomid data (4/85).
Non-Vegetative SubstratesVegetative SubstratesBoth Substrates
Surber %Chironomids Surber %Chironomids Surber %Ghironomids
2.61
3.4
3.08
3.04
3.14
51
89
89
95
91
2.55
3.15
3.13
3.59
3.44
62
95
87
84
92
2.71
3.0
3.4
2.96
3.19
18
63
48
38
61
range of vegetative and bare
substrates, all D-frame samples had
significantly lower percentages of
Chironomids and may indicate for
bias larger macroinvertebrates.
Estimates of trout population
density and size structure and will
dovetail macroinvertebrate sampling
and habitat assessment. The combined
evaluation monitoring techniques
will ultimately characterize stream
ecology before and after
implementation of nonpoint source
pollution controls in the Brewery
Creek Sub-watershed and at planned
management sits in Black Earth
Creek. Below are more detailed
summaries of methodology used for
evaluation monitoring.
Intensive Habitat Assessment
Within the 3/4 mile reach below
Brewery Creek, sediment depths and
macrophyte cover will be measured
along several transect sites will be
marked for resampling biennially
until completion of the project in
1995. A top settling rod will be
driven into the sediment for
measurement of silt accumulation.
Silt measurements are taken at two
foot intervals along the cross
section and stream widths vary from
20 to 50 feet. Percent macrophyte
cover is estimated in each two foot
segment across the transect. The
habitat assessment is performed
during peak growing season, usually
ill July and early August.
Macroinvertetarate Sanpling
Quantitative macroinvertebrates
samples will lie taken at several
transects along the study reach
during the three sanpling periods at
the beginning,, approximate midway
38
-------
Black Earth Creek
point and completion of the project.
The primary focus is to characterize
benthic community structure and
community change as habitat
changes. A hess sampler is used for
quantitative sampling at two to
three points along a transect.
depending on stream width. Because
of the labor involved in
quantitative assessment, most of the
laboratory sorting and
identification stops at the Family
level. However, subsamples will be
removed for further identification
and HBI calculation. Although
habitat is the primary focus of the
macroinvertebrate study, HBI
sampling will continue because it is
a standard water quality measurement
tool in Wisconsin. Quantitative
sampling will identify major
community groups for comparison of
total numbers and percentages of
Chironomids and Oligochaetes to
Ephemeroptera and Tricoptera. Other
indices may be used as they are
tested and approved. Dr. Stanley W.
Szcythko, at UW Stevens point is
currently evaluating new stream
metrics techniques for use in
Wisconsin.
Assessment of Trout Density and Size
Structu-e
Mark and recapture population
estimates will be conducted for
brown trout f.saimn trutta) in the
0.75 mile stretch below the mouth of
Brewery Creek. These estimates will
be conducted during spring 1989 and
1990. Results will be compared to
future estimates after land use
practices and habitat improvement
have been completed., An attempt
will also be made to relate these
results to previous estimates for
the same stream stretch prior to
construction erosion in the Brewery
Creek sub-watershed.
Because trout size structure is an
important consideration, all
population estimates will be based
on summation of size group
estimates., This analysis will allow
the evaluation of size structure
trends through time.
it Demonstration
Habitat Improv
Sites
Since the project is a joint
effort involving Fisheries and Water
Resources Management programs, the
three primary evaluation techniques
will also be used to demonstrate the
effectiveness of instream habitat
improvement. Monitoring will be
flexible to accommodate new
demonstration sites as they are
selected.
Dissolved Oxygen - Temperature
Diel dissolved oxygen and
temperature monitoring will occur in
study reach below Brewery Creek and
throughout the Black Earth Creek
trout stream. The sampling will
occur biennially during the peak
growing season to further assess
impacts of abundant aquatic plants
and determine how frequently D.O.
levels drop below water quality
standards. A YSI Model 57 dissolved
oxygen-temperature meter with
automated data logger is the primary
instrument used. The equipment will
be in place up to one week during
mid to late summer.
Appraisal Monitoring Techniques
Appraisal monitoring discussed
earlier in this report will be
duplicated on smaller streams not
intensively monitored. General
habitat assessment, HBI and IBI
sampling will be repeated midway and
at the completion of the project to
document overall changes of
watershed conditions and success of
the Priority Watershed Project.
39
-------
Marshall, Stewart, and Baunarm
Sunnary
In nonpoint source Priority
Watersheds across the state, Water
Resource appraisals characterize
water resource conditions and
potential problems. Evaluation
monitoring specifically focuses on
documenting water quality changes
before and after implementation of
nonpoint source pollution controls.
The specific appraisal and
evaluation monitoring techniques
will vary somewhat across the
depending on water Shed
characteristics and evaluator
preference. Bie monitoring strategy
of this project reflect water
resources issues and problems unique
to the Black Earth Creek watershed.
Tne Black Earth Creek Priority
Watershed Project has been a
cooperative effort involving several
environmental and conservation
programs. Protecting water resources
and assessing the effectiveness of
nonpoint source pollution abatement
and habitat rehabilitation are the
primary goals of the project. A
number of support technical reports
were prepared during the appraisal
phase which helped identify specific
management and water resources
objectives to meet these goals.
Literature Cited.
Field, S. J. and D.J. Graczyk. 1988.
Hydrology, Aquatic Macrophytes and
Water Quality in Black Earth Creek
and its tributaries, Wisconsin.
(Draft). US Geological Survey.
Water Resources Investigations
Report 88.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An Improved
Biotic Index of Organic Stream
Pollution., One Great Lakes
Entomologist.
University of Wisconsin Madison
Water Resources Management Workshop.
1986. Black Earth Creek: A
Watershed Study with Management
Options. Institute for
Environmental Studies, UW Madison.
WI ENR and Dane County Land
Conservation Department. 1988. A
plan for the control of non-point
sources and related resource
management in the Black Earth Creek
Watershed (Draft).
40
-------
Rationale for a Family-Level Ichthyoplankton Index
for Use in Evaluating Water Quality
Thomas P. Simon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Central Regional Laboratory
Chicago, IL 60605
Abstract
Based on recommendations by proponents of the Index of Biotic Integrity
(IBI), the early life stages of fishes are usually not included in
evaluations of water quality. High initial larval mortality, differing gear-
type vulnerability, and the lack of taxonomic expertise has precluded field
biologists from considering them in' their analyses. The literature
demonstrates that the egg and larval stages of development are the sensitive
period in all species of fishes. Recruitment failure, contamination of pool
and nursery habitats, poor sediment quality, and discovery of reproductive
failure at chronic levels of exposure would be advantageous in protecting
aquatic resources. The use of a qualitative collection method with a faiuMy-
level taxonomic approach will facilitate use without complicating logistics
and level of effort. The index is based on three components: taxonomy,
reproductive guild, and abundance and deformity.
Introduction
The early life history stages of
fishes are recognized as the most
sensitive and vulnerable life stage
(Blaxter 1974; Moser et. al 1984).
The Clean Water Act of 1972, section
316(b), inadvertently prompted
large-scale monitoring and research
in the ecology and taxonomy of
ichthyoplankton. Documentation of
perturbations brought about by
large-scale water withdrawal for
hydroelectric, industrial cooling,
and navigation impacts have met with
limited success. The ability to
document trends without identifying
most taxa to species has caused
doubt as to the relevance or
resolution abilities of using
ichthyoplankton. The seasonal and
taxonomic difficulties has all but
reduced the usefulness of
ichthyoplankton except for game or
commercial species management.
Finally, high yearly fluctuations in
species density often dampens
population effects.
Even though there is reluctance to
conduct further ichthyoplankton
studies detailed enough to answer
water quality questions,
investigators have furthered
knowledge on the early life stages
of fishes. A recent explosion in the
amount and types of literature
includes documentation of nursery
habitats (Goodyear et al. 1982),
ecological early life history notes
(Wallus 1986; Wallus and Buchanan
1989; Simon and Wallus 1989),
taxonomic studies of regionally
important systems (Auer 1982;
Holland and Huston 1983; Wallus et
al. 1989), and toxicological studies
using early life history stages
(Norberg and Mount 1983; Birge et
al. 1985; Simon 1989).
The purpose of the current study
is to present an alternative for the
use of icftthyoplankton data for
determining water quality. Water
quality managers could use this
information to document
reproduction, nursery habitats, and
41
-------
Simon
backwater habitats not
conventionally surveyed during
routine adult fish or
macroinvertebrate collection. The
format and structure of the
ichthyoplankton index (I2) is
modeled after the index of biotic
integrity (IBI) using a family-level
approach. Since the proponents of
the IBI recommend against use of
larval and juvenile stages in their
analyses (Angermeier and Karr 1984;
Karr et al. 1986), the I2 can be an
additional use of data collected
during a routine adult sampling
event. Current knowledge on the
identification of most freshwater
faunas are limited, however, a
listing of appropriate references
are included in Table 1.
Methods and Materials
Sampling Requirements. The
objectives of the I2 are to provide
a rapid screening method using a
single collection event to determine
effects of water quality on
reproduction and the early life
stages of fishes. Collection of a
representative sample of
ichthyoplankton requires a variety
of gear types, and geographical,
spatial and temporal considerations.
The greater the stream complexity,
the greater the distance needed to
be sampled, e.g. a second order
stream should be surveyed
approximately 100 m, while a good
rule of thumb is fifteen times the
river width or two habitat cycles
(Gammon et al. 1981; Karr et al.
1986). Reproduction by fishes occurs
within a smaller habitat scale than
adult species occurrence. Fishes may
rely on a broader area for foraging
and etching out an existence,
however, only specialized "select"
habitats are utilized for
reproduction and serve as a nursery
habitat. Because of patchy
distribution of eggs and larvae a
large enough area needs to be
investigated to determine local use
of a particular stream reach.
Gear Types. The more complex the
environment the more numerous and
sophisticated are equipment needs.
The most typical equipment used for
collection of larval fishes include,
plankton nets; seines, dip nets, and
sweep nets; light traps; and push
nets and benthic sleds. Snyder
(1983) provides documentation on
rationale and use of most of the
above equipment. Light traps can be
constructed for lentic (Faber 1981,
1982), and lotic waters (Muth and
Haynes 1984), and information on the
use of the equipment can be
determined from references contained
therein. Push nets and benthic
sleds are described by Tuberville
(1979) and Burch (1983).
Geographical Considerations.
landscape differences have long been
recognized, and methods to
differentiate between various scales
have been attempted using
zoogeographical realms, biomes, and
most recently ecoregions. The
ecoregion concept is the most
consistent means of evaluating
community composition for a water
quality basei approach. Cmernik
(1987) defined the conterminous
united States into a series of
smaller discrete units, Aquatic
biological characterization using
this approach has been completed for
adult fish and macroinvertebrates in
several States including Ohio
(Larsen et al. 1986; Ohio EPA 1988),
Arkansas (Bennett et al. 1987;
Geise and Keith 1988), North
Carolina (Penrose and Cverton 1988),
and Vermont (Langdon 1988). These
42
-------
Family Ichthyoplan3ctcn Index
Table 1. Taxonomic literature useful for identification of larval and
early juvenile North American Freshwater fish.
Author (s) and Publ. Date Region
Fish, 1932 Lake Erie
Mansueti and Hardy, 1967 Chesapeake Bay Region
May and Gasaway, 1967 Oklahoma, Canton Reservoir
Colton and Marak, 1969 Northeast Coast, Black Island to
Cape Sable
Taber, 1969 Oklahoma and Texas, Lake Texoma
Scotton et al, 1973 Delaware Bay Region
Lippson and Moran, 1974 Potomac River Estuary
Hoque et. al, 1976 Tennessee River
Hardy et. al, 1978 Mid-Atlantic Bight, including
(six volumes each ind. authored) tidal and freshwater zones
Drewry, 1979 Great Lakes Region
Wang and Kernehan, 1979 Deleware Estuary
Elliott and Jimanez, 1981 Beverly Salem Harbor Area, Massachusetts
Snyder, 1981 Upper Colorado River System, Colorado
Wang, 1981 Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and
Moss Landing Harbor Elkhorn Slough, CA
Auer, 1982 Great TakP.s Basin, emph. Lake Michigan
Holland and Huston, 1983 Upper Mississippi River
McGowan, 1984 South Carolina, Robinson Impoundment
Sturm, 1988 Alaska
Wallus et. al, 1989 Ohio River basin, emphasis on
Tennessee and Cumberland Drainages
McGowan, 1989 North Carolina Piedmont impoundments
43
-------
Simon
approaches are applauded and similar
direction is needed for calibrating
the I2.
Spatial Considerations. Riffles or
rapid flow areas are not the most
likely places to encounter larval or
juvenile fishes, rather the head of
a pool, side margin of a channel,
and backwater areas are preferred. A
representative larval sample should
be collected from all available
habitats within a stream reach. For
example, a large river sample should
consist of various depth fractions
from the main channel, main channel
border, side border and backwaters.
Low flow areas will reveal higher
diversity of taxa while the
remaining large river species will
be collected while drifting in the
main channel (Simon 1986a). These
diverse areas should be pooled for
an overall evaluation of the site
while each component habitats,
"relative value", can be
quantitatively assessed for its
contribution to the whole. Creeks,
stream, and small rivers will
require fewer areas to comprise a
representative sample, however, any
reduced flow or eddy area will be in
need of sampling within a given
location. Ideal habitats include
those with submerged and emergent
aquatic macrophytes, overhanging
bank vegetation and roots.
Temporal Considerations. Numerous
reports and journal articles have
documented spawning temperature
requirements of various faunas. In
order to collect a representative
sample from a particular location,
familiarity with the reproductive
literature and selection of
appropriate sampling times are
necessary. For example, in the
midwest the earliest spawning fishes
initiate spawning under the ice,
with larval emergence and hatching
immediately after ice-out during
late March and early April. The last
species to initiate spawning are
usually finished by mid-July with a
majority of species spawning during
June (Simon 1986a). Ichthyoplankton
and early juvenile sampling should
be initiated in the midwest, no
sooner than mid-June and no later
than the end of September to ensure
collection of a representative
sample.
The use of different gear types
will facilitate collection of
families which are earlier spawning,
e.g. percids, cottids, salmonids,
and catostomids. Due to north to
south temperature dines, and east
to west rainfall differences,
species will cue on spawning earlier
in the south and west and later in
the north and east for the same
species. Sampling needs to be
adjusted accordingly.
Equally important is diel
differences in specimen collection.
Numerous studies have documented
significant differences between dusk
and sunset, daylight, and night
sampling. The general pattern is the
more turbid the water body the less
likely diel affects will be a
problem. Whenever one decides to
sample is not as important as it is
for them to be consistent. Safety
considerations and study objectives
may not deem night sampling
necessary. However, light trap use,
set up using an automatic timing
device may enable night time
sampling without the inconvenience
and danger. This method has
successfully been used by Alabama
Power on the Tallapoosa River.
44
-------
Family Ichthyoplarikton Index
Ichthyoplarikton Index Rationale and
Description
Metrics
Since much of the North American
fauna is incompletely described
(Simon 1986b), use of the index is
limited to a family approach until
the taxonomic literature facilitates
species specific recognition. The
eleven I2 metrics are based on three
broad categories. Metrics are
organized into taxonomic
composition, reproductive guild, and
abundance, generation time and
deformity categories. No single
metric is always a reliable
indicator of degradation, however,
relative sensitivity is determined
by region, scale, and application.
The metrics will react
differentially based on the type of
perturbation. For example, if
contaminated sediments are
suspected, the proportion of
lithophils and number of sensitive
families should decline depending on
the magnitude of the impact, while
equitability and perhaps deformity
should increase.
The remainder of this section
provides information, justification,
and rationale behind each of the I2
metrics (Table 2). Additional
refinement may be necessary to meet
the objectives of the investigators
study.
Taxonomic Composition. This
category is useful for assessing
family diversity and community
richness. The current level of
taxonomy requires that discussion be
limited to a family level but future
use of the index nay make this a
species specific approach.
Expectations should be determined
for various stream size and
calibrated by equipment based on
information presented in Fausch et
al. (1984). Taxa diversity has been
determined to be the best sole
indicator of "good" water quality.
Sensitive families such as percids,
cottids, ictalurids, and others
listed in Table 3, are useful for
determining the extent of impact to
sediments and nursery habitats.
Finally, dominance of tolerant
species increases proportionally to
environmental degradation.
Metric 1. Total Number of
Families. The fluctuation in number
of families of an ecoregion
increases with stream order. If the
same order stream, in the same
ecoregion, with similar habitat
cycles were sampled, then reduction
in number of families would
correspond to environmental
degradation. A number of
investigators have determined number
of taxa is the single most
important metric which highly
correlates with more pristine water
quality (Ohio EPA 1987; Davis and
Lubin 1989: Plafkin et al. 1989).
Metric 2. Number of Sensitive
Families. Certain families of
freshwater fish are sensitive to
degradation, particularly as a
result of reproduction requirements
and early life ecology (Table 3).
Families such as Percidae,
Cottidae, and Salmonidae are
intolerant to siltation and low
dissolved oxygen. Sediment
contamination due to toxins and low
dissolved oxygen inhibits most
benthic families (e.g. Ictaluridae).
Reduction in habitat quality (e.g.
channe 1 i zat ion, thermal inputs,
reservoir flooding) reduces
Catostomidae, Centrarchidae,
Cyprinidae, and Fundulidae.
Sensitive families should be
restricted to those most sensitive
to low dissolved oxygen, toxic
chemicals, siltation, and reduced
flow. Karr et al. (1986) suggested
45
-------
Simon
Table 2. Metrics used to assess ichtnyoplankton communities from
freshwaters of North America.
Scoring Criteria
Category Metric 531
Taxonomic CcDposition
1. Total Number of Families Drainage Size and Ecoregion
Dependent
2. Number of Sensitive Families Drainage Size and Ecoregion
Dependent
3. Bquitability/Dominance >0.8-1.0 X3.6-0.8 0-< 0.6
4. Family Biotic Index 0-4.5 >4.5-7.5 >7.5-10
Reproductive Guild
5. % Non-guarding Guild A.I and A.2 Drainage Size and Ecoregion
Dependent
6. % Guarding Guild B.I and B.2 Drainage Size and Ecoregion
Dependent
7. % Bearers Guild C.I. and C.2 Drainage Size and Ecoregion
Dependent
8. % Simple Lithophil Mode Reprod. Drainage Size and Ecoregion
Dependent
Abundance, Generation Time, and Deformity
9. Catch per Unit Effort Drainage Size and Gear Type
Dependent
10. Mean Generation Time Drainage Size and Ecoregion
Dependent
11. % Deformity or Teratogenicity < 1% > 2-5% >5%
46
-------
Family Ichthyoplarikton Index
Table 3. Sensitivities, Mean Generation Time, and Reproductive Guild
characteristics of 34 North American Freshwater Fish Families.
Family
Petronyzontidae
Acipensideridae
Polyodontidae
Lepisosteidae
Amiidae
Anguillidae
Clupeidae
Hiodontidae
Salmonidae
Osmeridae
liribridae
Esocidae
Characidae
Cyprinidae
Catostomidae
Cobitidae
Ictaluridae
Claridae
Amblyopsidae
Aphredoderidae
Percopsidae
Gadidae
Oryzintidae
Cyprinodontidae
Fundulidae
Poeciliidae
Atherinidae
-Gasterosteidae
Moronidae
Centrarchidae
Elassomatidae
Percidae
Sciaenidae
Cichlidae
Cottidae
(3.) flaec-i flaA =o c?Vxr
Sensitivity
Moderate
Moderate
Intolerant
Tolerant
Tolerant
-
Moderate
Intolerant
Intolerant
Moderate
Tolerant
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Intolerant
Intolerant
Intolerant
Tolerant
Intolerant
Tolerant
Moderate
Moderately
Tolerant
Intolerant
Intolerant
Tolerant
Moderate
Tolerant
Intolerant
Intolerant
Intolerant
Intolerant
Moderate
Tolerant
Intolerant
\V-t- irrw-N/^/'x v--»+- i*i —*vk>Q
Generation
Time'3'
Short/Moderate
Long
Long
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Short
Short/Moderate
Moderate/Long
Short
Short
Moderate
Short
Short
Moderate
Short
Moderate
Moderate
Short
- Short
Short
Moderate/Long
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Moderate
Moderate
Short
Short
Moderate
Moderate
Short
FBI
3
2
2
4
8
3
6
4
1
5
9
6
5
6
4
4
3
10
4
8
7
5
7
2
5
8
3
9
6
5
3
0
4
7
0
— . T _ _
Reproductive
-------
Simon
that species sensitive to habitat
degradation, especially siltation,
are most likely to be identified as
intolerant.
Metric 3 . Euilri 1 t /Demi •nnr'p .
As water quality declines certain
taxa tend to become increasingly
abundant (Karr et al. 1986). Also,
species defined as r-strategists
tend to inundate the environment
with early life phases (MacArthur
and Wilson 1967). The strategy to
produce large numbers of young are
indicative of "pioneer" species
which are attempting to colonize
perturbed areas. In habitats with
least impacted environments, taxa
tend to be equally distributed and
more moderately abundant. Tne
Shannon diversity index and the
measure of evenness are used to
determine quality environments
which have balanced communities.
These single unit measures are not
adequate in themselves to
extrapolate excellent quality, but
they do determine increasing levels
of disturbance. Equitability (Lloyd
and Ghelardi 1964) is determined by
comparing the number of families in
the sample with the expected number
of families from a community which
conforms to the MacArthur broken
stick model. MacArthurs' broken
stick model is normally higher than
real diversity and is the
ecologically maximum diversity
attainable (Washington 1984).
Eguitability is measured by:
e = s'/s
where:
s = number of taxa in the sample,
s'= the tabulated value based on
the Shannon diversity index
The diversity index is the d
formulation of Lloyd, Zar, and Karr
(1968). The diversity index is:
d = C/N (N log10 N - E n^ log1() %)
where:
C = 3.321928,
N = total number of individuals in
the ith taxa,
n^ - total number of individuals in
the ith taxa.
An example calculation and
reproduction of Lloyd and Ghelardi's
table (1964) are include in the
Appendix and are taken from Weber
(1973). As a side note, if solely
ichthyoplankton data sets are to
used excluding juveniles, the
following families need to be
omitted: Clupeidae, Sciaenidae, and
Osmeridae.
Metric 4. Family Biotic Index.
Discussions with other
ichthyoplanktologists studying the
ecological and taxonomic early life
stages of fishes suggest varying
degrees of sensitivity exists
between organic pollution and
perturbations such as sediment
degradation, siltation, low
dissolved oxygen, toxic chemicals,
and flow reduction (Table 3). The
calculation of the Family Biotic
Index (FBI) is modeled after
Hilsenhoff's modified biotic index
(1988) which summarizes tolerances
to organic pollution. Tolerance
values range between 0 to 10 for
families and increase as water
quality decreases. The formula for
calculating the Family Biotic Index
is:
FBI = E Xjti/N
where:
Xi = total number of individuals
within a taxon,
t^ = tolerance value of a taxon,
48
-------
Family Ichtnyoplankton Index
N = total number of organisms in
the sample.
Reproductive Guild. Reproductive
requirements of fishes coupled with
early life history strategies enable
a diversification of the ways
habitats are used. Balon (1975,
1981) divided reproductive modes of
fishes in order of evolutionary
trends. Species are divided into
nonguarders (guild A), guarders
(guild B), and bearers (guild C).
The increase in evolutionary
sophistication from guilds A to C,
generally conforms to levels of
increased diversification and
reduction in niche overlap in
complex environments (Table 4).
Guild dynamics are determined by
three metrics in this category. The
destruction of diverse habitats not
only reduces utilization of these
habitats for reproduction by adults,
but also destroys nursery habitats
for larval and juvenile phases.
Metric 5. Proportion of Mbn-
guarrf'ina Guild A.I and A.2. The non-
guarding guild includes mostly r-
stragegists which provide little
parental investment into each egg,
usually possess early reproduction,
small body size, many small
offspring, single reproduction, and
exhibit a type III mortality
(MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Balon
(1975) described the non-guarding
guild as broadcast spawners, usually
without much developmental
specialization, and although may
construct some nests always abandons
them post-reproduction. These
species are often "pioneer" species
and frequently are dominant only in
stressed areas which are
periodically disturbed.
Metric 6. Proportion Of RuarrHng
Guild B.I and B.2. The guarding
guild typically include k-
strategists as defined by MacArthur
and Wilson (1967). This strategy
favors slower development, greater
competitive ability, delayed
reproduction, larger body size,
repeated reproduction, fewer larger
progeny, and exhibits types I and II
mortality. The guarding guild (Balon
1975) is a solely ethological aspect
of guilds with profound
ecomorphological consequences.
Better protected from enemies,
guarded eggs need not be numerous to
assure survival of the species. As a
consequence, eggs can be larger and
result in more viable offspring with
less food specialization. Spawning
sites with low oxygen content can be
used because the guarding parents
clean the eggs and produce a flow of
water around them by fin-fanning and
oral ventilation. Fishes that do not
build complicated structures, nests,
but that deposit their eggs on top
of a selected object, are also
included in this section. The
evolutionary progression has been
from (i) an exclusively parental
male, (ii) shared parental care by
the male and female, to (iii) a
division of roles with the female as
the direct parent and the male as
the guardian, to (iv) polygyny
(Barlow 1974).
Metric 7. Proportion of Bearers
Gui Id C. 1 and C. 2. This group is
divided into external and internal
brooders (Balon 1975). External
brooders carry their developing eggs
on the surface of their Bodies or in
externally filled body cavities or
special organs. These include
transfer, forehead, mouth, gill-
chamber, skin and pouch brooders.
Internal brooders have eggs
fertilized internally before they
are expelled from the body cavity.
Special organs are developed to
facilitate sperm transfer. Mating
49
-------
Simon
Table 4. Classification of reproduction styles in fishes in order of
evolutionary trends (after Balon 1981).
Eifcologieal section
A. Nongmrders
Ecological group
A.I. Open substratum spawners
Guild
Selected key features of early ontogeny
A.I.I Pelagic spawners
(pelagophils)
A. 1.2 Rock and gravel spawners with pelagic larvae
(lithopelagophils)
A. 1.3 Rock and gravel spawners with benthic lar-
vae (lithophils)
A. 1.4 Nonobligatory plant spawners
(phytolithophils)
A. 1.5 Obligatory plant spawners
(phytophils)
A 1.6 Sand spawners
(psammophils)
A.1.7 Terrestrial spawners
(aerophils)
Numerous buoyant eggs, none or poorly developed embryonic respiratory
organs, little pigment, no photophobia
Adhesive chorion at first, some eggs soon buoyant, after hatching free
embryos pelagic by postit ve buoyancy or active movement, no photophobia,
limited embryonic respiratory structures
Early hatched embryo photophobic, hide under stones, moderately devel-
oped embryonic respiratory structures, pigment appears late
Adhesive eggs on submerged items, late hatching, cement glands in free
embryos, photophobic, moderately developed respiratory structures
Adhesive egg envelope sticks to submerged live or dead plants, late hatching.
cement glands, not photophobic, extremely well developed embryonic
respiratory structures
Adhesive eggs in running water on sand or fine roots over sand, free
embryos without cement glands, phototropic, feebly developed respiratory
structures, large pectorals, large neuromast rods (cupulac)
Small adhesive eggs scattered out of water in damp sod, not photophobic.
moderately developed respiratory structures
A.2.1
A.2.2
Ecological group
Beach spawners
{aeropsammophils)
Annual fishes
(xerophils)
A.2 Brood hiders
Spaw nmg above the waterline of high tides, zygotes in damp sand hatch
upon vibration of waves, pelagic afterwards
In cleavage phase blastomeres disperse and rest in 1st facultative diapause.
two more resting intervals obligate - eggs and embryos capable of survival
for many months in dry mud
A.2.3 Rock and gravel spawners
(lithophils)
A.2.4 Cave spawners
(speleophils)
A.2.5 Spawners in live invertebrates
(ostracophils)
Zygotes buried in gravel depressions called redds or in rock interstices, large
and dense yolk, extensive respiratory plexuses for exogenous and caroten-
oids for endogenous respiration, early hatched free embryos photophobic.
large emerging a lex-ins
A few large adhesive eggs, musn hide in crevices, extensive embryonic
respiratory structures, large emerging larvae •
Zygotes deposited via female's ovipositor in body cavities ofmussels, crabs.
ascidians or sponges(?). large dense yolk, lobes or spines and photophobia
to prevent expulsion of free embryos, large embryonic respiratory plexuses
and carotenoids. probable biochemical mechanism for immunosuppression
B.I.I
Ethological section
Ecological group
Pelagic spawners
(pelagophils)
B. Guardcrs
B.I Suhsiriitc choosers
Nonadhesivc. positively buoyant eggs, guarded at the surface of
waters, extensive embryonic respiratory structures
hypoxic
B 1.2 Above water spawners
(aerophils)
B.I.3 Rock spawners
(lithophils)
Adhesive eggs, embryos with cement glands, male in water splashes the
clutch periodically
Strongly adhesive eggs, oval or cylindrical, attached at one pole by fibers in
clusters, most have pelagic free embryos and larvae
-------
Family IchtlTyoplanktcn Index
(continued)
B.I.4 Plant spawners
(phytophils)
Adhesive eggs attach to variety of aquatic plants, free embryos without
cement glands swim instantly after prolonged embryonic period
Ecological group
B.2 Nest spawners
B.2.1 Froth nesters
(aphrophils)
B.2,2 Miscellaneous substrate
and material nesters
(polyphils)
B.2,3 Rock and gravel nesters
(lithophils)
B.2.4 Gluemakmg nesters
(ariadnophils)
B.2.5 Plant material nesters
(phytophils)
D.2.6
B2.7
B2.8
Sand nesters
(psammophils)
Hole nesters
(spelcophils)
Anemone nesters
(actmiuriophils)
Eggs deposited in a cluster of mucous bubbles, embryos with cement glands
and well developed respiratory structures
Adhesive eggs attached singly or in clusters on any available substratum,
dense yolk with high carolenoid contents, embryonic respiratory structures
well developed, feeding of young on parental mucus common
Eggs in spherical or elliptical envelopes always adhesive, free embryos
photophobic or with cement glands swing tail-up in respiratory motions,
moderate to well developed embryonic respiratory structures, many young
feed first on the mucus of parents
Male guards intensively eggs deposited in nest bind together by a viscid
thread spinned from a kidney secretion, eggs and embryos ventilated by
male in spue of well developed respiratory structures
Adhesive eggs attached to plants, free embryos hang on plants by cement
glands, respiratory structures well developed in embryos assisted by fanning
parents
Thick adhesive chonon with sand grams gradually washed off or bouncing
buoyant eggs, free embrvo leans on large pectorals, embryonic respiratory
structures feebly developed
At least two modes prevail in this guild' cavuy roof top nesters have
moderately developed embryonic respiratory structures, while bottom
burrow nesters have such structures developed strongly
Adhesive eggs in cluster guarded at the base of sea anemone, parent coats
the eggs with mucus against ncmatocysts, free embryo phototropic, plank-
tonic, early juveniles select host anemone
Ethological section
C. Bearers
Ecological group
C.I External bearers
C.I.I
C.I.3
Transfer brooders
C.I.2 Auxiliary brooders
Mouth brooders
C.I.4 Gill-clumber brooders
C 1.5 Pouch brooders
Eggs carried for some time before deposition; in cupped pelvic fins, in a
cluster hanging from genital pore, inside the body cavity (earlier ovi-
ovoviviparous), after deposition most similar to nonguardmg phytophils
(A. 1.4)
Adhesive eggs carried in clusters or balls on the spongy skin of ventrum.
back, under pectoral fins or on a hook in the suoeroccipital region, or
encircled within coils of female's body, embryonic respiratory circulation
and pigments well developed
Eggs incubated in buccal cavity after internal, external synchronous or
asynchronous, or buccal fertilization assisted by egg dummies, large
spherical or oval eggs u ith dense yolk are rotated (churning) in the cavity or
densely packed when well developed embryonic respiratory structures had
to be assisted by endogenous oxydjtive metabolism of cjrotenoids, large
voting released
Egur. of North American cavcfishes .ire incubated in gill cavities
Eggs incubated in an external marsupium: an enlarged and everted lower lip,
fin pouch, or membraneous or bony plate covered ventral pouch, well
developed embryonic respiratory structures and pigments, low number of
zygotes
-------
Simon
(continued)
Ecological group
C.2 Internal bearers
C.2.1
Facultative internal bearers
C.2.2
Obligate Iccithotrophic livebearers
C.2.3
Matrotrophous oophagcs and adelphophages
C.2 4
Viviparous (rophodcrms
Sec the final amcndmeni on p ?S9.
* Note differences in the earlier paper (Balon I975a).
Terminology as in Balon (!9Slh)
Eggs are sometimes fertilized internally by accident via close apposition of
gonopores in normally oviparous fishes, and may be retained within the
female's reproductive system to complete some of the early stages of
embryonic development, rarely beyond the cleavage phase: weight decreases
during embryonic development (examples'* (jaleiu polli. Rirnlits niarino-
ranis. Orrr/flt talipes)
Eggs fertilized internally, incubate in the reproductive system of female until
the end of embryonic phase or beyond, no maternal-embryonic nutrient
transfer: as in oviparous fishes yolk is the sole source of nourishment and
most of the respiratory needs: some specialization for intraulerine respira-
tion, excretion and osmoregulalion: decrc.ise in weight during embryonic
development (examples: Torpedo oielluia. Poecilinpsn: ninnaclia, Poecilin
rctiuilditi. \enitpoecilns popttic. S<'hti\ie\ intninm)
Of many eggs released from an ovary onK one or at most a few embryos de-
velop into alevms and juvehnes*. feeding on other less developed yolked ova
present and/or periodically ovulatcd (ooph.igy). and in more specialized
forms, preying on less developed sibling embryos (adelphophagy). speciali-
zation for inirauterme respiration, secretion and osmoregulation similar to
the previous guild, large gam in weight during intramcnne development
(examples Lamina toinubicii. Eiigoi>ipln>os. alcvins or juveniles whose
partial or entire nutrition and gaseous exchange is supplied by the mother
via secretory hi:>;olrophcs ingested or absorbed b\ the fetus via epithelial
ahsorhtne structures (placcmal analogues) or a yolksac placenta, small to
moderate g.nn in weight during embryonic development (examples' Galcm
nun*. M\ln>hain hininii. A/m/c/m rani's S/tlninn iihiuo. Source's vinparu\.
-l/iu'«/ \pU'i>tlcn\. Pix-t iliop\i\ luincii. lli'lfitinilriii lnrnin\a. Anahlcp* do»i.
EnihitUmii ltiicnilt\. Cltiuis \itficit iltf-tn)
M MUrivr Martin •( ftneut
f in »f ty«
an ornin of r*cu»i
(»>d uitfthl
OBI orififi »f
9V PMMrior H«r«in of v«nt
irr*«fi«t Length)
CO} orifin of Soft D»r»«l Fin
ri> Dipt*
MM Anterior Margin F«niiltiMt«
Nyoupta
St §t«»*«rd Kn«th
K Voctcrior H«r9in of Caudal rin
(Total Lanoth)
Ficuu. I.— MorphomeUK ehancterittic* for hvnl bhei Tfcc yolk nc (Y) it iaxhided in width tnd depth
•cuumnenti, but fin folds arc not. "B" means Miuneduiely behind, but a« mehiduit. the eye or venl. Location
•f width and depth awasurei at OD can only be approiimated before UK dorsal fin begins to form Fn tenflh »
•easwcd ahM( the atant of the Cn from Ike oricin to the mosi distal mfcpn
-------
Family Icnthyoplarikton Index
does not necessarily coincide with
fertilization. After fertilization
eggs can be expelled and incubated
externally or retained in the body
cavity of the female, after which
full-grown juveniles are born (Hoar
1969; Balon 1975, 1981).
Metric 8. Proportion of simple
Lithophil Mode of Reproduction. This
metric is used by Ohio EPA (1987) as
a substitute in the adult IBI for
hybrids. Simple lithophils spawn
where their eggs can develop in the
interstices of sand, gravel, and
cobble substrates without parental
care. Genrally, as the level of
environmental degradation increases,
the proportion of simple lithophils
decreases. This is important in
determining impacts from chronic
levels of exposure in sediments, and
settling out of toxins in pools or
backwater habitats.
Abundance, Generation Time, and
Deformity. Impacts to individuals
often are a compounding problem
effecting community analyses.
Reduction in numbers of individuals,
lowering of community mean
generation time, and increases in
observed deformity and
teratogenicity correspond with
environmental degradation. Loss of
longer-lived species which require
specialized habitats, e.g. Acipenser
fulvescens and Atractosteus spatula.
during reproduction and nursery are
increasing at an alarming rate. Mean
generation time is a function of the
time to first reproduction. This
metric may need further research
before it can be utilized since it
is proposed as a community metric
rather than as a individual metric
as it was conceived.
Population abundance varies with
ecoregion, stream size, and gear
type used. It may be expressed as
catch per unit effort, either by
area, distance, or time sampled.
Sites with lower biological
integrity will have reduced numbers
of individuals, however, rapidly
flowing riffles should be excluded
from comparison with pools and run
habitats (see spatial
considerations). Organic enrichment
usually increases the number of
individuals. Steedman (1988)
addressed this situation by scoring
catch per minute of sampling.
Unusually low numbers generally
indicate toxicity which is readily
apparent at low levels of
biological integrity.
. Metric 10. Mean Generation Time.
Mean generation time is the average
age of parenthood, or the average
age at which all offspring are born.
A longer-lived k-strategists species
often spend several years before
reaching reproductive maturity, e.g.
Salmonidae, Polyodontidae and
Acipenseridae. Vulnerability of
these organisms to perturbations may
have significant impact to future
recruitment during the larval and
juvenile stages of development. Mean
generation time is an average value
for a family based on life strategy
of representative taxa. Mean
generation time is calculated as:
T = (a + w)/2
where:
a = age at first reproduction,
w = age at last reproduction
The community mean generation time
is the sum of all generation times
for all families collected, divided
by the total number of families.
Metric 11.- Proportion of Deformity
or Teratoaenicity. Toxicological
literature suggests that increased
exposure to metals and organic
53
-------
Simon
chemical compounds increases the
proportion of teratogenicity among
fathead minnows (Birge et al. 1985;
Simon 1988). flrMitional effects have
been documented in a recent
literature review by Weis and Weis
(1989), as well as, exposure to
radiation (B. Lathrop, pers. conn.).
Teratogenic effects include
edematous yolk sacs, post caudal
swellings, clear blood, reduced
heart beat, lack of fusiforme shape,
enlarged craniums, square eyes, or
improper development of the mandible
(Simon 1988). An increase in
deformities or teratogenicity is a
result of increased exposure to
toxic chemicals or radiation. In
reference and complex effluent
testing using the fathead minnow
embryo-larval survival and
teratogenicity test, I very
infrequently observed any
teratogenicity in control samples.
When deformities were observed they
were always less than 1% (Simon,
pers. obsv.).
Improperly preserved specimens
will exhibit signs of deformity.
Birchfield (1987) determined that
cranial anomalies were induced in
centrarchids and clupeids by fixing
them in low concentrations of
formalin (<10%), exposing them to
high temperatures, or vigorously
shaking the fixed specimens. No
cranial anomalies were found in
larval fish fixed in formalin
solutions greater than 10% or in
Bouin's fluid.
Taxonomic Considerations
The ability to differentiate
families of larval fishes requires a
basic understanding of the
morphometric and meristic
characteristics which are included
in most taxonomic studies (Fig. 1).
Extensive literature exists on
specific families of larval fishes
and alternative measurements, but
certain standard measurements and
counts continue to be the main ones
reported in the literature. The
following explanation of how to
construct the character in question
and the appropriate position to
measure or count the character is
defined by Simon (1987) and Simon et
al. (1987).
Characteristics are subdivided
into morphometric, measureable
structures, and meristic, countable
structures. Standard length and
total length are measured from the
tip of the snout to the posterior
portion of the notochord and to the
tip of the caudal f info Id,
respectively. Morphometric
measurements include head length-
from the snout to pectoral fin
origin; snout length- from tip of
the snout to anterior margin of eye;
eye diameter-anterior to posterior
margin; preanal length- snout to
posterior margin of anus; body
depth- vertical distance at anus;
greatest body depth (also referred
to as shoulder depth or head depth)-
largest vertical distance (usually
anterior dorsal f infoId) or measured
at origin of pectoral fin; mid-
postanal depth- vertical distance
measured from dorsal to ventral
margin of body at anterior apex of
the mean of -the postanal myomeres;
caudal peduncle depth- vertical
distance at anterior apex of
penultimate mvanere; Itead width-
measured dorsally at the posterior
margin of eyes; yolk sac length and
depth- measured horizontally and
vertically, respectively at the
greatest distance on the yolk sac.
Meristic measurements include the
enumeration of all fin rays
following methods in Hubbs and
Lagler (1958); head canal pores
54
-------
Family Ichtnyoplankton Index
(Hubbs and Carman 1935); preanal including those bisected by the
myomeres- those anterior to a line, while postanal myomeres
vertical line drawn from the include a urostylar element.
posterior portion of the anus
Provisional Key to the Families of North American Freshwater Fishes
(Adequate information is not available for all early life phases. Families
emitted from this key include Amblyopsidae, Cichlidae, Cyprinodontidae,
Poeciliidae, Umbridae, Cobitidae, Claridae, Oryziatidae, and Elassomatidae).
la. Body tubular, elongate, eel-like 2
Ib. Body not eel-like; usually with a single gill opening; stomodeum or
functional jaws present 3
2a. Body tubular, elongate, eel-like; seven gill openings; oral sucking
disc without jaws; lacking paired fins and distinct eyes ...
Petromyzontidae
2b. Body eel-like; usually with a single gill opening; stomodeum, or
functional jaws present; eye large; possessing paired fins ...
Anguillidae
3a. Barbels present on chin; mandibular barbels at comers of mouth;
usually hatching with some incipient fin rays present; yolk large
usually with complex vitelline veins ... Ictaluridae
3b. Chin barbels and mandibular barbels absent; if barbels are present
limited to ventral portion of snout or single on chin ... 4
4a. Adhesive disc present on snout; caudal fin heterocercal ... 5
4b. Adhesive disc absent on snout ... 6
5a. Adhesive disc papillose; preanal myomeres number x; snout elongate
with remnant of adhesive disc until 20 mm total length (TL); dorsal and
anal finfolds originating posteriorly, finfold with dark triangular
areas near future dorsal, anal, and caudal fins ... Lepisosteidae
5b. Adhesive disc smooth; preanal myomeres number x; without elongate
snout; dorsal f info Id originating anterior pectoral fin; gular plate
present; body robust ... Amiidae
6a. Larvae 10-11 inn TL at hatching; preanal length 60-65% TL; yolk sac
large, oval, vascularized; barbels developing on ventral extension of
snout; head small ... 7
55
-------
Simon
6b. Larvae < 10 mm TL at hatching; preanal length greater than or less than
60-65% TL; large, oil globule; without barbels on ventral surface of
snout ... 8
7a. Decreasing preanal length at increasing length, 65% TL becomes 60% TL >
11 mm; moderate dorsal finfold originates immediately behind head;
dorsal f infold origin length 25% TL; late protolarvae with four
barbels; dorsal fin origin posterior to vent; posterior margin of
operculum not extending past base of pectoral fin; scutes developing at
juvenile stages ... Acipenseridae
7b. Decreasing preanal lengths at increasing length, 60% TL becomes 50% TL
at > 11 mm; dorsal f infold originates at mid-preanal; dorsal f infold
origin length 35% TL; late protolarvae with two barbels; dorsal fin
origin anterior anus; posterior margin of operculum extending past base
of pectoral fin; no scutes developing at juvenile stages ...
Polyodontidae
8a. Preanal length greater than 65% TL ... 9
8b. Preanal length 60% TL or less ... 19
9a. Preanal length greater than 75% TL ... 10
9b. Preanal length between 65-75% TL ... 13
lOa. Preanal length 76-89% TL; total myomeres greater than 45 ... 12
lOb. Preanal length usually less than 75-79% TL; total myomeres less than 45
... 11
lla. Preanal myomeres > 27; mouth subterminal; body elongate, with usually
one to several rows of dorsal pigment ... Catostomidae
lib. Preanal myomeres > ; mouth superior; body elongate usually without
pigmentation dorsally ... Clupeidae
12a. Postanal myomeres 13-17; yolk sac small, round and far forward ...
Osmeridae
12b. Postanal myomeres < 10; yolk sac larger, elongate or oval, situated
posteriorly ... Clupeidae
13a. Preanal myomeres greater than or equal to 40 ... 14
13b. Preanal myomeres less than 40 ... 15
14a. Postanal myomeres 14-15; preanal length 72-75% TL; adipose fin present;
swim bladder visibly present ... Osmeridae
56
-------
Family Ichthyqplariktcn Index
I4b. FDstanal myomeres 15-22; preanal length 67-72% TL; adipose fin absent;
swim bladder not visible ... Esocidae
15a. YoUc sac long, bilobed with the anterior portion thick and oval,
posterior section thick and tubular; preanal length 58-74% TL ... 16
15b. Yolk sac not bilobed, either elongate or oval; if bilobed usually with
both sections of equal portion; preanal length 68-75% TL ... 17
16a. Larvae densely pigmented, evenly over body, with a dark stripe over
gut; usually less than 27 preanal myomeres; body robust ... Cyprinidae
16b. Pigmentation limited to dorsum, usually on cranium and sometimes mid-
dorsally in two to four distinct rows; body elongate ... Catostomidae
17a. Preanal myomeres < 31, postanal myomeres less than 41 ... Catostomidae
17b. Preanal myomeres > 31 ... 18
18a. Postanal myomeres < 41; larvae large, at 7 mm still possess yolk;
preanal length 62-64% TL ... Hiodontidae
18b. Postanal myomeres > 41; preanal length 67-74% TL ... Cyprinidae
19a. Preanal length > 48% TL ... 20
19b. Preanal length < 48% TL ... 27
20a. Preanal length > 56% TL ... 21
20b. Preanal length 48-55% TL ... 23
21a. Preanal myomeres > 26; preanal length 56-58% TL; larvae large, yolk sac
present until 7-10 mm TL ... Hiodontidae
21b. Preanal myomeres < 26; preanal length < 56% TL; yolk sac larvae < 7 mm
TL ... 22
22a. Preanal myomeres 8-12; postanal myomeres 9-15 ... MDronidae
22b. Preanal myomeres 15-26; postanal myomeres 18-26 ... Percidae
23a. Preanal myomeres > 15 ... Percidae
23b. Preanal myomeres < 15 ... 24
24a. Total myomeres < 26 ... Moronidae
57
-------
Simon
24b. Total myomeres > 26 ... 25
25a. Preanal myomeres 14-16; preanal length > 50% TL ... Gasterosteidae
25b. Preanal myomeres < 14 ... 26
26a. Postanal mycmeres < 19; gut massive, uncoiled; pectoral fins
proportional ... Centrarchidae
26b. Postanal myomeres > 19; large pectoral fins ... 27
27a. Preanal length < 35%; preanal myomeres 6-7; postanal mycmeres 28-31 ...
Atherinidae
27b. Prenal length > 35% ... 28
28a. Postanal myomeres approx. 40; preanal length 39-44% TL ... Gadidae
28b. Postanal myomeres much less than 40; preanal length 44% TL ... 29
29a. Postanal myomeres < 11; posterior oil globule in yolk sac ... Scianidae
29b. Postanal myomeres > 11; oil globule diffuse in yolk sac ... 30
30a. Postanal myomeres > 20; mouth terminal to superior; preanal length >
45% TL ... Fundulidae
30b. Postanal myomeres < 20; mouth subterminal to inferior; preanal length <
45% TL ... Percopsidae
Discussion
The loss of habitat through the
accumulation of toxic chemicals in
the sediment, reduction of dissolved
oxygen, and increase in siltation,
is perhaps the greatest obstacle to
the protection of environmental
quality the environmentalist must
face. Degradation by conventional
non-point sources of pollution have
yet to be addressed, rather efforts
have concentrated on point sources.
EPA has spent two decades
quantifying the effluent quality of
ppint source dischargers. With
toxicity endpoints established in
industrial and municipal permits,
attention must be focused on
instream degradation through chronic
exposure to ambient residents.
The effort to combine a community
approach for addressing these issues
has been accomplished in adult fish
(Karr 1981; Karr et al. 1986),
macroinvertebrates (Plafkin et al.
1989), and now with ichthyoplankton
(current study). Karr and colleagues
have described in detail the
rationale for this overall approach.
I refer you to their documentation
for further reading rather than
repeating their rationale (Karr et
al. 1986). I have provided details
for the scoring and formation of an
ichthyoplankton index using a
communtiy based approach.
58
-------
Family Ichthyoplanktcn Index
Table 5. Total Icftthyoplankton Index (I2) scores, integrity classes and
attributes (modified from Karr 1981).
Total I2 Score
(sum of 11 metrics)
Integrity
Class
Atttibutes
53-55
44-48
37-40
26-31
11-20
Excellent Comparable to the best situations without
human disturbance; all regionally
expected taxa for habitat, stream size,
and ecoregion, including the most
intolerant forms; balanced guild
structure and reproduction.
Good Species richness somewhat below expect-
ations, especially due to loss of the
most intolerant forms; some taxa are
present with less than optimal
abundances; guild structure indicates
signs of some stress.
Fair Signs of additional deterioration include
loss of intolerant forms, skewed
dominance, and guild structure.
Reduction in simple lithophils and in
mean generation time.
Poor Dominated by r-strategists, tolerant
forms and pioneer species. Increase in
guild A.I, and in deformities or
teratogenic fish.
Very Poor Few fish present, lack of successful
reproduction in any guild, deformed or
teratogenicity frequently observed.
No Fish Repeated sampling finds no fish.
The need to look at various
trophic levels in the analysis of
environmental degradation, through
biological integrity, is difficult
to explore in insects due to
taxonomic and limited ecological
information, in fishes, ontogenetic
shifts during developnent not only
is apparent in morphological changes
(Fuiman and Corazza 1979), but also
niche shifts (George and Hadley
1979; Brandt 1986). The early life
stages of fishes often document the
use of habitats by endangered or
rare species when the adults can
frequently not be found. The
protection of these important
habitats require further
consideration in protection of
species diversity.
Although the !/• is an additional
tool which can be concurrently
59
-------
Simon
conducted using IBI type techniques,
the method may prove useful in both
lotic and lenthic habitats. The
difficulty in assessing lentic
habitats is the inability of species
to recolonize closed systems. Field
evaluations of both habitat types
are necessary prior to further
evaluation of the method.
Die implications of data quality
depends on the calibration of the
metrics and collection of a
representative sample (Davis and
Simon 1988). Every effort should be
made to incorporate quality
assurance checks into standard
operating procedures and data
analysis. Further refinement of
techniques and interpretation will
become apparent with increases in
knowledge of a balance aquatic
environment especially as
recruitment success and early life
history stages of fishes are
influenced.
Interpretation of the I2 follows
that previously established by the
IBI. The use of a three tiered
scoring criteria, 5, 3, and 1, are
assigned to each metric depending on
whether it approximates, deviates
somewhat from, or deviates strongly
from the value expected at the least
impacted ecoregion reference site.
The sampling site is then assigned
to one of six quality classes based
on the sum total of the eleven
metric ratings. The highest score,
55, indicates a site without
perturbation and deviations decline
proportionally. The qualitative
ratings and descriptions of Karr
(1981) range from excellent to very
poor (Table 5). These similar
integrity classes and attributes
have been appropriately scaled for
the I2 bases on those of Karr et al.
(1986).
Finally, although the level of
discernment of taxa to a species
level would be highly desired, the
taxonomic literature is unable to
support this level currently. The
family level of discernment will
reduce confusion among novices using
the techniques, provide a high level
of reproducability, and
subsequently data quality assurance
through accuracy. As an increase in
the ecological requirements and
taxonomic literature become
available, a more sensitive analyses
will be possible. Stimulation of
single species and comparative
larval descriptions and species
reproductive characterization
should receive higher priority among
researchers in the field.
Acknowledgements
I extend an enormous amount of
gratitude to educators, colleagues
and associates who have helped form
the ideas and concept foundations.
Especially appreciated are R.
Wallus, W. Davis, D. Snyder, L.
Fuiman, D. Faber, J. Dorr III, D.
Jude, T. Poulson, J. Brown, D.
Bardack, and L. Holland-Bartels. I
appreciate their constructive
criticism, free sharing of advise
and ideas, and foundation concepts
of current ecological thought.
Literature Cited
Auer, N.A. (ed). 1982. Identification
of larval fishes of the Great Lakes
basin with emphasis on the Lake
Michigan drainage. Great Lakes Fish.
Comm., Ann Arbor, MI. Spec. Publ.
82-3.
Balon, E.K. 1975. Reproductive
guilds of fishes: a proposal and
definition. J. Res. Board Can.
32:821-864.
60
-------
Family Ichthyoplankton index
Balon, E.K. 1981. Addition and
amnendments to the classification of
reproductive styles in fishes. Env.
Biol. Fishes 6:377-389.
Barlow, G.W. 1974. Contrasts in
social behavior between Central
American cichlid fishes and coral-
reef surgeon fishes, Am. Zool. 14:9-
34.
Bennett, C., J. Giese, B. Keith, R.
McDaniel, M. Maner, N.O'Shaughnessy,
and B. Singleton. 1987. Physical,
chemical, and biological character-
ization of least disturbed streams
in Arkansas' ecoregions. Vol. I:
Data Compilation. State of Arkansas
Dept. Poll. Control and Ecol.,
Little Rock, AK
Birchfield, L.J. 1987. Inducement of
cranial anomalies in freshwater
larval fish during collection and
fixation. Am. Fish. Soc. Symposium
2:170-173.
Birge, W. J., J.A. Black, and A.G.
Westerman. 1985. Short-term fish and
amphibian embryo-larval tests for
determining the effects of toxicant
stress on early life stages and
chronic values for single compounds
_and complex effluents. Env. Tox.
Chem. 4:807-821.
Blaxter, J.H.S. 1974. Die Early Life
History of Fish. The Proceedings of
an International Symposium held at
Dunstaffnage Marine Research
laboratory of the Scottish Marine
Biological Association at Cban,
Scotland, from May 17-23, 1973.
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Brandt, S.B. 1986. Cntogenetic
shifts in habitat, diet, and diel-
feeding periodicity of slimy sculpin
in Lake Ontario. Trans.
Soc. 115:711-715.
Am. Fish.
Burch, 0. 1983. New device for
sampling larval fish in shallow
water. Prog. Fish-Cult. 45:33-35.
Colton, J.B. and R.R. Marak. 1969.
Guide for identifiying the common
planktonic fish eggs and larvae of
continental shelf waters, Cape Sable
to Block Islands. Bur. conm. Fish.
Biol. Lab., Woods Hole, Mass. Lab.
Ref. No. 69-9.
Davis, W.S. and A. Lubin. 1989.
Statistical validation of Ohio EPA's
invertebrate conmunity index. In
W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon (eds).
Proc. Midwest Pollution Control
Biol. Meeting, Chicago, IL. (This
Proc.)
Davis, W.S. and T.P. Simon. 1988.
Sampling and data evaluation
requirements for fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate comnunities. pp.
89-97. In T.P. Simon, L.L. Hoist,
and L.J. Shepard (eds). Proc. First
Nat. Biol. Criteria Workshop,
Lincolnwood, IL, December 2-4, 1987.
EPA 905/9-89/003.
Drewry, G.E. 1979. A punch card key
to the families of yolk sac larval
fishes of the Great Lakes Region.
VID Publ., Co. Waldorf, MD.
Elliot, L. and E. Jimanez. 1981.
Laboratory manual - for the
identification of ichthyoplankton
from the Beverley-Salem Harbor area.
Div. Marine Fish., Mass. Dept.
Fish., Wildl., and Recreational
Vehicles.
Faber, D.J. 1981. A light trap to
sample littoral and limnetic regions
61
-------
Simon
of lakes. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol.
21: 776-781.
Faber, D.J. 1982. Fish larvae caught
by a light-trap at littoral sites in
Lac Heney, Quebec, 1979 and 1980.
pp. 42-46. In C.F. Bryan, J.V.
Conner, F.M. Truesdale (eds.) Proc.
Fifth Annual Larval Fish Conf., IA
State University, Baton Rouge, IA.
Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr, and P.R.
Yant. 1984. Regional application of
an index of' biotic integrity based
on stream fish conmunities. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 113:39-55.
Fish, M.P. 1932. Contributions to
the early life histories of sixty-
two species of fishes from Lake Erie
and its tributary waters. Bull. U.S.
Bur. Fish. 1932:293-398.
Fuiman, L.A. and L. Corazza. 1979.
Morphometry and allometry:
implications for larval fish
taxonomy, pp. 1-17. In R. Wallus and
L.W. Voightlander (eds). Proc.
Workshop Freshwater Larval Fish,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Knoxville, TN.
Gammon, J.R., A. Specie, J.L.
Hamelink, and R.L. Kaesler. 1981.
Role of electrof ishing 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
organsisms. ASTM, STP 730, Phil. PA.
George, E.L. and W.F. Hadley. 1979.
Food and habitat partitioning
between rock bass (Ambloplites
rupestris) and smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieui) young of the
year. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:253-
261.
Giese, J.W. and W.E. Keith. 1988.
The use of fish communities in
ecoregion reference streams to
characterize the stream biota in
AVkansas waters, pp. 26-41. In T.P.
Simon, L.L. Hoist, and L.J. Shepard
(eds). Proc. First Nat. Workshop
Biol. Criteria, Lincolnwood, IL,
December 2-4, 1987. EPA 905/9-
89/003.
Goodyear, c.S., T.A. Edsall, D.M.
Ormsby-Dempsey, G.D. MDSS, and P.E.
Polowski. 1982. Atlas of the
spawning and nursery areas of Great
Lakes fishes. U.S. Fish Wildl. Ser.
Washington, B.C. FWS/CBS-82/53.
(Thirteen separate volumes).
Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1978. Development
of Fishes of the mid-Atlantic Bight
an atlas of egg, larval and juvenile
stages. (Six volumes independently
authored). U.S. Fish Wild. Ser.
FWS/OBS-78/12.
Hilsenhoff, W.L.1988. Rapid field
assessment of organic pollution with
a family level biotic index. J. N.
Amer. Benthol. Soc. 7:65-68.
Hoar, W.S. 1969. Reproduction, pp.
1-72. In W.S. Hoar and D.J. Randall
(eds). Fish Physiology. Vol. 3.
Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY.
Hogue, J.J., Jr., R. Wallus, and
L.K. Kay. 1976. Preliminary guide to
the identification of larval fishes
in the Tennessee River. Tennessee
Valley Authority, Norris, TN.
Technical Note B-19.
Holland, L.E. and M.L. Huston. 1983.
A compilation of available
information an the larval fishes
common to the upper Mississippi
62
-------
Family Ichthyqplankton Index
River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Rock Island Dist., IL.
Hubbs, C.L. and K.F. Lagler. 1958.
Fishes of the Great lakes Region.
The Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Hubbs, C.L. and M.D. Cannon. 1935.
The darters of the genera Hololeois
and Villora. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool.
Univ. Mich, No. 30.
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.
111. Nat. Hist. surv. Spec. Publ. 5.
Langdon, R. 1988. The development of
population based biocriteria in
Vermont, pp. 12-25. In T.P. Simon,
L.L. Hoist, and L.J. Shepard (eds).
Proc. First Nat. Workshop Biol.
Criteria, Lincolnwood, IL, December
2-4,1987. EPA 905/9-89/003.
Larson, D.P., J.M. Qnernik, R.M.
Hughes, C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whittier,
A.J. Kinney, A.L. Gallant, and D.R.
Dudley. 1986. The correspondence
between spatial pattern in fish
assemblages in Ohio streams and
aquatic ecoregions. Env. Management
10:815-828. x: x-xx.
Lippson, A.J. and R.L. Moran (eds).
1974. Manual for the identification
and early development stages of
fishes of the Potomac River estuary.
Maryland Dept. Nat. Res.
Lloyd, M. and R.J. Ghelardi. 1964. A
table for calculating the
"equitability" component of species
diversity. J. Anim. Ecol. 33:217-
225.
Lloyd, M., J.H. Zar, and J.R. Karr.
1968. On the calculation of
information-theoretical measures of
diversity. Am. Midi. Nat. 79:257-
272.
MacArthur, R.H. 1957. On the
relative abundance of bird species.
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington,
43:293-295.
MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson.
1967. The theory of island
biogeography. Princeton, Univ.
Press, Princeton, N.J.
McGowen, E.G. 1984. An
identification guide for selected
larval fishes from Robinson
Impoundment, South Carolina.
Carolina Power and Light Co., New
Hill, NC.
McGowen, E.G. 1989. An illustrated
guide to the larval fishes from
three North Carolina piedmont
irrpoundments. Carolina Power and
Light Co., New Hill, NC.
Mansueti, A.J. and J.D. Hardy (eds).
1967. Development of Fishes of the
Chesapeake Bay region, An atlas of
egg, larval, and juvenile stages.
Nat. Res. Int., Univ. of Maryland.
May, E.B. and C.R. Gasaway. 1967. A
preliminary key to the
identification of larval fishes of
Oklahoma, with particular reference
to Canton Reservoir, including a
selected bibliography. Okl. Dept.
Cons. Bull. No. 5, Norman, OK.
Moser, H.G., W.J. Richards, D.M.
Cohen, M.P. Fahay, A.W. Kendall,
Jr., and S.L. Richardson. 1984.
Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes.
Amer. Sec. Ich. Herp. Spec. Publ.
No. 1.
63
-------
Simon
Muth, R.T. and C.M. Haynes. 1984.
Plexiglas light-trap for collecting
small fishes in low-velocity
riverine habitats. Prog. Fish-Cult.
46:59-62.
Norberg, T.J. and D.I. Mount. 1983.
A new fathead minnow
promelas) subchronic toxicity test.
Env. Tox. Chem. 4:711-718.
Olio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA). 1987. Biological criteria
for the protection of aquatic life.
Vol. 2. User's manual for Biological
field assessment of Chio surface
water. Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Columbus, OH.
Cmernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of
the conterminous United States. Arm.
Ass. Amer. Geogr. 77:118-125.
Penrose, D.L. and J.R. Overton.
1988. Semiqualitative collection
techniques for benthic
macroinvertebrates: uses for water
pollution assessment in North
-Carolina, pp. 77-88. In T.P. Simon,
L.L. Hoist, and L.J. Shepard (eds).
Proc. First Nat. Workshop Biol.
Criteria, Lincolnwood, IL, Decemebr
2-4, 1987. EPA 905/9-89/003.
Plafkin, J.L. , M.T. Barbour, K.D.
Porter, S.K. Gross, R.M. Hughes.
1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols
for use in streams and rivers:
benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.
U.S. Envi ronmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Regulation
and Standards, Washington, B.C. EPA
444/4-89/001.
Scotton, L.N. , R.E. Smith, N.S.
Smith, K.S. Price, and D.P. DeSylva.
1973. Pictorial guide to fish larvae
of Deleware Bay with information and
bibliographies useful for the study
of fish larvae. College Mar.
Studies, Univ. Del., Del. Bay Rept.
Ser. 7.
Simon, T.P. 1986a. Variation in
seasonal, spatial, and species
composition of main channel
ichthyoplankton abundance, Ohio
River Miles 569 to 572. Trans. Ky.
Acad. Sci. 46:19-26.
Simon, T.P. 1986b. A listing of
regional guides, keys, and selected
comparative descriptions of
freshwater and marine larval fishes.
Early Life History Section
Newsletter 7:10-15.
Simon, T.P. 1987. Description of
eggs, larvae and early juveniles of
the stripetail darter, Etheostoma
kennicotti (Putnam) and spottail
darter E. squamiceps Jordan
(Perc i dae: Etheos tomatini) from
tributaries of the Ohio River.
Copeia 1987:433-442.
Simon, T.P. 1988a. Subchronic
toxicity evaluation of the grand
Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal using the embryo-larval
survival and teratogenicity test.
Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. in press
Simon, T.P. 1989. Predicitive
abilities of Environmental
Protection Agency subchronic
toxicity endpoints for complex
effluents. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. in
review.
Simon, T.P. and R. Wallus. 1989.
Contributions to the early life
history of gar (Actinopterygii:
Lepisosteiformes) from the Ohio and
Tennessee River basins with emphasis
on larval taxonomy. Trans. Ky. Acad.
Sci. 49.
64
-------
Family Ichthyoplankton Index
Simon, T.P., R. Wallus, and K.D.
Floyd. 1987. Descriptions of
protolarvae of seven species of the
darter subgenus Nothonous with
comments on intrasubgenic
characteristics, Am. Fish. Soc.
Symposium 2:179-190.
Synder, D.E. 1981. Contributions to
a guide to the cypriniform fish
larvae of the upper Colorado River
system in Colorado. U.S. Bur. Land
Manag., Denver, CO.
Snyder, D.E. 1983. Fish eggs and
larvae, pp. 165-198. In L.A. Nielsen
and D.L. Johnson (eds.) Fisheries
Techniques. Am. Fish. Soc.,
Bethesda, MD.
Steedman, R.J. 1988. Modification
and assessment of an index of biotic
integrity to quantify stream quality
in southern Ontario. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 45: 492-501.
Sturm, E.A. 1988. Descriptions and
identification of larval fishes in
Alaskan freshwaters. M.S. Thesis,
Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Taber, C.A. 1969. The distribution
and identification of larval fishes
in the Buncombe Creek arm of Lake
Texona with observations on spawning
habits and relative abundance. PhD
Dissertation, Univ. Ok, Norman, OK.
Tuberville, J.D. 1979. Drift net
assembly for use in shallow water.
Prog. Fish-Cult. 41:96.
Wallus, R. 1986. Paddlefish
reproduction in the Cumberland and
Tennessee River systems. Trans. Am.
Fish. SOC. 115:424-428.
Wallus, R. and J.P. Buchanan. 1989.
Contributions to the reproductive
biology and early life ecology of
mooneye in the Tennessee and
Cumberland Rivers. Am. Midi. Nat.
122(1):204-207.
Wallus, R., T.P. Simon, and B.L.
Yeager. 1989. Contributions to the
reproductive biology and early life
histories of Ohio River basin
fishes. Vol. I. Acipenseridae to
Clupeidae. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Knoxville, TN.
Wang, J.C.S. 1981. Taxonomy of the
early life history stages of fishes-
fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Estuary and Moss Landing Harbor-
Elkhorn Slough. California. EA.
Publications, Concord, CA.
Wang, J.C.S. and R.J. Kernehan
(eds). 1979. Fishes of the Deleware
estuaries: a guide to the early life
histories. EA Publications, Towson,
MD.
Washington, H.G. 1984. Diversity,
biotic and similarity indices, a
review with special relevance to
aquatic ecosystems. Water Res.
18:653-694.
Weber, C.I. (ed) 1973. Biological
field and laboratory methods for
measuring the quality of surface
waters and effluents. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA 670/4-73/001.
Weis, J.s. and P. Weis. 1989.
Effects of environmental pollution
on early fish development. Reviews
in Aquat. Sci. 1:45-73.
65
-------
Simon
Appendix A. Die diversity of species, d, characteristic of MacArthur's
model for various nuntoers of hypothetical species, s'*.
v
1
j
l
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
n
14
15
K,
17
IB
IS
2u
.'i
2:
_>.!
24
^*
26
^
2)l
2^
10
11
\>
13
'•4
',;.
If.
.17
Ifc
i*
4U
4 !
4:
4',
4U
4J
4*
47
4«
49
50
380
3<>0
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
550
600
6SO
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
d"
7.0783
7.1128
7.1466
7.17*6
7.2118
7 2434
7.2743
7.3045
7.3341
7.3631
7.3915
74194
7.4468
7.4736
7 5000
7.5259
7.5513
7 576.1
7., JOS
7.625(1
76721
7 7177
7 7620
7 K049
7.K4h?
7.8H70
79264
79648
8.0022
8 0180
8.U74I
8.1087
8 1426
8 1757
82080
8.2396
8.2706
8.3009
83305
83596
8.4968
8.6220
8 7171
8.8440
K941J
90.163
9 1236
92060
9.2839
9.3578
>c reproduced, with petmnuon. from Uoyri and Chehrdi. Reference 33.
Number of individuals
in each ta.xa (nj's)
Total
41
5
18
3
1
Tl
A.—
\
2
\2
A
109
njlog.o nj
(from TableS)
66.1241
3.4949
22.5949
1.4314
.0000
29.5333
.0000
.6021
12.9502
2.4082
139.1391
Total number of taxa. s = 10
Total number of individuals. N
109
N = 222.0795 (from Table
I n, log,, n, = 139 1391
= 33|2(J9928( 222.0795 -139 1391)
= 0.030476 X 82.9404
= 25
-------
Ecological Assessment: At The EPA: Superfund Guidance and
EPA'S Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines
John J.Bascietto1
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Abstract
A revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) has been proposed, which governs the implementation of the amended
Superfund law. The proposed NCP, states that CERdA remedies will "be
protective of environmental organisms and ecosystems." A revised Hazard
Ranking System will allow prioritization of cleanups based on ecological
concerns to a greater extent. However, regardless of whether a site is
listed for ecological problems, EPA intends that baseline ecological
evaluations occur during Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)
when appropriate, and that site managers choose environmentally sound
remedies. Superfund's new Environmental Evaluation Manual was developed to
supplement revised RI/FS guidance, and to clarify the information needs of a
baseline ecological assessment. Using the Biological Technical Assistance
Group model, the manual provides a science policy framework for the
ecological evaluation, which Regions can tailor to their specific
operating needs.
EPA is also working towards developing Agency-wide guidelines for ecological
risk assessment. The Ecotoxicity Subcommittee of the Risk Assessment Council
has developed the scientific rationale for supporting a general ecological
assessment guideline.
Keywords: Hazardous Waste, Ecology, Risk Assessment, CFRCTA, Guidelines,
Superfund.
Superfund's Framework
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, provided a
framework for cleaning up
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites,
and a funding mechanism (Superfund)
for ensuring cleanups are performed.
It also imposed liabilities on
responsible parties and provided for
claims for damages to natural
resources. The Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986 reauthorized CERdA for five
years, greatly increased the funding
authority of the program and
strengthened EPA's enforcement role.
SARA also imposed many ambitious
goals for cleanup schedules and
standards.
The National Contingency Plan
(NCP), the major framework
regulation for Superfund, includes
procedures and standards for how
EPA, other Federal agencies, States,
and private parties respond under
CERCLA to releases of oil and
hazardous substances. Initially
issued under the Clean Water Act, it
was revised under CERCLA in 1985.
^•current address: EH 231, United States Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Ave., Washington, D.C. 20585.
66
-------
Superfund Environnental Assessments
SARA required EFA to propose
additional revisions to the NCP.
Under the proposed 1988 revisions,
removal program authorities are
expanded (more money and greater
work efforts can be used to remove
immediate hazards). Also proposed
are substantial changes in the
remedial program, which include
adjusting the range of cleanup
options to focus more on treatment
technologies. Early action and
streamlining of remedial activities
are also encouraged, and the use of
specified criteria for evaluating
and selecting remedies is described.
While the emphasis vail continue to
be on protecting public health,
Superfund remedies "will also be
protective of environmental
organisms and ecosystems" (USEFA
1988a).
Hazardous waste sites qualify for
remedial actions by inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
However, they must first be
evaluated by a series of
progressively detailed assessments.
The hazardous sites are eventually
scored by the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS), with a score of 28.5
required to be listed on the NPL.
The inclusion of ecological factors
in the current HRS score is limited
to scoring the distance from a site
to the nearest "sensitive"
environment. This score is but part
of the "summary" surface water and
air migration score.
The Agency has proposed revisions
to the HRS (USEPA 1988b). The new
HRS will expand the list of
sensitive environments and
incorporate scores that reflect
contaminant levels in wastes and
surface waters relative to Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC) and other toxicity values for
aquatic species. The larger summary
scores will include an
"environmental threat" sub-pathway
in the surface water migration
pathway, and a new "on-site
exposure" pathway that includes the
"sensitive environments" component.
In fall of 1988 EPA issued
"interim final" guidance for
performing a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at a
CERCLA site (USEPA 1988C). The RI/FS
process is an iterative one, and is
used to characterize the risks posed
by the site, and to investigate
alternative remedies and
technologies should remedial action
be necessary. The RI/FS guidance
clarifies the information
requirements for a "baseline"
ecological assessment at a CERCLA
site.
Natural Resource Trustees and
Ecological Assessment
It is important to distinguish
between "ecological evaluation"
(ecological assessment) and "natural
resource damage assessment", which
is an important activity under the
Superfund law. The terms "natural
resource damage claim", "natural
resource damage assessment",
"preliminary natural resource
surveys", or other such activities
carried on by or for natural
resource trustees, are not
equivalent to, nor can they
substitute for, a baseline
ecological evaluation which may be
required to be conducted as part of
an RI/FS. The former are trustee
activities performed outside of
EPA's purview, and may relate to
claims for monetary compensation due
for injury to designated natural
resources for which trustees have
management responsibility. The
latter is an exercise within EPA's
authority and is essentially a
evaluation of the receptor
environmental organisms or
populations, and the abiotic
components of ecosystems, regardless
67
-------
Bascietto
of their status as "trust resources"
(USEPA 1989a). However, data
obtained through an environmental
evaluation will, in all likelihood,
be useful to natural resource
trustees seeking to assess potential
or actual injury to their trust
resources.
Ecological Risk Assessment at CE8CEA
Sites
The development of ecological
assessment guidance in Superfund has
benefitted from the availability of
testing protocols such as those for
short-term bioassessment (Porcella
1983), and from descriptions of the
role such data may play at hazardous
waste sites (Athey et al. 1987).
Generally, the CERCLA risk
assessment process is comprised of
four components: contaminant
identification; exposure assessment;
toxicity assessment; and risk
characterization. Acute and chronic
toxicity, including mortality and
reproductive effects, as well as
bioaccumulation, teratogenesis and
mutagenesis, are some examples of
endpoints used in ecological
assessments of Superfund sites.
Until the interim final RI/FS
guidance was issued, many
ecotoxicological assessments at
CERCXA sites were not undertaken
until after the contaminant
identification/exposure assessment
phase of the (RI/FS). Supplemental
ecological assessment guidance
(USEFA 1989a) was developed to
assist remedial project managers
(RPMs) to better implement the
ecological baseline studies
potentially required for an RI/FS.
Tne guidance is also intended
to help on-scene-coordinators (OSC)
manage ecological concerns arising
during a removal action.
The Environmental Evaluation
Manual provides a science policy
framework for managing the
ecological effects portions of the
RI/FS. From an ecotoxicological
perspective, perhaps its most
important mandate is that
ecological factors are to be
cpnsidered "up front" in the
assessment process. This means that
starting with the project scoping
and work plan development phases,
RFMs should be aware that specific
ecological information may be needed
for the baseline risk assessment,
and that a tiered approach to
determining the appropriate level of
effort for a. particular site is
recommended to avoid unnecessary
expenditures of time and money (not
all sites will require the same
assessment effort).
The information requirements will
also help RFMs do a better job of
selecting environmentally sound
remedies. To this end the guidance
recognizes the importance of the
advisory role of EFA Regional
Biological Technical Assistance
Groups (BIftGs) for hazardous waste
site assessment. The guidance
specifies that decision-making and
managerial control of the overall
project is retained by the RFM.
BTOGs exist in many, if not all EFA.
Regions. RFMs and OSCs can draw in
the ecological expertise of the
Bd&G, when in need of technical
advice on work plan development,
data quality objectives, or project
status review.
Some KlAGs include members from
other government agencies with
environmental assessment interests
at Superfund sites, e.g., the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NCftA) and state
natural resource agencies. BTAGs,
however, are directed by EFA
Regional personnel, who determine
the rules for membership,
organization and operation of their
groups. Moreover, neither the EFA
68
-------
Superfund Environnental Assessments
site managers nor the Natural
Resource Trustees Should rely on
participation in a BOftG to create
any imnunity or fulfill any legal
obligation on the part of the
trustee agency or the EPA.
Applicable legal and procedural
responsibilities for natural
resource matters remain in force and
are probably not fulfilled by virtue
of participation of a trustee on a
BTAG. Ihe sole purpose of a BTOG,
according to EPA guidance, is to
provide technical advice to the RPM
and OSC, if they choose to seek such
advice.
Test methods and protocol
references can be found in a new
compendium of ecotoxicological
methods published by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (USEPA
1989b). It is intended as a
companion volume to the Superfund
ecological assessment guidance, and
it outlines specific laboratory and
field tests which can be used during
ecological investigations of CERCLA
and RCRA sites.
EPA Agency-wide Ecological
Assessment Guidelines
In the fall of 1987, in response
to the EPA's increased efforts to
control the ecological effects of
certain pesticides and other toxic
hazards, EPA's management charged a
group of senior level ecologists
from EPA headquarters, laboratories,
and Regional offices with developing
guidelines for selecting ecological
endpoints, and methods to assess
ecological risk.
This group, known as the
"Ecotoxicity Subcommittee11 of the
Risk Assessment Council, prepared
fifteen case studies, including two
CERCLA cases, that demonstrated the
diversity of EPA's ecological
assessment activities, Showing they
often entailed retrospective
assessment of impacts, rather than
predictions of risks.
The subcommittee then developed a
risk assessment framework, which is
a modification of that proposed by
the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS 1983) and adopted by EPA for
its human health risk assessments.
The ecological framework is based on
levels of organization from an
individual organism to an entire
ecosystem. The framework can be used
both for "top-down" assessments
based on field studies and "bottom-
up" assessments based on laboratory
bioassays (Bascietto et al. 1989).
The components of ecological risk
assessment are very similar to those
for human health: hazard
identification,exposure assessment,
and characterization of risk.
However, unlike human assessment,
many different organisms may be at
risk. Therefore, the receptors must
be identified and their response to
the hazard or stress determined.
Delineating the individual
organism's response, however, will
not be sufficient in this new
framework. There are questions of
population effects as well as
effects on communities, and entire
ecosystems to be answered. This adds
greatly to the complexity and
difficulty of performing ecological
assessments, but is also its
challenge.
By 1990, the Ecotoxicity
Subcommittee plans to have drafted
guidelines for ecological
assessments in aquatic populations
and communities, and for
terrestrial populations.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Dr. A. Dexter
Hinckley, who contributed
substantially to this report. Dr.
Dave Charters, Dr. Michael Dover,
Pat Mjndy, and H. Ron Preston
69
-------
Bascietto
deserve no small measure of
appreciation for their work in
developing the Envi ronmental
Evaluation w=ipnai. one KlftG model
exists because of the efforts of Dr.
Alyce Fritz, NOAA's Coastal Resource
Coordinator in EPA's Philadelphia,
PA regional office.
Literature Cited
Athey, L.A., J.M. Thomas, J.R.
Ska 1 ski and W.E. Miller. 1987. Role
of Acute Toxicity Bioassays in the
Remedial Action Process at Hazardous
Waste Sites. Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Bascietto, J., D. Hinckley, J.
Plafkin and M. Slimak. 1989.
Ecotoxicity and ecological risk
assessment. Regulatory applications
at the Environmental Protection
Agency. Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Jn Prep.
National Academy of Sciences (MAS).
1983. "Risk Assessment in the
Federal Government: Managing the
Process". National Academy Press,
Washington, B.C.
Porcella, D. 1983. Protocol for
Bioassessment of Hazardous Waste
Sites. Corvallis Environmental
Research laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
EPA-600/2-83-054.
USEPA. 1988a. Proposed Revisions to
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, 53 Fed. Reg. 51395 (Proposed
Rule, December 21, 1988). (Citation
is from the Preamble).
b. "Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Substances Releases;
Appendix A of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan"; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 53
Fed. Reg. 51962.
c. Guidance for
Conducting Remedial Investigations
and Feasibility Studies Under CERCIA
(Interim Final). OSWER Directive
9355.3-01. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
1989a. Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund.
Environmental Evaluation Manual
(Interim Final). OSWER Directive
9285.7-01. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
1989b. Ecological Assessment
of Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of
Research and Development, Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR.
70
-------
Discrimination of Sediment Toxicity in Freshwater Harbors
Using a Multitrophic Level Test Battery
G. Allen Burton, Jr., B.L. Stenmer,
Biological Sciences Department
Wright State university
Dayton, Ohio 45435
Philippe E. Ross, and LouAnn c. Burnett
Illinois Natural History Survey
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Abstract
Sediments were collected from Waukegan and Indiana Harbours in Lake
Michigan as part of a multi-laboratory study of sediment toxicity. These
sites were known to be contaminated with elevated levels of synthetic
organics and metals. Sediments were tested in solid phase and/or elutriate
phase with 48 h exposures using the following organisms: Daphnia magna,.
Cerioctephnia dubia, pygigi i^ az£ec_a, and Selenastrum capricornutum. In
addition, microbial dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, B-galactosidase,
and B-glucosidase activities were determined on both phases. Waukegan
sediments showed toxicity increased in sediments nearer to an industrial
source of FCB contamination. Macrofaunal species sensitivity was as
follows: cladocerans > algae > amphipod. Solid phase and elutriate
exposure toxicity were not significantly different, generally, for the
cladocerans but were with H. azteca. Microbial activity results did not
reveal any clear trends; however, the three Waukegan sediments exhibited
contamination response relationships. This approach proved beneficial in
detecting areas where bioavailable toxicants are located at acute levels,
thereby aiding chemical data interpretation and remediation studies.
Introduction
Toxicant impact assessments of
ecosystems must address multiple
levels of ecosystems to ensure
detection of the toxicant(s) target
site(s). Possible sites where toxi-
cant concentration or impacts may
occur include water, soil, sediment,
pore water, or plant and animal
tissue, thereby affecting key meta-
bolic processes and/or biogeo-
chemical cycles. It is apparent that
no one single species toxicant assay
can be used to detect ecosystem
impacts due to the varying target
sites and factors which influence
sensitivity. Thus, the dilemma
exists as to which and how many
assays should be used to evaluate
impacts.
Several approaches have been
recommended for evaluating sediment
quality (USEPA 1987). Recommended
approaches have included Equilibrium
Partitioning (USEPA 1987), Apparent
Effects Threshold (USEPA 1987), the
Sediment Quality triad (Chapman
1986), Screening Level Concentration
(Neff et al. 1987), and laboratory
sediment toxicity tests (USEPA and
US Army Corps of Engineers 1977). In
some cases these latter approaches
(all of which include a biological
component) may yield similar sedi-
ment quality assessments (Chapman
1986) and are superior to previous
chemically-oriented approaches.
Most sediment toxicity testing has
consisted primarily of single
species testing using Chironomus sp.
(Nebeker et al. 1984; Giesy et al.
1988; Williams et al. 1986),
71
-------
Burton et al.
Hexagenia sp. (Nebeker et al. 1984;
Malueg et al. 1984), Hyalella
azteca (Nebeker et al. 1984; Nebeker
and Miller 1988), Gammarus rulex
(Nebeker et al. 1984; Cairns et al.
1984), Dachnia maona (Nebeker et al.
1984; Giesy et al. 1988; Cairns et
al. 1984), or Microtox (Giesy et al.
1988). Indigenous community assays
nave been used in a limited number
of sediment toxicity effect studies
and included phytoplankton (Munawar
and Munawar 1987) and microbial
assemblages (Burton 1988).
The present study (Burton et al.
1989) investigated the ability of
several different toxicity tests,
comprising multiple trophic levels,
to detect sediment contamination at
7. sites where historical data
existed, documenting high levels of
sediment concentrations of R\H's,
metals, and/or polychlorinated
biphenyls (FCB's). This study was
part of a larger, interlaboratory,
collaborative study, coordinated by
the Illinois Natural History Survey
(INKS).
Methods
One of the two test sites was
Waukegan Harbor, located on the
western shore of Lake Michigan
approximately 30 miles north of
Chicago. The harbor is 0.9 miles
long and the shores are lined with
commercial and industrial facil-
ities, discharging approximately
0.25 x lO^3 effluent per day,
including runoff. One harbor sedi-
ments are heavily (Xfntaminated with
PCB's and FKH's. Samples were
collected from Stations A, B, and C.
Station A is located nearest to the
historical PCB discharge and C is
the furthest away, but within the
harbor.
The second test site was the
Indiana Harbor Canal in Gary,
Indiana. Sediments were contaminated
primarily with FftH's and metals
(USEFA 1985a). The Indiana Harbor
Canal is located south of Chicago,
Illinois and northwest of Gary,
Indiana on the shore of Lake
Michigan. The waterway serves as a
shipping canal for industries
located in the area. In past years,
the harbor canal functioned as a
sediment trap for suspended
particles carried in from the Lake
George and Grand Calumet River
branches toward Lake Michigan.
Currently, the Indiana Harbor Canal
and Grand Calumet River drain a
highly industrialized watershed
basin into Lake Michigan when water
levels are normal. Thirty-nine
permitted outfalls drain into the
waterway, adding treated municipal
and industrial wastewater, indus-
trial cooling water, sewage, and
run-off to the canal. Due to the
lack of project maintenance by
periodic dredging, particulate
transport from these sources of
contamination has significantly
decreased the depth of the channel
(1.8-2.4 m). The reference sediment
was collected from Homer Lake, a
small recreational lake in the
agricultural region of central
Illinois.
Sediment samples were collected by
Bonar dredge on November 16, 1987.
Sediments were placed in acid-
washed, methanol-rinsed, poly-
ethylene containers and returned to
the INHS on ice. Sediments were
thoroughly mixed in the laboratory,
subsampies withdrawn and placed on
ice for transport to Wright State
university. Toxicity testing was
begun within 48 h of initial col-
lection, and completed within 96 h.
Sediments were placed in test
chambers from a container of source
material that was being continuously
stirred. Elutriate samples were
prepared by shaking a 1:4 mixture of
sediment and reconstituted hardwater
(USEFA 1985b) for 30 minutes on a
72
-------
Sediment Toxicity Descrimination
shaker, followed by centrifugation
for 15 min (16,319 x g). The
supernatant was then distributed to
the test beakers. Elutriates used
for the algal assay were filtered,
after centrifugation, through a 0.45
Millipore filter.
Treatments were conducted in
triplicate and consisted of:
reconstituted water control; Homer
Lake reference (whole sediment and
elutriate); Waukegan Harbor stations
A, B, and C (whole sediment and
elutriate); and Indiana Harbor
stations D and E (whole sediment and
elutriate). A 30 ml sample was
placed in each test beaker (250 ml)
and 120 ml of reconstituted water
added carefully so as not to
resuspend sediments. Test systems
were maintained at 25 °C + 1°.
Water quality measurements of
dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH,
alkalinity, and hardness (American
Public Health Association et al.
1985) were monitored during the
assays. No aeration was required
during the 48 h test period.
Sediment dry weight was determined
in quadruplicate, after drying at
105°C for 24 hs and particle size
was measured using the hydrometer
method (Day 1956). Metal and organic
toxicant analyses methods (USEFA
1979) and were conducted by INKS,
Wright State university (WSU) and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) at Columbia, MO (USEFA
1979). Organic analyses consisted of
GC-MS scans for polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (FAH) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (FCB)
(USEPA 1979; Tiernan 1985).
Daphnia maana and CffrilQClifyflUlf1
dubia neonates (less than 24 h old)
were used for toxicity testing. Ten
£. fftibia and 10 D. maana neonates
were randomly distributed to 250 ml
test beakers (20 neonates per beak-
er, 3 beakers per test sediment).
Hyalella azteca juveniles were
provided by the USFWS (Columbia,
MD). H. azteca were randomly
distributed to triplicate 250 ml
test beakers (10 juveniles per
beaker).
S. capricornutum cultures were
maintained following standard
methods (USEFA 1985c). Tests were
not conducted on whole sediments.
Elutriates were tested (100 ml) in
triplicate 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks
by adding 1.0 x 106 algal cells and
0.1 ml of each standard nutrient
solution (except ETOA) per 100 ml of
elutriate. Algal cells were
enumerated at 48 h using a particle
size counter (Coulter Model ZF).
Enzymatic activity was determined
using previously described methods
(Burton and Lanza 1985). Assays
consisted of: 1) electron transport
system activity (ETS) (or
dehydrogenase activity) using the
tetrazolium salt substrate, 2-
iodophenyl-3-phenyl-5-nitrophenyl
tetrazolium chloride (INT) and basic
method of Jones and Simon (1979); 2)
alkaline phosphatase activity (APIA)
using the substrate p-nitrophenyl
phosphate (Sigma Chemical Co.) and
method of Sayler et al. (1979); 3)
•-galactosidase activity (GAL) using
the substrate p-nitrophenyl-a-D-
galactoside (24); 4) B-glucosidase
activity (GLU) using the substrate
p-nitrophenyl-«-D-glucoside. Samples
were homogenized and subsampled in
triplicate. Briefly, enzyme activity
was measured as follows.
Approximately 1 to 2 ml of test
water or cold homogenized sediment
was placed in triplicate test tubes
containing buffer. Enzyme substrate,
for example, p-nitrophenyl-«-D-
glucoside, was added to the tubes,
vortexed, and incubated in the dark
at 25°C for 30 min to 2 h. Activity
was terminated by placing the tubes
on ice and adding 1 to 2 ml acetone,
73
-------
Burton et al.
vortexing, and centrifuging (4424 X
g) for 10 min. One colored reaction
product in the supernatant is then
measured spectrophoto-roetrically.
Substrate was added after activity
termination for control tests.
Controls consisted of test mixtures
without the enzyme substrate and
also with substrate acetone, and
test mixtures. Absorbance was
converted to g of product formed
using a standard curve and activity
defined as product formed per
mi Hi liter of water (or gram dry
weight of sediment) per incubation
time.
Percent survival, growth or
activity and standard deviations
were calculated on each treatment as
compared to controls and the Homer
Lake reference sample. Response
differences between stations were
calculated using Dunnett's procedure
(Zar 1974), with an EPA DOMETT
program, written in IBM-PC FORTRAN.
Statistically significant
differences were determined with a
Bonferroni adjustment which was
incorporated into the program.
Station profile toxicity response
patterns were compared by Pearson
correlation analyses for significant
relationships using the Statistical
Analysis System (SAS) version 5.18
(PROC CCKR).
Results
Chemical analyses confirmed
extensive contamination existed at
the Waukegan and Indiana Harbor
sites with extremely elevated PCS
sediment concentrations (85 to 150
mg/kg dry wt) at Waukegan Station A
and a decreasing concentration
gradient towards Station C. Tne same
pattern was seen with PAH scans.
Indiana Harbor Site D had greater
levels of metals (Cd, Cr, Zn) than
did Site E, however, Site E had
substantially more PAH
contamination than Site D.
Results of macrofaunal 48 h
exposure to whole sediments and
elutriates are presented in Tables 1
and 2, respectively. Control
survival was good in all test
treatments. H. azteca was the least
sensitive organism with no response
to elutriates and marginal toxicity
(70-93.3% survival) observed at four
of five test sites. Indiana Site D
was the most toxic sediment to H.
aztecaf however, differences between
sites were not significant.
Waukegan Site A was acutely toxic
to D. magna in whole sediment and
elutriate phase exposures, with 0 to
3.3% survival, respectively. Site B
was also toxic (43.3% survival), but
only in whole sediment systems.
Indiana E produced slight effects in
e_lutriate tests.
£. dubia also was acutely affected
at Waukegan A with no survival at 48
h, however, no significant effect
was observed at Site B. In contrast
to D. E@gna, £. dubia showed high
toxicity to Indiana Harbor sediments
(0-1% survival), and to a greater
extent in whole sediment exposures
than the elutriate phase (53.3 and
76.7% survival). p. magna and £.
dubia responses were similar when
comparing all test data in whole
sediment (r=0.93, p<0.006) and
elutriate phase exposures (r=0.95,
P<0.004).
S- capricornutum exhibited both
inhibitory and stimulatory growth
responses when exposed to test
elutriates. Ine most inhibitory
(61.2% growth as compared to control
growth of 100%) sediment was
Waukegan A, as noted with the
cladoceran responses. Sediment
elutriates from Indiana E were also
inhibitory (69.1% growth) when
compared to the control treatment
cell numbers. Indiana D and Waukegan
C, however, increased growth rates
of 5. capricornutum (145.8 and
122.9%, respectively).
74
-------
Sediment Toxicity Descrimination
Table 1. Survival of macrofaunal surrogates exposed to whole sediments
for 48 h.a
Sample
Control
Homer
Waukegan A
Waukegan B
Waukegan C
Indiana D
Indiana E
H. azteca
100.0 (0)D
100.0 (0)
93.3 (11.5)
100.0 (0)
73.3 (23.1)
70.0 (26.5)
80.0 (17.3)
D. maona
96.7 (5.8)
96.7 (5.8)
0 (0)
43.3 (15.3)
90.0 (17.3)
96.7 (20.0)
96.7 (5.8)
C. flirt" a
90 (10)
100 (0)
0 (0)
90 (10)
100 (0)
0 (0)
1 (D
a Percent survival compared to control.
b Standard deviation. N = 3.
Table 2. Survival or growth of macrofaunal surrogates exposed to
elutriates for 48 h.
Sample
Control
Homer
Waukegan A
Waukegan B
Waukegan C
Indiana D
Indiana E
H. aztecaa
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
(0)c
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
p.. macmaa
100.0
93.3
3.3
100.0
100.0
93.3
80.0
(0)
(5.8)
(2.9)
(0)
(0)
(5.8)
(10)
£. £
100.
100.
0.
86.
96.
76.
53.
lut
0
0
0
7
7
7
3
)isa S.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(23.1)
(5.8)
(5.8)
(28.9)
caDricornutum'"'
100.
80.
61.
93.
122.
145.
69.
0
2
2
9
9
8
1
(6.
(7.
(4.
(20
(24
(4.
(13
7)
6)
5)
.1)
.4)
1)
.3)
a Percent survival compared to control sample
b Percent growth compared to control sample
c Standard deviation. N = 3.
Microbial activities in whole
sediment and elutriate phase
exposures are presented in Tables 3
and 4, respectively. As with the
algal test, both stimulatory and
inhibitory responses were observed.
Since these assays were of
indigenous activity, effects were
compared to Homer Lake activities.
The ETS assay revealed slight
stimulatory effects in whole
sediments when comparing responses
to the Homer Lake reference.
Greatest activity occurred in
Waukegan A, followed by Waukegan B
sediments, with a graded decrease
through Site E. APA also showed
highest activity rates in Waukegan A
tests, with significant inhibition
in the Indiana D and E whole
sediment assays (15 and 9% of Homer,
respectively). This pattern was not
seen in elutriate responses,
however, inhibition did occur at all
test sites. The GKL whole sediment
assay revealed greatest extra-
cellular activity levels from
Waukegan A and lowest activities in
Indiana D and E (26% of Homer).
Depressed activity was reversed to
75
-------
Burton et al.
Table 3. Indigenous microbial activity in whole sedments.a
Sample
Recon13
Homer15
WauKegan A
Waukegan B
Waukegan C
Indiana D
Indiana E
£
2.5
3.3
4.2
3.8
3.4
3.3
2.9
us
(1.
<0.
<0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
0)c
3)
1)
2)
1)
1)
1)
46.
143.
337.
105.
141.
21.
12.
AFA
9 (8.2)
5
1
5
5
8
5
(36.8)
(42.5)
(9.9)
(19.2)
(0.9)
(2.9)
GAL
6.0 (0.6)
13.1
45.7
10.5
24.8
3.4
3.4
(0.2)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(9.4)
(0.7)
(0.5)
5.
22.
168.
12.
42.
5.
6.
GLU
8 (0.8)
2
0
7
1
3
4
(2.7)
(18.2)
(1.3)
(5.5)
(0.6)
(2.0)
a ECS, electron transport system; AFA, alkaline phosphatase;
GAL, B-galactosidase; GLU, B-glucosidase activities. Activity
as g product/g dry wt sediment /unit time.
b Recon = reconstituted hard water; Homer = Homer Lake sediment
c Standard deviation. N = 3.
Table 4. Indigenous microbial activity in elutriates.3
Sample
Recon"
Homer13
Waukegan A
Waukegan B
Waukegan C
Indiana D
Indiana E
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
E
2
2
73
87
95
68
82
— » (-»
.40 (.44)
.72 (.48)
(.24)
(.36)
(.36)
(.13)
(.49)
1.
0.
9.
1.
1.
APA
0.83 (.03)
2.62 (.03)
53
95
28
22
38
(.08)
(.13)
(.94)
(.04)
(.32)
3.
1.
2.
4.
2.
GAL
2.50 (0)
0.42 (.12)
1.08 (.20) 0.60 (.05)
93
48
25
43
53
(.88)
(.66)
(.30)
(1.12)
(.12)
0.98
0.43
3.00
2.63
2.55
(.10)
(.10)
(.85)
(.94)
(.74)
a ETS, electron transport system; AFA, alkaline phosphatase;
GAL, »-galactosidase; GLU, »-glucosidase activities. Activity
as g product/ml elutriate/unit time.
b Recon = reconstituted hard water; Homer = Homer Lake sediment
c Standard deviation. N = 3.
elevated activity in Indiana
elutriate exposures; a response also
observed with the GLU assays. As in
the other enzymatic assays, whole
sediments from Waukegan A had the
greatest activity levels and Indiana
sediments the lowest (24 and 29% of
Homer).
Significance of the toxic response
of the 5 test sediments, compared
with Home Lake reference and
reconstituted hard water controls,
were determined using Dunnetts
FTocedure (Tables 5-7). In
macrofaunal tests, there were no
differences in response patterns in
whole sediments when using
reconstituted hard water or Homer
Lake as the statistical control;
however, some pattern differences
between station responses were noted
in elutriate controls (Table 5).
p. macma toxicity at Waukegan A
and B was statistically significant,
while £. rinh-ia showed sediments at
Waukegan A, Indiana D and E to be
toxic when compared to control and
reference tests. This latter pattern
76
-------
Sediment Toxicity Descrimination
Table 5. Significant macrofaunal responses from sediment exposures.
Assay
Ha|y^^^~*3
* .ytf* yyyy*-
P.. macma
£. dubia
S- capricornutum
Reference
Reconc
Homer0
Recon
Homer
Recon
Homer
Recon
Homer
Hjasea
S,E
S,E
S
S
E
S
S
E
E
Station Differences0
none
none
A,B
A,B
A
A,D,E
A,D,E
A,D+a,E
C,D
a S, whole sediment phase; E, elutriate phase
D Statistically significant difference between reference and test sediment,
with Bonferroni adjustment.
A,B,C = Waukegan stations; D,E = Indiana Harbor stations
c Recon = reconstituted hard water; Homer = Homer Lake sediment
d + = elevated response
Table 6. Significant microbial responses from sediment exposures
Assay5
AFA
ETS
CAL
GLU
Reference
Abiotic
Homer
Abiotic
Homer
Abiotic
Homer
Abiotic
Homer
ghgggb
S
E
S
E
S
S
S
S
S
E
S
E
Station Differences0
A+,B+,C+, Hbmer+cl
C+, Homer+
A+
A,B,C+,D,E
A+,B+,C+
A+,B+
A+,C+
A+
A+ ,B+ ,Homer+
C+,D+,E+
A+,B,C+,D,E
A+,B,C+,D+,E+
a AFA, alkaline pnosphatase; ETS, electron transport system;
GAL, B-galactosidase; GLU, B-glucosidase activities
" S, whole sediment phase; E, elutriate phase
c Statistically significant difference between reference and test sediment,
with Bonferroni adjustment.
A,B,C = Waukegan stations; D,E = Indiana Harbor stations
" + = elevated response
77
-------
Burtcn et al.
Table 7. Number of significant test responses for sediments tested with 8
assays
Station Solid Elutriate
Waukegan A3 3
Waukegan B 1 0
Waukegan CO 1
Indiana D 1 1
Indiana El 1
Solid Elutriate
4 3
4 2
3 2
1 3
1 3
goi i rt piutriate
7
5
3
2
2
6
2
3
4
4
TOTAL
13
13
19
19
a Total of 8 assay types. Differences are statistically
significant with Bonferroni adjustment.
was also seen with 3- capricornutum
when using a control comparison.
The microbial AFA, ETS, and G^L
whole sediment responses were
similar to macrofaunal assay
responses, in that they showed
Waukegan A, or A and B were
significantly different from the
Homer Lake reference (Table 6). The
AFA and GLU responses, however,
detected differences between all
test sites (A-E) when compared to
Homer Lake elutriates.
Both similarities and differences
in sediment toxicity responses were
observed with the test battery.
Waukegan Harbor Site A was toxic to
7 of 8 assay systems (Table 7). A
greater number of station
differences were detected using the
indigenous microbial assays than the
macrofaunal assays. Differences
between Waukegan A, B and C were
observed with microbial and D-
maqna responses; however, their
pattern differed. Indiana D and E
whole sediment toxicities were not
significantly different in most
cases.
Discussion
Numerous investigators have
emphasized the importance of using
multiple toxicity tests in
evaluations of pollutants in aquatic
ecosystems (Birge et al. 1986;
Burton and Stenmer 1988; Cairns
1980; LeBlanc 1984). A battery of
tests is preferred because species
sensitivity to toxicants varies due
to differing modes of action and
metabolic processes. In addition,
ecosystem sensitivity is influenced
by a myriad of factors, such as
indigenous species sensitivity,
physicochemical alteration of
toxicity (due to natural or
anthropogenic factors), seasonal
effects, and food web interactions.
There has also been concern over the
validity and effectiveness of using
single species surrogates, e.g.,
Daphnia maqna,. Pimpph^iffR promelas.
rather than resident species or
multispecies tests in evaluations of
aquatic ecosystem impacts (Cairns
1985). Both approaches have been
effectively used to document the
presence or absence of toxicity,
however, the complex nature of
ecosystem structure and function
relationships has impeded thorough
validation of these and other
assessment methodologies.
Species sensitivity varies with
test sites and contaminant type.
Algae and daphnids were the most
sensitive test species at hazardous
78
-------
Sediment Toxicity Descrimination
waste sites contaminated with metals
and insecticides, followed by
Microtoxa, oxygen depletion rate,
seed germination, and earthworm
toxicity assay responses (Miller et
al. 1985). In other studies,
indigenous microbial activities
proved to be more sensitive indi-
cators of stream degradation due to
metals or polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons than was p. magna, £.
dybla, £. promelas and/or 5.
capriconnitum (Burton and Stemmer
1988;Burton 1989). In calcareous
sediments, cadmium levels of 400
mg/1 were unavailable and not toxic
to D. magna but were toxic (LCEL
6.2-12.5 mg/1) to indigenous
microbial activity (Stemmer 1988).
Effluent toxicity evaluations showed
£. dubia to be the most sensitive
test species, in most cases, when
compared to D. magna, H. aztecaf or
£?. capricornutum in 48 h exposures.
In some studies, however, no
cladoceran toxicity was observed
while algal growth was signifi-
cantly inhibited (Stemmer 1988).
Other investigations revealed
Microtox as the most sensitive
indicator of sediment toxicity
(Giesy et al. 1988). It is
appropriate, therefore, that a test
battery be used which is comprised
of multiple assays, representing
different trophic levels and levels
of organization, i.e., single
species and multispecies. In the
future it may be possible to form
some generalities and select a
reduced number of test assays for
evaluations of particular types of
toxic contaminants in particular
types of ecosystems.
Our results confirmed the premise
that multiple test assays are
necessary to both detect sediment
toxicity and differentiate degrees
of toxicity. BuUc sediment chemical
analyses revealed extreme contami-
nation in Waukegan and Indiana
Harbors, consisting of a complex
mixture of PCB's, FAH's and/or
metals. Waukegan A was contaminated
to the greatest degree and produced
the greatest response in 7 of 8
assays (lethality or stimulated
activity). A similarity in the
response patterns would be expected
at such a highly contaminated site.
When using macrofaunal surrogates,
Waukegan B toxicity was only
detected by D- maona (whole
sediment) and Waukegan C elutriates
only produced effects with S.
capricornutum. Indiana Harbor
sediment toxicity to macrofaunal
surrogates existed in £. dubia whole
sediment assays and with £•
capricornutum. but not D. macma or
H. azteca. The H. azteca 48 h
exposure period appears to be
inadequate to detect toxicity.
Another portion of this inter labor-
atory study measured H. azteca
lethality and growth effects at 10,
20, and 30 day periods, and
recorded acute and chronic toxicity
in the test sediments (Ingersoll et
al. 1988), while we observed no
lethality at 48 h.
Microbial activity tests responses
were similar to some of the macro-
faunal responses, in that Waukegan A
and B were significantly different
from the Homer Lake reference.
Indiana Harbor sediment effects were
observed with APA and GLU. The
measurement of these two hydrolases
showed that all 5 test sites were
significantly different from the
reference sediment elutriate.
Stimulatory and inhibitory effects
were observed in S- capricornutum
and indigenous microbial activity
responses. Stimulatory effects can
be attributed to nutrients, adapted
microbial communities, the Arndt-
Schultz phenomenon, and/or feedback
mechanism disruption (Lamanna and
79
-------
Burton et al.
Mallette 1953; Pratt et al. 1988)
whereby low levels of toxicants in-
crease metabolic processes (Savoure
1984). This latter possibility has
been reported elsewhere in aquatic
impact evaluations (Burton et al.
1987; Baker and Griffiths 1984).
Pratt et al. (1988) suggested that
elevated structure and function
responses were initial stress
indicators which probably reflected
a disruption of normal feedback
mechanisms controlling nutrient
dynamics and species interactions.
Monitoring microbial responses has
been recommended as an early warning
indicator of ecosystem stress (Baker
and Griffiths 1984; Odum 1985) and
as a means of establishing toxicant
criteria for terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems (Babich and Stotzky
1983). Resulting changes at the
species level should be accompanied
by changes in respiration and/or
decomposition rates (Odum 1985). The
usefulness of monitoring the micro-
bial community is due, in part, to
its ability to respond so quickly to
environmental conditions, e.g.,
toxicant exposure, and the major
role they play in ecosystem biogeo-
chemical cycling processes artf the
food web (Griffiths 1983; Griffiths
et al. 1982; Porter et al. 1987).
Stimulation or inhibition of
activity may also result when carbon
or nutrient substrates are altered
(Griffiths et al. 1982; Porter et
al. 1987), so that one enzyme
system e.g., APA, is stimulated
while another, e.g., GAL, is
inhibited. When macro- and meio-
benthic invertebrate and protozoan
cropping of bacteria is removed,
such as nay occur in contaminated
sediments, the sediments serve as a
carbon sink (Porter et al. 1987).
Therefore, organic carbon and
nutrients necessary for secondary
productivity will be unavailable and
impacts to the remainder of the food
chain are likely (Porter et al.
1987). When comparing test samples
with reference samples, inhibitory
and stimulatory effects should be
regarded as a perturbation.
In the current study responses
varied between solid and elutriate
phases. The cladocerans were more
sensitive to whole sediment
exposures. This may be due to their
trait of being epibenthic-feeding
plankton. They spend a significant
amount of time during test exposure,
filter feeding on the sediment
surface, thereby increasing the
potential for toxicant uptake. The
microbial responses were mixed, with
APA and GLU showing greater
responses from elutriate exposure,
while EPS and GAL only responded in
Waukegan whole sediments. Determin-
ations of assay sensitivity based on
comparisons between the elutriate
phase of one toxicity assay and the
solid phase of another toxicity
assay, therefore, should not be
made. Test sensitivity is related to
exposure method. In addition, the
solid phase exposure method is more
indicative of normal in situ
exposure conditions, than is the
elutriate exposure.
The multitrophic level test
battery indicated that substantial
chemical contamination existed, to
varying degrees, at the test sites.
Since test response patterns varied
between whole sediment and elutriate
phase exposures, trophic levels
tested, and test sediments; it is
recommended that assessments of
sediment quality include multiple
test exposure systems comprised of
sensitive species, from multiple
trophic levels to ensure detection
of cxHTtaminant problems.
Literature Cited
American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association and
80
-------
Sediment Toxicity Descrimination
Water Pollution Control Federation.
1985. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater,
16th ed. American Public Health
Association, Washington, D.C.
Babich, H. and G. Stotzky. 1983.
Developing standards for environ-
mental toxicants: the need to
consider abiotic environmental
factors and microbe-mediated
ecologic processes. Environ. Health
Perspec. 49: 247-260.
Baker, J.H. and R.P. Griffiths.
1984. Effects of oil on bacterial
activity in marine freshwater
sediments. In, M.J. Klug and C.A.
Reddy, eds. Current Perspectives in
Microbial Ecology. America See.
Microbial. Wash., DC, pp. 546-551.
Birge, W. J., J.A. Black, and B.A.
Ramey. 1986. Evaluation of effluent
biomonitoring systems. In H.L.
Bergman, R.A. Kimerle, and A.W.
Maki, Eds., Environmental Hazard
Assessment of Effluents. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry Special Publication
Series. Pergamon Press, Elmsford,
NY, pp. 66-80.
Burton, G.A., Jr. 1988. Stream
Impact Assessment Using Sediment
Microbial Activity Tests. In: J.
Lichtenberg, J. Winter, C. Weber,
and L. Fradkin (eds.), Chemical and
Biological Characterization of
Sludges, Sediments, Dredge Spoils
and Drilling Muds. American Society
for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 300-310.
Burton, G.A., Jr. 1989. Evaluation
of seven sediment toxicity tests and
their relationships to stream para-
meters. Toxicity Assess. 4 (in
press).
Burton, G.A. , Jr., A. Drotar, J.M.
Lazorchak and L.L. Bahls. 1987.
Relationship of microbial activity
and ffnoffaphnia responses to mining
impacts on the Clark Fork River,
Montana. Arch. Environ. Contain.
Toxicol. 16: 523-530.
Burton, G.A. , Jr. and G.R. Lanza.
1985. Sediment microbial activity
tests for the detection of toxicant
impacts. In, R. Cardwell, R. Purdy,
and R. Bahner, eds. , Aquatic Toxi-
cology and Hazard Assessment, STP
854. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Burton, G.A. , Jr. and B.L. Stemmer.
1988. Evaluation of surrogate tests
in toxicant impact assessments.
Toxicity Assess. 3: 255-269.
Burton, G.A. , Jr. , B.L. Stemmer,
K.L. Winks, P.E. Ross, and L.C.
Burnett. 1989. A multitrophic level
evaluation of sediment toxicity in
Waukegan and Indiana Harbours.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8 (11): (in
press).
Cairns, J. , Jr. 1980. Effect-related
effluent criteria for pollutants.
Pure and Appl. Chem. 52: 1961-1972.
Cairns, J. , Jr. 1985. Multispecies
Toxicity Testing. Society Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. Special Publication.
Pergamon Press. New York, NY.
Cairns, M.A. , A.V. Nebeker, J.H.
Gakstatter and W.L. Griffis. 1984.
Toxicity of copper-spiked sediments
to freshwater invertebrates.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:435-445.
Chapman, P.M. Sediment quality
criteria from the sediment quality
triad: an example. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem., Vol. 5, 1986, pp.
957-964.
81
-------
Burton et al.
Day, P.R. 1956. Report of the
Conmittee on Physical Analyses
(1954-1955). Social Science Society
of America. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 20: 167-169.
Giesy, J.P., R.L. Graney, J.L.
Newsted, C.J. Rosiu, A. Benda, R.G.
Kreis, Jr. and F.J. Horvath. 1988.
Comparison of three sediment
bioassay methods using Detroit River
sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
7:483-498.
Griffiths, R.P. 1983. The importance
of measuring microbial enzymatic
functions while assessing and
predicting long-term anthropogenic
perturbations. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
14: 162-165.
Griffiths, R.P., B.A. Caldwell, W.A.
Broich, and R.Y. Morita. 1982. Long-
term effects of crude oil on
microbial processes in subarctic
marine sediments; studies on
sediments amended with organic
nutrients. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
13:273-278.
Griffiths, R.P. and R.Y. Morita.
1980. Study of Microbial Activity
and Crude Oil-Microbial Interactions
in the Waters and Sediments of Cook
Inlet and the Beaufort Sea. Fifth
Ann. Report. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Washington, D.C.
Ingersoll, C.G., M.K. Nelson, G.A.
Burton, Jr., B.L. Stenmer and K.L.
Winks. 1988. Toxicity assessment of
contaminants associated with
sediments from Lower Lake Michigan.
I: A comparison of acute and chronic
test methods with amphipods and
midge. Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry Annual
Meeting Abstracts, Arlington, VA.
November 13-15, 1988.
Jones, J.G. and B. Simon. 1979. The
measurement of electron transport
system activity in freshwater
benthic and planktonic samples. J.
Appl. Bacteriol. 46: 305-315.
Lamanna, C. and M.F. Mallette. 1953.
Basic Bacteriology and Its
Biological Chemical Background.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
LeBlanc, G.A. 1984. Interspecies
relationships in acute toxicity of
chemicals to aquatic organisms.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3: 47-67.
Malueg, K.W., G.S. Schuytema, D.F.
Krawczyk and J.H. Gakstatter. 1984.
Laboratory sediment toxicity tests,
sediment chemistry and distribution
of benthic macroinvertebrates in
sediments from the Keweenaw
Waterway, Michigan. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 3:233-242.
Miller, W.E., S.A. Peterson, J.C.
Greene, and C.A. Callahan. 1985.
Comparative toxicology of laboratory
organisms for assessing hazardous
waste sites. J,. Environ. Qual. 14:
569-574.
Morrison, S. J., J.D. King, R.J.
Bobbie, R.E. Bechtold and D.C.
White. 1977. Evidence for
microfloral succession on
allochthonous plant litter in
Apalachicola Bay, Florida, U.S.A.
Mar. Biol. 41: 229-240.
Munawar, M. and Munawar, I.F. 1987.
Phytoplankton bioassays for
evaluating toxicity of in situ
sediment concentrations. Hydrobiol.
Vol. 149, pp. 87-106.
Nebeker, A.V., M.A. Cairns, J.H.
Gakstatter, K.W. Malueg, G.S.
Schuytema and D.F. Krawczyk. 1984.
Biological methods for determining
toxicity of contaminated freshwater
82
-------
Sediment Ttaxicity Descrimination
sediments to invertebrates. Environ.
Toxicol. Cham. 3:617-630.
Nebeker, A.V. and C.E. Miller. 1988.
Use of the amphipod crustacean
Hyalella azteca in freshwater and
estuarine sediment toxicity tests.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:1027-1034.
Neff, J.M., B.W. Cornaby, R.M. Vaga,
T.C. Gulbransen, J.S. Scanlon, and
D.J. Bean. 1987. An evaluation of
the screening level concentration
approach to derivation of sediment
quality criteria for freshwater and
saltwater ecosystems, In W.J. Adams,
G.A. Chapman, and W.G. Landis, eds.,
Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment: Tenth Symposium. STP
971. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, FA.
Odum, E.P. 1985. Trends expected in
stressed ecosystems. BioScience 35:
419-422.
Porter, K.G., H. Paerl, R. Hodson,
M. Pace, J. Priscu, B. Riemann, D.
Scavia, and J. Stockner. 1987.
Microbial interations in lake food
webs. In, S.R. Carpenter, ed.
Complex Interactions in Lake
Communities. Springer-Verlag. New
York, NY, pp. 209-227.
Pratt, J.R., N.J. Bowers, B.R.
Niederlehner, and J. Cairns, Jr.
1988. Effects of atrazine on
freshwater microbial communities.
Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 17:
449-457.
Savoure, B. 1984. Effets toxiques du
vanadium sur le metabolisme de
quelques algues d'eau douce
cultivees in vitro. Hydrobiol. 118:
147-151.
Sayler, G.S., M. Puziss, and M.
Silver. 1979. Alkaline phosphatase
assay for freshwater sediments:
application to perturbed sediment
systems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
38: 922-927.
Stemmer, B.L. 1988. An Evaluation of
Various Effluent and Sediment
Toxicity Tests. M.S. thesis. Wright
State University, Dayton, OH.
Tiernan, T.O., M. Taylor, J.
Garrett, G. VanNess, J. Solch, D.
Wagel, G. Ferguson, and A. Schecter.
1985. Sources and fate of
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins,
dibenzofurans and related compounds
in human environments. Environ.
Health Perspec. 59:145-158.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency/Corps of Engineers. 1977.
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters. U.S. Army COE
Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. USEPA.
EPA-600/4-79-020. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1985a. Master Plan for
Improving Water Quality in the Grand
Calumet River/Indiana Harbor. EPA-
905/9-84-003C. Chicago, IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. I985b. Methods for measuring
the acute toxicity of effluents to
freshwater and marine organisms.
EPA/600/4-85/013. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. I985c. Short-term Methods
for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-
85/014. USEPA. Cincinnati, OH.
83
-------
Burton et al.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1987. An Overview of
Sediment Quality in the United
States. EPA.-905/9-88-002. Office of
Water. Washington, D.C.
Williams, K.A., D.W.J. Green, D.
Pascoe and D.E. Gower. 1986. One
acute toxicity of cadmium to
different larval stages of
Qiiroronus riparius (Diptera:
Ghironomidae) and its ecological
significance for pollution
regulation. Oecologia 70:362-366.
Zar, J.H. 1974. Biostatistical
Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
84
-------
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization utilizing In Situ and
Laboratory Bioassessment Methods
Larry Kapustka
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, CR 97333
Greg Linder
NSI Technology Services Inc.
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, CR 97333
Abstract
Determination of adverse ecological effects at a hazardous waste site
[HWS] requires definition of the questions to be assessed plus selection of
appropriate measurement tools. Field observations conducted during the
initial scoping activities play an important role in defining the ecological
concerns to be addressed; the measurement tool box ideally consists of an
array of direct field measurements [biological, chemical and physical], in
situ bioassays, laboratory bioassays, additional analytical measures of site
samples as well as statistical and risk assessment modeling. This paper
discusses the assembly of the tool box and the selection of tools.
Introduction
Ecology is an integrative
discipline which draws upon diverse
sources of information [e.g.
chemical, physical, geological,
biological, etc.] to describe the
interactions of organisms,
populations, communities and
ecosystems with each other and their
surroundings. The completed
ecological assessment of a HWS
should determine if an adverse
ecological effect has occurred as a
consequence of the materials present
at the site (Norton et al. 1988).
HWS assessments have historically
evaluated human health effects
[realized or potential]; chemical
analysis of the site samples [soil,
water, air]; and toxicity of site
materials to selected bioassay
organisms. Evaluations of toxicity
and exposure have driven regulatory
actions at HWS.
Hazard can be considered a
function of exposure and toxicity;
both toxicity and exposure may in
effect be complex functions and be
highly variable within problem-
specific contexts. Exposure
assessment may be regarded as a
field activity, or an integrated
lab/field chore concerned with
ecologically significant endpoints.
For example, measurement endpoints
may consider biological monitors
[biochemical, physiological, or
histological markers] or residue
analyses of biological matrices and
other environmental . samples.
Toxicity assessment is routinely
regarded as being laboratory-
derived; less commonly, toxicity
assessment results from jii situ
methods that are completed within a
field setting.
Relatively little effort has been
directed toward ecological
assessments. Whereas ecological
assessments may draw upon chemical
and toxicological data, neither
chemistry nor toxicology should be
85
-------
Kapustka and T.i
construed as constituting an
ecological assessment. Rather, it is
necessary to define an ecological
assessment endpoint in terms of a
population inhabiting the site, a
suite of populations, or an
ecosystem process.
Approach to Ecological Assessment
Given budgetary restraints and
time limitations, a great deal of
care must be given to defining
relevant assessment endpoints and
selecting the appropriate
measurements for a given site. From
the outset, a considerable amount of
information is available from which
the options can be constructed; the
geographical [ecoregional] location
and the probable chemicals can be
defined and identified; and, case
histories of similar hazardous
wastes can be consulted. Recortmended
initial steps of the ecological
assessment process are: assemble
existing data sets including site
maps, aerial photos, soils maps,
geology and hydrology maps, and
ecoregion maps; evaluate the
appropriateness of ecological
assessment; and define the target
zones to be examined.
The strategy for ecological
evaluation incorporates varying
levels of field sampling. The
preliminary evaluation defines the
ecological context of the site [ie.,
landscape features such as
geomorphic, hydrologic, climatic,
and biologic that potentially
influence the site or define off-
site transfer of toxicants and
biota]; identifies ' the spatial
extent of impact [current and
potential] of the site and
ecological features that warrant
more detailed analysis for current
assessment and/or future remediation
monitoring.
During the past year, major
accomplishments toward instituting
ecological assessment into the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Studies [RI/FS] activities were
achieved. The Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement and Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response
prepared a guidance document (US
EPA 1989) to assist RPMs in
instituting ecological assessments,
and the Environmental Research
Laboratory [ERL-C], Corvallis,
Oregon published the first guidance
document on ecological site
assessments methodologies (Warren-
Hicks, et al 1989). Much remains to
be accomplished.
One major point of concern arises
from the fundamental
misunderstanding of what constitutes
an ecological assessment. The key
word is integration. A significant
obstacle in conducting ecological
assessments is the poor delineation
of utility and limitations of
various tools available to assess
site condition (Figure 1). Here we
outline the capabilities and
limitations of three components for
evaluating measurement endpoints.
These components of an ecological
assessment are: 1) field surveys
which focus on distribution and
abundance of organisms [usually
distinguished by taxonomic groups];
2) bioassays designed to measure
toxicity directly in the field or
in the laboratory; and 3) biomarkers
selected to report exposure to a
specific chemical or class of
chemicals.
1. Field Surveys. Assessment of
ecological effects requires some
measurement of structure and
functional relationships of biota.
The field compcanent of an ecological
assessment may be constructed to
incorporate a variety of
methodologies. Classical sampling
designs and protocols for
determination of populations of
plants, animals, and microbes have
86
-------
Hazardjus Waste Site Bioassessment
SITE ASSESSMENT
Figure 1. Relationship Among Component Features of Site Assessments. The
"Site" is illustrated conceptually as the ellipse labelled FJWIRONMENmL.
The unique portion of the ellipse [the upper zone] portrays non-biological,
non-ecological measurement and assessment endpoints performed outside the
context of ecological purview. The ECOLOGICAL sphere overlaps and
integrates portions of ENVIRONMENTAL assessments, extends beyond the "Site"
and can encompass toxicological, human health, and biomarker endpoints.
been the subject of ecology from the
inception of the discipline.
Although no rigid guidelines for
sampling are accepted universally,
the concepts of adequacy of sample,
objectivity, and precision are well
entrenched in all field oriented
studies. Researchers are given
considerable flexibility in
modifying protocols to match the
peculiarities of the site and the
objectives of the sampling effort.
Ecological sampling techniques, like
all measurement activities, vary in
rigor [ie., detail and/or accuracy]
and in the effort [time and cost]
required. Often, techniques that can
be performed rapidly have inherent
limitations of subsequent data
manipulation and interpretation.
However, rapid and low-cost
procedures may provide the
information needed. Guidance to plan
ecological sampling should be
derived from two leading questions
"What do I need to know about the
site?" [The Data Quality Objectives
(DQO)] and "What do I plan to do
with the information?" [Quality
Assurance Work Plan (QAWP)].
Efficiency comes from integrating
the DQOs and QAWP.
Hazardous waste sites present
unique restrictions of access and
risk to workers. Because of
extremely limited size and/or the
nature of disturbance, some sites do
not pose substantive ecological
concerns. Proposed remediation
actions may also minimize the level
87
-------
Kapustka and Li
of effort that should go toward
ecological evaluation. However, in a
large number of sites, ecological
assessment can play a major role in
defining the nature of the problems
associated with the site. Further-
more, ecological assessment should
be considered a benchmark for
evaluating the success of remedial
actions in those situations where
the nature of the site warrants
action based upon a finding of
adverse ecological impact.
Given the temporal limitations on
data collection which often pertain
to hazardous waste sites, it is
crucial to recognize the rather
large error margins accompanying
most of the resulting data. One-time
sampling efforts almost always
underestimate species richness.
Ephemeral populations are easily
missed. Quantitative estimates from
one-time sampling efforts are
static and thus miss the dynamics of
the site. Nevertheless,
indispensable information can be
acquired from field sampling, in
some cases through rather cursory
reconnaissance [See Table 1].
Vegetation structure and to some
extent composition can be determined
remot e ly ut i l i z ing conventional
aerial photography, infrared
photography, or more sophisticated
radiometric signal such as the
Thematic Mapper [TM] sensors
available in satellites or fixed-
wing aircraft [and the new ABRIS
sensors under development]. To some
extent, [especially with
conventional aerial photography],
archived data can be used to
generate a history of land use. Such
gross analyses permit generalized
glimpses of spatial and temporal
changes at and surrounding an HWS
which can be informative not only
of the vegetational responses but
also suggestive of habitat
conditions important for animal
populations. More importantly, the
infrared photography and radiometric
sensors, show great promise for use
in defining the spatial boundaries
of impact at an HWS. Because the
plant leaves are sophisticated
light harvesting assemblages,
toxicants like those at many HWS can
alter the spectral reflectance
patterns. If this property proves
reliable, it will become a major
tool to help delineate the spatial
distribution of phytotoxic
substances.
Conventional, ecological surveys of
vegetation and animal populations
can be utilized to generate patterns
of distribution and abundance of the
respective taxonomic groups. In most
cases, acquiring accurate
measurements of population sizes is
costly and involves excessive on-
site time which might pose
unacceptable risk to the persons
gathering the data. HWS conditions
impose rigid demands that the DQOs
be specified precisely and that the
QAWP be equally targeted.
Furthermore, as discussed earlier,
we seldom have the basis to evaluate
the long-term consequence of a given
Change in population numbers,
particularly in light of the
differential susceptibility of
genotypic variants to a specified
toxicant. This is a limitation of
the science; it should not be
construed as a fatal limitation of
field surveys.
2. Bioassavs to Determine
Toxicity. Bioassays are instruments
which yield some defined measurement
[Figure 2]. The "sensor" and in most
cases the "meter" in the bioassay
instrument package is an organism.
In theory the organism detects a
multitude of signals, processes
those signals in some fashion which
may or may not. be understood, and
reports a quantifiable unit of
measure [eg. death, growth rate, or
88
-------
Hazardous Waste Site Bioassessment
Table 1. Summary of capabilities and
limitations of field surveys at HWSs
(adapted from Murphy and Kapustka
1989).
i lities
+ Surveys can be used to define
endpoints of relevance.
+ A large selection of sampling
techniques is available to permit
desired measurement to a
specified accuracy.
+ They are the most direct way to
demonstrate adverse change.
+ Field surveys reflects the
biological integration of all
stresses.
+ Major vegetation components are
amenable to sophisticated remote
sensing technology.
Limitations
- Legal and safety concerns
restrict access.
- Large natural variability may
mask subtle but significant
effects.
- Detailed sampling can be
expensive.
- Survey data are restricted to
correlative analysis.
- Their "snapshot" view misses the
dynamics [past and future].
other specified biological metric].
In this regard, a bioassay Should be
considered as any other instrument;
an analytical tool equivalent to a
gas chromatograph, a spectrophoto-
meter, etc. As spectrophotometers
may be modified or adapted to permit
different types of analyses, so can
bioassays. Each instrument operates
with some level of precision and
accuracy. Each has boundaries
defining legitimate uses.
In a regulatory sense bioassays
have been indispensable in
determining the permissible levels
Table 2. Summary of capabilities
and limitations of toxicity tests
for assessment of HWSs (adapted from
Murphy and Kapustka 1989).
Capabilities
+ Tests can be used to establish
causality.
+ They provide an extensive
laboratory data base [especially
from single chemical toxicity
tests].
+ Multiple, simultaneous chemical
stresses are integrated into a
defined biological response.
+ The response "interprets"
bioavailability.
+ Test conditions can be
manipulated or adapted to meet
different specification
[including adaptation to in situ
conditions].
+ There are many assays to choose.
Limitations
- Assay conditions [especially in
the laboratory] are artificial.
- Tests are restricted to
culturable organisms.
- Test organisms selected to
exhibit narrow statistical
variance [ie., genetically
diversity minimized].
- The artificial test conditions
[especially in the laboratory]
may not reflect proper exposure
conditions.
- Extrapolation is restricted to
individuals.
of chemical release into the
environment [See Table 2]. Just as
the medical profession has used the
white rat or the rhesus monkey as
surrogates of humans, environmental
biologists have utilized the fathead
minnow as a surrogate for fresh
water fishes, daphnids as surrogates
of aquatic invertebrates, radish or
89
-------
Kapustka and T.inrler
BIOASSAYS
AS
INSTRUMENTS
light
chemical
•lactronic circuits
interface
bioaasay organisms
voltmatar
uE/m2/s
50
Figure 2. Conceptual model portraying conmon features of bioassays and a
representative analytical instrument.
chemistry direct bioassays ecosystems processes
measurement
endpoint
surveys
populations
plants
productivity
lab based
"in situ"
hazard
indirect bioassays
SAR animals assessment
biomarkers communities endpoint
endangered species
land use history
'exposure microbes human
fate transport models
risk I
lan /
els /
BIOASSESSMENTTOOL BOX
Figure 3. Bioassessment tool box for site assessments.
90
-------
Hazardous Waste Site Bioassessment
lettuce as surrogates for terres-
trial vascular plants, and some
would hold that a single "most
sensitive" test organism could serve
as a surrogate for the ecosystem as
a whole. In the absence of better
information, surrogates provide
exceedingly valuable "range finding"
information. From human health
experiences we know that white rat
studies can lead to false negative
as well as false positive findings.
We should not be surprised to
encounter similar "mistakes" in
performance of bioassays.
One greatest use of bioassays has
been to determine the toxicity of
single chemicals in simplified
medium under controlled environ-
mental conditions. A prime consid-
eration of the bioassay organism is
the ease of culturing in the
laboratory. Another critical
attribute is uniformity or in a
statistical sense, narrow variance.
Together these three features
[controlled environment, "domesti-
cation," and homogeneity] run
counter to environmental condi-
tions. More recently, bioassays have
been employed to evaluate toxicity
of complex mixtures such as effluent
from waste water discharge or soil
elution. Here these instruments
perform an analytical function not
achievable by other means; namely
the integration of organism
response from simultaneous exposure
to multiple differentially toxic
agents.
Toxicity testing typically
incorporates an array of bioassay
organisms representative of
different trophic levels and varied
life forms within trophic levels.
Additionally, tests have been
developed to discriminate among
short exposures [acute], long
exposures [chronic], maximum effect
[lethal], and sub-lethal effects
[eg. reduced growth, reduced
reproductive rate]. Although these
options permit selection of an
"instrument" which better
approximates the organisms of
interest [eg. one species of fish
being the surrogate of another
species of fish; a worm for a worm;
etc.], the laboratory versions of
bioassays seldom can be made
representative of the exposure
conditions and the myriad of
environmental factors that come to
bear on organisms in the field.
Cognizant of such serious
limitations, we are continuing
efforts toward developing a broader
array of bioassay organisms and
toward adapting existing bioassay
procedures so that the tests may be
performed jjj situ. Successful
examples of in situ terrestrial
bioassays to date include detecting
and monitoring environmental
contamination utilizing honey bees
and earthworm bioassays. In the near
term, it will be necessary to
utilize a combination of laboratory
and in situ assays. This duplicity
is needed in order to provide
appropriate calibration of
laboratory and in situ
measurements.
2., Biomarkers to Determine
Exposure. Biomarkers are measures of
molecular and/or physiological
features of organisms which reveal a
sublethal [often subtle] response to
some stressor. A given biomarker
response may be ephemeral or
sustained; it may be specifically
linked to a chemical or it may be
associated with a general class of
stressors. The biomarker response
in most cases is measured in an
individual and provides evidence
that the individual in question has
experienced exposure to the stress.
Although this discipline of
environmental biology is in its
infancy, excellent tools exist; some
with clearly defined relationships
91
-------
Kapustka and T.-i
between the measurement endpoint and
the assessment endpoint [See Table
3].
Table 3. Summary of capabilities and
limitations of biomarkers for
assessment of HWSs (adapted from
Murphy and Kapustka) .
j lities
+ Biomarkers provide evidence of
exposure to sublethal
concentrations of stressors.
+ They may be diagnostic.
+ They are amenable to both
laboratory and field conditions.
+ This is a very active area of
research showing great promise.
Limitations
- Linkage to ecological effects not
inherently clear.
- Only a few established biomarker
systems available.
- Use may be operationally complex.
Several key virtues of biomarkers
are flexibility for use in the lab
or in the field as well as on
cultured ["domesticated"] or wild
organisms. Biomarkers can be used
wisely to aid in defining relation-
ships between laboratory and jn situ
bioassays as well as relationships
between bioassay organisms and the
larger array of wild organisms.
Although several limitations to
the generalized use of biomarkers
for HWS assessment exist [eg.
technical uncertainties regarding
the sensitivity, interference,
general applicability across
taxononic lines], some have been
used very effectively to denonstrate
adverse effects on organisms due to
contaminants. Selected examples to
illustrate use of the biomarker tool
kit include cholinesterase, mutation
frequency in plants, karyotype
analysis, flow cytometry to measure
cellular ENA content, ENA unwinding,
and analysis of genetic diversity of
populations via measurement of
allelic distributions of metabolic
enzymes. In all likelihood as more
studies are completed, and as new
biomarkers are perfected for field
measurements, the theoretical
framework to linking biomarker
measurements to ecological endpoints
will come into sharper focus.
Sumnary
Each approach [ie., field surveys,
toxicity tests, and biomarkers]
contains numerous methods to acquire
data for site assessments. Given the
restrictions imposed by time,
access, and resources, the selection
of methods must be compatible with
the specific site DQOs. The
collection of methods may be
envisioned as a tool box from which
one may "extract" the correct tool
for the specified task (Figure 3).
At ERL-C we are striving to define
the speci f ications of the tools
appropriate to perform ecological
assessments of HWS.
Literature Cited
Murphy, T.A. and L.A. Kapustka.
1989. Capabilities and limitations
of approaches to in situ ecological
evaluation. In Proceedings of
Symposium on In Situ Evaluation of
biological hazards of environmental
pollutants. Plenum Press, New York.
In Press.
Norton, S., M. IfcVey, J. Colt, J.
Durda, and R. Hegner. 1988. Review
of ecological risk assessment
methods. Office of Policy Planning
and Evaluation. USEPA, Washington,
B.C. EPA/230-10-88-041, 91pp.
92
-------
Hazardous Waste Site Bioassessment
Warren-Hicks, W., and B. Parkhurst
(eds.). 1989. Ecological assessments
of hazardous waste sites: a field
and laboratory reference document.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk assessment
guidance for Superfund—
Environmental evaluation manual.
540/1-89/001A. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, B.C.
93
-------
Overview of Citizen-Based Surface Water Monitoring
Meg Kerr
USEFA Headquarters
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Abstract
Citizen involvement is a critical component of State and Federal water
pollution control efforts. As water pollution protection efforts become
increasingly more complex, resource limitations lead State and Federal
program managers to consider alternative ways to collect much needed
monitoring information. Citizen groups have successfully made significant
contributions to other programs. These existing citizen-based monitoring
efforts fulfill a broad range of monitoring objectives including assessment
of long term water quality trends, evaluation of specific water quality
problems and identification and solution of acute water quality problems.
Emerging monitoring areas such as toxicants and nonpoint source pollution
assessment and control are identified as areas where citizens could become
more involved in the future. Monitoring efforts directed at citizens pose
unique challenges to data quality assurance and utilization within the
regulatory agency. It is reconrrtended that the government should encourage
better coordination of citizen data collection efforts.
Keywords: Monitoring, surface water, volunteer, citizen monitoring
Introduction
The field of water pollution
control is becoming increasingly
complex. While the regulatory focus
of the 1970s was on controlling
conventional pollutants from point
sources, most current controls
address both conventional and toxic
pollutants from point sources as
well as the less defined nonpoint
sources (NPS). These NFS water
quality problems are harder to
identify and controls are more
difficult to design and implement.
DTvironmental managers are faced
with increasing needs for monitoring
information and decreasing resources
to spend on data collection and
analysis. In many areas of the
country, citizen volunteers have
been mobilized to collect some of
this much needed environmental data.
This paper discusses the scope of
these existing citizen-based
monitoring efforts, identifies
areas where citizens could become
more involved in the future,
addresses the ongoing challenges of
monitoring efforts directed at
citizens, and discusses a future
role that government could play to
encourage better coordination of
citizen data collection efforts.
Ongoing Efforts in Citizen
Monitoring
Citizen involvement in environ-
mental monitoring is not a new
concept. The National Weather
Service pioneered citizen monitoring
efforts, and has continuously
maintained a nationwide citizen-
based weather monitoring network
since 1890. The program now involves
11,500 volunteers who record daily
rainfall, snowfall and maximum and
minimum temperatures at over 500
stations nationwide. The collected
data are stored in the National
Weather Service database and are
94
-------
Citizen Monitoring Overview
STATES WITH CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAMS (CMP's)
STATE MANAGED
NOT STATE MANAGED
Figure 1. States with citizen monitoring programs.
used to verify damage caused by
adverse weather, and to justify
Congressional funding for flood and
weather observation networks.
In many areas of the country,
citizens are also being used to
collect surface water quality data.
In May 1988, EFA and Rhode Island
Sea Grant sponsored a workshop on
the Role of citizen Volunteers in
Environmental Monitoring. The
participants in this workshop
identified approximately 37 active
citizen monitoring programs that
collect environmental data. Of
these, 22 are designed to collect
surface water data. The geographical
distribution of these programs is
shown in Figure 1.
The existing programs cover a
broad spectrum of waterbody types
and use volunteers to collect data
on a wide variety of water quality
parameters. Hie programs fulfill
three overall monitoring objectives:
identification of long term water
quality trends; studies of specific
WQ problems; and identification and
resolution of acute water quality
impairments.
Several programs will be
discussed as illustrations of these
three general categories of existing
citizen monitoring programs.
Monitoring to Identify Long Term
Water Quality Trends
These programs use volunteers to
collect water quality data at fixed
stations on regular basis over an
extended time. Volunteer lake
monitoring programs which exist in a
number of States provide a good
example of this overall type. The
95
-------
Rerr
Chesapeake Bay Citizens monitoring
Program also illustrate this
monitoring category.
Most volunteer lake monitoring
programs were established in
response to deficiencies in a
State's ambient lake monitoring
program. States hoped to use
volunteer collected data to extend
their monitoring coverage of lakes,
establish baseline lake trophic
conditions and identify lakes
experiencing acute water quality
problems.
In a typical volunteer lake
monitoring program, secchi disk
depth data is collected at 1 or 2
lake stations, and 2-4 times a month
during the spring and summer.
Volunteers often record observations
on weather conditions, recreational
activities on the lake and the
anesthetic condition of the lake.
Water samples are occasionally
collected for chemical and
bacteriological analyses.
The Chesapeake Bay Citizen
Monitoring program was designed to
collect long term chemical
monitoring data. The program
currently used forty volunteers to
sample 36 stations on the James,
Pautuxent and Conestoga Rivers which
drain into the Chesapeake Bay. The
stations are located upstream of the
State's regular monitoring sites and
provide additional information on
pollutant inputs to the Bay.
The Ohio Scenic River Stream
Quality Monitoring Program uses
volunteers to collect qualitative
information on benthic macro-
invertebrate communities on Ohio's
10 sea lie rivers. The data are
interpreted with a simplified water
quality index and are used to
assess long term trends and identify
acute water quality problems.
Monitoring to Studv Specific Water
Oualitv Problems
The programs use volunteers to
collect water quality data at
selected sites over a short time
period. The data are used to answer
a specific water quality question.
Two programs provide good illus-
trations of this category: the
Massachusetts Audubons' Acid Rain
Monitoring Program and the Tennessee
Valley Authority's teacher/student
surface water quality monitoring
network.
Massachusetts Audubon's acid rain
monitoring program uses volunteers
to collect water samples throughout
the State for pH, alkalinity, metals
and major cation and anion analyses.
Samples are collected twice a year
to coincide with the summer high
pH/alkalinity period and the spring
low pH/alkalinity period. Samples
are analyzed by volunteer local
laboratories and all analyses are
subjected to an expensive quality
assurance program. Massachusetts's
program has been ongoing for six
years and has used over 1000 volun-
teers to sample approximately 3500
sites around the State. The data
have been used to influence the
State's emission reduction policy.
The Tennessee Valley Authority
teacher/student surface water
quality monitoring network began in
1986 as part of a science education
program. Selected design experiments
focused on surface water monitoring
and receive training in environmen-
tal science. To date, approximately
20 streams have been assessed.
Monitor JIM to Identify and Resolve
Acute Water Quality impairments
These programs use citizen volun-
teers to evaluate water quality
conditions in their local area and
report on acute problems and
violations of water pollution
control laws and regulations.
The Maryland Save-Our-Stream
program is a good example of this
96
-------
Citizen Monitoring Overview
type of program. Volunteers receive
training on local sediment control
regulations and learn about the
proper design and installation of
sediment control devices. They are
then encouraged to inspect con-
struction sites in their local area
and report problems to the city,
State and/or county authorities.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Assessment: An Emerging Area for
Citizen Involvement
Nonpoint sources are reported by
States as the leading cause of
failure to support designated used
in the nation's lakes, steams and
estuaries (USEF7V 1987a). Agricul-
tural runoff is by far the most
commonly reported nonpoint source,
followed by runoff from urban areas,
construction sites and surface
mines. Sediment and nutrients are
the most prevalent pollutants linked
to nonpoint sources.
The Water Quality Act of 1987
strengthened EF&'s mandate to assess
and control nonpoint source
pollution. The Act gives States and
local governments primary
responsibility for nonpoint source
solutions. The national program is
designed to support and reinforce
local efforts. EEA's Office of Water
recently developed a 5 year plan for
federal nonpoint source control
(USEFA 1989). This Agenda for the
Future identified five objectives
for federal nonpoint source
activities, one of which was public
awareness. Nonpoint source pollution
is primarily caused by land use and
misuse and is generally controlled
at the local level. Public awareness
of NFS problems and their solution
is central to their control. Gov-
ernment sponsored citizen monitor-
ing and involvement programs will
greatly assist in this endeavor.
Citizens can contribute to the
nonpoint source assessment effort in
four general categories (Hansen, et
al, 1988).
1. Identification of waters:
Citizens have a local knowledge
of water resources and are often
familiar with stream conditions
before, during and after storm
events. They can help States and
local governments identify waters
impacted by nonpoint source
pollution.
2. Identification of sources: Local
residents are familiar with land
use in their area and can help
identify potential sources of
nonpoint source pollution.
3. Review controls: Citizens should
actively review and evaluate
selected best management
practices. They can develop an
appreciation for which controls
are most effective for the types
of pollution affecting their
local waters.
4. Oversee implementation: Local
residents can monitor the
progress of control implemen-
tation and evaluate the
effectiveness of the controls.
Obstacles to Citizen Monitoring
Efforts
Citizen monitoring programs have
been successful in many areas of the
country. However, a number of
problem areas still remain. Four of
these ongoing obstacles are
discussed briefly below:
1. Professional distrust of data
collected by volunteers. Al-
though several citizen moni-
toring programs have demon-
strated that volunteers can
collect credible data, many
. water quality professionals
remain skeptical about using
97
-------
Kerr
this information in their
assessments.
2. Matching data needs with
capabilities of volunteers.
Volunteer monitoring program
managers must carefully assess
the information needs of the
agencies and individuals who
will be using the collected
data. Volunteers should be
selected who are capable of
providing the types of
information likely to be
accepted and used.
3. Funding. Volunteer monitoring
programs produce cost effective
environmental data. However, the
programs are not free and will
not succeed without adequate
funding and management support.
4. Coordination. For volunteers
monitoring efforts to prosper,
new and existing programs must
share data and information on
effective sampling methods and
analyses. Program managers
should concentrate on ways to
coordinate efforts rather than
simply promote their own
approach.
Ways EPA can Promote Citizen
Monitoring
Participants in the 1988 workshop
on Citizens Volunteers in Environ-
mental Monitoring suggested several
actions that EPA could take to
foster citizen monitoring
activities and overcome the
obstacles to program success. These
recommendations were:
1. EPA should publicly endorse
citizen monitoring programs.
A. Highlight successful citizen
monitoring programs through
nation promotions.
B. Issue letters of commendation
recognizing current citizen
monitoring programs.
C. Sponsor annual conferences for
information exchange among
citizen monitoring program.
" D. Sponsor a national newsletter.
2. EPA should develop policies that
support citizen monitoring
programs.
A. Authorize States to use Federal
funds to develop and implement
citizen monitoring programs.
B. Request each State to designate
a citizen monitoring program
coordinator.
C. Develop guidance document for
State managers on starting/
managing citizen monitoring
program.
3. EPA should provide technical
support for citizen monitoring
efforts.
A. Research monitoring procedures
appropriate for volunteers.
B. Develop training manuals and
seminars on monitoring
methods, data interpretation
and analysis.
C. Develop standard methods
manual for citizen monitoring.
4. EPA should appoint a National
Coordinator who will:
A. Promote citizen monitoring
activities within EPA.
B. Foster communication between
citizen monitoring groups.
C. Factor citizen monitoring into
new EPA initiatives.
D. Provide technical assistance to
States ami EPA.
At the present time, EPA is
actively researching existing
citizen monitoring programs. A
guidance document directed at State
managers is being developed to
provide information on how to start
98
-------
Citizen Monitoring Overview
and manage a citizen monitoring
program. EPA will also be writing a
methods manual for citizen-based
lake monitoring. Citizen monitoring
is a central component of the EPA
Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection's national estuary
program and is being incorporated
into the nonpoint source program.
EPA has recognized the utility of
citizen monitoring programs and will
be working to further integrate
these programs into the water
program. As citizen monitoring
activities grow in popularity
throughout the U.S., EFA can help
encourage and coordinate these
programs to maximize the benefits
for State monitoring efforts.
Literature Cited
Hansen, N.R, H.M. Babcock and E.H.
Clark II. 1988. Controlling Nonpoint
Source Water Pollution - A Citizens
Handbook. The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, B.C. and The
National Audubon Society, NY.
USEPA. 1989. Nonpoint sources:
Agenda for the Future. Office of
Water, USEPA, Washington, B.C.
USEPA. 1988. Citizen Volunteers in
Environmental Monitoring - Summary
Proceedings of a National Workshop.
Office of Water, USEPA, Washington,
B.C. and RI Sea Grant, Narragansett,
RI.
USEPA. 1988. Birectory of National
Citizen Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Programs EPA 503/9-88-
001. Office of Water, USEPA,
Washington, B.C. and RI Sea Grant,
Narragansett RI.
USEPA. 1987. National Water Quality
Inventory: 1986 Report to Congress
EPA 440/4-87-008 Office of Water,
USEPA, Washington, B.C.
USEPA. 1987. Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework for Change.
Office of Water, USEPA, Washington,
B.C.
99
-------
Volunteer Monitoring Data Applications to Illinois Lake Management
Donna F. Sefton1
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Abstract
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA.) initiated the
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (VLMP) in 1981 to supplement Agency lake
data collection efforts and provide public education in lake/watershed
management. The VLMP is implemented in cooperation with Areawide Planning
Commissions using Clean Water Act (CWA-Sections 106 and 205j) and state
funding. Program administration includes volunteer training, specialized
data management and QA/QC procedures, technical assistance, and report
preparation. Approximately 160 public and private lakes are monitored twice
per month from May - October for Secchi disk depth and field observations at
three sites/lake. Volunteers for 30-50 lakes also collect water samples for
analysis of suspend ed solids and nutrients. The VLMP data is used to
diagnose lake problems; guide implementation of watershed management and
lake restoration projects; evaluate effectiveness of projects; and meet
Federal reporting requirements (for CWA Sections 305(b), 314, and 319). The
VLMP plays an important role in facilitating local lake and watershed
management activities in Illinois.
Key words: Illinois, volunteer monitoring, Secchi disk, lake management
Program Objectives
In 1981, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) initiated one of the first
comprehensive citizen monitoring
programs in the nation. The
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
(VLMP) was designed to educate the
public about lake quality and
management options, while
supplementing IEPA data collection
on Illinois' lakes. The major
objectives of tne VLMP are to
encourage development and
implementation of sound lake
protection and management plans,
provide technical assistance,
collect baseline data, and
establish long term water quality
trends.
Approximately 225 volunteers
participated in monitoring 160 lakes
in 1988. Public water supply
operators, Soil and Water
Conservation District personnel, and
state park site personnel were well
represented among the volunteers, as
were lake association members, lake
residents, sportspersons, and
interested citizens.
Since 1981, the VLMP has been a
tremendous success. Lake assessment
information, Secchi disk data, and
field observations have been
collected for over 400 Illinois
lakes. Citizens have contributed
Current Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas! 66106
100
-------
Illinois Citizen Monitoring
over 24,000 hours of volunteer
service to the program. The number
of volunteers has increased 45
percent and the number of lakes with
100 percent data return (sampled
during all 12 monitoring periods)
has increased by 173 percent since
1981. Furthermore, three or more
years of consistent data have been
provided for over 140 lakes.
Ihe VEMP has also been successful
in helping citizens more effectively
protect and manage their lakes. The
VLMP has served as a catalyst for
local lake protection and
restoration efforts. Virtually all
VLMP lakes have had lake protection
and management measures implemented
following participation in the
program.
Sampling Protocol
Three monitoring stations are
usually established by IEFA on each
lake: one over the deepest portion
of the lake near the dam (most
Illinois lakes are impoundments),
one at mid-lake (medium depth), and
one in the lake headwaters (shallow
depth). The number of sampling sites
will vary depending upon lake size
and configuration. VLMP participants
measure total depth and Secchi disk
depth and record field observations
at each sampling site twice per
month (at approximately two week
intervals) between May and October,
for a total of 12 sampling periods.
More frequent sampling is suggested
for those wishing to define
watershed/lake quality relationships
or assess the effectiveness of lake
and watershed management practices.
In addition to the depth data, the
participants also record weather
conditions, previous week's
precipitation, as well as
qualitative assessments of water
color and amounts of suspended
sediment, suspended algae, and
aquatic plants (see Table l).
Volunteers return the forms to IEFA
in addressed, postage-paid envelopes
immediately after sampling.
For 30 - 50 selected lakes,
volunteers also collect water
samples once per month from May to
October. The criteria for selecting
these lakes include: public
ownership or access; proven
volunteer reliability at the lake;
lake size; amount of lake use; and
level of public concern. Sampling
consists of inmersing a one-quart
bottle at a depth of one foot,
transferring the contents to a 4 oz.
bottle with preservative for
nutrient analysis, then filling the
large bottle again to provide a
suspended solids sample. The bottles
are immediately packed in a cooler
with a 48-hour ice pack and mailed
to the IEFA laboratory. At the
laboratory, samples are analyzed for
the parameters listed in Table 1.
Valunteer Training
Citizens select the lake they wish
to monitor from among Illinois'
2,900 public/private lakes that are
six acres or more in surface area.
The volunteers' commitment includes
attending a mandatory training
session, providing their own boating
equipment, and collecting Secchi
disk and field observations data
consistently throughout the
monitoring season at designated
sites in their lake.
Volunteers also complete a
three-page lake assessment survey
which provides information on lake
morphology, uses, water quality
conditions, shoreline and watershed
conditions, potential pollution
sources, and current lake
protection/management practices.
This information proves valuable in
assessing waterbodies to meet
Federal reporting requirements
(discussed later) as well as in
interpreting the Secchi data.
101
-------
Sefton
Table 1. Summary of Illinois' Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
Volunteer Secchl Monitoring
Participants: 160 lakes, 225 volunteers
Sites: three or more per lake, 480 total
Frequency: twice per month, May - October
Monitoring Parameters: Secchi disk, Total depth, transparency
Field Observations:
Suspended sediment Suspended algae
Other substances Odor
Current weather - Water level
Management practices Cannents
Water color
Aquatic weeds
Previous weather
Recreational use
Volunteer Water
Mrnitorin
Participants: 30 - 50 lakes, 100 sites
Sites: one to three per lake
Frequency: once per month. May - October
Monitoring Parameters:
Total suspended solids Nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen
Volatile suspended solids Total aimonia-nitrogen
Total phosphorus
During the training session, the
coordinator and volunteer use the
volunteer's boat to visit each
designated site on the lake,
whereupon the volunteer in
instructed in the proper procedures
for using the Secchi disk,
recording field observations, and
completing the required data forms
for each site.
Volunteer Recognition
To recognize volunteer commatment,
citizen monitors receive awards
based upon the number of completed
sampling periods and seasons. The
awards include a thank you letter
and a certificate of appreciation
signed by the IEPA Director, cloth
emblems, engraved wooden plaques,
and lapel pins. The awards are
presented during the VLMP session of
the Illinois Lake Management Asso-
ciation Conference held annually in
the spring.
The purpose of the VLMP session is
to retrain returning volunteers and
recognize outstanding volunteers.
Participants exchange information,
attend retraining sessions, and meet
with VLMP staff to discuss concerns.
Volunteers may participate in a
panel discussion describing how VLMP
data has been used to promote local
lake protection and management.
Holding the VLMP session at the ILMA
conference allows the volunteers to
discuss their concerns with lake
management professionals and
increases their exposure to broader
lake management issues.
Four newsletters are mailed to
volunteers during the •monitoring
season. The newsletters feature
important points regarding
monitoring techniques and
educational information on lake
conditions and management.
As a result of the program's
emphasis on personal contact with
volunteers, most participants
reapply to the VLMP annually,
thereby reducing the need to recruit
new volunteers. Currently, the
102
-------
Illinois Citizen Monitoring
program operates at maximum capacity
and recruitment is targeted for
special lake studies identified by
the I EPA. Returning volunteers
receive detailed monitoring
instructions and data forms in the
spring.
Data. Management
Information from the data forms
submitted by volunteers is entered
into a PC data management system as
soon as possible following arrival
at the IEPA. This procedure serves
four major purposes: 1) check-in of
forms and tracking of volunteer
participation; 2) review of data for
errors or omissions; 3) entry of
Secchi disk data and qualitative
information into a data base with
graphical and tabular outputs; and
4) entry of Secchi and total depth
data into STCRET. Coding is not
necessary because the data entry
screen mimics the data sheet
submitted by the volunteers.
Verification consists of two
phases. First, the data are printed
in tabular form and checked against
the original data sheets as well as
for reasonableness. Second, the data
are plotted and examined for
outliers so that simple recording
mistakes, such as assigning data to
the incorrect sampling site or
reporting Secchi depth in feet
instead of inches, can be
identified. Questionable data are
discussed with the volunteers who
keep a separate log sheet at home to
further document procedures.
Following verification, the data
are uploaded to SIUKUT. VLMP data is
stored in a unique file to
distinguish it from lEPA-collected
data. Statistical analyses
performed using STGRET and SAS
include calculations of the minimum,
maximum, and mean Secchi disk depth;
calculation of a Carlson Trophic
State Index; and analysis of Tukey's
Multiple Range Test to compare
year-to- year changes in mean Secchi
disk depth. The IEPA staff also
examine within-lake variation in
clarity by comparing Secchi depth
data from the three sites on each
lake. Observational data are used to
interpret clarity data.
Quality Assurance Plan
The IEPA Quality Assurance Plan
consists of several components:
- All new volunteers are trained
on site at their lake. Since the
VLJVIP Coordinator visits the lake
and takes part in collecting data
on it, the reasonableness of
subsequent data from the lake can
be assessed.
- Volunteers obtain detailed
written monitoring instructions
to supplement the oral instruc-
tions at the training session.
- Volunteers keep a personal record
of observations.
- Forms are reviewed as received
and volunteers called regarding
questionable data.
- Specialized data verification
procedures are employed as
previously discussed.
- A retraining session is held in
the spring at the Illinois Lake
Management Association
conference.
- Pointers regarding monitoring
techniques are provided in
newsletters throughout the
monitoring season.
- Ideally, a quality control visit
is scheduled annually. (In
practice, this has only been
possible in areas administered by
103
-------
Sefton
Areawide Planning Conmissions).
- IEPA periodically sanples VLMP
lakes; lEPA-collected data is
compared with the VLMP data.
These QA/QC procedures have
enhanced confidence in the
accuracy of the Secchi readings
themselves. Although field
observations are more subjective
and less confidence can be placed
in their accuracy, they are still
very useful in interpret-ing the
Secchi data and assessing a lake
when no other data exists.
Use of Data
Emphasis is placed on using the
information generated, and thus
reports are prepared which present
the VIM* data in a professional
format. A statewide summary report
and six companion regional volumes
containing individual lake data
analyses and suggestions for lake
protection and management are
published annually. The volumes are
distriijuted to Federal, State and
local agencies, libraries, and lake
owners/managers, as well as to
individual volunteers. This data
provides the framework for technical
assistance and educational
activities, which are an integral
and important part of the VIM1.
The VLMP data is used in
conjunction with other available
data to encourage planning and
implementation of lake and watershed
management projects. The data is
also used to determine water quality
trends and effectiveness of lake or
watershed management projects. The
number and completeness of waterbody
assessments reported in the Water
Quality, Nbnpoint Source Assessment,
and Lake Water Quality Assessment
Reports required by Sections 305(b),
314, and 319 of the Clean Water Act
is enhanced by VLMP data. For the
lEPA's 1988 305(b) report, VLMP data
was the only information available
for over half of the lake water-
bodies assessed.
Federal, State, and local agencies
use the data to select priority
lakes for Clean Lakes funding under
Section 314(a) of the Clean Water
Act and priority watersheds for non-
point pollution control funding from
the U.S. and Illinois Departments of
Agriculture.
Data obtained from the VLMP are
also used to:
- Identify prevailing conditions in
different parts of the lake so as
to pinpoint in-lake problems and
possible solutions;
- Document the impacts of point and
nonpoint pollution on water
quality;
- Establish a historical data base
for the lake, which includes
morphological data; information
on water quality conditions and
problems; lake, watershed, and
shoreline uses; potential
pollution sources; and lake
management undertaken - in
addition to transparency, field
observations, and total depth
data.
- Guide decision-making by
determining appropriate
in-lake/watershed protection/
management techniques to
implement.
Prograni Administration
The VLMP is a cooperative effort
involving two divisions within IEPA
and three Areawide Planning
Commissions. The Lakes Program
subunit of lEPA's Planning Section
in the Division of Water Pollution
Control has lead responsibility for
the program. A 3/4 time Statewide
104
-------
Illinois Citizen Manitoring
VEJMP Coordinator administers all
aspects of the VLMP, including
guiding the activities of the
Areawide Planning and Community
Relations Coordinators; acquisition
and distribution of monitoring
materials and equipment; coordi-
nation of recruitment, training,
follow-up, data management, and
laboratory analysis; preparation of
the annual summary reports, news-
letters and educational materials;
presentations; and technical assist-
ance regarding lake monitoring and
management. Other Lakes Program
personnel also assist with various
aspects of the pro grains such as
supervision, training, data manage-
ment, and computer programming.
The IEPA contracts with designated
Areawide Planning Commissions
located in the Chicago, St. Louis,
and southern Illinois areas to
administer the VLMP in their
regions. The Areawide VLMP
Coordinators are responsible for
volunteer training and follow- up,
data management, preparation of a
regional report and a newsletter,
and technical assistance regarding
lake monitoring and management in
their region of the state. For the
remainder of the state, these
duties are performed by the State-
wide VLMP Coordinator, with the
assistance of IEPA Community
Relations Coordinators (Office of
Community Relations) for volunteer
training, follow-up visits, and
report writing.
Program Expenses and Funding
The success of a citizen
monitoring program in protecting and
improving lake resources statewide
is directly related to the time and
effort devoted to it. The State and
Federal Environmental Protection
Agencies in Illinois have made this
commitment, which has resulted in
substantial progress in lake
protection and management statewide.
The Illinois VLMP (which includes
the state's technical assistance and
information/education program for
lake monitoring and management) is
funded through Clean Water Act
Section 106 and 205 (j) grants and
State matching funds. Approximately
2 full-time equivalent employees
(FTE's) in IEPA staff plus $75,000
in contracts to Areawide Planning
Commisions are devoted to VLMP and
IEPA educational/technical
assistance programs. Laboratory
analysis totals $20,000 and Secchi
disks with attached calibrated nylon
ropes cost $20 each.
Conclusions
A Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program:
- Develops local "grass roots"
support for environmental
programs and fosters cooperation
among citizens, agencies, and
various units of government.
- Increases citizens' knowledge of
the factors that affect lake
quality and promotes ecologically
sound lake protection/management.
- Promotes local self reliance and
implementation through local
resources.
- Targets public and private
resources for lake protection and
improvement.
- Documents water quality impacts
of point and nonpoint source
pollution.
- Provides a historic data baseline
for documenting future changes
and evaluating pollution
control/management programs.
105
-------
Seftcn
- Provides data to complete
assessments required by the Clean
Water Act.
- Supports lake management
decision-making.
- Furnishes the framework for an
educational and technical
assistance program.
- Requires Agency support and
resource conmitment.
Acknowledgements
This paper was adapted from a draft
description of Illinois' Volunteer
Lake Monitoring Program (VLMP) for a
Citizen Monitoring Guidance Document
being prepared by Julie Duff in of
Research Triangle Institute for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and a presentation by Janet Hawes at
the workshop on "Role of Citizen
Volunteers in Environmental
Monitoring" held May, 1988 at the
University of Rhode Island. Robert
Kirschner of the Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission and
Janet Hawes, Amy Burns, Jeff
Mitzelfelt, and J. William Hanmel of
the Illinois Environ mental
Protection Agency and have
contributed greatly to the operation
and success of Illinois' VLMP.
106
-------
A Naturalist's Key to Stream Macroinvertebrates for
Citizen Monitoring Programs in the Midwest
Joyce E. Lathrop
College of DuPage
Natural Sciences Division
22nd Street and Lambert Road
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137-6599
Abstract
•me purpose of this taxonomic key is to assist naturalists, citizen
nonitoring coordinators, and other professionals not trained in the
identification of stream macroinvertebrates, to identify the major taxa
groups of benthic macroinvertebrates (benthos) found in Midwestern streams.
The proliferation of citizen monitoring and rapid bioassessment programs
created a need for an easily used taxonomic key to the benthos. This key
focuses on the inhabitants of riffles and wadable reaches of the stream
which are most amenable to sampling by citizen monitors and for rapid
assessments. Information on what kinds of organisms are living in a stream
reach, when coupled with a knowledge of their environmental requirements and
their "pollution tolerances", can yield valuable information about the
"health" of that part of the stream. This key is not meant as a substitute
for the established taxonomic keys, but it is useful as an "intermediate"
key containing descriptive terms that are more familiar to naturalists and
the public.
Key words: Benthos, identification, taxonomy, key, naturalist, citizen
monitoring, rapid bioassessment.
Introduction
The purpose of this taxonomic key
is to assist naturalists, citizen
monitoring coordinators, and other
professionals not trained in
taxonomy, with the identification of
stream benthic macroinvertebrates
(benthos) found in the Midwest, as
well as other areas of the United
States. This key focuses on the
benthos of riffles and wadable
reaches of the stream which are
utilized for rapid bioassessments
(Plafkin et al. 1989) and citizen
monitoring programs (Kopec and Lewis
1988; North Carolina ENRCD undated;
Kentucky NREPC 1986). Information
regarding the types of organisms
found in the riffles (rapids),
coupled with a knowledge of their
environmental requirements and
"pollution tolerances" can yield
valuable information about the
"health" of the stream reach.
A brief explanation of some terms
used in stream monitoring may avoid
later confusion. Riffles are those
areas of a stream where the water is
relatively shallow and at least some
of the larger rocks (larger cobble
or boulders) break the surface of
the water at some time of the year,
usually during "base" flow. Runs are
slightly deeper areas very similar
to riffles except that no rocks
break the surface of the water.
Pools are areas of the stream where
the water is much deeper and the
current is slower. Generally,
riffles and shallow runs are the
wadable areas for sampling the
benthos. Benthos are those bottom-
dwelling aquatic animals without a
backbone which can be seen with the
naked eye. A hand lens, however, is
often necessary to see character-
istics used to identify different
organisms. A group of benthos, such
107
-------
Lathrop
as mayflies or riffle beetles, is
referred to as a taxon.
Pollution Tolerances
Pollution tolerance information
and ecological requirements for the
benthic macroinvertebrates can be
found in the references listed at
the end of the key. The pollution
tolerances of many taxa have been
numerically presented in the form of
biotic indices. The most common
biotic indices used in the midwest
were developed by Hilsenhoff (1977,
1982, 1987) for use in Wisconsin and
by Illinois ERA (1987).
ftore recently, Hilsenhoff (1988)
developed the Family-level biotic
index specifically for use in rapid
bioassessments which also has great
potential for use in citizen
monitoring programs. These biotic
indices are based upon a taxon's
tolerance to organic pollution
(nutrient enrichment) which usually
manifests itself by lowering the
dissolved oxygen level in the water.
Other pollutants, such as heavy
metals, toxic organics, thermal
pollution, and siltation may yield
different results. Davis and Lathrop
(1989) provide more discussion on
the use of assessment indices.
Taxononic Key
This key was developed after
working with citizen monitoring
groups for several years. There are
many outstanding taxonomic keys
available for use for a variety of
experience levels (Hafele and
Roederer 1987; Lehmkuhl 1978;
Merritt and Cummins 1984; Neednam
and Needham 1962; Pennack 1978).
However, a simplified field key with
easily understood terms was felt to
be the best tool for aspiring
biologists to identify commonly
found benthos.
The organism groups (taxa)
identified in this key are listed in
Table 1. The taxa are presented by
their scientific nomenclature
beginning with the largest
classification within the animal
kingdom, the Phylum, and proceeding
to the smaller classifications as
follows: Phylum, Class, Order,
Family, Genus, Species.
Depending upon the skill and time
available to the taxonomist, the
level of identifications desired
will vary. Water quality assessments
have successfully been conducted at
a variety of taxonomic levels.
Plafkin et al. (1989) present
assessment schemes for three levels
of identification: Order, Family,
and Genus/Species. Hilsenhoff
developed his biotic index for both
genus and family levels (Hilsenhoff
1987, 1988).
In using this key, please note
that each couplet offers two options
(in some cases there are three).
Each couplet is numbered and the
numbers in parenthesis refer to the
previous couplet from which the
present couplet came (e.g. couplet
#1 came from couplet #2). In some
instances, taxa may key to more than
one couplet based on their different
characteristics. Lines below the
taxa indicate size ranges for
organisms within that group. Some
organisms, such, as the aquatic moths
(Lepidoptera), have been omitted
because they are rarely found in
riffles. This keys focuses on the
commonly found benthos in the
wadable parts of streams. The
taxonomic level of this key is
directed for use by naturalists and
citizen monitoring coordinators. As
a last note, please be aware that
some individual organisms collected
may have missing body parts so it is
best to look at several specimens.
108
-------
Benthos Taxoncoiic Key
Table 1. Classification of important benthic macroinvertebrates described
in this key.
Phylum Class Order
PI^VKHEIMaaraESrurbellaria
Oligochaete
Hirudinea
Gastropoda Pulmonata
MGEUUSCA
Family
Planorbidae
Ancyclidae
Physidae
Lymnaeidae
Bivalvia
Mesogastropoda
ARfflRCPCCft.
Crustacea Decapoda
Isopoda
ftmphipoda
Insecta Plecoptera
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Coleoptera
Odonata
Trichoptera
Hemiptera
Diptera
Ifiiionidae
Sphaeridae1
Corbiculidae1
Oligoneuridae
Heptageniidae
Ephemeridae1
Potomanthidae1
Corydalidae
Sialidae
Elmidae
Gyrinidae
Psephenidae
Zygoptera2
Anisoptera2
Helicopsychidae
Hydropsychidae
Rhyacophilidae
Brachycentridae
Glossosomatidae
Hydroptilidae
Gerridae3
Athericidae
Ceratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Notes:
%hese families are not distiguished among themselves in the key.
^Ihese classifications are sub-orders.
3Other families in this group include Veliidae and Mesoveliidae.
Comnon Name
Planaria
Vtorm
Leech
Planorbid Snail
Limpet
Pouch Snail
River/Pond Snail
Operculate Snail
Clams/Mussels
Fingernail Clam
Asiatic Clam
Crayfish
Sowbug
Scud
Stonefly
Torpedo Mayfly
Clinging Mayfly
Burrowing Mayfly
Burrowing Mayfly
Dobsonfly
Alderfly
Riffle Beetle
Whirligig Beetle
Water Penny
Damselfly
Dragonfly
Snailease
Caddisfly
Net-spinning
Caddisfly
Free-living
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Saddlecase
Caddisfly
Pursecase/Micro
Caddisfly
Water Strider
Snipe Fly
Biting Midge Fly
Midge Fly
Black Fly
Crane Fly
109
-------
Lathrpp
A. Organisms found on top of the water — SURFACE ORGANISMS 2
These organisms are more common on the quieter waters of pools and runs,
although occassionally found on riffles. Because they are out of the
water and do not rely it on as their oxygen source, they are relatively
unaffected by water quality, although they may be affected by surface
pollutants such as oil films.
B. Organisms found on the bottom substrate, clinging to rocks or vegetation,
or burrowing in softer sediments — BENTHIC ORGANISMS (Benthos) 3
NOTE: Macroinvertebrates that spend most of their lives swimming (nekton) or
floating (plankton) in the water column are uncommon in riffle areas
although they ay be present in nearby pools. Consult another source
for identification of these organisms.
2.(1) A. Body ovoid, front (top) wings hard; two pairs of eyes; mouth-
parts designed for chewing; often swim on water in a swirling
motion; WHIRLIGIG BEETLES
Coleoptera: Gyrinidae. Larvae are fully aquatic and benthic.
B. Body relatively thin, legs long; back half of top wings
membranous, not hard or beetle-like; one pair of eyes; mouth-
parts tubular, designed for sucking; size variable; skate on
water WATER STRIDERS
Hemiptera: Gerridae, Veliidae, Mesoveliidae. Spend their lives
on top of the water.
3.(1) A. With a hard calcareous shell of one or two valves — MOLLUSKS 4
Mollusca: Bivalvia (Clams and Mussels), Gastropoda (Snails and
Limpets). In general, mollusks are found in hard (much
carbonate) waters with a pH near or above neutral (pH 7)
B. With a spiral (snail-shaped) case of sand; animal hidden within
case; with 6 jointed legs; small and inconspicuous, often
overlooked SNAIL-CASE CADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Helicopsychidae (Hellcopsyche^. Fairly intolerant.
t—J
C. Without a hard, calcareous shell or spiral-shaped sand case (may have a
non-spiral case of sand, pebbles or plant material) 9
4.(3) A. Shell of one valve — SNAILS 5
B. Shell of two valves held together by a non-calcareous ligament — CLAMS
and MUSSELS 8
|ftu*
B
110
-------
Benthos Taxonanic Key
5.(4) A. Snails with an operculum (a hard covering used to close the
apperature or opening) OPERCULATE SNAILS
Gastropoda: Prosobranchia: Several families. These snails are
usually found in the much slower waters of pools and are
generally more tolerant of low oxygen levels.
B. Snails without an operculum 6
6.(5) A. Shell discoidal (coiled in one plane) PLANORBID SNAILS
Gastropoda: Planorbidae. Generally found in slower waters such
as runs. Fairly tolerant.
B. Shell patelliform (cup-shaped), limpet-like..FRESHWATER LIMPETS
Gastropoda: Most belong to the family Ancyclidae although two ^^
other families have limpet-like members. Found in riffles.
Somewhat tolerant to pollution.
uu
C. Shell with a distinct spiral 7
7.(6) A. Shell sinistral ("left-handed") POUCH SNAILS
Gastropoda: Physidae (Phvsella). Often found in slower waters.
Generally tolerant.
B. Shell dextral ("right-handed") RIVER and POND SNAILS
Gastropoda: Several families. Most are somewhat intolerant,
although seldom found in the fastest currents of riffles.
NOTE: "Handedness" is determined by holding the shell spire up
with the apperature facing you. If the apperature is on the
right, the snail is "right handed" or dextral, if the
apperature is on the left, the snail is "left handed" or
sinistral.
8.(4) A. Small bivalves, < 2 cm long FINGERNAIL and ASIATIC CLAMS
Bivalvia: Sphaeriidae and Corbiculidae. Fingernail clams are
very small, Most are somewhat tolerant to pollution.
L_LM^^^M^^^^
B. Large bivalves (mostly > 2 cm long) CLAMS and MUSSELS
Bivalvia: Several families, the most common of which is
Unionidae. Tolerance varies and is somewhat dependent on the
tolerance of the host species of the early stages (glochidia)
of the mollusk; most somewhat tolerant. Very young individuals
may be less than 2 cm long.
NOTE: Characteristics used to distinguish different bivalves are
internal but most have distinct shells and can be roughly
picture keyed.
Ill
-------
Lathrqp
9.(3) A. Entire body distinctly segmented, flattened and oval in shape;
head, 6 pairs of jointed legs and gills present but hidden
ventrally; copper or brown in color; cling tightly to rocks...
WATER PENNIES
Coleqptera: Psephenidae. Fairly intolerant.
B. Body oval or elongate, soft and indistinctly segmented; head,
legs and gills lacking; with anterior and posterior ventral
suckers UEECHES
Annelida: Hirudinea. Somewhat tolerant.
C. Body not a distinctly flattened oval in shape with or without legs;
without suckers 10
10.(9) A. With more than 6 true, jointed legs — CRAYFISH, SCUDS, SOWBUGS 11
B. With six true, jointed legs — INSECTS (Insecta; except Diptera) 13
C. With less than six true, jointed legs, although non-jointed legs
(prolegs) may be present; body often wormlike 31
11.(10) A. Generally large organisms with two large claws (chelipeds),
one or both of which may be missing. Small (young) individ-
uals are common in some areas in spring CRAYFISH
Crustacea: Decapoda (Astacidae). Somewhat tolerant.
• •
B. Smaller, lacking large claws 12
12.(11) A. Flattened laterally (from side to side), tan, white or gray
in color SCUDS
Amphipoda. Three common genera, two of which are fairly
tolerant and one which is fairly intolerant.
B. Flattened dorsoventrally (top to bottom); gray SOWBUGS
Isopoda. Sowbugs resemble the terrestrial "pill bugs" which
belong to the same order. Tolerant.
13.(10) A. With three broad, oarlike "tails" (gills); body long and
thin; wing pads present DAMSELFLIES
Odonata: Coenagrionidae, Lestidae, Calopterygidae. The first
two families are uncommon in streams and are somewhat
tolerant to pollution. The third, the Stream Damselflies,
are fairly intolerant.
B. With, one two, or three thin caudal filaments ("tails") 14
C. With no thin caudal filaments, although prolegs or other appendages,
such as spines or hooks, may be present 19
112
-------
Benthos Taxonomic Key
14.(13) A. With one caudal filament; body brown or copper in color, head
and "tail" lighter in color ALDERFLIES
Megaloptera: Sialidae (Sialis). Fairly intolerant.
B. With two caudal filaments — STONEFLIES or MAYFLIES 15
C. With three caudal filaments — MAYFLIES 16
A A
B C
NOTE: The caudal filaments of mayflies often break off easily; look for
"tail" stubs. You will need a hand lens to see the tarsal claws.
15.(14) A. One tarsal claw; gills present on abdominal segments;^
individuals are generally more flimsy MAYFLIES
Ephemeroptera: Some members of the families Heptageniidae
and Baetidae. Somewhat intolerant.
B. Two tarsal claws; gills, if visible, not located on abdomen;
body tan, brown or yellow, sometimes patterned; size varies
but most are robust STONEFLIES
Plecoptera: Several families all of which are intolerant.
16.(14) A. Mandibles modified into tusks (elongated past head); body
creamy white, tan or with brown and white pattern; gills
forked BURROWING MAYFLIES
Ephemeroptera: Three families. Found in soft substrates
burrowing in sand, muck, silt, etc. Most are intolerant
although the species Hgyagftnia is fairly tolerant.
^ta^^^^^^^WHMH^^
B. Without tusks 17
17.(16) A. Body flattened dorsoventrally (top to bottom); eyes large and
located on top of head CLINGING MAYFLIES
Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae. Tolerance ranges from intoler-
ant to somewhat tolerant; two common genera (Stenonema and
Heptagenial are somewhat tolerant.
B. Body not flattened dorsoventrally 18
18.(17) A. Body slightly compressed from side to side; thorax slightly
humped; torpedo-shaped; front legs with a dense row of hairs
TORPEDO MAYFLIES
Ephemeroptera: Oligoneuridae. One of the swimming
groups. Intolerant.
B. Body not compressed from side to side; front legs without a
dense row of hairs OTHER MAYFLIES
Ephemeroptera: Swimming Mayflies (Baetidae, Siphlonuridae)
and Crawling Mayflies (Caenidae and Tricorythidae). Most are
somewhat tolerant.
113
-------
Lathrpp
19.(13) A. Entire body including front wings hard; small, dark beetles
either long and thin or ovoid in shape ADULT BEETLES
Coleoptera: Several families including Elmidae and Dryopidae
(Riffle Beetles), Haliplidae (Crawling Water Beetles),
Dytiscidae (Predaceous Diving Beetles), the most common of
which is Elmidae. Tolerances have been determined only for
larvae since adults can leave the area by air.
B. Entire body not hard.
.20
20.(19) A.
With external wing pads; lower jaw (labium) large, hinged and
folded up on itself concealing other mouthparts...DRAGONFLIES
Odonata: Several families. Dragonflies are seldom found in
riffles but may be found burried in soft sediments (i.e sand,
silt or mud) or in vegetation and detritis along the stream
edge or in slightly slower waters. Stream dwellers are
fairly intolerant to pollution.
B. Without external wing pads; labium not hinged
21.(20) A. Abdomen with lateral appendages
B. Abdomen without lateral appendages (ventral gills my be present)
A B
22.(21) A. Lateral appendages long and thick; abdomen with a pair of hooked
terminal appendages or a single caudal filament; body dark (brown to
black); most are large, some to 10 cm (4") long — "HELLGRAMMITES"..23
B. Lateral appendages long and thin, or if short, then thick;
terminal hooks on abdomen, if present, not on appendages;
body lighter in color, tan, whitish or yellow; mostly smaller
(< 2 cm long) BEETLE LARVAE
Coleoptera: A few families key out here including the
Gyrinidae (Whirligig Beetles), some Dytiscidae (Predaeeous
Diving Beetles), some Haliplidae (Crawling Water Beetles).
Most somewhat tolerant
23.(22) A. Abdomen with a single filament AIDERFLY LARVAE
Megaloptera: Sialidae (Sialia). Fairly intolerant.
B. Abdomen with hooks on short appendages DOBSONFLY LARVAE
Megaloptera: Corydalidae. One genus (Corvdalus') has abdominal
gill tufts under the lateral appendages. Fairly intolerant.
114
-------
Benthos Taxonomic Key
24.(21) A. With hooks at end of abdomen; individuals often curl into a "C" shape
when held or preserved; body color variable, but head usually brown
or yellow, abdomen whitish, tan or green; pronotum (first dorsal
thoracic segment) with a distinctly scleriterized plate; abdomen
membranous and of a different color from thoracic plates; many build
some sort of portable or stationary case of plant material, sand or
pebbles — CADDISFLIES 25
B. Without hooks at the end of the abdomen; body brown, copper-^
colored or tan and somewhat "leathery"; thorax similar to
abdomen, without distinctly scleraterized plates; no cases...
RIFFLE BEETLE LARVAE
Coleoptera: Elmidae. Riffle beetle larve resemble midge larve
and are about the same size but riffle beetle larvae are
leathery rather than membranous and have true legs. Somewhat
tolerant.
\A>
25.(24) A. Without portable case (some build retreats of small stone or sand)..26
B. With a portable case 28
26.(25) A. Head as wide as thorax; build retreats of stone and sand on rocks —..
NET-SPINNING CADDISFLIES 27
B. Head narrower than thorax; dorsal plate on last abdominal
segment; free-living FREE-LIVING CADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Rhyacophilidae. Intolerant.
27.(26) A. Each thoracic segment with a single dorsal plate; abdomen
with gills ventrally; > 5 mm in length HYDROPSYCHIDAE
Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae. Somewhat tolerant
Microcaddisflies, which also have 3 dorsal plates on the
thorax, resemble Hydropsychids when the former are out of
their cases. Microcaddisflies are very small (mostly < 5 mm),
lack abdominal gills, and their abdomens are swollen (larger
than thorax). They build cases of silk which some cover with
sand or other substrates.
B. Prothorax with dorsal plate, metathorax (third thoracic
segment) partly or entirely membranous OTHER NET SPINNERS
Trichoptera: Three families, Psychomyiidae, Philopotamidae
and Polycentropodidae, ranging from fairly intolerant (first)
to somewhat tolerant (last).
115
-------
lathrpp
28.(25) A. Case of organic detritis (eg. small sticks, leaves).
B. Case of sand or small stones
NOTE: There are two groups of Tube-case Caddisflies, one builds
tubes and the other mineral tubes
C. Case of silk, may be covered with sand or organic material;
animal very small (2-5 mm); each thoracic segment with a
single dorsal plate; no ventral abdominal gills
PURSE-CASE OR MICROCADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae. Resemble the Hydropsychidae but
much smaller and without ventral abdominal gills. Somewhat
tolerant.
29.(28) A. Case square in cross-section BRACHYCENTRID CADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Brachycentridae. Intolerant.
B. Case cylindrical TUBE-CASE CADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Four families, three of which (Leptoceridae,
Phryganiidae and Limnephilidae), are somewhat tolerant and
one (Lepidostomatidae) which is intolerant.
29
30
organic
30.(28) A. Case of sand, snail-shaped SNAIL-CASE CADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Helicopsychidae. Fairly intolerant.
B. Case of small stones and sand, turtle-shaped (top-domed,
underside flat) SADDLE-CASE CADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Glossosomatidae. Intolerant.
C. Sand or stone case tube shaped TUBE-CASE CADDISFLIES
Trichoptera: Three families, two of which (Molanidae and
Limnephilidae) are somewhat tolerant and one (Odontoceridae)
which is intolerant.
31.(10) A. Body with a distinct, visible head capsule 32
B. Body without a distinct head capsule or head capsule retracted 34
\
B
116
-------
Benthos Tfcxanomic Key
32.(31) A. Body with one or two pairs of prolegs either of which may appear as a
single leg 33
B. Body straight; without prolegs BITING MIDGES
Diptera: Ceratopogonidae. Also known as "punkies" or ''no^ea=crx=c=as>
see-urns". Fairly tolerant. *"*'
33. (32) A. With one pair of anterior prolegs; abdomen with a distinct
bulge posteriorly; usually gray or mottled brown in color....
BLACK FLIES
Diptera: Simuliidae. Usually found in very fast moving water.
Most are intolerant. A few species are fairly tolerant.
B.
34.(31)A.
With one pair anterior and one pair posterior prolegs; body
tubular, width about equal throughout (no posterior bulge);
color variable but usually white, green or red....TRUE MIDGES
Diptera: Chironomidae. A highly diverse group although they
all look about the same without a microscope. Identification
beyond the family level requires a compound microscope. Most
are somewhat tolerant with one tribe (Tanytarsini) intolerant
and one genus, called Blood worms, very tolerant.
C^M^HH^^M^^^^
With 8 abdominal prolegs and a pair of long terminal
appendages; head region distinctly prolonged SNIPE FLIES
Diptera: Athericidae (Atherix). Fairly intolerant.
\
B. With other characteristics; if prolegs present, then without a pair of
long terminal appendages and head not distinctly prolonged; prolegs
may be lacking altogether 35
35.(34) A. With 4 to 8 short tubes at one end (posterior); body usually
soft and membranous CRANEFLIES
Diptera: Tipulidae. Some Tioula are large and membranous and
most are fairly intolerant to pollution. Hftvat.nmn are swollen
near the short tubes and are somewhat tolerant. Others vary,
but the family is generally considered somewhat intolerant.
B. Without short tubes at either end 36
36.(35) A. Body, segmented, thin and hairlike, not flattened; resemble
earthworms "AQUATIC WORMS"
Annelida: Oligocnaeta. Better known as aquatic oligochaetes,
they are related to the terrestrial earthworms. Members of
the family Tubificididae are highly tolerant.
B. Body wide, flattened, and not segmented, often gray; with
visible eye spots PLANARIA
Platyhelminthes: Tricladida. Tolerance uncertain, although
most are probably somewhat tolerant.
C. Body flattened and indistinctly segmented; long or oval in
shape; with anterior and posterior ventral suckers..,.LEECHES
Annelida: Hirudinea. Somewhat tolerant.
-------
lathrop
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful for the
technical/taxonomic reviews of this
key that were performed by the
following professionals: Larry
Abele, N. Wilson Britt, Robert Bode,
Kenneth Cummins, Wayne Davis, Jeff
DeShon, Leonard Ferrington, and Rick
Hafele. Your comments and
contributions were most helpful.
Literature Cited
Davis, W.S., and Lathrop, J.E. 1989.
Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Conmunity Structure and Function.
Chapter 7. In: Sediment
Classification Methods Compendium,
Draft Final Report, USEPA Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. 47 p.
Hafele, R. and Roederer, S. 1987. An
Angler's Guide to Aquatic Insects
and Their Imitations. Spring Creek
Press, Estes Park, CO.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid Field
Assessment of Organic Pollution with
a Family-Level Biotic Index. J. N.
Am. Benthol. Soc. 7(1):65-68.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An Improved
Biotic Index of Organic Stream
Pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist
20(l):31-39.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a
Biotic Index to Evaluate Water
Quality in Streams. Technical
Bulletin No. 132, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, WI, 23 p.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1977. Use of
Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality
of Streams. Tech. Bull. 100, Wise.
Dept. Nat. Res., Madison, WI. 15 p.
Illinois EPA. 1987. Quality
Assurance and Field Methods Manual.
Section C. Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Springfield, IL.
Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environment Protection Cabinet.
1989. A Field Guide to Kentucky
Rivers and Streams. Division of
Water, Frankfort, KY. 114 p.
Kopec, J. and Lewis, S. 1988. Ohio
Scenic River Stream Quality
Monitoring: A Citizen Action Pro-
gram. Ohio DNR, Div. Natural Areas
and Preserves, Columbus, OH. 20 p.
Lehmkuhl, D.M. 1978. How to Know the
Aquatic Insects. Wm. C. Brown Co.,
Dubuque, IA.
Merritt, R.W,. and Cummins, K.W.
(eds). 1984. An Introduction to the
Aquatic Insects of North America.
2nd edition. Kendall/Hunt Publ.,
Dubuque, IA. 441 p.
Needham, J.G., and Needham, P.R.
1962. A Guide to the Study of
Freshwater Biology. Holden-Day, Inc.
San Francisco.
North Carolina Dept. Natural
Resources and Community Development.
Undated. A Guide to Streamwalking.
Division of Environmental
Management, Raleigh, NC.
Pennack, R.W. 1978. Freshwater
Invertebrates of the United States.
(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York. 803 p.
Plafkin,J.L., Barbour,M.T., Porter,
K.D. and Gross, S.K., and Hughs,
R.M. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates
and Fish. EPA/444/4-89/001, Office
of Water, Washington, D.C.
118
-------
The "Why" of Minnesota's Citizen Lake-Monitoring Program
Judy A. Bostrom
Program Development Section
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Abstract
Dr. Joe Shapiro of the university of Minnesota's Limno logical Research
Center initiated the Secchi Disk Program in 1973. This program was started
in an effort to collect additional data on some of Minnesota's 11,842 lakes.
It was designed as a volunteer program because no one agency or organization
would have the resources to monitor even a fraction of the lakes. The
Secchi disk was chosen because it is easy to use, inexpensive, and it
yields valuable information about a lake's health. The water transparency
or clarity measured by the Secchi disk relates to the algae levels, amounts
of suspended sediments, and/or dissolved organics in Minnesota's lakes. The
program was transferred to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 1978
and was renamed the Citizen Lake-Monitoring Program. Loon counts and the
citizen's assessments of the amount of algae and it's effect on the lake's
use were added to the program in 1987. The loon counts will be entered into
USEFA's STORET BIOS data management programs and will be used to track the
loon population and it's reproductive success. The algal assessments are
being studied for their correlations to the ecoregions in Minnesota.
Therefore, the '"why" of Minnesota's Citizen Lake-Monitoring Program is that
it provides valuable data that is being used for several different programs.
Key Vtords: Lake monitoring, citizen involvement, Secchi Data, water
quality, Minnesota,volunteer.
Introduction
We are not proud of the fact that
Minnesota does have some algae-
covered lakes. But they do exist,
along with the crystal clear (or as
the old Harm's beer commercial went,
'Land of Sky Blue Waters') lakes.
Being concerned about all of our
water resources, Minnesota residents
want more information about what is
going on in "their" lakes and what
is being done to protect them.
History
The Citizen Lake-Monitoring
Program (CLMP) was started in 1973
by Dr. Joe Shapiro at the University
of Minnesota's Limnological Research
Center and was originally called the
Secchi Disk Program. He began this
program in an effort to address the
lack of information for Minnesota's
11,842 lakes - one lake for every
288 residents. He decided to utilize
citizen volunteers, in recognition
of the fact that by itself, the
Center wouldn't be able to gather
all of the chemical, physical, and
biological data necessary to detect
and evaluate changes on even a
fraction of those lakes.
The Secchi disk was chosen as the
instrument for measuring a lake's
water quality because it is easy to
use (no extensive instruction is
needed and anyone can do it), it is
inexpensive, and, most importantly,
it yields valuable information. In
Minnesota, the transparency of a
water body is generally affected by
119
-------
Minnesota Citizen Monitoring
three factors: microscopic algae,
suspended sediment, and/or dissolved
organic material, in roughly that
order. Hie water's clarity is
something that the public can relate
to as an indication of water
quality.
In 1978 the program was
transferred to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
which had provided part of the
initial funding, and officially
renamed the CLJMP. An Advanced
Program was also added at this time
and involved the collection of water
samples four times during the
summer. These samples were preserved
by freezing and then sent to the
Minnesota Department of Health for
nitrogen and phosphorus analyses.
This sampling was done in an effort
to detect any changes that might
occur following the statewide ban on
phosphorus in detergents in 1978.
The Advanced Program was
discontinued following the 1981
sampling season due to continuing
resource problems. The current
source of funding for the program is
the Clean Water Act's Section 106
funds, which are channeled through
the state.
In 1981, all of the data that had
been collected to that point was
entered into the USEPA's STORE! data
management system under agency code
21MDMNL and identified as to its set
of data collectors by utilizing
parameter 29 (site ID#). This
identification system allows anyone
looking at the data to eliminate any
set by restricting the site location
and selected parameters.
The most recent additions to the
program are requests for recording
the amount of algae that a
participant sees on their lake and
how this affects lake activities
and/or enjoyment. This information
is collected along with the number
of adult and/or juvenile loons that
are seen when the volunteer is
taking a Secchi reading. The
physical condition (amount of algae)
and recreational suitability
(activity/enjoyment) columns were
added to the Secchi data sheet in
1987 and each have a range from 1 to
5 to use to denote the lake's
condition at the time of the Secchi
transparency measurement. For the
physical condition, 1 represents NO
algae visible up to 5 representing
floating scum with the possibility
of odor present or fish kills also
occurring. In the recreational
suitability column, which is more
subjective in nature, 1 is a lake
condition of beautiful (could NOT be
better) and continuing on up the
scale to 5, which reflects a
situation of not even boating on the
lake being possible because of the
high levels of algae.
Also added in 1987 were the two
columns for recording the number of
adult and/or juvenile loons seen on
the lake. This information will be
entered into STORET's BIOS
(biological data management system).
The loon columns were added at the
request of another MPCA staff person
who is involved with mercury
studies, and as a result of a
massive die-off of loons wintering
in the Gulf of Mexico. Many of the
dead loons that were analyzed were
found to have higher levels of
mercury than those that died of
other causes elsewhere.
Discussion
But what do we do with all of this
information that is collected?
First, the data is entered into
EPA's STCRET system (with the
exception of the loon data, which
will be entered in the near future).
Once the data is entered, it is
available to any agency or
organization with access to STQRET.
The very first people to use the
120
-------
Bastion
data are the participants
themselves. In most cases they keep
a personal record of their
transparency readings and compare
the individual readings to one
another, one month to the next, and
each year to the previous year's
readings. One participants are the
first to see if a trend appears.
With the recent availability of
several years of data, trend
analyses can now done for a number
of lakes.
•Die program's participants are the
first group to make an effort to
protect "their" lake. Some
groups/lake associations have done
this by education of their own
members and ensuring that zoning
regulations are enforced. Twin and
Sylvia Lakes in Wright County, which
are joined by a short, narrow
channel, have experienced a doubling
of their transparency readings over
the last 10 years just through the
actions of the lake association
alone. Other associations have used
the CLMP data to block
irresponsible behavior by outside
organizations. One developer left a
project on a lake in Carlton County
due to pressure by the lake
association and is reportedly more
careful in its approach to another
project on a different lake in the
area. And in St. Louis County a
developer has been blocked from
putting up multiple housing units on
a lake in the Superior National
Forest that also borders the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness.
The next group to scrutinize the
data is the staff of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Of that
group, I am the first to see the
data sheets - I am the person
responsible for making sure that
"clean" data is entered into the
computer (i.e., clarifying time
discrepancies, illegible times,
readings, loon counts, verifying the
sampling location, etc.). The data
sheets then go to our data entry
person, who also checks for
discrepancies in date, time, and
location.
Once the data have been entered
into STORE! and proofread, it is
available for anyone to use. Other
members of the MPCA staff that have
used this data have done so for a
variety of projects. One of the
limited uses of this data was in
combination with chemistry data
gathered during an intensive survey
on the Sank River Chain of Lakes.
Legal action was being taken
against a discharger to the Sauk
River and this combination of
chemistry data and background
transparency data was strong enough
evidence to require the discharger
to add tertiary treatment of its
effluent.
One of the continuing uses is the
inclusion in the Clean Water Act's
Section 305(b) Report to Congress of
the United States: Minnesota Water
Quality. Without the CLMP data, many
of the lakes in the state would not
be assessed for their designated
use. me CLMP transparency data is
also used by the MPCA staff to
calculate the trophic status of each
lake by ecoregions. This information
is printed in a report assessing the
lakes' water quality by ecoregion.
Standards for lake water quality are
being developed using this
information as guidelines.'
The same group of MPCA staff that
is working with the transparency
data for trophic status assessment
is also utilizing the physical
condition and recreational
suitability data to denote if any
difference in perceptions exists for
different parts of the state. The
data from those columns on the
Secchi data sheet has shown that
there i§ a difference among the
121
-------
Minnesota Citizen Monitoring
various ecoregions of the state as
to the perception of the lake's
water quality. "Die participants in
the Northern Lakes and Forests
ecoregion tend to be harsher in
their judgment of the lakes than the
participants in the Western Corn
Belt Plains. The MPCA staff is
quantifying these perceptions,
mapping them, and as more years of
data come in, noting any trends in
these perceptions.
After the loon data is entered
into BIOS, it will be studied by
MPCA and Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources personnel to note
what the population is, where it is,
what its reproductive success
appears to be, and to link these
with any mercury data. The last
condition is to see if a
correlation exists between findings
of mercury in the lake water with
the reproduction, increased
incidence of disease, and weakened
defenses of loons (the latter of
which can lead to higher death rates
(from injury due to decreased
ability to escape intruders).
CLMP participants and MPCA staff
are only two of the groups that look
at and use the data. As stated
before, the 305(b) report goes to
Congress. The annual report for the
program itself (The Report on the
Transparency of Minnesota Lakes-
a.k.a., the CLMP report) is sent to
the legislative library at the
Minnesota State Legislature. Copies
of the latter report are also sent
to USEPA's clearinghouse for
publications, other volunteer
programs, Minnesota's 87 county
zoning administrators, and the
numerous soil and water conservation
districts in the state.
Conclusions
The "why" of Minnesota's Citizen
Lake-Monitoring Program is that many
people are concerned about the
state's water quality and that
several different groups are using
the data in many different ways.
122
-------
The Ohio Scenic Rivers Stream Quality Monitoring Program:
Citizens in Action
John S. Kopec, Planning Supervisor
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Division of Natural Areas & Preserves
Scenic Rivers Section, Columbus, Ohio 43224
Abstract
The Ohio Scenic Rivers Stream Quality Monitoring Program was initiated in
1983 to provide an easy means for the general public to be involved in
stream resource protection. The procedure involves the collection and
identification of riffle-dwelling macroinvertebrates using simple and
inexpensive equipment. The program was revised in 1985 to eliminate the
need for quantitative analysis as this proved to be the most difficult
aspect of the procedure for volunteers. The rating of stream quality is
based on assigning point values to 20 taxa of macroinvertebrates depending
on their tolerance to levels of pollution. The program has proved to be one
of the Department's most popular and successful environmental education
efforts, to date. In 1988 alone, nearly 4,000 people monitored 150 stations
on ten designated State Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers. Participants
included all levels of educational institutions, conservation clubs, as well
as 4-H groups, senior citizen centers, individual families, and many others.
Improvements to the Ohio Stream Quality Monitoring Program for 1989 will
include revision of identification sheets and preparation of preserved
specimens to assist participants in identifying the macroinvertebrates upon
which the program is based. Plans are also underway to assist Ohio Soil and
Water Conservation Districts in a trial program of administering stream
quality monitoring at the local level thereby expanding this program to
other streams in the state.
Key words: Ohio DNR, scenic rivers, stream quality, citizen monitoring
Introduction
Recognizing a sincere need to
directly involve citizen groups in
preserving Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational Rivers, Ohio developed
the Ohio Scenic Rivers Stream
Quality Monitoring Program in 1983.
The techniques used were adapted
from a conponent of the National
Izaak Walton League's Save Our
Streams Program which employs
aquatic macroinvertebrate collection
and analysis to determine stream
water quality. Working with the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, the
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources' Division of Natural Areas
and Preserves refined and simplified
the specific procedures involved to
permit a wide range of individuals
from young to old the opportunity to
quickly become stream quality
monitors.
The technique of using riffle-
dwelling macroinvertebrates as
indicators of water quality is
hardly a new phenomenon. There are a
number of approaches available using
sophisticated equipment and compli-
cated indices that yield highly
reliable information. The drawback
with these methods is the expense of
123
-------
Kopec
the equipnent and the high level of
taxonomic skills and time required
by the investigators. Since the
analysis often requires precise
counts of organisms that are
collected, a considerable amount of
off-location work is usually
necessary. Citizen volunteers are
generally not trained aquatic
ecologists, nor do they want to
invest an exorbitant amount of time
on a given project. On the other
hand, a de-sophistication of the
biological approach to water quality
determination can reduce the
reliability of the information that
is derived. Ihe challenge of arriv-
ing at a compromise between ease and
simplicity of approach and accuracy
of information was met; however, not
without some trial, error, and
adjustment in the early years.
Ohio Stream Monitoring Procedure
jQie initial analysis procedure
that the Ohio Stream Quality
Monitoring Program employed was
based not only on qualitative data,
but quantitative as well. A problem
soon became apparent as participants
began to question the validity of
the results because of vast differ-
ences in individuals' estimates.
Some observers would estimate from
75 to 100 mayfly nymphs, while
others would often expand their
"guesstimate" to as many as 800 to
900. More often than not, this would
result in significantly altering the
stream quality rating based on
nothing more than difference of
opinion. Very small organisms, such
as young mayfly nymphs, midge
larvae, riffle beetles, and others
often in very great numbers seemed
virtually impossible to accurately
quantify without an actual count.
Hie problem was solved in 1985
when the procedure was modified to
an easier means of analyzing the
collection by switching to an index
system that required only qualita-
tive analysis. Ihe new system also
established a cumulative index value
of stream quality that is derived
from the summation of individual
values assigned to each taxa
depending upon whether the organism
is tolerant to pollution,
intolerant, or somewhere in between.
Hie new method caught on very
quickly with all participants, and
dramatically increased the
popularity of the program.
Ihe primary goal of the Ohio
Stream Quality Monitoring Program is
to educate Ohio citizens, young and
old, as to the importance of stream
systems as complex biological
components of the environment, and
the value of protecting these
natural resource treasures. Although
the data received is extremely
valuable for monitoring stream
health, seldom do we encounter any
surprising or revealing situations
depicting stream degradation. This
is largely because, to date, all
monitoring activity has been con-
fined to streams that are compo-
nents of the Ohio Scenic Rivers
System, and these aquatic resources
are usually prime examples of
streams with high water quality and
aquatic diversity. However, by
extensively publicizing the efforts
of the hundreds upon hundreds of
people involved in the program,
ccranunity awareness of the rivers'
importance increases. Uiis, in turn,
builds an impressive constituency
for any river preservation effort,
and dictates to the industrial and
commercial entities, as well as
public agencies, a strong community
attitude and concern for stream
protection.
124
-------
Ohio Citizen Monitoring
Station Selection
Ihe Ohio Stream Quality Monitoring
Program currently operates on 150
stations on the ten designated state
scenic rivers. The criteria by which
stations are chosen include
suitability of habitat or bottom
substrate composition, the location
of the area as to potential impacts
for developments, industrial or
municipal discharges, tributary
stream entry points, as well as
accessibility and acconnodations. In
Ohio, trespassing considerations
must be addressed as most streams
are bordered by private property. It
is generally unwise to assume that a
participant's perception of the
value of stream quality monitoring
will necessarily be shared by a
streamside property owner. Nothing
can destroy the enthusiasm and
enjoyment of citizen volunteers more
quickly than a confrontation with an
angry landowner.
Sample Collection
•Die actual collection procedure is
quite simple, consisting of the
placement of a fine mesh seine in a
stream riffle area, then thoroughly
disturbing roughly a 3 by 3 foot
area to dislodge the organisms
residing in the area. Since the nine
square-foot sample serves to
represent the community structure of
that entire section of stream,
additional samples in other areas of
the riffle increase the reliability
of the data. Furthermore, the casual
observation of those organisms
dwelling in shallow water along the
stream's edge, or in bordering
vegetation, further augment the
data, giving a truer picture of the
overall macroinvertebrate comrtunity.
Although the presence of taxa
observed is recorded on the station
data form by placing an estimated
count letter code in the corres-
ponding block, this quantitative
estimate is not used in determining
the stream quality rating. One
purpose of the estimated count is to
provide the administer-ing agency
with a long-range perspective of the
relative abundance and population
changes of the macroinvertebrate
community.
One 20 taxa of aquatic organisms
that are collected are identified
only by type, such as mayfly nymphs,
stonefly nymphs, caddisfly larvae,
or in some instances by the more
frequently observed representatives
of a certain family or order, such
as crane fly larvae and black fly
larvae. Even so, the most difficult
and intimidating aspect of the
entire program troubling virtually
all participants is the discomfort
of not being sure of identifying all
of the organisms. With several
training sessions and reassurance
from program personnel, however,
most participants begin to quickly
build their confidence level. Even
should some groups never develop a
high proficiency in the identifica-
tion procedure, extreme variance in
the reported index values for a
given station along with periodic
station checks by program personnel,
quickly reveal where errors are
being made and further training is
necessary, inere are currently plans
to improve the visual aids used in
the program for macroinvertebrate
recognition.
Base reference collections of
organisms preserved in alcohol are
being prepared for use at workshops
and training sessions. An improved
version of the identification sheet
depicting different forms of organ-
isms as well as relative sizes is
being prepared. A more ambitious
undertaking will be the preparation
125
-------
Kopec
of a durable and easy to use plastic
block containing embedded and
labeled specimens.
Equipment and Funding
Equipment costs for the Ohio
Stream Quality Monitoring Program
nave been kept at a minimum. Custom
designed, one sixteenth inch nylon
mesh seines are sewn locally at a
cost of around $15.00. Poles for the
nets (hoe and shovel handle
discards) are donated by Union Fork
and Hoe Company in Delaware, Ohio. A
Rubbermaid Serve and Store container
with a thermometer, plastic specimen
cubes, and a magnifying glass
purchased from an educational supply
company round out the major
equipment for an additional $10.00.
Funding for the program has
generally come from a combination of
general revenue funds (upper and
middle level administrative staff
time) and monies allocated from a
state income tax refund checkoff
program. Annual equipment and
administrative costs for four
seasonal part-time stream monitoring
coordinators have averaged $25,000.
Additional equipment and promotional
support was made available from the
National Izaak Walton League through
a grant from the Virginia
Environmental Endowment.
Data Use
All participants of the Ohio
Stream Quality Wbnitoring Program
complete a stream quality assessment
form representing one or more
sampling per station per day.
Additional information such as water
temperature, stream conditions,
substrate composition, and chemical
data if obtained (not required) is
provided. These assessment forms are
periodically forwarded to the Ohio
Division of Natural Areas and
Preserves Central Office head-
quarters where they are carefully
checked and entered on computer. At
the end of the monitoring season,
which generally extends from April
to November, all data is printed out
chronologically by station which is
included in a statewide report to
all monitoring groups and other
interested agencies and individuals.
When the program was initiated, it
was not at all surprising to find
that the majority of participants
were schools and conservation
groups. Indeed, today they still
comprise roughly 50% or more of the
total stream monitoring force. What
was surprising and encouraging,
however, was to see the popularity
of the program spread to groups and
individuals one would not normally
associate with environmental
monitoring, such as League of Women
Voters, Big Brothers/Big Sisters,
Inc. , 4-H Clubs, Y1VCA, Senior
Citizen Centers, as well as
individual families. During 1988,
nearly 4,000 men, women, and
children participated in the stream
quality monitoring effort. Plans are
currently underway to expand the
program to other streams in the
state because of the rapidly growing
popularity of stream quality
monitoring. As budget restraints and
program restrictions cannot permit
the Ohio Scenic Rivers Program to
service requests outside the system
of designated streams, other
agencies and organizations have been
sought to provide the outside
administration needed. Under a
cooperative agreement, the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources will
continue to work with several of
Ohio's Soil and Water Conservation
Districts during 1989, as was done
in 1988, to determine the
126
-------
Olio Citlzea Monitoring
feasibility of locally administering
this program.
The Soil and Water Conservation
Society has an obvious interest in
water quality and has traditionally
been involved with environmental
education, is a likely candidate to
assist in the extension of the Ohio
Stream Quality Msnitoring Program.
Other possible avenues of local and
regional administration might be
through the environmental education
outreach programs of colleges and
universities, as well as through
community environmental and
conservation organizations willing
to provide the necessary
coordination and training of
participants.
127
-------
Wisconsin»s Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program:
An Assessment from 1986 to 1988
Carolyn Rumery
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Abstract
Over 200 lakes are monitored in Wisconsin by citizen volunteers as part of
the "Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program." Now in its fourth year, volunteers
are trained by DNR staff to collect Secchi disc data every two weeks between
May and October. Other observations recorded include water color, lake
level, public perceptions of water quality, and weather. Data are sent to
the DNR; individual lake reports and a statewide sunmary report are
published each year. The data are used by DNR biologists in conjunction
with other lake monitoring efforts, in preparation of water quality basin
plans, in updating water quality data bases, and in developing water quality
standards for lakes. Data are also used by the U.S. Geological Survey,
County Land Conservation Districts, and County Extension Agents.
Keywords: Wisconsin, citizen monitoring, water quality, volunteers, lakes
Introduction
Wisconsin's Self-Help Lake
Monitoring Program is one of many
programs around the country utiliz-
ing citizen volunteers to monitor
lake quality. This program is one
part of the state's Lake Management
Program, administered by the
Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) (Rumery and Vennie 1988). Hie
Self-Help Monitoring Program has
grown steadily since its inception
in 1986, and at the end of 1988,
about 210 lakes were being actively
monitored (Figure 1).
The DNR has formally recognized
that protecting and managing the
State's natural resources is far too
great a job for it to do alone. It
is essential to share this respons-
ibility with citizens, private
enterprise and public officials
alike (Besadny 1988). The DNR also
recognizes the need to focus some of
its attention on information and
education to achieve that goal. The
Self-Help Monitoring Program is an
example of how these goals are being
implemented. With 15,000 lakes in
Wisconsin, it is not possible for
the DNR to monitor, much less
manage, each and everyone. Yet, the
use of volunteers in a formal and
systematic way has enabled the DNR
to not only add to its lakes data
base, but also to educate its
citizens about lakes, monitoring,
management, and decision-making.
Fig. l. Wisconsin's Self-Help
Monitoring Lakes in 1988
128
-------
Wisconsin Citizen Monitoring
The Self-Help Monitoring Program
The Self-Help Monitoring Program
was initiated to give citizens an
active role in lake management
activities and to assist the EKR
with basic data collection on at
least some of Wisconsin's 15,000
lakes. In 1988, 210 lakes were
monitored, an increase from 175
lakes in 1987 and 129 lakes in 1986.
One goals of the program are:
1. To teach citizen volunteers some
basic concepts of limnology, and
to increase their understanding
of local lake water quality.
2. To teach citizens about basic
lake sampling techniques,
specifically how to use a Secchi
disc according to set procedures.
3. To document changes in water
clarity over time by recording
the data on a centralized
computing system and preparing
individual lake reports and an
annual statewide report.
4. To differentiate between normal
seasonal variations in water
clarity and long-term trends to
determine whether water clarity,
and presumably water quality, is
getting better, getting worse, or
staying about the same.
5. To compare the water clarity data
for all the lakes in the program
on both a regional and statewide
basis.
6. To collect data accurately over
time to make sound lake
management decisions.
Getting Started
Volunteers learn about the Self-
Help Monitor ing program through
district personnel, a brochure about
the program, general interest
articles in the popular media, as
well as through word of mouth. After
initially contacting the ENR, the
volunteer will receive a letter in
the mail confirming their commit-
ment to monitor their lake. They are
contacted again early in the spring
of the sampling season and a
training session is arranged at the
volunteer's house, a local park or
other mutually convenient location.
At the training session, volun-
teers are given a training manual
which is updated each year, a
Secchi disc, data post cards which
are pre-printed and postage paid,
and data sheets for the volunteer to
keep for his or her own records. The
training manual contains a fully
illustrated set of step-by-step
instructions on how to take the
Secchi disc readings, how to read
the staff gauge, and how to fill out
the data post cards. It also con-
tains a map of their lake showing
where they should take the Secchi
disc reading. Also included is a 40-
page booklet entitled 7Tp I^TCP in
Your Conrrianitv (Klessig et. al.
1986) providing a background on
basic limnology. The training ses-
sions provide all volunteers with a
consistent methodology for collect-
ing the data, allows them to prac-
tice using the Secchi disc with a
WCNR staff person watching, and
provides a future contact person for
the volunteer.
Group training sessions are also
scheduled at various" locations
around the state, particularly in
the north central and southeast
parts of the state to expedite the
training process. In the group
sessions, between 3-10 volunteers
get together at one location to see
slides describing the program and to
go out in a boat (usually in groups
of 2) with the ENR staff person to
take some practice Secchi disc
readings. In this way, a large
129
-------
Bumery
number of volunteers may be trained
over one weekend in an efficient and
economical way. It also allows
volunteers to meet each other and
exchange experiences. As a last
resort, some volunteers may receive
their Secchi discs and related
training materials in the mail due
to unsolvable schedule conflicts.
Volunteers also receive bimonthly
newsletters in the mail between May
and November, written in layperson's
language covering topics related to
the Self-Help Monitoring Program
only. A separate newsletter ("Lake
Tides"), devoted to more generalized
lake topics, is distributed by the
University of Wisconsin-Extension to
this group and others (UWEX no
date). The Self-Help newsletter
provides a forum for information
exchange, a chance for the
volunteers to get to know some of
their fellow volunteers through
short "personal profiles," and the
opportunity to see graphs
representing data trends on selected
lakes statewide.
Data Collection
All volunteers are asked to
measure the water clarity of their
lake at least once every two weeks
between Memorial Day and Labor Day
each year using a Secchi disc. Other
data collected include water color
and weather observations. Lakes
equipped with staff gauges, which
are installed by the U.S. Geological
Survey in a cooperative program are
read by the volunteers on a daily
basis. In 1988, a new parameter was
added to the data base, asking the
volunteers to record their
perceptions of the water quality
that day using a scale of 1 (best)
to 5 (worst) (Table 1).
Data Cards
The data reporting cards (Figure
2) provide an easy way for the
Table 1 - Water quality perceptions.
Please circle the number that best
describes your opinion on how suit-
able the lake water is for recrea-
tion and aesthetic enjoyment today:
(Heiskary and Walker 1988)
1. Beautiful, could not be any
nicer.
2. Very minor aesthetic problems;
excellent for swimming, boating,
enjoyment.
3. Swimming and aesthetic enjoyment
slightly impaired because of
algae levels.
4. Desire to swim and level of
enjoyment of the lake substan-
tially reduced because of algae
(would not swim, but boating is
okay).
5. Swimming and aesthetic enjoyment
of the lake nearly impossible
because of algae level.
Y«
Fig. 2 Data summary post card.
130
-------
Wisconsin Citizen Monitoring
volunteers to report the data back
to the ENR because they are self-
addressed and postage-paid. In
addition to recording the basic data
(date, time, Secchi depth, and lake
level), the reporting format allows
space for the volunteer to write
special comments (usually weather
observations) or to ask questions
of the ENR. Typical questions are
"Why does the Secchi depth increase
after a rainstorm?" or "Is my lake
sensitive to acid rain?" These
questions are answered individually
and are sometimes shared in the
newsletter.
The most frequent request was "Send
more cards"; although each volunteer
is equipped with 15 data cards, some
volunteers sample as many as 26
times in one season. In 1986, a
total of 1580 Secchi disc
observations were reported by the
volunteers back to the ENR. In
1987, that number had increased to
2500, and in 1988, about 3500. While
some volunteers will sample their
lake from ice out to freeze up, the
most critical observations are those
taken in July and August—the prime
recreational months and peak times
for algal blooms. In early July of
each sampling season, volunteers who
have not sent in their data cards on
a regular basis are sent a letter
reminding them that the most
important time to collect data is in
July and August. The response rate
to this reminder letter has been
inipressive.
Data Management
All of the data recorded on the
post cards are stored on an IBM TM
personal computer using the LOTUS 1-
2-3 % software program. The data
entry process is simplified and
sped-up through a special program or
macro we designed. Since the data
are entered as the cards are
received, the data entry process is
completed when each volunteer sends
in their last card. When all the
data are entered, other specially
written programs are used to analyze
and summarize the data for a
statewide report, and for those
volunteers in the program for the
first year, an individual report.
A second data source used for
report preparation are responses to
a questionnaire sent out to each
volunteer at the end of the
sampling season. The questions are
broken up into three categories: 1)
their overall opinion about the
volunteer monitoring program and
their participation in it; 2) the
problems they perceived on their
lake during the past sampling
season; and 3) the overall uses of
the lake and surrounding land. The
response rate to the questionnaire
has also been very strong (86% in
1987). These responses are also
entered into the computer using the
LOTUS 1-2-3 program.
The third data source used to
prepare each individual lake report
is historical surface water re-
sources inventory data collected by
the ENR and published in a set of
reports (WENR 1961-1985). These
data are downloaded onto the per-
sonal computer from the mainframe.
OHese data describe basic charac-
teristics of each lake such as size,
depth, length, width, volume,
watershed size, and fisheries.
More current pH and alkalinity
data collected by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Kanciruk
et al. 1986) replace the older data.
Report to First Year Volunteers
In February or March following the
sampling season, each person who
has collected data on their lake for
the first time, and who has
collected data at least four times,
will receive an eight-page report
131
-------
Rutnery
specific to their lake written in
layperson's language. This report
is prepared using the LOTUS Symphony
TM software program because of its
flexibility and ability to generate
form-type reports quickly. Hie data
the volunteer collected during the
sampling season are integrated with
the Surface Water Inventory data and
responses to the questionnaire the
volunteer sent in. Carefully writ-
ten explanations that the lake's
water clarity is only one indica-
tion of water quality are included
in the report, as well as explain-
ing that it is difficult to draw
conclusions about the trends of the
lake's water clarity, much less
overall water quality, with only one
year of data. At least five years of
data will allow us to begin to
differentiate between long-term
trends and seasonal or cyclic
variations.
Several steps are taken to ensure
the conprehensibility of the report
to the volunteer. First, each
report is written as a letter to the
volunteer to make the format
friendly and personal. Second, the
graphical presentation of the Secchi
disc data depicts a Secchi disc
being lowered into the water column
(Figure 3). This visual represen-
tation allows each volunteer to see
now the Secchi depth changed over
the sampling season. Kurd, the data
the volunteer collected are summar-
ized and tabulated in a format based
on several reports in the literature
(USEFA 1980; Lillie and Mason 1983).
That is, water clarity categories
were developed using the words
excellent, very good, good, fair,
poor, and very poor. The volunteer
is told what percentage of the time
the data he or she collected fell
into each category. This
information is presented in a table
format and summarized in a sentence
such as, "In other words, 80% of the
Table 2. Water clarity ranking.
Description
Secchi Depth
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
>20 ft.
10-20 ft.
6.5-10 ft.
5-6.5 ft.
3.25-5 ft.
<3.25ft.
time you collected data, the water
clarity of your lake was very good,
14% of the time, it was good, and 6%
of the time, it was fair." Thus,
for those who may have trouble
interpreting the table, a written
explanation is provided.
Press Release
An individual press release is
also sent to each volunteer along
with the report. The volunteer is
asked to send the press release to
their local newspaper order to see
their names in print as a reward for
all of the hard work they did during
the sampling season. In turn, we
receive copies of the newspaper
articles printed using the standard
press release. Through these
articles, area residents are made
aware that a. neighbor or local
resident is taking the time to
monitor their lake and that there is
a report available to help them
learn more about their lake. These
people in turn write to the DNR to
request copies of the individual
report about their lake. In 1987,
we received over 100 requests for
reprints.
Statewide Report
A statewide summary of all the
1986 data collected was published in
a one volume report (Rumery 1987). A
second data report for all 1987 and
1988 data was also published (Rumery
1989). This report includes 1986,
132
-------
Wisconsin Citizen Monitoring
1987, and 1988 data for those lakes
where data have been collected for
all three years; otherwise it
includes data for only those years
available. Cne page is devoted to
each lake and includes: the number
of Secchi disc observations taken
each sunnier; the minimum and maximum
Secchi depths for each season; the
dates on which those extremes were
observed; and the average summer
Secchi depth per sampling season.
The summer average is calculated
using data from the months of June,
July and August.
A table using the water clarity
descriptors shown in Table 1 are
presented so that each of the three
years of data can be compared. This
table only uses the June, July and
August data since those are the
months when algal blooms are most
prevalent, they are the busiest
recreational months, and they are
also the months when most data are
available.
Finally, a graph showing three
years of data (where available) is
presented on each page (Figure 3).
Even when only one or two years of
data are available, the same scale
is used such that a quick flip
through the book allows one to make
assessments about the variation in
water clarity on a large number of
lakes in the state.
At this point, it is still
difficult to make any hard and fast
conclusions about the data that are
being reported since at most, there
are only three years of data. In
addition, since 1988 was a drought
year, little runoff to the lakes
occurred resulting in particularly
high water clarity. Despite that
phenomenon, it is apparent that in
general, the water clarity on most
of the lakes is similar from one
year to the next. The regular
Secchi disc readings show
similarities in minimum and maximum
Crescent Lake — Oneida County
-s -
-10 -
-1S-
-20 -
-IS -
-X -
-
MAY JUL SEP NOV JAM
1M6
MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN
1M7
HAT JUL SEP NOV
Fig. 3. A 3-Year Data Summary Plot
values reflecting algal blooms
typical to that lake.
Data Users
Along with the volunteers, it is
apparent that there are other data
users interested in the Wisconsin
Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program.
First, the data are used in con-
junction with the ENR's Long-Term
Lake Monitoring Program where 50
lakes are being monitored for a
period of ten years. DNR biologists
monitor these lakes five times a
year, testing for biological and
chemical parameters. The data the
volunteers collect assist in
monitoring algal blooms or storm
events that our own biologist may
miss. The volunteer's data are used
in the reporting process for that
program.
Second, the data are being used by
DNR district personnel in updating
existing data bases, or in some
cases, in establishing a data base
for the first time. This
information may prove to be
indispensable in future management
decisions, and is already proving
133
-------
Rumery
useful to gain an overall picture of
the health of a lake. It is
currently used in answering
questions the public has on the
overall water quality of a lake,
with the intention of buying
property near the lake.
Third, ENR personnel are also
using the data in the preparation of
water quality basin plans. The
summer water clarity averages (June,
July and August data) are being used
to define the trophic status of all
lakes identified in the state's many
basin plans. Phosphorus and chloro-
phyll data are taken from other
sources. This information will be
used to identify those water bodies
which should receive management
attention in the future. In some
cases, these data may be the only
information available to ENR biol-
ogists, or may update a data base
that is twenty or more years old.
The U.S. Geological Survey is a
fourth user of the data. The USGS
has installed staff gauges on about
25 lakes throughout the State where
they are most interested in tracking
lake level information. These data
are collected by the volunteers,
sent to and tabulated by the ENR,
and forwarded to the USGS where a
correction factor is applied. The
data are published on an occasional
basis (House 1985).
Other users include each of the 72
counties via their Land Conserva-
tion Districts. In the southwestern
portions of the State where soil
erosion has proved to be of parti-
cular concern, volunteers have been
helpful in documenting the effects
of storm events on water clarity.
The data involving the volunteer's
perceptions of water quality were
solicited with future uses in mind.
In particular, this information
could be used in developing water
quality standards for lakes. A
similar approach was used in 1986
when residents around Delavan Lake
in southeastern Wisconsin were asked
their opinions of acceptable water
clarity (IES 1986). This information
was used in developing management
goals for that lake. The approach
used to monitor people's perceptions
of water quality was intentionally
the same methodology as those used
by Vermont and Minnesota. Hopefully
the perception of what people find
acceptable and unacceptable will be
applied on a geographical basis
extending beyond the borders of
Wisconsin.
Conclusion
Based on three complete sampling
seasons, we consider the Wisconsin
Self-Help Lake Monitoring Program a
success attributed to many factors:
agency commitment to the program,
direct personal contact between
agency staff and the volunteers,
frequent communication between the
ENR and the volunteers, the sense of
ownership the volunteers feel toward
the program, and the utilization of
the volunteer's data by others
besides the volunteers themselves.
The continuing success of the Self-
Help Lake Monitoring Program, as
well as other volunteer monitoring
programs will largely depend the
commitment of the sponsoring agency.
The volunteers rely on one or more
ENR employees to provide them with
proper training and guidance. They
look for correspondence throughout
the sampling season and into the
winter, and look forward to
receiving reports summarizing the
data. This requires that the DNR
not just provide the volunteer the
necessary equipment, but that we
follow up on our end of the
agreement. Evidence of this
includes the overwhelming receipt of
data following a reminder letter
sent out in mid-July. Of course the
134
-------
Wisconsin Citizen Monitoring
volunteers must keep up their end of
the agreement, too!
The future of the Self-Help Lake
Monitoring Program is bright.
Although the number of parameters
the volunteers now collect is quite
limited, the program may be expanded
in the future. Hie program is
supported by ENR administrators, and
by the Governor as reflected in his
most recent budget recommendations
to the Wisconsin legislature. If
the budget is increased, the program
could expand by either increasing
the number of volunteers v/ho collect
Secchi disc data, or by increasing
the number of parameters that are
being monitored.
The results of the end of the
season questionnaire indicate that
over 80% of the volunteers are more
than willing to collect more than
the Secchi disc data. Volunteers are
constantly asking for information on
where they may purchase kits to
collect dissolved oxygen data, pH
data and other data. The program
could be expanded to a two-tiered
approach in that some volunteers
could be involved in a more
intensive monitoring effort than
those taking just the basic Secchi
disc readings. However, again, this
involves the commitment of the
sponsoring agency to administer the
program, provide the proper training
to use the new equipment, and most
importantly, in the data management
and reporting processes.
Literature Cited
Besadny, C.D. 1988. A Course for
the Future Strategic Direction for
the Department of Natural Resources.
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. 5 pp.
Heiskary, S.A. and W.W. Walker, Jr.
1988. Developing Phosphorus
Criteria for Minnesota Lakes. Lake
and Reservoir Management 4(l):l-9.
House, L.B. 1987. Stage
Fluctuations of Wisconsin.
Information Circular No. 49. US.
Geological Survey., Madison, WI.
Institute for Environmental Studies.
1986. Delavan Lake: A Recovery and
Management Study. Water Resources
Management Program Workshop,
University of Wisconsin. 332 pp.
Kanciruk, P. , et. al. 1986.
Characteristics of Lake in the
Eastern United States. Vol. Ill:
Data Compendium of Site
Characteristics and Chemical
Variables. EPA 600/4-86-007C. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Klessig, L.L., N.W. Bouwes, and D.A.
Yanggen. 1986. Hie Lake in Your
Community. G3216 (revised 1986).
University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Lillie, R.A. and J.W. Mason. 1983.
Limnological Characteristics of
Wisconsin Lakes. Department of
Natural Resources. , Madison.
Technical Bulletin No. 138.
Rumery, C. 1987. Wisconsin Self-
Help Lake Monitoring Program Data
Summary. 1986. PUBL-WR-156 87.
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison.
Rumery, C. 1989. Wisconsin Self-
Help Lake Monitoring Program Data
Sunmary 1987-1988. PUB-WR-213 89.
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison.
Rumery, C. and J.G. Vennie. 1988.
Wisconsin's Self-Help Lake
Monitoring Program: A Review of the
First Year-1986. Lake and Reservoir
Management 4(1):81-86.
135
-------
Rumery
University of Wisconsin Extension.
Kb Date. Lake Tides.
U.S. Envi ronmental Protection
Agency. 1980. Lake Restoration in
Cotbosee Watershed. EFA 625/2-80-
027. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C.
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. 1961-1985. Surface Water
Resources of County.
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources and Wisconsin Department
of Conservation, Madison.
136
-------
A Summary of the First Midwest Pollution Control
Biologists Meeting
Wayne S. Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
536 S. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
Abstract
The first Midwest Pollution Control Biologists Meeting was held at the
Congress Hotel, downtown Chicago, during February 14-17, 1989. One purpose
of this meeting was to gather regional environmental biologists at various
government agencies to provide a forum for discussion and technical paper
presentations. Approximately 100 biologists attended the 38 presentations
and five discussion groups. The presentations and discussion groups
addressed the following five topics: citizen monitoring, inland lakes and
wetlands, Great Lakes and harbors, biocriteria, and hazardous waste sites.
Keywords: MPCB, USEPA Region V, Meeting, Pollution Control Biologists
Introduction
After the successful national
workshop on instream biological
monitoring and criteria that Region
V's Instream Biocriteria and
Ecological Assessment Conmittee co-
hosted and coordinated in December
1987, it was apparent that the
content and enthusiasm of that
meeting should be focused for
midwestern regional environmental
biologists. Actually, USEPA Region's
I and II, III, and IV have been
holding regional pollution control
biologist meetings for many years,
and those meetings have improved the
communication and relationship among
the government agencies and private
interests. This meeting was
organized to provide an overview of
the State regulatory biology
programs within Region V, case
studies of successful applications
of regulatory biology, technical
papers on selected topics, and
follow-up discussions of issues
relating to the technical paper
topics.
We were fortunate to have Dr.
James Karr, from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, present a
very critical keynote address
regarding the application and
implementation of instream
biological monitoring and criteria
data in USEPA programs. The State
program overviews highlighted the
successful use of existing programs
and the development of newer
programs. The technical
presentations and subsequent
discussion groups addressed the
following five topics: citizen
monitoring, inland lakes and
wetlands, Great Lakes and harbors,
biocriteria, and hazardous waste
sites.
Discussion Groups
Each discussion group met for a
minimum of two hours following the
close of the technical sessions, and
most groups met for a portion of the
following morning. Each discussion
group leader was asVed to prepare a
list of issues for which
reconmendations would be made by
consensus. The reconmendations for
each group are presented below.
Citizen Monitoring Discussion Group
Recommendations
Meg Kerr (USEPA Office of Water) and
John Kopec (Ohio DNR) led this
137
-------
Davis
discussion group. The group
acknowledges that three key problems
existed for implementing citizen
monitoring programs: (1) limited
resources (equipment and staff), (2)
lack of recognition with the State
regulatory agency, and (3) lack of
coordination between State agencies
involved with natural resource
protection. To reduce these
concerns, the group recommended
that:
1. The recommendations made to USEPA
by the May 1988 Workshop on
Citizen Monitoring (held in Rhode
Island) be implemented.
2. USEPA should include citizen
monitoring in the 305(b) process
and (1) encourage the use of
citizen monitoring data through
the 305(b) guidance documents,
and (2) encourage the States to
solicit comments on 305(b)
assessments via public hearings
and distribution of draft 305 (b)
reports.
3. USEPA should designate national
and regional citizen monitoring
coordinators. Regional
coordinators would:
- help States promote citizen
monitoring in national and
local media
- coordinate citizen monitoring
activities with non-EPA State
and Federal agencies
- provide technical assistance to
citizen monitoring groups
- serve as an information
clearinghouse
- coordinate equipment purchases
to increase cost effectiveness
of large purchases
- provide information on funding
sources and opportunities
4. Regional environmental education
coordinators are encouraged to
promote citizen monitoring
activities through the EPA
Environmental Youth Award
Program.
5. USEPA is encouraged to
investigate and promote the use
of graduate students, EPA
interns, and retirees for
assistance to State citizen
monitoring programs. These people
could assist with:
- in-depth analysis and
validation of volunteers data.
Many States don't have the time
to perform rigorous analysis of
their data. Results should be
published in peer- reviewed
journcils to enhance
professional acceptance of
citizen monitoring programs.
- development of training
materials.
- development and refinement of
monitoring methods.
6. USEPA should write an article(s)
in the EPA. journal about citizen
monitoring.
7. Citizen monitoring should be
incorporated into future EPA
Monitoring Symposia.
Biocriteria Discussion Group
Larry Snepard (EPA-Region V, IBEAC)
and Linda Hoist (EPA-Region V,
IBEAC) were the discussion group
leaders. Recent developments on
biocriteria issues brought to our
attention at the National Workshop
on Biological Monitoring and
Criteria (December 1987) and as a
result of recent efforts to develop
a national biocriteria policy. The
discussion covered five topics: (1)
the "weight-of-evidence" approach
138
-------
Meeting Summary
versus the "triple-jeopardy"
approach, (2) numerical versus
narrative biocriteria, (3) non-point
sources, (4) application of
biocriteria to lakes, wetlands,
large rivers, and estuaries, and (5)
quality assurance and quality
control concerns. A consensus was
reached that the formation of a
Region V technical workgroup for
biosuryeys (similar to the Regional
Biomonitoring Task Force) would help
to standardize methods and promote
the usefulness of biosurveys with
the Region.
The following are specific
recommendations from the discussion
group:
1. An integrated approach (i.e.
weight -of-evidence) should be
used to develop NFDES permit
limitations. This approach fully
utilizes toxicity test,
biosurveys, and chemical-specific
information and bases the
regulatory decisions on the
quality and quantity of the data.
This approach is recommended
instead of the "triple jeopardy"
approach which uses any single
piece of information as evidence
of use impairment. The weight-of-
evidence approach has
successfully been applied in the
State of Chio and is relatively
conservative since anti-
degradation is strictly enforced
and the decisions require a
demonstration of use attainment
by more than one biological
measure. We should continue to
encourage the inclusion of
biosurvey information in the
wasteload allocation process.
2. The incorporation of biological
surveys into State programs
should be encouraged but not
required. Whether to use
narrative or numerical
biocriteria in State water
quality standards should be
decided by the individual States
that will have to implement and
enforce the program.
3. The importance of biocriteria in
identifying problem areas (i.e.
non-attainment) due to either
point or non-point sources should
continue to be stressed.
Biocriteria can be used both to
show the level of impairment in a
waterbody and to identify goals
for attainment.
4. The use of biosurvey techniques
and biocriteria should not be
limited to small rivers, but
should be expanded to lakes,
wetlands, large rivers, and
estuaries. The current techniques
for evaluating small, lotic
systems can be modified to be
applicable to other systems once
the mechanics of the appropriate
metrics are formulated.
5. Concern over Qft/QC procedures for
biosurveys will be greatly
reduced if States develop and
document standard field and data
evaluation methods. If these
methods are in place, there is no
reason why the quality control
for biosurveys should be any more
problematic than for chemical
monitoring and toxicity testing.
Great Lakes and H^T^JTS Discussion
Group Recommendations
The discussion group leader was
Glenn Warren (USEF&, GLNPO). Several
aspects of Great Lakes biomonitoring
and bioassessment were discussed in
this session. The Great Lakes
represent a range of habitats and
sampling difficulties for biological
assessment and monitoring.
Currently, very little development
work has been done on biosurvey
139
-------
Davis
methods addressing the specific
problems in the Great Lakes. Our
recommendations are:
1. Develop benthic macroinvertebrate
and fish community-based indices
for the nearshore and harbor
areas. Ideally, these indices
could be used in any of the Great
Lakes, taking into account inter-
lake differences, and provide an
economical tool.
2. Utilize the sediment quality
triad approach to provide
accurate assessments of sediment
contaminant problems. Although
the expense of this approach may
preclude it from general use, it
should be used in those
circumstances in which it would
provide the most useful data.
3. Multiple tests should be
encouraged for problem
identification including
community-based and in-situ
toxicity tests.
Hazardous Waste Site Discussion
Group Recommendations
The discussion group leaders were
Wayne Davis (USEPA Region V) and
Dave Charters (USEPA, Headquarters
Office of Superfund). One primary
topic of discussion was the
establishment of a Biological
Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) in
Region V to provide the Office of
Superfund with expert assistance on
biological assessment issues. BTAGs
successfully function in EPA
Region's 2 and 3 and are being
encouraged by EPA Headquarters for
implementation in each region. The
recommendations of this discussion
group were as follows:
1. Region V should establish a
Biological Technical Assistance
Group for Superfund. This group
should be chaired by the
Environmental Sciences Division
and coordinated by the Office of
Superfund Region V.
2. The BTAG would address the
tecTTncgji issues of biological
assessments such as biological
resources, fate and transport
mechanisms that affect those
resources, and mitigation design.
3. The BTAG would function as an
advisory group to the Superfund
Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
and provide technical
recommendations .
4. The RPM would have the authority
to either accept or reject the
BTAG recommendations.
5. The BTAG would not act as a forum
for Natural Resource Trustee
issues.
6. The BTAG should have
representation from EPA Region V
Divisions and Offices, the State
regulatory agencies , Department
of Interior including the
Geological Survey and. the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the
Department of Commerce including
NOAA. Other participants would be
added as deemed necessary.
7. Region V»s Superfund Office
should address ecological
concerns in a realistic and
technically acceptable fashion in
each project than comes to their
attention.
Inland Lakes and
Discussion
Group Recommspffotion
The discussion group leaders were
Wayne Gorski (USEPA Region V) and
John Schneider (USEPA Region V) . The
following recommendations were
presented.
140
-------
Meeting Suranary
1. Comprehensive standards should be
developed for lakes and wetlands
that includes a suitable
biological index for habitat
assessment.
2. Local units of
government/generators should be
held responsible for the control
of nuisance conditions that
affect the proper functioning of
wetlands and lakes.
3. A system of transferable
development credits by local
units of government should be
implemented to facilitate the
control of inappropriate land
uses within their jurisdictional
boundaries.
Participants and Meeting Abstracts
Die abstracts of papers presented
at the meeting but not appearing in
the proceedings appear in Appendix
1. A list of the registrants and
participants to the meeting
(excluding the keynote and welcoming
addresses) appears in Appendix 2.
Plans for the next Midwest Pollution
Control Biologists Meeting, in the
spring of 1990, will include wide
participation by private-sector
biologists.
Acknowledgements
We greatly appreciated the support
from all of the professionals
involved in this meeting, in
particular our discussion group
leaders and technical session
moderators. Special thanks to Mike
McCarthy and his staff from
Research Triangle Institute for
making many of the crucial
arrangements for the meeting and
some of the participants. Drones
Simon provided a great deal of
support for the planning and
coordination of the meeting. Tnis
meeting was funded by USEPA's
Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division in Headquarters and hosted
and coordinated by USEPA Region V's
Instream Biocriteria and Ecological
Assessment Committee.
141
-------
Davis
Appendix 1. Abstracts of papers presented at the 1989 Midwest Pollution
Control Biologists Meeting not appearing in the proceedings.
Toxicity of Sediments fran the Rax River and Green Bay, late Michigan
Gerald T. Ankley, Albert Katko, and John W. Arthur U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Environmental Research Laboratory 6201 Congdon Blvd.
DulUth, MN 55804.
Die Fox River/Green Bay system has been heavily impacted by pollutant
inputs from both point and nonpoint sources. The objectives of this study
were to evaluate the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants from 13
sites within the system and identify causative toxic agents. Interstitial
(pore) water from sediments at several sites produced both acute and chronic
toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephales promelas, and Selenastrum
capricornutum. Manipulation of the pore water indicated that the observed
toxicity was pH-dependent and could be reduced by a zeolite resin,
suggesting the presence of ammonia. Measurement of ammonia in the pore
water revealed concentrations sufficient to result in a significant degree
of the observed toxicity. The implications of these results in terms of
sediment toxicity assessment will be discussed.
Recent Mater Quality in the Grand Calumet River Basin as Measured by
Benthic Invertebrates. Greg R. Bright Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 5500 W. Bradbury St. Indianapolis, IN 46241.
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal in northwest Indiana are
seriously polluted tributary and harbor areas on Lake Michigan. Biologists
from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management collected benthic
invertebrates from the basin during the summers of 1986-88 to document local
conditions, to help determine causes of biological stress, and to provide a
baseline for measuring future changes. Collections were made on artificial
substrates. 1he benthic communities observed each year indicated stress
from both low dissolved oxygen and toxic substances. Although the sediments
are highly contaminated with metals, stress from metals toxicity was less
likely than from cyanides and/or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The most
biologically depressed site received wastewater from a large steel mill and
from combined sewer overflows and generally had the most highly contaminated
sediments. The benthic community appeared least stressed in 1986, when Lake
Michigan water levels were at historic highs. Similar studies done since
1979 show that water quality in the Grand Calumet River Basin has improved
markedly since that time.
Tne Ctiio Lake Condition Index: Integration of Biological Parameters into an
Overall Assessment of Lake Condition. Bob Davic Ohio EPA, WCM&A 2110 £.
Aurora Rd. Twinsburg, CH 44087.
In order to comply with the 1988 USEPA 305(b) report, the Ctiio EPA
developed a multiparameter lake classification protocol to assess the
overall condition of its 417 public lakes. The index is comprised of 13
parameters that represent four general categories of lake condition:
biological, physical, chemical, and public perception.. Biological parameters
include nuisance growths of macrophytes, fecal coliform bacteria, primary
production based on chlorophyll a, fish tissue contamination, and a yet to
be developed fish index of biological integrity. Different sets of
142
-------
Meeting Summary
biological parameters are used to determine attainment of the fisnable vs.
swiimnable Clean Water Act goals.
Superfund»s Biological Technical Assessment Group (HEAG): Its Goal and
Function Within Region n. Roland B. Hemmett, Chief Ambient Monitoring
Section and Mark D. Sprenger Surveillance and Monitoring Branch
Environmental Services Division U.S. EFA, Region II Bldg. 209, Woodbridge
Ave., MS-220 Edison, NJ 08837.
Die concept of using a conmittee of regional expertise (the BTAG) to
assist hazardous waste site managers with environmental issues has been
effectively used for over l year in Region II. The Region II BTAG
activities are initiated through the Environmental Services Division, but
they include representation from a number of other Divisions, along with
representatives from Headquarters as well as other Federal and State
agencies. The BTAG addresses environmental issues that are of concern to
site managers. The BTAG will assist at State lead, fund lead, enforcement,
and removal actions, with the recommendations being made directly to EFA
site managers. Through a cooperative effort between participating agencies
and regional personnel, consensus recommendations are made that can reduce
redundant and extraneous sampling. With the implementation of the new
Hazardous Ranking System and increasing attention to the costs associated
with actions at hazardous waste sites, the BTAG will play an increasingly
important role in assisting hazardous waste site managers.
Bioassessmertt of Lake Erie Harbors and the Nearshore Zone Using Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Communities
Kenneth A. Krieger Water Quality laboratory Heidelberg College 310 E.
Market St. Tiffin, CH 44883.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled quantitatively in 1978 and 1979
in the nearshore zone including the harbors of Lake Erie between Conneaut
and Vermilion, Ohio. Significant differences between harbor and nonharbor
areas, as determined by the Mann-Whitney U test applied to average
abundances of the taxa, coupled with pollution indices, revealed that the
harbors were severely degraded, with at most moderate degradation elsewhere.
The pollution indices relied on the abundance, proportion, or species
composition of the oligochaetes. Chironomids, sphaerid clams, and snails
also provided some indications of environmental quality. In 1988 and 1989,
the benthic community is again being sampled in Cleveland Harbor and
vicinity to confirm the extent of a suspected improvement in environmental
quality since the 1978-1979 study. The present study should provide a finer
spatial resolution of conditions in this smaller shoreline reach than the
earlier study because of enhanced sample replication at each site and
sampling both in the fall and spring.
The usefulness of Ecoregions as a Framework for Biononitoring of Fish in
Wisconsin Streans. John Lyons Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
3911 Fish Hatchery Rd. Madison, WI 53711.
Efforts to use biotic communities to monitor environmental degradation
require a framework in which «'natural" differences (i.e., differences not
caused by degradation) among communities are taken into account. A
landscape classification that divides the United States into ecoregions has
143
-------
Davis
been proposed by the U.S. EPA as such as framework. To evaluate the
usefulness of this classification, I examined the correspondence between
ecoregions and fish distribution in Wisconsin streams. Cluster and
ordination analyses indicated that correspondence was better than expected
by chance, and that different ecoregions tended to have different fish
assemblages. However, the ecoregion classification was fairly iirprecise,
and within-ecoregion heterogeneity and among-ecoregion overlap in assemblage
composition were substantial. A more precise classification of stream fish
assemblages could be achieved using maximum summer water temperature, stream
gradient, substrate, and riparian vegetation. This alternate classification
requires detailed site-specific data and may not be valid for other states.
I conclude that the ecoregion classification is useful as a broad-scale
framework for monitoring stream fish assemblages over large geographic areas
of Wisconsin, but that a different framework is needed for smaller areas.
USETA's Biological Criteria Guidance: An Update. Suzanne K. Macy Marcy,
Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards 401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460.
The Criteria and Standards Division, within the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, is developing preliminary program and technical
guidance documents on biological criteria development. Both documents will
draw heavily from the experiences of States currently using and/or
developing biological criteria. The program guidance document will outline
alternative approaches for developing and implementing biological criteria
within States; the technical guidance document will synthesize and describe
research techniques used for assessing and comparing the biological
integrity of surface waters. Subsequent work will entail revising and
updating these documents based on new research; academic, State, and
Regional review; and comments from those developing and/or implementing
biological criteria.
Use of Hyalella azteca (?imphipoda) in Fresh and Saltwater TtKicity Testing
Marsha Kelly Nelson and C. G. Ingersoll Department of the Interior U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service National Fisheries (Contaminant Research Center Rt.
2, 4200 New Haven Rd. Columbia, MD 65201.
Bioassessment of contaminants associated with fresh and saltwater
sediments and effluents can be determined using the amphipod Hyalella
azteca. This euryhaline species is found naturally in freshwater, at H5 ppt
estuarine salinity, and inland bodies of saltwater up to H22 ppt. This
broad salinity tolerance facilitates testing a continuum of contaminated
sediments and effluents from freshwater wells into saltwater environments.
H. azteca is easily cultured, reproduces continually, and grows rapidly.
Successful H. azteca cultures range in salinities from 0 to 15 ppt» and
tests have been conducted in salinities from 0 ppt to 23 ppt (H30,300 ppm
total water hardness as CaCOS). The biological endpoints developed for
acute and chronic exposures include survival, growth, and instar
development. In solid-phase sediment exposures, H. azteca burrows into the
sediment surface and is tolerant of a wide range of sediment textures.
Laboratory static and flow-through, partial or full line cycle, sediment
144
-------
Meeting Sunnary
exposures provide useful toxicity information for a hazard assessment in
pollution-degraded areas.
Development of a National Policy en the Use of Biological Criteria and
Integrated Assessments in the Hater Quality Program. James L. Plafkin U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460.
The draft National Policy on the Use of Biological Criteria and Integrated
Assessments is outlined. Principal applications of biological assessments
are identified and compared to their limitations. Information is presented
on States using biosurveys in their base programs, those already interested
in developing biocriteria, current State capabilities, and projected needs.
Estimates of EFA Regional personnel needed to support the States are also
summarized. Related activities involving revision of the Agency Operating
Guidance, development of program and technical guidance, and proposed R&D
initiatives are also discussed.
Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites. Ronald Preston U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region III 303 Methodist Bldg., llth &
Chopline Wheeling, WV 26003.
A thorough assessment of the environmental impacts from hazardous waste
sites requires the collection and evaluation of ecological data
characterizing effects to the biota associated with the site. While
chemical analysis is an essential first step of hazardous waste site
characterization, ecological data are also needed to assess impacts of the
site on living resources, to allow future monitoring of cleanup
effectiveness as a result of Superfund remedial actions, and to meet the
information needs of responsible natural resource agencies. In order to
address the need for ecological evaluations at Superfund sites in Region
III, representatives from USEFA and Federal natural resource agencies have
formed a «'Bioassessment Work Group" that meets monthly to provide
technical reconmendations to Superfund project managers on biological
studies that may be needed at specific sites. The review process performed
by the work group includes evaluations of the contaminants of concern,
characteristics of the site, and recommended ecological endpoints required
to describe environmental impacts.
Assessing Sediment Contamination in Great lakes Areas of Concern.
Philippe Ross Associate Aquatic Toxicologist Illinois Natural History Survey
607 E. Peabody Dr. Champaign, H. 61820-6970.
Section 118(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act of 1987 calls for the USEPA's
Great Takes National Program Office (GLNPO) to undertake a 5-year study and
demonstration program for the assessment and removal of contaminants from
Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs), with emphasis on sediment pollutants.
The program, called «'Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS), represents a new direction in that in-place source contamination,
rather than dredged material disposal, is the principal consideration
driving the research. The main objectives of the program are to: (l) assess
the nature and extent of contamination at key AOCs; (2) evaluate the
potential efficacy of remedial technologies; (3) conduct field
demonstrations of the most promising clean-up methods; and (4) provide cost
145
-------
Davis
and efficiency information for various remedial alternatives. Ihe
assessment phase of the project will have physical, chemical, and biological
components. Ihe biological work will entail both toxicological testing (a
suite of bioassays recommended by the International Joint Commission) and in
situ studies (benthic community structure, fish health, and abnormalities).
One resulting data set will be suitable for use in integrative evaluation
approaches.
The Role of Exotic and Indigenous Species in Wetland Bioassessment.
John P. Schneider U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V 536 S.
Clark St. Chicago, IL 60605.
Ecosystems subjected to exogenous stressors often respond with a change
in species diversity. Diversity may decrease due to the loss of indigenous
species or increase due to the invasion of species exotic to the ecosystem.
The Index of Innate Diversity (IID) is a new index that sensitively measures
such a shift in species composition. Suburban development is a major cause
of wetland loss and degradation in the United States. In the New Jersey
Pine Barrens, suburban engineering features alter the hydrology and water
chemistry of adjacent cedar swamp wetlands. Quantitative measurements of
species composition and community structure were collected, and the IID
provided the most sensitive measurement of the wetland response to a
gradient of stressors associated with suburban development.
Use of Integrated Ecological Assessment Techniques in Assessing
Environmental In^acts at a Hazardous Waste Site. Mark D. Sprenger, David W.
Charters, and Richard G. Henry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
II, Environmental Response Team and REAC/Roy F. Weston Bldg. 209,
Woodbridge Ave., MS-220 Edison, NJ 08837.
Benthic invertebrate surveys, toxicity testing, and chemical analysis were
conducted in concert to present an integrated assessment of the ecological
impact of a hazardous waste site in New Jersey. Initial assessments of the
site utilizing traditional techniques of chemical analysis in combination
with literature toxicity values proved unable to distinguish the subtle
changes occurring at the site. The integrated technique was able to
distinguish subtle, but significant changes in the benthic community
structure. Laboratory solid-phase toxicity tests run on sediment collected
from the benthic survey stations also supported the conclusions of adverse
impacts. Utilization of traditional techniques resulted in the erroneous
indication that several miles of stream bed required remediation. The
integrated approach showed that the remedial action could be restricted to
the area adjacent to the site and an area only encompassing several hundred
yards downstream.
A Preliminary Assessment of Biological Conditions in Late Erie Estuary Areas
of Gnio. Roger F. Thoma Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1030 King Ave.
Columbus, CH 43212.
At the present date, a total of 12 estuary areas of streams tributary to
Lake Erie in Ohio have been sampled for fish community data at a total of 68
sites. The data collected have been analyzed using the Ohio EPA's Iwb
(Index of well-being) and IBI (Index of Biotic Integrity) as delimited in
the Ohio EPA's Users Manuals, Vols. I, II, and III. Conditions have ranged
146
-------
Meeting Summary
from an IBI of 14 on the Cuyahoga River (heavily inpacted by municipal and
industrial discharges) and Little Muddy Creek (a shallow mud flat area) to
41 on the Grand River (an exceptional warmwater habitat stream), with the
Grand River having the highest average IBI score of 33.6. Index of
well-being scores have ranged from 3.4 in the Cuyahoga River and Chagrin
River (a shallow mud flat channel) to 8.9 on the Sandusky River, with the
Portage River having the highest average Iwb score of 7.9. In general,
biological conditions are most affected by water quality conditions and
habitat. TJiose streams with the higher municipal and industrial discharge
loadings had the lowest average IBI and Iwb scores (the Cuyahoga River had
16.3 and 3.9, respectively), while nonpoint problems were not as strongly
expressed.
147
-------
Davis
Appendix 2. List of the participants and registrants of the 1989 Midwest
Pollution Control Biologists Meeting.
Thomas Aartila
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 12436
Milwaukee, Wl 53212-0436
(414) 562-9618
Allen Anderson, Jr.
Illinois EPA
1701 S. First Ave., Suite 600
Maywood, IL 60153
(312) 345-9780
Max A. Anderson
EPA, Region V, ESD
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312)353-5524
Gerald T. Ankley
EPA, ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
(218)720-5528
John R. Baker
EPA, Las Vegas/Lockheed
1050E. Flamingo
Las Vegas, NV 89119
(702) 734-3253
Joe Ball
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
(608) 266-7390
John J. Bascietto
EPA HQ, OPPE
Office of Policy Analysis
401 M St., SW (PM 220)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5874
Raymond A. Beaumier
Ohio EPA
P.O. Box 1049, 1800 Water Mark Dr.
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
(614) 644-2872
Robert F. Beltran
EPA, GLNPO
230 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-0826
Judy A. Bostrom
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd. N.
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)297-3363
Carole T. Braverman
EPA, OHEA
536 S. Clark St., 10th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-3808
C. Lee Bridges
Indiana DEM
5500 W. Bradbury St.
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317)243-5030
Greg R. Bright
Indiana DEM
5500 W. Bradbury St.
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317)243-5114
Amy J. Burns
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Rd.
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3362
G. Allen Burton, Jr., Ph.D.
Wright State University
Biological Sciences Dept.
Dayton, OH 45435
(513) 873-2655
Carylyn A. Bury
EPA, GLNPO
230 S. Dearborn St., 5GL
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-3575
148
-------
Meeting Sumnary
Dennis E. Clark
Indiana DEM
5500 W. Bradbury St.
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317)243-5037
John S. Grossman
Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 25007
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-8306
Bob Davic
Ohio EPA, WQM&A
2110E. Aurora Rd.
Twinsburg, OH 44087
(216)425-9171
Wayne S. Davis
EPA, Region V
536 S. Clark St. (10th Floor)
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 886-6233
Jeffrey E. DeShon
Ohio EPA
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 294-5841
Ihsan Eler
EPA, Region V
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 886-6249
Howard W. Essig
Illinois EPA
1701 S. First Ave., Suite 600
Maywood.lL 60153
(312) 345-9780
Gary Fandrei
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-7363
Jeff Gagler
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St., 5WQS-TUB-8
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6679
James D. Giattina
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St., 5-WQS
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0139
Wayne Gorski
EPA, Region V
Watershed Management Unit
230 S. Dearborn St., 5WQS
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6683
James Green
EPA, Region III
303 Methodist Bldg.
Wheeling, WV 26003
(304)233-2312
Karen Hamilton
EPA, Region VIII
999 18th St., Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1576
Michael S. Henebry
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-8779
Tim Henry
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-6107
Allison Hiltner
EPA, Office of Superfund
230 S. Dearborn St., 5HS-11
Chicago, IL 60613
(312)353-6417
Ihor Hlohowskyj
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Ave., Bldg. 362
Argonne, IL 60439
(312) 972-3478
Linda Hoist
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0135
149
-------
Davis
William Horns
Illinois Natural History Survey
P.O. Box 634
Zion, IL 60099
(312) 872-8676
Larry Kapustka
EPA, ERL-Corvallis
200 S.W. 35th St.
Corvallis.OR 97333
(503) 757-4606
FTS 420-4606
James H. Keith
Geosciences Research Assoc., Inc.
627 N. Morton St.
Bloomington, IN 47404
(812) 336-0972
Meg Kerr
EPA HQ, OWRS
MDSD (WH-553)
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7056
Marvin King
Illinois EPA
2309 W. Main St.
Marion, IL 62959
(618)997-4392
Roy Kleinsasser
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
P.O. Box 947
San Marcos, TX 78667
(512)353-3480
Noel W. Kohl
EPA, Region V
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 886-6224
John S. Kopec
Ohio DNR
Division of Natural
Areas & Preserves
Scenic Rivers Section
1889 Fountain Square Ct.
Columbus OH 43224
(614) 265-6458
150
Kenneth A. Kreiger
Heidelberg College
Water Quality Laboratory
31OE. Market St.
Tiffin, OH 44883
(419)448-2226
Jim Kurtenbach
EPA, Region II
Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08837
(201)321-6695
Paul LaUberte
Wisconsin DNR
Box 4001
Eau Claire, Wl 54702
(715)839-3724
Charles G. Lee
EPA, PCB Control Section
230 S. Dearborn St.
MS 5-SPT-7
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-1771
Stuart Lewis
Ohio DNR
Scenic Rivers Section
Bldg. F, Fountain Square Ct.
Columbus, OH 43224
(614) 265-6460
Bruce LJttell
EPA, Region VII, ENSV
25 Funston Rd.
Kansas City, KS 66115
(913)236-3884
FTS 757-3884
Maxine C. Long
EPA, QA Section
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312)353-3114
Arthur Lubin
EPA, Region V, ESD
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 886-6226
James Luey
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St., 5WQS-TUB-8
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0132
-------
Meeting Suranary
John Lyons
Wisconsin DNR
3911 Fish Hatchery Rd.
Madison, Wl 53711
(608) 275-3223
Steve Mace
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 12436
Milwaukee, Wl 53212-0436
(414) 562-9669
Brook McDonald
Wheaton Park District, IL
666 S. Main St.
Wheaton, IL 60187
(312) 665-5534
Dennis M. McMullen
TAI, c/O U.S. EPA, EMSL-CIN
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH 45244
(513)533-8114
William Melville
EPA, Office of Ground Water
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-1504
Marcia Kelly Nelson
Dept. of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Fisheries Contaminant Research Center
Rt. 2,4200 New Haven Rd.
Columbia, MO 65201
(314) 875-5399
Robin A. Nims
Fish and Wildlife Service
718 N. Walnut St.
Bloomington, IN 47401
(812) 334-4261
Steve Ostrodka
EPA, Office of Superfund
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-3011
Paul Pajak
Wisconson DNR
P.O. Box 12436
Milwaukee, Wl 53212-0436
(414) 562-9700
Harry Parrot
USDA Forest Service
31OW. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee, Wl 53203
(414)291-3342
FTS 362-3342
Ronald Pasch
Tennessee Valley Authority
270 Haney Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN 37402
(615)751-7309
Robert E. Pearson
EPA, Standards Unit
230 S. Dearborn St., 5WQS
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0138
Robert Pepin
EPA, Revion V, Water Division
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-0157
John Persell
Minnesota-Chippewa Tribe
P.O. Box 217
Cass Lake, MN 56633
(218)335-6306
James L Plafkin
EPA HO, OWRS
MDSD (WH-553)
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7005
Tom Pqulson
University of Illinois
Biological Sciences m/c 066
P.O. Box 4348
Chicago, IL 60680
(312) 996-4537 -
Ronald Preston
EPA, Region III
303 Methodist Bldg., 11th & Chopline
Wheeling, WV 26003
(304) 233-2315
Bob Pryor
Tennessee Valley Authority
SPB2S 231 P-K
Knoxville.TN 37902
(615)632-6695
151
-------
Davis
Kristina Reichenbach
Illinois DENR
RR1,Box371
Petersburg, IL 62675
(217)785-8575
Daniel L Rice
Ohio DNR
Division of Natural Areas & Preserves
Bldg. F, Fountain Square Ct.
Columbus, OH 43224
(614) 265-6469
Ted Rockwell
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-5266
Philippe Ross
Illinois Natural History Survey
607 E. Peabody Dr.
Champaign, IL 61820-6970
(217)244-5054
Carolyn Rumery
Wisconsin DNR
Lake Management Program
P.O. Box 7921, WR/2
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
(608)266-8117
Robert A. Schact
Illinois EPA
1701 S. First Ave.
Maywood, IL 60153
(312) 345-9780
Lawrence J. Schmitt
EPA, Region V
Water Quality Branch, Standards Unit
230 S. Dearborn St., 5WQS-TUB-08
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-9024
John P. Schneider
EPA, Region V
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 886-0880
Ken Schreiber
Wisconsin DNR
1300 W. Clairemont Ave.
Eau Claire, Wl 54702
(715)839-3798
Jerry Schulte
ORSANCO
49 E. 4th St., Suite 815
Cincinnati, OH 45248
(513)421-1151
Donna F. Sefton
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Rd.
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362
Larry Shepard
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-1506
Thomas P. Simon
EPA, Central Regional Laboratory
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 353-5524
Joseph B. Smith
Dept. of Interior
230 S. Dearborn St., Suite 3422
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-1050
Mark D. Sprenger
EPA, Region II
Bldg. 209, Woodbridge Ave., MS-220
Edison, NJ 08837
(201)906-6998
FTS 340-6998
Charles S. Steiner
EPA, Region V
536 S. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 353-5524
Denise Steurer
EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-6115
Janie W. Strunk
Tennessee Valley Authority
HB 2S 270C, 311 Broad St.
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
(615)751-8637
152
-------
Meeting Stnmaiy
Robert B. Sulski Chris Yoder
Illinois EPA Ohio EPA, WQM&A
1701 S. First Ave., Suite 600 1800 Water Mark Dr.
Maywood, IL 60153 Columbus, OH 43266-0149
(312) 345-9780 (614) 466-1488
Roger F. Thoma
Ohio EPA
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 466-3700
Don Treasure
Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 25007
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-8306
Linda Vogt
Illinois DENR
325 W. Adams, Rm. 300
Springfield, IL 62704-1892
(217)785-8590
Robert Wakeman
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 12436
Milwaukee, Wl 53212-0436
(414) 562-9691
Glenn Warren
EPA, GLNPO
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-2405
William Wawrzyn
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 12436
Milwaukee, Wl 53212-0436
(414)562-9668
Richard L Whitman
Indiana University, NW
3400 Broadway
Gary, IN 46408
(219)980-6589
John L Winters, Jr.
Indiana DEM
5500 W. Bradbury St.
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317)243-5028
153
------- |