EPA/XXX/X-XX/XXX
April 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM-
SURFACE WATERS:
WESTERN PILOT STUDY
FIELD OPERATIONS MANUAL FOR
WADEABLE STREAMS
Edited by
David V. Peck1, James M. Lazorchak2, and Donald J. Klemm2
1	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Ecology Branch
Western Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Corvallis, OR 97333
2	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecosystems Research Branch
Ecological Exposure Research Division
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
by
James M. Lazorchak1, Alan T. Herlihy2, Donald J. Klemm1, and Steven G. Paulsen3
This manual contains procedures for collecting samples and measurement data from
various biotic and abiotic components of streams in the western United States. These
procedures were initially developed and used between 1993 and 1998 in research studies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program (EMAP), and published in Lazorchak et al. (1998). The purposes of this
manual are to: (1) Document the procedures used in the collection of field data and various
types of samples for the EMAP Western Pilot Study (EMAP-WP) and (2) provide these
procedures for use by other groups participating in EMAP-WP or implementing stream
monitoring programs similar to EMAP.
These procedures are designed for use during a one-day visit by a crew of four per-
sons to sampling sites located on smaller, wadeable streams (stream order 1 through 3, or
higher for semi-arid and arid regions of the western U.S.). They were initially developed
based on information gained from a workshop of academic, State, and Federal experts
(Hughes, 1993), and subsequent discussions between aquatic biologists and ecologists
within EMAP, with scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assess-
ment Program (NAWQA), with biologists from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and with
State and Regional biologists within EPA Region 3. EMAP staff has also sought information
from various Federal and State scientists in the western U.S.
U.S. EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Ecological Exposure Research Division, 26 W. Martin L. King Dr.,
Cincinnati, OH 45268.
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, c/o U.S. EPA. 200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, OR 97333.
U.S. EPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, 200 SW 35th St.,
Corvallis, OR 97333.
1

-------
^^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
EMAP initiated additional research activities in 1997 to develop field procedures for
use in nonwadeable riverine systems. These procedures are currently still under develop-
ment and will be published separately.
1.1 OVERVIEW OF EMAP-SURFACE WATERS
The U.S. EPA has designated EMAP to develop the necessary monitoring tools to
determine the current status, extent, changes and trends in the condition of our nation's
ecological resources on regional and national scales (U.S. EPA, 1998). The nation's ecolog-
ical resources are a national heritage, as essential to the country now and in the future as
they have been in the past. Data indicate that regional and international environmental
problems may be endangering these essential resources. The potential threats include acid
rain, ozone depletion, point and nonpoint sources of pollution, and climate change.
The tools being developed by EMAP include appropriate indicators of ecological condi-
tion, and statistical sampling designs to determine the status and extent of condition, and to
detect regional-scale trends in condition. When fully implemented in a national monitoring
framework, such as that being developed by the White House Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources (CENR; Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 1997),
these tools will provide environmental decision makers with statistically valid interpretive
reports describing the health of our nation's ecosystems (Whittier and Paulsen, 1992).
Knowledge of the health of our ecosystems will give decision makers and resource manag-
ers the ability to make informed decisions, set rational priorities, and make known to the
public costs, benefits, and risks of proceeding or refraining from implementing specific
environmental regulatory actions. Ecological status and trend data will allow decision
makers to objectively assess whether or not the nation's ecological resources are respond-
ing positively, negatively, or not at all, to existing or future regulatory programs.
The following three objectives guide EMAP research activities (U.S. EPA, 1998):
Estimate the current status, extent, changes and trends in indicators of the
condition of the nation's ecological resources on a regional basis with known
confidence.
Monitor indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat condition and seek
associations between human-induced stresses and ecological condition.
Provide periodic statistical summaries and interpretive reports on ecological
status and trends to resource managers and the public.
2

-------
^^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
The EMAP Surface Waters Resource Group (EMAP-SW) is charged with developing
the appropriate tools to assess the health of lakes, streams, and wetlands in the United
States. The first phase of the program started with a study of northeastern lakes between
1991 and 1996 (Larsen and Christie, 1993; Baker et al., 1997). In 1992 and 1993, a pilot
study of wetland ecosystems was conducted in the Prairie Pothole region of the northern
plains region of the U.S. (Peterson et al., 1997). The specific research studies dealing with
streams are described in more detail in the following section.
1.2 STREAM SAMPLING COMPONENTS OF EMAP-SURFACE WATERS
The procedures presented in this manual were developed and refined during several
different research projects conducted between 1993 and 1997. These projects represent
two types of field activities to be performed prior to full-scale implementation of a monitoring
program that addresses EMAP objectives. Pilot projects are intended to answer questions
about proposed ecological indicators, such as plot design (how to obtain representative
samples and data from each stream site), responsiveness to various stressors, evaluation
of alternative methods, and logistical constraints. Pilot studies are not primarily intended to
provide regional estimates of condition, but may provide these estimates for a few indica-
tors.
Demonstration projects are conducted at larger geographic scales, and may be
designed to answer many of the same questions as pilot studies. Additional objectives of
these larger studies are related to characterizing spatial and temporal variability of ecologi-
cal indicators, and to demonstrating the ability of a suite of ecological indicators to estimate
the condition of regional populations of aquatic resources.
1.2.1 Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment Project
The stream sampling component of EMAP-SW was initiated in 1993 in the mid-
Appalachian region of the eastern United States, in conjunction with a Regional-EMAP (R-
EMAP) project being conducted by EPA Region 3. This R-EMAP study was known as the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment study (MAHA), and was carried out over a 4-year pe-
riod. The MAHA project was designed to test the EMAP approach in a few of the most
heavily impacted ecoregions of Region 3, the mid-Appalachians, the Ridge and Valley, the
Central Appalachians, the Piedmont and some of the Coastal Plain.
The Region 3 R-EMAP project was designed to answer the following questions:
3

-------
^^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
What are biological reference conditions for the Central Appalachian Ridge and
Valley Ecoregion?
Do biological communities differ between subregions?
What is the status of mid-Atlantic Highlands stream biota?
Can linkages be established between impairment and possible causes of impair-
ment?
How can an EMAP-like approach be used to design programs to restore and
manage stream resources on a regional scale?
During the MAHA study, 577 wadeable stream sites throughout EPA Region 3 (DE,
MD, VA, WV, PA) and the Catskill Mts. of New York were visited and sampled using the
field protocols being developed by EMAP. Streams were sampled each year during a 10-
week index period from April to July by field crews from EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, State, and contract personnel.
1.2.2	Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program
In 1997 and 1998 the EMAP Surface Waters Program became a collaborator in the
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) project, which is attempting to produce an
assessment of the condition of surface water and estuarine resources. The MAIA project
represented a follow-up to the MAHA study, with an expanded geographic scope (southern
New York to northern North Carolina, with more sites located in the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain ecoregions) and a different index period (July-September). The first year of the MAIA
study, approximately 200 sites (150 wadeable sites, 13 repeated wadeable sites, and ap-
proximately 30 riverine sites) were visited for sampling.
1.2.3	Temporal Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems Project
A special interest component of EMAP-SW is the Temporal Integrated Monitoring of
Ecosystems Project (TIME). The purpose of the TIME project is to assess the changes and
trends in chemical condition in acid-sensitive surface waters (lakes and streams) of the
northeastern and eastern U.S. resulting from changes in acidic deposition caused by the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The TIME project has three goals (Stoddard, 1990):
Monitor current status and trends in chemical indicators of acidification in
acid-sensitive regions of the U.S.
Relate changes in deposition to changes in surface water conditions.
4

-------
^^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
Assess the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act emissions reductions in improv-
ing the acid/base status of surface waters.
1.2.4	Other Projects
The basic procedures and methods presented in this manual have also been used in
other areas of the U.S. as part of R-EMAP projects being conducted by other EPA Regions.
These include Regions 7 (central U.S.), 8 (Colorado), 9 (California), and 10 (Oregon and
Washington). Each of these projects have modified the basic procedures to be compatible
with the geographic region or other project-specific requirements.
1.2.5	Western Pilot Study
The second major geographic study within EMAP is targeted for the states and tribal
nations in the western conterminous U.S. Details regarding this research initiative can be
found in the peer-reviewed research plan (U.S. EPA, 2000). The purpose for this western
study is to further advance the science of monitoring and to demonstrate the application of
core tools from EMAP in monitoring and assessment across the West. The Western
Geographic Study will serve to advance both the science of monitoring and the application
of monitoring to policy, provide an opportunity to push the science and its application to new
levels, both in terms of the type of systems addressed (mountainous and arid systems) and
the size of the region covered (essentially one third of the conterminous U.S), and
demonstrate the application of EMAP designs in answering the urgent and practical assess-
ment questions facing the western EPA Regional Offices, while framing these unique stud-
ies in a methodology that can be extended to the entire nation.
The primary objectives of the Western Pilot Study (EMAP-WP), the surface waters
component of the Western Geographic Study are to:
Develop the monitoring tools (biological indicators, stream survey design, esti-
mates of reference condition) necessary to produce unbiased estimates of the
ecological condition of surface waters across a large geographic area (or areas)
of the West; and
Demonstrate those tools in a large-scale assessment.
The goal of EMAP-WP is to provide answers to three general assessment questions:
1. What proportion of stream and river miles in the western U.S. are in acceptable
(or poor) biological condition?
5

-------
^^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
2.	What is the relative importance of potential stressors (habitat modification, sedi-
mentation, nutrients, temperature, grazing, timber harvest, etc.) in streams and
rivers across the West?; and
3.	With what stressors are streams and rivers in poor biological condition associ-
ated?
The resource population of interest for EMAP-WP are all perennial streams and
rivers as represented in EPA's River Reach File (RF3), with the exception of the "Great
Rivers" (the Columbia, Snake, Colorado and Missouri Rivers). The pilot study will utilize an
EMAP probability design to select sites which are statistically representative of the resource
population of interest. This will allow one to extrapolate ecological results from the sites
sampled to the entire population. A comprehensive set of ecological indicators (see below)
will be implemented in a coarse survey of streams and rivers across all of the West (the
conterminous portions of EPA Regions 8, 9 and 10), as well as in several more spatially-
intensive "focus areas" in each Region (see Figure 1-1). Sample sizes (i.e., numbers of
stream sites) have been chosen to allow eventual estimates of condition to be made for
each state, each Regional focus area, numerous aggregated ecological regions (e.g.,
mountainous areas of the Pacific states, the Southern Basin and Range, etc.), major river
basins, and many other potential geographic classifications.
1.3 SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
The following sections describe the rationale for each of the ecological indicators
currently included in the stream sampling procedures presented in this manual. Evaluation
activities to determine the suitability of individual indicators to robustly determine ecological
condition are ongoing at this time. This information is presented to help users understand
the various field procedures and the significance of certain aspects of the methodologies.
Currently, EMAP considers two principal types of indicators, condition and stressor
(U.S. EPA, 1998). Condition indicators are biotic or abiotic characteristics of an ecosystem
that can provide an estimate of the condition of an ecological resource with respect to some
environmental value, such as biotic integrity. Stressor indicators are characteristics that are
expected to change the condition of a resource if the intensity or magnitude is altered.
6

-------
jEMAP^A/estem_Pilot_Fie!d_0£erationsJ\fenuali^ectionJ_^
Washington
Montana
Oregon

Wyoming
Nevada
California
K'orth Dakoti
South Dakota
EMAP West
Stream
and
River Survey
1999-2004
Special Study Areas and Number of Field Sites
Region 8
II I Colorado Plateaus Ecoregion* (60)
r I Upper Missouri River Basin (160)
E3 Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregion* (60)
Region 9
~ Northern California Coastal Drainage (160)
I I Southern California Coastal Drainage (160)
Region 10
I I Deschutes/John Day River Basins (160)
IP Wenatchee HUC (60)
— Idaho Medium/Large Rivers (60)
'Omernik Level III Ecoregions, January 1999
US EPA. NHEERL-WED
corvaiiis, a.gon	EMAP West Base Study
July 14.1999	also includes
50 sites per state.
Figure 1-1. The geographic scope of the EMAP-Surface Waters Western Pilot Study, including
the "special interest" study areas within each EPA Region.
1.3.1	Water Chemistry
Data are collected from each stream for a variety of physical and chemical constitu-
ents. Information from these analyses is used to evaluate stream condition with respect to
stressors such as acidic deposition (of importance to the TIME project), nutrient enrichment,
and other inorganic contaminants. In addition, streams can be classified with respect to
water chemistry type, water clarity, mass balance budgets of constituents, temperature
regime, and presence of anoxic conditions.
1.3.2	Physical Habitat
Naturally occurring differences among surface waters in physical habitat structure
and associated hydraulic characteristics contributes to much of the observed variation in
species composition and abundance within a zoogeographic province. The structural
complexity of aquatic habitats provides the variety of physical and chemical conditions to
7

-------
^^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
support diverse biotic assemblages and maintain long-term stability. Anthropogenic alter-
ations of riparian areas and stream channels, wetland drainage, grazing and agricultural
practices, and stream bank modifications such as revetments or development, generally
act to reduce the complexity of aquatic habitat and result in a loss of species and ecosys-
tem degradation.
Stressor indicators derived from data collected about physical habitat quality will be
used to help explain or diagnose stream condition relative to various condition indicators.
Important attributes of physical habitat in streams are channel dimensions, gradient, sub-
strate characteristics; habitat complexity and cover; riparian vegetation cover and structure;
disturbance due to human activity, and channel-riparian interaction (Kaufmann, 1993).
Overall objectives for this indicator are to develop quantitative and reproducible indices,
using both multivariate and multimetric approaches, to classify streams and to monitor
biologically relevant changes in habitat quality and intensity of disturbance. Kaufmann et al.
(1998) discuss procedures for reducing EMAP field habitat measurements and observations
to metrics that describe channel and riparian habitat at the reach scale.
1.3.3 Periphyton Assemblage
Periphyton are the algae, fungi, bacteria, and protozoa associated with substrates in
aquatic habitats. These organisms exhibit high diversity and are a major component in
energy flow and nutrient cycling in aquatic ecosystems. Many characteristics of periphyton
community structure and function can be used to develop indicators of ecological conditions
in streams (Hill et al., 1999). Periphyton are sensitive to many environmental conditions,
which can be detected by changes in species composition, cell density, ash free dry mass
(AFDM), chlorophyll, and enzyme activity (e.g., alkaline and acid phosphatase). Each of
these characteristics may be used, singly or in concert, to assess condition with respect to
societal values such as biological integrity and trophic condition.
A hierarchical framework is being used in the development of the periphyton indices
of stream condition. The framework involves the calculation of composite indices for biotic
integrity, ecological sustainability, and trophic condition. The composite indices will be
calculated from measured or derived first-order and second-order indices. The first-order
indices include species composition (richness, diversity), cell density, AFDM, chlorophyll,
and enzyme activity (e.g., Saylor et al., 1979), which individually are indicators of ecological
condition in streams. Second-order indices will be calculated from periphyton characteris-
tics, such as the autotrophic index (Weber, 1973), community similarity compared to refer-
8

-------
^^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
ence sites, and autecological indices (e.g., Lowe, 1974; Lange-Bertalot, 1979; Charles,
1985; Dixit etal, 1992).
1.3.4	Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblage
Benthic macroinvertebrates inhabit the sediment or live on the bottom substrates of
streams. The macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams reflect overall biological integrity
of the benthic community , and monitoring these assemblages is useful in assessing the
status of the water body and discerning trends. Benthic communities respond differently to
a wide array of stressors. As a result of this, it is often possible to determine the type of
stress that has affected a benthic macroinvertebrate community (Plafkin et al., 1989; Klemm
et al., 1990; Barbour et al. 1999). Because many macroinvertebrates have relatively long
life cycles of a year or more and are relatively immobile, macroinvertebrate community
structure is a function of past conditions.
Two different approaches are currently being evaluated to developing ecological
indicators based on benthic invertebrate assemblages. The first is a multimetric approach,
where different structural and functional attributes of the assemblage are characterized as
"metrics". Individual metrics that respond to different types of stressors are scored against
expectations under conditions of minimal human disturbance. The individual metric scores
are then summed into an overall index value that is used to judge the overall level of impair-
ment of an individual stream reach. Examples of multimetric indices based on benthic
invertebrate assemblages include Kerans and Karr (1993), Fore et al. (1996) and Barbour
etal. (1995; 1996).
The second approach being investigated is to develop indicators of condition based
on multivariate analysis of benthic assemblages and associated abiotic variables. Exam-
ples of this type of approach as applied to benthic invertebrate assemblages include
RIVPACS (Wright, 1995), and BEAST (Reynoldson et al., 1995). Rosenberg and Resh
(1993) present various approaches to biological monitoring using benthic invertebrates, and
Norris (1995) briefly summarizes and discusses approaches to analyzing benthic macro-
invertebrate community data.
1.3.5	Aquatic Vertebrate Assemblages
Aquatic vertebrate assemblages of interest to EMAP include fish and amphibians.
The fish assemblage represents a critical component of biological integrity from both an
ecosystem function and a public interest perspective. Historically, fish assemblages have
9

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
been used for biological monitoring in streams more often than in lakes (e.g., Plafkin et al.,
1989; Karr, 1991). Fish assemblages can serve as good indicators of ecological conditions
because fish are long-lived and mobile, forage at different trophic levels, integrate effects of
lower trophic levels, and are reasonably easy to identify in the field (Plafkin et al., 1989).
Amphibians comprise a substantial portion of vertebrate biomass in streams of many areas
of the U.S. (Hairston, 1987; Bury et al., 1991). Reports of dramatic declines in amphibian
biodiversity (e.g., Blaustein and Wake, 1990; Phillips, 1990) has increased the level of
interest in monitoring these assemblages. Amphibians may also provide more information
about ecosystem condition in headwater or intermittent streams in certain areas of the
country than other biological response indicators (Hughes, 1993). The objective of field
sampling is to collect a representative sample of the aquatic vertebrate assemblage by
methods designed to 1) collect all except very rare species in the assemblage and 2) pro-
vide a measure of the abundance of species in the assemblages (McCormick, 1993).
Information collected for EMAP that is related to vertebrate assemblages in streams in-
cludes assemblage attributes (e.g., species composition and relative abundance) and the
incidence of external pathological conditions.
Indicators based on vertebrate assemblages are being developed primarily using the
multimetric approach described in Section 1.3.5 for benthic macroinvertebrates, and origi-
nally conceived by Karr and others (Karr et al., 1986). Simon and Lyons (1995) provide a
recent review of multimetric indicators as applied to stream fish assemblages. (McCormick
et al. (In press) provide an example of a multimetric indicator developed for the Mid-Atlantic
region using EMAP data, based on an evaluation process described by Hughes et al.
(1998).
1.3.6 Fish Tissue Contaminants
Indicators of fish tissue contaminants attempt to provide measures of bioaccumula-
tion of toxic chemicals in fish. The primary purpose of determining contaminant levels in
fish tissue is to provide a measure of the potential exposure of stream systems to toxic
compounds. It is also meant to be used in conjunction with the other stressor indicators
(physical habitat, water chemistry, land use, population density, other records of relevant
anthropogenic stresses) and condition indicators (fish, macroinvertebrates, periphyton) to
help diagnose whether the probable cause of stream degradation, when it is shown by the
condition indicators to occur, is water quality, physical habitat, or both.
The various studies that have been done on fish tissue contaminants have focused
on different parts of the fish: whole fish, fillets, livers. For EMAP-SW, the focus is on
10

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
whole fish because of the emphasis on the ecological health of the whole stream (as op-
posed to a focus on human health concerns). Whole fish are a better indicator of risk to
piscivorous wildlife than fillets. It is hoped to also be able to say something about risks to
human health by analyzing whole fish. Whole fish also present fewer logistical problems for
field crews (no gutting required in the field) and the analytical lab (no filleting necessary).
Samples are prepared for two major categories of fish species. One sample is
prepared using a species whose adults are small (e.g., small minnows, sculpins, or darters).
The second sample is prepared using a species whose adults are of larger size (e.g.,
suckers, bass, trout, sunfish, carp). In addition to being more ubiquitous than the larger fish
(and therefore more likely to be present in sufficient numbers to composite), small fish have
other advantages over large fish. Most importantly, it may be possible to get a more repre-
sentative sample of the contaminant load in that stream segment (although it could be at a
lower level of bioaccumulation) by creating a composite sample from a larger number of
small individuals than by compositing a few individuals of larger species. The major advan-
tage that larger fish could potentially offer, whether predators (piscivores) or bottom feed-
ers, is a higher level of bioaccumulation and thus greater sensitivity to detect contaminants.
The relative bioaccumulation of contaminants by large and small stream fish is not known,
thus the reason for preparing two samples in this study.
In addition, specimens are collected for determination of the presence of various
internal pathogens..
1.4 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE FIELD OPERATIONS MANUAL
Only field-related sampling and data collection activities are presented in this man-
ual. Laboratory procedures and methods (including sample processing and analytical
methods) associated with each ecological indicator are summarized in Chaloud and Peck
(1994); detailed procedures will be published as a separate document.
This manual is organized to follow the sequence of field activities during the 1-day
site visit. Section 2 presents a general overview of all field activities. Section 3 presents
those procedures that are conducted at a "base" location before and after a stream site
visit. Section 4 presents the procedures for verifying the site location and defining a reach
of the stream where subsequent sampling and data collection activities are conducted.
Sections 5 through 14 describes the procedures for collecting samples and field measure-
ment data for various condition and stressor indicators. Specific procedures associated with
each indicator are presented in standalone tables that can be copied, laminated, and taken
11

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
into the field for quick reference. Section 15 describes the final activities that are conducted
before leaving a stream site. Appendix A contains a list of all equipment and supplies
required by a crew to complete all field activities at a stream.
Depending on the specific project and approach to information management, field
teams may also be provided with an information management handbook that contains
instructions for tracking samples and generating sampling status reports as well as using
the computers and associated hardware and software. Field teams are also required to
keep the field operations and methods manual available in the field for reference and to
address questions pertaining to protocols that might arise.
1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Large-scale and/or long-term monitoring programs such as those envisioned for
EMAP require a rigorous quality assurance (QA) program that can be implemented consis-
tently by all participants throughout the duration of the monitoring period. Quality assurance
is a required element of all EPA-sponsored studies that involve the collection of environ-
mental data (Stanley and Verner, 1986). Field teams should be provided a copy of the QA
project plan (e.g., Chaloud and Peck, 1994 for EMAP-SW activities). The QA plan contains
more detailed information regarding QA/QC activities and procedures associated with
general field operations, sample collection, measurement data collection for specific indica-
tors, and data reporting activities. A QA project plan will be prepared for the Western Pilot
Study and distributed to all participants.
Quality control (QC) activities associated with field operations are integrated into the
field procedures. Important QA activities associated with field operations include a compre-
hensive training program that includes practice sampling visits, and the use of a qualified
museum facility or laboratory to confirm any field identifications of biological specimens.
The overall sampling design for EMAP-SW related studies usually includes a subset of sites
(10 to 15 percent) that are revisited within a single sampling period and/or across years
(e.g., Larsen, 1997; Urquhart et al., 1998). Information from these repeat visits is used in
part to describe overall sampling and measurement precision for the various ecological
indicators.
12

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
1.6 LITERATURE CITED
Barbour, M.T., J.B. Stribling, and J.R. Karr. 1995. The multimetric approach for establish-
ing biocriteria and measuring biological condition, pp. 69-80 }N: W.S. Davis and T.P.
Simon (eds.) Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning
and Decision-making. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, G.E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. McCarron, J.S. White, and M.L.
Bastian. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic
macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(2): 185-
211.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. RapidBioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. Second Edition. EPA/841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Divi-
sion, Washington, D.C.
Baker, J.R., D.V. Peck, and D.W. Sutton (editors). 1997. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program-Surface Waters: Field Operations Manual for Lakes.
EPA/620/R-97/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Blaustein, A.R. and D.B. Wake. 1990. Declining amphibian populations: a global phenom-
enon? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:203-204.
Bury, R.B., P.C. Corn, K.B. Autry, F.F. Gilbert, and L.L.C. Jones. 1991. Aquatic amphibian
communities in Oregon and Washington, pp. 353-362 }N: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry,
A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff (coordinators). Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged
Douglas-Fir Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GRT-285. USDA Forest Ser-
vice, Portland, Oregon.
Chaloud, D. J., and D. V. Peck (eds.). 1994. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program: Integrated Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Surface Waters Resource
Group. EPA 600/X-91/080. Revision 2.00. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Charles, D.F. 1985. Relationships between surface sediment diatom assemblages and
lakewater characteristics in Adirondack lakes. Ecology 66:994-1011.
13

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 1997. Integrating the Nation's
Environmental Monitoring and research Networks and Programs: A Proposed Frame-
work. March 1997 revision. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington,
DC.
Dixit, S.S., J.P. Smol, J.C. Kingston, and D.F. Charles. 1992. Diatoms: Powerful indicators
of environmental change. Environmental Science and Technology 26:22-33.
Fore, L.S., J.R. Karr, and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to
human activities, evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 15:212-231.
Hairston, N.G. 1987. Community Ecology and Salamander Guilds. Cambridge University
Press.
Hill, B.A., A.T. Herlihy, P.R. Kaufmann, R.J. Stevenson, F.H. McCormick, and C. Burch-
Johnson. 2000. Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(1):50-67.
Hughes, R.M. (ed.). 1993. Stream Indicator and Design Workshop. EPA/600/R-93/138.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, T. M. Kincaid, L. Reynolds, and D. P. Larsen.
1998. A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1618-1631.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource manage-
ment. Ecological Applications 1:66-84.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. Illinois Natural
History Survey Special Publication 5. Champaign, IL.
Kaufmann, P.R. (ed.). 1993. Physical Habitat, pp. 59-69 jN: R.M. Hughes (ed.). Stream
Indicator and Design Workshop. EPA/600/R-93/138. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
14

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying
Physical Habitat in Wadeabie Streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C..
Kerans, B.L., and J.R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the
Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications 4:768-785.
Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, J.M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and
Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters.
EPA/600/4-90/030. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Larsen, D.P. and S.J. Christie (eds.) 1993. EMAP-Surface Waters 1991 Pilot Report.
EPA/620/R-93/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Lange-Bertalot, H. 1979. Pollution tolerance of diatoms as criterion for water quality estima-
tion. Nova Hedwigia 64:285-304.
Larsen, D.P. 1997. Sample survey design issues for bioassessment of inland aquatic
ecosystems. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 3:979-991.
Lazorchak, J.M., Klemm, D.J. , and D.V. Peck (editors). 1998. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program -Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Mea-
suring the Ecological Condition of Wadeabie Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Lowe, R.L. 1974. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Freshwater
Diatoms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Series,
National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
McCormick, F.H. 1993. Fish. pp. 29-36 IN: R.M. Hughes (ed.). Stream Indicator Work-
shop. EPA/600/R-93/138. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon.
McCormick, F.H., R. M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, D.V. Peck, and J.L.
Stoddard. In press. Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands region. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
Norris, R.H. 1995. Biological monitoring: the dilemma of data analysis. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society 14:440-450.
15

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
Peterson, S.A., L. Carpenter, G. Gutenspergen, and L.M. Cowardin (editors). 1997. Pilot
Test of Wetland Condition Indicators in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States.
EPA/620/R-97/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Phillips, K. 1990. Where have all the frogs and toads gone? Bioscience 40:422-424.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bio-
assessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish. EPA/440/4-89/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Reynoldson, T.B., R.C. Bailey, K.E. Day, and R.H. Norris. 1995. Biological guidelines for
freshwater sediment based on Benthic Assessment Sediment (the BEAST) using a
multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Australian Journal of Ecology
20:198-219.
Rosenberg, D.M. andV.H. Resh. 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macro-
invertebrtates. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Sayler, G.S., M. Puziss, and M. Silver. 1979. Alkaline phosphatase assay for freshwater
sediments: application to perturbed sediment systems. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 38:922-927.
Simon, T.P. and J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate
water resources integrity in freshwater ecosystems, pp. 245-262 IN: W.S. Davis and
T.P. Simon (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource
Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Stanley, T.W., and S.S. Verner. 1986. The U.S. Environmental Protections Agency's
quality assurance program, pp. 12-19 }N: J.K. Taylor and T.W. Stanley (eds.). Quality
Assurance for Environmental Measurements. ASTM STP 867, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Stoddard, J.L. 1990. Plan for Converting NAPAP Aquatic Effects Long-Term Monitoring
(LTM) Project to the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) Project.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon.
16

-------
^^^^^^MAP^/Vestem_Pilot_Field_0£erationsJManua[J^ectionJ_£[ntrocluctioi^
Urquhart, N.S., S.G. Paulsen, and D.P. Larsen. 1998. Monitoring for policy-relevant re-
gional trends over time. Ecological Applications 8:246-257.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): Research
Plan 1997. EPA/620/R-98/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Ecological Assessment of Streams and Rivers in the Western United
States: A Cooperative Effort Between the U. S. EPA and Western States and Tribal
Nations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon
Weber, C.I. 1973. Recent developments in the measurement of the response of plankton
and periphyton to changes in their environment, pp. 119-138 IN: G. Glass (ed.),
Bioassay Techniques and Environmental Chemistry. Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Whittier, T.R. and S.G. Paulsen. 1992. The surface waters component of the Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): an overview. Journal of Aquatic
Ecosystem Health 1:119-126.
Wright, J.F. 1995. Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate
fauna in flowing waters. Australian Journal of Ecology 20:181-197.
NOTES
17

-------
NOTES
18

-------