Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nationwide Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Multimetric Indices: Identifying Inconsistencies and Limitations in Reporting Stream Impairment Status, USA

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify the current status of stream water-quality assessment and reporting methods for four states in the Ohio River basin (Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia), as required by the 305(b) section of the United States (US) Clean Water Act. Specifically, we clarified the discrepancies that exist among stream-impairment status classified by benthic macroinvertebrate multimetric indices (MMIs) and depicted using Geographic Information Systems shapefiles. In addition, we provided guidance in solving some of the comparability problems that arise when developing state-specific MMIs and depicting stream-impairment status using Geographic Information Systems technology. The MMI variation among states and differences in shapefile formats resulted in a nationwide dataset, which cannot be directly compared. Incorporating the changes suggested in this study allow for a uniform assessment and reporting method nationwide. Successful implementation of these changes would strengthen the US Environmental Protection Agency efforts to identify impaired streams and sources of those impairments without the limitations of state-by-state .developed assessment methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Astin LE (2006) Data synthesis and bioindicator development for nontidial streams in the interstate Potomac river basin, USA. Ecol Indic 6:664–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin LE (2007) Developing biological indicators from diverse data: the Potomac basin-wide index of benthic integrity (B-IBI). Ecol Indic 7:895–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 2nd edn. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, DC

  • Basnyat P, Teeter LD, Lockaby BG, Flynn KM (2005) The use of remote sensing and GIS in watershed level analyses on non-point source pollution problems. Forest Ecol Manag 128:65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker J (2009) Improving regional water quality assessment. ArcUser 12:22–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernatowicz W, Weiβ A, Matschullat J (2009) Linking biological and physicochemical water quality. Environ Monit Assess 159:311–330

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birk S, Willby NJ, Kelly MG, Bonne W, Borja A, Poikane S, van de Bund W (2013) Intercalibrating classifications of ecological status: Europe’s quest for common management objectives for aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 454–455:490–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black PE (1996) Watershed hydrology. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Blocksom KA, Autrey BC, Passmore M, Reynolds L (2008) A comparison of single and multiple habitat protocols for collecting macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:577–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns DA (2005) Macroinvertebrate response to land cover, habitat, and water chemistry in a mining-impacted river ecosystem: a GIS watershed analysis. Aquat Sci 67:403–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffagni A, Furse M (2006) Intercalibration and comparison—major results and conclusions from the STAR project. Hydrobiologia 566:357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton J, Gerritsen J (2003) A stream condition index for Virginia non-coastal streams. Tetra Tech Inc, Owings Mills

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao Y, Hawkins CP (2011) The comparability of bioassessments: a review of conceptual and methodological issues. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:680–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JC, Miller MC, Mink FL (2011) Hydrologic disturbance reduces biological integrity in urban streams. Environ Monit Assess 172:663–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeShon JE (1995) Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). In: Davis W, Simon TP (eds) Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 217–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond JM, Barbour MT, Stribling JB (1996) Characterizing and comparing bioassessment methods and their results: a perspective. J N Am Benthol Soc 15:713–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausch DO, Karr JR, Yant PR (1984) Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. T Am Fish Soc 113:39–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/usc_sup_01_33_10_26_20_I.html. Accessed 19 May 2009

  • Feminella JW (2000) Correspondence between stream macroinvertebrate assemblages and 4 ecoregions of the southeastern USA. J N Am Benthol Soc 19:442–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey D (1977) Biological integrity of water: an historical approach (PDF). In: RK Ballentine, Guarraia LJ (eds) The integrity of water. Proceedings of a symposium, March 10–12, 1975, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp 127–140

  • Gartman DK, Lake RW (1979) The effect of a thermal discharge on the benthos of a Virginia creek USA. Virginia J Sci 30:10–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith MB, Hill BH, McCormick FH, Kaufmann PR, Herlihy AT, Selle AR (2005) Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecol Indic 5:117–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald S, Qi C (2006) GIS-based water quality modeling in the Sandusky watershed, Ohio, USA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:957–973

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hannaford MJ, Resh VH (1995) Variability in macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and habitat assessments in a northern California stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 14:430–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargett EG, ZumBerge JR, Hawkins CP, Olson JR (2007) Development of a RIVPACS-type predictive model for bioassessment of Wadeable streams in Wyoming. Ecol Indic 7:807–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst DB, Silldorff EL (2006) Comparison of the performance of different bioassessment methods: similar evaluations of biotic integrity from separate programs and procedures. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:513–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlihy AT, Paulsen SG, Van Sickle J, Stoddard JL, Hawkins CP, Yuan LL (2008) Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. J N Am Benthiol Soc 27:860–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilsenhoff WL (1988) Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J N Am Benthol Soc 7:65–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn CR, Hanson SA, McKay LD (1994) History of the U.S. EPA’s river reach file: a national hydrographic database available for ARC/INFO applications. US. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and Office of Water, Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/waters/doc/historyrf.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2009

  • Houston L, Barbour MT, Lenat D, Penrose D (2002) A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methods. Ecol Indic 1:279–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indiana Department of Environmental Management (2008) Indiana integrated water monitoring and assessment report 2008. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Quality, Watershed Branch. Indianapolis, IN. Available from, www.in.gov/idem/4679.htm. Accessed 15 Sep 2009

  • Indiana Department of Environmental Management (2010) Multi-habitat (MHAB) macroinvertebrate collection procedure (S-001-OWQ-W-BS-10-T-R0). Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Quality, Watershed Branch, Indianapolis

  • Karr JR (1991) Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol Appl 1:66–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman GJ (2002) What if… the United States of America were based on watersheds? Water Policy 4:57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerans BL, Karr JR (1994) A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecol Appl 4:768–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerans BL, Karr JR, Ahlstedt SA (1992) Aquatic invertebrate assemblages: spatial and temporal differences among sampling protocols. J N Am Benthol Soc 11:377–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemm DJ, Blocksom KA, Fulk FA, Herlihy AT, Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR, Peck DV, Stoddard JL, Thoeny WT, Griffith MB (2003) Development and evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index (MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environ Manage 31:656–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenat DR (1993) A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings. J N Am Benthol Soc 12:279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo CP, Yeung AKW (2002) Concepts and techniques of geographic information systems. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • National Rivers and Streams Assessment (2008) National rivers and streams assessment fact sheet. (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 841-F-08-XXX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (4503T)), Washington, DC

  • National Water-Quality Assessment Program (2008) Informing water-resource management and protection decisions. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/xrel.pdf. Accessed Oct 29, 2008

  • Nichols SJ, Norris RH (2006) River condition assessment may depend on the sub-sampling method: field live-sort versus laboratory sub-sampling of invertebrates for bioassessment. Hydrobiologia 572:195–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols SJ, Robinson WA, Norris RH (2006) Sample variability influences on the precision of predictive bioassessment. Hyrdobiologia 572:215–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorff T, Hughes RM (1992) Modification of an Index of Biotic Integrity based on fish assemblages to characterize rivers of the Seine-Normandie basin, France. Hydrobiologia 228:117–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2008a) Ohio 2008 integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2008b) 2008 updates to biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: volume III. Standardizd biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water. Columbus, Ohio

  • Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Ohio 2010 integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus

  • Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2011) State of Ohio water quality standards: chapter 3745-1 of the administrative code. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus

  • Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (1948) Ohio river valley water sanitation compact. Cincinatti: Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. http://orsanco.org/images/stories/files/compact.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2009

  • Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77(1):118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM, Bailey RG (1997) Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. J Am Water Resourc Assoc 33:935–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polls I, Lue-Hing C, Zenz DR, Sedita SJ (1980) Effects of urban runoff and treated municipal waste water on a man-mad channel in northeastern Illinois USA. Water Res 14:207–216

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pond GJ, Call SM, Brunley JF, Compton MC (2003) The Kentucky macroinvertebrate bioassessment index. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Water Quality Branch, Frankfort

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyne MI, Rader RB, Christensen WF (2007) Predicting local biological characteristics in streams: a comparison of landscape classifications. Freshw Biol 52:1302–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin ER, Yoder CO, Mishne DS (1994) 1994 Ohio water resource inventory: summary, conclusions, and recommendations. (Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1995-7-2). State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus

  • Reash RJ, Berra TM (1987) Comparison of fish communities in a clean-water stream and an adjacent polluted stream. Am Mid Nat 118:301–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhone JP, Cherko I, Harrow LG, Schlesinger AB (1983) An assessment of Nebraska city power site impingement effects relative to the fishery dynamics of the Missouri river. T NE Acad Sci 11:57–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin L, Johnson RK (2000) Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:462–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiller JR, Hamilton SW (2000) Rapid bioassessment of seven streams in West Sandy Creek Watershed, Henry County, Tennessee under different sampling regimes. J Tenn Acad Sci 75:57–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman N (2004) GIS: a short introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Serenella S, Vighi M (2008) GIS-based procedure for site-specific risk assessment of pesticides for aquatic ecosystems. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 69:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon TP, Dufour R (1997) Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana: V. Eastern Corn Belt Plain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Water Division, Watershed and Nonpoint Source Branch, EPA 905/R-96/002, Chicago

  • Stoddard JL, Herlihy AT, Peck DV, Hughes RM, Whittier TR, Tarquinio E (2008) A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J N Am Benthiol Soc 27:878–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor FG, Park SH (1981) Cooling tower windage a new aspect to environmental assessment. Environ Int 5:127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (2006) Quality system standard operating procedure for macroinvertebrate stream surveys. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (2008) 2008 305(b) report: the status of water quality in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Available from, http://tn.gov/environment/wpc/publications/#305b08

  • Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (2010) 2010 305(b) report: the status of water quality in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville, TN

  • Uchrin CG, Caspe RL (1983) Operational characteristics of federally funded wastewater treatment plants. J Water Pollut Control Fed 55:935–940

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1974) Water quality strategy paper, 2nd ed: A Statement of policy for implementing the requirements of the 1972 federal water pollution control act amendments and certain requirements of the 1092 marine protection, research, and sanctuaries act. (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 430974252), U.S. EPA, Washington

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1976) Basic water monitoring program. (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 440/9-76-025). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1982) National water quality inventory: 1982 report to Congress (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 440-2-84-006). U.S. EPA, Washington DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1987) Guidelines for the preparation of the 1988 State water quality assessment (305(b) report). (U.S. EPA WH-553). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1989a) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 440/4-89/001). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1989b) Guidelines for the preparation of the 1990 state water quality assessment (305(b) report). (U.S. EPA OMB. No. 2040-0071). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Guidelines for the preparation of the 1994 state water quality assessment (305(b) report). (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 841-B-93-004). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Guidelines for the preparation of the 1996 state water quality assessment (305(b) report). (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 841-B-95-001). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Summary of state biological assessment programs for streams and rivers. (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 230-R-96-007). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Guidelines for preparation of the comprehensive State water quality assessments (305(b) reports) and electronic updates: report contents (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 841-B-97- 002B). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001) 2002 Integrated water quality monitoring and assessment guidelines. http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/guidance.html. Accessed 19 May 2009

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) 2002 National assessment database. http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index_2002.html. Accessed 4 June 2008

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Guidelines for 2004 assessment, listing and reporting requirements pursuant to sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/guidance.html .Accessed 19 May 2009

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Use of biological information to better define designated aquatic life uses in State and tribal water quality standards: tiered aquatic life uses. http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/pdf/EPA-822-R-05-001UseofBiologicalInformationtoBetterDefineDesignatedAquaticLifeUses-TieredAquaticLifeUses.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2011

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Information Concerning 2010 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/guidance.html. Accessed 19 May 2009

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Water quality standards handbook: second edition (U.S. EPA Rep. No. EPA-823-B-12-002). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological Survey (2011) “National Hydrography Dataset Plus—NHDPlus” [shapefile]. Version 1.0. 1:100,000. USEPA and USGS, 2011, Washington, DC

  • United States Geological Survey (2010) The national map: hydrography. National Geospatial Program Office (Fact Sheet No. 2009-3054). U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC

  • Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Conservation and Recreation (2008) Virginia 305(b)/303(d) water quality integrated report to Congress and the EPA Administrator for the period of January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2006. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Conservation and Recreation. Richmond, VA. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wqa/ir2008.html. Accessed 19 May 2009

  • Wadeable Streams Assessment (2004a) Wadeable stream assessment: field operations manual (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 841-B-04-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

  • Wadeable Streams Assessment (2004b) National wadeable stream assessment: water chemistry laboratory manual (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 841-B-04-008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

  • Wadeable Streams Assessment (2006) Wadeable stream assessment: a collaborative survey of the Nation’s streams (U.S. EPA Rep. No. 841-B-06-002). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

  • Waite IR, Brown LR, Kennen JG, May JT, Cuffney TF, Orlando JL, Jones KA (2010) Comparison of watershed disturbance predictive models for stream benthic macroinvertebrates for three distinct ecoregions in western US. Ecol Indic 10:1125–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward A, D’Ambrosio JL, Mecklenburg D (2008) Stream classification. Ohio State University Agriculture and Natural Resources (Fact Sheet No. AEX-445-01). The Ohio State University, Columbus

  • Wei X, Wei J, Viadero RC Jr (2011) Post-reclamation water quality trend in a Mid-Appalachian watershed of abandoned mine lands. Sci Total Eviron 409:941–948

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Jin W (2010) GIS-based spatial regression and prediction of water quality in river networks: a case study in Iowa. J Environ Manage 91:1943–1951

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ball State University and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Biological Program for financially supporting this project, including data acquisition and travel support to conferences. We also thank the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation for contributing data and technical support. We thank Megan Boggess-Thompson and the Department of Geography, Marshall University, Huntington, WV for providing the GIS Software. We are ever grateful to Heidi M. Williams, Susan A. Weinstein, and Aaron M. Dom for editorial support and suggestions and, to the Marshall University ADVANCE Program, Huntington, WV, for providing professional writing development and editorial support. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for insightful comments that improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

    J. K. Lau & T. E. Lauer

Authors
  1. J. K. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. E. Lauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. K. Lau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lau, J.K., Lauer, T.E. Nationwide Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Multimetric Indices: Identifying Inconsistencies and Limitations in Reporting Stream Impairment Status, USA. Environmental Management 56, 11–23 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0478-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0478-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation