Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 293–322

Testing Bioassessment Metrics: Macroinvertebrate, Sculpin, and Salmonid Responses to Stream Habitat, Sediment, and Metals



The purpose of this article is to report onthe testing of responses of multimetricmacroinvertebrate and habitat indices to commondisturbances to streams: stream habitat alteration,excessive sediment, and elevated metalsconcentrations. Seven macroinvertebrate community metricswere combined into a macroinvertebrate biotic index(MBI), and 11 channel morphology, riparian, andsubstrate features were combined into a habitat index. Indices were evaluated by comparing the habitatresults to fish population surveys and comparing themacroinvertebrate results to habitat ratings, percentfine sediments measured by Wolman pebble counts, andcopper concentrations. Macroinvertebrate scoresdecreased with increasing percentages of finesediments measured either across the bankfull orinstream channel widths. Macroinvertebrate scoresdecreased with increasing copper. One metric,richness of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera(EPT) taxa, was more responsive to both copper andsediment than was the multimetric MBI. Habitat scorescorresponded well with the age class structure ofsalmonids, but not with that of benthic sculpins. Both salmonid and sculpin age classes declined withincreasing percentages of fine sediments. The declinewas graded with the sculpin age classes, whether finesediments were measured across the instream orbankfull channel, whereas salmonids consistentlyresponded only to the instream fine sediments.

benthic macroinvertebrates bioassessment biological monitoring copper Idaho multimetric index pebble counts salmonids sculpins sediment stream habitat water quality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, T. M. and Anderson, N. H.: 1995, The insect fauna of spring habitats in semiarid rangelands in central Oregon.J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 68(2),65–76.Google Scholar
  2. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G. E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E. and White, J. S.: 1996, A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates.J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15,185–211.Google Scholar
  3. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D. and Stribling, J. B.: 1999,Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish,Second Edition, EPA 841-D-99-002.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/AWPD/RBP/bioasses.html)Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T., Plafkin, J. L., Bradley, B., Graves, C. G. and Wisseman, R. W.: 1992, Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 437–449.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, S. B. and Burton, T. A.: 1993,Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality effects of grazing management on western rangeland streams. EPA 910/R-93-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, 178 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Beltman, D., Clements, W. H., Lipton, J. and Cacela, D.: 1999, Benthic invertebrate metals exposure, accumulation, and community-level impacts downstream from a hard-rock mine site.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18,299–307.Google Scholar
  7. Bjornn, T. C. and Reiser, D. W.: 1991,Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams.American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19,83–138.Google Scholar
  8. Chandler, G. L., Maret, T. R. and Zaroban, D. W.: 1993,Protocols for assessment of biotic integrity (fish) in Idaho streams,Water Quality Monitoring Protocols Report No.6. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, 25 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, W. H. and Maret, T. R.: 1993,Protocols of assessment of biotic integrity (macroinvertebrates) for wadable Idaho streams, Water Quality Monitoring Protocols Report No. 5.Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, 55 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Clements, W. H. and Kiffney, P. M.: 1995, The influence of elevation of benthic community responses to heavy metals in Rocky Mountain streams.Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52,1966–1977.Google Scholar
  11. Clements, W. H., Cherry, D. S. and Cairns, J.: 1988, Structural alterations in aquatic insect communities exposed to copper in laboratory streams.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7,715–722.Google Scholar
  12. Conquest, L. L., Ralph, S. C. and Naiman, R. J.: 1994, ‘Implementation of Large-Scale Stream Monitoring Efforts: Sampling Design and Data Analysis Issues’, in Loeb, S. L. and Spacie, A. (eds.), Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems,Lewis Publishers, New York, NY, pp.69–90.Google Scholar
  13. EPA: 1994, 1994 §303(d) Report for Idaho, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA, Oct. 7.Google Scholar
  14. EPA: 1995a,Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports), EPA 841-B-95-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. EPA: 1995b, National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress, EPA 841-R-95-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  16. Finger, T. R.: 1982, Interactive segregation among three species of sculpins (Cottus), Copeia 1982, 680–694.Google Scholar
  17. Fitzpatrick, F. A., Waite, I. R., D'Arconte, P. J., Meador, M. R., Maupin, M. A. and Gurtz, M. E.: 1998,Revised methods for characterizing stream habitat in the National Water-Quality Assessment Program.Water-Resources Investigations Report98-4052,U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  18. Fore, L. S., Karr, J. R. and Wisseman, R. W.: 1996,Assessing invertebrate response to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches.J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15,212–231.Google Scholar
  19. Haro, R. J. and Brusven, M. A.: 1994,Effects of cobble embeddedness on the microdistribution of the sculpin Cottus beldingi and its stonefly prey.Great Basin Nat. 54,64–70.Google Scholar
  20. Hayslip, G. A. (ed.): 1993,Region 10 in-stream biological monitoring handbook for wadable streams in the Pacific Northwest. EPA 910/9-92-013.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA, 75 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Hilsenhoff, W. L.: 1987, An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution.Great Lakes Entomol. Soc. 20,31–39.Google Scholar
  22. Hughes, R. M. and Gammon, J. R.: 1987, Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116,196–209.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, R. M.: 1995, ‘Defining Acceptable Biological Status by Comparing with Reference Conditions’, in Davis, W. S. and Simon T. P. (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning,CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp.31–48.Google Scholar
  24. Idaho Sportsmen's Coalition et al. vs. Carol M. Browner et al.: 1994, DCWWash, No. C93-943WD.Order on Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgement. April 14, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. Idaho Sportsmen's Coalition et al. vs. Carol M. Browner et al.: 1997a, DC WWash,Consolidated Case Nos. C96-807WD, No. 96-829. Order. March 24, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. Idaho Sportsmen's Coalition et al. vs. Carol M. Browner et al.: 1997b, DCWWash, No. C93-943WD. Stipulation and order on schedule required by court. April 8, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. IDEQ: 1996, 1996 water body assessment guidance.Water Quality Assessment and Standards Bureau. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID 94 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Karr, J. R.: 1981,Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.Fisheries 6(6),21–27.Google Scholar
  29. Karr, J. R.: 1991,Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management.Ecol. Appl. 1,66–84.Google Scholar
  30. Karr, J. R.: 1995, ‘Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: Clean Water is Not Enough’, in Davis, W. S. and Simon, T. P. (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 7–15.Google Scholar
  31. Kerans, B. L. and Karr, J. R.: 1994,A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley.Ecol. Appl. 4,768–785.Google Scholar
  32. Kiffney, P. M. and Clements, W. H.: 1994,Structural responses of benthic macroinvertebrate communities from different stream orders to zinc.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13,389–395.Google Scholar
  33. Kondolf, G. M.: 1997,Application of the pebble count: Notes on purpose, method, and variants.J. Am. Wat. Resour. Assoc. 33,79–87.Google Scholar
  34. Lammert, M. and Allan, J. D.: 1999,Assessing biotic integrity in streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates,Environ. Manage. 23,257–270.Google Scholar
  35. Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M. G. and Miller, J. P.: 1964,Fluvial processes in geomorphology.W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 1995 reprint. Dover Publications, New York, 522 pp.Google Scholar
  36. MacDonald, L. H., Smart, A.W. and Wissmar, R. C.: 1991,Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific northwest and Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle. 166 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Magurran, A. E.: 1988,Ecological diversity and its measurement,Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 178 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Maret, T. R., Robinson, C. T. and Minshall, G. W.: 1997,Fish assemblages and environmental correlates in least disturbed streams of the Upper Snake River basin.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 126, 200–216.Google Scholar
  39. Marr, J. C. A., Hansen, J. A., Meyer, J. S., Cacela, D., Podrabsky, T., Lipton, J. and Bergman, H. L.: 1998,Toxicity of cobalt and copper to rainbow trout: application of a mechanistic model for predicting survival.Aquat. Toxicol. 43,225–238.Google Scholar
  40. Mebane, C. A.:1994,Blackbird Mine preliminary natural resource survey,U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Assessment and Response Division. Seattle, WA, 130 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Meehan, W. R. and Bjornn, T. C.: 1991,Salmonid distributions and life histories,American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19,47–82.Google Scholar
  42. Minshall, G. W.: 1984, ‘Aquatic Insect-Substratum Relationships’, in Resh, V. H. and Rosenberg, D. M. (eds.). The Ecology of Aquatic Insects,Praeger Publishers, New York, pp. 358–400.Google Scholar
  43. Omernik, J. M: 1995, ‘Ecoregions: A Spatial Framework for Environmental Management’, in Davis, W. S. and Simon, T. P. (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning,CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 49–62.Google Scholar
  44. Omernik, J. M. and Gallant, A. L.:1986,Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest, EPA 600/3-86/033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
  45. Plafkin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Gross, S. K., Hughes, R. M. and Porter, K. D.: 1989,Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, EPA 444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.171 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Robinson, C. T. and Minshall, G. W.: 1990, Longitudinal development of macroinvertebrate communities below oligotrophic lake outlets.Great Basin Nat. 50,303–311.Google Scholar
  47. Robinson, C. T. and Minshall, G. W.: 1995,Biological metrics for regional biomonitoring and assessment of small streams in Idaho, Final report to the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. Stream Ecology Center, Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho, 193 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Robinson, C. T. and Minshall, G.W.: 1998,Regional assessment of wadable streams in Idaho, U.S.A. Great Basin Nat. 58,54–65.Google Scholar
  49. Runnells, D. D., Shepard, T. A. and Angino, E. N.: 1992, Metals in water: Determining natural background concentrations in mineralized areas.Environ. Sci. Technol. 26,2316–2322.Google Scholar
  50. Simonson, T. D. and Lyons, J.: 1995,Comparison of catch per effort and removal procedures for sampling stream fish assemblages.N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 15,419–427.Google Scholar
  51. Simpson, J. C. and Wallace, R. L.: 1982,Fishes of Idaho,University of Idaho Press, 238 pp.Google Scholar
  52. Stauffer, J. C. and Goldstein, R. M.: 1997,Comparison of three qualitative habitat indices and their applicability to prairie streams.N. Am. J. Fish.Manage. 17,348–361.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Tait, C. K., Li, J. L., Lamberti, G. A., Pearsons, T. N. and Li, J. W.: 1994, Relationships between riparian cover and the community structure of high desert streams.J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 13, 45–56.Google Scholar
  55. Waters, T. F.: 1995,Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control,American Fisheries Society Monograph7, 251 pp.Google Scholar
  56. Whittier, T. R., Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P.:1988, Correspondence between ecoregions and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon.Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45,1264–1278.Google Scholar
  57. Winner, R. W., Boesel, M. W. and Farrell, M. P.: 1980, Insect community structure as an index of heavy-metal pollution in lotic ecosystems.Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 647–655.Google Scholar
  58. Wolman, M. G.: 1954,A method of sampling coarse river-bed material.Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 35,951–956.Google Scholar
  59. Wydoski, R. S. and Whitney, R. R.: 1979,Inland Fishes of Washington,University of Washington Press, Seattle, 220 pp.Google Scholar
  60. Zar, J. H.: 1984,Biostatistical Analysis.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 717 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Idaho Division of Environmental QualityBoiseU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations