IEPA ATTACHMENT NOT

Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life

Volume II: Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface

Waters

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Waters Cover page

Notice to Users, Acknowledgments, Table of Contents and Introduction

Section 2: Defining Background Conditions

Section 3: Field Methods and Data Analysis Requirements

Text of Metrics 1-5 of Section 4: Biological Data Evaluation: Fish

Text of Metrics 6-12 Section 4: Biological Data Evaluation: Fish

Figures 1-15 of Section 4: Biological Data Evaluation: Fish

Figures 16-30 of Section 4: Biological Data Evaluation: Fish

Tables of Section 4: Biological Data Evaluation: Fish

Text of Section 5: Biological Data Evaluation: Macroinvertebrates

Figures of Section 5: Biological Data Evaluation: Macroinvertebrates

Tables of Section 5: Biological Data Evaluation: Macroinvertebrates

Text of Section 6: Derivation of Biological Criteria

Figures of Section 6: Derivation of Biological Criteria

Tables of Section 6: Derivation of Biological Criteria

Section 7: Biological Criteria for Ohio Surface Waters

Section 8: Guidelines for Biological Criteria Use and Application

A-1 to A-4 of Appendix A: List of Ohio Reference Sites

A-5 to A-11 of Appendix A: List of Ohio Reference Sites

(This document does not include the entire publication. Entire publication can be

found at: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/BioCriteriaProtAgLife.html)

---

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO

Ecological Assessment Section

State of Ohio

?

Division of Water Quality

tnvironmental Pratt xtion Agency

?

Planning & Assessment

Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life:

Volume IL Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of

Ohio Surface Waters

October 30,1p87 (Updated January 1, 1988)

P.O. Box 1049, 1800 WaterMartx

Dr., Columbus, Ohio 43266.0149

---

Doc. 0046e/0013e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WQMA-SwS-6

?

Date Issued 11102/87

Revision No.

?

1?

" Effective 11/02/57

NOTICE TO USERS

All methods and

.

procedures for the use of biological criteria contained andlor

referred to in these volumes supercede those described in any previous Ohio

EPA manuals, reports, policies, and publications dealing with biological

evaluation, designation of aquatic life uses, or the evaluation

of

aquatic

life use attainment. Users of these criteria and supporting field OethodS,

data analyses,: and study design should conform to that presented or referenced

In these volumes (and subsequent' revisions) to be applicable under the Ohio

Water Quality. Standards (WQS; OAC 3745-1).

Three volumes comprise the supporting documentation for setting and using

biological criteria in Ohio. All three volumes are needed to use the

biological criteria, iniplement:thalield and laboratory procedures, and

understand

:

the principles behind their development, use, and 4P1Mc..Ation.

These

.

1;i000.

are:

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

1 987. B

i

o

logical

criteria

tor

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, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency. 1987. Biological criteria for the

protection of aquatic life: Volume II. Users manual for biological

field assessment of Ohio 'surface waters. Division of Water Quality

Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus. Ohio.

Ohio Envirenmental Protection Agency, 1987. Biological criteria for the

protection

of a

q

uatic life: Volume III. Standardized biological field

sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macrOinyertehrate

cohinunities. Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment

Columbus, Ohio.

In addition, one other publication from the Stream Re

g

ionalizat,ien Project is

recommended to all users:

Whittier, T.R., D.P. Larsen, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, A.L. Gallant, and 3.M.

Neel-MI. 1987. The Ohio stream regionalization project: a

compendium

of

results. U.S. EPA - Environmental Res. Lab, Corvallis, OP.

EPA/600/3-871025.

66

pp.

These documents can be obtained by writing:

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment

1800 WaterMark Drive, P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149

Other recommended and helpful literature As

listed in the references of each

volume.

---

Doc. 0046e/0013e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1981

Procedure No, WOMA-SWS-b

?

Date issued 11/02/B3

Revision No.

?

1 ?

" Effective 11/02/81

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The members of the WOM&A, Surface Water Section biological field evaluation

groups made significant contributions to this document and

the development of

biological criteria in general. This includes Ed Rankin (computer support

and

data analysis). Marc Smith, Roger Thoma, and Randy Sanders (Fish Evaluation

Group), Oeff

',DeShon,--

Jack Freda, and Mike

Bolton

(Macroinvertebrate Evaluation

Group), and Dennis Mishne

(data processing

supPort).

Computer programming

support was

also provided

by Charlie Staudt. Chris Yoder coordinated the

assembling of the Users Manual. These are the principle authors and their

efforts made the

0.04ttiOn

of volume II possible.,

This work is

an

outgrowth Of the Stream Regionalization

Project

which was

initiated in 190-

:PO

Dudle

y

, Ohio EPA, was the

project officer and

Contributed to

the'everall

. .

success of the SRP program

Gary

Martin

and

P4-

Abrams, Ohio EPA

a150

?

invaluable management support that ways

necessary to accomplish the SRP program and produce the Users Manual

and.

supporting docUMents; .

:Bob Hughes, Northrop Services, Inc formulated many of

the initial concepts

.about ecoregions,

the Stream Regionalization Project and

the integration of these ideas with biological

atsestMent. $e also provided

detailed guidance, insights., and, along

with

Dave: Miller, reviews of

early

drafts of the Users Manual Phil Larsen

and James Omernik

. Of

the

ILS-,,OA

Freshwater Research Laboratory in Corvallis,

Oregon also provided invaluable

essistancefenO T Wt

i

O

patiOn

with the SRP prograM. )ini-tmey-

and

Wayneljavis

(U „S. EPA, Region

V)

provided invaluable support

and

encouragement

for

the

production of

the

Users Manual and the concept of 00190

i tal

criteria in

general:

Persons

providing timely-reviews

and helpful comments- on the Users

Manual and

biological criteria concepts include Dan

Dudley, Ray Beaumier, Dave

Altfater,

Paul Albeit, tob Meitzman, and Bob Davic (all of Ohio EPA), Jim Luey (U.S.

EPA, Region V),

and Bob Hughes and Thom Whittier (Northrop Services,

Inc.).

Word processing support was provided by Mary Napier, Lisa,Pals

,

grove

*

and Pam

Jaques.

ii

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

? Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

4 Effective 11/02/81

Table of Contents

Section

?

Page

Section 1. INTRODUCTION

?

1-1

Background

?

1-1

The Biological Basis

for

Determining Use

?

1-2

Attainment/Non-Attainment

Biological Criteria

Evaluating Biological Integrity

?

1-4

SECTION 2:

:

?BACKGROUND

CONDITIONS

?

2-1

EcorectiOn Concept

?

/-1

Criteria for Selecting" Reference Sites

?

2-2

SECTION): "FIELD METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

?

3-1

GeneralGuidelines

?

3-1

Fish-Samplin g

Methods Summary?

3-2

SECTION-A,:

Macroinvertebrate

BIOLOGICAL

Methods

DATA EVALUATION:

Summar

y?3-5FISH

?

4-1

Index of:Biotic Integrity (I8I)

?

4-2

IBI-Mettict

?

4-3

Metric

1, Total Number of Indigenous Fish

Species

(All Methods)?

4-7

Metric 2. Number of Darter Species (Wading, Headwaters) ?

4-10

Proportion of Round-bodied Catostomtdat (Boat Sites)

Metric :3-. Number of Sunfish Species (Wading, Boat) '

?

4-15

Number

of of Headwaters Species (Headwaters)

Metritil,

Number of Sucker Species (Wading,

Boat)

?

4-19

Number

of Minnow Species (Headwaters)

Metric=

5; Number of intolerant Species (Wading, Boat)

?

4-24

Number

of Sensitive Species (Headwaters)

Metric B:

Percent Abundance of Tolerant Species (A11)

?

4-29

Metric 7. Omnivore Metric (All)

?

4-14

Metric B. Proportion as Insectivores (A11)

?

4-37

Metric 9. Top Carnivores (Wading,

Boat)?

4-40

Proportion of Pioneering Species (Headwaters)

metric 10:

Number of Individuals in a Sample (All)

?

4-44

Metric 11: Proportion of Individuals

as

?

4-48

Simple

Lithophils (Wading, Boat)

?

.

Number of Simple Lithophilic Species (Headwaters)

Metric 12: Proportion of Individuals With Deformities,

? 4-53

Eroded

Fins,

Lesions, and Tumors - DELT (A11).

Calculation and Interpretation of I81 Scores

?

4-58

Extremel

y

Feu

Numbers ("Low-end Scoring')

?

4-61

index of Well-Bein

g

?

4-64

iii

---

Doc. •0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. HOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11102/87

Revision No.

" Effective 11/02/87

Table of Contents (continued)

Section

Page

SECTION 5:?

BIOLOGICAL DATA EVALUATION:

?

MACROINVERTEBRATES

5-1

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)

5-2

Metric 1.

?

Total Number of Taxa

5-4

Metric 2.

?

Number of

.

Mayfly Taxa

5-4

Metric 3,

?

Number of Caddisfly Taxa

5-4

Metric 4.

?

Number of Dipteran Taxa

5-8

Metric 5.

?

Percent Mayflies.

5-8

Metric 6.

?

Percent:Caddisflies

5-8

Metric

7.?

PercentTaritarsinl Midges

5-12

Metric 8.?

Percent Other Diptera and Non-insects

5-12

Metric

. 9.

?

Percent Tolerant Organisms

5.12

Metric 10.?

Qualitative EPT Taxa

5-16

SECTION 6:

?

DERIVATION OF BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA

6-1

General

6-1

Fish Community Data

6-4

Habitat Considerations

6-7

Macroinvertebrate

,

Cotinunit y Data

6-1 6

Problems Onique'te the HELP Ecoregion

6-21

Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH)

6-21

SECTION 7:

?

81

0

1-0

8

1C

A“

R

1

TER

I

A

FOR OHIO SURFACE WATER-

7-1

Applicability

7-1

Eceregion Definitions

7-1

Site-specific Criteria Modification

7-5

Possible Future Chan es to the Biota ical Criteria

7-6

SECTION 8:

?

001DELINES FOR- BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA USE AND-APOLICA ION

8-1

Guidelines- for Ainimum.Acce

p table Data

8-1

Study Design and 'Data Interpretation

8-1

Establishing Aquatic Life Use Designations

8-4

Evaluating Use Attainment/Non-attainment

8-7

i

v

---

Doc. 0046e/0013e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1967

Procedure No.

WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/97

Revision No.

?1 ?

° Effective

11/02/87

Table of Contents (continued)

Section

Page

APPENDICES

Appendix 4,-.?

List of Ohio Reference Sites

A-1:?

WWR/EWM

Reference Wading Sites

(fish)

A-1:

?

WWIi/EWH Reference

Boat Sites (fish)

A-3:

?

.WWFVEWH Reference Headwaters Sites (fish)

A-1

A-6

A-9

A-4:

?

WWM/EWH Reference Sites (macroinvertebrates)

A-12-

A-5::?

Modified (MWH) Reference Wading Sites (fish)

A-20

A-6:?

Modified (MWH) Reference Boat Sites?

(fish)

?

'

A-22

•A-7:?

Modified

(MWR) Reference Headwaters Sites

(fish)

A-24

A-8:?

Least

Impacted Test Sites (Macroinvertebrates)

A-25

A-9:

?

Moderately Impacted Test Sites (macroinvertebrates)

A-33

A-10: Severely Impacted Test Sites (macroinvertebrates)

,

A-36.

A-11: Severely and

.

Moderately Impacted Sites (for fish

Itt)

A-39

Appendix B: Development of Fish Community

'

I8I Metrics

8-1: Ohip.fish Species Designations

?

B-1

Appendix

B-2":

C.

Designation

Modified

of

Index

Fish

of

Species

Well-Being

Tolerances(Iwb) ,

?B-1

C-1: Modified Index of

Well-Being (lwb)

Appendix 0: Analysis of Sampling and Data Variability

0-1: Background

?

0-1

0-2: fish

?

0-1

D-3: 14acroinvertebrates

?

0-8

Appendix E: Ohio EPA Stream/River Location and Size

Measuring Mg ods

E-1:

Drainage

Area Calculation Methodology

?

E-1

E-2:

FINS Basin-River/Stream Codes

?

E-3

E-3t Ohio EPA PEMS0 River

Mile Index

?

E-4

Appendix F:

.

List of Ohio EPA Study Areas, 1977-1986

?

F-1

REFERENCES

?

R-1

---

Doc. 0047e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1981

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/D3

Revision No.

?

1 ?

" Effective 11/02187

Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life:

Volume II. Users Manual for Biological Field

Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Background

A principal objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and.maintain

the biological integrity of surface waters. Although this objective is

fundamentally "biological" in nature the . specific methods by which regulatory

agencies are attempting to reach this objective are predomineted)iy-Suth

non-btologicalmeasures

_?

-

as chemical/physical

water

quality (Kafir et al.

1986). The rationale for this process is well known - chemical

.

::: triterta

developed through toxicological studies of representative aquatic Organisms

serve as surrogates for measuring the attainment of the

biological

objectives

of the

CWA.

Whole effluent toxicity testing offers an improvement over a

strictly chemical

API)roach,

but

itself lacks the ability to:bre01y assess

ecosystem effects, particularly physical and non-toxic chemical impacts. The

presumption is, that improvements in chemical water quality will be followed by

a restoration of biological integrity. Although

Ws

type of approach may,

giVe'the100ession of empirical validity and legal defensibility

?

does not

directly measure the ecological health and well-being Of surFace waters

'Recent information shows that other factors (e.g. excessive sediment) in

addition to chemical water quality are responsible for the continuing decline

of surface water resources in a majority of cases (audy_et

?

1584), Because

biological integrity is affected by these factors in addition to :chemical

water quality, controlling chemical discharges alone does not

: in itself assure

the restoration of biological integrity (Karr et al. 1585)•

Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC 37451) are designed to

.

provide a basis for

protecting and restoring .surface waters for a variety of users; including the

protection and propagation of aquatic life. Aquatit

-

lifeprOtection criteria

consist of, tiered aquatic life uses which are defined in'OAC 3145,1

707.

These

includelWarmwater Habitat (WWH), Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWR), Cold

Water Habitat (CWH) *

Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH), and -

Limited Resource

Waters (Modified Warmwater Habitat will be proposed). Eachof:lhese use

designations have been qualitatively defined in

general

.ecel egi

cAl

terms in

the WQS: and themical-numeric criteria are assigned on a parameter-by-parameter

or narrative basis, In addition to this Ohio EPA has specifically defined the

EWH, and CWH use designations based on measurable characteristics of

?

.

instream fish and macroinvertebrate communities (Ohio EPA 1584).

Since 1980 Ohio EPA has used measurable characteristics of instream

fish

and

macroinvertebrate -communities (expressed as numerical and narrative biological

criteria) to quantitatively

determine use attainment/non-attainment in flowing

waters. Examples of this use are the derivation of water quality-based

effluent limits (formerly the CWOR process), the biennial 305b water quality

report, and the Priority Water Quality Area-Municipal Project Priority list

(PWQA-MPPL) system. Other recent uses of this evaluation technique include

evaluation of dredge and fill projects (i.e. 401 certification), nonpoint

source profiles, validation of effluent toxicity test results, and the

discovery of previously unknown or poorly understood environmental problems.

1-1

---

Doc. 0047e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. W0MA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 1.1/02/87

Revision No.

?

1.?

" Effective 11/02/87

The Biological Basis for Determining Use Attainment/Non-Attainment

Aquatic life use attainment has traditionally been determined on a chemical

basis. This was accomplished by collecting water Samples, conducting chemical

analysis, and comparing results with water quality criteria. If exceedences

of specific chemical criteria were observed it was then assumed that the

designated use was not being attained.

However,

it has been

our

experience

that

this approach has some significant

shortcomings particularly when

chemical results are compared to the response of the resident biota:

Biological measures have indicated non-attainment when

chemical

WQS were not

exceeded and visa versa. These

.

m

conflicts" occur for

several

reasons the most

important of which are the design of most chemical

sampling programs,

"inadequacies" of the criteria themselves, and the fact that the biota respond

-to non-Chemical perturbations of the environment. Some substances (e.g.

sediment, nutrients) which are common constituents of both

point

and nonpoint

sources exert their negative effects by means other thant0xlcity. These

substances

are geperalli'hoi included in water quality

criteria

guidance

documents

because

.

there is 'Po toxicity basis for

developing

a-Water quality

criterion, Thus At

has not been

possible to develop threshold

response levels

for

aquatic

life

comparable to

the chronic and

acute toxicity'

?

that

are routinely developed

for

substances that do eXeri, the**hegative

effects

by

toxicity.

?

substances

that are highly toxic

may

. not

be.

included in WQS

because data to develop a criterion is lacking. In partial

response to this

problem ISectiOn 308 of '00. ).

later Quality Act of 198'7

dire4SAL.S-

EPA

to

deVelop

:

b1OlOgical eValUatiori-tethni

q ues as an alternative to the

pollutant-by-pollutant approach for toxic chemicals. this

-

9010mgp

reS.ents an

approach toward fulfilling this mandate.

To.resälyt some of the stated shortcomings of a strictly chemical approach to

defining aquatic life use impairment we introduce the use of biological

criteria to deterMine:the magnitude and severity of environmental degradation

directly. This approach has some important advantages:

Some organism groups

.

, particularly fish and matroinvertebrateS, inhabit

the receiving waters continuously or for most of

their

114 cyCle and as

such are

a

refliCtiOn_of the past chemical,

phy sical, and biological

history of the receiving waters (includes healthy, not transient

tenimunities). Hence they are continuous monitors

of

the

.

?

of

the

Aquatic environment..

2.

Resident biological communities are integrators of the prevailing and past

chemical, physical,: and biological history of the recei

ving wat t

rs, i.e.

they reflect the dynamic interactions of stream flow, pollutant loadings,

habitat, toxicity, and chemical quality that are not comprehensively

measured by chemical or short-term bioassay results alone.

3.

Many fish species and invertebrate

groups have

life spans of several years

(2-10 yrs. and longer), thus the condition of the biota is an indication

of both past and recent environmental conditions. Biological surveys need

not be conducted under absolute °worst case" conditions to provide a

comprehensive

and

meaningful evaluation

of

use attainment/non-attainment.

1-2

---

Doc. 0047e/8000e

Users

Manual

Procedure

NoeeleigtilieMele

Revision No.

?

1

October 30, 1987

Date Issued 11/02/87

u

Effective

11/02/83,„,

4.

Biological assessment techniques have progressed to the point that

incremental degrees and types of degradation can be determined and

presented as numerical evaluations (e.g. Index of Biotic integrity,

Invertebrate Community Index, etc.) that have practical relevance.

5.

Biological coneaunity condition portrays the results

of

water quality

management

efforts

in direct terms, i.e. increases and decreases in

community health (as reflected by biological community structure

and

function) are a meaningful measure of regulatory program progresss.

6. Bi olog i

ca

l

assessments at the sub-community level (e.g. fish,

macroinvertebrates) are a workable, affordable, and cost-effecti-ve

monitoring activity for state regulatory agencies (Ohio EPA 198e).

The condition of the aquatic community as revealed by the above

mentioned

measures is the

integrated result of the chemical, physical, and biological

processes in the receiving waters. This condition can be viewed as an

'ecological endpoint°

much

the same way that lethality is the endpoint of an

acute toxicity

test.

Since

this endpoint can be quantified in measurable-

terms,

criteria can be-established that represent direct measures of use

attainment/non-attainment. Finally, biological community data (Particularly

for fish and macroinvertebrates) are reasonably obtainable. Rapid advances in

field sampling and

laboratory techniques

over the past 10 years

make routine

biological field

monitoring a workable concept for regulating surface

water

quality. A recent Ohio EPA analysis of program costs shows that obtaining

biological field data is cost competitive with chemical and bioassay

evaluations (Ohio EPA 1986).

Biological Criteria

Ohio EPA has used numerical and narrative biological criteria based' roan fish.

and

macroinvertebrates

for quantitatively determining aquatic life use

attainment.

/non-attainment

since 1980. For fish the Index of Well-Being,;.

(Gammon 1976, Gammon 1980; Gammon et al. 1981) was the principal basis for

determining use

attainment_

For macroinvertebrates a system of narrative

criteria

were used which are based on specific macroinvertebrate community

characteristics

,

(Whop et al. 1980). 'These criteria and analyses are termed

*structural" in that they are based on community aspects such as diversity,

numbers, and biomaS, More recently measures

that incorporate community

'function"

(i.eefeeding strategy, environmental tolerance, disease symptoms)

have been incorporated into the program. for

fish

the Index of bell-Bei

n

g le

retained in a

'

modified form (Appendix C) and the Index of Biotic Integrity`

(I8I;

Karr 1981, Karr et al. 1986) is added. For macroinvertebrates the:

Invertebrate Community Index

(ICI)

will supplant the narrative evaluations,

These are not merely diversity indices and should not be equated to .or

confused with the more traditional information theory based indices (e.g.

Shannon index) or species richness. Although these structural attributes are

included, they are one component along with metrics that measure community

production, function, tolerance, and reproduction. This provides

.

for a

rigorous, ecologically

oriented approach to assessing aquatic community health

1-3

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 19B7

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

" Effective 11/02/81

and well-being. The rationale, development, and application of these indices

is discussed in detail later in this document.

The application of these methods and criteria have been tested over a wide

range of surface water body sizes and types, and a wide range of physical and

chemical conditions in Ohio and elsewhere. More than

330 rivers and streams

covering more than 5,300 stream miles have been biologically evaluated by Ohio

EPA since 1979. This has. included impact

assessments for more than 700 point

Source discharges, a wide variety of nonpoint

.

Soprce influences, combined

sewer overflow and stormwater

discharges,

sewage plant bypasses, accidental

spills, and previously unknown or unregulated discharges.

Evaluating Biological Integrity

The term "biological integrity" originates from. the

?

Pollution Control

Act amendments of 1972 (Pi. 92-500) and has li

,

p11-:.cor-44 in subsequent

revisions (PL 9542171 PL 100-1). Early attempts to define biological

integrity

in ways

, that

it could be used'to measure attainment of legislative

goals

were inconclusive (Ballentine and Goarti0974, These efforts to

define biological integrity focused pn

the:def'ipitY0P

of some pristine

condition that exists in few, if any, ecosyStemS:lnthe conterminous United

States.

defined

Hughes-et

as somePristine

al. (1982)

condition,

concluded

is difficult

that: bi00160

to precisely

integrity,

define

whenand

assess.

The pristine definition of biological integrity was considered a

conceptual goal tewards.which pollution abatement efforts should strive,

although current, past, and future water and landAlses

-

MaY prevent its full

realization.,

For the purposes of the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) biological

integrity isprattically defined as the ability Of-at aquatic ecosystem to

s

upport and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms

having a species;composition, diversity, and functional organization

comparable to that of the best natural habitats within a region (Karr and

Dudley 1981). This is consistent with thejeCOMMendations of Hughes et al.

(1982) and Karr et al. (1986). Thus the methods by-which the following

biological criteria have been established reflect this definition.

Biological definition of use attainment/non-attainment is made possible by

monitoring aquatic communities directly. This is accomplished by

standardized, quantitative sampling techniqueS which are described in the Ohio

EPA Manual of Surveillance Methods and Quality Assurance Practices (Ohio EPA

1987a). Management decisions based on biological criteria must be made with

the involvement of an aquatic biologist familiar with the specific methods;

indices, and criteria being used (Karr et al. 1986). A sound familiarity with

the regional fauna is also needed to ensure evaluations that are ecologically

sound. Careful sampling is a necessity and requires the involvement of

trained personnel who are able to contend with the site specific

characteristics of different

surface water bodies. finally, taxonomic

expertise must be adequate to accomplish organism identifications to the

required level (Ohio EPA 1987a). Karr et al: (1986) provide additional

1-4

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued _11/QZ/87

Revision No.

?1 ?

* Effective 11/02/87

cautions associated with using and interpreting biological data. These are

general guidelines and cautions - more specific details are given later in

this manual and

in the

Ohio EPA quality assurance manual (Ohio EPA 1S87a).

Six criteria that biological monitoring programs should satisfy have been

defined (derricks and Schaeffer 1985). These requirements and how the Ohio

EPA approach satisfies them are:

1. The measures used must be biological: The IBI, modified

Iwb,

and ICI

are based soley on biological community attributes.

The measures must be inte retable at several tro hic levels or provide a

connection to other organisms not directl

yinvolved

in the monitorin :

The ecological diversity of each of the three indices. and the

inclusion of

two organism groups that have species which function at different trophic

levels satisfies this requirement.

The measure must be sensitive to the environmental conditions being

monitored: The inherently *broad" ability of `fish and macroinvertebrates

to reflect and integrate a wide variety of environmental stresses (see

Ohio EPA 19876; Table 2, Figures 1 and 5) and the "redundancy" o

f the

In

and ICI metrics themselves satisfy this requirement.

'the response range (i.e. sensitivity) of the measure must be suitable for

the intended application The biological indices and organism groups used

by Ohio EPA have been demonstrated to have a high degree of sensitivity to

even small, subtle changes in the environment and a wide variety of

environmental disturbance types (Ohio EPA 19876). One example is the

ability to discern community differences between streams of the same use

designation.

5.

The measure must be reproducible and precise within defined and acceptable

limits for data collected over space and tithe: Both the fish and

macroinvertebrate sampling methods and evaluation indices have been shown

to have consistent, reproducible ex

pectations

within acceptable limits

(Appendices B-D). Carefully following prescribed field and laboratory

methods As a prerequisite to meeting this requirement.

6.

Variabilit

y

of the measure(s) must be low: The variability inherent to

each of the three biological indices being proposed has been shown to be

quite low and within acceptable limits at relatively undisturbed sites.

Variation between samples clearly increases with environmental disturbance

(Appendices O-O). Satisfying this requirement involves understanding the

nature of variability that may come from sampling frequency or seasonal

influences.

Karr et al. (1986) evaluated the applicability of the IBI based on fish to

these criteria and found that it satisfied the six requirements. The use of

two additional indices and one additional organism group by Ohio EPA further

satisfies these demands. Several of these requirements, particularly

numbers

5 and 6. are addressed later in this manual.

1-5

---

Doc_ 0016e/0382E

Users Manual

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6 Date

Issued 11/02/$3

Revision No. - 1

" Effective 11/02/87

The choice of both fish

.

and macroinvertebrates as the routine organism groups

to monitor was made because both groups have been widely used In water

pollution investigations and there is an abundance of information concerning

their life history, distribution, and environmental tolerances. The need to

use

both groups is apparent in the ecological differences between them,

differences that tend to be complementary in an environmental evaluation. The

value of having both groups showing the same general

indication (i.e.

confirmation) is important. Apparent differences In

the

responses of these

two groups has usually led to the definitiOn

. :Of

problems which

would have gone

unnoticed or unresolved in the absence of information from either organism

group.

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

Users Manual

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

October 30, 1987

Date issued 21/02/87

Revision No.

?

1

° Effective 11/02/87

SECTION 2; DEFINING BACKGROUND CONDITIONS

In order to establish biological criteria that are reflective of the

legislative goal of attaining biological integrity

in surface waters a

*calibration* of the methods used to establish the criteria is needed. The

practical definition of biological integrity as the biological performance

exhibited by the natural or *least impacted" habitats of a particular region

provides the underlying basis for a sampling

design to provide such

information. It should be noted

that this is not an attempt to characterize

*pristine* or totally undisturbed environmental conditions

as such conditions

exist in

only a very few places if at All 1Hughes et al. .1982). Thus

our

expectations of how

.a biological

community

shouldperform are determined by

the demonstrated attainability of natural communities at *least impatted"_or

reference sites

within

a particular biogeographical region.

Ecoregion

Concept

The

selection6f

.

control pr reference sites from which attainable biological

conditions

can

be defined is a key

component

in establishing biological

criteria.

Hughes...et

al, (1986) ;described At least seven different approaches

that.have been used

to estimate

attainable biological conditions in.sOrface

waters.

Two pU,theseinclude the use

of forested watershed models (Vannote et

al. 1980)

and the classic upstreamdownstream

approach. Some

problems with

these approaches include

tot

narrow

Ofji focus (e.g. forested watersheds),

selection of unrepresentative

Control sites;, or a subjective .selection of

control sites. In some situations adeqUate control sites simply do net

exist. Ideally,'. reference sites

for estimating

attainable

biological

conditions should be as *undisturbed' as possible and be representative:ofthe

watershed for which they are to -serve as a control. Such sites can serve as

references for A large number of streams if the sites typify the range of

physical characteristics within-AA3ArtiC4lar geographical region (HOghts.et

al. 1986). While it is recogni;ed:that all individual water bodies:differ to

some degree from each other, the basis for having regional reference sites is

the similarity. of watersheds within

defined geographical regions. Generally

less variability is expected among surface

waters within a particular

region

than between regions. This isJieCadse surface

waters, particularly streams,

derive their basil characteristics front their watersheds. Thus streams

draining comparable watersheds

of

a region are much more likely to be similar

than those from less Comparable. Watersheds: located in a differentregion,

In order to accomplish the selection of reference sites it was first necessary

to define *ecoregions* within the state. An ecoregion is a relatively

homogenous area where the boundaries of several key geographic variables more

or less coincide (Hughes et al, 1986). The delineation of ecoregiOns- is

accomplished by simultaneously examining patterns in the relative homogeneity

of several terrestrial variables (Omernik 1987). This is done because several

watershed variables, not just one or two

., are presumed to have major and

controlling influences on aquatic'ecosystems (Hughes et al. 1986),

2-1

---

Doc. 0047e10000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/a7

Revision No. ?

1 ?

u

Effective 11/02187

Omernik (1987) mapped the aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United States

from maps of land-surface form, soils, potential natural vegetation,

and land

use. These maps were then analyzed to identify areas of combined, regional

homogeneity. This method seems most appropriate for classifying aquatic

ecoregions because of the integrative ecological (versus technological and

reductionist) way it was developed, its level of resolution, its incorporation

of

mapped physical, chemical, and biological information, and because it

requires no further

data.

collection (Hughes et al. 1986).

Ecoregions provide a geographical basis for estimating ecosystem

responses

to

management action

assuming

that most sites within

each

will respond

similerly

to those actions (4aileY 198,3). In using the ecoregion/reference site

approach the reference.sitgs serve as benchmarks for measuring the condition

of other sites within the tame ecoregion. Thus reference sites are used to

develop expectations about surface waters that are as protective of the

environment as is ecologically

and socioeconomitally possible. This fits

well

with the definition.of biological integrity as the ecological performance of

the least disturbed habitats within an ecoregion. This does not mean that the

attainable conditions within an ecoregion cannot improve over time with

changes in population,- land ;use

s

progress with nonpoint pollution abatement,

etc_ However, itdoes.reflect what is currently and reasonably attainable

given current societal activities.

In Ohio parts of five ecoregions occur (Fig..2-1) and the distinguishtng

features of each are given

in

Table 2-1. A detailed narrative description of

these ecoregions is availableAn Whittier et al. (1981).

Criteria for selecting Reference Sites

The process of Selecting'

Wetersheds and reference sites is outlined in Larsen

et al- (1986)

and

Whittier et al. (1987). While the 1983-84 Stream

Regionalization Project (SRP) focused on watersheds with drainage areas of

10-300 square miles these Were supplemented with additional data from sites

sampled from 1"981-1986: 'Reference sites from locations with drainage areas of

300-6000 square mi.les were

also selected from the Ohio EPA data base

(1979-1986).

These latter sites include

the larger streams and rivers from

across the state. The lake level affected sections of take Erie tributaries,

the Ohio River, and.inland

lakes and reservoirs are not included in the

current analysis. However,.we plan to address these areas within the next.two

to three years.

The SRP study design (Larsen et al. 1986;

.

Whittier et al. 1987) was

initially

limited to watersheds of less than 300 square miles drainage area. Candidate

watersheds were

generally

contained entirely within an ecoregion, but selected

'cross-boundary" streams were included for comparison. Watersheds with

evidence of substantial human disturbance were eliminated. This was done by

examining maps of human population density, current and past land uses,

compiling a watershed disturbance ranking, and noting the size and location of

point source discharges. From this exercise "least-impacted" watersheds were

selected_ These are not *pristine" or "undisturbed" watersheds (none really

2-2

---

BOOREGION

B:PD E'aster'n Corn Belt Plains

HELP BuroniErie lake Plain

80LP

,

--ie/Ont.ario Lake Plain

Ft

WesternAllegheny Platea.0

IP?

Interior Plateau

Doc. 001be/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Revision

Procedure

No.

No.

?

WQMA-S11

,

6-6?

?

Date

4

Effective

Issued

11/02/87

11/02/87

EC8P

Boundari

Figure 2-1.. The ecoregions of Ohio as determined by

methodologies developed by Omernik (1987)

and

used to establish attainable

biological criteria in Ohio (broken line

and light shading indicates ecoregion

boundaries).

2-3

---

Doc. 0016e/0382f.

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

Revision No. ?1

Date Issued 11/02/87

4

Effective 11/02/87

Table 2-1. The

physical and terrestrial characteristics of the five

ecoregitns of Ohio.

Huron/Erie

?

interior

?

Erie/Ontario

?

Western Alle-

?

Eastern Corn

Component

?

Lake Plain

?

Plateau

?

Lake Plain

?

gheny Plateau

?

Belt Plains

(Northwest)

?

(Northeast)

?

(E./S. East)

?

(W./Central)

HELP

?

EOLP

?

YAP

?

Egli>

Land Surface

Form

(Hammond 1970)

Flat plains

Plains with

?

Irre

hilts, open

hills, table-

lan4

0■00erate

Oar plains L

' h hills

Smooth plains

Land Use

(Anderson 1:967)

Cropland

l4osaic

;o

f`

'Cropland,Pat-

4ureiwoodland

and forest`

Cropland with

pasture, wood-

land, forest,

aUld urban

Woodland," forest

with scmoorop-

land and pasture;

woodland, forest

mostly.ungrazed

Cropland

Solt (various?

Humic-gley, low Aldel402

.

4u?

Alfisols

Sources)

?

huleie OltV,

brown podzolic/

humic gray

Potential Nafur- Elmiash forest

?

OakihickorY

?Beech/maple

bl

Vegetafien

?

fPrelt

?northern

hard-

(Kuchler 1970) woods (maple,birch,

beech,

hemlock)

Al f isols Alfisols,'gray-

browMpodzolic/

humacgley

Nixed mesophytit Beech/maple

forest (maple,

?

•forest

buckeye, beech,

tulip, oak, linden),

Appalachian oak

---

Doc. 0047e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure

No. WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued. 11/02/87

Revision No. ?

1 ?

'

Effective 11/02/87

exist in Ohio), but they do represent the best watershed conditions within an

ecoregion given

the

background activities prevalent in our society (see

Trautman 1981 for a description of changes during the period 1750 - present).

These watersheds represent

,

the least-impacted conditions thus they should have

the least-impacted streams from an ecoregional viewpoint. The character of

these streams should reflect the reasonably attainable biological conditions

and water quality within a particular ecoregion given the prevailing

background conditions.

Final SRP site selection was made after making an aerial and local

reconnaissance of each candidate site and watershed. Factors considered ln

this inspection included the amount of stream channel modification (if any),

the condition of the vegetative riparian buffer, water volume, channel

morphology, substrate

character

and condition, obvious

color

/odor problems,

amount of woody debris,.and the general "representativeness* of the

site

within the ecoregion.' Field sampling was conducted far macroinvertebrates,

fish, and chemical/physical water

.

quality at 109 sites during 1983-84

following Ohio EPA standardized

.

Methods (Ohio EPA 1987a).. Detailed

descriptions of the instream habitat were made by the biological field crews.

Chemical water quality

data were also collected; the results are

described

elsewhere (Larsen, and Dudley

1987

.

Whittier et al. 1987).

Following the field sampling portion of the project several sites were deleted

because watershed

and

stream characteristics were discovered that

showed these

sites to be

unrepresentative

of least-impacted conditions: These are listed

in Appendix A. Complete avoidance Of small stream (i.e. drainage areas less

than 300 square miles) sites with any history of channel modification was not

possible in the Huron/Erie Lake

Plain

ecoregion because of the extensive

stream channel modification work that has been done in this area.

Givers

the

amount of the

land surface that

is

devoted to row crop agriculture coupled

with the poor drainage characteristics of this ecoregion, this condition

could

arguably be termed a *background" 'condition for the small streams of this

ecoregion. This particular

problem is

described in more detail in Section 6.

An examination of the entire Ohio EPA

statewide

data base (1979-1986) resulted

in the addition of nearly 200 sites that also qualified as reference sites.

Most of the added sites

less

than 300 square miles in size were-:sampled during

1981-1986. The location of fish and macroinvertebrate sites appear in figs.

2-2 and 2-3.

Large stream and river sites were also selected and included sampling

conducted since 1980 for fish

and 1981 far macroinvertebrates. The original

SRP study design did not

include

these areas. The criteria for choosing large

stream and river

reference

sites was basically the same as the SRP study

design, except that using some sites located downstream from urban centers and

point sources could not be completely avoided. These consisted of sites

located well downstream from

these

potential disturbances and below known

biological recovery points. No sites in direct proximity to any

point sources

or within impounded or extensively modified areas were used:

2-5

---

IMOROGION

EC:BP Eastern Corn Belt

Plains

HELP

Beron/Erie lake Plain

4DtP Erie/Ontario Lake Plain

WO.P. Western AlIegh4ny Plateau

' IP?

Interior Plateau

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

?*

Effective

11/02/87

EC BP

figure 2-2. Location of Ohio reference sites for fish

within each of the five ecoregions and

the three principal stream and river

sizes (termed boat methods, wading sites,

andheedwaters sites - each are indicated

by different symbols; dashed lines and

shading indicates ecoregion boundaries).

:Pot

4it

Wading

AS.

Headwaters

'SCALE

I?

t$ X

4

3111.11

L

?

NI,

t?

?

H

.4

4

A

I.*

* iv

vti

2-6

---

ECOPCGION

EC2P

HELP

Eastern

Huron/Erie

Corn

Lake

Belt

PlainPlains

DX?

Bie/anta..

,

:io Lake Plain

West=1AllegberlyPlatml

/P Interior PIAtexa

Doc. 0018e/0382E

? Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. W4MA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued ,11/Q2/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

a

Effective 11/02/87

• Patificiai Substrate

Figure 2-3

location of. Ohio reference sites for

macroinvertebrates within each of the

five ecoregions and the principal

collection methods (artificial

•

substrates sites only; dashed lines and

shading indicates ecoregion boundaries).

tC131)

2-7

---

Doc. 0047e/0000e

Supplement to

OHIO RIVER BASIN

1. Wabash R.

a. Beaver Cr.

2, Great Miami R.

a. Whitewater R.

b, Indian Cr.

c

-

Four

Mile Cr.

d. Sevenmile Cr,

e.

Twin Cr.

f.

Mad R.

g.

Buck Cr.

h.

Stillwater R.

i.

Greenville Cr.

J. Loramie Cr.

3.

Mill Cr.

4. Little Miami R.

a'

?

Fork

b. Todd fork

c. Ceasar Cr.

5 - wh

i teoak

Cr.

6. Eagle

Cr.

7. Ohio Brush Cr.

a .

Wes

t Fork

8. Scioto R.

a.

Scioto Brush Cr

b.

South Fork

c.

Sunfish Cr.

d. Salt Cr,

e.

Little Salt Cr.

f.

Middle Fork

g.

Paint Cr.

h.

North Fork

A. Rocky Fork

1, Rattlesnake Cr.

k. Deer Cr.

I. Big Darby Cr.

m.

Little Darby Cr.

n.

Walnut Cr,

o.

Big Walnut Cr.

p.

Alum Cr.

q.

Olentangy R.

r.

Whetstone Cr.

s.

Mill Cr.

t.

Little

Scioto

R.

u.

Rush Cr.

9. little Scioto R.

10. Pine Cr.

11. Symes Cr.

12. Raccoon

Cr.

a. L. Raccoon Cr.

13. Leading. Cr.

Users Manual

Procedure No.

WOMA-,c4W5A6

Revision Ho.?

1

14. Shade R.

15. Hocking R.

a,

Federal Cr.

b,

Sunday Cr.

c,

'Monday

Cr.

c

L Rush

Cr.

16. Little

Hocking R.

17.; Muskingum R.

Cr.

A).

West

Branch

Melgs

Cr.

d.

Salt Cr,,

e:

.

.:Aoxahala

Cr.

f' Jonathan Cr:

Licking R.

North Fork

i s

.50uth fork

.

k.

-

:Wa.katomika

Raccoon

tr.

Cr.

Cr.

Salt

Fork

Seneca Fork

B.,;WalhOnding R.

Killbuck Cr.

KOXos ing R.

C; Mahican R.

4,

Lake Fork

e,

Muddy Fork

f,

Jerome

Fork

Black fork

b. Clear Fork

TOstarawas R.

a,

Stillwater Cr.

O.?

Stillwater Cr.

t. Sugar Cr.

0, Sbuth Fork

e.

Conottan

Cr.

f.

Sandy tr.

q.

Nimishillen Cr.

6.

Chippewa cr.

20. Duck Cr.

a.

West Fork

b.

East Fork

21. Little Muskingum R.

22. Sunfish Cr.

23.

Captina Cr.

24. Wheeling Cr.

25. Short Cr.

26. Cross Cr.

27. Yellow Cr.

28. Little Beaver Cr.

a. North Fork

October 30, 1997

Date Issued 11/02/97

4

Effective

11/02187

b. West

Fork

c, Middle Fork

29.

Pymatuning Cr.

MAhoning R.

a. Mosquito Cr.

b-

Eagle

Cr,

c. West Branch

LAKE ERIE BASIN

31.

Conneaut Cr.

32. Ashtabula R.

33. Grand.R,

a. Mill Cr.

34.

Chagrin R.

35.

'Cuyahoga R.

36.-RockY R-

a

.

West Branch

37.

Black

R.

a, West

Branch

.?

b, East Branch

38. Vermilion R.

39. :Huron

R.

a. West Branch

40 Sandusky R.

Wolf Cr.

b. Honey Cr.

c. Tymochtee tr.

41.

Muddy Cr.

42.

Portage R,

a. Smith Branch

b.

Middle Branch

43, Toussaint Cr.

44. Maumee R.

a.

Swan Cr.

b.

Beaver tr.

C. Cutoff Ditch

d. S. Turkeyfoot C

e. Auglaize R.

f. Blue Cr,

g. L. Auglaize R.

h. Praire Cr.

i. Middle Cr.

J. Blanchard R.

k. Ottawa R.

1. Tiffin R.

m.

Lick

Cr.

n. Bean Cr.

o. St. Marys

R.

p.

St. Joseph R.

q.

Ottawa R.

Figs. 2-2 and 2-3. Major Ohio

streams and rivers .

(>100 sq.

mi. drainage

area).

2-8

---

Doc. 0047e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS,6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1

° Effective 11/02/87

SECT ION 3: FIELD METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

General Guidelines

The purpose

of this section is to describe the field

methods

and data analysis

techniques

that are required to use the biological

criteria for the

purposes

of the Ohio

Water Quality Standards (KS),

Standardized methods and data

analysis techniques

are a critical requirement and

ensure the

comparability of•

results from

site. to site, Some basic problems in sampling

aquatic biota'and

using

biological data that can affect the applicability

and accuracy of the'

results

are summarized, as follows:

1) The purpose

for which data were collected is:eSpecially important-when the

use of

H

existing

n data is being cOntiMplated,

Biological

samples that

were collected for the purposes of determining the

presence/absenceof

species and/Or taxa only will have little value for the purposes of the

biological criteria-. This is

especially

true

if relative abundance

data

(which in itself'implies standardiIatien:OCsampling effort) is lacking,

"Partial" collections will not suffice

: because the index of Biotic

Integrity (1.BI), Modified Index of WillBeing

- (Iwb), and the

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)

:require as

?

a breakdown of the

community

as is possible with the

Methb4used.,

Specific requirements are

discussed later,

3) Sampling gear and water conditions affect

:

.Samplihg

effectiveness

and'

ultimately data analysis

and interpretation.

Specific fish and

macroinvertebrate sampling

gear are:required

for conformance to the'Ohib.

WQS. Appropriate data collection',CondltionS are also important

Appropriate taxonomic refinement

is important, particularly for

macroinvertebrates, as "lumping'-of ,species and taxa into larger

groups

makes the

data unusable for the-purposes of the biological indices,

5) Sampling sites must be representative

of

the surface water being sampled..

For example, localized areas of impoundment, *bridge effect" areas, etc.

should be avoided if the stream

orrA'ver

is predominantly free-flowing,

Persons using the biological criteria approach should be aware of these basic

problems and take-steps to ensure that study design, sampling methods, and

data analysis conform to the procedures outlined by or refered to in this

manual. Finally, the methods and techniques

described here require the

involvement of a trained biologist who-

is:

familiar with the field methods,

laboratory techniques, data analyses, and the local fauna.

---

Doc, 0047e/0000e

Users Manual

October 30, 1987

Procedure Ho. WOKA-SWS-6

Revision No.?

1

Date Issued

11/02/87

"

Effective

11/02/87

Fish Sampline Methods Summary

The fish sampling methods routinely used by Ohio EPA are summarized in Table

3-1. Detailed descriptions of these and

other fish sampling gear and methods

are available in Ohio EPA (1587a). The wading methods (sampler types 0, E,

and F) were developed by Ohio EPA. Boat methods (sampler type A) are based

primarily on the work of Gammon (1973, 1976) on the Wabash River (Indiana) and

the experience of the Ohio EPA. Unlike other biological monitoring

disciplines, surprisingly little standardized guidance is available from state

or federal agencies regarding appropriate methods,

Therefore.

Ohio EPA has

used what can be considered aastate-of-the-art approach in the development of

standardized, systematic

methods for sampling fish in rivers and streams. The

requirements for all aspects

(SemPlin

g

frequency and duration, relative

"effort, etc.) of the fish sampling program are based on eight years of

practical application

in

Ohio

,

. On-going Ohio EPA monitoring programs have

been designed to address fish sampling methods, gear selectivity, and sampling

design.

it is apparent from the literattare(e.A. Vincent 1971; Gammon 1973, 1976;

Novotny and Priegel 1974) and our own experience that pulsed DC elettrefishing

is the most comprehensive

and effective single method for collecting river

and

stream fishes that is currently available. Certainly a survey that employs a

number of different gear types. will likely yield more species than any one

single method. Such

surveys,

'however, are more costly ant time consuming and

do not generate equivalent information

per unit oreffort. Gammon (1976)

emphasized this point when It was observed

that one day of electrofishing was

equal to 20-25 hoop-net days and included a much broader

representation of the

fish community. We have

opted to use a

sampling strategy that emphasizes

Methods designed to obtain 4 representative sample of the fish community at a

particular site. This

means

that each site is sampled with an appropriate

method (i.e. wading methods ,and

.

bOat methods) in a consistent and reproducible

manner. Although this approach may'not yield a complete inventory of all

species at.a site, sample sizes large enough to permit comparisons between

sites are obtained. Ihis-isparttcUlarly true of the boat methods used to

sample the larger streams end rivers, This is somewhat in contrast to the

labor intensive "inventory" 'samPlin

g

procedures advocated by Karr et al.

(1986) and others

for these

habitats.

Quantitative data includes repetitive sampling based on distance (rather than

time), weighing individual fish (modified 1a only), counting numbers by

each species, and recording external anomalies. Two or three passes (on

different dates) through each sampling zone are necessary to generate reliable

catch data as specified by Gammon (19Th) and Ohio EPA (1981a). The collection

of biomass data is necessary for

using

the modified

Tab

(restricted to sites

>20 sq. mi.). We have found

that

using

both the 1BI and Lea provides

rigorous assessment, particularly where the evaluation includes use

designations other than Warmwater Habitat (WWH),

complex environmental impacts

(toxics, combined sewers, multiple Influences), and in larger streams and

rivers. Karr et al. (1986) cite the need for biomass data as being a

drawback

to using the 1wa. However, we have found that subsampling techniques not

3-2

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

Date issued

" Effectiv

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1

11/02/87

Table 3-1. Characteristics of electrofishing sampling methods most frequently

used by the Ohio EPA to sample fish communities (see Ohio EPA 1987a

for further details),

Samp

ler Type

or E

?

F

Gear

?

12', 4',

?

D:Sportyak (75' boat)

?

Backpack

Used:

?

or 16 boat

?

E:Longline (100m

extension cord)

Power

Source:

Smith-Root Type

?

Model 1736 VDC PO

?

Michigan DNR.

VI-A electrofishing

?

generator/pulsator unit

?

battery pack

unit or

Smith-Root?

unit

3.5

W generator/

pulsator unit

Current.

Type:

Wattage:

(AC Power

Source)

Volts:

(DC Output)

Amperage:

(Output)

Anode

Location:

Distance

Sampled

(km):

Sampling

Direction:

Relative

Abundance:

Stream

Size:

Pulsed DC

3500

50-1000

4-11

Front of

boPm,

0.50

Downstream

Based on 1.0 km

moderate

to large

streams & rivers

Pulsed DC

1750

100-300

2-7

Net hoop

0.20

Upstream

Based on 0.3 km

Wadeable streams to

headwater tributaries

Pulsed DC

12?

batterS,

100 or 200

1:5-22

Net hoop

0.15-0.20

Upstream.

Based on ,3km

Headwater

tributaries

3-3

---

Doc 0047e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

Revision ?

1

Date Issued 11/02/87_

Effective 11/02/a/

only reduce potential error (compared to weighing each individual fish), but

add an insignificant amount of time to overall sample processing. Each

collection must be sorted and counted anyway thus weighing is a minor

component of this effort. The subsampling and catch processing procedures are

detailed elsewhere (Ohio EPA 1987a)-

Fish sampling should generally

take place between mid-June and late September

and include two or three passes total.

,

It Maybe necessary to conduct

sampling Outside of this time period (May, early October), but certain

precautions should be taken to ensure data

comparability. We prefer to limit

this sampling to simple, small stream situation's. Late fall, winter, and

early spring sampling is discouraged because of the effect of cold

temperatures on sampling efficiency and

:changes

in

fish distribution. If

three passes are planned each individual pass, should be spaced at least three

or four weeks apart. if only two passes are intended (recommended for Wading

methods only) this time should

be five

00i:weeks.

These requirements have

been experimentally determined by repetitively sampling at "test sites° for

both

boat

and

wading

methods. Putting this tine between passes allows the

community to stabilize and recover from

any

temporary perturbations that may

have been induced by the sampling. This

?

Particularly important in the

wadable streams. Restricting sampling to the Summer season minimizes the

influence of spring spawning or other seasonal occurrences. Additionally,

environmental stresses are potentially

at

their height because controlling

influences such as temperature and

dissolved

oxygen are nearest chronic stress

thresholds.

The condition of the surface water being sampled is another important item

that affects electrofishing. Since sampling efficiency is in part dependent

on the ability of the sampler to see stunned fish, two conditions need tube

met. The first is that the netter(s) should wear polarized sunglasses to

enhance the spotting of fish stained beneath the surface. The second is that

sampling should be performed during normal water clarity and flow conditions.

High flow and turbid water can reduce sampling effectiveness.

Accurate identification of fish is essential and is required to the species

level at a minimum.

Identification to the sub-specific level may be necessary

in

certain situations (e.g. beaded killifish). Field identifications are

acceptable, but laboratory vouchers will

be required for any new locality •

records, new species, and those specimens

that cannot be field identified. It

is recommended that specimens be

retained for laboratory examination if there

As any doubt about the correct identity

of a

fish. The collection techniques

used

are not consistently effettivOnr.fish less than 1520 mm in length

therefore identification and inclusion An the sample is not recommended. This

follows the reasoning of Karr et al.. (1986).

Study design and sampling site

seleCtioh-4re

discussed further in Section 8

and Ohio EPA (1987a)

3-4

---

Doc. 0047e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1981

Procedure No. WOMA-51

.

6-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

s

Effective 11/02/87

Macroinvertebrate Methods Summary

The primary sampling gear used by the Ohio EPA for the quantitative collection

of macroinvertebrates in streams and rivers is the modified multiple-plate

artificial substrate sampler originally described by

. Hester and Dendy (1962).

The sampler is constructed of 1/8 inch tempered hardboard cut into three inch

square plates and one inch square spacers. A total of eight plates and twelve

spacers are used

for each sampler. The

plates and spacers are placed on a

1/4

inch eyebolt SO that there are three single spaces, three double spaces, and

one triple Space between the plates (Figure 3-1). The total surface

area

of

the sampler, excluding the eyebolt, is 145.6 square inches or roughly One

square foOt.

A routine monitoring sample consists of a composite

of five

substrates

that are

colonized instream for a six week

period :normally falling

between

June 15 and...teptember'30: Detailed descriptions of the

placement,

collection,

and processing

of the artificial substrates are aVailable in

Ohio

EPA (1981a):_ln addition to the artificial substrate sample, routine

monitoring

also includes a qualitative collection of macroinvertebrates that

inhabit the natural substrates at the sampling location. All available

habitat

, types'are sampled

and voucher specimens .retained for laboratory

Identification. More specific

information for the collection

of this sample

can also be found in:PhiO EPA (1981a), For the purpose of generating

an

ICI

value, both

a quantitative

and qualitative

sample

must be collected

-at

a

sampling 1CICatiOn

A good

source

of information regarding

the

practical

application of artificial

substrates can be found in

Cairns (1982). The use of artificial

substrates

for monitoring purposes

has a number of advantages. According

to Rosenberg

And Rash (in Cairns, 1982)

the major advantages in using artificial substrates

are that they 1)

allow

collection of data from locations that

cannot

be

sampled effectiVélY:by-other means, 2) permit standardized sampling,

?

reduce

variability compared with other types of sampling, 4) require less operator

skill than other methods, 5) are convenient to use, and 6) permit

nondestructive:„sampling of an

environment. The authors also list a number of

disadvantages, but', generally, these problems can be minimized:

_by

adhering to

strict

guidelines concerning sampler placement, collection, and analysis.

A composited set

of

five artificial substrate samplers has been used by the

Ohio EPA in collecting macroinvertebrate samples since 1973. At this level of

effort, it has been found that a consistent, reproducible sample can be

collected. Results of analyzing replicate sets of five artificial substrates

have shown that variability among calculated ICI values is low. Details of

that analysis-

an he found elsewhere in this document (Appendix 0).

The reliability of the sampling unit not only depends on the fact that

colonization surface areas are standard, but equally important are the actual

physical conditions under which the units are placed. It is imperative that

the artificial substrates be located in a consistent fashion With particular

emphasis on current velocity over the set. With the exception of water

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No,

?

1 ?

' Effective 11/02/87

Figure 3-1. Modified Hester-bendy multiple-plate artificial substrate

sampler used by the Ohio EPA for the quantitative collection

of aquatic macroinvertebrates.

---

Doc, 0047e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No, WOMA-SWS

7

6?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

" Effective 11/02/07

quality, amount of current tends to have the most profound effect on the types

and numbers of organisms collected. For a

literal

interpretation of the ICI,

current speeds should be no less than 0.3 ft/sec under normal flow regimes.

These conditions can usually be adequately met in all but the smallest of

permanent streams (<10

sq mile drainage) or those streams so highly modified

for drainage

that

dry weather flows maintain

pooled habitats

only. In these

sltuations, sampling can be accomplished, but some interpretation of the ICI

value may be paCeSsarY.

An additional area of some importance concerns the accuracy of identification

of the sample organisms, The ICI has been calibrated to a specific level of

taxonomy that

is,

currently being employed by the Ohio EPA. It Is imperative

that

accurate identifications to the levels specified be

accomplished.

.0therise, problems may arise in many of the ICI metrics where

number

of kinds

of a particular organism group is the parameter 'used. Inaccurate

identifications can also be a problem in the ICI metric dealing with percent

abundance of

pollution

.

tolerant

organisms. As OW information and taxonomic

key

s become available, adjustments to the 1CJ

scoring

may be necessary, A

listing of current taxonomic keys and a phylegenetittable indicating level of

taxonomy used for Specific

organism

groups cab be found In Ohio EPA (1987a).

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30. 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-5WS-6

?

Date

Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

.?1 ?

$ Effective 11/02/8/

SECTION 4: BIOLOGICAL DATA EVALUATION: FISH

Fish can be one of the most sensitive indicators of the quality of the aquatic

environment (Smith 1971). Historically fish have received less attention than

other taxonomic groups in stream surveys despite the fact that they represent

upper trophic levels and the literature abounds with data on their

environmental requirements and

life history

(Doudoroff and Warren 1957; Gammon

1976),. Doudoroff (1951) emphasized the need for thorough fish population

studies in connection with water quality assessments, Excepting instances of

gross pollution. only fish themselves can

be trusted to reliably indicate

environmental conditions generally suitable or unsuitable'for their existence

(Doudoroff and Warren 1957). In one sense, the populations of fish in a river

or,

stream reflect the overall state of environmental health of the watershed

as

a,,/hille.

This

is because

fish

live in water which

has'Previousl

y

fallen on

the cities,.fields, strip mines, grasslands, and JoreSts of-the watershed

(GarrinfOn

1976). The following are some of the advanteges

,

Of using fish as

indicators of

water

q

uality

conditions:

1)

fish are integrators of community response to

aquatic

environmental

quality conditions; they are the end product of

most aquatic food

webs, thus the total biomass of fishes is mffily.diPendent

on

the

gross primary and secondary productivity of lower organism groups;

2)

fish constitute a.conspicuous part of the aquatic biota and are

recognized by

the

public

for their sport, 'commercial and endangered

status, and represent the end product of protection for most water

pollution abatement programs (i.e. many water quality criteria are

based on laboratory tests using fish);

fish reproduce once per

year and complete their entire life cycle in

the aquatic environment; therefore, the success of each year class is

dependent upon the quality of the aquatic environment which they

inhabit; this is evident in the general condition of the fish

community each summer and fall;

4) fish have a relatively high sensitivity to a variety of substances and

physical conditions; and

fish are readily identified to species in the field and there is an

abundance of information concerning their life history, ecology,

environmental requirements and distribution available for many species.

Changes in the relative abundance (numbers and weight), species richness,

composition, and other attributes are directly influenced by the presence of

water quality disturbances and/or habitat alterations. The principal measures

of overall fish community health and well-being used by the Ohio EPA is the

i ndex

of Well-Being (bib) developed by Gammon (1976) and modified by Ohio

EPA (Appendix C), and the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) developed by Karr

4-1

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

Users Manual

October 30, 19B7

Procedure No, WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision Nu.

?

1

(19B1). The La) is based on structural attributes of the fish community

whereas the IBI additionally incorporates functional characteristics.

Together both indices provide a rigorous evaluation of overall fish community

condition. As stated before these are not

diversity indices in the

traditional sense. Both indices incorporate a

much

broader

range of

attributes of fish communities than merely species richness

and the

proportional, relationship of fish numbers.

The presence of

Permanent, large populations of different

fish species

is

generally considered:to be the result of a combination of many

favorable

factors (ireutman

.

:1942). Factors which account for variations

In

the

distribution

and abundance of fishes

in streams and rivers

include,

bust are

not limited

'to, stream size,

instream cover, stream morphology,, deOtli,

flow,

?

-

substrate, gradient and

water quality. Perturbations to the

physical. and/or

chemical quality

Ora

.

river or stream usually result

in.varYle9:049teeS

of

stress to

One-Or More fish species. fish species that fail to adjust

to these

stresses will bereduced

in

numbers or

be eliminated via

mortalltY4

reduced

reproductive-s4ccess,,and/or avoidance.

The

subsequent

absence. Or

reduced

numbers

-of fish results

in

decreased community diversity and__

abundance, and

is

reflected by an association predominated by stress tolerant

species. Fish can

temporarily

inhabit chemically

or physically degraded areas

(especially if

refuge

areas ate

:

close-4Y)., brut these are usually functionally.degraded

assemblages

undergo

large

and

declines

predominated

in species

by tolerant

richness,

species.

relative

fish

numbers,.

coMmunitles

4r bitiMass

need no

to

t

become

degraded,

In fact, some forms of perturbation (e.g. habitat

modificatien,

nutrient

enrichment)

can cause fish numbers and biomass to

increase with:Only slight reductions

in species richness. The degradation

to

the commUnitY in these instances is Mere

often reflected

by:significapt

changes in trophic composition

and

predominant feeding guilds, The

numbers)

traditional

ran

_

tOolt

underrate

.

that evaluate

these important

Only community

changes.

structure (e.g,

diversity,

Index of Biotic Inteerjtv fIBI)

The Index

of

Biotic Integrity (181) uses an approach similar to that employed

in econometric analyses where an array of different metrics are examined. As

originally proposed by Karr (1981) and later refined by faustb

:

et al. (1984)

and Karr et al. (1186) the 181 incorporates 12 community metetct.:The:yalee

of each metric is compared to the.value expected at a reference site located

in a similar geographic region where human influence has been minimal

Ratings of 5, 3, or 1 Ore assigned to each metric according to whether its

value approximates (5), deviates somewhat from (3), or strongly deviates (1)

from the value expected at a reference site. The maximum 181 score possible

is 60 and the minimum is 12. further details about the underlying basis of

the IBI and its application are available in Karr et al. (1986).

The individual 181 metrics assess fish corrnunity attributes that are presumed

to correlate (either positively or negatively) with biotic integrity,

Although no one metric alone can indicate this consistently;

.

all of the IBI

metrics combined include the redundancy that is needed to accomplish a

Effective 11/02/0-

4-2

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

"

Effective_11/0:087,_

consistent and sensitive measure of biotic integrity (Angermier and Karr

1986). 181 relies on multi-parameters, a requirement when

the system being

evaluated is complex (Karr et al.

1986). It incorporates elements of

professional

judgement, but also provides the basis for quantitative criteria

for

determing what is exceptional, good, fair, poor, and very poor.

The following describes the metrics of the IBI and how they were derived for

headwaters, wading, and boat sites. These analyses and IC metrics are

specifically tailored to Ohio surface waters and Ohio EPA sampling methods.

Metrics

Karrj1,981) proposed 12 community MetriC

t

'

within three broadCategorical

groupings

?

richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish'

abundace-and

.

Ondition) for calculating the 181. Some of the metrics

respond.

favorably to increasing environmental quality

("'positive metrics") whereas

others respond favorably to increasing degradation ("negative metrics"), Some

respond across; the entire range of perturbation whereas others respond

StrOngly:to a portion of that range (Table 4-i).

A wide

variety

of

stream and river sizeS

.

occur in Ohio. These not only

contain

differing fish assemblages. but require the use of

.

different sampling

methods. Therefore it was necessary to modify the HI for.application to

these .

:

different stream sizes and make,:adlustmentS for' different sampling

gear. The modifications were made in keeping with the .guitlance 'given by Karr

et:AL (1986): Three basic divisions are made; wasiingsites„00atsites, and

headwaters

.

siteS. In Ohio, wading sites_

?drainage areas Oat are

generally less than 300 square miles (range 21

, ,47?

Mi;lrenge-of means

within the five ecoregions 44-128 sq. mi..),

but

greater than 20 square miles.

Boat

.sItt$

include streams and rivers that art tou'Oe0Ha

ed

large to sample

effectively with wading methods. Boat sites generally exceed 100-300 square

miles

in

drainage area (range 117-6479 sq. mi.; range of means for the

eCeregions '225-2190 sq. mi.). Headwaters sites are'' aCtually sampled with the

same gear used at wading sites, but are defined as sampling locations with

drainage areas less than 20 square miles (range 1-20 sq. mi.; range of means

for the eCoregions 5.5-10.2 sq. mi.). These designations are followed

throughout :the text. Figure 4-1 provides -

a flowH

Chart.fbr determining which

181 modification (e.g. wading, headwaters, etc,) should be used to evaluate a

particular site.

The 181 metrics used to evaluate wading sites closely approximates those

proposed by Karr (1981) and refined by rautch et al. -(1984) and Karr et al.

(19$6). The minor changes are in conformity with the guidance of Karr et

al_

(1986). More substantial modifications were necessary for the 181 metrics

used for the boat sites and headwaters sites. These changes were made in

recognition of the different sampling efficiency and selectivity of the boat

Methods and the different faunal character of larger streams and rivers.

Although headwaters sites are actually sampled with the wading methods (Ohio

EPA 19070 these habitats have a different faunal composition resulting from

the strong influence of small channel and substrate size, temporal flow and

4-3

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1983

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11 /02/67

Revision No:

?

4 effective 11/02/B1

water availability.

It is important that the 181 metrics reflect the

character of headwaters fish communities in relation to these critical

factors,

Each of the original HI metrics are discussed including any

modifications

and/or substitutions that were made. A summary of the IBI

metrics appears in 'Table 4-1,

To

determine

the 5, 3, and 1 values 'for

each

IBI metric the

.

reference site

data base

was first plotted against

a log .transformation Of drainage area

for

each of the three site designationt.

All

of the reference

site data from each

icbrigion was Combined for each

method. Individual metric-differences

attributable

to ecoregional differences'

re

accounted for

in

the final

derivation

relationship

tf

with

the

drainage

lBI criteria.

area

existed.;

Each metric

If a

was

positive

tiamined

relationship

to determine

-

was

if

found

any

a 95% line

Was determined and the area

beneath

trisected following the method

used by Bausch et al. (1994). Wading

and

ites

headwaters

data

s

were

combined

for certain common metrics to determine the slope of the 95%

.line even though

scoring ter:these sites are performed separately. The

IBI,Metric score (i.e.

3, or 1) IS then determined by

Compering

the

site drainage area and metric

value with the

figure constructed

from:U1e

reference site data base.

For some of the metrics that showed no potitive relationship with drainage

Area an alternate trisection method was:used.

A

horizontal 5% and 95% line

Was determined and the area between them trisected. A bisection method was

used for

the ,

number of individuals metric. for two others (top carnivores,

anomalies} the. reference site data base was exami

n ed

and

scoring

criteria

established using

best professional judgement. The

resultant 5, 3. and 1

values

are the same at all drainage areas. A similar method of trisection was

used by Hughes and Gammon (1981) for the lower 280 ikm of the Willamette River,

Oregon. Vcpmbination of the standard and alternate trisection methods were

used for certain metrics, particularly ;for the wading sites.

Irisection was performed both separately and joilitly for wading and headwaters

sites, dependin

g

on the metric. All boat sites were trisected separately.

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users

Manual

?

October 30,

1987

Procedure

No. WOMA-SWS-6

Revision

No.

?

1

Date issued 11/02/83

° Effective 11/02/81

Metric 1.

Total Number of indigenous Fish Species (All

Methods)

General

This metric is used with all

three versions of the 181. (Table 4-1). exotic

species (Appendix

4,

Table 8-3) are not

included,

This metric is based on the

well-documented

observation that the number

of indigenous- fish species in a

given size streathior river will decline with increasing environmental

disturbance

(Karr'1981; Karr et al:

1986). Thus the number of fish species

metric is expected:te give an indication of environmental quality.

IhToughout

the range

from

.

exceptional

to poor. Exotic 11..e..

introduC

g

d) species

present

in a

system

through stocking or

inadvertentreleZses do not provide ,an

?

.

accurate assessment

,

of overall integrity and

their

abundance May even indicate

a loss of integrity (Karr et al.

1980.

Wading and Headwaiters Sites

The number-oFspecies is strongly affected

by

drainage area at headwaters

and

wading

sites up to 100

sq. mi.

(Fig. 4

,

;-2). Determining

the

IBI TsCerelor this

metric

involves comparing the resultant Species

richness at the drainege..area

for "the

sitt

..

:sampled

with the resultant ;expectations for referepct...SiteS:of

the same drainage area (Figure 4-2). Scoring criteria are listed-in Tables

4-S (wading ,sites}

.

and 4-7 theadwaters.siteq.:

Boat Sites

Unlike headwaters and smaller wading sites there Is no direct relationship

between increasing

drainage area and species richness at boat sites (Fig.

4-3). Scoring is.

constant at

all drainage areas;

criteria

are

lis ted

i n Table

4

-6.

4-7

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.iiTIE?&IL?Date

Issued

11/02/8?

Revision No. ?

1 ?

'

Effective

11/02/87

Metric 2. Number of Darter Species (Wading, Headwaters)

Proportion of Round-bodied Catostomidat (Boat Method)

General

The dartef species metric is reflective of

good water

quality conditions (Karr

et

al.

1986). None

of the species in this group

have been found

to thrive in

degraded stream conditions (Appendix 8).

Eleven of the twenty-two Ohio

species have been

found

to be highly

intolerant'ef degraded conditions based

on the

Ohio EPA intolerance criteria (Appendix B, Table 8-1). Life

history

data on this:group show

darters to be

insectivorous

habitat specialists; and

Sensitive to physical

and

chemical environmental

disturbances (Kuehne and •

Barbour 1983). These factors make darter

species Tillable indicators of 'good

water quality and

habitat conditions.

Ot

the 22 darter species recorded

in Ohio seven are coMmenlifound

and are not

restricted to

a particular stream size (Trautman

?

Nine

species are

Onfinedto Ohio !Oyer

basin streams; six are strongly associated with medium

and/Or large:rivers'.

The

IOW

and least darters;

are restricted

primarily to

the glaciated areas,"Of Ohio, particulary lai;és

.:

and swamp

habitats. Three

species are

associated with large water conditions (either rivers or L4k,e

Erie) andan

bt found In both the Ohio and St.

Lawrence River basins. The

orangethroat darter (Ethecistoma soectabile)

is associated With western Ohio

prairie

bi low

gradient

small streams.

Wading .Sites

The darter metric as proposed by Karr (1981) is

used for Wading sites only

(Table 41-1).; The-method for. determining the scoring Of the darter species

metric follow those recommended by Karr (1981)

and

K4ei. et al. (110)-„ Ohio

data

:were used to derive maximum species richness lines and- 181 scoring

criteria

(Fig. 4-4),

044WaterSSites

far headwaters sites (i.e. less than 20 square miles drainage area) this

metric alsolnclodeS the mottled sculpin

(Cottus baird1)„

This species is a

benthic insectivore and functions much the same as darters. This results in a

greater level of sensitivity in streams that naturally have fewer darter

species, The headwaters stream data base was used to

define the 181 scoring

criteria which vary with drainage area (Fig. 4-5).

Boat Sites

The proportion of *round-bodied" suckers is substituted

for

the number of

darter species metric for the boat sites. This is donebecause darter species

are not sampled consistently or effectively with the

boat

methods, although

they can occur in the catch. Round-bodied suckers include species of the

'Onsra

Aypentellum

(northern hog sucker),

Moxostoma

(redhorses), Minvtrema

(spotted sucker), and Erimvzon (chubsuckers). These species are sampled

effectively with the boat electrofishing methods and they comprise a sensitive

4-10

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 198?

Procedure No. WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date

Issued 11/02/87

Revision No_

?

1?

" Effective 11/02/87

component of larger stream and river fish faunas, much the same as darters do

in

the wadable streams. The feeding and spawning requirements of both groups

are similar as are their sensitivity to environmental perturbations.

Round-bodied suckers are intolerant of high turbidity and siltation, marginal

and poor chemical water quality,'and the elimination of their riffle-run

spawning and feeding habitats. Round-bodied suckers are an important

component of midwestern streams and rivers and their abundance is a good

indication of

good to exceptional water and habitat quality. The white sucker

(Catostornus con*mersoni)

is not included in this metric since

it.is a highly

tolerant species

(Appendix 8, Table 8-3) and not reflective of the intent of

this

metric. This metric does not

change with

drainage area (Fig. 4-6);

storing criteria are listed

in

Table

4-6.

---

Doc. 001be/0382E

?

Users Manual?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SYS-4

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1

?

° Effective 11/02/87

Metric 3. Number of

Sunfish

Species (Wading, Boat)

Proportion of Headwaters Species (Headwaters)

General

TMs metric follows Karr (1981) and Karr et al. (1986) by including the number

of sunfish species (tentrachidae) Collected at asite,

, excluding

the black

basses (Micropterus spp.). The redear sunfish (Leoomis microlophus) 'is not

included because, in Ohio, it is introduced and

only

locally distributed. The

pine

"species which are included are listed in Appendix 8

,

(Table B-3).

Hybrid

Sunfish are also excluded from this metric.

?

-

This metric is

included

as a monitor of ecosystem degradation. Specifically,

it is

?

measure of

the

degradation of their preferred habitats and fond

items. Differing from suckers and darters, preferred habitats are generally

located in quiet pools where sunfish spend much Of their time near some form

Of instream cover (Pflieger 1975). As such

theyarejenSitiVe to the

degradation of pool habitats. Preferred food items

inCludemidwater and

surface invertebrates

in addition to benthic forms

1011

.0er

1975; Becker

1984...

Other attributes which make this metric well suited for Ohio streams

are

conditions described by early settlers were apparently conducive for

Sunfish

(Trautman 1981), there are a number of species which are widely

distributed in all stream and river sizes

(Trautman

19811',.and they are

effectively captured by electrofishing. The TriTary

range: of sensitivity for

this metric

Is from the middle to high end of the index (Karr

et al. 1986).

Wading and Boat Sites

The number of sunfish species is not affected by increasing drainage area at

Wading and boat sites (Figures 4-7 and 4-8). Scoring criteria for the wading

and boat sites are listed in Tables 4-5 and 4-6.

'lieadwaters

Sites

The number of sunfish species metric is

replaced With the

number of headwaters

species at .sites

with

drainage areas less than

ZO square Miles.

The number of

sunfish Species in headwater streams tends to be quite

low and may be

controlled more by pool quality alone than overall stream quality A group of

nine species are classified as headwaters specie (see Appendix B, Table

87

3). Headwaters species indicate permanent habitat (i.e. water availability)

with law environmental stress. They do not show a trend:aSsOciated with

drainage area (Fig, .4-9). The headwaters species criteria are listed in Table

4

-7.

---

Doc. 00 6e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. wOmA-SWS-6

?

Date

Issued 11/02/87

Revision

No.

?

"* Effective

11/02/87

Metric 4. Number of Sucker

Species

(Wading, Boat)

Number of Minnow Species (Headwaters)

beneral

All species in the family Catostomidae are included in this metric (Appendix

8, Table 8-3). Suckers represent a major component of the Ohio fish fauna

with their total biomass

in

many samples surpassing that of all other species

combined. The general intolerance of most sucker species to habitat and water

-

quality degradation (Karr 1981; Trautman 1981; Becker 1983;

Karr et

al. 1986)

results in a metric with

a

sensitivity at the high end of

environmental

quality. In addition the, relatively lonTlife spans of Many.sucker species

(10-20 years; Becker

1983) provides a long-termassessment-nr

past

and

prevailing

(one )s

extinct)

environmental

seven are

conditions.

widely distributed

Of the 19

throughout

species

still

the

present

state

(Table

in Ohio

4-2).

Wading and Boat Sites

There is a definite.relationshipbetween the number of sucker species and

drainage area at wading sites (Fig. 4-10). Scoring is thus dependent on the

drainage area of the site. and' is. accomplished using FIT.. 4-i0:- No

relationship between drainage area and the number of sucker species is evident

at the boat sites (f)g, 4-11).

.

The compilation of reference site

data results

in

the criteria listed

in

Table 4-6.

Headwaters Sites

The number

of minnow species is substituted for the number of: sucker species

at headwaters sites

?of the inherently low number of

sucker species in

small streams. The

.

number of sucker species decreases

rapidly

with-declining

drainage area at

sites with less than 20 square miles (Fig= 4-10.

Sxamination,of the

headwaters

sites data base revealed that the number of

minnow species would

serve

as a stiitable substitute for this metric. As many

as 10 different minnow species have been observed at sites

;as

small as 5

square miles. The number of minnow species also is positively correlated with

environmental quality. Species such as the redside dace

(Clinostomus

eh/galls), bigeye chub

(Hybopsis amblops),

and bigeye shiner

(Notropis boops)

are examples of the sensitive minnow species that should occur'in high quality

headwaters streams. Other minnow such as creek chub

(Semotilus.

atromaculatus), bluntnoSe Minnow

(PimeohaIes nromelas),

and fathead minnow (P.

promelas)

are tolerant of both chemical degradation and stream dessication.

Thus both ends of the environmental tolerance spectrum are covered by this

metric. There is a definite relationship between the number'of minnow species

and drainage

area

at the headwaters sites (Fig. 4-12). Scoring isthus

dependent on the drainage area of the site and is accomplished using Fig. 4-12.

---

Doc. 0048e/0014e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No,

WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

?

1/02/87

Revision

No.

?

1 ?

"

effective 1/02/87

Metric 5: Number of Intolerant Species (Wading, Boat)

Number

of Sensitive Species (Headwaters)

General

The number of intolerant species metric is designed to distinguish streams of

the highest quality. As a result, the sensitivity of this

metric is at the

highest end of biotic

integrity. Designation of too many species As

intolerant will prevent

this metric from discriminating among the highest

quality streams. Only species that are highly intolerant to a variety of

disturbances

types of perturbations,

were included

species

in this

intolerant

metric

to

so

one

that

type

it will

of

respond

disturbance,

t

o

diversd

but pot

another were not included

.

(Appendix 8).

The

.

criteria. used for determining

intolerance (Table 4-2) are based op

numerical and graphical analysis of Ohio EPA's

statewide data base from 7,979'

through 1985 (Appendi'x 8), Trautman's (1981) documentation of historical

changes in the distribution of species within Ohio, and supplemental

information from regional ichthyological

texts (e.g, Plieger 1915; Becker

1983). Intolerant

species

are those that decline with decreasing

environmental

quality and disappear,

as viable populations, when the aquatic.

environment is degraded

to the °fair° category (Karr et al. 1986).

The'

intolerant species

list

was

.

?

into three categories all of which are

included in scoring this metric as follows:

1)

common intolerant species (designated I in the TOL column of Appendix

B, Table 8-3)

w

species that are intolerant, but are

still widely

distributed in the best streams

in Ohio;

2)

uncoMmOp or geographically restricted species (designated

.

R) .-

species

that

are infrequently captured or that have restricted ranges; and,

3)

species

that are rare or possibly extirpated (designated Sy-

intolerant species that are rarely captured or for which we have

little recent data.

The list

of commonly

occurring intolerant species (i.e. those designated I) is

within the 5-10%

guideline

of Karr (1981) and Karr et al (1986). Although the

addition of species

designated

R tnd S collectively

inflates

the number of

intolerant Species above the 10% guideline, no where in the state do

these

species all occur together at the same time. In the vast majority.Of cases

only one or

two

usually occur in the same collection.

Wading and Boat Sites

The expected fluter of intolerant species increases with drainage area among

the wading sites (figure 4-13); however, such a direct positive trend is not

evident in the boat sites data (Figure 4-14). In fact intolerants seem to

level off and decrease at the larger boat reference sites. Intolerant species

4-24

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA

7SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No_?

1

in large rivers have likely been reduced (see Appendix 8, Table 6-3, TOL

categories R and S); nevertheless, a score of ''5° for this metric has been

observed at the best large river reference sites. Large river intolerant

species still exist in areas of high integrity in large rivers and are

catchattle with the boat electrofishing methods. Therefore, scoring criteria

remain constant with increasing drainage area for the boat sites (Fig. 4-14

and Table

Neadwaters

The number of intolerant species metric is modified to

.include

moderately

intolerant species for application at 'headwaters sites, This combination

is

sensitive species (Appendix B, Table B-3), This is One because few or

no intolerant species are expected in these streams (fig, 4-13), The

moderately

intolerant species meet most of the criteria

.

in

Table 44.

Sensitive species also require permanent pools thus this metric will also aid

in distinguishing

permanent streams from those with ephemeral

characteristics.

An absence of these species would indicate a severe stress

caused .byman-induced perturbation or

loss of habitat due

to A

lack

'of water.

This

?

varies with drainage area and scoring is accomplished using Fig.

4

Effective 11/02/8

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No. ?

1 ?

Effective 11/02/87

Metric

?

Percent Abundance of Tolerant Species (All)

General

This metric isa'modification of one of Karr's original 181 metric's, the

percentage of the fish community comprited.by green sunfish (Karr 1981). This

metric was designed to detect a decline An stream quality from fair to poor.

The

moderate

green

numbers

sunfish

in

(Lepomis

many

Midwest

cvanellus)

streams

is

and

a species

can become

that

a

is

predominantoften

present in

component cifjhecommunity in areas with degraded habitat and/or water

This ability to survive and

reptbduCeln disturbed environments

makes

this:SOeCiettentitive to

changes

in environmental quality

in

severely .

impacted areas

?

Although green sunfish

are,Oneofthe

.

most widely distributed

and numeriCallY'Abundantfish species found-ibthe.MidWest they'ShoW:a'decided

preference towards 'smaller

sized

and low gradient

streams.

This

limits

their

utilityAn

:

asSeSsing impacts

in larger streams and

rivers. Karriet:al,:(1906)

suggested that

other

species could be substituted for

the green sunfish if

they respond in' a l0Milar manner, i.e.,

'

.01 .

y

increase as

a proportion

?

the

CommunitY

in degraded environments.

Several species meeting this criterion

were included

to

give this metric an imprOved‘Sent

.

itiVity for the range. of

streaM:an“iVer

.

.-SAZeS

.

encountered in Ohio. Since

individual

species

have

habitat requirement's

that are keyed to

stream:

itize; composition of the

tolerant species metric shifts with drainage area and this metric remains

useful among.

,smalh medium, and large streams

and rivers.

Ohio's tolerant-sPettes are listed in lable44(also see APPendAt.B, Table

This ''fist was based on a numerical and graphical analysis of Ohio EPA's

catch data

from

1978 through 1985 (Appendix BY and historical changes in the

distribution

?

fish species throughout WO (Trautman 1981). Tolerant

species .are those that 1) are present at a substantial number-of'Sites with

original..

.Wvaluet-

-4'.0 (i.e. fair and poor.Site0,''2) thew either no

decline or a-hittOriCal increase in abundance: or distribution (Trautman 1981),

and 3) shift towards community predominance with decreasing, water and habitat

quality (Table 4

73;

also see Appendix B).

Wading and Headwaters

Data for headwaters and wading sites were plotted and scored together for this

metric (Figure 4-16). No relationship with drainage area was evident up to 10

sq, mi „ but became Inverse for sites greater than 10 sq. mi. Scoring

criteria are given in Tables 4-5 (wading) and 4-7 (headwaters)

Boat Sites

The expected percentage of tolerant species remains constant with increases in

drainage area at boat sites (Figure 4-17). Scoring criteria are given in

Table 4-6.

4-29

---

Doc.

.0018e/0382E

?

Users Manual?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date issued 11102/81

Revision

Nu.

?

. 1

?

g

Effective 11/02/81

Metric 7. Omnivore Metric (All)

General

The Ohio EPA definition of an omnivorous

species follows Karr (1981) and Karr

et al. (1985) with two important distinctions added: Specialized filter-

feeding species which technically are omnivorous

are not

included. Specialist

filter feeders

are

represented in Ohio by the paddlefish

. (Polyodan spathula)

and brook

lamprey ammocoetes. These species are generally sensitive to

environmental degradation.

Since the

omnivore metric

Is designed

to measure

increasing levels of environmental degradation due 0-eHdisruption

of

the food

base it is not appropriate to include these sensitive, filter feeding species

in this metric. This metric was further restricted to those species that did

net

show feeding specialization and

were reported 'priMaillyas omnivores

in

all

studies reviewed: This removes such species as Channel catfish (IctalurUs

aunctatus)

which may .or may not feed as an.otinivort under:different

environmental conditiohs..

Species considered at omnivores are listed in

Appendix 8, Table

Wading and Headwaters Sites

Theeffeet of these restrictions limits the nmniNorelletric to those species

that consistently feed as omnivores. Consequently, overall percentages of

omnivores are different from Karr (1981) and -Kerr

evsi.A19%). To determine

appropriate criteria for 5,

?

and 1 181 scores the :_(thie:IPA reference sites

data base was exaMined, Furthermore a relationship with drainage area

was

found for sites less than 30 sq. mi. (Fig. 4-18), Scoring criteria for

the

wading and headwaters sites is given in

1401w.i.o.:::04:

apat

Sites

NO

relationship with drainage area was

foupdjerjheprOpOrtion of omnivores

at boat sites (Fil. 4-19). Scoring criteria aregivenin

Table

4

-

6.

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No, WOMA-SW5-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1

?

' Effective 11/02/87

Metric?

Proportion as insectivores (All)

This metric is designed to be sensitive over the middle range of biotic

integrity. A low abundance of insectivorous species can reflect a degradation

to the

insect food base of a stream (Karr et al. 1986). As disturbance

increases the diversity of

benthic insects decreases, production becomes more

variable, and the community often becomes predominated by a few taxa (Jones et

al. 1981). Thus, specialist feeders such as specialist insectivores will

decrease and be replaced by generalist feeders such as omnivores. This

represents a modification from Karr et al. (1986) using insectivorous

Cyprinids alone.

Wading and Headwaters Sites

We

differ from Karr et

at

(1986) by excluding two species

that are

generalized and opportunistic in their feeding habits, creek chub and

blacknose dace. Inclusion of these two species as insectivores in a West

Vi

r

g

inia stud

y

resulted in a negative correlation between insectivores and the

1BI (Leonard and Orth 1986), -when the relationship should have been positive

Oingermier and Karr 1986). Exclusion of these

generalist feeders follows the

reasoning of Leonard and Orth (1986) who felt that the current definitions of

trophic groupings were often arbitrary. The ecological function scored by

these metrics was best served by describing species as specialist (e.g.'

specialized insectivores) or generalist feeders

. (Appendix B. Table B-3)-

•

Scoring criteria.

for

'this :

metric show a positive

relationship with drainage

area up to 30 sq. ml. for the headwaters and wading

sites (Figs. 4-20),

Scoring criteria are

listed

in

Tables 4-S and 4-1.

Boat Sites

Insectivores show no drainage area effect (Fig. 4-21) and criteria were

established using the:Alternate trisection method.

4-37

---

00c, 0048e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1901

Procedure No. WOMA•S14S-6?

Date Issued 11/01/87

Revision No. ?

1 ?

4

Effective 11/02101

Metric 9, Top Carnivores (Wading, Boat)

Proportion of Pioneering Species (Headwaters)

General

Karr (1981) developed

the top carnivore metric to measure community integrity

in the

upper functional levels of the fish community. In

designating a:

species as a tOpcarnivore we

followed Karr (1981) and 'Karr it al, (1906).

Species whiCh feed primarily on Other vertebrates or crayfish are included

in

this metric

{Appendix

8, Table

?4s with the omnivore metric,

species

which

display feeding plasticity are

excluded (e.g. channel catflSh),

Wading

Sites

Karr

(1961) inditated that expectations for the

proportion of top carnivores

should

change

with drainage area. An examination of the Ohio_

EPA data base

reveals

that

no

relationship exists between the proportion

of top carnivores

and drainage area. at

?

greater than.-20 sq. mi. An examination Of the Ohio

data

base for

:Wading

sites

yielded the same criteria as that proposed lbar karr

deriving

et al. (1080;

the'sCOrip“riteria.

:Fig; 4422; Table 4)

,

-;

No trisection method was

.?

employed

,

in

Boat

Sites

No drainage area related trend was observed for boat data which disPlayed

consistent and higher top carnivore proportions for all drainage areas (Fig.

4-23), The criteria listed in Table 4

,.41

were derived using

beast

professional

judgement An examinin

g-the r efe

rence

sites data base. No trisection ,ProcedUre.

was used in deriving the scoring c

r

iteria,

Headwaters

An examination:Of:the headwaters stream data base revealed that top carnivores

are virtually rabsent or in very low abundance at headwaters sites; A metric

is needed fotithe headwaters sites that reflects the degree to which the

community may be temporal thus reflecting the permanence of the headwater

stream habitat, Smith (1979) identified certain small stream species in

Illinois as

.,

pioneerine species. These are species which are the first to

reinvade sections of headwater streams that have been dessicated by prolonged

periods of dry Weather, These species also predominate in unstable

environments :that have been affected by temporal desication and/Or'

anthropogenic stresses. Thus a high proportion of pioneering species

-

is' an

indication of a habitat that is temporally not available, under stress, or

both, Scoring criteria for this method are listed in Table 4-7 as determined

by trisection (FIg, 4-24).

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1907

Procedure No.10

.

11A-Sws-e.?

Date Issued 11/02/07

Revision No.

?

1

?

" Effective 11/02/87

Metric 10: Number of Individuals in a Sample (All)

General

This metric assesses population abundance as the number of individuals per

unit of sampling effort. This metric is most sensitive at the low to middle

end of biotic integrity when polluted sites yield fewer individuals (Karr et

al. 1986). In such cases the normal trophic relationships are disturbed

enough to have severe effects on fish production or directly reduce fish

abundance through toxic. effects. As Integrity increases total abundance

increases and becomes more variable (Figure

472q.0th

natural factors such as

ionic

concentration, temperature, and aMount

.

of .

energ* reaching the stream

surface. However, certain

.

perturbations, such as channelization with canopy

removal, can lead.to increases in the abundance of fishes, especially tolerant

species (e.g. bluntnose minnow). Thus inclusion of these-species may obscure

negative environmental change. To decrease thevariability in scoring •of this

Metric and to avoid rewarding disturbed sites_:the relative number of

individuals excludes species designated as tolerant (Table 4-3).

Wading and Headwaters Sites

Drainage area affects the number of individuals at headwaters and wading sites

by increasing numbers with drainage area up to just under 8 sq. mi.. (Figure

4724).

This telatiOnship'became horizontal above 8 Sq. Mi. Because the

relationship. between environmental quality And. abundance of individuals is not

linear a log transformation of the relative number of

'individuals

(excluding

tolerant species)-

was performed. Strong deviations

.

from the expected in a

least impacted stream (score "of "1") were determined by examining fish numbers

in a

series: of *acted streams and rivers-. For both.

?

and wading sites

this break point ryas

200 individuals (per km and 300 m,

respectively). This

number approximated the 5% lines in Figures 4-24 and 4-27. Remaining scoring

criteria ("5" and "3") were calculated by bisecting

'.the

area in between the 5%

and 96$ lines. This was then used to determine the appropriate 181 metric

score hit- the wading and boat sites (Tables 4-5

40

44).

Boat Sites

No relationship with drainage area was found for numbers at boat sites (Fig.

4-27). A bisection between the 5% and 95% lines was Used to determine the

scoring criteria given in Table 4-6.

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

WA-sws-6

?

Date issued 11/02/87

Revision flo,

?

1

?

Effective 11/02/87

Metric 11: Proportion of Individuals as

Simple tithophilic Spawners

This metric was designed as a replacement metric for the proportion of

individuals as hybrids. In Ohio streams the hybrid metric was not a

consistent Indication of water quality or habitat problems per its original

intent. Hybrids have been observed to occur in high quality Ohio streams

(e.v.:minnow hybrids), can arise from sensitive parent species (e.g. longear

sunfish), are often times absent from headwaters

streaMS

and severely impacted

streams', and they can be difficult to identify. AlthoUgh

. the

-

frequency of

hybridization has often been associated with habitat degradation this did not

appear consistently enough in the Ohio EPA data

base

th distinguish this type

of

in1Patt.:

Stiawningiguilds have been $hewn'tn be affected by

.

hhabitat quality (Berkman.

and

Rabeni 1987) and have been suggested as an alternative IBT:metrit (Angermier

!all() Karr 1986)

?

Fish that exhibit simple spawning behavior and

.

reauire clean

gravel and/or cobble for successful reproduction (i,e. *lAthbOhi)iiuS

ü ) appear

to be the most environmentally sensitive of the spawning

.

01,1dS, These simple

lithophilic.,

species broadcast their eggs which then come Into contact with the

bottOM:40bttrate. Eggs then develop in the interstitial spaces between sand,

graVel

*

and'cobble,Sized substrate particles. Berkman and Rabeni'(1981) found

A significant negative correlation between simple. 110(30111c spawners and the

percentage 0 silt in riffles, Historically some

sim

p

le

lithophilic spawners

have suffered population declines in Ohio,

due

i n

Part to increased silt loads

in StreaMs

.

.(Trautinan 1981). Some simple spawners do not require clean

substrates and often have buoyant,. adhesive, Or fast developing eggs and

ptiotoactic larvae

that

have minimal contact with

the

.substrate

(fi6

1 6h

1975).

These

:

atetermed simple miscellaneous spawnerS. Fish

S

0041e4

that exhibit a

00-re

complex spawning behavior can minimize the

effects

.

of Wt and

pollution

by depositing their eggs away

from silt on the underSOrfAceS of rocks .

(e .g.

fantail darter, bluntnose

.

and fathead minnows) or,

by

building nests and

guarding andcaring for the eggs (elg. most sunfishes),

These are

termed

complex with and without parental care. Designations of Ohio fish species

appearS'in Appendix 8, Table 8-3.

Because of their unique sensitivity to environmental diSturbances,

particularly siltation, simple lithophilic species are 1$0d...

Wading:

.

and Boat Sites

Ho relationship with drainage area was observed at wading sites (Fig. 4-27).

Thus scoring was accomplished using the alternate trisection method. Simple

lithophils

are a major component of the fish communities in these streams,

reflecting the importance of clean gravel and cobble i$04strates. A partial

relationship between the proportion of simple lithophilic species and drainage

area was found at the boat sites (Fig. 4-28). This involved a decreasing

trend at sites with drainage areas greater than 'BOO square miles. This is

---

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

W0MA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

apparently related to the increased proprtion of groups such as buffaloes,

carpsuct:ers, gars, gizzard shad, which are classified as simple

,

miscellaneous

spoWners (salon 1975).

Headwaters Sites

nOmber of simple lithophilic species is used instead of the proportion of

individuals for headwaterS. Because headwaters are more Mely to be

predominated by a few

:

species,

some of which may be SimPle lithophils, the

oPm0er of simple lithophilic species is a more censistent environmental

indicator. This metric is strongly related to drainage area at headwaters

sitei (fig. 4-29).

Effective_11/02/87

Poc. 0048e/0000e

?

Users Manual

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

Users Manual

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1

?

" Effective

11/02187

Metric 12: Proportion of Individuals With Deformities,

Eroded fins, Lesions, and Tumors - DELT (A11).

G

eneral

This metric keys in an the health of individual fish within a community using

the percent occurrence of external anomalies and corresponds to:the percentage

of diseased fish

ih

Karr's (1981) original 1BI. Studies of wild fish

populations have revealed that these and other anomalies are

,

either

Osent

or

occur at very: lowrates at reference sites, but reach higher percentages at

impacted-4ites

H (Mills et

-

al. 1966; Berra and Au 1981; Baumann:ttal.;:1907),

Common causes of DELT (deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors)

anomalies are described in Allison et al. (1437), Post (1983)

l and Ohio

EPA

1987a arid include the effects of bacterial,

viral, fungal, and:paraIltic_

infections, neoplastic diseases, and chemicals. An Increase in the"frequency

of occurtentt..Of these anomalies is

generally an indication of stress and

environmental degradation which may be caused by chemical pollutants:i.:

overcrowding, improper diet, excessive siltation, and other disturbances

Blackspet is not included because the presence and varying degrees of

infestion 'May:be natural and not related to environmental degradation (Aillson

et aL 1911.; Berra and Au 1981). Also, analysis of Ohio data has shown no

clear relationship between black spot and stream degradation . .(Whittier,it Al.

)997). Other parasites are also excluded due to the 1,34 of 'a..,00nsistent.

relationsMp with environmental degradation although theit-effects can

resemble and leadt0 tumors, deformities, and lesions. 'Prior to, using this

metric', 046: EPA (1987a) should be referred to for Consistent data recerding

procedures and as a reference for specific anomalies 'included in each category..

In Ohio, the highest incidence of DELT anomalies occurs in fish tp5ounities

downstream from discharges of industrial and municipal Wastewater:, and areas

subjected to the intermittent stresses from combined sewers and urban runoff.

Leonard and Orth 0980 found that this metric showed consistent and marked

responses between increasing incidence of anomalies and increasing 'stream

degradation: Karr et a1.. (1986) report that the primary range ofsensitivity

for this metric

At the

low end of the IBI. We have also observed this metric

to function-well in situations where structural measures (i.t species

rithness:numbers, biomass) indicate improving conditions. for example,

modified iwty.

-scores indicative of near complete

recovery

in the Scioto Riv r

downstream from telembus were accompanied by DELT values greater than 3.

This observation Stows that subacute stresses are present and that recovery is

not as complete

es the

Structural measures alone indicate_ Thus thismetric

can also

represent the intermediate

to high range of fish community

sensitivity to environmental stress.

Wading and Boat Sites

Both the

scoring method and

criteria for this metric differs from Karr et al.

(1986) and was developed by analyzing wading and boat method

data. from

4-53

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-516-8

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1?

" Effective 11/02/87

reference sites sampled in Ohio between 1983 and 1986. For wading sites, the

median DELT anomalies was rounded to 0,1% for the highest expected score

(between S and 3) and the 90th

percentile

value (1.3%) was used for

determining the criteria between 3 and 1. For boat sites, the median DELT

anomalies was 1.06% and the 90th percentile was 4.6%. A Criteria of 0.5% was

chosen for distinguishing between 5

and 3 and the 75th

percentile (3.0%) was

used for

the

criterion strongly deviating from

the expected (between 3 and

1), We found that one fish

would exceed the 0.6%

criteria when the sample

size contains less than 200 fish.

One fish with a DELI anomaly would be

accepted at a

*5

site and two fish

at a *_3" .site,

so these criteria are used

when a relative abundance of less than

200 ftsh

is recorded.

Headwaters Sites

The same criteria used for the wading sites are also

used

for

headwaters sites

(Table 4-7).

---

Doc. 0017e/04021

Users 'Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1

' Effective 11/02/87

Calculation and interpretation of 161 Scores

Karr.

et al.. (1986) describes eight steps for the logical sequence of 181

calculation (Table 4-8). Step 1, developing expectation criteria for each

metric, has been completed using reference site data from across Ohio. Step

3, assigning species to trophic guilds, and Step 4, identification of

intolerant species, is also complete (see Appendix 8, Table 6-3). The

following description of Step 2 and Steps 5

:

8 cover hand calculation of I81

Stores. Computer

generation of 181 scores, with appropriate

cautions, is

discussed later.

Step 2 consists of tabulating a list of

species (in tax0o0Mic:Order) captured

in

:

4-surVeyand tallying in columns: the relative number of

each

species at •

each sits. Trophicoguilds and intolerance status

fel

.

Ohio fish Species are

listed inApPendix 8, Table 6-3.

1 )

,

step

5, the biological informatiOn needed fee eachnietriC-it:summarized in

a

worksheet similar that in Table'.44

compiled

for the

Hocking River. Actual

ialueSje,g.,

number of darter species) should be

placed

;in

the-Parentheses.

It.s:Works

best to use separate

sheets

for: each different,..s'amOling-:0etnod

application (i.e. wading sites vs

.. headwaters sites, boatSIteS:-VS. wading

.0t

-)

.: •becaus

e

each

havedifferentitorIng

Criteria. The drainage area

Of

each site should also be listed (see: Appendix E).

Step.j.6:involVes rating each metric for each site sampled

. . 'Criteria

are found

in Tables 4:5, 4-6, and 4-7 and in the individual figures for.the five metrics

that vary•with drainage area. The scoring is arrangedLso.thaLa '5"

approximates what is expected at a reference site, a *,3*.deviates somewhat

from„,and a 'I* strongly deviates from that expected atan-applitable

reference site. Care should be taken so that wading sites, boat sites, and

headwaters.sites samples are scored Separately. In Severely impacted

i

streams

with less than 200 individuals per 0

.

.3 km (wading sites, headwaters sites) or

per 1.0jt (.boat sites), some of the conventions for scoring the proportional

metrics (except for percent tolerant species) are altered following the

guidance AO Appendix 8.

Step 7 is simply the summing of the twelve metric scores for each site. The

maximum score possible is 60 (no perturbation); the minimum score, where all

metrics deviate strongly from that expected at an applicable reference site,

.12 (extremel

y

degraded).

Step 8 consists of assigning integrity classes to the scores that reflect a

;general qualitative summary of the community that non-professionals can

Understand and that are used to determine whether a stream is meeting its

assigned use designation. This is discussed in Section.6, 'Derivation of

Biological Criteria*. The procedure used to assign these categories in Ohio

streams, which differs somewhat from the classes suggested by Karr et al.

{1-90), it discussed in this section.

4-58

---

Doc. 0048e/0000e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1 987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1?

" Effective 11/02/87

Extremel

y

Few Numbers ("Low-end Scoring")

Samples with extremely low numbers in the catch can present a scaring problem

in some of the proportional metrics unless certain adjustments are made.

Aquatic habitats that are severely impacted by strong perturbations (e.g.

toxic substances, acid mine drainage) usually have a severe disruption of the

food base and very low numbers of individuals. At such low population sizes

proportion

the normal structure

of

omnivores,

of the

insectivorous

community is

fishes,

unpredictably

and percent

altered.

affected

The

by

anomalies do not always match expected trends in such situations. Although

these metrics would

be expected to deviate strongly

from the expected in such

areasji,e. score a 1) this is not always the

case. in fact

the absence or

low proportion of these metrics results in metric scores

that reflect the

opposite

-

of

the overall situation.

Scoring very degraded sites without modifying

scoring 'criteria

for the

proportional metrics can overrate the total 181 scbre for these sites

.

. To

remedy this situation we examined data from known

impacted

sites to determine

a relative numbers criterion below which an alternative

.

.scoring mechanism

"low end scoring

.

") is used for the proportional metrics., These problems

are encountered when relative numbers are fewer than 200 individuals per 0.3

kin (wading)

?

1.0 km (boat). When 200 and fewer individuals are recorded the

guidanCe.-in Table 4-10 is used making 181 scoring MOdifications;. This was

developed by examining the reaction of the

.18I metrics far-moderately and

severely-impacted sites (Appendix. A).

During.

?

process of tallying catch results, sUeimai'101igiPiological

information

for

each metric, and scoring each metric, the biologist should be

assessing the community

and examining whether

the scoring approximates

the

conceptual model of an applicable reference

site or whether

the site they are

examining is anomalous for one reason or

another,

The

inherent

redundancy of

the .01 should

greatly reduce the possibility of such

anomalies.

The

possibility

characterize

does

a site;

exist,

thus

however

the biologist

remote, for

should

the

have

IBI

a

totly"

thorough

:"incorrec

knowledge of

the local fauna and the data. This is one reason why the Ohio EPA relies on

multiple measures (161 and Iwb) and multiple organism groups (fish and

invertebrates) to make decisions on complex water quality issues. Guidelines

for the use of the 181 as a water quality criterion is discussed further in

Section

•

7, Biological Criteria for Ohio Surface Waters".

The above caveats are purposely mentioned prior t., the description of computer

generated IRI scores. Karr et al. (1986) give strong cautions about the

possible misuses of the IBI including computer generated score calculations,

Total IBI scores themselves, calculated without an in-depth analysis of the

fish communities, can be an inappropriate measure of environmental quality.

However, when the components of the IB1 and the fish community are examined by

a trained biologist, computer generation of IBI scores can serve to enhance

the overall evaluation by reducing time spent on calculations and increasing

the time available for 181 score interpretation.

4-61

---

Doc. 0048e/0014e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOKA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/81

Revision No.

?1 ?

° Effective 11/02/61

Index of Well-Being

The results of river studies in which the Index of Well-Being (INS) was used

have shown a positive relationship between this index and the quality of the

water and habitat. This approach relies, on the assertion that least impacted

stream segments support a larger variety and abundance of fish than stressed

segments in the same system. This hypothesis has been tested and verified in'

several different Situations (Gammon 1976; WAPORA 1918; Gammon et

gal. 1981;

Yoder

et

41, 1981;.'

Ohio EPA 1982) and confirms the value that this method has

for monitoring environmental quality, measuring the effectiveness of water

pollution control Programs, and determining attainment of Clean

:

Water Act

goals (14.

e. fishable waters, biological integrity), The Ohio EPA has used a

set of guide lees employing ranges of the

?

and narrative

de

sc OPti

.

gns

.

of

community structure and function to assist in establishing attainable use

criteria.and to

.

determine attainment of 'Clean Water Act goals

s1 110

.

1980 (see

Section .13).

The '1.6

.

-incorporates four measures of fish corwnunities that have:

traditionally been used separately; numbers of individbals,: :hiptass, and the

Shannon diversity index (H) based on numbers and weight (two separate

calculations), The 'computational formulas for the Iwb, and Shannon ,index are

given

in

Table 4-11.. Relative abundance (numbers

and

weight) data are derived

frOt'

,

pulsed 0,C..

,

tlectrofishing catches

.

Where sampling effort

is based on

distance rather than time (Gammon 1976). .Ohio EPA bases relative abundance on

a per 101bmeter basis for boat methods and on a 0..3 kilometer basis fbt wading

methods (Ohio EPA 1987a),

The Iwb,presentS.some advantages over the.IB1 particularly in the

cal49

Ta

tAPP

si

t escores.

Unlike the IBI the 114

-

it the result of a

mathematibal. Calculation based on the results of .standardize&Satpling. While

this may`:appearto

be an undesirable attribute baSed'on.theOautiOns given by

Karr et?

(1.986), we view this as an advantage in having'a result that is

comparable from site to site, as long as field sampling is performed according

to specifications (Ohio EPA 1987a). In addition we taVe found that the

additional collection of biomass data (required tb-Calculatethelw6) IS not

a significant expenditure of time as long as subsampling techniques are used

(Appendix 0),

A modification of the original Iwb was recently developed (Appendix C) which

makes the index more sensitive to a wider array of environmental disturbances,

particularly those that result In shifts in obmmunity composition without

large

.

reductions in pecieS richness, numbers, and

/

or biomass.. The modified

1wh retains the same computational formula as the conventional tub

developed by Gammon

(1976). The difference is that any of

f 13 highly tolerant

species, hybrids, or exotic species are eliminated from the numbers and

biomass components of the 110b. However, they are included in the two

Shannon index calculations. This modification eliminates the.%ndesired"

effect caused by a high abundance of tolerant species, but retains their

4-64

---

Doc. 0048e/0014e

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1?

° Effective 11/02/07

"desired" influence on the Shannon indices. We have also found that examining

the difference between the original Iwh and modified

Lib

can be of value.

An increasing difference between the modified and original 1.-wb is a direct

indication of the influence of tolerant species whichin turn is correlated

with a loss of integrity in the fish community.

Calculation of modified Iwb scores for electrofishing samples is best

performed with the aid of a computer. The data requirements are somewhat more

rigorous than the J81 since standardized relative numbers and biomass data is

required and the Shannon index and 1,6 calculations themselves involve log

functions. Other requirements include sampling effort based on distance

following the procedures outlined in Ohio EPA.M$70. Data collected in any

different manner will simply net be

comparable

to the Ohio EPA reference site.

data base.

---

Doc_ 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October?

1987

Procedure Ho. glik2(S-6

?

Date issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

"

Effective 11/02/87

Sampler type is chosen using

the guidance in Section V_5 of the

Ohio

EPA field methods manual (QA

manual; Ohio EPA 1987a)

Boat Electrofishing

-

methods

(Samp

ler Type

"As )

.

are used-

Wading Electrafishing

methods (Sampler Types

I

D", 'E", or "F") are

'used.

V

DrainageArea.

> 20

sq

Drainage Area

120 sq. mi.

Use Boat Situ.coring

procedures and criteria

(Table 4-6),

Use Wading

Sites

scoring criteria

and procedures

(Table 4-5)-

Use Headwaters

scoring cri-

teria and pro.

cedures (Table

4-7).

Figure 4-1: Flow chart for determining Which set of 161 criteria and

procedures (headwaters, wading, or

boat versions)

to use in

calculating the Index of Biotic Integrity for a particular

site.

---

WADING/HEADWATER SITES

0 ?

m?

a

p•

?

ao

?

a?

a?

a?

a

•

-0?

a •-0, 0) *ay

, • •

0 ■

0 MO

0 V

?

*?

• __ *am 0 a p

?

a? a 0

00

a o o

to * 00 0

o a?

a

0

co**co

ma

•

pa-

?

?

w

i so

ti

?

0

0 o

?

aato

o 0?

0

* •

00

pa so ita 0c*

?

0

t 00:.

?

00 0 , MI 0?

'01......10

0

?

Oa 0

a

0:.0

0

0 0

:0

?

0

on

? a

a a

?

a co *a op

a • • *0? 0

?

O

0 0

00'

0 *0

?

?

0000

0 .0

4$W.

?

. 0?

0

' 000

0 0*

'OM

. 001 ?

O . 0 0 0 DO0

?

0

0` 0 00 0 * 0

0?

0.0 0 0 0

?

0

0

*0

?

00

?

0

?

0 0?

0?

* 0

0?

0 0 0 0

0

?

00? 0 0

?

*

a 0 a?

00 0 a?

0

o

a a

00?

Oa

0 0?

0?

0

0?0?

0

?

.0

.

a.?

a . . . ,

0

,.

.?

• ■• .

.p..

a

?

0

a? a

?

0

a?

0

a?

a

p

?

a?

a

a

•• •

a

I

Doc. 0015e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Revision

Procedure

No.

No.

?

WQMA-SWS-6

1

?

?

Date

" Effective

Issued

11/02/87

11/U/47

ap

10

z

C1

?

1.

04

?

10 CI

DRAINAGE AREA (SO . MI )

Figure 4-2. Number of species vs, drainage area (Headwaters and Wading

sites) showing a combined standard and alternate trlsection

method for determining 5, 3, and 1 181, scoring.

4-8

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

Users Manual

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision

No. ?

1 ?

* Effective 11/02/87

DRAINAGE AREA (SO MI

Figure 4-3. Number of species vs. drainage area (Boat sites) showing

alternative

trisection method (no drainage area relationship)

fordetermining5, 3,

and 1 'MI

scoring.

4-9

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?Users

Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

'

Effective 11/02/87

10

9

• WADIN$

7

-11 a-

PM AP*

*?

17?

0.0 t

7

700 *OS

.*

.9* le*

0*

t*

0

iRe

•

?

7,1,7

40

•

* •

p 4*

00.00004

0- •

0?

41

?

I

i1

I

1,00

DRAINAGE AREA (S .MI

Figure 4-4. Number of darter species vs. drainage area (Wading sites)

using the standard trisection method (positive relationship

with drainage area) for determining 5, 3, and 1 IBI scoring.

1

0

C

J

4-12

---

HEADWATER SITES....

10

DRAINAGE AREA. (SO MI .

Figure 4-5. Number of darter/sculpin species vs. drainage area (Headwaters

sites) using the standard trisection method (positive

relationship with drainage area) for determining 5, 3, and 1

IEI scoring.

4-13

Doc. 0016e/0382E

Users Manual

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WQMA-SWS-& Date

Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

1

6 Effective 11/02/87

---

(f)

0 ioo

(f)

?

BO

a

70

H

0

0

50

03?

40

o

I

30

20

10

Dot. 0016e/0302E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30

a

1907

Procedure No.

WOMA-5WS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

* Effective 11/02/87

•

a

0

•?

•

•?

o

s,

..

?

.?..

...

.

.

?

..

..?

•?

•

•

?

.

?

•

.

?

.?.?

..

BOAT

SITES

0

"?

"

"

an

6

• -

*o

• 6 •a

•?•

•D •

o

•?

-

?

•

?

•

0

•?

•

0

o*

0

0

• ?

I*

0

'

0

.?

?

.

•

.

cta

•

?

a?

•

.

•Iffig,

a-

•

?

...

c

G

.?. .

.0.•

•?

.

0

4

.0.0 .....

.

•

. o0

+

.

?

.

.

00

0 0

.?

.?

.

.

Aa

0

$1

0

•

a0

9

.?

0

,?

...

...0

•

0

•?

.

.....0

.

a )3

0

0

a .

.?

.?

.?

.

a

.000

?

iO40 0

DRA NAGE AREA (SO

figure 4-6. Percent of round-bodied suckers vs. drainage Area (Boat sites)

using the alternate trisection method (no drainage area

relationship) for determining 5, 3, and 1 1B1

4-14

---

•

1 • •?

A.

?

a?• ' •?

•

V*

•

OS

•

•

• 0 •? •r* *

"C. a

• II

•

0 0

•

•

0

• • D

.

110.0P 001

•

00:0010110

0 0 00—

011000 al

'0

C5

OW

0000 0 •

• ......

y0.0

?

000

0

ø o

• 0-?

•0.

WADING SITES

-

.11i0.1.0101•01:40

?

-4'

?

P■009

:fie a nay • •0

o

?

3

.0

?

r

44,-*40,0000.0.110r6r.

•

10 0 0 3 0?

AMP 00•0

.

P • -

D0

0 asela?

K•

:Yo=.

?

a

?

6. ........

Doc. .0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

Effective 11/02/87

7

6

4

0

DRAINAGE AREA (SO.MI.)

figure 4-7. Number of sunfish species vs. drainage area (Wading sites)

using the alternate trisection Method (no relationship with

drainage area) for determining 5, 3, and 1

IBI

scoring.

Values at sites draining less

. than 20 square miles are

included for reference.

100C

4-16

---

•

0

?

-10 4

.

• •?0 •?

•

?

00

4'

•

.....

,......

....

4?

44?

•?

•?•?•?14?•?V?•?4?It?

I?

•

?•0 *?•??

•••••••■

4444.

BOAT SITES

.....

, ,

#

# .

?

•0.?

•

?

.

?

.•?.

-•

?

ooa

?

•?

•00 .00?

•?. •

.0

0

•?

CV

•

•

•

?

•

?

•

?

•

?

•

?

0?

.

0 4?

'

•?

•

? ...—,

,

•011?

•

•?10 0 Olt

.

?

• 01-0D

?

• 'V' WO

•

0 • •.0•

?0?•*-

. ■?

•?

•?

■-?

•?0 .0.?

•?

0?

.?

4?' •?

t?

•,-?

0

?

••?

5:

.

?

.

?

.......

.........

•

•

?p

•

?

• •0 la a ago

•aa 9 • ••

?

•

?

adaa • olla

?

•

?

• •

• I • -a .0 •

•

•

?

0

?

•

?

•?

•?

•

?

9*

?

•

?

*

41

?

.....

.....

....

.

0 0•

a

....,

...-

-.....

•?

•?a?•?

•?

•

?

•?

•?

•-

?

•-

?

•

•?

.130•?

••

?0?

•?

•

?

•?

0?

•?

•

?

•

?

•?

•?

•?

•

?

-?

•?

,?

•?

•?

.?

•

1

...........,

•,.....

•....

1

............._._L_1......I....._L_L=

7

6

6

4

a

too

lboo

1.000,

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WQMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?1 ?

' Effective 11/02/87

DRAINAGE AREA (SO MI

figure 4-S. Number of sunfish species vs.

drainage area (Boat sites) using

the alternate trisection method (no relationship with drainage

area) for determining 5, 3, and 1

In

storing.

4-17

---

I

cr

U

?

tt

•

0 '0'

• •

0' 0

.

0 9

• .90 •?

•?

'• • '• • '• •—• • • • • •

•

'.9 •

'* • • *** • *

? a. • •?

• * v• • p•-a-• o fro

?

0

?

3-

•

.• sr .

• IP •is • • IF • a • • a.

• • ts at/ ao•

••■•,•1

1■1•••

• • •

? .• •?

•

? • ora...

eV*

41.

4•0?

•

_„( J

i00

.

7

■••■■7

.?•?

• •

0'?

0?

•

?

*

?

*At -?

*9.?4IF"

•

tt •

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1981

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/81

Revision No.

?

1

?

Effective 11/02/8/

• • **** • •

0'?

0"

HEADWATER SITES

DRAINAGE AREA

Figure 4-g

. Humber of headwaters species vs, drainage area (Headwaters

sites) using the alternate trisection method (no relationship

with drainage area) for determining 5, 3, and 1 IBI scoring.

4-18

---

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Procedure No. WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued 11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

" Effective 11/02/87

Li

w

U

10

?

too

?

1000

DRAINAGE AREA •(

Figure 4-10. Number Of sucker species vs. drainage area (Wading sites)

using. the standard trisection method (positIve relationship

with drainage area) for determining 5, 3, and 1 181

scoring.

Values at

sites

draining less than 20 square miles are.

included for reference.

4-21

---

•

.0

4

0

•

■131 • • • •

0

S

.0

•410

• •1000

0 0 I*

•

000 • • 0 . • • •

•

•• 0. •

• 0* •?

•?

.•0.• •?

• •

3

• * •

"ft

• •

?

'

?

•?

0 •?

•

?

"

+a*

?

•

otp

.0 • .0*

0

*0 0

•

•

0

,0*** • O•?

•?

•

0

MO • • • 0•

WNW

*111*

10?

'4•44.

?

• •

I

?

*. 0

1

?

• •

1?

• •

II

•

?

• • * • .-?. • . . • .

II

BOAT SITES:

•

• 0 *?

*Of.?- • • • 6 • 00 • .• • •

'0

• * • • • • •

6?

rioir?

•-*F.: • •0?

so?

• • •• 0 • 0 • J.?• ...?

404

•?t?

4. •

•

00

t ■ 41,

CI)

7 —

ct

uJ

1)

CI)

Doc. 0016e/0382E

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Revision

Procedure

No.

No.

?

WO4A-SWS-6I

?

?

Date

Effective

Issued

11/02/87

11/02/87

100

?

1000

?

10.00C

DRAINAE AREA (SC) -

?

)

figure 4-11. Number of sucker species vs. drainage area (Boat sites) using

the alternative trisection method (no drainagearea

relationship) for determining 5, 3, and 1 IBI scoring.

4-22

---

HEADWATER

SITES

0

z.

H

2

Doc. 0018e/0382E

? Users Manual

Procedure NoA-SWS-b

Revision No.

?

1

October 30, 1987

Date Issued 11/02/87

Effective 11/02/87

1.00

DRAIN

GE AREA. (SO

MT

Figure 4-12. Number of minnow species vs. drainage area (Headwaters sites)

using the standard trisection method (positive relationship

with drainage area) for determining 5, 3, and 1 IR' scoring.

4-23

---

Doc.

0016e/0382E

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1587

Revision

Procedure

No.

Na.

?

WQMA-SWS-61

?

?

Date

* Effective

Issued

11/02/87

11/02/87

WADING

srrEs

0

•

V D-

z

j

0

z

•

......?

a?

.0

0 „

'

a?

•?

oss O

• 0Q • "VD • • • •

•

5.

•

-.

410

?

• • 0, 0- •

0 0

.

• 0•0111?

•?

• •

• !

•

?

Citz:,-

CI* 00 •?•

• 02 • • • • •?

•

•

"

•

11

111?...•0

•?

• •

V- 'V?

OD

•

Go

OD RP'

•• •O • • • •?

-

•

v

•

110

00•00

• ,•••••:••• 00k • • •

WO ' •?• - • •

•

•

wiest

•

0 0•

it

• e,

I • • • •

grow

occo

•

Ito 'ow laim

*ma • U

to

•

• VP

't* I • re t•-• • •?

• • • •

10

100

DRAINAGE AREA (SO.MI.)

Figure 4-13. Number of intolerant species vs. drainage area (Wading sites)

using both the standard and alternate trisection method

(limited positive relationship

.

with drainage area) for

determining 5, 3, and 1 •181 scoring. Values at •sites draining

less than 20 square miles are included for reference.

4-26

---

_ _

?•

Doc. 0016e/0382E

Users Manual

?

October 30, 1987

Revision

Procedure

No.

No.

?

WQMA-SWS-6

1

?

?

Date

' Effective

Issued

11/02/87

11/02/87

,--............-......

.?

.?

.?

...............

.

••••••

awl

,.....

•

?tot....

*

••••••••••

BOAT SITES

.?

•••

??

.-.,

--,

,......

•

.......1

.

,••••••

--•.....

".".

•••••••••• •?

• •

•?•••

?

••,•• •••••••••••••••41••

••••••.

?

•

•.•••••••

•

•

•••••••

......

^...

-.....

-

.--

■•••

.......

??

*

?*? *?•?

*

?•?

•

?#?4?

*?•?

•

?

•

?

4

?

..

?

.......

a

?o?

•

?

• .

?

•

?

•

?

•

W?•?.

Ma.

......

......

.....

.....

..—....k

4?4.?..?

•

?

4

?

•

?t?

.0

?

.?

•?.?.?

,.?

.

?

#

?

......

. ?

• V

?

•

•?

•

••••11.1.

.......

!MO

■•••

,......

.

•

•••• ,

-a...0

,....,

?

*?

. e.?

•;0.•?

'

?

IV* '90?

.

9-?

•

.0 •

,-- .-4......

.....

.••••

......

■■•••

, •?009?

•424?•9•?At?

...., - 0.0..

im,?.

0

.?

0/?.•?•?

4 1:14??

•••••

a...MN..

-..

.....

••••,••••A/ ' •?ei

...*

•?

0 4/.• 0 tt?

.0*

?

•

.40,?•- 19

.

1:9**0 •

?

•?•'*?

•?

•9410

•

?

•?• •?

•?

•?• a 0

.•-•

••••-•

_

••••••

.4 a

0 ita-

? -4*.

,

? .

00* •

?.0

.0

DO?*0 •?

•

?• o *?

•

?

•

?• 0?

•

?

,?

•?0 *0•

?.?

a

u•

?

•

...-

•••••

/01•Or

■■■•I

■•••

-

I__......L,1?

1 - 3j?

I

100?

1000

DRAINAGE AREA (SO MI )

Figure 4-14. Number of intolerant species

?

drainage area (Boat sites)

using the alternate trisection

method (no positive

relationship with drainage area)

for determining 5, 3, and 1

I81 scoring.

9

a

5

2

4-27

---

12

11

4.11

.... .......?

... • • • ■

<111*

HEADWATER SITES

10

.

• *O . 0 .0

•P

•?0•01.0.

5

• 0-?

P. . 0 • 1,

0. •D

•

?

*0 •O• 0. 12- . 0 0 '• OPOP

• • 0- • O. * • 10

41 • • • 0

. *0

•O•

*0•

0,

.

*O

. 0•

•

#

0

4—

19

*V*

•

0,*O?

.?.0•p.

10

4

• • • • .?

• • • •?• • •?

• • .. • • P

?

P • 0

PO,

wow/

• •? •?■?

•?.r?

• • .* 0 •• •

?•0.

?.?•?.?

•?•?.?

e

?

...

?

•

?

••••••••••

•

5

•

4.

00c. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

October 30, 1987

Procedure No.

WOMA-SWS-6

?

Date Issued

11/02/87

Revision No.

?

1 ?

'

Effective 11/02/87

DRAINAGE AREA (SQ.MI.)

Figure 4-15. Number of sensitive species vs. drainage area (Headwaters

sites) using the standard trisection method (positive

relationship with drainage area) for determining S. 3, and 1

181 scoring.

4-28

---

.

---

3

a

I

?

I

0

WADING/HEADWATER SITES

0

0

0

0

0

0

?

*

o

D e :

?

o?

°?

ilog

9 n

li°

0

#?

°?

%?

°Ott

0 0?

e

?

•

• *?

* tP

0?

01113

?

a 0

00

O

°?

coo

?

a

%a

o

OU

0

?

et 0

▪ *

0

05

„

6

?

l

a #

a ;

a

a" 0

0

%OD

t: 0

?

„

0

I p

04?

.4.

0

I-

0

20-

40 ?

5

0

0

00

0?

'1

11_1111

;

9

100

90

Z

e

4

70

80

so

F

40

30

0

0

a

0

Doc. 0016e/0382E

?

Users Manual

October 30,' 1987

Procedure No. WO4A-SWS-6 Date

Issued 11/02/87.

Revision

No. ?

1 *

Effective 11/02/87

..Woom

r

a.

?

1

0

?

10 0

?

100'

DRAINAGE AREA (SO MI

figure 4-16. Percent of tolerant species vs. drainage area (Headwaters and

Wading sites) using the alternate trisection and standard

methods for determining S3 and 1 IDI scoring.

4-32