|
|
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and FishSecond EditionRBP Home | Table of Contents | Download the RBP | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D
This document has been reviewed and approved in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This entire document, including data forms and other appendices, can be downloaded from the website of the USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/download.html In December 1986, U.S. EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water initiated a major study of the Agency's surface water monitoring activities. The resulting report, entitled "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change" (U.S. EPA 1987), emphasizes the restructuring of existing monitoring programs to better address the Agency's current priorities, e.g., toxics, nonpoint source impacts, and documentation of "environmental results." The study also provides specific recommendations on effecting the necessary changes. Principal among these are:
In response to these recommendations, the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division developed the rapid bioassessment protocols (RBPs) designed to provide basic aquatic life data for water quality management purposes such as problem screening, site ranking, and trend monitoring, and produced a document in 1989 (Plafkin et al. 1989). Although none of the protocols were meant to provide the rigor of fully comprehensive studies, each was designed to supply pertinent, cost-effective information when applied in the appropriate context. As the technical guidance for biocriteria has been developed by EPA, states have found these protocols useful as a framework for their monitoring programs. This document was meant to have a self-corrective process as the science advances; the implementation by state water resource agencies has contributed to refinement of the original RBPs for regional specificity. This revision reflects the advancement in bioassessment methods since 1989 and provides an updated compilation of the most cost-effective and scientifically valid approaches. All of us who have dealt with the evaluation and diagnosis of perturbation to our aquatic resources owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to Dr. James L. Plafkin. In addition to developing the precursor to this document in 1989, Jim was a driving force within EPA to increase the use of biology in the water pollution control program until his untimely death on February 6, 1990. Throughout his decade-long career with EPA, his expertise in ecological assessment, his dedication, and his vision were instrumental in changing commonly held views of what constitutes pollution and the basis for pollution control programs. Jim will be remembered for his love of life, his enthusiasm, and his wit. As a small token of our esteem, we dedicate this revised edition of the RBPs to his memory. Dr. James L. Plafkin of the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) in USEPA's Office of Water, served as principal editor and coauthor of the original Rapid Bioassessment Protocols document in 1989. Other coauthors of the original RBPs were consultants to the AWPD, Michael T. Barbour, Kimberly D. Porter, Sharon Gross, and Robert M. Hughes. Principal authors of this revision are Michael T. Barbour, James (Sam) Stribling, Jeroen Gerritsen, and Blaine D. Snyder. Many others also contributed to the development of the original RBP document. Special thanks goes to the original Rapid Bioassessment Workgroup. The Workgroup, composed of both State and USEPA Regional biologists (listed in Chapter 1), was instrumental in providing a framework for the basic approach and served as primary reviewers of various drafts. Dr. Kenneth Cummins and Dr. William Hilsenhoff provided invaluable advice on formulating certain assessment metrics in the original RBP approach. Dr. Vincent Resh also provided a critical review that helped strengthen the RBP approach. While not directly involved with the development of the RBPs, Dr. James Karr provided the framework (Index of Biotic Integrity) and theoretical underpinnings for "re-inventing" bioassessment for water resource investigations. Since 1989, extensive use and application of the IBI and RBP concept has helped to refine specific elements and strengthen the overall approach. The insights and consultation provided by these numerous biologists have provided the basis for the improvements presented in this current document. This revision of the RBPs could not have been accomplished without the support and oversight of Chris Faulkner of the USEPA Office of Water. Special thanks go to Ellen McCarron and Russell Frydenborg of Florida DEP, Kurt King of Wyoming DEQ, John Maxted of Delaware DNREC, Dr. Robert Haynes of Massachusetts DEP, and Elaine Major of University of Alaska, who provided the opportunity to test and evaluate various technical issues and regional specificity of the protocols in unique stream systems throughout the United States. Editorial and production support, report design, and HTML formatting were provided by a team of Tetra Tech staff -- Brenda Fowler, Michael Bowman, Erik W. Leppo, James Kwon, Amanda Richardson, Christiana Daley, and Abby Markowitz. Technical assistance and critical review was provided by Dr. Jerry Diamond of Tetra Tech. A Technical Experts Panel was convened by the USEPA to provide an in-depth review and recommendations for revisions to this document. This group of esteemed scientists provided not only useful comments, but assisted in revising sections of the document. In particular, Drs. Jan Stevenson and Loren Bahls revised the periphyton chapter; and Dr. Phil Kaufmann provided assistance on the habitat chapter. The Technical Experts Panel included: Dr. Reese Voshell, Virginia Tech University (Chair) Dr. Loren Bahls, University of Montana Dr. David Halliwell, Aquatic Resources Conservation Systems Dr. James Karr, University of Washington Dr. Phil Kaufmann, Oregon State University Dr. Billie Kerans, Montana State University Dr. Jan Stevenson, University of Louisville Dr. Charles Hawkins (Utah State University) and Dr. Vincent Resh (University of California, Berkeley) served as outside readers. Much appreciation is due to the biologists in the field (well over a hundred) who contributed their valuable time to review both the original and current documents and provide constructive input. Their help in this endeavor is sincerely appreciated.
1. THE CONCEPT OF RAPID BIOASSESSMENT (HTML, PDF 14 KB)
1.2 HISTORY OF THE RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS 1.3 ELEMENTS OF THIS REVISION 2. APPLICATION OF RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS (RBPs) (HTML, PDF 40 KB)
2.2 CHRONOLOGY OF TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 2.3 PROGRAMMATIC APPLICATIONS OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
2.3.2 CWA Section 319-- Nonpoint Source Assessment 2.3.3 Watershed Protection Approach 2.3.4 CWA Section 303(d)--The TMDL Process 2.3.5 CWA Section 402--NPDES Permits and Individual Control Strategies 2.3.6 Ecological Risk Assessment 2.3.7 USEPA Water Quality Criteria and Standards 3. ELEMENTS OF BIOMONITORING (HTML, PDF 377 KB)
3.2 USE OF DIFFERENT ASSEMBLAGES IN BIOSURVEYS
3.2.2 Advantages of Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates 3.2.3 Advantages of Using Fish 3.4 THE REGIONAL REFERENCE CONCEPT 3.5 STATION SITING 3.6 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS 3.7 TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR SAMPLING THE PERIPHYTON ASSEMBLAGE 3.8 TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR SAMPLING THE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSEMBLAGE
3.8.2 Benthic Sampling Methodology 4. PERFORMANCE-BASED METHODS SYSTEM (PBMS) (HTML, PDF 84 KB)
4.2 ADVANTAGES OF A PBMS APPROACH FOR CHARACTERIZING BIOASSESSMENT METHODS 4.3 QUANTIFYING PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS 4.4 RECOMMENDED PROCESS FOR DOCUMENTATION OF METHOD COMPARABILITY 4.5 CASE EXAMPLE DEFINING METHOD PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS 4.6 APPLICATION OF THE PBMS 5. HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS (HTML, PDF 2 MB)
5.1.2 Weather Conditions 5.1.3 Site Location/Map 5.1.4 Stream Characterization 5.1.5 Watershed Features 5.1.6 Riparian Vegetation 5.1.7 Instream Features 5.1.8 Large Woody Debris 5.1.9 Aquatic Vegetation 5.1.10 Water Quality 5.1.11 Sediment/Substrate 5.3 ADDITIONS OF QUANTITATIVE MEASURES TO THE HABITAT ASSESSMENT 6. PERIPHYTON PROTOCOLS (HTML,
PDF 107 KB)
6.1.3 Assessing Relative Abundances of Algal Taxa: Both "Soft" (Non-Diatom) Algae and Diatoms
6.1.3.2 Diatom Relative Abundances and Taxa Richness 6.1.3.3 Calculating Species Relative Abundances and Taxa Richness 6.1.3.4 Alternative Preparation Techniques 6.1.5 Determining Periphyton Biomass 6.3 TAXONOMIC REFERENCES FOR PERIPHYTON 6.4 AUTECOLOGICAL REFERENCES FOR PERIPHYTON 7. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE PROTOCOLS (HTML, PDF 299 KB)
7.5 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE (BioRecon) OR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION SURVEY 7.6 TAXONOMIC REFERENCES FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES 8. FISH PROTOCOLS (HTML, PDF 191 KB)
8.3 DESCRIPTION OF FISH METRICS
8.3.2 Trophic Composition Metrics 8.3.3 Fish Abundance and Condition Metrics 9. BIOLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS (HTML, PDF 124 KB)
9.1.2 Assessment of Biological Condition 9.3 RIVER INVERTEBRATE PREDICTION AND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME (RIVPACS) 10. DATA INTEGRATION AND REPORTING (HTML, PDF 541 KB) 11. LITERATURE CITED (HTML, PDF 83 KB) Appendix A: SAMPLE DATA FORMS FOR THE PROTOCOLS (HTML, PDF 214 KB) Appendix B: TOLERANCE, FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUP, AND HABIT/BEHAVIOR DESIGNATIONS FOR BENTHOS (HTML, PDF 571 KB) Appendix C: TOLERANCE AND TROPHIC GUILDS OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES (HTML, PDF 6 KB) Appendix D: SURVEY APPROACH FOR COMPILATION OF HISTORICAL DATA (HTML, PDF 31 KB) FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Example of the relationship
of data tables in a typical relational database.
Figure 3-2 Example input or lookup
form in a typical relational database.
Figure 4-1 Flow chart summarizing
the steps necessary to quantify performance characteristics of a bioassessment
method (modified from Diamond
et al. 1996).
Figure 4-2 Comparison of the discriminatory
ability of the SCI between Florida's Peninsula and Panhandle Bioregions.
Figure 8-1 Sequence of activities
involved in calculating and interpreting the Index of Biotic Integrity
(adapted from Karr et al. 1986).
Figure 9-1 Comparison of the developmental
process for the multimetric and multivariate approaches to biological
data analysis (patterned after ideas based on Reynoldson, Rosenberg, and
Resh, unpublished data).
Figure 9-2 Process for developing
assessment thresholds (modified from Paulsen
et al. [1991] and Barbour
et al. [1995]).
Figure 9-3 Species richness versus
stream size (taken from Fausch
et al. 1984).
Figure 9-4 Results of multivariate
ordination on benthic macroinvertebrate data from "least impaired"
streams from Maryland, using nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS)
of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity coefficients.
Figure 9-5 An example of a metric
that illustrates classification of reference stream sites in Florida into
bioregions.
Figure 9-6 Example of discrimination,
using the EPT index, between reference and stressed sites in Rocky Mountain
streams, Wyoming.
Figure 9-7 Basis of metric scores
using the 95th percentile as a standard.
Figure 9-8 Discriminatory power analysis
of the Wyoming Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity.
Figure 10-1 Cumulative frequency
diagrams (CFD) for the IBI (upper) and the ICI (lower)comparing the pre-1988
and post-1988 status on a statewide basis from Ohio. In each case, estimated
attainable level of future performance is indicated. The Warm Water Habitat
(WWH) and Exceptional Warm Water Habitat (EWH) biological thresholds are
given for each index.
Figure 10-2 Relationship between
the condition of the biological community and physical habitat.
Figure 10-3 Data from a study
of streams in Florida's Panhandle.
Figure 10-4 Comparison of integrated
assessment (habitat, fish, and benthos) among stream sites in Pennsylvania.
Station 16 is a reference site. (Taken from Snyder
et al. 1998).
Figure 10-5 Use of multidimensional
scaling on benthic data to ascertain stream classification. The first
and second axes refer to the dimensions of combinations of data used to
measure similarity (Taken from Barbour
et al. 1996b).
Figure 10-6 Example of a cluster
dendrogram, illustrating similarities and clustering of sites (x-axis)
using biological data.
Figure 10-7 Results of the benthic
assessment of streams in the Mattaponi Creek watershed of southern Prince
George's County, Maryland. Percent of streams in each ecological condition
category. (Taken from Stribling
et al. 1996b).
Figure 10-8 The population of values
of the IBI in reference sites within each of the ecoregions of Ohio. Contributed
by Ohio EPA.
Figure 10-9 Spatial and temporal
trend of Ohio's Invertebrate Community Index. The Scioto River - Columbus
to Circleville. Contributed by Ohio EPA.
Figure 10-10 Cumulative distribution
of macroinvertebrate index scores. 21% of sites scored at or below 60.
The median index score is 75, where the cumulative frequency is 50%.
Figure 10-11 Biological assessment
of sites in the Middle Rockies, showing mean and standard deviation of
repeated measures and the assessment threshold (dashed line).
Figure 10-12 Integration of data
from habitat, fish, and benthic assemblages.
Figure 10-13 The response of the
benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage (ICI) to various types of impacts.
(Provided by Ohio EPA).
Figure 10-14 Guidance for Florida
Ecosummary - A one-page bioassessment report. (Contributed by Florida
DEP).
TABLES
Table 2-1 Chronology of USEPA bioassessment
guidance (relevant to streams and rivers).
Table 4-1 Progression of a generic
bioassessment field and laboratory method with associated examples of
performance characteristics.
Table 4-2 Translation of some performance
characteristics, derived for laboratory analytical systems, to biological
laboratory systems (taken from Diamond
et al. 1996).
Table 4-3 Suggested arithmetic
expressions for deriving performance characteristics that can be compared
between 2 or more methods. In all cases,
= mean value, X = test site value, s = standard deviation. Subscripts
are as follows: capital letter refers to site class (A or B); numeral
refers to method 1 or 2; and lower case letter refers to reference (r)
or test site (t) (modified from Diamond
et al. 1996).
Table 5-1 Components of EMAP physical
habitat protocol.
Table 5-2 Example of habitat metrics
that can be calculated from the EMAP physical habitat data.
Table 6-1 Summary of collection
techniques for periphyton from wadeable streams (adapted from Kentucky
DEP 1993, Bahls 1993).
Table 6-2 Environmental definitions
of autecological classification systems for algae (as modified or referenced
by Lowe 1974). Definitions for classes
are given if no subclass is indicated.
Table 7-1 Definitions of best candidate
benthic metrics and predicted direction of metric response to increasing
perturbation (compiled from DeShon
1995, Barbour et al.
1996b, Fore et al. 1996,
Smith and Voshell 1997).
Table 7-2 Definitions of additional
potential benthic metrics and predicted direction of metric response to
increasing perturbation.
Table 8-1 Fish IBI metrics used in
various regions of North America.
Table 9-1 Some potential metrics for
periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish that could be considered
for streams. Redundancy can be evaluated during the calibration phase
to eliminate overlapping metrics.
Table 9-2 Statistics of repeated samples
in Wyoming and the detectable difference (effect size) at 0.05 significance
level. The index is on a 100 point scale (taken from Stribling
et al. 1999).
Table 9-3 Maine's water quality classification
system for rivers and streams, with associated biological standards (taken
from Davies et al. 1993).
RBP Home | Table
of Contents | Download the RBP |
Chapter 1 | Chapter
2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter
4 | Chapter 5 |
Chapter 6 | Chapter
7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter
9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter
11 |
Appendix A | Appendix
B | Appendix C | Appendix
D
|
|