Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 11, pp 9299–9320 | Cite as

Application of a benthic observed/expected-type model for assessing Central Appalachian streams influenced by regional stressors in West Virginia and Kentucky

  • Gregory J. Pond
  • Sheila H. North


Stream bioassessments rely on taxonomic composition at sites compared with natural, reference conditions. We developed and tested an observed/expected (O/E) predictive model of taxonomic completeness and an index of compositional dissimilarity (BC index) for Central Appalachian streams using combined macroinvertebrate datasets from riffle habitats in West Virginia (WV) and Kentucky (KY). A total of 102 reference sites were used to calibrate the O/E model, which was then applied to assess over 1,200 sites sampled over a 10-year period. Using an all subsets discriminant function analysis (DFA) procedure, we tested combinations of 14 predictor variables that produced DF and O/E models of varying performance. We selected the most precise model using a probability of capture at >0.5 (O/E 0.5, SD = 0.159); this model was constructed with only three simple predictor variables—Julian day, latitude, and whether a site was in ecoregion 69a. We evaluated O/E and BC indices between reference and test sites and compared their response to regional stressors, including coal mining, residential development, and acid deposition. The Central Appalachian O/E and BC indices both showed excellent discriminatory power and were significantly correlated to a variety of regional stressors; in some instances, the BC index was slightly more sensitive and responsive than the O/E 0.5 model. These indices can be used to supplement existing bioassessment tools crucial to detecting and diagnosing stream impacts in the Central Appalachian region of WV and KY.


Predictive model O/E Macroinvertebrates Bioassessment Mining Acid deposition Residential development 



This research was conducted jointly by EPA’s Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division in Region III and EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory in the Office of Research and Development. The US Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development partially funded and collaborated in the research described here under contract number EP-D-06-096 to Dynamac Corporation. We thank Randy Pomponio and John Forren (Region III, Philadelphia, PA), Joe Flotemersch and Brad Autrey (ORD, Cincinnati, OH), and Justicia Rhodus (Dynamac Corporation) for programmatic support. We also thank John Van Sickle and Karen Blocksom (EPA, ORD, Corvallis, OR) for statistical and software programming advice and reviews. Datasets were supplied by Jeff Bailey and Mike Whitman (WVDEP) and John Brumley and Mark Vogel (KYDEP). GIS support was provided by Ellen D’Amico and Elisabeth Hagenbuch (Dynamac Corporation). Earlier versions of the manuscript were improved by reviews from Maggie Passmore (Region III, Wheeling, WV), John Forren and Stefania Shamet (Region III, Philadelphia, PA), Matt Klasen (EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC), and editing and formatting of the manuscript was performed by Justicia Rhodus (Dynamac Corporation). We also thank two anonymous reviewers who greatly improved the final manuscript. Although this research was supported by EPA, the views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the official views or positions of the EPA or the US government.


  1. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish, 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  2. Bernhardt, E. S., Lutz, B. D., King, R. S., Fay, J. P., Carter, C. E., Helton, A. M., et al. (2012). How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional degradation of Central Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(15), 8115–8122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlisle, D. M., Hawkins, C. P., Meador, M. R., Potapova, M., & Falcone, J. (2008). Biological assessments of Appalachian streams based on predictive models for fish, macroinvertebrate, and diatom assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(1), 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambers, D.B., & Messinger T. (2000). Benthic invertebrate communities and their responses to selected environmental factors in the Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4021. US Geological Survey, Charleston, West Virgina.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, R. T., Wright, J. F., & Furse, M. T. (2003). RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers. Ecological Modelling, 160(3), 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fry, J., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., et al. (2011). Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 77(9), 858–864.Google Scholar
  7. Fritz, K. M., Fulton, S., Johnson, B. R., Barton, C. D., Jack, J. D., Word, D. A., et al. (2010). Structural and functional characteristics of natural and constructed channels draining a reclaimed mountaintop removal and valley fill coal mine. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(2), 673–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hargett, E. G., ZumBerge, J. R., Hawkins, C. P., & Olson, J. R. (2007). Development of a RIVPACS-type predictive model for bioassessment of wadeable streams in Wyoming. Ecological Indicators, 7(4), 807–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartman, K. J., Kaller, M. D., Howell, J. W., & Sweka, J. A. (2005). How much do valley fills influence headwater streams? Hydrobiologia, 532(1–3), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawkins, C. P., Norris, R. H., Hogue, J. N., & Feminella, J. W. (2000). Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1456–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hawkins, C. P. (2006). Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: its utility in regional and global assessments. Ecological Applications, 16(4), 1277–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins, C. P., Cao, Y., & Roper, B. (2010). Method of predicting reference condition biota affects the performance and interpretation of ecological indices. Freshwater Biology, 55(5), 1066–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herbst, D. B., & Silldorff, E. L. (2006). Comparison of the performance of different bioassessment methods: similar evaluations of biotic integrity from separate programs and procedures. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25(2), 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R., Church, M. R., Wigington, P. J., Jr., Webb, J. R., & Sale, M. J. (1993). The effects of acidic deposition on streams in the Appalachian Mountain and Piedmont Region of the Mid-Atlantic United States. Water Resources Research, 29(8), 2687–2703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hubler, S. (2008). PREDATOR: development and use of RIVPACS-type macroinvertebrate models to assess the biotic condition of wadeable Oregon streams (November 2005 models). DEQ08-LAB-0048-TR Version 1.1. Hillsboro, OR: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Accessed 13 Aug 2012.
  16. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KYDEP). (2009). Laboratory procedures for macroinvertebrate processing, taxonomic identification, and reporting. Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. Available from
  17. Lindberg, T. T., Bernhardt, E. S., Bier, R. A., Helton, M., Merola, R. B., Vengosh, A., et al. (2011). Cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining on an Appalachian watershed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 20929–20934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merriam, E. R., Petty, J. T., Merovich, G. T., Jr., Fulton, J. B., & Strager, M. P. (2011). Additive effects of mining and residential development on stream conditions in a central Appalachian watershed. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 30(2), 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ode, P. R., Hawkins, C. P., & Mazor, R. D. (2008). Comparability of biological assessments derived from predictive models and multimetric indices of increasing geographic scope. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(4), 967–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ostermiller, J. D., & Hawkins, C. P. (2004). Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23(2), 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Schlesinger, W. H., Eshleman, K. N., Foufoula-Georgiou, E., Hendryx, M. S., et al. (2010). Mountaintop mining consequences. Science, 327(5962), 148–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pond, G. J., Call, S. M., Brumley, J. F., & Compton, M. C. (2003). The Kentucky macroinvertebrate bioassessment index: Derivation of regional narrative ratings for assessing wadeable and headwater streams. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water. Available from Accessed 13 August 2012.
  23. Pond, G. J., Passmore, M. E., Borsuk, F. A., Reynolds, L., & Rose, C. A. (2008). Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions using family- and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(3), 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pond, G. J. (2010). Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA). Hydrobiologia, 641(1), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pond, G. J. (2012). Biodiversity loss in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA): Plecoptera and Trichoptera communities. Hydrobiologia, 679(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pond, G. J., Bailey, J. E., Lowman, B. M., & Whitman, M. J. (2012). Calibration and validation of a regionally and seasonally stratified macroinvertebrate index for West Virginia wadeable streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2648-3.Google Scholar
  27. Pont, D., Hughes, R. M., Whittier, T. R., & Schmutz, S. (2009). A predictive index of biotic integrity model for aquatic-vertebrate assemblages of western U.S. streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 138(2), 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R Development Core Team. (2006). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from Accessed 15 August 2012.
  29. Rosenberg, D. M., & Resh, V. H. (1993). Introduction to freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. In D. M. Rosenberg & V. H. Resh (Eds.), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates (pp. 1–9). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Stoddard, J. L., Larsen, D. P., Hawkins, C. P., Johnson, R. K., & Norris, R. H. (2006). Setting expectations for the ecological condition of running waters: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications, 16, 1267–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop mining/valley fills in Appalachia. Final programmatic environmental impact statement. Region 3, US Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Available from
  32. Van Sickle, J., Huff, D. H., & Hawkins, C. P. (2006). Selecting discriminant function models for predicting the expected richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biology, 51(2), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Sickle, J. (2008). An index of compositional dissimilarity between observed and expected assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(2), 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Sickle, J., Larsen, D. P., & Hawkins, C. P. (2007). Exclusion of rare taxa affects performance of the O/E index in bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 26(2), 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). (2011). Watershed Branch 2011 Standard Operating Procedures. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management, Watershed Assessment Branch. Charleston, WV. Available from
  36. Wigington, P. J., Jr., Baker, J. P., DeWalle, D. R., Kretser, W. A., Murdoch, P. S., Simonin, H. A., et al. (1996). Episodic acidification of small streams in the northeastern United States: episodic Response Project. Ecological Applications, 6(2), 374–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Brown, D.D. & Kiilsgaard, C.W. (1996). Level III and IV Ecoregions of Pennsylvania and the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Ridge and Valley, and the Central Appalachians of Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. EPA/600R-96/077. USEPA, ORD, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  38. Woods, A. J., Omernik, J. M., Martin, W. H., Pond, G. J., Andrews, W.M., Call, S. M., Comstock, J.A., & Taylor, D. D. (2002). Ecoregions of Kentucky (2 sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Va., US Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).Google Scholar
  39. Wright, J. F., Sutcliffe, D. W., & Furse, M. T. (Eds.). (2000). Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Ambleside, Cumbria, UK: Freshwater Biological Association.Google Scholar
  40. Yuan, L. L., Hawkins, C. P., & Van Sickle, J. (2008). Effects of regionalization decisions on an O/E index for the US national assessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(4), 892–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Monitoring and AssessmentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IIIWheelingUSA
  2. 2.Office of Research and DevelopmentDynamac Corporation, c/o US Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations