, Volume 603, Issue 1, pp 279–300 | Cite as

Comparability of a regional and state survey: effects on fish IBI assessment for West Virginia, U.S.A.

Primary research paper


Probability-based survey designs are now being investigated to allow condition to be assessed for a discrete population of watershed management units and to infer probability of impairment to other unsampled watersheds. Results can be used to focus further monitoring and restoration efforts. Fish community data and index of biotic integrity (IBI) development were compared between the 1993 and 1998 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (EMAP-MAIA) survey and a West Virginia Regional EMAP (WV REMAP) survey conducted in 2001–2002. Both designs were based on probability surveys, but the EMAP design treated streams as a continuous linear network comprising an infinite population of points, while the REMAP design used a discrete set of watershed outlets as defined by 12-digit Hydrologic Cataloging Units (HUC12) as the sample population. The comparability of the watershed-based WV REMAP survey design results with the linear network-based EMAP-MAIA survey results for West Virginia was affected by the different size range of watershed areas included in each target population. Once similar watershed area ranges were considered by narrowing the size range included in the West Virginia EMAP-MAIA data set, virtually identical cumulative distribution functions for fish IBI scores were obtained. The reduced variability in reference conditions obtained by applying a restricted range of watershed areas allowed us to detect and correct for ecoregional differences in fish IBI metrics and scores, after excluding the biogeographically distinct Potomac River drainage basin located in the Central Appalachian Ridge and Valley Ecoregion.


Streams Survey design Watersheds West Virginia Fish IBI 



Support for collection of fish community, habitat, and water chemistry data was provided by a cooperative agreement between US EPA and the state of West Virginia (No. R-82872001), with additional support provided for temperature monitoring by the US EPA Regional Applied Research Efforts (RARE) program. Watershed delineations for the entire state of West Virginia were made possible through an interagency agreement with USGS EROS Data Center (No. 93897301) and collaborative work by US EPA staff (Sharon L. Batterman). Watershed characterization work was supported through contracts with OAO (FAIR Contract 68-W5, Delivery Order #24) and CSC Corporation (FAIR II Contract 68-01/W02-032, Task Order #024). Water chemistry analyses were provided through contract support at US EPA NERL-Cincinnati. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources data collection staff included J. Cseripko, R. Doyle, M. Everhart, M. Friddell, A. Johnson, D. Wilcox; J. Harrison provided certain GIS coverages for West Virginia. EMAP data were obtained from the US EPA (2004). The information in this document has been funded wholly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and approved for publication. We thank Drs. Paul Angermeier, Daniel Campbell, and Henry Walker for providing comments on the original manuscript. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This is contribution number AED-07-006 from the US EPA Atlantic Ecology Division.


  1. Angermeier, P. L., R. A. Smogor & J. R. Stauffer, 2000. Regional frameworks and candidate metrics for assessing biotic integrity in Mid-Atlantic Highland streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 962–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angermeier, P. L. & M. R. Winston, 1998. Local vs. regional influences on local fish diversity in stream fish communities of Virginia. Ecology 79: 911–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayley, P. B. & D. C. Dowling, 1993. The effect of habitat in biasing fish abundance and species richness estimates when using various sampling methods in streams. Polish Archives of Hydrobiology 40: 4–14.Google Scholar
  4. Boward, D. M., P. F. Kazyak, S. A. Stranko, M. K. Hurd & T. P. Prochaska, 1999. From the Mountains to the Sea: The State of Maryland’s Freshwater Streams. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Nontidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, MD. EPA/903/R-99/023.Google Scholar
  5. Brazner, J. C., D. K. Tanner, N. E. Detenbeck, S. L. Batterman, S. K. Stark, L. A. Jagger & V. M. Snarski, 2004. Landscape character and fish assemblage structure and function in Western Lake Superior streams: General relationships and identification of thresholds. Environmental Management 33: 855–875.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brazner, J. C., D. K. Tanner, N. E. Detenbeck, S. L. Batterman, S. K. Stark, L. A. Jagger & V. M. Snarski, 2005. Regional, watershed and site-specific environmental influences on fish assemblage structure and function in western Lake Superior tributaries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 1254–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breiman, L., J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen & C. J. Stone, 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Detenbeck, N. E., S. L. Batterman, V. J. Brady, J. C. Brazner, V. M. Snarski, D. L. Taylor & J. A. Thompson, 2000. A test of watershed classification systems for ecological risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 1174–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Detenbeck, N. E., D. Cincotta, J. M. Denver, S. K. Greenlee, A. R. Olsen & A. Pitchford, 2005a. Watershed-based survey designs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (Special Issue) 103: 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Detenbeck, N. E., V. J. Brady, D. L. Taylor, V. M. Snarski & S. L. Batterman, 2005b. Relationship of stream flow regime in the western Lake Superior basin to watershed type characteristics. Journal of Hydrology 309: 258–276, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.11.024.
  11. Detenbeck, N. E., C. M. Elonen, D. L. Taylor, L. E. Anderson, T. M. Jicha & S. L. Batterman, 2004. Region, landscape, and scale effects on Lake Superior tributary water quality. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40: 705–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Detenbeck, N. E., L. A. Jagger, S. L. Stark & M. A. Starry, 2003a. WV REMAP Final Report: Watershed Classification Framework for the State of West Virginia. US Environmental Protection Agency, NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN. EPA 600/R-03/141, 55 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Detenbeck, N. E., C. M. Elonen, D. L. Taylor, L. E. Anderson, T. M. Jicha & S. L. Batterman, 2003b. Effects of hydrogeomorphic region, watershed storage and mature forest on baseflow and snowmelt stream water quality in second-order Lake Superior Basin tributaries. Freshwater Biology 48: 911–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diaz-Ramos, S., D. L. Stevens Jr. & A. R. Olsen, 1996. EMAP Statistical Methods Manual. EPA/620/R-96/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health Effects and Environmental Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
  15. Fausch, K. D., J. R. Karr & P. R. Yant, 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herlihy, A. T., 1998. Water chemistry. In Lazorchak, J. M., D. J. Klemm & D. V. Peck (eds), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Water: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: 57–59.Google Scholar
  17. Herlihy, A. T., D. P. Larsen, S. G. Paulsen, N. S. Urquhart & B. J. Rosenbaum, 2000. Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: The EMAP mid-Atlantic pilot study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hocutt, C. H., R. E. Jenkins & J. R. Stauffer, 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the Central Appalachians and Central Atlantic Coastal Plain. In Hocutt, C. H. & E. O. Wiley (eds), The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY: 161–211.Google Scholar
  19. Holton, G. D. & C. R. Sullivan Jr., 1954. West Virginia’s electrical fish-collecting methods. Progressive Fish Culturist 16: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horwitz, R. J., 1978. Temporal variability patterns and the distributional patterns of stream fishes. Ecological Monographs 48: 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, T. M. Kincaid, L. Reynolds & D. P. Larsen, 1998. A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1618–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaufmann, P. R. & E. G. Robison, 1998. Physical habitat characterization. In Lazorchak, J. M., D. J. Klemm & D. V. Peck (eds), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: 77–117.Google Scholar
  24. Koenker, R. & B. J. Park, 1994. An interior point algorithm for nonlinear quantile regression. Journal of Econometrics 71: 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leonard, P. M. & D. J. Orth, 1986. Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in small, coolwater streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyons, J., 1989. Correspondence between the distribution of fish assemblages in Wisconsin streams and Omernik’s ecoregions. American Midland Naturalist 122: 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyons, J., L. Wang & T. D. Simonson, 1996. Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCormick, F. H., R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. V. Peck, J. L. Stoddard & A. T. Herlihy, 2001. Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 130: 857–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCormick, F. H., D. V. Peck & D. P. Larsen, 2000. Comparison of geographic classification schemes for Mid-Atlantic stream fish assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mebane, C. A., T. R. Maret & R. M. Hughes, 2003. An index of biological integrity (IBI) for Pacific Northwest Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132: 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ohio EPA, 1987. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, OH. v. 1, 44 p.; v. 2, 251 p.; v. 3, 57 p.Google Scholar
  32. Ohio EPA, 2002. Technical Report: Ohio’s Primary Headwater Streams – Fish and Amphibian Assemblages. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  33. Omernik, J. M., 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1, 7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne, L. L., S. L. Kohler, P. B. Bayley, D. M. Day, W. A. Bertrand, M. J. Wiley & R. Sauer, 1992. Influence of stream location in a drainage network on the index of biotic integrity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team, 2006. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org, ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  36. Rankin, E. T. & C. O. Yoder, 1998. Methods for deriving maximum species richness lines and other threshold relationships in biological field data. In Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL, 611–621.Google Scholar
  37. Roth, N., M. Southerland, J. Chaillou, R. Klauda, P. Kazyak, S. Stranko, S. Weisberg, L. Hall Jr. & R. Morgan II, 1998. Maryland biological stream survey: Development of a fish index of biotic integrity. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SAS, 1990. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Volume 2, GLM-VARCOMP. Version 6, 4th ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  39. Schlosser, I. J., 1982. Fish community structure and function along two habitat gradients in a headwater stream. Ecological Monographs 52: 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott, A. G., 1984. Analysis of characteristics of simulated flows from small surface-mined and undisturbed Appalachian watersheds in the Tug Fork basin of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Water Resources Investigation Report WRI 84-4151.Google Scholar
  41. Smogor, R. A. & P. L. Angermeier, 1998. Effects of drainage basin size and anthropogenic disturbance on relations between stream size and IBI metrics in Virginia. In Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL, 249–272.Google Scholar
  42. Stauffer, J. R. Jr., J. M. Boltz & L. R. White, 1995. The Fishes of West Virginia. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  43. Stevens, D. L. Jr. & A. R. Olsen, 2004. Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99: 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strange, R. M., 1999. Historical biogeography, ecology, and fish distributions—conceptual issues for establishing IBI criteria. In Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 65–78.Google Scholar
  45. Strahler, A. N., 1952. Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63: 923–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data, 2004. Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries, Version 2.0. Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data, Federal Geographic Data Committee, Washington, D.C. Accessed at ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NCGC/products/watershed/hu-standards.pdf.
  47. US EPA, 1999. Methods and Guidance for the Analysis of Water, Version 2 (includes EPA Series 500, 600, 1600 Methods) (on CD-ROM). NTIS PB99-500209INQ.Google Scholar
  48. US EPA, 2000a. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, EPA/903/R-00/015.Google Scholar
  49. US EPA, 2000b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XI. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC, EPA 822-B-00-020.Google Scholar
  50. US EPA, 2001. Biological Indicator Variability and Stream Monitoring Program Integration: A Maryland Case Study. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, EPA/903/R-02/008.Google Scholar
  51. US EPA, 2003. Draft Report on the Environment: Technical Document. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development and Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC, EPA 600/R-03/050.Google Scholar
  52. US EPA, 2004. Surface Waters Data and Metadata Files. Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/dataI/surfwatr/data/index.html.
  53. US EPA, 2006. 2006–2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Charting Our Course. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-190-R-06-001.Google Scholar
  54. US EPA & USGS, 2006. NHDPlus User Guide. Draft, June 1, 2006. Internet document at: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/data/NHDPLUS_UserGuide.doc.
  55. USGS, 2001. NLCD Land Cover Class Definitions. Internet site at: http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.php.
  56. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Voelstad, J. H., N. K. Neerchal, N. E. Roth & M. T. Southerland, 2003. Combining biological indicators of watershed condition from multiple sampling programs – a case study from Maryland, USA. Ecological Indicators 3: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vogelmann, J. E., S. M. Howard, L. Yang, C. R. Larson, B. K. Wylie & N. Van Driel, 2001. Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 67: 650–662.Google Scholar
  59. West Virginia GIS Technical Center, 2003. Transportation (1990 and 2000 TIGER/Line-Census). Internet site at: http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?action=search&ID=238.
  60. Yoder, C. O. & E. Rankin, 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria are Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 109–144.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Atlantic Ecology DivisionUS Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)NarragansettUSA
  2. 2.West Virginia Division of Natural ResourcesElkins Operation CenterElkinsUSA

Personalised recommendations