Comparability of a regional and state survey: effects on fish IBI assessment for West Virginia, U.S.A.
- 132 Downloads
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.
KeywordsStreams 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- SAS, 1990. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Volume 2, GLM-VARCOMP. Version 6, 4th ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- US EPA, 2000a. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, EPA/903/R-00/015.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- US EPA, 2004. Surface Waters Data and Metadata Files. Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/dataI/surfwatr/data/index.html.
- 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
- US EPA & USGS, 2006. NHDPlus User Guide. Draft, June 1, 2006. Internet document at: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/data/NHDPLUS_UserGuide.doc.
- USGS, 2001. NLCD Land Cover Class Definitions. Internet site at: http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.php.
- 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
- 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.
- 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