Chesapeake Bay Program Indicator Framework
Reporting Level Indicators
Indicator and Data Survey
A. Category/Name/Source/Contact
(1) Category of Indicator
___ Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health
___ Restoration and Protection Efforts
_X__ River Health
___ Bay Health
(2) Name of Indicator:
Health of Freshwater Streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(3) Data Set Description:

For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or longterm monitoring.) All of the above
Which parameters were measured directly? Habitat, watershed characteristics, water
quality, and benthic biometrics were measured directly. See list below:
Habitat metrics: Bank Stability, Channel Alteration, Habitat Heterogeneity, Instream
Condition, Riparian Zone condition, Substrate Quality
Watershed characteristics (only in North Central Appalachians and Northern
Appalachian Plateau and Uplands bioregions): % forested, % impervious, # NPDES
permits
Water quality metrics:
pH , Conductivity
Biometrics:
Coastal Plain metrics: Taxa Richness, Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera
(EPT) count, % Ephemeroptera, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, and % Clinger.
Non-Coastal Plain metrics (by bioregion):
Piedmont: The Family Level Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (FBI), %Collector, % Diptera, %
EPT, and the Shannon Weiner Index
Ridges: Beck’s Index 100, % Ephemeroptera, % Scraper, % Swimmer, and the Shannon
Weiner Index
Valleys: Beck’s Index100, % Ephemeroptera, % EPT Taxa Richness, % Scraper, and the
Shannon Weiner Index
North Central Appalachians: EPT Taxa Count No Tolerants 100, % Ephemeroptera, %
Scraper, Shannon Weiner Index, and Taxa Richness 100
Northern Appalachian Plateau and Uplands: Family Level Hilsenhoff Index, % Gatherer,
% Plecoptera, %Trichoptera no Hydropsychidae, and Taxa Richness 100
1

Which were obtained by calculation? The overall benthic index of biotic integrity
is calculated using all of the above collected data.
(4) Source(s) of Data: Anne Arundel County (MD) Department of Public Works, City of
Baltimore (MD) Department of Public Works, Baltimore County (MD) Department of
Environmental Protection, Delaware Biological Monitoring Program, Fairfax County
(VA) Stream Quality Assessment Program, Frederick County (MD), Howard County
(MD) Bio-Monitoring and Assessment Program, Loudoun County (VA) Stream Quality
Assessment Program, Montgomery County (MD) Stream Protection Program, Maryland
Biological Stream Survey, New York Routine Statewide Monitoring Program,
Pennsylvania Surface Water Monitoring Programs, Prince Georges County (MD)
Biological Assessment and Monitoring Program, Susquehanna River Basin CommissionWatershed Assessment Program, EPA EMAP Wadeable Stream Assessment, EPA MidAtlantic Highlands Assessment, National Forest Service Stream Assessment, USGS
National Water Quality Assessment Program, Virginia DEQ Benthic Monitoring
Program, Virginia Commonwealth University’s Interactive Stream Assessment Resource
Program, and the West Virginia Watershed Monitoring Program.
Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and embedded
definitions? If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be obtained. Complete
dataset can be obtained from CBPO:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/downloads/watershed_wide_benthic_invertebrate_da
tabase
(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different): Jackie Johnson, Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin, CBPO
(6) CBPO Contact: Katie Foreman, 1-800-YOUR-BAY ext. 837
B. Communication Questions (complete either part 1, 2, or 3)
1. Restoration and Protection Efforts indicators only
(7a) How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)? How much has been
completed since 2000?
(8a) How much was done last year?
(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal?
(10a) What is the key story told by this indicator?
2
(11a) Why is it important to report this information?
(12a) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?
(Detail and diagnostic indicators can be spatially-specific, parameter-specific,
temporally-specific information, etc.)
2. Bay Health or Watershed Health indicators only
(7b) What is the long-term trend? (since start of data collection)
Since this indicator is relatively new, it has not been in use long enough to characterize a
long-term trend, so only the average B-IBI scores from 2000-2010 data are portrayed.
Trends are difficult to determine because many programs monitor benthic
macroinvertebrates on a rotating cycle, with data from one year representing a two- to 10year period. There are some sites that have been sampled several times, and the potential
for identifying trends at these sites will be explored in the coming year.
.
(8b) What is the short-term trend? (10-year trend) Since this indicator is relatively new, it
has not been in use long enough to characterize a short-term trend, so only the average BIBI scores from 2000-2010 data are portrayed.
(9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal? Healthy fresh water streams are
intrinsically related to a healthy Bay. It can generally be said that a healthy Bay
Watershed would have the majority of the sites ranked as fair, good, or excellent. The
Chesapeake Bay Executive Order strategy states a goal to improve the health of streams
where 70% of sampled stream sites throughout the Chesapeake watershed rate fair, good,
or excellent by 2025 (FLC 2010). Currently 43 percent of sampled streams are rated
fair, good or excellent over the 2000-2010 timeframe.
(10b) What is the key story told by this indicator? The health of streams varies from very
poor to excellent throughout the Bay Watershed (see results on the map). Of the 10,492
sites sampled using a random sampling design, the following summarizes the amount of
sites that were rated in excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor condition (respectively):
13 % (1,388 sites), 12% (1,305 sites), 18% (1,844 sites), 15% (1,578 sites), and 42%
(4,377 sites). When results are averaged across the largest watershed size possible (HUC
8) the percent of watershed area that was rated in excellent, good, fair, poor, and very
poor condition was (respectively): 0%, 11%,53%, 19%, 7%; 5% had no rating and 5%
had no data.
3
These results show a clear link between the watershed-wide B-IBI scores and land-based
activities in individual watersheds. The poorest stream indexes occur in highly urbanized
watersheds such as those in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. metropolitan region. Stream
health is compromised in urban areas by extreme land disturbance and an abundance of
paved surfaces. These stressors result in high levels of pollution, altered stream flow, and
poor quantity and quality of streamside vegetation. Lower scores in the Chesapeake Bay
basin are also present in areas with intense agricultural activity such as the lower Eastern
Shore and south central Pennsylvania. Excess nutrients and sediment compromise stream
health in these areas. The Upper West Branch of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania
appears to be compromised by mining activity which causes habitat alterations and toxic
plumes that negatively impact benthic stream populations. The highest B-IBI scores are
typically found in minimally disturbed watersheds with low levels of pollution and stable
in-stream and streamside habitats. These watersheds tend to be clustered in forested areas
of the upper James and Potomac rivers and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.
(11b) Why is it important to report this information?
Healthy freshwater streams and rivers have local and regional importance. Clean
waterways are a benefit to residents who use them for drinking water, family activities,
business and other purposes. The watershed’s streams, creeks and rivers also eventually
flow into the Bay, so their water quality has a direct impact on the health of the estuary.
An effective way to measure the health of freshwater streams and rivers is to study the
many tiny creatures that live in these waters. The abundance and diversity of snails,
mussels, insects and other bottom-dwelling organisms -– known as benthic
macroinvertebrates -– are good indicators of the health of streams because these creatures
can’t move very far and they respond in certain predictable ways to pollution and
environmental stresses.
(12b) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level
indicator? Benthic macroinvertebrate health status map
3. Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health indicators only
(7c) What is the long-term trend? (since start of data collection)
(8c) What is the short-term trend? (5-year trend and 10-year trend)
(9c) What is the current status?
(10c) What is the key story told by this indicator?
4
(11c) Why is it important to report this information?
(12c) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?
4. All indicators
(7d) What did the most recent data show compared to the previous year (2011-2012)?
N/A
(8d) If this was a significant increase/decrease:
 To what do you attribute it? N/A

Is this educated speculation or actual cause? N/A
(9d) What is the goal, target, threshold or expected outcome for this indicator? A passing
grade of “an index value greater than or equal to a value of 21 on a scale of 7 - 35” (or “3
on a scale of 1 – 5”) was selected. This goal is directly comparable to the estuarine
phytoplankton and benthic IBI restoration goals of “index values greater than or equal to
3 on a scale of 1 – 5.” This threshold relates to the qualitative scores of fair, good, and
excellent categories in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed B-IBI.
(10d) Was a new goal, target, threshold or expected outcome established since last
reporting? No Why? N/A
(11d) Did the methodology of data collection or analysis change from previous year(s)?
Why and how? No

If so, how will this improve your/our future work? N/A
C. Temporal Considerations
(13) Data Collection Date(s): Many programs monitor benthic macroinvertebrates on a
rotating cycle, with data from one year representing a two- to 10-year period. Although
only the 2010 reporting year is shown, many states monitor benthic macroinvertebrates
on a rotating cycle with data included in one reporting year that can reflect a 2 - 10 year
period.
(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual):
(a) Source Data: TBD
(b) Indicator: TBD
(15) For annual reporting, month spatial data is available for reporting: TBD
D. Spatial Considerations
5
(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): polygon data –
average B-IBI scores averaged by HUC 8 and 10 watersheds
(17) Acceptable Level of Spatial Aggregation (e.g. - county, state, major basin, tributary
basin, HUC):HUC 8 and 10
(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data? If so, where? Only data from
randomly or systematically (grid) sampled sites are used to illustrate B-IBI scores. Thus
there are some data holes that do not allow for averaging of score by sub-watershed in
parts of New York and Pennsylvania. In the 2000 - 2010 period, Pennsylvania and New
York monitoring programs collected data from many sampling sites identified as
“targeted” (such as sites below an outfall of a pollutant source) and these data were not
included here in order to avoid the presumed bias introduced by targeted site data.
Watershed ratings in Pennsylvania and New York are therefore less certain because they
are derived from fewer random/systematic sites.
(19) The spatial extent of this indicator best described as:
(a) Chesapeake Bay (estuary)
(b) Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(c) Other (please describe): _______________________
Please submit any appropriate examples of how this information has been mapped or
otherwise portrayed geographically in the past. Information on state’s 303(d) biological
impairment assessments were mapped based on stream segment in the 2007 Bay
Barometer. B-IBI data was also presented in the 2008 and 2009 Bay Barometer’s using
different methodology and portrayed as a map showing individual scores at each
sampling location. In 2010 this information was similarly mapped and summarized by
sub-watersheds.
(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically? Yes. Please
see benthic macroinvertebrate health status map.
E. Data Analysis and Interpretation: (Please provide appropriate references and
location of documentation if hard to find.)
(21) Is the conceptual model used to transform these measurements into an indicator
widely accepted as a scientifically sound representation of the phenomenon it indicates?
(i.e., how well do the data represent the phenomenon?) This indicator has undergone
extensive technical and peer review by Chesapeake Bay Partnership members of a
specific adhoc workgroup of biologists created to improve previous iterations of this
indicator. The indicator was also reviewed by the non-tidal water quality workgroup as
well as the Scientific and Technical Analysis and Reporting team. Data collection, data
analysis and QA/QC are conducted by the principal investigators/scientists. The data are
peer reviewed by scientists on the workgroup. Data selection and interpretation, the
presentation of the indicator, along with all supporting information and conclusions, are
6
arrived at via consensus by the scientists. The basis for the methodology used to create
this indicator is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Astin 2006, 2007). The
workgroup presented the indicator to the subcommittee where extensive peer review by
Bay Program managers occurs.
(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and
presentation of the indicator? Benthic Macroinvertebrates are collected in the field and
their communities are summarized by basic benthic biometrics. The non-tidal workgroup
and the adhoc benthic workgroup have developed a Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide B-IBI to
score each sampling event’s benthic community in a standardized fashion. (Buchanan et
al. 2011, Astin 2006, 2007). Once sampling events were scored, B-IBI scores were
averaged for each site over the dataset to create one score for each site. In order to
enhance interpretation and usefulness of the results, the index scores were averaged
across the smallest feasible watershed size. At this time, the smallest feasible watershed
size proves to be the USGS Hydrologic Unit Category (HUC) 8 in sparsely sampled areas
of the Chesapeake Bay basin and the smaller HUC 10 in more intensely sampled areas.
(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed
model) Yes. The Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide B-IBI. (Buchanan et al. 2011).
(24) Are the computations widely accepted as a scientifically sound? Yes. This index
uses multiple metrics to assess species habit, tolerance, richness and composition. The
development of a Chesapeake B-IBI was based on methods that are published in a
scientific peer-reviewed journal. (Astin 2006, 2007).
(25) Have appropriate statistical methods been used to generalize or portray data beyond
the time or spatial locations where measurements were made (e.g., statistical survey
inference, no generalization is possible)? NA
(26) Are there established reference points, thresholds or ranges of values for this
indicator that unambiguously reflect the desired state of the environment?
(health/stressors only) Yes. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has adopted the
approach of presenting indicators as a “percent of restoration goal achieved.” A passing
grade of “an index value greater than or equal to a value of 21 on a scale of 7 - 35” (or “3
on a scale of 1 – 5”) was selected. This goal is directly comparable to the estuarine
phytoplankton and benthic IBI restoration goals of “index values greater than or equal to
3 on a scale of 1 – 5.” This threshold relates to the qualitative scores of fair, good, and
excellent categories in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed B-IBI.
F. Data Quality: (Please provide appropriate references and location of documentation
if hard to find.)
(27) Were the data collected according to an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan?
7
If no, complete questions 28a – 28d:
(28a) Are the sampling design, monitoring plan and/or tracking system used to collect the
data over time and space based on sound scientific principles? Yes.
(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and
analytical procedures used?
Please see:
(USEPA 1997)
http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/Revised%20Final%202006%20IR%20Parts
%20F-N_appendices.pdf
http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/661.html
(http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/lib/watersupply/AssessmentMethodology.pd
f);
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQu
alityMonitoring.aspx
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp
http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/bio_fish/Pages/Bio_Fish.aspx
http://www.littlekanawha.com/536_WV-Index.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/waterdata/PDFfiles/FieldGuide_Turk.pdf
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/environmental/sps_techb.htm#Protocols
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/deatmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/dephome/index.as
p
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/monitoring/rsl/bioassessment/app_b-1.cfm
http://www.srbc.net/atlas/index.asp
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/streamWaders.asp
http://instar.vcu.edu/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/wsa/materials.html
(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and
technically valid? Yes. Most sampling procedures are modifications of the
8
Environmental Protection Agency’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Stream
and Wadeable Rivers (Plafkin et al. 1989).
Please see:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/
(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the
data documented and accessible? Each organization has documented procedures for
quality assurance within their sampling design documents (28b) and in the following
links:
http://www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQual
ityMonitoring/BiologicalMonitoring.aspx
http://www.jnabs.org/doi/abs/10.2307/1468286
http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/661.html?
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/lib/watersupply/PCRbpLime.pdf
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/publications.asp
http://www.srbc.net/programs/monitoringprotection.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/waterdata/PDFfiles/FieldGuide_Turk.pdf
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/environmental/sps_techb.htm#Protocols
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/deatmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/dephome/index.as
p
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/streamWaders.asp
http://instar.vcu.edu/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/wsa/materials.html
(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to
enable the study or survey to be reproduced? Yes, please see 28b.
(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data
record? No. There are differences in sampling analysis and methodology between
sampling agencies, please see 28b for references. Please see table 1 with an example of a
subset of individual sampling organization’s methodology details at the end of this
9
document.
(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and
methods comparable? Sampling designs are not 100% comparable, however the
development of the Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide B-IBI standardizes the data so it can be
compared across jurisdictions (Buchanan et al. 2011, Astin 2006, 2007).
(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the
underlying data set? Yes, each data source has uncertainty measurements in data
collection and a jackknife validation of the B-IBI estimates error associated with the BIBI calculations (Buchanan et al. 2011).
(33) Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from
the data and the utility of the indicator? Maybe, most issues of uncertainty and variability
have been resolved in the indicator development. However, more analysis needs to be
done on how to continue to decrease the error that differences in sampling design might
have on final results.
(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record? Please explain.
Pennsylvania and New York did not used random sampling designs until more recently
and therefore the evaluation of watersheds in these states tend to be at a coarser
watershed level, and in some cases, there were not enough sites to average across the
HUC 8 watershed. In the 2000 - 2010 period, Pennsylvania and New York monitoring
programs collected data from many sampling sites identified as “targeted” (such as sites
below an outfall of a pollutant source) and these data were not included here in order to
avoid the presumed bias introduced by targeted site data. Watershed ratings in
Pennsylvania and New York are therefore less certain because they are derived from
fewer random/systematic sites.
G. Additional Information (optional)
(35) Please provide any other information about this indicator you believe is necessary to
aid communication and any prevent potential mis-representation.
1. This new map includes additional data for 985 new random sites available for
averaging across watersheds as compared to the 2000-2008 dataset. Most of these sites
were contributed from the Baltimore metro region. These urban sites tend to have low BIBI scores, therefore when the results are averaged for the 2000-2010 assessment, there
are more sites in the very poor category and less in excellent, good, and fair categories
than the 2000-2008 assessment.
2. In the 2000 - 2010 period, Pennsylvania and New York monitoring programs collected
data from many sampling sites identified as “targeted” (such as sites below an outfall of a
pollutant source) and these data were not included in the map averaging scores across the
watershed to avoid the presumed bias introduced by targeted site data. Watershed ratings
10
in Pennsylvania and New York are therefore less certain because they are derived from
fewer random/systematic sites.
3. This indicator is only one example of stream health assessments. Indicators including
water quality and physical in-stream and watershed health parameters are also used by
organizations to characterize stream health. See the following links information about
other selected stream health assessments produced by CBPO and partners:
http://www.streamhealth.maryland.gov/
http://www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQual
ityMonitoring/BiologicalMonitoring.aspx
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/water/6008
http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/661.html
http://www.wr.dnrec.delaware.gov/Pages/Default.aspx
http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.srbc.net/stateofsusq/index.htm
4. The adhoc workgroup that guided the development of this improved indicator deemed
it appropriate for regional assessments of benthic macroinvertebrate health. The group
also identified the following future work that could be conducted to improve upon the
indicator; these tasks include:
• determine the influence of blackwater systems on B-IBI scores and potentially having a
blackwater-specific scoring approach for affected regions
• explore the effects of targeted vs. random sites on B-IBI watershed results
• develop a limestone-specific scoring approach for affected regions in the Valleys and
possibly the Piedmont (more limestone data would need to be incorporated in order to do
this)
• test the validity of the Coastal Plain index by identifying Reference and Degraded sites
in the coastal plain bioregions
• calculate the trends in the B-IBI over time with a subset of the data collected from fixed
locations
• validate the B-IBI with new data as it is added to the database
• improve the B-IBI performance in the North Central Appalachians and the North
Appalachian Plateau and Uplands regions by acquiring new habitat and water quality data
and better identifying Reference and Degraded sites
• further compare the several Coastal Plain indexes that have been developed and
evaluate if and how they differ when calculated from the same data set
11
References
Astin, L.E. 2006. Data synthesis and bioindicator development for nontidal streams in
the interstate Potomac River basin, USA. Ecological Indicators 6: 664-685.
Astin, L. E. 2007. Developing biological indicators from diverse data: The Potomac
Basin-wide Index of Benthic Integrity (B-IBI). Ecological Indicators 7: 895-908.
Buchanan, C., K. Foreman, J. Johnson, and A. Griggs. 2011. Development of a Basinwide Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Final Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program NonTidal Water Quality Workgroup. ICPRB Report 11-1. Prepared for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program.
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Strategy for Protecting and
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Executive Order 13508. May 12, 2010.
Foreman, K., Buchanan, C., Nagel, A., 2008. Development of ecosystem health indexes
for non-tidal wadeable streams and rivers in the Chesapeake Bay basin. Report to the
Chesapeake Bay Program Non-Tidal Water Quality Workgroup. December 5, 2008.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.
Plafkin, J. L. et al. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers:
Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/440/4-98/001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D. C.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Field and laboratory methods for
macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment of low gradient nontidal streams. Mid-Atlantic
Coastal Streams Workgroup, Environmental Services Division, Region 3, Wheeling,
WV; 23 pages with appendices.
12
Table 1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling details for selected data sources in the Chesapeake Bay B-IBI.
Organization
Virginia
West Virginia
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Methodology
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (EPA RBP II
procedures)
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (EPA RBP II
procedures) Wadeable riffles and runs
Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup
Protocol, modified version of EPA RBP
Rapid Bioasseessment Protocol (EPA RBP III
procedures)
Sampling Details
Reference and target sampling 2 times/year, random
once/year
Random and targeted sampling on a 5 yr sampling
rotation
Sampling in the fall, ~50 sites/year, presently targeted
sampling driven by TMDL investigations, some targeted
sites some random sites
Probabalistic is rotating watersheds. Targeted for
TMDLs and threatened areas.
Random stratified sampling design. Probablistic
sampling via 8 digit HUC sampling unit, 250 sites.
Targeted sites sampled as well.
Listing Criteria
Stream Condition Index (SCI) used for
biocriteria, SCI<=60 impaired
Stream Condition Index (SCI) used for
biocriteria, SCI<60.6 impaired
Biological Index (BI) used for biocriteria, BCI
<=66 impaired
Index of Biotic Integreity (IBI)
The IBI is scored on a 1-5 scale with 3 or
greater passing. Maryland estimates the
percentage of degraded stream miles within
each 8-digit watershed (equivalent to HUC 10).
All stations in each watershed are compared to
reference conditions. If degraded stream miles
compose significantly greater than 10 percent,
the watershed is impaired.
Maryland
Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS)
protocol. 1st-4th order streams.
SRBC
Project-dependent: rotating basin surveys every 6
<53% of reference is considered not supporting.
Project-dependent: RBPIII in PA and Md, mostly; years; yearly sampling at selected sites; most sampling SRBC only lists streams as "Category 3 RBPIII and NYS biomonitoring protocol in NY
during baseflow conditions (summer/early fall)
insufficient data" - not as impaired.
Fairfax County
Montgomery
County
Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup
Protocol, EPA RBP
Random stratified sampling design. Probablistic
sampling of 40 randomly selected sites per year.
Thirteen Reference sites are sampled each year,
eleven piedmont sites and 2 coastal plain sites. Several
trend sites are sampled on a rotating basis.
Sites are scored using an Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) and rated on a 0-100 scale. Scale
broken down into Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good
and Excellent rating categories. Ratings for all
sites are combined to create an overall county
Stream Quality Index (SQI).
Modified version of Maryland Biological Stream
Survey (MBSS) protocol
Both targeted and probability-based sampling,
depending on management need. Sites selected in one
of three ways using geographic and stream order
stratification: 1) Reaches are randomly selected and
sites are randomly chosen on the reach. 2) reaches are
targeted and sites are randomly chosen on the reach,
or 3) both reaches and sites are targeted. Baseline sites
are revisited on a 5-year watershed rotational basis.
BIBI scored on a 8-40 scale. 36-40 is Excellent
in channery silt loam ecoregion (35-40 in silt
loam), 26-35 is Good, 17-25 is Fair, 8-16 is
Poor. All stations are scored in comparison to
reference stream conditions.
Random stratified sampling design. Probablistic
Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup
sampling via the County's 41 designated watersheds. 5- Use the MD DNR MBSS IBI. Depending on
Prince George's Protocol, modified version of EPA RBP (same as year cycle (1999-2004), approximately 255 sites. Also, date of database the IBI is Stribling et al. 1998
MBSS).
some targeted sites each year and special studies.
or Southerland et al. 2005.
County
MAIS (macroinvertebrate aggregated index for
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (EPA RBP II
Project-dependent. Reference, inventory and/or target streams) developed by Voshell. Scores range
procedures)
sampling 1 time a year
from 0-18, with 18 being the best.
USFS
New York*
NYS Biomonitoring Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol
RIBS (Rotating Intensive Basin Studies) network
monitoring is conducted in 2-4 watersheds/yr, 5 yr
sampling rotation
*Need updated information, however data not included in 2008 indicator
Biological Assessment Profile (BAP) averages a
combo of metrics and categorizes the degree of
impaired on a scale of 0 to 10. BAP<=2.5
severely impacted.
13
Table 1 continue
Organization
Type of sampling
What time of year sample
Sampling equipment
Subsample size
Virginia
Reference, random, and targeted
Spring (April-May) and Fall (September-November)
D-Frame Net 500um
110
West Virginia
Random and targeted
April 15 thru Oct 1
500 um mesh, 0.5 m wide kick net
200 org
Delaware
mixed: Targeted, random, reference
Fall, October - November
d-net, 20 1-meter long jabs (≈6 m2)
100
Pennsylvania
Random and Targeted
Freestone: Separate benchmarks for Nov to May and
July to September, generally avoid October and June.
Limestone and Pool/Glide: February to May only, try to
avoid blackfly hatches in pool/glide
D-frame nets
200 organisms except
limestone which is 300
due to lower diversity
Maryland
Random and Targeted
March and April
D-net, 540 microns
100
SRBC
Fairfax County
Targeted
Reference, Random and Targeted
summer/fall
March/April
project dependent - d-frame or kick net
D-frame nets
200
200
Montgomery
County
Reference, random, and targeted
March 15 to April 30
D-net, 540 microns
100
Spring (Mar and Apr). Some early data in Feb.
D-net, 500-micron
100
Spring (March-May)
Kick Net 500um
200
Prince George's
Random and Targeted
County
USFS
New York*
Reference, random, and targeted
Precision estimates of the
methods available?
10% of samples are
QA/QC'd/yr
Sample area
100 meter reach, 2 sq.
meter area
From 1996-2001
composited 8 kicks
(0.25 sq. m. each, or 2
square meters), from
2002 to present it
changed to 4 kicks (or 1
sq. meter). Two
approaches tested sideby-side, no sign.
difference
yes
No calculated precision
estimates but some replicate ≈6 sq. meter area, 100
data is available.
meter reach
Freestone: 6 kicks in a
100 meter reach of
prime riffle habitat
Multi-habitiat: Ten Dframe jabs in five habitat
types over a 100 meter
reach.
Limestone: Two D-frame
All precisons (temporal and
kicks due to abundance
seasonal) are <=to 10 on a 0 of bugs and presence of
to 100 scale.
material
Duplicate samples - 5% of
75 meter reach, 20 sq.
sites sampled
Feet area
1 km reach with an area
of 5 sq. meters for large
river projects.
Subbasin/interstate
projects 2 separate
riffles for reach length
and 2 sq. meters
sampled
10% of sites re-sampled
100 meter reach
Some duplicate samples;
10% of sites are replicated
75 meter reach, 20 sq.
per year.
Feet area
100-meter reach. 20-jab
Duplicate samples, 10% of
method, each jab aprox.
probabilistic sites (each year). 1-m in length.
10% of samples are
100 meter reach, 2 sq.
QA/QC'd/yr
meter area
*Need updated information, however data not included in 2008 indicator
14
15