Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish - Second Edition
You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using the free Acrobat Reader.
RBP Home | Table of Contents | Download the RBP PDFs | 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
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers:
Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish
Michael T. Barbour
Blaine D. Snyder
James B. Stribling
On this page:
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.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.
This entire document, including data forms and other appendices, can be downloaded from the website of the USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds:
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:
- To issue guidance on cost-effective approaches to problem identification and trend assessment.
- To accelerate the development and application of promising biological monitoring techniques.
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the Adobe PDF files on this page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using the free Acrobat Reader.
1.2 HISTORY OF THE RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS
1.3 ELEMENTS OF THIS REVISION
2. APPLICATION OF RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS (RBPs) | PDF Version (4 pp, 40K)
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
3.2.2 Advantages of Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates
3.2.3 Advantages of Using Fish
3.8.2 Benthic Sampling Methodology
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
5.1.2 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
5.3 ADDITIONS OF QUANTITATIVE MEASURES TO THE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
184.108.40.206 Diatom Relative Abundances and Taxa Richness
220.127.116.11 Calculating Species Relative Abundances and Taxa Richness
18.104.22.168 Alternative Preparation Techniques
22.214.171.124 Ash-Free Dry Mass
126.96.36.199 Area-Specific Cell Densities and Biovolumes
188.8.131.52 Biomass Metrics
6.3 TAXONOMIC REFERENCES FOR PERIPHYTON
6.4 AUTECOLOGICAL REFERENCES FOR PERIPHYTON
8.3.2 Trophic Composition Metrics
8.3.3 Fish Abundance and Condition Metrics
9.1.2 Assessment of Biological Condition
9.3 RIVER INVERTEBRATE PREDICTION AND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME (RIVPACS)
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 4-2 Comparison of the discriminatory ability of the SCI between Florida's Peninsula and Panhandle Bioregions.
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 9-4 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 10-5 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).
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 4-3 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 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.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
|Acronym||Full Name (acronym stands for)|
|AFDM||Ash Free Dry Mass|
|ANOVA||Analysis of Variance|
|APHA||American Public Health Association|
|ASTM||American Society of Testing and Materials|
|AUSRIVAS||Australian River Assessment System|
|AWPD||Assessment and Watershed Protection Division|
|BEAST||Benthic Assessment of Sediment|
|BMP||Best Management Practices|
|CBWD||Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs|
|CWA||Clean Water Act|
|DEC||Department of Environmental Conservation|
|DEM||Department of Environmental Management|
|DEM||Division of Environmental Management|
|DEP||Department of Environmental Protection|
|DEQ||Department of Environmental Quality|
|DHEC||Department of Health and Environmental Control|
|DNR||Department of Natural Resources|
|DNREC||Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control|
|DQO||Data Quality Objectives|
|EDAS||Ecological Data Application System|
|EMAP||Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program|
|EPA||Environmental Protection Agency|
|EPT||Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera|
|GIS||Geographic Information System|
|GPS||Global Positioning System|
|HBI||Hilsenhoff Biotic Index|
|IBI||Index of Biotic Integrity|
|ICI||Invertebrate Community Index|
|ITFM||Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring|
|ITIS||Integrated Taxonomic Information Service|
|IWB||Index of Well Being|
|MACS||Mid-Atlantic Coastal Systems|
|MBSS||Maryland Biological Stream Survey|
|MIWB||Modified Index of Well Being|
|NAWQA||National Water Quality Assessment Program|
|NPDES||National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System|
|NPS||nonpoint source pollution|
|PASS||Preliminary Assessment Scoresheet|
|PCE||Power Cost Efficiency|
|POTWS||Publicly Owned Treatment Works|
|PTI||Pollution Tolerance Index|
|QHEI||Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index|
|RBP||Rapid Bioassessment Protocols|
|RDMS||Relational Database Management System|
|RPS||Rapid Periphyton Survey|
|SAB||Science Advisory Board|
|SCI||Stream Quality Index|
|SOP||Standard Operating Procedures|
|STORET||Data Storage and Retrieval System|
|SWCB||State Water Control Board|
|TCR||Taxonomic Certainty Rating|
|TMDL||Total Maximum Daily Load|
|TSN||Taxonomic Serial Number|
|USDA||United States Department of Agriculture|
|USEPA||United States Environmental Protection Agency|
|USGS||United States Geological Survey|
|WPA||Watershed Protection Approach|
|WQD||Water Quality Division|