Changes in the Condition of the Wabash River Drainage From 1990

2006 . Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 115(2) :156–169
CHANGES IN THE CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVE R
DRAINAGE FROM 1990-2004
Stacey L . Sobat, Charles C . Morris, and Alison K . Stephan :
Biological Studie s
Section, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 100 North Senat e
Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 US A
Thomas P . Simon : U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bloomington, Indiana 47403 US A
620 S .
Walker Street ,
ABSTRACT . The Wabash River drainage was evaluated based on three hydrologic watershed units tha t
were sampled from 1990–2004 so that patterns in biological integrity and assessment of aquatic lif e
designated uses could be determined. The three units included : 1) the West Fork and lower White River ,
2) the East Fork White River, and 3) the remainder of the Indiana portions of the Wabash River syste m
above its confluence with the Ohio River . Targeted sampling was done in each of the three watershe d
units from 1990–1995, while a random probability sample design was used from 1996–2004 . Assessment
of the fish assemblage information for the three periods showed increasing biological integrity for eac h
of the three watersheds . The watershed with the highest biological integrity was the East Fork White
River, followed by the West Fork White River, and Wabash River . Aquatic life designated uses were me t
in 76% of the East Fork White River stream miles ; 62% of the West Fork and lower White rivers ; and
53% of the Wabash River stream miles .
Keywords :
Biotic integrity, biological assessment, probabilistic design, Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
The mandate of water quality monitorin g
agencies is to assess the condition of the waters of the United States and to report on thei r
status . As new tools are developed (Morris et
al . 2006) and indices are calibrated (Simo n
1992 ; Simon & Stahl 1998 ; Simon in review) ,
increasingly more accurate assessments of th e
status of these waters can be generated whic h
will allow for more emphasis to be placed o n
restoration of vulnerable and threatened systems, as well as protection of high quality waters . Over the last two decades monitorin g
tools developed in Indiana have focused primarily on the use of biological indicators (Simon 1992 ; Simon & Dufour 1998 ; Simon
2006) .
An environment that supports an assemblage of organisms similar to that produce d
by long-term evolutionary processes is considered to have high biological integrity . Biological integrity has been defined as "the
ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated adaptive assemblage of organism s
having species composition, diversity, and
functional organization comparable to that o f
natural habitat of the region " (Karr & Dudley
1981 ; Karr et al . 1986) . Human activities of-
ten degrade the environment, resulting in a detectable decline in biological integrity .
When comparing all streams in Nort h
America, large rivers are disproportionatel y
degraded (Karr et al . 1985 ; Poff et al . 1997) .
The loss of biological integrity in these larg e
river systems is the result of widespread lan d
use changes and anthropogenic land scale disturbance . Few studies have evaluated the
long-term changes in biological integrity i n
drainage units as large as the Wabash River ,
with emphasis on large mainstem river s
(Hughes et al . 2005) .
The purpose of the current study was t o
document changes in three hydrologic watershed units within the Wabash River drainag e
from 1990–2004 . We compared changes during three assessment periods and the status o f
the watershed based on a stratified probabilit y
based approach .
METHOD S
Study area .—The Wabash River is the
largest northern tributary of the Ohio Rive r
and is the longest free-flowing large river eas t
of the Mississippi . For this study, the Wabash
River drainage was divided into three water 156
SOBAT ET AL. CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER
15 7
shed study areas based on 8-digit hydrologi c
Table 1 . Total IBI score, integrity class and at units as defined by the U .S . Geological Sur- tributes to define the fish assemblage characteristic s
vey (USGS) . The Wabash River and its direc t in Indiana streams and rivers (modified from Kar r
tributaries include the headwater areas from et al . 1986) .
the State of Ohio to its confluence with th e
Total IBI Integrity
Ohio River (Posey County) . The other two
score
clas s
Attribute s
drainage units include the largest tributaries o f
53—60
Excellent Comparable to "least imthe Wabash River, which are the East an d
pacted" conditions, exWest Forks of the White River. Together thes e
ceptional assemblage of
three drainage units represent nearly two species .
thirds of the total area of central Indiana and
45—52
Good
Decreased
species richnes s
encompass portions of the Eastern Corn Bel t
(intolerant
species in parPlain (ECBP), which is primarily rowcrop agticular), sensitive specie s
riculture, and the Interior River Lowlan d
present .
(IRL), which includes forest landscapes, a s
35—44 Fair
Intolerant and sensitive spe well as oil, gas, and coal exploration land use s
cies absent, skewed tro(Omernik & Gallant 1988) .
phic structure.
Study design. The State of Indian a uses
23—34 Poor Top carnivores and many
a Probabilistic Monitoring Program a s one
expected species absen t
portion of the state's comprehensive strateg y
or rare, omnivores an d
to provide an evaluation of stream water qualtolerant species dominant .
ity and biological integrity in major basins o f
12—22 Very poor Few species and individual s
Indiana . The probability design generates stapresent, tolerant species
tistically valid estimates of the percent of total
dominant, diseased fish
stream miles impaired for aquatic life and recfrequent.
reational uses .
<12 No fish
No fish captured durin g
Three hydrologic units in the Wabash Rive r
sampling .
drainage were assessed based on a random ,
stratified probabilistic design (Messer et al .
1991) . The Probabilistic Monitoring Program selection was stratified to ensure streams o f
divided the state into nine major watersheds all sizes/orders (Strahler 1952) were sample d
that are sampled once every five years, proallowing for a spatially accurate representaviding a complete assessment of the entir e tion of the various stream sizes (USEPA 1994 ;
state .
USGS 1994) .
Sites were generated using U .S . EnvironThree study periods included the baselin e
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) Environ- study that was conducted from 1990—199 5
mental Monitoring and Assessment Progra m and two rounds of the probability samplin g
(EMAP) selection methods, which used ranthat included the periods 1996—1999 an d
domly selected sites to assess and characteriz e 2001—2004 .
the overall water quality and biotic integrit y
Field collection. Fish assemblages wer e
of the study basin (USEPA 1994 ; USGS assessed using a variety of electrofishin g
1994) . The target population was defined a s equipment . Small streams (<3 .3 m wetted
all perennial streams within the geographi c width) were sampled using either backpack o r
boundaries of Indiana for the basin of interest . long-line electrofishing units ; wadeabl e
"Perennial" for the purpose of the Probabilis- streams (>3 .3 m wetted width) were sampled
tic Monitoring Program was defined as wate r using long-line or tote-barge electrofishin g
present in at least 50% of the stream reac h equipment; large river (non-wadeable >258 0
(reach was defined as 15 times the averag e km' drainage area) and great river (>5956 .9 7
wetted width of the stream, minimum 50 m , km') reaches were sampled using boat mountmaximum 500 m) . The sample population ined electrofishing units . Sampling was con cluded all rivers, streams, canals, and ditches ducted along a linear reach of stream base d
as indexed through the USEPA River Reac h on 15 times the wetted width with minimu m
File 3 excluding marshes, wetlands, backwa- distances of 50 m and maximum distances o f
ters, impoundments, dry and tiled sites . Site 500 m (500 m each bank for large rivers) . All
158
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENC E
C
C
0,
M
I
O
O
O
C
dl
01
C
a,
0
N M
N
vO
o
N
M M
N
n
71-
00 01
tr)
N
a\
C
C
C
M
N
r
'O
N
0
0
N
W
Ct
O
O
m
0
0
,o
i
a
cd
>
O
O r:
tU
b,O
y.,
C
t-i U +~ N
N?
,
p, ''
j,
0
r
K
O
C
OC
TJ
•
N O
U
bq ~'
O
• O
q
0 ,
▪
.~
by
q
O'
r.,
U
' r.,
co
•
O.
~
Q'
S
q 0
O
y
O
:O
•
•
O
0
d
O
O
E
Ar
a a~
j~
~~
O
•
Q
co
Q
N
5
O
..~
▪
1
by
5
r„
h
atititi~l~l
'72
U
v 0
Q
SOBAT ET AL .—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVE R
0
d-
0
d\
N
N
N
N
VO
l N N'C
N c+7
NO
r---
o\
a\o
o
o\N
00
O
cc
41
N
D1
O
M
dO
a\
a
'N
d ti
r a,
co
N
di-
M
D\
ON
M C
O
a o
\o M
9ol
V1
r N
O
a\
C
00
N
–
N
I
N
N
.--1
d1
M
00 co) O 'a
'Tr
M
Co) 'Ct , -i
-- N
a\
tcf
00
90 O
00
N
Co) M— d- N 00 O N 00 O , - , co)
col
N
0 co
N
N VO
N -O'C
co)
N co)
N ~
'Tr
N co-)
N 00 --~ 41
cNA O
N NO
''or
d-
N
O
O O
N
0o O vO N
V N co`,
N
N
N
NN 0 0
N
ID
N
N
O
co
°
15 9
~O co)
N
00 C
N
•--i 00 N O O N Co)
0
00
M C Col
to
N
0 ~O Qv
C.\
O
Vl M C
col -
to
N
O cc N N
N
~--i
M
N N VO N
oG N
.- .
N
q
•
Ii
r.
o
c,\
3
o a
C
▪ I
?
N
G
C
a.
.v 9E o
o
N> u A
ans a
o or
s U
0
U
c2.,
C-)
p
U
~ .~ .~
o
°'
UUUUUw 4.144
T'
o
G."
N
C
U
ro
C
o
44a
T U
a
o
s.
,
78
t
o "-
o
L
x3
_0
N
'y
s
'T p
o°
Q
m
ro-0 .0x90
o 9
,222222222
2
160
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENC E
do
0
o\
D\
N
'.
O
N
N
rte'oC
M N C v0\0\
N 0
O■000NN
d' '
NIn
CT NMMVD O
VD N
N in h
00
Irl
d0
O
C
W
VD
N.
N N
M
C 0\
00
C
dM
o\
d
o
O
C
D\
O
Q\
CS
00
.r lO
VD
00
t—oo
0A
VO ti
N
N
0vM
,.
N
CO
V'1C
VD
0\
.
00
D
71- -.
M 0\
~`n
d-
,-,
71N
NNr
O
: .'~
os
M
o
N
NN
N ti N
7171- VC)
,-v
7t
N
N
71ON
dA ""t 0\
NN
M
d'N t.
O
0\
71-
N \D
O
C
~n
N
— O
D In
cc)
'D
ID
tv ti N
,-~ O
0\ N 0A
cn N
00
00
rN ON
00
0\
N ,-1 0\ V ,--~ N 71- VD
0\
~i
ti M
to •-~
N N 'd' V'
N
N M
VD
71-
N VD N N
M N NN
-NADM In 0\O Ot
NVC)
71 00m0A d"
N
00 7171d,
N
,-~
v-
V1
00
V
'~t O
Ct M N
0
o
0
cct 0
U
~N7. .
,14
0
.
0
C
C
N
x
.k
.yi' W
,g w
U
'~
0 _
U
'~O N
U
.O o O ,.0
N 0 ., ct
-0 .ti
dt.
~ d' MNr'O
M
N -■ .-
O C 00 h_
In
vUi N
0
CS
CS
N
N
O b
7'
a~ 3
D
90
G: 'O 7r -,
N N M ,--~ l co N
N n
NN
00
0v
VD M 71- M O N 0A
oo
N
NN C. V-)
0\
M~NC 0A M71d'
I-
N
~nl- oo Do
In
N
M
N C --~ N
N
00
Ln
N
0\
C. O 71- M 0\ 0\ N
N
O 00 00
7 C. CO N dd'd
N N-
.~ N 0A V
11-) 71N
N
M~~
00 0 0
00
M
D\
4
O\
O
m 0o0 te°
00r
CO t--■N1
0\
4
h
N
00 m v
N
C
0
,nv
T ?, U
v' h':1I I
W
NU
wO
oc
O
SOBAT ET AL .--CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER
N N- + M N t
M
d' N
O
16 1
N
NNMM~Ctr N -
I
N
M ti -
dA
N
N
N
N
In
01
di- —■
■D
\0
\.O M --~
0CN
V0
N
~D
M 1.0
m
HMO
M - . O 0 0 71c0
r.
d-
N
VA
M
'0
N
N
N
0
..n
6~
c0 r.
O
-
co
N
M
N
~.
N
cc
d'
N
N 00 d' d' V1 --i N t N d' —
N N
NMN 0
d- N
o0 00
7:1
•
•
'JO
•
,tlcC
5
'CS m 0
0
~'
¢
00
o
8 5A b
Eo o
E
0
E
o
o
N
o
”O
o
3
5
y
fl0
o
y
E
. .,
44
U
ty
tp
~~
o
o
WWW
W
W
S
•
q p
0 • G0
2
o
o
a
G1.) '5
22222a
(A
U
6
.31
5
•
R., •• wwww
<C
W
0 C7
0
.
162
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
cc )
N
O
IT-
N N
M
N0N
N
M N
M
N
°
-7 --
~
M
N
N N 71-
M
\O41
M
r-.
71-
CT-
N N
0 N c0
0
O
coo
^"
N'
N
00
71-
M
V
N IT-
oo
O 71- CT, -,
CD
c d"
ON
`p
N
N NM N
C)
IT-
M M, CT ,~
N
N
O
--i CT CA
o0 00
N M
~
71i
t
O 01 O 7Y
01 N
71-
- N-N --
M)
C
c) N CT
M
r,
M
00 N
N
00
N 'CN N
C
O
U
m
.a
p
U
P
m
ti p
Cc)
IC)
Nd'
'
O~
N 00
N
rq
'C
N
_O
71-
r,
V) CA
VD 00 00 0 0
N~N00
CA 7-,
M~o7 NCI
oo
,c)
CtCt
,7
m -o
U
4
Os-i
5
L. O
"~+ 4
L' U
E
C
A
U
0
o
c
4
'C1
o
m cp 4 ~F
Ct 4
4
O brA
4 y "d u
b-0 .O h '-' O
0
o f
V U
^c3
4
4 b
d oE N
F L'f 'd
O.
.
P
,„
.,
0
-SO
co o..) O
to to
U1
,.1~1~jti1~
.
N
O
'' to
SOBAT ET AL.—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER
7-
0
co
N
o0
v.)
N
00
,-,
O
(r
O
O1
O
co,
oo co
M
N
N
M
N
.1-
OA ,--■
N
16 3
O
v1
O\i
t
-•
e
N
O
D
O\
-ti
N
co --~
7
0
O
Nd N
If)
M
v .) ■c
— '
C
N
(-A
N
N
MM
0o —
n
N
v-,
-1-
O
7O
O
Ira N
co M M
7
cN
d'
O m d
^~
O
oo
O
0\
N
00
*
N
Q\ —
NN
N
00
d oo
N
ON
t(o N
01
•
O GO
7-
N
71-
71-
N
_
W
t
M
NM
N
N
N
E
3
'- 0
ti
ti
c)
74
,s
0
N -cJ
o b
3
o0
o
C
C
u
-o
a
so,
0
'O
N
b
+
~ a) co
N
W 4vWWWWWWWaa~ rLa.4
a
4
164
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENC E
representative habitats were sampled within
the stream reach. All fish encountered were
netted and placed into a live well . At the completion of the sampling, all fish were identifie d
to species, counted, batch weighed by species ,
and minimum and maximum length recorded .
All individuals were inspected for deformities ,
eroded fins, lesions, and tumor (DELT) anomalies . Fish were identified using regional identification manuals (Gerking 1955 ; Smith 1973 ;
Trautman 1981), and voucher specimens ar e
curated at the Indiana Biological Surve y
Aquatic Research Center, Bloomington, Indiana.
Calculations of biological integrity .—Th e
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was used to assess the biological integrity of the stream (Simon 1992 ; Simon & Dufour 1998 ; Simon &
Stahl 1998 ; Simon 2006) . The IBI is composed of 12 metrics that assess fish assemblage structure, trophic composition (feedin g
and reproductive guilds), and fish conditio n
and health . The total IBI score, integrity clas s
and attributes help define fish assemblage
characteristics . Table 1, modified from Karr e t
al . 1986, uses total IBI score, integrity class
and attributes to define the fish assemblag e
characteristics in Indiana streams and rivers .
Indiana narrative biological criteria [32 7
IAC 2-1-3(2)] states that "all waters, excep t
those designated as limited use, will be capable of supporting a well-balanced, warm
water aquatic community" (IDEM 2006a) .
The water quality standard definition of a
"well-balanced aquatic community" is "a n
aquatic community which is diverse in specie s
composition, contains several different trophi c
levels, and is not composed mainly of strictl y
pollution tolerant species " [327 IAC 2-1 9(60)] (IDEM 2006a) . A stream segment is
non-supporting for aquatic life use when the
monitored fish assemblage receives an IB I
score of less than 35 which is considered poo r
or very poor (IDEM 2006b) .
Statistics and data analysis .—When estimates for characteristics of the entire targe t
watershed are computed, the statistical analysis must account for any loss of stratificatio n
or unequal probability selection due to som e
sites not being sampled (i .e ., access denied ,
impounded, dry, etc .) . This method applies a
post-hoc statistical correction factor (weighting factor) to an unbalanced sample stratifi-
cation resulting in a corrected probability de sign (Diaz-Ramos et al . 1996) .
The USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL )
in Corvallis, Oregon, created a software pro gram "psurvey .analysis" that is used to adjus t
the weighting of sites and develop accurate estimates for a measured parameter in a targe t
population . This software program contain s
functions which calculate the final weight valu e
for each site and estimates the percentage of
integrity class for each hydrologic unit in the
Wabash drainage (http://www .epa .gov/nheerl /
arm/analysispages/techinfoanalysis .htm) .
RESULTS & DISCUSSIO N
Fish assemblage .—Based on surveys o f
the entire Wabash River, 150 species wer e
found from 1990–2004 . This number of species represents 72 .1% of the entire fish faun a
of Indiana (Simon et al . 2002) . We collected
135 species from the Wabash River hydrologic unit, 113 species from the West Fork an d
lower White River hydrologic unit, and 11 5
species from the East Fork White River hydrologic unit (Table 2) .
Status .—Based on the sampling and IBI results of three hydrologic units that compris e
the Wabash River drainage, the Wabash Rive r
and tributaries drainage unit has remained relatively stable during the last 15 years . However, the East Fork White River (EFWR) an d
West Fork White River (WFWR) drainag e
units show an increase in biological integrit y
with higher percentages of fair, good, and excellent integrity classes (Table 3) . The EFWR
had the highest percentage (17%) of excellent
streams, while the Wabash River had the lowest (1%) . Watershed ranking of sites that me t
designated uses for aquatic life (IBI Scor e
>35) included EFWR (76%), WFWR (62%) ,
and Wabash River (53%) (Table 3) . The Wabash River possessed the highest percentag e
of poor sites based on biological integrit y
(36%), followed by the WFWR (27%), and
the EFWR (22%) .
Wabash River: Three sampling periods included targeted sampling during 1990–1995 ,
and two probabilistic survey periods durin g
1998–1999, and 2003–2004 (Fig . 1) . Survey s
of the Wabash River from 1990–1995 resulte d
in an average IBI score that classified sites a s
fair (Fig. 1) . None of the Wabash River mainstem sites rated as excellent . The frequency
SOBAT ET AL .—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER
16 5
Table 3 .—Probability estimates of condition +/- 95% confidence interval for three hydrologic units i n
the Wabash River drainage in Indiana (CI = confidence interval, n = number of sites) .
Wabash and tributaries
1st cycle
(1996-1999)
Integrity class
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
2nd cycle
(2001-2004)
95% CI
1%
10%
46%
35%
8%
±1
±6
± 11
± 11
-± 7
Combined
n
95% CI
n
95% CI
n
2
13
37
30
5
2%±2
14% ± 7
35% ± 11
37% ± 12
12%±8
2
17
27
23
6
1%±1
13% ± 5
39% ± 8
36% ± 8
11%±6
4
30
64
53
11
East Fork White River
1st cycle
(1996-1999)
Integrity class
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
2nd cycle
(2001-2004)
Combined
95% CI
n
95% CI
n
95% CI
n
1% ± 1
9% ± 7
30% ± 15
53% ± 16
7% ± 9
1
5
10
14
2
22%±8
20%±12
37% ± 16
19% -± 14
2%±3
11
8
12
6
1
17%± 10
16%±7
43% ± 12
22% ± 7
2%±2
12
13
22
20
3
West Fork White River and Lower White Rive r
1st cycle
(1996-1999)
Integrity class
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
2nd cycle
(2001-2004)
Combine d
95% CI
n
95% CI
n
95% CI
n
0%
12% ± 10
35% it 15
48% ± 17
5% it 8
0
6
12
12
1.
6%±8
15%±10
54% It 17
8%±7
17%± 12
2
7
18
4
5
3%±4
14%±7
45% ± 12
27%±11
11%±7
2
13
30
16
6
distribution for each of the IBI condition categories from 1990-1995 included good-excellent (3 .6%), good (7 .1%), good-fai r
(14 .3%), fair (32 .1%), fair-poor (21 .4%), poor
(17 .9%), and very poor (3 .6%) . Biological integrity for the Wabash River mainstem wa s
low in 1993 from Fountain County to Pose y
County (Simon & Stahl 1998), possibly influenced by prolonged early summer flooding
(Gammon & Simon 1998) . For the Wabash
River mainstem, the lowest IBI scores occure d
near old Grand Rapids dam (IBI = 22) ; and
there was a large depression in biological integrity along Vermillion County down river t o
northern Vigo County (Simon & Stahl 1998).
Overall, streams in the watershed improved i n
the excellent and good condition categorie s
during 1998-99, but categories that failed t o
meet aquatic life designated uses also in -
creased (Table 3) . Continued improvements
were observed during 2003-2004 with increases in excellent and good categories, an d
declines in the fair condition category (Fig . 1) .
Unfortunately, the poor and very poor condition categories also increased (Table 3) . The
three frequency distribution curves of total IB I
score for the Wabash River watershed ove r
three survey periods show increases in the fai r
and good integrity classes (ranging from 35 to
53) (Fig . 4) .
East Fork White River: Biological integrity
increased in the EFWR from 1990-2002 (Fig .
2) . During 1990-1995, the fish assemblage
conditions ranged from poor-very poor (IB I
= 25) to good (IBI = 51) . The frequency distribution was : good (16 .7%), fair (11 .1%) ,
fair-poor (50 .0%), poor (16 .7%), poor-very
poor (5 .6%) . Sampling conducted during 199 7
166
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENC E
Site Classificatio n
• Excellen t
1990-1990
1996-1999
0 20 40
2003-200 4
3
Goo d
q
Fai r
Poo r
q
Very Poo r
80
160
410 meters
Figure 1 .–Status of the Wabash River hydrologic unit based on three survey periods ; 1990-1995 ,
1998-1999, and 2003-2004 .
produced similar results to the 1990–1995 period (Fig . 2), with the only difference bein g
an increase in the amount of poor conditio n
sites . During 2002, excellent and good condition sites increased in frequency and poo r
and very poor condition sites decreased (Tabl e
3) . Overall, there were fewer poor sites i n
1990—1995 than in both 1997 and 2002 . How ever, more good and excellent integrity classe s
were found in 2002 than in 1990—1995 an d
1997 (Fig . 5) .
West Fork White River: Biological integrity
in the WFWR and lower White River improved with the largest increases occurrin g
between the poor and fair integrity categories
(Fig . 3) . During 1990-1995, an increase in biological integrity was observed downstream
from the East and West Fork junction to the
mouth of the lower White River (Simo n
1992) . The condition of fish assemblages i n
the lower White River (1990-1995) range d
from poor to fair (IBI = 27-44), and IB I
Site Classificatio n
1990-1995
199 7
•
2002
0
Excellen t
Good
Fai r
•
Poor
•
Very Poo r
•
0 10 20
40
60
80
Kilometers
Figure 2 .-Status of the East Fork White River hydrologic unit based on three survey periods ; 19901995, 1997, and 2002 .
SOBAT ET AL .—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER
16 7
Site Classificatio n
0
Excellent
3
Good
Fai r
Poo r
q
q
Very Poo r
1990 - 1995
1996
200 1
0 10 20 40 60 80
® Kilometers
Figure 1—Status of the West Fork White River hydrologic unit based on three survey periods ; 1990-1995, 1996, and 2001 .
scores approximated a normal curve with a
frequency distribution including, fair 31 .3% ( n
= 5), fair–poor 37 .5% (n = 6), and poor
31 .3% (n = 5) (Simon 1992) . The condition
of the fish assemblages in the WFWR (1990 –
1995) ranged from poor–very poor (IBI = 24 )
to good (IBI = 46), and the IBI frequency
distribution for the 1990–1995 period for th e
WFWR included : good (5 .6%), fair (11 .1%) ,
fair–poor (16 .7%), poor (22 .2%), and poor–
very poor (33 .3%) . During 1996, the biological integrity of the WFWR watershed improved with the increase of the good and fai r
categories and the decline of the very poo r
category (Table 3) . The frequency distribution
of total IBI scores for the West Fork and lowe r
White rivers over the three survey periods indicates a decrease in fair and good integrit y
classes from 1990–1995 to 1996 . However,
the high integrity classes rebound in 2001 to
levels greater than those seen from 1990 –
1995 and 1996 (Fig . 6) .
Assessment of the three watershe d
units .—The benefit of the random probabilit y
design was a narrower confidence interval for
estimated parameters with increasing number
of data points ; however, this assumes that n o
changes in water quality affected the biological assemblages (Messer et al . 1991) . Assessments of each watershed can be evaluated
based on either each of the three time period s
or based on a combination of the random
probability design sites during each of the tw o
sample rounds (Table 3) .
Each watershed estimate reflects a high de- .
gree of confidence ; however, combination o f
the data for the ten year period from 1996 –
2006 can be used to determine trends in aquat ic life designated uses . Based on the combine d
assessment conditions, the Wabash River watershed unit has about 53% of all stream mile s
meeting aquatic life designed uses ; EFWR has
76% of all stream miles meeting aquatic life
designated uses (IBI > 35) ; and WFWR has
62% of all stream miles meeting aquatic lif e
designated uses (Table 3) . The EFWR has
33% of all stream miles classified as eithe r
good or excellent based on biological integrity, while the WFWR has 17% of strea m
miles and the Wabash River has 14% classified as good or excellent. The Wabash River
had 47% of stream miles failing aquatic life
designated uses (classified as poor or ver y
poor), WFWR had 38% failing, and EFW R
had 24% as either poor or very poor (Tabl e
3) .
An increasing need for Water Quality agencies to report on the entire waters of the nation
requires monitoring and assessment tools tha t
can be used to provide accurate classificatio n
of water resources . The Wabash River drain age is perhaps one of the most important waters in the State of Indiana . Water quality
agencies are increasingly challenged with the
responsibility for providing clean water and
for restoring the biological integrity of the nation's surface waters. The use of a probabilistic sample design allows all waters to be clas-
168
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
4
sified and accurate reporting and inventory to
be classified . Trends in biological integrity can
be followed as management and restoratio n
programs are implemented .
ACKNOWLEDGMENT S
10
20
05
30
35
40
45
55
We appreciate the assistance of the Department of Environmental Management biologists in the collection of data . We especiall y
thank Ronda Dufour, Anthony Branam, Ji m
Butler, Greg Nottingham, Doug Campbell ,
Andrew Ellis, Steven Newhouse, James Stahl ,
and Steve Wente for field assistance . Although
this study may have been funded wholly or i n
part by the U .S . Environmental Protection
Agency or U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service, no
endorsement should be inferred by these agencies .
00
Total IBI Scor e
5
0
C
a
z
08
(I)
0_
LL
E
U
03
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
55
Total IBI Scor e
6
,z
30
35
40
45
50
55
00
Total IBI Score
1990-199 5
1996-199 9
2001-2004
Figures 4-6 .--Cumulative percent frequency
distribution of total IBI scores . 4. Wabash River watershed ; 5 . East Fork White River watershed ; 6 .
West Fork and lower White River watershed . (Solid
line = Ecoregion data : 1990-1995, Dotted line =
U round probabilistic : 1996-1999, Dashed line =
2°d round probabilistic : 2001-2004 .
LITERATURE CITED
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 ,
NHEERL-Western Ecology Division, Corvallis ,
Oregon .
Gammon, J .R . & T.P. Simon . 2000. Variation in a
great river index of biotic integrity over a 20year period . Hydrobiologia 422/423 :291-304 .
Gerking, S .D . 1955 . Key to the fishes of Indiana .
Investigations of Indiana Lakes and Streams 4 :
49-86 .
Hughes, R .M., J .N . Rinne & B . Calamusso . 2005 .
Historical changes in large river fish assemblage s
of the Americas . American Fisheries Society
Symposium 45 . Bethesda, Maryland .
IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Man agement) . 2006a . Title 327 of the Indiana Administrative Code, Indiana Environmental Rules :
Water, Indiana Department of Environmental
Management, Indianapolis, Indiana . http ://www .
in .gov/legislative/iac/iac_title?iact= 32 7
IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmenta l
Management) . 2006b . Indiana Integrated Water
Monitoring and Assessment Report 2006 . B 001-OWQ-A-00-06-R3 . (Jody Arthur, ed .) . Office of Water Quality, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, Indianapolis, Indiana . http ://www .in .gov/idem/programs/water /
305b/index.html
Karr, J .R. & D .R . Dudley . 1981 . Ecological perspective on water quality goals . Environmental
Management 5 :55-68 .
Karr, J .R ., L.A . Toth & D .R . Dudley. 1985 . Fish
communities of midwestern rivers : A history of
degradation . BioScience 35 :90-95 .
Karr, J .R ., K .D . Fausch, P.L . Angermeier, PR . Yan t
& I .J . Schlosser. 1986 . Assessing Biological In -
SOBAT ET AL .—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER
tegrity in Running Waters, a Method and its Rational . Illinois Natural History Survey, Specia l
Publication 5 .
Messer, J .J ., R .A . Linthurst & W.S . Overton . 1991 .
An EPA program for monitoring ecological status and trends . Environmental Monitoring an d
Assessment 17 :67-78 .
Morris, C .C ., T.P. Simon & S .A . Newhouse. 2006 .
A local-scale in situ approach for stressor identification for biologically impaired aquatic systems . Archives of Environmental Contaminatio n
and Toxicology 50(3) :325-334 .
Omernik, J .M . & A .L . Gallant . 1988 . Ecoregion s
of the upper midwest states . EPA/600/3-88/037 .
U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, ERL ,
Corvallis, Oregon .
Poff, N .L ., J .D . Allan, M .B . Bain, J .R . Karr, K.L.
Prestegaard, B .D . Richter, R .E . Sparks & J .C .
Stromberg . 1997 . The natural flow regime: A
paradigm for river conservation and restoration .
BioScience 47 :769-784 .
Simon, T.P. 1992 . Biological criteria developmen t
for large rivers with an emphasis on an assessment of the White River drainage, Indiana . EPA
905/R-92/006 . U .S . Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois .
Simon, T.P. 2006 . Evaluation and assessment of
fish assemblages near electric generating facilities : with emphasis on review of discharge submitted data, development of standard operatin g
procedures, and traveling zone assessment . U .S .
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program and Divisio n
of Ecological Services, Bloomington, Indiana.
Simon, T.P. 2006 . Development, calibration, an d
validation of an Index of Biotic Integrity for th e
Wabash River. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 115 :170-186 .
Simon, T.P. & R .L . Dufour. 1998 . Development of
an Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the
169
ecoregions of Indiana . V. Eastern Corn Belt
Plain. EPA 905-R-96-004 . U .S . Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois .
Simon, T.P. & J .R. Stahl . 1998 . Development of a n
Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the Wabash River. EPA 905/R-96/006 . U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Chicago, Illinois .
Simon, T.P., J.O . Whitaker, Jr., J .S . Castrale & S .A .
Minton . 2002 . Revised checklist of the vertebrates of Indiana . Proceedings of the Indian a
Academy of Science 111(2) :182-214 .
Smith, P.W. 1973 . The Fishes of Illinois . University of Illinois Press, Champaign, Illinois . 31 4
PP .
Strahler, A .N . 1952 . Dynamic basis of geomorphology . Geological Society of America Bulleti n
63 :923-938 .
Trautman, M .B . 1981 . The Fishes of Ohio. Ohi o
State University Press, Columbus, Ohio . 782 pp .
USEPA (U .S . Environmental Protection Agency) .
1994. Environmental monitoring and assessmen t
program, surface waters and Region 3 regional
environmental monitoring and assessment pro gram, 1994 pilot field operations and method s
manuals for streams . EPA/620/R-94/004 . (Donald J . Klemm and James M . Lazorchak, eds .) .
Bioassessment and Ecotoxicology Branch, Ecological Monitoring Research Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati ,
Ohio .
USGS (U .S . Geological Survey) . 1994 . Report o f
the Interagency Biological Methods Workshop .
Open-file report 94-490 . (Martin E. Gurtz and
Thomas A . Muir, eds .) . U .S . Geological Survey ,
Raleigh, North Carolina .
Manuscript received 28 August 2006, revised 1 7
October 2006.