You are here:
DEVELOPMENT OF A FISH INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR ASSESSING WADEABLE STREAMS IN WEST VIRGINIA
Citation:
WALTERS, DAVID M., F. H. MCCORMICK, AND D. CINCOTTA. DEVELOPMENT OF A FISH INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR ASSESSING WADEABLE STREAMS IN WEST VIRGINIA. Presented at Mid-Atlantic Water Pollution Biology Workshop, Berkeley Springs, WV, March 24-26, 2004.
Impact/Purpose:
The goal of this research is to develop methods and indicators that are useful for evaluating the condition of aquatic communities, for assessing the restoration of aquatic communities in response to mitigation and best management practices, and for determining the exposure of aquatic communities to different classes of stressors (i.e., pesticides, sedimentation, habitat alteration).
Description:
We used Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program (EMAP) data from the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA) to develop an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for West Virginia (WV). Standard techniques were used to evaluate a candidate pool of 58 fish assemblage metrics. Responses of metrics to anthropogenic disturbance were analyzed at the regional and the state scale. Our results show that the existing IBI for the Mid-Atlantic region is applicable to WV for stream assessment. As part of a Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) and Regional-EMAP project, we surveyed an additional 119 streams in WV to test the IBI and determine if it is applicable across a range of stream temperatures. Stream temperature data collected at the time of fish collection was unrelated to IBI scores. In addition, hourly temperature data from 84 sites were used to classify streams as cold and warm water streams. We found no differences in IBI scores between cool and warm streams, but sample size was too low to draw conclusions for cold streams. Variability in IBI scores for warm streams was low and cumulative distribution functions of the IBIs showed that RARE sites scored higher than those from previous EMAP studies. Higher scores for rare sites may be related to differences in the site selection process, differences in fish sampling protocols between EMAP and the WV Division of Natural Resources, or differences in disturbance gradients among EMAP and RARE sites.