Use attainability analysis (UAA) at a watershed scale typically relies on the assumption that indicator organisms are responding similarly to the same environmental stressor. Factors explaining variance in fish, crayfish, and macroinvertebrate assemblage structure and function were investigated with emphasis on catchment and reach scale land use, habitat, contaminants, and water quality variables. Habitat quality scores ranged from 25 to 85 (average ). The substrate score, instream cover, riffle-run score, and channel score were primary factors contributing to declining habitat quality. Factor analysis found that four factors explained 69% of the contributed variance in fish assemblage, two factors accounted for 56% of variance in macroinvertebrate assemblages, and two factors explained 49% of the variance in crayfish assemblages. Overall drivers of assemblage structure were associated with broad scale issues of wastewater treatment, groundwater, and land use. Our results show that fish, macroinvertebrate, and crayfish assemblages respond to similar broad scale stimulus; however, the specific constituents responsible for the stress may vary with the magnitude of the cumulative stress, which may be expressed by each organismal group differently. Our data suggest that varying organismal groups can respond independently and stress reflected in one assemblage may not necessarily be observed in another since each organismal group is measuring different aspects of the environment. 1. Introduction Regional scale use attainability analysis (UAA) is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the fulfillment of the fishable/swimmable goals of the United States Clean Water Act (Section 101(a)(2)). Watershed use attainment is determined by evaluating multiple indicators occurring within the same reach and exposed to the same stressors. The assumption is that various trophic level biological indicators will respond similarly to stressors [1, 2]. Many state and federal agencies assume that biological assemblages are measuring the same features of the environment [3, 4]. Oftentimes, the response between various indicators is divergent or contradictory, which has been attributed to differing trophic level impact to chemical, land use, and habitat characteristics [2]. When agreement between indicators is not achieved, the UAA created an elaborate interpretation to describe disagreement between biological assemblage indicators. This has resulted in statements of full support, partial support, indeterminate, or not meeting aquatic life designated uses.
References
[1]
C. O. Yoder and E. T. Rankin, “The role of biological indicators in a state water quality management process,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 51, no. 1-2, pp. 61–88, 1998.
[2]
C. O. Yoder and J. E. DeShon, “Using biological response signatures within a framework of multiple indicators to assess and diagnosis causes and sources of impairment to aquatic assemblages in selected Ohio rivers and streams,” in Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns using Aquatic Communities, T. P. Simon, Ed., pp. 23–81, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1st edition, 2003.
[3]
G. W. Suter II, S. B. Norton, and S. M. Cormier, “A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1101–1111, 2002.
[4]
C. C. Morris, T. P. Simon, and S. A. Newhouse, “A local-scale in situ approach for stressor identification of biologically impaired aquatic systems,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 325–334, 2006.
[5]
United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Stressor identification guidance document,” Tech. Rep. EPA/822/B-00/025, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
[6]
T. P. Simon, Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1st edition, 2003.
[7]
T. P. Simon and C. C. Morris, “Biological response signature of oil brine threats, sediment contaminants, and crayfish assemblages in an Indiana watershed, USA,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 96–110, 2009.
[8]
C. C. Morris and T. P. Simon, “Evaluation of watershed stress in an urbanized landscape in southern Lake Michigan,” in Watersheds: Management, Restoration and Environmental Impact, J. C. Vaughn, Ed., pp. 193–219, Nova Science, New York, NY, USA, 2011.
[9]
S. B. Norton, S. M. Cormier, G. W. Suter II et al., “Determining probable causes of ecological impairment in the Little Scioto River, Ohio, USA. Part 1. Listing candidate causes and analyzing evidence,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1112–1124, 2002.
[10]
K. W. Eagleson, D. L. Lenat, L. W. Ausley, and F. B. Winborne, “Comparison of measured instream biological responses with responses predicted using the Ceriodaphnia dubia chronic toxicity test,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1019–1028, 1990.
[11]
K. Riva-Murray, R. W. Bode, P. J. Phillips, and G. L. Wall, “Impact source determination with biomonitoring data in New York State: concordance with environmental data,” Northeastern Naturalist, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 127–162, 2002.
[12]
D. L. Stevens Jr. and A. R. Olsen, “Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 99, no. 465, pp. 262–278, 2004.
[13]
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), Standard Operating Procedures for Electrofishing, IDEM, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 1992.
[14]
G. C. Becker, Fishes of Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis, USA, 1983.
[15]
D. A. Etnier and W. C. Starnes, The Fishes of Tennessee, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tenn, USA, 1993.
[16]
T. P. Simon, Fishes of Indiana: A Field Guide, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Ind, USA, 2011.
[17]
T. P. Simon, “Standard Operating Procedures for the collection and study of burrowing crayfish in Indiana. I. Methods for the collection of burrowing crayfish in streams and terrestrial habitats,” Miscellaneous Papers of the Indiana Biological Survey Aquatic Research Center, vol. 2, pp. 1–16, 2004.
[18]
L. M. Page, “The crayfishes and shrimps (Decapoda) of Illinois,” Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin, vol. 33, pp. 335–448, 1985.
[19]
C. A. Taylor and G. A. Schuster, The Crayfishes of Kentucky, vol. 28, Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication, 2004.
[20]
T. P. Simon and P. M. Stewart, Eds., Standard Operating Procedures for Development of Watershed Indicators in REMAP: Northern Lakes and Forest Streams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1998.
[21]
R. W. Merritt and K. W. Cummins, An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, USA, 3rd edition, 1996.
[22]
B. Pekarsky, Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1990.
[23]
J. H. Thorpe and A. P. Covich, Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 2010.
[24]
R. W. Pennak, Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 1989.
[25]
E. T. Rankin, The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods and Application, Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 1989.
[26]
E. T. Rankin, “The use of habitat assessments in water resource management programs,” in Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon, Eds., pp. 181–208, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1995.
[27]
StatSoft, STATISTICA for Windows, StatSoft, Tulsa, Okla, USA, 2002.
[28]
S. Siegel and N. J. Castellan, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1988.
[29]
T. P. Simon and R. L. Dufour, “Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. V. Eastern Corn Belt Plain,” EPA 905/R-96/002, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. Water Division. Watershed and Non-Point Source Branch, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1998.
[30]
C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 1948.
[31]
W. K. Dodds and E. B. Welch, “Establishing nutrient criteria in streams,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 186–196, 2000.
[32]
W. G. Characklis, C. H. Ward, J. M. King, and F. L. Roe, “Rainfall quality, land use, and runoff quality,” American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 105, pp. 416–419, 1979.
[33]
P. A. Soranno, S. L. Hubler, S. R. Carpenter, and R. C. Lathrop, “Phosphorus loads to surface waters: a simple model to account for spatial pattern of land use,” Ecological Applications, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 865–878, 1996.
[34]
C. W. Corbett, M. Wahl, D. E. Porter, D. Edwards, and C. Moise, “Nonpoint source runoff modeling. A comparison of a forested watershed and an urban watershed on the South Carolina coast,” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 213, no. 1, pp. 133–149, 1997.
[35]
B. Albanese and G. Matlack, “Utilization of parking lots in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA, and impacts on local streams,” Environmental Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 265–271, 1998.
[36]
M. H. Wahl, H. N. McKellar, and T. M. Williams, “Patterns of nutrient loading in forested and urbanized coastal streams,” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 213, no. 1, pp. 111–131, 1997.
[37]
S. R. Carpenter, N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley, and V. H. Smith, “Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen,” Ecological Applications, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 559–568, 1998.
[38]
A. J. Ulseth and A. E. Hershey, “Natural abundances of stable isotopes trace anthropogenic N and C in an urban stream,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 270–289, 2005.
[39]
S. R. Silva, P. B. Ging, R. W. Lee, J. C. Ebbert, A. J. Tesoriero, and E. L. Inkpen, “Forensic applications of nitrogen and oxygen isotopes in tracing nitrate sources in urban environments,” Environmental Forensics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 125–130, 2002.
[40]
J. Seager and R. G. Abrahams, “The impact of storm sewage discharges on the ecology of a small urban river,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 22, no. 10-11, pp. 163–171, 1990.
[41]
A. E. Hershey, A. J. Ulseth, and K. Fortino, “Use of stable isotopes to trace sewage effluent through a forested mid-order stream in the vicinity of Greensboro, N. C,” in Proceedings of the 77th Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference, New Orleans, La, USA, 2004.
[42]
H. B. N. Hynes, The Ecology of Running Waters, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, UK, 1970.
[43]
H. B. N. Hynes, “Edgardo baldi memorial lecture. The stream and its valley,” in Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, vol. 19, pp. 1–15, 1975.
[44]
C. A. Frissell, W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley, “A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context,” Environmental Management, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 199–214, 1986.
[45]
J. D. Allan, D. L. Erickson, and J. Fay, “The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales,” Freshwater Biology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 149–161, 1997.
[46]
N. L. Poff, “Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 391–409, 1997.
[47]
C. Richards, G. E. Host, and J. W. Arthur, “Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment,” Freshwater Biology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 285–294, 1993.
[48]
L. B. Johnson and S. H. Gage, “Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic Ecosystems,” Freshwater Biology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 113–132, 1997.
[49]
R. H. Norris and M. C. Thoms, “What is river health?” Freshwater Biology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 197–209, 1999.
[50]
B. M. Weigel, “Development of stream macroinvertebrate models that predict watershed and local stressors in Wisconsin,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 123–142, 2003.
[51]
B. M. Weigel, L. Wang, P. W. Rasmussen et al., “Relative influence of variables at multiple spatial scales on stream macroinvertebrates in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion, USA,” Freshwater Biology, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1440–1461, 2003.
[52]
L. Wang, J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman, “Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales,” Environmental Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 255–266, 2001.
[53]
L. Wang, J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl, “Effects of watershed best management practices on habitat and fish in Wisconsin streams,” Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 663–680, 2002.
[54]
C. Richards, L. B. Johnson, and G. E. Host, “Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 295–311, 1996.
[55]
L. Wang, J. Lyons, P. Rasmussen et al., “Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion , USA,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 491–505, 2003.
