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, 620 S . Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47403 US A
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 system above its confluence with the Ohio River . Targeted sampling was done in each of the three watershed 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 met 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 ten degrade the environment, resulting in a de- agencies is to assess the condition of the wa- tectable decline in biological integrity . ters of the United States and to report on thei r When comparing all streams in Nort h status . As new tools are developed (Morris et America, large rivers are disproportionatel y al. 2006) and indices are calibrated (Simon degraded (Karr et al . 1985; Poff et al . 1997) . 1992; Simon Stahl 1998 ; Simon in review) , The loss of biological integrity in these larg e increasingly more accurate assessments of th e river systems is the result of widespread lan d status of these waters can be generated whic h use changes and anthropogenic land scale dis- will allow for more emphasis to be placed o n turbance . Few studies have evaluated the restoration of vulnerable and threatened sys- long-term changes in biological integrity i n tems, as well as protection of high quality wa- drainage units as large as the Wabash River, ters. Over the last two decades monitorin g with emphasis on large mainstem river s tools developed in Indiana have focused pri- (Hughes et al . 2005). marily on the use of biological indicators (Si- The purpose of the current study was to mon 1992; Simon Dufour 1998; Simon document changes in three hydrologic water- 2006) . shed units within the Wabash River drainag e An environment that supports an assem- from 1990–2004 . We compared changes dur- blage of organisms similar to that produce d ing three assessment periods and the status o f by long-term evolutionary processes is con- the watershed based on a stratified probability sidered to have high biological integrity . Bi- based approach . ological integrity has been defined as "the ability to support and maintain a balanced, in- METHOD S tegrated adaptive assemblage of organism s Study area .—The Wabash River is the having species composition, diversity, and largest northern tributary of the Ohio River functional organization comparable to that o f and is the longest free-flowing large river eas t natural habitat of the region " (Karr Dudley of the Mississippi . For this study, the Wabash 1981 ; Karr et al . 1986) . Human activities of- River drainage was divided into three water -
156
SOBAT ET AL. CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER 157
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 Ohio River (Posey County) . The other two Total IBI Integrity score class Attributes drainage units include the largest tributaries o f the Wabash River, which are the East an d 53 60 Excellent Comparable to "least im- West Forks of the White River. Together thes e pacted" conditions, ex- three drainage units represent nearly two - ceptional assemblage of thirds of the total area of central Indiana and species . encompass portions of the Eastern Corn Bel t 45 52 Good Decreased species richnes s Plain (ECBP), which is primarily rowcrop ag- (intolerant species in par- ticular), sensitive specie riculture, and the Interior River Lowlan s d present . (IRL), which includes forest landscapes, a s Fair Intolerant and sensitive spe - well as oil, gas, and coal exploration land use 35 44 s cies absent, skewed tro- (Omernik Gallant 1988) . phic structure. Study design. The State of Indiana 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 strategy or rare, omnivores an d to provide an evaluation of stream water qual- tolerant 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 sta- present, tolerant species tistically valid estimates of the percent of total dominant, diseased fish stream miles impaired for aquatic life and rec- frequent. reational uses . <12 No fish No fish captured during Three hydrologic units in the Wabash River 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 sampled that are sampled once every five years, pro- allowing for a spatially accurate representa- viding a complete assessment of the entir e tion of the various stream sizes (USEPA 1994 ; state. USGS 1994) . Sites were generated using U.S. Environ- Three study periods included the baseline 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 ran- that 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 ; wadeable "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 reach equipment; large river (non-wadeable >2580 (reach was defined as 15 times the averag e km drainage area) and great river (>5956.97 wetted width of the stream, minimum 50 m , km ) reaches were sampled using boat mount- maximum 500 m) . The sample population in- ed 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 Reach 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 SCIENCE
C C
0, I M O
O O
C dl
C01
a, N M N 0 vO o
N M M C
a \ C N n 71- C
M N r O 00 01 N 0 N tr)
0 N W
Ct O m O 0 0 > acd O tUi O r: U ,o b,O 72
by • U • co co q • r., O~. by O 1 Q
y., • N O O bq ~ Q S C r t-i U +~ N 0 , O q 0 O N N?, p, • q y O r., O E .~ K COC O O 5 r„ 5 j, 0 TJ :O O 0 d O O
h ..~ v 0
atititi~l~l a~ j~ ~~ Q Q Ar a • ▪ U
SOBAT ET AL .—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVE R 15 9
0d- N N N V O N c+7 r--- N Tr l N N C N O d- Tr 0 N
d\ o\ 00 N I M O a\o ° o o\N cc 41 N
D1 N N C N N Co) Ct ,-i O NN 0 0 -- N a\ M 00 N
d- O N N ID O NO N co-) co O N
a\ a 0o O vO N N V N co`, – .--1 00 tcf 00 N
N d ti M N 00 --~ 41 d1 Co) M— d- N 00 O N 00 O , -, co) r a, D\ M col N co N cNA ON N O N 0 co
di- O N 00 co) O a 90 O M C O or N VO
a o ~O co) to Vl M C to \o M N -O C 00 9ol C N N col - N co) N co) N N ~
V1 r N •--i 00 N O O N Co) M C Col 0 ~O Qv NO cc N N N N VO N .- . O a\O 0 00 C.\ ~--i M oG N
N q 3 o a C
• r. G." N o c,\ Ii C ? ▪ I N C C G L U T p T U s . ,
ro a. o a .v 9E o o N> u A o or _0 3 N x ans a s U y Q 0 o 78 U
o° m ~ .~ .~ o s oo "ro-0- .0x90 c2., p T o t o 9 U UUUUUw 4 , C-) .144 44a 222222222 2
160 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
d- o N N 00 m v N N N NN C. V-) 0\ N m o00 0 te0r M ~ ~ M~NC 0A 0 d M 71-
o\ D\ N CO t--■ 1 rte oC . N M N C v0\0\N 0 0\ N N M ,--~ l co N 40\ N N N n
h O■000NN d NIn CT NMMVD O M ~`n CS O VD N N in h I- ~ d MNr O 00 Irl M
d- 0 N. 00 0 0 N N 00 d- ,-, os o N C ~n D In O W M M 0\ Mdt. cc)
C VD C 0\ M C 00 00 N C --~ N N N — O d M D N 00 N N 4D \ D
O \ VD 0\ N C. O 71- M 0\ 0\ N CS .r lO 00 N 71- 00 CS ID O N 0A tv ti N 00 O 00 N C. CO N O 00 00 O ,-~ 0\ O 7 d- d d cn N 00 r N o\ N N- N N
d- o t—oo 0vM ~nl- oo Do 0A ,. 0v 00 0\ N ,-1 0\ V ,--~ N N VD M 71- M O N 0A N -■ -. 0\ N d V ~i ti M 71- VD to •-~ O N oo N N N M
C VO ti .~ N 0A V Ln N ti N 7t VD 71- t 0\ O N 71- CO 11-) 71- VC) 71- N dA "" N N N VD N N V1 V 71- N M M N NN 00 N ,-v N
D\ V 1C 71- - NNr d N t. O - N ADM In 0\O . -. O O C 00 h_ 0\ ,-~ O t NVC) v- ~t O O VD In 71 00m 0A d" N 00 71- Ct M N Q\ In N \D 71- N71- d,
N 0 O b 7 .k a~ 3 o ,14 D 9 0 0 G: - . .yi W O 7r -, cct0 0U 7.. 0 _ ~N 0 ,g w U ~O N N vUi N C U ~
0 C N U
v h :1I I .O o O ,.0 : . ~ N 0 ., ct ,n v w Oo cc N U W
-0 .ti x C 0 T ?, U O
SOBAT ET AL .--CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER 16 1
d N MN N-+ M N t O
N
NNMM~Ctr N - I N d- In
di- — 01 dA M ti - N
D N \0 \.O M --~ ~D M m1.0 N
0 C N H M O N M VA 0 N
V0 r . M -. O 0 0 71- N 0 ..n c0 O co N c0 N 6~ - r. N
N 00 d d V1 --i N t N d — N N M ~. cc N N M N 0 d- N o0 00 N N d
0 G ,tlcC ~ U 0 • 7:1 5 E 0 0 ty (A 2 • CS m 0 00 N 03 tp q p o8 5A b o fl ~~ o • oE o o JO E ¢ o o 5 • ”O o y a
o 6.31 U 5 y G1.) 5
o o • E S • 44 22222a WWW • R., • wwww 0 C7 .., W W 162 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE cc) --i CT CA IT- C) N O N N M N M M, CT ,~ M IT- V N N N IT- N N O 0 -7 -- N N 71- oo O 71- CT, -, o0 00 M N N N N M N r-. ~ M 41 CD c d" M \O M ~ M N M CT- 71- 71- N `p O N ti N 0 N c0 N N N O 01 O 7Y 01 N O coo - N-N -- ^" N 71- 00 71- M) Cc) N CT r, M M 00 N N 71- Cc) O~ N 00 00 N C N ,7,7 N - N IC) d N ,c) rq r, V) CA VD 00 00 0 0 NCI N~N00 CA 7-, M~o7 oo U A0 co 4 'C1 Ct N Ct o o f C N C C U _O O P .a m -o V ^c3 U U m cp 4 ~F 4 U 4 b m p m Ct 4 d o- N Os-i 4 4 E d ti p 5 O brA F L f L. O "~+ 4 4 y "d O .O h - Ou P. . L U E b-0 0 ,„ ., O O 0 -SO . co o..) to to to U1 ,.1~1~jti1~ SOBAT ET AL .—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER 16 3 7- 0 N o0 oo co N OA ,--■ v1 O co v.) N M N O N ,-, M 00 O\i t e-• (r N D If) O O\ -ti N N .1- O d O1 N co --~ N — C M (-A 7- v ) ■c N n O . co, 0 0o — O MN MN N v-, -1- O 7- O co M M N 00 N N • O GO N M Ira _ O 7 N cN O m d N 00 01 N W N M N oo t(o 7- N d ^~ d N O oo N Q\ — O N O 71- t N N 0\ 71- E O C 0 b N N -cJ C o b 3 o 0 u 3 o -o - 0 74 ,s ti ti so, a 0 + N c) ~ a) co W 4vWWWWWWWaa~ rLa.4 a4 164 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE representative habitats were sampled within cation resulting in a corrected probability de- the stream reach. All fish encountered were sign (Diaz-Ramos et al . 1996). netted and placed into a live well . At the com- The USEPA National Health and Environ- pletion of the sampling, all fish were identifie d mental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) to species, counted, batch weighed by species , in Corvallis, Oregon, created a software pro - and minimum and maximum length recorded . gram "psurvey.analysis" that is used to adjust All individuals were inspected for deformities , the weighting of sites and develop accurate es- eroded fins, lesions, and tumor (DELT) anom- timates for a measured parameter in a targe t alies. Fish were identified using regional iden- population . This software program contain s tification manuals (Gerking 1955 ; Smith 1973 ; functions which calculate the final weight valu e Trautman 1981), and voucher specimens ar e for each site and estimates the percentage of curated at the Indiana Biological Survey integrity class for each hydrologic unit in the Aquatic Research Center, Bloomington, Indi- Wabash drainage (http://www.epa.gov/nheerl / ana. arm/analysispages/techinfoanalysis .htm). Calculations of biological integrity .—Th e RESULTS DISCUSSION Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was used to as- sess the biological integrity of the stream (Si- Fish assemblage.—Based on surveys o f mon 1992; Simon Dufour 1998 ; Simon the entire Wabash River, 150 species wer e Stahl 1998; Simon 2006). The IBI is com- found from 1990–2004 . This number of spe- posed of 12 metrics that assess fish assem- cies represents 72 .1% of the entire fish faun a blage structure, trophic composition (feedin g of Indiana (Simon et al. 2002) . We collected and reproductive guilds), and fish conditio n 135 species from the Wabash River hydrolog- and health . The total IBI score, integrity clas s ic unit, 113 species from the West Fork an d lower White River hydrologic unit, and 11 5 and attributes help define fish assemblage species from the East Fork White River hy- characteristics . Table 1, modified from Karr et drologic unit (Table 2) . al. 1986, uses total IBI score, integrity class Status .—Based on the sampling and IBI re- and attributes to define the fish assemblag e sults of three hydrologic units that compris e characteristics in Indiana streams and rivers. the Wabash River drainage, the Wabash Rive r Indiana narrative biological criteria [32 7 and tributaries drainage unit has remained rel- IAC 2-1-3(2)] states that "all waters, excep t atively stable during the last 15 years . How- those designated as limited use, will be ca- ever, the East Fork White River (EFWR) an d pable of supporting a well-balanced, war m West Fork White River (WFWR) drainag e water aquatic community" (IDEM 2006a) . units show an increase in biological integrit y The water quality standard definition of a with higher percentages of fair, good, and ex- "well-balanced aquatic community" is "an cellent integrity classes (Table 3) . The EFWR aquatic community which is diverse in specie s had the highest percentage (17%) of excellent composition, contains several different trophi c streams, while the Wabash River had the low- levels, and is not composed mainly of strictl y est (1%) . Watershed ranking of sites that me t pollution tolerant species " [327 IAC 2-1 - designated uses for aquatic life (IBI Scor e 9(60)] (IDEM 2006a) . A stream segment is >35) included EFWR (76%), WFWR (62%), non-supporting for aquatic life use when the and Wabash River (53%) (Table 3) . The Wa- monitored fish assemblage receives an IB I bash River possessed the highest percentag e score of less than 35 which is considered poo r of poor sites based on biological integrity or very poor (IDEM 2006b) . (36%), followed by the WFWR (27%), and Statistics and data analysis .—When esti- the EFWR (22%) . mates for characteristics of the entire targe t Wabash River: Three sampling periods in- watershed are computed, the statistical anal- cluded targeted sampling during 1990–1995 , ysis must account for any loss of stratificatio n and two probabilistic survey periods durin g or unequal probability selection due to som e 1998–1999, and 2003–2004 (Fig . 1). Surveys sites not being sampled (i .e., access denied , of the Wabash River from 1990–1995 resulted impounded, dry, etc.). This method applies a in an average IBI score that classified sites as post-hoc statistical correction factor (weight- fair (Fig. 1). None of the Wabash River main- ing factor) to an unbalanced sample stratifi- stem 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 2nd cycle (1996-1999) (2001-2004) Combined Integrity class 95% CI n 95% CI n 95% CI n Excellent 1% 1 2 2% 2 2 1% 1 4 Good 10% 6 13 14% 7 17 13% 5 30 Fair 46% 11 37 35% 11 27 39% 8 64 Poor 35% 11 30 37% 12 23 36% 8 53 Very poor 8% - 7 5 12% 8 6 11% 6 1 1 East Fork White River 1st cycle 2nd cycle (1996-1999) (2001-2004) Combined Integrity class 95% CI n 95% CI n 95% CI n Excellent 1% 1 1 22% 8 11 17% 10 1 2 Good 9% 7 5 20% 12 8 16% 7 13 Fair 30% 15 10 37% 16 12 43% 12 22 Poor 53% 16 14 19% - 14 6 22% 7 20 Very poor 7% 9 2 2% 3 1 2% 2 3 West Fork White River and Lower White Rive r 1st cycle 2nd cycle (1996-1999) (2001-2004) Combined Integrity class 95% CI n 95% CI n 95% CI n Excellent 0% 0 6% 8 2 3% 4 2 Good 12% 10 6 15% 10 7 14% 7 13 Fair 35% it 15 12 54% It 17 18 45% 12 30 Poor 48% 17 12 8% 7 4 27% 11 16 Very poor 5% it 8 1. 17% 12 5 11% 7 6 distribution for each of the IBI condition cat- creased (Table 3). Continued improvements egories from 1990-1995 included good-ex- were observed during 2003-2004 with in- cellent (3 .6%), good (7 .1%), good-fai r creases in excellent and good categories, an d (14.3%), fair (32.1%), fair-poor (21 .4%), poor declines in the fair condition category (Fig . 1). (17 .9%), and very poor (3 .6%) . Biological in- Unfortunately, the poor and very poor condi- tegrity for the Wabash River mainstem was tion categories also increased (Table 3) . The low in 1993 from Fountain County to Pose y three frequency distribution curves of total IB I County (Simon Stahl 1998), possibly influ- score for the Wabash River watershed over enced by prolonged early summer flooding three survey periods show increases in the fai r (Gammon Simon 1998) . For the Wabash and good integrity classes (ranging from 35 to River mainstem, the lowest IBI scores occure d 53) (Fig . 4). near old Grand Rapids dam (IBI = 22); and East Fork White River: Biological integrity there was a large depression in biological in- increased in the EFWR from 1990-2002 (Fig . tegrity along Vermillion County down river t o 2). During 1990-1995, the fish assemblage northern Vigo County (Simon Stahl 1998). conditions ranged from poor-very poor (IB I Overall, streams in the watershed improved i n = 25) to good (IBI = 51) . The frequency dis- the excellent and good condition categories tribution was : good (16.7%), fair (11 .1%) , during 1998-99, but categories that failed t o fair-poor (50.0%), poor (16.7%), poor-very meet aquatic life designated uses also in - poor (5 .6%) . Sampling conducted during 1997 166 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENC E Site Classificatio n • Excellen t 3 Goo d Fai r q Poo r q Very Poo r 0 20 40 80 160 1990-1990 1996-1999 2003-200 4 410 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 pe- West Fork White River: Biological integrity riod (Fig. 2), with the only difference bein g in the WFWR and lower White River im- an increase in the amount of poor conditio n proved with the largest increases occurrin g sites. During 2002, excellent and good con- between the poor and fair integrity categories dition sites increased in frequency and poo r (Fig. 3). During 1990-1995, an increase in bi- and very poor condition sites decreased (Tabl e ological integrity was observed downstream 3). Overall, there were fewer poor sites i n from the East and West Fork junction to the 1990—1995 than in both 1997 and 2002 . How - mouth of the lower White River (Simon ever, more good and excellent integrity classe s 1992) . The condition of fish assemblages i n were found in 2002 than in 1990—1995 an d the lower White River (1990-1995) range d 1997 (Fig. 5) . from poor to fair (IBI = 27-44), and IB I Site Classificatio n 1990-1995 199 7 2002 • Excellen t • Good 0 Fai r • Poor 0 10 20 40 60 80 Kilometers • Very Poo r Figure 2 .-Status of the East Fork White River hydrologic unit based on three survey periods; 1990- 1995, 1997, and 2002 . SOBAT ET AL .—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER 167 Site Classificatio n 0 Excellent 3 Good q Fai r q Poo r Very Poo r 0 10 20 40 60 80 1990 - 1995 1996 200 1 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 Each watershed estimate reflects a high de- . frequency distribution including, fair 31 .3% (n gree of confidence ; however, combination of = 5), fair–poor 37 .5% (n = 6), and poor the data for the ten year period from 1996 – 31.3% (n = 5) (Simon 1992) . The condition 2006 can be used to determine trends in aquat - of the fish assemblages in the WFWR (1990 – ic life designated uses . Based on the combined 1995) ranged from poor–very poor (IBI = 24) assessment conditions, the Wabash River wa- to good (IBI = 46), and the IBI frequency tershed unit has about 53% of all stream mile s distribution for the 1990–1995 period for th e meeting aquatic life designed uses ; EFWR has WFWR included : good (5.6%), fair (11 .1%), 76% of all stream miles meeting aquatic life fair–poor (16 .7%), poor (22 .2%), and poor– designated uses (IBI > 35) ; and WFWR has very poor (33 .3%) . During 1996, the biolog- 62% of all stream miles meeting aquatic lif e ical integrity of the WFWR watershed im- designated uses (Table 3) . The EFWR has proved with the increase of the good and fai r 33% of all stream miles classified as eithe r categories and the decline of the very poo r good or excellent based on biological integ- category (Table 3). The frequency distribution rity, while the WFWR has 17% of strea m of total IBI scores for the West Fork and lowe r miles and the Wabash River has 14% classi- White rivers over the three survey periods in- fied as good or excellent. The Wabash River dicates a decrease in fair and good integrit y had 47% of stream miles failing aquatic life classes from 1990–1995 to 1996 . However, designated uses (classified as poor or ver y the high integrity classes rebound in 2001 to poor), WFWR had 38% failing, and EFW R levels greater than those seen from 1990 – had 24% as either poor or very poor (Tabl e 1995 and 1996 (Fig . 6). 3). Assessment of the three watershe d An increasing need for Water Quality agen- units .—The benefit of the random probabilit y cies to report on the entire waters of the nation design was a narrower confidence interval for requires monitoring and assessment tools tha t estimated parameters with increasing number can be used to provide accurate classificatio n of data points ; however, this assumes that n o of water resources . The Wabash River drain - changes in water quality affected the biolog- age is perhaps one of the most important wa- ical assemblages (Messer et al . 1991) . As- ters in the State of Indiana. Water quality sessments of each watershed can be evaluated agencies are increasingly challenged with the based on either each of the three time period s responsibility for providing clean water and or based on a combination of the random for restoring the biological integrity of the na- probability design sites during each of the tw o tion s surface waters. The use of a probabilis- sample rounds (Table 3) . tic 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 restoration programs are implemented . ACKNOWLEDGMENT S We appreciate the assistance of the Depart- ment of Environmental Management biolo- gists 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 , 10 20 05 30 35 40 45 55 00 and Steve Wente for field assistance. Although Total IBI Scor e this study may have been funded wholly or i n part by the U .S. Environmental Protection 5 Agency or U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, no endorsement should be inferred by these agen- cies . 0 C a LITERATURE CITED 0 8 z Diaz-Ramos, S ., D .L. Stevens, Jr. A.R. Olsen. (I) 1996 . EMAP Statistical Methods Manual 0 _ . EPA / LL 620/R-96/002, U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development , E NHEERL-Western Ecology Division, Corvallis , U 0 3 Oregon . Gammon, J .R. T.P. Simon. 2000. Variation in a 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 55 great river index of biotic integrity over a 20- Total IBI Scor e year period . Hydrobiologia 422/423 :291-304 . Gerking, S .D. 1955. Key to the fishes of Indiana. Investigations of Indiana Lakes and Streams 4 : 6 49-86 . ,z 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 Ad- ministrative 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 30 35 40 45 50 55 00 Management) . 2006b . Indiana Integrated Water Total IBI Score Monitoring and Assessment Report 2006 . B - 001-OWQ-A-00-06-R3 . (Jody Arthur, ed .). Of- 1990-199 5 fice of Water Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indianapolis, In- 1996-199 9 diana . http ://www .in .gov/idem/programs/water / 2001-2004 305b/index.html Figures 4-6 .--Cumulative percent frequency Karr, J .R. D.R. Dudley . 1981 . Ecological per- spective on water quality goals . Environmental distribution of total IBI scores . 4. Wabash River wa- . tershed ; 5. East Fork White River watershed ; 6. Management 5 :55-68 West Fork and lower White River watershed . (Solid Karr, J .R., L.A . Toth D .R. Dudley. 1985. Fish line = Ecoregion data : 1990-1995, Dotted line = communities of midwestern rivers : A history of U round probabilistic : 1996-1999, Dashed line = degradation . BioScience 35 :90-95 . 2 d round probabilistic : 2001-2004 . 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 169 tegrity in Running Waters, a Method and its Ra- ecoregions of Indiana . V. Eastern Corn Belt tional . Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Plain. EPA 905-R-96-004 . U .S . Environmental Publication 5 . Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois . Messer, J .J ., R .A . Linthurst W.S. Overton . 1991. Simon, T.P. J.R. Stahl . 1998. Development of a n An EPA program for monitoring ecological sta- Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the Wa- tus and trends . Environmental Monitoring an d bash River. EPA 905/R-96/006 . U .S. Environ- Assessment 17 :67-78 . mental Protection Agency, Water Division, Chi- Morris, C .C ., T.P. Simon S .A . Newhouse. 2006. cago, Illinois. A local-scale in situ approach for stressor iden- Simon, T.P., J.O. Whitaker, Jr., J.S. Castrale S .A . tification for biologically impaired aquatic sys- Minton . 2002. Revised checklist of the verte- tems. Archives of Environmental Contaminatio n brates of Indiana . Proceedings of the Indian a and Toxicology 50(3) :325-334 . Academy of Science 111(2) :182-214 . Omernik, J .M . A .L. Gallant . 1988. Ecoregions Smith, P.W. 1973 . The Fishes of Illinois . Univer- of the upper midwest states . EPA/600/3-88/037 . sity of Illinois Press, Champaign, Illinois . 314 U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, ERL , PP . Corvallis, Oregon . Strahler, A .N. 1952. Dynamic basis of geomor- Poff, N .L., J.D. Allan, M .B . Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. phology . Geological Society of America Bulleti n Prestegaard, B .D. Richter, R .E. Sparks J .C. 63 :923-938 . Stromberg . 1997. The natural flow regime: A Trautman, M .B . 1981 . The Fishes of Ohio. Ohi o paradigm for river conservation and restoration . State University Press, Columbus, Ohio . 782 pp . BioScience 47 :769-784 . USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) . Simon, T.P. 1992. Biological criteria developmen t 1994. Environmental monitoring and assessmen t for large rivers with an emphasis on an assess- program, surface waters and Region 3 regional ment of the White River drainage, Indiana . EPA environmental monitoring and assessment pro - 905/R-92/006 . U.S . Environmental Protection gram, 1994 pilot field operations and method s Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois . manuals for streams . EPA/620/R-94/004 . (Don- Simon, T.P. 2006. Evaluation and assessment of ald J . Klemm and James M . Lazorchak, eds .). fish assemblages near electric generating facili- Bioassessment and Ecotoxicology Branch, Eco- ties: with emphasis on review of discharge sub- logical Monitoring Research Division, Environ- mitted data, development of standard operatin g mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U .S. En- procedures, and traveling zone assessment . U .S. vironmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati , Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Ser- Ohio . vice, Biological Services Program and Divisio n USGS (U .S. Geological Survey) . 1994. Report o f of Ecological Services, Bloomington, Indiana. the Interagency Biological Methods Workshop . Simon, T.P. 2006. Development, calibration, an d Open-file report 94-490 . (Martin E. Gurtz and validation of an Index of Biotic Integrity for th e Thomas A . Muir, eds .) . U .S. Geological Survey , Wabash River. Proceedings of the Indiana Acad- Raleigh, North Carolina. emy of Science 115 :170-186 . Simon, T.P. R .L. Dufour. 1998. Development of Manuscript received 28 August 2006, revised 1 7 an Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the October 2006.