Introduction: The Water Resources Division (WRD) of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality uses multi-metric indices (MMI) (Procedure-51, i.e. P-51) to qualitatively assess habitat condition and macroinvertebrate and fish communities in wadeable streams. This information is used to assess aquatic life designated use support and water quality standards attainment throughout Michigan. The USEPA’s National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA) is taking place during 2013 and 2014 as part of the National Aquatic Resource Survey and also uses MMI to assess the quality of the Nation’s aquatic habitats. This WRD study performs P-51 and the NRSA sampling methodology at 30 wadeable stream sites in Michigan and compares the results.

Objectives of this study are to:

1) Evaluate the comparability of USEPA NRSA and MDEQ bioassessment methodologies over a range of stream quality conditions.

2) Identify inconsistencies between results and investigate possible causes of incomparability.

Literature Cited and Acknowledgments: Creal, W., S. Hanshue, S. Kosek, M. Oemke, and M. Walterhouse. 1996. Update of GLEAS P-51 Metric Scoring and Interpretation. MDEQ Staff Report MI/DEQ/SWQ-96/068. Revised May 1998. MDEQ. 1990. SWAS P-51 - Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadeable Streams and Rivers, April 24, 1990. Revised June 1991, August 1996, January 1997, May 2002, and December 2008. USEPA. 2013. National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual EPA-841-B-12-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Field assistance provided by: Mike Alexander, Tom Alwin, Amanda Bosak, Jeff Cooper, Sylvia Heaton, Sarah Holden, Gary Kohlhepp, Tamara Lipsey, Molly Rippke, Dawn Roush, Glen Schmitt, Bill Taft, Jeff Varricchione (MDEQ) and Mike McCauley, Great Lakes Environmental Center.

Reasons for Study

• Goals of the USEPA NRSA are to “determine the extent to which rivers and streams support a healthy biological condition and the extent of major stressors that affect them. In addition, the survey supports a longer-term goal: to determine whether our rivers and streams are getting cleaner and how we might best invest in protecting and restoring them.” - draft NRSA Report.

• WRD biologists assess Michigan’s rivers and streams on a regular basis to examine biological condition status and trends in these waters and determine water quality standards attainment.

• Understanding the MMI results of each assessment is necessary to understand the biological condition of Michigan’s rivers and streams.

• The draft NRSA 2008/2009 report indicates that 59% of river and stream miles in the Upper Midwest Ecoregion are in poor biological condition.

• Michigan’s macroinvertebrate multi-metric indices indicate 4% of the waterbodies in Michigan are in poor biological condition.

• The draft results of the NRSA do not reflect the conditions we see in Michigan’s rivers and streams. While the NRSA is not designed to make statements about an individual state, Michigan is almost entirely in the Upper Midwest ecoregion and makes up about one-third of that ecoregion.

• Possible reasons for contradiction include differing:

• macroinvertebrate sampling methods (Table 1) • uses of reference sites (level of ecoregion) • metrics • threshold cutoffs (poor, acceptable, excellent)

Study Design/Site Selection • Collect macroinvertebrates and fish at 20-30 locations using NRSA procedure and Michigan’s

Procedure-51. • Study sample size was determined through power analysis of 2008 NRSA wadeable sites and

nearby P-51 scores. • Study includes sites from the 2013/2014 NRSA and added sites to create a relatively even

distribution of P-51 macroinvertebrate scores. • Sites not in the 2013/2014 NRSA pool will be sampled with streamlined NRSA protocols to only

gather data to calculate NRSA macroinvertebrate and fish community MMI scores. • Sites must have flowing water to be included in this study due to P-51 requirements. • All sampling will be conducted in 2013 and 2014 field seasons (June 1 – September 30). • Sites sampled using NRSA procedure followed by P-51 within 3-14 days. • A correlation analysis will be performed on the results to determine method comparability.

Funded by:

NRSA Results Upper Midwest Ecoregion

Michigan DEQ Statewide Results

Fair + Good Acceptable + Excellent

Table 1: Macroinvertebrate Sampling Differences between USEPA National Rivers and Streams Procedure and Michigan’s Procedure-51.

USEPA NRSA Michigan’s Procedure-51

Stream reach 150-2000m Typically 50-100m

Time bugs sampled 30 seconds x 11 transects = 5.5

minutes 20-30 minutes

Area sampled for bugs 11 ft2 of dominant habitat from

11X 1 ft2 transects All available habitats along a 50-

100m reach

Reference site selection Upper 75th percentile of “good”

sites in Upper Midwest Ecoregion Level III Ecoregion specific

Upper Midwest Ecoregion

2008/2009 NRSA macroinvertebrate data and nearby Michigan macroinvertebrate data. Red = NRSA poor score, Yellow = is NRSA fair, and green = NRSA good. The black vertical lines Michigan ratings. Greater than 5 = excellent, -4 to 4 = acceptable, < -4 = poor.

Comparative Study of Michigan’s Wadeable Bioassessment & the National Rivers and Stream Assessment Procedures

Tamara Lipsey, Kevin Goodwin, Sarah Holden, Dawn Roush, and Joe Bohr, Water Resources Division

y = 2.3161x + 28.817 R² = 0.2768

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

EPA

MM

I Sco

re

P-51 Score