(A) alien mollusc Corbicula sp.;

(B) alien trichopteran Hydroptila sp.;

(C) alien trichopteran Cheumatopsyche pettiti;

(D) amphipod;

(E) endemic mountain shrimp Atyoida bisulcata.

All photographs taken by Reuben H. Wolff

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

(E)
Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as 

Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii 

By Reuben H. Wolff

Prepared in cooperation with the 

State of Hawaii Department of Health

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5079

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Wolff, R.H., 2005, Feasibility of using benthic invertebrates as indicators of stream quality in Hawaii: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5079, 78 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................ 1

Objectives .......................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Scope ................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgments ................................................................................. 3

Invertebrates in Hawaiian Streams..................................................................... 3

Challenges to Development of Metrics ......................................................... 4

Methods of Study ....................................................................................... 5

Selection of Sampling Sites........................................................................ 5

Oahu .......................................................................................... 5

Kauai .......................................................................................... 5

Collection of Invertebrate Samples ............................................................... 5

Determination of Habitat Characteristics ...................................................... 9

Environmental Assessments ..................................................................... 9

Basin Characteristics ........................................................................ 10

Land Use / Land Cover........................................................................ 10

Contaminants ................................................................................. 10

Streambed Sediment .................................................................. 11

Fish Tissue .............................................................................. 11

Calibration of Environmental Assessment Classification....................................... 11

Development of Metrics ........................................................................... 15

Taxonomic Ambiguity and Resolution ...................................................... 15

Metrics.......................................................................................... 16

Results of Data Analyses—Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality ...... 18

Environmental Assessments ..................................................................... 18

Environmental Assessment Scoring ...................................................... 20

Macroinvertebrate Metrics........................................................................ 29

Data Sets ....................................................................................... 29

Metrics.......................................................................................... 30

Total Invertebrate Abundance......................................................... 39

Taxa Richness ........................................................................... 40

Insect Relative Abundance ............................................................ 41

Alien Mollusc Abundance ............................................................ 41

Amphipod Abundance.................................................................. 41

Crayfish Presence or Absence ...................................................... 41

Native Mountain Shrimp (Atyoida bisulcata) Presence or Absence ............ 42

Temporal and Spatial Variability ............................................................ 43

Relations between Land Use, Contaminants, and Habitat .................................... 43

Relations between Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity and Environmental Assessments ... 45

Reference Condition and Between-Island Comparisons............................................. 45

Integrating Macroinvertebrates and Existing Bioassessment Protocols ........................ 47
iv

Contents—Continued

Need for Additional Information ........................................................................ 48

Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................. 48

References Cited.......................................................................................... 50

Appendix A. Unedited richest targeted habitat (RTH, quantitative sampling) invertebrate 

abundance data set ................................................................................. 56

Appendix B. Edited richest targeted habitat (RTH, quantitative sampling) invertebrate 

abundance data set ................................................................................. 60

Appendix C. Unedited invertebrate richness data set ................................................ 68

Appendix D. Edited invertebrate richness data set ................................................... 74

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing land use and sampling sites on the island of Oahu, Hawaii ......... 6

Figure 2. Map showing land use and sampling sites on the island of Kauai, Hawaii ......... 7

Figure 3. Diagram showing selected habitat measurements made at each transect: 

(a) bank angle, (b) open canopy angle, (c) stream depth, (c’) thalweg (deepest 

depth), (d) bank full width, (e) substrate size, (f) wetted channel width, 

(g) riparian canopy closure ............................................................... 9

Figure 4. Flow chart showing analytical procedures used to create the Preliminary

Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) ................................. 12

Figure 5. Graph showing an example of a Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) used 

for scoring environmental variables and metrics ....................................... 13

Figure 6. Flow chart showing analytical procedures used to test the preliminary 

Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) ................................. 17

Figure 7. Ordination plot showing principal Components Analysis (PCA) using the

environmental variables at sampling sites on Hawaiian streams...................... 19

Figure 8. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plots showing cut-off values for the

scoring range of the land-use variables (A) percentage of developed land; 

(B) percentage of agricultural land ...................................................... 20

Figure 9. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plots showing cut-off values for the

scoring range of the habitat variables (A) mean dominant substrate, (B) percent

solar irradiance, and (C) mean silt score ................................................ 21

Figure 10. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plot showing final environmental

assessment scores for the calibration subset of sites ................................. 25

Figure 11. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plot showing reduced environmental

assessment scores with all sites ......................................................... 27

Figure 12. Ordination plot showing principal Components Analysis using the environmental

variables without the contaminants data set for the subset of calibration sites

used to develop the assessment, and the entire set of study sites .................. 28

Figure 13. XY scatter plots showing relation between the final metrics values and the

environmental assessment scores for (A) invertebrate abundance, (B) amphipod

abundance, (C) mollusc abundance, (D) insect relative abundance, and (E) taxa

richness....................................................................................... 32
Figures—Continued

Figure 14. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plots showing preliminary Hawaiian

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) metrics with vertical divisions

demarking the cut-off values of the scoring range for (A) amphipod abundance,

(B) invertebrate abundance, (C) number of taxa, (D) alien mollusc abundance, and 

(E) percentage of Insecta .................................................................. 33

Figure 15. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plot showing final Preliminary Hawaiian

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) core metrics scores for the calibration

sites and the vertical divisions demarking the cut-off values of the scoring range 

for impairment categories .................................................................. 34

Figure 16. XY scatter plot showing relationship between the environmental assessment

scores and the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI)

from the calibration sites used to develop the P-HBIBI................................. 34

Figure 17. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plots showing core metrics using all 

sites with vertical divisions demarking the cut-off values of the scoring range for 

amphipod abundance, invertebrate abundance, number of taxa, alien mollusc 

abundance, and percent age of Insecta ................................................ 36

Figure 18. Cumulative Distribution function (CDF) plot showing Preliminary Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) scores for all the study sites ............ 37

Figure 19. XY scatter plot showing relationship between the reduced environmental 

assessment scores and the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

(P-HBIBI) scores for the test sites with vertical divisions demarking the cut-off 

values of the scoring range for impairment categories................................. 37

Figure 20. XY scatter plot showing relationship between the environmental assessment 

scores and the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) 

scores for all the sites with vertical divisions demarking the cut-off values of the 

scoring range for impairment categories ................................................ 38

Figure 21. Ordination plot showing comparison of multi-year and multi-reach samples 

collected at Waihee Stream at reach B in 1999, 2000, and 2001, and at reaches 

A and C in 2000 .............................................................................. 44

Tables

Table 1. Invertebrate sampling sites and associated land-use percentages .................. 8

Table 2. Basin characteristics calculated using the Basinsoft program........................ 10

Table 3. Reclassification scheme for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) land-cover classes ............................................................... 11

Table 4. Criteria and scoring of level 1 land-use categories .................................... 13

Table 5. Criteria and scoring of trace elements in bed sediment .............................. 13

Table 6. Criteria and scoring of organochlorine compounds in bed sediment ............... 13

Table 7. Criteria and scoring of semivolatile organic compounds in bed sediment ......... 14

Table 8. Criteria and scoring of organochlorine compounds in fish tissue ..................... 14

Table 9. Criteria and scoring of habitat parameters ............................................. 14

Table 10. Categories and values of substrate ...................................................... 15

Table 11. Final ranges classifying the environmental assessment site scores.................. 15

Table 12. Eigenvalues and variable loadings for the Principal Components Analysis 

(PCA) of environmental variables ......................................................... 18
vi

Tables—Continued

Table 13. Environmental assessment scores for land-use percentages ........................ 20

Table 14. Environmental assessment scores for reach-level habitat variables ............... 22

Table 15. Environmental assessment scores for trace elements in bed sediment ............ 22

Table 16. Environmental assessment scores for organochlorine pesticides in 

bed sediment................................................................................. 23

Table 17. Environmental assessment scores for semi-volatile organochlorine compounds 

in bed sediment .............................................................................. 23

Table 18. Environmental assessment scores for fish tissue organochlorine contaminants.... 24

Table 19. Final environmental assessment scores for fish tissue organochlorine 

contaminants................................................................................. 25

Table 20. Individual environmental assessment parameter scores and the final 

environmental assessment scores ...................................................... 26

Table 21. Land use for sites not used in the calibration exercise ................................. 26

Table 22. Habitat characteristics for sites not used in the calibration exercise ............... 27

Table 23. Individual environmental assessment parameter scores and the reduced final 

environmental assessment scores without the contaminants data .................. 27

Table 24. Eigenvalues and variable loadings of the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) 

using land use and habitat variables for the calibration set of study sites ......... 29

Table 25. Eigenvalues and variable loadings of the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) 

using land use and habitat variables for all of the study sites ........................ 29

Table 26. Residency status of invertebrate identifications ....................................... 30

Table 27. Number of sites with occurrences of unique taxa from the edited quantitative 

(RTH) dataset................................................................................. 30

Table 28. List of candidate metrics used to determine core metrics and the final 

Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) based on the 

available taxa .............................................................................. 30

Table 29. Conditional scoring for the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic 

Integrity (P-HBIBI) metrics ............................................................... 31

Table 30. Metric scores for final invertebrate metrics and final Preliminary Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) site scores ................................. 35

Table 31. Impairment classifications based on Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of 

Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) and environmental assessment ........................... 39

Table 32. Final metrics and predicted responses to increased perturbation .................. 39

Table 33. Abundances and proportions of the first and second dominant invertebrate 

taxa in Hawaii streams ..................................................................... 40

Table 34. Abundances and proportions of the first, second, and third dominant 

invertebrate taxa groups. .................................................................. 42

Table 35. Abundances and proportions of the trichopterans and chironomids from the 

reference condition sites .................................................................. 46
vii

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m)

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the local mean sea level.

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Conversion Factors and Datums

Conversion Factors
viii

This page is intentionally blank.
Abstract

Macroinvertebrates were collected from 19 sites on 14 

streams on the island of Oahu and from 9 sites on 7 streams 

on the island of Kauai to evaluate associations between 

macroinvertebrate assemblages and environmental variables 

and to determine whether or not it would be feasible, in 

future studies, to develop macroinvertebrate metrics that 

would indicate stream quality based on the macroinvertebrate 

assemblages and/or components of the assemblages. The 

purpose of applying rapid bioassessment techniques is to 

identify stream quality problems and to document changes 

in stream quality. Samples were collected at 10 sites in 1999, 

3 sites in 2000, and 5 sites in 2003 on Oahu and at 9 sites on 

Kauai in 2003. Additionally, multiple year and multiple reach 

samples were collected at 1 site on Oahu. Macroinvertebrates 

were collected primarily from boulder/cobble riffles or from 

the fastest flowing habitat when riffles were absent. Although 

most streams in Hawaii originate in mountainous, forested 

areas, the lower reaches often drain urban, agricultural, or 

mixed land-use areas. The macroinvertebrate community data 

were used to identify metrics that could best differentiate 

between sites according to levels of environmental 

impairment. Environmental assessments were conducted 

using land-use/land-cover data, bed-sediment and fishtissue contaminant data, and reach-level environmental data 

using a calibration set of 15 sites. The final scores of the 

environmental assessments were used to classify the sites into 

three categories of impairment: mild, moderate or severe. A 

number of invertebrate metrics were then tested and calibrated 

to the environmental assessments scores. The individual 

metrics that were the best at discerning environmental 

assessments among the sites were combined into a multimetric 

benthic index of biotic integrity (BIBI). These metrics were: 

total invertebrate abundance, taxa richness, insect relative 

abundance, amphipod abundance, crayfish presence or 

absence, and native mountain shrimp presence or absence. 

Because this index is in the preliminary stage of development 

and additional “pristine” sites need to be sampled and assessed 

to develop a more robust measure of biotic integrity, the index 

will be referred to as a Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index 

of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI). The P-HBIBI scores were then 

classified into three categories of impairment: mild, moderate, 

or severe. The P-HBIBI was then used to assess the remaining 

sites and classify them into impairment categories. The PHBIBI was correlated (r2 = 0.72; p < 0.005) with a reduced 

environmental assessment determined without contaminants 

data. The results of this study suggest that the development of 

a reliable Hawaiian benthic index of biotic integrity (HBIBI), 

based on macroinvertebrate assemblages, is feasible; however, 

a much larger sample size, including more samples from 

‘pristine’ sites and from the other islands, would be required. 

Introduction

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act 

requires the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) 

to generate the Clean Water Act §303(d) List of Water 

Quality-Limited Segments (WQLS) for surface waters that are 

exceeding or will likely exceed State Water Quality Standards 

(WQS) (Henderson and Harrigan-Lum, 2002; Koch and 

others, 2004). The Clean Water Act’s objective is to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s surface waters (33 U.S.C. §1251). Surface 

waters that have been determined to be water-quality limited 

must then be surveyed to ascertain the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) for each identified constituent that exceeds 

the State WQS. The TMDL is the maximum daily load of the 

constituent, established for each WQLS, that can enter the 

stream without violating the State WQS.

Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as 

Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii

By Reuben H. Wolff
The HDOH has been testing and refining the Hawaii 

Stream Bioassessment Protocol (HSBP) (Kido, 2002) 

for the past several years. The purpose of applying rapid 

bioassessment techniques is to identify stream quality 

problems associated with both point and nonpoint source 

pollution and to document long-term regional changes in 

stream quality (Resh and Jackson, 1993), and to do so in 

a cost-effective way (Resh and Jackson, 1993; Lenat and 

Barbour, 1994). The HSBP is currently based on habitat 

characteristics and the presence of native fish and macrocrustaceans as indicators of biotic integrity (Kido and others, 

1999; Burr, 2001; Kido, 2002; Burr, 2003; Henderson, 2003). 

This approach is consistent with efforts being undertaken by 

many State agencies across the country. Although organisms 

used in stream-quality monitoring programs include algae, 

invertebrates, and fish (Lenat and Barbour, 1994; Barbour 

and others, 1999), benthic macroinvertebrates are by far 

the most commonly used group of organisms for this 

purpose (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). Therefore, the HDOH 

is interested in expanding the HSBP to include benthic 

invertebrates.

Benthic macro-invertebrates offer many advantages in 

biomonitoring: (1) they are ubiquitous, and consequently can 

be affected by environmental perturbation in various aquatic 

systems and habitats; (2) the large number of species offers 

a wide spectrum of responses to environmental stressors; (3) 

their basic sedentary nature allows effective spatial analyses of 

pollutants or disturbance effects; and (4) they have relatively 

long life cycles, which allows elucidation of temporal changes 

caused by perturbation (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). The 

HDOH intends to use the protocol to screen the biological 

health of Hawaii’s streams for classification purposes and to 

identify water-quality problems associated with both point and 

nonpoint source pollution.

The long-term goal of the HDOH is to use assessment 

protocols that include fish, invertebrates, and algae. The use 

of diverse groups of organisms in biological monitoring can 

provide a more robust assessment of stream quality (Lenat 

and Barbour, 1994). Some studies have indicated that fish 

communities alone may not always be reliable indicators of 

habitat and stream quality. For example, in the Upper Merced 

River in central California, low fish-species richness and the 

apparent importance of physical barriers in determining fish 

distributions (both of which are factors in Hawaii streams) led 

to the conclusion that benthic invertebrates were a more useful 

and reliable indicator of stream quality (Brown and Short, 

1999).

Invertebrate metrics developed for streams in continental 

settings may not be appropriate in the Hawaiian Islands. 

For example, the commonly used EPT (Ephemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, Trichoptera) metric is virtually meaningless 

in Hawaii, where only a few individuals of one introduced 

species of Ephemeroptera have ever been reported, and 

Plecoptera have never been known to exist here (Howarth and 

Polhemus, 1991). Likewise, in North America, mussels and 

snails are most often indicators of high-quality environments; 

in Japan (Karr and Chu, 1997) and Hawaii (Brasher and 

others, 2004), however, the most common mollusc species 

are alien or otherwise indicators of degraded conditions. 

Consequently, metrics specific for Hawaiian streams need to 

be developed.

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, 

and in cooperation with the HDOH, invertebrate and habitat 

information were collected at 10 sites on the island of Oahu in 

1999 (1 site was resampled in 2000 and in 2001 and 2 adjacent 

sites were sampled in 2000) (Brasher and others, 2004). This 

information represents the most extensive and comprehensive 

information collected to date on the distribution, abundance, 

and species composition of benthic freshwater invertebrates in 

Hawaii. To assess the usefulness of invertebrates as indicators 

of stream quality, a wider range of streams than those included 

in the Oahu NAWQA study were sampled, with emphasis on 

degraded sites. To examine inter-island variability, several 

reference and degraded sites on the island of Kauai also were 

sampled to determine if differences exist among the islands.

Objectives

The main objective of this study was to determine if 

it would be advisable, in future projects, to further develop 

a multi-metric index of biotic integrity using benthic 

invertebrates (BIBI) in Hawaiian streams and to identify those 

components of the invertebrate assemblages that showed 

the most potential for further investigation. To assess the 

feasibility of developing a BIBI, this study examined the 

relations between the benthic invertebrate assemblages and 

the impairment levels, based on a group of environmental 

parameters, at a number of sites on Oahu and Kauai. The first 

phase was to analyze site-specific land-use data, contaminants 

data, and habitat data to classify the instream impairment 

levels at each site using the most ‘pristine’ sites as the 

reference condition sites. The second phase was to analyze 

the benthic invertebrate communities collected from these 

sites and to test whether or not the invertebrate assemblages 

displayed any discernible and biologically informative patterns 

as a consequence of the environmental impairment.

 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Purpose and Scope

This report presents the macroinvertebrate data collected 

by the USGS from 1999 to 2003 and assesses the feasibility of 

developing a multimetric, invertebrate-based, index of biotic 

integrity for the entire State of Hawaii or for the individual 

islands. It includes: (1) a description of 28 macroinvertebrate 

samples and habitat information collected from 26 sites on 

21 streams on the islands of Oahu and Kauai; (2) multivariate 

and multimetric analyses to determine relations among 

habitat characteristics, stream quality, and the distribution 

and abundance of benthic invertebrates; and (3) a preliminary 

assessment of metrics that best differentiate sites according to 

levels of impairment.

Acknowledgments

Fieldwork for this study was made possible by the 

assistance of various Federal, State, and local organizations. 

I especially thank Anne Brasher (USGS) who contributed 

greatly to the design and fieldwork of this study, and for her 

insightful review comments. I also thank: Corene Luton, Chad 

Durkin, Paige Little, Dale Mikami, and Austin Seid (USGS), 

and Monika Mira, of the Nawiliwili Bay Watershed Council, 

who all made valuable contributions to the fieldwork. Brady 

Richards (EcoAnalysts, Inc.) sorted and identified many of the 

invertebrate samples, and Les Watley (University of Maine) 

identified the amphipods. We especially thank the National 

Tropical Botanical Gardens (NTBG) for allowing us access 

to lower Lawai Stream and Limahuli Stream, Kamehameha 

Schools for access to Punaluu Stream, and the Honolulu 

Board of Water Supply for access to Waihee Stream. Lists 

of invertebrates collected at these sites are available in the 

appendixes of this report.

Invertebrates in Hawaiian Streams

The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated island 

archipelago in the world, located nearly 4,000 kilometers from 

the nearest continent. The native stream fauna of Hawaii is 

relatively depauperate compared to that of continental streams. 

Widespread diverse orders of insects such as Ephemeroptera 

(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera 

(caddisflies) are absent from the native biota (Howarth and 

Polhemus, 1991). Historically, the isolation of the Hawaiian 

archipelago prevented large-scale colonization due to the 

limited dispersal mechanisms of most aquatic invertebrates. 

Many native stream species were most likely derived from 

marine ancestors, although a few arrived by flight, including 

the ancestors of the native damselflies and dragonflies, or 

various other mechanisms such as rafting, carried in the jet 

stream, or attached to migratory birds (Zimmerman, 1947). 

Native insects of the order Diptera are thought to have all 

adapted from marine ancestors (Howarth and Mull, 1992). 

This isolation enabled the few successful colonizers to 

undergo natural selection and adaptive radiation, resulting 

in a high degree of endemism and specialization among the 

islands’ biota (Carlquist, 1980).

The native species of Hawaii were well adapted to the 

unique environment of pre-contact Hawaiian streams and 

tend to be less aggressive than introduced species (Carlquist, 

1980). There is now a proliferation of introduced species that 

are better competitors and far more tolerant of conditions in 

altered and degraded streams. These alien macroinvertebrates 

arrived in Hawaii in assorted ways and for various reasons. 

Some introductions were state sanctioned, such as the Tahitian 

prawn Macrobrachium lar, while others, such as the Asiatic 

clam Corbicula fluminea, were not, although both were 

intentionally introduced for food purposes (Devick, 1991). 

A myriad of insect species were accidentally introduced 

aboard ships and planes and amongst imported aquatic plants 

(Eldredge, 1992). Aquatic fish parasites, such as the nematode 

Camallanus cotti, were accidentally introduced together with 

intentionally released Poeciliid fishes (Font and Tate, 1994; 

Vincent and Font, 2003a, 2003b).

There is some evidence that species with univoltine 

life cycles (reproducing once per year) in temperate streams 

may have the ability to switch to multivoltine life cycles 

(reproducing throughout the year) in Hawaiian tropical 

streams, which lack the marked seasonality of temperate 

streams. This has recently been documented for the introduced 

caddisfly (Trichoptera) Cheumatopsyche pettiti (Kondratieff 

and others, 1997; Wolff, 2000). Although the seasons in 

Hawaii are considerably less variable than those in temperate 

regions, even minor seasonal variations in discharge, water 

temperature, and sunlight can be important in the development 

of macroinvertebrate communities in Hawaiian streams (Wolff, 

2000).

The larger native stream animals in Hawaii (fish, shrimp, 

and snails) are primarily amphidromous, having evolved from 

marine dwelling ancestors, and have retained a marine larval 

life-stage. Adults lay eggs in the streams, the eggs hatch and 

the larvae drift to the ocean, where they spend months as 

plankton before returning to freshwater (Ford and Kinzie, 

1982; Kinzie, 1990; Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). Unlike 

the salmon of the Pacific Northwest, there is no current 

evidence that these animals return to their stream of birth, and 

it appears that there is enough mixing of the gene pool in the 

ocean currents to have prevented speciation among islands 

(Fitzsimmons and others, 1990). The longitudinal distribution 

of these animals is largely controlled by their ability to migrate 

upstream unimpeded (Ford and Kinzie, 1982).

Invertebrates in Hawaiian Streams 
In the time since human colonization of the Hawaiian 

Islands, many native species have been substantially affected 

by habitat alteration and by the introduction of non-native 

species (Kirch, 1982). This process has been accelerated 

during the past 100 years of rapid urbanization. The resident 

population of Hawaii has increased from about 150,000 in 

1900 to more than 1.2 million in 2000 (State of Hawaii, 2000). 

Anthropogenic influences, both urban and agricultural, can 

adversely impact stream systems. Effects such as stream 

channel revetment to allow for flood control or roadways; 

increases in sedimentation from construction and farming; 

contaminants from agricultural, urban, and industrial activities 

transported in storm-water runoff; and diversions to redirect 

stream water to farms and other off-stream uses can all affect 

stream quality (Oki and Brasher, 2003).

Environmental impacts such as contamination can 

directly affect aquatic invertebrate assemblages in a number 

of ways. The diverse taxa have varied ranges of tolerances for 

the myriad of pollutants that have been detected in sediments, 

tissues, and surface waters (Wiederholm, 1984; Rowe and 

others, 1997). Some invertebrates are sensitive to heavy metals 

such as arsenic; others are sensitive to pesticides like dieldrin. 

The levels of contamination, the specific taxa and the life stage 

of the taxa, and the duration of exposure to the contaminant 

all play roles in how the community will be affected. In many 

cases, multiple contaminants have been detected in sediments 

and fish tissue (Brasher and Wolff, 2004). Most toxicity 

testing involves only one or two compounds to determine the 

physiological and biochemical reactions of the test taxa. The 

effects of exposure to multiple contaminants simultaneously 

are still unknown.

Challenges to Development of Metrics

The development of invertebrate metrics for the Hawaiian 

Islands faces challenges that are unique compared to those 

in most other States. First, entire orders of insects are absent 

from the native fauna (Howarth and Polhemus, 1991). 

Zimmerman (1947) noted that 21 orders of the class Insecta 

were absent from the native biota. There are no aquatic insects 

in the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera 

represented in the native biota of the Hawaiian Islands. This 

presents a major challenge because most continental-based 

benthic metrics use members of these orders as key indicators 

of stream quality. Ephemeroptera commonly are used as key 

indicators due to the order’s general sensitivity to impairment 

(Lenat and Penrose, 1996). The often-used EPT metric, the 

ratio of all three orders, is of no use in Hawaii. Four species 

of Trichoptera have been introduced in Hawaii (including 

Cheumatopsyche pettiti, Hydroptila icona, H. arctia, and 

Oxyethira maya); they are widespread and comprise a large 

percentage of the abundance and biomass of invertebrates 

in Hawaiian streams (Kinzie and others, 1997; Kondratieff 

and others, Colorado State University, unpub. data, 1992-93;

Wolff, 2000; Brasher and others, 2004). There also have been 

past intentional introductions of Ephemeroptera species; 

however, these introductions have failed to become established 

(Smith, 2000). An accidental introduction of the mayfly 

Caenis nigropunctata became established in the 1940s to 

1950s, but has since been infrequently collected. Only four 

individual larvae of Caenis nigropunctata were collected at 

two sites during this study. 

Howarth and Mull (1992) observed that there are more 

than 1,100 native insect species in Hawaii in the order Diptera, 

representing 28 families. Few of these native dipterans are 

collected in quantitative sampling, however, as compared to a 

few, highly abundant alien dipterans like Cricotopus sp. of the 

family Chironomidae (Kinzie and others, 1997; Wolff, 2000; 

Brasher and others, 2004). Chironomids commonly are used in 

benthic metrics as indicators of increasingly poor water quality 

because of the high tolerances of some species to impaired 

environmental conditions (Barbour and others, 1999).

Kido and Smith (1997) suggested that Hawaiispecific metrics could include such species as the native 

mountain shrimp, Atyoida bisulcata, and the native stream 

snail, Neritina granosa, as indicators of higher quality 

streams. Dipteran insect species from the endemic genera 

Telmatogeton, Scatella, and Procanace were recommended 

by Dan A. Polhemus (Smithsonian Institute) as indicators 

of moderate to excellent quality stream habitat because they 

display sensitivity to reduced flow (Kido and Smith, 1997). 

He also suggested that the native damselflies and dragonflies, 

although difficult to quantify, also could be possible indicators 

of high stream quality. A second challenge to the development 

of invertebrate metrics is that the vast majority of invertebrates 

collected during stream studies in Hawaii are alien species 

(Kido and Smith, 1997; Kinzie and others, 1997; Kido and 

others, 1999a; Wolff, 2000; Brasher and others, 2004; D.A. 

Polhemus, Smithsonian Institute, oral commun., 2004). 

Although Hawaii has a diverse and unique endemic fauna, 

many of these native populations have been reduced and 

restricted to remote areas (Howarth and Mull, 1992; Polhemus, 

1997). Although there is no direct empirical evidence 

that demonstrates the effect of alien aquatic invertebrate 

introductions on the native biota of Hawaii, it is believed that 

native species are preyed upon and/or out-competed by less 

sensitive, more aggressive alien introductions (Simberloff, 

1995).

The introduction of alien fishes also may have affected 

the native benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Alien fish, 

such as the mosquitofish Gambusia affinis, were introduced 

intentionally for mosquito control (Van Dine, 1907; Maciolek, 

1984; Devick, 1991), but have affected non-target species 

as well. Polhemus (1997) speculated that the decreased 

abundances and the narrowing of the native ranges of many 

species of the endemic damselfly genus Megalagrion was 

due to predation by alien species such as the mosquitofish G. 

affinis, as observed by Zimmerman (1948) and competition 

from alien species such as the introduced damselflies 

(Ischnura ramburii, I. posita, and Enallagma civile) and 

dragonflies. More than 50 species of stream fish, crustaceans, 

molluscs, amphibians, and reptiles have been introduced 

 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
into Hawaiian streams (Devick, 1991). Many of these alien 

species prey on invertebrates. Native invertebrates evolved 

apart from these predaceous species and sometimes lack the 

necessary survival responses and life history traits that the 

alien insects developed, thus giving a survival advantage to the 

alien species. Additionally, the rates at which the alien species 

spread to adjacent basins or to other islands are dependent 

on the dispersal capabilities of the particular species and 

therefore not necessarily consistent among species and islands. 

People have accelerated the spread of many alien species 

as well, either by accident or sometimes purposefully. All 

these factors, compounded with new records of alien species 

being brought into Hawaii each year (Evenhuis, 2000; Wolff 

and others, 2002), makes it difficult to decipher all of the 

influences that act to create the invertebrate assemblages that 

we sample.

Methods of Study

Several field procedures and analytical methods were 

used in this study. These were used to (1) select the sampling 

sites, (2) collect and process the invertebrate samples, (3) 

characterize the stream habitat, (4) assess and classify the 

sites, and (5) develop the preliminary Hawaii benthic index of 

biotic integrity. 

Selection of Sampling Sites

Sampling sites were selected to represent a range of 

land-use and habitat characteristics on the islands of Oahu 

and Kauai, including urban (developed, residential and 

commercial), agricultural, mixed (agriculture and urban), 

and forested watersheds (figs. 1 and 2). The sites also were 

selected to represent the different climatic conditions around 

the islands caused by the prevailing trade winds and mountain 

ranges. Windward areas tend to have greater mean annual 

rainfall and cloud cover, leeward areas tend to be sunnier and 

drier, and central areas have variable weather depending on 

the elevations of the terrain (Armstrong, 1983). Twenty-one 

streams were selected to be the focus of the sampling efforts, 

with one reach on each stream, except for an upper and lower 

reach on both Kapaa Stream (Makaleha tributary) and Lawai 

Stream on Kauai (table 1). In addition, at Punaluu Stream, 

two reaches were selected, one directly upstream of a water 

diversion and one directly downstream of the diversion. Study 

reaches were located near USGS streamflow gaging stations 

whenever possible.

Four additional samples were collected as part of the 

overall study. Waihee Stream (reach B), first sampled in 1999, 

was re-sampled in 2000 and 2001 to evaluate consistency over 

time. Additionally, two adjacent reaches (A, downstream of 

reach B, and C, upstream of reach B) on Waihee Stream were 

sampled in 2000 to evaluate consistency among reaches.

Oahu

Samples were collected at 19 sites on 14 streams on Oahu 

(fig. 1 and table 1). Sites on leeward Oahu included Manoa 

Stream (MANO), Waiakeakua Stream (WKEA), Nuuanu 

Stream (NUUA), Waiawa Stream (WAIW), and Kalauao 

Stream (KALA). Manoa Stream drains the largely residential 

community of Manoa Valley, which includes the University of 

Hawaii, and discharges into the Ala Wai Canal near Waikiki. 

Waiakeakua Stream, a tributary to Manoa Stream, has a mostly 

forested basin with some small-scale horticulture. Sites on 

windward Oahu included the urban and agricultural drainages 

of Waimanalo Stream (WAIM), Luluku Stream (LULU), 

and Kaneohe Stream (KANE), and forested drainages 

including Punaluu Stream [above the diversion (PUNA) and 

below (PUNB)], Waiahole Stream (WHOL), Waihee Stream 

(WHEE), and Kaluanui Stream (KALU). Central Oahu sites 

included the urban and agricultural drainages of Waikakalaua 

Stream (WKAK) and Waikele Stream (WKEL). 

Kauai

Samples were collected at 9 sites on 7 streams on 

the island of Kauai (fig. 2 and table 1). Sites on windward 

Kauai included forested reference sites at Limahuli Stream 

(LMAH), within the Limahuli Garden of the National Tropical 

Botanical Garden, and Hanakapiai Stream (HNKP) within 

the Na Pali Coast State Park. Central Kauai sites included 

Makaleha Stream, a tributary to Kapaa Stream (UKPA), and 

Kapaa Stream (MKPA). Leeward Kauai sites included Huleia 

Stream (HULA), Puali Stream (PUAL), and Nawiliwili Stream 

(NWIL) all of which flow into Kalapaki Bay. Lawai Stream, 

also on the South shore of Kauai, was sampled at an upstream 

site (ULWI) and at a downstream site (LLWI), the latter within 

the McBryde Garden of the National Tropical Botanical 

Garden.

Collection of Invertebrate Samples

Two types of invertebrate samples, quantitative and 

qualitative, were collected at each site following standard 

NAWQA protocols (Cuffney and others, 1993). All sampling 

was conducted during base-flow conditions. Quantitative 

richest targeted habitat (RTH) samples were collected from 

the faunistically richest community of benthic invertebrates, 

which for Hawaiian streams is located in fast-flowing riffles 

(Michael Kido, Hawaii Stream Research Center; Robert 

Kinzie, University of Hawaii; and Gordon Smith, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, oral commun., 1998; Brasher and 

others, 2004). Quantitative (RTH) samples provide relative 

abundances to allow comparisons among sites. Qualitative 

multi-habitat (QMH) samples were collected from all 

available habitats within the reach at each site, to provide a 

comprehensive species list.

Methods of Study 
g

g

g

g

g

g

g

7+%,

%80,!.!4)/.

,!.$53%

 !GRICULTURE

 "ARREN

 $EVELOPED

 /THERMOSTLYFOREST	

3!-0,).'3)4%

!""2%6)!4)/.&/2342%!-.!-%3%%4!",%	

$2!).!'%"!3)."/5.$!29

342%!-

  +ILOMETERS

  -ILES

,5,5

7!)-

.55!

7!)7

+!,!

+!,5

05.!

7(/,

7(%%

+!.%

7+%!

-!./

7+%,

7+!+

05."

3#!,%

  









+AUAI

/AHU -OLOKAI

,ANAI

+AHOOLAWE

-AUI

(AWAII

0ACIFIC/CEAN

(AWAII

"ASEMODIFIEDFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEYDIGITALDATA

2ELIEFFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEYDIGITAL

ELEVATIONMODELS

Figure 1. Land use and sampling sites on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

 (Modified from Klasner and Mikami, 2003).

 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
g

g

g

g

g

%80,!.!4)/.

,!.$53%

 !GRICULTURE

 "ARREN

 $EVELOPED

 /THERMOSTLYFOREST	

3!-0,).'3)4%

!""2%6)!4)/.&/2342%!-.!-%3%%4!",%	

$2!).!'%"!3)."/5.$!29

342%!-

,-!(

5,7)

5+0!

,,7)

,-!(

.7),

(5,!

-+0!

05!,

(.+0

 +ILOMETERS

 -ILES

3#!,%

  









+AUAI

/AHU -OLOKAI

,ANAI

+AHOOLAWE

-AUI

(AWAII

0ACIFIC/CEAN

(AWAII

"ASEMODIFIEDFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY

DIGITALDATA2ELIEFFROM

53'EOLOGICAL3URVEYDIGITAL

ELEVATIONMODELS

Figure 2. Land use and sampling sites on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. 

The Kauai map has been modified to reflect changes in land cover to land use as described in table 3. (Modified from National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2000).

Methods of Study 
RTH samples were collected from five undisturbed 

riffles using a modified Surber sampler (Slack sampler) with 

a 425-mm mesh net (Cuffney and others, 1993). All substrate 

within a 0.25-m2 area in front of the net was gently dislodged 

and thoroughly scrubbed to remove all organisms. The five 

samples were composited and then elutriated and collected on 

a 425-mm mesh sieve in the field to produce a single sample 

of approximately 0.75 L.

QMH samples were collected from all available habitats 

within the reach using a D-frame kick net with a 210-mm 

mesh. Samples were collected using techniques appropriate 

for the various habitats being sampled (Cuffney and others, 

1993; Brasher and others, 2004). The D-frame kick net 

collections were supplemented by visual collection, which 

included manually turning over large rocks, woody debris, and 

other substrates, and removing all invertebrates present. QMH 

samples were composited and then elutriated and collected on 

a 212-mm mesh sieve in the field to produce a single sample 

of approximately 0.75 L.

Samples collected in 1999 to 2001 were preserved in 10 

percent formalin and sent to the USGS National Water-Quality 

Laboratory Biological Unit in Lakewood, Colorado, for 

identification and enumeration. Samples collected after 2001 

were preserved in 90 percent ethanol and sent to a contract 

laboratory, EcoAnalysts, Inc. in Moscow, Idaho. Experienced 

taxonomists did verification of problematic taxa and routine 

quality-assurance checks on taxonomic identifications. 

Island Stream Reach Acronym Invertebrate 

sampling date

Contaminant sampling Percentage of land use Used in 

calibration 

data set Sediment Tissue Agriculture Developed Forest

Oahu Kalauao KALA 04-19-02 O1 O1 13.2 86.8

Kaluanui KALU 08-31-99 M1 O1 100

Kaneohe KANE 08-17-99 O,M O 2.7 61.8 35.6 ×

Luluku LULU 04-24-02 O,M O 16.9 12.6 70.5 ×

Manoa MANO 05-10-99 O,M O 1 38.4 60.7 ×

Nuuanu NUUA 04-17-02 O,M O 20.2 79.8 ×

Punaluu A PUNA 06-15-99 100 ×

Punaluu B PUNB 06-14-99 100

Waiahole WHOL 06-29-99 100 ×

Waiakeakua WKEA 08-03-99 O,M O 4.2 0.2 95.6 ×

Waiawa WAIW 04-23-02 O,M O 15.3 10.9 73.8 ×

Waihee B WHEE B-99 06-08-99 O,M O 1.2 98.8 ×

Waihee A WHEE A-00 05-03-00 1.2 98.8

Waihee B WHEE B-00 05-02-00 1.2 98.8

Waihee C WHEE C-00 05-02-00 1.2 98.8

Waihee B WHEE B-01 05-21-01 1.2 98.8

Waikakalaua WKAK 07-13-99 O,M O 7.3 40.5 52.2 ×

Waikele WKEL 05-19-99 O,M O 25.6 28.5 46 ×

Waimanalo WAIM 04-15-02 O,M O 18.5 9.8 71.7 ×

Kauai Hanakapiai HNKP 05-13-03 100 ×

Huleia Middle HULA 06-25-03 6.3 .8 92.9

Kapaa Middle MKPA 05-05-03 .3 .4 99.4

Makaleha Upper UKPA 05-14-03 .3 0 99.6

Lawai Upper ULWI 05-06-03 0 .5 99.5

Lawai Lower LLWI 05-07-03 1.1 8.8 90.1

Limahuli Upper LMAH 05-08-03 100 ×

Nawiliwili NWIL 05-12-03 O,M O 9 15.6 75.4 ×

Puali PUAL 05-15-03 O1 5.9 22.7 71.4

1Ancillary contaminants data.

Table 1. Invertebrate sampling sites and associated land-use percentages.

[Location of sampling sites shown in figures 1 and 2. Sediment: M, metals; O, organochlorine compounds. Used in calibration data set: ×, site used to 

calibrate the metrics]

 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Data reported for the RTH samples included both species 

occurrence and density using numeric (300-fixed-count) and 

time (total sorting time) criteria (Moulton and others, 2000). 

Data for the QMH samples were analyzed only for species 

occurrence, using a timed visual sort method. The QMH 

sampling data were appended with data regarding the presence 

of macro-crustaceans: Atyoida bisulcata, Macrobrachium 

grandimanus, M. lar, Neocaridina denticulata sinensis, 

and Procambarus clarkii, collected using electrofishing 

during the Oahu NAWQA study. A voucher collection of the 

invertebrates is maintained at the USGS, Water Resources 

office in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Determination of Habitat Characteristics

Habitat characteristics were determined at multiple 

spatial scales (basin, reach, transect, and point) following 

standard NAWQA protocols (Fitzpatrick and others, 1998). 

Basin characteristics (watershed scale features) such as 

land use, drainage area, and gradient, were determined using 

geographic information system (GIS) data and topographic 

maps. Reach, transect, and point measurements were made at 

each site on the same day (though in some cases the following 

day) that the invertebrate samples were collected.

Reach length at each sampling site was determined 

as the distance equal to 20 times the average stream width, 

with a minimum length of 100 m. Within each reach, 11 

equally spaced transects were established across the stream 

perpendicular to the direction of flow. Physical measurements 

of bank and riparian features and instream characteristics 

were made at each transect (fig. 3). Bank and riparian features 

included bank angle, erosion, and solar irradiance. Instream 

habitat measurements included those of features such as 

the presence or absence of silt, wetted perimeter, depth, 

velocity, and substrate size. Point measurements of depth and 

velocity also were made at each location where a quantitative 

invertebrate sample was collected. At transects 3, 6, and 9 

within each reach, a Solar PathfinderTM was used to estimate 

the monthly amount of solar irradiance based on the amount of 

riparian shading and the annual path of the sun.

Environmental Assessments 

The following section describes the methods used to 

assess the environmental quality of the sampling sites. The 

factors used to assess the sites include land-use and land-cover 

information, contaminant concentrations in the streambed 

sediment and in fish tissue, and in-stream habitat conditions.

-ODIFIEDFROM&ITZPATRICKANDOTHERS

A

B

Cg

D

E

C C

F

G

Figure 3. Selected habitat measurements made at each transect: (a) bank angle, (b) open canopy angle, (c) stream depth, (c’) thalweg (deepest 

depth), (d) bank full width, (e) substrate size, (f) wetted channel width, (g) riparian canopy closure.

Methods of Study 
Basin Characteristics

Point files were created for each island, marking the 

locations of the sampling sites. Point files were created by the 

use of a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device 

and interpretation from USGS 1:24000 scale topographic maps 

in a geographic information system (GIS). Drainage basins for 

each sampling site were then created using the GIS Weasel, an 

interface for geospatial information. The GIS Weasel used the 

point files and the 10 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files 

for each island for the interpretation (Leavesley and others, 

1997). Twenty-seven morphometric basin characteristics 

were then computed using the Basinsoft computer program 

developed by the USGS (Majure and Soenksen, 1991; and 

Eash, 1994) with the drainage basin created by the GIS Weasel 

along with National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) stream data 

for each island, and the 10 m DEM file (table 2).

Land Use / Land Cover

Land-cover data for the island of Kauai was downloaded 

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) website (2000) (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/

hawaii.html). Land-use data for the island of Oahu was taken 

from Klasner and Mikami (2003). The land-use/land-cover 

data were then converted into a grid file using ArcToolboxTM

(version 8.1). Using ArcInfo (version 8.0.2), the grid file was 

clipped using the drainage basin for each site. The clipped grid 

attribute table contains a column with the number of grid cells 

(900 m3 per cell) for each land-use/land-cover classification. 

The NOAA land-cover classifications for Kauai were 

reclassified to fit with the land-use classification scheme used 

by Klasner and Mikami (2003) (table 3). The percentage each 

of NOAA land-cover classification within the drainage basin 

was then calculated by dividing the total number of grid cells 

for each new land-use classification within the basin by the 

total number of grid cells within the entire drainage basin.

Contaminants

Fish tissue and/or streambed sediment samples were 

collected from 14 of the study streams (table 1), primarily as 

part of the NAWQA program to assess the occurrence and 

distribution of hydrophobic organic compounds (including 

organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and 

semi-volatile organic compounds) and trace elements (Brasher 

and Anthony, 2000; Brasher and Wolff, 2004). Methods 

for collecting and processing sediment and biota followed 

NAWQA protocols (Crawford and Luoma, 1993; Shelton and 

Capel, 1994), and all samples were analyzed at the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory in Arvada, Colorado.

Basin-area quantifications (mi2)

NCDA–Noncontributing drainage area

TDA–Total drainage area

Basin-length quantifications (mi)

BL–Basin length

BP–Basin perimeter

Basin-relief quantifications

BS–Average basin slope (ft/mi)

BR–Basin relief (ft)

Basin-aspect quantification (°)

BA–Basin azimuth

Basin computations

RR–Relative relief (ft/mi)

SF–Shape factor (dimensionless)

ER–Elongation ratio (dimensionless)

BW–Effective basin width (mi)

CDA–Contributing drainage area (mi2)

CR–Compactness ratio (dimensionless)

RB–Rotundity of basin (dimensionless)

Channel- or stream-length quantifications (mi)

MCL–Main channel length

TSL–Total stream length

Channel-relief quantification (ft/mi)

MCS–Main-channel slope

Channel or stream computations

MCSP–Main channel slope proportion (dimensionless)

CCM–Constant of channel maintenance (mi2/mi)

MCSR–Main-channel sinuosity ratio (dimensionless)

RN–Ruggedness number (ft/mi)

SD–Stream density (mi/mi2)

SR–Slope ratio of main-channel slope to basin slope (dimensionless)

Stream-order quantifications

BSO–Basin Stream Order (dimensionless)

FOS–Number of first-order streams within the CDA (dimensionless)

Stream-order computations

DF–Drainage frequency (number of first-order streams per mi2)

RSD–Relative stream density (dimensionless)

Table 2. Basin characteristics calculated using the Basinsoft program. 

[Source: Majure and Soenksen, 1991. Abbreviations: mi2, square mile; mi, 

mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; ft, foot; °,degree; mi/mi2, square mile per mile]

10 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Guidelines have been established for certain contaminants 

to help determine concentrations of chemicals likely to be 

associated with adverse biological effects. Concentrations of 

chemicals in streambed sediments were evaluated using the 

Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines (CSQG) for aquatic 

life (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 

1999). Concentrations of chemicals in fish tissue were 

compared with the NYSDEC (New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation) guidelines for the protection 

of mammals and birds that consume fish (Newell and others, 

1987). Two assessment values have been calculated for 

the CSQG. The lower value, or Interim Sediment Quality 

Guidelines (ISQG), represents the concentration below which 

adverse effects to aquatic biota are rarely expected to occur. 

The upper value, the Probable Effect Level (PEL), defines the 

level above which adverse effects to aquatic biota are expected 

to occur frequently. These guidelines are based on chronic 

(long-term) effects of contaminants on aquatic organisms 

(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999).

Streambed Sediment

A total of 32 organochlorine compounds and 48 trace 

element concentrations were analyzed in streambed sediment 

from 11 of the study streams (table 1). Bed sediment at 

two additional sites was analyzed for either organochlorine 

compounds only (KALA) or trace elements only (KALU). 

Sediment samples were collected from undisturbed 

depositional zones along a 100-m reach at each stream. 

Sampling was confined to the upper 2 cm of bed sediment, 

which reflects contaminants most recently deposited in the 

stream. Subsamples from along the reach were composited 

and wet-sieved in the field (Shelton and Capel, 1994).

Fish Tissue

Twenty-eight organochlorine compounds were 

analyzed in fish tissue samples from 14 of the study streams 

(table 1). Non-native (aquarium) fish were collected using an 

electrofisher, supplemented by seining as needed. Whole fish 

were used for analysis, and all fish collected at a site were 

composited to form a single sample of at least 100 g.

Calibration of Environmental Assessment 

Classification

A subset of 15 sites was selected to develop and calibrate 

an impairment classification approach (table 1). These sites 

were selected because they had the most complete sets of 

data on land use, contaminants, and habitat. A principal 

components analysis (PCA) (Kovach, 1998) of the data 

was used to look for trends that would group sites that 

were similar in their composition of the environmental 

variables. Spearman's rank-order correlation analysis, a 

nonparametric measure, was used to examine the relations 

among environmental variables and sites to remove redundant 

variables (SAS Institute, 1993). Percentage variables were 

arcsine-square root transformed prior to statistical analysis. An 

outline of the calibration procedures is shown in figure 4.

A combination of parameters from the three datasets 

was used to determine the level of impairment at each site. 

The selected parameters within each of the three datasets 

were individually scored. The final score was determined 

by summing the individual scores for each site. In some 

cases, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) method 

described in Black and MacCoy (1999) was used to score the 

individual parameters. The cumulative distribution function 

allows one to observe natural breaks in the data, or, if there 

are no recognizable breaks, to assign cut-offs at the 33rd and 

67th percentiles. An example of the CDF method is shown in 

figure 5. The x-axis represents the values of the hypothetical 

NOAA land-cover class Land-use classes

Level 1 reclassification

Background Forest

Unclassified Forest

High intensity developed Developed

Low intensity developed Developed

Cultivated land Agriculture

Grassland Agriculture

Deciduous forest Forest

Evergreen forest Forest

Mixed forest Forest

Scrub/shrub Agriculture

Palustrine forested wetland Forest

Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland Forest

Palustrine emergent wetland Forest

Estuarine forested wetland Forest

Estuarine scrub/shrub wetland Forest

Estuarine emergent wetland Forest

Unconsolidated shore Forest

Bare land Forest

Water Forest

Table 3. Reclassification scheme for National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) land-cover classes.

[Source: Klasner and Mikami, 2003]

Methods of Study 11
parameter. The y-axis represents the cumulative percentage 

of the sites. Sizeable vertical stretches between points along 

the y-axis reveal where more than one site had the same 

value. Sizeable horizontal stretches between points along the 

x-axis reveal gaps in-between the recorded values. If there 

are no recognizable gaps along the axis, then the values at 

the intersections of the 33rd and 67th percentiles (the two 

horizontal dashed lines) and the distribution can be used.

Two land-use categories were used in the analysis 

(table 4). These included the Level 1 categories: percentage of 

agricultural land and percentage of developed land. The scores 

were determined by plotting the CDF for each parameter and 

identifying breaks in the data (SAS Institute, 1999). If there 

were no natural breaks in the data, values at the 33rd and 67th

percentiles were used.

Figure 4. Analytical procedures used to create the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI).

0
(")")

&INAL-ETRICS

3ELECTION

#ORE

-ETRICS4ESTING

#ORE

-ETRICS3ELECTION

#ANDIDATE

-ETRICS4ESTING

!LL0OSSIBLE

-ETRICS

!BUNDANCE 2ICHNESS

2ICHEST

4ARGETED

(ABITAT

24(	

1UALITATIVE

-ULTIHABITAT

1-(	

)NVERTEBRATE3AMPLES

)NVERTEBRATE-ETRICS

#ALIBRATION3ITES

%NVIRONMENTAL

!SSESSMENT

3CORES

0ARAMETER

3CORES

0ARAMETER

3CORES

0ARAMETER

3CORES

0ARAMETER

3CORES

"ED3EDIMENT

/RGANOCHLORINES

4RACE%LEMENTS

36/#

&ISH4ISSUE

/RGANOCHLORINES

3ILT

#HANNEL-ODIFICATION

"ED3UBSTRATE

3OLAR)RRADIANCE

!GRICULTURAL

$EVELOPED

#ONTAMINANTS ,ANDUSE (ABITAT

%NVIRONMENTAL!SSESSMENT

12  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Trace Elements in Bed Sediment: Concentrations of the 

trace elements arsenic (As), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and zinc 

(Zn) were used to distinguish levels of impairment (table 5). 

For each constituent, if the ISQG was exceeded, the parameter 

was scored 1. If the PEL was exceeded, the parameter was 

scored 2. If neither criterion was exceeded, the parameter 

was scored 0. The parameter scores for each site were then 

summed and the sites were scored 1 if the summed score was 

less than 2, 3 if the sum was greater or equal to 2 and less than 

5, and 5 if the sum was greater than or equal to 5.

Organochlorine Compounds in Bed Sediment: Only 

those compounds with established guidelines were used in 

the analysis. These included: total DDD, total DDE, total 

DDT, total chlordane, total heptachlor, total polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), and dieldrin. If the ISQG was exceeded, 

the parameter was scored 1. If the PEL was exceeded, the 

parameter was scored 2. If neither criterion was exceeded, the 

parameter was scored 0. The parameter scores for each site 

were then summed and the sites were scored 1 if the summed 

score was 0, 3 if the sum was between 1 and 5, and 5 if the 

sum was greater than 5 (table 6).

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

HYPOTHETICAL VALUE

67th Percentile

33rd Percentile

30 70

More than one site 

with the same value

Gap in 

the data

Gap in 

the data

More than one site 

with the same value

Cutoff Values

HYPOTHETICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORES

1 3 5

Figure 5. An example of a Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 

used for scoring environmental variables and metrics. 

Scoring was based on gaps in the data or at the 33rd and 67th 

percentiles.

Category Criteria Score

Percentage of agricultural land ≤ 0.5 1

> 0.5 and ≤10.0 3

> 10.0 5

Percentage of developed land ≤ 0.5 1

> 0.5 and ≤ 10.0 3

> 10.0 5

Table 4. Criteria and scoring of level 1 land-use categories.

[≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than]

Criteria Parameter score Score

< ISQG 0

≥ ISQG but < PEL 1

PEL 2

Sum of parameter scores <2 1

≥ 2 and <5 3

≥ 5 5

Table 5. Criteria and scoring of trace elements in bed sediment.

[<, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal 

to; ISQG, Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL, Probable Effect Level 

(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999)]

Criteria Parameter score Score

< ISQG 0

≥ ISQG but < PEL 1

≥ PEL 2

Sum of parameter scores 0 1

>1 and ≤5 3

>5 5

Table 6. Criteria and scoring of organochlorine compounds in bed 

sediment.

[<, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥ , greater than or equal 

to; ISQG, Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL, Probable Effect Level 

(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999)]

Methods of Study 13
Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Bed Sediment: Only 

those compounds with established guidelines were used in 

the analysis. If the ISQG was exceeded, the parameter was 

scored 1. If the PEL was exceeded, the parameter was scored 

2. If neither criterion was exceeded, the parameter was scored 

0. The parameter scores for each site then were summed and 

the sites were scored 1 if the summed score was 0, 3 if the 

summed score was between 1 and 10, and 5 if the summed 

score was greater than 10 (table 7).

Organochlorine Compounds in Fish Tissue: The final 

scores for these compounds were calculated in a threestep procedure (table 8). First, the concentrations of the 

organochlorine compounds were summed and assigned a score 

of 0, 1, or 2, according to breaks in the data identified using 

the CDF technique. Second, if a constituent exceeded the 

NYSDEC, the constituent was scored 1. If the constituent did 

not exceed the NYSDEC guideline it was scored 0. Third, both 

scores were summed and a site score was determined using the 

CDF technique assigning a site score of 1 if the sum was less 

than 1, 3 if the sum was less than or equal to 3, and 5 if the 

sum was greater than 3.

Habitat: A principal component analysis and Spearman's 

rank-order correlation analysis were used to identify and 

remove redundant correlated habitat variables (SAS Institute, 

1993). Variables that failed to differentiate among the sites 

due to limited ranges of values also were removed. A final set 

of four habitat parameters, determined at the reach scale, was 

selected to assess the site condition (table 9). These included 

channel modification, solar irradiance, dominant bed substrate, 

and silt. Channel modification, a categorical variable, was 

assigned scores based on the degree that the stream channel 

had been altered from its original configuration. The mean 

annual solar irradiance, determined using a solar pathfinder, 

was scored using the CDF technique. Solar irradiance values 

between 30 and 70 percent were scored 1, values less than 

30 percent (closed canopy sites) were scored 2, values 

greater than 70 percent (open canopy sites) were scored 3. 

Dominant bed substrate scores were determined by, first, 

Criteria Parameter score Score

< ISQG 0

≥ ISQG but < PEL 1

≥ PEL 2

Sum of parameter scores 0 1

>1 and ≤10 3

>10 5

Table 7. Criteria and scoring of semivolatile organic compounds in bed 

sediment.

[<, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal 

to; ISQG, Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL, Probable Effect Level 

(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999)]

Criteria Score 1 Guideline Score 2

0 0 < NYSDEC 0

>0 but <1,000 1 ≥ NYSDEC 1

≥1,000 2

Final score criteria Final score

Sum score 1 + Score 2 ≤1 1

≤3 3

>3 5

Table 8. Criteria and scoring of organochlorine compounds in fish tissue.

[<, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal 

to; NYSDEC, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

guidelines (Newell and others, 1987); Criteria based on the total sum of 

organochlorine compound concentrations in micrograms per gram dry weight 

[μg/g]

Habitat parameter Criteria Score

Channel modification Not modified or lightly 

modified

1

Channelized, not stabilized 3

Stabilized and dredged 5

Solar irradiance > 30 percent and <70 

percent

1

≤ 30 percent 2

≥ 70 percent 3

Dominant bed substrate > 7 1

>5 and ≤ 7 3

≤ 5 5

Silt < 0.52 1

≥ 0.52 3

≥ 0.85 5

Table 9. Criteria and scoring of habitat parameters.

[<, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal 

to]

14  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
assigning values to the recorded substrate data (table 10). The 

values then were summed and divided by the total number of 

recorded measurements to determine the mean substrate value. 

The mean values then were scored using the CDF technique 

Silt scores were calculated from the presence or absence data 

for silt determined at three locations along each transect. If 

silt was present at the location, it was assigned a value of 

1, if absent it was assigned a value of 0. These values were 

summed and divided by the number of measurements taken to 

determine the mean. The mean values then were scored using 

the CDF technique. 

The final environmental assessment scores were 

calculated by summing the results of all the individual 

parameters. The CDF method was used to identify breaks in 

the data and classify the sites as mildly impaired, moderately 

impaired, or severely impaired (table 11). After the calibration 

set of sites was classified, the remaining test sites were 

classified on the basis of a reduced environmental assessment 

(without the contaminants data), comparisons with the original 

environmental assessment, and a principal components 

analysis of the environmental data to identify sites that were 

similar.

Development of Metrics

The following section describes the diagnostic methods 

used to resolve taxonomic ambiguities and any differences in 

laboratory taxonomic-level designations in the data set prior to 

data analyses. The statistical methodology used to develop the 

benthic invertebrate multimetric index of biotic integrity also 

is described.

Taxonomic Ambiguity and Resolution

Before statistical analyses were conducted, the 

macroinvertebrate RTH data set was reviewed and edited 

to resolve the occurrences of ambiguous taxa (Maret and 

others, 2001; Cuffney, 2003). Ambiguous taxa are those taxa 

whose identifications cannot accurately be determined to 

the lowest common taxonomical level. For example, some 

individuals might be identified only to the family level while 

others may be identified to a genus level within that family, 

and still others to a species level within that genus. These 

unresolved taxa frequently are the result of either damaged or 

immature individuals. The decision-making guidelines that 

were followed to resolve these ambiguous taxa were: (1) if 

only one child taxon was present and (a) the abundance of 

the parent taxon was less than the abundance of the child, 

the abundance of the parent was added to the child; (b) the 

abundance of the parent taxon was greater than the abundance 

of the child, the abundance of the child was added to the 

parent; (2) if more than one child taxon was present and the 

abundance of the parent taxon was less than the sum of the 

child taxa abundance, the abundance of the parent taxon was 

distributed proportionally among the child taxa according to 

their abundance.

The RTH and QMH data sets also were edited and 

standardized for laboratory taxonomic resolution prior to data 

analyses (appendixes A, B, and C). Several taxonomists at two 

laboratories processed the invertebrate samples collected over 

a 5-year period. Differences within and between laboratories 

can create variability in the numbers and types of taxa in the 

samples (Maret and others, 2001). The areas of expertise of the 

laboratory personnel as well as the goals of the NAWQA study 

resulted in data sets that were unevenly identified to lower 

taxonomic levels. For example, the NAWQA protocol set the 

resolution level for aquatic worms at the family taxonomic 

level. However, the EcoAnalysts, Inc., laboratory identified 

the aquatic worms to the species level. To standardize these 

differences, the lower taxa were combined into the higher 

taxonomic designation that was common to all the sample 

results. These resolutions were especially important in the 

insect family Chironomidae. The final richness data set was a 

combination of the RTH, QMH, and crustacean data collected 

during electrofishing surveys (appendix D).

Value Category

1 Smooth bedrock/concrete/hardpan

2 Silt/clay/marl/muck/organic detritus

3 Sand (>0.063–2 mm)

4 Fine/medium gravel (>2–16 mm)

5 Coarse gravel (>16–32 mm)

6 Very coarse gravel (>32–64 mm)

7 Small cobble (>64–128 mm)

8 Large cobble (>128–256 mm)

9 Small boulder (>256–512 mm)

10 Large boulder, irregular bedrock, irregular hardpan, 

irregular artificial surface (>512 mm)

Table 10. Categories and values of substrate.

[Abbreviations: mm, millimeter; >, greater than]

Total score Impairment category

≤20 Mild

>20 but ≤35 Moderate

>35 Severe

Table 11. Final ranges classifying the environmental assessment site 

scores.

[Abbreviations: ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than]

Methods of Study 15
Many of the taxonomical designations were not resolved 

to the species level, but designations to the genus, family, 

or order levels were common. Because many species were 

commonly within these higher designations, and some 

of these species were native to Hawaii while others were 

not, the residency status of these taxa was described as 

“undetermined.” The residency status for endemic species 

(known only from Hawaii) and indigenous species (naturally 

occurring in Hawaii as well as other places) was described 

as “native,” while all introduced species were described as 

“alien.” Only in cases in which the entire genus or family was 

endemic to Hawaii were they described as “native” (Merritt 

and Cummins, 1984; Nishida, 2002).

Metrics

A large number of metrics for aquatic invertebrate 

communities have been developed and used by previous 

investigations to evaluate environmental conditions (For 

a detailed list, see Barbour and others, 1999; Black and 

MacCoy, 1999). The Invertebrate Data Analysis System 

(IDAS), developed for the NAWQA program, lists more than 

140 community metrics (Cuffney, 2003). These potential 

metrics require testing and calibrating to validate their 

ability to distinguish impaired sites from unimpaired sites 

on a regional basis (Barbour and others, 1999). Four basic 

categories of metrics were investigated for this study: 

• Taxa Richness: the number of distinct taxa regardless 

of abundance of the taxa. This can be the overall 

number of distinct taxa, or the number of taxa 

within a group such as a family. Richness metrics 

also include the percentage of the total richness 

represented by a group.

• Taxa Abundance: the number of individuals. 

Abundance metrics can include the total number of 

individual invertebrates in a sample or the number 

of invertebrates within a group such as a species. 

Abundance metrics include relative abundance 

attributes such as the percentage of the total 

represented by a group.

• Tolerance/intolerance: abundance and richness 

metrics based on regional tolerance values compiled 

from Barbour and others (1999) and Mandaville 

(2002) and modified for sensitive Hawaiian endemic 

species. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index uses the 

tolerance values to calculate the impairment level of 

sites (Hilsenhoff, 1988). 

• Trophic functional feeding groups: abundance and 

richness metrics based on behavioral attributes 

such as “scrapers” or “predators.” Aquatic insect 

functional groups were based on Merritt and 

Cummins (1984). 

Most metrics developed for continental streams have 

known predicted responses to environmental impacts (Barbour 

and others, 1999; Black and MacCoy, 1999). In Hawaii, 

however, these predicted responses might not be the same. 

The known predicted responses of the possible metrics were 

compared to the responses determined in Hawaiian streams. 

The limited number of taxa identified in the samples 

narrowed down the list of possible candidate metrics. 

Individual candidate metrics were tested with data from 

the subset of sites that previously had been assigned 

an impairment classification using the environmental 

assessment methods mentioned earlier. Candidate metrics 

that demonstrated an ability to differentiate among sites were 

added to the model for further testing. Each metric value was 

plotted against the site impairment classification in an XY 

(scatter) chart. The plots were examined to observe the degree 

of separation of the mildly impaired sites from the severely 

impaired sites. Metrics that were capable of differentiating 

mildly impaired sites from severely impaired sites were 

included in the analysis as core metrics.

Each core metric that was incorporated into the analysis 

was scored using the CDF method of Black and MacCoy 

(1999) as described in the site classification methods 

mentioned earlier. Ranges of values were scored as 1, 3, or 5, 

(a score of 7 was possible in one metric) as derived by either 

natural breaks in the data, or, in the absence of any natural 

breaks, by the 33rd and 67th percentile, or a combination 

of the methods, if only 1 natural break was observed. The 

preliminary Hawaii benthic index of biotic integrity, P-HBIBI, 

then was calculated as the sum of the metric scores for each 

site (fig. 6). The P-HBIBI was determined using regression 

analysis (Proc REG) in an iterative process testing various 

suites of core metrics to develop the simplest yet most 

informative group of final metrics with the greatest coefficient 

of determination (r2) value. The regression analysis used 

the linear equation with site impairment as the independent 

variable and the various metrics values as the dependent 

variable. The r2 value is the ratio of the explained sum of 

squares to the total sum of squares. The final P-HBIBI range 

of values then was scored using the CDF method, to identify 

the three impairment categories.

After the P-HBIBI was developed from the calibration 

set of sites, it was applied to the remaining sites (excluding 

the multi-year, multi-reach sites at Waihee) and these sites 

were assigned to an impairment category. The impairment 

categories assigned by the P-HBIBI then were compared to the 

impairment categories resolved from a reduced environmental 

assessment without the contaminants parameters. Regression 

analysis was used to determine the fit of the P-HBIBI across 

all the sites. The multi-year, multi-reach sites at Waihee were 

analyzed independently to examine spatial and temporal 

patterns. The results of the P-HBIBI analyses then were 

compared with the results of the site classification analysis for 

the remaining sites.

16  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Reduced

Environmental

Assessment

Scores

Parameter

scores

Parameter

scores

% Agricultural 

% Developed 

Silt

Channel modification

Bed substrate

Solar irradiance

Land use Habitat

Reduced Environmental Assessment

All

sites

Test sites

P-HBIBI Scores

P-HBIBI

Abundance Richness

Qualitative

Multihabitat

(QMH)

Richest

Targeted 

Habitat

(RTH)

Invertebrate samples

Test

sites

Calibration sites

Pre-H-BIBI Scores

Test sites ancillary

contaminants data

Environmental

assessment

scores

Reduced

PCA

impairment

categories

Reduced

EA

impairment

categories

PCA

impairment

categories

EA

impairment

categories

Compare P-HBIBI 

impairment

categories with: 

Analyses

Figure 6. Analytical procedures used to test the preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI).

Methods of Study 17
Results of Data Analyses—Using 

Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of 

Stream Quality

This section includes the results of the environmental 

assessment analysis and the statistical analysis of the 

invertebrate data. The results and a discussion pertaining to 

the development of the P-HBIBI for Hawaiian streams also are 

included in this section.

Environmental Assessments

A subset of 15 of the 24 sites was used to calibrate the 

classification of impairment levels of the stream reaches 

(table 1). The results of the principal components analysis 

revealed trends common to sites with similar environmental 

characteristics (fig. 7). The first principal component separated 

the forested sites from the developed sites along the first 

axis, with an eigenvalue, the variance of the component, 

accounting for 46 percent of the total variance (table 12). The 

second principal component identified the agricultural and 

commercial sites along the second axis, with an eigenvalue 

accounting for 19 percent of the total variance. Four groups 

of sites representing different degrees of environmental 

impairment were identified using PCA (fig. 7) and Spearman's 

rank-order correlation analysis.

One group of sites was identified as predominantly 

forested, having little or no anthropogenic input and relatively 

undisturbed streams. This group includes the relatively 

“pristine” forested reference condition sites: LMAH, 

HNKP, PUNA, and WHOL (see table 1 for explanation 

of abbreviations for site names). Although none of these 

forested reference condition sites were sampled for bed 

sediment or fish tissue contaminants, it was reasoned that 

these sites would have contaminant concentrations no greater 

than concentrations recorded from the other less-remote 

forested site (WHEE) where contaminant samples were 

collected. This assumption was based on the knowledge 

that the two Oahu sites, PUNA and WHOL, are completely 

forested, comparatively distant from the developed coastal 

land, and reasonably distant from any direct sources of 

contamination. Both sites, located in more remote areas 

in the general vicinity of WHEE (windward coast) are 

affected by the same prevailing winds and atmospheric 

deposition as WHEE (Armstrong, 1983). Furthermore, in 

a review of the contaminants data for Oahu sites that were 

not included in this study, only minor concentrations of a 

few ubiquitous contaminants were detected at forested sites 

that were distant from the coast (Brasher and Wolff, 2004). 

The Kauai “reference sites,” LMAH and HNKP, are both 

remote sites on the northern side of Kauai. Both of these 

sites are accessible only by moderately long hikes into the 

valleys. No local sources of contaminants are at either site. 

The only anthropogenic inputs would be atmospheric, with 

the principal sources located to the south. The prevailing 

northeasterly trade winds blow in the opposite direction and 

carry any locally derived contaminants away from these sites 

(Armstrong, 1983). Only two sites on Kauai were sampled 

for contaminants (NWIL and PUAL); both are in the moredeveloped southeastern part of the island.

A second group of three sites was identified as consisting 

predominantly of urban land-use sites. These sites, KANE, 

MANO, and NUUA, were associated with organochlorine 

contaminants, residential land use, and channel modification. 

A third group, WKEL, WKAK, and NWIL, was associated 

with agricultural and industrial variables including DDT, 

Hg, semi-volatile organochlorine compounds (SVOC), and 

siltation. A fourth group, consisting of WAIW, LULU, WAIM, 

and WKEA, included sites that had agricultural and developed 

land, but were affected to a lesser degree by contaminants.

Eigenvalues Axis 1 Axis 2

Eigenvalues 7.354 3.055

Percentage 45.961 19.097

Cumulative percentage 45.961 65.058

PCA variable

Variable

Solar 0.085 -0.207

Channel modification .329 .009

Silt .099 .386

Dominant substrate -.277 -.236

Agricultural land use .068 .509

Developed land use .310 .160

Bed sediment As .037 .272

Bed sediment Pb .322 -.133

Bed sediment Hg .105 .287

Bed sediment Zn .334 .133

Bed sediment OC .271 -.247

Fish tissue total chlordane .317 -.200

Fish tissue total DDT .138 .090

Fish tissue total dieldrin .323 -.232

Fish tissue total heptachlor .315 -.257

SVOC guideline exceedances .272 .218

Table 12. Eigenvalues and variable loadings for the Principal Components 

Analysis (PCA) of environmental variables.

[Abbreviations: As, arsenic; Hg, mercury; OC, organochlorine compounds; 

Pb, lead; Zn, zinc; SVOC, semi-volatile organochlorine compounds. Values in 

bold had the most influence on the axis]

18  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Urban

Agriculture

and Commercial

Forest

Mixed Land Use

As

Chlordane

Dieldrin

Heptachlor

Channel modification

Silt

Dominant

bed substrate

Agricultural land use

Developed land use

Pb

Hg

Zn

Organochlorines

(Bed sediment)

DDT

SVOC

Solar irradiance

VARIABLE LOADING

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT

 Mild – forested sites

 Moderate

 Severe – agricultural sites

 Severe – urban sites

EXPLANATION

SVOC

Pb

As

Zn

ABBREVIATIONS

 Sampling site name (see table 1)

 Arsenic

 Lead

 Mercury

 Zinc

 Semi-volatile organochlorine compounds 

PUNA

Hg

LMAH

HNKP

WHEE B

WHOL

PUNA

NWIL

WKEL

WKAK

WAIM

LULU WAIW

WKEA

NUUA

MANO

KANE

Figure 7. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) using the environmental variables at sampling sites on Hawaiian streams. 

Clustered sites (same color) display similar environmental conditions or levels of impairment that differ from those at sites in other clusters.

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality 19
0.5 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

PERCENTAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

B

1 3 5

5 25

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPED LAND

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 

33

67

1 3 5

A

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE 

Figure 8. Cut-off values for the scoring range of the land-use variables (A) percentage of developed land; (B) 

percentage of agricultural land.

Environmental Assessment Scoring

The total scores for the level 1 land-use categories ranged 

from a low of 2 for the 100 percent forested sites to a high 

of 10 for WKEL, the largest drainage in the study as well 

as having agricultural, residential, and commercial land use 

(table 13; fig. 8). The total scores for the habitat variables 

Site

Developed land Agricultural land

Total

Percentage Score Percentage Score

HNKP 0.00 1 0.00 1 2

LMAH .00 1 .00 1 2

PUNA .00 1 .00 1 2

WHEE B-99 1.18 1 .00 1 2

WHOL .00 1 .00 1 2

NUUA 20.20 3 .00 1 4

WKEA .15 1 4.23 3 4

KANE 61.75 5 2.68 3 8

LULU 12.62 3 16.88 5 8

MANO 38.36 5 .96 3 8

NWIL 15.61 3 26.29 5 8

WAIM 9.84 3 18.48 5 8

WAIW 10.89 3 15.27 5 8

WKAK 40.49 5 7.27 3 8

WKEL 28.45 5 25.60 5 10

Table 13. Environmental assessment scores for land-use percentages.

[See table 1 for site names]

20 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii

ranged from a low of 4 for the forested, unmodified sites, 

to a high of 18 at WAIM, a rural residential and agricultural 

drainage (table 14; fig. 9). The total scores for the trace 

elements ranged from a low of 1 at the forested sites to a 

high of 7 at NWIL, an urbanized and agricultural/industrial 

drainage (table 15). The NWIL site is downstream of a now 

non-operational sugar cane processing mill. The total scores 

for organochlorine compounds in bed sediment ranged from 

a low of 0 for the forested sites as well as LULU, a mixed 

land-use site, to a high of 13 at MANO, a highly urbanized 

residential drainage (table 16). The total scores for semivolatile organochlorine compounds in bed sediment ranged 

from a low of 0 at the forested sites as well as at WAIM, 

a rural agricultural drainage, to a high of 11 at WKEL 

(table 17). The total scores for organochlorine compounds in 

fish tissue ranked the urban sites MANO, NUUA, and KANE 

as the most affected (tables 18 and 19). These sites had the 

highest total concentrations of organochlorine compounds, 

and three constituents (total chlordane, total dieldrin, and total 

heptachlor) exceeded NYSDEC guidelines at MANO and 

NUUA (table 18). 
0.52 0.84

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

MEAN SILT SCORE (1 or 0) 

1 3 5

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 

0

20

40

60

80

100

33

67

C

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE 

0 20 40 60 80 100

30 70

2 1 3

PERCENTAGE OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE

B 5.7 8

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

33

67

5 3 1

MEAN DOMINANT SUBSTRATE INDEX 

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 

A

Figure 9. Cut-off values for the scoring range of the habitat variables (A) mean dominant substrate, (B) percent 

solar irradiance, and (C) mean silt score.

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  21
Site

Percentage 

of solar 

irradiance

Solar 

irradiance 

rank

Channel modification

Channel 

modification 

rank

Mean silt 

score

Silt rank Mean dominant 

bed substrate

Dominant 

bed 

substrate 

rank

Total

HNKP 61.08 1 Not modified 1 0.52 1 8.27 1 4

LMAH 44.75 1 Not modified 1 .42 1 9.61 1 4

PUNA 52.75 1 Not modified 1 .30 1 9.00 1 4

WHOL 36.39 1 Not modified 1 .42 1 8.52 1 4

LULU 8.56 2 Lightly affected 1 .52 1 7.21 3 7

WHEE B-99 24.31 2 Lightly affected 1 .61 3 6.39 3 9

WKEA 25.92 2 Lightly affected 1 .91 5 8.30 1 9

NUUA 50.25 1 Stabilized 5 .36 1 5.45 5 12

WAIW 33.67 1 Channelized, not stabilized 3 .91 5 5.76 3 12

NWIL 8.19 2 Channelized, not stabilized 3 .67 3 4.58 5 13

KANE 63.46 1 Stabilized 5 .64 3 4.88 5 14

WKEL 77.08 3 Channelized, not stabilized 3 1.00 5 7.33 3 14

WKAK 25.83 2 Channelized, not stabilized 3 1.00 5 5.00 5 15

MANO 76.11 3 Concrete lined, stabilized 5 .85 5 5.85 3 16

WAIM 95.42 3 Stabilized 5 .85 5 5.00 5 18

Table 14. Environmental assessment scores for reach-level habitat variables.

[See table 1 for site names]

PEL

ISQG

Arsenic

5.9

17

Lead

35

91.3

Mercury

0.17

0.48

Zinc

123

315

Sum of 

scores

Final score

Site V S V S V S V S

HNKP NA NA NA NA 1 1

LMAH NA NA NA NA 1 1

PUNA NA NA NA NA 1 1

WHOL NA NA NA NA 1 1

WAIM 4.8 0 21 0 0.04 0 200 1 1 1

WHEE B-99 1.9 0 6 0 .09 0 160 1 1 1

WAIW 5.4 0 58 1 .12 0 270 1 2 3

WKEL 5.0 0 23 0 .18 1 270 1 2 3

WKAK 4.1 0 59 1 .19 1 290 1 3 3

WKEA 44.0 2 22 0 .15 0 250 1 3 3

KANE 11.0 1 82 1 .12 0 470 2 4 3

LULU 29.0 2 60 1 .08 0 260 1 4 3

MANO 16.0 1 120 2 .17 0 420 2 5 5

NUUA 4.5 0 220 2 .33 1 480 2 5 5

NWIL 29.0 2 58 1 1.50 2 430 2 7 5

Table 15. Environmental assessment scores for trace elements in bed sediment.

[Abbreviations: NA, not analyzed for; S, score; V, value. Acronyms: ISQG, Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL, Probable Effect Level (Canadian 

Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999). Concentrations in micrograms per gram dry weight [μg/g] unless otherwise specified. Scores based on 

exceeding the ISQG (1) or the PEL (2). See table 1 for site names]

22  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
ISQG

PEL

Endrin

2.67

62.4

Total DDD

3.54

8.51

Total DDE

1.42

6.75

Total DDT

1.19

4.77

Total 

dieldrin

2.85

6.67

Total 

heptachlor

0.6

2.74

Total PCB

34.1

277

Total 

chlordane

5.4

8.87

Sum of 

scores

Final 

score

Site V S V S V S V S V S V S V S V S

HNKP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 1

LMAH NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 1

PUNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 1

WHOL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 1

LULU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WHEE B-99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WKEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 2 2 3

WAIM 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 30 0 8 1 3 3

NWIL 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 20 2 0 0 0 0 41 2 5 3

WAIW 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 80 1 12 2 5 3

KANE 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 71 2 18 2 0 0 114 2 6 5

WKEL 0 0 4 1 32 2 18 2 2 0 0 0 160 1 12 2 8 5

WKAK 0 0 51 2 13 2 23 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 11 2 9 5

NUUA 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 300 2 20 2 950 2 349 2 12 5

MANO 0 0 9 2 9 2 5 2 150 2 8 2 60 1 294 2 13 5

Table 16. Environmental assessment scores for organochlorine pesticides in bed sediment.

[Abbreviations: NA, not analyzed for; S, score; V, value. Acronyms: ISQG, Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL, Probable Effect Level (Canadian 

Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999). Concentrations in microgram per kilogram dry weight [μg/kg] unless otherwise specified. Scores based on 

exceeding the ISQG (1) or the PEL (2). See table 1 for site names]

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  23

ISQG

PEL

Acenaphthene

6.7

89

Acenaphthylene

5.9

128

Anthracene

47

245

Benzo(a)

anthracene

32

385

Benzo(a)

pyrene

32

782

Chrysene

57.1

862

Dibenzo(a,h)

anthracene

6.2

135

Site V S V S V S V S V S V S V S

HNKP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

LMAH NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

PUNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

WHOL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

WAIM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WHEE B-99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WKEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

LULU 0 0 0 0 30 0 50 1 50 1 50 0 0 0

WKAK 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 60 1 50 0 20 1

KANE 0 0 0 0 60 1 220 1 250 1 360 1 0 0

NUUA 0 0 0 0 60 1 230 1 260 1 350 1 0 0

MANO 0 0 20 1 320 2 340 1 330 1 420 1 0 0

NWIL 0 0 40 1 50 1 140 1 130 1 180 1 30 1

WAIW 10 1 70 1 60 1 230 1 210 1 310 1 30 1

WKEL 0 0 0 0 70 1 440 2 440 1 620 1 80 1

Table 17. Environmental assessment scores for semi-volatile organochlorine compounds in bed sediment.

[Abbreviations: NA, not analyzed for; S, score; V, value. Acronyms: ISQG, Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL, Probable Effect Level (Canadian 

Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999). Concentrations in microgram per kilogram dry weight [μg/kg]. Scores based on exceeding the ISQG (1) or the 

PEL (2). See table 1 for site names]
Table 17. Environmental assessment scores for semi-volatile organochlorine compounds in bed sediment.—Continued

[Abbreviations: NA, not analyzed for; S, score; V, value. Acronyms: ISQG, Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL, Probable Effect Level (Canadian 

Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999). Concentrations in micrograms per kilogram dry weight [μg/kg]. Scores based on exceeding the ISQG (1) or the 

PEL (2). See table 1 for site names]

ISQG

PEL

Fluoranthene

111

2,355

Naphthalene

35

391

Phenanthrene

41.9

515

Pyrene

53

875

Sum of 

scores

Final score

Site V S V S V S V S

HNKP NA NA NA NA 0 1

LMAH NA NA NA NA 0 1

PUNA NA NA NA NA 0 1

WHOL NA NA NA NA 0 1

WAIM 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1

WHEE B-99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WKEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

LULU 60 0 0 0 30 0 50 0 2 3

WKAK 100 0 0 0 40 0 100 1 4 3

KANE 530 1 0 0 270 1 450 1 7 3

NUUA 580 1 0 0 330 1 520 1 7 3

MANO 700 1 0 0 370 1 620 1 9 3

NWIL 340 1 90 1 160 1 290 1 10 5

WAIW 570 1 0 0 510 1 660 1 10 5

WKEL 1,300 1 0 0 650 2 1,000 2 11 5

Constituent Total chlordane Total DDT Total dieldrin Total HCH Total heptachlor Total PCB Sum of 

exceedances 

scores

NYSDEC 500 200 120 100 200 110

Site V S V S V S V S V S V S

HNKP NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

LMAH NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

PUNA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

WHOL NA NA NA NA NA NA 0

WHEE B-99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LULU 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WKEA 22 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WAIM 12 0 18 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WAIW 15 0 10 0 25 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

WKEL 7 0 43 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WKAK 66 0 361 1 20 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1

NWIL 191 0 22 0 340 1 0 0 19 0 0 0 1

KANE 745 1 24 0 910 1 0 0 170 0 0 0 2

NUUA 671 1 139 0 1,400 1 0 0 230 1 0 0 3

MANO 1,160 1 40 0 1,700 1 0 0 300 1 0 0 3

Table 18. Environmental assessment scores for fish tissue organochlorine contaminants.

[Abbreviations: NA, not analyzed for; S, score; V, value. Acronym: NYSDEC, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines (Newell 

and others, 1987). Concentrations in micrograms per kilogram wet weight [μg/kg]. Scores based on exceeding the NYSDEC. See table 1 for site names]

24  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Site Fish species Total 

concentration Total score

Sum of 

exceedances 

scores

Exceedances scores

+

total score

Final score

HNKP NA NA 1 0 1 1

LMAH NA NA 1 0 1 1

PUNA NA NA 1 0 1 1

WHOL NA NA 1 0 1 1

WHEE B-99 Xiphophorus helleri 0 1 0 1 1

LULU Xiphophorus helleri 19 2 0 2 3

WKEA Xiphophorus helleri 26 2 0 2 3

WAIM Poecilia sphenops 31 2 0 2 3

WAIW Poecilia sphenops 56 2 0 2 3

WKEL Xiphophorus helleri 60 2 0 2 3

WKAK Xiphophorus helleri 451 2 1 3 3

NWIL Xiphophorus helleri 572 2 1 3 3

KANE Poecilia sphenops 1,849 3 2 5 5

NUUA Poecilia sphenops 2,440 3 3 6 5

MANO Poecilia sphenops 3,200 3 3 6 5

Table 19. Final environmental assessment scores for fish tissue organochlorine contaminants.

[Abbreviation: NA, not analyzed for. Concentrations in micrograms per kilogram wet weight (μg/kg). Exceedances scores based on exceeding the New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines (NYSDEC) tabulated in table 18. Xiphophorus helleri, Green swordtail; Poecilia sphenops, Molly. 

See table 1 for site names]

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  25

The total environmental assessment scores show that 

the forested sites, as identified in the PCA, were the least 

affected by anthropogenic influences (table 20; fig. 7). These 

sites scored between 10 and 15. The group of sites identified 

as “moderate” in the amount of anthropogenic influences 

scored between 23 and 34. The two groups identified as urban 

and agricultural/industrial in the PCA scored the highest in 

the environmental assessment, ranging from 37 to 42. The 

environmental assessment at NUUA did not correspond to the 

PCA results. The high levels of organochlorine compounds 

at NUUA contributed more to the loadings in the PCA. The 

cut-off values of the environmental assessment scores were 

determined with the CDF method (fig. 10). Mildly impaired 

sites scored less than 25, moderately impaired sites scored 

between 25 and 55, and severely impaired sites scored greater 

than 55.

The remaining sites (those not used in the calibration 

exercise) were classified using a reduced environmental 

assessment, made on the basis of only the land-use data and 

the habitat data (tables 21 and 22). These scores then were 

compared to the reduced environmental assessment scores of 

the calibration set of sites without the contaminants scores 

(table 23). The CDF plot of the reduced environmental 

assessment scores put sites UKPA, PUNB, KALU, and MKPA 

in the mild impairment category (fig. 11). Sites HULA, ULWI, 

KALA, and LLWI were put in the moderately impaired 

category and site PUAL was assigned to the severely impaired 

category.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

HNKP

LMAH

PUNA

WHOL

WHEE B-99

WKEA

LULU

NUUA

WAIM

WAIW

NWIL

WKAK

KANE

WKEL

MANO

0

20

40

60

80

100

33

67

Mild Moderate Severe

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT CATEGORIES

Mild Moderate

20 35

Figure 10. Final environmental assessment scores for the 

calibration subset of sites. 

Vertical divisions demark the cut-off values for the scoring 

range. See table 1 for site names.
The reduced environmental assessment scores were 

supplemented by the results of a multivariate analysis using 

PCA. The ordination plots of the PCA results, using only the 

land-use and habitat data, illustrated the relations between the 

calibration sites and the remaining nine sites (fig. 12). The 

ordination plots facilitated the classification of the nine test 

sites with the calibration sites that they were most similar to. 

The first principal component separated the forested sites from 

the developed sites along the first axis, with an eigenvalue 

accounting for almost 55 percent of the total variance using 

the calibration sites and 51 percent using all the sites (tables 24

Site

Parameter scores

Final environmental 

assessment score Sum of 

land use

Sum of 

habitat

Stream bed sediment Fish tissue

Trace 

elements Organochlorines

Semi-volatile 

organochlorine 

compounds

Organochlorines

HNKP 2 4 1 1 1 1 10

LMAH 2 4 1 1 1 1 10

PUNA 2 4 1 1 1 1 10

WHOL 2 4 1 1 1 1 10

WHEE B-99 2 9 1 1 1 1 15

WKEA 4 9 3 3 1 3 23

LULU 8 7 3 1 3 3 25

NUUA 4 12 5 5 3 5 34

WAIM 8 18 1 3 1 3 34

WAIW 8 12 3 3 5 3 34

NWIL 8 13 5 3 5 3 37

WKAK 8 15 3 5 3 3 37

KANE 8 14 3 5 3 5 38

WKEL 10 14 3 5 5 3 40

MANO 8 16 5 5 3 5 42

Table 20. Individual environmental assessment parameter scores and the final environmental assessment scores.

[See table 1 for site names]

Site Agricultural Developed Total Percentage Score Percentage Score

KALU 0.00 1 0.00 1 2

PUNB .00 1 .00 1 2

UKPA .33 1 .02 1 2

ULWI .02 1 .53 1 2

KALA .00 1 13.24 3 4

MKPA 6.30 3 .35 1 4

HULA 131.97 5 .83 1 6

LLWI 113.79 5 8.82 3 8

PUAL 136.97 5 22.72 3 8

1Grassland classified as abandoned agriculture on the basis of personal observations.

Table 21. Land use for sites not used in the calibration exercise.

[See table 1 for site names]

26  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii

and 25). The second principal component differentiated the 

agricultural and commercial sites from the residential sites 

along the second axis, with an eigenvalue accounting for 

nearly 22 percent of the total variance using the calibration 

sites and about 20 percent using all the sites. The sites with 

mostly forested land were classified as mildly impaired. 

This included PUNB and KALU on Oahu, and UKPA on 

Kauai. Sites MKPA, ULWI, LLWI and HULA on Kauai were 

classified as moderately impaired, while PUAL on Kauai and 

KALA on Oahu were classified as severely impaired. 
Site Percent solar 

irradiance

Solar 

irradiance 

rank

Channel modification

Channel 

modification 

rank

Mean silt 

score

Silt rank Mean dominant 

bed substrate

Dominant 

bed 

substrate 

rank

Total

UKPA 19.11 2 Not modified 1 0.09 1 8.76 1 5

MKPA 9.94 2 Lightly affected 1 .52 1 7.91 3 7

HULA 45.17 1 Channelized, not stabilized 3 .64 3 9.52 1 8

PUNB 49.89 1 Lightly affected 1 .94 5 8.52 1 8

KALU 21.78 2 Not modified 1 .94 5 9.64 1 9

LLWI 51.94 1 Channelized, not stabilized 3 .94 5 6.06 3 12

PUAL 16.28 2 Channelized, not stabilized 3 .79 3 3.12 5 13

ULWI 15.17 2 Channelized, not stabilized 3 .88 5 7.18 3 13

KALA 59.03 1 Stabilized 5 .97 5 4.82 5 16

Table 22. Habitat characteristics for sites not used in the calibration exercise.

[See table 1 for site names]

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  27

Site

Parameter scores Final reduced 

environmental assessment 

scores Sum of

land use

Sum of

habitat

LMAH 2 4 6

HNKP 2 4 6

WHOL 2 4 6

PUNA 2 4 6

UKPA 2 5 7

PUNB 2 8 10

WHEE B-99 2 9 11

KALU 2 9 11

MKPA 4 7 11

WKEA 4 9 13

HULA 6 8 14

LULU 8 7 15

ULWI 2 13 15

NUUA 4 12 16

KALA 4 16 20

WAIW 8 12 20

LLWI 8 12 20

PUAL 8 13 21

NWIL 8 13 21

KANE 8 14 22

WKAK 8 15 23

MANO 8 16 24

WKEL 10 14 24

WAIM 8 18 26

Table 23. Individual environmental assessment parameter scores 

and the reduced final environmental assessment scores without the 

contaminants data.

[Sites in bold are from the test group. See table 1 for site names]

5 10 15 20 25 30

Mild Moderate

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE 

(REDUCED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT CATEGORIES 

Severe

0

20

40

60

80

100

33

67

11 20

HULA

ULWI

KALA*

LLWI

UKPA

PUNB

KALU*

MKPA

HNKP

LMAH

PUNA

WHOL

WHEE B-99

WKEA

LULU

WAIM 

NUUA

WAIW 

WKAK

KANE

WKEL

NWIL

MANO

PUAL*

Figure 11. Reduced environmental assessment scores with 

all sites. 

Vertical divisions demark the cut-off values for the scoring 

range. See table 1 for site names. Sites in italics are from the 

test group. (*, Sites with ancillary contaminants data)
VARIABLE LOADING

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENTSAMPLING SITE NAME (See table 1)

 Mild – forested sites Moderate Severe – agricultural sites

 Severe – urban sites

Additional sites

EXPLANATION 

PUNA

Agriculture

Forest

Urban

Mixed Use 

WAIM 

KALA NUUA

LULU

WAIW 

MKPA 

UKPA LLWI ULWI 

LMAH

NWIL

HNKP

PUAL

HULA

MANO

WHEE B-99 

WKEL WHOL

PUNA

PUNB

WKAK

WKEA

KANE

KALU

Solar irradiance

Channel

Silt

modification

Dominant

bed substrate

Developed land use

Agricultural land use

B. ALL SITES A. CALIBRATION SITES

Agriculture

Forest

Urban

Mixed Use 

WAIM 

NUUA

LULU

WAIW 

LMAH

NWIL

HNKP

MANO

WHEE B-99 WKEL

WHOL

PUNA

WKAK

WKEA

KANE

Solar irradiance

Channel

modification

Silt

Dominant

bed substrate Developed land use

Agricultural land use

Figure 12. Principal Components Analysis using the environmental variables without the contaminants data set for the subset of calibration sites used to develop the assessment, and the entire set of study sites.Degree of impairment for calibration sites determined from fig. 7 PCA.

28  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  29

Eigenvalues Axis 1 Axis 2

Eigenvalues 3.269 1.289

Percentage 54.484 21.491

Cumulative percentage 54.484 75.975

PCA variable

Axis 1 Axis 2

Variable

Solar 0.181 -0.682

Channel modification .479 -.382

Silt .382 .319

Dominant substrate -.483 -.061

Agricultural land use .348 .530

Developed land use .488 -.058

Table 24. Eigenvalues and variable loadings of the Principal Components 

Analysis (PCA) using land use and habitat variables for the calibration set 

of study sites.

[Values in bold had the most influence on the axis]

Eigenvalues Axis 1 Axis 2

Eigenvalues 3.061 1.175

Percentage 51.011 19.579

Cumulative percentage 51.011 70.59

PCA variable

Axis 1 Axis 2

Variable

Solar 0.239 -0.741

Channel modification .507 -.266

Silt .32 .085

Dominant substrate -.489 -.196

Agricultural land use .291 .577

Developed land use .509 .041

Table 25. Eigenvalues and variable loadings of the Principal Components 

Analysis (PCA) using land use and habitat variables for all of the study 

sites.

[Values in bold had the most influence on the axis]

It should be noted that although KALU is located 

within Sacred Falls State Park, ancillary contaminants data 

showed the concentration of arsenic in the bed sediment 

was above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG), 

which would shift the site to the moderately impaired 

category. Furthermore, the KALA basin, which includes 13 

percent developed land with 12 percent as residential and 

1 percent as commercial, also had the second highest total 

concentration of organochlorine compounds in the fish tissue 

sample, second only to MANO, where concentrations of 

total chlordane, dieldrin, and total heptachlor exceeded the 

NYSDEC guidelines. Dieldrin was detected in the fish tissue 

sample from PUAL but did not exceed the guideline. Although 

samples were not collected for analysis of contaminants, the 

land-use data indicates that contaminants most likely were 

present in the ULWI and LLWI basins, both of which include 

agricultural (pasture) and residential land, and at HULA 

and PUAL, drainage basins near NWIL that have sizeable 

proportions of fallow agricultural land (author’s observation).

Macroinvertebrate Metrics

The first step in the development of macroinvertebrate 

metrics required the application of several diagnostic methods 

to the data sets to resolve any taxonomic ambiguities and 

differences in laboratory taxonomic-level designations. Results 

of the multimetric and multivariate analyses then were used 

to develop the P-HBIBI. Finally, multiple-year and multiplereach data were compared to examine any temporal and spatial 

variability in the P-HBIBI.

Data Sets

The original RTH data set (abundance data) included 102 

taxonomic identifications (appendix A). Sixty-six taxonomic 

identifications remained after the data set was edited to resolve 

the occurrences of ambiguous taxa and standardized for 

laboratory taxonomic resolution (appendix B). The original 

richness data set (RTH, QMH, and other sources) included 

141 taxonomic identifications (appendix C). Ninety-seven 

taxonomic identifications remained after the data set was 

standardized for laboratory taxonomic resolution (lack of 

abundance data precluded editing for ambiguity) (appendix 

D).

The residency status of most of the invertebrates collected 

in the RTH samples was classified as “undetermined” 

(table 26). This category included taxa that were not identified 

to a low enough taxonomical level to ensure either a “native” 

or “alien” status, and species-level identifications for which 

the residency status has not yet been determined. Most of 

the invertebrates in the edited richness data set were alien to 

Hawaii; only 18 taxa were classified as native.

Thirty percent of the taxa in the edited RTH data set 

were not common to more than one site, including three of the 

seven native taxa collected (table 27). Cricotopus sp. was the 

only taxa collected at all the sampling sites. Only 7 non-native 

taxa were common to 50 percent or more of the samples.
Metrics

A review of the edited data sets resulted in 20 metrics 

being proposed as candidates based on available taxa (table 

28) (see procedural flowchart in fig. 4). Using the data 

from the subset of calibration sites used to classify the site 

conditions, each metric value was plotted against the site 

impairment classification in an XY (scatter) plot to determine 

the response of each metric to environmental impairment. The 

candidate metrics that demonstrated an ability to differentiate 

between reference sites and degraded sites were incorporated 

into a group of core metrics. The core metrics then were 

scored using the CDF method discussed in the methods 

section. Ranges of values associated with the mildly impaired 

forested sites were scored 1, ranges of values associated with 

moderately impaired were scored 3, and ranges of values 

associated with severely impaired were scored 5.

Data set Native Alien Undetermined Total

Unedited RTH 14 (14) 35 (34) 53 (52) 102

Edited RTH 7 (11) 20 (30) 39 (59) 66

Raw richness 22 (16) 53 (38) 66 (47) 141

Unedited richness 18 (19) 42 (43) 37 (38) 97

Table 26. Residency status of invertebrate identifications.

[Number of identifications (percentage of total number of identifications). 

RTH, richest targeted habitat (quantitative). Unedited data corrected for subsampling and unit area; edited data corrected for sub-sampling, unit area, and 

taxonomic resolution and ambiguity]

Unique 

sites

Occurrence 

of unique 

taxa

Percentage of 

occurrence 

at sites

Percentage of taxa

Collected 

at sites Alien Native Undetermined

1 20 3.6 30.3 10.6 4.6 15.2

2 12 7.1 18.2 3.0 1.5 13.6

3 4 10.7 6.1 .0 .0 6.1

4 3 14.3 4.6 3.0 .0 1.5

5 2 17.9 3.0 .0 .0 3.0

6 4 21.4 6.1 .0 1.5 4.6

7 6 25.0 9.1 3.0 1.5 4.6

8 2 28.6 3.0 1.5 .0 1.5

9 2 32.1 3.0 1.5 .0 1.5

10 2 35.7 3.0 1.5 .0 1.5

12 2 42.9 3.0 .0 1.5 1.5

14 1 50.0 1.5 .0 .0 1.5

16 1 57.1 1.5 .0 .0 1.5

25 2 89.3 3.0 3.0 .0 .0

26 1 92.9 1.5 1.5 .0 .0

27 1 96.4 1.5 .0 .0 1.5

28 1 100.0 1.5 1.5 .0 .0

Table 27. Number of sites with occurrences of unique taxa from the 

edited quantitative (RTH) dataset.

[Number of sites = 28; number of taxa = 66. Percentage occurrence at sites, 

unique sites/number of sites; percentage collected at sites, occurrence of 

unique taxa/number of taxa]

Candidate metrics Core metrics Final P-HBIBI

Invertebrate abundance X X

Insect abundance X

Trichopteran abundance

Alien mollusc abundance X X

Dominant taxa abundance

Amphipod abundance X X

Chironomidae abundance

Trichopteran-dipteran ratio

Percentage of trichoptera X

Percentage of chironomidae

Percentage of insecta X X

Percentage of oligochaeta X

Percentage of alien mollusca X

Percentage of amphipoda

Number of taxa X X

Native mountain shrimp P/A X X

Crayfish P/A X X

Alien prawn richness X

Modified family biotic index

Margelef’s diversity

Table 28. List of candidate metrics used to determine core metrics and 

the final Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) 

based on the available taxa.

[P/A, presence or absence in samples]

30 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
After the core metrics were scored, the P-HBIBI was 

calculated as the sum of the scores for each site. A least 

squares linear regression (Proc REG) analysis was applied 

in an iterative process to test various suites of core metrics 

to develop the simplest yet most biologically informative 

P-HBIBI with the greatest r2 value. This process of 

elimination resulted in the selection of 7 final metrics out 

of the 12 core metrics examined for inclusion into the PHBIBI. The XY (scatter) plots for five of the seven final 

metrics are shown in figure 13. The two metrics based on 

presence/absence were not plotted. The CDF plots of the five 

metrics are shown in figure 14. The final P-HBIBI scores 

were plotted using the CDF method and the ranges of values 

were ascertained for each impairment category (fig. 15). 

The final P-HBIBI scores and the environmental assessment 

scores showed a significant linear relation with an r2 value = 

0.94 (p<0.0001) (fig. 16). This list of core metrics is included 

(table 29):

• Total invertebrate abundance

• The abundance of alien molluscs

• The abundance of amphipods

• The relative abundance of the class Insecta

• The presence or absence of the native shrimp Atyoida 

bisulcata

• The presence or absence of the alien crayfish 

Procambarus clarkii

• The total number of taxa

Metric Condition Score

Total invertebrate abundance ≤ 200 7

≤ 700 5

≤ 3,000 3

> 3,000 1

Alien mollusc abundance = 0 1

≤ 90 3

> 90 5

Amphipod abundance = 0 1

≤ 35 3

> 35 5

Percentage of Insecta ≤ 75 5

≤ 90 3

> 90 1

Native mountain shrimp Absent 3

Present 1

Crayfish Absent 1

Present 3

Total number of taxa ≥ 30 5

(Taxa richness) ≥ 21 3

< 21 1

Impairment 

category

Final P-HBIBI ≤14 Mild

(Sum of metric scores) ≤22 Moderate

>22 Severe

Table 29. Conditional scoring for the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index 

of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) metrics.

[The score of 7 was added to the total abundance metric scoring for samples 

that did not have the minimum number, 300, of invertebrates counted by the 

laboratory staff. <, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater 

than or equal to]

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  31
Figure 13. Relation between the final metrics values and the environmental assessment scores for (A) invertebrate abundance, (B) amphipod 

abundance, (C) mollusc abundance, (D) insect relative abundance, and (E) taxa richness.

(r2, coefficient of determination).

MANO

WKEL

KANE

WKAK

NWIL

WAIM

NUUA

WAIW

LULU

WHEE B-99 WKEA

PUNA

WHOL

LMAH

HNKP

0

-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

(without WAIM:

AMPHIPOD ABUNDANCE

r

2 = 0.05

r

2 = 0.50)

MANO

WKEL

KANE

NWIL

WKAK

NUUA

WAIM

WAIW

LULU

WKEA

WHEE B-99

HNKP

LMAH

PUNA

WHOL

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

MOLLUSC ABUNDANCE

r

2 = 0.40

PUNA

WAIM

LMAH

WHEE B-99

NUUA

HNKP

WHOL WAIW KANE

LULU WKEL

MANO WKEA WKAK

NWIL 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE

r

2 = 0.22

A

B

C

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE

TREND LINE

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT

 Mild

 Moderate

 Severe

ABBREVIATION OF SAMPLING SITE NAME (SEE TABLE 1)

EXPLANATION

MANO WKEL

KANE

NWIL

WKAK

WAIM

NUUA

WAIW

LULU

WKEA

WHEE B-99

LMAH

WHOL HNKP

PUNA

0

20

40

60

80

100

PERCENTAGE OF INSECTA

 r2 = 0.59

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE

E

LULU

D

WKEL

WKEA

WKAK

WHOL WHEE B-99

WAIW

WAIM

PUNA

NWIL

NUUA

MANO

LULU

LMAH

KANE

HNKP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

NUMBER OF TAXA

 r2 = 0.40

32  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
0 100 200 300 400

0

20

40

60

80

100

ALIEN MOLLUSC ABUNDANCE

67

33

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

1 90

D

1 3 5

INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE

0 2000 4000 6000 9000 10000 12000

700 3000

200

7 5 3 1

0 100 200 300 400 500

AMPHIPOD ABUNDANCE

0

20

40

60

80

100

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

67

33

1 3 5

0.1

35

A B C

E

5 3 1

1 3 5

METRIC SCORE METRIC SCORE METRIC SCORE

21.6 29.4

NUMBER OF TAXA

15 20 25 30 35 40

75 90

PERCENTAGE OF INSECTA

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 14. Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) metrics with vertical divisions 

demarking the cut-off values of the scoring range for (A) amphipod abundance, (B) invertebrate abundance, 

(C) number of taxa, (D) alien mollusc abundance, and (E) percentage of Insecta.

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  33
0

20

40

60

80

100

67

33

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 

P-HBIBI

Mild Moderate Severe

14 22

PUNA

LMAH

HNKP

WHOL

WHEE B-99

MANO

KANE

WKAK

WKEL

NWIL

WKEA

LULU

NUUA

WAIM

WAIW

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 15. Final Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic 

Integrity (P-HBIBI) core metrics scores for the calibration sites and 

the vertical divisions demarking the cut-off values of the scoring 

range for impairment categories. 

See table 1 for site names.

EXPLANATION 

TREND LINE

CUT-OFF VALUES

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT

 Mild

 Moderate

 Severe

ABBREVIATION OF SAMPLING SITE NAME LULU

14 22

INCREASING IMPAIRMENT 

INCREASING IMPAIRMENT 

NWIL

KANE

WKAK

WKEL

MANO

LULU

WKEA

WHEE B-99 

LMAH

WAIW 

NUUA

WAIM 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE 

P-HBIBI

r

2 = 0.94

HNKP

WHOL

PUNA

Figure 16. Relationship between the environmental 

assessment scores and the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index 

of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) from the calibration sites used to 

develop the P-HBIBI. 

Dashed lines are cut-off values ascertained using the 

Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) plots demarking the 

scoring ranges for impairment categories. See table 1 for site 

names. (r2, coefficient of determination) The P-HBIBI scores ranged from a low of 7 for LMAH, 

the least impaired site, to a high of 29 for NWIL, identified 

as the most impaired site (table 30). The data from the test 

sites that were not used to calibrate the core metrics and the 

P-HBIBI were then grouped with the data from the calibration 

sites, and each core metric was re-examined to check for 

outlying values (fig. 17). This testing did not reveal any values 

that fell out of the scoring ranges. The test sites then were 

scored using the P-HBIBI (fig. 18; table 30). Six of the nine 

test sites were assigned to impairment categories consistent 

with the reduced environmental assessment. Three sites, 

KALU, MKPA, and UKPA, were rated as moderately impaired 

using the P-HBIBI although the reduced environmental 

assessment rated the sites as only mildly impaired (table 

31). The linear relationship between the test sites P-HBIBI 

scores and the reduced environmental assessment scores 

had a significant r2 value = 0.72 (p<0.002) (fig. 19). The 

relation between the P-HBIBI scores and the environmental 

34  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Site

Richness Percent 

Insecta 

Amphipod 

abundance

Invertebrate 

abundance

Alien mollusc 

abundance

Crayfish 

(P/A)

Mountain 

shrimp (P/A) P-HBIBI 

score

V S V S V S V S V S V S V S

LMAH1 15 1 97 1 0 1 4,729 1 0 1 1 R 1 7

HNKP1 17 1 94 1 0 1 2,799 3 0 1 1 Q,R 1 9

PUNA1 24 3 97 1 0 1 10,356 1 0 1 1 O 1 9

WHEE C-00 17 1 99 1 0 1 5,578 1 0 1 Q 3 O 1 9

WHOL1 19 1 94 1 0 1 2,415 3 0 1 1 R 1 9

WHEE A-00 23 3 93 1 0 1 10,290 1 0 1 Q 3 Q 1 11

WHEE B-00 21 3 95 1 0 1 6,372 1 0 1 Q 3 Q,R 1 11

WHEE B-991 20 1 88 3 0 1 3,617 1 0 1 Q 3 O 1 11

PUNB 23 3 89 3 0 1 4,145 1 0 1 1 3 13

WHEE B-01 23 3 99 1 0 1 6,131 1 16 3 Q 3 O 1 13

KALU 21 3 22 5 0 1 3,328 1 2 3 1 O 1 15

MKPA 21 3 89 3 0 1 1,331 3 0 1 Q 3 Q,R 1 15

UKPA 26 3 90 3 14 3 877 3 0 1 1 R 1 15

WKEA1 24 3 92 1 0 1 276 5 0 1 Q,R 3 O 1 15

LULU1 23 3 91 1 13 3 763 3 0 1 Q 3 3 17

LLWI 24 3 93 1 358 5 8,028 1 153 5 1 3 19

ULWI 29 3 75 5 0 1 880 3 3 3 Q 3 R 1 19

HULA 27 3 83 3 391 5 2,603 3 8 3 O 3 O 1 21

KALA 34 5 87 3 0 1 2,207 3 238 5 1 3 21

NUUA1 36 5 76 3 22 3 3,583 1 56 3 Q 3 3 21

WAIM1 26 3 89 3 483 5 9,115 1 255 5 1 3 21

WAIW1 31 5 93 1 0 1 1,729 3 92 5 Q 3 3 21

PUAL 24 3 84 3 10 3 140 7 2 3 1 3 23

MANO1 19 1 49 5 25 3 302 5 102 5 Q 3 3 25

KANE1 39 5 33 5 26 3 1,018 3 381 5 Q 3 3 27

WKAK1 34 5 46 5 2 3 252 5 51 3 Q 3 3 27

WKEL1 22 3 47 5 19 3 639 5 248 5 O 3 3 27

NWIL1 34 5 64 5 7 3 141 7 35 3 Q 3 3 29

1Calibration sites used in the determination of the P-HBIBI and environmental assessment.

Table 30. Metric scores for final invertebrate metrics and final Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) site scores.

[See table 1 for site names. Sites in bold, test sites; sites in italics, multi-year/multi-reach sites. Abbreviations: O, collected during fish survey; P/A, presence or 

absence; Q, present in the qualitative sampling; R, present in the quantitative sampling; S, metric score; V, value. Abundance in number of individuals per square 

meter]

assessment scores (without the contaminants scores) for all 

the sites showed a significant linear relation with an r2 value 

= 0.82 (p<0.0001) (fig. 20). Six of the nine test sites were 

assigned to impairment categories consistent with the reduced 

principal components analysis. Two test sites, UKPA and 

KALU, were classified as moderately impaired using the 

P-HBIBI but grouped with the mildly impaired sites in the 

ordination plot of the PCA. One site, KALA, was classified 

as moderately impaired by the P-HBIBI but grouped with the 

severely impaired sites in the ordination plot. Two calibration 

sites, WAIM and WAIW, grouped with the severely impaired 

sites in the PCA ordination plot of the reduced environmental 

assessment (fig. 12; table 31). These sites were determined to 

be moderately impaired in the environmental assessment that 

included the contaminants data and the ordination plot of the 

full set of environmental data (figs. 7 and 10). 

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  35
0 100 200 300 400 0

80604020

100

1 3 5

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 6733

ALIEN MOLLUSC ABUNDANCE

90 1

D

700 3000

INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

200

1 3 5 7

B

0

80604020

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

AMPHIPOD ABUNDANCE 

METRIC SCORE METRIC SCORE METRIC SCORE 

A

0.1

35

67

33

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 

1 3 5

21.6 29.4

NUMBER OF TAXA 

15 20 25 30 35 40

1 3 5

C

20 40 60 80 100

1 3 5

75 90

PERCENTAGE OF INSECTA

E

Figure 17. Core metrics using all sites with vertical divisions demarking the cut-off values of the scoring range for amphipod abundance, invertebrate abundance, number of taxa, alien mollusc abundance, and percentage of Insecta.

36  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
KALU

MKPA

UKPA

LLWI

ULWI

HULA

PUNB KALA PUAL

LMAH

HNKP

PUNA

WHOL

WHEE B-99

WKEA

LULU

NUUA

WAIM

WAIW

MANO

KANE

WKAK

WKEL

NWIL

0

20

40

60

80

100

5 10 15 20 25 30

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION 

P-HBIBI

Mild

SITE IMPAIRMENT CATEGORIES 

Moderate Severe

14 22

67

33

Figure 18. Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

Vertical divisions demark the cut-off values marking the high and 

low ranges of the impairment categories. 

Sites not used in the calibration of the P-HBIBI are in italic. See 

table 1 for site names.

Figure 19. Relationship between the reduced environmental 

assessment scores and the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index 

of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) scores for the test sites with vertical 

divisions demarking the cut-off values of the scoring range for 

impairment categories. 

See table 1 for site names.(r2, coefficient of determination)

TREND LINE

CUT-OFF VALUES

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT

 Mild

 Moderate

 Severe

ABBREVIATION OF SAMPLING SITE NAME 

EXPLANATION

UKPA

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORES

(REDUCED)

P-HBIBI

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

r

2

= 0.72

KALA PUAL

HULA

LLWI

ULWI

MKPA

KALU

UKPA

PUNB

14 22

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  37
TREND LINE

CUT-OFF VALUES

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT

 Mild

 Moderate

 Severe

ABBREVIATION OF SAMPLING SITE NAME

EXPLANATION 

UKPA

PUAL

KALA

HULA

LLWI 

MKPA 

KALU

UKPA 

PUNB

ULWI 

NWIL

WKEL

KANE

WKAK

MANO

WAIM 

WAIW 

NUUA

LULU

WKEA

WHEE B-99 

HNKP

WHOL

PUNA

LMAH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10

14 22

15 20 25 30 35

P-HBIBI

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCORES 

(REDUCED) 

r

2

= 0.82

Figure 20. Relationship between the environmental assessment scores and the Preliminary 

Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) scores for all the sites with vertical 

divisions demarking the cut-off values of the scoring range for impairment categories. 

Small markers represent the calibration sites; large markers represent the test sites. See table 

1 for site names. (r2, coefficient of determination).

38  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Site EA scores EA impairment 

category

PCA 

impairment 

category

Reduced EA 

scores

Reduced EA 

impairment 

category

Reduced PCA 

impairment 

category

P-HBIBI 

score

P-HBIBI 

impairment 

category

LMAH1 10 Mild Mild 6 Mild Mild 7 Mild

PUNA1 10 Mild Mild 6 Mild Mild 9 Mild

HNKP1 10 Mild Mild 6 Mild Mild 9 Mild

WHOL1 10 Mild Mild 6 Mild Mild 9 Mild

WHEE C-00 -- -- -- -- -- Mild2 9 Mild

WHEE A-00 -- -- -- -- -- Mild2 11 Mild

WHEE B-00 -- -- -- -- -- Mild2 11 Mild

WHEE B-991 15 Mild Mild 11 Mild Mild 11 Mild

WHEE B-01 -- -- -- -- -- Mild2 13 Mild

PUNB -- -- -- 10 Mild Mild 13 Mild

KALU -- -- -- 11 Mild Mild 15 Moderate

UKPA -- -- -- 7 Mild Mild 15 Moderate

MKPA -- -- -- 11 Mild Moderate 15 Moderate

WKEA1 23 Moderate Moderate 13 Moderate Moderate 15 Moderate

LULU1 25 Moderate Moderate 15 Moderate Moderate 17 Moderate

LLWI -- -- -- 20 Moderate Moderate 19 Moderate

ULWI -- -- -- 15 Moderate Moderate 19 Moderate

NUUA1 34 Moderate Severe 16 Moderate Severe 21 Moderate

WAIM1 34 Moderate Moderate 26 Severe Severe 21 Moderate

WAIW1 34 Moderate Moderate 20 Moderate Severe 21 Moderate

HULA -- -- -- 14 Moderate Moderate 21 Moderate

KALA -- -- -- 20 Moderate Severe 21 Moderate

PUAL -- -- -- 21 Severe Severe 23 Severe

MANO1 42 Severe Severe 24 Severe Severe 25 Severe

WKAK1 37 Severe Severe 23 Severe Severe 27 Severe

KANE1 38 Severe Severe 22 Severe Severe 27 Severe

WKEL1 40 Severe Severe 24 Severe Severe 27 Severe

NWIL1 42 Severe Severe 21 Severe Severe 29 Severe

1Sites used in the calibration of the P-HBIBI and environmental assessment.

 2Category assessed using PCA–used to compare temporal and spatial relationships.

Table 31. Impairment classifications based on Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) and environmental assessment. 

[Abbreviations: EA, Environmental Assessment; P-HBIBI, preliminary Hawaiian benthic index of biotic integrity; PCA, principal components analysis;.

Reduced, no contaminants data included in analysis. Sites in bold are test sites. Sites in italics are multi-year/multi-reach sites. --, not assessed]

Total Invertebrate Abundance

The total abundance of invertebrates typically is 

predicted to decrease with an increase in human disturbance 

in continental settings (Fore and others, 1996; Black and 

MacCoy, 1999) (table 32). Similarly, in Hawaii, decreasing 

total invertebrate abundances are indicative of increasing 

human disturbance. This metric makes no differentiation 

of what taxa are present or more dominant. The reference 

site PUNA had the greatest abundance of invertebrates 

(10,356/m2) and was used to calibrate the range for the 

lowest metric score (table 33). This was more than twice as 

many individual organisms as were collected at any of the 

other reference sites. The total abundance at PUNA was 

generated by a large number (6,722/m2) of the dominant 

taxa, Hydroptila sp. (table 33). Because this metric does not 

Metric Predicted response

(literature)

Predicted response

(Hawaii)

Total number of taxa (taxa 

richness)

Decrease Increase

Total invertebrate abundance Decrease Decrease

Alien mollusc abundance Increase Increase

Amphipod abundance Increase Increase

Percent Insecta -- Decrease

P/A crayfish -- Present

P/A native mountain shrimp -- Absent

Table 32. Final metrics and predicted responses to increased 

perturbation.

[P/A, presence or absence in sample; --, no information]

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  39
distinguish among the taxa, however, sites may have large 

numbers of taxa that are tolerant of disturbance. The fewest 

number of invertebrates were collected in samples at NWIL 

(141/m2) and PUAL (140/m2) on Kauai. These sites were 

assigned an extra scoring range of 7 because these abundances 

were less than the minimum fixed-count conducted by the 

laboratories (minimum count of 300 organisms; NWIL count 

= 174/1.25 m2; PUAL count = 172/1.25 m2). At three of the 

most impaired sites, metric scores were at the high end of the 

scoring range. The XY plot shows the linear relation between 

the environmental assessment scores and the total number of 

invertebrates (r2 = 0.22) (fig. 13A). 

Taxa Richness

The number of distinct taxa was predicted to increase 

with an increase in the level of disturbance (table 32). This 

prediction is in stark contrast to that of most, if not all, of 

the studies on continental streams (Kerans and Karr, 1994; 

Site

Total 

invertebrate 

abundance

First dominant taxa Second dominant taxa

Taxa Abundance Percent of 

total Taxa Abundance Percent of total

HNKP1 2,799 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 862 31 Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. 742 27

LMAH1 4,729 Cricotopus sp. 2,518 53 Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. 845 18

PUNA1 10,356 Hydroptila sp. 6,722 65 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 1,615 16

WHOL1 2,415 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 1,513 63 Cricotopus sp. 358 15

WHEE B-01 6,131 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 3,147 51 Hydroptila sp. 2,016 33

UKPA 877 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 291 33 Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. 274 31

PUNB 4,145 Hydroptila sp. 1,520 37 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 1,372 33

WHEE C-00 5,578 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 2,983 53 Hydroptila sp. 1,999 36

WHEE A-00 10,290 Hydroptila sp. 4,581 45 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 2,613 25

WHEE B-00 6,372 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 2,984 47 Hydroptila sp. 1,996 31

KALU 3,328 Naididae 2,542 76 Cricotopus sp. 538 16

WHEE B-991 3,617 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 1,848 51 Cricotopus sp. 828 23

MKPA 1,331 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 456 34 Cricotopus sp. 357 27

ULWI 880 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 310 35 Ferrissia sharpi 177 20

HULA 2,603 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 967 37 Cricotopus sp. 630 24

WKEA1 276 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 239 87 Cricotopus sp. and Naididae 9 3

LLWI 8,028 Cricotopus sp. 3,808 47 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 3,170 39

PUAL 140 Cricotopus sp. 53 38 Hemerodromia stellaris 41 29

KALA 2,207 Cricotopus sp. 1,660 75 Thiaridae 238 11

LULU1 763 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 307 40 Cricotopus sp. 277 36

WAIM1 9,115 Cheumatopsyche pettiti 5,317 58 Hydroptila sp. 1,557 17

NUUA1 3,583 Cricotopus sp. 1,602 45 Naididae 594 17

WAIW1 1,729 Polypedilum sp. 1,101 64 Cricotopus sp. 262 15

WKAK1 252 Physidae 51 20 Naididae and Cheumatopsyche pettiti 28 11

KANE1 1,018 Thiaridae 358 35 Naididae 160 16

WKEL1 639 Cricotopus sp. 265 41 Thiaridae 149 23

NWIL1 141 Cricotopus sp. 72 51 Thiaridae 26 18

MANO1 302 Thiaridae 98 32 Cricotopus sp. 78 26

1Sites used in the determination of the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) and environmental assessment.

Table 33. Abundances and proportions of the first and second dominant invertebrate taxa in Hawaii streams.

[Sites in bold are test sites; Sites in italics are multi-year/multi-reach sites; Sites sorted by P-HBIBI scores in descending order. Abundances in number of 

individuals per square meter. See table 1 for site names]

Fore and others, 1996; Black and MacCoy, 1999; Weigel and 

others, 2002; Weigel, 2003). This metric is sensitive to the 

editing process used to resolve the occurrences of ambiguous 

taxa and to standardize for laboratory taxonomic resolution 

discussed earlier. As more of the data is grouped into higher 

taxonomic categories, fewer number of distinct taxa are 

counted. 

The linear relation between taxa richness and the 

environmental assessment scores was significant using 

the calibration sites (r2 = 0.40,F = 8.61 p < 0.05, df = 14) 

(fig. 13E) and all the sites combined with the reduced 

environmental assessment scores (r2 = 0.27, F = 8.23, p < 

0.01, df = 23). The reference sites on Kauai, LMAH and 

HNKP, had a total of 15 and 17 taxa, respectively (table 

30). A total of 24 taxa were collected at the Oahu reference 

site PUNA, including 3 species of Trichoptera, 2 molluscs, 

and 2 crustaceans not collected at the other reference sites 

(appendix D). The maximum number of taxa collected at 

a site was 39, at the urban Oahu site KANE. Six urban and 

40 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
mixed sites had greater than 30 taxa present. Most of the 

increase in taxa richness at the impaired sites is attributable 

to the presence of alien molluscs, alien crustaceans, and alien 

dipterans that have found their way into the stream reaches.

Insect Relative Abundance

The relative abundance of insects (the percentage of 

the total abundance that comprises insects) was predicted 

to decrease with an increase in the level of disturbance 

(table 32). This prediction was made after the data analysis 

for the NAWQA program report (Brasher and others, 2004). 

The first and second dominant taxonomic groups of the 

reference sites were insects of the order Trichoptera or of 

the family Chironomidae (table 34). Insects accounted for 

more than 90 percent of the total invertebrate abundances 

at each of the reference sites (table 30). Conversely, insects 

accounted for fewer than 65 percent of the total invertebrate 

abundances at MANO, KANE, WKAK, WKEL, and NWIL. 

At all of the impaired sites, alien molluscs were either the 

first or second dominant taxonomical group. At many of 

the moderately impaired sites, molluscs, annelids, or nonchironomid dipterans were the second dominant taxa. KALU 

had a curiously high percentage of annelids (family Naididae), 

they accounted for 76 percent of the total abundance 

(table 33). There was a significant linear relation between 

insect relative abundance and the environmental assessments 

of the calibration sites (r2 = 0.59; p < 0.0001; F=19.1; df=14) 

and between insect relative abundance and the reduced 

environmental assessment scores using all the sites (r2 = 0.24; 

p < 0.05; F = 6.86; df = 23).

Alien Mollusc Abundance

Abundances of alien molluscs were predicted to increase 

with increasing disturbance (table 32). The list of molluscs 

considered alien to Hawaii included the lymnaeid snail 

Pseudosuccinea columella, the Asiatic clam Corbicula sp., 

and species of the families: Physidae, Planorbidae, Thiaridae, 

and Hydrobiidae. Some of these molluscs were introduced 

as food sources, others were brought into Hawaii through the 

aquarium trade, and some are of an unknown source (Devick, 

1991; Cowie, 1998). Many of the larger non-native fauna, 

including fish, molluscs, and crustaceans, are found in the 

most impaired streams. This is not wholly because they are 

better equipped to survive in polluted water, but also because 

people have accidentally or purposefully introduced them to 

these streams. Unlike most aquatic insects, these animals are 

rarely transported from stream to stream without assistance. 

Because more people live in urban areas, one might expect a 

trend that more aquarium fauna, such as the alien molluscs, 

would be dumped into urban streams than in streams in other, 

less developed areas. Consequently, because urban streams 

tend to be more environmentally impaired, the correlation 

can be made between an increase in non-native fauna with an 

increase in impairment. A Spearman's rank-order correlation 

analysis indicated a significant correlation between alien 

mollusc abundance and the percentage of developed land use 

(rs = 0.75, p < 0.0001). 

Alien molluscs appear to be more tolerant of impaired 

water quality as they were more abundant, proportionally, 

in the impaired streams. These molluscs were the dominant 

taxonomical group at the urban sites MANO and KANE and 

at the mixed site WKAK, on Oahu, and they were the second 

dominant taxonomical group at four other urban and mixed 

sites including KALA, WAIW, WKEL, and NWIL (table 34). 

No alien molluscs were collected in the RTH samples at the 

reference sites or at the other mostly forested sites (table 30). 

Most of the urban land-use sites scored in the upper range of 

this metric. There was a significant linear relation between the 

abundance of alien molluscs and the environmental assessment 

scores for the calibration sites (r2 = 0.40; p < 0.05; F = 8.59; 

df = 14) and for all the sites combined with the reduced 

environmental assessment scores (r2 = 0.46; p < 0.0001; F = 

18.94; df = 23).

Amphipod Abundance

The abundance of amphipods typically is predicted to 

increase with increasing disturbance in continental settings 

(Weigel, 2003) (table 32). In this study, no amphipods were 

collected in the RTH or QMH samples at the reference sites. 

Amphipod abundance was significantly correlated with the 

categorical variable Channel Modification (rs = 0.62; p < 

0.002). Channel Modification was significantly correlated 

with developed land use (rs = 0.79; p < 0.0001), dominant 

bed substrate (rs = -0.74; p < 0.0001), and solar irradiance 

(rs = 0.45; p < 0.05). The calibration site WAIM and the test 

sites LLWI and HULA had comparatively large abundances 

of amphipods, 483/m2, 358/m2, and 391/m2, respectively 

(table 30). These sites were assessed as moderately impaired 

but all three had modified channels and were mixed 

agricultural and urban land-use sites. Amphipods were 

present, in lower numbers, at all the severely impaired sites 

(table 30). Les Watling at the Darling Marine Center identified 

subsamples of the amphipods as Hyalella, close to H. azteca.

Crayfish Presence or Absence

The presence of the crayfish Procambarus clarkii

metric has similarities with the alien mollusc metric in that 

this species was deliberately introduced, as early as 1923, 

as a food source (Brock, 1960; Devick, 1991). Intentional 

releases occurred in the 1920’s and 1930’s and the species is 

now established on the major islands. Commonly called the 

Louisiana crayfish, P. clarkii is now considered a pest species 

in Hawaii because it burrows into stream banks, thereby 

increasing rates of erosion and sedimentation. Like the alien 

molluscs, the presence of the crayfish in impaired streams 

is not wholly because they are better equipped to survive in 

polluted waters, but also because they were released into those 

waters. There is no evidence that the crayfish would not thrive 

if released into “pristine” waters.

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  41
Site Invertebrate 

abundance

First 

dominant

First dominant 

abundance

First 

dominant

(percent)

Second 

dominant

Second 

dominant 

abundance

Second 

dominant

(percent)

Third 

dominant

Third 

dominant 

abundance

Third 

dominant

(percent)

Sum of 

percentages

HNKP1 2,799 Chironomidae 1,544 55 Trichoptera 973 35 Annelida 119 4 94

LMAH1 4,729 Chironomidae 3,363 71 Trichoptera 1,013 21 Diptera 199 4 97

PUNA1 10,356 Trichoptera 8,337 81 Chironomidae 1,210 12 Diptera 458 4 97

WHOL1 2,415 Trichoptera 1,788 74 Chironomidae 382 16 Diptera 94 4 94

WHEE B-01 6,131 Trichoptera 5,163 84 Chironomidae 725 12 Diptera 145 2 98

UKPA 877 Chironomidae 465 53 Trichoptera 291 33 Mollusca 42 5 91

PUNB 4,145 Trichoptera 2,892 70 Chironomidae 494 12 Annelida 323 8 89

WHEE C-00 5,578 Trichoptera 4,982 89 Chironomidae 500 9 Acari 48 1 99

WHEE A-00 10,290 Trichoptera 7,194 70 Chironomidae 1,935 19 Annelida 581 6 94

WHEE B-00 6,372 Trichoptera 4,980 78 Chironomidae 1,008 16 Annelida 222 3 97

KALU 3,328 Annelida 2,553 77 Chironomidae 538 16 Trichoptera 101 3 96

WHEE B-991 3,617 Trichoptera 2,296 63 Chironomidae 851 24 Platyhelminthes 280 8 95

MKPA 1,331 Trichoptera 584 44 Chironomidae 448 34 Diptera 137 10 88

ULWI 880 Trichoptera 310 35 Chironomidae 307 35 Mollusca 180 20 91

HULA 2,603 Trichoptera 1,374 53 Chironomidae 638 25 Amphipoda 391 15 92

WKEA1 276 Trichoptera 239 87 Annelida 15 5 Chironomidae 9 3 95

LLWI 8,028 Chironomidae 3,962 49 Trichoptera 3,502 44 Amphipoda 358 4 97

PUAL 140 Chironomidae 56 40 Diptera 42 30 Trichoptera 15 11 81

KALA 2,207 Chironomidae 1,707 77 Mollusca 262 12 Diptera 158 7 96

LULU1 763 Chironomidae 312 41 Trichoptera 309 40 Diptera 69 9 90

WAIM1 9,115 Trichoptera 6,874 75 Diptera 590 6 Chironomidae 536 6 88

NUUA1 3,583 Chironomidae 1,647 46 Annelida 649 18 Trichoptera 616 17 81

WAIW1 1,729 Chironomidae 1,408 81 Mollusca 98 6 Trichoptera 96 6 93

WKAK1 252 Mollusca 73 29 Chironomidae 69 27 Annelida 50 20 76

KANE1 1,018 Mollusca 420 41 Trichoptera 187 18 Annelida 174 17 77

WKEL1 639 Chironomidae 265 41 Mollusca 252 39 Trichoptera 35 5 86

NWIL1 141 Chironomidae 74 52 Mollusca 37 26 Diptera 12 9 87

MANO1 302 Mollusca 102 34 Chironomidae 80 26 Trichoptera 66 22 82

1Sites used in the determination of the Preliminary Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) and environmental assessment.

Table 34. Abundances and proportions of the first, second, and third dominant invertebrate taxa groups. 

[Sites in bold, test sites; Sites in italics, multi-year/multi-reach sites; Sites sorted by P-HBIBI scores in descending order; Diptera group includes nonchironomid dipterans; Mollusca group does not include native species. See table 1 for site names]

Crayfish were present at 17 sites (including the WHEE 

sites). They were collected in 16 QMH samples, 1 RTH 

sample (also in QMH), and at 1 site where it was not collected 

in QMH or RTH sampling, the collection was supplemented 

with electrofishing data (table 30). Procambarus clarkii

prefers slower water than the riffle habitat sampled for RTH. 

No crayfish were collected at any of the reference sites. 

Crayfish were not present above the diversion at PUNA or 

below the diversion at PUNB, but crayfish have been observed 

in Punaluu Stream farther downstream, where the stream 

channel had been modified.

42  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii

Native Mountain Shrimp (Atyoida bisulcata) Presence or 

Absence

The presence of Atyoida bisulcata, the endemic 

mountain shrimp commonly called opae kalaole, is an 

indicator of higher water quality (Kido and Smith, 1997; 

Kido and others, 1999b). As an amphidromous species, A. 

bisulcata larvae wash out into the ocean, where they spend 

time metamorphosing, returning to freshwater as post-larvae, 

and migrating upstream as juveniles (Kinzie, 1990). This 

species of crustacean is more commonly found at higher 

elevations in the more “pristine” streams; however, juveniles 
have been observed and collected from the lower reaches of 

these streams, most often in the channel margins, during the 

upstream migration. If downstream conditions are impaired 

to the point at which post-larvae or juveniles are unable to 

survive, adult A. bisulcata may not be present at the lessimpaired upstream sites.

The mountain shrimp was collected at all of the reference 

sites, at all of the WHEE sites, and at most of the sites 

with predominantly forested basins. Unpredictably, none 

were collected below the diversion at PUNB; however, the 

effects of this diversion also were evident in other aspects 

of the invertebrate assemblage (Brasher and others, 2004). 

Invertebrate assemblages in Hawaii have been observed to 

vary considerably between sites above and below diversions 

(Kinzie and others, 1997; McIntosh and others, 2002). No 

A. bisulcata were collected at any of the impaired sites. 

Capture of the shrimp varied by collection technique among 

the different sites. The shrimp was collected at 6 sites using 

the RTH collection method in riffles; at 4 sites using the 

QMH D-net method (3 sites overlapping with RTH); and at 

7 sites the list was supplemented with data collected using 

electrofishing methods (table 30).

Temporal and Spatial Variability

The multi-year, multi-reach samples collected from 

Waihee Stream (WHEE) were analyzed separately to examine 

temporal and spatial variability in the P-HBIBI. The multiyear samples were collected at reach B on Waihee Stream 

over a 3-year period. The multi-reach samples were collected 

from three adjacent reaches (A, B, and C) in 2000. A total of 

five samples were analyzed along with five sets of reach-level 

habitat data. Because the land-use data and the contaminants 

data for the Waihee sites were identical, these sites were 

assessed using only the reach-level environmental variables. 

The results of a PCA using the environmental variables show 

that the Waihee sampling sites were more similar to each other 

than to sites on other streams (fig. 21A). The environmental 

assessment methods described earlier classified WHEE B-99 

(reach B sampled in 1999) as a “mild” impairment site; 

consequently, the other Waihee sites were also assessed as 

“mild” sites (table 31). A detrended correspondence analysis 

(DCA) of the invertebrate data, log (x+1) transformed prior 

to analysis, shows that the invertebrate communities at the 

Waihee sites also were more similar to each other than to 

sites on other streams (fig. 21B). The P-HBIBI scoring for the 

Waihee sites range from 9 to 13, with the single 2001 sample 

scoring the highest. All the scores were within the range of the 

“mild” impairment category (table 31).

Total invertebrate abundance ranged from a low of 

3,617/m2 at WHEE B-99 to a high of 10,290/m2 at WHEE 

A-00, with a mean of 6,398/m2 for the 5 sites (table 33). The 

high abundance at WHEE A-00 was due to a large number of 

the trichopteran Hydroptila sp. (4,581/m2), the dominant taxa 

Results of Data Analyses – Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality  43

for that sample (table 33). The trichopteran Cheumatopsyche 

pettiti was the dominant taxa in the four other WHEE 

samples. In all five samples, C. pettiti, Hydroptila sp., and 

Cricotopus sp. were the dominant taxa although not always 

in the same order. Insects accounted for more than 90 percent 

of individuals in the four samples from 2000 and 2001 and 

accounted for 88 percent of the total abundance in the 1999 

sample. Alien molluscs were not collected in the RTH samples 

from 1999 or 2000, but were present in the QMH sample from 

1999 and were collected in the RTH sample from 2001. No 

amphipods were collected in any sample. The native mountain 

shrimp Atyoida bisulcata was present in all the QMH samples 

as was the alien crayfish Procambarus clarkii.

Relations between Land Use, Contaminants, 

and Habitat

The environmental assessments in this study made use 

of the data collected as part of the Oahu NAWQA study. 

One of the goals of the NAWQA study was to describe the 

relation between land use and a range of environmental 

variables. Many associations were found between land use 

and variables including contaminants and habitat (Brasher 

and others, 2004). Drainage basins with large percentages of 

urban land were commonly associated with contaminants such 

as chlordane, dieldrin (a metabolite of the pesticide aldrin), 

and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Brasher and 

Anthony, 2000; Brasher and Wolff, 2004). Predominantly 

agricultural drainages were associated with DDT and its 

degradation products DDD and DDE. Mixed land-use basins 

were associated with both groups of contaminants. The 

organochlorine pesticides chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, and 

DDT were banned in the United States in the 1970s and 

1980s but persist in the soils of the areas in which they were 

applied. Land use also was associated with habitat variables 

determined at the reach or transect scale. Urban residential 

sites were associated with an increase in channel modification 

and decreased canopy cover, agricultural sites were associated 

with higher levels of silt and embeddedness, and urban 

commercial sites were associated with semi-volatile organic 

compounds (Brasher and others, 2004). Levels of traceelement concentrations create another challenge in Hawaiian 

stream sediments and site assessments. First, studies have 

to differentiate between anthropogenic input and naturally 

occurring elevated levels of such elements in the rocks of the 

Hawaiian Islands (De Carlo and Anthony, 2002; De Carlo 

and others, 2004). Secondly, non-point sources of these 

contaminants may not be indicated by land use. For example, 

sources of arsenic (As) have been associated with agricultural 

fertilizers, yet the small percentage (4.2) of agricultural land 

in the WKEA basin is the most likely source of the highest 

concentration of As detected in bed sediments at any of the 

sites in this study (table 15).
!

"

$#!

!


"


"


"


#


0#!

3OLAR

)RRADIANCE

#HANNEL

-ODIFICATION

3ILT

$OMINANT

"ED3UBSTRATE

!


"


"


"


#


6!2)!",%,/!$).'37!)(%%3)4%3/4(%23)4%3

%80,!.!4)/.

Figure 21. Comparison of multi-year and multi-reach samples collected at Waihee Stream at reach B in 1999, 2000, and 2001, and at reaches A and C in 2000. Ordination plots of (A) Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the habitat variables (B) Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) of the invertebrate data. Clustered sites display similar conditions that differ from those at other sites.

44  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
The environmental assessments conducted in this study 

attempted to differentiate among the sites by compounding the 

effects of the various levels of these environmental variables. 

By examining the level 1 land-use percentages and the 

contaminants and habitat characteristics that were associated 

with these percentages, it was possible to distinguish levels 

of impairment among the study reaches, and to extrapolate 

these results to sites where less data were available. Sites that 

scored the highest in the assessments were the most affected 

by anthropogenic activities (table 20). These sites had lower 

percentages of forested land in their drainage basins, a greater 

number of detectable contaminants, higher concentrations 

of these contaminants, and usually had structurally modified 

stream channels and reduced or nonexistent riparian zones. 

Sometimes the effects at the reach scale were confounded 

by restoration of the riparian vegetative zones and stream 

channels artificially filled with boulder/cobble substrate. Such 

was the case at Nawiliwili Stream (NWIL), a site downstream 

of an abandoned sugar cane processing mill, where boulders 

were placed in the modified stream channel adjacent to 

recent residential development. Similarly, at Nuuanu Stream 

(NUUA), an urban Oahu site located within the Queen 

Liliuokalani Botanical Garden, the riparian zone is well 

maintained by the park staff; only a few meters downstream, 

however, the channel is lined with concrete as it extends 

through downtown Honolulu. These restorative techniques can 

enhance the scenic beauty of a site and create habitat for biota, 

but also can superficially mask the effects of degraded water 

quality. 

Land use in Hawaii has undergone significant changes 

in the last century. The growing population and increased 

operational costs have resulted in a conversion from largescale agriculture to urban residential and commercial 

development (Oki and Brasher, 2003). This changing 

landscape creates new projects such as construction, utilities, 

infrastructure, and waste disposal. These projects put 

added pressures on the streams that drain the basins under 

development by increasing sediment input, increasing amounts 

of impervious surfaces and storm drains, dewatering, and 

increased public access and usage. Land-use and land-cover 

information needs to be continually updated to reflect these 

changes.

Relations between Benthic Index of Biotic 

Integrity and Environmental Assessments

The goal of a benthic index of biotic integrity (BIBI) 

for Hawaiian streams is to provide a quick way to assess 

the biological integrity of stream reaches and provide 

managers with a tool to prioritize their efforts. An effective 

BIBI should be able to discern impairment levels of stream 

reaches based on the invertebrate assemblages at the reaches 

and the deviation of these assemblages from reference site 

assemblages. The individual metrics that comprise the BIBI 

also should differentiate between reference sites and impaired 

sites, although each metric may differentiate these sites for 

dissimilar reasons. It is when the metrics are compiled into 

an index that the metric-specific details are replaced with the 

overall impairment level. The calibration of the individual 

metrics depends on the quality of the reference condition. The 

results of the environmental assessments in this study provided 

an objective analysis to determine the most and least impaired 

sites. These least-impaired reference sites were determined 

to be HNKP and LMAH on Kauai and PUNA and WHOL 

on Oahu. The most impaired sites were determined to be 

KANE, WKEL, and MANO (table 20). The individual metrics 

were therefore calibrated to demonstrate deviation from the 

invertebrate assemblages at the reference sites with increases 

in human disturbance. Secondarily, the metrics were calibrated 

to demonstrate the greatest of these deviations that were 

observed at the most severely impaired sites. A between-island 

comparison of the reference site assemblages is discussed 

below.

Reference Condition and BetweenIsland Comparisons

One of the goals of this study was to assess the 

viability of a statewide BIBI for all streams in Hawaii. The 

environmental assessments developed in this study were 

designed to establish a range of conditions, from mildly 

impaired to severely impaired, based on our knowledge of 

what the least impaired site conditions are. This methodology 

uses the “reference condition” as a standard against which 

all other sites are compared. Genuine, statewide reference 

conditions are thought to exist only in remote streams on the 

less populated islands. Kido (2002) used remote “pristine” 

streams on Kauai as the reference conditions for developing 

the Hawaii Stream Bioassessment Protocol (HSBP) with the 

understanding that biologically pristine streams are in reality 

“minimally impacted” streams in Hawaii. The NAWQA 

program was limited to studying streams on Oahu, with 

reference condition sites chosen as those that had the least 

amount of human disturbance (Brasher and others, 2004). 

After the reference condition sites are chosen, the biological 

assemblages of those sites become the standard to which 

all others are compared with metrics designed to score sites 

according to deviation from the reference condition.

The state of Hawaii comprises 8 main islands that range 

in age from about 5.5 million years (Kauai) to less than 1 

million years (Hawaii) (Armstrong, 1983). The state of Hawaii 

was not included in Omernik’s framework of ecoregions 

(Omernik, 1987), geographic regions with similar geology, 

soils, vegetative cover, and climate. Ecoregions have been 

used for comparing biological communities based on the 

concept that the biological assemblages within the same 

homogenous ecoregion are similar, the natural variations 

among these biological assemblages are predictable, and 

Reference Condition and Between-Island Comparisons  45
responses to disturbance can be observed by comparison with 

a reference site in the same ecoregion (Hughes and Larsen, 

1988; Hughes, 1989; Omernik and Bailey, 1997). The State of 

Hawaii often has been regionalized by island, and each island 

has traditionally been regionalized as leeward or windward. 

The HSBP reference condition is applied statewide for the 

native fish, mollusc, and crustacean assemblages because 

their amphidromous life histories allow them to inhabit all the 

islands (Kido, 2002). This study investigated whether or not 

there are differences in the invertebrate assemblages between 

the islands of Kauai and Oahu.

The environmental assessment scored two Kauai sites, 

HNKP and LMAH, and two Oahu sites, PUNA and WHOL 

as the least impaired sites, all scoring the low score of 10 

(table 20). These 100 percent forested sites had natural stream 

channels and were assumed to have minimal concentrations 

of contaminants. The plot of the results of the PCA of the 

environmental data grouped these sites very near to one 

another, indicating that the sites had similar habitats (fig. 

7). Access to these sites is limited, though some allow entry 

to hikers and hunters. Because these sites were selected as 

the reference condition sites, the P-HBIBI was compiled 

from metrics that scored these sites as having the highest 

biotic integrity. Other candidate metrics that demonstrated 

considerable differences between the invertebrate assemblages 

at the reference sites were omitted from the final index.

The invertebrate assemblages collected at reference sites 

on the two islands displayed a number of differences. Taxa 

richness was higher at PUNA than at the other reference sites. 

One possible contributing factor for this difference could be 

the randomn sub-sampling and the lack of replicate samples. 

Taxa that are not numerous in the main body of the sample 

have less chance of being included in the randomly chosen 

sub-sample. Another possible factor is that the more urban and 

populated island of Oahu has a greater chance of having more 

alien introductions than Kauai because of the greater amount 

of international traffic on Oahu. The total taxa abundance was 

much higher at PUNA due to a large number of Hydroptila in 

the sample (table 35). The PUNA sample had more than twice 

the total abundance of invertebrates than the second most 

abundant reference site sample from LMAH, and more than 

three times the total abundance of invertebrates from WHOL 

and HNKP. The total invertebrate abundances at reference 

sites are controlled more by population dynamics than by 

water-quality limitations.

The most obvious difference between the islands was the 

dominant taxa at the reference sites. On Oahu, the dominant 

taxonomic group was the insect order Trichoptera; while 

on Kauai the dominant taxonomic group was the insect 

family Chironomidae (table 35). At the genus level, the 

trichopteran Hydroptila sp. was the dominant taxa at PUNA 

(65 percent), the trichopteran Cheumatopsyche pettiti was 

dominant at WHOL (63 percent) and HNKP (31 percent) 

and the chironomid Cricotopus sp. was dominant at LMAH 

(53 percent). The PUNA sample had a very high abundance 

of Hydroptila (6,722/m2) compared to all the other samples. 

The second dominant genus in the LMAH sample was also 

a chironomid midge, Eukiefferiella. Although four of these 

taxa were collected at all the reference sites, the abundances 

and proportions varied. Large proportions of chironomids are 

typically indicators of degraded water quality in continental 

settings; however, because the LMAH site is a “pristine” 

stream reach, the large abundance of chironomids must be 

attributable to other factors.

Other notable differences in the macroinvertebrate 

assemblages among the reference sites included:

• A much larger abundance of the dipteran insect 

Hemerodromia stellaris (family: Empididae) was 

collected at the PUNA site. Proportionally, H. stellaris

abundance was similar at PUNA (4.2 percent), WHOL 

(3.6 percent), and LMAH (3.6 percent) but was much 

lower at HNKP (0.6 percent).

• The endemic dipteran insect genus Procanace (family: 

Canacidae) was collected only in the samples from 

HNKP and PUNA. This sensitive taxon was suggested 

as a possible indicator species, but it was rare in the 

samples. Other recommended sensitive indicator taxa, 

Telmatogeton and Scatella, were not collected in any 

samples.

Site

Total

Trichoptera Chironomidae

Cheumatopsyche 

pettiti Hydroptila sp. Cricotopus sp. Eukiefferiella sp.

A A Pct A Pct A Pct A Pct A Pct A Pct

HNKP 2,799 973 35 862 31 111 4 1,544 55 683 24 742 27

LMAH 4,729 1,013 21 430 9 583 12 3,363 71 2,518 53 845 18

PUNA 10,356 8,337 81 1,615 16 6,722 65 1,210 12 1,109 11 101 1

WHOL 2,415 1,788 74 1,513 63 275 11 382 16 358 15 24 1

Table 35. Abundances and proportions of the trichopterans and chironomids from the reference condition sites.

[Abbreviation: A, abundance in -number of individuals per square meter; Pct, percent of site total. Numbers in Bold indicate the dominant genus. See table 1

for site names]

46  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Integrating Macroinvertebrates and 

Existing Bioassessment Protocols

The purpose of applying rapid bioassessment techniques 

is to identify stream quality problems and document long-term 

regional changes in a cost-effective way (Lenat and Barbour, 

1994; Resh and Jackson, 1993). Thus it would be beneficial to 

streamline the sampling protocols so the Hawaii Department 

of Health (HDOH) staff could reduce the time and cost for 

sampling and processing the macroinvertebrate samples. 

A streamlined sampling protocol would enable personnel 

with moderate training to collect and process invertebrate 

samples for stream monitoring. The sampling and processing 

protocols used in this study followed the NAWQA protocols 

(Cuffney and others, 1993; Moulton and others, 2000) with 

some slight modifications for Hawaiian streams (Brasher and 

others, 2004). The invertebrate sampling and on-site habitat 

assessments required a minimum of three personnel, although 

a field crew of four was optimal. The final crew consisted 

of an aquatic biologist with expertise in invertebrates, while 

the other members of the field crew were trained hydrologic 

technicians. One full day was required to collect and fieldprocess the invertebrate samples and the habitat data for each 

site. After all the samples were collected, they were packed 

and shipped to the laboratory in compliance with all state and 

federal regulations. A number of governmental and private 

laboratories employ expert taxonomists that specialize in this 

type of work, including the USGS National Water Quality 

Laboratory (NWQL) Biological Unit, and EcoAnalysts, Inc., 

the two laboratories used during this study. The turnover time 

of the laboratory depended on the number of samples sent 

and the laboratory workload but generally took 3 to 6 months. 

The laboratory results were returned in spreadsheet form 

and a statistician/aquatic ecologist interpreted the data. The 

fundamental costs incurred during this study included those 

for field materials, labor, travel, shipping, and a per-sample 

analysis charge (varied among laboratories). 

The HDOH already makes use of two stream assessment 

protocols created for Hawaiian streams on the basis of onsite habitat measurements and visual observations of stream 

fish, molluscs, and crustaceans (Burr, 2001; Burr, 2003; 

Henderson, 2003; Paul and others, 2004). The Hawaii Stream 

Bioassessment Protocol (HSBP) consists of a detailed habitat 

assessment and a multimetric assessment of the stream 

macrofauna (Smith, 1998; Kido and others, 1999b; Kido, 

2002). A field crew of three trained personnel is recommended 

to complete the assessment in approximately 3 hours. The 

biological metrics assess the native macrofaunal communities 

and native fish species in comparison to the alien macrofaunal 

communities. The observations of macrofauna are made using 

snorkeling surveys, or electrofishing where snorkeling is not 

feasible. These metrics include:

• Number of native amphidromous macrofauna

• Percentage of contribution native taxa

• Percentage of sensitive native taxa

• Sensitive native fish density

• Sensitive native fish size

• Awaous guamensis (oopu nakea) size

• Total native fish density

• Community weighted average

• Number of alien taxa

• Percentage of tolerant alien fish

• Percentage of diseased native fish 

The second assessment protocol is the Hawaii Stream 

Visual Assessment Protocol (HSVAP) developed by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture National Research Conservation 

Service (NRCS) (Kelley, 2001). Like the HSBP, the HSVAP 

already is being used by the HDOH (Burr, 2001; Henderson, 

2003; Paul and others, 2004). The HSVAP was designed as a 

basic water quality evaluation technique centered on on-site 

habitat parameters so that minimally trained conservationists 

could conduct the survey. This protocol does not require any 

special biological training or even entering the water. A very 

descriptive set of conditions and a range of scores for each 

condition are used to assess each of the following parameters:

• Stream turbidity

• Plant growth

• Channel condition

• Channel flow alteration

• Percentage of embeddedness

• Bank stability

• Canopy/shade

• Riparian condition 

• Habitat available for native species 

• Litter/trash 

Integrating Macroinvertebrates and Existing Bioassessment Protocols  47
The first steps in streamlining the protocols of this study 

would be to use the habitat evaluation of either the HSBP 

or HSVAP. There is a great deal of overlap in the habitat 

parameters being measured in all three protocols (HSBP, 

HSVAP, and NAWQA protocols). The hydrologic parameters 

determined in the NAWQA protocol require specialized 

equipment and training and this level of scientific information 

may not be necessary for the HDOH for its evaluations of site 

conditions. Many habitat parameters also are correlated with 

each other and therefore a measurement of one parameter may 

suffice for a group of associated parameters. 

The major difference between the P-HBIBI for Hawaii 

and the HSBP is that the invertebrates incorporated into 

the HSBP include only the larger molluscs and crustaceans 

(Kido, 2002). The HSBP does not include any of the other 

invertebrates, such as insects, found in Hawaiian streams. 

The results of this study are in agreement with the HSBP 

that the presence of Procambarus clarkii is an indicator 

of impaired biotic integrity, while the presence of Atyoida 

bisulcata is an indicator of better biotic integrity. The data for 

these two P-HBIBI metrics can be collected simultaneously 

with the HSBP. A third P-HBIBI metric, the abundance of 

alien molluscs, also can be estimated simultaneously with the 

HSBP, when using snorkeling surveys, with some training and 

taxonomical knowledge of what the alien molluscs look like. 

When in doubt, samples of the molluscs could be collected 

and identified by experienced taxonomists. Rough estimates 

of the abundance of these molluscs within a square meter 

should not be difficult. When snorkeling surveys cannot be 

conducted, a D-frame kick net can be used to collect alien 

molluscs from wadeable areas within a stream reach. An 

excellent source of information and photographs of these 

macrofauna are available in Yamamoto and Tagawa (2000).

The more difficult P-HBIBI metrics to accomplish are 

those dealing with estimates of abundance of very small taxa. 

These metrics include the total invertebrate abundance, the 

abundance of amphipods, the relative abundance of insects, 

and the total number of taxa. Because these metrics are 

abundance based, the densities (number of individuals/unit 

area) need to be estimated per unit area, in this case square 

meters. The data for two of these metrics, the percentage 

abundance of insects and the total number of taxa, also require 

a higher level of taxonomic knowledge. Comprehensive 

taxonomic keys include: 

• Merritt and Cummins (1984) aquatic insects

• Usinger (1971) aquatic insects

• Thorp and Covich (1991) aquatic invertebrates

• Peckarsky and others (1990) aquatic invertebrates

• Insects of Hawaii - University of Hawaii Press (17 

volumes)

Need for Additional Information

The study described in this report was the first attempt in 

the Hawaiian Islands at developing and testing the quantifiable 

attributes of benthic invertebrate assemblages to understand 

the effects of degraded water quality on the biotic integrity 

of those assemblages. The study was limited to the islands of 

Kauai and Oahu and relied a great deal on the invertebrate data 

collected specifically as part of the Oahu NAWQA study. The 

results of this study cannot, with confidence, be extrapolated 

to streams on the other islands of Hawaii without sampling an 

assortment of streams, and testing and refining the P-HBIBI 

developed in this study. 

The number of sites sampled was relatively small in 

comparison to the number sampled in many of the studies 

on continental streams. More samples, including replicate 

samples, would be required to develop a better understanding 

of the variability in the assemblages. Additionally, most of 

the streams sampled in this study were sampled at only one 

or at most two locations. Many streams in Hawaii begin in 

the steep, mountainous, forested conservation districts and 

continue downstream through agricultural land, and finally 

flow through coastal urban areas before discharging into the 

ocean. Sampling sites should be located at various points 

along this continuum to determine how the invertebrate 

assemblages are affected by changes in elevation and land 

use. This same concept should be applied to streams that are 

completely within conservation districts to ascertain the effects 

of elevation and distance on the invertebrate assemblages 

under reference conditions. Further refinement of the BIBI 

would make it a more robust indicator of water quality and 

therefore a better management tool.

Summary and Conclusions

Environmental variables at sampling sites on streams 

in Hawaii, including land use, contaminants, and reach-level 

parameters, and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, were 

evaluated. Macroinvertebrates were collected from 19 sites on 

14 streams on the island of Oahu and from 9 sites on 7 streams 

on the island of Kauai. The sites were selected to represent a 

range of land use including conservation, urban, agricultural, 

and mixed land-use watersheds. Invertebrates were collected 

at each site using both qualitative and quantitative sampling 

methods. Environmental variables were determined at a range 

of spatial scales including basin, reach, transect, and point. 

The 1972 Federal Clean Water Act requires states to 

restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation’s 

surface waters. The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) 

is required to submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency a list of all waterbodies (estuaries, harbors, coastal 

waters, and streams) that do not meet state water quality 

48  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
standards. The HDOH is required to rank and prioritize 

the list of impaired waters according to the severity of the 

impairment and the instream and offstream uses of the waters. 

HDOH currently uses two site evaluation protocols, the 

Hawaii Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (HSVAP), based 

on habitat parameters, and the Hawaii Stream Bioassessment 

Protocol (HSBP), based on habitat characteristics and 

macrofauna metrics, including fish, crustaceans, and molluscs. 

The goal of this study was to evaluate the possibility of 

developing a multimetric-based index of biotic integrity 

(BIBI) for Hawaiian streams based on attributes of the benthic 

macroinvertebrate assemblages. In the future, a BIBI could be 

incorporated into the HDOH site evaluations to better enable 

the HDOH to prioritize the list of impaired waters.

Site conditions were evaluated using various 

environmental criteria to classify the stream reaches from 

the most “pristine” reference conditions to the most severely 

degraded conditions. Sites were scored and classified using a 

combination of seven land-use, seven contaminant, and four 

habitat parameters. There was a relation between increasing 

urban and agricultural land use with an increase in the number 

of detections and the concentrations of contaminants. Habitat 

quality decreased with a decrease in forested land, and with 

increasing urbanization and agriculture in the watersheds. 

Watersheds with large percentages of urban land were 

associated with contaminants such as chlordane, dieldrin, and 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. DDT and its degradation 

products DDE and DDD were associated with predominantly 

agricultural watersheds, whereas both groups of contaminants 

were found in mixed land-use watersheds. Decreased canopy 

cover and increased channel modification were associated 

with urban residential sites, semi-volatile organic compounds 

were associated with urban commercial sites, and higher levels 

of silt and embeddedness were associated with agricultural 

sites. The most impaired sites were determined to be Waikele 

Stream (WKEL), Nawiliwili Stream (NWIL), and Manoa 

Stream (MANO) while the reference condition sites were 

Limahuli Stream (LMAH) and Hanakapiai Stream (HNKP) 

on Kauai and Punaluu Stream above the diversion (PUNA) on 

Oahu.

Macroinvertebrate assemblages were examined and 

various metrics were tested to determine the degree to which 

these attributes could distinguish between reference conditions 

and severely impaired conditions. The preliminary Hawaiian 

benthic index of biotic integrity (P-HBIBI) comprises seven 

core metrics that were calibrated as the best collection of 

metrics for distinguishing between site conditions. These 

metrics were: total invertebrate abundance, taxa richness, 

insect relative abundance, amphipod abundance, crayfish 

presence or absence, and native mountain shrimp presence or 

absence. 

Total invertebrate abundance (total number of 

individuals) was lower at urban and mixed land-use sites than 

at forested sites. In contrast, taxa richness (the number of 

different taxa) was higher at urban and mixed land-use sites. 

The majority of invertebrates identified during this study were 

alien introductions. In a “pristine” Hawaiian stream, taxa 

richness is expected to be inherently low, while in the more 

degraded streams, the pollution-tolerant alien taxa flourish. 

Insect relative abundance decreased with an increase in 

the level of disturbance. Reference sites were predominantly 

(greater than 90 percent of total abundance) insects of the 

order Trichoptera or of the family Chironomidae, while insects 

accounted for less than 65 percent of the total abundance 

at impaired sites. Alien mollusc abundance increased with 

increasing levels of disturbance. Molluscs such as the Asiatic 

clam Corbicula sp., and species of the families Physidae, 

Planorbidae, and Thiaridae appeared to be more tolerant of 

impaired water quality. 

The abundance of amphipods increased with increasing 

levels of disturbance. No amphipods were collected at the 

reference sites, but they were present at all of the severely 

impaired sites, whereas three moderately impaired mixed 

land-use sites had extremely high abundances. No crayfish 

were collected at any of the reference sites but they were 

present at most of the impaired sites. The mountain shrimp

Atyoida bisulcata was collected at all reference sites and at 

most forested sites, but none were collected at the severely 

impaired sites.

The P-HBIBI was calibrated using attributes that were 

similar among the invertebrate assemblages at the reference 

condition sites. A comparison of the invertebrate assemblages 

from the reference sites indicated some differences between 

the islands assemblages. Although insects were dominant 

at the reference sites (greater than 90 percent of the total 

abundance) the taxa that comprised the Insecta component 

varied among the sites. The dominant taxonomic group 

on Oahu was the insect order Trichoptera while the 

dominant taxonomic group on Kauai was the insect family 

Chironomidae. At a lower taxonomic resolution, on Oahu, the 

trichopteran Hydroptila sp. was the dominant taxa at Punaluu 

Stream above the diversion (PUNA), while the trichopteran 

Cheumatopsyche pettiti was dominant at Waiahole Stream 

(WHOL). On Kauai, C. pettiti was dominant at Hanakapiai 

Stream (HNKP) while the chironomid Cricotopus sp. 

was dominant at Limahuli Stream (LMAH). Additional 

information is required to resolve this difference in the 

preference of dominant taxa at “pristine” sites.

Temporal and spatial variability was analyzed using 

multiple year and multiple reach samples collected from 

adjacent reaches in Waihee Stream on Oahu. Although there 

were some differences among the samples, the P-HBIBI 

scored all the sites as only “mildly” impaired. Multivariate 

analysis also showed that the invertebrate assemblages at 

these sites were similar to each other and to other “mildly” 

impaired sites by grouping these sites close to each other in 

the ordination plot.

This study provides valuable information needed for an 

integrated assessment of stream quality in Hawaii and the 

development of appropriate monitoring and management 

Summary and Conclusions  49
strategies. The ability of the P-HBIBI developed to discern 

levels of impairment in Hawaiian streams could provide the 

HDOH one more tool in their stream assessment toolbox. 

Further refinement and calibration would make the Hawaii 

Stream BIBI a more robust resource for monitoring programs 

to rely on. Future refinements may reveal the forces that shape 

the invertebrate communities and lead to predictive models 

that could be used to forecast the effects of anthropogenic 

activities.

References Cited

Armstrong, R.W., 1983, editor, Atlas of Hawaii (2nd ed.): 

University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 238 p.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 

1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in wadeable 

streams and rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, 

and fish, Second edition: EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; 

Washington, D.C., 339 p.

Black, R.W., and MacCoy, D.E., 1999, The development and 

evaluation of a benthic index of biological integrity for 

the Cedar River watershed, Washington: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4203, 

92 p.

Brasher, A.M.D., and Anthony, S.S., 2000, Occurrence of 

organochlorine pesticides in stream bed sediment and fish 

from selected streams on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, 1998: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-140-00, 6 p.

Brasher, A.M.D., Wolff, R.H., and Luton, C.D., 2004, 

Associations among land use, habitat characteristics, and 

invertebrate community structure in nine streams on the 

island of Oahu, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 03-4256, 47 p.

Brasher, A.M.D. and Wolff, R.H., 2004, Relations between 

land use and organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and semivolatile organic compounds in streambed sediment and fish 

on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. Arch. Environ. Contam. 

Toxicol., v 46, no. 3, p. 385-399.

Brock, V.E., 1960, The introduction of aquatic animals into 

Hawaiian waters: Revue ges. Hydrobiol., v. 45, p. 463-480.

Brown, L.R. and Short, T.M., 1999, Biological, habitat, 

and water quality conditions in the Upper Merced River 

drainage, Yosemite National Park, California, 1993-1996: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99-4088, 56 p.

Burr, S., 2001, Kawa Stream bioassessment, Department of 

Health, Honolulu, Hawaii, 18 p.

Burr, S., 2003, Final Kaneohe Stream bioassessment: 

Department of Health, Honolulu, Hawaii, 21 p.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999, 

Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of 

aquatic life: Summary tables, in Canadian environmental 

quality guidelines, 1999: Canadian Council of Ministers 

of the Environment, Winnipeg, Canada, accessed April 

11, 2002 at URL http://www.ccme.ca/publications/can_

guidelines.html#110.

Carlquist, Sherwin, 1980, Hawaii a natural history: Pacific 

Tropical Botanical Garden, 468 p.

Cowie, R.H., 1998, Patterns of introduction of non-indigenous 

non-marine snails and slugs in the Hawaiian Islands: 

Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 7, p. 349-368.

Crawford, J.K. and Luoma, S.N., 1993, Guidelines for studies 

of contaminants in biological tissues for the National WaterQuality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 94-458, 69 p.

Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, Methods 

for collecting benthic invertebrate samples as part of 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-406, 66 p.

Cuffney, T.F., 2003, User's manual for the National WaterQuality Assessment Program invertebrate data analysis 

system (IDAS) software: version 3: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 03-172, 103 p.

De Carlo, E.H., and Anthony, S.S., 2002, Spatial and 

temporal variability of trace element concentrations in an 

urban subtropical watershed, Honolulu, Hawaii: Applied 

Geochemistry, no. 17, p. 475-492.

De Carlo, E.H., Beltran, V.L., and Tomlinson, M.S., 2004, 

Composition of water and suspended sediment in streams 

of urbanized subtropical watersheds in Hawaii: Applied 

Geochemistry, no. 19, p. 1011-1037.

Devick, W.S., 1991, Patterns of introductions of aquatic 

organisms to Hawaiian fresh waters, in New directions 

in research, management and conservation of Hawaiian 

freshwater stream ecosystems: Division of Land and Natural 

Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Proceedings of 

the 1990 Symposium on Freshwater Stream Biology and 

Fisheries Management, p. 189-213.

Eash, D.A., 1994, A geographic information system procedure 

to quantify drainage-basin characteristics: Water Resources 

Bulletin, v. 30, p. 1-8.

Eldredge, L. G., 1992, Unwanted strangers: An overview of 

animals introduced to Pacific Islands: Pacific Science, no. 

46, p. 384-386.

Evenhuis, N.L., 2000, New Hawaiian Diptera records, with 

special reference to the Diptera of Kaho‘olaw: Bishop 

Museum Occasional Papers, v. 64, p. 22-27.

50 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Fitzpatrick, F.A., Waite, I.R., D’Arconte, P.J., Meador, M.R., 

Maupin, M.A., and Gurtz, M.E., 1998, Revised methods for 

characterizing stream habitat in the National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98-4052, 67 p.

Fitzsimmons, J.M., Zink, R.M., and Nishimoto, R.T., 1990, 

Genetic variation in the Hawaiian stream goby, Lentipes 

concolor: Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, v. 18, 

no. 1, p. 81-83.

Font, W.F., and Tate, D.C., 1994, Helminth parasites of 

native Hawaiian freshwater fishes: an example of extreme 

ecological isolation: The Journal of Parasitology, v. 80, 

no. 5, p. 682-688.

Ford, J. I., and Kinzie III, R. A., 1982. Life crawls upstream, 

Natural History, v. 91, p. 60-67.

Fore, L.S., Karr, J.R, and Wisseman, R.W., 1996, Assessing 

invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluating 

alternative approaches: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 16, p. 212-231.

Henderson, Katina and Harrigan-Lum, June, 2002, 2002 

List of impaired waters prepared under Clean Water Act 

§303(d): Hawaii State Department of Health, 61 p.

Henderson, K.D., 2003, Final Waikele Stream bioassessment: 

Department of Health, Honolulu, Hawaii, 26 p.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1988, Rapid field assessment of organic 

pollution with a family-level biotic index: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 7, p. 65-68.

Howarth, F.G. and Mull, W.P., 1992, Hawaiian insects and 

their Kin: University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 160 p.

Howarth, F.G., and Polhemus, D.A., 1991, A review of 

the Hawaiian stream insect fauna, in New directions in 

research, management and conservation of Hawaiian 

freshwater stream ecosystems: Division of Land and Natural 

Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Proceedings of 

the 1990 Symposium on Freshwater Stream Biology and 

Fisheries Management, p. 40-50.

Hughes, R.M., 1989, Ecoregional biological criteria. Water 

Quality Standards for the 21st Century 1989, p. 147–151.

Hughes, R.M., and Larsen, D.P., 1988, Ecoregions: an 

approach to surface water protection. Journal of the Water 

Pollution Control Federation 60, p. 486–493.

Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W., 1997, Biological monitoring and 

assessment: Using multimetric indexes effectively: Seattle, 

University of Washington, USEPA 235-R97-001, 149 p.

Kelley, T., 2001, Hawaii Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, 

Version 1.0: United States Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 9 p.

Kerans, B.L., and Karr, J.R., 1994, A benthic index of 

biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley: 

Ecological Applications, v. 4, p. 768-785.

Kido, M.H., 2002, The Hawaii Stream Bioassessment 

Protocol: Version 3.01, University of Hawaii: The Hawaii 

Stream Research Center.

Kido, M.H., and Smith, G.C., 1997, Biocriteria for assessing 

the biological integrity of Hawaii’s streams: Hawaii 

Stream Research Center, University of Hawaii Center for 

Conservation Research and Training, Paper presented at the 

1997 Conservation Conference, July 24-25, Maui, Hawaii, 

accessed July 28, 2004, at http://www.hawaii.edu/hsrc/

home/biocritr.htm.

Kido, M.H., Heacock, D.E., and Asquith, A., 1999a, Alien 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Salmoniformes: 

Salmonidae) diet in Hawaiian streams: Pacific Science, 

v. 53 p. 242-251.

Kido, M.H., Smith, G.C., and Heacock, D.E., 1999b, The 

Hawaii stream bioassessment protocol: A manual for 

biological monitoring and assessment of Hawaiian streams: 

Hawaii Stream Research Center, 44 p.

Kinzie III, R.A., 1990, Species profiles: Life histories 

and environmental requirements of coastal vertebrates 

and invertebrates, Pacific Ocean Region; Report 3, 

Amphidromous macrofauna of island streams: Technical 

Report EL-89-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 31 p.

Kinzie III, R.A., Chong, C., Devrell, J., Lindstrom, D., Moser, 

D., and Wolff, R., 1997, Final report on “effect of flow 

regimes on productivity in Hawaiian stream ecosystems”: 

DNLR, Division of Aquatic Resources, 90 p.

Kirch, P.V., 1982, The impact of prehistoric Polynesians on the 

Hawaiian ecosystem: Pacific Science, v. 36(1) p. 1-14.

Klasner, F.L., and Mikami, C.D., 2003, Land use on the island 

of Oahu, 1998: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02-4031, 20 p.

Koch, L., Harrigan-Lum, J. and Henderson, K., 2004, 2004 

list of impaired waters prepared under Clean Water Act 

§303(d): Hawaii State Department of Health, 67 p.

Kondratieff, B.C., Bishop, R.J., and Brasher, A.M., 1997, 

The life cycle of an introduced caddisfly, Cheumatopsyche 

pettiti (Banks) (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) in Waikolu 

Stream, Molokai, Hawaii: Hydrobiologia, no. 350, p. 81–85.

Kovach, W.L., 1998, MVSP- A multivariate statistical package 

for Windows, ver. 3.0: Pentraeth, Wales, Kovach Computing 

Services, 127 p.

Leavesley, G.H., Viger, R.J., Markstrom, S.L., and 

Brewer, M.S., 1997, A modular approach to integrating 

environmental modeling and GIS in Proceedings 15th 

IMACS World Congress on Scientific Computation, 

Modeling, and Applied Mathematics: Berlin, Germany, 

August 24-29, 1997, 7 p.

References Cited  51
Lenat, D.R. and Barbour, M.T. 1994, Using benthic 

macroinvertebrate community structure for rapid, costeffective, water quality monitoring: Rapid bioassessment, 

in Loeb, S.L. and Spacie, A., eds., Biological monitoring of 

aquatic systems: Boca Raton, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, 

Inc., p. 187-215.

Lenat, D.R., and Penrose, D.P., 1996, History of the EPT taxa 

richness metric: Bull. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., v. 13, p. 305-

306.

Maciolek, J.A., 1984, Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other islands 

of Oceania, IN Courtenay, W.R. Jr., and Stauffer, J.R. Jr., 

eds., Distribution, biology, and management of exotic 

fishes: Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 

p. 131-161.

Majure, J.J., and Soenksen, P.J., 1991, Using a geographic 

information system to determine physical basin 

characteristics for use in flood-frequency equations, in

Balthrop, B.H., and Terry, J.E., eds., U.S. Geological Survey 

National Computer Technology Meeting—Proceedings, 

Phoenix, Arizona, November 14-18, 1988: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4162, p. 

31-40.

Mandaville, S.M. 2002, Benthic macroinvertebrates in 

freshwaters- taxa tolerance values, metrics, and protocols: 

Project H-1, Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro 

Halifax, 120 p.

Maret, T.R., MacCoy, D.E., Skinner, D.D., Moore, S.E., 

and O’Dell, I., 2001, Evaluation of macroinvertebrate 

assemblages in Idaho rivers using multimetric and 

multivariate techniques, 1996-98: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4145, 69 p.

McIntosh, M.D., Benbow, M.E., and Way, A.J., 2002, Effects 

of stream diversion on riffle macroinvertebrate communities 

in a Maui, Hawaii, stream: River Research and Application, 

18 p.

Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W., eds, 1984, An introduction 

to the aquatic insects of North America, (2nd ed.): 

Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 722 p.

Moulton, S.R. II, Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, T.F. 

and Short, T.M., 2000, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Processing, taxonomy, and quality control of benthic 

macroinvertebrate samples: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 00-212, 49 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000, 

Kauai 2000 land cover data: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center, 

accessed August 1, 2003, at URL http://www.csc.noaa.

gov/crs/lca/hawaii.html.

Newell, A.J., Johnson, D.W., and Allen, L.K., 1987, Niagara 

River biota contamination project: Fish flesh criteria 

for piscivorous wildlife: New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 

Bureau of Environmental Protection Technical Report 87-3, 

182 p.

Nishida, G.M., ed, 2002, Hawaiian terrestrial arthropod 

checklist, fourth edition: Bishop Museum Technical Report 

No. 24, 313 p.

Oki, D.S., and Brasher, A.M.D., 2003, Environmental setting 

and the effects of natural and human-related factors on 

water quality and aquatic biota, Oahu, Hawaii: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4156, 98 p.

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 

v. 77, p. 118–125.

Omernik, J.M., and Bailey, R.G., 1997, Distinguishing 

between watersheds and ecoregions: Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association, v. 33, p. 935–949.

Paul, M.J., Pavlik, K.L., and Henderson, K.H., 2004, 

Stream condition along a disturbance gradient on Kauai: 

Strengthening Hawaiian stream assessment: Prepared by 

Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD for State of Hawaii, 

Department of Health, Environmental Planning Office, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 64 p.

Peckarsky, B.L., Fraissinet, P.R., Penton, M.A., and 

Conklin, D.J., Jr., 1990, Freshwater macroinvertebrates 

of Northeastern North America: Cornell University Press, 

Ithaca, New York, 442 p.

Polhemus, D.A., 1997, Damsels in distress: a review of the 

conservation status of Hawaiian Megalagrion damselflies 

(Odonata: Coenagrionidae): accessed on July 28, 2004 

at http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/natsci/ento/

Megalagrion/htmlPages/Mega01.shtml.

52  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Resh, V. H., and Jackson, J.K., 1993, Rapid assessment 

approaches to biomonitoring using benthic 

macroinvertebrates, in Rosenberg, D.M. and Resh, 

V.H., eds., Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic 

macroinvertebrates: New York, Chapman and Hall, 

p. 195-233.

Rosenberg, D.M., and Resh, V.H., 1993, Introduction to 

freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates, 

in Rosenberg, D.M. and Resh, V.H., eds., Freshwater 

biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates: New York, 

Chapman and Hall, p. 1-9.

Rowe, B.L., Landrigan, S.J., and Lopes, T.J., 1997, Summary 

of published aquatic toxicity information and water-quality 

criteria for selected volatile organic compounds: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-563, 60 p.

SAS Institute Inc., 1993, SAS procedures guide, version 6, 

(3rd ed.): Cary, North Carolina, SAS Institute Inc., 705 p.

SAS Institute Inc., 1999, SAS/QC User's Guide, version 8: 

Cary, North Carolina, SAS Institute Inc., 705 p.

Shelton, L.R., and Capel, P.D., 1994, Guidelines for collecting 

and processing samples of stream bed sediment for analysis 

of trace elements and organic contaminants for the National 

Water-Quality Assessment program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 94-458, 20 p.

Simberloff, D., 1995, Why do introduced species appear 

to devastate islands more than mainland areas?: Pacific 

Science, v. 49, p. 87-97.

Smith, G.C., 1998, Biological assessment and habitat 

characterization of Waimanalo Stream—Establishing 

environmental goals and a TMDL for watershed 

management: Stream Bioassessment Program, 

Environmental Planning Office, Hawaii Department of 

Health, 33 p.

Smith, G.C., 2000, Rediscovery of the introduced mayfly 

Caenis nigropuncata (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) in 

Waimanalo Stream, Oahu: Bishop Museum Occasional 

Papers, no. 64, p. 30-31.

State of Hawaii, 2000, The State of Hawaii data book 2000, a 

statistical abstract: State of Hawaii, Department of Business, 

Economic Development, and Tourism, accessed July 28, 

2004 at http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/db00.

Thorp, J.H. and Covich, A.P., 1991, Ecology and classification 

of North American freshwater invertebrates: Academic 

Press, Inc., New York, 911 p.

Usinger, R.L., 1971, Aquatic insects of California: University 

of California Press, Berkeley, Calif., 508 p.

Van Dine, B.L., 1907, The introduction of top-minnows into 

the Hawaiian Islands: Hawaii Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Press Bulletin No. 20, 10 p.

Vincent, A.G., and Font, W.F., 2003a, Host specificity and 

population structure of two exotic helminthes, Camallanus 

Cotti (Nematoda) and Bothriocephalus Acheilognathi

(Cestoda), parasitizing exotic fishes in Waianu Stream, 

Oahu, Hawaii: J. Parasitol, v. 89(3), p. 540-544.

Vincent, A.G., and Font, W.F., 2003b, Seasonal and yearly 

population dynamics of two exotic helminthes, Camallanus 

Cotti (Nematoda) and Bothriocephalus Acheilognathi

(Cestoda), parasitizing exotic fishes in Waianu Stream, 

Oahu, Hawaii: J. Parasitol, v. 89(4), p. 756-760.

Weigel, B.M., Henne, L.J., and Martinez-Rivera, L.M., 2002, 

Macroinvertebrate-based index of biotic integrity for 

protection of streams in west-central Mexico: Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, v. 21, p. 686-700.

Weigel, B.M., 2003, Development of stream macroinvertebrate 

models that predict watershed and local stressors in 

Wisconsin: Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society, v. 22, p. 123-142.

Wiederholm, T., 1984. Responses of aquatic insects to 

environmental pollution, in Resh, V.H. and Rosenberg, 

D.M., eds., The ecology of aquatic insects: Praeger, New 

York, p. 508-557.

Wolff, R.H., 2000, Seasonal recovery patterns of Hawaiian 

stream flora and fauna, Wainiha River, Kauai, Hawaii: 

Honolulu, University of Hawaii at Manoa, M.S. Thesis, 

147 p.

Wolff, R.H., Brasher, A.M., and Richards, A.B., 2002, New 

generic records of Hawaiian Chironomidae (Diptera): 

Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, v. 69, p. 31-33.

Yamamoto, M.N., and Tagawa, A.W., 2000, Hawaii’s native 

and exotic freshwater animals: Honolulu, Hawaii, Mutual 

Publishing, 200 p.

Zimmerman, E.C., 1947, Insects of Hawaii: Volume 1: 

Introduction (reissued 2001): University of Hawaii Press, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 206 p.

Zimmerman, E.C., 1948, Insects of Hawaii: Volume 2: 

Apterygota to Thysanoptera: University of Hawaii Press, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 475 p.

References Cited  53
This page is intentionally blank

54  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Appendixes A–D

Appendixes A–D  55
Phylum

C al ss

Order

Family

ar efir oP arefi roP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - N

seht ni ml ehyt al P

air all ebr uT ai rall ebruT - 1 - 41 - 61 04 56 082 6 - - - 511 18 1 - 65 77 21 - 16 - 43 - - - 43 U

adot a me N adot a me N - - - - - - - - - - 512 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - U

aetr e me N aet re me N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 87 - - - - - - - 8 - - U

aetr e menol po H

a motsor P . ps 32 2 5 - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - 01 - - - 9 - - - - A

adil enn A

ar uenonahp A

eadit a mosol oe A

a mosol oe A . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 - - - - - - - - - - U

aeni duri H aeni duri H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - U

adill edbohcnyh R

eadii nohpissol G eadii nohpissol G - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 41 - - - - N

at eahcogil O at eahcogil O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 - - - - - - - 8 8 - U

ani cir b muL ani ci rb muL - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

elir dage M eli rdage M - 2 3 6 1 - - - 1 - - - - 31 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

adi cifi buT

eadi eart yhcnE eadi eart yhcnE 2 1 - - 61 - - - - - 45 - - 11 - - 2 11 - - - - - - 11 - - 71 U

eadi di a N eadi di a N 32 9 82 76 23 61 222 185 431 - - - - 992 962 - - - 4 3 - - - 061 2452 - - - U

sil auqeani si anoll A - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

si a N . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - U

si nu mmoc si a N - - - - - - - - - - - 41 5 - - 2 - - 4 - 31 - - - - - - 71 U

si ugnil e si a N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - U

sil adrap si a N - - - - - - - - - - - 11 12 - - 2 1 514 71 - - 77 62 - - 8 13 9 U

sili bairav si a N - - - - - - - - - 6 - 3 5 - - - - 43 62 - - - - - - - - 9 U

anitsir P . ps - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - - - 76 - - 01 - - - - - - - U

at esi verb anitsir P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 4 - - - - - - - - - U

i ydi el anitsir P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - U

eani knej all enitsir P - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 86 U

at al uci dneppa ani val S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65 - - 3 - - - - - - - U

eadi cifi buT eadi cifi buT - 1 41 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

eat es pac/ weadi cifi buT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - U

eat es pac o/ weadi cifi buT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 3 - - - - - - - U

AEK W

LEK W

Site

BNUP

APKU

I WL U

MI A W

UL AK

E NAK

I WLL

sut at S

PKNH

AL UH

AL AK

HA ML

UL UL

Appendix A. .t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas evit atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t seh icr deti denU

WHEE

99- B

00- A

00- B

00- C

10- B

Genus, spec ei s,

or lowest

taxonom ci des gi nat oi n

WI A W

L OH W

KAK W

ONA M

APK M

AUUN

LI WN

L AUP

ANUP

[Abundances computed for sub-sampling and for an area of 1 square meter. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;-,not present. See table 1 for site names]

56  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii Appendix A. Unedited richest targeted habitat (RTH, quantitative sampling) invertebrate abundance data set.
Phylum

C al ss

Order

Family

at eahcyl oP

ait narr E

eadi di er e N

a mui ba sitsacyl a ma N 2 2 5 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - N

acsull o M

adoportsa G adoportsa G 01 - 2 - 61 - - - - - 701 - - - - 2 9 - - - - - - - - - - - U

ar ohpot a mmosa B

eadil ycn A

i prahs aissirre F 4 - 22 - - - - - - - - 771 24 - - 2 2 11 - - - - 201 93 11 42 - 9 N

eadi ean myL

all e mul oc aeni ccusodues P - - - - - - - - - - 75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

eadisyhP eadisyhP - - 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - A

eadi br onal P eadi bronal P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - A

eadir ai hT eadi rai hT 941 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 89 - - - 853 2 42 - - A

at al ucrebut sedi onal e M - - - - - - - - - 67 11 - - - - - 91 - - - - - 77 - - 481 - - A

arefi narg ai beraT - - - - - - - - - 8 08 - - - - - 6 - - - - - 62 - - 23 - - A

adoportsagose M

eadii bor dy H eadii bordy H - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

adopycel eP

ai vl avi B 09 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 3 - - - - A

adoir ene V

eadil uci br o C

al uci bro C . ps 9 - - - - - - - - 2 - 3 - - - - - 54 - 3 - - 15 71 - - 8 - A

adi or ene V

eadi ean myL

at cudorp arodisi dues P - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

adopor htr A

at cesnI at ces nI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - U

ar et poel o C aret poel o C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - U

eadili hpor dy H

s unexon imL . ps - - - - - - - - - 6 72 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

al ob mell o C al ob mell o C - 2 2 6 - - - 23 - - - - - 11 - 3 - - - - 3 - - 3 22 - - - U

eadir uht ni mS eadi ruht ni mS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - U

ar et pi D

arecyhcar B - - 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - U

KAKW

AEKW

LEKW

99-B

00-A

00-B

00-C

10-B

MIAW

WIAW

WHEE

LOHW

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

IWLU

APKM

AUUN

LIWN

LAUP

IWLL

HAML

ULUL

ONAM

Append xi A. et.—Continued s at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas evit atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t sehcir deti denU

Genus, spec ei s,

or lowest

taxonomic designation

Site

sutatS

PKNH

ALUH

ALAK

ULAK

ENAK

[Abundances computed for sub-sampling and for an area of 1 square meter. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;-,not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix A  57
Phylum

C al ss

Order

Family

eadi cana C

ecana C . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 - - - - - - - - - - U

ecanacor P . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 N

eadi nogopot ar e C eadi nogopot are C - - 4 - - - - - - - 701 - - 64 - - - 641 - - - - - 3 22 23 - - U

eani nogopot are C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 - - U

ael ehysa D . ps - - - - - - - - - - 45 - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - U

eadi monori h C eadi monori h C - 1 4 6 541 61 101 56 - - - - - 85 - - - - 9 - - - - 62 - - - - U

eani monori h C - - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

ai y msebal b A . ps - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

muli dep A . ps - - 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 - 8 - 15 A

s u monori hC . ps - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

s upot ocir C . ps 262 9 41 203 235 783 607 8451 267 732 673 32 191 753 788 35 27 5521 053 15 672 8152 8083 73 735 8261 995 386 A

s ut cni ci b s upot ocir C . rg 2 - 2 - - - - - - 62 72 - - - - - - 743 - 72 - - - 05 - 23 13 - A

s ui dal cohtr /Os upot ocir C . ps - - - - 23 61 141 622 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

sol ebirt odnE . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - A

all eireff ei kuE . ps - - 1 02 - - - - 11 - - - - 11 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

si nnepiral c all eireff ei kuE . rg - - - - - - - - - 31 - 471 372 - - - 2 - 09 - 81 548 62 - - - - 347 A

eanii dal coht r O 91 - 4 06 61 79 261 261 76 - - - - 621 242 - - - - 3 - - - 02 54 - - - U

s ui dal cohtr O xel p mo C - - - - - - - - - - 431 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ns ui dal cohtr O . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - 1 - 54 - - 31 - - - - - - 86 N

s usrat ynat araP . ps - - 81 - 61 - - - 11 62 - 801 - - - 1 - - - 1 3 - 821 - - 04 - - A

muli depyl oP . ps - - 5 - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 - A

es neonilli muli depyl oP . rg - - 1011 - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - A - - - - - - -

aitti msodues P . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - U

s usrat ynaT . ps - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 9 - - - - A

all ei nna menei hT . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 - - - 51 - A

eadi di p mE eadi di p mE - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

sirall ets ai mordore me H - - 4 88 921 61 04 914 22 77 304 34 92 18 034 14 21 852 821 3 96 961 - 51 11 97 831 71 A

eadir dyhpE eadi rdyhpE - - 1 - 61 - - - 11 - - - - 621 - - - - - - - 51 - - 11 - 8 71 U

all et acsoe N . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

eadi dohcys P eadi dohcys P - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 - - - - - - - - - U

eadil upi T eadil upi T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - - 8 - - U

ai no imL . ps - - - 6 - - - - - - 72 - - 32 72 - - - - - - 51 - - 11 61 - - U

ar et por e mehpE

eadi nea C

at at cnuporgi nsi nea C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - A

KAK W

AEK W

LEK W

99- B

00- A

00- B

00- C

10- B

MI A W

WI A W

WHEE

L OH W

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

I WL U

APK M

AUUN

LI WN

L AUP

I WLL

HA ML

UL UL

ONA M

Append xi A. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas evit atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t sehcir deti denU

Genus, spec ei s,

or lowest

taxonomic designation

Site

sut at S

PKNH

AL UH

AL AK

UL AK

E NAK

[Abundances computed for sub-sampling and for an area of 1 square meter. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;-,not present. See table 1 for site names]

58  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Phylum

C al ss

Order

Family

ar et pi me H

eadi xir o C

at al ucit er axirocohcir T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

eadiil evose M

aneo ma ail evose M - 1 - - - - - - 11 - 45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 - - A

eadiil e V

s nagav ail evorci M - - - - 61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

ar et podi pe L aret podi pe L 2 - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 11 - 8 62 U

at anod O

eadi noir ganeo C eadi noi rganeo C - - 1 - - - - - - 31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - U

eli vi c a mgall anE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - A

noirgal age M . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

mut a mahorgi n noirgal age M - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

ar et pohcir T

eadi hcyspor dy H

ititt ep ehcyspot a muehC 9 042 82 3151 7413 3892 4892 3162 8481 77 7135 013 192 2731 5161 31 2 202 654 - 703 034 9613 39 09 - 769 268 A

eadilit por dy H

alit pordy H . ps 32 - 3 552 6102 3891 5191 7834 624 91 7551 - - 8241 9936 2 2 514 911 75 3 385 233 37 11 04 704 111 A

ait cra alit pordy H - - - 02 - 61 18 261 22 - - - - 96 323 - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - A

anoci alit pordy H 2 - - - - - - 23 - - - - - 22 - - - - 9 9 - - - 9 - - - - A

adi nhcar A

ir ac A i rac A - 1 5 - 61 - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 41 22 - - - U

eadit abi r O - - - - - 84 04 23 - - 72 - - - - - 2 - 31 - - - - - - 8 - - U

aecatsur C

adoposI adoposI - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - 03 3 - - - 3 - - - - - - - A

aecadi ana T ) redro( aecadi ana T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65 - - - - - - - - - - U

adocarts O adocarts O - - - - - - - - - - 034 71 - - - 2 4 971 - - 8 - - - - - 8 - U

adopi hp mA adopi hp mA - - - - - - - - - - 384 - 31 - - 01 7 22 - - 31 - 853 - - - 293 - U

adopace D adopace D 61 1 - - - - 04 23 - - - - - 32 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - U

eadi yt A

at acl usi b adi oyt A - - - 85 - - 2 - - - - 3 3 - - - - - 9 - - 51 - - - - - 9 N

sis nenis at al ucit ned ani diracoe N - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 62 - - - - - - - A

eadir ab ma C

ii kral c s urab macor P - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

eadi no meal aP

ral mui hcarborca M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62 - - - - - A

KAKW

AEKW

LEKW

99-B

00-A

00-B

00-C

10-B

MIAW

WIAW

WHEE

LOHW

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

IWLU

APKM

AUUN

LIWN

LAUP

IWLL

HAML

ULUL

ONAM

Append xi A. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas evit atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t sehcir deti denU

Genus, spec ei s,

or lowest

taxonomic designation

Site

sutatS

PKNH

ALUH

ALAK

ULAK

ENAK

[Abundances computed for sub-sampling and for an area of 1 square meter. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;-,not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix A  59
Phy ul m

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n HNKP HULA KALA KALU KANE LLWI LMAH LULU MANO MKPA NUUA NWIL PUAL PUNA

ar efir oP arefi roP U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - - - - - - - - -

seht ni ml ehyt al P

air all ebr uT ai rall ebruT ) 2. 1( 43 U - - - ) 3. 3( 43 - ) 3. 1( 26 - ) 6. 1( 65 ) 8. 5( 77 ) 4( 21 - ) 0. 1<( 18 ) 0. 1<( 1

adot a me N adot a me N U - - - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - - - - - - - - -

aetr e me N aet re me N U - - ) 0. 1<( 8 - - - - - - - ) 2. 2( 87 - - -

aetr e menol po H

a motsor P . ps U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 9 - - - ) 3. 3( 01 - - - - -

adil enn A

ar uenonahp A

eadit a mosol oe A

a mosol oe A . ps U - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 22 - - -

aeni duri H aeni duri H U - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - - - - - - - - - - -

adill edbohcnyh R

eadii nohpissol G eadii nohpissol G U - - - - ) 4. 1( 41 - - - - - - - - -

at eahcogil O at eahcogil O U - ) 0. 1<( 8 ) 0. 1<( 8 - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 22 - - -

ani cir b muL ani ci rb muL U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

elir dage M eli rdage M U - - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1

adi cifi buT

eadi eart yhcnE eadi eart yhcnE ) 0. 1<( 71 U - - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - - - - - ) 4. 1( 2 ) 0. 1<( 11 - -

eadi di a N eadi di a N ) 6. 2( 962 ) 6. 3( 5 ) 0. 1<( 1 ) 6. 61( 495 ) 1. 4( 45 ) 0. 1<( 3 ) 7. 3( 82 ) 6. 1( 77 ) 0. 1<( 62 ) .7 51( 061 ) 4. 67( 2452 ) 0. 1<( 8 ) 2. 1( 03 ) 6. 3( 201 U

eadi cifi buT eadi cifi buT U - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 2 - - - ) 4. 1( 2 ) 0. 1<( 1 -

at eahcyl oP

ait narr E

eadi di er e N

a mui ba sitsacyl a ma N N - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - -

acsull o M

adoportsa G adoportsa G U - - - - - - - - - - - ) .4 1( 2 ) 4. 6( 9 -

ar ohpot a m

mosa B

eadil ycn A

i prahs aissirre F ) 0. 1<( 9 N - ) 0. 1<( 62 ) 8. 3( 93 ) 0. 1<( 11 ) 1. 1( 42 - - - - ) 4. 1( 2 ) 4. 1( 2 ) 0. 1<( 11 -

eadi ean myL

all e mul oc aeni ccusodues P A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadisyhP eadisyhP A - - - - - - - - - - ) .0 1<( 11 - - -

Appendix B. .t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr ev in ) gnil p mas evit atit nauq, HTR( t ati bah det egr at t seh icr deti dE

sut at S

Site

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

60 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii Appendix B. Edited richest targeted habitat (RTH, quantitative sampling) invertebrate abundance data set.
Phy ul m

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n HNKP HULA KALA KALU KANE LLWI LMAH LULU MANO MKPA NUUA NWIL PUAL PUNA

eadi br onal P eadi bronal P A - - - - ) 0. 1<( 3 - - - - - - - - -

eadir ai hT eadi rai hT A - - ) 3. 1( 201 ) 2. 53( 853 ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 8. 01( 832 - - ) 5. 23( 89 - - ) 4. 81( 62 - -

adoportsagose M - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadii bor dy H eadii bordy H A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

adopycel eP

adoir ene V

eadil uci br o C

al uci bro C . ps A - ) 0. 1<( 8 - - ) .0 1<( 15 ) 2( 02 - - ) 3. 1( 4 - ) 3. 1( 54 - - -

adi or ene V

eadi ean myL

at cudorp arodisi dues P N - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

adopor htr A

at cesnI

ar et poel o C aret poel o C U - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 2 - - - - - -

eadi noil ucr u C eadi noil ucru C U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadili hpor dy H

s unexon mi L . ps N - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi nil yhpat S eadi nil yhpat S U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

al ob mell o C al ob mell o C U - - - ) 0. 1<( 3 ) 0. 1<( 22 - - ) 0. 1<( 2 - ) 0. 1<( 9 - - ) 1. 2( 3 -

ar et pi D

) redrobus( arecyhcar B U - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

eadi cana C

ecana C . ps U - - - - - - - - - - ) .0 1<( 22 - - -

ecanacor P . ps ) 8. 1( 15 U - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1

eadi nogopot ar e C eadi nogopot are C U - - ) 0. 1<( 3 ) 0. 1<( 22 ) 5. 2( 55 - - - - - ) 1. 4( 641 - - -

ael ehysa D . ps U - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - -

eadi monori h C

ai y msebal b A . ps A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

muli dep A . ps ) 8. 1( 15 A - ) 0. 1<( 8 - ) 0. 1<( 6 - - - - - - - - -

s u monori hC . ps U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

s upot ocir C . ps ( 35 ) 1. 15( 27 ) 7. 44( 2061 ) 8. 62( 753 ) 8. 52( 87 ) 3. 63( 772 ) 2. 35( 8152 ) 4. 74( 8083 ) 5. 01( 701 ) .2 61( 835 ) .2 57( 0661 ) 2. 42( 036 ) 4. 42( 386 A ) 7. 01( 9011 ) 9. 73

all eireff ei kuE . ps A - - - - - - - ) .4 2( 81 - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 101

si nnepiral c all eireff ei kuE . rg ) 5. 62( 247 A - - - - ) 9. 71( 548 ) 0. 1<( 62 - - ) 8. 6( 19 - ) 4. 1( 2 - -

Appendix B. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) g inl p mas evit atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t sehcir deti dE

sutatS

Site

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix B  61
Phy ul m

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n HNKP HULA KALA KALU KANE LLWI LMAH LULU MANO MKPA NUUA NWIL PUAL PUNA

eanii dal coht r O ) 4. 2( 86 U - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

s ui dal cohtr O xel p mo C U - - - - - - - ) .7 1( 31 - - ) 3. 1( 54 - - -

s usrat ynat araP . ps A - - ) .8 1( 93 - - ) .6 1( 821 - ) 0. 1<( 1 ) 0. 1<( 2 - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

muli depyl oP . ps U - ) .0 1<( 8 - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 2 - - - - - -

aitti msodues P . ps U - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

s usrat ynaT . ps U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 9 - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - - - - -

eadi di p mE

sirall ets ai mordore me H ) 5. 1( 51 ) 0. 1<( 11 ) 6. 3( 97 ) 3. 5( 831 ) 0. 1<( 71 A - ) 2. 4( 034 ) 3. 92( 14 ) .5 8( 21 ) 2. 7( 852 ) 6. 9( 821 ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 9( 96 ) 6. 3( 961

eadir dyhpE eadi rdyhpE ) 0. 1<( 8 ) 0. 1<( 71 U - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - ) .0 1<( 51 - - - - - - -

eadi dohcys P eadi dohcys P U - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 9 - - - -

eadil upi T eadil upi T U - - ) 0. 1<( 8 - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - -

ai no mi L . ps U - - ) .0 1<( 11 ) 0. 1<( 61 - - ) 0. 1<( 51 - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 72

ar et por e mehpE

eadi nea C

at at cnuporgi nsi nea C A - - - - ) 0. 1<( 3 - - - - - - - - -

ar et pi me H

eadiil evose M

aneo ma ail evose M A - - ) 0. 1<( 8 - - - - - - - - - - -

eadiil e V

s nagav ail evorci M N - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ar et podi pe L aret podi pe L ) .0 1<( 8 ) 0. 1<( 62 U - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - - - - - - - ) 4. 1( 2 -

at anod O

eadi noir ganeo C eadi noi rganeo C U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 7 - - - - - - - - -

mut a mahorgi n noirgal age M N - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ar et pohcir T

eadi hcyspor dy H

ititt ep ehcyspot a muehC ) 1. 73( 769 ) 8. 03( 268 A - ) 2. 04( 703 ) 1. 9( 034 ) 5. 93( 0713 ) 1. 9( 39 ) 7. 2( 09 - ) 6. 51( 5161 ) 3. 9( 31 ) 4. 1( 2 ) 6. 5( 202 ) 3. 43( 654

eadilit por dy H

alit pordy H . ps ) 9. 46( 2276 ) 4. 1( 2 ) 4. 1( 2 ) 6. 11( 414 ) 6. 9( 821 ) 9. 12( 66 ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 3. 21( 385 ) 1. 4( 233 ) 2. 9( 49 ) 0. 1<( 11 ) 8. 1( 93 ) 6. 51( 704 ) 4( 111 A

adi nhcar A

ir ac A

eadit abi r O U - - ) 4. 1( 41 ) 0. 1<( 22 ) 0. 1<( 8 - - - ) 0. 1<( 31 ) 0. 1<( 1 - ) 4. 1( 2 - -

Appendix B. —Continued .t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) g inl p mas evit atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t seh icr deti dE

sut at S

Site

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

62  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Phy ul m

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n HNKP HULA KALA KALU KANE LLWI LMAH LULU MANO MKPA NUUA NWIL PUAL PUNA

aecatsur C

adopi hp mA

eadill el ay H

all el ay H . ps U - ) 51( 193 - - ) 5. 4( 853 ) 6. 2( 62 - ) 3. 8( 52 ) 7. 1( 31 - ) 1. 7( 01 ) 5( 7 ) 0. 1<( 22 -

adopace D adopace D U - - - ) .0 1<( 2 - - - - - - - - - -

eadi yt A

at acl usi b adi oyt A ) 0. 1<( 9 N - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 51 - - ) 0. 1<( 9 - - - -

sis nenis at al ucit ned ani diracoe N A - - - - - - - ) 4. 3( 62 - - - - - -

eadir ab ma C

ii kral c s urab macor P A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi no meal aP

ral mui hcarborca M A - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - - - - - - - -

sutatS

Site

Appendix B. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas e ivt atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t seh icr deti dE

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix B  63
Phy ul m

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n PUNB UKPA ULWI WA MI WAIW B-99 A-00 B-00 C-00 B-01 WHOL WKAK WKEA WKEL

ar efir oP arefi roP U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

seht ni ml ehyt al P

air all ebr uT ai rall ebruT ) 8. 2( 511 U - - - ) 0. 1<( 61 ) 0. 1<( 04 ) 0. 1<( 56 ) 7. 7( 082 ) 0. 1<( 6 - ) .0 1<( 41 - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

adot a me N adot a me N U - - - ) 3. 2( 412 - - - - - - - - - -

aetr e me N aet re me N U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

aetr e menol po H

a motsor P . ps ) .0 1<( 11 U - - - - - - - - - - ) 6. 3( 32 ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 2( 5

adil enn A

ar uenonahp A

eadit a mosol oe A

a mosol oe A . ps U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

aeni duri H aeni duri H U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

adill edbohcnyh R

eadii nohpissol G eadii nohpissol G U - - ) 0. 1<( 3 - - - - - - - - - - -

at eahcogil O at eahcogil O U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ani cir b muL ani ci rb muL U - - ) 0. 1<( 3 - - - - - - - - - - -

elir dage M eli rdage M ) .0 1<( 31 U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - - - ) 0. 1<( 2 ) .2 1( 3 ) .0 1<( 6 ) 0. 1<( 1 -

adi cifi buT

eadi eart yhcnE eadi eart yhcnE ) 0. 1<( 11 U - - ) 0. 1<( 45 - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 61 - - ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 0. 1<( 1

eadi di a N eadi di a N ) 6. 3( 23 ) 9. 3( 43 ) 2. 7( 992 U - ) 6. 3( 32 ) 3. 3( 9 ) 1. 11( 82 ) 8. 2( 76 ) 0. 1<( 23 ) 0. 1<( 61 ) 5. 3( 222 ) .6 5( 185 ) 7. 3( 431 ) 0. 1<( 31

eadi cifi buT eadi cifi buT U - - - - - - - - - - - ) .0 1<( 1 ) 6. 5( 41 -

at eahcyl oP

ait narr E

eadi di er e N

a mui ba sitsacyl a ma N N - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 2( 5

acsull o M

adoportsa G adoportsa G U - - - ) 2. 1( 701 - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 61 - - - -

ar ohpot a m

mosa B

eadil ycn A

i prahs aissirre F N - ) 1. 02( 771 ) 8. 4( 24 - - - - - - - - ) 7. 8( 22 - ) 0. 1<( 4

eadi ean myL

all e mul oc aeni ccusodues P A - - - ) 0. 1<( 75 - - - - - - - - - -

eadisyhP eadisyhP A - - - - - - - - - - - ) 2. 02( 15 - -

Appendix B. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) g inl p mas evit atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t sehcir deti dE

WHEE

Site sut at S

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

64  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Phylum

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n PUNB UKPA ULWI WA MI WAIW B-99 A-00 B-00 C-00 B-01 WHOL WKAK WKEA WKEL

eadi br onal P eadi bronal P A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadir ai hT eadi rai hT A - - - ) 9. 4( 48 ) 0. 1<( 19 - - - - - - - - ) 3. 32( 941

adoportsagose M - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadii bor dy H eadii bordy H A - - - - ) 0. 1<( 6 - - - - - - - - -

adopycel eP

adoir ene V

eadil uci br o C

al uci bro C . ps A - - ) .0 1<( 3 - ) 0. 1<( 2 - - - - - - - - ) .5 51( 99

adi or ene V

eadi ean myL

at cudorp arodisi dues P N - - - - ) 0. 1<( 6 - - - - - - - - -

adopor htr A

at cesnI

ar et poel o C aret poel o C U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi noil ucr u C eadi noil ucru C U - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

eadili hpor dy H

s unexon mi L . ps N - - - ) 0. 1<( 6 ) 0. 1<( 72 - - - - - - - - -

eadi nil yhpat S eadi nil yhpat S U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 6 - - - - - - - - -

al ob mell o C al ob mell o C ) 0. 1<( 11 U - - - - - ) .0 1<( 23 - - - ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 0. 1<( 2 ) 0. 1<( 6 -

ar et pi D

) redrobus( arecyhcar B U - - - - - - - - - - - ) 2( 5 - -

eadi cana C

ecana C . ps U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ecanacor P . ps U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi nogopot ar e C eadi nogopot are C ) 1. 1( 64 U - - ) .2 1( 701 - - - - - - - ) 6. 1( 4 - -

ael ehysa D . ps U - - - ) 0. 1<( 45 - - - - - - - - - -

eadi monori h C

ai y msebal b A . ps A - - - - - - - - - - - ) .0 1<( 2 - -

muli dep A . ps A - - - - - - - - - - - ) 6. 5( 41 - -

s u monori hC . ps U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 6 - - - - - - - - -

s upot ocir C . ps ( 562 ) 3. 3( 9 ) 9. 7( 02 ) 8. 41( 853 ) 5. 11( 507 ) 9( 005 ) 8. 51( 8001 ) 8. 81( 5391 ) 9. 22( 828 ) .2 51( 262 ) .4 4( 204 ) 5. 2( 22 ) 8. 12( 191 ) 6. 11( 974 A ) 5. 14

all eireff ei kuE . ps ) .0 1<( 51 A - - - ) 0. 1<( 21 ) 0. 1<( 31 - - - - ) .0 1<( 1 ) 0. 1<( 42 - -

si nnepiral c all eireff ei kuE . rg A - ) 8. 91( 471 ) 2. 13( 472 - - - - - - - - - - -

sutatS

Site

WHEE

Appendix B. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas evit atit nauq, HTR( t ati bah det egr at t seh icr deti dE

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix B  65
Phy ul m

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n PUNB UKPA ULWI WA MI WAIW B-99 A-00 B-00 C-00 B-01 WHOL WKAK WKEA WKEL

eanii dal coht r O U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

s ui dal cohtr O xel p mo C U - - - ) .5 1( 431 - - - - - - - - - -

s usrat ynat araP . ps A - - ) 3. 21( 801 - ) 0. 1<( 11 ) 5. 1( 62 - - - ) 0. 1<( 02 - ) .7 8( 22 - -

muli depyl oP . ps U - - ) 0. 1<( 3 - ) .7 36( 1011 - - - - - - ) 4. 2( 6 - -

aitti msodues P . ps U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

s usrat ynaT . ps U - - - - - - - - - - - ) 6. 1( 4 - -

eadi di p mE

sirall ets ai mordore me H ) 6. 1( 4 ) 6. 3( 88 ) 1. 2( 921 ) 0. 1<( 61 ) .0 1<( 04 ) 1. 4( 914 ) 0. 1<( 22 ) 5. 4( 77 ) 4. 4( 204 ) 8. 4( 24 ) 3. 3( 92 ) 2( 18 A - -

eadir dyhpE eadi rdyhpE ) 3( 621 U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - - ) 0. 1<( 61 - ) 0. 1<( 1 - -

eadi dohcys P eadi dohcys P U - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 2 -

eadil upi T eadil upi T U - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ai no mi L . ps ) .0 1<( 32 U - - ) 0. 1<( 72 - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 6 - - -

ar et por e mehpE

eadi nea C

at at cnuporgi nsi nea C A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ar et pi me H

eadiil evose M

aneo ma ail evose M A - - - ) 0. 1<( 45 - ) 0. 1<( 11 - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

eadiil e V

s nagav ail evorci M N - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 61 - - - -

ar et podi pe L aret podi pe L U - - - - ) .0 1<( 6 - - - - - - - - ) .0 1<( 2

at anod O

eadi noir ganeo C eadi noi rganeo C U - - - - ) 0. 1<( 31 - - - - - - ) .0 1<( 1 - -

mut a mahorgi n noirgal age M N - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

ar et pohcir T

eadi hcyspor dy H

ititt ep ehcyspot a muehC 2 ) 1. 11( 82 ) .7 26( 3151 ) 3. 15( 7413 ) 5. 35( 3892 ) .8 64( 4892 ) 4. 52( 3162 ) 1. 15( 8481 ) 5. 4( 77 ) 3. 85( 7135 ) 2. 53( 013 ) 2. 33( 192 ) 1. 33( 2731 A ) 4. 1( 9 ) 6. 68( 93

eadilit por dy H

alit pordy H . ps ) 7. 63( 0251 A - - ) 2. 1( 3 ) 4. 11( 572 ) 9. 23( 6102 ) 8. 53( 9991 ) 3. 13( 6991 ) 5. 44( 1854 ) 4. 21( 844 ) 1. 1( 91 ) 1. 71( 7551 - ) 1. 4( 62

adi nhcar A

ir ac A

eadit abi r O U - - - ) 0. 1<( 72 - ) 0. 1<( 61 ) 0. 1<( 84 ) 0. 1<( 04 ) 0. 1<( 23 ) 0. 1<( 11 - ) 0. 1<( 1 ) 2( 5 -

Appendix B. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas e ivt atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t seh icr deti dE

sut at S

Site

WHEE

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

66  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Phy ul m

C al ss Genus, spec ei s,

Order or ol west

Family taxonomic designat oi n PUNB UKPA ULWI WA MI WAIW B-99 A-00 B-00 C-00 B-01 WHOL WKAK WKEA WKEL

aecatsur C

adopi hp mA

eadill el ay H

all el ay H . ps U - ) .6 1( 41 - ) 3. 5( 384 - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 2 - ) 3( 91

adopace D adopace D ) .0 1<( 32 U - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 04 ) 0. 1<( 23 - - - - ) .5 2( 61 ) 0. 1<( 1

eadi yt A

at acl usi b adi oyt A N - ) .0 1<( 3 ) 0. 1<( 2 - - - - ) .0 1<( 2 - - ) 4. 2( 85 - - -

sis ne ins at al ucit ned ani diracoe N A - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 - - - - - - - - - -

eadir ab ma C

ii kral c s urab macor P A - - - - - - - - - - - - ) 0. 1<( 1 -

eadi no meal aP

ral miu hcarborca M A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appendix B. .—Continued t es at ad ecnadnuba et ar betr evni ) gnil p mas e ivt atit nauq, HT (R t ati bah det egr at t seh icr deti dE

sutatS

Site

WHEE

[Data has been corrected for sub-sampling, taxonomic resolution and ambiguity, and unit area. #, abundance; (#), percent of total site abundance; N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status;<, less than; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix B  67
Phylum

Class

Order

Family

ar efir oP arefi roP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - R - - - - N

seht ni ml ehyt al P

air all ebr uT ai rall ebruT - R - RQ - RQ RQ RQ RQ R - - - RQ RQ RQ - R RQ R - RQ - R - Q - RQ U

adot a me N adot a me N - - - - - - - - - - RQ - Q - - Q - - Q - - - - - R - Q - U

aetr e me N aet re me N - - - - - - - - - - Q - Q - - - - R - - - - Q - - R - - U

aetr e menol po H

a motsor P . ps R R R - - - - - - - - - - RQ Q - - - - RQ - - - R - - - - A

adil enn A

ar uenonahp A

eadit a mosol oe A

a mosol oe A . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - U

aeni duri H aeni duri H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - U

adill edbognyrahP

eadill edbopr E eadill edbopr E - - - - - Q - - - - - - Q - Q - - - - - - Q - - - Q - - U

adill edbohcnyh R

eadii nohpissol G eadii nohpissol G - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - N

at eahcogil O at eahcogil O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q R - - Q - - - - RQ R - U

ani cir b muL ani ci rb muL - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - U

adil ucir b muL

eadil ucir b muL eadil uci rb muL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - U

elir dage M eli rdage M - R R RQ R Q Q Q R - - - - R RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

adi cifi buT

eadi eart yhcnE eadi eart yhcnE R R - - R - - - - - RQ Q - R - Q RQ R - - - - - - R - - R U

eadi di a N eadi di a N R RQ RQ RQ R R RQ R R - - Q - RQ RQ - - - R RQ - - - R RQ - - - U

sil auqeani si anoll A - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - U

ore D . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - U

at acr uf ore D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - U

at anit cep ore D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - U

si a N . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - Q Q R - - - - - - - - - - U

si nu m

moc si a N - - - - - - - - - - - R R - - RQ Q - RQ - RQ - - - - Q - RQ U

si ugnil e si a N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ Q - - - - - - - - - - - U

sil adrap si a N - - - - - - - - - Q - RQ RQ - - RQ RQ RQ R - Q RQ RQ - - RQ RQ RQ U

Genus, species,

or lowest

taxonom ci designation

Site

Append xi C. .t es at ad ssenh icr et ar betr evni deti denU

LEK W

99- B

00- A

00- B

00- C

10- B

WHEE L OH W

KAK W

AEK W

APKU

I WL U

MI A W

WI A W

LI WN

L AUP

ANUP

BNUP

UL UL

ONA M

APK M

AUUN

UL AK

E NAK

I WLL

HA ML

sut at S

PKNH

AL UH

AL AK

[Compiled from the quantitative richest targeted habitat (RTH) data set and the qualitative multihabitat (QMH) data set. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status; Q, collected in QMH sample; R, collected in RTH sample; -, not present; gr., group; sp., species. See table 1 for site names]

68  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii Appendix C. Unedited invertebrate richness data set.
Phylum

Class

Order

Family

sili bairav si a N - - - - - - - - - R - R RQ - - Q Q R RQ - - - - - - - - R U

anitsir P . ps - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - R - - R - - - - Q - - U

at esi verb anitsir P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R R - - - - - - - - - U

i ydi el anitsir P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - U

eani knej all enitsir P - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - R Q - - - - - - - - - - RQ U

at al uci dneppa ani val S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - R - - - - - - - U

eadi cifi buT eadi cifi buT - R RQ - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

eat es pac/ weadi cifi buT - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - R R Q - - - - - - - Q - - U

eat es pac o/ weadi cifi buT - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - R - - - - R - - - - - - - U

i ybre wos ar ui hcnar B Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - U

at eahcyl oP

ait narr E

eadi di er e N

a mui ba sitsacyl a ma N RQ R RQ - R - - Q Q - - Q - - - Q R Q - RQ - - - Q Q - - - N

acsull o M

adoportsa G adoportsa G RQ Q RQ - R - - - Q - RQ - - - - RQ RQ - - - - - - - - Q Q - U

adoportsagoeahcr A

eaditir e N

asonarg anitire N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - Q N

ar ohpot a mmosa B

eadil ycn A

i prahs aissirre F R - R - - - - - - - - RQ R - - R RQ RQ - Q - - RQ RQ R RQ - R N

eadi ean myL

all e mul oc aeni ccusodues P - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - A

eadisyhP eadisyhP - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q R - - - - Q - - Q - - A

all esyhP . ps - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

eadi br onal P eadi bronal P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - A

all ebronal P . ps - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - A

i yr urd all ebronal P - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - A

eadir ai hT eadi rai hT RQ - - - - - - - Q Q - - - - Q - Q Q - RQ - - - RQ RQ R - - A

at al ucrebut sedi onal e M - - - - - - - - - RQ RQ - - - - - RQ Q - - - - RQ - - RQ - - A

arefi narg ai beraT - - - - - - - - - RQ RQ - - - - - R Q - - - - RQ - - RQ - - A

arai hT . ps - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

Genus, species,

or lowest

taxonom ci designation

AEKW

LEKW

99-B

00-A

00-B

00-C

10-B

WIAW

WHEE

LOHW

KAKW

BNUP

APKU

IWLU

MIAW

AUUN

LIWN

LAUP

ANUP

HAML

ULUL

ONAM

APKM

Append xi C. —Continued .t es at ad ssenh icr et ar betr evni deti denU

Site

sutatS

PKNH

ALUH

ALAK

ULAK

ENAK

IWLL

[Compiled from the quantitative richest targeted habitat (RTH) data set and the qualitative multihabitat (QMH) data set. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status; Q, collected in QMH sample; R, collected in RTH sample; -, not present; gr., group; sp., species. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix C  69
Phylum

Class

Order

Family

adoportsagose M

eadii bor dy H eadii bordy H - - - - - - - - - RQ Q Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - A

adopycel eP

ai vl avi B R - - - - - - - - - - - Q - Q - - - - R - - - R - - - - A

adoir ene V

eadil uci br o C

al uci bro C . ps R - - - - - - - - RQ Q R - - - Q - RQ - RQ - - RQ RQ - Q RQ - A

eadiir eahpS

muil ucs u M . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - A

mui disi P . ps - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

adi or ene V

eadi ean myL

at cudorp arodisi dues P - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

adopor htr A

at cesnI

ar et poel o C aret poel o C - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - R - - - - Q - - U

eadili hpor dy H eadili hpordy H - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

s unexon imL . ps - - - - - - - - - R RQ - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - N

s ucirdnil yci mes s unexon imL - - - - - - - - - Q - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

al ob mell o C al ob mell o C - R RQ R - - - RQ - Q - - - R - R - Q - - RQ - - R R - - - U

eadir uht ni mS eadi ruht ni mS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - U

ar et pi D

) redrobus( arecyhcar B - Q R Q - - - - - - - - Q - - R - Q - - - - - - - - - - U

eadi cana C

ecana C . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - U

ecanacor P . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - R - - - - - - - - - - - - R N

eadi nogopot ar e C eadi nogopot are C - - R - - - - - - Q RQ - - R - - - RQ - - - - - R RQ RQ - - U

eani nogopot are C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - U

ael ehysa D . ps - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - Q R - - - Q Q - - Q - - U

ai y mopi cro F . ps - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - U

Genus, species,

or lowest

taxonom ci designation

AEK W

LEK W

99- B

00- A

00- B

00- C

10- B

WI A W

WHEE L OH W

KAK W

BNUP

APKU

I WL U

MI A W

AUUN

LI WN

L AUP

ANUP

HA ML

UL UL

ONA M

APK M

Append xi C. .—Continued t es at ad ssenh icr et ar betr evni deti denU

Site

sut at S

PKNH

AL UH

AL AK

UL AK

E NAK

I WLL

[Compiled from the quantitative richest targeted habitat (RTH) data set and the qualitative multihabitat (QMH) data set. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status; Q, collected in QMH sample; R, collected in RTH sample; -, not present; gr., group; sp., species. See table 1 for site names]

70 Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Phylum

Class

Order

Family

eadi monori h C eadi monori h C - R R R RQ RQ RQ RQ - - - - - R - - - - R - - - - RQ - - - - U

eani monori h C - - RQ - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

ai y msebal b A . ps - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - A

muli dep A . ps - - RQ - - - - Q - Q - Q Q - - - Q Q - - - Q - R - RQ Q RQ A

s u monori hC . ps - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - Q Q Q - - - - Q - Q - - U

ar uenonyro C . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - A

s upot ocir C . ps RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ A

s ui dal cohtr O/s upot ocir C . ps - - Q - R R RQ RQ - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - U

s ut cni ci b s upot ocir C . rg R - RQ - - - - - - RQ RQ Q - - - Q Q RQ - RQ - - Q RQ - RQ RQ - A

sol ebirt odnE . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - A

all eireff ei kuE . ps - - R RQ Q - - - RQ - - - - RQ RQ - - - - - - - - - Q - - - A

si nnepiral c all eireff ei kuE . rg - - - - - - - - - RQ - RQ RQ - - - R - RQ - RQ RQ R - - - - RQ A

s u monori hci dl eo G . ps - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

s unisarpol ohs u monori hci dl eo G - - - - - - - - - Q - Q - - - - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - A

art cesporci M . ps - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

s usrat yna /T art cesporci M . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - U

eanii dal coht r O RQ RQ R - - - - R RQ - - - - R - - - R RQ - - - U R - R R R R

s ui dal cohtr O ( . ol yt caduE . ps ) - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - R - RQ - - R - - - - - - RQ N

s ui dal cohtr O xel p mo C - - - - - - - - - - R Q Q - - Q Q Q - - Q Q Q - - Q Q - N

s usrat ynat araP . ps - - RQ - R - Q - RQ RQ Q RQ Q - - RQ Q - - R R - RQ - - RQ Q - A

muli depyl oP . ps - - RQ - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - Q - - - - - Q - - - RQ - A

es neonilli muli depyl oP . rg - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - A

aitti msodues P . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R Q - - - - - - - - Q - - U

all enill ep met S . ps - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

s usrat ynaT . ps - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - R - - Q RQ - - - - A

all ei nna menei hT . ps - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - Q - - - RQ - - - RQ - A

eadi xi D

al ytsi gnol axi D - - - Q - Q Q Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

eadi di p mE eadi di p mE - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U

sirall ets ai mordore me H - - RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ Q R R RQ RQ RQ A

Genus, species,

or lowest

taxonom ci designation

AEKW

LEKW

99-B

00-A

00-B

00-C

10-B

WIAW

WHEE

LOHW

KAKW

BNUP

APKU

IWLU

MIAW

AUUN

LIWN

LAUP

ANUP

HAML

ULUL

ONAM

APKM

Append xi C. .—Continued t es at ad ssenh icr et ar betr evni deti denU

Site

sutatS

PKNH

ALUH

ALAK

ULAK

ENAK

IWLL

[Compiled from the quantitative richest targeted habitat (RTH) data set and the qualitative multihabitat (QMH) data set. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status; Q, collected in QMH sample; R, collected in RTH sample; -, not present; gr., group; sp., species. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix C  71
Phylum

Class

Order

Family

eadir dyhpE eadi rdyhpE - Q RQ - R - - - R - - - - RQ - - - - Q - - RQ - - R - R R U

all et acsoe N . ps - - - - - - - - - - - Q R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

eadi dohcys P eadi dohcys P - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - U

s upocsot a ml e T/ a mocire P . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - U

adohcys P . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - Q Q - - - - - - - - - U

eadi y moit art S eadi y moit art S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - Q - - - - Q - - - - A

eadi hpr yS eadi hpryS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - U

eadil upi T eadil upi T - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - RQ - - U

ai no mi L . ps - - - RQ Q - Q - - - R - - R R - Q Q - - Q RQ - Q RQ R - Q U

ar et por e mehpE

eadi nea C

at at cnuporgi nsi nea C - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - Q - - R - - - - A

ar et pi me H

eadi xir o C

at al ucit er axirocohcir T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

eadiil evose M

aneo ma ail evose M - RQ - - Q - Q - RQ Q RQ - - Q - - Q Q - - Q - - - - R - - A

it nasl u mail evose M - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - Q - - - - - - - - Q - - - - A

eadiil e V

s nagav ail evorci M - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

ar et podi pe L aret podi pe L R - - - - - Q Q - R - Q Q - - RQ Q - - - - - - Q R - RQ RQ U

at anod O

eadi nhse A

xanA . ps - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

eadi noir ganeo C eadi noi rganeo C - - R - - - - - - RQ - - - - - Q - - - - - - - RQ - Q Q - U

eli vi c a mgall anE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - A

ar unhcsI . ps - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - Q - - - - - Q Q - - Q - A

noirgal age M . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

mut a mahorgi n noirgal age M - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

Genus, species,

or lowest

taxonom ci designation

KAK W

AEK W

LEK W

99- B

00- A

00- B

00- C

10- B

MI A W

WHEE L OH W

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

I WL U

AUUN

LI WN

L AUP

WI A W

HA ML

UL UL

ONA M

APK M

Append xi C. .—Continued t es at ad ssenh icr et ar betr evni deti denU

Site

sut at S

PKNH

AL UH

AL AK

UL AK

E NAK

I WLL

[Compiled from the quantitative richest targeted habitat (RTH) data set and the qualitative multihabitat (QMH) data set. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status; Q, collected in QMH sample; R, collected in RTH sample; -, not present; gr., group; sp., species. See table 1 for site names]

72  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Phylum

Class

Order

Family

eadil ull ebi L

aeni gurref si mehtr O - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A

al at naP . ps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - N

s necsevalf al at naP - - Q - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N

ar et pohcir T

eadi hcyspor dy H

ititt ep ehcyspot a muehC R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ - RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ - RQ RQ A

eadilit por dy H

alit pordy H . ps R - R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Q Q RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ A

ait cra alit pordy H - - - R - RQ RQ RQ R - - - - RQ RQ - - - - - - - - R - - - - A

anoci alit pordy H R - - - - - - R - - - - - R Q - - - R R Q - Q R - - Q - A

anisot op alit pordy H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - A

ari ht eyx O . ps - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - Q - A

aya mari ht eyx O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - A

adi nhcar A

ir ac A i rac A - R RQ - R - - - R - - - - - - - - - - R - - - R R - - - U

eadit abi r O - - - - - R R R - - R Q Q - - Q RQ - RQ - - - - - - RQ - - U

senoi pr ocsodues P senoi procsodues P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - U

aecatsur C

adoposI adoposI - - - - - - - - - R - Q - - - RQ RQ - - - RQ - - - - - Q - A

aecadi ana T ) redro( aecadi ana T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - Q - U

adocarts O adocarts O - - - - - - - - - Q RQ RQ - - - RQ RQ RQ - - RQ - Q - - Q RQ - U

adopepo C adopepo C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - U

adopi hp mA adopi hp mA - - - - - - - - - - RQ Q R - - RQ RQ RQ - - RQ - RQ - - Q RQ - U

eadill el ay H

acetza all el ay H RQ - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - RQ - - - - N

adopace D adopace D RQ RQ Q Q Q - R R - - - - - R Q - - Q - - - - - Q RQ - - - U

eadi yt A

at acl usi b adi oyt A - - - R - - RQ Q - - - R R - - - - - RQ - - R - - - - - RQ N

sis nenis at al ucit ned ani diracoe N - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - Q - - RQ - - - - - - - A

eadir ab ma C

ii kral c s urab macor P - - Q - - - - A Q Q Q Q Q - Q - - - - - RQ Q - Q Q Q Q Q Q

eadi no meal aP

s una mi dnarg mui hcarborca M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - Q - - - - - N

ral mui hcarborca M - - - - - Q - - - Q Q - - - Q Q Q - - - - Q R - - - - - A

Genus, species,

or lowest

taxonom ci designation

Append xi C. .—Continued t es at ad ssenh icr et ar betr evni deti denU

Site

sutatS

KAKW

AEKW

LEKW

99-B

00-A

00-B

00-C

10-B

MIAW

WIAW

WHEE

LOHW

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

IWLU

APKM

AUUN

LIWN

LAUP

IWLL

HAML

ULUL

ONAM

PKNH

ALUH

ALAK

ULAK

ENAK

[Compiled from the quantitative richest targeted habitat (RTH) data set and the qualitative multihabitat (QMH) data set. Unedited data are data prior to correction for taxonomic resolution and ambiguity. N, native species; A, alien species; U, undetermined status; Q, collected in QMH sample; R, collected in RTH sample; -, not present; gr., group; sp., species. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix C  73
Phy ul m

Class

Order

Fami yl

ar efir oP arefi roP N - - - - R - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

seht ni lmehyt al P

air all ebr uT ai rall ebruT RQ U - Q - R - RQ - R RQ R - RQ RQ RQ - - - RQ RQ RQ RQ R - RQ - R -

adot a me N adot a me N U - Q - R - - - - - Q - - Q - - Q - RQ - - - - - - - - - -

aetr e me N

aetr e menol po H

a motsor P . ps A - - R - Q R - - RQ - R - - Q RQ Q - Q - - - - - - - R R R

adil enn A

ar uenonahp A

eadit a mosol oe A

a mosol oe A . ps U - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

aeni duri H aeni duri H U - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

adill edbognyr ahP

eadill edbopr E eadill edbopr E U - - Q - - - Q - - - - - - Q - Q - - - - - - Q - - - - -

adill edbohcnyh R

eadii nohpissol G eadii nohpissol G N - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - -

at eahcogil O at eahcogil O U - RQ R - - - - Q - - Q R - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - -

elir dage M eli rdage M U - - - - - - - - - - - - - R RQ - - - - R R RQ R Q Q Q R -

adi cifi buT

eadi eart yhcnE eadi eart yhcnE R U - - R - - - - - - Q RQ R - R - RQ Q - - - - - R - - R R

eadi di a N eadi di a N RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ RQ U - R RQ RQ RQ R R RQ R R RQ

eadi cifi buT eadi cifi buT U - - Q - - - - R - - R R Q - Q Q - - Q - - - Q - - R RQ -

i ybre wos ar ui hcnar B U - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q

at eahcyl oP

ait narr E

eadi di er e N

a mui ba sitsacyl a ma N N - - - Q Q - - - RQ - Q R Q - - - Q - - Q Q - - R - RQ R RQ

acsull o M

adoportsa G adoportsa G U - Q Q - - - - - - - - RQ RQ - - - - RQ - Q - - - R - RQ Q RQ

adoportsagoeahcr A

eaditir e N

asonarg anitire N Q N - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

sut at S

AL AK

UL AK

E NAK

I WLL

99- B

HA ML

UL UL

ONA M

APK M

AUUN

LI WN

L AUP

ANUP

Appendix D. et. s at ad ssenhcir et ar betr evni deti dE

Genus, species,

or lowest

taxonom ci des gi nat oi n

PKNH

AL UH

AEK W

WI A W

LEK W

WHEE

L OH W

Site

10- B

KAK W

BNUP

APKU

I WL U

MI A W

00- A

00- B

00- C

[Combined qualitative and quantitative data sets with supplementary data from a concurrent macrofaunal study. Data has been corrected for resolution and ambiguity. R, from RTH sampling; Q, from QMH sampling; O, from other sampling;N, native species; A, alien species, U, undetermined status; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

74  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii Appendix D. Edited invertebrate richness data set.
Phy ul m

C al ss

Order

Family

ar ohpot a mmosa B

eadil ycn A

i prahs aissirre F R N - RQ RQ R RQ - - Q - R RQ RQ - - RQ R - - - - - - - - R - R

eadi ean myL

all e mul oc aeni ccusodues P A - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - -

eadisyhP eadisyhP A - - Q - - Q - - - - Q R - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - -

eadi br onal P eadi bronal P A - Q - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - Q - - -

eadir ai hT eadi rai hT A - - RQ RQ RQ RQ - - RQ - RQ Q - Q - - - Q RQ RQ - - - - - - - RQ

adoportsagose M

eadii bor dy H eadii bordy H A - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ Q Q - - - - - - - - -

adopycel eP

ai vl avi B A - - - - R - - - R - - - - Q - Q - - - - - - - - - - - R

adoir ene V

eadil uci br o C

al uci bro C . ps A - Q RQ - RQ RQ - - RQ - RQ - Q - - - RQ Q R - - - - - - - - R

eadiir eahpS

muil ucs u M . ps A - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

mui disi P . ps A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi ean myL

at cudorp arodisi dues P N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - -

adopor htr A

at cesnI

ar et poel o C aret poel o C U - - Q - - - - R - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - -

eadili hpor dy H eadili hpordy H U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - -

s unexon imL . ps N - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - R RQ - - - - - - - - -

s ucirdnil yci mes s unexon imL N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - Q - - - - - - - - -

al ob mell o C al ob mell o C U - - - R R - - RQ - Q R - R - R - - - Q - RQ - - - R RQ R -

ar et pi D

) redrobus( arecyhcar B U - - - - - - - - - - Q - R - - Q - - - - - - - - Q R Q -

eadi cana C eadi cana C R U - - - - - - - - - R - - R - Q - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi nogopot are C eadi nogopot are C U - - Q Q R RQ RQ - - - Q RQ - - R - - Q RQ - - - - - - RQ - -

LOHW

KAKW

AEKW

LEKW

IWLU

MIAW

WIAW

WHEE

99-B

00-A

00-B

00-C

10-B

LAUP

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

ONAM

APKM

AUUN

LIWN

ENAK

IWLL

HAML

ULUL

Appendix D. .—Continued t es at ad ssenhcir et ar betr evni deti dE

sutatS

Site

Genus, spec ei s,

or ol west

taxonom ci des gi nat oi n

PKNH

ALUH

ALAK

ULAK

[Combined qualitative and quantitative data sets with supplementary data from a concurrent macrofaunal study. Data has been corrected for resolution and ambiguity. R, from RTH sampling; Q, from QMH sampling; O, from other sampling;N, native species; A, alien species, U, undetermined status; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix D  75
Phy ul m

Class

Order

Family

eadi monori h C eadi monori h C U - - - - RQ - - - - R - - - - R - - - - - R R R RQ RQ RQ RQ -

eani monori h C U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - RQ - -

ai y msebal b A . ps A - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - -

muli dep A . ps RQ Q RQ A - R - Q - - - Q Q - - - Q Q - Q - Q - - - - RQ - -

s u monori hC . ps U - - Q - Q - - - - Q Q Q - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - -

ar uenonyro C . ps A - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

s upot ocir C . ps RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ A

sol ebirt odnE . ps A - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

all eireff ei kuE . ps RQ A - - Q - RQ RQ R - RQ - R - RQ RQ RQ RQ - RQ RQ - - - R RQ Q - -

s u monori hci dl eo G . ps A - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - - - - Q - Q - - - - - - Q - -

art cesporci M . ps N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - -

s usrat ynaT/ art cesporci M . ps U - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eanii dal coht r O R RQ Q Q R RQ Q Q RQ U - R Q RQ R RQ RQ Q RQ - R R R R RQ RQ R - R

s usrat ynat araP . ps A - RQ Q - - RQ - R R - - RQ Q - - RQ RQ Q RQ Q - Q - R - RQ - -

muli depyl oP . ps A - RQ - - - Q - RQ - - - Q - - - - RQ - RQ - - - - - - RQ - -

aitti msodues P . ps U - - Q - - - - - - - - R Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

all enill ep met S . ps A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - -

s usrat ynaT . ps A - - - - Q RQ - - R - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - -

all ei nna menei hT . ps A - RQ - - - RQ - - - Q - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi xi D

al ytsi gnol axi D A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q Q Q - Q - - -

eadi di p mE eadi di p mE U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - -

sirall ets ai mordore me H RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ Q R R RQ RQ RQ A - -

eadir dyhpE eadi rdyhpE R R U - R - - RQ - - Q - - - - RQ - - - - R - - - R - Q RQ -

all et acsoe N . ps N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q R - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi dohcys P eadi dohcys P U - - - - - - - - - Q RQ - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - R -

eadi y moit art S eadi y moit art S A - - - - Q - - - - Q - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadi hpr yS eadi hpryS U - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadil upi T eadil upi T U - - RQ - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q -

ai no mi L . ps Q U - Q RQ R - Q RQ - - Q Q - R R - - R - - - Q - RQ Q - - -

KAK W

AEK W

LEK W

99- B

00- A

00- B

00- C

10- B

MI A W

WI A W

WHEE

L OH W

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

I WL U

APK M

AUUN

LI WN

L AUP

I WLL

HA ML

UL UL

ONA M

Appendix D. .t —Continued es at ad ssenhcir et ar betr evni deti dE

sut at S

Site

Genus, spec ei s,

or ol west

taxonomic designation

PKNH

AL UH

AL AK

UL AK

E NAK

[Combined qualitative and quantitative data sets with supplementary data from a concurrent macrofaunal study. Data has been corrected for resolution and ambiguity. R, from RTH sampling; Q, from QMH sampling; O, from other sampling;N, native species; A, alien species, U, undetermined status; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

76  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Phy ul m

C al ss

Order

Family

ar et por e mehpE

eadi nea C

at at cnuporgi nsi nea C A - - - - R - - Q - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - -

ar et pi me H

eadi xir o C

at al ucit er axirocohcir T A - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

eadiil evose M

aneo ma ail evose M A - - R - - - - Q - - Q Q - - Q - - RQ Q RQ - Q - Q - - RQ -

it nasl u mail evose M A - - - - Q - - - - - - - - Q - - - - Q - - - - - - - - -

eadiil e V

s nagav ail evorci M N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - -

ar et podi pe L aret podi pe L RQ RQ U - Q R - - - - - - RQ Q - - Q Q - R - Q Q - - - - - R

at anod O

eadi nhse A

xanA . ps N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - -

eadi noir ganeo C eadi noi rganeo C U - Q Q - RQ - - - - - - - Q - - - - - RQ - - - - - - R - -

eli vi c a mgall anE A - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ar unhcsI . ps A - Q - - Q Q - - - - - Q - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - -

noirgal age M . ps N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RQ - - - - - - - - - - - -

mut a mahorgi n noirgal age M N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R -

eadil ull ebi L

aeni gurref si mehtr O A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - -

al at naP . ps N - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

s necsevalf al at naP N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - Q - -

KAKW

AEKW

LEKW

99-B

00-A

00-B

00-C

10-B

MIAW

WIAW

WHEE

LOHW

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

IWLU

APKM

AUUN

LIWN

LAUP

IWLL

HAML

ULUL

ONAM

Appendix D. .—Continued t es at ad ssenhcir et ar betr evni deti dE

sutatS

Site

Genus, spec ei s,

or ol west

taxonom ci des gi nat oi n

PKNH

ALUH

ALAK

ULAK

ENAK

[Combined qualitative and quantitative data sets with supplementary data from a concurrent macrofaunal study. Data has been corrected for resolution and ambiguity. R, from RTH sampling; Q, from QMH sampling; O, from other sampling;N, native species; A, alien species, U, undetermined status; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

Appendix D  77
Phy ul m

C al ss

Order

Family

ar et pohcir T

eadi hcyspor dy H

ititt ep ehcyspot a muehC RQ RQ A - RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ - R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ

eadilit por dy H

alit pordy H . ps R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Q Q RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ R RQ RQ RQ A - R

ait cra alit pordy H A - - - - R - - - - - - - - RQ RQ - - - - RQ RQ RQ R - R - - -

anoci alit pordy H A - Q - - Q R - R R Q - - - R Q - - - - - R - - - - - - R

anisot op alit pordy H A - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

aya mari ht eyx O A - Q - - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - Q - - - - - -

adi nhcar A

ir ac A i rac A U - - R R RQ - - - RQ R - Q RQ - - R Q Q - R R R R R - R RQ -

senoi pr ocsodues P senoi procsodues P U - - - - - - - - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

aecatsur C

adoposI adoposI A - Q - - - - - RQ - - - RQ RQ - - - Q - R - - - - - - - - -

adopepo C adopepo C U - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

adopi hp m

A

eadill el ay H

all el ay H . ps U - Q RQ - RQ RQ - RQ RQ - RQ RQ RQ - - RQ Q R - - - - - - - R - RQ

adopace D adopace D U - - - Q RQ - - - - - Q - - R Q - - - - - R R - RQ RQ Q Q Q

eadi yt A

at acl usi b adi oyt A O RQ N - O - - R - - RQ - - - O - R R - - R O O RQ Q O - O -

sis nenis at al ucit ned ani diracoe N A - - - - - - - RQ - - Q - - - - - - RQ - - - - - O - O O O

eadir ab ma C

ii kral c s urab macor P A - O - - Q - - Q Q Q Q Q - - - - Q - Q Q Q Q Q Q - O RQ Q

eadi no meal aP

s una imdnarg mui hcarborca M N - - - - Q O - - - - Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O

ral mui hcarborca M A - O - O - O Q R - O O Q O O O Q Q O O O Q Q Q O O - O O

KAK W

AEK W

LEK W

99- B

00- A

00- B

00- C

10- B

MI A W

WI A W

WHEE

L OH W

ANUP

BNUP

APKU

I WL U

APK M

AUUN

LI WN

L AUP

I WLL

HA ML

UL UL

ONA M

Appendix D. .—Continued t es at ad ssenhcir et ar betr evni deti dE

sut at S

Site

Genus, spec ei s,

or ol west

taxonom ci des gi nat oi n

PKNH

AL UH

AL AK

UL AK

E NAK

[Combined qualitative and quantitative data sets with supplementary data from a concurrent macrofaunal study. Data has been corrected for resolution and ambiguity. R, from RTH sampling; Q, from QMH sampling; O, from other sampling;N, native species; A, alien species, U, undetermined status; -, not present. See table 1 for site names]

78  Feasibility of Using Benthic Invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Quality in Hawaii
Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey publishing staff, 

Pacific Islands Water Science Center, Honolulu, Hawaii

Luis Menoyo

Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, Washington

Debra Grillo

Bobbie Jo Richey

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Director, Pacific Islands Water Science Center 

U.S. Geological Survey, 677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 415

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

http://hi.water.usgs.gov