An Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates 

and Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices 

for the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces 

Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000–August 2002 

By Bret A. Robinson 

Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Army National Guard 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5010 

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004

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.

 iii 

Contents 

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


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


Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Description of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


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


Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Richness Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


Hilsenhoff Biotic Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Invertebrate Community Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


Figures 

1.–2. Maps showing: 

1. Study area and surrounding region at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training 


Area near Edinburgh, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


2.	 Sampling sites for collection of macroinvertebrates, September 2000–August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . 4


3.	 Photographs of modified Hester-Dendy samplers used to collect artificial-substrate samples . . . . . 7


Tables 

1. Macroinvertebrate sampling sites and sample types collected by the U.S. Geological Survey at 

the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 

2000 and July and August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

2.	 Inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve 


Forces Training Area, September 2000–August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9


3.	 Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Richness Index values, listed by sample type and year 


for samples collected, September 2000–August 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


4.	 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index score ranges and water-quality-evaluation ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


5.	 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores, water-quality-evaluation ratings, and drainage area for three 


sites where artificial-substrate samples were collected in 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


6.	 Metric values and Invertebrate Community Index scores calculated from macroinvertebrate 


data collected in 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


Appendixes 

[In pocket] 

A.	 Macroinvertebrate data, 2000

B.	 Macroinvertebrate data, 2002 

C.	 Macroinvertebrate inventory 
iv 

Conversion Factors and Acronyms


Multiply By To obtain 

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

acre 4,047 square meter (m2) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

micrometer (μm) 0.000039 inch (in.) 

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: 

°C = (°F - 32) x 0.555 

The following acronyms are used in this report: 

Acronym Description 

ECBP Eastern Corn Belt Plains 

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera 

HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 

ICI Invertebrate Community Index 

IP Interior Plateau 

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
An Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates and 

Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices for the 

U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area 

near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000–August 2002 

By Bret A. Robinson 

Abstract 

An investigation was conducted to establish an inventory 

of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army 

Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, 

Indiana. The data used to develop this inventory were collected 

during two sampling efforts in September 2000 and July and 

August 2002. The inventory identified 173 distinct taxa within 

the study-area streams. Although no rare or endangered species 

were found, one identified species, Cordulegaster maculata 

Selys (a twin-spotted spiketail dragonfly), is recognized by the 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources as being rare enough 

to warrant special concern. 

Biotic indices (indicators of water-quality conditions) 

were calculated from the macroinvertebrate data. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Richness Index values calculated 

for 23 samples collected from 16 sites ranged from 5 to 15, with 

more than 75 percent of the values falling within the range of 7 

to 11. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores and Invertebrate Community Index scores calculated for samples collected at three sites 

indicate that water quality at these sites ranged from good to 

poor. The one site with a poor water-quality index score had a 

small drainage area. The small drainage area and dry conditions 

during the sampling period may have contributed to the poor 

scores calculated for this site. 

Introduction 

The U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area 

(Camp Atterbury) near Edinburgh, Indiana, (fig. 1) has been a 

military installation since 1942 and was used intermittently for 

troop training, as a military hospital, and as a prisoner-of-war 

facility during World War II. In 1969, the installation was 

placed under the control of the Indiana Army National Guard 

(Indiana National Guard, 1995). 

The mission of Camp Atterbury is to support training 

for the National Guard as well as other reserve and active forces 

of the U.S. military. Year-round training incorporates a variety 

of weapons-firing practice, maneuvers for specialized vehicles 

including air-assault helicopter and parachute operations, and 

bombing practice for the Indiana Air National Guard. Additionally, the facility serves as a training area for emergency teams 

and law-enforcement officers of Federal, State, and local 

government. The central part of Camp Atterbury contains the 

approximately 6,300-acre Common Impact Area that includes 

the weapons-firing ranges and the aerial gunnery and bombing 

ranges (Risch, 2004). 

Based upon the nature of previous activities and the ongoing training exercises at Camp Atterbury, the Indiana Army 

National Guard Environmental Protection Office is interested 

in obtaining data regarding environmental conditions at the 

installation. The concern is twofold—are activities at the facility causing environmental degradation and are environmental 

hazards likely to be encountered by troops during training? 

In 2000, the Indiana National Guard Environmental 

Protection Office requested that the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) conduct an investigation to assess surface-water 

quality at Camp Atterbury. As part of that investigation, 

aquatic-macroinvertebrate samples were collected from 

streams in Camp Atterbury. Aquatic macroinvertebrates are 

good indicators of water-quality conditions because they spend 

a substantial part of their life cycles in water and are subjected 

to a full range of environmental effects (physical, chemical, and 

biological). 

As an extension of the initial USGS water-quality investigation, additional macroinvertebrate samples were collected in 

2002 to establish an inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates 

in the streams at Camp Atterbury. The taxonomic inventory will 

provide base-line data to evaluate water-quality changes if 

future macroinvertebrate samples are collected at Camp Atterbury or if physical changes occur within or upstream from the 

study area. 
2 Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices, Camp Atterbury 

Figure 1. Study area and surrounding region at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near 

Edinburgh, Indiana. 

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000 

Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16, 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MILES 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS 

JOHNSON COUNTY 

BROWN COUNTY 

BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY 

Hants Lake 

East Lake 

BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY

BROWN COUNTY 

Nineveh 

Princes Lakes 

Cordry

Lake 

Sweetwater

 Lake 

Columbus 

Edinburgh SHELBY COUNTY JOHNSON COUNTY 

Franklin

 U.S. ARMY 

FORCES TRAINING AREA

 (Camp Atterbury) 

Drif wt oo d Riv er 

Big Blue River 

Sug ar Creek Lick Creek 

Muddy Branch 

Hospital Road 

Sugar Creek 

Yo un gs Cr eek 

Cathe rin e Creek 

S ad dle Cr eek 

Duck 

Pond Puff 

Lake 

Mud Creek 

31 

31 

65 

65 

46 

135 

252 

135 

252 

Engineer

Pond 

New 

Lake 

East Fork White Ri ver 

46 

Camp Atterbury study area 

Lake or pond 

City or town 

Road or highway 

Stream or river 

County boundary 

Prince Creek 

Common Impact Area 

86 07' 30'' 86 

East Fork Salt Creek 

39 25' 

39 15' 

M ud Creek 

SHELBY COUNTY 

MORGAN COUNTY 

JOHNSON COUNTY

Nineve h Creek 

INDIANA 

Study Area 

Indianapolis 

ATTERBURY RESERVE 

EXPLANATION 
-- --

-- --

-- --

--

-- --

--

-- --

-- --

--

--

-- --

-- --

-- --

Introduction 3 

Macroinvertebrate samples were collected in September 

2000 from 13 sites (table 1 and fig. 2) within the Camp Atterbury study area (Risch, 2004). Sampling sites were along 

Mud Creek, Prince Creek, Nineveh Creek, Muddy Branch, 

Saddle Creek, Lick Creek, Catherine Creek, and one unnamed 

tributary to Nineveh Creek. Additional samples were collected 

at 10 sites in July and August 2002. The sampling completed in 

2002 added three new macroinvertebrate-sampling sites; one of 

those sites (site M1) was on Sugar Creek, a stream within the 

Camp Atterbury study area (fig. 2) that had not been sampled 

previously. Adding this Sugar Creek sampling site assured that 

macroinvertebrate data were collected from the broadest 

possible range of stream sizes within the study area. 

Combining the data derived from the 2000 and 2002 

sampling allowed the inventory of macroinvertebrates to be 

developed from a total of 29 samples (12 Surber samples, 10 

qualitative samples, 3 artificial-substrate samples, 3 duplicate 

samples, and 1 grab sample collected from woody debris) collected from 16 widely distributed sites (table 1 and fig. 2). From 

the sampling data, biotic indices were calculated as indicators 

of surface-water-quality conditions at Camp Atterbury. 

Table 1. Macroinvertebrate sampling sites and sample types collected by the U.S. Geological Survey at the U.S. Army 

Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 and July and August 2002. 

[--, no sample collected] 

Sampling 

site 

(fig. 2) 

Site name Surber sample, 

2000 

Qualitative 

sample, 

2002 

Artificialsubstrate 

sample, 

2002 

A1 Mud Creek in Common Impact Area Yes1 

A2 Prince Creek in Common Impact Area Yes 

A3 Nineveh Creek in Common Impact Area Yes 

A4 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road Yes Yes1 

A5 Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road Yes Yes Yes 

A6 Mud Creek at Mount Moriah Road Yes 

A10 Muddy Branch at Bearrs Road Yes2 Yes 

B1 Prince Creek at Wilder Road Yes 

B2 Nineveh Creek at Hospital Road Yes Yes Yes 

B3 Saddle Creek at Mount Moriah Road Yes Yes Yes 

B4 Nineveh Creek at Wallace Road Yes 

B5 Lick Creek at Mauxferry Road Yes Yes 

B6 Catherine Creek at Reservation Boundary Road Yes Yes 

E5 Nineveh Creek at Range Line Road near Kansas Cemetery Yes 

E7 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek at County Line Road Yes 

M1 Sugar Creek downstream from Hospital Road Yes1 

1A duplicate sample was collected.


2Woody debris was sampled because substrate at this site was not appropriate for Surber sampling.

4 Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices, Camp Atterbury 

86 05 86 

39 20 

B1 

B2 

B3 

B4 

B5 

B6 

A1 

A2 A3 

A4 

A5 

A6 

A10 

E5 

E7 

Catherine Creek 

Lick Cre ek 

M u d Creek 

Prince Creek 

Nineveh Creek 

Muddy B r a n c h 

S a d d l e C r eek 

Sugar 

Creek 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

M1 

EXPLANATION 

Camp Atterbury study area 

Common Impact Area 

Stream 

Road 

X B2 Macroinvertebrate sampling site 

and site designation 

Surber or woody-debris sample 

39 15 collected in 2000 

Qualitative sample collected in 2002 

Artificial-substrate sample 

collected in 2002 

0 1 2 MILES 

0 1 2 KILOMETERS 

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000 

Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16, 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

Figure 2. Sampling sites for collection of macroinvertebrates at U.S. Army Reserve Forces Training Area near 


Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000–August 2002.
5 

Purpose and Scope 

This report documents the results of an investigation to 

collect samples and determine the taxonomic identification 

of aquatic macroinvertebrates in streams at Camp Atterbury. 

Samples were collected in September 2000 and July and August 

2002. Methods of field-data collection and processing and laboratory identification are described. The report presents an 

inventory list of distinct taxa identified by the laboratory in 

at least one sample or duplicate sample. The data also are used 

to calculate the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) 

Richness Index; the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; and the Ohio Invertebrate Community Index as indicators of environmental quality. 

Description of Study Area 

Camp Atterbury is a 33,760-acre military installation in 

central Indiana (fig. 1). The property lies within parts of northwestern Bartholomew, northeastern Brown, and southern 

Johnson Counties. The town of Edinburgh, Indiana, is approximately 2 mi east of the main Camp Atterbury entrance. 

The study area falls within two of the physiographic units 

defined and described by Malott (1922) and further refined by 

Schneider (1966). The northeastern one-fourth of the study area 

is within the Scottsburg Lowland physiographic unit. In the 

study area, this physiographic unit is described as an area of low 

relief where glacial deposits up to 150 ft thick cover the underlying bedrock. The southern and western parts of the study area 

fall within the Norman Upland physiographic unit. Within the 

study area, this physiographic unit tends to display greater local 

relief than does the Scottsburg Lowland, and bedrock is usually 

at or near the land surface. 

Following the same general boundary as that which 

separates the physiographic units, the Camp Atterbury study 

area falls within two ecoregions. The eastern part of the 

study area, generally coincident with the Scottsburg Lowland, is 

within the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) ecoregion (Woods 

and others, 1998). This ecoregion is underlain primarily by Wisconsinan glacial deposits and typically exhibits a subdued rolling 

topography. The western part of the study area, generally coincident with the Norman Upland, is within the Interior Plateau (IP) 

ecoregion. This ecoregion is characterized by dissected hills 

and knobs and narrow valleys; it has more forest cover than the 

ECBP ecoregion to the north and east. 

Most of the soil types of the study area have been grouped 

into one of five soil associations on the basis of similar soil characteristics (Noble and others, 1990). The Stonelick-Chagrin 

association is found on the flood plains of the Driftwood River 

and downstream reaches of Nineveh Creek; it is described as 

deep, nearly level, well-drained soils formed in loamy alluvial 

deposits. The Crosby-Miami-Rensselaer association is found in 

the northern part of the study area; it is described as deep, nearly 

level to strongly sloping, very poorly drained to well-drained 

soils formed in loess or till on uplands and terraces. The PekinStudy Methods 

Chetwynd-Bartle association is found in the central part of the 

study area—roughly bounded by Nineveh Creek on the north 

and Lick Creek on the south—and within much of the Catherine 

Creek Watershed. This soil association is characterized as deep, 

nearly level to very steep, somewhat poorly drained to welldrained soils, formed in silty and loamy deposits on terraces. 

Soils of the Hickory-Cincinnati-Rossmoyne association 

are found in the southeastern part of the study area. This soil 

association is described as deep, gently sloping to very steep, 

well-drained and moderately well-drained soils, formed in loess 

and underlying glacial drift on uplands. In the westernmost and 

southwestern part of the study area are found the soils of the 

Berks-Wellston-Trevlac association. These soils are described 

as moderately deep to deep, moderately sloping to very steep, 

and well drained. These soils are formed in loess and material 

weathered from shale, siltstone, and sandstone on uplands. 

Streamflow generally is from west to east across the study 

area. The largest stream is Sugar Creek, with a drainage area of 

approximately 474 mi2 at the study-area sampling site. Sugar 

Creek crosses the northeastern corner of the study area and 

drains a small part of the study area. Nineveh Creek, the second 

largest stream in the study area, has a drainage area of approximately 44 mi2. Nineveh Creek originates upstream from the 

study area and is joined by numerous tributaries inside Camp 

Atterbury, including Prince Creek and Mud Creek. All the other 

streams in the study area have drainage areas less than 10 mi2. 

The headwaters of Lick Creek, Muddy Branch, and Catherine 

Creek are inside the study area; their drainage areas range from 

2 to 6 mi2. 

As described by Risch (2004), the study area has a humid 

continental climate, characterized by distinct winter and summer 

seasons with large annual temperature ranges. Mean monthly 

temperatures at Columbus, Ind., about 6 mi southeast of the 

study area, range from about 28°F in January to about 76°F in 

July. At Columbus, normal annual precipitation is 42 in. and normal monthly precipitation ranges from about 2.6 in. in February 

to about 4.6 in. in May (Midwestern Regional Climate Center, 

2004). 

Study Methods 

Sampling sites were selected to provide a broad geographic 

coverage of the study area and a diversity of stream sizes. Fieldsampling protocols established by the USGS National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (Cuffney and others, 

1993) were followed during all sampling events discussed in this 

report. 

Macroinvertebrate samples can be collected and processed 

in a variety of ways. Throughout this report, three types of samples are discussed—qualitative, Surber, and artificial substrate 

(table 1). Qualitative samples represent a composite of organisms collected from all available habitats at a given sampling 

site. When these samples are processed in the laboratory, the 
6 Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices, Camp Atterbury 

goal is to identify the variety of taxa found in the sample; no 

effort is made to determine the relative abundance of each identified taxon. This type of macroinvertebrate sample is desirable 

when developing a taxonomic inventory; however, these qualitative samples cannot fully describe the compositional details 

of a macroinvertebrate community. 

Unlike qualitative samples, Surber and artificial-substrate 

samples collect organisms from a defined and measurable area 

of habitat. For the Surber and artificial-substrate samples 

discussed in this report, laboratory processing attempted to 

identify the variety of organisms found in each sample and 

calculate the relative abundance of each identified taxa. These 

types of samples, although more expensive to collect and 

process, allow for a more-detailed understanding of the composition of a macroinvertebrate community. The results then 

can be used to infer surface-water-quality conditions at a 

sampling site. 

In 2000, Risch (2004) completed sampling to aide in a 

base-wide assessment of the quality of surface water at Camp 

Atterbury. As part of that investigation, 12 Surber samples, 

1 sample from woody debris, and 1 duplicate sample of macroinvertebrates were collected at 13 sites (table 1). Samples were 

collected at locations that, on the basis of field observations, 

were believed to have the best habitat for macroinvertebrates. 

Sampling locations generally were in riffles. 

The 12 Surber samples were collected by placing a Surber 

sampler on the streambed so that streamflow was directed 

into the open end of the sampling net. Cobble-sized particles 

within the sampling frame were collected by hand and placed 

in a water-filled 2-gal bucket for later brushing. Then, the 

streambed exposed within the sampling frame was brushed 

vigorously to free all attached organisms, and streamflow 

carried the dislodged organisms into the sampling net. All 

dislodged organisms and detritus—either collected in the sampling net or brushed from the cobbles—were poured onto a 

212-μm mesh sieve and rinsed to separate the macroinvertebrates from excessive sediment and algae. The organisms 

retained on the sieve were placed in sample jars and preserved 

with formalin prior to shipping to the laboratory. (At site A10, 

woody debris was sampled because substrate at the site was not 

appropriate for Surber sampling.) 

In July and August 2002, 10 qualitative samples were collected at 10 sites (table 1). Two sites (A6, Mud Creek at Mount 

Moriah Road; B1, Prince Creek at Wilder Road) scheduled for 

qualitative sampling could not be sampled because of dry conditions. Therefore, two other sites (E5, Nineveh Creek at Range 

Line Road near Kansas Cemetery; E7, unnamed tributary to 

Nineveh Creek at County Line Road) less affected by the dry 

conditions were substituted. 

The qualitative samples were collected from a variety of 

instream habitats at each site including streambed sediments, 

accumulations of woody debris, aquatic vegetation, and the 

water column. Streambed sediment was sampled following 

the same procedures used by Risch in the 2000 sampling outlined earlier. To collect samples from accumulations of woody 

debris, approximately 6 ft of 2-in. diameter wood was removed 

from a debris accumulation and a soft-bristle brush was used to 

dislodge the attached organisms. 

Organisms clinging to aquatic vegetation or free-swimming/floating within the water column were sampled by sweeping a 500-μm mesh dip net through the pools, riffles, and beds 

of vegetation. The collected organisms and detritus were rinsed 

on a 212-μm mesh sieve to remove excess sediment and algae. 

All organisms collected from these various habitats were combined to produce one qualitative sample for each sampling site. 

Duplicate qualitative samples were collected at two sites (A4, 

unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road; M1, 

Sugar Creek downstream from Hospital Road). 

Artificial-substrate samples were collected in 2002 at 

three sampling sites (A5, Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road; 

B2, Nineveh Creek at Hospital Road; and B3, Saddle Creek at 

Mount Moriah Road). These samples were collected by placing 

modified Hester-Dendy samplers (described by Tertuliani, 

1999) in the streams for 6 weeks. 

The study design called for all artificial-substrate samplers 

to be placed in the streams in mid-June 2002; however, military 

maneuvers at Camp Atterbury prevented access to site B3 in 

mid-June. On June 17, 2002, two units, each consisting of five 

plate-type artificial-substrate samplers chained to cinder blocks 

(fig. 3), were placed in the water at sites A5 and B2. On July 1, 

2002, the final two artificial-substrate sampling units were 

placed at site B3. Two units were placed at each site to prevent 

a loss of data in the event one unit was lost or damaged. 

During the 6-week sampling periods, organisms colonized 

the open spaces between the artificial-substrate plates. The 

samplers placed at sites A5 and B2 on June 17, 2002, were 

retrieved from the field on July 29, 2002. The samplers placed 

at site B3 on July 1, 2002, were retrieved from the field 

on August 12, 2002. At the end of the 6 weeks, the artificialsubstrate sampling units at each site had not been disturbed or 

lost. Therefore, at each site, one of the cinder-block sampling 

units arbitrarily was selected for sampling while the other unit 

was removed from the field without being sampled. 

Once the sampling unit was selected and retrieved, the five 

artificial-substrate samplers from that unit were dismantled and 

the colonizing organisms were brushed into their own samplecollection jar. The collected organisms were preserved with 

formalin and shipped to the USGS National Water Quality 

Laboratory (NWQL) Biological Group. After preliminary 

examination by personnel at the laboratory, it was determined 

that the five samples collected at each site could be composited 

into a single sample for each sampling site before they 

were analyzed. This compositioning produced one artificialsubstrate sample for each of the three sites where modified 

Hester-Dendy samples were placed. 
Study Methods 7 

.


Figure 3. Modified Hester-Dendy samplers used to collect artificial-substrate samples. The top photograph 

shows one of the two sampling units placed in Nineveh Creek at site B2 on June 17, 2002, U.S. Army Atterbury 

Reserve Forces Training Area, near Edinburgh, Indiana. The bottom photograph shows a plate-type artificialsubstrate sampler on dry land before being placed in the stream. 
8 Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices, Camp Atterbury 

Risch (2004) provides a detailed description of how the 

macroinvertebrate samples collected in 2000 were processed 

by the USGS NWQL. In 2002, a total of 15 macroinvertebrate 

samples (3 artificial-substrate samples, 10 qualitative samples, 

and 2 duplicate qualitative samples) were submitted to the 

USGS NWQL Biological Group for processing. This included 

taxonomic identification for all 15 samples and, for the artificial-substrate samples, calculation of the relative abundance 

of each taxonomic group identified. Analysis was completed 

according to the methods documented in Moulton and others 

(2000). Artificial-substrate samples were processed with a 300­

count method similar to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Standard Taxonomic Assessment. Qualitative samples 

were processed through a 2-hour visual sort and taxonomic 

assessment. Taxonomic identification of all samples was made 

to the lowest possible taxonomic level. 

Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates 

To develop the inventory of macroinvertebrates, data 

from all USGS macroinvertebrate samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury were combined. This included 12 Surber samples, 

10 qualitative samples, 3 artificial-substrate samples, 1 sample 

collected from woody debris, and 3 duplicate samples from 

16 sites (table 1). The data were reviewed to remove duplicate 

and ambiguous taxa—those that are not distinct from other taxa 

identified to a lower taxonomic level. Appendix A presents, in 

digital format, the macroinvertebrate data collected in 2000, 

and appendix B presents the same for data collected in 2002. 

The inventory is presented in table 2 and in digital format in 

appendix C. 

Review of this inventory shows that 173 distinct taxa have 

been identified; of those, 156 distinct taxa are from the Phylum 

Arthropoda. Other phyla represented are Mollusca (10 taxa); 

Annelida (4 taxa); and Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes, and Nematoda (1 taxon each). Within the Phylum Arthropoda, the greatest 

number of distinct taxa identified are in the Class Insecta, 

including 66 taxa in the Order Diptera (true flies and mosquitoes), 24 taxa in the Order Coleoptera (beetles), 19 taxa in 

the Order Ephemeroptera (mayflies), and 17 taxa in the Order 

Trichoptera (caddisflies). 

One of the species identified in samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury was Cordulegaster maculata Selys (a twin-spotted 

spiketail dragonfly). Although this species has not been listed 

as endangered or threatened at the State or Federal level, it is 

recognized by IDNR as being rare enough to warrant special 

concern (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2002). 

Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices 

Numerous approaches have been used to assess surfacewater-quality conditions by evaluating macroinvertebrate 

data. For this investigation, three indices were used—the 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Richness Index; 

the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff, 1987 and 1988); 

and the Invertebrate Community Index (Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1987 and 1989). Although these three indices are distinct, they follow the same general approach of using 

the composition of the macroinvertebrate community at each 

site to infer water-quality conditions. 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera 

Richness Index 

Some macroinvertebrates—for example, taxa within 

the order Diptera (true flies and mosquitoes) and the class 

Oligochaeta (segmented worms)—tend to be tolerant of poor 

water-quality conditions. Other organisms—for example, the 

orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and 

Trichoptera (caddisflies)—are more sensitive to pollution. 

Numerous sensitive taxa are expected only to be found at 

sites with good water quality (North American Benthological 

Society, 1996, web site provides a history of the EPT richness 

metric). 

The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Richness Index evaluates environmental quality by measuring the 

abundance of these sensitive taxa at a site. This index is calculated by summing the number of distinct taxa within these three 

pollution-sensitive orders. The result is taken as an indicator of 

water quality and allows for between-site comparisons. Low 

values (few EPT taxa) can indicate degraded water quality. 

A summary of the EPT Richness Index values calculated 

from the macroinvertebrate data collected at Camp Atterbury 

is provided in table 3. The values listed for 2000 were derived 

from the Surber samples collected in that year. The values listed 

for 2002 were derived from the qualitative samples collected in 

that year. The calculated values for 23 samples collected from 

16 sites ranged from 5 to 15, with more than 75 percent of the 

values within the range of 7 to 11. 

When multiple EPT values are calculated for a site, the 

results can show a high degree of variability. This is illustrated 

in the values calculated for site A4. A qualitative sample collected at this site on July 30, 2002, produced an EPT value of 5. 

Without additional data, this low EPT value would appear to 

indicate poor water quality at this site compared to other sampling locations. A duplicate sample also collected at this site 

and on the same day, however, produced an EPT value of 10. 

Furthermore, a Surber sample collected at site A4 in 2000 produced an EPT value of 11. Therefore, the EPT value of 5 may 

not be a true indicator of poor water quality and simply may 

reflect natural variation within the macroinvertebrate community or in the sampling and analysis process. 
Table 2. Inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, SAugust 2002. [sp., an unidentified species within the listed genus] 

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxon identification 

Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae Hydra Hydra sp. Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria Nematoda Nematoda Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula Corbicula sp. Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pisidiinae Pisidium Pisidium sp. Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriinae Sphaerium Sphaerium sp. Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia Ferrissia sp. Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Lymnaeidae Lymnaeinae Stagnicola Stagnicola sp. Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physinae Physella Physella sp. Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Helisoma Helisoma sp. Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Planorbella Planorbella sp. Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Hydrobiidae Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Pleuroceridae Elimia Elimia sp. Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Glossiphoniidae Annelida Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naididae Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae Arthropoda Arachnida Acari Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Crangonyx sp. Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Hyalellidae Hyalella Hyalella azteca (Saussure1) Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarinae Orconectes Orconectes sp. Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea Caecidotea sp. Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Lirceus Lirceus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Collembola Collembola Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna Acerpenna macdunnoughi (Ide) Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis Baetis flavistriga McDunnough Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis Baetis intercalaris McDunnough Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Diphetor Diphetor hageni (Eaton) Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Pseudocloeon Pseudocloeon sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Centroptilum/Procloeon sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis Caenis sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerellidae 
Table 2. Inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, S

August 2002.—Continued 

[sp., an unidentified species within the listed genus] 

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxon identification 

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Ephemera Ephemera sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Leucrocuta Leucrocuta sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron Stenacron sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema Stenonema exiguum Traver Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema Stenonema femoratum (Say) Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema Stenonema mediopunctatum 

(McDunnough) 

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema Stenonema terminatum (Walsh) Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema Stenonema vicarium (Walker) Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia Isonychia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes Tricorythodes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Choroterpes Choroterpes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae Basiaeschna Basiaeschna janata (Say) Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae Boyeria Boyeria vinosa (Say) Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois) Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Hetaerina Hetaerina americana (Fabricius) Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia Argia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster Cordulegaster maculata Selys Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae Corduliidae Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Gomphus Gomphus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Progomphus Progomphus obscurus (Rambur) Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Corixinae Sigara Sigara sp. Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gelastocoridae Gelastocorinae Gelastocoris Gelastocoris oculatus (Fabricius) Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Rhagodotarsinae Rheumatobates Rheumatobates sp. Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Gerrinae Gerrinae Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Trepobatinae Trepobates Trepobates sp. Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Mesoveliidae Mesovelia Mesovelia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae Microveliinae Microvelia Microvelia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae Rhagoveliinae Rhagovelia Rhagovelia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalinae Corydalus Corydalus cornutus (Linnaeus) Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis Sialis sp. Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Leuctridae Leuctrinae Leuctra Leuctra sp. 
Table 2. Inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, S

August 2002.—Continued 

[sp., an unidentified species within the listed genus] 

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxon identification 

Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Acroneuriinae Acroneuria Acroneuria sp. Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Perlodidae Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Ceratopsyche Ceratopsyche bronta (Ross) Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Ceratopsyche Ceratopsyche cheilonis (Ross) Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche depravata group Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Hydropsyche Hydropsyche rossi Flint, Voshell, 

and Parker 

Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Hydroptila Hydroptila armata (Ross) Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Orthotrichia Orthotrichia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Leptocerinae Oecetis Oecetis furva group Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Leptocerinae Oecetis Oecetis persimilis (Banks) Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Leptocerinae Triaenodes Triaenodes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Limnephilidae Limnephilinae Pycnopsyche Pycnopsyche sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarrinae Chimarra Chimarra sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropodinae Neureclipsis Neureclipsis sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropodinae Paranyctiophylax Paranyctiophylax sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropodinae Polycentropus Polycentropus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Psychomyiidae Psychomyiinae Lype Lype diversa (Banks) Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Psychomyiidae Psychomyiinae Psychomyia Psychomyia flavida Hagen Arthropoda Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Nymphulinae Petrophila Petrophila sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Curculionidae Curculionidae Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus Helichus basalis LeConte Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus Helichus fastigiatus (Say) Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus Helichus lithophilus (Germar) Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporinae Hydroporini Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Laccophilinae Laccophilus Laccophilus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx Ancyronyx variegata (Germar) Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia Dubiraphia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus Macronychus glabratus Say Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus Optioservus trivittatus (Brown) Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis Stenelmis crenata (Say) Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Gyrinidae Dineutus Dineutus sp. 
Table 2. Inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, S

August 2002.—Continued 

[sp., an unidentified species within the listed genus] 

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxon identification 

Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Haliplidae Peltodytes Peltodytes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Helophoridae Helophorus Helophorus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrochidae Hydrochus Hydrochus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Berosus Berosus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Cymbiodyta Cymbiodyta sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Enochrus Enochrus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Laccobius Laccobius sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Paracymus Paracymus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Tropisternus Tropisternus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus Psephenus herricki (DeKay) Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Scirtidae Scirtidae Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae Staphylinidae Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae Probezzia Probezzia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Dasyheleinae Dasyhelea Dasyhelea sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Forcipomyiinae Atrichopogon Atrichopogon sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Chironomus Chironomus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Cryptotendipes Cryptotendipes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Micropsectra Micropsectra sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Microtendipes Microtendipes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Nilothauma Nilothauma sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Paracladopelma Paracladopelma sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Paratendipes Paratendipes sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Polypedilum Polypedilum ontario (Walley) Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Pseudochironomus Pseudochironomus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Saetheria Saetheria sp. 
Table 2. Inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, S

August 2002.—Continued 

[sp., an unidentified species within the listed genus] 

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxon identification 

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Stempellinella Stempellinella sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Stenochironomus Stenochironomus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Stictochironomus Stictochironomus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Sublettea Sublettea coffmani (Roback) Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Tanytarsus Tanytarsus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Tribelos Tribelos sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae Xestochironomus Xestochironomus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Brillia Brillia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cardiocladius Cardiocladius sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Corynoneura Corynoneura sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus Cricotopus bicinctus group Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus Cricotopus trifascia group Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Nanocladius Nanocladius sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Orthocladius Orthocladius lignicola Kieffer Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Parakiefferiella Parakiefferiella sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Psectrocladius Psectrocladius sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Pseudosmittia Pseudosmittia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Synorthocladius Synorthocladius semivirens (KieffArthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Thienemanniella Thienemanniella sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Tvetenia Tvetenia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Xylotopus Xylotopus par (Coquillett) Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Labrundinia Labrundinia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Larsia Larsia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Natarsia Natarsia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Nilotanypus Nilotanypus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Paramerina Paramerina sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Procladius Procladius sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Zavrelimyia Zavrelimyia sp. 
Table 2. Inventory of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the streams at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, S

August 2002.—Continued 

[sp., an unidentified species within the listed genus] 

Phylum Class Order Family Subfamily Genus Taxon identification 

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia group sp. 

(Coffman and Ferrington, 1996) 

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae Pentaneurini Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Culicidae Anopheles Anopheles sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Dixidae Dixella Dixella sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromia Hemerodromia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Psychodidae Pericoma/Telmatoscopus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium Simulium sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Stratiomyidae Stratiomyinae Odontomyia Odontomyia sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tabanidae Chrysops Chrysops sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tabanidae Tabanus Tabanus sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Limoniinae Antocha Antocha sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Limoniinae Hexatoma Hexatoma sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Tipulinae Tipula Tipula sp. Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera 

1The author’s name follows the species name without punctuation if the species, when originally described, was assigned to the same genus in which it appears; if the species 

in another genus, the author’s name appears in parentheses. 
--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices 15 

Table 3. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Richness Index values, listed by sample type and year 

for samples collected at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000–August 2002. 

[--, no sample collected] 

Sampling 

site Site name 

EPT Richnes

 Surber samples 

collected in 2000 

(duplicate 

sample) 

s Index value

Qualitative 

samples 

collected in 2002 

(duplicate 

sample) 

A1 Mud Creek in Common Impact Area 10 (9) 

A2 Prince Creek in Common Impact Area 10 

A3 Nineveh Creek in Common Impact Area 6 

A4 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road 11 5 (10) 

A5 Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road 7 11 

A6 Mud Creek at Mount Moriah Road 7 

A10 Muddy Branch at Bearrs Road 8 8 

B1 Prince Creek at Wilder Road 7 

B2 Nineveh Creek at Hospital Road 7 11 

B3 Saddle Creek at Mount Moriah Road 8 8 

B4 Nineveh Creek at Wallace Road 8 

B5 Lick Creek at Mauxferry Road 8 6 

B6 Catherine Creek at Reservation Boundary Road 7 8 

E5 Nineveh Creek at Range Line Road near Kansas Cemetery 12 

E7 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek at County Line Road 8 

M1 Sugar Creek downstream from Hospital Road 15 (14) 

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) (Hilsenhoff, 1987 and 

1988) provides a means of assessing water quality at sites where 

macroinvertebrate samples have been collected and the number 

of individuals in each taxon has been identified. In this method, 

individual taxa are assigned pollution-tolerance values based 

on the taxon’s tolerance to organic pollution. These pollutiontolerance values range from 0 to 10, where 0 applies to those 

taxa that are least tolerant, and 10 applies to those taxa that are 

most tolerant. When evaluating water-quality conditions at a 

site, only those taxa with assigned tolerance values are included 

in the analysis. 

The pollution-tolerance values used in this investigation 

came from tables published by Hilsenhoff (1987). To calculate 

an HBI from a macroinvertebrate sample, the number of individuals within a given taxon is multiplied by the tolerance value 

for that taxon. The resultant products then are summed and 

divided by the number of individuals in the sample that contributed to the calculated products. This calculation procedure 

produces an HBI that is a tolerance score for the sample 

weighted by the number of individuals in each contributing 

taxon. 

The calculated HBI scores can range from 0 to 10. An HBI 

score at the high end of the scale indicates that the invertebrate 

community is dominated by pollution-tolerant organisms and 
16 Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices, Camp Atterbury 

indicates that the site has been subjected to organic pollution. 

In contrast, a low score indicates that organisms intolerant of 

organic pollution dominate the invertebrate community and 

implies that water quality at the site is good. A widely recognized rating system used to evaluate HBI scores is outlined 

in table 4. 

In this investigation, HBI scores were calculated for the 

three artificial-substrate samples collected in 2002 (table 5). 

The artificial-substrate samples collected at sites A5 and B2 

produced HBI scores (5.6 and 5.7, respectively) that suggest 

water quality at these two sites is fair. The HBI score calculated 

for site B3 (7.9) suggests that water quality at this site is poor. 

Chemical analysis of water samples collected at site B3 

in 2000 by Risch (2004) showed no signs of organic pollution. 

Therefore, the high HBI score calculated for this site may not 

be a true indicator of poor water quality but a reflection of the 

small drainage area (2.95 mi2) of this site. Field observations 

indicate that flow at this site periodically approaches zero. On 

the day (August 12, 2002) that the artificial-substrate sample 

was retrieved at site B3, water at this site was found only in isolated pools, and flow between the pools was through streambed 

gravel deposits. 

Invertebrate Community Index 

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency developed the 

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) to aid in the evaluation 

of surface-water-quality conditions at sites where macroinvertebrate samples have been collected (Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1987 and 1989). In the Ohio ICI method, 

a total of 10 metrics are calculated, with each metric providing 

a measure of an isolated aspect of environmental quality. The 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management is developing a similar method to evaluate macroinvertebrate data but, 

at present (2004), no equivalent method has been accepted for 

Indiana streams. Because geologic and land-use conditions 

within the study area are similar to conditions in neighboring 

Ohio, it is appropriate to apply the Ohio ICI methodology to 

the macroinvertebrate data collected at Camp Atterbury. 

Tertuliani (1999) provides a detailed discussion of 

how each of the 10 metrics relates to environmental-quality 

conditions at a site. Metrics 1 through 9 are calculated from 

artificial-substrate samples, whereas metric 10 is calculated 

from qualitative samples. Each metric receives an ICI score, 

ranging from 0 to 6, based on the metric values generated from 

the macroinvertebrate data. The ICI score for a site is generated 

by summing the individual metric scores. 

In 2002, artificial-substrate and qualitative samples 

were collected at three sites at Camp Atterbury: A5, Nineveh 

Creek at Mauxferry Road; B2, Nineveh Creek at Hospital Road; 

and B3, Saddle Creek at Mount Moriah Road (fig. 2 and 

table 6). 

To evaluate surface-water-quality conditions with ICI 

scores, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1987) 

developed a method that divides Ohio into ecoregions and provides a statistical summary of ICI scores within each ecoregion 

and water-quality category. That agency traditionally has recognized four water-quality categories—exceptional, good, fair, 

and poor. 

Sites A5 and B2 are within the Eastern Corn Belt Plains 

(ECBP) ecoregion and are best evaluated by the standards recognized for that ecoregion. The ICI score calculated for site A5 

was 42, and the ICI score calculated for site B2 was 36. Based 

on data for the ECBP ecoregion (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987), surface-water quality at these sites is 

described as good. 

Site B3 is within the Interior Plateau (IP) ecoregion; the 

macroinvertebrate data collected at this site generated an ICI 

score of 26. For data collected in the IP ecoregion in Ohio (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1987), ICI scores for sites 

with good water quality range from 30 to 56. For sites with fair 

water quality, ICI scores range from 8 to 18. Therefore, the ICI 

score of 26 calculated for site B3 was below the threshold for 

good water quality but was well above the scores for sites with 

fair water quality. Site B3 has a small drainage area (2.95 mi2) 

compared to other sites, and flow at this site periodically 

approaches zero. Therefore, the lower ICI score calculated for 

site B3 may represent a physical stress on the macroinvertebrate 

community and not a chemical stress associated with degraded 

water quality. 

Summary 

At the request of the Indiana Army National Guard Environmental Protection Office, macroinvertebrate samples were 

collected by the USGS at 16 sites within the Camp Atterbury 

study area between September 2000 and August 2002. The 

data were combined, and duplicate and ambiguous taxa were 

removed to develop an inventory of macroinvertebrates in the 

streams at Camp Atterbury. This inventory and the taxonomic 

list produced for each site provide base-line data to evaluate 

environmental changes if future macroinvertebrate samples are 

collected at Camp Atterbury or if physical changes are made 

within or upstream from the study area. 

In this inventory, 173 distinct taxa have been identified; of 

those, 156 distinct taxa are from the Phylum Arthropoda. The 

orders with the greatest number of identified distinct taxa are 

Diptera, Coleoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Trichoptera. 

One of the species identified in the Camp Atterbury 

samples was Cordulegaster maculata Selys (a twin-spotted 

spiketail dragonfly). This species, while not listed as endangered or threatened at the State or Federal level, is recognized 

by IDNR as being rare enough to warrant special concern (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2002). 

Three biotic indices were calculated to evaluate what the 

macroinvertebrate data may indicate regarding surface-water-
Summary 17 

Table 4. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index score ranges and water-quality-evaluation ratings (taken from Hilsenhoff, 

1987). 

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 

score range 

Water-quality-evaluation 

rating Degree of organic pollution 

0.00 – 3.50 Excellent No apparent organic pollution. 

3.51 – 4.50 Very good Possible slight organic pollution. 

4.51 – 5.50 Good Some organic pollution. 

5.51 – 6.50 Fair Fairly significant organic pollution. 

6.51 – 7.50 Fairly poor Significant organic pollution. 

7.51 – 8.50 Poor Very significant organic pollution. 

8.51 – 10.00 Very poor Severe organic pollution. 

Table 5. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores, water-quality-evaluation ratings, and drainage area for three sites 

where artificial-substrate samples were collected in 2002 at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training 

Area near Edinburgh, Indiana. 

Hilsenhoff Water-quality- Drainage 

Site Site name Biotic Index evaluation area 

score rating (square miles) 

A5 Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road 5.6 Fair 35.3 

B2 Nineveh Creek at Hospital Road 5.7 Fair 8.82 

B3 Saddle Creek at Mount Moriah Road 7.9 Poor 2.95 

Table 6. Metric values and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores calculated from macroinvertebrate data 

collected in 2002 at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana. 

[<, less than; EPT, taxa in the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera] 

Metric value (ICI score), by site 

Metric 

A5 B2 B3 

1. Total number of taxa 43 (6) 29 (2) 31 (4) 

2. Number of mayfly taxa 6 (4) 5 (4) 3 (2) 

3. Number of caddisfly taxa 3 (4) 3 (4) 3 (4) 

4. Number of Diptera taxa 25 (6) 15 (4) 17 (4) 

5. Percent mayflies 23 (4) 30 (6) <1 (2) 

6. Percent caddisflies 6 (4) 1 (2) 1 (2) 

7. Percent Tanytarsini midges 10 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 

8. Percent other Diptera and non-insects 54 (2) 66 (0) 93 (0) 

9. Percent tolerant organisms <1 (6) <1 (6) 24 (2) 

10. Number of Qualitative EPT taxa1 11 (4) 11 (6) 8 (4) 

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) (42) (36) (26) 

1

For this metric, the ICI score is a function of the drainage area at the sampling site; therefore, two sites with identical metric values 

(in this case 11) may not produce identical ICI scores. 
18 Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Calculation of Selected Biotic Indices, Camp Atterbury 

quality conditions at Camp Atterbury—the Ephemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, Trichoptera Richness Index; the Hilsenhoff Biotic 

Index; and the Invertebrate Community Index. The composition 

of the macroinvertebrate community at a site is used in these 

indices to provide insight regarding surface-water quality. 

The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Richness 

Index is a measure of the abundance of these three pollutionsensitive insect orders within a sample. The EPT values calculated for the macroinvertebrate samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury range from 5 to 15, with more than 75 percent of the 

values within the range of 7 to 11. The lowest value of 5 came 

from a qualitative sample collected at site A4 in 2002. This low 

value could be taken as an indicator of degraded water quality 

at this site compared to the other sites. At site A4, however, a 

Surber sample collected in 2000 produced an EPT value of 11, 

and a duplicate sample collected in 2002 produced an EPT 

value of 10. Therefore, the low value generated from the 2002 

qualitative sample at site A4 seems to have resulted from natural variation within the macroinvertebrate community or the 

sampling and analysis process and may not be a true indicator 

of poor water quality. 

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index evaluates surface-water quality at a site, using pollution-tolerance values of individual taxa 

identified in a sample. For Camp Atterbury, Hilsenhoff Biotic 

Index scores were calculated for the three artificial-substrate 

samples collected in 2002. Samples collected at sites A5 and B2 

indicated fair water quality, whereas the sample collected at site 

B3 indicated poor water quality. 

The Invertebrate Community Index was developed to aid 

in the evaluation of surface-water-quality conditions at sites 

where artificial-substrate and qualitative macroinvertebrate 

samples have been collected. This index was applied to evaluate 

environmental conditions at the three sites where artificialsubstrate samples were collected in 2002. Results derived 

from samples collected at sites A5 and B2 indicate good 

water quality, whereas the Invertebrate Community Index score 

calculated for site B3 placed water quality between the good 

and fair categories. 

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index score and the Invertebrate 

Community Index score calculated for site B3 indicate that 

water-quality conditions are slightly degraded. The calculated 

scores, however, simply may reflect the relatively small drainage area of this site compared to other sampling sites in the 

study area and that flow periodically approaches zero. 

Acknowledgments 

The author thanks Lori Matulis of Smoky Row Elementary 

School in Carmel, Indiana; Christine Robinson of Perry Meridian High School in Indianapolis, Indiana; and Art Howard, the 

Camp Atterbury Land Conditions Trends Analysis manager, for 

assistance they provided during the sample-collection process. 
References Cited 

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. 

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1987, An improved biotic index of organic 

stream pollution: The Great Lakes Entomologist, v. 20, 

p. 31–39.

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. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2002, Endangered, 

threatened, rare and extirpated vertebrates and invertebrates, 

Indiana, accessed March 3, 2003, at http://www.in.gov/dnr/ 

naturepr/pdf/vertinve.pdf 

Indiana National Guard, 1995, Atterbury News: Edinburgh, 

Ind., Indiana National Guard, v. 1, no. 1, 19 p. 

Malott, C.A., 1922, The physiography of Indiana in Handbook 

of Indiana geology: Indiana Department of Conservation, 

Publication No. 21, p. 59–256. 

Midwestern Regional Climate Center, 2004, Historical climate 

summaries online date: accessed February 10, 2004, at 

URL http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/htm/lMWclimate_data_ 

summaries.htm 

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 Open-File 

Report 00–212, 49 p. 

Acknowledgments 19 

Noble, R.A., Wingard, R.C., Jr., and Ziegler, T.R., 1990, Soil 

survey of Brown County and part of Bartholomew County, 

Indiana: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation 

Service, 135 p. 

North American Benthological Society, 1996, History of the 

EPT taxa richness metric, accessed February 9, 2004, at 

http://www.benthos.org/Bulletin/bull1302.htm 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Biological 

criteria for the protection of aquatic life, Volume II—Users 

manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface 

waters: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [variously 

paged]. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life, Volume III—Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for 

assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities: Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency [variously paged]. 

Risch, M.R., 2004, Chemical and biological assessment of 

surface water at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces 

Training Area, near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 

through July 2001: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03–4149, 87 p. 

Schneider, A.F., 1966, Physiography, in Lindsey, A.A., ed., 

Natural features of Indiana: Indianapolis, Indiana Academy 

of Science, p. 40–56. 

Tertuliani, J.S., 1999, Aquatic macroinvertebrates collected 

at Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Portage and Trumbull 

Counties, Ohio, 1998: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 99–4202, 38 p. 

Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Brockman, C.S., Gerber, T.D., 

Hosteter, W.D., and Azevedo, S.H., 1998: Map of ecoregions 

of Indiana and Ohio, U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 

1:1,500,000.