U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the State of Hawai Prepared in cooperation with the State of Hawai‘i Department of Health ‘i Department of Health

Development of Invertebrate Community

Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands

Of Maui and O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Development of Invertebrate Community

Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands

of Maui and O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5055
COVER:

Waterfall at one of the valleys of East Wailua Iki Stream near Wailua, east Maui, Hawaiÿi. (Photograph by Adam G. Johnson, 

U.S. Geological Survey)
Development of Invertebrate Community 

Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of 

Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

By Reuben H. Wolff

Prepared in cooperation with the State of Hawaiÿi Department of Health

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5055

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

This report and any updates to it are available online at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5055/

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural 

and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 

1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names 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., 2012, Development of invertebrate community indexes of stream quality for the 

islands of Maui and O‘ahu, Hawai‘i: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2012-5055, 191 p.
 iii

Contents

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

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

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

Macroinvertebrates in Hawaiian Streams.......................................................................3

Description of Study Areas.............................................................................................4

East Maui ................................................................................................................7

West Maui ...............................................................................................................7

Oÿahu ......................................................................................................................7

Stream Diversions and Instream Flow Studies........................................................7

Historical Land Use ...............................................................................................15

Recent History ...............................................................................................17

Data-Collection and Analysis Methods.........................................................................17

Selection of Sampling Sites...................................................................................17

Determination of Habitat Characteristics...............................................................18

Geographic Information System (GIS) ..................................................................18

Collection of Invertebrate Samples .......................................................................18

Qualitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ...........................................18

Quantitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling .........................................18

Handling of Native Species ............................................................................21

Laboratory Methods ..............................................................................................21

Quality Control.......................................................................................................21

Laboratory Methods .......................................................................................21

Re-sort of Samples .................................................................................21

Replicate Sampling ........................................................................................21

Repeat Sampling............................................................................................21

Additional Biological Surveys ................................................................................22

Snorkel Surveys .............................................................................................22

Damselflies.....................................................................................................22

Evaluation of Re-sort, Replicate, and Repeat Samples ...............................................22

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in Maui and Oÿahu Streams ............23

Native Macroinvertebrates.....................................................................................23

Nonnative Macroinvertebrates...............................................................................25

Insects............................................................................................................25

Trichoptera ..............................................................................................25

Chironomidae..........................................................................................27

Empididae...............................................................................................28

Decapods.......................................................................................................28

Cryptogenic Macroinvertebrates ...........................................................................29

Mollusks .........................................................................................................29

Native Fish ............................................................................................................30

Nonnative Fish ......................................................................................................34

Poeciliidae......................................................................................................34
iv

Development of Community Indexes ............................................................................35

Maui Metrics and Index Development ...................................................................36

Evaluation with the Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity ...36

Maui P–HBIBI Scores .............................................................................38

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric .....................................38

Taxonmic Richness Metric...............................................................38

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric .............................................38

Abundance of Nonnative or Cryptogenic Mollusks Metric ...............39

Abundance of Amphipoda Metric.....................................................44

ÿÖpae Presence/Absence Metric .....................................................44

Crayfish Presence/Absence Metric..................................................45

Final P–HBIBI Score........................................................................45

New Maui Metrics and Index..........................................................................46

Maui Reference “Least Disturbed” Site Selection ...................................46

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric (Revised) ............................46

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric (Revised) ....................................46

Ratio of the Nonnative Trichoptera and Diptera ......................................51

Native Macroinvertebrate Presence/Absence.........................................51

Final Index Score ....................................................................................51

Oÿahu Metrics and Index Refinement....................................................................56

Evaluation with the Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic 

Index of Biotic Integrity ........................................................................56

Oÿahu WSA P–HBIBI Scores ..................................................................56

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric .....................................56

Taxonomic Richness Metric.............................................................56

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric .............................................56

Abundance of Nonnative or Cryptogenic Mollusks Metric ...............57

Abundance of Amphipoda Metric.....................................................57

ÿÖpae Presence/Absence Metric .....................................................57

Crayfish Presence/Absence Metric..................................................57

Final P–HBIBI Score........................................................................57

Refined Oÿahu Metrics and Index...................................................................61

Oÿahu Reference “Least Disturbed” Site Selection..................................61

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric (Revised) ............................61

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric (Revised) ....................................61

Ratio of Nonnative Trichoptera and Diptera Metric (New).......................67

Relative Abundance of Amphipoda Metric (Revised)..............................67

Relative Abundance of Turbellaria Metric (New).....................................67

Abundance of Nonnative or Cryptogenic Mollusks Metric (Revised)......67

Nonnative Shrimp and Crayfish Presence/Absence Metric (Revised)....67

Final Oÿahu Index Score .........................................................................67

Other Changes to the P–HBIBI...............................................................70

Evaluation of the P–HBIBI Sites .............................................................70

Combined Invertebrate Community Index.............................................................70

Comparison of Oÿahu and Maui Benthic Invertebrate Communities ..............70
 v

Combined ICI Development ...........................................................................76

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric ............................................76

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric ....................................................76

Relative Abundance of Amphipoda Metric..............................................76

Relative Abundance of Turbellaria Metric................................................76

Native Macroinvertebrate Presence/Absence.........................................76

Final Combined ICI Score.......................................................................86

Need for Additional Information ....................................................................................86

Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................................89

References Cited..........................................................................................................90

Appendix A. Evaluation of Replicate, Re-sort, and Repeat Samples of

 Macroinvertebrates Collected from Streams on 

 Maui, Hawaiÿi, 2009–2010 .............................................................................103

Appendix B. Maui Faunal Distribution Maps ...............................................................116

Appendix C. Oÿahu Faunal Distribution Maps .............................................................147

Appendix D. Photographs of Stream Fauna ...............................................................165

Figures

1. Map of Maui, Hawaiÿi ...............................................................................................5

2. Map of Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi..............................................................................................6

3. Locations of stream sampling sites on East Maui....................................................8

4. Locations of stream sampling sites on West Maui.................................................11

5. Locations of Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) stream sampling 

 sites on the Island of Oÿahu..............................................................................12

6. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of the 

 Maui quantitative macroinvertebrate samples ..................................................47

7. Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) joint plot ordination 

 of the Maui quantitative macroinvertebrate samples ........................................48

8. Principal components analysis (PCA) ordination of Maui 

 study sites habitat characteristics.....................................................................49

9. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of the 

 Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) quantitative 

 macroinvertebrate samples ..............................................................................62

10. Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) joint plot ordination 

 of the Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) 

 quantitative macroinvertebrate samples...........................................................63

11. Principal components analysis (PCA) ordination of Oÿahu 

 Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites 

 water-quality parameters ..................................................................................64

12. Principal components analysis (PCA) ordination of Oÿahu 

 Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites 

 habitat characteristics.......................................................................................65

13. Locations of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) 

 program sampling sites on Oÿahu.....................................................................71
vi

14. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of the 

 Maui and Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) 

 quantitative macroinvertebrate samples ......................................................74

15. Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) joint plot ordination 

 of the Maui and Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) 

 quantitative macroinvertebrate samples ......................................................75

Tables

1. Station information for sampling sites on Maui ....................................................9

2. Station information for Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) 

 sampling sites..............................................................................................13

3. Land-use statistics for sampling sites on Maui ..................................................19

4. Land-use statistics for Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) 

 sampling sites..............................................................................................20

5. List of native and nonnative fish observed on Maui and (or) Oÿahu...................31

6. Fish species observed at Maui sampling sites...................................................32

7. Fish species observed at Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment 

 (WSA) sampling sites ..................................................................................33

8. Conditional scoring for the Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic

 Integrity (P–HBIBI) metrics .........................................................................37

9. Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

 (P–HBIBI) scores for benthic macroinvertebrate samples 

 from streams on the Island of Maui ............................................................40

10. Dominant and second-dominant taxa collected in the Maui 

 quantitative samples ....................................................................................44

11. Maui reference condition “least disturbed” sites.................................................50

12. Conditional scoring for Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) 

 metrics and index for Maui...........................................................................50

13. New metric scores and Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) 

 ratings for the Maui benthic macroinvertebrate samples .............................52

14. Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI)) 

 scores for the Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) 

 benthic macroinvertebrate samples.............................................................58

15. Dominant and second-dominant taxa collected in the Oÿahu 

 Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) quantitative samples ......................60

16. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) reference 

 condition “least disturbed” sites ...................................................................66

17. Conditional scoring for revised Invertebrate Community Index 

 (ICI) metrics and index for Oÿahu.................................................................66

18. Revised metric and Oÿahu Invertebrate Community Index 

 (ICI) scores for the Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment 

 (WSA) benthic macroinvertebrate samples .................................................68

19. Revised metric and Oÿahu Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores 

 for the Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of 

 Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) Oÿahu benthic macroinvertebrate samples .........72
 vii

20. Conditional scoring for combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) 

 metrics and index for Maui and Oÿahu ........................................................77

21. Combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metric and 

 index scores for the Maui benthic macroinvertebrate samples...................78

22. Combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metric and 

 index scores for the Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) 

 benthic macroinvertebrate samples............................................................82

23. Combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metric and index 

 scores for the Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic 

 Integrity (P–HBIBI) Oÿahu benthic macroinvertebrate samples ..................84

24. Composition of nonnative dipteran abundances collected in 

 quantitative samples from Maui and Oÿahu Wadeable 

 Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites......................................................87

25. Composition of nonnative dipteran relative abundances 

 collected in quantitative samples from Maui and Oÿahu 

 Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites.....................................88

26. Summary statistics for nonnative Trichoptera and Diptera 

 abundances from the Maui and Oÿahu Wadeable Stream 

 Assessment (WSA) quantitative samples...................................................88
viii

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

square foot (ft2

) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square inch (in2

) 6.452 square centimeter (cm2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3

)

Flow rate

foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3

/s)

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

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

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to mean sea level.

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

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm 

at 25 °C).
Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes 

of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and 

Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

By Reuben H. Wolff

Abstract

In 2009–10 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected 

physical habitat information and benthic macroinvertebrates 

at 40 wadeable sites on 25 perennial streams on the Island of 

Maui, Hawaiÿi, to evaluate the relations between the macroinvertebrate assemblages and environmental characteristics and to 

develop a multimetric invertebrate community index (ICI) that 

could be used as an indicator of stream quality. The macroinvertebrate community data were used to identify metrics that could 

best differentiate among sites according to disturbance gradients 

such as embeddedness, percent fines (silt and sand areal coverage), or percent agricultural land in the contributing basin area. 

Environmental assessments were conducted using land-use/

land-cover data and reach-level physical habitat data. 

The Maui data were first evaluated using the previously 

developed Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic 

Integrity (P-HBIBI) to determine if existing metrics would successfully differentiate stream quality among the sites. Secondly, 

a number of candidate invertebrate metrics were screened and 

tested and the individual metrics that proved the best at discerning among the sites along one or more disturbance gradients 

were combined into a multimetric invertebrate community 

index (ICI) of stream quality. These metrics were: total invertebrate abundance, Class Insecta relative abundance, the ratio of 

Trichoptera abundance to nonnative Diptera abundance, native 

snail (hïhïwai) presence or absence, native mountain shrimp 

(ÿöpae) presence or absence, native torrent midge (Telmatogeton spp.) presence or absence, and native Megalagrion damselfly presence or absence. The Maui ICI classified 15 of the 40 

sites (37.5 percent) as having ”good” quality communities, 17 

of the sites (42.5 percent) as having “fair” quality communities, 

and 8 sites (20 percent) as having “poor” quality communities, 

a classification that may be used to initiate further investigation 

into the causes of the poor rating.

Additionally, quantitative macroinvertebrate samples collected from 31 randomly selected sites on Oÿahu in 2006–07 

as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) were used to refine and 

develop an ICI of stream quality for Oÿahu. The set of metrics 

that were included in the revised index were: total invertebrate 

abundance, Class Insecta relative abundance, the ratio of 

Trichoptera abundance to nonnative Diptera abundance, 

turbellarian relative abundance, amphipod relative abundance, nonnative mollusk abundance, and nonnative crayfish 

(Procambarus clarkii) and/or red cherry shrimp (Neocaridina 

denticulata sinensis) presence or absence. The Oÿahu ICI 

classified 10 of the 31 sites (32.3 percent) as “good” quality 

communities, 16 of the sites (51.6 percent) as ”fair” quality communities, and 5 of the sites (16.1 percent) as ”poor” 

quality communities. A reanalysis of 18 of the Oÿahu macroinvertebrate sites used to develop the P–HBIBI resulted in the 

reclassification of 3 samples. 

The beginning of a statewide ICI was developed on the 

basis of a combination of metrics from the Maui and Oÿahu 

ICI’s. This combined ICI is intended to help identify broad 

problem areas so that the Hawaii State Department of Health 

(HIDOH) can prioritize their efforts on a statewide scale. Once 

these problem areas are identified, the island-wide ICIs can be 

used to more accurately assess the quality of individual stream 

reaches so that the HIDOH can prioritize their efforts on the 

most impaired streams. By using the combined ICI, 70 percent 

of the Maui sites and 10 percent of the Oÿahu WSA sites were 

designated as “good” quality sites; 25 percent of the Maui 

sites and 45 percent of the Oÿahu WSA sites were designated 

as “fair” quality sites; and 5 percent of the Maui sites and 45 

percent of the Oÿahu WSA sites were designated as “poor” 

quality sites. 

Introduction

The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated island chain 

in the world. Over the past few million years, the islands 

developed a unique biota that have adapted to fill the available niches on the tropical volcanic oceanic islands. Since the 

arrival of humans on the islands, the landscape has continually been modified to accommodate each succeeding generation and, more recently, a rapidly expanding and diverse 

population. The pressures exerted on the native ecosystems 

by human activities over the years have taken their toll, as 

Hawaiÿi has been labeled the “extinction capital of the world” 

(Groombridge, 2008). Agricultural activity has expanded from 
2 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

subsistence farming of taro to feed local populations to largescale sugarcane and pineapple operations with world-wide distributions. The harvesting of precious woods, and decades of 

foraging by free-ranging cattle, goats, and pigs have destroyed 

much of the native forests, decimated many watersheds, and 

polluted many of the streams and rivers (Judd, 1919; Cox, 

1991). Many streams have been altered by channelization for 

flood control and bridges, diverted for off-stream water uses, 

affected by a proliferation of numerous introduced species, 

and contaminated with runoff from households, roadways, 

farmlands, military complexes, and industries (Brock, 1952; 

Timbol and Maciolek, 1978; Wilcox, 1996; Brasher, 2003; 

Brasher and Wolff, 2004). These problems are not unique to 

Hawaiÿi, as governments around the world strive to accommodate an ever-growing populace.

Recognition of these problems has propelled efforts to 

protect and conserve the watershed ecosystems. Forests have 

been replanted, reserves have been created, ungulates have 

been removed, and watersheds are being protected (Hosmer, 

1908; Gagne, 1988; Holt, 1988; Derrickson and others, 

2002). Diverted water has in some cases been either restored 

or partly restored, and diversion structures have been modified to be more accommodating to the migratory native 

species (Commission on Water Resource Management, 

2006; Commission on Water Resource Management, 2010; 

Board of Water Supply, 2010). Federal, State, and local 

agencies have endeavored to protect native species, prevent 

the introduction of potentially harmful species, and regulate 

harmful contaminants from entering the environment. These 

combined efforts have, over the years, restored some of the 

structure and function of the watershed ecosystems, though 

many native species have already been replaced or displaced 

by introduced species and habitat loss. It is within this complexity of shifting environmental paradigms and competing 

demands on limited resources that State and Federal agencies are mandated to protect and restore the water resources 

of Hawaiÿi.

In 1972, the U.S. Congress enacted the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) to protect the Nation’s vital water resources. The CWA 

is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) and gives states the primary responsibility for implementing programs to protect and restore water quality, including monitoring and assessing the Nation’s waters and reporting 

on their quality. 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). 

Under section 305 of the CWA, each State is required 

to prepare and submit biennial reports to the USEPA with 

an analysis detailing their efforts to protect and restore the 

Nation’s surface waters. The reports provide an evaluation of 

whether these conservation efforts have achieved, or eventually 

will achieve, the desired goals, which include: the protection 

and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and 

wildlife, and the safety of recreational activities in and on the 

water (305(b) Report). The USEPA, in turn, provides this information to the U.S. Congress and to the American public.

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires the State of Hawaiÿi 

Department of Health (HIDOH) to generate the CWA §303(d) 

List of Water Quality-Limited Segments (WQLS) for surface 

waters that are exceeding or will likely exceed State Water 

Quality Standards (WQS) (303(d) List of Impaired Waters) 

(Henderson and Harrigan-Lum, 2002; Koch and others, 2004). 

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, which can 

enter the stream without violating the State WQS. 

The HIDOH is tasked with determining the health and 

biological integrity of the State’s freshwater streams by 

using consistent and repeatable methods. The HIDOH has 

been testing and refining the Hawaiÿi Stream Bioassessment 

Protocol (HSBP) (Kido, 2002) for the past several years 

and is interested in expanding the protocol to include benthic invertebrates. The HSBP is currently based on physical 

habitat characteristics; the diversity, abundance, and age class 

distribution of native fish, mollusks, and crustaceans; and the 

diversity and abundance of introduced fish, mollusks, and 

crustaceans as indicators of biotic integrity (Kido, 2002). Bioassessment protocols, such as the HSBP, are designed to identify stream-quality problems associated with both point- and 

nonpoint-source pollution and document long-term regional 

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

so in a cost-effective way (Lenat and Barbour, 1994; Resh and 

Jackson, 1993). Bioassessment protocols typically evaluate 

a variety of organisms to provide an integrated and robust 

assessment of stream quality (Lenat and Barbour, 1994). The 

HIDOH may eventually include aquatic-community-based 

biocriteria into the State water quality standards to assist in 

determining the condition of various waterbodies. Eventually, when enough data exist for the inclusion of biocriteria 

into the State water quality standard Chapter 11-54, HIDOH 

anticipates integrating biological integrity methods to ascertain the condition of various waterbodies, not only streams, 

by consideration of the health status of the biological communities and not on the basis of water chemistry alone. 

These improved methods will enable the State to make better 

decisions in the protection of aquatic resources.

Benthic invertebrates are by far the most commonly used 

group of organisms for biomonitoring because: (1) they are 

ubiquitous and, consequently, can be affected by environmental perturbation in a variety of 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) some have relatively long life 

cycles, which allows elucidation of temporal changes caused 

by perturbation (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993).

Results from a study conducted by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Pacific Islands Water Science Center (PIWSC) 

in cooperation with the HIDOH demonstrated that a combination of metrics based on native and nonnative benthic 
Introduction 3

macroinvertebrates collected from streams on the islands of 

Oahu and Kauai in 1999, 2000, and 2003 could be used as 

indicators of stream quality in Hawaiÿi (Wolff, 2005). The 

individual metrics that were most effective for discerning stream 

quality were combined to create the Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI). The individual metrics 

were: (1) the total invertebrate abundance (per square meter); 

(2) the abundance of nonnative mollusks (per square meter); (3) 

the abundance of amphipods (per square meter); (4) the relative 

abundance of the class Insecta (as a percentage of the total abundance); (5) the presence or absence of the nonnative crayfish 

Procambarus clarkii; (6) the presence or absence of the native 

mountain shrimp Atyoida bisulcata; and (7) the total number of 

taxa (taxonomic richness). The conclusions of this feasibility 

study, however, were based on a limited number of samples collected at only 19 sites on 14 streams on Oÿahu and at 9 sites on 

7 streams on Kauaÿi. The study also concluded that differences 

in the macroinvertebrate assemblages among the islands should 

be examined further, and that a larger number of sites, especially 

sites representing “least disturbed” reference conditions on the 

other Hawaiian Islands, would be needed to develop an effective 

statewide invertebrate community index (ICI) of stream quality.

 Subsequently, the USGS and the HIDOH, in a cooperative effort, collected information on macroinvertebrates, water 

quality, and habitat at 40 randomly selected sites on Oÿahu 

as part of the USEPA’s probability-based Wadeable Streams 

Assessment (WSA) in 2006–07 (Wolff and Koch, 2009). This 

sampling effort greatly increased the number of sites available 

to develop an Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) for Oÿahu. 

In response to a need for additional information on the 

relationships between benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages 

and stream quality in Hawaiÿi, the USGS, again in cooperation with the HIDOH, in 2009 and 2010 conducted the study 

described in this report. The objective of this study was to 

provide the HIDOH with new tools needed to assess the biological condition of streams in Hawaiÿi. The new assessment 

tools are based on aspects of the aquatic macroinvertebrate 

assemblages and can be applied to both targeted and probabilistic monitoring designs employed by the HIDOH. The 

results generated by the present cooperative study will help the 

HIDOH in its effort to incorporate biological criteria into the 

State water quality standards by providing scientific information addressing the relations among benthic macroinvertebrate 

assemblages and stream quality parameters.

The current study does not directly address the issues surrounding the effects of surface-water withdrawal on the benthic macroinvertebrate communities or on the amphidromous 

species. The study was not intended to provide comprehensive 

biological surveys of the study areas. The sampling methods 

employed in this study, and described in this report, were not 

intended to assess the overall biodiversity of the instream 

and riparian habitats, but to provide a consistent, repeatable 

technique for collecting representative samples of the benthic 

macroinvertebrate assemblages, in a quantitative way, to allow 

for comparisons among streams. Although this study was not 

intended to directly assess or monitor the status of the native 

aquatic species, this report does provide valuable information 

on the distributions and abundances for some native species.

More specifically, this report describes the development 

of an effective island-specific invertebrate community index 

(ICI) of stream quality for the islands of Maui, using the new 

benthic macroinvertebrate data collected on Maui during this 

study, and Oÿahu, using macroinvertebrate data collected on 

Oÿahu during a previous study, and to refine the preliminary 

statewide index developed earlier by the USGS (Wolff, 2005). 

Acknowledgments

Access to study sites was graciously provided by the 

following entities and individuals: East Maui Irrigation 

Co., Ltd. (Mark Vaught), West Maui Land Company (Dave 

Minami), Mäkila Land Co., LLC (Rory Frampton and Peter 

Martin), West Maui Investors, LLC (Sharon Wright), Hui O 

Nä Wai ÿEhä (John Duey), Maui District State Parks Superintendent (Phil Ohta), Waiheÿe Valley Plantation (Kim Gaines 

and Frank Rocha), Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. 

(Marlon Domingo), Käÿanapali Farm Services Inc. (Robbie 

Vorfeld), Maui County, Department of Water Supply (Joe 

Mendonca), State of Hawaiÿi, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (Dan Polhemus and Skippy Hau), David Niehaus, Harry Apolo, Gladys 

Kanoa, and Hans Michel. Additional field assistance was 

provided by Eric Luke (East Maui Watershed Partnership). 

Identification and enumeration of the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was performed by EcoAnalysts, Inc. (Gary 

Lester and Shanda McGraw).

This study could not have been completed without the 

help of the following U.S. Geological Survey personnel who 

provided assistance with stream reconnaissance and in all 

aspects of data collection: Bobbie L. Arruda, Maoya Bassiouni, 

Stephen B. Gingerich, Adam G. Johnson, and Sarah N. Rosa.

Macroinvertebrates in Hawaiian 

Streams

The native stream fauna of Hawaiÿi 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 because of 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 by 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 adapted from marine ancestors (Newman, 1977; Newman, 1988; Howarth and Mull, 

1992). The isolation of the islands enabled the few successful 
4 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

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 Hawaiÿi adapted to the unique environment of precontact Hawaiian streams and, in the absence 

of competitors and predators, evolved to be less aggressive 

than many of the introduced species (Carlquist, 1980). Today, 

altered and degraded streams contain a proliferation of introduced species that are better competitors and far more tolerant 

of these conditions than are native species. These introduced 

species arrived in Hawaiÿi in a variety of ways and for various 

reasons. Some introductions were State sanctioned, such as 

the Tahitian prawn Macrobrachium lar, whereas 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 been 

documented for the introduced caddisfly (Trichoptera) Cheumatopsyche analis (previously pettiti) (Kondratieff and others, 

1997; Wolff, 2000). Although the seasons in Hawaiÿi 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 Hawaiÿi (fishes, 

shrimp, and snails) are primarily amphidromous, having 

evolved from marine dwelling ancestors, and have retained 

a marine larval life-stage (McDowall, 1993; McDowall, 

2003). 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 (Beckley, 1883; 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 (upstream/downstream) distribution of these animals 

is largely controlled by their ability to migrate upstream 

unimpeded (Ford and Kinzie, 1982). Four of the five ÿoÿopu 

are true gobies and have fused pelvic fins. The fused pelvic 

fin forms a suction disk that enables these fishes to attach 

themselves to stream substrate and climb cascades and waterfalls (Benbow and others, 2002). Differences in clinging 

and climbing abilities have allowed the native fish species 

to migrate upstream and inhabit stream reaches according 

to their relative abilities to cling to the stream substrate. The 

mountain shrimp known as ÿöpae or ÿöpaekalaÿole has exceptional climbing ability and most often inhabits the upper 

stream reaches (Couret, 1976; Kinzie, 1990). The endemic 

freshwater snail, Neritina granosa, known as hïhïwai, generally inhabits lower and middle stream reaches, preferring 

cold, well-oxygenated waters (Ford, 1979; Kinzie, 1990). 

The endemic brackish-water snail, Neritina vespertinus,

locally known as hapawai, and the endemic prawn, Macrobrachium grandimanus, locally known as ÿöpae ÿoehaÿa, are 

restricted to the lower stream reaches and estuaries. Segregation along elevation and longitudinal gradients reduces the 

amount of competition among native species for resources.

Description of Study Areas

The study area included parts of the islands of Maui 

and Oÿahu. The Island of Maui, the second largest of the 

Hawaiian Islands, occupies an area of 727.3 mi2

 (Juvik and 

Juvik, 1998) between latitudes 20°30' and 21°05' North and 

between longitudes 156°45' and 155°55' West (fig. 1). The 

island is composed mainly of two shield volcanoes (Stearns 

and Macdonald, 1942): the older West Maui Volcano (West 

Maui Mountain), which rises to an altitude of 5,788 ft, and 

the younger East Maui Volcano (Haleakalä), which rises to 

an altitude of 10,023 ft. The interior parts of the West Maui 

Mountain are relatively rugged and steep in comparison to 

the gently sloping central saddle, or isthmus, that connects 

the East and West Maui Volcanoes. The central isthmus 

was formed by Haleakalä lava flows that banked up against 

and were deflected by the preexisting West Maui Mountain 

and were later buried by marine and terrestrial sedimentary 

deposits. The interior parts of West Maui Mountain and the 

northern flank of Haleakalä in East Maui are mainly forested 

conservation areas, the central isthmus is used primarily for 

agricultural purposes, and the coastal areas commonly are 

developed for residential or other urban uses. The Kahului 

and Wailuku areas of north-central Maui are the main population centers near the study area. Much of the water used to 

irrigate crops on Maui is diverted from streams, in both east 

and west Maui, along an extensive system of ditches (fig. 1; 

Wilcox, 1996).

The island of Oÿahu, the third largest of the Hawaiian Islands, occupies an area of 597.1 mi2

 (Juvik and Juvik, 

1998) between latitudes 21°15' and 21°45' North and between 

longitudes 158°20' and 157o35' West (fig. 2). The landscape 

of Oÿahu ranges from a broad coastal plain, surrounding 

much of the island, to steep interior mountains. Oÿahu can be 

divided into two primary physiographic regions, windward 

and leeward, which relate to the exposure of these areas to the 

northeasterly trade winds and orographic rainfall. In general, 

the windward side has smaller drainage basins, higher rainfall, 

and perennial streams, whereas the leeward side has larger 

drainage basins, lower rainfall, and intermittent streamflow 

(Oki and Brasher, 2003). The leeward area can be further subdivided into the physiographic regions of leeward, central, and 

Waiÿanae (west) areas (Oki and Brasher, 2003).
0 52.5 MILES

0 4 KILOMETERS

156°10'

156°20'

156°30'

156°40'

21°

20°50'

20°40'

EXPLANATION

" Town

Site of interestPerennial streamIntermittent streamDitch system

Kula

Kïhei

Haÿikü

Keÿanae

Wailua 

Kahana

Olowalu

Lahaina Kahului

Wailuku

Päÿia Bay

Nonou Bay

Käÿanapali

Honökohau

Mäÿalaea Bay

Keälia Pond

Kahului Bay

Kamanawa Bay

Hanawï S

La Perouse Bay

Haleakalä Crater

ÿÏao Valley State Park

West Maui Mountain

West Maui

Eas

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

160° 158° 

19°20°21°22°

Kaua‘i

O‘ahu 

L

Pacific Ocean

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital RasterGraphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, UniversalTransverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

Figure 1. Map of Maui, Hawaiÿi.
157°45' 158° 158°15' 21°40' 21°30' 21°20' 0 2 4 8 MILES 0 5 10 2.5 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION Ditch System Stream System Topographic Divide " Town Site of interest W A I ‘A N A E R A N G E K O ‘O L A U R A N G E" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 

" " Sunset Beach Waikïkï 

Kahana Valley Läÿie ÿAiea Mäÿili Waipiÿo Mäkaha K

Kahuku Kaÿaÿawa Waipahu Waialua Wahiawa Reservoir Käneÿohe Nänäkuli HONOLULU 

ÿEwa Beach Pearl Harbor Diamond Head ÿÄina H

Mililani Town WINDWARD O‘AH

LEEWARD O‘AHU WAI‘ANAE (West Oÿahu) CENTRAL O‘AHU Mt Kaÿala (4,025 feet) Puÿu Könähuanu

(3,105 feet) Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. 160° 158° 

19° 20° 21° 22° Kaua‘i O‘ahu 

Län

Pacific Ocean 

Figure 2. Map of Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi.
 Description of Study Areas 7

East Maui

Sampling sites were located on the northern flank of 

Haleakalä, which forms the eastern part of the island of Maui 

(fig. 3; table 1). The study area lies between (and includes) 

the drainage basins of Kölea Stream to the west and Hanawï 

Stream to the east. Land-surface altitudes range from sea level 

to about 10,000 ft at the summit of Haleakalä. The topography 

is gently sloping, except for the steep sides of gulches and 

valleys that have been eroded by the numerous streams. The 

largest valley is Keÿanae Valley, which extends from the coast 

to Haleakalä Crater, where the valley walls are nearly 1,000 

ft high. Most of the study area is made up of forest reserves; 

at intermediate altitudes, rain forests densely cover the slopes 

to about 7,000 ft. Grasses and shrubs cover the upper slopes 

to the north wall of Haleakalä Crater. Two small villages 

(Keÿanae and Wailua) are at low altitudes along the coast at 

the mouth of Keÿanae Valley. Land use around the villages is 

mainly small-scale agriculture, including wetland taro cultivation. At higher altitudes, most of the land is forested State 

conservation land.

Streams flow generally from the high-altitude flank of 

Haleakalä in the south to the coast in the north. Twenty-one 

named streams reach the coast in the study area. The drainage areas of these streams range from 0.1 to 17.6 mi2

 and the 

median area is 2.6 mi2 (Gingerich, 2005). Access to streams 

is made difficult by the steep, rugged terrain of the incised 

stream valleys and dense vegetation. Rainfall is highly orographic, and rainfall rates average between about 45 in/yr at 

the summit of Haleakalä to greater than 350 in/yr at about 

2,500 ft altitude (Giambelluca and others, 1986), with all of 

the drainage areas having similar rainfall gradients.

Since the 1930s, the Territory and then the State of 

Hawaiÿi issued water permits to Alexander and Baldwin, 

Inc., Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Co., and East Maui 

Irrigation Co., Ltd. (EMI), for the diversion of water from 

streams in northeast Maui. The collection system consists of 

388 separate intakes, 24 mi of ditches, and 50 mi of tunnels, 

as well as numerous small dams, intakes, pipes, and flumes 

(Wilcox, 1996). With few exceptions, the diversions capture all of the base flow, which represents the groundwater 

contribution to total streamflow, and an unknown percentage 

of total streamflow at each stream crossing (Gingerich and 

Wolff, 2005).

West Maui

West Maui is deeply dissected by numerous streams that 

originate near the summit of West Maui Volcano. The eastern 

side of West Maui Mountain includes Nä Wai ÿEhä, composed 

of the Waiheÿe River, and Waiehu, ÿÏao, and Waikapü Streams, 

which drain the eastern part of the mountain (fig. 4). These 

streams have eroded deep valleys that in places are incised to 

depths of a few thousand feet. The drainage basins of Waiheÿe 

River, Waiehu Stream, and ÿÏao Stream, respectively, are 7.0, 

4.7, and 11.4 mi2

. Waikapü Stream drains the West Maui 

Mountain only and this part of the drainage basin is about 

6.9 mi2

. The western (Lahaina) side of West Maui Mountain 

encompasses about 96 mi2. This area is characterized by steep 

and mountainous terrain in the interior and an area of sloping 

alluvial and colluvial plains extending westward and northward 

from the mountains. Streams in the Lahaina area flow from the 

wet interior of the West Maui Mountain, where the water has 

cut deep valleys. Many of these streams are diverted and the 

water is transported by tunnels and ditches for agricultural and 

domestic uses. The stream diversion structures are designed 

to capture all of the low flow, and therefore the streams are 

frequently dry in some sections downstream of the diversions.

Oÿahu

The island of Oÿahu is formed by the eroded remnants 

of the Waiÿanae and Koÿolau shield volcanoes. The western 

part of the island is formed by the Waiÿanae Range, with a 

peak altitude of 4,025 ft at Mount Kaÿala, the highest peak on 

Oÿahu. The eastern part of the island is formed by the Koÿolau 

Range, with a peak altitude of 3,105 ft at Puÿu Könähuanui 

(fig. 2). The original domed surfaces of the volcanoes have 

been modified by weathering and erosion, producing a 

landscape of deep valleys and steep ridges (Oki and Brasher, 

2003). The Schofield Plateau lies between the two mountain 

ranges, and a coastal plain surrounds much of the island. 

Drainage basins on Oÿahu are generally small compared to 

continental drainages, mainly because the distance between 

the headwaters and mouths of streams is short, and adjacent 

streams are closely spaced (fig. 5; table 2; Oki and Brasher, 

2003). In most of the windward area, drainage basins generally are smaller, shorter, and wider than those in central Oÿahu, 

and drainage basins in the Honolulu area are intermediate in 

size and shape. Main courses of streams generally follow the 

consequent drainage pattern established on the original domed 

surfaces of the shield volcanoes. Numerous lower order tributaries commonly join the main courses. Streambed slopes are 

steep in the mountainous interior, where rainfall is high, and 

flatter near the coast. Steep terrain and steep stream gradients 

cause water to run off rapidly following precipitation. As a 

result, streamflow is characteristically flashy, with high flood 

peaks and negligible baseflow. Some streams flow perennially 

throughout their entire course. Other streams are naturally or 

artificially interrupted with dry reaches, but flow perennially 

over parts of their course (Polhemus and others, 1992). The 

remaining intermittent streams flow only during parts of the 

year throughout their entire course.

Stream Diversions and Instream Flow 

Studies

Although not directly investigated in this study, the withdrawal of surface water for off-stream uses can disrupt the biological communities upstream and downstream of the diversion 

structures (Kinzie and others, 2006). In previous USGS studies, 

the relations between flow and habitat availability for the native 
8 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Hana Hwy

Crater Rd

Kölea

Hanawï-B

Hanawï-A

Hanawï-C

Waiohue

Honomanü

Koÿolau Ditch

Keÿanae Valley

Haipuaÿena

Kopiliÿula-B

Kopiliÿula-A

Nuaÿailua

Wailua Nui-B

Pälauhulu-A

E. Wailua Nui-A

W. Wailua Iki-B

W. Wailua Iki-A

Pälauhulu-C

156°05'

156°10'

20°50'

20°45'

0 21 MILES

0 1.5 KILOMETERS 3

! Sampling Site

Ditch System

EXPLANATION

Stream

Basin Boundary

Maui

East Maui

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

Figure 3. Locations of stream sampling sites on East Maui.
Table 1. Station information for sampling sites on Maui.[NDAR Code, Hawaiÿi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources’ numeric coding of all segments of Hawaiÿi’s streamlinear miles of contributing streams and tributaries; mi2, square miles; mi, miles; ft, feet; ASL, above sea level; coordinate information in the North Am

applicable; locations of sites in figs. 3-4]

Station ID Stream name Site NDAR code Basin area, in mi2 Latitude Longitude Upstream length, in mi Distance to mouth, in mi 

HI_MAUI_09-001 Kopiliÿula Stream A3 64017003 3.86 20.816 -156.134 12.15 1.73 

HI_MAUI_09-002 West Wailua Iki Stream B 64015001 4.01 20.836 -156.127 9.49 0.10 HI_MAUI_09-003 Wailua Nui Stream B3 64014001 6.34 20.840 -156.133 9.44 0.32 HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï Stream A3 64022001 3.58 20.807 -156.114 9.03 1.72 HI_MAUI_09-005 West Wailua Iki Stream A 64015001 3.64 20.817 -156.141 7.73 1.86 HI_MAUI_09-006 Haipuaÿena Stream – 64007001 1.20 20.848 -156.190 5.20 2.67 HI_MAUI_09-007 Pälauhulu Stream C 64011002 2.73 20.854 -156.146 9.86 0.54 HI_MAUI_09-008 East Wailua Nui Stream A 64014002 0.51 20.819 -156.141 1.68 2.10 HI_MAUI_09-009 Pälauhulu Stream A 64011002 2.65 20.850 -156.146 9.57 0.84 HI_MAUI_09-010 Honomanü Stream –3 64009007 2.91 20.831 -156.187 9.18 2.76 HI_MAUI_09-011 Kölea Stream – 64008001 0.21 20.844 -156.187 0.84 2.19 HI_MAUI_09-012 Hanawï Stream C3 64022001 5.06 20.814 -156.106 13.77 0.89 HI_MAUI_09-013 Waiohue Stream – 64018001 0.75 20.826 -156.116 2.66 0.05 HI_MAUI_09-014 Kopiliÿula Stream B3 64017001 4.65 20.830 -156.120 16.11 0.24 HI_MAUI_09-015 Hanawï Stream B3 64022001 5.31 20.823 -156.102 14.50 0.16 HI_MAUI_09-016 Nuaÿailua Stream – 64010001 1.10 20.856 -156.159 3.01 0.28 HI_MAUI_09-017 Waikapü Stream C4 66010005 2.84 20.856 -156.526 8.34 5.86 HI_MAUI_09-018 Waikapü Stream A4 66010013 1.80 20.856 -156.536 5.29 6.68 HI_MAUI_09-019 Kanahä Stream – 61005003 1.57 20.893 -156.642 3.59 2.86 HI_MAUI_09-020 Honolua Stream – 61010003 1.89 20.981 -156.618 4.94 3.19 HI_MAUI_09-021 Honoköwai Stream – 61007007 1.02 20.929 -156.621 3.81 5.19 

HI_MAUI_09-022 Olowalu Stream B 61002001 3.41 20.832 -156.600 5.18 2.31 

HI_MAUI_09-023 Waiheÿe River B1 62007003 6.69 20.947 -156.512 15.64 0.20 HI_MAUI_09-024 Waiheÿe River B2,4 62007003 6.68 20.946 -156.512 15.56 0.27 HI_MAUI_09-025 Waiheÿe River C 62007006 6.42 20.943 -156.518 14.93 0.72 HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe River A4 62007020 4.27 20.936 -156.547 8.99 2.93 
HI_MAUI_09-027 North Waiehu Stream C4 62008009 0.76 20.910 -156.530 2.64 3.07 

HI_MAUI_09-028 North Waiehu Stream A4 62008009 0.73 20.910 -156.531 2.53 3.18 HI_MAUI_09-029 South Waiehu Stream C 62008008 1.09 20.907 -156.522 2.51 2.76 HI_MAUI_09-030 South Waiehu Stream A 62008008 1.01 20.907 -156.527 2.13 3.14 HI_MAUI_09-031 ÿÏao Stream C4 62009020 6.09 20.882 -156.540 16.62 4.55 HI_MAUI_09-032 ÿÏao Stream A 62009030 4.17 20.879 -156.548 10.64 5.09 HI_MAUI_09-033 Kauaÿula Stream – 61004009 1.86 20.878 -156.622 2.75 3.79 HI_MAUI_09-034 Launiupoko Stream – 61003005 1.05 20.854 -156.614 1.50 2.90 HI_MAUI_09-035 Ukumehame Stream B 61001001 3.91 20.814 -156.586 11.82 1.21 HI_MAUI_09-036 Waiehu Stream –4 62008007 2.79 20.915 -156.507 8.31 1.26 HI_MAUI_09-037 Makamakaÿole Stream A 62006001 0.70 20.958 -156.535 2.98 1.10 HI_MAUI_09-038 Makamakaÿole Stream B 62006001 1.09 20.963 -156.528 3.89 0.19 HI_MAUI_09-039 Ukumehame Stream A 61001003 3.72 20.819 -156.584 10.92 1.66 HI_MAUI_09-040 Olowalu Stream A 61002001 3.00 20.837 -156.596 4.70 2.78 

1 Open canopy. 2 Closed canopy. 3 Sites previously established in Gingerich and Wolff (2005). 4 Sites previously established in Oki and others (2010). Table 1. Station information for sampling sites on Maui.—Continued [NDAR Code, Hawaiÿi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources’ numeric coding of all segments of Hawaiÿi’s stream

linear miles of contributing streams and tributaries; mi2, square miles; mi, miles; ft, feet; ASL, above sea level; coordinate information in the North Am

applicable; locations of sites in figs. 3-4] Station ID Stream name Site NDAR code Basin area, in mi2 Latitude Longitude Upstream length, in mi Distance to mouth, in mi 
 Description of Study Areas 11

"

"

"

"

"

Kahana

Olowalu

Lahaina

Käÿanapali

Honökohau

Sampling Site

Ditch System

EXPLANATION

Stream

Basin Boundary

Town

!

"

Maui

156°30'

156°35'

156°40'

21°00'

20°55'

20°50'

West Maui

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

Kanahä

Honolua

Kauaÿula

Honoköwai

Olowalu-B

Launiupoko

ÿĪao-A ÿĪao-C

Ukumehame-B

Waikapū-A

Olowalu-A

Waiheÿe-A

Waikapū-C

Ukumehame-A

Waiheÿe-B closed

Waiheÿe-B open

Makamakaÿole-A

Makamakaÿole-B

S. Waiehu-A

Waiheÿe-C

S. Waiehu-C

Waiehu

N. Waiehu-A

N. Waiehu-C

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 KILOMETERS

Figure 4. Locations of stream sampling sites on West Maui.
-157°45' -158°0' -158°15' 21°40' 21°30' 21°20' 0 2 4 8 MILES 0 5 10 2.5 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION Oÿahu Wadeable 

Sampling Sites Qualitative On

Qualitative anDitch System Stream System Basin Bounda

Topographic D

WINDWARD O‘AHU LEEWARD O‘AHU WAI‘ANAE (West Oÿahu) CENTRAL O‘AHU Kamananui-A Anahulu-B Anahulu-C Kamananui-B Pauoa Mänoa Haÿikü Hakipuÿu Lulumahu Kamo‘oali‘i ÿÄhuimanu Waimänalo Kalihi-A Kahanaiki Kahana-B Kïpapa-AKahana-A Kïpapa-C Waikäne-B Kalihi-C Waiähole-B N. Hälawa-A NF Kaukonahua-A NF Kaukonahua-B SF Kaukonahua-BSF Kaukonahua-C Kahana-C Nu‘uanu-C Waikäne-C Waiähole-C Wahiawa Reservoir SF Kaukonahua-A Öpaeula Poamoho Kawai Iki Helemano Pälolo Nu‘uanu-A Maunawili Waimano N. Hälawa-B Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

Figure 5. Locations of Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) stream sampling sites on the Island of Oÿahu.
Table 2. Station information for Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) sampling sites.[NDAR Code, Hawaiÿi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources’ numeric coding of all segments of Hawaiÿi’s streams; Upstreamiles of contributing streams and tributaries; mi2, square miles; mi, miles; ft, feet; ASL, above sea level; coordinate information in the North American Datum 19

cable; SF, South Fork; NF, North Fork; locations of sites in fig. 5]

Station ID Stream name Site NDAR code Basin area, in mi2 Latitude Longi- tude Upstream length, in mi Distance to mouth, in mi 

HIO05518-002 Nuÿuanu Stream C 33009800 4.35 21.321 -157.849 12.79 1.26 

HIO05518-003 N. Hälawa Stream A 34002006 1.61 21.406 -157.862 5.05 7.38 

HIO05518-005 Poamoho Stream1 – 36006137 2.77 21.527 -157.997 14.39 14.42 

HIO05518-010 SF Kaukonahua Stream A 36006106 2.94 21.496 -157.959 15.52 23.56 HIO05518-011 Waiähole Stream B 32004001 3.82 21.482 -157.846 6.00 0.31 

HIO05518-013 Kamananui Stream B 36010020 5.72 21.630 -158.041 30.54 1.93 

HIO05518-018 Kalihi Stream C 33011003 4.77 21.345 -157.867 9.35 2.03 

HIO05518-023 Kahana Stream A 31018029 0.31 21.521 -157.907 1.45 5.26 HIO05518-025 Helemano Stream1 – 36007024 4.15 21.539 -158.006 21.81 10.51 

HIO05518-026 Kïpapa Stream A 34010071 2.24 21.473 -157.935 12.91 14.21 HIO05518-027 Waikäne Stream B 32002003 2.52 21.494 -157.851 8.53 0.45 

HIO05518-029 Kamananui Stream A 36010021 1.9 21.626 -158.022 11.74 3.76 HIO05518-034 Nuÿuanu Stream1 A 33009008 3.9 21.334 -157.835 11.32 2.74 

HIO05518-035 Haÿikü Stream – 32008004 0.47 21.418 -157.824 0.77 2.62 

HIO05518-037 Anahulu River B 36008004 14.29 21.591 -158.083 62.35 1.52 

HIO05518-038 SF Kaukonahua Stream C 36006104 3.69 21.488 -157.978 18.64 18.65 

HIO05518-039 Waikäne Stream C 32002011 0.52 21.504 -157.876 1.84 2.56 

HIO05518-151 Kahana Stream C 31018028 2.14 21.528 -157.896 5.65 4.30 

HIO05518-153 ÿÖpaeÿula Stream1 – 36007035 3.69 21.562 -158.015 19.80 9.07 

HIO05518-155 Pälolo Stream1 – 33007003 3.73 21.289 -157.805 8.01 1.72 HIO05518-158 N. Hälawa Stream1 B 34002006 3.21 21.395 -157.886 7.59 4.84 

HIO05518-159 Maunawili Stream1 – 32013038 0.11 21.343 -157.771 0.66 7.48 

HIO05518-160 Kahana Stream B 31018024 3.26 21.535 -157.888 8.85 2.86 

HIO05518-162 Kalihi Stream A 33011005 2.19 21.366 -157.839 3.87 4.60 HIO05518-163 ÿÄhuimanu Stream – 32007015 0.4 21.438 -157.838 1.70 1.23 

HIO05518-164 Kamoÿoaliÿi Steam – 32010033 0.54 21.384 -157.797 2.00 1.95 

HIO05518-166 Kïpapa Stream C 34010065 4 21.469 -157.954 21.90 11.45 
HIO05518-168 Kawai Iki Stream1 – 36008011 2.19 21.570 -157.988 12.05 10.25 

HIO05518-171 Mänoa Stream – 33007008 2.43 21.325 -157.802 9.12 3.78 

HIO05518-174 Waimano Stream1 – 34006022 0.91 21.436 -157.902 4.02 9.49 HIO05518-175 Kahana Iki Stream – 32013018 0.36 21.370 -157.772 1.03 5.05 

HIO05518-177 SF Kaukonahua Stream B 36006096 5.35 21.491 -157.999 28.11 16.38 HIO05518-181 Anahulu River C 36008006 13.35 21.587 -158.059 59.46 3.41 HIO05518-182 NF Kaukonahua Stream B 36006076 4.46 21.512 -157.980 19.32 17.12 HIO05518-183 Waiähole Stream C 32004001 3.51 21.481 -157.855 5.26 1.06 HIO05518-186 NF Kaukonahua Stream A 36006088 1.38 21.516 -157.945 5.98 22.26 

HIO05518-187 Lulumahu Stream – 33009014 0.35 21.351 -157.809 1.84 5.22 

HIO05518-191 Waimänalo Stream – 32015013 0.19 21.340 -157.750 0.09 3.45 

HIO05518-194 Pauoa Stream – 33009002 0.71 21.330 -157.831 1.05 2.96 

HIO05518-203 Hakipuÿu Stream – 32001001 0.78 21.508 -157.856 2.09 0.39 

1 No Targeted Riffle sample collected. Table 2. Station information for Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) sampling sites.—Continued [NDAR Code, Hawaiÿi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources’ numeric coding of all segments of Hawaiÿi’s streams; Upstream l

miles of contributing streams and tributaries; mi2, square miles; mi, miles; ft, feet; ASL, above sea level; coordinate information in the North American Datum 1983; 

cable; SF, South Fork; NF, North Fork; locations of sites in fig. 5] Station ID Stream name Site NDAR code Basin area, in mi2 Latitude Longi- tude Upstream length, in mi Distance to mouth, in mi 
Description of Study Areas 15

stream-dwelling fishes, shrimp, and mollusk were examined on 

Oÿahu and on East and West Maui (Gingerich and Wolff, 2005; 

Oki and others, 2006; Oki and others, 2010). These studies 

modeled the effects of returning different proportions of the 

total amount of water diverted back to the diverted streams, the 

downstream creation of available habitat, and the suitability of 

that habitat for potential use by migratory native species.

Several studies in Hawaiÿi have considered the effects of 

stream diversions on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and 

biomass downstream of diversions. A 3-year study from 1994 

to1997 on the Wainiha River on Kauaÿi examined the effects of 

a hydroelectric diversion dam both upstream and downstream 

of the diversion structure and upstream and downstream of the 

return flow from the hydroelectric plant (Kinzie and others, 

2006). Macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity were found to 

be greater at the site downstream of the return, while macroinvertebrate biomass, due to higher abundances of the native shrimp, 

was greater at the site upstream of the diversion structure. Abundance and biomass of macroinvertebrate drift were also greater 

upstream of the diversion, whereas the site downstream of the 

diversion was found to have the lowest abundance, biomass, 

and diversity. A 2-year study from 1994 to 1995 investigated 

the effect of a 40-percent reduction in stream discharge in ÿÏao 

Stream, Maui, on the native torrenticolous insects Telmatogeton and Procanace (Benbow and others, 2005). The standing 

stock biomass of Telmatogeton was found to have significantly 

decreased with the reduced flow (Benbow and others, 2003). 

A 5-month study in 2000 in ÿÏao Stream on Maui examined macroinvertebrate populations collected from riffle habitats above and below the ÿÏao–Mäniania diversion (McIntosh 

and others, 2002). This structure diverts 100 percent of the 

flow of the stream under dry-weather conditions. Study results 

indicated that the mean total macroinvertebrate abundance 

was 46 percent higher above the diversion than below it. The 

three numerically dominant taxa above the diversion were 

still proportionally the dominant taxa below the diversion, but 

the mean density of each was lower. Some species, including the native mountain shrimp, were present upstream but 

not downstream of the diversion. The mean total biomass was 

60 percent lower downstream of the diversion (McIntosh and 

others, 2008). The biomass and densities of two introduced 

species of the insect order Trichoptera were determined to be 

greater upstream of the diversion (McIntosh and others, 2003). 

More recently, a 2-year study in 2007 to 2008 investigated the 

effects of stream diversions in all of the Nä Wai ÿEhä streams 

on West Maui (ÿÏao, Waiehu, and Waikapü Streams and 

Waiheÿe River) on benthic macroinvertebrates utilizing cascade and amphibious habitats (Shoda, 2009). This study found 

that endemic macroinvertebrate taxa made up 38.5 percent of 

the amphibious microhabitat (constantly wetted splash zones) 

fauna as compared to only 6.3 percent of the torrenticolous 

microhabitat (fast flowing water) fauna. Benthic macroinvertebrate densities and diversity were found to be 33 percent 

higher in cascades upstream of diversions than in cascades 

with diverted flows (Shoda and others, 2011).

The results of these studies indicate that a reduction of 

surface-water flow, whether caused by natural or anthropogenic factors, reduces the amount of suitable habitat and habitat quality for a number of species. The biological structure 

and function within a stream reach is altered by water removal, 

which affects species diversity, abundance, and biomass, 

which in turn affects the trophic relations and energetics of the 

larger stream communities.

Another factor related to stream diversions is the effect 

that reduced flow has on the amphidromous species. The native 

Hawaiian stream-dwelling fish (ÿoÿopu), shrimp (ÿöpae), and 

mollusks (hïhïwai), having evolved from marine ancestors, are 

all amphidromous, retaining an obligate marine larval stage 

(McDowall, 1993; McDowall, 2003). Amphidromy is a type 

of diadromy that requires fauna to migrate between freshwater 

and saltwater at some point in their life cycle. With amphidromous species, females deposit their eggs in streams, where they 

are fertilized and eventually hatch. The newly born larvae are 

carried passively downstream to the ocean, where they drift 

as zooplankton for a species-specific period of time. At some 

point in the larval development, they cue on a freshwater plume 

and follow it back to a stream mouth where they undergo a 

metamorphosis into postlarvae. The postlarvae then make their 

way upstream, growing into recruits. Once they find suitable 

habitat or a barrier preventing their continued upstream migration, they settle down as juveniles, mature into adults, and live 

and breed for the remainder of their lives (Beckley, 1883; Ego, 

1956; Tomihama, 1972; Ford and Kinzie, 1982; Kinzie, 1988; 

McDowall, 1988; Radtke and others, 1988; Tate and others, 

1992; Radtke and others, 2001; McRae, 2007a). 

The amphidromous life cycle requires unimpeded access 

to and from the ocean. Reduced streamflow due to diversions 

can have a number of effects on the amphidromous species 

by: (1) increasing the amount of time it takes for larvae to 

reach the ocean, thereby increasing the chance that the larvae 

may die from starvation (Lindstrom and Brown, 1996; Iguchi 

and Mizuno, 1999; Benbow and others, 2004; Iguchi, 2007; 

McRae, 2007b); (2) entraining into the ditch system large 

percentages of larvae that were headed downstream to the 

ocean, removing them from the gene pool (Benstead and others, 1999); (3) consequently decreasing the marine-phase pool 

of locally available postlarvae recruits; (4) reducing the size 

and frequency of the freshwater plumes that the marine-phase 

larvae cue on; and (5) creating long stretches of dry streambed 

that impede the upstream migration of recruits and possibly 

trap them in unsuitable habitats where they may perish.

Historical Land Use

The environmental landscape of the main Hawaiian 

Islands has undergone extreme changes since the arrival of the 

first human colonists. Much of the lush forested watersheds 

appear to be in a natural state, but for the majority of the 
16 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and OÿAhu, Hawaiÿi

Hawaiian forests this is far from true. A knowledge of the past 

land use is needed in order to fully understand the diversity 

and abundance of the flora and fauna of today’s watersheds. 

What Harding and others (1998) called “the ghost of land use 

past” has a direct influence on the ecological systems that we 

observe today.

The native biota of the Hawaiian Islands had developed 

over millions of years in isolation through the processes of 

colonization and adaptation (Jordan, 1905; Usinger, 1941; 

Loope and Mueller-Dombois, 1989; Howarth, 1990). Colonizing organisms arrived by long-distance dispersal mechanisms 

such as flying, swimming, rafting, or drifting in the sea or in 

the winds (Hubbell, 1968; Howarth, 1990). Because of the 

long distances that organisms had to travel, many continental 

groups are absent from the native biota whereas other groups 

are more represented, forming what is called a “disharmonic” 

biota. Of the relatively few groups of colonizing organisms 

that survived the long journey, those that were able to find suitable habitats and become established were unconstrained by 

predators and competitors found in continental settings. Many 

of these organisms radiated out into the various other available 

island habitats, thereby evolving into the many endemic forms 

that compose the native biota of the islands (Howarth, 1990). 

The terrestrial endemic fauna consisted mainly of arthropods 

(mostly insects), birds, and land snails. The only mammals 

represented were bats and the marine monk seal. The amphidromous species of stream fishes, shrimp, mollusks, and prawn 

were derived from marine ancestors that colonized brackish 

water and freshwater habitats. The endemic insect species 

were derived from both marine and terrestrial ancestors.

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 nonnative species (Kirch, 1982). Anthropogenic alteration of the Hawaiian 

landscape started with the ancient Hawaiians, who modified 

the environment to allow for their survival and expansion as 

a people. They brought with them their necessities to ensure 

their continued way of life, including their knowledge of fishing and farming. The Hawaiians introduced pigs, fowl, and 

dogs into the islands, as well as oceanic island agricultural 

staples such as taro. Inadvertent introductions of the Polynesian rat, lizards, snails, and various insects and weeds were 

possibly made during the cross-ocean voyages. The Hawaiians 

modified much of the arable lowland areas to farm taro and 

other products by diverting streams and clearing land by burning (Kirch, 1982). 

After 1778, the Hawaiian landscape began to rapidly 

change. Contact with the western world brought with it vast 

and dramatic changes. Cattle, goats, horses, and sheep were 

introduced into the islands soon after contact was made. The 

cattle were protected by order of the King, and were allowed 

to breed and roam unfettered by fences (Jarves, 1843; Hall, 

1904; Judd, 1919). The sandalwood era flourished from 

1815 to 1826, with China purchasing as much of the wood 

as they could from the Hawaiian Kingdom (St. John, 1947). 

Many acres of sandalwood were harvested without efforts 

to preserve or replant the trees until they were all but gone 

from the islands by 1829 (Thrum, 1904; Kuykendall and 

Gregory, 1926; St. John, 1947). It wasn’t until the 1830s that 

the free-ranging cattle were allowed to be hunted, and this 

pursuit chased the herds farther back into the valleys and into 

the higher elevation forests (Reynolds, 1850). By this time, 

cattle and goats were abundant on all the main islands. By 

1851 it was recognized that the cattle were causing damage 

to the native forests (Lee, 1851). In 1874, Nordhoff (1874) 

commented about the disappearance of the native forests from 

higher elevations and mountain slopes that was most likely 

caused by the grazing cattle. The effect of the grazing and the 

barren land it left behind was believed to have caused a reduction in streamflow (Nordhoff, 1874; Judd, 1919). Deforestation of the watersheds by cattle and goats continued at a rapid 

pace on all the islands, creating vast areas of barren soil or 

fields of Hilo grass (Paspalum conjugatum) that inhibited the 

growth of the native flora (Lyon, 1922). Remnants of native 

forests were able to exist only in inaccessible areas such as 

ravines and other steeply sloping areas. This deforestation led 

to erosion, declines in streamflow, sedimentation, and poor 

water quality for agriculture and human consumption (Stubbs, 

1901; Judd, 1919). The effect of these conditions on the 

native stream and nearshore marine biota is unknown. But the 

loss of habitat for the native species likely affected the biota 

in a substantial way. 

The birth of the sugar plantation era put even more 

pressure on the native Hawaiian ecosystems. As large-scale 

agriculture expanded in Hawaiÿi, greater demands were placed 

on the streams and rivers to supply water for irrigation. Elaborate ditches were constructed throughout the islands to deliver 

water to plantations established in the lower plains (Wilcox, 

1996). Many Hawaiian streams were diverted for the commercial off-stream uses, reducing the amount of available habitats 

for the native stream fauna and impeding the upstream-downstream migration of the native amphidromous species.

A planting of gum trees by Captain Makee of Maui 

appears to be one of the first reforestation efforts (Nordhoff, 

1874). Conservation efforts began in the late 1800s, after it 

was accepted by the sugarcane plantation owners that the 

deforestation had led to negative commercial effects. Watersheds on Oÿahu began to be replanted with a variety of mostly 

nonnative trees propagated in the government nursery (Bishop 

and others, 1884). Fences were slowly erected to protect the 

new trees, and feral cattle were removed. This work progressed slowly, while the deforestation continued around the 

islands. In 1893, the Hawaiian Legislature created the Bureau 

of Agriculture and Forestry to oversee the protection of 

Hawaiÿi’s watersheds. The newly appointed Commissioner of 

the Bureau set to work around the Islands with plantation owners and ranchers to erect fences, remove cattle, and reforest 

the denuded watersheds (Marsden, 1894). The first Territorial 

Forester was appointed in 1904 to continue the reforestation 

efforts (Hall, 1904). Under the Territorial Forester, forest 

reserves began to be established on all the main Hawaiian Islands, setting aside hundreds of thousands of acres of 
Data-Collection and Analysis Methods 17

land to be protected by the Territorial Government (Hosmer, 

1908). Most of this reforestation effort continued to use 

nonnative trees, but the importance of maintaining the native 

forests was also recognized (Judd, 1919). The protection and 

reforestation of the Hawaiian watershed has continued since 

those early days, with efforts such as the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s and 1940s to reforest areas in Maui 

and Kauaÿi. In 1970, the Natural Areas Reserve System 

(NARS) was created to protect and preserve areas supporting 

natural terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Maciolek, 1975; 

Devick and others, 1992). 

The cumulative effects that these legacy disturbances 

have had on the native biota may never be fully known. 

Edmondson and Wilson (1940) conjectured that the reason 

that the native stream snail Neritina granosa (hïhïwai) was 

uncommon on Oÿahu was because it might never have been 

established there. But it might also be possible that hïhïwai 

populations on Oÿahu were eradicated by the loss of suitable habitat due to increased sedimentation stemming from 

the extensive deforestation years earlier. A decrease in the 

abundances of nearshore fishes noted during the early 1900s 

was believed to have been entirely caused by overfishing, but 

the effects of the increased sediments on the nearshore environments may have had some effect on the nearshore fauna 

as well (Bell and Higgins, 1939). The effects on the native 

aquatic invertebrates may also never be fully known. Many 

of the very sensitive species may have been extirpated years 

before the early naturalists ever began to look for them. Some 

of these populations have survived in pockets of refuge, some 

have reestablished themselves around the islands, and some 

remain in only the most undisturbed habitats. The current 

land-use/land-cover maps that reveal the conditions of today’s 

watersheds do not necessarily correlate with the distributions 

of many of the native species due to the legacy of changes 

that are no longer evident. 

Recent History

The resident population of Hawaiÿi has increased from 

about 154,000 in 1900 to more than 1.2 million in 2000 (State 

of Hawaiÿi, 2009). Anthropogenic influences, both urban and 

agricultural, can adversely affect 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 water quality (Oki and Brasher, 2003).

Environmental contamination can directly affect aquatic 

invertebrate assemblages in a number of ways. The diverse taxa 

have varied ranges of tolerances for the myriad of contaminants 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.

Data-Collection and Analysis 

Methods

Watershed, riparian, instream-habitat, and benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected to determine the relations 

among components of the macroinvertebrate assemblages 

and the quality of the instream habitat and land use within the 

contributing basin area.

Selection of Sampling Sites

An attempt was made to select sampling sites that 

would represent a range of land-use and habitat characteristics on the Island of Maui. Thus the sampling sites were in 

urban (developed, residential, and commercial), agricultural, 

forested, and mixed-use watersheds; however, because of the 

extensive ditch systems and surface-water diversions on the 

island, none of the sampling sites can be considered to represent perennial streams draining the large agricultural or urban 

areas (figs. 3–4). The sites also were selected to represent the 

different climatic conditions around the island 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 altitude of the terrain 

(Armstrong, 1983). Sites were required to have perennial 

flow and be wadeable. Because most of the perennial streams 

on Maui are diverted for agriculture, many stream reaches 

downstream of the diversion structures are at times dry. 

Therefore many of the sampling sites were located upstream 

from the diversion structures in predominantly forested, relatively pristine terrain. Some of these streams have perennial 

flow at the coast because of groundwater discharge to their 

channels in their lower reaches, or because diverted water is 

subsequently returned to the lower reaches. Sampling sites 

were located near the coast in streams where flow was perennial at the lower altitudes. For the purposes of this study, 

sites located at 100 ft altitudes or lower are characterized as 

“lower” altitude sites, sites at altitudes greater than 100 ft but 

less than 650 ft are characterized as “middle” altitude sites, 

and sites at or greater than 650 ft altitude are characterized as 

“high” altitude sites. 

The 40 sampling sites on Oÿahu were selected and 

sampled during the Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment 

study conducted previously by the USGS (fig. 5; Wolff and 

Koch, 2009). A probability-based survey design was used to 
18 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

select sampling sites in order to ensure an unbiased representation of aquatic-resource conditions across Oÿahu. The target 

population consisted of all perennial streams on the Island of 

Oÿahu, Hawai‘i.

Determination of Habitat Characteristics

Habitat characterization data were collected using a modified set of methods derived from the USGS National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) protocols and the USEPA 

Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) protocols, which are 

described in Meador and others (1993), Fitzpatrick and others 

(1998), and U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency (2004). A 

300-ft study reach was delineated at each sampling site, and 

a number of physical habitat characteristics were determined 

(measured and (or) observed) within the reach. Data were 

recorded on field data sheets and were reviewed for accuracy 

prior to leaving the study reach.

At the beginning of each site visit, instantaneous specific 

conductance and water temperature were measured using a calibrated EcoSense® model EC300 meter. Land uses and practices 

adjacent to and upstream from each study reach were noted. The 

300-ft reach was divided into ten 30-ft sections. Instream habitat 

characteristics were estimated within each section and averaged 

for the entire reach. These data included visual estimates of the 

percentage of open canopy, the percentage of instream substrate 

size categories (boulder, cobble, gravel, and so forth), the percentage of instream substrate embeddedness, and the percentage 

of habitat type (riffle, run, or pool). The average wetted width 

and thalweg depth were calculated from multiple measurements 

(2 to 6 width measurements per section; 3 to 8 depth measurements per section) within each 30-foot section of stream. The 

amount of vegetative cover and stream-bank erosion were 

visually estimated for both the right and left banks. Any type of 

channel alteration was recorded.

Geographic Information System (GIS)

Geographic coordinates were recorded at the upstream 

and downstream ends of each study reach using a hand-held 

global positioning system (GPS) unit. These coordinates 

enabled entering the data in a Geographic Information System 

(GIS) for subsequent analyses. GPS points were also recorded 

at each quantitative sampling location. Basin area polygons 

were delineated from the downstream GPS points using the 

USGS web-based StreamStats application at http://water.usgs.

gov/osw/streamstats/hawaii.html. StreamStats was used to 

calculate the area of each drainage basin. GPS point elevations 

and stream lengths were calculated using a 10-meter Digital 

Elevation Model (DEM) (tables 1 and 2). Land-use statistics 

were derived from the USGS National Land Cover Dataset 

(NLCD) file (tables 3 and 4; Homer and others, 2004).

Collection of Invertebrate Samples

Two types of invertebrate samples, quantitative and qualitative, were collected at each site following standard National 

Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) protocols (Cuffney and 

others, 1993; Moulton and others, 2002). All sampling was 

conducted during dry-weather, low-flow conditions during periods when flow was likely less than the median flow at each site.

Qualitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate 

Sampling

Qualitative multihabitat (QMH) samples were collected 

from all available habitats within the study reach at each 

sampling site to provide a comprehensive species distribution list. QMH samples were collected using a D-frame 

kick net with a 1-ft wide opening and a 0.0197-in. (500-μm) 

mesh. Samples were collected using techniques appropriate 

for the various habitats being sampled (Cuffney and others, 

1993; Moulton and others, 2002; 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 combined 

to produce a single composite sample. The samples were 

elutriated to remove sand and pebbles and collected on a 

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

of approximately 0.75 L from each site. The samples were 

stored in a 70 percent ethanol solution until they were 

shipped to the analytical laboratory, EcoAnalysts Inc. in 

Moscow, Idaho, for identification.

Quantitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate 

Sampling

Quantitative richest targeted habitat (RTH) samples were 

collected from the faunistically richest community of benthic 

invertebrates, which for Hawaiian streams is located in fastflowing riffles (Moulton and others, 2002; Brasher and others, 

2004). Analyses of RTH samples provide relative abundances to 

allow comparisons among sites. Samples were collected from 

five riffles within each study reach using a modified Surber 

sampler (Slack sampler) with a 0.0167-in. (425-μm) mesh net 

and composited into a single sample (Cuffney and others, 1993). 

The five sampling sites were selected using the criteria that: (1) 

the substrate was natural and mostly coarse grained (large gravel 

to large cobbles); (2) the flow was in the main channel; and (3) 

the net could be properly positioned. If riffles were not present, 

RTH sampling sites were positioned in the fastest flowing water. 

All substrate within a 2.69-ft2

 (0.25-m2) area in front of the net, 

delineated by an aluminum quadrat, was gently dislodged and 

thoroughly scrubbed to remove all organisms. Five RTH samples 

were collected within each sampling reach, cleaned of extraneous inorganic and plant material, and then combined to produce 

a single composite sample. The samples were stored in a 70 

percent ethanol solution until they were shipped to the analytical 

laboratory, EcoAnalysts Inc., for identification and enumeration 

as discussed below. The water depth was measured at each riffle 

collection site, and current velocity was estimated at 0.6-depth by 

measuring the velocity at six-tenths the water depth (measured 
 Data-Collection and Analysis Methods 19

Table 3. Land-use statistics for sampling sites on Maui.

[mi2, square miles; N, North; S, South; E, East; W, West; locations of sites in figs. 3-4]

Station ID Site name

Agriculture Developed Forested

Area, in 

mi2

Percentage 

of basin 

area

Area, in 

mi2

Percentage 

of basin 

area

Area, in 

mi2

Percentage 

of basin 

area

HI_MAUI_09-001 Kopiliÿula-A 0 0 0 0 3.86 100

HI_MAUI_09-002 W. Wailua Iki-B 0 0 0.04 0.95 3.96 99.05

HI_MAUI_09-003 Wailua Nui-B 0 0 0.09 1.36 6.25 98.64

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A 0 0 0 0.01 3.58 99.99

HI_MAUI_09-005 W. Wailua Iki-A 0 0 0 0 3.63 100

HI_MAUI_09-006 Haipuaÿena 0 0 0 0 1.2 100

HI_MAUI_09-007 Pälauhulu-C 0 0 0.09 3.28 2.63 96.72

HI_MAUI_09-008 E. Wailua Nui-A 0 0 0 0 0.51 100

HI_MAUI_09-009 Pälauhulu-A 0 0 0.08 2.88 2.57 97.12

HI_MAUI_09-010 Honomanü 0 0 0 0 2.91 100

HI_MAUI_09-011 Kölea 0 0 0 0 0.21 100

HI_MAUI_09-012 Hanawï-C 0 0 0.05 0.95 5.01 99.05

HI_MAUI_09-013 Waiohue 0 0 0.02 2.48 0.73 97.52

HI_MAUI_09-014 Kopiliÿula-B 0 0 0.03 0.73 4.61 99.27

HI_MAUI_09-015 Hanawï-B 0 0 0.05 0.94 5.25 99.06

HI_MAUI_09-016 Nuaÿailua 0 0 0.02 2.18 1.08 97.82

HI_MAUI_09-017 Waikapü-C 0 0 0.02 0.74 2.82 99.26

HI_MAUI_09-018 Waikapü-A 0 0 0 0 1.8 100

HI_MAUI_09-019 Kanahä 0 0 0 0 1.57 100

HI_MAUI_09-020 Honolua 0 0 0 0 1.89 100

HI_MAUI_09-021 Honoköwai 0 0 0 0 1.02 100

HI_MAUI_09-022 Olowalu-B 0 0 0 0 3.41 100

HI_MAUI_09-023 Waiheÿe-B open 0.06 0.94 0.25 3.81 6.37 95.24

HI_MAUI_09-024 Waiheÿe-B closed 0.06 0.95 0.25 3.81 6.36 95.24

HI_MAUI_09-025 Waiheÿe-C 0.01 0.13 0.13 1.97 6.28 97.9

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe-A 0 0 0.03 0.73 4.23 99.27

HI_MAUI_09-027 N. Waiehu-C 0 0 0 0 0.76 100

HI_MAUI_09-028 N. Waiehu-A 0 0 0 0 0.73 100

HI_MAUI_09-029 S. Waiehu-C 0 0 0 0 1.08 100

HI_MAUI_09-030 S. Waiehu-A 0 0 0 0 1.01 100

HI_MAUI_09-031 ÿÏao-C 0 0 0.01 0.24 6.07 99.76

HI_MAUI_09-032 ÿÏao-A 0 0 0 0 4.16 100

HI_MAUI_09-033 Kauaÿula 0 0 0 0 1.86 100

HI_MAUI_09-034 Launiupoko 0 0 0 0 1.05 100

HI_MAUI_09-035 Ukumehame-B 0 0 0.02 0.44 3.89 99.56

HI_MAUI_09-036 Waiehu 0.29 10.28 0.14 4.97 2.36 84.66

HI_MAUI_09-037 Makamakaÿole-A 0 0 0 0.65 0.69 99.35

HI_MAUI_09-038 Makamakaÿole-B 0 0 0.09 8 1 92

HI_MAUI_09-039 Ukumehame-A 0 0 0.02 0.47 3.7 99.53

HI_MAUI_09-040 Olowalu-A 0 0 0 0 3 100
20 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 4. Land-use statistics for Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) sampling sites.

[mi2, square miles; SF, South Fork; NF, North Fork; locations of sites in fig. 5]

Station ID Site name

Agriculture Developed Forested

Area, in 

mi2

Percentage 

of basin 

area

Area, in 

mi2

Percentage 

of basin 

area

Area, in 

mi2

Percentage 

of basin 

area

HIO05518-002 Nuÿuanu-C 0 0 0.78 17.87 3.57 82.13

HIO05518-003 N. Hälawa-A 0 0 0.06 3.94 1.55 96.06

HIO05518-005 Poamoho1 0.07 2.56 0.02 0.7 2.68 96.74

HIO05518-010 SF Kaukonahua-A 0 0 0 0 2.94 100

HIO05518-011 Waiähole-B 0.29 7.61 0.18 4.66 3.35 87.72

HIO05518-013 Kamananui-B 0 0 0 0 5.73 100

HIO05518-018 Kalihi-C 0 0 0.88 18.42 3.9 81.58

HIO05518-023 Kahana-A 0 0 0 0 0.31 100

HIO05518-025 Helemano1 0.1 2.39 0 0 4.05 97.61

HIO05518-026 Kïpapa-A 0 0 0 0 2.24 100

HIO05518-027 Waikäne-B 0.05 2.08 0 0.01 2.47 97.91

HIO05518-029 Kamananui-A 0 0 0 0 1.9 100

HIO05518-034 Nuÿuanu-A1 0 0 0.43 11.13 3.46 88.87

HIO05518-035 Haÿikü 0.01 2.38 0.03 6.49 0.43 91.13

HIO05518-037 Anahulu-B 1.75 12.25 0.04 0.28 12.5 87.47

HIO05518-038 SF Kaukonahua-C 0.01 0.14 0 0 3.68 99.86

HIO05518-039 Waikäne-C 0 0 0 0 0.52 100

HIO05518-151 Kahana-C 0 0 0 0 2.15 100

HIO05518-153 ÿÖpaeÿula1 0.08 2.18 0 0.09 3.61 97.73

HIO05518-155 Pälolo1 0.19 5.13 1.04 27.97 2.49 66.9

HIO05518-158 N. Hälawa-B1 0 0 0.14 4.43 3.07 95.57

HIO05518-159 Maunawili1 0 0 0 0 0.11 100

HIO05518-160 Kahana-B 0 0 0.01 0.21 3.26 99.79

HIO05518-162 Kalihi-A 0 0 0.05 2.4 2.14 97.6

HIO05518-163 ÿÄhuimanu 0 0 0.09 22.49 0.31 77.51

HIO05518-164 Kamoÿoaliÿi 0 0 0.33 60.45 0.21 39.55

HIO05518-166 Kïpapa-C 0 0 0 0 4 100

HIO05518-168 Kawai Iki1 0 0 0 0 2.19 100

HIO05518-171 Mänoa 0.06 2.43 0.15 6.32 2.22 91.24

HIO05518-174 Waimano1 0 0 0 0 0.91 100

HIO05518-175 Kahana Iki 0 0 0.03 8.76 0.33 91.24

HIO05518-177 SF Kaukonahua-B 0.04 0.77 0 0.05 5.31 99.17

HIO05518-181 Anahulu-C 1.15 8.6 0.04 0.3 12.17 91.11

HIO05518-182 NF Kaukonahua-B 0 0 0 0 4.46 100

HIO05518-183 Waiähole-C 0.19 5.43 0.1 2.86 3.22 91.71

HIO05518-186 NF Kaukonahua-A 0 0 0 0 1.38 100

HIO05518-187 Lulumahu 0 0 0 0 0.35 100

HIO05518-191 Waimänalo 0 0 0 0 0.19 100

HIO05518-194 Pauoa 0 0 0.03 4.66 0.68 95.34

HIO05518-203 Hakipuÿu 0.04 5.03 0 0.35 0.74 94.62

1

 No Targeted Riffle sample collected.
Data-Collection and Analysis Methods 21

down from the water surface) using an acoustic-Doppler velocity 

(ADV) meter and taking that as the mean velocity. GPS coordinates were recorded at each sampling location. 

Handling of Native Species

In accordance with conditions specified in the Hawaiÿi 

State Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), Special Activity 

Permit, specimens of the native mollusk, Neritina granosa

(hïhïwai), and the native shrimp, Atyoida bisulcata (ÿöpae 

kalaÿole), that were collected in the QMH and RTH samples 

were individually counted, measured, photographed, and 

released unharmed back into the stream from which they were 

captured. These data were incorporated into the sample data 

received back from the analytical laboratory. Whenever possible, naiads (immature aquatic stage) of the native Megalagrion damselflies were handled in a similar manner.

Laboratory Methods

The sorting, identification, and enumeration of all the 

macroinvertebrate samples were conducted by the contract 

laboratory, EcoAnalysts Inc. Expert laboratory personnel 

picked through the samples, sorting out the macroinvertebrates from the bits and pieces of plant and inorganic material 

using standard procedures as discussed in Barbour and others 

(1999). Both sample types, QMH and RTH, were processed 

in the same manner. Each sample was spread evenly in a sorting tray of known dimensions, marked with grid lines. The 

sorting was conducted incrementally by randomly selecting, 

removing, and sorting individual grids of material until a 

fixed count of 500 organisms was obtained from each sample. 

The number of grids of material that were picked through 

from each sample was compared to the total number of grids 

of the whole sample to determine the percentage of each 

sample that was needed to reach the 500-organism threshold. 

This percentage is called the subsample factor. The subsample 

factor was then used to estimate the total number of organisms in each whole sample. For example, if 6 out of 12 total 

grids (50 percent) of a sample produced 500 organisms, the 

subsample factor would be 12 ÷ 6, or 2, and the whole sample 

would be estimated to contain 500 × 2, or 1,000 organisms. 

The sorted organisms were identified to the lowest practical 

taxonomic level, usually to the genus or species level. Damaged organisms were more difficult to identify and were usually determined at the family or class level. Aquatic worms 

were identified at the class Oligochaeta level. 

Data received from the analytical laboratory included the 

unique station and sample identifiers, along with the associated 

taxonomic identifications, counts, and subsample factors for 

each sample. The total abundance for each taxon in each sample 

was calculated by multiplying the sample count by the subsample factor. The total abundances for the RTH samples were then 

standardized to a 1-m2

 (10.76-ft2) area. These areal values were 

then analyzed using the preliminary Hawaiian benthic macroinvertebrate multimetric index developed by Wolff (2005).

Quality Control

Laboratory Methods

Laboratory quality-control procedures included a second 

sort of the material of each sample by a second laboratory 

taxonomist until a 90 percent or better sorting efficacy was 

attained. Further quality-control measures were conducted 

on 10 percent of the samples to verify the taxonomic identifications by the original taxonomist. A second taxonomist 

independently examined and identified the sorted organisms 

until a 90 percent or better similarity was attained between the 

two taxonomists. 

Re-sort of Samples

In order to evaluate the variability in the subsampling 

process of the contract laboratory, EcoAnalysts Inc. were 

requested to re-sort the remaining unsorted material of four 

quantitative samples, following the same procedures describeabove. These samples all had large subsample factors, indicating that only small fractions of the original samples were 

sorted to achieve the 500-organism count. 

Replicate Sampling

As part of the quality control, a replicate RTH composite sample was collected at eight sampling sites concurrently with the primary RTH sample. These samples were 

collected and processed following the same procedures as 

described in the section “Quantitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling.” The study sites where replicates were 

collected were required to have sufficient stretches of riffle 

habitat so that two sets of five undisturbed samples could be 

collected. Whenever possible, paired samples were collected 

from discrete riffles, as near to each other as was practicable, 

and composited into separate containers and processed as 

described earlier. The macroinvertebrate compositions of the 

paired composite samples were compared to each other to 

evaluate the within-site variability.

Repeat Sampling

The Waiheÿe-A study site was selected as a repeat sampling site because the site was easily accessible and contained 

a large quantity of riffle habitat that met the sampling requirements. A total of three RTH composite samples were collected 

at this site over the duration of the study. The large number 

of optimal riffles made it possible to avoid sampling the same 

riffles within the study reach during the subsequent repeat 

sampling. These samples were collected and processed following the same procedures as described in the section “Quantitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling.” The macroinvertebrate compositions of these samples were compared among 

each other as a measure of temporal variability.
22 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Additional Biological Surveys

In addition to the collection of the benthic macroinvertebrate samples, brief snorkel surveys were conducted to 

observe the conspicuous fish fauna and other organisms that 

may not have been collected in the benthic samples. Fish, 

mollusks, and large crustaceans such as prawns or crayfish 

may themselves be indicators of stream quality and can play 

a part in structuring macroinvertebrate communities. Furthermore, surveys of adult native Megalagrion damselflies 

were conducted during each site visit. The native damselfly 

genus Megalagrion is unique to the Hawaiian Islands, and the 

presence or absence of these delicate odonates may also be 

indicative of local stream conditions. Visual observations of 

macroinvertebrates supplemented the information provided by 

the benthic samples for presence/absence metrics.

Snorkel Surveys

Brief snorkel surveys were conducted at each site to 

observe the fish communities and other stream fauna. These 

surveys were conducted after the benthic macroinvertebrate 

sampling was completed and were restricted due to time 

limitations. The conspicuous fauna were not counted; however, rough estimates of abundances were determined. This 

method may fail to spot some of the more cryptic species such 

as the dojo loach, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus, and the Chinese catfish, Clarius fuscus, which have a propensity to hide 

(Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). In conducting these surveys, a 

snorkeler entered the stream below the downstream end of the 

reach and slowly moved upstream and identified the observed 

fish, snail, insect, and crustacean species. 

Damselflies

The Hawaiian Islands are home to a diversity of odonates. 

This includes the endemic Hawaiian damselfly genus Megalagrion McLachlan, 1883 (Arthropoda: Insecta: Odonata: 

Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). This genus, known locally as 

pinao ÿula, includes 23 species and 3 subspecies (Polhemus, 

1993; Polhemus and Asquith, 1996). Some species of Megalagrion have an obligate aquatic larval stage that requires them 

to inhabit freshwater as immature naiads. Some species, as 

adults, rely on other aquatic organisms as their primary food 

sources, requiring them to forage in and around the stream 

corridors. Introduced species, predation, competition, and 

habitat loss have caused declines and extirpations of local populations of native damselflies (Williams, 1936; Zimmerman, 

1948; Polhemus, 1993; Polhemus and Asquith, 1996; Liebherr 

and Polhemus, 1997; DiSalvo and others, 2003). Due to their 

sensitivity to environmental alterations and their susceptibility 

to introduced fishes and amphibians, some species of native 

Hawaiian damselflies and dragonflies are considered to be 

indicator species, so that their presence is thought to be indicative of relatively undisturbed stream ecosystems (Liebherr 

and Polhemus, 1997; DiSalvo and others, 2003; Englund and 

others, 2007; Polhemus, 2008). In some instances, however, 

Megalagrion have been found existing in degraded habitats 

(Evenhuis and Cowie, 1994; this study)

The decline in populations of some Megalagrion species 

have been so severe that in 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service included six species as candidates for listing as endangered or threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). In 

2009, the USFWS proposed endangered status for two of the 

candidates, M. nesiotes, the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly, 

endemic to the Islands of Hawaiÿi and Maui, and M. pacificum, 

the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, historically endemic to all the 

main Hawaiian Islands, and in 2010, the USFSW published 

the final rule that determined endangered species status for M. 

nesiotes and M. pacificum, under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009, 2010). 

During each site visit, conspicuous adult damselflies were 

observed and occasionally captured, photographed, identified, and released unharmed. The location of each sighting 

was recorded. Identifications were determined on the basis of 

descriptions in Polhemus and Asquith (1996), and questionable identifications were confirmed, using photographs, by 

Dr. Polhemus (D.A. Polhemus, Coastal Conservation Program 

Manager, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, oral commun., 

2010). One of the challenges in using adult Megalagrion

damselflies in bioassessments is that they are very sensitive 

to changes in the weather and are rarely, if ever, seen on cold, 

rainy, or blustery days, being more active during warm sunny 

days (Polhemus and Asquith, 1996). The absence of adult 

native damselflies at some of the study sites may have been 

a consequence of suboptimal weather conditions during the 

sampling periods, as it was not practical to sample only during 

optimal weather conditions.

Evaluation of Re-sort, Replicate, 

and Repeat Samples

Multivariate statistical analyses were used to evaluate 

the results of the replicate, re-sort, and repeat samples collected on Maui. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) 

was used to examine the relations among the samples using 

abundance and proportional data (Clarke, 1993). Hierarchical 

agglomerative clustering was performed on both datasets using 

Bray-Curtis similarity scores to examine similarities among 

the samples. The results of these analyses are presented in 

appendix A. 

In general, the analyses of the re-sorted samples demonstrated relatively high degrees of similarity with the original 

sorting results. Percent similarities were greater using the proportional data and ranged from 80 to 90 percent, whereas similarities using the abundance data ranged from 75 to 85 percent. 

The analyses of the paired replicate samples also demonstrated 

relatively high degrees of similarity, ranging from 75 to 85 

percent using the proportional data and from 70 to 90 percent 
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in Maui and Oÿahu Streams 23

using the abundance data. The analyses of the repeat samples 

from the Waiheÿe-A site showed a higher similarity between 

the first and third samples, 85 percent, than with the second 

sample at 70 percent similarity.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate 

Community Structure in Maui 

and Oÿahu Streams

The various assemblages of benthic macroinvertebrates 

collected from the Maui study sampling sites are composed 

of a mixture of native and nonnative species representing 8 

phyla, 14 classes, 37 families, and 48 genera. Descriptions, 

distributions, and abundances of some of the more common 

taxa collected during this study are discussed in this section. 

Photographic images of some of the more commonly collected 

macroinvertebrates are provided in appendix D. The abundance data were derived from the quantitative samples only, 

whereas observational or presence/absence data were derived 

from the quantitative, qualitative, and visual observations data 

sets. Maps showing the distributions of the various taxa are 

provided in appendixes A and B. 

Native Macroinvertebrates

Atyoida bisulcata Randall, 1840; (Arthropoda; 

Crustacea; Decapoda; Atyidae); A. bisulcata, known locally 

as ÿöpaekalaÿole or ÿöpae, and commonly called mountain 

shrimp, is an endemic, freshwater, amphidromous shrimp 

found throughout the Hawaiian Islands (figs. D1–D3). 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). Adults of this species of crustacean are more 

commonly found at higher elevations in the more “pristine” 

streams; however, juveniles and recruits have been observed 

and collected from the lower reaches of streams, most often 

in the channel margins, during their 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 less-impaired upstream sites. 

The distribution and abundances of A. bisulcata identified 

in quantitative samples from Maui are shown in figures B1–B2. 

A. bisulcata were identified in 34 samples from 26 sites. Densities of A. bisulcata at sites where they were collected ranged 

from 0.8/m2

 (4 sites) to 497.2/m2 at Makamakaÿole-B (33 

percent of the Makamakaÿole-B sample). The high abundance 

at Makamakaÿole-B was due to a recruitment event, when 

post-larvae were returning to freshwater. The highest density 

of adults, 80/m2

 (1.0 percent of the Hanawï-A sample), was 

recorded at the Hanawï-A site. Site observations of A. bisulcata are shown in figures B3–B4. A. bisulcata were observed 

at all of the sampling sites in East Maui and at 15 of the 24 

sites (62.5 percent) in West Maui. In West Maui, A. bisulcata

were observed at 5 of the 13 (38.5 percent) upper altitude 

sampling sites, 7 of the 8 (87.5 percent) middle sites, and at all 

3 of the lower elevation sites. Some of the water diversions on 

the Lahaina side of West Maui create barriers to the upstream 

migration of A. bisulcata. The downstream distance to the 

stream mouth from the sampling locations near the diversions 

averaged 2.1 miles for the 7 upper East Maui sites and 3.6 

miles for the 5 Lahaina side West Maui sites that were devoid 

of A. bisulcata. The Lahaina side of West Maui is also much 

drier than Northeast Maui, therefore affording the amphidromous species less opportunity to migrate upstream to the perennial reaches of the streams.

The size class distribution of the A. bisulcata collected 

at the Maui sampling sites showed that 86.1 percent of those 

collected at lower elevation sites were new recruits (12 cm) 

and 13.9 percent were juveniles. No adults were collected at 

the lower elevation sites. At the middle elevation sites, 20.4 

percent were adults, 38.9 percent were juveniles, and 40.8 

percent were recruits; and at the upper elevation sites 57.1 

percent were adults, 42.4 percent were juveniles, and 0.5 

percent were recruits.

The distribution and abundances of adult and juvenile A. 

bisulcata identified in quantitative samples from the Oÿahu 

WSA sites are shown in figure C1. Densities of ÿöpae, in the 

5 quantitative samples in which they were present, were lower 

than those in streams on Maui, and ranged from 2.4/m2

 at 

Anahulu-B to 9.0/m2 at Kahana-A, with a mean density of 

6.3/m2, whereas in the Maui samples they ranged from 0.8/m2

to 80/m2 with a mean of 18.4/m2 (not including the 497.2/m2

collected at Makamakaÿole-B during a recruitment event). A. 

bisulcata were observed at 12 of the 40 Oÿahu WSA sampling 

sites (30 percent), with 7 of those sites on the windward side, 

4 in central Oÿahu, and 1 site on the leeward side (fig. C2). 

Size class distribution data for the A. bisulcata identified in the 

Oÿahu WSA samples were not documented.

Neritina granosa Sowerby, 1825; (Mollusca; Gastropoda; Archaeogastropoda; Neritidae); N. granosa, known 

locally as hïhïwai or wï, is an endemic, freshwater, amphidromous, limpet-like mollusk found throughout the Hawaiian Islands (fig. D4; Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). Ford 

(1979) concluded that adult N. granosa were most abundant 

on clean boulders, cobbles, and gravel in shallow riffles but 

are also adapted to living in torrential flows. N. granosa are 

most active at night, spending daylight hours under rocks and 

in crevices and coming out in the evening to forage and mate 

(Brasher, 1997). N. granosa have not been commonly found 

in streams on Oÿahu for a number of years (Edmondson, 1933, 

Maciolek, 1972; Ford, 1979). In 1938, an attempt was made 

to translocate N. granosa gathered from Kauaÿi streams and 

planted into streams on Oÿahu, including Waiheÿe, Köloa, 

Waianu, Punaluÿu, Waiähole, and Nuÿuanu Streams (Hawaii 

Board of Commissioners, 1939). Edmondson and Wilson 

(1940) conjectured that N. granosa might not have ever been 

established on Oÿahu. It might also be possible that N. granosa 

populations on Oÿahu were affected by the loss of suitable 

habitat due to increased sedimentation stemming from the 
24 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

extensive deforestation and cattle wallows on Oÿahu during the 

1800s and early 1900s.

The distribution and abundances of N. granosa identified in quantitative samples from Maui are shown in figures 

B5–B6. N. granosa were identified in 11 samples from 9 sites. 

Densities of N. granosa, at sites where they were collected, 

ranged from 0.8/m2 at Wailua Nui-B (0.06 percent of the 

sample) and Hanawï-B (0.01 percent of the sample) to 194/m2

(11.6 percent of the sample) at Waiohue. Observations of N. 

granosa were made at 9 of the 40 (23 percent) Maui sampling 

sites—at 8 of the 16 (50 percent) East Maui sites and at 1 of 

the 24 (4 percent) West Maui sites. N. granosa were present 

at 6 of the 8 (75 percent) lower sites, 3 of the 11 (27 percent) 

middle sites, and were not present at any of the 21 higher 

elevation sites. 

N. granosa were not collected or observed during the 

Oÿahu WSA sampling, although it was observed during previous USGS studies in Nuÿuanu Stream (Wolff, 2005) and in 

Punaluÿu Stream (Oki and others, 2006). Earlier observations 

of N. granosa on Oÿahu include Kubota (1972) in Kahana 

Stream; Ford (1979) in Kaluanui Stream; Archer (1984) in 

Köloa Stream; and Timbol (1984a) in Kaluanui Stream.

Telmatogeton spp. (Arthropoda; Insecta; Diptera; Chironomidae); the Hawaiian Telmatogeton is a genus of flying 

insects that have aquatic larvae and pupae (figs. D5–D8). The 

larvae of this genus of Chironomidae (nonbiting midges) were 

first recorded from freshwater in Hawaiÿi by Terry in 1910 

(Terry, 1913 [Charadromyia]). This genus of chironomid is 

found in coastal rocky shoreline habitats around the world, 

but in the Hawaiian Islands it has adapted from its marine 

ancestors to freshwater habitats (Wirth, 1947; Newman, 1975; 

Newman, 1988). Hawaiian Telmatogeton are known as torrent 

midges, because the larvae are found in fast flowing streams 

clinging onto smooth rocks and in splash zones of cascades 

and waterfalls (figs. D9–D10; Terry, 1913; Wirth, 1947; 

Benbow and others, 1997). They were also observed colonizing fast flowing ditches and flumes (Wirth, 1947). The larvae 

spin silken cases attached to flat, hard surfaces and feed on 

diatoms and green algae. There are five described freshwater Telmatogeton species endemic to Hawaiÿi: T. abnormis

(Terry, 1913) recorded from Kauaÿi, Oÿahu, and Maui; T. 

fluviatilis Wirth, 1947, recorded from Oÿahu, Maui, and the 

Island of Hawaiÿi; T. hirtus Wirth, 1947, endemic to Kauaÿi; 

T. torrenticola (Terry, 1913) recorded from Kauaÿi, Oÿahu, 

Molokai, Maui, and Hawaiÿi Island; and T williamsi Wirth, 

1947 endemic to Oÿahu. 

The distribution and abundances of Telmatogeton identified in quantitative samples from Maui are shown in figures 

B7–B8. Telmatogeton larvae were identified in 20 samples from 

17 sites. Densities at sites where Telmatogeton larvae were collected ranged from 1.3/m2

 (0.19 percent of the sample) at North 

Waiehu-C, below the diversion, to 307.2/m2 (1.3 percent of the 

sample) at Kölea. The highest relative abundance was at the 

Honomanü site (29.6/m2; 9.2 percent of the sample). Telmatogeton abundance and relative abundance were determined to 

be significantly inversely correlated with specific conductance 

(Spearman’s rho = −− 0.43, p = 0.0014; and Spearman’s rho = 

− 0.45, p = 0.0007 respectively). Benbow and others (2003) 

determined that T. torrenticola on Maui were more abundant 

in cascades and splash zones than in riffles. The quantitative 

methods used in the current study as well as in past USGS studies in Hawaiÿi focused on riffle communities and therefore may 

underrepresent the overall reach-wide abundances of Telmatogeton. Larval Telmatogeton were observed at 19 of the 40 (47.5 

percent) study sites on Maui, including 8 of the 16 (50 percent) 

sites in East Maui and 11 of the 24 (45.8 percent) sites in West 

Maui. Larval Telmatogeton were more often observed at upper 

elevation sites, 17 of 20 sites, than at middle, 1 of 11 sites, or 

lower elevation sites, 1 of 9 sites. 

Telmatogeton larvae were not observed in any samples 

collected from Oÿahu streams during the WSA or NAWQA 

studies (55 sites). Historically, four Telmatogeton species 

have been reported from streams, ditches, and flumes on 

Oÿahu. Illingworth (1931) reported that T. fluviatilis [syn. 

Charadromyia torrenticola (Terry, 1913)] were abundant 

in the Waiähole Ditch in Waipiÿo in 1929. Wirth (1947) 

described the Oÿahu T. fluviatilis from specimens collected 

from streams and ditches in 1946 from Kïpapa, Waiähole, 

Mänoa, Lulumahu, and Punaluÿu. Wirth (1947) described T. 

williamsi from hundreds of specimens collected in 1946 on 

Oÿahu from a rock-lined ditch that supplied irrigation water 

to the Waiÿanae Plantation, and T. abnormis from Kaluanui 

Stream upstream of Sacred Falls. Kawate (1969) reported T. 

hirtus (possibly T. williamsi because T. hirtus is endemic to 

Kauaÿi; Wirth, 1947; Nishida, 1992) as common in Punaluÿu 

Stream at 770 ft. More recently, during insect surveys at 

Kaluanui Stream in 1993-94, Polhemus (1995) observed 

T. fluviatilis, T. abnormis, and T. williamsi at 2,200–2,500 

ft and T. williamsi at 350 ft. Englund (2000) reported T. 

williamsi as common in Kaipapaÿu Stream on Oÿahu from 

waterfalls at 600-800 ft, noting that this species was otherwise extremely rare. 

Megalagrion spp. McLachlan, 1883; (Arthropoda; 

Insecta; Odonata; Coenagrionidae); this Hawaiian endemic 

genus of damselflies, known locally as pinao ÿula, is represented by 23 species and 3 subspecies (figs. D11–D14; Polhemus, 1993; Polhemus and Asquith, 1996). The field guide 

by Polhemus and Asquith (1996) “Hawaiian Damselflies: A 

Field Identification Guide” provides a comprehensive reference replete with descriptions, ecology, local distributions, and 

ranges of these unique damselflies. Like many other aquatic 

insects, adult Megalagrion are terrestrial but their naiads are 

mostly aquatic. Some species breed in flowing streams, some 

breed in side pools or spray zones, and still others breed in 

damp vegetation or in the damp axils of vines (Polhemus and 

Asquith, 1996). Due to the expertise required, the naiads were 

not identified to the species level.

The distribution of adult Megalagrion observed at Maui 

study sites is shown in figures B9–B10. As mentioned earlier, 

adult Megalagrion are usually active only from mid-morning 
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in Maui and Oÿahu Streams 25

to mid-afternoon during calm, sunny days, so their absence 

from sites may have been due to suboptimal weather conditions. The species observed on Maui include M. blackburni

McLachlan, Blackburn’s Hawaiian damselfly; M. nigrohamatum nigrohamatum (Blackburn, 1884), the Blackhook Hawaiian damselfly; M. hawaiiense (McLachlan), the Hawaiian 

Upland damselfly; M. calliphya (McLachlan), the Beautiful 

Hawaiian damselfly; and a possible sighting of M. pacificum

(McLachlan) the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, which is currently listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

The distribution and abundance of Megalagrion naiads collected in the quantitative samples on Maui are shown in figures 

B11–B12. Megalagrion naiads were identified in 17 samples 

from 15 sites. The densities of naiads, at sites where naiads were 

collected, ranged from 1.5/m2 (0.2 percent of the sample) at the 

Waiheÿe-B, open canopy site to 54.2/m2 (4.5 percent of the 

sample) at the North Waiehu-A site above the diversion. The 

three samples from North Waiehu, including two above the 

diversion and one below the diversion, had the highest densities—54.2/m2

 (4.5 percent), 42.7/m2 (3 percent), and 30.7/m2

(4.7 percent), respectively. The boulders and cobbles at this 

site had a thick mat of moss cover, which provides a suitable 

habitat for the Megalagrion naiads, and adult M. blackburni

were commonly observed flying about during the sampling.

Adult Megalagrion were observed at 15 sites at which 

naiads were identified in either the quantitative (5 sites), 

qualitative (2 sites) or both (8 sites) sample types on Maui. 

Megalagrion naiads were collected in either the quantitative or qualitative samples at five sites at which adults were 

not observed, and adults were observed at nine sites at which 

naiads were not identified in either the quantitative or qualitative samples. 

Megalagrion naiads were not detected in the benthic 

samples collected during the Oÿahu WSA study. The distribution of adult Megalagrion observed at Oÿahu WSA sampling 

sites is shown in figure C3. The species observed on Oÿahu 

included Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum (Perkins), 

the Blackline Hawaiian damselfly. Native damselflies were 

observed at 6 of the 40 sampling sites, with 2 species observed 

at 1 of the sites.

Heteromeyenia baileyi (Bowerbank, 1863); (Porifera; 

Demospongiae; Haplosclerida; Spongillidae); H. baileyi is an 

indigenous freshwater sponge also found in North America 

(fig. D15). Svihla (1941) described the Hawaiian H. baileyi

he observed in Haipuaÿena Stream on Maui in 1935 as large 

masses, vivid green, encrusting rocks and wood. He also 

identified samples collected on Oÿahu in 1936. Yamamoto and 

Tagawa (2000) describe H. baileyi as being bright green to olive 

brown in encrusting or branching forms, common on Oÿahu 

in Waikele Stream and Wahiawä Reservoir. This species was 

observed but not collected in the samples. Observations on Maui 

were made at West Wailua Iki-A and East Wailua Nui-A. Observations on Oÿahu were made at sites A, B, and C in South Fork 

Kaukonahua Stream, Öpaeÿula, Kïpapa-C, and Kawai Iki.

Nonnative Macroinvertebrates

Nonnative macroinvertebrates were the most abundant 

component of the benthic stream samples collected on Maui. 

These included a number of insect, mollusk, and crustacean 

species. These species arrived in Hawaiÿi in a variety of ways 

and at different time periods. The spread of some of these species around the State has been rapid, while others have been 

restricted in the expansion of their ranges. The history, distribution, and abundance of some of the more common species 

are discussed in this section.

Insects

Insects were a major component of the benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected on Maui. Many of these insects 

are terrestrial as adults and return to the water to lay their 

eggs. The immature insects have aquatic larvae, pupae, or 

naiads that occupy a wide range of aquatic habitats. The relative abundance of immature insects in the Maui quantitative 

samples ranged from 29.9 percent to 99.3 percent with a mean 

of 86.3 percent.

Trichoptera

 Four species of trichopterans have been recorded in 

Hawaiÿi, all of which are not native, including Oxyethira 

maya, Cheumatopsyche analis, Hydroptila potosina (formerly H. arctia), and Hydroptila icona (figs. D16–D23; Flint 

and others, 2003). It is commonly believed that they were 

accidently introduced along with imported aquarium plants. 

Trichopterans are an order of insects commonly known as caddisflies and have a world-wide distribution. Like other aquatic 

insects, the adults are terrestrial and, in most cases, the larvae 

and pupae are aquatic. Trichoptera are commonly used in benthic macroinvertebrate metrics such as the popular EPT metric, 

which is based on the ratio of the insect orders Ephemeroptera 

(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). None of the EPT taxa are native to Hawaiÿi. A species of 

Ephemeroptera, Caenis nigropunctata, was accidentally introduced into Hawaiÿi in the 1940s, most likely as a stowaway in 

an airplane (Van Zwaluwenburg, 1945; Zimmerman, 1951). 

This species is uncommon on Oÿahu, although specimens are 

collected from time to time (Smith, 2000; Brasher and others, 

2004). C. nigropunctata has not been reported from Maui. 

It was identified in the Oÿahu WSA qualitative samples from 

Anahulu-B, Kahana Iki, and Kalihi-A. Two other species of 

Ephemeroptera were intentionally released on Kauaÿi in 1961 

as food for the introduced trout, but these species failed to 

become established (Needham and Usinger, 1961; Davis and 

Krauss, 1962; Smith, 2000). A single specimen of a fourth 

species, Potamanthus formosus, was collected at Hickam Air 

Force Base in 1954, but it did not become established (Bae 

and McCafferty, 1991). No species of Plecoptera have been 

reported from Hawaiÿi.
26 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Oxyethira maya Denning, 1947; (Arthropoda; Insecta; 

Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae). This was the first trichopteran 

recorded in Honolulu, Hawaiÿi, in 1940 (Zimmerman, 1943). 

The species in the family Hydroptilidae are commonly called 

micro-caddisflies because they are smaller than species in the 

other trichopteran families. The larvae of O. maya are small 

and live in clear, flat, silk cases that are attached to rocks. O. 

maya have spread throughout the islands, recorded in Hilo 

in 1957 (Adachi, 1958), Kökeÿe, Kauaÿi in 1959 (Beardsley, 

1960), and Honokahua Stream, West Maui in 1970 (Beardsley, 

1971). An analysis of stomach contents found O. maya, C. 

analis, and H. potosina being consumed by the native stream 

fish Awaous guamensis (ÿoÿopu näkea) (Kido, 1997) and the 

introduced fish Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout) (Kido 

and others, 1999a).

O. maya were the least common trichopteran on Maui, 

identified in only four quantitative samples from three sites 

including Kopiliÿula-B (4.3/m2; 0.2 percent), Wailua Nui-B 

(2.7/m2; 0.2 percent), and Honolua (5.5/m2 and 2.19/m2; 0.6 

percent and 0.2 percent). O. maya larvae and/or pupae were 

more common in the qualitative samples, observed at 21 of the 

40 Maui sites, and more common in East Maui, 13 of the 16 

sites, than West Maui, 8 of the 24 sites. 

O. maya were identified in 12 of the 31 quantitative samples from the Oÿahu WSA study, with densities ranging from 

0.8/m2 (0.4 percent) at Lulumahu to 45.5/m2 (1.5 percent) 

at the Kïpapa-C site. O. maya were observed in qualitative 

samples from 16 of the 40 Oÿahu WSA study sites, being more 

common in central Oÿahu, 13 of the 18 sites, than leeward 

Oÿahu, 1 of 8 sites, or windward Oÿahu, 2 of 14 sites.

Cheumatopsyche analis (Banks, 1908), [pettiti as 

junior synonym]; (Arthropoda; Insecta; Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae); C. analis, commonly known as little sister sedges, 

are much larger than Oxyethira and Hydroptila. C. analis

larvae live in cases composed of pebbles, sand, and (or) small 

pieces of wood held together by a silk web. These cases are 

attached to the undersides of cobbles or sometimes in depressions or pores of the lava rocks. The cases are sealed with the 

pupae inside before they emerge as adults. The first record 

of adult C. analis in Hawaiÿi was from light traps used by 

the Hawaiÿi Department of Public Health on Oÿahu in 1965 

(Beardsley, 1966, Beardsley, 1967a). The spread of C. analis

was rapid around the islands as adults were caught in light 

traps in Punaluÿu, Kahana, and Waipahu on Oÿahu in 1966 

(Beardsley, 1967b), on Molokai in 1969 (Joyce, 1970), in a 

black light trap in Hilo, Hawaiÿi in 1971 (Shiroma, 1972), on 

Maui by 1971 (Denning and Blickle, 1971) and in Kökeÿe and 

Haena, Kauaÿi in 1972 (Kawamura, 1974), 

The first larvae were collected in Öpaeÿula Stream on 

Oÿahu by John Maciolek in 1966 (Beardsley, 1967c; Denning 

and Beardsley, 1967). By 1968, the larvae were becoming 

more abundant as Kawate (1969) reported dozens to hundreds 

in Poamoho and Punaluÿu Streams. Shima (1970) reported 

that C. analis was very abundant in Kamoÿoaliÿi Stream on 

Oÿahu; commenting that “Caddisfly larvae clung to virtually 

every rock in the stream...,” Ibara and Conant (1972) reported 

the presence of larvae in Waiohonu Stream on Maui, and by 

1975 Kinzie and Ford (1977) reported that the larvae were 

ubiquitous in sections of ÿOheÿo Gulch (Pïpïwai Stream) and 

present in Palikea Stream on Maui. Timbol (1977) reported that 

C. analis were abundant at every sampling site on the Wainiha 

and Hanalei Rivers on Kauaÿi, at almost every sampling site in 

the North Fork Wailua River, Kauaÿi, and in Wailoa Stream, on 

the Island of Hawaiÿi. In a 1977 survey of the Wailuku River 

on the Island of Hawaiÿi, the USFWS (1978) reported finding 

that nearly 78 percent of the stream fauna was nonnative, with 

nonnative insects accounting for 94 percent of the exotics, and 

that C. analis accounted for the majority of the nonnative insect 

abundance. Abundant at every station, C. analis were reported 

to account for more than 90 percent of the sample from the most 

downstream station. C. analis were also reported to be a major 

component in downstream drift samples (Barnes and Shiozawa, 1985). Many studies since then have reported that C. 

analis has become widely distributed and extremely abundant 

in streams throughout the State (for example: Archer and 

others, 1980; Ford, 1982; Brasher, 1991; Polhemus, 1992; 

Englund and others, 2000a; Wolff, 2005; Kinzie and others, 

2006). Not only, as Maciolek (1976) noted, has C. analis

spread throughout the islands in the span of about 10 years, 

C. analis has also become the numerically dominant species 

in many streams in Hawaiÿi.

C. analis has also become a major component of the diet 

for some stream fish. Kido and others (1993) determined that 

the larvae were frequently consumed by Awaous guamensis

(ÿoÿopu näkea), and Kido (1996) found larvae in the stomach 

contents of Sicyopterus stimpsoni (ÿoÿopu nöpili) from the 

Wainiha River on Kauaÿi. Heacock and others (1994) found 

the larvae in the stomachs of smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieu) from Wailua and Huleÿia Rivers on Kauaÿi. Kido 

and others (1999a) determined that C. analis larvae were the 

most frequently consumed prey of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from Waiÿalae Stream on Kauaÿi.

The distribution and abundance of larval C. analis collected in the quantitative samples on Maui are shown in figures 

B13–B14. C. analis larvae and (or) pupae were collected in 

every quantitative sample. The densities of C. analis ranged 

from 27.2/m2

 (16.4 percent) at Nuaÿailua Stream to 4,514.7/m2

(48.2 percent) at the Pälauhulu-A site. The relative abundance 

of larval C. analis ranged from 6 percent at Wailua Nui-B to 

88.5 percent at the South Waiehu-A site. C. analis was the 

dominant species at 18 of the 40 sites on Maui and was the 

second-dominant species at another 15 sites. McIntosh and 

others (2003) determined the mean densities of C. analis in 

ÿÏao Stream to be 799/m2 upstream of the Mäniania Ditch as 

compared to densities of 395.6/m2 and 1,804.2/m2 determined 

at ÿÏao-C, located near the McIntosh and others (2003) sampling site, and 1,930.4/m2

 at ÿÏao-A, located upstream within 

the ÿÏao Valley State Park. 

The relative abundance of C. analis was determined 

to be significantly correlated to the specific conductance 

of the stream water at the sampling site (Spearman’s rho = 

0.55, p<0.0001). C. analis abundance was determined to be 
 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in Maui and Oÿahu Streams 27

significantly correlated with the mean Froude number (Spearman’s rho = 0.51; p<0.0001) calculated for each site using the 

depth and velocity measurements collected at each of the five 

quantitative sampling sites. Additionally, C. analis abundance 

was found to be significantly correlated with the mean percentage of stream reach composed of fast riffles (Spearman’s 

rho = 0.61; p>0.0001). This indicates that the abundance of C. 

analis was generally greater at sites with more turbulent flow. 

Froude numbers computed from velocity and depth measurements collected at the quantitative sampling sites ranged from 

0.01 in areas with standing water to 1.52 in sections with 

rapidly flowing water.

The distribution and abundance of C. analis larvae and/

or pupae collected in the Oÿahu WSA quantitative sampling 

are shown in figure C4. C. analis was the dominant species in 

21 of the 31 quantitative samples and was second-dominant 

in 5 of the samples. The densities ranged from 12/m2 at the 

Kalihi-C site to 3,317.4/m2 (90 percent) at the Waikäne-B 

site. C. analis was not identified in the quantitative sample 

at ÿÄhuimanu Stream and was not identified in 4 of the 40 

qualitative samples, including Poamoho, Öpaeÿula, Pälolo, and 

ÿÄhuimanu Streams.

Hydroptila spp. (Arthropoda; Insecta; Trichoptera: 

Hydroptilidae); there are currently two species of Hydroptila

recorded from Hawaiÿi, including H. potosina Bueno-Soria, 

1984 (replacing the previously assigned name H. arctia), and 

H. icona Mosely, 1937, a recently recognized species that has 

probably been in Hawaiÿi for some time (Flint and Englund, 

2003). Anatomically, the differences between these species 

require specialized training to detect; however, Flint and 

Englund (2003) point out that the cases that the two species 

spin are relatively easy to distinguish. The case spun by H. 

potosina is more granular, with sand grains attached to the 

surface, whereas the case spun by H. icona lacks the sand 

grains (fig. D11). The first record of Hydroptila in Hawaiÿi 

was in 1968 from adults in light traps in the Honolulu area 

(Joyce, 1969). Denning and Blickle (1971) reported H. arctia

collected by J. W. Beardsley in 1969 in a light trap near Mänoa 

Stream. The first larvae were collected in Öpaeÿula Stream in 

1970 (Beardsley, 1971). H. arctia (H. potosina) were found in 

the stomach contents of the native gobies, Awaous guamensis (ÿoÿopu näkea) and Sicyopterus stimpsoni (ÿoÿopu nöpili) 

(Kido and others, 1993; Kido, 1996).

For the purposes of this study, Hydroptila were identified 

to the genus level, pooling the abundances of H. potosina and 

H. icona. The distribution and abundance of larval Hydroptila

on Maui are shown in figures B15–B16. Hydroptila larvae 

and (or) pupae were identified in 47 of the 54 quantitative 

samples at 34 sites on Maui. Larvae were present at all 16 

of the East Maui sites, and at 18 of the 24 West Maui sites. 

The larval densities ranged from 2.9/m2

 (0.2 percent) at the 

North Waiehu-A site, above the diversion, to 2,858.5/m2 (20.4 

percent) at the Hanawï-A site. The highest percentage of 

Hydroptila, 45.7 percent, was collected at the Wailua Nui-B 

site in East Maui. Hydroptila were observed at 38 of the 40 

sites, and were absent only at Ukumehame-B and Launiupoko. 

Hydroptila were the dominant taxa at four sites and the 

second-dominant taxa at five sites.

The distribution and abundance of Hydroptila on Oÿahu 

are shown in figure C5. Hydroptila were not present in 7 of the 

31 quantitative samples from the Oÿahu WSA study, including 

at 4 of the 6 leeward sites. Larval densities ranged from 0.8/m2

(0.2 percent) at the Kalihi-C site to 1,752/m2 (36.3 percent) at 

the Kahana-A site. The highest percentage, 38.9 percent, was 

collected at the Kamananui-A site. Hydroptila was the dominant taxa at two sites and the second-dominant taxa at two 

sites. Hydroptila were observed at 33 of the 40 WSA sampling 

sites, absent from the Helemano, Poamoho, Pauoa, South Fork 

Kaukonahua-B, Kalihi-A, ÿÄhuimanu, and Maunawili sites.

Chironomidae

Chironomidae is a family of insects commonly known 

as nonbiting midges. Many species have a superficial resemblance to mosquitoes but they do not bite or sting. A number of native species of chironomids are found in Hawaiÿi; 

however, they were not commonly collected in the samples 

from Maui or Oÿahu. The aquatic larvae and pupae of the various chironomids are difficult to distinguish without an expert 

knowledge of the family (figs. D24–D26).

Cricotopus bicinctus (Meigen, 1818); (Arthropoda; 

Insecta; Diptera; Chironomidae); the first record of this 

nonnative chironomid was from adults captured in light traps 

at Waipiÿo on Oÿahu in 1955 (Hardy, 1956). By 1960, Hardy 

(1960) stated that C. bicinctus was common at low elevations on Oÿahu and probably present on the other islands. 

In 1977–78, Yee and Ewart (1986) collected numerous C. 

bicinctus at sites ranging in altitude from 80 to 3,520 ft in the 

Wailuku River on Hawaiÿi Island. Polhemus (1992) recorded 

C. bicinctus at elevations of 2,899 and 4,956 ft in Hanawï, 

Maui. Numerous studies have since shown that C. bicinctus

has spread throughout the State and has become one of the 

most abundant stream macroinvertebrates (Englund and others, 2000a; Brasher and others, 2004; Wolff, 2005; Kinzie 

and others, 2006; Wolff and Koch, 2009). C. bicinctus larvae 

were found in the stomach contents of the native gobies, 

Sicyopterus stimpsoni (ÿoÿopu nöpili) and Awaous guamensis

(ÿoÿopu näkea) (Kido, 1996, Kido, 1997); the native Hawaiian 

flagtail, äholehole (Kuhlia sp.) (Englund and others, 2000b); 

and introduced fish including rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) (Kido and others, 1999a).

The distribution and abundance of C. bicinctus on Maui 

are shown in figures B17–B18. Larvae were present in all but 

one (Ukumehame-A) of the quantitative samples. The larval 

densities ranged from 3.2/m2

 (1.9 percent) at Nuaÿailua to 

8,470.4/m2

 (36.6 percent) at Kölea Stream. The highest percentage of C. bicinctus, 50.1 percent, was recorded from the 

Waiheÿe-B open canopy site. C. bicinctus was the dominant 

taxa at 9 of the 40 sites and second-dominant at another 12 

sites. C. bicinctus were observed at every Maui sampling site.

The distribution and abundance of C. bicinctus on Oÿahu 

are shown in figure C6. Larvae were present in all but 1 
28 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

(South Fork Kaukonahua-B) of the 31 quantitative samples. 

The larval densities ranged from 2.4/m2 (0.6 percent) at 

Anahulu-B to 1,322.7/m2 (9.9 percent) at Waiähole-B. The 

highest percentage of C. bicinctus, 49.1 percent, was recorded 

from the Mänoa site. C. bicinctus was the dominant taxa at 

two sites and second-dominant at seven sites. C. bicinctus was 

observed at 35 of the 40 WSA sites and was not observed at 

Poamoho, Maunawili, Waimano, Helemano, and South Fork 

Kaukonahua-B.

Eukiefferiella sp. Thienemann; [Eukiefferiella claripennis gr.]; (Arthropoda; Insecta; Diptera; Chironomidae); 

the earliest record of this nonnative chironomid is from 

1977–78 in the Wailuku River on Hawaiÿi Island (Yee and 

Ewart, 1986). Way and Burky (1991) identified Eukiefferiella

in qualitative samples collected in 1989 from Honoliÿi Stream 

on Hawaiÿi Island. Wolff and others (2002) recorded this 

genus from specimens collected from Kaluanui, Punaluÿu, 

Waiähole, Waiheÿe, and Waikakalaua Streams on Oÿahu during the NAWQA program in 1999. Wolff (2005) reported E. 

claripennis gr. collected from 6 streams on Kauaÿi in 2002. 

The distribution and abundance of Eukiefferiella larvae 

on Maui are shown in figures B19–B20. Eukiefferiella was 

identified in every quantitative sample from every sampling site. Larval densities ranged from 4/m2

 (2.4 percent) 

at Nuaÿailua Stream to 9,699.3/m2 (41.9 percent) at Kölea 

Stream. The highest percentage of Eukiefferiella, 46.6 percent, was recorded from the Kauaÿula Stream site. Eukiefferiella was the dominant taxa at 5 sites and second-dominant 

at 4 sites.

The distribution and abundance of Eukiefferiella on 

Oÿahu are shown in figure C7. Eukiefferiella was identified 

in 17 of the 31 quantitative samples. Larval densities ranged 

from 4/m2 (0.4 percent) at Lulumahu Stream to 878.9/m2 (18.8 

percent) at Kamoÿoaliÿi Stream. The highest percentage of 

Eukiefferiella, 23.9 percent, was recorded from North Fork 

Kaukonahua-A . Eukiefferiella was the second-dominant taxa 

at 1 site. Eukiefferiella was observed at 22 of the 40 WSA 

sampling sites.

Empididae

Hemerodromia stellaris Melander, 1947; (Arthropoda; Insecta; Diptera; Empididae); commonly known as 

dance flies or aquatic dance flies, the family Empididae is 

represented by two endemic species and three nonnative 

species in Hawaiÿi. None of these species except for the 

nonnative H. stellaris are found in freshwater streams (figs. 

D27–D28). Timbol (1984a; 1984b) identified the few Empididae collected in Kaluanui and Kaneohe Streams in 1979 as 

Hemerodromia sp. Hardy (1985) remarked that H. stellaris

larvae had been seen in Mänoa and Käneÿohe Streams on 

Oÿahu in the past 6 to 8 years and that adults were collected 

from Makiki Stream in 1982. Beardsley (1993) noted that 

the larvae were known since about 1975. Adult and larval 

H. stellaris were recorded from streams on Kauaÿi including 

Hanakapiÿai, Anahola, and Makaleha (Asquith and Messing, 

1992). Hemerodromia larvae were infrequently found in the 

stomach contents of Awaous guamensis (ÿoÿopu näkea) and 

Sicyopterus stimpsoni (ÿoÿopu nöpili) from the Wainiha River 

on Kauaÿi. (Kido and others, 1993; Kido, 1996).

H. stellaris were not found in any sample collected on 

Maui during this study. There are no records of this species ever being collected or observed on Maui, Molokaÿi, or 

the Island of Hawaiÿi. Unlike the nonnative insect species 

discussed earlier, the dispersal of H. stellaris has somehow 

been constrained. The distribution and abundance of immature H. stellaris on Oÿahu are shown in figure C8. H. stellaris

was identified in 25 of the 31 quantitative samples. Larval 

densities ranged from 0.8/m2 at Lulumahu (0.4 percent) and 

Pauoa (0.2 percent) Streams to 503.5/m2 (10.8 percent) at 

Kamoÿoaliÿi Stream. The highest percentage of H. stellaris, 

33.8 percent, was recorded from North Hälawa-A, where it 

was the dominant taxa. H. stellaris was observed at 32 of the 

40 WSA sampling sites.

Decapods

Three species of nonnative decapod crustaceans were collected or observed during this study. This includes one atyid 

shrimp, one palaemonid prawn, and one cambarid crayfish. 

Macrobrachium lar (Fabricius, 1798); (Arthropoda; 

Crustacea; Decapoda; Palaemonidae); M. lar, known commonly as the Tahitian prawn, is a nonnative, freshwater, amphidromous prawn that is widely distributed across the IndoPacific, from East Africa to the Marquesas (fig. D29; Kubota, 

1972). These large freshwater prawns are highly valued as a 

delectable food source. M. lar was purposely introduced into 

Hawaiÿi in 1956 by the Hawaiÿi Division of Fish and Game as 

a potential prey for introduced game fish and for recreational 

fishing (Brock, 1960; Yoshida, 1961; Kubota, 1972). The original stock came from Guam and was released into Pelekunu 

Stream on Molokaÿi in 1956 and in Nuÿuanu Stream on Oÿahu 

in 1957. A later introduction in 1961 originated from Tahiti 

and the Marquesas and was released into Punaluÿu Stream 

on Oÿahu. In 1965, M. lar were reported from the Island of 

Hawaiÿi, and by the end of 1968 had been reported in streams 

on Oÿahu, Kauaÿi, Maui, and Molokaÿi (Shima, 1968; Shima, 

1969). The marine larval stage of this amphidromous species had enabled it to spread to every island and potentially to 

every stream that reaches the ocean. It is well adapted to the 

Hawaiian stream environment, and in the absence of predatory 

fish, has had notable success and is common throughout the 

State. It is believed that M. lar can negatively impact populations of the native stream shrimp, Atyoida bisulcata and native 

prawn Macrobrachium grandimanus (fig. D30) and possibly 

the native gobies (Kubota, 1972).

M. lar were not well represented in the quantitative 

samples because it is more commonly found in slower, deeper 

water than in riffles. Its large size makes it conspicuous and 

easy to observe. The distribution of M. lar observations on 

Maui is shown in figures B3–B4. M. lar were observed at 19 

of the 40 Maui study sites, 7 of 16 East Maui sites and 12 of 
 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in Maui and Oÿahu Streams 29

24 West Maui sites. M. lar were not observed at East Maui 

sites located upstream of the Koÿolau Ditch diversions. The 

distribution of M. lar on Oÿahu is shown in figure C2. It was 

observed at 20 of the 40 WSA study sites. It was noticeably 

absent from sites in central Oÿahu, where largemouth and (or) 

smallmouth bass are present.

Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852); (Arthropoda; 

Crustacea; Decapoda; Cambaridae); commonly known as the 

Louisiana swamp crayfish, or crawdad, P. clarkii was purposely introduced as a food and feed source in 1923 and 1927 

on Oÿahu (a taro field in ÿÄhuimanu) and Kauaÿi, with subsequent introductions to other locations on Kauaÿi and Hawaiÿi 

Islands stemming from the ÿÄhuimanu stock (fig. D31; Hawaii 

Board of Commissioners, 1939; Brock, 1952; Brock, 1960). 

Penn (1954) noted that a shipment of P. clarkii was imported 

in 1934 as feed for a frog farm on Oÿahu and that some moved 

to nearby taro fields during flooding. By 1940, farmers discovered that the feeding and burrowing behavior of P. clarkii

made it a pest in the taro fields and a control program was initiated including the use of para-dichloro benzene, which killed 

all animal life (Fullaway, 1941; Devaney and others, 1982). 

P. clarkii is established on all the main Hawaiian Islands 

(Brock, 1960; Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). P. clarkii were 

commonly found in the stomach contents of smallmouth bass 

in Nuÿuanu Stream in 2001 (USGS, unpublished data). P. 

clarkii is also considered a pest species because its burrowing 

behavior can destabilize stream and ditch banks, leading to 

increased erosion and sedimentation. Furthermore, P. clarkii

has also been associated with predation on the naiads of the 

native Megalagrion damselflies (Johnson, 2001).

P. clarkii were not collected in the quantitative or qualitative samples on Maui. P. clarkii were observed during a snorkel survey at only one Maui site, Waikapü-C, in West Maui. P. 

clarkii were collected in three of the quantitative samples and 

in five of the qualitative samples collected on Oÿahu. Additionally, P. clarkii was visually observed at three Oÿahu sites 

where they were not collected in the benthic samples. Overall, P. clarkii were present at nine of the Oÿahu WSA sites. 

The distribution of the observations is shown in figure C2. P. 

clarkii were present at 5 of the 8 leeward sites and at 4 of the 

14 windward sites and were not observed at any of the central 

Oÿahu WSA sites.

Neocaridina denticulata sinensis (Kemp, 1918); 

(Arthropoda; Crustacea; Decapoda; Atyidae); commonly 

known as the red cherry shrimp, or the Taiwan blue shrimp, 

N. d. sinensis is one of seven subspecies of N. denticulata

(de Haan, 1844) and is native to parts of Asia (fig. D32; 

Hung and others, 1993). It is commonly cultured as food for 

aquarium fish. Unlike the native atyid shrimp, N. d. sinensis

is not amphidromous and therefore cannot spread to other 

streams by means of marine recruitment. It was most likely 

accidently introduced by a release or escape from a home 

aquarium or commercial breeder (Englund and Cai, 1999). 

The first record of N. d. sinensis in Hawaiÿi was from Waiolani Stream on Oÿahu in 1991, where it was identified as 

Caridina weberi (Devick, 1991; Yamamoto, 1992; Yamamoto, 

1993). By 1996 N. d. sinensis was recorded from Nuÿuanu, 

Mänoa, Kamoÿoaliÿi, and Maunawili Streams (Yamamoto, 

1993; Yamamoto, 1996). It has continued to be spread around 

streams on Oÿahu and has been recorded in Läwai Stream on 

Kauaÿi in 2005 (Kido, 2007). N. d. sinensis were commonly 

found in the stomach contents of smallmouth bass in Nuÿuanu 

Stream in 2001 (USGS, unpublished data). N. d. sinensis is 

believed to be a possible threat to the native stream shrimp 

Atyoida bisulcata and the native prawn Macrobrachium grandimanus (Kido, 2007; Englund and Cai, 1999).

N. d. sinensis were not observed or collected on Maui. 

N. d. sinensis were identified in 6 of the 31 quantitative Oÿahu 

WSA samples, with densities ranging from 5.6/m2

 (1.4 percent) at the Pauoa site to 75.2/m2

 (15.9 percent) at the Kahana 

Iki site. The highest percentage of a sample, 26.1 percent, was 

collected at the Lulumahu site. The distribution of N. d. sinensis observations on Oÿahu is shown in figure C2. N. d. sinensis

were observed at 10 of the 40 Oÿahu WSA study sites.

Cryptogenic Macroinvertebrates

A cryptogenic species is defined as one whose taxonomic 

documentation lacks indisputable proof that it is either native 

or introduced (Carlton, 1982; Carlton, 1996; Cowie, 2001). 

This is not to be confused with cryptic species, which are 

defined, in this report, as species that commonly hide from 

view as part of their avoidance behavior. For most cryptogenic 

species there is simply a lack of historical data to confirm the 

species’ place of origin. In Hawaiÿi, introduced species are 

considered as those that arrived with or after the arrival of the 

first Hawaiians. For many species in Hawaiÿi, especially small, 

easily overlooked organisms, the taxonomic descriptions 

occurred after extensive overseas travel and trade were well 

established with Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

Mollusks

Cowie (1998) lists 22 species of introduced freshwater 

mollusk species in Hawaiÿi, 11 of which he called cryptogenic, 

including 7 species of Thiaridae, 2 species of Hydrobiidae, 1 

species of Physidae, and 1 species of Ancylidae. Burky and 

others (2000) identified two additional small (shell length <8 

mm), cryptogenic mollusk species of Sphaeriidae clams found 

in Hawaiian taro fields on Maui. The taxonomic status of 

many of these species has been revised from native to 

nonnative or cryptogenic as the systematic work has progressed (Lea, 1856; Pease, 1870; Ancey, 1899; Sykes, 1900; 

Cowie, 1997; Walther, 2008). 

Ferrissia sharpi (Sykes, 1900); (Mollusca; Gastropoda, 

Basommatophora; Ancylidae); first described by Sykes (1900) 

as “An insignificant little form with no striking characters,” 

Ferrissia is a near-cosmopolitan limpet-like genus found 

in freshwater systems around the world (Walther, 2008). F. 

sharpi are small (shell length <5 mm), delicate, and often 

overlooked during stream surveys (fig. D33; Cowie, 1997; 
30 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Walther, 2008). A recent genetic and morphological analysis 

found that the Hawaiian endemic F. sharpi was not different from the near-cosmopolitan F. fragilis (Tryon, 1863), 

concluding that Sykes’ original description of a new species 

was in fact the nonnative invader F. fragilis (Walther, 2008). 

Ferrissia has been collected during stream surveys from 

Oÿahu (Brasher and others, 2004), Maui (Kinzie and Ford, 

1977), Kauaÿi (Ford, 1982), and the Island of Hawaiÿi (Yee 

and Ewart, 1986). Ferrissia has been reported in the stomach 

contents of Lentipes concolor (ÿoÿopu ÿalamoÿo) from Honoliÿi 

Stream (Way and Burky, 1991).

The distribution and abundance of Ferrissia on Maui are 

shown in figures B21–B22. Ferrissia were observed at 34 of 

the 40 Maui sites and identified in 40 of the 54 quantitative 

samples. Densities, from samples in which they were identified, ranged from 1.5/m2

 (0.2 percent), at the Waiheÿe-B open 

canopy site, to 131.7m2 (0.6 percent) at Kölea Stream. The 

highest percentage of Ferrissia, 4.3 percent, was recorded 

from the Honolua Stream sampling site.

The distribution and abundance of Ferrissia on Oÿahu are 

shown in figure C9. Ferrissia were not identified in 12 of the 

31 quantitative samples from the Oÿahu WSA study. Densities ranged from 1.4/m2

 (0.2 percent) at the Waimänalo site 

to 317.5/m2 (5.6 percent) at the Anahulu-B site. The highest 

percentage, 11.9 percent, was collected at the Hakipuÿu site. 

Ferrissia was the second-dominant taxa at four sites. Ferrissia

were observed at 28 of the 40 WSA sites

Native Fish

 The native stream-fish community in Hawaiÿi is composed of five amphidromous species commonly referred to 

as ÿoÿopu (table 5). This includes one Eleotridae and four 

Gobiidae, although all are commonly referred to as gobies. 

The amphidromous life history, requiring a period of development in the ocean, of these fish sets them apart from the 

true freshwater fish (Brock, 1960). The Gobiidae have fused 

pelvic fins that form a suction disk that enables these fishes 

to attach themselves to stream substrate and climb cascades 

and waterfalls (Ford and Kinzie, 1982; Schoenfuss and Blob, 

2003; Blob and others, 2006). There are also a number of 

estuarine-related fish that can inhabit the lower reaches of the 

freshwater systems. Although fish were not collected as part 

of this study, brief snorkel surveys were conducted at each 

site to identify the conspicuous macrofauna. The observation of a fish species confirms its presence at a site; however, 

the lack of an observation does not necessarily confirm the 

absence of the species from a site. Snorkel surveys may 

fail to spot some of the more cryptic species which have 

a propensity to hide (Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). The 

distribution of native fish observed during the study on Maui 

is shown in figures B23–B24 (table 6). No native fish were 

observed at sites upstream of the Koÿolau Ditch diversions in 

East Maui. The distribution of native fish observed on Oÿahu 

during the WSA is shown in figure C10 (table 7).

Eleotris sandwicensis Vaillant & Sauvage, 1875; 

(Osteichthyes; Perciformes; Eleotridae); locally known as 

ÿoÿopu ÿakupa and commonly called the Sandwich Island 

sleeper, E. sandwicensis is an endemic, amphidromous stream 

fish that is not a true goby and lacks the fused pelvic fin and, 

therefore, is restricted to the lowest stream reaches, stream 

mouths, and estuaries. E. sandwicensis is a predatory fish 

that feeds on other fish species, native and nonnative, as well 

as snails and the clam Corbicula fluminea (fig. D34) (Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). E. sandwicensis were observed in 

the lower reaches of 5 streams in East Maui, including West 

Wailua Iki, Wailua Nui, Waiohue, Kopiliÿula, and Hanawï 

Streams. E. sandwicensis were not observed in West Maui 

during this study; however, a single individual was previously 

observed in the Waiheÿe River, at 210 ft altitude (Oki and 

others, 2010). E. sandwicensis were observed at only one site, 

Waiähole-B, during the Oÿahu WSA study.

Awaous guamensis Valenciennes, 1837; (Osteichthyes; Perciformes; Gobiidae); locally known as ÿoÿopu näkea 

and commonly called the Pacific river goby, A. guamensis is 

the largest of the native fish species, is a moderate climber, 

and is commonly found in lower and middle stream reaches. 

Thought to be indigenous to Hawaiÿi and Guam, current 

research examining mitochondrial DNA and morphology has 

determined the Hawaiian population to be a distinct species, 

endemic to Hawaiÿi, recommending a reversion to the earlier 

nomenclature of A. stamineus (Eydoux and Souleyet, 1850) 

(Lindstrom and others, in press). Stomach content analysis 

shows that A. guamensis feeds primarily on algae but also 

consumes aquatic insects and has shown an opportunistic shift 

from native species to nonnatives (Kido and others, 1993). 

A. guamensis were observed at 20 of the 40 Maui study sites, 

including 7 of the 16 East Maui sites and 13 of the 24 West 

Maui sites. A. guamensis were observed at 16 of the 40 Oÿahu 

WSA study sites, including 8 of the 18 central sites, 2 of the 8 

leeward sites and 6 of the 14 windward sites. Adult A. guamensis were observed at the Kïpapa-A site coexisting with 

smallmouth bass.

Sicyopterus stimpsoni (Gill, 1860); (Osteichthyes; 

Perciformes; Gobiidae); known locally as ÿoÿopu nöpili and 

commonly called the rock-climbing goby, S. stimpsoni is an 

endemic amphidromous fish that often inhabits middle stream 

reaches. S. stimpsoni were observed at 18 of the 40 Maui study 

sites including 8 in East Maui and 10 in West Maui. Adult S. 

stimpsoni were found in abundance at 8 lower sites. S. stimpsoni was only observed at three lower elevation windward 

Oÿahu sites.

Lentipes concolor (Gill, 1860); (Osteichthyes; 

Perciformes; Gobiidae); known locally as ÿoÿopu ÿalamoÿo 

or ÿoÿopu hiÿukole and commonly called the Hiukole goby, 

L. concolor is an endemic, amphidromous goby that is the 

best climber and typically found in middle and upper stream 

reaches. Even though L. concolor is the best climber of the 

fishes, none were observed at sites upstream of the Koÿolau 

Ditch diversions in East Maui. L. concolor were observed at 

11 of the 40 Maui study sites including 3 of the East Maui 
 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in Maui and Oÿahu Streams 31

Table 5. List of native and nonnative fish observed on Maui and (or) Oÿahu.

[Code, species code used in tables 6 and 7]

Family Scientific name Common name Code Status

Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieui Smallmouth bass DOL Nonnative

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass SAL Nonnative

Cichlidae Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum Convict cichlid CIC Nonnative

Hemichromis fasciatus Banded jewel cichlid HEM Nonnative

Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia ORE Nonnative

Clariidae Clarias fuscus Chinese catfish CLA Nonnative

Cobitidae Misgurnus anguillicaudatus Dojo loach MIS Nonnative

Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Koi carp CYP Nonnative

Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish ICT Nonnative

Loricariidae Ancistrus sp. Bristlenose catfish ANC Nonnative

Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis Western mosquitofish GAM Nonnative

Poecilia reticulata Guppy RET Nonnative

Poecilia sphenops Molly hybrids SPH Nonnative

Xiphophorus helleri Green swordtail XIP Nonnative

Eleotridae Eleotris sandwicensis ÿOÿopu ÿakupa ELE Native

Gobiidae Awaous guamensis ÿOÿopu näkea AWA Native

Lentipes concolor ÿOÿopu alamoÿo LEN Native

Sicyopterus stimpsoni ÿOÿopu nöpili SIC Native

Stenogobius hawaiiensis ÿOÿopu naniha STE Native

Kuhliidae Kuhlia xenura Äholehole KUH Native

Mugilidae Mugil cephalus Striped mullet MUG Native
32 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 6. Fish species observed at Maui sampling sites.

[RET, Poecilia reticulata; XIP, Xiphophorus helleri; AWA, Awaous guamensis; ELE, Eleotris sandwicensis; KUH, Kuhlia 

xenura ; LEN, Lentipes concolor; SIC, Sicyopterus stimpsoni; fish richness, total number of fish]

Site name

Nonnative Native Fish richness

RET XIP AWA ELE KUH LEN SIC Nonnative Native Total

E. Wailua Nui-A – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Haipuaÿena-A – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Hanawï-B – – X X – X X 0 4 4

Hanawï-C – – – – – X – 0 1 1

Hanawï-A – – – – – – 0 0 0

Honoköwai – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Honolua – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Honomanü – – – – – – – 0 0 0

ÿÏao-A – – – – – X – 0 1 1

ÿÏao-C X – – – – – – 1 0 1

Kanahä – – X – – – X 0 2 2

Kauaÿula – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Kölea – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Kopiliÿula-B – – X X X – X 0 4 4

Kopiliÿula-A – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Launiupoko – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Makamakaÿole-B – – X – – – X 0 2 2

Makamakaÿole-A – – – – – X – 0 1 1

N. Waiehu-A – – X – – X X 0 3 3

N. Waiehu-C – – X – – X X 0 3 3

Nuaÿailua – – – – – – X 0 1 1

Olowalu-B – – X – – X – 0 2 2

Olowalu-A – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Pälauhulu-C – – X – – – X 0 2 2

Pälauhulu-A – – X – – X X 0 3 3

S. Waiehu-C X – X – – X X 1 3 4

S. Waiehu-A – – X – – X X 0 3 3

Ukumehame-B X – X – – – – 1 1 2

Ukumehame-A – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Waiehu-C – – X – – – X 0 2 2

Waiheÿe-B closed X X X – X – X 2 3 5

Waiheÿe-B open X X X – X – X 2 3 5

Waiheÿe-A – – X – – X – 0 2 2

Waiheÿe-C X X X – – – X 2 2 4

Waikapü-C – – – – – – 0 0 0

Waikapü-A – – – – – – – 0 0 0

Wailua Nui-B – – X X – – X 0 3 3

Waiohue – – X X X – X 0 4 4

W. Wailua Iki-B – – X X X – X 0 4 4

W. Wailua Iki-A – – – – – – – 0 0 0
 Table 7. Fish species observed at Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) sampling sites.

[ANC, Ancistrus sp.; CIC, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum; CLA, Clarias fuscus; CYP, Cyprinus carpio; GAM, Gambusia affinis; HEM, Hemichromis fasciatus; ICT, Ictalurus punctatumieui; SAL, Micropterus salmoides; MIS, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus; ORE, Oreochromis mossambicus; RET, Poecilia reticulata; SPH, Poecilia sphenops; XIP, Xiphophorus helleELE, Eleotris sandwicensis; KUH, Kuhlia xenura; MUG, Mugil cephalus; SIC, Sicyopterus stimpsoni; STE, Stenogobius hawaiiensis; fish richness, total number of fish]

Site name

Nonnative Native 

ANC CIC CLA CYP GAM HEM ICT DOL SAL MIS ORE RET SPH XIP AWA ELE KUH MUG SIC ST

ÿÄhuimanu X – – – – – – – – – – X X – X – – – – – 

Anahulu-B – – – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – 

Anahulu-C – – – – X – – – – – – X X – X – – – – – 

Haÿikü – – – – – – – – – – – – X X – – – – – – 

Hakipuÿu – – – – – – – – – – – X – X – – – – – X 

Kahana-B – – – – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – X – 

Kahana-C – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – 

Kahana-A – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Kahana Iki – – – – – X – – – – – – – X – – – – – – 

Kalihi-C X – – – X – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – 

Kalihi-A X – – – X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Kamananui-C – – – – – – – – – – – – – X X – – – – – 

Kamananui-A – – – – – – – – – – – – – X X – – – – – 

Kamoÿoaliÿi – X – – X X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Kïpapa-C X – X – – – – X – X – X – – X – – – – – 

Kïpapa-A X – – – – – – X – X – – – – X – – – – – 

Lulumahu – – – – – – X – – – – – – X – – – – – – 

Mänoa X – – – – – – – – – – – – X X – – – – – 

NF Kaukonahua-B – – – – – X – X – – – – – – – – – – – – 

NF Kaukonahua-A – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – – – – 

N. Hälawa-A – – – – X – – – – – – – X – X – – – – – 

Nuÿuanu-C X – – X – – – X – – X – – – – – – – – – 

Pauoa X – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – 

SF Kaukonahua-B – – – – – X X X X – – – – – – – – – – – 

SF Kaukonahua-C – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – – – – 

SF Kaukonahua-A – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Waiähole-B – – – – – – – – – – – – X X X X X X X X 

Waiähole-C – – – – – – – – – – – – – X X – X X X – 

Waikäne-B – – – – – – – – – – – – X X X – X – – X 

Waikäne-C – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – 

Waimänalo – – – – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – – 
34 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

sites and 8 of the West Maui sites. L. concolor were not 

observed at any of the Oÿahu WSA study sites.

Stenogobius hawaiiensis Watson, 1991; (Osteichthyes; Perciformes; Gobiidae); locally known as ÿoÿopu naniha 

and commonly called the tear-drop goby, S. hawaiiensis is an 

endemic, amphidromous goby typically found in lower stream 

reaches. S. hawaiiensis was not observed at any of the sites on 

Maui and was observed at only three lower elevation sites during the Oÿahu WSA study.

Kuhlia xenura (Jordan and Gilbert, 1882); (Osteichthyes; Perciformes; Kuhliidae); known locally as äholehole 

and commonly called flagtails or mountain bass, K. xenura is 

an endemic nearshore marine fish with juveniles inhabiting 

lower stream reaches and estuaries. Stomach contents analysis 

of juvenile fish from freshwater determined that K. xenura is 

omnivorous, with algae and plant matter composing over half 

the contents and insects (terrestrial) and crustaceans composing the bulk of the remaining contents (Tester and Trefz, 

1954). K. xenura were observed at five lower elevation sites on 

Maui and at three lower elevation sites on Oÿahu.

Nonnative Fish

Approximately 40 species of nonnative fish have 

become established in streams and reservoirs in Hawaiÿi 

(Brock, 1960; Kanayama, 1967; Maciolek, 1984; Devick, 

1991; Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000; Brasher and others, 

2006). These fish were introduced at various times, some 

purposefully, for food, pest control, or as recreational game 

fish, and some accidently, from home aquaria or ponds, or 

as escapees from aquaculture facilities. Brasher and others 

(2006) found that sites on Oÿahu, Kauaÿi, and the Island of 

Hawaiÿi with higher percentages of developed land in the 

watershed had higher percentages of nonnative fish species 

as well as higher abundances of nonnative fish. Historically, 

a number of fish that were introduced into streams or reservoirs on Maui failed to become established. These game fish 

included rainbow trout (Waiheÿe, ÿÏao, Honokähau [1922]; 

Keÿanae [1925]; Kauaÿula [1926]; Ukumehame, Kahakuloa, 

Makamakaÿole [1928]; Waikapü [1929]; and ÿÏao [1930]); 

largemouth bass (Lahaina Reservoir [1949]; Honopou 

Pond, Huelo Pond, Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company (HC&S) reservoirs, Wailuku Sugar reservoirs, Höpoe 

reservoir, and Waikamoi reservoir [1950]); and bluegill 

sunfish (Wailuku Sugar reservoir, Launiupoko reservoir and 

Honokähau Stream [1952]) (Brock, 1952). 

The distribution of nonnative fish observed on Maui is 

shown in figures B25–B26 (table 6). No nonnative fish were 

observed at the East Maui study sites. Two species of nonnative Poeciliidae fish were observed in West Maui. The distribution of nonnative fish observed during the Oÿahu WSA study is 

shown in figure C11. Fourteen species of nonnative fish from 8 

different families were observed on Oÿahu (table 7).

Poeciliidae

At least 10 species of Poeciliidae, commonly known as 

topminnows, have been introduced into Hawaiian streams, 

ditches, ponds, and reservoirs, and many of these species have 

become established (Maciolek, 1984). The first introductions 

occurred in 1905, when the western mosquitofish, Gambusia 

affinis Baird & Girard, 1853, the killifish, Fundulus grandis

Baird and Girard, 1853, and the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna LeSueur, 1821 [Mollienesia latipinna], were brought to 

Hawaiÿi from Seabrook, Texas, for the purpose of controlling 

mosquito populations (Seale, 1905; Van Dine, 1907). These 

fish were bred in ponds in Moanalua, Oÿahu and released into 

streams, taro fields, rice fields, ponds, ditches, and reservoirs 

around the State (Hawaiian Gazette, 9/19/1905; Van Dine, 

1907). G. affinis and P. latipinna became established statewide in Hawaiÿi while F. grandis failed to become established 

(Brock, 1960). In the 1920s, three more species, including 

guppies, Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859, green swordtails, 

Xiphophorus helleri Heckel, 1848, and the southern platyfish, 

Xiphophorus maculatus (Günther, 1866) [Platypoecilus maculatus] were introduced as ornamental aquarium fish (Mainland, 

1939; Brock, 1952). By the 1960s, three more species had 

been introduced and became established, including the liberty 

molly, Poecilia sphenops Valenciennes, 1846 [Mollienesia 

sphenops] the Cuban molly, Limia vittata (Guichenot, 1853), 

and the shortfin molly, Poecilia mexicana Steindachner, 1863 

(Brock, 1952; Devick, 1991).

The widespread distribution of Poeciliidae in Hawaiÿi 

was a response to the widespread dispersal of mosquitoes 

around the State. Mosquitoes are not native to the Hawaiian 

Islands. The earliest accounts place the first mosquito introduction about 1826–27, when the night-biting mosquito, Culex 

quinquefasciatus, a vector for avian malaria, was brought 

ashore in Lahaina, Maui, in water barrels from the trading 

ship Wellington (Osten-Sacken, 1884; Brigham, 1911; Bryan, 

1915; Joyce, 1961). The two species of day mosquitoes, Aedes 

aegypti, a vector of yellow fever, and the Asian tiger mosquito,

Aedes albopictus, a vector of dengue fever, arrived soon after. 

All three of these mosquito species bred and spread rapidly 

around the islands and were considered a pest and a nuisance 

(Jarves, 1843; Perkins, 1913; Fullaway, 1913; Bryan, 1915). 

In response to fears of yellow fever and dengue fever epidemics, the territorial government initiated an intensive eradication 

program that continued for decades. The control of mosquitoes 

using larvivorous (larvae eating) fish was first published as 

early as 1891 (S.A.M., 1891; Russel, 1891; Howard, 1900). 

Hawaiÿi residents were encouraged to put goldfish into ponds 

and troughs to help control the breeding of mosquitoes (Van 

Dine, 1903; Van Dine, 1904). The Territory of Hawaiÿi was 

the first locale where larvivorous fish were imported from the 

continental United States for use as a mosquito control agent 

to prevent outbreaks of dengue fever, yellow fever, and malaria 

(Krumholz, 1948). Alternatively, chemicals such as kerosene 

and coal oil, and later, arsenic compounds, pyrethrum, DDT, 
Development of Community Indexes 35

and malathion were used; these chemicals, however, tended to 

indiscriminately kill everything in the water (Howard, 1901; 

Illingworth, 1930; U.S. Army, 1945; Nakagawa and Hirst, 

1959). The successful use of larvivorous topminnows for 

mosquito control required the release of these fishes into every 

accessible mosquito breeding area. Starting in 1905, topminnows were released into standing and flowing waters around 

the Territory (Hawaiian Gazette, 9/19/1905; Van Dine, 1907). 

In 1958, a combination of Tilapia mossambica and topminnows were released into a standing pond in Diamond Head 

crater to combat a mosquito outbreak (Nakagawa and Hirst, 

1959). The tilapia consumed the algal growth at the surface, 

thereby enabling the topminnows to more efficiently devour 

the mosquito larvae. This technique worked so effectively that 

the Hawaiÿi State Department of Health used helicopters to 

deliver this combination of tilapia and poeciliids to previously 

inaccessible areas around the state (Nakagawa, 1964, Iizuka, 

1979). Iizuka (1979) determined that the most effective larvivorous fish in Hawaiÿi were the western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, guppies, Poecilia reticulata, the Cuban limia, 

Limia vittata, and young Tilapia mossambica because of a 

higher survival rate during the collection, transportation, and 

helicopter aerial dispersal. Other species tested included green 

swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri, moon fish, X. maculatus, 

mollies, Poecilia sphenops and Poecilia latipinna, and mature 

Tilapia, but these fish had a much higher mortality rate during 

the translocations.

There are a limited number of studies that have determined the impact of the introduced poeciliids on the native 

Hawaiian stream biota. Bryan (1915) noted that the topminnows did not appear to discriminate between the targeted 

mosquito larvae and the eggs and juveniles of other species. 

Edmondson (1929) observed that young Atyoida bisulcata, 

the native ÿöpae or mountain shrimp, 6–12 mm in length, were 

devoured by topminnows in an aquarium. Williams (1936) 

noted that topminnows adversely affected the native stream 

invertebrates but could also become prey to large Anax dragonfly naiads as well. He explained the coexistence of native 

aquatic insects such as Megalagrion xanthomelas and topminnows as due to the protection afforded by dense algal growth; 

moreover, fishless reservoirs, he observed, contained a greater 

abundance of invertebrates than those with topminnows. Zimmerman (1948) noted a decline in the lowland populations 

of native damselflies since the introduction of topminnows. 

Englund (1999) also observed a correlation between the presence of poeciliids and the absence of the native Megalagrion

damselflies, concluding that the damselfly naiads were preyed 

upon to the point of exclusion.

Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859; (Osteichthyes; 

Cyprinodontiformes; Poeciliidae); commonly called guppies, rainbow fish, or millions fish, P. reticulata (previously 

named Lebistes reticulatus) were first introduced in 1920–22 

on Oÿahu as an ornamental aquarium fish and for mosquito 

control (Mainland, 1939; Brock, 1952; Brock, 1960; Devick, 

1991; Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). P. reticulata were 

observed at six sites on four streams in West Maui. P. reticulata were the only nonnative fish observed at three of the sites. 

P. reticulata were observed at seven sites on Oÿahu.

Xiphophorus helleri Heckel, 1848; (Osteichthyes; 

Cyprinodontiformes; Poeciliidae); commonly known as green 

swordtails, X. helleri were also first introduced in 1920–22 

on Oÿahu as an ornamental aquarium fish and later on for 

mosquito control (Mainland, 1939; Brock, 1952; Brock, 1960; 

Devick, 1991; Yamamoto and Tagawa, 2000). X. helleri were 

observed at three sites on one stream in West Maui. These 

observations were all made at sites in the lower reaches of the 

Waiheÿe River. P. reticulata were also observed at these sites.

Poeciliids were observed at 29 sites in 24 streams on 

Oÿahu. This included X. helleri (17 sites), G. affinis (11 sites),

P. sphenops (9 sites), and P. reticulata (7 sites). Two species 

of poeciliids were observed at 10 sites, and three species were 

observed at 2 sites. Poeciliids were rarely, one of eight sites, 

observed coexisting with smallmouth bass. 

Development of Community 

Indexes

The development of an invertebrate community index 

(ICI) of stream quality followed a multistep process of multivariate analyses, metric screening, metric selection, and metric 

scoring (Karr and others, 1986; DeShon, 1995; Hughes and 

others, 1998; Klemm and others, 2003). Initially, the Maui 

data were analyzed using the existing metrics that constitute 

the P–HBIBI developed by Wolff (2005). The success or 

failure of an existing metric to differentiate among the sites 

along a disturbance gradient could indicate the inclusion or 

exclusion of the metric from a revised index. For a metric to 

be considered as successful at differentiating among the sites, 

the results must show a reasonable distribution of the metric 

scores throughout the study region. Secondly, multivariate 

statistical analyses were used to examine the structural similarities and differences among the macroinvertebrate assemblages by investigating factors such as islands (Maui relative 

to Oÿahu) and regions (East relative to West Maui). Nonmetric 

multidimensional scaling (nMDS), multiresponse permutation 

procedures (MRPP), and detrended correspondence analysis 

(DCA) were used to examine the relations among the assemblages and to identify taxa that may account for some of the 

observed differences. These relations were assessed using 

the abundance (organisms/m2

) dataset, which were log(x + 1) 

transformed prior to the analysis, and the relative abundance 

(proportional) dataset, which were arcsine–square root transformed prior to the analysis. Variables (species) identified in 

fewer than three samples were removed from the dataset prior 

to performing DCA. Principal components analysis (PCA) was 

used to examine the significance of environmental variables 

including habitat and water-quality measurements to facilitate the selection of reference or “least disturbed” sites. The 
36 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and OÿAhu, Hawaiÿi

software used for the multivariate analyses included: Plymouth 

Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research (PRIMER) 

version 6.1 (Clarke and Gorley, 2006); MultiVariate Statistical Package (MVSP) version 3.1 (http://www.kovcomp.co.uk/

mvsp/index.html) and; PC-ORD version 6.0 (McCune and 

Grace, 2002; Peck, 2010).

Metric screening began with an evaluation of candidate metrics identified from the data, including measures 

of taxonomic richness, trophic guilds, relative abundances, 

and absolute abundances. These candidate metrics were 

screened using the range test of Klemm and others (2003), 

in which percentage metrics were required to have a range 

greater than 10 percent; and for any of the metrics, no more 

than 90 percent of the values could be 0. Candidate metrics 

were then screened using Spearman rank correlations to 

examine the response of each candidate along one or more 

disturbance gradients such as water-quality conditions, land 

use, and sedimentation. The candidate metrics were then 

screened for redundancy using Spearman rank correlations 

to identify metrics that were contributing the same information. For example, the ratio of Trichoptera to Diptera 

metric was highly correlated with the abundance and relative 

abundance metrics for Cheumatopsyche and Cricotopus, so 

only one metric from this group should be used. Another 

example of redundancy was the percentage of Insecta metric 

being highly negatively correlated with the percentage of 

Oligochaeta metric. Although the Insecta metric responded 

to a decrease in disturbance and the Oligochaeta metric 

responded to an increase in disturbance, they both provided 

the same information, so only one was included in the index. 

The metrics that were selected from groups of redundant 

metrics demonstrated either a stronger response to a single 

disturbance gradient or stronger responses to multiple disturbance gradients as compared to the other redundant metrics 

in the group.

Metrics that were selected to be in the final indexes were 

then scored. The scoring process began with the selection 

of 10 reference-condition sites. These sites were selected to 

characterize the “least disturbed” condition from the various 

regions and elevations on each island. Reference site selection for each index is discussed later in this report. For metrics 

whose value increased with decreasing disturbance (positive 

metrics), the upper cutoff values (top tier) were determined 

as the 75th percentile of the cumulative distribution of the 

reference sites and the lower cutoff (bottom tier) was determined as the 25th percentile of the cumulative distribution of 

the nonreference sites. A score of 1 was assigned to values 

greater than or equal to the top tier, a score of 3 was assigned 

to values greater than or equal to the bottom tier but less than 

the top tier, and a score of 5 was assigned to values less than 

the bottom tier. An additional score of 7 was used in the total 

macroinvertebrate abundance metric, retained from the earlier 

P–HBIBI, and included in the ICI’s because the total abundances in the quantitative samples from the most impaired 

sites were less than the minimum fixed-count conducted by the 

contract laboratory.

For metrics whose value increased with increasing disturbance (negative metrics), the bottom tier values were determined as the 25th percentile of the cumulative distribution 

of the reference sites and the top tier values were determined 

as the 75th percentile of the cumulative distribution of the 

nonreference sites. In these cases, a score of 1 was assigned 

to values less than or equal to the bottom tier, a score of 3 was 

assigned to values less than or equal to the top tier but greater 

than the bottom tier, and a score of 5 was assigned to values 

greater than the top tier. Additionally, presence/absence metrics were scored as 1 if the native species was present or the 

nonnative species was absent, and 3 if the native species was 

absent or the nonnative species was present. Some departures 

to this scoring process are discussed in the individual metric 

descriptions below.

The final index scores were determined using a dataset 

composed of the reference sites and nonreference sites. Only 

one sample per site was used in the calculations for sites where 

replicate or re-sorted samples were collected. Each site was 

evaluated using the set of core metrics and the metrics scores 

were summed. The cumulative distribution and percentiles of 

the metric score sums were then calculated. The higher quality 

sites (low scores) were determined as less than or equal to the 

25th percentile of the cumulative distribution and the lower 

quality sites (high scores) were determined as greater than the 

75th percentile of the cumulative distribution.

Maui Metrics and Index Development

Following the procedures outlined in the previous section, 

potential macroinvertebrate metrics for Maui were analyzed, 

screened, selected, and scored. This process and the results are 

described in this section.

Evaluation with the Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity

 Each of the Maui samples was evaluated using the 

Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

(P-HBIBI) developed by Wolff (2005). The concept behind 

a multimetric index is that each individual metric displays a 

trend as defined by the biotic conditions observed at reference sites. The greater the difference between conditions (or 

a specified charateristic) at a reference site and those (that 

characteristic) at the sampling site, the higher the metric score 

will be. The reference sites of the P-HBIBI were selected 

using a set of parameters including bed sediment and fish tissue contaminants, land use, and physical habitat characteristics 

(Wolff, 2005). None of the individual metrics are expected 

to define the biotic condition on their own, but when added 

together, the results should display a trend of similarity or 

difference from the reference condition. For each site, a value 

is calculated for each metric. These values are then compared 

to the P–HBIBI conditional values and then scored accordingly. The conditional values and scores are shown in table 8. 
Development of Community Indexes 37

Table 8. Conditional scoring for the Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of 

Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) metrics (modified from Wolff (2005).

[m2, square meter; <, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to]

Metric Condition Score

Total abundance, 

in organisms/m2

> 3,000

≤ 3,000 and > 700

≤ 700 and > 200

≤ 200

1

3

5

7

Nonnative mollusk 

abundance (includes cryptogenic),

 in organisms/m2

0

> 0 and ≤ 90

> 90

1

3

5

Amphipod abundance, in organisms/m2 0

> 0 and ≤ 35

> 35

1

3

5

Percent Insecta > 90

≤ 90 and > 75

≤ 75

1

3

5

Atyoida bisulcata

 (ÿöpaekalaÿole or mountain ÿöpae)

Present

Absent

1

3

Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) Absent

Present

1

3

Total number of taxa (taxa richness)

 

< 21

≥ 21 and < 30

≥ 30

1

3

5

Index score Category

Original1 Revised

Final P–HBIBI

 (sum of metric scores)

≤ 14

> 14 and ≤ 22

> 22

Mild

Moderate

Severe

Good

Fair

Poor

1

From Wolff (2005).
38 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

In general, the scores for each metric are 1, 3, or 5, with lower 

scores indicating less impairment. The index score is the sum 

of the individual metrics scores, with lower scores indicating 

less impairment.

Maui P–HBIBI Scores

To determine the efficiency of the P–HBIBI and each 

individual metric at differentiating among the Maui benthic 

macroinvertebrate samples, all of the Maui samples, including the replicates, repeats, and recounts were evaluated using 

the P–HBIBI. The results of these analyses are shown in table 

9. Some of the individual metrics performed better than others 

at differentiating among the study sites. The results of these 

evaluations are discussed in this section.

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric

The total abundance metric is based on the results of the 

quantitative samples. The macroinvertebrates in each sample 

were sorted and counted and a subsample factor was determined if subsampling was performed. A total abundance was 

calculated for each sample and then standardized to abundance per square meter (figs. B27–B28). Recognizing that an 

equal effort was made to sample similar streambed substrates, 

these areal values were not standardized for the rugosity of 

each individually sampled streambed. Variation in substrate 

complexity, streamflow, and the variable macroalgal and moss 

coverage on the substrate may affect the species diversity 

and abundances in the individual samples. The abundance 

per square meter values were then compared to the P–HBIBI 

conditional values and scored. The conditional values and 

scores are shown in table 8. In continental settings, the total 

abundance of invertebrates typically is predicted to decrease 

with an increase in human disturbance (Fore and others, 1996; 

Black and MacCoy, 1999). Similarly, in Hawaiÿi, the P–HBIBI 

predicts that decreasing total invertebrate abundances indicates increasing human disturbance (Wolff, 2005). This metric 

makes no differentiation as to which taxa are present or their 

relative abundances.

The distribution of total abundance metric scores for 

the Maui sampling sites are shown in figures B29–B30. Of 

the 54 samples, 27 (50 percent) had a score of 1, with total 

abundances greater than 3,000/m2

, and 23 (42.6 percent) had a 

score of 3, with total abundances between 700 and 3,000/m2. 

Three samples (5.6 percent) had a score of 5 (200–700/m2), 

including West Wailua Iki-B, Honomanü, and North Waiehu-C 

below the diversion, and one sample (1.9 percent), Nuaÿailua, 

had a score of 7 (<200/m2) with a total macroinvertebrate 

abundance of only 163.5/m2

. The additional score of 7 was 

included in the P–HBIBI because the total macroinvertebrate 

abundances in quantitative samples from the most impaired 

sites were less than the minimum fixed-count conducted by the 

contract laboratory.

Overall, the total abundance metric scores successfully 

differentiated among the Maui study sites; however, some 

of the differences were not necessarily due to stream-quality 

issues. For example, Honomanü scored poorly even though it 

is in a relatively pristine watershed. The substratum at Honomanü was predominantly bedrock (57.5 percent) and boulder 

(11.5 percent), with scattered patches of cobble. This type of 

habitat, which by chance was not included in the development 

of the P–HBIBI, is not hospitable to fauna that are not adapted 

to torrential flow (Nielsen, 1950). Species such as the endemic 

torrent midge, Telmatogeton, are well adapted to this environment and were common, composing 9.2 percent (the highest 

percentage for this species) of the quantitative sample. Honomanü still had an overall P–HBIBI score of 13, which placed it 

in the “good” quality category.

Taxonomic Richness Metric

The richness metric is based on the results of the quantitative and qualitative samples as well as being supplemented 

by observational data. This metric counts the number of distinct taxonomical groups. It predicts that species richness will 

increase with increasing disturbance (Wolff, 2005), a prediction that is counter to that of most, if not all, of the studies on 

continental streams (Kerans and Karr, 1994; Fore and others, 

1996; Black and MacCoy, 1999; Weigel and others, 2002; 

Weigel, 2003). However, as discussed by Howarth and Polhemus (1991), the native Hawaiian stream insect fauna is depauperate compared to that of continental streams, with major 

orders such as Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera 

nonexistent in the native biota. Additionally, habitat loss and 

alteration, pollution, and the introduction of numerous nonnative species, both competitors and consumers, have impacted 

the native insect assemblages (Howarth and Polhemus, 1991). 

Also, the noninsect taxa, similar to the native stream fish, are 

not numerous. There are relatively few native freshwater mollusks, only two native decapods, and one native sponge. This 

metric is also sensitive to the editing process used to resolve 

the occurrences of ambiguous taxa and to standardize for laboratory taxonomic resolution. As more of the data is grouped 

into higher taxonomic categories, fewer numbers of distinct 

taxa are counted. 

The distribution of richness metric scores for the Maui 

sampling sites is shown in figures B31–B32. The fifty samples 

with less than 21 taxonomical groups had a score of 1, and 

four samples with 22–30 taxonomical groups had a score of 

3, including East Wailua Nui-A and Haipuaÿena in East Maui, 

and Makamakaÿole-B and one of the two Waiheÿe-B open 

canopy samples in West Maui. The richness metric scores 

failed to successfully differentiate among the Maui study sites.

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric

The relative abundance of Insecta metric is based on 

the quantitative samples. The P–HBIBI predicted the relative 

abundance of insects (the percentage of the total abundance 

that comprises insects) to decrease with an increase in the level 

of disturbance. Wolff (2005) found that insects accounted for 

greater than 90 percent of the total invertebrate abundances at 
 Development of Community Indexes 39

each of the Oÿahu reference sites and accounted for fewer than 

65 percent of the total invertebrate abundances at the impaired 

sites. Additionally, nonnative mollusks were either the first 

or second numerically dominant group at all of the severely 

impaired sites, and mollusks or oligochaetes (figs. D35–D36) 

were the second-dominant taxa at many of the moderately 

impaired sites.

The dominant and second-dominant taxa of the Maui 

quantitative samples are shown in table 10. A nonnative insect 

species was the dominant taxon at 36 of the 40 sampling sites 

(90 percent) and in 49 of the 54 samples (90.7 percent). These 

same species were the second-dominant taxon at 36 sites and 

in 49 of the samples. Insecta as a class were numerically dominant in 53 of the 54 samples, with only the Nuaÿailua sample 

having a higher percentage of worms (Class: Clitellata) (50.6 

percent) than insects (29.9 percent), although insects were the 

second-dominant group in that sample.

The distribution of relative abundance of Insecta metric 

scores is shown in figures B33–B34. The relative abundance 

of Insecta metric assessed 28 samples (51.9 percent) a score 

of 1, with relative abundances greater than 90 percent, 15 

samples (27.8 percent) a score of 3, >75 and ≤90 percent 

Insecta, and 11 samples (20.4 percent) a score of 5, with 

less than 75 percent Insecta. The 28 samples that scored 1 

averaged 97 percent Insecta, and the 15 samples that scored 

3 averaged 86 percent Insecta. The 11 samples that scored 5 

averaged 60 percent Insecta, with a low value of only 29.9 

percent at the Nuaÿailua site.

The relative abundance of Insecta metric scores successfully differentiated among the Maui study sites. In 11 

samples, the abundance of worms was high enough to restrict 

the relative abundance of insects to below 90 percent, and in 

6 samples worm abundance was high enough to restrict the 

percentage of insects to less than 75 percent. In four samples, 

Physidae snail abundances limited the relative abundance of 

insects to below 90 percent, and in two samples snail abundances limited the relative abundance of insects to below 75 

percent. The abundances of the native shrimp limited the 

relative abundance of insects in three samples, especially the 

Makamakaÿole-B site, and the relative abundance of insects 

at two sites were limited by abundances of the native snail 

Neritina granosa. 

Variability in the sampling and sorting was a factor at 

the Hanawï-A, North Waiehu-A above the diversion, and 

Olowalu sites. Both Hanawï-A samples scored a 3, with 89.7 

percent and 86.4 percent insects, and the re-sorts of the same 

samples scored a 1, with 98.3 percent and 95.9 percent insects, 

respectively. The two samples collected at the North WaiehuA above the diversion site scored a 1 with 97.9 percent and a 

3 with 85.6 percent. The most dramatic difference was at the 

Olowalu-B site, where the two samples differed from 94.6 

percent (1) to 74.4 percent (5) because of an abundance of 

physid snails in the latter sample. In other cases, the sampling and sorting variability was not a factor, as both Honolua 

samples scored 5, with 63.4 percent and 73.2 percent, and both 

the Kopiliÿula-B sample and the re-sort of that sample scored 

5, with 66.9 percent and 66.8 percent, respectively. The three 

Waiheÿe-A repeat samples were also very similar, all scoring a 

1 with 99.2 percent, 99.2 percent, and 99.1 percent insects.

Abundance of Nonnative or Cryptogenic Mollusks 

Metric

The mollusk metric is based on the quantitative samples, 

standardized to the number of mollusks per square meter. 

The mollusks used in this metric include the Thiaridae, 

Physidae, Planorbidae, Corbiculidae, Hydrobiidae, and the 

nonnative Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea columella (fig. D37). 

These mollusks were listed as either nonnative or cryptogenic by Cowie (1997, 1998, 2001). Abundances of these 

mollusks were predicted to increase with increasing disturbance (Wolff, 2005). 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 many 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 nonnative mollusks, 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 nonnative fauna 

with an increase in impairment. Other nonnative mollusks, 

such as apple snails, were not collected in the quantitative samples. Mollusks of the Sphaeriidae family and the 

Ancylidae Ferrissia were not included in this metric. These 

mollusks are very small and easily overlooked. The relation 

between stream habitat characteristics and Ferrissia was 

investigated separately.

The distribution of nonnative or cryptogenic mollusk 

metric scores is shown in figures B35–B36. None of the East 

Maui samples contained these mollusks. Thirty-nine Maui 

samples scored 1, where none of the listed mollusks were 

collected, nine West Maui sites scored 3, where less than 90/

m2 were collected, and six West Maui sites scored 5, where 

greater than 90/m2

 were collected. The highest density of these 

mollusks, 742.4/m2, was collected at Waikapü-A, accounting 

for 14.8 percent of total the sample. These were all identified as a species of Physa, commonly known as pouch snails 

(fig. D38). These snails have a world-wide distribution, and 

it is not known when or how they arrived in Hawaiÿi (Cowie, 

1997). Physa sp. was also abundant at Launiupoko (581.6/m2

), 

Olowalu-B (364.8/m2 and 42.4/m2), Olowalu-A (174.4/m2), 

Kauaÿula (316/m2), and Waikapü-C (294.4/m2). The only other 

mollusk collected in the quantitative samples was the Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata, a cryptogenic species common in 

Hawaiian streams (fig. D39) but collected only in the sample 

from Makamakaÿole-B (15.9/m2

). In 2008, USGS investigators 

observed mollusks, including the thiarid Melanoides tuberculata, the planorbid Planorbella duryi (fig. D40), and many physids, in a shallow slow moving pool in a channelized, urbanized, 

section of ÿÏao Stream (Oki and others, 2010). 
40 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 9. Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) scores for benthic macroinvertebrate 

samples from streams on the Island of Maui.

[rst, re-sorted sample; rep, replicate sample; rpt, repeat sample; Abundance in number per square meter; X, species present; –, species absent; P/A,

 Presence/Absence; No./m2, number per square meter]

Station ID Site name Sample 

type

Total abundance 

metric

Taxonomic richness 

metric1

Relative abundance 

of Insecta metric

No./m2 Score No. of taxa Score Percentage 

of total Score 

HI MAUI 09-001 Kopiliÿula-A 1,231 3 16 1 87.7 3 

HI MAUI 09-002 W. Wailua Iki-B 330 5 18 1 64.6 5 

HI MAUI 09-003 Wailua Nui-B 1,418 3 19 1 97 1 

HI MAUI 09-004 Hanawï-A 7,911 1 15 1 89.5 3 

HI MAUI 09-004 Hanawï-A rst 10,478 1 14 1 98.1 1 

HI MAUI 09-004 Hanawï-A rep 6,662 1 11 1 86.3 3 

HI MAUI 09-004 Hanawï-A rep, rst 7,525 1 10 1 95.7 1 

HI MAUI 09-005 W. Wailua Iki-A 4,499 1 17 1 75.2 3 

HI MAUI 09-006 Haipuaÿena 3,196 1 23 3 73.3 5 

HI MAUI 09-007 Pälauhulu-C 6,241 1 19 1 91.1 1 

HI MAUI 09-008 E. Wailua Nui-A 2,571 3 23 3 88.4 3 

HI MAUI 09-009 Pälauhulu-A 9,365 1 14 1 88.5 3 

HI MAUI 09-010 Honomanü 323 5 21 1 89.1 3 

HI MAUI 09-011 Kölea 23,137 1 14 1 94.3 1 

HI MAUI 09-011 Kölea rst 9,869 1 12 1 96 1 

HI MAUI 09-012 Hanawï-C 5,305 1 12 1 92.7 1 

HI MAUI 09-013 Waiohue 1,675 3 17 1 84.5 3 

HI MAUI 09-014 Kopiliÿula-B 3,758 1 17 1 66.7 5 

HI MAUI 09-014 Kopiliÿula-B rst 2,271 3 15 1 66.7 5 

HI MAUI 09-015 Hanawï-B 6,812 1 16 1 96 1 

HI MAUI 09-015 Hanawï-B rep 4,234 1 13 1 98.5 1 

HI MAUI 09-016 Nuaÿailua 166 7 16 1 29.5 5 

HI MAUI 09-017 Waikapü-C 7,053 1 13 1 95.1 1 

HI MAUI 09-018 Waikapü-A 5,012 1 18 1 83.5 3 

HI MAUI 09-019 Kanahä 3,224 1 13 1 97.3 1 

HI MAUI 09-020 Honolua 1,129 3 16 1 73.4 5 

HI MAUI 09-020 Honolua rep 984 3 11 1 63.3 5 

HI MAUI 09-021 Honoköwai 4,146 1 17 1 97.6 1 

HI MAUI 09-022 Olowalu-B 1,690 3 15 1 74.4 5 

HI MAUI 09-022 Olowalu-B rep 1,523 3 14 1 94.5 1 
 Development of Community Indexes 41

Nonnative mollusk 

abundance metric

Amphipoda 

abundance 

metric

ÿÖpae P/A 

metric1

Crayfish 

P/A metric1 P-HBIBI 

score

P-HBIBI 

category

No./m2 Score No./m2 Score P/A Score P/A Score

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 15 Fair

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 2.7 3 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 17 Fair

294.4 5 0 1 – 3 X 3 15 Fair

742.8 5 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

76.8 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 15 Fair

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 15 Fair

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 9 Good

364.8 5 0 1 X 1 – 1 17 Fair

42.7 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

Table 9. —Continued
42 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 9. Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P-HBIBI) scores for benthic macroinvertebrate 

samples from streams on the Island of Maui.—Continued

[rst, re-sorted sample; rep, replicate sample; rpt, repeat sample; Abundance in number per square meter; X, species present ; –, species absent; P/A,

 Presence/Absence; No./m2, number per square meter]

Station ID Site name Sample 

type

Total abundance 

metric

Taxonomic richness 

metric1

Relative abundance 

of Insecta metric

No./m2 Score No. of taxa Score Percentage 

of total Score 

HI MAUI 09-023 Waiheÿe-B open 740 3 25 3 96.9 1 

HI MAUI 09-023 Waiheÿe-B open rep 1,313 3 12 1 94.7 1 

HI MAUI 09-024 Waiheÿe-B closed 1,207 3 20 1 81.3 3 

HI MAUI 09-025 Waiheÿe-C 1,619 3 21 1 50 5 

HI MAUI 09-026 Waiheÿe-A 9,453 1 13 1 99.2 1 

HI MAUI 09-026 Waiheÿe-A rpt-1 4,061 1 12 1 99.2 1 

HI MAUI 09-026 Waiheÿe-A rpt-2 10,476 1 10 1 99.1 1 

HI MAUI 09-027 N. Waiehu-C 657 5 20 1 89.2 3 

HI MAUI 09-028 N. Waiehu-A 1,195 3 17 1 97.8 1 

HI MAUI 09-028 N. Waiehu-A rep 1,431 3 11 1 85.6 3 

HI MAUI 09-029 S. Waiehu-C 2,300 3 13 1 97.5 1 

HI MAUI 09-030 S. Waiehu-A 1,640 3 15 1 96 1 

HI MAUI 09-030 S. Waiehu-A rep 1,598 3 8 1 98.4 1 

HI MAUI 09-031 ÿÏao-C 2,028 3 12 1 95.5 1 

HI MAUI 09-031 ÿÏao-C rep 4,161 1 11 1 94.8 1 

HI MAUI 09-032 ÿÏao-A 5,311 1 17 1 99.1 1 

HI MAUI 09-033 Kauaÿula 4,542 1 16 1 86.7 3 

HI MAUI 09-034 Launiupoko 2,019 3 12 1 64.2 5 

HI MAUI 09-035 Ukumehame-B 3,992 1 14 1 95 1 

HI MAUI 09-036 Waiehu 1,276 3 17 1 87.4 3 

HI MAUI 09-037 Makamakaÿole-A 4,161 1 11 1 98.7 1 

HI MAUI 09-038 Makamakaÿole-B 1,508 3 22 3 35 5 

HI MAUI 09-039 Ukumehame-A 3,271 1 16 1 96.3 1 

HI MAUI 09-040 Olowalu-A 1,857 3 15 1 88.5 3 

1

 Metric determined using instream samples and observations.
 Development of Community Indexes 43

Nonnative mollusk 

abundance metric

Amphipoda 

abundance 

metric

ÿÖpae P/A 

metric1

Crayfish 

P/A metric1 P-HBIBI 

score

P-HBIBI 

category

No./m2 Score No./m2 Score P/A Score P/A Score

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

4.8 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

10.2 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 15 Fair

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

4.5 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

18.8 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

6.3 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 9 Good

315.9 5 0 1 – 3 – 1 15 Fair

581.7 5 0 1 – 3 – 1 19 Fair

69.1 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 9 Good

21.2 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 17 Fair

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

174.4 5 0 1 X 1 – 1 15 Fair

Table 9. —Continued
44 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 10. Dominant and second-dominant taxa collected in the Maui quantitative samples.

[sp., species; gr., group; –, not applicable]

Main sample All samples1

 Taxa Group Status Dominant Seconddominant Dominant Seconddominant

Cheumatopsyche sp. Trichoptera Nonnative 18 15 26 18

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. Chironomidae Nonnative 9 12a 14 15a

Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. Chironomidae Nonnative 5 4a 5 10a

Hydroptila sp. Trichoptera Nonnative 4 5b 4 6b

Oligochaeta (Worms) Cryptogenic 3 4b 3 5b

Atyoida bisulcata Decapoda Native 1c – 1c –

Lymnaeidae Mollusca Undetermined – – 1 –

Physa sp. Mollusca Nonnative – 2 – 2

Total No. of Samples 40 42 54 56

 1Includes repeat, replicate, and re-sorted samples.

a

 Shared codominance at 1 site.

b

 Shared codominance at 1 site.

c

 Occurred during a recruitment event.

Although most sites scored low, the metric scores did differentiate among the sites. The biggest difference was between West 

Maui and East Maui sites. There was no variability in the scoring 

between all of the paired replicate, re-sorts, and repeat samples.

Abundance of Amphipoda Metric

Amphipods, commonly called scuds, are found around 

the world. Although much work has been done on the Hawaiian marine, brackish, and terrestrial species of amphipods, 

little research has been done on the Hawaiian freshwater species (Barnard, 1970; Barnard, 1971; Brusca, 1973; Barnard, 

1977). The one species collected from freshwater systems in 

Hawaiÿi has been identified as Hyalella sp. or Hyalella azteca

Saussure, 1858 (fig. D41; Barnard, 1971; Ibara and Conant, 

1972; Yee and Ewart, 1986; Englund and others, 2000b; Wolff 

and Koch, 2009). Amphipods superficially resemble Collembola, or springtails, another inhabitant of Hawaiian streams. 

The abundance of amphipods typically is predicted to increase 

with increasing disturbance in continental settings (Weigel, 

2003). 

Only one of the Maui quantitative samples, collected 

from Waiohue Stream, contained any amphipods, which was 

a single amphipod with a calculated density of 2.7/m2

 (figs. 

B37–B38). This metric was unsuccessful at differentiating 

among the Maui study sites. In a previous study, amphipods 

had been collected in benthic samples from ÿÏao Stream; however, they were not identified during this study in the samples 

from nearby sites (McIntosh and others, 2002). This may be an 

artifact of the subsampling and sorting process, in which taxa 

may go unnoticed if they are rare in the samples. This metric 

did, however, successfully differentiate between Oÿahu sites 

and Maui sites. It also successfully differentiated among the 

sites from the Oÿahu WSA study, with 67.7 percent of the sites 

scored as 1, 25.8 percent as 3, and 6.5 percent as 5. 

ÿÖpae Presence/Absence Metric

This metric is based on the presence or absence of the 

native mountain shrimp, Atyoida bisulcata, in either the 

quantitative or qualitative samples, as well as supplemental 

information provided by visual observations. The failure to 

collect an individual of this species during the sampling does 

not conclusively show that the species was not present, but 

rather suggests there may have been too few in the study reach 

to observe. The presence of Atyoida bisulcata, the endemic 

mountain shrimp locally known as ÿöpaekalaÿole, is believed 

to be an indicator of higher water quality (Kido and Smith, 

1997; Kido and others, 1999b). Adult A. bisulcata are more 

common in middle and upper stream reaches, whereas recruiting juveniles can be observed as low as the stream mouth 

during their upstream migration.

The distribution of A. bisulcata on Maui is shown in 

figures B3–B4. A. bisulcata were collected or observed at 31 

of the 40 Maui sites (77.5 percent), including all 16 sampling 

sites in East Maui. A. bisulcata was the only amphidromous 

species collected or observed at East Maui sites located 

upstream of the Koÿolau Ditch. Stream segments immediately 

downstream of the ditch diversions generally are dry except 

during periods of storm runoff. Some of these streams gain 

flow from groundwater farther downstream and can have 

permanent flow in the lower reaches to the ocean. A. bisulcata
 Development of Community Indexes 45

were present at 15 of the 24 sampling sites on West Maui. 

The longer distances of dry streambed, the lack of gaining 

surface-water flow at lower elevations, and less overall rain on 

the Lahaina side all serve to create a barrier for the upstream 

migration of A. bisulcata to some of the upper West Maui sites 

as compared to the upper East Maui sites.

The metric scores for the presence or absence of A. bisulcata did not successfully differentiate among the Maui study 

sites but do differentiate the Maui sites from the Oÿahu sites. 

The absence of A. bisulcata was most likely due to the diversion of streamflow and not necessarily related to the quality 

of the streams themselves. As mentioned earlier, the diversion 

of water can be a factor in influencing stream quality and can 

impair the ability of amphidromous species in their upstream 

and downstream migrations; however, the goals of this study 

are not the same as an instream flow study. On Oÿahu, other 

factors have been identified as barriers to the upstream/downstream migration of the native amphidromous species such 

as nonnative fish. Sampling sites upstream from the Wahiawa 

Reservoir, for example, were also devoid of A. bisulcata as 

well as the native fish species. However, these sites were 

rated as some of the most nearly pristine sites on Oÿahu, with 

forested watersheds and clear, fast-flowing, relatively uncontaminated water, with good habitat for the native species 

apart from an abundance of smallmouth bass. The manmade 

Wahiawa Reservoir has been stocked with gamefish, including 

largemouth and smallmouth bass, tucunare, tilapia, snakehead, 

and bluegill sunfish. This assemblage of fishes serves as a barrier to the amphidromous species by preying on the recruiting 

juveniles and perhaps the drifting larvae. The distribution of 

nonnative fish on Oÿahu is shown in figure C11. 

Crayfish Presence/Absence Metric

Like the ÿöpae metric, this metric is based on the presence or absence of a species, the nonnative crayfish Procambarus clarkii, in either the quantitative or qualitative samples 

as well as supplemented by visual observations. Also, like 

the ÿöpae metric, the apparent absence of P. clarkii indicates 

that although it was not observed, it may have been present in 

small numbers. The presence of P. clarkii metric has similarities with the mollusk metric in that the presence of the crayfish in impaired streams is not entirely 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 does not thrive when released into “pristine” waters.

This metric did not successfully differentiate among the 

Maui study sites. P. clarkii was not collected in any of the benthic samples on Maui and was only observed during snorkeling 

surveys at the Waikapü-C site in West Maui (fig. B3). P. clarkii

has often been associated with taro fields but was not observed 

at any of the sites located downstream of return flows from 

any taro field. Snorkeling surveys determined that P. clarkii

was abundant at the Waikapü-C site, coexisting with the native 

damselflies Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrohamatum and M. 

blackburni. Crayfish were present at 61 percent of the sampling 

sites used to develop the metrics and at 29 percent of the Oÿahu 

WSA sampling sites (Wolff, 2005).

Final P–HBIBI Score

The final index score for each sampling site, the sum 

of the 7 individual metric scores, ranged from 7 to 37, with 

higher index scores indicating increasingly higher levels of 

impairment (Wolff, 2005). Sampling sites with P–HBIBI scores 

less than or equal to 14 were categorized as “good” quality 

(mildly impaired). Sites with index scores greater than 14 but 

less than or equal to 22 were categorized as “fair” quality (moderately impaired), and sites with index scores greater than 22 

were categorized as “poor” quality (severely impaired). 

The distribution of the P–HBIBI scores for the Maui samples is shown in figures B39–B40. The majority of the Maui 

samples, 43 of 54, were evaluated to be in the “good” quality 

category and the 11 remaining samples were categorized as 

“fair”. None of the Maui samples were evaluated as “poor”. 

Seven of the 11 “fair” quality samples scored 15, the lower 

limit of the category. The highest P–HBIBI score was 19 at the 

Launiupoko site in West Maui, heavily influenced by a high 

abundance of Physidae mollusks, which in turn resulted in a 

lower overall percentage of insects. Only 2 of the 16 sites on 

East Maui and 7 of the 24 sites on West Maui were categorized 

as “fair” and 1 West Maui site had one replicate sample categorized as “fair” and the other replicate sample categorized as 

“good”. Nuaÿailua and West Wailua Iki-B in East Maui were 

both small streams with low flow. The average water velocities measured at the sampling points were the lowest of all the 

Maui sites, 0.26 and 0.45 ft/sec, respectively.

At one site, Olowalu-B on West Maui, where two replicate samples were collected, one sample was categorized as 

“good” with a score of 11 and the other sample categorized as 

“fair” with a score of 17. This was due to a lower percentage of 

insects (74.4 percent as compared to 94.6 percent) caused by a 

higher abundance of nonnative or cryptogenic Physidae mollusks (364.8/m2

 as compared to 42.7/m2) in the “fair” sample, 

demonstrating some of the variability in the sampling and sorting. Although there were some slight differences, the samples 

from all of the other sites, where replicate samples and re-sorted 

samples were evaluated, were rated in the same category. 

The P–HBIBI scores performed well in contrasting the 

quality of Maui streams as compared to the quality of streams 

on Oÿahu. None of the Maui sites rated in the “poor” category, 

indicative of the lesser extent of urbanization and industrialization and the smaller population on Maui as compared to 

that on Oÿahu. Native species, including the fish, shrimp, and 

insects, were more common and more abundant in the Maui 

streams than on Oÿahu. Additionally, the extensive systems 

of surface-water diversions and ditches greatly reduced the 

number of perennially flowing streams draining the larger 

agricultural and urban areas. The sites that were rated as “fair” 

were, with some exceptions, in agreement with the on-site 

assessments performed by the research team. The “fair” rating 

of the Makamakaÿole-B site was due, in part, to the extremely 
46 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

large number of recruiting ÿöpaekalaÿole, the endemic mountain shrimp, captured in the sampling nets. 

New Maui Metrics and Index

The procedure of selecting new, appropriate metrics to 

develop an invertebrate community index for streams on Maui 

followed the process described in the “Index Development” 

section. This process consisted of multivariate analysis, metric 

screening, metric selection, and metric scoring. The results of 

the nMDS analysis showed that there is somewhat of a separation between East and West Maui assemblages (figs. 6A–6B). 

This clustering is visually more apparent using the log(x + 1) 

transformed abundance data (fig. 6B). The MRPP analysis 

confirmed the nMDS results, showing that the samples within 

each region are more similar to each other than was expected 

by chance (Euclidian distance measure; proportional data: 

A = 0.0593, p < 0.00005; abundance data: A = 0.0590 , p < 

0.00005; where A is the chance-corrected within-group agreement; McCune and Grace, 2002). This clustering indicates 

that although there is some overlapping similarity between the 

regional community structures, the diversity, relative abundances, and abundances of the taxa are being influenced by 

regional differences. The results of the DCA performed on 

the log(x + 1) transformed abundance data displayed a similar 

clustering of the East and West Maui assemblages (fig. 7). West 

Maui sites were influenced by physid snails and Megalagrion

damselfly naiad abundances whereas East Maui sites were more 

influenced by hïhïwai, ÿöpae, and lymnaeid snail abundances. 

Maui Reference “Least Disturbed” Site Selection

The scoring process of these new metrics required the 

selection of reference condition “least disturbed” sites. The 

selection of reference sites began with an examination of 

the results of a PCA of the habitat characteristics (fig. 8). 

Sites plotted in the upper right quadrant represent streams 

that tended to be larger, more turbulent West Maui streams, 

whereas sites that plotted in the lower left quadrant were 

small, slower flowing, streams with higher percentages of sedimentation. Sites in the upper left quadrant were all on streams 

in West Maui, with many from the Lahaina side. These sites 

tended to have higher percentages of cobble and gravel substratum and higher specific conductance values, whereas sites 

in the lower right quadrant tended to have higher percentages 

of large boulder and bedrock substratum with higher percentages of fast flowing riffles. Most of these sites were from East 

Maui streams. The site evaluations also included an examination of land use in the contributing basin and the overall 

quality of the sites as determined by the best professional 

judgment of the field crew and leader. The final reference sites 

were selected to represent the “least disturbed” conditions on 

both East and West Maui over a range of altitudes. A set of 10 

sites were chosen, 5 representing East Maui and 5 representing 

West Maui; 6 from higher altitudes, 3 from middle altitudes, 

and 1 from lower altitudes (table 11). Fewer lower altitude 

sites were included because they tended to be more disturbed 

than the higher altitude sites. Scoring of the core metrics proceeded as described earlier.

The conditional values and scores are shown in table 12. 

In general, the scores for each metric are 1, 3, or 5, with lower 

scores indicating less impairment. The index score is the sum 

of the individual metrics scores, with lower scores indicating 

less impairment. The results of these analyses are shown in 

table 13 and are discussed in this section.

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric 

(Revised)

The P–HBIBI total abundance metric successfully differentiated among the Maui study sites and was retained in the current index as a 4-tiered metric. The conditional scores, however, 

were revised to reflect the greater abundances of macroinvertebrates collected in the Maui samples. The top tier limit, indicating better conditions, was increased from 3,000/m2

 to 7,900/m2; 

the second tier limit was increased from 700/m2 to 4,000/m2; the 

third tier limit increased from 200/m2 to 1,200/m2. The data also 

indicated that some samples from high quality sites contained 

lower total abundances due in part to higher percentages of 

these study reaches being composed of large boulders and bedrock substratum. This was most notable at the Honomanü and 

North Waiehu-A sampling sites. 

The distributions of these metric scores are shown in figures 

B41–B42. The distributions of the abundances per square meter 

are shown in figures B27–B28. A total of 7 of the 54 samples 

(13 percent) scored in the top tier, 15 samples (27.8 percent) in 

the second tier, 24 samples (44 percent) in the third tier, and 8 

samples (14.8 percent) scored in the bottom tier with total abundances < 1,200/m2

. Three of the paired replicate samples scored 

in different tiers in this metric, and in two of these cases the final 

index categories were different as well. The second of the repeat 

samples from Waiheÿe-A scored lower than the others in this 

metric. The differences among these samples are discussed in the 

“Repeat Samples” section of appendix A. None of the re-sorted 

samples scored in different tiers with this metric.

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric (Revised)

The P–HBIBI relative abundance of Insecta metric successfully differentiated among the Maui study sites. To improve 

this metric, the insect relative abundance was recalculated 

from the total macroinvertebrate abundance, subtracting out 

the abundances of the native shrimp (ÿöpae), and the native 

snail (hïhïwai). This was done to ensure that sites would not be 

mischaracterized in the scoring for having healthy populations 

of these native, noninsect species. The condition values were 

slightly revised for the Maui data, retaining the top tier at 90 

percent but lowering the bottom tier limit from 75 to 73 percent. 

The actual 75th percentile of the reference sites was 99 percent, 

but this was considered to be too restrictive; so the original 

limit, which worked well, was retained.
B Axis 1

Axis 2

A 2–Dimensional 

Axis 1

Axis 2

2–Dimensional Stress: 0.2

East M

EXPLAN

West M

Figure 6. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of the Maui quantitative macroinvertebrate samples using (A) arcsine-proportional data and (B) log(x+1) transformed abundance data (logarithm of the sum of the abundance plus one, with abundance in nusquare meter).
-0.8 -1.7 -2.5 -3.3 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.1 -3.3 -2.5 -1.7 -0.8 0.8 2.5 

Acari Apedilum Atyoida bisulcata Ephydridae Ferrissia Hydroptilidae Limonia Lymnaeidae Megalagrion Nemertea Neritina Orthocladius Ostracoda Paratanytarsus 

Telmatogeton Turbellaria East Mau

EXPLANA

West MauMacroinv

Detrended Correspondence Analysis Joint Plot

Axis 2

Axis 1

Figure 7. Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) joint plot ordination of the Maui quantitative macroinvertebrate samples using loabundance data (logarithm of the sum of the abundance plus one, with abundance in number of organisms per square meter). Variables are, native species.
Figure 8. Principal components analysis (PCA) ordination of Maui study sites habitat characteristics.

Mean Wetted Width

Mean Depth

Mean Embeddedness

Mean Froude Number

Percent Bould

Percent Cobble and Gravel

Percent Fine Gravel

Percent CascadePercent Fast Riffle

Percent Slow Run

Specific Conductance

Temperature

Haipuaÿena

Honomanü

Hanawï-B

Hanawï-C

Hanawï-A

Kölea

Kopiliÿula-B

Kopiliÿula-A

Nuaÿailua

Pälauhulu-C

Pälauhulu-A

Waiohue

Wailua Nui-B

W. Wailua Iki-B

Honoköwai

Honolua

ÿÏao-C

ÿÏao-C rep

ÿÏao-A

Kauaÿula

Kanahä

Launiupoko

Makamakaÿole-B

Makamakaÿole-A

N. Waiehu-A

N. Waiehu-C

Olowalu-B

Olowalu-A

 S. Waiehu-C

S. Waiehu-A

Ukumehame-B

Ukumehame-A

Waiehu

Waiheÿe-B closed

Waiheÿe-B open

Waiheÿe-C

Waiheÿe-A

Waikapü-C

Waikapü-A

PCA Axis 2

PCA Axis 1
50 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 11. Maui reference condition “least disturbed” sites.

Station ID Stream name Region Altitude, in feet Site name

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï Stream East Maui 1,364 Hanawï-A

HI_MAUI_09-009 Pälauhulu Stream East Maui 153 Pälauhulu-A

HI_MAUI_09-012 Hanawï Stream East Maui 661 Hanawï-C

HI_MAUI_09-013 Waiohue Stream East Maui 28 Waiohue

HI_MAUI_09-015 Hanawï Stream East Maui 130 Hanawï-B

HI_MAUI_09-019 Kanahä Stream West Maui 1,122 Kanahä

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe River West Maui 600 Waiheÿe-A

HI_MAUI_09-030 South Waiehu Stream West Maui 676 S. Waiehu-A

HI_MAUI_09-032 ÿÏao Stream West Maui 975 ÿÏao-A

HI_MAUI_09-037 Makamakaÿole Stream West Maui 751 Makamakaÿole-A

Table 12. Conditional scoring for Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metrics and index for Maui.

[m2, square meter; <, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to]

Metric Condition Score

Total abundance, in organisms/m2 ≥ 7,900 1

< 7,900 and ≥ 4,000 3

< 4,000 and ≥ 1,200 5

< 1,200 7

Insecta relative abundance, in percent of Insecta from the total ≥ 90 1

 abundance minus the abundances of the native shrimp and snail < 90 and ≥ 73 3

< 73 5

Trichoptera:Diptera ratio ≥ 2.5 1

 (Trichoptera abundance:nonnative Diptera abundance) < 2.5 and ≥ 0.5 3

< 0.5 5

Native species richness Presence/Absence Score

Atyoida bisulcata Present 1

 (ÿöpaekalaÿole or mountain ÿöpae) Absent 2

Neritina granosa Present 1

 (hïhïwai) Absent 2

Telmatogeton spp. Present 1

 (torrent midges) Absent 3

Megalagrion damselflies (adults and/or naiads) Present 1

 (pinao ÿula) Absent 3

Index score Category

Final Maui Invertebrate Community Index ≤14 Good

 (sum of metric scores) > 14 and ≤18 Fair

> 18 Poor
This metric was highly negatively correlated with the 

relative abundance of Oligochaeta (worms) metric. The distribution of these metric scores is shown in figures B43–B44. A 

total of 31 of the 54 samples (57.4 percent) scored in the top 

tier, 16 samples (29.6 percent) scored in the second tier, and 

7 samples (13 percent) scored in the bottom tier. A review of 

the paired replicate samples showed that four of seven pairs 

scored in different tiers; the largest difference, 21 percent, was 

in the Olowalu-B samples due to a high abundance of physid 

snails in one of the samples. One of the pairs of re-sorted 

samples scored in different tiers, with a difference of only 3 

percent. None of the repeat samples scored in different tiers.

Ratio of the Nonnative Trichoptera and Diptera 

This metric compared the proportions of the insect families of Trichoptera and Diptera in each sample. In continental 

streams, many of the trichopteran species are more sensitive 

to disturbance than many of the dipteran species, so that larger 

proportions of trichopterans indicate less disturbance. For this 

metric, only those specimens that could be confirmed as nonnative dipterans were used in the calculations. Specimens were not 

included if they could only be identified to a family level if that 

family contained both native and nonnative species. Although 

there are no native trichopterans in Hawaiÿi, as discussed earlier, 

there are a number of native species of dipterans. The native 

species were excluded from this metric because: (1) tolerance 

values have not been developed for the native dipterans and, 

(2) unlike many of the introduced species, studies in Hawaiian 

streams have demonstrated that the native species are especially 

sensitive to habitat disturbances. 

This metric was calculated by summing the abundances 

of the trichopterans (Cheumatopsyche, Hydroptila spp. and 

Oxyethira) and dividing by the sum of the abundances of the 

nonnative dipterans (predominantly chironomids: Eukiefferiella, Cricotopus, Apedilum, and Paratanytarsus). The 

distribution of these metric scores is shown in figures B45–

B46. The distribution of the actual ratios is shown in figures 

B47–B48. This metric was highly correlated with the relative 

abundances of the trichopteran Cheumatopsyche and the dipteran Cricotopus and the ratio of these two taxa (figs. B49–

B50). A total of 13 of the 54 samples (24.1 percent) scored 

in the top tier, 30 samples (55.6 percent) scored in the middle 

tier, and 11 samples (20.4 percent) scored in the bottom tier 

with < 0.5 Trichoptera/Diptera.

A review of the paired replicate samples showed that 

three of the pairs scored in different tiers, with the largest difference, 9.7, in the South Waiehu-A samples. This difference 

was enough to decrease the replicate sample from a “good” 

to a “fair” rating. The second repeat sample from Waiheÿe-A 

scored better than the other two repeat samples. As discussed 

in the “Repeat Samples” section of appendix A, this was 

mainly due to much lower abundances of the chironomids 

Cricotopus (73 and 76 percent fewer respectively) and Eukiefferiella (71 and 70 percent fewer, respectively) in the second 

sample. None of the re-sorted samples scored in different tiers.

Native Macroinvertebrate Presence/Absence

The presence or absence of four of the native macroinvertebrates was determined using the quantitative, 

qualitative, and observational data and scored individually. 

The amphidromous species, Atyoida bisulcata (ÿöpae) and 

Neritina granosa (hïhïwai), were scored as either 1 if present 

and 2 if not observed. Because these species are amphidromous, they are more susceptible to alterations in stream flow 

and may be absent from sites due to anthropogenic impediments such as diversions, and for that reason the difference 

in the scoring is only 1 point. However, due to their habitat 

requirements of clean, fast-flowing water, the presence of 

either of these native species may be an indicator of better 

quality streams (Ford, 1979; Brasher, 1997, Kido and Smith, 

1997). The ÿöpae metric was retained because the hïhïwai 

metric, in general, scores better at lower elevations while the 

ÿöpae metric, in general, scores better at higher elevations 

and the two together balance out the elevational differences. 

Telmatogeton (torrent midges), and Megalagrion damselflies 

(adults and (or) naiads of any species) were given a score as 

either 1 if present or 3 if not observed. These species are not 

amphidromous and as adults can move freely about upstream 

and downstream, and for that reason the difference in the 

scoring is 2 points. 

The distribution of these metric scores is shown in figures 

B51–B58. Because this metric is based on all the available 

data collected at a site, the resultant score is for the site and is 

therefore the same for the replicate and re-sorted samples. Of 

the 40 sampling sites, ÿöpae were present at 31 (77.5 percent), 

hïhïwai were present at 11 (27.5 percent), Megalagrion damselflies were present at 29 (72.5 percent) and Telmatogeton

were present at 20 (50 percent). All four species were present 

at only the Hanawï-B site, while three of the species were 

present at 15 sites, two were present at 18 sites, and only one 

of the species was present at 6 sites.

Final Index Score

The final community index was calculated as the sum 

of the eight individual metric scores (table 13). This ICI is 

not meant to be a measure of the native biotic integrity, but 

a comparison to the macroinvertebrate communities found 

at reference “least disturbed” sites. The distribution of these 

index scores is shown in figures B59–B60. Samples scoring 

≤14 were categorized as ”good” quality invertebrate communities. The assemblages in these samples were evaluated to 

be at or near the reference condition. A total of 22 of the 54 

samples (40.7 percent) were evaluated to be ”good” quality 

communities. Samples scoring >14 but ≤18 were categorized 

as “fair” quality communities. Communities in these samples 

were evaluated to deviate to some extent from the reference 

condition but were still considered to be in an acceptable 

state. A total of 22 (40.7 percent) of the samples were evaluated to be “fair” quality communities. Samples with a final 

index score >18 were categorized as “poor” communities. 

 Development of Community Indexes 51
52 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 13. New metric scores and Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) ratings for the 

Maui benthic macroinvertebrate samples.

[rst, re-sorted sample; rep, replicate sample; rpt, repeat sample; Abundance in number per square meter; X, species present; –, 

species absent; P/A, Presence/Absence; No./m2, number per square meter]

Station ID Site name Sample 

type

Total

 abundance 

metric

Trichoptera: 

Diptera metric

Relative abundance 

of Insecta metric3

No./m2 Score Ratio Score Percentage Score 

HI_MAUI_09-001 Kopiliÿula-A 1,231 5 1.7 3 89 3 

HI_MAUI_09-002 W. Wailua Iki-B 330 7 1.2 3 73 3 

HI_MAUI_09-003 Wailua Nui-B 1,418 5 1.2 3 97 1 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A2 7,911 1 1.6 3 90 1 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A rst 10,478 1 2.3 3 99 1 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A rep 6,662 3 1 3 87 3 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A rep, rst 7,525 3 1.1 3 96 1 

HI_MAUI_09-005 W. Wailua Iki-A 4,499 3 1.4 3 76 3 

HI_MAUI_09-006 Haipuaÿena 3,196 5 0.3 5 73 3 

HI_MAUI_09-007 Pälauhulu-C 6,241 3 1.4 3 91 1 

HI_MAUI_09-008 E. Wailua Nui-A 2,571 5 0.5 3 88 3 

HI_MAUI_09-009 Pälauhulu-A2 9,365 1 2.5 1 89 3 

HI_MAUI_09-010 Honomanü 323 7 2.6 1 95 1 

HI_MAUI_09-011 Kölea 23,137 1 0.2 5 94 1 

HI_MAUI_09-011 Kölea rst 9,869 1 0.2 5 96 1 

HI_MAUI_09-012 Hanawï-C2 5,305 3 0.6 3 93 1 

HI_MAUI_09-013 Waiohue2 1,675 5 3.6 1 97 1 

HI_MAUI_09-014 Kopiliÿula-B 3,758 5 4 1 67 5 

HI_MAUI_09-014 Kopiliÿula-B rst 2,271 5 4.8 1 68 5 

HI_MAUI_09-015 Hanawï-B2 6,812 3 2.1 3 97 1 

HI_MAUI_09-015 Hanawï-B rep 4,234 3 4 1 99 1 

HI_MAUI_09-016 Nuaÿailua 166 7 5 1 32 5 

HI_MAUI_09-017 Waikapü-C 7,053 3 1.4 3 95 1 

HI_MAUI_09-018 Waikapü-A 5,012 3 0.9 3 83 3 

HI_MAUI_09-019 Kanahä2 3,224 5 0.6 3 97 1 

HI_MAUI_09-020 Honolua 1,129 7 0.4 5 73 3 

HI_MAUI_09-020 Honolua rep 984 7 0.8 3 63 5 

HI_MAUI_09-021 Honoköwai 4,146 3 0.5 3 98 1 

HI_MAUI_09-022 Olowalu-B 1,690 5 4.2 1 74 3 

HI_MAUI_09-022 Olowalu-B rep 1,523 5 6.4 1 95 1 

HI_MAUI_09-023 Waiheÿe-B open 740 7 0.4 5 97 1 

HI_MAUI_09-023 Waiheÿe-B open rep 1,313 5 0.4 5 95 1 

HI_MAUI_09-024 Waiheÿe-B closed 1,207 5 0.4 5 81 3 

HI_MAUI_09-025 Waiheÿe-C 1,619 5 0.8 3 50 5 
 Development of Community Indexes 53

Megalagrion 

P/A Metric1

ÿÖpae P/A 

Metric1

Hïhïwai P/A 

Metric1

Telmatogeton 

P/A Metric1

Invertebrate 

Community Index

P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score Index 

score Category

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

X 1 X 1 X 1 – 3 19 Poor

– 3 X 1 X 1 – 3 17 Fair

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 10 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 10 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 18 Fair

– 3 X 1 X 1 – 3 15 Fair

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

– 3 X 1 X 1 – 3 13 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 14 Good

– 3 X 1 X 1 – 3 15 Fair

X 1 X 1 X 1 – 3 17 Fair

X 1 X 1 X 1 – 3 17 Fair

X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 11 Good

X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 9 Good

X 1 X 1 X 1 – 3 19 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 3 15 Fair

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Good

X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 15 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 21 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 21 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 13 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 16 Fair

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 14 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 20 Poor

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 18 Fair

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 20 Poor

– 3 X 1 – 2 – 3 22 Poor

Table 13.—Continued
54 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 13. New metric scores and Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) ratings for the 

Maui benthic macroinvertebrate samples.—Continued

[rst, re-sorted sample; rep, replicate sample; rpt, repeat sample; Abundance in number per square meter; X, species present; –, 

species absent; P/A, Presence/Absence; No./m2, number per square meter]

Station ID Site name Sample 

type

Total 

abundance 

metric

Trichoptera: 

Diptera metric

Relative abundance 

of Insecta metric3

No./m2 Score Ratio Score Percentage Score 

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe-A2 9,453 1 0.3 5 99 1 

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe-A rpt-1 4,061 3 1 3 99 1 

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe-A rpt-2 10,476 1 0.3 5 99 1 

HI_MAUI_09-027 N. Waiehu-C 657 7 0.4 5 89 3 

HI_MAUI_09-028 N. Waiehu-A 1,195 7 0.8 3 98 1 

HI_MAUI_09-028 N. Waiehu-A rep 1,431 5 0.6 3 86 3 

HI_MAUI_09-029 S. Waiehu-C 2,300 5 0.5 3 98 1 

HI_MAUI_09-030 S. Waiehu-A2 1,640 5 11.9 1 96 1 

HI_MAUI_09-030 S. Waiehu-A rep 1,598 5 2.3 3 98 1 

HI_MAUI_09-031 ÿÏao-C 2,028 5 1.7 3 95 1 

HI_MAUI_09-031 ÿÏao-C rep 4,161 3 1.6 3 95 1 

HI_MAUI_09-032 ÿÏao-A2 5,311 3 1.3 3 99 1 

HI_MAUI_09-033 Kauaÿula 4,542 3 0.4 5 87 3 

HI_MAUI_09-034 Launiupoko 2,019 5 1.1 3 64 5 

HI_MAUI_09-035 Ukumehame-B 3,992 5 0.8 3 95 1 

HI_MAUI_09-036 Waiehu 1,276 5 3.1 1 88 3 

HI_MAUI_09-037 Makamakaÿole-A2 4,161 3 0.7 3 99 1 

HI_MAUI_09-038 Makamakaÿole-B 1,508 5 0.8 3 53 5 

HI_MAUI_09-039 Ukumehame-A 3,271 5 4.9 1 96 1 

HI_MAUI_09-040 Olowalu-A 1,857 5 3 1 89 3 

1

 Metric determined using instream samples and observations.

2

 Sample used as reference sample in calculating the metrics.

3

 Relative abundance calculated from total abundance minus the abundance of native shrimp and snails.
 Development of Community Indexes 55

Megalagrion 

P/A Metric1

ÿÖpae P/A 

Metric1

Hïhïwai P/A 

Metric1

Telmatogeton 

P/A Metric1

Invertebrate 

Community Index

P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score Index 

score Category

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 20 Poor

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

– 3 X 1 – 2 – 3 18 Fair

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 14 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 16 Fair

– 3 X 1 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

– 3 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Good

X 1 – 2 X 1 X 1 12 Good

X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 17 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 19 Poor

– 3 – 2 X 1 – 3 18 Fair

– 3 X 1 – 2 – 3 18 Fair

– 3 – 2 – 2 X 1 15 Fair

– 3 X 1 X 1 – 3 21 Poor

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 14 Good

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 3 16 Fair

Table 13.—Continued
56 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

These samples deviated enough from the reference condition to indicate that further investigation may be needed to 

determine the cause or causes of the deviation. A total of 10 

samples (18.5 percent) were evaluated to be “poor” macroinvertebrate communities. The cause or causes of the deviation 

might be naturally occurring conditions, or anthropogenically 

generated reductions in streamflow, or adverse water quality 

or physical habitat disturbances that should be addressed by 

land managers. 

A review of the replicate samples showed that four of the 

seven paired samples were categorized in different tiers. In all 

four instances, the paired samples straddled a cutoff condition 

value with only 2 points separating the index scores. All of the 

re-sorted samples were categorized the same as the original 

samples. All of the repeat samples from the Waiheÿe-A site 

were categorized the same. 

Oÿahu Metrics and Index Refinement

The procedure of selecting new metrics and refining existing, appropriate metrics to develop an invertebrate 

community index for streams on Oÿahu followed the process 

described in the “Index Development” section. Data for 

benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected in 2006–07 in 

an earlier study (Wolff and Koch, 2009) were used to refine 

and revise the Oÿahu P–HBIBI. These samples were collected 

as part of the USEPA’s probability-based Wadeable Stream 

Assessment (WSA) program. 

Evaluation with the Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity

Oÿahu WSA P–HBIBI Scores

The Oÿahu WSA-targeted riffle habitat samples were 

evaluated using the P–HBIBI developed by Wolff (2005). The 

results of these analyses are shown in table 14. Targeted riffle 

habitat samples were not collected from 9 of the 40 Oÿahu 

WSA study reaches; 7 sites had only pool habitat, 4 of which 

were substantially diverted upstream of the sampling site, and 

2 sites were flat-bottomed concrete-lined channels. This analysis will consider only the 31 targeted riffle samples. The conditional values and scores for each metric are shown in table 8.

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric

The distribution of total abundance metric scores for the 

Oÿahu WSA sampling sites are shown in figure C13. These 

scores were based on the total abundance of macroinvertebrates per square meter determined at each site (fig. C12). Of 

the 31 sites where quantitative samples were collected, 7 sites 

(22.6 percent) had a score of 1, 14 sites (45.2 percent) had a 

score of 3, 9 sites (29 percent) had a score of 5, and 1 site (3.2 

percent) scored a 7 with less than 200/m2. The total abundance of macroinvertebrates ranged from a high of 5,850.4/m2

at the Waiähole-B site to a low of 53.6/m2 at the ÿÄhuimanu 

site. Total abundance was positively correlated with the abundance of trichopterans (p<0.0001, Spearman’s rho = 0.88) and 

dipterans (p<0.0001, Spearman’s rho = 0.77). This metric 

successfully differentiated among the sites.

Taxonomic Richness Metric

The distribution of the taxa richness metric scores for the 

Oÿahu WSA sampling sites is shown in figure C14. Taxa richness ranged from a high of 25 taxa at three sites to a low of 13 

at two sites. A majority of sites, 24 of 31, had a score of 1 (≤ 21 

taxa), with 7 sites with a score of 3 (22–30 taxa). Taxa richness 

tended to decrease with an increase in flow, and exhibited a 

negative correlation with discharge measured at the time of sampling (p=0.0003, Spearman’s rho =-0.61). Taxa richness also 

tended to decrease as the percentage of insects in the samples 

increased (p=0.0015, Spearman’s rho =-0.55). The richness 

metric scores failed to differentiate among the Oÿahu sites.

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric

The dominant and second-dominant taxa of the Oÿahu 

WSA quantitative samples are shown in table 15. A nonnative insect species was the dominant taxon at 27 of the 31 

sampling sites (87.1 percent). These same species were the 

second-dominant taxa at 14 sites (45.2 percent). Insecta as 

a class were numerically dominant in 30 of the 31 samples, 

with only the Kalihi-C site having a higher percentage of 

worms (Class: Clitellata) than insects, although insects were 

the second-dominant group.

The distribution of the relative abundance of Insecta metric scores for the Oÿahu WSA sampling sites is shown in figure 

C15. The relative abundance of Insecta metric rated 11 sites 

(35.5 percent) a score of 1, with relative abundances greater 

than 90 percent, 7 sites (22.6 percent) a score of 3, between 76 

and 90 percent Insecta, and 13 sites (41.9 percent) a score of 

5, with less than 75 percent Insecta. The relative abundance of 

insects in the quantitative samples ranged from a high of 96.8 

percent at the South Fork Kaukonahua-A site to a low of 24.7 

percent at the Kalihi-C site. The Kalihi-C site was dominated 

by worms, which accounted for 71.8 percent of the sample.

 On Oÿahu, the abundances of a variety of other classes 

of organisms were high enough to wholly or partially limit the 

relative abundance of insects, including worms, crustaceans, 

snails, flatworms, ostracods, and mites. In contrast to the results 

on Maui, the native mountain ÿöpae and the native snail Neritina granosa were not abundant enough to affect the relative 

abundance of insects on Oÿahu.. The high relative abundance of 

worms (Class: Clitellata) constrained the relative abundance of 

insects at two sites to less than 90 percent and at three sites to 

less than 75 percent. Crustaceans and snails included the introduced shrimp Neocaridina denticulata sinensis, amphipods, 

Melanoides tuberculata, Ferrissia sharpi, and Physidae. This 

metric successfully differentiated among the Oÿahu WSA sites, 

but required an adjustment to balance out the scores.
 Development of Community Indexes 57

Abundance of Nonnative or Cryptogenic Mollusks 

Metric

The mollusks considered in this metric include the Thiaridae, Physidae, Planorbidae, Corbiculidae, Hydrobiidae, and the 

nonnative Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea columella. The distribution of the nonnative or cryptogenic mollusk metric scores 

for the Oÿahu WSA sampling sites are shown in figure C16. 

A total of 16 sites (51.6 percent), at which none of the listed 

mollusks were collected, scored 1; 13 sites (41.9 percent), at 

which abundance was less than 90/m2 scored 3; and 2 sites (6.5 

percent), at which abundance was greater than 90/m2, scored 5. 

The highest density of these mollusks, 109.6/m2, was collected 

at Anahulu-B, and they accounted for 27.8 percent of the total 

sample. These mollusks included Physa sp. (22.1 percent), 

Melanoides tuberculata (5.5 percent), and Planorbidae (0.2 percent). The second highest density, 108.8/m2

, consisting entirely 

of P. columella, was collected at the North Fork Kaukonahua-A 

site, where they accounted for only 3.1 percent of the sample 

because of the greater total abundance in the North Fork 

Kaukonahua-A sample. This metric successfully differentiated 

among the Oÿahu WSA sites.

Abundance of Amphipoda Metric

The distribution of the Amphipoda abundance metric 

scores for the Oÿahu WSA sampling sites are shown in figure 

C17. A total of 21 sites (67.7 percent) scored 1, indicating 

no amphipods were identified in the samples, 7 sites (22.6 

percent) scored 3, indicating less than 35/m2 were collected, 

and 3 sites (9.7 percent) scored 5, with abundances greater 

than 35/m2. The highest density of amphipods (all identified as 

Hyalella sp.), 155.2/m2, was collected at Nuÿuanu-C, accounting for 28.1 percent of the total sample. The other sites to 

score 5 were Pauoa, where 44.8/m2 were collected, accounting 

for 11.5 percent of the total sample, and Kahana Iki, where 

35.2/m2 (7.4 percent) were collected. This metric, in general, 

differentiated among the sites.

ÿÖpae Presence/Absence Metric

The distribution and abundance of Atyoida bisulcata or 

ÿöpae on Oÿahu are shown in figures C1–C2. Of the 31 sites 

where quantitative samples were collected, 12 (38.7 percent) 

scored 1, where ÿöpae were observed (in the samples or visually), and 19 (61.3 percent) scored 3, where ÿöpae were not 

observed. A. bisulcata were not observed at the nine sites 

where quantitative samples were not collected. In total, ÿöpae 

were observed at 12 of the 40 (30 percent) Oÿahu WSA sites. 

This is a much lower percentage of sites than on Maui, where 

ÿöpae were observed at 77.5 percent of the sites. On O’ahu, A. 

bisulcata were collected in only five quantitative samples and 

in only three qualitative samples. The other observations were 

made visually during snorkel surveys or during general data 

collections.

No A. bisulcata or any other decapods were observed at 

any of the North or South Fork Kaukonahua sites, even though 

these sites were ascertained to have good instream habitat and 

good water quality. These sites are all upstream from the Wahiawä Reservoir, which has long been stocked with a variety of 

gamefish, including largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, peacock 

bass, bluegill, and catfish. Smallmouth bass were observed in 

high numbers at each of these sampling sites. These gamefish 

have likely affected the amphidromous species of fish and 

shrimp to some degree. The presence of other nonnative fish, 

such as the predaceous Hemichromis and Gambusia, in other 

Oÿahu streams has likely also had an effect on the native species (Yamamoto, 1992). For these reasons, this metric failed to 

successfully differentiate among the sites. It could however be a 

useful indicator for interisland comparisons.

Crayfish Presence/Absence Metric

The distribution of Procambarus clarkii observed at 

Oÿahu WSA sites is shown in figure C2. Of the sites where 

quantitative samples were collected, 23 (74.2 percent) scored 

1, where P. clarkii were not observed, and 8 (25.8 percent) 

scored 3, where P. clarkii were observed. Of all 40 sites, 

P. clarkii were observed at 9 (22.5 percent). Crayfish were 

observed at 4 of 10 windward sites, 5 of 8 leeward sites, and 

were not observed at any of the central Oÿahu sites. Crayfish 

were observed at 1 of the 15 upper elevation sites, 8 of the 18 

middle elevation sites, and were not observed at any of the 7 

lower elevation sites. This metric, in general, successfully differentiated among the sites. 

Final P–HBIBI Score

The final index score was calculated as the sum of the 

seven individual metric scores, ranging from 7 to 37, with 

higher index scores indicating increased levels of impairment 

(Wolff, 2005). P–HBIBI scores less than or equal to 14 were 

categorized as “good” (mildly impaired). P–HBIBI scores 

greater than 14 but less than or equal to 22 were categorized as 

“fair” (moderately impaired), while index scores greater than 

22 were categorized as “poor” (severely impaired). 

The distribution of the P–HBIBI scores for the Oÿahu 

WSA sampling sites is shown in figure C18. Of the 31 sites 

where quantitative samples were collected, 16 sites (51.6 percent) were evaluated as “good,” 11 sites (35.5 percent) were 

evaluated as “fair,” and 4 sites (12.9 percent) were evaluated 

as “poor.” Two sites on the windward side and two sites on the 

leeward side were evaluated as “poor” sites. None of the 6 leeward sites were rated as “good,” whereas 9 of the 13 windward 

sites (69.2 percent) and 7 of the 12 central sites (58.3 percent) 

were rated in the “good” quality category. None of the 10 

higher elevation sites were rated as “poor,” while 1 mid elevation site and 3 low elevation sites were evaluated in the “poor” 

category. Two of the 11 “fair” sites, North Fork Kaukonahua-B 

and South Fork Kaukonahua-B, scored 15, the lower limit of 

the category. 

The highest P–HBIBI score was 27, at the Pauoa site in 

leeward Oÿahu and at Kahana Iki in windward Oÿahu. The 

Pauoa site scored poorly in most of the individual metrics, with 
58 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Station ID Site name

Total 

abundance 

metric

Taxonomic 

richness 

metric1

Relative abundance of insecta 

metric

No./m2 Score No. of 

taxa Score Percentage of total Score 

HIO05518-002 Nuÿuanu-C 552 5 20 1 51.8 5 

HIO05518-003 N. Hälawa-A 710 3 21 1 96.5 1 

HIO05518-010 SF Kaukonahua-A 3,182 1 23 3 96.8 1 

HIO05518-011 Waiähole-B 5,849 1 17 1 74.7 5 

HIO05518-013 Kamananui-B 730 3 16 1 90.2 1 

HIO05518-018 Kalihi-C 346 5 25 3 24.7 5 

HIO05518-023 Kahana-A 4,832 1 13 1 83.4 3 

HIO05518-026 Kïpapa-A 1,229 3 18 1 91.5 1 

HIO05518-027 Waikäne-B 3,686 1 20 1 94.4 1 

HIO05518-029 Kamananui-A 982 3 25 3 83.3 3 

HIO05518-035 Haÿikü 2,331 3 21 1 76.1 3 

HIO05518-037 Anahulu-B 394 5 25 3 60.8 5 

HIO05518-038 SF Kaukonahua-C 1,962 3 17 1 93.5 1 

HIO05518-039 Waikäne-C 1,126 3 20 1 64.4 5 

HIO05518-151 Kahana-C 2,463 3 18 1 76.2 3 

HIO05518-160 Kahana-B 2,836 3 16 1 91.5 1 

HIO05518-162 Kalihi-A 598 5 20 1 74.2 5 

HIO05518-163 ÿÄhuimanu 54 7 14 1 29.9 5 

HIO05518-164 Kamoÿoaliÿi 4,676 1 20 1 96.7 1 

HIO05518-166 Kïpapa-C 2,948 3 24 3 49 5 

HIO05518-171 Mänoa 1,521 3 15 1 86.6 3 

HIO05518-175 Kahana Iki 474 5 24 3 43.8 5 

HIO05518-177 SF Kaukonahua-B 533 5 13 1 85.3 3 

HIO05518-181 Anahulu-C 5,675 1 19 1 83.6 3 

HIO05518-182 NF Kaukonahua-B 700 5 16 1 90.1 1 

HIO05518-183 Waiähole-C 2,036 3 19 1 95.1 1 

HIO05518-186 NF Kaukonahua-A 3,488 1 20 1 93.2 1 

HIO05518-187 Lulumahu 209 5 16 1 39.1 5 

HIO05518-191 Waimänalo 715 3 21 1 51.1 5 

HIO05518-194 Pauoa 389 5 22 3 71.8 5 

HIO05518-203 Hakipuÿu 893 3 19 1 60.8 5 

1

 Metric determined using instream samples and observations.

Table 14. Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) scores for the 

Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) benthic macroinvertebrate samples.

[Abundance in number per square meter; X, species present; –, species absent; NF, North Fork; SF, 

South Fork; P/A, Presence/Absence; No./m2, number per square meter; P–HBIBI, Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic 

Index of Biotic Integrity]
 Development of Community Indexes 59

Alien mollusk 

abundance metric

Amphipoda 

abundance metric ÿÖpae P/A metric1 Crayfish P/A metric1

P-HBIBI 

score

P-HBIBI 

category

No./m2 Score No./m2 Score P/A Score P/A Score

28 3 155.2 5 – 3 X 3 25 Poor

0 1 1.2 3 – 3 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0 1 1.6 3 – 3 – 1 21 Fair

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

21.6 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 7 Good

15.2 3 1.8 3 X 1 – 1 17 Fair

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 13 Good

109.6 5 0 1 X 1 – 1 21 Fair

4 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 11 Good

0 1 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

0.8 3 1.2 3 X 1 X 3 21 Fair

10.4 3 2.4 3 – 3 X 3 25 Poor

0 1 8.5 3 – 3 X 3 13 Good

11.2 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 17 Fair

0 1 26.6 3 – 3 X 3 17 Fair

15.2 3 35.3 5 – 3 X 3 27 Poor

0 1 0 1 – 3 – 1 15 Fair

51.2 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 13 Good

10.4 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 15 Fair

0 3 0 1 X 1 – 1 9 Good

108.8 5 0 1 – 3 – 1 13 Good

0 1 0 1 – 3 X 3 19 Fair

3.2 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 17 Fair

3.2 3 44.8 5 – 3 X 3 27 Poor

75.2 3 0 1 – 3 – 1 17 Fair

Table 14.—Continued
60 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Taxa Group Status Dominant Second-dominant

Cheumatopsyche analis Trichoptera Nonnative 21 5

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. Chironomidae Nonnative 2 7

Oligochaeta (Worms) Cryptogenic 2 3

Hydroptila sp. Trichoptera Nonnative 2 2

Neocaridina denticulata sinensis Decapoda Nonnative 1 1

Hemerodromia stellaris Empididae Nonnative 1 –

Melanoides tuberculata Mollusca Cryptogenic 1 –

Polypedilum sp. Chironomidae Nonnative 1 –

Ferrissia sharpi Mollusca Cryptogenic – 4

Turbellaria Flatworms Cryptogenic – 4

Hyalella sp. Amphipoda Cryptogenic – 2

Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. Chironomidae Nonnative – 1

Ostracoda – Cryptogenic – 1

Physa sp. Mollusca Nonnative – 1

Table 15. Dominant and second-dominant taxa collected in the Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment 

(WSA) quantitative samples.

[sp., species; gr., group; –, not applicable]
 Development of Community Indexes 61

a low total abundance, high amphipod abundance, and a low 

relative abundance of insects. Pauoa is a relatively small stream 

with high embeddedness (52 percent) and some of the poorest 

water quality of the Oÿahu sites, with the highest concentrations of dissolved inorganic carbon, calcium, acid neutralizing 

capacity, and the highest specific conductance. The Kahana 

Iki site scored similar to the Pauoa site and is also a relatively 

small, unappealing stream, congested with dense thickets of the 

indigenous Hau tree, Hibiscus tiliaceus, with a discharge of only 

0.2 ft3/s and the highest sulfate concentration measured. 

In general, the P–HBIBI performed well in evaluating 

the Oÿahu WSA macroinvertebrate samples. This analysis 

highlighted some of the strengths and weaknesses of the index. 

Using this new information, some of the existing metrics were 

adjusted to improve their performance, other metrics were 

dropped, and new metrics were incorporated into a revised 

invertebrate community index for Oÿahu streams.

Refined Oÿahu Metrics and Index

The procedure of selecting new, appropriate metrics 

for Oÿahu followed the process described in the “Index 

Development” section. This process consisted of multivariate analysis, metric screening, metric selection, and metric 

scoring. The results of the nMDS analysis showed somewhat of a separation among leeward, central, and windward 

assemblages (figs. 9A–9B). This clustering is more apparent using the log(x + 1) transformed abundance data (fig. 

9B), indicating that, although the community structures are 

basically the same among the regions, the abundances of the 

taxa are being influenced by regional differences. The results 

of the MRPP analyses also showed that the clusters of sites 

were statistically significant (Euclidean distance measure: 

proportional data: A = 0.0393, p = 0.00999; abundance data: 

A = 0.0687, p = 0.000003). The results of the DCA performed on the log(x + 1) transformed abundance data shows 

a similar clustering among leeward, central, and windward 

assemblages (fig. 10). Leeward sites were influenced by 

greater abundances of nonnative Neocaridina cherry shrimp, 

amphipods, and the nonnative chironomid Corynoneura sp., 

whereas central sites were more influenced by greater abundances of ÿöpae, Ephydridae, and the nonnative chironomid 

Thienemanniella sp.

Oÿahu Reference “Least Disturbed” Site 

Selection

The subset of “least disturbed” reference sites was 

selected from the initial 31 sampling sites using a series of 

screening procedures described in Wolff and Koch (2009). In 

essence, the sites were screened on the basis of on-site evaluations and objective criteria, including contributing basin land 

use, water-quality parameters, and physical-habitat characteristics. The final list of 10 reference sites included 6 central and 

4 windward sites representing a range of elevations (table 16). 

None of the leeward Oÿahu sites were included as reference 

sites because of the generally poor water quality and degradation to the physical habitat (figs. 11–12). Scoring of the core 

metrics proceeded as described earlier. 

The revised Oÿahu Invertebrate Community Index was 

developed using the same methods as described for the Maui 

ICI. The conditional values and scores are shown in table 

17. In general, the scores for each metric are 1, 3, or 5, with 

lower scores indicating less impairment. The index score for 

each site is the sum of the individual metrics scores, with 

lower scores indicating less impairment. The results of these 

analyses are shown in table 18. The distributions of the metric scores and final ICI scores are shown in appendix C. 

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric 

(Revised)

This metric was retained from the original P–HBIBI; 

however, the conditional scoring was revised accordingly. The 

top tier limit, indicative of sites with the greatest abundances 

of macroinvertebraes, was increased from 3,000/m2

 to 3,600/

m2. This is still well below the top tier limit for Maui of 7,900/

m2. The second tier limit was decreased from 700/m2 to 475/

m2, again well below the Maui limit of 4,000/m2. The additional tier indicative of the worst conditions (least abundance), 

< 200/m2, was retained. 

The distribution of the total macroinvertebrate abundance 

metric scores is shown in figure C19. The distribution of the 

actual total abundances is shown in figure C12. A total of 5 of 

the 31 sites (16.1 percent) scored in the top tier, 20 sites (64.5 

percent) scored in the second tier, 5 sites scored in the third 

tier, and only 1 site (3.2 percent) scored in the bottom tier with 

only 53.6/m2 at the ÿÄhuimanu site. This revision reduced the 

number of P–HBIBI top tier sites from 7 to 5, increased the 

number of second tier sites from 14 to 20, and reduced the 

number of third tier sites from 9 to 5. 

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric (Revised)

As described earlier in the Maui index, this metric was 

revised by subtracting the abundances of the native shrimp, 

ÿöpae, from the total abundance before calculating the 

percentage of Insecta. No hïhïwai were collected during the 

Oÿahu field studies, but they would have also been subtracted 

from the total abundance before the calculation. The conditional scoring was modified, retaining the top tier limit at 

90 percent, but the bottom tier limit was reduced from 75 

percent to 51 percent. This is lower than the Maui bottom tier 

limit of 73 percent.

The distribution of these metric scores is shown in 

figure C20. A total of 10 sites (32.3 percent) scored in the 

top tier, 16 sites (51.6 percent) scored in the middle tier, and 

5 sites (16.1 percent) scored in the bottom tier. This revised 

metric reduced the number of P–HBIBI bottom tier sites 

from 13 to 5 and increased the number of P–HBIBI middle 

tier sites from 8 to 16.
B

Axis 2

Axis 1

2–Dimen

A

Axis 1

Axis 2

2–Dimensional Stress: 0.18

Leeward Oÿahu SitesCentral Oÿahu SitesWindward Oÿahu Sites

EXPLANATION

Figure 9. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of the O’ahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) quantitative mac

using (A) arcsine-square root transformed proportional data and (B) log(x+1) transformed abundance data (logarithm of the sum of the with abundance in number of organisms per square meter).
-0.7-1.3-2.0

0.71.32.02.73.4

-0.7 -1.3 -2.0 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 

Acari

Apedilum

Atyoida bisulcata

Coenagrionidae

Coryn

Dasyhelea

Dixa

Ephydridae

Eukiefferiella

Ferrissia

Hemerodromia

Hydroptilidae

Hyposmocoma

Nemertea

Orthocladius

Ostracoda

Paratanytarsus

Planorbidae

Polypedilum

Procambarus

Thiaridae

Thienemanniella

Turb

EXPLANA

Leeward 

Central OWindwaMacroinv

Axis 2

Axis 1

Detrended Correspondence Analysis Joint Plot

Figure 10. Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) joint plot ordination of the Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) quantitsamples using log(x+1) transformed abundance data (logarithm of the sum of the abundance plus one, with abundance in number of ometer). Variables in bold are, or possibly are, native species.
-0.4 -0.8 -1.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.9 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.5 

Calcium Chloride Dissolved organic carbon Potassium MagnesiumSodium Ammonia Nitrate pH Silica Sulfate Spe

Total nitrogen Total phosphorus Total suspended solids Turbidity L

CWV

PCA Axis 2

PCA Axis 1

EXPLA

Figure 11. Principal components analysis (PCA) ordination of Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites water-quality paxis 1= 8.693, axis 2 = 5.041; percentage of variance: axis 1= 45.75, axis 2 = 26.53.
-0.3-0.6-0.9-1.3-1.6

0.30.60.91.3

-1.6 -1.3 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0.3 0.6 0.

Mean residual d

Natural concealment feature

Filamentous algae

Percent sand and fines

Mean embe

Relative bed stability

Mean can

Agricultural

Roads

Channel revetment

Declining disturbance

Riparian human disturbance

Percent cobble a

PCA Axis 2

PCA Axis 1

Ex

Figure 12. Principal components analysis (PCA) ordination of Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites habitat charac

axis 1 = 6.09, axis 2 = 3.83; percentage of variance: axis 1 = 26.47, axis 2 = 16.63.
66 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Station ID Stream name Region Altitude, in feet Site name

HIO05518-010 South Fork Kaukonahua Stream Central 984 SF Kaukonahua-A

HIO05518-011 Waiähole Stream Windward 13 Waiähole-B

HIO05518-013 Kamananui Stream Central 207 Kamananui-C

HIO05518-023 Kahana Stream Windward 705 Kahana-A

HIO05518-026 Kïpapa Stream Central 991 Kïpapa-A

HIO05518-027 Waikäne Stream Windward 10 Waikäne-B

HIO05518-029 Kamananui Stream Central 472 Kamananui-A

HIO05518-038 South Fork Kaukonahua Stream Central 912 SF Kaukonahua-C

HIO05518-151 Kahana Stream Windward 253 Kahana-C

HIO05518-186 North Fork Kaukonahua Stream Central 1,194 NF Kaukonahua-A

Table 16. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) reference condition “least disturbed” sites.

Metric Condition Score

Total abundance, in organisms/m2 ≥ 3,600 1

< 3,600 and ≥ 475 3

< 475 and ≥ 200 5

< 200 7

Insecta relative abundance, in percent of Insecta from the total ≥ 90 1

 abundance minus the abundances of the native shrimp and snail < 90 and ≥ 51 3

< 51 5

Trichoptera:Diptera ratio ≥ 16.5 1

 (Trichoptera abundance:nonnative Diptera abundance) < 16.5 and ≥ 0.6 3

< 0.6 5

Revised alien mollusk abundance, in organisms/m2 0 1

> 0 and <11 3

≥ 11 5

Amphipoda relative abundance, in percent 0 1

> 0 and <0.5 3

≥ 0.5 5

Turbellaria relative abundance, in percent 0 1

> 0 and <6 3

≥ 6 5

Alien crustacean presence/absence Absent 1

 (for Red cherry shrimp (Neocaridina denticulata sinensis) Present 3

 and (or) Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii))

Index score Category

Final Oÿahu Invertebrate Community Index ≤ 13 Good

 (sum of metric scores) 14–21 Fair

> 21 Poor

Table 17. Conditional scoring for revised Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metrics and index 

for Oÿahu.

[m2, square meter; <, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to]
 Development of Community Indexes 67

Ratio of Nonnative Trichoptera and Diptera 

Metric (New)

As described in the Maui index, this metric compares the 

ratio of the insect families Trichoptera and Diptera and uses 

only nonnative species in the calculations. This metric was 

calculated by summing the abundances of the trichopterans 

(Cheumatopsyche, Hydroptila spp. and Oxyethira) and dividing by the sum of the abundances of the nonnative dipterans 

(predominantly chironomids: Cricotopus, Paratanytarsus, 

and Eukiefferiella; and the empidid: Hemerodromia). The 

top tier value, 16.5, is much higher than the top tier value on 

Maui at 2.5, showing that trichopterans outnumber nonnative dipterans at the “least disturbed” sites by a much wider 

margin on Oÿahu.

The distribution of these metric scores is shown in figure 

C21. A total of 8 sites (25.8 percent) scored in the top tier, 18 

sites (58.1 percent) scored in the middle tier, and 5 sites (16.1 

percent) scored in the bottom tier.

Relative Abundance of Amphipoda Metric 

(Revised)

This metric was revised in the new ICI by using the 

relative abundance rather than the absolute abundance of 

amphipods. As with the Insecta metric, the abundances of 

the native shrimp and snail were subtracted from the total 

abundance before calculating the relative abundance of the 

amphipods. The distribution of these metric scores is shown 

in figure C22. A total of 21 sites (67.7 percent) scored in the 

top tier, 4 sites (12.9 percent) scored in the middle tier, and 

6 sites (19.4 percent) scored in the bottom tier. This revision 

increased the number of P–HBIBI bottom tier sites from 3 

to 6 and decreased the number of middle tier sites from 7 to 

4; the number of top tier sites was unchanged. Most of the 

bottom tier sites were located in leeward Oÿahu.

Relative Abundance of Turbellaria Metric (New)

This new metric was added to the Oÿahu ICI. Turbellarians are a class of organisms from the phylum Platyhelminthes and are commonly known as planaria or flatworms. 

Although the specimens from these studies were not identified below the class level, the planaria commonly found in 

Hawaiÿi are of the genus Dugesia (fig. D42). Studies suggest 

that these organisms are not native to the Hawaiian Islands 

(Englund and others, 2000b). As with the other percentagebased metrics, the abundances of the native shrimp and snail 

were subtracted from the total abundance before the calculations. The distribution of these metric scores is shown 

in figure C23. A total of 12 sites (38.7 percent) scored in 

the top tier, 12 sites scored in the middle tier, and 7 sites 

(22.6 percent) scored in the bottom tier. The majority of 

the middle and bottom tier sites were in the windward and 

leeward regions.

Abundance of Nonnative or Cryptogenic 

Mollusks Metric (Revised)

This metric was revised by removing the nonnative 

Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea columella from the list of 

nonnative mollusks. An analysis of the distribution and 

abundance of this species did not show a relation with any 

of the disturbance gradients. The mollusks included in this 

metric were the Thiaridae, Physidae, Planorbidae, Corbiculidae, and Hydrobiidae. The bottom condition of this negative 

metric, indicative of disturbed sites, was lowered from 90/

m2 to 11/m2. 

The distribution of these metric scores is shown in figure 

C24. A total of 18 sites (58.1 percent) scored in the top tier, 6 

sites (19.4 percent) scored in the middle tier, and 7 sites (22.6 

percent) scored in the bottom tier. This revision increased the 

number of P–HBIBI bottom tier sites from 2 to 7, reduced the 

number of middle tier sites from 13 to 6, and increased the 

number of top tier sites from 16 to 18.

Nonnative Shrimp and Crayfish Presence/

Absence Metric (Revised)

This presence/absence metric was revised by including 

the relatively recently introduced shrimp Neocaridina denticulata sinensis together with the much earlier introduced crayfish 

Procambarus clarkii. This nonnative shrimp, as discussed 

earlier, has been invading streams on Oÿahu and Kauaÿi since 

1991. High densities of this shrimp were collected at a few of 

the Oÿahu WSA study sites. Both of these introduced species are considered pests and can negatively impact the native 

stream biota. This metric scored a 3 if either species was present at a site in the qualitative, quantitative, or observational 

data (table 18). In any future revisions of the ICI, these species 

might be split into separate metrics. 

The distribution of the scores is shown in figure C25. A 

total of 19 sites (61.3 percent) scored 1 (where neither species 

was present), and 12 sites (38.7 percent) scored 3 (where at 

least 1 of the species was present). Both of these species were 

present at five sites, the crayfish was the only species present 

at three sites, and the shrimp was the only species present at 

four sites. This revision therefore increased the number of 

P–HBIBI bottom tier sites by 4.

Final Oÿahu Index Score

As in the P–HBIBI, the final community index was calculated as the sum of the individual metric scores (table 17). The 

distribution of the final Oÿahu ICI ratings for the Oÿahu WSA 

sites is shown in figure C26. A total of 10 sites (32.3 percent) 

were categorized as “good” quality streams, 16 sites (51.6 

percent) were categorized as ”fair” quality streams, and 5 sites 

(16.1 percent) were categorized as ”poor” quality streams. 

Eleven of the 31 Oÿahu WSA sites were categorized differently using the revised Oÿahu ICI as compared to the 

P–HBIBI: the ratings of 2 sites dropped from “fair” to ”poor”; 
68 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 18. Revised metric and Oÿahu Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores for the Oÿahu Wadeable 

Stream Assessment (WSA) benthic macroinvertebrate samples.

[Abundance in number per square meter; Pct, percent; P/A, presence/absence; X, species present; –, species absent; NF, North Fork; 

SF, South Fork; No./m2, number per square meter; italics, denotes change in category assignment; P–HBIBI, Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity]

Station ID Site name

Total abundance 

metric

Trichoptera: 

Diptera metric

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Insecta metric

Revised 

mollusk 

abundance 

metric

No./m2 Score Ratio Score Pct Score No./m2 Score 

HIO05518-002 Nuÿuanu-C 552 3 37.7 1 52 3 28 5 

HIO05518-003 N. Hälawa-A 710 3 0.6 3 96 1 0 1 

HIO05518-010 SF Kaukonahua-A2 3,182 3 3.9 3 97 1 0 1 

HIO05518-011 Waiähole-B2 5,849 1 3.6 3 75 3 0 1 

HIO05518-013 Kamananui-B2 730 3 7.6 3 91 1 0 1 

HIO05518-018 Kalihi-C 346 5 0.2 5 25 5 0 1 

HIO05518-023 Kahana-A2 4,832 1 2.1 3 84 3 0 1 

HIO05518-026 Kïpapa-A2 1,229 3 16.5 1 91 1 21 5 

HIO05518-027 Waikäne-B2 3,686 1 20.2 1 94 1 0 1 

HIO05518-029 Kamananui-A2 982 3 4.1 3 84 3 16 5 

HIO05518-035 Haÿikü 2,331 3 1.7 3 76 3 0 1 

HIO05518-037 Anahulu-B 394 5 13.6 3 61 3 110 5 

HIO05518-038 SF Kaukonahua-C2 1,962 3 117.8 1 94 1 4 3 

HIO05518-039 Waikäne-C 1,126 3 2.3 3 64 3 0 1 

HIO05518-151 Kahana-C2 2,463 3 4.2 3 76 3 0 1 

HIO05518-160 Kahana-B 2,836 3 49.7 1 92 1 0 1 

HIO05518-162 Kalihi-A 598 3 2 3 74 3 1 3 

HIO05518-163 ÿÄhuimanu 54 7 0 5 30 5 10 3 

HIO05518-164 Kamoÿoaliÿi 4,676 1 0.4 5 97 1 0 1 

HIO05518-166 Kïpapa-C 2,948 3 3.3 3 49 5 11 3 

HIO05518-171 Mänoa 1,520 3 0.8 3 87 3 0 1 

HIO05518-175 Kahana Iki 474 5 2 3 44 5 15 5 

HIO05518-177 SF Kaukonahua-B 533 3 63.1 1 85 3 0 1 

HIO05518-181 Anahulu-C 5,675 1 0.1 5 84 3 51 5 

HIO05518-182 NF Kaukonahua-B 700 3 51.2 1 90 3 6 3 

HIO05518-183 Waiähole-C 2,036 3 0.7 3 95 1 0 1 

HIO05518-186 NF Kaukonahua-A2 3,488 3 0.8 3 93 1 0 1 

HIO05518-187 Lulumahu 209 5 0.3 5 39 5 0 1 

HIO05518-191 Waimänalo 715 3 2.5 3 51 3 3 3 

HIO05518-194 Pauoa 389 5 19.3 1 72 3 0 1 

HIO05518-203 Hakipuÿu 893 3 2.6 3 61 3 75 5 

1

 Metric determined using instream samples and observations.

2

 Sample used as reference sample in calculating the metrics.
Development of Community Indexes 69

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Amphipoda 

metric

Relative 

abundance

 of 

Turbellaria metric

Nonnative Crustacea P/A metric1 Invertebrate 

Community Index P–HBIBI 

category

Pct Score Pct Score Neocaridina Crayfish Score Score Category

28.1 5 4.2 3 X X 3 23 Poor Poor

0.2 3 0 1 – – 1 13 Good Good

0 1 0 1 – – 1 11 Good Good

0 1 12.8 5 – – 1 15 Fair Good

0 1 0 1 – – 1 11 Good Good

0.5 5 0.7 3 – – 1 25 Poor Fair

0 1 0 1 – – 1 11 Good Good

0 1 0 1 X – 3 15 Fair Good

0 1 3.7 3 – – 1 9 Good Good

0.2 3 0 1 – – 1 19 Fair Fair

0 1 9.2 5 X – 3 19 Fair Good

0 1 0 1 – – 1 19 Fair Fair

0 1 0 1 – – 1 11 Good Good

0 1 7.7 5 – – 1 17 Fair Good

0 1 2.4 3 – – 1 15 Fair Good

0 1 0.7 3 – – 1 11 Good Good

0.2 3 1.6 3 – X 3 21 Fair Fair

4.5 5 17.9 5 – X 3 33 Poor Poor

0.2 3 1.5 3 – X 3 17 Fair Good

0 1 0 1 X – 3 19 Fair Fair

1.8 5 1.2 3 X X 3 21 Fair Fair

7.4 5 0.8 3 X X 3 29 Poor Poor

0 1 0 1 – – 1 11 Good Fair

0 1 0 1 – – 1 17 Fair Good

0 1 0.2 3 – – 1 15 Fair Fair

0 1 3.6 3 – – 1 13 Good Good

0 1 0 1 – – 1 11 Good Good

0 1 23.4 5 X X 3 25 Poor Fair

0 1 16.2 5 X - 3 21 Fair Fair

11.5 5 1.6 3 X X 3 21 Fair Poor

0 1 6.1 5 – – 1 21 Fair Fair

Table 18.—Continued
70 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

7 sites dropped from “good” to “fair”; 1 site increased from 

“poor” to ”fair”; and 1 site increased from “fair” to “good” 

(table 18). The Oÿahu ICI categorized the sites more accurately based on the ranking of the sites using the habitat and 

water-quality information. 

Other Changes to the P–HBIBI

Two metrics from the P–HBIBI were not included in the 

revised Oÿahu Invertebrate Community Index. This included 

the taxa richness metric and the native shrimp presence/

absence metric. The richness metric was difficult to calculate 

because many specimens were indentified only to the family 

level. Within some of these families are a mixture of native 

and nonnative species; the native species tend to be more sensitive to disturbance whereas the nonnatives tend to be more 

tolerant of disturbances. This dichotomy made it difficult to 

use this metric in any meaningful way. A test of nonnative chironomid species richness was also unsuccessful at differentiating among the sites, but may become more effective in making 

such distinctions as more data are collected. The presence/

absence of the native shrimp metric was not considered in the 

revised ICI because many of the “least disturbed” stream sites 

on Oÿahu had impediments, such as gamefish, that may have 

prevented the shrimp from inhabiting these sites. This metric 

may be useful in a statewide index, as it successfully differentiated between streams on Oÿahu and Maui, where ÿöpae were 

much more abundant.

Evaluation of the P–HBIBI Sites

The Oÿahu NAWQA sites from which data were used to 

develop the P–HBIBI were evaluated with the revised Oÿahu 

ICI (table 19; fig. 13). Only 3 of the 18 Oÿahu samples (16 

sites) were categorized differently with the revised index: 2 

repeat samples from1 site, Waiheÿe B, dropped from “good” 

to “fair” because of higher percentages of Turbellaria in 1999 

and an abundance of nonnative mollusks in 2001; and 1 site, 

Nuÿuanu, which was a ”fair” site in the P–HBIBI, dropped to 

“poor” in the new ICI. Only 1 site, Waiakeakua, scored in the 

top tier in the Trichoptera–Diptera ratio metric whereas 5 sites 

scored in the bottom tier. The distribution of the individual 

metric scores and the final ICI scores are shown in figures 

C27–C34.

Combined Invertebrate Community Index

The considerable differences among the benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages on Maui and Oÿahu limit the capability 

of developing rigorous metrics and a multimetric index that 

effectively assesses the stream quality of each of the streams 

on both islands. A statewide ICI would, as the name implies, 

also require sampling of macroinvertebrates and habitats on 

all of the main Hawaiian Islands. As a starting point, however, metrics from both the Maui and Oÿahu ICI’s were tested, 

scored, and combined into an index. In general, this combined 

index highlights some of the differences between the stream 

communities on each island. This combined ICI is intended 

to provide information that can be used, in conjunction with 

other available information, to help HIDOH prioritize their 

efforts to identify problem areas on a statewide basis. After 

these problem areas are identified, the island-wide ICIs can be 

used to more accurately assess the quality of individual stream 

reaches so that the HIDOH can prioritize their management 

efforts on the most impaired streams.

Comparison of Oÿahu and Maui Benthic 

Invertebrate Communities

Comparisons between the benthic macroinvertebrate 

assemblages from Maui and Oÿahu illustrated some noticeable differences. The results of an nMDS analysis illustrates 

a separation between the Oÿahu and Maui assemblages (figs. 

14A–14B). The relatively tight clustering in both the percentage and abundance datasets indicated that both the structure 

(taxa present and the relative abundances of those taxa) and 

taxa abundances of the assemblages were heavily influenced 

by differences between the islands. Additionally, the Maui 

samples clustered much more tightly together than did the 

Oÿahu samples, indicating that the Maui macroinvertebrate 

assemblages, species diversity, and abundances were more 

similar to each other than were the Oÿahu assemblages. The 

results of the MRPP analyses showed that the clusters were 

significantly different (Euclidean distance measure: proportional data, A = 0.0694, p < 0.0000; abundance data, A = 

0.0868, p < 0.0000).The results of the DCA performed on 

the log(x + 1) transformed abundance data also illustrated a 

similarly tight clustering among Oÿahu and Maui assemblages 

(fig. 15). The Maui assemblages were influenced by greater 

abundances of many of the native species, including Megalagrion damselfly naiads, Telmatogeton midges, hïhïwai, and 

ÿöpae. Except for the ÿöpae, these native species were not 

observed in any of the Oÿahu WSA samples. The snail family 

Lymnaeidae and the insect family Ephydridae both contain 

native and nonnative species, so that without finer taxonomic 

resolution, it would be speculation to say that there were more 

natives of these families on Maui; however, they were both 

more abundant on Maui than on Oÿahu.

An obvious difference between the faunal assemblages 

of the Oÿahu WSA sites and the Maui sites is that the entire 

native faunal assemblage was more nearly intact at the Maui 

streams sites. The native gobies Lentipes concolor (ÿoÿopu 

ÿalamoÿo), Sicyopterus stimpsoni (ÿoÿopu nöpili), and Awaous 

guamensis (ÿoÿopu näkea) were much more widely distributed 

and were far more abundant in Maui streams than in Oÿahu 

streams. So too were the native mountain shrimp Atyoida 

bisulcata (ÿöpaekalaÿole), the native mollusk Neritina granosa

(hïhïwai), the native damselflies Megalagrion spp. (pinao 

ÿula), the native midge Telmatogeton spp., and the likely 

native Ephydridae. Some of these species, including ÿoÿopu 

ÿalamoÿo, hïhïwai, and Telmatogeton are rarely seen in Oÿahu 
 Development of Community Indexes 71

-157°45'

-158°0'

-158°15'

21°40'

21°30'

21°20'

0 2 4 8 MILES

0 5 10 2.5 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Oÿahu NAWQA Sampling Sites

NAWQA Sampling Site

Ditch System

Stream System

Basin Boundary

Topographic Divide

WINDWARD O‘AHU

LEEWARD O‘AHU

WAI‘ANAE

(West Oÿahu) CENTRAL O‘AHU

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

Luluku

Käneÿohe

Waiheÿe A Waiheÿe C

Kaluanui

Waiähole

Waiheÿe B

Waiakeakua

Waikakalaua

Waiawa

Kalauao

Waimänalo

Punaluÿu above

Punaluÿu below

Mänoa

Nuÿuanu !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

Wahiawa Reservoir

Figure 13. Locations of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program sampling sites on Oÿahu.
72 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 19. Revised metric and Oÿahu Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores for the 

Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) Oÿahu benthic 

macroinvertebrate samples.

[Abundance in number per square meter; Pct, percent; P/A, presence/absence; X, species present; –, species absent; No./m2, 

number per square meter; italics, denotes change in category assignment; P–HBIBI, Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic 

Index of Biotic Integrity]

Station ID Site name

Total 

abundance 

metric

Trichoptera: 

Diptera 

metric

Relative 

abundance 

of Insecta 

metric

Revised 

mollusk 

abundance 

metric

No./m2 Score Ratio Score Pct Score No./m2 Score 

DOHINV001 Waimänalo 9,532 1 8.5 3 84 3 185 5 

DOHINV002 Kalauao 2,207 3 0 5 87 3 238 5 

DOHINV003 Nuÿuanu 3,821 1 0.3 5 71 3 56 3 

DOHINV004 Luluku 773 3 0.8 3 89 3 0 1 

DOHINV005 Waiawa 1,729 3 0.1 5 91 1 90 3 

NAWQA-0010 Mänoa 302 5 0.8 3 50 5 102 5 

NAWQA-0020 Waiheÿe B–99 3,618 1 2.8 3 88 3 0 1 

NAWQA-0040 Waiähole 2,421 3 4.4 3 96 1 0 1 

NAWQA-0050 Punaluÿu above weir 10,355 1 6 3 97 1 0 1 

NAWQA-0060 Punaluÿu below weir 4,216 1 6.3 3 89 3 0 1 

NAWQA-0070 Waikakalaua 254 5 0.5 5 47 5 53 3 

NAWQA-0080 Waiakeakua 273 5 27.2 1 93 1 0 1 

NAWQA-0090 Käneÿohe 1,022 3 1.6 3 36 5 375 5 

NAWQA-0100 Kaluanui 3,374 3 0.2 5 23 5 1 3 

NAWQA-0200 Waiheÿe A–00 10,354 1 3.3 3 93 1 0 1 

NAWQA-0300 Waiheÿe B–00 6,472 1 5.6 3 95 1 0 1 

NAWQA-0400 Waiheÿe C–00 5,594 1 11.9 3 99 1 0 1 

NAWQA-0500 Waiheÿe B–01 6,146 1 7.3 3 99 1 16 3 
 Development of Community Indexes 73

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Amphipoda 

metric

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Turbellaria 

metric

Nonnative Crustacea P/A metric1

Invertebrate 

Community 

Index

P–HBIBI 

category

Pct Score Pct Score Neocaridina Crayfish Score Score Category

5.1 5 0 1 X – 3 21 Fair Fair

0 1 0 1 – – 1 19 Fair Fair

0.6 5 1.5 3 X X 3 25 Poor Fair

1.6 5 0 1 X X 3 19 Fair Fair

0 1 0.4 3 – X 3 21 Fair Fair

7.4 5 4 3 – X 3 29 Poor Poor

0 1 7.7 5 – X 3 17 Fair Good

0 1 0.6 3 – – 1 13 Good Good

0 1 0.8 3 – – 1 11 Good Good

0 1 2.7 3 – – 1 13 Good Good

0.6 5 0 1 X X 3 29 Poor Poor

0 1 0.3 3 X X 3 15 Fair Fair

0.7 5 3.3 3 – X 3 27 Poor Poor

0 1 0 1 – – 1 19 Fair Fair

0 1 0.6 3 – X 3 13 Good Good

0 1 0.6 3 – X 3 13 Good Good

0 1 0.3 3 – X 3 13 Good Good

0 1 0 1 X X 3 15 Fair Good

Table 19.—Continued
B

Axis 2

Axis 1

2–Dimensional Stress: 0.2

A

Axis 1

Axis 2

2–Dimens

Maui Sites

EXPLANATION

Oÿahu WSA Sites

Figure 14. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of the Maui and O’ahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) quanmacroinvertebrate samples using (A) arcsine-square root transformed proportional data and (B) log(x+1) transformed abundance datof the abundance plus one, with abundance in number of organisms per square meter).
Amphipoda

Apedilum

Atyoida bisulcata

Ephydridae

Erpobdellidae

Eukiefferiella

Hem

Hydroptilidae

Lymnaeidae

Megalagrion

Nematoda

Neocaridina

Neritina

Orthocladius

Physidae

Telmatogeton

Thiaridae

Ferrissia

-2.8 -2.1 -1.4 -0.7 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 

0.71.42.12.83.5

-0.7-1.4-2.1-2.8

Axis 2

Axis 1

Detrended Correspondence Analysis Joint Plot

East M

EXPLAN

West MLeewa

CentraWindwMacroi

Figure 15. Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) joint plot ordination of the Maui and Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) quansamples using log(x+1) transformed abundance data (logarithm of the sum of the abundance plus one, with abundance in number of organismables in bold are, or possibly are, native species.
76 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

streams, although small populations have been observed on 

occasion in the more “pristine” streams.

Another obvious difference between the Oÿahu and Maui 

faunal assemblages was that the nonnative faunal assemblage 

was much more diverse, more widely distributed, and more 

abundant in Oÿahu streams. This included a wide assortment of nonnative fish, mollusks, and crustaceans that were 

observed in Oÿahu streams but were either absent from or 

less frequently observed in Maui streams. This also included 

the nonnative Empididae (aquatic dance fly) Hemerodromia 

stellaris, the cherry shrimp, Neocaridina denticulata sinensis,

the crayfish Procambarus clarkii, and a number of chironomid species all of which were commonly found in Oÿahu 

streams, but were absent from or not commonly observed in 

the streams on Maui. 

Combined ICI Development

The development of the combined ICI followed the same 

basic procedures as those used for the island-wide ICI’s. The 

list of metrics was narrowed to the existing metrics from both 

the Maui and Oÿahu ICI’s. The set of “least impaired” reference condition sites from both islands were combined and 

used to calculate the top or bottom tier values. The rest of 

the sites were combined and used to calculate the middle tier 

values. The conditions and scores for each metric and the ICI 

conditions and stream-quality categories are shown in table 

20. The combined ICI metrics and index scores are shown 

in tables 21–23. The distributions of the combined ICI final 

scores are shown in figures B61–B62 and C35–C36.

Total Macroinvertebrate Abundance Metric

This metric was retained from the original P–HBIBI 

and used in both island-wide ICI’s, but the conditional values 

were modified accordingly. Greater total macroinvertebrate 

abundances are associated with higher stream quality. The 

conditional values for the combined index set the top tier limit, 

indicative of the best sites, as greater than or equal to 5,580/m2

(table 20). This is less than the 7,900/m2

 determined in the Maui 

ICI and greater than the 3,600/m2 determined for the Oÿahu ICI. 

The second tier limit was set at less than 5,580/m2 and greater 

than or equal to 657/m2. The additional bottom tier limit, < 200/

m2, indicative of the worst conditions, was retained. 

A total of 7 of the 40 Maui sites (17.5 percent; 12 of the 

54 samples) and 2 of the 31 Oÿahu WSA sites (6.5 percent) 

scored in the top tier; 30 Maui sites (75 percent; 39 samples) 

and 20 Oÿahu WSA sites (64.5 percent) scored in the second 

tier; 2 Maui sites (5 percent; 2 samples) and 8 Oÿahu WSA 

sites (25.8 percent) scored in the third tier; and 1 Maui site 

(2.5 percent; 1 sample) and 1 Oÿahu WSA site (3.2 percent) 

scored in the bottom tier (tables 21–22).

Relative Abundance of Insecta Metric

This metric, in its modified format, subtracting the 

abundances of the native shrimp, ÿöpae, and the native snail, 

hïhïwai, from the total sample abundances before the calculation, was used in both the Maui and Oÿahu ICI’s and was 

included in the combined index. Greater relative abundances 

of insects in the samples are associated with higher stream 

quality. The conditional values retained the top tier at 90 percent but adjusted the bottom tier to 64 percent.

A total of 21 of the 40 Maui sites (52.5 percent; 31 

samples) and 11 of the 31 Oÿahu WSA sites (35.5 percent) 

scored in the upper tier; 16 Maui samples (40 percent; 19 

samples) and 11 Oÿahu WSA samples (35.5 percent) scored in 

the second tier; and 3 Maui sites (7.5 percent; 4 samples) and 

9 Oÿahu WSA sites (29.0 percent) scored in the bottom tier 

(tables 21–22).

Relative Abundance of Amphipoda Metric

This metric was modified from its original format in the P–

HBIBI from abundance to relative abundance, again subtracting 

the abundances of the native shrimp, ÿöpae, and the native snail, 

hïhïwai, from the total sample abundances before the calculation, and used in the Oÿahu ICI. Increasing relative abundances 

of amphipods are associated with decreasing stream quality. 

This metric was not used in the Maui ICI because amphipods 

were present in only one quantitative sample. 

This metric highlights one of the differences between the 

Maui stream biota and the Oÿahu stream biota, with a majority of Maui sites scoring in the top tier. A total of 39 of the 40 

Maui sites (97.5 percent; 53 samples) and 21 of the 31 Oÿahu 

WSA sites (67.7 percent) scored in the upper tier; 1 Maui site 

(2.5 percent; 1 sample) and 4 Oÿahu WSA sites (12.9 percent) 

scored in the second tier; and no Maui sites and 6 Oÿahu WSA 

sites (19.4 percent) scored in the bottom tier (tables 21–22).

Relative Abundance of Turbellaria Metric

This new metric was added to the Oÿahu ICI but was not 

included in the Maui ICI because of the rarity of turbellarians, commonly known as planaria or flatworms, in the Maui 

quantitative samples (table 21). Again, the relative abundances 

were calculated after subtracting the abundances of the native 

shrimp, ÿöpae, and the native snail, hïhïwai, from the total 

sample abundances. Greater relative abundances of turbellarians were associated with decreasing stream quality.

This metric highlights another of the differences between 

the Maui and Oÿahu stream assemblages. A total of 37 of the 

40 Maui sites (92.5 percent; 50 samples) and 12 of the 31 

Oÿahu WSA sites (38.7 percent) scored in the top tier; 1 Maui 

site (2.5 percent; 1 sample) and 6 Oÿahu WSA sites (19.3 percent) scored in the second tier; and 2 Maui sites (5.0 percent; 3 

samples) and 13 Oÿahu WSA sites (41.9 percent) scored in the 

bottom tier (tables 21–22).

Native Macroinvertebrate Presence/Absence

The presence or absence metrics of four of the native 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, determined on the basis of the 

quantitative, qualitative, and observational data, that were 

included in the Maui ICI were slightly modified and included 
 Development of Community Indexes 77

Metric Condition Score

Total abundance, in organisms/m2 ≥ 5,580 1

< 5,580 and ≥ 657 3

< 657 and ≥ 200 5

< 200 7

Insecta relative abundance, in percent of Insecta from the total ≥ 90 1

 abundance minus the abundances of the native shrimp and snail < 90 and ≥ 64 3

< 64 5

Amphipoda relative abundance, in percent 0 1

> 0 and <0.5 3

≥ 0.5 5

Turbellaria relative abundance, in percent 0 1

> 0 and <1.5 3

≥ 1.5 5

Native species richness Presence/Absence Score

Atyoida bisulcata Present 1

 (ÿöpaekalaÿole or mountain ÿöpae) Absent 2

Neritina granosa Present 1

 (hïhïwai) Absent 2

Telmatogeton spp. Present 1

 (torrent midges) Absent 2

Megalagrion damselflies (adults and/or naiads) Present 1

 (pinao ÿula) Absent 2

Index score Category

Final Combined Invertebrate Community Index for Maui and Oÿahu ≤ 13 Good

 (sum of metric scores) 14–18 Fair

> 18 Poor

Table 20. Conditional scoring for combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metrics and 

index for Maui and Oÿahu

[m2, square meter; <, less than; ≤, less than or equal to; >, greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to]
78 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 21. Combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metric and index scores for the Maui 

benthic macroinvertebrate samples.

[Abundance in number per square meter; Pct, percent; P/A, presence/absence; X, species present; –, 

species absent; No./m2

, number per square meter; rst, re-sorted; rep, replicate; rpt, repeat]

Station ID Site name Sample 

type

Total abundance 

metric

Relative 

abundance of 

Insecta metric

Relative 

abundance of 

Amphipoda 

metric

No./m2 Score Pct Score Pct Score 

HI_MAUI_09-001 Kopiliÿula-A 1,231 3 89 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-002 W. Wailua Iki-B 330 5 73 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-003 Wailua Nui-B 1,418 3 97 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A2 7,911 1 90 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A rst 10,478 1 99 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A rep 6,662 1 87 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-004 Hanawï-A rep, rst 7,525 1 96 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-005 W. Wailua Iki-A 4,499 3 76 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-006 Haipuaÿena 3,196 3 73 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-007 Pälauhulu-C 6,241 1 91 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-008 E. Wailua Nui-A 2,571 3 88 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-009 Pälauhulu-A2 9,365 1 89 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-010 Honomanü 323 5 95 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-011 Kölea 23,137 1 94 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-011 Kölea rst 9,869 1 96 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-012 Hanawï-C2 5,305 3 93 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-013 Waiohue2 1,675 3 97 1 0.2 3 

HI_MAUI_09-014 Kopiliÿula-B 3,758 3 67 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-014 Kopiliÿula-B rst 2,271 3 68 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-015 Hanawï-B2 6,812 1 97 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-015 Hanawï-B rep 4,234 3 99 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-016 Nuaÿailua 166 7 32 5 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-017 Waikapü-C 7,053 1 95 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-018 Waikapü-A 5,012 3 83 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-019 Kanahä2 3,224 3 97 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-020 Honolua 1,129 3 73 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-020 Honolua rep 984 3 63 5 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-021 Honoköwai 4,146 3 98 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-022 Olowalu-B 1,690 3 74 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-022 Olowalu-B rep 1,523 3 95 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-023 Waiheÿe-B open 740 3 97 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-023 Waiheÿe-B open rep 1,313 3 95 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-024 Waiheÿe-B closed 1,207 3 81 3 0 1 
 Development of Community Indexes 79

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Turbellaria 

metric

ÿÖpae 

P/A metric1

Megalgrion 

P/A metric1

Hïhïwai P/A 

metric1

Telmatogeton P/A 

metric1

Combined

Invertebrate 

Community Index

Pct Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score Score Category

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 15 Fair

0 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 12 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 9 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 9 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 11 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 9 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 10 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 12 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 9 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 9 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 12 Good

0 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 14 Fair

0 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 13 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 13 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 8 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 10 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 19 Poor

0 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 11 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

0 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Fair

0 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

0 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 X 1 12 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 12 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 12 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 12 Good

0.8 3 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 16 Fair

Table 21.—Continued
80 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 21. Combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metric and index scores for 

the Maui benthic macroinvertebrate samples..—Continued

[Abundance in number per square meter; Pct, percent; P/A, presence/absence; X, species present; –, 

species absent; No./m2

, number per square meter; rst, re-sorted; rep, replicate; rpt, repeat]

Station ID Site name Sample 

type

Total abundance 

metric

Relative 

abundance of 

Insecta metric

Relative 

abundance of 

Amphipoda 

metric

No./m2 Score Pct Score Pct Score 

HI_MAUI_09-025 Waiheÿe-C 1,619 3 50 5 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe-A2 9,453 1 99 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe-A rpt-1 4,061 3 99 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-026 Waiheÿe-A rpt-2 10,476 1 99 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-027 N. Waiehu-C 657 3 89 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-028 N. Waiehu-A 1,195 3 98 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-028 N. Waiehu-A rep 1,431 3 86 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-029 S. Waiehu-C 2,300 3 98 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-030 S. Waiehu-A2 1,640 3 96 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-030 S. Waiehu-A rep 1,598 3 98 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-031 ÿÏao-C 2,028 3 95 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-031 ÿÏao-C rep 4,161 3 95 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-032 ÿÏao-A2 5,311 3 99 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-033 Kauaÿula 4,542 3 87 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-034 Launiupoko 2,019 3 64 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-035 Ukumehame-B 3,992 3 95 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-036 Waiehu 1,276 3 88 3 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-037 Makamakaÿole-A2 4,161 3 99 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-038 Makamakaÿole-B 1,508 3 53 5 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-039 Ukumehame-A 3,271 3 96 1 0 1 

HI_MAUI_09-040 Olowalu-A 1,857 3 89 3 0 1 

1

 Metric determined using instream samples and observations.

2

 Sample used as reference sample in calculating the metrics.
 Development of Community Indexes 81

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Turbellaria 

metric

ÿÖpae 

P/A metric1

Megalgrion 

P/A metric1

Hïhïwai P/A 

metric1

Telmatogeton P/A 

metric1

Combined 

Invertebrate 

Community Index

Pct Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score Score Category

0 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 9 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 11 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 9 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 11 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 13 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 12 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 12 Good

1.5 5 X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

1.7 5 X 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 16 Fair

0 1 – 2 X 1 X 1 X 1 11 Good

0 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Fair

0 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 X 1 14 Fair

0 1 – 2 – 2 X 1 – 2 13 Good

3.6 5 X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 19 Poor

0 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 X 1 13 Good

0 1 X 1 – 2 X 1 – 2 16 Fair

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 12 Good

0 1 X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

Table 21.—Continued.
82 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 22. Combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metric and index scores for the Oÿahu 

Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) benthic macroinvertebrate samples.

[Abundance in number per square meter; Pct, percent; P/A, presence/absence; X, species present; –, species absent; No./m2,

 number per square meter]

Station ID Site name

Total 

abundance 

metric

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Insecta 

metric

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Amphipoda 

metric

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Turbellaria 

metric

No./m2 Score Pct Score Pct Score Pct Score 

HIO05518-002 Nuÿuanu-C 552 5 52 5 28.1 5 4.2 5 

HIO05518-003 N. Hälawa-A 710 3 96 1 0.2 3 0 1 

HIO05518-010 SF Kaukonahua-A2 3,182 3 97 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-011 Waiähole-B2 5,849 1 75 3 0 1 12.8 5 

HIO05518-013 Kamananui-B2 730 3 91 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-018 Kalihi-C 346 5 25 5 0.5 5 0.7 3 

HIO05518-023 Kahana-A2 4,832 3 84 3 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-026 Kïpapa-A2 1,229 3 91 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-027 Waikäne-B2 3,686 3 94 1 0 1 3.7 5 

HIO05518-029 Kamananui-A2 982 3 84 3 0.2 3 0 1 

HIO05518-035 Haÿikü 2,331 3 76 3 0 1 9.2 5 

HIO05518-037 Anahulu-B 394 5 61 5 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-038 SF Kaukonahua-C2 1,962 3 94 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-039 Waikäne-C 1,126 3 64 3 0 1 7.7 5 

HIO05518-151 Kahana-C2 2,463 3 76 3 0 1 2.4 5 

HIO05518-160 Kahana-B 2,836 3 92 1 0 1 0.7 3 

HIO05518-162 Kalihi-A 598 5 74 3 0.2 3 1.6 5 

HIO05518-163 ÿÄhuimanu 54 7 30 5 4.5 5 17.9 5 

HIO05518-164 Kamoÿoaliÿi 4,676 3 97 1 0.2 3 1.5 3 

HIO05518-166 Kïpapa-C 2,948 3 49 5 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-171 Mänoa 1,520 3 87 3 1.8 5 1.2 3 

HIO05518-175 Kahana Iki 474 5 44 5 7.4 5 0.8 3 

HIO05518-177 SF Kaukonahua-B 533 5 85 3 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-181 Anahulu-C 5,675 1 84 3 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-182 NF Kaukonahua-B 700 3 90 1 0 1 0.2 3 

HIO05518-183 Waiähole-C 2,036 3 95 1 0 1 3.6 5 

HIO05518-186 NF Kaukonahua-A2 3,488 3 93 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-187 Lulumahu 209 5 39 5 0 1 23.4 5 

HIO05518-191 Waimänalo 715 3 51 5 0 1 16.2 5 

HIO05518-194 Pauoa 389 5 72 3 11.5 5 1.6 5 

HIO05518-203 Hakipuÿu 893 3 61 5 0 1 6.1 5 

1

 Metric determined using instream samples and observations.

2

 Sample used as reference sample in calculating the metrics.
 Development of Community Indexes 83

ÿÖpae 

P/A metric1

Megalagrion 

P/A metric1

Hïhïwai P/A 

metric1

Telmatogeton 

P/A metric1

Combined 

Invertebrate 

Community Index

P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score Score Category

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 28 Poor

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 15 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 13 Good

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 26 Poor

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 13 Good

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 20 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 19 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 19 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 19 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 15 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 23 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 30 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 18 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 22 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 26 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 18 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 15 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 13 Good

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 24 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 22 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 26 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 22 Poor

Table 22.—Continued.
84 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 23. Combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) metric and index scores for the 

Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) Oÿahu benthic 

macroinvertebrate samples.

[Abundance in number per square meter; Pct, percent; P/A, presense/absenct; X, species present; –, species absent; No./m2, 

number per square meter]

Station ID Site name

Total

 abundance 

metric

Relative abundance of 

Insecta metric

Relative 

abundance of 

Amphipoda 

metric

Relative 

abundance 

of 

Turbellaria metric

No./m2 Score Pct Score Pct Score Pct Score 

HIO05518-002 Nuÿuanu-C 552 5 52 5 28.1 5 4.2 5 

HIO05518-003 N. Hälawa-A 710 3 96 1 0.2 3 0 1 

HIO05518-010 SF Kaukonahua-A2 3,182 3 97 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-011 Waiähole-B2 5,849 1 75 3 0 1 12.8 5 

HIO05518-013 Kamananui-B2 730 3 91 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-018 Kalihi-C 346 5 25 5 0.5 5 0.7 3 

HIO05518-023 Kahana-A2 4,832 3 84 3 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-026 Kïpapa-A2 1,229 3 91 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-027 Waikäne-B2 3,686 3 94 1 0 1 3.7 5 

HIO05518-029 Kamananui-A2 982 3 84 3 0.2 3 0 1 

HIO05518-035 Haÿikü 2,331 3 76 3 0 1 9.2 5 

HIO05518-037 Anahulu-B 394 5 61 5 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-038 SF Kaukonahua-C2 1,962 3 94 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-039 Waikäne-C 1,126 3 64 3 0 1 7.7 5 

HIO05518-151 Kahana-C2 2,463 3 76 3 0 1 2.4 5 

HIO05518-160 Kahana-B 2,836 3 92 1 0 1 0.7 3 

HIO05518-162 Kalihi-A 598 5 74 3 0.2 3 1.6 5 

HIO05518-163 ÿÄhuimanu 54 7 30 5 4.5 5 17.9 5 

HIO05518-164 Kamoÿoaliÿi 4,676 3 97 1 0.2 3 1.5 3 

HIO05518-166 Kïpapa-C 2,948 3 49 5 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-171 Mänoa 1,520 3 87 3 1.8 5 1.2 3 

HIO05518-175 Kahana Iki 474 5 44 5 7.4 5 0.8 3 

HIO05518-177 SF Kaukonahua-B 533 5 85 3 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-181 Anahulu-C 5,675 1 84 3 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-182 NF Kaukonahua-B 700 3 90 1 0 1 0.2 3 

HIO05518-183 Waiähole-C 2,036 3 95 1 0 1 3.6 5 

HIO05518-186 NF Kaukonahua-A2 3,488 3 93 1 0 1 0 1 

HIO05518-187 Lulumahu 209 5 39 5 0 1 23.4 5 

HIO05518-191 Waimänalo 715 3 51 5 0 1 16.2 5 

HIO05518-194 Pauoa 389 5 72 3 11.5 5 1.6 5 

HIO05518-203 Hakipuÿu 893 3 61 5 0 1 6.1 5 

HI_MAUI_09-040 Olowalu-A 1,857 3 89 3 0 1 0 1 

1

 Metric determined using instream samples and observations.

2

 Sample used as reference sample in calculating the metrics.
 Development of Community Indexes 85

ÿÖpae 

P/A metric1

Megalagrion 

P/A metric1

Hïhïwai P/A 

metric1

Telmatogeton 

P/A metric1

Combined 

Invertebrate 

Community Index

P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score P/A Score Score Category

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 28 Poor

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 15 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 13 Good

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 26 Poor

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 13 Good

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 20 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 19 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 19 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 19 Poor

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 15 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 23 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 30 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 18 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 22 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 26 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 18 Fair

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 15 Fair

X 1 – 2 – 2 – 2 17 Fair

– 2 X 1 – 2 – 2 13 Good

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 24 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 22 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 26 Poor

– 2 – 2 – 2 – 2 22 Poor

X 1 X 1 – 2 – 2 14 Fair

Table 23.—Continued.
86 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

in the combined index. These species included the amphidromous mountain shrimp, Atyoida bisulcata (ÿöpae), the 

amphidromous freshwater snail, Neritina granosa (hïhïwai), 

larvae of the torrent midges Telmatogeton spp., and adults and 

(or) naiads of any species of Megalagrion damselfly. Each of 

these native species metrics was scored as either 1 if present or 

2 if not observed; therefore, if all four taxa were present the 

minimum score is 4 and if none of the taxa were present the 

maximum score is 8. The presence of any of these native species is associated with higher stream quality. 

This metric highlights another of the differences between 

the Maui and Oÿahu stream assemblages, as the Maui streams 

were observed to have greater native macroinvertebrate biodiversity than streams on Oÿahu. Only 1 of the 40 Maui sites 

(2.5 percent) and none of the 31 Oÿahu WSA sites scored 4, the 

minimum score if all four native taxa were present; 15 Maui sites 

(37.5 percent) and none of the Oÿahu WSA sites scored 5, where 

3 of the 4 taxa were present; 18 Maui sites (45.0 percent) and 

1 Oÿahu WSA site (3.2 percent) scored 6, where 2 of the 4 taxa 

were present; 6 Maui sites (15.0 percent) and 15 Oÿahu WSA 

sites (48.4 percent) scored 7, where 1 of the 4 taxa were present; and none of the Maui sites and 15 Oÿahu WSA sites (48.4 

percent) scored 8, where none of the 4 native taxa were present.

Final Combined ICI Score

As in the P–HBIBI and the Maui and Oÿahu ICI’s, the 

final invertebrate community index was calculated as the sum 

of the individual metric scores (table 20). The distributions 

of the final ICI scores are shown in figures B61–B62 (Maui) 

and C35–C36 (Oÿahu). A total of 28 of the 40 Maui sites (70 

percent) but only 3 of the 31 Oÿahu WSA sites (9.7 percent) 

scored ≤13 and were designated as “good” quality sites; 

10 Maui sites (25 percent) and 14 Oÿahu WSA sites (45.2 

percent) scored >13 and ≤18 and were designated as “fair” 

quality sites; and 2 Maui sites (5 percent) and 14 Oÿahu WSA 

sites (45.2 percent) scored >18 and were designated as “poor” 

quality sites. Only 1 of the Maui paired replicates, OlowaluB, was designated in different categories with scores of 12 

(“good”) and 14 (“fair”).

The Oÿahu NAWQA sites used to develop the P–HBIBI 

were evaluated with the statewide ICI (table 23; fig. C36). A 

total of 5 of the 18 samples (27.8 percent) were designated as 

“good” quality sites. These included four of the five Waiheÿe 

Stream samples and the Punaluÿu above the diversion site. 

Six samples (33.3 percent) were designated as “fair” quality 

sites; and seven samples (38.9 percent) were designated as 

“poor” quality.

The ratio of Trichoptera to nonnative Diptera metric, 

included in both the Maui and Oÿahu ICI’s, was notably not 

incorporated into the combined index. Greater abundances of 

Trichoptera than nonnative Diptera were associated with higher 

stream quality for both island ICI’s. However, the composition of the nonnative dipterans was very different between the 

islands (tables 24–25). Most notably, the nonnative dipteran 

Hemerodromia stellaris (Family: Empididae) was not observed 

in any sample from Maui but was widespread and abundant 

around Oÿahu (fig. C8). The distribution and abundances of H. 

stellaris on Oÿahu did not appear to be associated with any of 

the habitat or water-quality parameters. H. stellaris on Oÿahu 

was identified in 25 of the 31 quantitative samples with densities 

as high as 503.5/m2

 at Kamoÿoaliÿi Stream and relative abundances as high as 33.8 percent at the North Hälawa-A, where 

it was the dominant taxa. Additionally, the nonnative dipteran 

Polypedilum (Family Chironomidae) was also not present in any 

of the samples collected from Maui streams. This taxa was identified in 7 of the 31 quantitative samples collected on Oÿahu, 

with densities as high as 2,991/m2 at the Anahulu-B site and 

relative abundances as high as 52.7 percent from the same site. 

In total, six nonnative dipterans were unique to Oÿahu WSA 

samples and two nonnative dipterans were unique to the Maui 

samples (tables 24–25). 

Furthermore, there were some considerable differences 

in abundances between the Maui and Oÿahu trichopteran and 

dipteran assemblages. On average, the Maui samples contained 

greater total abundances as well as greater abundances of 

trichopterans and dipterans than did the Oÿahu samples (table 

26). The maximum abundance of trichopterans in samples from 

Maui was more than twice as great as abundances in samples 

from Oÿahu, and the maximum abundance of dipterans was 

more than four times greater on Maui than on Oÿahu. However, 

the largest nine Trichoptera/Diptera ratios were in samples from 

Oÿahu, with a maximum ratio of 117.8, compared to a maximum of 11.9 for samples from Maui and a mean ratio of 14 

compared to 1.8 for the Maui samples. Five of the nine Oÿahu 

sites had large populations of smallmouth bass, but the correlations between the presence of bass and dipteran abundance or 

dipteran relative abundance were not significant. Until further 

research reveals the factors influencing these differences, this 

metric is applicable only to the island-wide indexes.

Need for Additional Information

The results of this study highlighted the differences 

between the benthic macroinvertebrate communities from 

Maui and Oÿahu streams. The combined ICI developed for this 

study was based on the best available information from the 

two islands. Because of the paucity of data for other islands 

of Hawaiÿi, the accuracy of the combined ICI for use on those 

islands has not been verified. Thus, although the use of the 

combined ICI on other islands may be useful for preliminary 

assessments, the results of such assessments will contain 

unquantified uncertainty. The development of a statewide ICI 

that can reliably assess the stream quality requires macroinvertebrate sampling from the other islands.

This study addressed some of the variability in the 

sampling and and in the sorting procedures used to collect 

and enumerate the macroinvertebrate assemblages. However, 

this study did not examine temporal or seasonal effects on 

the communities. A study designed to resample some of the 

established sampling sites at various times of the year for a 

number of years would provide much needed information on 

such temporal and seasonal variation.
Need for Additional Information 87

Table 24. Composition of nonnative dipteran abundances collected in quantitative samples from Maui and Oÿahu Wadeable 

Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites.

[n, number of samples in which the taxon was identified; –, not identified in samples; WSA, Wadeable Stream Assessment]

Family Subfamily Taxon

Abundance, in number per square meter

Maui Oÿahu WSA

n Minimum Maximum Mean n Minimum Maximum Mean

Chironomidae Chironominae Apedilum sp. 38 0.8 768.2 80.0 5 0.8 348.3 71.2

Chironomidae Chironominae Paratanytarsus sp. 12 2.4 40.8 9.7 12 0.8 92.2 23.8

Chironomidae Chironominae Polypedilum sp. – – – – 7 0.8 2,991.0 434.9

Chironomidae Chironominae Tanytarsus sp. 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 1.4 5.2 3.3

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Corynoneura sp. – – – – 7 0.8 49.0 12.6

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 53 3.2 8,470.4 1,102.5 30 2.4 1,322.7 279.6

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella sp. 54 4.0 9,699.3 779.1 17 0.8 878.9 129.9

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Gymnometriocnemus sp. 2 2.6 8.5 5.6 – – – –

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Thienemanniella sp. – – – – 6 5.9 140.6 29.5

Chironomidae Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia sp. 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 – – – –

Dixidae Dixinae Dixa sp. – – – – 3 0.8 4.0 2.1

Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromia sp. – – – – 25 0.8 503.5 79.3

Tipulidae Limoniinae Erioptera sp. – – – – 1 1.2 1.2 1.2
88 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table 25. Composition of nonnative dipteran relative abundances collected in quantitative samples from Maui and Oÿahu 

Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) study sites.

[n, number of samples in which the taxon was identified; –, not identified in samples; WSA, Wadeable Stream Assessment]

Family Subfamily Taxon

Relative abundance, in percentage of sample abundance

Maui Oÿahu WSA

n Minimum Maximum Mean n Minimum Maximum Mean

Chironomidae Chironominae Apedilum sp. 38 0.2 19 2.7 5 0.2 6.1 1.5

Chironomidae Chironominae Paratanytarsus sp. 12 0.2 3.2 0.6 12 0.2 6.8 1.8

Chironomidae Chironominae Polypedilum sp. – – – – 7 0.2 52.7 8.3

Chironomidae Chironominae Tanytarsus sp. 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 0.2 0.5 0.4

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Corynoneura sp. – – – – 7 0.2 12.3 2.9

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 53 1.9 50.1 23.9 30 0.2 49.1 12.6

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella sp. 54 2 46.6 15.2 17 0.2 23.9 4.4

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Gymnometriocnemus sp. 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 – – – –

Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Thienemanniella sp. – – – – 6 0.2 5.7 1.3

Chironomidae Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia sp. 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 – – – –

Dixidae Dixinae Dixa sp. – – – – 3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromia sp. – – – – 25 0.2 33.8 3.6

Tipulidae Limoniinae Erioptera sp. – – – – 1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Table 26. Summary statistics for nonnative Trichoptera and Diptera abundances from the Maui and Oÿahu Wadeable 

Stream Assessment (WSA) quantitative samples.

[n, number of samples; Min, minimum value; Max, maximum value; WSA, Wadeable Stream Assessment]

Project n

Trichoptera:Diptera 

ratio

Trichopteran 

abundance, in number 

of trichopterans 

per square meter

Dipteran abundance, 

in number of dipterans 

per square meter

Total abundance, 

in number of invertebrates 

per square meter

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

Maui 54 0.2 11.9 1.8 40 7,137 1,672 8 18,170 1,920 165.6 23,137 3,992

Oÿahu WSA 31 0 117.8 14 0 3,413 977 7.1 4,251 534 53.6 5,849 1,875
 Summary and Conclusions 89

Summary and Conclusions

Data on benthic macroinvertebrates, physical habitat, 

and water quality were collected at 40 wadeable sites on 25 

perennial streams on the island of Maui, Hawaiÿi, in 2009–10 

to evaluate the relationships among the macroinvertebrate 

assemblages and environmental characteristics and to develop 

a multimetric invertebrate community index (ICI) that could 

be used as an indicator of stream quality. Additionally, quantitative macroinvertebrate data collected from 31 randomly 

selected sites on the Island of Oÿahu during a previous study, 

part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 

Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) was used to refine and 

develop a new ICI of stream quality for the Island of Oÿahu.

The 1972 Federal Clean Water Act requires states to 

restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation’s 

surface waters. The Hawaiÿi Department of Health (HIDOH) 

is required to submit to the USEPA a list of all waterbodies 

(estuaries, harbors, coastal waters, and streams) that do not 

meet State water quality standards. The HIDOH 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. HIDOH currently uses two site evaluation protocols, the Hawaiÿi Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (HSVAP), based on habitat parameters, and the Hawaiÿi 

Stream Bioassessment Protocol (HSBP), based on habitat 

characteristics and macrofauna metrics, including fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. The goal of the study described in this 

report was to develop a multimetric invertebrate community 

index for Hawaiian streams based on attributes of the benthic 

macroinvertebrate assemblages. In the future, an ICI could be 

incorporated into the HIDOH site evaluations to better enable 

the HIDOH to prioritize the list of impaired waters. 

The HIDOH currently uses the Hawaiÿi Stream Bioassessment Protocol (HSBP) to help evaluate streams on the 

basis of a number of habitat characteristics, aspects of the 

native and nonnative fish assemblages, and abundances of 

some of the more conspicuous native and nonnative benthic 

macroinvertebrates. The results of the HSBP assessments 

are currently not part of the official water quality criterion 

of the State Water Quality Standards, but are used to assess 

the attainment of designated and existing aquatic life uses 

protected by the Clean Water Act and used as evidence in the 

HIDOH weight-of-evidence decisionmaking process. Because 

the benthic-macroinvertebrate-based ICIs developed in this 

study are generally less affected by factors that may affect 

the native streamfish species, such as diversions, predaceous 

nonnative fish species, introduced fish parasites, and stream 

channelization, the use of the ICIs would provide the HIDOH 

an integrated and robust assessment of stream quality, especially in streams where the native streamfish assemblages are 

affected by natural or anthropogenic obstacles. Additional 

advantages of using benthic macroinvertebrates for stream 

assessments include: (1) they are found in all aquatic environments and, consequently, can be affected by environmental 

perturbations in a variety of aquatic systems and habitats; (2) 

the large diversity of species and the wide range of tolerances to disturbances 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) some have relatively long life cycles, which allows 

examination of temporal changes caused by perturbation. An 

ICI, statewide or island-wide, would complement the HSBP 

and provide the HIDOH another line of evidence to aid in their 

decisionmaking.

The Maui sampling sites were selected to represent a 

range of land-use and habitat characteristics and to represent 

the different climatic conditions around the island created 

by the effects of the prevailing trade winds and mountain 

ranges. Fieldwork was conducted from June 2009 through 

February 2010. Sixteen sites were sampled in East Maui, and 

24 sites were sampled in West Maui. Additionally, replicate 

samples were collected at eight sites, three repeat samples 

were collected over the duration of the fieldwork from one 

site, and laboratory re-sorts of four previously sorted and 

enumerated samples were conducted. 

Quantitative macroinvertebrates samples were collected 

from riffle habitats and qualitative samples were collected 

from all available habitats following National Water-Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) protocols for the collection of such 

samples. Snorkel surveys and adult damselfly surveys also 

were conducted at each site. Physical habitat data, including 

canopy cover, substrate, riparian vegetation, embeddedness, 

and flow regime, were collected at each study reach. 

Multivariate statistical analysis of the replicate, repeat, and 

re-sorted samples illustrated the variation among the samples. 

The percent similarity of the paired replicate samples ranged 

from 75 to 85 percent using the proportional data and from 70 

to 90 percent using the abundance data. The percent similarity 

between the paired re-sorted and original sorts ranged from 85 

to 90 percent similarity the using the proportional data and from 

80 to 85 percent similarity using abundance data. The repeat 

samples collected at the Waiheÿe-A site on Maui showed an 

85 percent similarity between the first and third samples, with 

both having only a 70 percent similarity with the second sample 

using the proportional data. The first and third samples had an 

80 percent similarity, with both having a 75 percent similarity with the second sample using the abundance dataset. The 

second sample had 57 percent fewer macroinvertebrates than the 

first sample and 61 percent less than the third sample.

An evaluation of the Maui data using the P-HBIBI 

determined that four of the existing metrics were unsuccessful in differentiating among the sites and that the three 

metrics that were successful needed to be adjusted. A new 

multimetric invertebrate community index (ICI) was developed for Maui. Candidate invertebrate metrics were screened 

and tested and the individual metrics that proved the best at 

discerning among the sites along one or more disturbance 

gradients were combined into an ICI of stream quality. These 

metrics were: total invertebrate abundance, insect relative 

abundance (less the abundances of the native shrimp and 

snail), the ratio of Trichoptera to nonnative Diptera, native 
90 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

snail (hïhïwai) presence or absence, native mountain shrimp 

(ÿöpae) presence or absence, native torrent midge (Telmatogeton sp.) presence or absence, and native Megalagrion damselfly presence or absence. The Maui ICI classified 22 of the 

54 Maui samples to represent “good” quality communities, 

or those at or near the reference condition; 22 of the samples 

to be “fair” quality communities; and 10 to be “poor” quality 

communities—a classification that may be used to trigger 

further investigation. The cause or causes of the low rating 

might be naturally occurring conditions, or anthropogenically generated reductions in streamflow, or water-quality or 

physical-habitat disturbances.

An evaluation of the Oÿahu WSA data using the 

P-HBIBI determined that two of the existing metrics were 

unsuccessful in differentiating among the sites and that the 

remaining five metrics that were successful needed to be 

adjusted. A new ICI was developed for Oÿahu. The set of 

metrics that were included in the revised ICI were: total invertebrate abundance, insect relative abundance (less the abundances of the native shrimp and snail), the ratio of Trichoptera 

to nonnative Diptera, turbellarian relative abundance (less the 

abundances of the native shrimp and snail), amphipod relative abundance (less the abundances of the native shrimp and 

snail), nonnative mollusk abundance, and nonnative crayfish 

(Procambarus clarkii) and (or) red cherry shrimp (Neocaridina denticulata sinensis) presence or absence. The Oÿahu ICI 

classified 10 of the 31 samples as ”good” quality communities, 16 of the samples as ”fair” quality, and 5 of the samples 

as ”poor” quality. A reanalysis of the 18 Oÿahu macroinvertebrate samples collected from 1999 to 2002 that were used 

to develop the P–HBIBI using the Oÿahu ICI resulted in the 

reclassification of 3 samples. 

A comparison of the Maui and Oÿahu macroinvertebrate 

communities revealed that the communities differed dramatically in the taxa present and the abundances and relative 

abundances of those taxa. The native stream communities were 

more nearly intact on Maui than on Oÿahu, including the native 

fish, shrimp, snails, and insects. The first step in developing a 

statewide ICI was performed by merging the Maui and Oÿahu 

WSA macroinvertebrate datasets and selecting, testing, and 

scoring a set of metrics developed for the Maui and Oÿahu ICIs. 

The data from the reference condition sites from both islands 

were merged and used to derive the tier limits for the best conditions, and the data from the remaining sites were used to derive 

the tier limits for the worst conditions. The metrics that were 

integrated into the statewide ICI included: total invertebrate 

abundance, insect relative abundance (less the abundances of the 

native shrimp and snail), turbellarian relative abundance (less 

the abundances of the native shrimp and snail), amphipod relative abundance (less the abundances of the native shrimp and 

snail), and a native species richness metric based on the presence or absence of the amphidromous mountain shrimp, Atyoida 

bisulcata (ÿöpae), the amphidromous freshwater snail, Neritina 

granosa (hïhïwai), larvae of the torrent midges Telmatogeton

spp., and adults and (or) naiads of any species of Megalagrion

damselfly. Overall, this index highlighted a number of the 

differences between the stream communities observed on each 

island. A majority of the Maui samples, 39 of 54 (72.2 percent), 

and sites, 28 of 40 (70 percent), were designated as “good” 

quality sites, whereas only 3 of the 31 (9.7 percent) Oÿahu WSA 

sites were designated as “good” quality sites; 10 Maui sites (25 

percent; 13 samples) and 14 Oÿahu WSA sites (45.2 percent) 

were designated as “fair” quality sites; and only 2 Maui sites 

(5 percent; 2 samples) and 14 Oÿahu WSA sites (45.2 percent) 

were designated as “poor” quality stream sites. An evaluation of 

the Oÿahu sites used in the development of the P–HBIBI, using 

the statewide ICI, designated 5 of the 18 samples (27.8 percent) 

as “good”, 6 samples (33.3 percent) as “fair”, and 7 samples 

(38.9 percent) as “poor” quality stream sites.

This study provides information critical to a comprehensive assessment of stream quality in Hawaiÿi and the development of appropriate monitoring and management strategies. The 

preliminary statewide ICI developed in this study is intended 

to assist the HIDOH in prioritizing their stream management 

efforts by identifying broad problem areas on a statewide scale. 

Once these broad problem areas are identified, the HIDOH can 

use the island-wide ICIs to more accurately assess the quality 

of individual stream reaches. The ability of the Maui and Oÿahu 

ICIs to discern levels of impairment in streams could provide 

the HIDOH one more tool in their stream assessment toolbox. 

Further refinement and calibration would make the ICIs more 

robust resources for monitoring programs to rely on. Future 

refinements may reveal some of the forces that shape the invertebrate communities and may lead to predictive models that 

could be used to forecast the effects of anthropogenic activities 

on those communities.

References Cited

Adachi, M.S., 1958, Notes and Exhibitions: Oxyethira maya: 

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 16, 

no. 3, p. 328.

Ancey, C.F., 1899, Some notes on the non-marine molluscan 

fauna of the Hawaiian Islands, with diagnoses of new species: Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 

v. 3, no. 521, p. 268–274, pls. 12–13.

Archer, K.M., 1984, Biological survey and quality rating of windward Oÿahu streams: Submitted to VTN Pacific, Inc, 43 p.

Archer, K.M., Timbol, A.S., and Parrish, J.D., 1980, Biological survey of Kahana Stream system: Hawaii Cooperative 

Fishery Research Unit Technical Report 80-2, 47 p.

Armstrong, R.W., 1983, Atlas of Hawaiÿi (2nd ed.): University 

of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 238 p.

Asquith, Adam, and Messing, R.H., 1992, Annotated insect 

distribution records for the island of Kauai: Proceedings of 

the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 31, p. 151–156.
 References Cited 91

Bae, Y.J., and McCafferty, W.P., 1991, Phylogenetic systematics of the Potamanthidae (Ephemeroptera): Transactions of 

the American Entomological Society, v. 117, no. 3, 

p. 1-–143.

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 (2nd ed.): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington, D.C., EPA 841-B-99-002, 336 p.

Barnard, J.L., 1970, Sublittoral Gammaridea (Amphipoda) of 

the Hawaiian Islands: Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, v. no. 34, 286 p.

Barnard, J.L., 1971, Keys to the Hawaiian marine Gammaridea, 0-30 meters: Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, v. 

no. 58, 135 p.

Barnard, J.L., 1977, The cavernicolous fauna of Hawaiian lava 

tubes 9. Amphipoda (Crustacea) from brackish lava ponds on 

Hawaii and Maui: Pacific Insects, v. 17, no. 2–3, p. 267–299.

Barnes, J.R., and Shiozawa, D.K., 1985, Drift in Hawaiian 

streams: Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, v. 22, p. 2119–2124.

Beardsley, J.W., 1960, Notes and exhibitions; Oxyethira maya: 

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 17, 

no. 2, 181 p.

Beardsley, J.W., 1966, Notes and exhibitions; new Caddis-fly 

on Oahu: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 19, no. 2, p. 145–146.

Beardsley, J.W., 1967a, Notes and exhibitions; Cheumatopsyche analis: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological 

Society, v. 19, no. 3, p. 322.

Beardsley, J.W., 1967b, Notes and exhibitions; Cheumatopsyche analis: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological 

Society, v. 19, no. 3, p. 328.

Beardsley, J.W., 1967c, Notes and exhibitions; Cheumatopsyche analis: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological 

Society, v. 19, no. 3, p. 335.

Beardsley, J.W., 1971, Notes and exhibitions; Hydroptila 

arctia: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 

v. 21, no. 1, p. 15–16.

Beardsley, J.W., 1993, Notes and exhibitions; new records of Diptera for the Hawaiian Islands: Hemerodromia stellaris: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 32, p. 5.

Beckley, E.M., 1883, Hawaiian fishing implements and methods of fishing with an account of the fishing implements 

used by the natives of the Hawaiian Islands: Advertiser 

Steam Print, Honolulu, 19 p.

Bell, F.T., and Higgins, Elmer, 1939, A plan for the development 

of the Hawaiian fisheries: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Fisheries, Investigational Report No. 42, 25 p.

Benbow, M.E., Burky, A.J., and Way, C.M., 1997, Larval habitat preference of the endemic Hawaiian midge, Telmatogeton torrenticola (Telmatogetoninae): Hydrobiologia, v. 346, 

p. 129–136.

Benbow, M.E., Orzetti, L.L., McIntosh, M.D., and Burky, A.J., 

2002, A note on cascade climbing of migrating goby and 

shrimp postlarvae in two Maui streams: Micronesica, v. 34, 

p. 243–248.

Benbow, M.E., Burky, A.J., and Way, C.M., 2003, Life cycle 

of a torrenticolous Hawaiian chironomid (Telmatogeton 

torrenticola); stream flow and microhabitat effects: Annales 

de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology, v. 39, 

p. 103–114.

Benbow, M.E., Burky, A.J., and Way, C.M., 2004, The use of 

two modified Breder traps to quantitatively study amphidromous upstream migration: Hydrobiologia, v. 527, 

p. 139–151.

Benbow, M.E., McIntosh, M.D., Burky, A.J., and Way, C.M., 

2005, The influence of stream flow reduction on the energetics of endemic Hawaiian torrenticolous aquatic insects, 

Telmatogeton Schiner and Procanace Hendel: Journal of 

Insect Conservation, v. 9, p. 175–185.

Benstead, J.P., March, J.G., Pringle, C.M., and Scatena, F.N., 

1999, Effects of a low-head dam and water abstraction on 

migratory tropical stream biota: Ecological Applications, v. 

9, p. 656–668.

Bishop, C.R., Halstead, Robert, and Dole, S.B., 1884, Report 

on forestry: The Planters’ Monthly, v. 3, no. 8, p. 574–575.

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 00-4203, 92 p.

Blob, R.W., Rai, R., Julius, M.L., and Schoenfuss, H.L., 

2006, Functional diversity in extreme environments; effects 

of locomotor style and substrate texture on the waterfallclimbing performance of Hawaiian gobiid fishes: Journal of 

Zoology, v. 268, p. 315–324.

Board of Water Supply, 2010, Punaluu Stream Kamehameha 

Schools irrigation system improvements project 2009: 

http://www.boardofwatersupply.com/cssweb/display.

cfm?sid=2141 (accessed June 2011)

Brasher, Anne, 1991, Aquatic survey of Waikakalaua Stream, 

Oahu, Hawaii: Prepared for Dames and Moore, 16+ p.

Brasher, A.M., 1997, Life history characteristics of the native 

Hawaiian stream snail Neritina granosa (hïhïwai): Coopera-
92 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

tive National Park Resources Studies Unit Hawaii Technical 

Report 114, 46 p.

Brasher, A.M.D., 2003, Impacts of human disturbances on 

biotic communities in Hawaiian streams: BioScience, v. 53, 

p. 1052–1060.

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: Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology, v. 46, p. 385–398.

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, 1999-2001: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 03-4256, 47 p.

Brasher, A.M.D., Luton, C.D., Goodbred, S.L., and Wolff, 

R.H., 2006, Invasion patterns along elevation and urbanization gradients in Hawaiian streams: Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, v. 135, p. 1109–1129.

Brigham, W.T., 1911, Ka hana kapa; the making of bark-cloth 

in Hawaii: Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum 

of Polynesian Ethnology and Natural History, v. 3, 273+ p.

Brock, V.E., 1952, A history of the introduction of certain 

aquatic animals to Hawaii: Biennial Report of the Board of 

Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry of the Territory 

of Hawaii, June 30, 1952, p. 114–123.

Brock, V.E., 1960, The introduction of aquatic animals into 

Hawaiian waters: Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, v. 45, p. 463–480.

Brusca, G.J., 1973, Pelagic Amphipoda from the waters near 

Oahu, Hawaii, excluding the family Scinidae: Pacific Science, v. 27, no. 1, p. 8–27.

Bryan, W.A., 1915, Natural History of Hawaii: The Hawaiian 

Gazette Co., Ltd., Honolulu, Hawaii, 596 p.

Burky, A.J., Way, C.M., Hau, Skippy, and Benbow, M.E., 

2000, The occurrence of the freshwater clams, Musculium 

partumeium (Say) and Pisidium casertanum (Poli) (Bivalvia: Sphaeriidae), in the Hawaiian Islands: Micronesica, v. 

33, p. 161–164.

Carlton, J.T., 1982, A global framework of introduced species (abs.): 63rd Annual Meeting of the Western Society of 

Naturalists, p. 19.

Carlton, J.T., 1996, Biological invasions and cryptogenic species: Ecology, v. 77, no. 6, p. 1653–1655.

Carlquist, Sherwin, 1980, Hawaii—a natural history: Pacific 

Tropical Botanical Garden, 468 p.

Clarke, K.R., 1993, Non-parametric multivariate analyses of 

changes in community structure: Australian Journal of Ecology, v. 18, p. 117–143.

Clarke, KR, and Gorley, RN., 2006, PRIMER v6: User 

Manual/Tutorial; PRIMER-E, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, 

Plymouth, U.K.

Commission on Water Resource Management, 2006, In the 

matter of water use permit applications, petitions for interim 

instream flow standard amendments, and petitions for water 

reservations for the Waiahole Ditch combined contested 

case hearing (CCH-OA95-1): Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in the second remand 

proceedings, 8 p.

Commission on Water Resource Management, 2010, ÿlao 

ground water management area high-level source water-use 

permit applications and petition to amend interim instream 

flow standards of Waiheÿe River and Waiehu, ÿlao, & 

Waikapu Streams, contested case hearing: Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, 227+ p.

Couret, C.L., Jr., 1976, The biology and taxonomy of a 

freshwater shrimp, Atya bisulcata, Randall, endemic to 

the Hawaiian islands: Honolulu, University of Hawaiÿi at 

Mänoa, M.S. thesis, 168 p.

Cowie, R.H., 1997, Catalog and bibliography of the nonindigenous nonmarine snails and slugs of the Hawaiian Islands: 

Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, v. 50, p. 1–66.

Cowie, R.H., 1998, Patterns of introduction of non-indigenous 

non-marine snails and slugs of the Hawaiian Islands: Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 7, p. 349–368.

Cowie, R.H., 2001, Invertebrate invasions on Pacific Islands 

and the replacement of unique native faunas; a synthesis of 

the land and freshwater snails: Biological Invasions, v. 3, 

p. 119–136.

Cox, T.R., 1991, The birth of Hawaiian forestry; the web of 

influences: Prepared for the XVII Pacific Science Congress, 13 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.

Davis, C.J., and Krauss, N.L.H., 1962, Recent introductions 

for biological control in Hawaii - VII: Proceedings of the 

Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 18, no. 1, p. 125–129.

Denning, D.G., and Beardsley, J.W., 1967, The collection 

of Cheumatopsyche analis in Hawaii (Hydropsychidae: 

Trichoptera): Proceedings of the Entomological Society of 

Washington, v. 69, no. 1, p. 56–57.

Denning, D.G., and Blickle, R.L., 1971, A new Trichoptera 

from the Hawaiian Islands: The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 

v. 47, no. 2, p. 164.
 References Cited 93

Derrickson, S.A.K., Robotham, M.P., Olive, S.G., and 

Evensen, C.I., 2002, Watershed management and policy in 

Hawaii—coming full circle: Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, v. 38, p. 563–576.

DeShon, J.E., 1995, Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI), in Davis, W.S., and Simon, 

T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria; tools for water 

resource planning and decision making: Lewis Publishers, 

Boca Raton. Florida, p. 217–243.

Devaney, D.M., Kelly, Marion, Lee, P.J., and Motteler, L.S., 

1982, Käneÿohe; a history of change: The Bess Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, 271 p.

Devick, W.S., 1991, Patterns of introductions of aquatic organisms to Hawaiian freshwater habitats, in Devick, W.S., ed., 

New directions in research, management and conservation 

of Hawaiian freshwater stream ecosystems: Proceedings of 

the 1990 Symposium on Freshwater Stream Biology and 

Fisheries Management: Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, 

Hawaiÿi, p. 189–213.

Devick, W.S., Fitzsimons, J.M., and Nishimoto, R.T., 1992, 

Conservation of Hawaiian freshwater fishes: Division 

of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, State of Hawaii, 26 p.

DiSalvo, Carol, Orr, Richard, and Foote, David, 2003, Dragonflies and damselflies; invertebrate indicators of ecological 

health: U.S. National Park Service, Natural Resource Year 

in Review, 2003, p. 86–87.

Edmondson, C.H., 1929, Hawaiian Atyidae: Bulletin of the 

Bernice P. Bishop Museum, v. 66, p. 1–37.

Edmondson, C.H., 1933, Reef and shore fauna of Hawaii: Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 22, 381 p.

Edmondson, C.H., and Wilson, I.H., 1940, The shellfish 

resources of Hawaii: Proceedings of the Sixth Pacific Science Congress of the Pacific Science Association, v. 3, 

p. 241–243.

Ego, K., 1956, Life history of freshwater gobies: State of 

Hawaiÿi, Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

Freshwater Game Fish Management Research, Project no. 

F–4–R, 24 p.

Eldredge, L. G., 1992, Unwanted strangers; an overview of 

animals introduced to Pacific Islands: Pacific Science, no. 

46, p. 384–386.

Englund, R.A., 1999, The impacts of introduced poeciliid fish 

and Odonata on the endemic Megalagrion (Odonata) damselflies of Oahu Island, Hawaii: Journal of Insect Conservation, v. 3, p. 225–243.

Englund, R.A., 2000, Report on aquatic insect monitoring of 

17 September 2000 in Kaipapaÿu Stream, Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi: 

Contribution No. 2000-020 to the Hawaiÿi Biological Survey, 6 p.

Englund, R.A., and Cai, Yixiong, 1999, The occurrence and 

description of Neocaridina denticulata sinensis (Kemp, 

1918) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Atyidae), a new introduction to the Hawaiian Islands: Bishop Museum Occasional 

Papers, v. 58, p. 58–65.

Englund, R.A., Polhemus, D.A., and Preston, D.J., 2000a, 

Assessment of the impacts of rainbow trout predation on 

native aquatic invertebrate species within Kökeÿe State 

Park streams, Kauaÿi, Hawaiÿi: Bishop Museum Technical 

Report, v. 18, 126 p.

Englund, R.A., Preston, D.J., Wolff, R.H., Coles, S.L., 

Eldredge, L.G., and Arakaki, K., 2000b, Biodiversity 

of freshwater and estuarine communities in lower Pearl 

Harbor, Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi with observations on introduced 

species: Final Report prepared for the U.S. Navy: Bishop 

Museum Technical Report, v. 16, 167 p.

Englund, R.A., Wright, M.G., and Polhemus, D.A., 2007, 

Aquatic insect taxa as indicators of aquatic species richness, habitat disturbance, and invasive species impacts in 

Hawaiian streams, in Evenhuis, N.L. and Fitzsimons, J.M., 

eds., Biology of Hawaiian Streams and Estuaries: Bishop 

Museum Bulletin in Cultural and Environmental Studies, 

Honolulu, p. 207–232.

Engott, J.A., and Vana, T.T., 2007, Effects of agricultural landuse changes and rainfall on ground-water recharge in central 

and west Maui, Hawaiÿi: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007-5103, 56 p.

Evenhuis, N.L., and Cowie, R.H., 1994, A survey of the snails, 

insects and related arthropods in the grounds of the Tripler 

Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum 

Technical Report, no. 3, 23 p.

Eydoux, F., and Souleyet, F.A., 1850, Poissons, in Voyage 

autour du monde exécuté pendant les années 1836 et 1837 

sur la corvette “La Bonite”, commandée par M. Vaillant, 

Zoologie: Arthus Bertrand, Paris, v. 1, no. 2, p. 157–216.

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 WaterResources Investigations 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.

Flint, O.S., Jr., Englund, R.A., and Kumashiro, B.R., 2003, A 

reassessment and new state records of Trichoptera occurring 
94 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

in Hawaiÿi with discussion on origins and potential ecological impacts: Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, v. 73, p. 

31–40.

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., 1979, Biology of a Hawaiian fluvial gastropod Neritina granosa Sowerby (Prosobranchia: Neritidae): Honolulu, University of Hawaiÿi at Mänoa, M.S. thesis, 92 p.

Ford, J.I., 1982, Final coordination act report, Wailua River 

hydroelectric power study (phase 3 pre-authorization survey 

report): Final Environmental Impact Statement, Wailua 

River Hydropower, Kauai, Hawaii Prepared by Bingham 

Engineering, 23 p.

Ford, J.I., and Kinzie, R.A., III, 1982, Life crawls upstream: 

Natural History, v. 91, p. 61–66.

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. 15, p. 212–231.

Fullaway, D.T., 1913, Report of the entomologist; mosquitoes: 

Annual Report of the Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station for 1912, p. 16–23.

Fullaway, D.T., 1941, Crayfish control: Report of the Board 

of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry of the Territory of Hawaii for the Biennial Period ended December 

31, 1940, p. 21

Gagne, W.C., 1988, Conservation priorities in Hawaiian natural systems: BioScience, v. 38, p. 264–271.

Giambelluca, T.W., Nullet, M.A., and Schroeder, T.A., 1986, 

Rainfall atlas of Hawaiÿi: State of Hawaii Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, Report R76, 267 p.

Gingerich, S.B., 2005, Median and low-flow characteristics 

for streams under natural and diverted conditions, Northeast 

Maui, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5262, 72 p.

Gingerich, S.B., and Wolff, R.H., 2005, Effects of surfacewater diversions on habitat availability for native macrofauna, northeast Maui, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5213, 93 p.

Groombridge, J., 2008, Hawaii—extinction capital of the 

world: National Environmental Research Council, PlanetEarth online [http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/features/story.

aspx?id=129, accessed March 2011],

Hall, W.L., 1904, The forests of the Hawaiian Islands: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Forestry, Bulletin no. 

48, 29 p.

Harding, J.S., Benfield, E.F., Bolstad, P.V., Helfman, G.S., and 

Jones, E.B.D., 1998, Stream biodiversity; the ghost of land 

use past: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

of the United States of America, v. 95, p. 14843–14847.

Hardy, D.E., 1956, Notes and exhibitions; Cricotopus bicinctus: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 

16, no. 1, p. 15.

Hardy, D.E., 1960, Insects of Hawaii; Volume 10; Diptera, 

Nematocera-Brachycera: University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, 368 p.

Hardy, D.E., 1985, Notes and exhibitions; Hemerodromia sp.: 

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 25, 

p. 20.

Hawaii Board of Commissioners, 1939, Spread of the Wi: 

Report of the Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and 

Forestry of the Territory of Hawaii for the Biennial Period 

ended December 31, 1938, p. 46.

Hawaiian Gazette, 1905, Little fish here to kill mosquitoes: 

Hawaiian Gazette, September 19, 1905, p. 2.

Heacock, D.E., Berg, Kristina, and Kido, M.H., 1994, Diet 

of the introduced smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui. 

in the Wailua and Huleia rivers, Kauai, Hawaiÿi; impact on 

native Hawaiian stream fauna, in Way, C.M., ed., Proceedings of the international symposium on Hawaiian stream 

ecology, preservation, and management: Miscellaneous 

Paper EL-94-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS, p. 9.

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.

Holt, Alan, 1988, Protection of natural habitats, in Stone, C.P., 

and Stone, D.B., eds., Conservation biology in Hawaii: 

University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, p. 168–174.

Homer, Collin, Huang, Chengquan, Yang, Limin, Wylie, 

Bruce, and Coan, Michael, 2004, Development of a 2001 

National Landcover Database for the United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 70, no. 7, 

p. 829–840.

Hosmer, R.S., 1908, Forestry in Hawaii; why the practice of 

forestry is an economic necessity in the Hawaiian Islands: 

Territory of Hawaii, 8 p.

Howard, L.O., 1900, Notes on the mosquitoes of the United 

States; giving some account of their structure and biology, 

with remarks on remedies: Bulletin of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, v. 25, 70 p.

Howard, L.O., 1901, Mosquitoes; how they live; how they 

carry disease; how they are classified; how they may be 

destroyed: McClure, Phillips and Co., New York, 241 p.

Howarth, F.G., 1990, Hawaiian terrestrial arthropods: an over-
References Cited 95

view: Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, v. 30, p. 4–26.

Howarth, F.G., and Mull, W.P., 1992, Hawaiian insects and 

their kin: University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, 

160 p.

Howarth, F.G., and Polhemus, D.A., 1991, A review of the 

Hawaiian stream insect fauna, in Devick, W.S., ed., New 

directions in research, management and conservation of 

Hawaiian freshwater stream ecosystems, Proceedings of 

the 1990 Symposium on Freshwater Stream Biology and 

Fisheries Management: Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, 

Hawaii, p. 40–50.

Hubbell, T.H., 1968, The biology of islands: Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, v. 60, p. 22–32.

Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Herlihy, A.T., Kinkaid, T.M., 

Reynolds, Lou, and Larsen, D.P., 1998, A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblages integrity: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 55, 

p. 1618–1631.

Hung, Ming-Shih, Chan, Tin-Yam, and Yu, Hsiang-Ping, 1993, 

Atyid shrimps (Decapoda: Caridea) of Taiwan, with descriptions of three new species: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 

13, p. 481–503.

Ibara, Wayne, and Conant, Patrick, 1972, Aquatic fauna of the 

streams of Waihoi Valley, in Kjargaard, J., ed., Scientific 

Report of the Waihoi Valley Project: University of Hawaii, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, p. 202–214.

Iguchi, K., 2007, Limitations of early seaward migration 

success in amphidromous fishes, in Evenhuis, N.L., and 

Fitzsimons, J.M., eds., Biology of Hawaiian streams and 

estuaries: Bishop Museum Bulletin in Cultural and Environmental Studies, Honolulu, p. 75–85.

Iguchi, K., and Mizuno, N., 1999, Early starvation limits 

survival in amphidromous fishes: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 

54, p. 705–712.

Iizuka, R.K., 1979, The use of larvivorous fish for mosquito 

control in Oahu, Hawaii: Long Beach, California State University, M.S. thesis, 42 p.

Illingworth, J.F., 1930, The use of arsenic in mosquito control: 

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, p. 414.

Illingworth, J.F., 1931, Insects in the Waiahole Ditch: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, p. 408-409.

Jarves, J.J., 1843, History of the Hawaiian or Sandwich 

Islands: Tappan and Dennet, Boston, 407 p.

Johnson, C.G., 2001, Conservation biology of the orangeblack 

Hawaiian damselfly, Megalagrion xanthomelas, (Odonata: 

Coenagrionidae) on Oÿahu: Honolulu, University of Hawaiÿi 

at Mänoa, M.S. thesis, 92 p.

Jordan, D.S., 1905, The origin of species through isolation: 

Science, v. 22, p. 545–562.

Joyce, C.R., 1961, Potentialities for accidental establishment 

of exotic mosquitoes in Hawaii: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 17, no. 3, p. 403–413.

Joyce, C.R., 1969, Notes and exhibitions; Hydroptila sp.: 

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 20, 

no. 2, p. 275.

Joyce, C.R., 1970, Notes and exhibitions; Cheumatopsyche 

analis: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 

v. 20, no. 3, p. 485.

Judd, C.S., 1919, Forestry in Hawaii: The Hawaiian Forester 

and Agriculturist, v. 16, no. 11, p. 271–297.

Juvik, S.O., and Juvik, J.O., 1998, Atlas of Hawaiÿi (3rd ed.): 

University of Hawaiÿi Press, Honolulu, 333 p. 

Kanayama, R.K., 1967, Hawaii’s aquatic animal introductions: 

Presented at the 47th annual conference of the Western 

Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners, 8 p.

Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., and 

Schlosser, I.J., 1986, Assessing biological integrity in running waters; a method and its rationale: Illinois Natural 

History Survey, Special Publication 5, 28 p.

Kawamura, K., 1974, Notes and exhibitions; Cheumatopsyche 

analis: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 

v. 21, no. 3, p. 303.

Kawate, David, 1969, An ecological comparison of two 

Hawaiian streams: Honolulu, University of Hawaiÿi at 

Mänoa, M.S. thesis, 29 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., 1996, Diet and food selection in the endemic 

Hawaiian amphidromous goby, Sicyopterus stimpsoni

(Pisces: Gobiidae): Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 45, 

p. 199–209.

Kido, M.H., 1997, Food relations between coexisting native 

Hawaiian stream fishes: Environmental Biology of Fishes, 

v. 49, p. 481–494.

Kido, M.H., 2002, Hawaii stream bioassessment protocol 

version 3.01: Hawaii Stream Research Center, Center for 

Conservation Research and Training, University of Hawaii, 

47 p.

Kido, M.H., 2007, A biological and habitat assessment of 

Lower Lawai Stream, Kauai: Final technical Report to the 

National Tropical Botanical Garden, 17 p.
96 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Kido, M.H., and Smith, G.C., 1997, Biocriteria for assessing 

the biological integrity of Hawaii’s streams: Paper presented at the 1997 Conservation Conference, July 24-25, 

Maui, Hawaii, 5 p.

Kido, M.H., Ha, Phyllis, and Kinzie, R.A., III, 1993, Insect 

introductions and diet changes in an endemic Hawaiian 

amphidromous goby, Awaous stamineus (Pisces: Gobiidae): Pacific Science, v. 47, p. 43–50.

Kido, M.H., Heacock, D.E., and Asquith, Adam, 1999a, Alien 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Salmoniformes: 

Salmoniae) 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, R.A., III, 1988, Habitat utilization by Hawaiian stream 

fishes with reference to community structure in oceanic 

island streams: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 22, p. 

179–192.

Kinzie, R.A., III, 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., 28 p.

Kinzie, R.A., III, and Ford, J.I., 1977, A limnological survey 

of Lower Palikea and Pïpïwai Streams, Kipahulu, Maui: 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Technical Report 17, 44 p.

Kinzie, R.A., III, Chong, C., Devrell, J., Lindstrom, D., and 

Wolff, R., 2006, Effects of water removal on a Hawaiian 

stream ecosystem: Pacific Science, v. 60, p. 1–47.

Kirch, P.V., 1982, The impact of prehistoric Polynesians on the 

Hawaiian ecosystem: Pacific Science, v. 36 no. 1, p. 1–14.

Klemm, D.J., Blockson, K.A., Fulk, F.A., Herlihy, A.T., 

Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Peck, D.V., Stoddard, J.L., 

Thoeny, W.T., and Griffith, M.B., 2003, Development and 

evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index 

(MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands 

streams: Environmental Management, v. 31, p. 656–669.

Koch, Linda, Harrigan-Lum, June, and Henderson, Katina, 

2004, Final 2004 list of impaired waters in Hawaii: Prepared Under Clean Water Act 303(d): Hawaii State Department of Health, Environmental Planning Office, 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, v. 350, p. 81–85.

Krumholz, L.A., 1948, Reproduction in the western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis affinis (Baird and Girard), and its use 

in mosquito control: Ecological Monographs, v. 18, 

p. 1–43.

Kubota, W.T., 1972, The biology of an introduced prawn Macrobrachium lar (Fabricius) in Kahana Stream: Honolulu, 

University of Hawaiÿi at Mänoa, M.S. thesis, 185 p.

Kuykendall, R.S., and Gregory, H.E., 1926, A history of 

Hawaii: The Macmillan Company, New York, 375 p.

Lea, Isaac, 1856, Description of fifteen new species of exotic 

Melaniana: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 8, p. 144–145.

Lee, W.L., 1851, Proceedings of the Royal Agricultural Society: The Transactions of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural 

Society, v. 1, no. 2, p. 4–9.

Lenat, D.R., and Barbour, M.T. 1994, Using benthic macroinvertebrate community structure for rapid, cost-effective, 

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.

Liebherr, J.K., and Polhemus, D.A., 1997, Comparisons to the 

century before; the legacy of R. C. L. Perkins and Fauna 

Hawaiiensis as the basis for a long-term ecological monitoring program: Pacific Science, v. 51, p. 490–504.

Lindstrom, D.P., and Brown, C.L., 1996, Captive breeding 

and rearing of native amphidromous Hawaiian gobioids; 

ramifications for ecosystem management, in Devick, W.S., 

ed., Will stream restoration benefit freshwater, estuarine, 

and marine fisheries? Proceedings of the Hawaii Stream 

Restoration Symposium: Hawaiÿi Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, Technical Report 96–01, Honolulu, 

Hawaiÿi, p. 112–131.

Loope, L.L., and Mueller-Dombois, Dieter, 1989, Characteristics of invaded islands, with special reference to Hawaii, 

in Drake, J.A., Mooney, H.A., di Castri, F., Groves, R.H., 

Kruger, E.J., Rejmánek, M., and Williamson, M, eds., 

Biological invasions; a global perspective: John Wiley and 

Sons, New York, p. 257–280.

Lyon, H.L., 1922, Hawaiian Forests: The Hawaiian Forester 

and Agriculturist, v. 19, no. 7, p. 159–162.

Maciolek, J.A., 1972, Diadromous macrofauna and the Kahana stream-estuary ecosystem: Report to Division of State 

Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of 

Hawaiÿi, Honolulu, 22 p.
 References Cited 97

Maciolek, J.A., 1975, Limnological ecosystems and Hawaii’s 

preservational planning: Verhandlungen Internationale 

Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, 

v. 19, p. 1461–1467.

Maciolek, J.A., 1976, Fauna of streams and other inlands 

waters (Draft): Contribution to the Encyclopedia of Hawaii, 

13 p.

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: The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md., 

p. 131–161.

Mainland, G.B., 1939, Gobioidea and fresh water fish on the 

island of Oahu: Honolulu, University of Hawaiÿi at Mänoa, 

M.S. thesis, 101 p.

Marsden, Joseph, 1894, Conservation of forests: Biennial 

Report of the Board of the Minister of the Interior, p. 92–96.

McCune, Bruce, and Grace, J.B., 2002, Analysis of ecological communities: MJM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, 

Oregon, 300 p.

McDowall, R.M., 1988, Diadromy in fishes: Portland, Oregon, 

Timber Press, 308 p.

McDowall, R.M., 1993, A recent marine ancestry for diadromous fishes? Sometimes yes, but mostly no!: Environmental 

Biology of Fishes, v. 37, p. 329–335.

McDowall, R.M., 2003, Hawaiian biogeography and the 

islands’ freshwater fish fauna: Journal of Biogeography, v. 

30, p. 703–710.

McIntosh, M.D., Benbow, M.E., and Burky, A.J., 2002, Effects 

of stream diversion on riffle macroinvertebrate communities 

in a Maui, Hawaii, stream: River Research and Applications, v. 18, p. 569–581.

McIntosh, M.D., Benbow, M.E., and Burky, A.J., 2003, Effect 

of water removal on introduced caddisflies from a tropical 

mountain stream: Annales de Limnologie – International 

Journal of Limnology, v. 39, p. 297–306.

McIntosh, M.D., Schmitz, J.A., Benbow, M.E., and Burky, 

A.J., 2008, Structural and functional changes of tropical 

riffle macroinvertebrate communities associated with stream 

flow withdrawal: River Research and Applications, v. 24, p. 

1045–1055.

McLachlan, Robert, 1883, Neuroptera of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Part I. Pseudo-Neuroptera: The Annals and Magazine of 

Natural History (Fifth Series), v. 12, no. 70, p. 226–240.

McRae, M.G., 2007a, Watershed-scale patterns of seaward 

migration in Lentipes concolor, a Hawaiian stream goby: 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 

71 p.

McRae, M.G., 2007b, The potential for source-sink population 

dynamics in Hawaii’s amphidromous fishes, in Evenhuis, 

N.L., and Fitzsimons, J.M., eds., Biology of Hawaiian 

streams and estuaries: Honolulu, Bishop Museum Bulletin 

in Cultural and Environmental Studies, p. 87–98.

Meador, M.R., Hupp, C.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 

1993, Methods for characterizing stream habitat as part of 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–408, 48 p.

Moulton, S.R., II, Kennen, J.G., Goldstein, R.M., and Hambrook, J.A., 2002, Revised protocols for sampling algal, 

invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National 

Water-Quality Assessment program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-150, 75 p.

Nakagawa, P.Y., 1964, Mosquito control in Hawaii: Pest Control Magazine (Reprint), v. 32, no. 4, 3 p.

Nakagawa, P.Y., and Hirst, J.M., 1959, Current efforts in mosquito control in Hawaii: Mosquito News, v. 19, no. 2, 

p. 64–67.

Needham, P.R., and Usinger, R.L., 1961, Combined report 

on the mayfly project for the months January - March and 

April - June: Hawaii Division of Fish and Game, Freshwater 

Game Fish Management Research, Introduction of Aquatic 

Insects and Other Invertebrates, 2 p. 

Newman, L.J., 1975, Cytogenetics of the Hawaiian Telmatogeton (Diptera): Island Ecosystems Integrated Research 

Program, U.S. International Biological Program, Technical 

Report No. 56, 23 p.

Newman, L.J., 1977, Chromosomal evolution of the Hawaiian 

Telmatogeton (Chironomidae, Diptera): Chromosoma, v. 

64, p. 349–369.

Newman, L.J., 1988, Evolutionary relationships of the Hawaiian and North American Telmatogeton (Insecta; Diptera; 

Chironomidae): Pacific Science, v. 42, p. 56–64.

Nielsen, Anker, 1950, The torrential invertebrate fauna: Oikos, 

v. 2, no. 2, p. 176–196.

Nishida, G.M., 1992, Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist: Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, 262 p.

Nordhoff, Charles, 1874, Northern California, Oregon, and the 

Sandwich Islands: Harper and Brothers, New York, 256 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 
98 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

03-4156, 98 p.

Oki, D.S., Wolff, R.H., and Perreault, J.A., 2006, Effects of 

surface-water diversion and ground-water withdrawal on 

streamflow and habitat, Punaluÿu Stream, Oahu, Hawaii: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

06-5153, 104 p.

Oki, D.S., Wolff, R.H., and Perreault, J.A., 2010, Effects of 

surface-water diversion on streamflow, recharge, physical 

habitat, and temperature, Nä Wai ÿEhä, Maui, Hawaiÿi: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-

5011, 154 p.

Osten-Sacken, C.R., 1884, Facts concerning the importation 

or non-importation of Diptera into distant countries: The 

Transactions of the Entomological Society of London for 

the Year 1884, p. 489–496.

Pease, W.H., 1870, Remarks on the species of Melania and 

Limnaea inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands, with descriptions 

of new species: American Journal of Conchology, v. 6, no. 

1, p. 4–7.

Peck, J.E., 2010, Multivariate analysis for ommunity ecologists; step-by-step using PC-ORD: MjM Software Design, 

Gleneden Beach, Oregon, 162 p.

Penn, G.H., 1954, Introductions of American crawfishes into 

foreign lands: Ecology, v. 35, 296 p.

Perkins, R.C.L., 1913, Introduction; being a review of the 

land-fauna of Hawaii, in Sharp, D., ed., Fauna Hawaiiensis 

or the zoology of the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Isles: Cambridge University Press, v. 1, part 6, p. xv–ccxxviii.

Polhemus, D.A., 1992, A survey of the aquatic insect fauna of 

Hanawi Stream, East Maui, Hawaii: Prepared for the Natural Area Reserves System, Hawaii State Department of Land 

and Natural Resources, 16 p.

Polhemus, D.A., 1993, Damsels in distress; a review of the 

conservation status of Hawaiian Megalagrion damselflies 

(Odonata: Coenagrionidae): Aquatic Conservation, Marine 

and Freshwater Ecosystems, v. 3, p. 343–349.

Polhemus, D.A., 1995, A survey of the aquatic insect faunas of 

selected Hawaiian streams: Prepared for the Commission on 

Water Resource Management, Hawaiÿi State Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, 128 p.

Polhemus, D.A., 2008, Integrating aquatic insect data into 

Hawaiian stream assessments: Presented at the Workshop 

on Ecology, Restoration, and Management of Hawaiian 

Stream and Riparian Systems, Windward Community College, Käneÿohe, Hawaiÿi, 20–22 May 2008, 30 p.

Polhemus, D.A., and Asquith, Adam, 1996, Hawaiian damselflies; a field identification guide: Bishop Museum Press, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 122 p.

 Polhemus, D.A., Maciolek, John, and Ford, John, 1992, An 

ecosystem classification of inland waters for the tropical 

Pacific Islands: Micronesica, v. 25, p. 155–173.

Radtke, R.L., Kinzie, R.A., III, and Folsom, S.D., 1988, Age at 

recruitment of Hawaiian freshwater gobies: Environmental 

Biology of Fishes, v. 23, p. 205–213.

Radtke, R.L., Kinzie, R.A., III, and Shafer, D.J., 2001, Temporal and spatial variation in length of larval life and size at 

settlement of the Hawaiian amphidromous goby Lentipes 

concolor: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 59, p. 928–938.

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.

Reynolds, S.R., 1850, Reminiscences of Hawaiian agriculture: 

The Transactions of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society, v. 1, no. 1, p. 49–53.

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.

Russel, C.H., 1891, The best mosquito remedy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Insect Life, v. 

4, nos. 5 and 6, p. 223.

S.A.M., 1891, The destruction of mosquitoes (Letters to the 

editor): Nature, v. 44, October 22, p. 591.

Schoenfuss, H.L., and Blob, R.W., 2003, Kinematics of waterfall climbing in Hawaiian freshwater fishes (Gobiidae); vertical propulsion at the aquatic-terrestrial interface: Journal 

of Zoology, London, v. 261, p. 191–205.

Seale, Alvin, 1905, Report of Mr. Alvin Seale of the United 

States Fish Commission, on the introduction of topminnows to Hawaii from Galveston, Texas: The Hawaiian 

Forester and Agriculturist, v. 2, p. 364–367.

Shima, S.I., 1968, Introduction of aquatic insects and other 

invertebrates: Hawaii Division of Fish and Game, Job 
 References Cited 99

Completion Report, Research Project Segment, Freshwater 

Game Fish Management Research, Project no. F-4-R-16, 

Job no. 2, 2 p.

Shima, S.I., 1969, Introduction of aquatic insects and other 

invertebrates: Hawaii Division of Fish and Game, Job 

Completion Report, Research Project Segment, Freshwater 

Game Fish Management Research, Project no. F-4-R-17, 

Job no. 2, 2 p.

Shima, S.I., 1970, Limnological survey for introduction of 

exotic species of fish: Hawaii Division of Fish and Game, 

Job Completion Report, Research Project Segment, Freshwater Game Fish Management Research, Project no. F-4-R18, Job no. 3, 4+ p.

Shiroma, E., 1972, Notes and exhibitions; Cheumatopsyche 

analis: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 

v. 21, no. 2, p. 161.

Shoda, M.E., 2009, Cascade macroinvertebrate assemblages 

for in-stream flow criteria and biomonitoring of high gradient tropical streams: Dayton, Ohio, University of Dayton, 

M.S. thesis, 117 p.

Shoda, M.E., Gorbach, K.R., Benbow, M.E., and Burky, A.J., 

2011, Cascade macroinvertebrate assemblages for instream flow criteria and biomonitoring of tropical mountain 

streams: River Research and Applications, doi: 10.1002/

rra.1458, 12 p.

Smith, G.C., 2000, Rediscovery of the introduced mayfly Caenis nigropuncata (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) in Waimanalo 

Stream, Oahu: Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, v. 64, p. 

30–31.

St. John, Harold, 1947, The history, present distribution, and 

abundance of sandalwood on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands: 

Hawaiian plant studies 14: Pacific Science, v. 1, p. 5–20.

State of Hawaii, 2009, The State of Hawaii data book 2009, a 

statistical abstract: State of Hawaii, Department of Business, 

Economic Development, and Tourism, accessed May 13, 

2011 at http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook/

db2009/.

Stearns, H.T., and MacDonald, G.A., 1942, Geology and 

ground-water resources of the island of Maui, Hawaii: 

Hawaiÿi Division of Hydrography Bulletin 7, 344 p.

Stubbs, W.C., 1901, Forestry: Paradise of the Pacific, v. 14, no. 

11, p. 17.

Svihla, Arthur, 1941, The occurrence of freshwater sponges in 

the Hawaiian Islands: Science, v. 94, no. 2438, p. 278–279.

Sykes, E.R., 1900, Mollusca: Fauna Hawaiiensis, v. 2, part 4, 

p. 271–412.

Tate, D.C., Fitzsimons, J.M., and Cody, R.P., 1992, Hawaiian freshwater fishes (Osteichthyes, Gobioidei); a field key 

to the species of larvae and postlarvae during recruitment 

into fresh waters: Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, 

Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural Science, v. 65, 

p. 1–10.

Terry, F.W., 1913, On a new genus of Hawaiian chironomids: 

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 2, 

no. 5, p. 291–294.

Tester, A.L., and Trefz, S.M., 1954, The food of the aholehole, 

Kuhlia sandvicensis (Steindachner), in Hawaiian waters: 

Pacific Science, v. 8, p. 3–10.

Thrum, T.G., 1904, The sandalwood trade of early Hawaii: 

Thrum’s Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1905, p. 43–74.

Timbol, A.S., 1977, A report on the aquatic survey of stream 

macrofauna for the hydroelectric power study for Hawaii: 

Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, 

Pacific Ocean Division, 48+ p.

Timbol, A.S., 1984a, Biological reconnaissance of Kaluanui 

Stream, Oahu: Revised Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Kaluanui Wells, p. B1–B17.

Timbol, A.S., 1984b, Biological reconnaissance of Kaneohe 

Stream and two of its tributaries; Luluku and Kamooalii, 

Oahu: Revised Environmental Impact Statement for 

Kamooalii Watershed Wells, Board of Water Supply, City 

and County of Honolulu, p. B1–B11.

Timbol, A.S., and Maciolek, J.A., 1978, Stream channel modification in Hawaii. Part A; statewide inventory of streams; 

habitat factors and associated biota: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-78/16, 

158 p.

Tomihama, M.T., 1972, The biology of Sicydium stimpsoni; 

freshwater goby endemic to Hawaii: Honolulu, University 

of Hawaiÿi at Mänoa, B.S. Honors thesis, 123 p.

U.S. Army, 1945, Army activities resulting in benefits to the 

Territory of Hawaii; series 8 disease prevention; subject 2 

mosquito control: Prepared By Control Division, Headquarters AFMIDPAC, 12 p.

USEPA, 2004, Wadeable streams assessment; field operations 

manual: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 

Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, D.C., EPA 841–B–04–004, 152 p.

USFWS, 1978, The biological resources of the Hilo study 

area, Hawaii, Hawaii; An Overview: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hilo Area Comprehensive Study, 143+ p.

USFWS, 1996, Endangered and threatened species, plant and 

animal taxa; proposed rule: Federal Register, v. 61, no. 40, 

p. 7595–7613.
100 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

USFWS, 2009, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

proposed endangered status for flying earwig Hawaiian 

damselfly (Megalagrion nesiotes) and Pacific Hawaiian 

damselfly (M. pacificum) throughout their ranges: Federal 

Register, v. 74, no. 129, p. 32490–32510.

USFWS, 2010, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

listing the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and Pacific 

Hawaiian damselfly as endangered throughout their ranges: 

Federal Register, v. 75, no. 121, p. 35990–36012.

Usinger, R.L., 1941, Problems of insect speciation in the 

Hawaiian Islands: The American Naturalist, v. 75, no. 758, 

p. 251–263.

Van Dine, D.L., 1903, Mosquitoes: Public Informational 

Poster for Mosquitoe Extermination (Printed in five 

languages: English, Hawaiian, Portuguese, Japanese, and 

Chinese), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hawaii Experiment Station.

Van Dine, D.L., 1904, Mosquitoes in Hawaii: Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin no. 6, 30 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.

Van Zwaluwenburg, R.H., 1945, Notes and exhibitions; new or 

rare insect records for Hawaii: Proceedings of the Hawaiian 

Entomological Society, v. 12, no. 2, p. 228.

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: Journal of Parasitology, v. 89, no. 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: Journal of Parasitology, v. 89, no. 4, p. 756–760.

Walther, A.C., 2008, A systematic study of North American 

freshwater limpets (Gastropoda: Hygrophila: Ancylidae): 

Michigan, University of Michigan, Ph.D. dissertation, 

122 p.

Way, C.M., and Burky, A.J., 1991, A preliminary survey of 

macroinvertebrates and a preliminary assessment of the diet 

of the endemic Hawaiian goby (ÿoÿopu ÿalamoÿo), Lentipes 

concolor (Gill), in Devick, W.S., ed., New directions in 

research, management and conservation of Hawaiian freshwater stream ecosystems, Proceedings of the 1990 Symposium on Freshwater Stream Biology and Fisheries Management: Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division 

of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, Hawaii, p. 

158–164.

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.

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.

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.

Wilcox, Carol, 1996, Sugar water; Hawaii’s plantation ditches: 

University of Hawaiÿi Press, Honolulu, 191 p.

Williams, F.X., 1936, Biological studies in Hawaiian waterloving insects; Part I. Coleoptera or beetles; Part II. Odonata 

or dragonflies: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological 

Society, v. 9, no. 2, p. 235–349.

Wirth, W.W., 1947, A review of the genus Telmatogeton

Schiner, with descriptions of three new Hawaiian species 

(Diptera: Tendipedidae): Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 13, no. 1, p. 143–195.

Wolff, R.H., 2000, Seasonal recovery patterns of Hawaiian stream flora and fauna, Wainiha River, Kauai, Hawaii: 

Honolulu, University of Hawaiÿi at Mänoa, M.S. thesis, 

74 p.

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.

Wolff, R.H., and Koch, L.A., 2009, Ecological assessment of 

wadeable streams on Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi, 2006–2007: a pilot 

study: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2009-5229, 83 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., 1992, Occurrence, distribution and abundance of accidentally introduced freshwater aquatic organisms in Hawaii; investigations of the impact of accidentally 

introduced freshwater aquatic organisms and of methods for 

control or eradication: Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Job Progress 

Report, Freshwater Fisheries Research and Surveys, Project 

no. F-14-R-16, Job nos. 1 and 2 (Study VIII), 6 p.

Yamamoto, M.N., 1993, Occurrence, distribution and abundance of accidentally introduced freshwater aquatic organisms in Hawaii: Hawaii Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Annual Performance Report, Freshwater Fisheries Research and Surveys, 

Project no. F-14-R-17, Job no. 1 (study VIII), 5+ p.
 References Cited 101

Yamamoto, M.N., 1996, Accidental introductions of aquatic 

organisms into Hawaiian freshwater ecosystems: Hawaii 

Division of Aquatic Resources, Job Progress Report, 

Freshwater Fisheries Research and Surveys, Project no. 

F-14-R-20, Job nos. 1 and 2 (Study VIII), 4+ p.

Yamamoto, M.N., and Tagawa, A.W., 2000, Hawaii’s native 

and exotic freshwater animals: Honolulu, Hawaiÿi, Mutual 

Publishing, 200 p.

Yee, J.J.S., and Ewart, C.J., 1986, Biological, morphological, 

and chemical characteristics of Wailuku River, Hawaii: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

86-4043, 69 p.

Yoshida, R.N., 1961, Introduction of aquatic insects and other 

invertebrates: Hawaii Division of Fish and Game, Job 

Completion Report, Fresh Water Game Fish Management 

Research, Project no. F-4-R-9, Job no. 2, 2+ p.

Zimmerman, E.C., 1943, On the establishment of the order 

Trichoptera in Hawaii: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, v. 11, no. 3, p. 350–352.

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.

Zimmerman, E.C., 1951, Notes and exhibitions; Caenis 

nigropunctata: Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological 

Society, v. 14, no. 2, p. 205.
102 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Appendixes A–D
 Appendix A 103

Appendix A. Evaluation of Replicate, Re-sort, and Repeat Samples of 

Macroinvertebrates Collected from Streams on Maui, Hawaiÿi, 2009-2010

Multivariate statistical analyses were used to evaluate 

the results of the replicate, re-sort, and repeat samples collected on Maui (figs. A1–A2). Nonmetric multidimensional 

scaling (nMDS) was used to examine the relations among 

the samples (Clarke, 1993). These relations were assessed 

using the abundance (organisms/m2) dataset and the relative 

abundance (proportional) dataset. Abundance data were log(x

+ 1) transformed before the analysis, and the proportional 

data were arcsine–square root transformed before the analysis. Hierarchical agglomerative clustering was performed on 

both datasets using Bray–Curtis similarity scores to compare 

the samples. Figure A3 displays the nMDS ordination of the 

results for (A) the proportional dataset and (B) the abundance 

dataset. Samples that plot near to each other are most similar. 

The results of the resemblance clustering were overlaid on 

the ordination plots to show the percent similarity between 

the samples.

Re-sorted Samples

The unsorted material remaining from four previously 

sorted quantitative samples was sorted by the contract laboratory, EcoAnalysts Inc., to assess some of the variability 

inherent in the subsampling process. These samples were 

from Kölea, Kopiliÿula-B, Hanawï-A, and the replicate sample 

from Hanawï-A (fig. A1; tables A1–A3) The Kölea re-sort and 

original sort grouped very closely on the nMDS ordination and 

clustered with a 90 percent similarity using the proportional 

data (fig. A3A). They were a little farther apart using the abundance data, with an 80 percent similarity (fig. A3B). This was 

because the original sort was calculated to have 23,137 organisms/m2

, with only 1.82 percent of the sample sorted to achieve 

the 500-organism count, whereas the re-sort contained 9,869/

m2

, with 4.17 percent of the remaining material required to be 

sorted (table A1). The samples from Kopiliÿula-B showed a 

similar trend, grouping closely together in the ordination with a 

90 percent similarity using the proportional data (fig. A3A) and 

an 85 percent similarity with the abundance data (fig. A3B). 

The original sort required 10.94 percent of the sample whereas 

the re-sort required 18.76 percent. The Hanawï-A samples all 

grouped closely together, the two replicates and one re-sort had 

an 85 percent similarity, and all four had an 80 percent similarity with the proportional data (fig. A3A), and they also grouped 

closely together, with both re-sorts having an 85 percent 

similarity, the two replicates having an 80 percent similarity, 

and all four having a 75 percent similarity with the abundance 

data (fig. A3B). These results show that there is some variability in the subsampling process, although there is an overall high 

degree of similarity between the samples.

Replicate Samples

Replicate quantitative samples were collected at eight sites, 

including Hanawï-A (as discussed in the previous section), HanawïB, Honolua, Olowalu-B, Waiheÿe-B, ÿÏao-C, North Waiehu-A, 

and South Waiehu-A (figs. A1–A2; tables A4–A10). These paired 

samples all tended to group closely together using either dataset 

(fig. A3A and B). The percent similarity ranged from 75 to 85 

percent with a mean of 81.25 percent, using the proportional data 

(fig. A3A) and from 70 to 90 percent, with a mean of 80 percent 

similarity with the abundance data. These results show that there is 

some variability between the pairs of samples due to the heterogeneous nature of physical habitats in tropical streams, and that some 

macroinvertebrate assemblages from other similar streams grouped 

closely to these pairings, although there is an overall high degree of 

similarity between the paired replicate samples.

Repeat Samples

Three repeat quantitative samples were collected at the 

Waiheÿe-A site over the duration of the field work on Maui (fig. 

A2). The first sample was collected on September 22, 2009, the 

second on October 23, 2009, and the third on January 29, 2010 

(table A11).The ordination of the proportional data revealed that 

the first and third samples had a higher degree of similarity, grouping closer together with an 85 percent similarity, than either sample had with the second sample, with a 70 percent similarity (fig. 

A3A). The ordination of the abundance data revealed a comparable 

trend, with the first and third samples grouping closer together and 

sharing an 80 percent similarity and the second sample having a 75 

percent similarity with the others (fig. A3B). The second sample 

had a lower total abundance of macroinvertebrates than the other 

two samples, 57 percent less than the first and 61 percent less than 

the third sample. This was mainly due to much lower abundances 

of the chironomids Cricotopus (73 and 77 percent fewer, respectively) and Eukiefferiella (71 and 70 percent fewer, respectively) in 

the second sample (table A11). This reduction caused the relative 

abundances of other macroinvertebrates, especially the trichopterans Cheumatopsyche and Hydroptilidae to be greater in the second 

sample (table A11). The exact cause of the decline in chironomids in the second sample is uncertain. Some of this variability 

is accounted for in the spatial heterogeneity demonstrated in the 

replicate sample comparisons, but this does not account for the 

sharp decline and subsequent upturn in chironomid abundances. It 

is possible that the sampling locations of the second sample were 

disturbed by a series of four relatively small spates that occurred 

in the 32 days between sampling, or perhaps the sampling locations were inadvertently disturbed during the collection of the first 

sample and the chironomids were not able to recover in the short 

time between sampling.
104 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

!

!

!

! Hana Hwy

Crater Rd

Kölea

Hanawï-B

Hanawï-A

Koÿolau Ditch

Kopiliÿula-B 156°05'

156°10'

20°50'

20°45'

0 21 MILES

0 1.5 KILOMETERS 3

! Replicate Sampling Site

!

Re-sort Sampling Site

Ditch System

EXPLANATION

Stream

Basin Boundary

Maui

East Maui

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

Figure A1. Locations of replicate and re-sort sampling sites on East Maui.
 Appendix A 105

"

"

"

"

"

Kahana

Olowalu

Lahaina

Käÿanapali

Honökohau

Replicate Sampling Site

Ditch System

EXPLANATION

Stream

Basin Boundary

Town

!

! Repeat Sampling Site

"

Maui

156°30'

156°35'

156°40'

21°00'

20°55'

20°50'

West Maui

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

Honolua

Olowalu-B

ÿĪao-C

Waiheÿe-A

Waiheÿe-B open

South Waiehu-A

North Waiehu-A

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 KILOMETERS

Figure A2. Locations of replicate and repeat sampling sites on West Maui.
106 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure A3. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordinations of the Maui quantitative 

macroinvertebrate samples displaying the relationships between the re-sorted, replicate, and 

repeat samples using (A) arcsine-square root transformed proportional data and (B) log(x+1) 

transformed abundance data (logarithm of the sum of the abundance plus one, with abundance in 

number of organisms per square meter). Colored lines are statistically derived overlay of cluster 

contours from a dendrogram plot determined using hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis. 

Axis 1

Axis 2

B

2-Dimensional Stress: 0.23

Axis 1

Axis 2

A

2-Dimensional Stress: 0.2

Explanation

Single Sample Sites

Percent Similarity

Hanawï-A (replicate and re-sort)

Kölea (re-sort)

Kopiliÿula-B (re-sort)

Hanawï-B

Honolua

Olowalu-B

Waiheÿe-B (open)

Waiheÿe-A (repeat site)

N. Waiehu-A

S. Waiehu-A

ÿÏao-C

90

85

80

75

70
Appendix A 107

Table A1. Re-sorted quantitative sample from Kölea (HI_MAUI_09-011).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A (first sort: 1.82 percent) A (second sort: 4.17 percent)

Absolute

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Nemertea 131.7 0.6 38.4 0.4

Oligochaeta 877.8 3.8 211.0 2.1

Ferrissia sp. 131.7 0.6 38.4 0.4

Lymnaeidae 131.7 0.6 19.2 0.2

Acari 43.9 0.2 38.4 0.4

Atyoida bisulcata 8.0 0.0 46.4 0.5

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 8,470.4 36.6 4,086.3 41.4

Eukiefferiella sp. 9,699.3 41.9 3,760.2 38.1

Orthocladius Complex 43.9 0.2 — —

Telmatogeton sp. 307.2 1.3 57.6 0.6

Megalagrion sp. — — 19.2 0.2

Cheumatopsyche sp. 2,721.1 11.8 1,381.3 14.0

Hydroptilidae 570.5 2.5 172.7 1.8

Total 23,137.2 100 9,869.1 100
108 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table A2. Re-sorted quantitative sample from Kopiliÿula-B (HI_MAUI_09-014).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A (first sort: 10.94 percent) A (second sort: 18.76 percent)

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Nemertea 29.3 0.8 25.6 1.1

Oligochaeta 1,162.7 30.9 665.3 29.3

Ferrissia sp. — — 17.1 0.8

Lymnaeidae 7.3 0.2 12.8 0.6

Neritina granosa 34.4 0.9 34.4 1.5

Tanaidacea 14.6 0.4 — —

Atyoida bisulcata 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.1

Apedilum sp. 95.1 2.5 38.4 1.7

Paratanytarsus sp. — — 4.3 0.2

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 336.4 9.0 157.8 7.0

Eukiefferiella sp. 73.1 2.0 59.7 2.6

Orthocladius Complex 7.3 0.2 4.3 0.2

Cheumatopsyche sp. 1,053.0 28.0 733.5 32.3

Hydroptilidae 943.3 25.1 516.0 22.7

Total 3,758.1 100 2,270.8 100
Table A3. Replicate and re-sorted quantitative samples from Hanawï-A (HI_MAUI_09-004).[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A (first sort: 5.21 percent) A (second sort: 4.17 percent) B (first sort: 6.25 percent) B (seco

Absolute 

abundance, 

in number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, 

in number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, 

in number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Abso

abunda

in numb

organism

square 

Nemertea — — 19.2 0.2 — — 14 

Erpobdellidae — — 19.2 0.2 12.8 0.2 — 

Oligochaeta 721.7 9.1 76.7 0.7 832.0 12.5 251.3 

Acari 30.7 0.4 — — 12.8 0.2 — 

Atyoida bisulcata 80.0 1.0 80.0 0.8 56.0 0.8 56.0 

Apedilum sp. 245.7 3.1 95.9 0.9 102.4 1.5 97.7 

Paratanytarsus sp. — — — — 12.8 0.2 — 

Pseudochironomus sp. 15.4 0.2 — — — — — 

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 2,011.5 25.4 2,647.5 25.3 2,291.2 34.4 2,890.1 

Eukiefferiella sp. 460.7 5.8 326.1 3.1 486.4 7.3 432.8 

Telmatogeton sp. — — — — 25.6 0.4 27.9 

Limonia sp. — — 38.4 0.4 — — 27.9 

Coenagrionidae 15.4 0.2 — — — — — 

Megalagrion sp. — — 38.4 0.4 1.6 0.02 — 

Cheumatopsyche sp. 2,410.8 30.5 4,278.2 40.8 1,523.2 22.9 2,192.0 

Hydroptilidae 1,919.4 24.3 2,858.5 27.3 1,305.6 19.6 1,535.8 

Total 7,911.3 100 10,478.1 100 6,662.4 100 7,525.5 
110 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table A4. Replicate quantitative samples from Hanawï-B (HI_MAUI_09-015).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A B

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Nemertea 38.4 0.6 23.0 0.5

Oligochaeta 153.6 2.3 23.0 0.5

Ferrissia sp. — — 7.7 0.2

Lymnaeidae 38.4 0.6 — —

Neritina granosa 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.1

Atyoida bisulcata 40.0 0.6 8.8 0.2

Apedilum sp. 76.8 1.1 30.7 0.7

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 1,638.4 24.1 583.5 13.8

Eukiefferiella sp. 371.2 5.5 215.0 5.1

Telmatogeton sp. — — 7.7 0.2

Ephydridae 51.2 0.8 15.4 0.4

Cheumatopsyche sp. 3,686.4 54.1 2,963.5 70.0

Hydroptilidae 716.8 10.5 353.2 8.3

Total 6,812 100 4,233.9 100

Table A5. Replicate quantitative samples from Honolua (HI_MAUI_09-020).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A B

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Nemertea 8.8 0.8 18.3 1.9

Oligochaeta 61.4 5.4 36.6 3.7

Ferrissia sp. 41.6 3.7 42.1 4.3

Lymnaeidae 188.5 16.7 263.8 26.8

Apedilum sp. 83.3 7.4 18.3 1.9

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 309.0 27.4 225.3 22.9

Eukiefferiella sp. 184.1 16.3 111.8 11.4

Telmatogeton sp. 2.2 0.2 — —

Cheumatopsyche sp. 190.7 16.9 208.8 21.2

Hydroptilidae 59.2 5.2 58.6 6.0

Total 1,128.8 100 983.6 100
Appendix A 111

Table A6. Replicate quantitative samples from Olowalu-B (HI_MAUI_09-022).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A B

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Nemertea — — 2.9 0.2

Erpobdellidae 3.2 0.2 — —

Oligochaeta 9.6 0.6 5.7 0.4

Ferrissia sp. 48.0 2.8 22.8 1.5

Physidae 364.8 21.6 42.7 2.8

Acari 6.4 0.4 2.9 0.2

Atyoida bisulcata — — 7.7 0.5

Apedilum sp. 3.2 0.2 2.9 0.2

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 137.6 8.1 94.0 6.2

Eukiefferiella sp. 102.4 6.1 96.8 6.4

Ephydridae — — 2.9 0.2

Megalagrion sp. — — 5.7 0.4

Cheumatopsyche sp. 1,008.0 59.7 1,216.1 79.9

Hydroptilidae 6.4 0.4 19.9 1.3

Total 1,689.6 100 1,523.0 100
112 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table A7. Replicate quantitative samples from Waiheÿe-B open (HI_MAUI_09-023).

[—, not observed in sample; abundance in number per square meter]

Taxon

Sample

A B

Absolute

 abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Oligochaeta 15.9 2.2 64.0 4.9

Ferrissia sp. 1.5 0.2 2.6 0.2

Acari 1.5 0.2 — —

Ostracoda 4.3 0.6 — —

Atyoida bisulcata — — 2.6 0.2

Apedilum sp. 140.5 19.0 189.4 14.4

Paratanytarsus sp. 2.9 0.4 5.1 0.4

Tanytarsus sp. 1.5 0.2 — —

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 324.3 43.8 657.9 50.1

Eukiefferiella sp. 23.2 3.1 41.0 3.1

Gymnometriocnemus sp. — — 2.6 0.2

Ephydridae 1.5 0.2 12.8 1.0

Megalagrion sp. 1.5 0.2 — —

Cheumatopsyche sp. 204.2 27.6 322.6 24.6

Hydroptilidae 17.4 2.4 12.8 1.0

Total 740.2 100 1,313.4 100
Appendix A 113

Table A8. Replicate quantitative samples from ÿÏao-C (HI_MAUI_09-031).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A B

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Turbellaria 30.7 1.5 69.1 1.7

Oligochaeta 61.5 3.0 145.9 3.5

Apedilum sp. 11.5 0.6 7.7 0.2

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 334.1 16.5 675.6 16.2

Eukiefferiella sp. 372.5 18.4 829.2 19.9

Orthocladius Complex 7.7 0.4 — —

Telmatogeton sp. — — 7.7 0.2

Ephydridae 7.7 0.4 23.0 0.6

Limonia sp. — — 7.7 0.2

Cheumatopsyche sp. 395.6 19.5 1,804.2 43.4

Hydroptilidae 806.5 39.8 591.2 14.2

Total 2,027.8 100 4,161.3 100
114 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Table A9. Replicate quantitative samples from North Waiehu-A (HI_MAUI_09-028).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A B

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Nemertea 2.3 0.2 — —

Oligochaeta 15.8 1.3 188.0 13.1

Ferrissia sp. 2.3 0.2 17.1 1.2

Acari 2.3 0.2 — —

Atyoida bisulcata 4.0 0.3 1.6 0.1

Paratanytarsus sp. — — 2.9 0.2

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 419.6 35.1 373.1 26.1

Eukiefferiella sp. 198.5 16.6 381.6 26.7

Ephydridae — — 2.9 0.2

Limonia sp. 2.3 0.2 — —

Megalagrion sp. 54.2 4.5 42.7 3.0

Cheumatopsyche sp. 489.6 41.0 418.7 29.3

Hydroptilidae 4.5 0.4 2.9 0.2

Total 1,195.4 100 1,443.5 100

Table A10. Replicate quantitative samples from South Waiehu-A (HI_MAUI_09-030).

[—, not observed in sample]

Taxon

Sample

A B

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Nemertea 3.1 0.2 — —

Erpobdellidae 3.1 0.2 3.2 0.2

Oligochaeta 31.4 1.9 6.3 0.4

Ferrissia sp. 9.4 0.6 9.5 0.6

Physidae 18.8 1.2 6.3 0.4

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 62.7 3.8 217.5 13.6

Eukiefferiella sp. 59.6 3.6 252.2 15.8

Megalagrion sp. — — 6.3 0.4

Cheumatopsyche sp. 1,452.0 88.5 1,096.9 68.6

Total 1,640.1 100 1,598.2 100
Table A11. Repeat quantitative sampling results from Waiheÿe-A (HI_MAUI_09-026).[—, not observed in sample; richness, total number of taxa]

Taxon

Sample Date

9/22/2009 10/23/2009 1/29/2

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Relative 

abundance, in 

percentage of 

organisms in 

sample

Absolute 

abundance, in 

number of 

organisms per 

square meter

Nemertea — — 7.7 0.2 — Oligochaeta 68.2 0.7 15.4 0.4 95.9 Ferrissia sp. — — 7.7 0.2 — Atyoida bisulcata 3.2 0.03 — — 0.8 Apedilum sp. — — 7.7 0.2 115.1 Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 4,230.3 44.8 1,136.3 28.0 4,892.1 

Eukiefferiella sp. 2,933.9 31.0 836.9 20.6 2,820.1 

Orthocladius Complex — — — — 95.9 Telmatogeton sp. 187.6 2.0 69.1 1.7 — Ephydridae 170.6 1.8 46.1 1.1 19.2 Cheumatopsyche sp. 1,518.1 16.1 1,335.9 32.9 2,033.6 

Hydroptilidae 341.2 3.6 598.9 14.7 402.9 

Total 9,453.1 100 4,061.7 100 10,475.6 

Richness 8 10 9
116 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Appendix B. Maui Faunal Distribution Maps

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Atyoida bisulcata

0 

0.1 – 5.9

6.0 – 15.9

16.0 – 25.9

26.0 – 80.9

81.0 – 497.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B1. West Maui abundance of Atyoida bisulcata in quantitative samples.

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Atyoida bisulcata

0

0.1 – 5.9

6.0 – 15.9

16.0 – 25.9

26.0 – 80.9

81.0 – 497.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B2. East Maui abundance of Atyoida bisulcata in quantitative samples.
 Appendix B 117

Figure B3. West Maui observations of Decapoda.

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Observations of Decapoda

None Observed

Atyoida bisulcata

Macrobrachium grandimanus

Macrobrachium lar

Macrobrachium sp.

Neocaridina denticulata sinensis

Procambarus clarkii

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Observations of Decapoda

None Observed

Atyoida bisulcata

Macrobrachium grandimanus

Macrobrachium lar

Macrobrachium sp.

Neocaridina denticulata sinensis

Procambarus clarkii

Figure B4. East Maui observations of Decapoda.
118 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Neritina granosa

0 

0.1 – 50.9

51.0 – 100.9

101.0 – 125.9

126.0 – 150.9

151.0 – 200.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Neritina granosa

0

0.1 – 50.9

51.0 – 100.9

101.0 – 125.9

126.0 – 150.9

151.0 – 200.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B5. West Maui abundance of Neritina granosa in quantitative samples. 

Figure B6. East Maui abundance of Neritina granosa in quantitative samples.
 Appendix B 119

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Telmatogeton sp.

0

0.1 – 10.9

11.0 – 35.9

36.0 – 84.9

85.0 – 188.9

189.0 – 307.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Telmatogeton sp.

0

0.1 – 10.9

11.0 – 35.9

36.0 – 84.9

85.0 – 188.9

189.0 – 307.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B7. West Maui abundance of Telmatogeton in quantitative samples.

Figure B8. East Maui abundance of Telmatogeton in quantitative samples.
120 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Adult Megalagrion

Observations

None Observed

1 Species

2 Species

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Adult Megalagrion

Observations

None Observed

1 Species

2 Species

Figure B9. West Maui observations of adult Megalagrion.

Figure B10. East Maui observations of adult Megalagrion.
 Appendix B 121

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Megalagrion spp. (naiads)

0

0.1 – 3.9

4.0 – 10.9

11.0 – 19.9

20.0 – 31.9

32.0 – 54.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Megalagrion spp. (naiads)

0

0.1 – 3.9

4.0 – 10.9

11.0 – 19.9

20.0 – 31.9

32.0 – 54.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B11. West Maui abundance of Megalagrion naiads in quantitative samples.

Figure B12. East Maui abundance of Megalagrion naiads in quantitative samples.
122 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Cheumatopsyche sp.

0

0.1 – 672.9

673.0 – 1,282.9

1,283.0 – 2,192.9

2,193.0 – 3,686.9

3,687.0 – 5,317.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Cheumatopsyche sp.

0

0.1 – 672.9

673.0 – 1,282.9

1,283.0 – 2,192.9

2,193.0 – 3,686.9

3,687.0 – 5,317.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B13. West Maui abundance of Cheumatopsyche in quantitative samples.

Figure B14. East Maui abundance of Cheumatopsyche in quantitative samples.
 Appendix B 123

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Hydroptila spp.

0

0.1 – 512.9

513.0 – 960.9

961.0 – 1,752.9

1,753.0 – 2,859.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Hydroptila spp.

0

0.1 – 512.9

513.0 – 960.9

961.0 – 1,752.9

1,753.0 – 2,859.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B15. West Maui abundance of Hydroptila in quantitative samples.

Figure B16. East Maui abundance of Hydroptila in quantitative samples.
124 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Cricotopus sp.

0

0.1 – 583.9

584.0 – 1,323.9

1,324.0 – 2,890.9

2,891.0 – 4,892.9

4,893.0 – 8,470.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Cricotopus sp.

0

0.1 – 583.9

584.0 – 1,323.9

1,324.0 – 2,890.9

2,891.0 – 4,892.9

4,893.0 – 8,470.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B17. West Maui abundance of Cricotopus in quantitative samples.

Figure B18. East Maui abundance of Cricotopus in quantitative samples.
 Appendix B 125

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Eukiefferiella sp.

0

0.1 – 273.9

274.0 – 671.9

672.0 – 1,536.9

1,537.0 – 3,760.9

3,761.0 – 9,699.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Eukiefferiella sp.

0

0.1 – 273.9

274.0 – 671.9

672.0 – 1,536.9

1,537.0 – 3,760.9

3,761.0 – 9,699.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B19. West Maui abundance of Eukiefferiella in quantitative samples.

Figure B20. East Maui abundance of Eukiefferiella in quantitative samples.
126 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Ferrissia sp.

0

0.1 – 24.9

25.0 – 65.9

66.0 – 114.9

115.0 – 177.9

178.0 – 318.9

Abundance per square meter

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Ferrissia sp.

0

0.1 – 24.9

25.0 – 65.9

66.0 – 114.9

115.0 – 177.9

178.0 – 318.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure B21. West Maui abundance of Ferrissia in quantitative samples.

Figure B22. East Maui abundance of Ferrissia in quantitative samples.
 Appendix B 127

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Native Fish Observations

None Observed

Awaous guamensis

Eleotris sandwicensis

Kuhlia sp.

Lentipes concolor

Mugil cephalus

Sicyopterus stimpsoni

Stenogobius hawaiiensis

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Native Fish Observations

None Observed

Awaous guamensis

Eleotris sandwicensis

Kuhlia sp.

Lentipes concolor

Mugil cephalus

Sicyopterus stimpsoni

Stenogobius hawaiiensis

Figure B23. West Maui observations of native fish.

Figure B24. East Maui observations of native fish.
128 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Nonnative Fish Observations

None Observed

Ancistrus sp.

Oreochromis mossambicus

Clarias fuscus

Hemichromis sp.

Micropterus dolomieui

Micropterus salmoides

Gambusia affinis

Poecilia reticulata

Poecilia sphenops

Xiphophorus helleri

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Nonnative Fish Observations

None Observed

Ancistrus sp.

Oreochromis mossambicus

Clarias fuscus

Hemichromis sp.

Micropterus dolomieui

Micropterus salmoides

Gambusia affinis

Poecilia reticulata

Poecilia sphenops

Xiphophorus helleri

Figure B25. West Maui observations of nonnative fish.

Figure B26. East Maui observations of nonnative fish.
 Appendix B 129

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Abundance per square meter

0 – 54.9

55.0 – 300.9

301.0 – 897.9

898.0 – 1,339.9

1,340.0 – 1,857.9

1,858.0 – 2,626.9

2,627.0 – 3,488.9

3,489.0 – 4,542.9

4,543.0 – 5,849.9

5,850.0 – 8,179.9

8,180.0 – 10,478.9

10,479.0 – 23,137.9

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Abundance per square meter

0 – 54.9

55.0 – 300.9

301.0 – 897.9

898.0 – 1,339.9

1,340.0 – 1,857.9

1,858.0 – 2,626.9

2,627.0 – 3,488.9

3,489.0 – 4,542.9

4,543.0 – 5,849.9

5,850.0 – 8,179.9

8,180.0 – 10,478.9

10,479.0 – 23,137.9

Figure B27. West Maui total quantitative macroinvertebrate abundances.

Figure B28. East Maui total quantitative macroinvertebrate abundances.
130 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Total Abundance

Metric Score

≤ 200

> 200 and ≤ 700

> 700 and ≤ 3,000

> 3,000

7

5

3

1

Condition Score

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Total Abundance

Metric Score

≤ 200

> 200 and ≤ 700

> 700 and ≤ 3,000

> 3,000

7

5

3

1

Condition Score

Figure B29. West Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) 

abundance metric scores.

Figure B30. East Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI)

 abundance metric scores.
 Appendix B 131

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Richness Metric Score

≤21

22 - 30

≥31 5

3

1

Condition Score

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Richness Metric Score

≤21

22 - 30

≥31 5

3

1

Condition Score

Figure B32. East Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI)

 richness metric scores.

Figure B31. West Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI)

 richness metric scores.
132 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Relative Abundance of Insecta

Metric Score

≤75

>75 and ≤90

>90

5

3

1

Condition Score

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Relative Abundance of Insecta

Metric Score

≤75

>75 and ≤90

>90

5

3

1

Condition Score

Figure B33. West Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI)

 percentage of Insecta metric scores.

Figure B34. East Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) 

percentage of Insecta metric scores.
 Appendix B 133

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Nonnative Mollusk Abundance 

Metric Score

0

>0 and ≤90

>90 5

3

1

Condition Score

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Nonnative Mollusk Abundance 

Metric Score

0

>0 and ≤90

>90 5

3

1

Condition Score

Figure B35. West Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) 

nonnative/cryptogenic mollusk metric scores.

Figure B36. East Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI)

 nonnative/cryptogenic mollusk metric scores.
134 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Amphipod Abundance

Metric Score

0

>0 and ≤35

>35 5

3

1

Condition Score

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Amphipod Abundance

Metric Score

0

>0 and ≤35

>35 5

3

1

Condition Score

Figure B37. West Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

(P–HBIBI) Amphipoda metric scores.

Figure B38. East Maui Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

(P–HBIBI) Amphipoda metric scores.
 Appendix B 135

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

P-HBIBI Scores

≤14 Good

15 – 22 Fair

>22 Poor

Condition Quality

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

P-HBIBI Scores

≤14 Good

15 – 22 Fair

>22 Poor

Condition Quality

Figure B39. West Maui final Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

(P–HBIBI) scores.

Figure B40. East Maui final Preliminary–Hawaiian Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

(P–HBIBI) scores.
136 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Total Abundance Metric Score

(number per square meter)

Condition Score

≥7,900 1

<7,900 and ≥4,000 3

<4,000 and ≥1,200

<1,200

5

EXPLANATION

7

Figure B41. West Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Total Abundance 

metric scores.

Figure B42. East Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Total Abundance 

metric scores.

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Total Abundance Metric Score

(number per square meter)

Condition Score

≥7,900 1

<7,900 and ≥4,000 3

<4,000 and ≥1,200

<1,200

5

EXPLANATION

7
 Appendix B 137

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Percentage Insecta*

Metric Score

Condition

*(Percentage of Total minus

the Native Shrimp and Snail)

Score

≥90 1

<90 and ≥73 3

<73 5

EXPLANATION

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Percentage Insecta*

Metric Score

Condition

*(Percentage of Total minus

the Native Shrimp and Snail)

Score

≥90 1

<90 and ≥73 3

<73 5

EXPLANATION

Figure B43. West Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Percentage of Insecta 

metric scores.

Figure B44. East Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Percentage of Insecta 

metric scores.
138 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Trichoptera:Diptera

Metric Score

Condition Score

≥2.5 1

<2.5 and ≥0.5 3

<0.5 5

EXPLANATION

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Trichoptera:Diptera

Metric Score

Condition Score

≥2.5 1

<2.5 and ≥0.5 3

<0.5 5

EXPLANATION

Figure B45. West Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Trichoptera:Diptera ratio 

metric scores.

Figure B46. East Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Trichoptera:Diptera ratio 

metric scores. 
 Appendix B 139

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Relative Abundance of Nonnative

Dipterans to Trichopterans

Trichoptera

Diptera

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Relative Abundance of Nonnative

Dipterans to Trichopterans

Trichoptera

Diptera

Figure B47. West Maui relative abundance of Trichoptera to Diptera in 

quantitative samples.

Figure B48. East Maui relative abundance of Trichoptera to Diptera in 

quantitative samples.
140 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui EXPLANATION

Cheumatopsyche sp.

Cricotopus sp.

Relative Abundance of

Cheumatopysche to Cricotopus

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui EXPLANATION

Cheumatopsyche sp.

Cricotopus sp.

Relative Abundance of

Cheumatopysche to Cricotopus

Figure B49. West Maui relative abundance of Cheumatopsyche to Cricotopus in 

quantitative samples.

Figure B50. East Maui relative abundance of Cheumatopsyche to Cricotopus in 

quantitative samples.
 Appendix B 141

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Presence of Atyoida

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 2

EXPLANATION

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Presence of Atyoida

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 2

EXPLANATION

Figure B51. West Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Atyoida (ÿöpae)

presence/absence metric scores. 

Figure B52. East Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Atyoida (ÿöpae) presence/

absence metric scores.
142 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Presence of Neritina

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 2

EXPLANATION

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Presence of Neritina

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 2

EXPLANATION

Figure B53. West Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Neritina (hïhïwai) 

presence/absence metric scores. 

Figure B54. East Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Neritina (hïhïwai) 

presence/absence metric scores. 
 Appendix B 143

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Presence of Telmatogeton

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 3

EXPLANATION

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Presence of Telmatogeton

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 3

EXPLANATION

Figure B55. West Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Telmatogeton presence/

absence metric scores. 

Figure B56. East Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Telmatogeton presence/

absence metric scores. 
144 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Presence of Megalagrion

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 3

EXPLANATION

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Presence of Megalagrion

Metric Score

Condition Score

Present 1

Absent 3

EXPLANATION

Figure B57. West Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Megalagrion presence/

absence metric scores.

Figure B58. East Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) Megalagrion presence/

absence metric scores. 
 Appendix B 145

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Maui Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Condition Quality

≤14 Good

15 – 18 Fair

>18 Poor

EXPLANATION

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Maui Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Condition Quality

≤14 Good

15 – 18 Fair

>18 Poor

EXPLANATION

Figure B59. West Maui final Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores.

Figure B60. East Maui final Maui Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores. 
146 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

156°41' 156°35' 156°29' 156°23'

21°0'

20°56'

20°52'

20°48' 0 1 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 1 KILOMETERS Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

West Maui

Combined Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Good

Fair

Poor

EXPLANATION

Condition Quality

≤13

14 − 18

>18

156°11' 156°09' 156°07'

20°52'

20°50'

20°48'

0 0.5 1 2 MILES

0 0.5 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. East Maui

Combined Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Good

Fair

Poor

EXPLANATION

Condition Quality

≤13

14 − 18

>18

Figure B61. West Maui final combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores.

Figure B62. East Maui final combined Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores.
 Appendix C 147

Appendix C. Oÿahu Faunal Distribution Maps

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Atyoida bisulcata

0 

0.1 – 5.9

6.0 – 15.9

16.0 – 25.9

26.0 – 80.9

81.0 – 497.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure C1. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) abundance of Atyoida 

bisulcata in quantitative samples.

Figure C2. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) observations of Decapoda.

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. EXPLANATION

Observations of Decapoda

None Observed

Atyoida bisulcata

Macrobrachium grandimanus

Macrobrachium lar

Macrobrachium sp.

Neocaridina denticulata sinensis

Procambarus clarkii
148 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. EXPLANATION

Adult Megalagrion

Observations

None Observed

1 Species

2 Species

Figure C3. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) observations of adult 

Megalagrion.

Figure C4. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) abundance of 

Cheumatopsyche in quantitative samples.

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Cheumatopsyche sp.

0

0.1 – 672.9

673.0 – 1,282.9

1,283.0 – 2,192.9

2,193.0 – 3,686.9

3,687.0 – 5,317.9

Abundance per square meter
 Appendix C 149

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Hydroptila spp.

0

0.1 – 512.9

513.0 – 960.9

961.0 – 1,752.9

1,753.0 – 2,859.9

Abundance per square meter

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Cricotopus sp.

0

0.1 – 583.9

584.0 – 1,323.9

1,324.0 – 2,890.9

2,891.0 – 4,892.9

4,893.0 – 8,470.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure C5. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) abundance of Hydroptila

in quantitative samples. 

Figure C6. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) abundance of Cricotopus 

in quantitative samples.
150 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. EXPLANATION

Hemerodromia sp.

0

0.1 – 49.9

50.0 – 104.9

105.0 – 169.9

170.0 – 258.9

259.0 – 504.9

Abundance per square meter

Figure C7. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) abundance of 

Eukiefferiella in quantitative samples. 

Figure C8. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) abundance of 

Hemerodromia in quantitative samples.

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Eukiefferiella sp.

0

0.1 – 273.9

274.0 – 671.9

672.0 – 1,536.9

1,537.0 – 3,760.9

3,761.0 – 9,699.9

Abundance per square meter
 Appendix C 151

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Ferrissia sp.

0

0.1 – 24.9

25.0 – 65.9

66.0 – 114.9

115.0 – 177.9

178.0 – 318.9

Abundance per square meter

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Native Fish Observations

None Observed

Awaous guamensis

Eleotris sandwicensis

Kuhlia sp.

Lentipes concolor

Mugil cephalus

Sicyopterus stimpsoni

Stenogobius hawaiiensis

Figure C9. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) abundance of Ferrissia in 

quantitative samples. 

Figure C10. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) native fish observations.
152 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Abundance per square meter

0 – 54.9

55.0 – 300.9

301.0 – 897.9

898.0 – 1,339.9

1,340.0 – 1,857.9

1,858.0 – 2,626.9

2,627.0 – 3,488.9

3,489.0 – 4,542.9

4,543.0 – 5,849.9

5,850.0 – 8,179.9

8,180.0 – 10,478.9

10,479.0 – 23,137.9

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Nonnative Fish Observations

None Observed

Ancistrus sp.

Oreochromis mossambicus

Clarias fuscus

Hemichromis sp.

Micropterus dolomieui

Micropterus salmoides

Gambusia affinis

Poecilia reticulata

Poecilia sphenops

Xiphophorus helleri

Figure C11. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) observations of 

nonnative fish.

Figure C12. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) total quantitative 

macroinvertebrate abundances. 
 Appendix C 153

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Total Abundance

Metric Score

≤ 200

> 200 and ≤ 700

> 700 and ≤ 3,000

> 3,000

7

5

3

1

Condition Score

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Richness Metric Score

≤21

22 - 30

≥31 5

3

1

Condition Score

Figure C13. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) abundance metric scores.

Figure C14. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) richness metric scores.
154 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

Relative Abundance of Insecta

Metric Score

≤75

>75 and ≤90

>90

5

3

1

Condition Score

Figure C15. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) percentage of Insecta metric scores.

Figure C16. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) nonnative/cryptogenic Mollusca 

metric scores.

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. EXPLANATION

Nonnative Mollusk Abundance

Metric Score

0

>0 and ≤90

>90 5

3

1

Condition Score
 Appendix C 155

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. EXPLANATION

Amphipod Abundance

Metric Score

0

>0 and ≤35

>35 5

3

1

Condition Score

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum.

EXPLANATION

P-HBIBI Scores

≤14 Good

15 − 22 Fair

>22 Poor

Condition Quality

Figure C17. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) Amphipoda metric scores. 

Figure C18. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Preliminary–Hawaiian 

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (P–HBIBI) final scores. 
156 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Total Abundance Metric Score

(number per square meter)

1

3

5

7

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

≥3,600

<3,600 and ≥475

<475 and ≥200

<200

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Percentage of Insecta*

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

≥90

<90 and ≥51

<51

*(Percentage of Total minus

the Native Shrimp and Snail)

Figure C19. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Invertebrate Community 

Index (ICI) revised Total Abundance metric scores.

Figure C20. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) revised Percentage of Insecta metric scores.
 Appendix C 157

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Trichoptera:Diptera

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

≥16.5

<6.5 and ≥0.6

<0.6

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Percentage of Amphipoda

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

0

>0 and <0.5

≥0.5

Figure C21. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Invertebrate Community 

Index (ICI) Trichoptera:Diptera ratio metric scores.

Figure C22. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) revised Percentage of Amphipoda metric scores.
158 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Percentage of Turbellaria

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

0

>0 and ≤6

>6

Figure C23. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Invertebrate Community 

Index (ICI) Percentage of Turbellaria metric scores. 

Figure C24. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Invertebrate Community 

Index ICI) revised Nonnative Mollusca Abundance metric scores.

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Abundance of Nonnative Mollusks

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

0

>0 and ≤11

>11
 Appendix C 159

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Oÿahu Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Good

Fair

Poor

EXPLANATION

Condition Category

≤13

14 – 21

>21

Figure C26. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) final Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) scores. 

Figure C25. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Invertebrate Community 

Index (ICI) revised Nonnative Decapoda Presence/Absence metric scores. 

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Presence of Nonnative Decapoda*

Metric Score

1

3

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

Absent

Present

* Procambarus clarkii and/or

Neocaridina denticulata sinensis
160 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Total Abundance Metric Score

(number per square meter)

1

3

5

7

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

≥3,600

<3,600 and ≥475

<475 and ≥200

<200

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Percentage of Insecta*

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

≥90

<90 and ≥51

<51

*(Percentage of Total minus

the Native Shrimp and Snail)

Figure C27. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) revised Total Abundance metric scores.

Figure C28. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) revised Percentage of Insecta metric scores.
Appendix C 161

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Trichoptera:Diptera

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

≥16.5

<6.5 and ≥0.6

<0.6

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Percentage of Amphipoda

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

0

>0 and <0.5

≥0.5

Figure C29. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Invertebrate Community 

Index (ICI) Trichoptera:Diptera ratio metric scores. 

Figure C30. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) revised Percentage of Amphipoda metric scores. 
162 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Percentage of Turbellaria

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

0

>0 and ≤6

>6

Figure C31. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) Percentage of Turbellaria metric scores. 

Figure C32. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) revised Nonnative Mollusca Abundance metric scores. 

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Abundance of Nonnative Mollusks

Metric Score

1

3

5

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

0

>0 and ≤11

>11
 Appendix C 163

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Oÿahu Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Good

Fair

Poor

EXPLANATION

Condition Category

≤13

14 – 21

>21

Figure C33. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) revised Nonnative Decapoda metric scores .

Figure C34. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) final Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI) scores.

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Presence of Nonnative Decapoda*

Metric Score

1

3

EXPLANATION

Condition Score

Absent

Present

* Procambarus clarkii and/or

Neocaridina denticulata sinensis
164 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Combined Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Good

Fair

Poor

EXPLANATION

Condition Quality

≤13

14 − 18

>18

158°10' 157°54' 157°38'

21°40'

21°28'

21°16'

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Raster

Graphics topographic map, 1:24,000 scale, Universal

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 4, NAD83 datum. Combined Invertebrate

Community Index Score

Good

Fair

Poor

EXPLANATION

Condition Quality

≤13

14 − 18

>18

Figure C35. Oÿahu Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) combined final 

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores. 

Figure C36. Oÿahu National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) combined final 

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) scores. 
Appendix D 165

Appendix D. Photographs of Stream Fauna

Figure D1. Atyoida bisulcata (ÿöpaekalaÿole) adult. 

Figure D2. Atyoida bisulcata (ÿöpaekalaÿole) recruits. 
166 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D3. Atyoida bisulcata (ÿöpaekalaÿole) larvae. Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol. 

Figure D4. Neritina granosa (hïhïwai); Sicyopterus stimpsoni (ÿoÿopu nöpili). 
 Appendix D 167

Figure D5. Telmatogeton sp. larvae. Specimens 

preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D6. Telmatogeton sp. larva in case.
168 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D7. Telmatogeton sp. larvae in cases. 

Figure D8. Telmatogeton sp. larva, posterior. Specimen preserved in 

70-percent methanol.
 Appendix D 169

Figure D9. Telmatogeton habitat 1.

Figure D10. Telmatogeton habitat 2. 
170 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D11. Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum (Blackline Hawaiian 

damselfly) adult. 

Figure D12. Megalagrion blackburni (Blackburn’s Hawaiian damselfly) adult.
 Appendix D 171

Figure D13. Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrohamatum (Blackhook Hawaiian 

damselfly) adult.

Figure D14. Megalagrion sp. naiad. Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol.
172 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D15. Heteromeyenia baileyi (native freshwater sponge).

Figure D16. Trichoptera larvae: 

(A) Cheumatopsyche analis; (B) 

C. analis; (C) Hydroptila icona; (D) 

Hydroptila potosina; (E) Oxyethira 

maya. Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol. Scale in 

millimeters. 
Appendix D 173

Figure D17. Hydroptilidae larvae: (A) Oxyethira maya; (B) Hydroptila 

icona; (C) Hydroptila potosina. Specimens preserved in 70-percent 

methanol.

Figure D18. Hydroptilidae larvae: (A) Hydroptila 

potosina; (B) Hydroptila icona; (C) Oxyethira maya. 

Specimens preserved in 70-percent methanol.
174 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D19. Hydroptila icona: (A) larva in case; (B) larva; (C) pupa in cocoon; (D) pupa.

Specimens preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D20. Cheumatopsyche analis larva. Specimens 

preserved in 70-percent methanol. 
 Appendix D 175

Figure D21. Cheumatopsyche analis case: (A) 

ventral view; (B) dorsal view. Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol.

Figure D22. Cheumatopsyche analis larva. 
176 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D23. Cheumatopsyche analis larva, posterior. Specimens 

preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D24. Assorted Chironomidae larvae: 

(A) Polypedilum sp.; (B) Goeldichironomus

sp.; (C) Tanytarsus sp.; (D) Apedilum sp.; 

( E) Eukiefferiella sp.; (F) Cricotopus sp.; (G) 

Telmatogeton sp. Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol.
Appendix D 177

Figure D25. Assorted Chironomidae

larvae: (A) Apedilum sp., (B) Cricotopus

sp., (C) Eukiefferiella sp. Specimens 

preserved in 70-percent methanol. 

Figure D26. Assorted Chironomidae pupae: 

(A) Apedilum sp., (B) Cricotopus sp., (C) 

Eukiefferiella sp. Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol. 
178 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D27. Hemerodromia stellaris larval stages. Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol. 

Figure D28. Hemerodromia stellaris pupal stages. Specimens preserved in 70-percent 

methanol.
Appendix D 179

Figure D29. Macrobrachium lar (Tahitian prawn) adult.

Figure D30. Macrobrachium grandimanus (ÿöpae ÿoehaÿa) adult. 
180 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D31. Procambarus clarkii (Louisiana swamp crayfish) adult.

Figure D32. Neocaridina denticulata sinensis (Taiwan blue shrimp) adult. Specimen 

preserved in 70-percent methanol. 
Appendix D 181

Figure D33. Ferrissia sharpi: (A) dorsal view; (B) ventral view. Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D34. Corbicula fluminea (Asian clam). 
182 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D35. Oligochaeta (worms). Specimens preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D36. Oligochaeta (worms). Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol.
Appendix D 183

Figure D37. Pseudosuccinea columella (nonnative Lymnaeidae). Specimen 

preserved in 70-percent methanol. 

Figure D38. Physidae snail.
184 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D39. Melanoides tuberculata (Red-rimmed melania). 

Figure D40. Planorbella duryi (Seminole rams-horn snail). Specimen preserved in 

70-percent methanol.
Appendix D 185

Figure D41. Amphipod. Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol. 

Figure D42. Turbellaria; Planarian (flatworm). Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol. Scale in millimeters.
186 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D43. Assorted macroinvertebrates: (A) Ephydridae larva; (B) mite; (C) Ferrissia 

sharpi; (D) Cheumatopsyche analis larva. Specimens preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D44. Anax strenuus (native dragonfly) adult.
Appendix D 187

Figure D45. Anax strenuus (native dragonfly) naiad.

Figure D46. Anax strenuus (native 

dragonfly) naiad.
188 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D47. Mite adult. Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol. 

Figure D48. Hyposmocoma sp. (native Lepidoptera) larva: (A) dorsal view; (B) cocoon view; (C) 

ventral view. Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol.
Appendix D 189

Figure D49. Canacidae larva: (A) ventral view; (B) dorsal view. 

Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D50. Ephydridae larva: (A) ventral 

view; (B) dorsal view. Specimen preserved 

in 70-percent methanol.
190 Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and Oÿahu, Hawaiÿi

Figure D51. Ostracoda adult. Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol.

Figure D52. Glossiphoniidae (leech) adult: (A) dorsal view; (B) ventral view. 

Specimen preserved in 70-percent methanol.
Appendix D 191

Figure D53. Namalycastis abiuma (native Polychaeta) adult. Specimen preserved in 

70-percent methanol.

Figure D54. Prostoma sp. (Proboscis worms). Specimens preserved in 

70-percent methanol. 
This page intentionally left blank.
Menlo Park Publishing Service Center, California

Manuscript approved for publication October 21, 2011

Edited by Chet Zenone and Peter Stauffer

Layout and design by Judy Weathers 
Wolff—Development of Invertebrate Community Indexes of Stream Quality for the Islands of Maui and 

O‘ahu, Hawai‘i—Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5055