U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5284

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Independence, Missouri Water Pollution 

Control Department

Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent 

Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, Metropolitan 

Area, 2007 through 2011
Front cover. Little Blue River near Lake City, Missouri. Photograph by Heather M. Krempa, U.S. Geological Survey.
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate 

Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream 

Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 

Metropolitan Area, 2007 through 2011

By Eric D. Christensen and Heather M. Krempa

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Independence, 

Missouri Water Pollution Control Department

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5284

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: 2013

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, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Christensen, E.D., and Krempa, H.M., 2013, Assessment of macroinvertebrate communities in adjacent urban stream 

basins, Kansas City, Missouri, metropolitan area, 2007 through 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation 

Report 2012–5284, 45 p. and tables.
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................viii

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

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................2

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................6

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................8

Data Collection......................................................................................................................................8

Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................8

Water Quality................................................................................................................................8

Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................................................................8

Habitat Assessments ..................................................................................................................8

Sample Analysis....................................................................................................................................8

Quality Assurance and Quality Control .............................................................................................9

Environmental Variables......................................................................................................................9

Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................10

Water Quality..............................................................................................................................10

Macroinvertebrates ..................................................................................................................10

Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities...................................................................................13

Macroinvertebrate Community Structure ......................................................................................14

Community Metrics.............................................................................................................................23

Multimetric Indices.............................................................................................................................27

Relations among Metrics and Environmental Variables ..............................................................31

Summary........................................................................................................................................................35

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................37

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................43

Tables.............................................................................................................................................................45
iv

Figures

1. Map showing the Blue River, Little Blue River, and Rock Creek Basins, sampling

sites, and political boundaries for Kansas City and Independence, Missouri ...................3

2. Map showing land use in the Blue River, Little Blue River, and Rock Creek Basins.........7

3. Graphs showing Ephemeroptera taxa abundances by site and year at upstream

and downstream Blue River and middle and downstream Little Blue River sites...........16

4. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance as grouped by basin

category .......................................................................................................................................17

5. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of the

simple urban intensity index. ....................................................................................................19

6. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of sample

specific conductance ................................................................................................................19

7. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of

base-flow chloride concentration ...........................................................................................20

8. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of

base-flow total nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate, and total phosphorous concentration......21

9. Multidimensional scaling plot of the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index and basin

category .......................................................................................................................................22

10. Multidimensional scaling plot of functional feeding group abundance and basin

category .......................................................................................................................................22

11. Graph showing average Stream Condition Index for richest-targeted habitat

spring macroinvertebrate samples by site for A, tributary sites and B, main-stem

sites...............................................................................................................................................30

12. Graph showing average Stream Condition Index for richest-targeted habitat for

fall macroinvertebrate samples by site for A, tributary sites and B, main-stem

sites...............................................................................................................................................30

13. Graph showing average spring multimetric indices for sites sampled in 3 or

more years for A, the Blue River, Little Blue River, and South Grand River, and B,

Blue River tributaries, Little Blue River tributaries, and Rock Creek .................................32

14. Graphs showing average fall multimeltric indices for sites sampled in 3 or more

years, 2007 through 2011, for A, Rock Creek and Spring Branch Creek, and B, the

Little Blue River and South Grand River..................................................................................33
v

Tables

1. Locations of macroinvertebrate sampling sites in Kansas City and Independence,

Missouri, and Cass and Ray Counties, Missouri, and type of hydrologic,

water-quality, and ecologic data collected, March 2007 through March 2011..................4

2. Measured and calculated habitat scores and selected physical properties,

streamflow, and water-quality parameters for macroinvertebrate samples ...................45

3. Macroinvertebrate metric abbreviations, definitions, and Spearman’s correlation

coefficients with the simple urban intensity index ...............................................................12

4. Macroinvertebrate community richness by major taxonomic group and site with

summaries by basin category for combined spring and fall samples, 2007 through

2011 ...............................................................................................................................................45

5. List of macroinvertebrate taxa identified in samples collected at sites in Kansas City

and Independence, Missouri, and selected sites in Cass and Ray Counties, Missouri,

March 2007 through March 2011 .............................................................................................47

6. Stream categories with significant differences....................................................................14

7. Taxa richness, total abundance, and relative abundance summary of spring data

for the Blue River Basin, Rock Creek and Little Blue River Basins, and rural

comparison sites for sites sampled March 2007 through March 2011..............................15

8. Tolerance values and functional feeding groups for taxa identified at study sites,

March 2007 through March 2011 .............................................................................................45

9. Ten macroinvertbrate taxa having highest effect on community structure with

taxa tolerance classes...............................................................................................................18

10. Five most dominant taxa and functional feeding groups collected at

macroinvertebrate sampling sites, March 2007 through March 2011 ...............................45

11. Selected macroinvertebrate metric values and multimetric indices for spring and 

fall samples, March 2007 through March 2011......................................................................45

12. Macroinvertebrate metrics used in the Stream Condition Index, percent

tolerance, percent dominant taxa, and aquatic-life status for samples, March

2007 through March 2011 ..........................................................................................................24

13. Criteria for aquatic-life support categories for riffle habitats for the Missouri

tributaries between the Blue and Lamine ecological drainage unit..................................27

14. Multimetric indices determined by step regression with a simple urban intensity

index..............................................................................................................................................28

15. Proportionally scaled values for a simple urban intensity index, component

values, and average spring multimetric index scores by site.............................................29

16. Metrics included in the Stream Condition Index and selected multimetric indices

and predicted direction of response to increasing urban intensity...................................29

17. Correlation coefficients for multimetric indices and the Stream Condition Index

for spring samples ......................................................................................................................31

18. Correlation coefficients for selected macroinvertebrate metrics and

environmental variables ............................................................................................................34

19. Correlation coefficients for selected environmental variables with the simple

urban intensity index and the Stream Condition Index ........................................................35
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

cubic foot (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

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

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

square kilometer (km2

) 247.1 acre

square kilometer (km2

) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

cubic meter (m3

) 35.311 cubic foot (ft3)

Flow rate

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/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 the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

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

Abbreviations

ALS aquatic-life status

ANOSIM analysis of similarity

B-IBI Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity

COLEOPR Coleoptera richness

CSO combined sewer overflow

CUII common urban intensity index

CWA Clean Water Act

CWQM continuous water-quality monitor

E. coli Escherichia coliform bacteria

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPEMRp percent Ephemeroptera richness

EPHEMR Ephemeroptera richness

EPp percent Ephemeroptera plus Plecoptera abundance

EPT Ephemeroptera plus Plecoptera plus Trichoptera

EPTR EPT richness

EPTRp percent EPT richness 

FBS fully biologically supporting

IDAS invertebrate data analysis system

ISOPR Isopoda richness

KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Landsat land remote sensing satellite program

LRL laboratory reporting level

MBI Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index

MDS multidimensional scaling

MMI multimetric index

MODNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources

MSCI Missouri Stream Condition Index

NAT_TOL national tolerance listing

NBS nonbiologically supporting

NONINSRp percent noninsect richness

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

OLIGOp percent Oligochaeta abundance

OLIGORp percent Oligochaeta richness
viii

PBS partially biologically supporting

PLECOR Plecoptera richness

PLECORp percent Plecoptera richness

RICH total taxa richness 

RICHTOL average of taxa tolerance

RTH richest-targeted habitat

SCI Stream Condition Index

SHANDIV Shannon Diversity Index

sp. species

SUII simple urban intensity index

USGS United States Geological Survey

WWTP wastewater-treatment plant

Acknowledgments

The authors express appreciation to Dick Champion and Dorris Bender, Independence, Missouri 

Water Pollution Control Department for their support throughout this study.

The authors also thank Suzanne Femmer, U.S. Geological Survey, for sharing her expertise in 

organizing and processing macroinvertebrate data.
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in 

Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 

Metropolitan Area, 2007 through 2011

By Eric D. Christensen and Heather M. Krempa

Abstract

Macroinvertebrates were collected as part of two separate 

urban water-quality studies from adjacent basins, the Blue 

River Basin (Kansas City, Missouri), the Little Blue River 

and Rock Creek Basins (Independence, Missouri), and their 

tributaries. Consistent collection and processing procedures 

between the studies allowed for statistical comparisons. Seven 

Blue River Basin sites, nine Little Blue River Basin sites, 

including Rock Creek, and two rural sites representative of 

Missouri ecological drainage units and the area’s ecoregions 

were used in the analysis. Different factors or levels of urban 

intensity may affect the basins and macroinvertebrate community metrics differently, even though both basins are substantially developed above their downstream streamgages (Blue 

River, 65 percent; Little Blue River, 52 percent). The Blue 

River has no flood control reservoirs and receives wastewater effluent and stormflow from a combined sewer system. 

The Little Blue River has flood control reservoirs, receives 

no wastewater effluent, and has a separate stormwater sewer 

system. Analysis of macroinvertebrate community structure 

with pollution-tolerance metrics and water-quality parameters 

indicated differences between the Blue River Basin and the 

Little Blue River Basin.

A four-metric score (total taxa richness, Ephemeroptera 

plus Plecoptera plus Trichoptera taxa richness, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index, and Shannon Diversity Index) for richesttargeted habitat was used to calculate a Stream Condition 

Index (SCI) in order to evaluate the aquatic-life status of the 

streams. About 80 percent of all samples combined were 

determined to be less than fully biologically supporting, and 

about 11 percent of spring samples were fully biologically 

supporting. No sites within the Blue River Basin had a fully 

supporting score. The aquatic-life status scores for the Little 

Blue River and its tributaries were higher (indicating more 

optimal conditions) than for the Blue River and its tributaries. Fall samples scored higher than spring samples. However, 

fall samples were collected at the Little Blue River Basin 

and rural sites only. The Little Blue River sites scored higher 

for fall samples than spring samples; about 39 percent fully 

biologically supporting and 61 percent partially biologically 

supporting; more similar to the rural comparison sites, 40 percent fully biologically supporting and 60 percent partially 

biologically supporting.

The SCI was compared to other multimetric indices with 

more or other component metrics to determine if the SCI 

effectively described differences among sites. Environmental 

variables (streamflow, water quality, land use, impervious 

cover, and population density) were used in statistical analyses 

to evaluate relations to macroinvertebrate metrics. Multimetric 

indices (MMIs) were modeled using step regression with a 

simple urban intensity index (SUII) based on percentage of 

impervious cover, population density, and forest cover in a 

30-meter stream-buffer zone, and two were selected for further 

analysis. Three other multimetric indices composed of metrics 

common to local and national studies show results similar to 

the two modeled MMIs. A common Benthic Index of Biotic 

Integrity (R2 equals 0.71) developed for a national study had 

the highest correlation with urban intensity as measured with 

the SUII, followed by a modeled 6-metric index (R2 equals 

0.61). The other MMIs and the SCI explained less than a half 

of the variability in macroinvertebrate communities in relation 

to the SUII.

Wastewater-treatment plant discharges during base flow, 

which elevated specific conductance and nutrient concentrations, combined sewer overflows, and nonpoint sources likely 

contributed to water-quality impairment and lower aquatic-life 

status at the Blue River Basin sites. Releases from upstream 

reservoirs to the Little Blue River likely decreased specific 

conductance, suspended-sediment, and dissolved constituent concentrations and may have benefitted water quality and 

aquatic life of main-stem sites. Chloride concentrations in 

base-flow samples, attributable to winter road salt application, had the highest correlation with the SUII (Spearman’s ρ 

equals 0.87), were negatively correlated with the SCI (Spearman’s ρ equals -0.53) and several pollution sensitive Ephemeroptera plus Plecoptera plus Trichoptera abundance and percent 

richness metrics, and were positively correlated with pollution 

tolerant Oligochaeta abundance and percent richness metrics. 

Study results show that the easily calculated SUII and the 
2 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

selected modeled multimetric indices are effective for comparing urban basins and for evaluation of water quality in the 

Kansas City metropolitan area.

Introduction

The Blue River and Little Blue River flow north-northeast to the Missouri River and drain about a half of the Kansas 

City metropolitan area in Jackson County, Missouri (fig. 1). 

Kansas City and Independence, Mo., in efforts to comply 

with requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and subsequent legislation, have been issued permits from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MODNR) under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to 

monitor and control pollutant discharges to streams from their 

respective storm-sewer systems. The Blue River and Little 

Blue River have been listed by the MODNR as impaired for 

the protection of aquatic life, whole-body contact recreation 

(swimming), and secondary-contact recreation (fishing and 

boating), under section 303(d) of the CWA. The Little Blue 

River listing currently (2012) is pending United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. Bacteria from 

urban point and nonpoint sources are a listed pollutant for both 

streams. Indian Creek, a tributary of the Blue River (fig. 1), 

also has been listed for urban point and nonpoint source bacteria and chloride pollutants. Missouri’s 303(d) listings can be 

accessed at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/303d.

htm.

In support of NPDES permit requirements and to better 

understand processes affecting water quality and aquatic life, 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the 

City of Independence, Missouri Pollution Control Department 

initiated this ongoing study (2012) to characterize water-quality and ecological conditions of urban streams and the Little 

Blue River in Independence, Mo. An objective of this study 

was to assess Independence streams relative to other local 

streams. Comparable macroinvertebrate data collected for the 

Independence study and previous USGS studies conducted in 

Kansas City, Mo., during 1998 through 2010 also were used 

for this study to address this objective.

Macroinvertebrates are invertebrates (organisms that lack 

a backbone) that are large enough to be seen with the unaided 

eye. Aquatic macroinvertebrates include insects in their larval 

or nymph forms, aquatic worms, mussels, snails, and crayfish. 

A macroinvertebrate community is the sum of all the macroinvertebrates found in a defined ecological system (for example 

a stream) or habitat (riffle or pool) and may be constrained 

temporally (season) and geographically. Biological assessment 

data, including macroinvertebrate community data, are important for determining whether a stream or other waterbody 

is meeting its designated aquatic life uses and can validate 

whether existing water-quality criteria are adequately protecting those aquatic life uses. Macroinvertebrate community data 

are useful because community analysis provides evidence for 

present and past water quality in streams (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2002). Results of macroinvertebrate community analysis from this study will assist Independence, as 

well as other area municipalities, in assessing the biological 

integrity of their urban streams, provide methods for detection of water-quality impairment that may not be apparent 

with traditional water-quality monitoring methods, and supply 

information for the development and refinement of best management practices to address NPDES permit requirements.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results from an analysis of 

macroinvertebrate communities in urban streams in the 

Kansas City, Mo., metropolitan area south of the Missouri 

River, primarily within the Independence and Kansas City, 

Mo., city boundaries (fig. 1). Macroinvertebrate community 

data collected from adjacent basins, the Blue River Basin 

(Kansas City, Mo.), the Little Blue River and Rock Creek 

Basins (Independence, Mo.), and their tributaries during 2007 

through 2011 were used to compute various macroinvertebrate 

community metrics. Macroinvertebrate community structure, 

community metrics, multimetric indices (MMIs) and their 

relation to environmental variables including habitat scores, 

urban intensity, hydrologic variables, physical parameters, and 

water-quality variables were used to evaluate individual sites, 

differences among sites and river basins, and the aquatic-life 

status (ALS) of streams. Combinations of commonly used 

macroinvertebrate metrics included in multimetric scoring 

schemes were evaluated for their relation to a simple urban 

intensity index (SUII). This report presents multiple ways for 

determining the aquatic-life status of streams from which local 

officials may assess the current and future effects of urbanization and implementation of best management practices on 

stream ecologic condition.

Description of Study Area

Data from 18 macroinvertebrate sampling sites were 

selected and analyzed from urban basins in the Kansas City, 

Mo., metropolitan area and adjacent counties (fig. 1, table 1). 

Seven sites were located in the Blue River Basin, including five sites on the main-stem Blue River and one site each 

on Indian Creek and Brush Creek, tributaries to the Blue 

River. Eight sites were located in the Little Blue River Basin, 

including three sites on the main-stem Little Blue River and 

five sites located on tributaries to the Little Blue River (Adair 

Creek, East Fork Little Blue River, Crackerneck Creek, Spring 

Branch Creek, and Burr Oak Creek). Rock Creek, located 

almost entirely within Independence city boundaries between 

the Blue River and Little Blue River Basins, was included in 

analyses with the Little Blue River sites. Two rural sites that 

are relatively free from development, located outside the Kansas City metropolitan area in adjacent Ray and Cass Counties, 

were selected for comparison (fig. 1).
Introduction 3

Blue River Blue River East Fork Little East Fork Little

Indian Creek

Little Blue River

Blue

River

Roc k Creek

Crackern e ck Creek

Burr Oak 

 Littl e Blue River

Missouri River

Missouri River

Kansas River

Spring B ranch

A dair Creek

Brush Creek

Creek

Creek

Blue

River

KANSAS

MISSOURI

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 2.5 5 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:24,000, 1999

Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15N

EXPLANATION

Kansas City

Independence 

Main-stem sample site

Wastewater-treatment plant

Tributary sample site 2

4

#*

#*

94°20'0"W

94°40' 94°30' 94°20'

39°10'

39°00'

38°50'

KANSAS MISSOURI

CALDWELL

RAY

JACKSON

CASS

MIAMI

JOHNSON

WYANDOTTE

East Fork Crooked

River Basin

South Grand

River Basin

Enlarged area #*

#*18

17

Reservoirs

Rock Creek

Basin

Blue River Basin

Little Blue

River Basin

#*

#*#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

3

6

8

7

5

4

2

1

16

14 15

13

12

10

9 11

Figure 1. The Blue River, Little Blue River, and Rock Creek Basins, sampling sites, and political boundaries for Kansas City 

and Independence, Missouri.
Table 1. Locations of macroinvertebrate sampling sites in Kansas City and Independence, Missouri, and Cass and Ray Counties, Missouri, and type of and ecologic data collected, March 2007 through March 2011. [ID, identification number; mi2, square mile; km2, square kilometer; SUII, simple urban intensity index; QC, continuous discharge; PCP, precipitation; BQW, base-flow water quali

CWQ, continuous water quality; IQW, benthic macroinvertebrates; HAB, habitat assessment; DWS, dry-weather screening; BBU, Upstream Blue River; °, degrees; ′, minutes; ′′, sBBT, Blue River tributaries; BBM, Middle Blue River; BBD, Downstream Blue River; RCK, Rock Creek; LBM, Middle Little Blue River; LBT, Little Blue River tributaries; LBDRUR, Rural stream] Site number (fig. 1) Station name or watershed Station ID Stream category1 Stream order Latitude Longitude Drainage area2, (mi2) Drainage area2, (km2) Population density3 (km2) Percent impervious surface4 Percent forest buffer SUII QC PCP BQW 

Kansas City, Missouri Sites 1 Blue River at Blue Ridge Boulevard Extension, Kansas City, Mo. 06893150 BBU 5 38°53′24′′ 94°40′31′′ 93.2 241 220 8.0 26.4 27.1 X X X 

2 Indian Creek at 103rd Street, Kansas City, Mo. 06893400 BBT 4 38°56′31′′ 94°36′16′′ 65.0 168 1,184 33.9 12.5 80.2 X X X 

3 Blue River near Kansas City, Mo. 06893500 BBM 5 38°57′26′′ 94°33′31′′ 184 477 641 19.0 23.4 47.7 X -- X 

4 Blue River near Gregory Boulevard, Kansas City, Mo. 06893520 BBM 5 38°59′58′′ 94°31′39′′ 204 529 652 19.5 23.7 48.3 -- -- X 

5 Blue River at Blue Parkway, Kansas City, Mo. 06893552 BBM 5 39°02′06′′ 94°31′36′′ 213 551 641 19.5 24.5 47.5 -- -- X 

6 Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue, Kansas City, Mo. 06893564 BBT 4 39°02′11′′ 94°31′52′′ 29.9 77.5 1,581 37.4 0.6 100.0 -- -- X 

7 Blue River at Stadium Drive, Kansas City, Mo. 06893578 BBD 5 39°03′30′′ 94°30′42′′ 255 660 758 22.1 22.9 53.4 X X X 

Independence, Missouri sites 8 Rock Creek at Kentucky Road in Independence, Mo. 06893620 RCK 3 39°06′43′′ 94°28′20′′ 9.4 24.4 1,119 29.4 9.7 76.7 X X X 

9 Little Blue River at Lee′s Summit Road in Independence, Mo.6 06893820 LBM 4 39°01′02′′ 94°23′14′′ 98.6 255 519 14.0 38.8 29.8 X X X 

10 Adair Creek at Independence, Mo.7 06893830 LBT 3 39°02′16′′ 94°21′48′′ 5.2 13.4 1,027 36.6 22.7 72.1 X X X 

11 East Fork Little Blue River near Blue Springs, Mo.8 06893890 LBT 4 39°01′32′′ 94°20′37′′ 34.4 89.0 483 14.8 25.6 39.2 X X X 

12 Little Blue River at 39th St. in Independence, Mo.9 06893910 LBM 5 39°02′50′′ 94°20′15′′ 155 401 539 15.5 31.2 37.0 X X X 

13 Crackerneck Creek at Selsa Rd. in Independence, Mo.10 06893940 LBT 3 39°03′22′′ 94°20′41′′ 5.0 12.8 957 29.6 21.0 65.5 X X X 

14 Spring Branch Creek at 78 Highway in Independence, Mo.11 06893970 LBT 3 39°05′18′′ 94°20′36′′ 9.1 23.4 904 20.0 35.4 45.7 X X X 15 Burr Oak Creek in Independence, Mo. 06893990 LBT 3 39°05′10′′ 94°18′32′′ 8.1 20.9 343 11.1 47.3 17.6 -- -- X 

16 Little Blue River near Lake City, Mo. 06894000 LBD 5 39°06′02′′ 94°18′01′′ 186 481 550 15.6 31.1 37.4 X X X 
Table 1. Locations of macroinvertebrate sampling sites in Kansas City and Independence, Missouri, and Cass and Ray Counties, Missouri, and type of and ecologic data collected, March 2007 through March 2011. —Continued[ID, identification number; mi2, square mile; km2, square kilometer; SUII, simple urban intensity index; QC, continuous discharge; PCP, precipitation; BQW, base-flow water quali

ity; CWQ, continuous water quality; IQW, benthic macroinvertebrates; HAB, habitat assessment; DWS, dry-weather screening; BBU, Upstream Blue River; °, degrees; ′, minutes; data; BBT, Blue River tributaries; BBM, Middle Blue River; BBD, Downstream Blue River; RCK, Rock Creek; LBM, Middle Little Blue River; LBT, Little Blue River tributariesRiver; RUR, Rural stream]

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Station name or watershed Station ID Stream category1 Stream order Latitude Longitude Drainage area2, (mi2) Drainage area2, (km2) Population density3 (km2) Percent impervious surface4 Percent forest buffer SUII QC PCP BQW 

Reference sites

17 East Fork Crooked River near Richmond, Mo. (Ray County) 06895090 RUR 5 39°22′22′′ 94°54′32′′ 93.3 242 6 0.5 43.7 3.5 -- -- -- 

18 South Grand River below Freeman, 

Mo. (Cass County)

06921582 RUR 5 38°35′20′′ 94°26′30′′ 150 389 69 3.6 28.8 18.2 -- -- X 

1Stream categories used in data analysis.2Calculated using 2006 data. Areas may vary from previously published values.3Calculated using 2010 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a, 2010b).4Calculated using 2006 data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010).5Number of macroinvertebrate samples collected at site from 2007 to 2011.6Station established October 2009.7Station established October 2008.8Station re-established December 2009.9Station discontinued October 2009.10Station discontinued October 2008.11Gage moved downstream to Missouri State Highway 78 bridge on August 15, 2007, because of sedimentation at the site on Holke Road.
6 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

The Blue River Basin encompasses 725 square kilometers (km2

) and includes about one-half of the Kansas City 

metropolitan area south of the Missouri River (fig.1; Wilkison and others, 2006). Parts of the Blue River Basin receive 

discharges from wastewater-treatment plants (WWTPs) to 

streams and combined sewer overflows (CSOs; Wilkison 

and others, 2006). These discharges, in combination with 

other permitted point and nonpoint sources and extensive 

flood mitigation efforts, affect hydrology, water quality, and 

in-stream ecology (Wilkison and others, 2009; Graham and 

others, 2010). The Blue River Basin is mostly developed 

above its downstream streamgage (65 percent; fig. 2) with 

crops (23 percent) and some forest (9 percent; U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2010). The Blue River is located in the Central Irregular Plains ecoregion (Omernik, 1987), which can be further 

divided into the Wooded Osage Plains, Osage Cuestas, Rolling 

Loess Prairies, and Missouri Alluvial Plain (Omernik, 1987; 

Chapman and others, 2001; Nigh and Schroeder, 2002).

The Little Blue River Basin encompasses 580 km2 

and is located on the eastern side of the Kansas City metropolitan area (fig. 1). Municipalities within the basin use 

separate storm-sewer systems (Christensen and others, 2010). 

A WWTP located within the Little Blue River Basin (fig. 1) 

discharges to the Missouri River; however, currently (2012) 

no WWTPs discharge directly to streams in the basin. The 

basin is mostly developed above its downstream streamgage 

(52 percent; fig. 2) with some forest (16 percent) and crops 

(26 percent; U.S. Geological Survey, 2010).

The Rock Creek Basin is located almost entirely 

within Independence city boundaries between the Blue River 

Basin and Little Blue River Basin and flows directly to the 

Missouri River. A WWTP discharges effluent near Rock 

Creek’s mouth (fig. 1). The basin is mostly developed above 

its streamgage (92 percent; fig. 2) with little forest (5 percent). 

Three divisions of the Central Irregular Plains ecoregion are 

represented within the Little Blue River and Rock Creek 

Basins: Wooded Osage Plains, Rolling Loess Prairies, and 

Missouri Alluvial Plain (Omernik, 1987; Chapman and others, 

2001; Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). The two rural sites, located 

outside the Kansas City metropolitan area in Ray County 

and Cass County, Missouri (fig. 1) are representative of the 

Central Irregular Plains ecoregion and are largely undeveloped with less than 20 percent developed land use above their 

streamgages (fig. 2) and less than 5 percent impervious cover 

(table 1).

Previous Investigations

Water-quality studies for the upper Blue River in Johnson County, Kansas (Lee and others, 2005; Rasmussen and 

others, 2008, 2009; Graham and others, 2010), and the lower 

Blue River and its tributaries in Kansas City, Mo. (Wilkison 

and others, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009), included macroinvertebrate sampling and data analysis. Poulton and others (2007) 

conducted an assessment of biological conditions using 

macroinvertebrate data and metrics for the Blue River Basin in 

Missouri and Kansas during 2003 and 2004. A comprehensive 

water-quality study was conducted for the Little Blue River 

and its tributaries within Independence, Missouri, from 2005 

through 2008 (Christensen and others, 2010) that included a 

preliminary assessment of macroinvertebrate samples collected in 2007 and 2008.

Bioassessments conducted in the Blue River Basin 

(Wilkison and others, 2006, 2009; Poulton and others, 2007; 

Rasmussen and others, 2009; Graham and others, 2010) 

have indicated that stream health is negatively correlated 

to several urbanization factors including developed land 

use, impervious cover, and wastewater effluent discharges. 

Previous studies indicated that the Blue Ridge sampling site 

(site 1; table 1, fig.1), the furthest upstream Blue River site 

in this study, typically had less optimal macroinvertebrate 

metric scores than other sites in the upper Blue River Basin 

that were also above wastewater effluent discharges (fig. 1). 

However, more optimal metric scores found in these studies in increasingly developed reaches further downstream 

from WWTP discharges indicated that although the WWTPs 

may affect stream biota, effluent effects decreased with 

distance from the point of discharge (Poulton and others, 

2007; Graham and others, 2010). None of the sites included 

in these studies consistently met the Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment (KDHE) fully supporting criteria 

for ALS. Similarly, Christensen and others (2010) identified 

no sites for the Little Blue River within Independence city 

boundaries that met the MODNR criteria for fully supporting 

ALS. One of the rural comparison sites, South Grand River 

below Freeman (site 18, table 1, fig. 1), scored only partially biologically supporting on the MODNR scale for five 

macroinvertebrate samples collected during previous studies 

from 2002 to 2007 (Poulton and others, 2007; Wilkison and 

others, 2006, 2009).

Tate and others (2005) examined the effects of urbanization on aquatic biota as part of the USGS National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) program and presented a 

Common Urban Intensity Index (CUII). Five variables were 

included in the CUII: percent basin developed land use, 

percent basin forest plus shrub land, percent stream buffer 

developed, percent stream buffer forest plus shrub land, and 

basin road density. The CUII provided a consistent measure 

of urban intensity among three urban study areas. The CUII 

was used as a starting point for determining a simple urban 

intensity index for this study.

The term “urban intensity” has been selected in this 

report to represent many descriptors for urbanization. These 

descriptors include environmental perturbation, environmental 

disturbance, urbanization, urban gradient, and other similar 

terminology used with small distinctions or interchangeably 

in previous studies cited and in the literature for macroinvertebrate studies in urban streams. Urban intensity as used in this 

study should be interpreted broadly with the terminology used 

in the references cited.
Introduction 7

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

KANSAS

MISSOURI

Blue River Basin

Little Blue

River Basin

Rock Creek

Basin

Kansas River Missouri River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:24,000, 1999

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, National land cover dataset

Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15N

EXPLANATION

#* Sample site

Wastewater-treatement plant

Water

Developed, low intensity

Developed, medium/high intensity

Barren land

Mixed forest

Shrub/scrub/grassland

Pasture and cultivated crops

Wetlands

0 2.5 5 MILES

0 2.5 5 KILOMETERS

94°40' 94°30' 94°20'

39°10'

39°00'

38°50'

KANSAS MISSOURI

CASS MIAMI

JOHNSON

WYANDOTTE

RAY

CALDWELL

JACKSON

East Fork Crooked

River Basin

South Grand

River Basin

Enlarged area

#*#*

#*#*

Figure 2. Land use in the Blue River, Little Blue River, and Rock Creek Basins.
8 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

Methods

Eighteen macroinvertebrate sampling sites in the Kansas 

City metropolitan area were selected based on data availability and comparability. Sites were included from adjacent 

river basins from two studies, one in Kansas City (Wilkison 

and others, 2009) and the other in Independence (Christensen 

and others, 2010). Macroinvertebrate data collection for the 

Kansas City study ended in April 2010. The Independence 

study currently (2012) is ongoing. Collection and processing 

of macroinvertebrate samples for these studies were performed 

by USGS personnel using consistent methods. Study sites are 

located in Jackson County, Missouri, within the Kansas City 

and Independence city boundaries except for the two rural 

sites, which are located in Ray and Cass Counties (table 1, 

fig. 1).

Data Collection

Hydrologic, water-quality, macroinvertebrate, and 

habitat data collected for the Kansas City and Independence 

water-quality studies were compiled and reviewed for this 

report. Brief summaries of the data collection procedures are 

presented below. Additional discussion of the procedures and 

types of samples collected can be found in Wilkison and others (2009) and Christensen and others (2010). Hydrologic and 

water-quality data can be accessed at http://nwis.waterdata.

usgs.gov/nwis/nwis.

Hydrology

Streamflow (discharge) was determined at the time of 

sample collection or from established stage-discharge relations 

at the sites that had streamgages using standard USGS procedures (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, 2007; Oberg and others, 

2005; Mueller and Wagner, 2009: Sauer and Turnipseed, 2010; 

Turnipseed and Sauer, 2010). Continuous discharge was measured and recorded at 12 sites (table 1) for all or part of the 

period covered in this report. Precipitation data were collected 

at 11 of the 12 sites using unheated tipping-bucket rain gages.

Water Quality

Water-quality samples were analyzed for nutrients, 

metals, wastewater-indicator compounds, bacteria, and 

suspended sediment and were collected as grab, depth- and 

width-integrated, or automatic samples depending on stream 

and streamflow conditions. Automatic samplers equipped with 

peristaltic pumps and Teflon tubing were programmed to collect flow-weighted composite samples when a predetermined 

stage threshold was exceeded during stormflow events. Details 

of the USGS water-quality sample collection procedures can 

be accessed at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. Continuous 

water-quality monitors (CWQMs) were installed at two Blue 

River Basin and six Little Blue River Basin sites for all or part 

of March 2007 through March 2011 (table 1). CWQM data 

(temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, 

and turbidity) were corrected as needed based on knowledge 

of conditions at the individual stream sites, manufacturer’s 

specifications, and USGS methods presented by Wagner and 

others (2006) before being finalized. Historical and real-time 

CWQM data can be accessed at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.

gov/nwis/sw.

Macroinvertebrates

The macroinvertebrate sampling protocol was based on 

procedures described by Barbour and others (1999) and Sarver 

(2003a) for the collection of qualitative samples. The richesttargeted habitat (RTH) method (Barbour and others, 1999) was 

used where riffle/run habitats are targeted. Samples collected 

from this habitat type are likely representative of the stream 

reach (Barbour and others, 1999; Cuffney and others, 2010). 

For each sample, six collections were made from various riffle 

locations to incorporate a variety of substrate size, stream 

velocity, and water depth, and processed and composited in 

the field according to Sarver (2003a). The composite sample 

was brought back to the laboratory for further processing and 

placed in a lighted white processing tray for visibility with 

enough water to cover the bottom of the tray. A total of 600 

individuals (or amount enumerated in 1 hour) was collected 

from the composite sample. Counting focused on maximizing 

sample biodiversity based on visually identified morphological 

differences of individuals selected during collection. Finished 

samples were preserved with 90-percent ethanol until analysis. 

Habitat Assessments

Stream habitat assessments were performed at each sampling site to relate physical characteristics to biological variables. Ten physical-habitat characteristics (epifaunal substrate, 

embeddedness, velocity-depth regime, sediment deposition, 

channel flow status, channel alteration, riffle quality, bank 

stability, vegetative protection, and riparian vegetation) were 

measured and assigned a standardized score on a scale of 0 to 

20 according to procedures described in Sarver (2003b). The 

scores were then summed to provide an overall assessment of 

stream physical-habitat quality.

Sample Analysis

Water-quality samples were analyzed at the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Lakewood, 

Colorado, using established USGS procedures (Garbarino 

and Struzeski, 1998; Fishman and Friedman, 1989; Fishman, 

1993; Patton and Truitt, 1992; Patton and Truitt, 2000). Total 

coliform and Escherichia coliform (E. coli) bacteria were analyzed at the USGS Missouri Water Science Center—Kansas 

City laboratory using a semi-automated quantification method 
Methods 9

(IDEXX, 2009). Suspended-sediment concentration samples 

were analyzed at the USGS sediment laboratory in Rolla, Mo., 

according to methods presented in Guy (1969). Preserved 

macroinvertebrate samples were sent to the USGS NWQL for 

enumeration and taxonomic identification according to USGS 

protocols (Moulton and others, 2000, 2002).

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality-assurance procedures ensure data precision and 

accuracy. Quality-control samples test sample collection and 

analysis procedures (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). 

About 10 percent of water-quality samples collected in the 

studies presented in this report were quality-control samples 

and included replicate and blank samples. Generally, the field 

and laboratory quality control and assurance data (data not 

presented) indicate that sample collection and processing 

procedures were not a source of bias. Quality assurance data 

are on file at the Missouri Water Science Center—Kansas City 

office and available upon request. More detailed information 

on field and laboratory quality-assurance and quality-control 

procedures used in collection of data used in this report are 

presented in Wilkison and others (2009) and Christensen and 

others (2010).

Fifty-four quality-assurance samples, including analyses for nutrients, chloride, bacteria, and suspended-sediment 

concentration, were collected from April 2008 through February 2011 at 16 study sites excluding the two rural comparison 

sites (table 1). The quality-assurance samples included seven 

procedure blanks (field and laboratory) collected to monitor 

for environmental and cross contamination and 47 replicate 

environmental samples to monitor for analytical precision. 

Nutrient concentrations in the seven blank samples were less 

than the laboratory reporting level (LRL) with the following 

qualifications: total ammonia plus organic nitrogen detected 

in one sample [estimated 0.05 milligram per liter (mg/L), LRL 

0.10 mg/L] and ammonia detected in one sample (estimated 

0.017 mg/L, LRL 0.020 mg/L). The LRL is the lowest measured concentration that may be reported reliably with the 

risk of a false negative of less than one percent. Values less 

than the LDL, but greater than the long term method detection level, are reported as estimated (Childress and others, 

1999). All chloride concentrations in blank samples were less 

than the LRL. Most constituent concentrations in the replicate 

environmental samples were comparable and within laboratory 

analytical error. Seven laboratory equipment blanks for bacteria reported no E. coli densities, but two blanks reported total 

coliform densities of 3 most probable number per 100 milliliters. The potential for sample bias was minimal.

Macroinvertebrate sample collection and enumeration are 

expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming. The MODNR 

determined that collection of an additional macroinvertebrate 

sample from a different reach of the same stream improved 

impairment detection by only 9.3 percent (Rabeni and others, 

1997). Collection of duplicate samples was identified to the 

same impairment category 95 percent of the time (Sarver and 

others, 2002). Given collection, identification, and enumeration constraints, duplicates for macroinvertebrate samples 

were not collected. A taxon-based approach to quality control 

and assurance was used at the USGS NWQL (Grotheer and 

others, 2000; Moulton and others, 2000, 2002). Quality-assurance measures included repeat identification of new specimens 

by a different taxonomist and random reviews for a minimum 

of 10 percent of all identifications. Taxonomic keys and 

specimens are maintained at the USGS NWQL in Lakewood, 

Colo. Additional information on quality-control and qualityassurance procedures for data presented in this report can be 

found in Wilkison and others (2009) and Christensen and others (2010) and for the USGS NWQL at http://nwql.usgs.gov/

Public/quality.shtml.

Since widespread adoption of rapid-bioassessement protocols using biologic indices for the assessment of water quality introduced by Karr (1981), Hilsenhoff (1988), and Plafkin 

and others (1989), methods for macroinvertebrate sample 

collection and data analysis remain highly variable (Hannaford 

and Resh, 1995; Barbour and others, 1999; Cuffney and 

others, 2010). Factors that affect data comparability include 

sample collection and processing, sampling effort, equipment, 

habitats sampled, sampling personnel, timing and frequency 

of sampling (year and season), sample sorting and enumeration, taxonomic accuracy and resolution, and selection and 

location of calibration sites (Cao and Hawkins, 2011). Data 

for sites and samples for this study were selected from studies 

(Christensen and others, 2010; Wilkison, 2009) conducted 

using consistent methods in order to maximize comparability 

of these factors.

The accuracy and comparability of biotic indices and 

other tolerance-based metrics rely on the assigned tolerance 

values. Tolerance values from published sources generally are 

used, including Hilsenhoff (1977, 1988), Huggins and Moffet 

(1988), Lenat (1993), Bode and others (2002), and Klemm and 

others (2002). State and national listings may vary because 

some tolerance values are regionally adjusted to better represent local tolerance. Tolerance values are less accurate when 

applied to streams outside of the geographic area from which 

the tolerance values were established (Blocksam and Winters, 

2006). Missouri’s taxa tolerance listing uses values that are 

representative and applicable to the study area and continues to be refined (Sarver, 2005). Therefore, tolerance values 

from the Missouri taxa listings (Sarver, 2005) were used, or 

if unavailable, assigned from established regional tolerance 

values (Cuffney and Brightbill, 2011). Greater than 97 percent 

of identified taxa in samples were assigned tolerance values.

Environmental Variables

Percent land use (2006) and forest canopy (2001) for 

upstream basin areas were calculated from 1:24,000 digital 

raster data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010; Missouri Spatial 

Data Information Service, 2011). Percent impervious cover 
10 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

for the upstream basin area for each site was calculated from 

corrected 2006 30-meter (m) resolution Landsat data (Nowak 

and Greenfield, 2010; U.S. Geological Survey, 2010; Xian and 

Homer, 2010). Population densities for individual basins were 

calculated from 2010 census tract data (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010a, 2010b). Land use, forest canopy, impervious cover, and 

population density variables also were determined for a 30-m 

buffer area around hydrologic features of the upstream basin 

area for each site. The SUII for each basin was computed on 

a scale of low to high (0 to 100) from the average of the similarly scaled impervious cover, population density, and buffer 

forest cover.

Data Analysis

Sample sites were divided into nine stream categories 

(table 1) for analysis based on location (upstream, middle, 

or downstream) and stream size (main stem or tributary); 

upstream Blue River (BBU; site 1), middle Blue River (BBM; 

sites 3, 4, and 5), downstream Blue River (BBD; site 7), Blue 

River tributaries (BBT; sites 2 and 6), middle Little Blue 

River (LBM; sites 9 and 12), downstream Little Blue River 

(LBD; site 16), Little Blue River tributaries (LBT; sites 10, 11, 

13, 14, and 15), Rock Creek (RCK; site 8), and rural (RUR; 

sites 17 and 18).

Water-quality and macroinvertebrate data (table 1; 

Wilkison and others, 2009; Christensen and others, 2010) 

were analyzed for water-quality and environmental factors that 

characterize, or commonly affect, the ecologic condition of 

streams including nutrient, chloride, and sediment concentrations, land use, and habitat assessments. The Kruskal-Wallis 

rank sum test (Kruskal and Wallis, 1952) was used to screen 

for differences among water-quality and environmental factors for samples, sites, and stream categories. If the KruskalWallis test indicated the likelihood of significant [p-value (p) 

less than or equal to 0.10] differences among samples, sites, 

or categories, a multiple comparison test on the ranked data 

using the Tukey method (Tukey, 1953) was used to identify 

the significant (p less than or equal to 0.05) differences (Helsel 

and Hirsch, 2002).

Correlations among factors were assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ). Spring and fall samples were 

analyzed separately. All data from Blue River site 4 (samples 

collected in 2009 and 2010) and site 5 (samples collected in 

2007 and 2008; fig. 1) were combined for statistical analyses to maintain consistency as were data from Independence 

sites 9 and 12 (table 1; fig. 1). The Rock Creek Basin, located 

almost entirely within Independence city boundaries, was 

included with the Little Blue River Basin sites for all sample 

and group comparisons. The software program TIBCO Spotfire S+ version 8.1 (The Information Bus Company Software 

Inc., 2008) was used unless otherwise noted for all statistical 

analyses in this study.

Water Quality

Two of the Blue River and six of the Little Blue River 

sites had streamgages to measure stream stage and CWQMs 

to measure physical parameters for all or part of the study 

duration (table 1). Parameters calculated for those sites include 

90-day average and median discharge, peak discharge, and 

90-day average and maximum specific conductance. Sufficient 

data were collected at four Blue River and eight Little Blue 

River sites to calculate average base-flow concentrations for 

nutrients, chloride, and suspended sediment, and densities for 

E. coli and total coliform bacteria.

Physical parameters (temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity) were recorded at the 

time of macroinvertebrate sampling at all sites. Additional 

water-quality data were collected at selected sites (table 1). 

The number and timing of samples varied among sites because 

water-quality samples and physical-property measurements 

were collected at four of seven Blue River sites and all of the 

Little Blue River sites except Burr Oak Creek prior to, but 

independent of, the collection of macroinvertebrate samples. 

Measured and calculated physical properties and selected 

streamflow and water-quality parameters for macroinvertebrate samples are presented in table 2 (in the Excel spreadsheet at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284).

Macroinvertebrates

The Invertebrate Data Analysis System (IDAS) version 5.0 was used for processing data and calculating taxa 

richness, abundance, and diversity metrics for macroinvertebrate samples (Cuffney and Brightbill, 2011). Generally, taxa 

were identified by the NWQL to genus or species. However, 

some taxa were identified to a higher taxonomic level, typically family. Ambiguous taxa were resolved by removing the 

parent or merging the children with the parent. If the abundance of the ambiguous parent was higher than the sum of 

the children’s abundances, the children were deleted and their 

abundances were added to the parent. If the sum of the ambiguous children’s abundances was higher, the children were 

retained and the parent was deleted (Cuffney and Brightbill, 

2011). This method of resolving ambiguities is conservative 

and may result in reduced sample richness and abundance but 

retains sensitivity of the data to differences in urban intensity 

(Cuffney and others, 2007).

Because of their proximity, urban character, and potential 

macroinvertebrate populations, data from the Blue River and 

Little Blue River Basins (sites 1–16; table 1) were combined 

for the purpose of resolving taxonomic ambiguities. Rural 

comparison streams (sites 17–18; table 1) were processed 

together but separately from the urban sites. About 22 percent 

of sample taxonomic levels, abundances, and tolerance values 

were assigned because of ambiguous taxonomy.
Methods 11

A total of 154 macroinvertebrate community metrics 

were calculated using IDAS (Cuffney and Brightbill, 2011), 

including metrics based on taxa richness, abundance, tolerance, and functional feeding group. Tolerance values for taxa 

that were used to calculate the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index 

(MBI) were assigned from the Missouri taxa listings (Sarver, 

2005) or, if unavailable, assigned from established regional 

tolerance values (Cuffney and Brightbill, 2011). Taxa were 

defined as intolerant if the tolerance value was less than or 

equal to 4, moderately tolerant if values were greater than 4 

and less than 7, and tolerant if values were greater than or 

equal to 7. Taxa functional feeding group classifications were 

assigned as stated in procedures by Sarver (2005) and include 

shredders, collector/gatherers, collector/filterers, scrapers, 

macrophyte piercers, predators, herbivores, parasites, and 

unknown (Merritt and Cummins, 1996). Functional feeding 

groups are used to describe the balance of feeding strategies 

(Barbour and others, 1999) and available organic matter size 

and type (Vannote and others, 1980). For example, shredders 

utilize coarse particulate organic matter, collector/filterers filter 

from fine particulate organic matter, and scrapers are adapted 

to utilize attached algae. All metrics were calculated separately 

for urban and rural sites and for spring and fall seasons.

For manageability during analysis, the number of metrics 

was reduced by selection based on: the four metrics included 

in the Missouri stream biological assessment procedure 

(Sarver, 2003a); metrics used for assessing local area streams 

in previous studies (Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and 

others, 2009; Wilkison and others, 2009; Graham and others, 2010); metrics found to be responsive in urban-intensity 

studies (Cuffney and others, 2005); metrics determined to 

have some correlation with the SUII (|ρ| greater than or equal 

to 0.15); and elimination of metrics with high colinearity (|ρ| 

greater than or equal to 0.95). The number of metrics was 

reduced to 23 metrics to calculate MMIs. Abbreviations for 

macroinvertebrate metrics used in this report, definitions, and 

correlation coefficients to the SUII are presented in table 3.

Four metrics are used by the MODNR (Sarver, 2003a) 

in the calculation of the Missouri Stream Condition Index 

(MSCI): total taxa richness (RICH), Ephemeroptera plus 

Plecoptera plus Trichoptera (EPT) richness (EPTR), Shannon Diversity Index (SHANDIV), and the MBI (table 3). 

These metrics were used to calculate the ALS for samples 

from a stream’s richest-targeted habitat, which was usually 

riffle habitat. The MSCI is calculated from samples collected 

from multiple habitats within a stream reach. This study’s 

stream condition index is noted simply as SCI because of 

this difference in calculation of the MSCI and the SCI. Other 

lesser differences in the calculation of individual metrics are 

noted below. Differences are not substantial and the MSCI and 

SCI are considered equivalent. RICH is the total number of 

distinct taxa present in a sample. EPTR is the total richness of 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa in a sample. 

SHANDIV is a measure of taxa diversity in a community that 

takes into consideration taxa richness and evenness of the relative abundance of community (Shannon and Weaver, 1949). 

IDAS calculates the SHANDIV using base 10 logarithms. The 

SHANDIV was converted to base e in order to be comparable 

with the MSCI. The MBI is a measure of the overall pollution tolerance of a macroinvertebrate community expressed 

on a scale of 0 to 10 with less tolerant individuals having a 

smaller tolerance value and more tolerant individuals having 

a larger tolerance value (Sarver, 2003a) and is comparable to 

the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff, 1977, 1988). Tolerance values for taxa used to calculate the MBI were assigned 

from Missouri taxa listings (Sarver, 2005) or assigned from 

established regional tolerance values. MODNR uses only the 

Missouri taxa listings when calculating the MSCI.

Breakpoints for scoring the ALS of streams are determined and updated frequently by MODNR. Breakpoints for 

the ALS of individual habitats, including riffle habitat, were 

obtained from the MODNR for reference streams in the 

Central Irregular Plains ecoregion (Omernik, 1987) and Missouri tributaries between the Blue and Lamine Rivers ecological drainage unit (Sarver and others, 2002) that includes the 

study area. Reference site samples were collected between 

April 1998 and September 2008 (David Michaelson, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, written commun., 2011).

Measures of urban intensity for the basins and a 30-m 

stream buffer zone were included in a proportional index to 

measure urban intensity (the SUII; table 1). Percent impervious cover, population density, and forest cover in a 30-m 

stream-buffer zone were included in the SUII because they 

were easily calculated from available data sources and were 

highly correlated (|ρ| greater than or equal to 0.7) with total 

taxa richness and Ephemera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera taxa 

richness, which are two macroinvertebrate metrics sensitive 

to pollution (Barbour and others, 1999; Cuffney and others, 

2005, 2010).

Ordinary least squares subset regression (Miller, 1990) 

with Mallows’ Cp

 statistic as the stopping criterion was used 

to determine 27 MMIs with 2 to 10 metrics that characterize stream condition in relation to the SUII. The Cp

 statistic 

estimates the mean-squared-prediction error and weighs 

colinearity of factors so Cp does not continue to increase or 

decrease with the addition of variables to the model as do 

other common statistics used for model evaluation such as the 

standard error, coefficient of determination (R2

), or the predicted residual sum of squares (PRESS). Thus, the Cp

 statistic 

provides a criterion to prevent over fitting of the model (Mallows, 1973). Sample and site scores for the SUII and MMIs 

were calculated from proportionally scaled values ranging 

from 0 to 100 to equalize metric weight when calculating 

MMIs (Kreis, 1988).

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) of richness, relative 

abundance, tolerance, and trophic level data using PRIMER 

statistical program software (Clarke, 1993; Clarke and Gorley, 2006) was used to evaluate sample and macroinvertebrate 

community similarities. On graphs showing MDS results, 

similar data points are located near each other and those that 

are more dissimilar are located farther apart. Macroinvertebrate taxa relative abundances were calculated by dividing 
12 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

Table 3. Macroinvertebrate metric abbreviations, definitions, and Spearman’s correlation 

coefficients with the simple urban intensity index (SUII).

[Moderately correlated (|ρ| greater than or equal to 0.45) values in bold; *, highly correlated (|ρ| greater than or 

equal to 0.65) values; ≤, less than or equal to; ≥, greater than or equal to]

Metric Definition Correlation 

coefficient

RICH Total taxa richness -0.61

EPTR EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) richness -0.63

EPT/CHR Ratio of EPT to Chironomidae taxa richness -0.59

EPHEMR Ephemeroptera richness -0.61

PLECOR Plecoptera richness -0.63

TRICHR Trichoptera richness -0.23

ODONOR Odonata richness -0.14

COLEOPR Coleoptera richness -0.61

DIPR Diptera richness -0.34

CHR Chironomidae richness -0.28

ORTHOR Orthocladinae richness -0.48

ORTHO/CHR Ratio of Orthocladinae to Chironomidae taxa richness -0.47

TANYR Tanytarsini richness -0.06

TANY/CHR Ratio of Tantarsini to Chironomidae taxa richness 0.02

NCHDIPR Non-Chironomidae diptera richness -0.40

NONINSR Non-insect richness -0.03

ODIPNIR Other diptera plus non-insect richness -0.22

MOLCRUR Mollusca plus Crustacea richness -0.28

AMPHIR Amphipoda richness -0.35

ISOPR Isopoda richness 0.19

OLIGOR Oligochaeta richness 0.23

EPTRp Percent EPT richness -0.57

EPEMRp Percent Ephemeroptera richness -0.65*

PLECORp Percent Plecoptera richness -0.63

TRICHRp Percent Trichoptera richness 0.02

NONINSRp Percent non-insect richness 0.48

ODIPNIRp Percent other diptera plus non-insect richness 0.41

OLIGORp Percent Oligochaeta richness 0.57

PLECO Plecoptera abundance -0.62

COLEOP Coleoptera abundance -0.34

EPTp Percent EPT abundance -0.44

EPEMp Percent Ephemeroptera abundace -0.53

PLECOp Percent Plecoptera abundance -0.62

EPp Percent Ephemeroptera plus Plecoptera abundance -0.63

TRICHp Percent Trichoptera abundance -0.17

COLEOPp Percent Coleoptera abundance -0.29

DIPp Percent Diptera abundance -0.18

CHp Percent Chironomidae abundance -0.18

TANYp Percent Tanytarsini abundance 0.11

ODIPNIp Percent other diptera plus non-insect abundance 0.39

CORBICp Percent Corbicula abundance -0.24
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 13

taxa abundance by total sample abundance. The abundance 

data were square-root transformed with Bray-Curtis resemblance matrix calculations (Bray and Curtis, 1957; Clarke 

and Warwick, 2001). Two-dimensional MDS plots of macroinvertebrate taxa and tolerance metrics, functional feeding groups, water quality, and physical characteristics of the 

basin were created to visually analyze data similarities and 

dissimilarities.

Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) in PRIMER statistical 

program software was used to determine dissimilarities among 

basin categories based on species relative abundances using 

the Bray-Curtis measure of similarity. ANOSIM is a multivariate analysis that calculates differences between groups 

of community samples using randomization methods on a 

resemblance matrix (Clarke, 1993; Clarke and Gorley, 2006). 

Results are presented as the R statistic (Clarke, 1993), based 

on the difference of mean ranks between groups and within 

groups, and significance levels (p-values). R values are scaled 

from -1 to 1. Pair-wise analyses were statistically significant if 

p was less than or equal to 0.05. BEST analysis was performed 

to determine the top 10 species driving the community pattern 

among categories. BEST is a procedure in PRIMER, which 

examines the value of the selection criteria for all possible 

combinations of predictor variables (Clarke and Gorley, 2006).

MDS plots of spring sample macroinvertebrate community structure based on richness, relative abundance, tolerance, 

and functional feeding groups were visually analyzed and 

compared to basin categories, the SUII of sites, and environmental variables. Basin categories were visually delineated 

with different colored ellipses to assist in interpretation of the 

plots. Samples that were not included within the ellipses were 

dissimilar from other samples in their basin category and were 

not as similar as other samples included within the ellipses. 

Samples that are shown further apart have higher dissimilarity 

than samples that are close together.

Assessment of Macroinvertebrate 

Communities

A total of 165 macroinvertebrate taxa were identified in 

samples collected during spring (March 2007 through March 

2011) and fall (September 2008 through October 2010) at 

18 study sites. Of these taxa, 79 were at the Blue River Basin 

sites, 134 were at the Little Blue River and Rock Creek Basin 

sites, and 95 were at the rural comparison sites. Fall samples 

were not collected at the Blue River Basin sites. Ten taxa were 

Table 3. Macroinvertebrate metric abbreviations, definitions, and Spearman’s correlation 

coefficients with the simple urban intensity index (SUII).—Continued

[Moderately correlated (|ρ| greater than 0.45) values in bold; *, highly correlated (|ρ| greater than 0.65) values; 

≤, less than or equal to; ≥, greater than or equal to]

Metric Definition Correlation 

coefficient

OLIGOp Percent Oligochaeta abundance 0.27

RICHTOL Average of taxa tolerance 0.55

INTOLR Intolerant taxa richness (tolerance value ≤ 4.0) -0.62

MBI (ABUNDTOL) Abundance-weighted average taxa tolerance 0.24

INTOLp Percent intolerant taxa abundance (tolerance value ≤ 4.0) -0.25

TOLp Percent tolerant taxa abundance(tolerance value ≥ 7.0)) 0.31

FCR Filtering-collector richness -0.16

SCR Scraper richness -0.57

PRp Percent predator abundance 0.34

OMp Percent omnivore abundance -0.35

GCp Percent Gqatherer-collector abundance 0.06

FCp Percent filtering collector abundance 0.08

SCp Percent scraper abundance -0.37

SHp Percent shredder abundance -0.45

SC.FCp Ratio of scraper to filtering-collector abundance -0.44

SHANDIV Shannon diversity index -0.23

DOM1 Percent most abundant taxa -0.00

DOM2 Percent two most abundant taxa 0.03

DOM5 Percent five most abundant taxa 0.20
14 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

unique to Blue River Basin sites, 43 to the Little Blue River 

and Rock Creek Basin sites, and 21 to the rural sites. Eight 

taxa were common to all sites, and 51 taxa were unique to an 

individual site (table 4, in the Excel spreadsheet at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284). Counts generally were small for taxa 

unique to basins or sites. A taxa summary list is presented 

in table 5 (in the Excel spreadsheet at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

sir/2012/5284).

Pair-wise comparison of sites indicated significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis rank test; p less than or equal to 0.10; 

table 6) for SCI metrics between the upstream Blue River and 

Blue River tributaries categories. Middle and downstream 

Blue River categories also were significantly different than 

the middle and downstream Little Blue River sites. The Blue 

River tributaries category, with higher SUII scores (table 1), 

receives effluent from two WWTPs and was significantly different from all other categories except the middle and downstream Blue River categories located downstream from the 

tributaries confluence with the Blue River (fig. 1). The rural 

category was significantly different from the middle, downstream, and tributary Blue River categories.

The upstream Blue River category is the only Blue River 

category that was not significantly different from the rural category based on the 4-metric index and its component metrics. 

This likely is because of lower effects from WWTP effluent 

on stream health. The WWTP located upstream from site 1 

in Kansas that discharges directly to the Blue River (fig. 1) 

underwent upgrades prior to this study including biological 

nutrient removal resulting in lower total nitrogen concentrations in the Blue River downstream from the plant (Graham 

and others, 2010). The upstream Blue River site is located 

above the confluence of the Blue River and Indian Creek with 

two other WWTPs (fig. 1). Significant differences among the 

Blue River categories (excluding the upstream category) and 

the rural category indicate that urban-intensity effects, including those from WWTP effluent, on macroinvertebrate communities are not as apparent at the upstream Blue River site. 

This indicates that the upstream Blue River macroinvertebrate 

community is more similar to the Little Blue River and rural 

comparison site communities than the macroinvertebrate communities for other Blue River categories. There were no significant differences among the Little Blue River, the upstream 

Blue River, Rock Creek, and rural sites.

Macroinvertebrate Community Structure

Degraded stream health has been related to low biodiversity of macroinvertebrate communities. Macroinvertebrate 

community composition generally is less tolerant upstream 

with a more tolerant community composition downstream 

(Barbour and others, 1996; Klein, 1979; Paul and Meyers, 

2001; Walsh and others, 2005). As more tributaries enter a 

river, the potential exists downstream for the release of more 

toxins and pollutants into the river from point and nonpoint 

sources. As upstream basin size increases, the area from which 

nonpoint source pollutants can enter the river also increases. 

This often leads to a community structure dominated by tolerant taxa including Chironomidae (nonbiting midges; Paul and 

Meyers, 2001; Seager and Abrahams, 1990; Wright and others 

1995) and Oligochaeta (aquatic worms). Chironomidae taxa 

relative abundances indicated low variability among basins. 

All three basin categories had about 40 percent chironomid 

relative abundances for spring samples (table 7). However, the 

Blue River Basin had a relative abundance of Oligochaeta taxa 

(about19 percent) more than two or three times higher than 

the percentage identified for the Little Blue River Basin (5 percent) and the rural comparison sites (about 9 percent; table 7). 

These data indicate the effect of differences in habitat among 

sites, lower urban-intensity effects at Little Blue River sites, or 

a combination of both factors.

A total of 142 taxa and about 20,500 individuals in 

54 samples were identified from samples collected during 

the spring season (table 7). The Blue River Basin and the 

rural comparison sites had similar total taxa richness (79 and 

77 taxa). The Little Blue River Basin sites had the greatest total taxa richness (107 taxa). The majority (116 taxa) of 

identified taxa were insects (class Insecta). The lowest insect 

Table 6. Stream categories with significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, p less than or equal 

to 0.10) in 4-metric index or individual component metric (total taxa richness, Ephemeroptera-PlecopteraTrichoptera taxa richness, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index, and Shannon Diversity Index) scores.

[X, significant difference (p less than or equal to 0.10)]

Stream category (table 1) BBU BBM BBD BBT LBM LBD LBT RCK RUR

Blue River—upstream (BBU)

Blue River—middle (BBM)

Blue River—downstream (BBD)

Blue River—tributaries (BBT) X

LittleBlue River—middle (LBM) X X X

Little Blue River—downstream (LBD) X X X

Little Blue River—tributaries (LBT) X

Rock Creek (RCK) X

Rural streams (RUR) X X X
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 15

Table 7. Taxa richness, total abundance, and relative abundance 

summary of spring data for the Blue River Basin, Rock Creek 

and Little Blue River Basins, and rural comparison sites for sites 

sampled March 2007 through March 2011.

[Tolerances for taxa were assigned from the Missouri taxa listings (Sarver, 

2005), or if unavailable assigned established regional values (Cuffney and 

Brightbill, 2011); EPT, Ephemeroptera plus Plecoptera plus Trichoptera]

Blue River 

Basin

Rock Creek 

and Little 

Blue River 

Basin

Rural 

basins Total

Number of samples 24 23 7 54

Total Taxa

Richness 79 107 77 142

Total abundance 7,734 9,875 2,855 20,500

Relative abundance1 37.7 48.2 13.9 100

Oligochaeta Taxa

Richness 4 3 3 4

Total abundance 1,486 491 266 2,243 

Relative abundance1 19.2 5.0 9.3 10.9

Insecta Taxa

Richness 60 88 61 116

Total abundance 4,690 8,530 2,346 15,566 

Relative abundance1 60.6 86.4 82.2 75.9

EPT Taxa

Richness 15 22 19 30

Total abundance 621 2,691 791 4,103 

Relative abundance1 8.0 27.3 27.7 20.0

Chironomidae Taxa

Richness 29 43 28 51

Total abundance 2,841 4,213 1,246 8,300 

Relative abundance1 36.7 42.7 43.6 40.5

Intolerant Taxa2

Richness 8 18 13 27

Total abundance 507 487 215 1,209 

Relative abundance1 6.6 4.9 7.5 5.9

Highly Intolerant Taxa3

Richness 3 1 3 6

Total abundance 9 1 54 64

Relative abundance1 0.1 0.001 1.9 0.31

1

Relative abundance equals abundance divided by total taxa abundance 

times 100.

2

Tolerance value less than or equal to 4.0.

3

Tolerance value less than or equal to 2.0.

relative abundance was at the Blue River Basin sites (about 

61 percent). The Little Blue River Basin sites and the rural 

basin sites had over 80 percent insect abundance (table 7). 

Larger percent insect abundance indicates better water-quality 

conditions.

High taxa richness and abundance of intolerant taxa can 

indicate low urban intensity and healthier streams (Barbour 

and others, 1999; Kerans and Karr, 1994; Lenat and Crawford, 1994; Roy and others, 2003). The Blue River Basin sites 

had the lowest richness of intolerant taxa (8 taxa) and the 

Little Blue River sites had the highest intolerant taxa richness 

(18 taxa; table 7). The rural comparison sites had the highest 

intolerant taxa relative abundance (about 8 percent). Although 

the Little Blue River sites had higher intolerant taxa richness, 

it also had lower relative abundance of intolerant taxa (about 

5 percent) than the Blue River Basin (about 7 percent) and 

rural comparison sites (about 8 percent). This indicates that 

there are likely additional factors affecting the ability of these 

streams to support an intolerant community than the urbanintensity factors considered for this study.

The rural comparison sites had the highest percentage of 

highly intolerant taxa (about 2 percent; table 7). Both the Blue 

River and Little Blue River basin sites had low abundances 

of highly intolerant taxa (less than 0.2 percent). Macroinvertebrate tolerance values and functional feeding group classifications are presented in table 8 (in the Excel spreadsheet at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284).

The insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera 

(stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies), collectively referred 

to as EPT taxa, have been described as containing pollution 

intolerant taxa (Barbour and others, 1992, 1996; Carlisle and 

Clements, 1999; Kerans and Karr, 1994; Lydy and others, 

2000; Paul and Meyers, 2001). High abundances of these 

orders may be an indicator of healthy stream conditions (Barbour and others, 1999; Karr, 1999; Kenney and others, 2009; 

Paul and Meyers, 2001). The Blue River Basin had the lowest 

relative abundance of EPT taxa (8 percent; table 7). The Little 

Blue River Basin sites (about 27 percent) were more similar 

to the rural comparison sites (about 28 percent) than the Blue 

River Basin sites with more than one-fourth of the identified 

taxa at the Little Blue River Basin sites and rural comparison 

sites being EPT taxa (table 7).

Ephemeroptera were the most abundant EPT order in 

spring samples although the average tolerance values for 

the 10 mayfly taxa identified in spring samples was 5.5, in 

the moderately tolerant range. The upstream Blue River site 

(site 1) had lower abundances for most mayfly taxa with a 

lower urban intensity (SUII 27.1) than the middle Little Blue 

River sites (SUII 29.8 and 37.0; sites 9 and 12, table 1). Urban 

intensity, as measured with the SUII, increased downstream 

for the Blue River and the Little Blue River. The Blue River 

increase was greater (table 1). Ephemeroptera richness and 

abundance decreased in the downstream direction in the Blue 

River (figs. 3A, B). In contrast, mayfly taxa richness and 

abundance remained similar for most years in the middle and 

downstream Little Blue River sites (figs. 3C, D).

Plecoptera are intolerant to degraded stream conditions 

(DeWalt and others, 2005; Kenney, 2009). Plecoptera taxa are 

poorly represented in urban streams likely because of their 

sensitivity to pollution (Paul and Meyer, 2001). The Blue 

River Basin and the Little Blue River Basin had one taxa of 

stonefly, Allocapnia sp. This taxon had only a few individuals 

identified in samples (less than 0.20 percent abundance). The 

tolerance value of 2.8 for Allocapnia sp. (table 8) is within 

the intolerant range and may represent a pollution-tolerance 
16 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

threshold for stonefly taxa in area streams. Kansas City 

metropolitan urban streams may lack conditions that allow 

these highly intolerant taxa to establish. The rural comparison 

sites had a stonefly taxa richness of five taxa (Allocapnia sp.,

Zealeuctra sp., Perlesta sp., Isoperla sp., and Hydroperla 

sp.), comprising about 6 percent total richness, with tolerance 

values ranging from 0.0 to 2.8 (table 8).

Figure 4 is a MDS plot showing percent taxa abundance 

and similarities and dissimilarities among basin categories. 

A green line surrounds samples from the Blue River tributaries (table 1; sites 2 and 6). A shaded green ellipse includes 

the Blue River main-stem samples (table 1; sites 1, 3–5, and 

7), except one sample from site 1. The Little Blue River 

main-stem samples (table 1; sites 9, 12, and 16) are included 

within a blue shaded ellipse. The Little Blue River tributary 

samples (table 1; sites 10, 11, and 13–15) are surrounded 

by a blue line, with the exception of one sample from site 

14. The blue shaded ellipse is relatively small showing less 

variation in sample percent taxa abundance among the Little 

Blue River main-stem samples than other stream categories. 

However, there are fewer Little Blue River main-stem 

samples than Blue River main-stem samples and the sample 

sites are closer to each other (fig. 1). A red elongated ellipse 

shows the rural comparison site samples (table 1; sites 17 

and 18), with the exception of one rural comparison sample. 

Generally, there were clear groupings of samples within 

basin categories showing less dissimilarity of percent taxa 

abundance within basin categories than among samples 

from different basin categories. Overlapping categories were 

mostly Blue River upstream site 1, main-stem Little Blue 

River, and rural comparison site 18 samples. Blue River 

tributary samples were dissimilar from the Blue River mainstem samples and did not overlap with Little Blue River 

samples or rural comparison samples. ANOSIM results indicated that basin category was the most significant indicator 

for dissimilarities in percent taxa abundance (R equals 0.55; 

fig. 4). Pair-wise analyses were statistically significant if the 

p-value (p) is less than or equal to 0.05. Pair-wise ANOSIM 

analysis indicated a significant difference among all basin 

categories.

2010

Year

2009

2008

2007

EXPLANATION

2010

Year

2009

2008

2007

EXPLANATION

2011

Year

2009

2008

2007

EXPLANATION

2011

Year

2009

2008

2007

EXPLANATION

Caenis sp.

Hexagenia sp.

Tricorythodes sp.

Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen)

Baetis intercalaris (McDunnough)

Fallceon quilleri (Dodds)

Maccaffertium sp.

Stenacron interpunctatum (Say)

Stenonema femoratum (Say)

Caenis sp.

Hexagenia sp.

Tricorythodes sp.

Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen)

Baetis intercalaris (McDunnough)

Fallceon quilleri (Dodds)

Maccaffertium sp.

Stenacron interpunctatum (Say)

Stenonema femoratum (Say)

A. Upstream Blue River site 1

D. Downstream Little Blue River site 16 

Caenis sp.

Hexagenia sp.

Tricorythodes sp.

Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen)

Baetis intercalaris (McDunnough)

Fallceon quilleri (Dodds)

Maccaffertium sp.

Stenacron interpunctatum (Say)

Stenonema femoratum (Say)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

B. Downstream Blue River site 7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Caenis sp.

Hexagenia sp.

Tricorythodes sp.

Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen)

Baetis intercalaris (McDunnough)

Fallceon quilleri (Dodds)

Maccaffertium sp.

Stenacron interpunctatum (Say)

Stenonema femoratum (Say)

C. Middle Little Blue River sites 9 and 12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Abundance Abundance

Abundance Abundance

Figure 3. Ephemeroptera taxa abundances by site and year at upstream and downstream Blue River (A and B) and middle and 

downstream Little Blue River (C and D) sites.
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 17

BEST analysis was performed in PRIMER (Clarke, 1993; 

Clarke and Gorley, 2006) to determine the taxa from all identified taxa “best explaining” dissimilarities among basins based 

on percent taxa abundance. Six of the 10 macroinvertebrate 

taxa that had the largest effect on dissimilarities in percent taxa 

abundance were in the family Chironomidae (table 9). Chironomidae are common in urban streams, lakes, and ponds. Some 

larval chironomids are commonly called bloodworms because 

of their red coloring. Bloodworms generally live in bottom 

sediments and feed on suspended organic material in water 

and sediments. Many taxa are pollution tolerant (table 8) and 

can tolerate nutrient-rich low-oxygen environments (Armitage and others, 1995). The remaining four taxa that had the 

most dissimilarity effect on percent taxa abundance consisted 

of one mayfly (Caenis sp.), one caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche 

sp.), and two noninsect taxa (table 9). The two non-insect taxa 

were Corbicula sp., an invasive Asiatic clam, and a freshwater leech (family Erpobdellidae). All “best-explaining” taxa 

had moderate or tolerant pollution-tolerance values with the 

exception of one midge taxa (Eukiefferella sp., tolerance value 

equals 4.0). Six functional feeding groups are represented in 

the “best-explaining” taxa; two filterer-collectors (Corbicula 

sp. and Cheumatopsyche sp.), one predator (Erpobdellidae), 

two collector-gatherers (Caenis sp. and Eukiefferiella sp.), 

three shredders (Dicrotendipes sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius 

sp., and Cricotopus sp.), one omnivore (Cricotopus bicinctus 

group), and one scraper (Hydrobaenus sp.). The most abundant taxon identified at all sites was Cricotopus/Orthocladius 

sp. (table 10, in the Excel spreadsheet at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/sir/2012/5284). This taxon has been described as tolerant 

(Coffman and Ferrington, 1996), but the tolerance value used 

in this study (6.5) was within the moderately tolerant class.

Figure 5 shows dissimilarities in macroinvertebrate community structure (percent taxa abundance) with quartiles of the 

SUII. The first quartile represents sites and samples with lower 

values of the SUII, and the fourth quartile represents sites and 

samples with higher values. Ellipses created based on basin 

category (from fig. 4) were retained in this plot to allow visual 

relation of basin categories and SUII scores. Samples within 

basin categories with similar macroinvertebrate communities based on percent taxa abundance mostly had similar SUII 

scores. Rural comparison sites 17 and 18 that were selected for 

their low urban intensity (table 1) were in the first quartile of 

the SUII, Little Blue River main-stem samples were all in the 

second quartile of the SUII, and the Blue River tributary samples were all in the fourth quartile of the SUII. The Blue River 

Figure 4. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance as grouped by basin category. [The analysis of similiarity (ANOSIM) 

Global R statistic is based on the difference of mean ranks between groups and within groups, and is scaled from -1 to 1, where 0 

indicates completely random grouping.]

EXPLANATION

Blue River main-stem sample

and site number (table 1)

7

Little Blue River tributary or Rock Creek

sample and site number (table 1)

8

Blue River tributary sample

and site number (table 1)

6

Little Blue River main-stem sample

and site number (table 1)

16

Rural comparison sample

and site number (table 1)

18

1

1

1

1

2 2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

9

10

10

11

12

12

13

13

13

14

14

14

14

15

16

16

16

16

17

18

18

18

18 18

8

17

12

Blue River tributary sites

(sites 2, 6)

Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10, 11, 13–15)

Little Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 1, 3–5, 7)

Rural comparison sites

(sites 17, 18)

ANOSIM Global R = 0.55
18 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011 Table 9. Ten macroinvertbrate taxa having highest effect on community structure with taxa tolerance classes. [sp., species] Class Order Family Taxa identification (table 5) Tolerance (table 8) Tolerance class1 Blue River Basin2 (percent) Little Blue River Basin2 (percent) Rural basins2 (percent) Bivalvia Basommatophora Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 6.3 Moderate 79.2 51.2 50.0 Hirudnea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae 7.8 Tolerant 100.0 80.5 100.0 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 7.6 Tolerant 16.7 53.7 75.0 Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.6 Moderate 87.5 97.6 91.7 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes sp. 7.9 Tolerant 100.0 48.8 25.0 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 6.5 Moderate 75.0 73.2 58.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus sp. 6.5 Moderate 0.0 26.8 33.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus bicinctus group 8.7 Tolerant 91.7 34.1 0.0 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella sp. 4.0 Intolerant 54.2 26.8 58.3 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Hydrobaenus sp. 9.6 Tolerant 33.3 48.8 58.3

1Moderate, greater than 4.0 and less than 7.0; Tolerant, greater than or equal to 7.0; Intolerant, less than or equal to 4.0.2Percentage of samples within a basin category with taxon identified.

main-stem samples were in the second or third quartile of the 

SUII, and the Little Blue River tributary samples were mostly 

in the second or third quartile of the SUII, with one sample 

(site 15) in the first quartile. The only samples in the fourth 

quartile of the SUII that overlap with other basin categories 

were samples from Rock Creek (site 8, included with Little 

Blue River tributary samples). These samples plot among 

samples in the second and third quartile of the SUII, indicating 

that the community structure of these samples are less dissimilar from samples within the second and third quartile than with 

other samples in the fourth quartile. These samples were also 

the only samples in the fourth quartile of the SUII that are not 

Blue River tributary samples.

MDS plots of community structure (percent taxa abundance) and quartiles of sample specific conductance (fig. 6) 

and base-flow chloride concentration (fig. 7; table 2) showed 

similar results as the SUII plots. Samples within basin categories (from fig. 4) with similar macroinvertebrate communities based on percent taxa abundance mostly had similar 

specific conductance and chloride concentrations. By visually 

comparing specific conductance and chloride concentration 

quartiles with ellipses drawn to represent basin categories, 

most samples in the first and second quartile of specific conductance and chloride concentration were samples that are in 

the rural comparison or Little Blue River main-stem category. 

Blue River main-stem samples and Little Blue River tributary 

samples included samples from all quartiles, and Blue River 

tributary samples were all in the fourth quartile. Pair-wise 

ANOSIM results of specific conductance and chloride concentration indicated there was no significant difference between 

the first and second quartile category (p equals 0.12 and p

equals 0.10) and second and third quartile category (p equals 

0.56 and p equals 0.30). Significant differences between the 

fourth quartile category of specific conductance and chloride 

concentration and all other quartiles and between the first and 

third quartile of specific conductance were determined.

When sample percent taxa abundances were compared 

with quartiles of selected nutrient parameters (total nitrogen, 

nitrite plus nitrate, and total phosphorus concentrations), 

similar groupings were apparent. Rural comparison and Little 

Blue River main-stem sites generally had samples in the lower 

nutrient concentration quartiles and Blue River main-stem and 

Blue River tributary sites had samples in the higher nutrient 

concentration quartiles (fig. 8).

The MDS plot of the MBI grouped by basin category 

(fig. 9) showed greater overlap of basin categories than in the 

previously presented MDS plot of percent taxa abundance, 

indicating less dissimilarity of MBI values among samples 

from different basin categories than for percent taxa abundance. This also is indicated by results of ANOSIM (R equals 

0.14, fig. 9). The Little Blue River tributary samples were 

scattered among samples from the Blue River and Little Blue 

River main-stem sites. The Blue River and the Little Blue 

River main-stem samples generally were separated with a few 

Blue River main-stem samples plotting among Little Blue 

River main-stem samples, including Blue River upstream 
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 19

6

6

6

6

2 2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

7

7

7

7

8

8 8

8

9

10 10

11 1

1

1

1 12

12

12

13

13

14

14

14

15

14

16

16

16

16

17

17

18

18

18

18

13

18

ANOSIM Global R = 0.55

Blue River tributary sites

(sites 2, 6)

Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10, 11, 13–15)

Little Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 1, 3–5, 7)

Rural comparison sites

(sites 17, 18)

5

6

13

18 < 25 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

25 to 50 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

50 to 75 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

> 75 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

Simple urban intensity index category

EXPLANATION

[<, less than; >, greater than]

Figure 5. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of the simple urban intensity 

index. [The analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) Global R statistic is based on the difference of mean ranks between 

groups and within groups and is scaled from -1 to 1, where 0 indicates completely random grouping.]

Blue River tributary sites

(sites 2, 6)

Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10, 11, 13–15)

Little Blue River main-stem 

sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 1, 3–5, 7)

Rural comparison sites

(sites 17, 18)

ANOSIM Global R = 0.28

3

6

13

18 < 25 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

25 to 50 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

50 to 75 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

> 75 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

Specific conductance category

EXPLANATION

[<, less than; >, greater than]

6

6

6

6

2 2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

7

7

7

7

8

8 8

8

9

10 10

11

1

1

1

1 12

12

12

13

13

14

14

14

15

14

16

16

16

16

17

17

18

18

18

18

13

18

Figure 6. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of sample specific conductance. 

[The analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) Global R statistic is based on the difference of mean ranks between groups 

and within groups, and is scaled from -1 to 1, where 0 indicates completely random grouping.]
20 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

samples and one sample from site 5. Two Blue River tributary 

samples one from site 2 and one from site 6 were not included 

in the green shaded ellipse encompassing the Blue River 

tributary samples, indicating dissimilarity to other samples 

from this category. Pair-wise ANOSIM analysis showed 

similar results. The Little Blue River tributary category was 

not statistically different than the Little Blue River main-stem 

category (p equals 0.55) or the main-stem Blue River category 

(p equals 0.52). Pair-wise statistical differences were determined between all other stream categories.

Plots of the MBI (plots not shown) with categories of 

nutrient parameters (total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and 

nitrite plus nitrate concentrations; table 2) showed similar 

groupings. Samples with nutrient concentrations in the higher 

quartiles generally were Blue River Basin samples, and most 

samples with nutrient concentrations in the lower quartiles 

generally were rural comparison site samples and Little Blue 

River Basin samples.

The MDS plot of functional feeding group categories 

showed separation of basin categories (fig. 10) as might be 

expected because basin categories were based on size and 

position (upstream, middle, downstream, and tributary), which 

can affect types and availability of food resources (Vannote 

and others, 1980). Ellipses show respective basin categories. 

Upstream Blue River samples (site 1) were not included 

in the green shaded ellipse containing the other Blue River 

samples and three Little Blue River tributary samples were not 

included within the ellipse for that basin category indicating 

dissimilarity. Blue River Basin samples generally were shown 

separate from Little Blue River Basin samples with the exception of upstream Blue River site 1 samples. ANOSIM results 

indicated dissimilarity among basin groups (R equals 0.44, 

fig. 10), and pair-wise analysis indicated significant difference 

among all basin categories.

Differences in functional feeding groups among stream 

categories could simply be attributed to differences in stream 

size. A transition from shredders, which utilize coarse particulate organic matter, to filterers, which utilize fine and ultrafine particulate organic matter, should occur as stream order 

increases downstream (Vannote and others, 1980). However, 

this progression assumes relatively undisturbed conditions. 

For the urban streams included in this study, relations between 

functional feeding groups and stream order is not so clear. For 

example, functional feeding groups for third order stream sites 

Blue River tributary sites

(site 2)

Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10, 11, 13–15)

Little Blue River main-stem 

sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 1, 3, 5, 7)

Rural comparison sites

(site 18)

1

6

13

18 < 25 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

25 to 50 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

50 to 75 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

> 75 percentile, sample and site number (table 1)

Chloride concentration category

EXPLANATION

[<, less than; >, greater than]

2 2

2

2

3

3

3

3

7

7

7

7

8

8 8

8

9

10

11 1

1

1

1 12

12

12

13

13

14

14

14

14

16

16 16

16

18

18

18

18

13

18

10

ANOSIM Global R = 0.31

Figure 7. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of base-flow chloride 

concentration. [The analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) Global R statistic is based on the difference of mean ranks 

between groups and within groups, and is scaled from -1 to 1, where 0 indicates completely random grouping.]
< 25 pe25 to 50 50 to 75 > 75 pe

Nutrient 

[<, le

Total phosphorous concentration ANOSIM Global R = 0.29

Total nitrogen concentration ANOSIM Global R = 0.22 Nitrate plus nitrite concentration 

Blue River tributary sites

(site 2) Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10, 11, 13–15)

Little Blue 

River 

main-stem 

sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

excluding site 1

(sites 3, 5, 7)

Rural comparison sites

(site 18)

Blue River tributary sites

(site 2) Little Blu

Blue River main-stem sites

excluding site 1

(sites 3, 5, 7)

R

Blue River tributary sites

(site 2) Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10, 11, 13–15)

Little Blue 

River 

main-stem 

sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

excluding site 1

(sites 3, 5, 7)

Rural comparison sites

(site 18)

Figure 8. Multidimensional scaling plot of percent taxa abundance and quartiles of base-flow total nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate, and total phosphoro

analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) Global R statistic is based on the difference of mean ranks between groups and within groups, and is scaled from -1 to completely random grouping.]
22 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

EXPLANATION

Blue River main-stem sample

and site number (table 1)

7

Little Blue River tributary sample

and site number (table 1)

8

Blue River tributary sample

and site number (table 1)

6

Little Blue River main-stem sample

and site number (table 1)

16

1

6

8

12

13 14

16

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

12

13

14

16

1

3

6

7

8

10

14

16

1

2 3 4

6

7

8

10 11

13 14

15 16

12

2

9

2

5 7 3

Blue River tributary sites

(sites 2, 6)

Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10–11, 13–15)

Little Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 1, 3–5, 7)

ANOSIM Global R = 0.14

Figure 9. Multidimensional scaling plot of the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index and basin category. [The analysis of 

similarity (ANOSIM) Global R statistic is based on the difference of mean ranks between groups and within groups, and is 

scaled from -1 to 1, where 0 indicates completely random grouping.]

EXPLANATION

Blue River main-stem sample

and site number (table 1)

7

Little Blue River tributary sample

and site number (table 1)

8

Blue River tributary sample

and site number (table 1)

6

Little Blue River main-stem sample

and site number (table 1)

16

Blue River tributary sites

(sites 2, 6) Little Blue River tributary sites with Rock Creek

(sites 8, 10–11, 13–15)

Little Blue River main-stem sites

(sites 9, 12, 16)

Blue River main-stem sites

excluding site 1

(sites 3–5, 7)

1

2

3

5

6

7

12

13

14

16

1

2

5

6

7

8

12

13

14

16

1

2

4

6

7

10

12

14

16

1

2

3

4

4

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15 16

3

3

8 8

ANOSIM Global R = 0.44

Figure 10. Multidimensional scaling plot of functional feeding group abundance and basin category. [The analysis of 

similarity (ANOSIM) Global R statistic is based on the difference of mean ranks between groups and within groups, and is 

scaled from -1 to 1, where 0 indicates completely random grouping.]
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 23

included in the Little Blue River tributary category (sites 10, 

13–15, table 1) were not determined to be statistically different than the fourth and fifth order Little Blue River main-stem 

sites (sites 9, 12, and 16, table 1). Also, fourth order Blue 

River tributary sites (sites 2 and 6, table 1) had the lowest percent abundance of shredders included among dominant taxa 

for all sites (table 10), including the higher order Blue River 

main-stem sites (sites 1, 3–5, and 7, table 1; fifth order). This 

indicates that urban intensity, not just stream size, likely was 

affecting differences in functional feeding group abundances 

among stream categories. When functional feeding groups 

were compared with quartiles of selected nutrient parameters (total nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate, and total phosphorus 

concentrations; table 2) similar groupings were observed 

(plots not shown), and higher nutrient concentrations generally 

were from Blue River Basin samples and samples in the first 

and second quartiles generally were Little Blue River Basin 

samples.

MDS plots based on taxa abundance, taxa tolerance, and 

functional feeding groups all showed similar results with Blue 

River tributary sites having high dissimilarity to other basin 

categories. ANOSIM results generally indicated high dissimilarity among basin categories compared to within basin sample 

dissimilarity. Pair-wise analysis indicated that the Blue River 

tributary sample category is statistically different than all other 

categories with respect to taxa abundance, taxa tolerance, and 

functional feeding groups. MDS plots show site 1 Blue River 

main-stem samples had higher dissimilarity than other samples 

within this category, based on sample plot location. Upstream 

Blue River site 1 is the only Blue River main-stem site that is 

above the confluence of Indian Creek, which receives effluent 

from two WWTPs. Basin categories that were not statistically 

different based on the MBI were the Little Blue River tributary 

category with the Blue River and Little Blue River main-stem 

categories (p equals 0.52 and p equals 0.55). All other basin 

categories were statistically different in taxa abundance, taxa 

tolerance, and functional feeding groups indicating dissimilarities of macroinvertebrate communities.

Community Metrics

Twenty-three metrics commonly used in local and 

national studies or selected from statistical analysis were used 

to calculate MMIs. Values for selected metrics from spring and 

fall samples and calculated MMIs are presented in table 11 (in 

the Excel spreadsheet at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284). 

Numeric scores for individual metrics were assigned and then 

summed to calculate the SCI. If a site scored 100 to 80 percent 

of reference stream criteria, it was considered fully biologically supporting and scored 5 points; if a site scored 70 to 

50 percent of reference stream criteria, it was considered 

partially biologically supporting and scored 3 points; and if 

a site scored 40 to 20 percent of reference stream criteria, 

it was classified as nonbiologically supporting and scored 

1 point (Sarver and others, 2003a). ALS for sites and samples 

were determined by calculating SCIs (table 12). The ALS 

breakpoints for riffle habitat, based on the distribution of a 

metric’s range of values for reference streams, are presented 

in table 13. Four metrics composing the SCI (total taxa richness, EPT taxa richness, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index, and 

Shannon Diversity Index) and metric scores for samples are 

discussed below.

Total taxa richness (RICH), the total number of distinct 

taxa in a sample, ranged from 12 to 39 for spring samples 

at all sites and from 18 to 35 for fall samples from the Little 

Blue River Basin and rural comparison sites. Generally, 

RICH increases with improved water quality and habitat 

diversity (Barbour and others, 1999; Sarver, 2003a). Lower 

RICH values for spring samples were mostly for the middle, 

downstream, and Blue River tributary sites and higher values 

from the Little Blue River Basin and rural comparison sites. 

About 7 percent of spring RICH scores were fully biologically 

supporting, 74 percent were partially biologically supporting, 

and 19 percent were nonbiologically supporting (table 12). 

All nonbiologically supporting scores were for the middle, 

downstream, and Blue River tributary sites. All 23 fall samples 

scored at least partially biologically supporting.

Because EPT insect orders generally are considered to 

be pollution intolerant, EPT richness (EPTR) is expected to 

decrease with increasing urban intensity (Barbour and others, 

1999; Sarver, 2003a). EPTR ranged from 0 to 12 for spring 

samples and from 3 to 12 for fall samples (table 11). Seven 

percent of EPTR scores for spring samples were fully biologically supporting, 43 percent were partially biologically 

supporting, and 50 percent were nonbiologically supporting 

of aquatic life. About 70 percent of nonbiologically supporting scores for EPTR were from the Blue River Basin and the 

majority of the remainder was from the Little Blue River tributaries. Seven samples for the Blue River Basin had one EPT 

taxon. Brush Creek site 6 had no EPT taxa in 3 of 4 years. 

For fall samples, about 22 percent scored fully biologically 

supporting, 69 percent partially biologically supporting, and 

9 percent nonbiologically supporting for the Little Blue River 

Basin and rural comparison sites. Two of three samples for 

downstream Little Blue River site 16 and rural site 18 had 

fully biologically supporting fall scores.

The MBI is a measure of the overall pollution tolerance 

of a macroinvertebrate community expressed on a scale of 0 

to 10 (Sarver, 2003a). Higher values represent higher tolerance to pollution and other environmental stresses and are 

expected to increase with urban intensity (Hilsenhoff, 1988; 

Sarver, 2003a). Tolerance values used for calculating the MBI 

and other tolerance metrics are presented in table 8. MBI 

values were all moderately tolerant to tolerant and ranged 

from 5.45 to 7.96 for spring samples and from 5.04 to 7.90 

for fall samples (table 11). MBI values were variable among 

years at individual sites but generally were higher for the 

middle, downstream, and Blue River tributary sites. Brush 

Creek (site 6) had the lowest MBI score for spring samples 

of 5.45 in 2009, although in other years this site had MBIs of 

more than 7.0. The low MBI was the result of the high unique 
Table 12. Macroinvertebrate metrics used in the Stream Condition Index, percent tolerance, percent dominant taxa, and aquatic-life status for sampMarch 2011. [RICH, total taxa richness; EPTR, Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera taxa richness; MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; SHANDIV, Shannon Diversity Index; SCI, Streaaquatic-life support status; PBS, partially biologically supporting; NBS, nonbiologically supporting; FBS, fully biologically supporting] Site number (table 1, fig. 1) Year RICH EPTR MBI SHANDIV (log e) Percent tolerant taxa1 Percent intolerant taxa2 Percent dominant taxa3 RICH score EPTR score SHANDIV score MB

sco

Spring samples 1 2007 32 8 5.68 2.06 39.3 10.7 81.3 3 3 3 3 

2008 33 6 6.33 2.20 45.2 9.7 79.1 3 3 3 3 

2009 32 6 5.75 2.52 40.7 11.1 69.9 3 3 5 3 

2010 31 6 6.09 2.50 38.5 11.5 67.0 3 3 5 3 

2 2007 13 1 7.35 1.79 44.4 0.0 91.4 1 1 3 3 

2008 14 2 7.37 1.70 33.3 0.0 94.6 1 1 3 3 

2009 13 1 7.19 1.91 40.0 10.0 84.1 1 1 3 3 

2010 16 2 5.56 1.85 38.5 7.7 83.2 1 1 3 3 

3 2007 21 4 7.18 2.37 52.9 5.9 75.3 3 1 5 3 

2008 16 3 6.76 2.03 46.2 15.4 83.6 1 1 3 3 

2009 23 3 6.89 2.08 47.4 10.5 74.3 3 1 3 3 

2010 19 1 6.46 2.43 33.3 26.7 69.0 3 1 5 3 

4 2009 27 4 6.88 2.13 50.0 4.5 79.7 3 1 3 3 

2010 25 3 6.57 2.22 36.8 5.3 74.6 3 1 3 3 

5 2007 21 3 7.12 2.36 55.6 5.6 71.4 3 1 5 3 

2008 21 5 6.10 2.09 47.1 5.9 79.8 3 3 3 3 

6 2007 16 0 7.17 2.12 75.0 8.3 77.0 1 1 3 3 

2008 14 0 7.70 2.21 83.3 0.0 77.0 1 1 3 3 

2009 12 0 5.45 1.68 77.8 11.1 91.2 1 1 3 5 

2010 16 1 7.36 1.58 58.3 8.3 89.0 1 1 3 3 

7 2007 17 1 7.96 1.89 57.1 0.0 84.0 1 1 3 1 

2008 19 1 7.35 2.12 56.3 6.3 77.3 3 1 3 3 

2009 24 3 5.99 2.26 57.9 0.0 73.8 3 1 3 3 

2010 22 1 6.71 2.44 47.1 11.8 68.6 3 1 5 3 

8 2007 27 5 6.49 2.34 50.0 8.3 74.8 3 3 5 3 

2008 26 4 6.56 2.39 43.5 8.7 69.1 3 1 5 3 

2009 30 7 6.62 2.79 50.0 7.7 57.2 3 3 5 3 

2011 27 6 5.83 2.55 34.8 21.7 64.2 3 3 5 3 
Table 12. Macroinvertebrate metrics used in the Stream Condition Index, percent tolerance, percent dominant taxa, and aquatic-life status for sampMarch 2011.—Continued[RICH, total taxa richness; EPTR, Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera taxa richness; MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; SHANDIV, Shannon Diversity Index; SCI, Streaaquatic-life support status; PBS, partially biologically supporting; NBS, nonbiologically supporting; FBS, fully biologically supporting]

Site number 

(table 1, 

fig. 1)

Year RICH EPTR MBI SHANDIV (log e) Percent tolerant taxa1 Percent intolerant taxa2 Percent dominant taxa3 RICH score EPTR score SHANDIV score MB

sco

Spring samples—Continued

9 2011 35 10 6.10 2.57 38.7 22.6 66.2 3 5 5 3 

10 2009 31 5 6.92 2.72 65.4 3.8 60.5 3 3 5 3 

2011 28 2 5.98 2.48 56.0 8.0 68.2 3 1 5 3 

11 2011 36 4 6.98 2.68 59.4 12.5 64.1 3 1 5 3 

12 2007 32 5 6.31 2.33 50.0 7.1 71.4 3 3 5 3 

2008 35 7 6.30 2.41 51.5 6.1 67.2 3 3 5 3 

2009 39 7 6.30 2.63 37.1 8.6 65.2 5 3 5 3 

13 2007 30 5 6.67 2.64 51.9 3.7 60.6 3 3 5 3 

2008 30 4 5.99 2.35 40.7 7.4 76.9 3 1 5 3 

2011 30 4 6.39 2.46 38.5 11.5 69.9 3 1 5 3 

14 2007 26 4 7.30 2.35 69.6 4.3 72.8 3 1 5 3 

2008 28 4 6.85 2.30 50.0 3.8 74.9 3 1 5 3 

2009 32 7 6.20 2.70 48.1 14.8 60.2 3 3 5 3 

2011 27 5 5.90 2.38 50.0 12.5 74.5 3 3 5 3 

15 2011 38 9 5.97 2.48 39.4 24.2 71.3 5 3 5 3 

16 2007 34 10 6.19 2.16 40.0 16.7 78.7 3 5 3 3 

2008 32 9 5.89 2.55 48.3 17.2 63.8 3 3 5 3 

2009 29 9 5.80 2.68 37.5 20.8 60.6 3 3 5 3 

2011 34 8 5.80 2.24 43.3 16.7 72.9 3 3 3 3 

17 2007 32 4 6.55 2.26 50.0 7.1 79.9 3 1 3 3 

2008 39 9 7.29 2.60 41.7 16.7 69.6 5 3 5 3 

18 2007 33 8 6.25 2.21 34.5 20.7 71.8 3 3 3 3 

2008 25 8 6.43 2.07 37.5 20.8 76.6 3 3 3 3 

2009 38 12 5.88 2.96 31.4 25.7 50.0 5 5 5 3 

2010 28 11 6.76 2.66 34.6 26.9 61.9 3 5 5 3 

2011 30 8 6.28 2.60 38.5 11.5 70.4 3 3 5 3 
Table 12. Macroinvertebrate metrics used in the Stream Condition Index, percent tolerance, percent dominant taxa, and aquatic-life status for sampMarch 2011.—Continued [RICH, total taxa richness; EPTR, Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera taxa richness; MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; SHANDIV, Shannon Diversity Index; SCI, Streaaquatic-life support status; PBS, partially biologically supporting; NBS, nonbiologically supporting; FBS, fully biologically supporting] Site number (table 1, fig. 1) Year RICH EPTR MBI SHANDIV (log e) Percent tolerant taxa1 Percent intolerant taxa2 Percent dominant taxa3 RICH score EPTR score SHANDIV score MB

scor

Fall samples 8 2008 26 6 6.34 2.52 45.8 8.3 61.2 3 3 5 5 

2009 28 7 6.01 2.51 32.0 8.0 66.9 3 3 5 5 

2010 24 6 6.28 2.41 27.3 9.1 68.3 3 3 5 5 

9 2010 31 10 5.75 1.80 33.3 10.0 72.0 3 5 5 5 

10 2009 23 3 5.69 2.44 72.7 4.5 82.7 3 1 5 5 

2010 29 5 6.02 2.47 37.0 7.4 72.1 3 3 5 5 

11 2010 28 6 7.64 2.20 52.0 8.0 68.8 3 3 3 3 

12 2008 23 8 5.93 2.02 31.8 13.6 77.6 3 3 5 5 

2009 21 9 5.04 2.02 26.3 15.8 77.7 3 3 5 5 

2010 27 9 5.58 2.63 30.8 15.4 81.7 3 3 5 5 

13 2008 25 5 6.56 2.44 52.2 0.0 62.7 3 3 3 5 

14 2008 29 7 6.69 2.15 40.7 7.4 67.0 3 3 3 5 

2009 24 5 6.97 2.39 50.0 4.5 76.9 3 3 3 5 

2010 29 8 6.27 1.89 44.4 7.4 72.5 3 3 5 5 

15 2010 22 6 6.68 1.72 40.0 15.0 89.5 3 3 3 5 

16 2008 27 10 6.18 1.98 33.3 16.7 81.2 3 5 5 5 

2009 18 7 5.67 2.65 18.8 12.5 81.5 3 3 5 5 

2010 35 11 5.90 1.80 35.3 17.6 62.5 3 5 5 5 

17 2008 15 4 7.90 2.13 67.6 7.5 82.0 3 1 3 3 

2009 24 5 6.76 2.19 18.7 3.9 79.6 3 3 3 5 

18 2008 30 11 6.21 2.02 16.8 20.7 77.2 3 5 5 5 

2009 33 12 6.04 1.76 9.1 24.2 80.6 3 5 5 5 

2010 21 7 6.03 2.50 6.6 15.0 87.8 3 3 5 5 

1Percent sample abundance with tolerance value greater than or equal to 7. 2Percent sample abundance with tolerance value less than or equal to 4. 3Percent total abundance consisting of the five most abundant taxa in a sample. 4SCI is RICH score plus EPTR score plus SHANDIV score plus MBI score.5Samples with a SCI of 8 or lower have an aquatic-life support status (ALS) of NBS, 10 to 14, PBS, and 16 or higher, FBS.
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 27

abundance of the Class Turbellaria (flatworms, tolerance 

value 4.0; table 10). A study to revise tolerance values based 

on response to measured multiple stressors increased the tolerance value for Turbellaria from 4.0 to 6.8 (Bressler and others, 

2006). MBI scores for spring samples were about 2 percent 

fully biologically supporting, 96 percent partially biologically 

supporting, and 2 percent nonbiologically supporting. Fall 

samples indicated MBI scores that were about 91 percent fully 

biologically supporting and 9 percent nonbiologically supporting. The MBI showed the lowest variation in site scores and 

ability to identify differences among sites of the four metrics 

composing the SCI.

The Shannon Diversity Index (SHANDIV) takes into 

consideration both taxa richness and the evenness of the relative abundance of the taxa in the community. SHANDIV is 

expected to decrease with increasing urban intensity (Barbour 

and others, 1999; Sarver, 2003a). Spring scores ranged from 

1.58 to 2.96 and fall scores from 1.72 to 2.65 (table 11). Based 

on SHANDIV, about 57 percent of spring samples were fully 

biologically supporting and 43 percent partially biologically 

supporting. About 91 percent of the SHANDIV scores for 

the Little Blue River Basin were fully biologically supporting compared to 25 percent for the Blue River Basin sites and 

about 57 percent for rural sites. Nonbiologically supporting 

sites were not identified so the full range of ALS was not 

determined. Fall SHANDIV scores for the Little Blue River 

and rural sites were about 70 percent fully biologically supporting and 30 percent partially biologically supporting.

Multimetric Indices

MMIs were modeled using ordinary least squares subset 

regression to characterize macroinvertebrate communities 

in relation to the SUII. MMIs were calculated with 2 to 10 

component metrics (table 14). MMIs measured taxa richness, 

composition and abundance, pollution tolerance, and functional 

feeding groups (Karr and Kerans, 1992; Klemm and others, 

2002). Measures of taxa richness likely provide the best indications of urbanization effects (Cuffney and others 2005, 2010). 

Fourteen metrics selected for inclusion in the MMIs were richness measures and two were abundance measures (table 14).

The calculated best 6-metric and best 10-metric MMIs 

were selected for further comparison to three other MMIs 

(table 15)—a four-metric index with components that are used 

to calculate the MSCI (Sarver, 2003a), a modified 10-metric 

index used in previous studies in Johnson County, Kans., and 

Kansas City, Mo. (Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and 

others, 2009; Graham and others, 2010; Wilkison and others, 

2009), and an 8-metric benthic index of biotic integrity (B–

IBI) (Cuffney and others, 2005).

The best 6-metric and best 10-metric indices were 

selected based on the summary statistics for the regression 

(table 14). The best 6-metric index was selected based on the 

stopping criteria using Mallows’ Cp

. Because 10 dependent 

variables were the maximum considered, the best 10-metric index was selected based on the downward trend of the 

PRESS statistic (Allen, 1974), standard error, and increasing 

adjusted R2. However, statistical methods alone are not sufficient for model selection. Additional consideration for model 

selection was given to including component metrics from four 

metric categories; richness, abundance, tolerance, and trophic 

measures. The metrics selected include measures of tolerant and intolerant taxa and measures that both increase and 

decrease with urban intensity (table 16).

The ALS for sites based on the calculated SCI is presented in table 12. A SCI score of 4 through 8 indicates a 

non-supporting ALS, a score of 10 through 14 indicates a 

partially supporting ALS, and a score of 16 through 20 indicates a fully supporting ALS. Previous studies in the Kansas 

City metropolitan area (Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009; Wilkison and others, 2009; Graham 

and others, 2010) concluded that urban streams are likely 

incapable of fully supporting aquatic life. No sites within 

the Blue River Basin had a fully supporting score in this 

study. The Little Blue River Basin sites 9, 12, and 15 and the 

rural sites 17 and 18 had fully supporting scores for spring 

samples. About 80 percent of all samples combined were less 

than fully biologically supporting, and only about 11 percent 

of spring samples were fully biologically supporting. The 

aquatic-life status for the Little Blue River and its tributaries 

was more supporting of aquatic life than for the Blue River 

and its tributaries.

Table 13. Criteria for aquatic-life support categories for riffle habitats for the Missouri tributaries between the Blue and Lamine 

ecological drainage unit.

[RICH, total taxa richness; EPTR, Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera taxa richness; MBI, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; SHANDIV, Shannon Diversity 

Index; SCI, Stream Condition Index; FBS, fully biologically supporting; >, greater than; <, less than; PBS, partially biologically supporting; ≥, greater than or 

equal to; ≤, less than or equal to; NBS, nonbiologically supporting]

Riffle 

aquatic-life 

support 

category

RICH EPTR MBI SHANDIV

SCI

Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall

FBS >36 >37 >9 >9 <5.5 <6.5 >2.27 >2.39 16–20

PBS ≥18–≤36 ≥19–≤37 ≥5–≤9 ≥5–≤9 ≥5.5–≤7.7 ≥6.5–≤8.3 ≥1.13–≤2.27 ≥1.19–≤2.39 10–14

NBS <18 <19 <5 <5 >7.7 >8.3 <1.13 <1.19 4–8
28 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011 Table 14. Multimetric indices determined by step regression with a simple urban intensity index. [Metric definitions are listed in table 3; stderr, standard error; adj R2, adjusted coefficient of determination; Cp, Mallows; Cp, PRESS; predicted residual sum of squares] Model metrics stderr adj R2 Cp PRESS EPTR

+ COLEOPR 15.6 60.5 1.0 14,001 

EPEMRp

+ COLEOPR

+ ORTHOR 14.8 64.4 -2.7 12,956 

EPEMRp

+ COLEOPR

+ ORTHOR

+ NCHDIPR 14.3 66.7 -4.3 12,493 

COLEOPR

+ DIPR

+ EPT/CHR

+ OLIGOp

+ RICHTOL 13.9 68.5 -5.2 12,286 

PLECOR

+ COLEOPR

+ DIPR

+ OLIGOp

+ RICHTOL

+ SCR 13.5 70.2 -5.9 11,601 

PLECOR

+ COLEOPR

+ DIPR

+ NCHDIPR

+ OLIGOp

+ RICHTOL

+ SCR 13.5 70.5 -5.0 11,627 

RICH

+ EPEMR

+ EPp

+ COLEOPR

+ NCHDIPR

+ OLIGOp

+ RICHTOL

+ SCR 13.3 71.3 -4.5 11,601 

EPTR

+ EPTRp

+ PLECOR

+ COLEOPR

+ DIPR

+ OLIGOp

+ OLIGORp

+ RICHTOL

+ SCR 13.0 72.4 -4.4 11,392 

EPTR

+ EPTRp

+ PLECOR

+ COLEOPR

+ DIPR

+ NCHDIPR

+ OLIGOp

+ OLIGORp

+ RICHTOL

+ SCR 12.9 73.1 -3.8 11,385 

Average SCI aquatic-life status categories for sites with 

three or more spring samples (table 12) are shown in figure 11 

and are arranged by stream category (tributary-stream sites 

and main-stem stream sites) and decreasing SUII (table 1). 

Three years were the minimum number of years considered 

to characterize site ALS. Average Blue River Basin tributaries (sites 2 and 6) had nonbiologically supporting SCI scores. 

Average Rock Creek and Little Blue River tributaries (sites 8, 

13, 14) had partially biologically supporting SCI scores. Blue 

River tributary sites scored significantly lower than the Little 

Blue River tributary sites. The Blue River main-stem sites, 

with the exception of upstream site 1 (table 1, fig. 1) also 

scored significantly lower than the Little Blue River sites and 

rural site 18 (table 1, fig. 1). All main-stem sites scored as 

partially biologically supporting.

Although most samples indicated sites as partially 

biologically supporting, some Little Blue River Basin fall 

samples were fully supportive. Fall samples were collected 

only at the Little Blue River Basin and rural sites in 2008 

and 2010. The Rock Creek Basin site 8 and Little Blue River 

Basin site16 had average fully supporting ALS (fig. 12). 

Some effects of urban intensity may be reduced within the 

Little Blue River Basin likely because of upstream reservoirs 

(fig. 1). Water from reservoirs has lower specific conductance 

than area streams, particularly during base flow, and reservoirs 

trap suspended sediment during stormflow. On the other hand, 

Blue River Basin sites consistently had lower SCI scores than 

the Little Blue River Basin and rural sites.

SCI scores decreased for sites with urban intensity as was 

found in other local studies (Poulton and others, 2007; Rasmussen and others, 2009; Wilkison and others, 2009; Graham 

and others, 2010). However, urban intensity in this study was 

calculated using the SUII. Factors included in the SUII were 

selected based on their correlation to RICH and EPTR; two of 

the SCI’s component metrics (table 16). An EPA evaluation 

of methods (Blocksam and Winters, 2006) found that using 

RICH and EPTR, with the assumption of EPT taxa intolerance to pollution, to define urban intensity and explain stream 

impairment, if not circular reasoning, to be at least biased. 

Therefore, the SCI was compared to five MMIs (table 15), 

four containing all or some of the metrics in the SCI, and one 

with none of the SCI metrics (table 16) to test for this bias.

EPTR was included in four of the MMIs. Three metrics, 

Plecoptera richness (PLECOR), Coleopotera (beetle) richness (COLEOPR), and percent Oligochaeta (aquatic worms) 

taxa (OLIGOp) were common to three MMIs. Six metrics, 

RICH, Diptera taxa richness (DIPR), tolerant taxa richness 

(RICHTOL), MBI, SHANDIV, and scraper richness (SCR), 

were common to two MMIs (table 16). No individual metric 

was common to all MMIs. Spearman’s correlation coefficients among the five MMIs ranged from 0.70 to 0.90 when 

compared to the SCI scores for spring samples (table 17). The 

modified 10-metric MMI, based on component metrics from 

local area studies, had the highest correlation (ρ equals 0.90) 

to the SCI and the best 6-metric MMI had the lowest correlation (ρ equals 0.70).
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 29

Table 15. Proportionally scaled values for a simple urban intensity index (SUII), component values, and average spring multimetric 

index (MMI) scores by site.

[Metric definitions are listed in table 3; IMPERV, impervious cover; POPD, population density; FORBUF, forest buffer; SUII, simple urban intensity index; 

B-IBI, benthic index of biotic integrity]

Site number 

(table 1, 

fig. 1)

IMPERV POPD FORBUF SUII 4-Metric 

index1

10-Metric 

index2

B-IBI 

index3

Best 

10-metric 

index4

Best 

6-metric 

index5

Site 1 21.19 14.50 45.48 27.06 65.69 49.82 41.67 57.18 55.68

Site 2 90.70 75.05 74.82 80.19 20.83 17.68 9.48 23.00 20.95

Site 3 50.63 40.91 51.69 47.75 36.58 28.58 18.46 32.90 31.98

Sites 4–5 52.08 41.63 51.05 48.25 43.11 30.30 17.29 33.95 30.15

Site 6 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 19.77 16.86 5.31 13.20 14.90

Site 7 59.08 48.28 52.81 53.39 32.00 21.38 13.99 24.05 23.55

Site 8 78.49 70.95 80.79 76.74 58.96 49.20 23.94 44.40 39.85

Sites 9–12 40.16 34.24 31.21 35.20 70.29 52.09 30.72 55.55 52.13

Site 13 78.92 60.78 56.77 65.49 58.45 41.90 22.12 45.00 42.53

Site 14 53.32 57.43 26.25 45.66 55.24 44.91 30.65 48.83 46.50

Site 16 41.52 35.20 35.39 37.37 73.04 56.21 39.17 61.33 55.90

Site 18 9.31 4.96 40.35 18.21 62.95 53.18 54.19 66.78 61.18

1

Metrics used to calculate the index; RICH, EPTR, MBI, SHANDIV.

2

Metrics used to calculate the index; RICH, EPTR, EPTp, EPp, TANYp, OLIGOp, MBI, INTOLp, SHANDIV, SCp.

3

Metrics used to calculate the index; EPTR, PLECOR, COLEOPR, PLECO, COLEOP, COLEOPp, PLECORp, NONINSRp.

4

Metrics used to calculate the index; EPTR, PLECOR, COLEOPR, DIPR,NCHDIPR, EPTRp, OLIGOp, OLIGORp, RICHTOL, SCR.

5

Metrics used to calculate the index; PLECOR, COLEOPR, DIPR, OLIGOp, RICHTOL, SCR.

Table 16. Metrics included in the Stream Condition Index (SCI) and selected multimetric indices (MMI) and predicted direction of 

response to increasing urban intensity.

[Metric definitions are listed in table 3; SCI, Stream Condition Index; B-IBI, benthic index of biotic integrity; X, index component metric]

Metric 

category Metric

Expected 

response 

to urban 

intensity1

SCI 4-Metric

index

10-Metric

index

B-IBI 

index

Best 10-metric 

index

Best 6-metric 

index

Richness RICH Decrease X X X

EPTR Decrease X X X X X

PLECOR Decrease X X X

COLEOPR Decrease X X X

DIPR Decrease X X

NCHDIPR Decrease X

Composition PLECO Decrease X

COLEOP Decrease X

EPTp Decrease X

EPTRp Decrease X

EPp Decrease X

COLEOPp Decrease X

TANYp Decrease X

OLIGOp Increase X X X

PLECORp Decrease X

NONINSRp Increase X

OLIGORp Increase X

Tolerance RICHTOL Increase X X

MBI Increase X X X

INTOLp Decrease X

Diversity SHANDIV Decrease X X X

Trophic SCR Decrease X X

SCp Decrease X

1

Barbour and others, 1996; Barbour and others, 1999; DeShon, 1995; Kerans and Karr, 1994.
30 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18 Tributary sites Main-stem sites

Decreasing simple urban intensity index

Stream condition index

Decreasing simple urban intensity index

Brush Creek

Site 6

Indian Creek

Site 2

Rock Creek

Site 8

Crackerneck

Site 13

Spring Branch

Site 14

Blue River

Site 7

Blue River

Site 4–5

Blue River

Site 3

Little Blue River

Site 16

Little Blue River

Site 9, 12

Blue River

Site 1

South Grand River

Site 18

Standard error

EXPLANATION

Partially supporting

Fully supporting

Nonsupporting

A. B.

Site

Figure 11. Average Stream Condition Index for richest-targeted habitat spring macroinvertebrate samples by site 

for A, tributary sites and B, main-stem sites.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Rock Creek Site 8 Spring Branch Site 14 Little Blue River Site 16 Little Blue River Site 12 South Grand River Site 18

Decreasing simple urban intensity index

Stream condition index

Decreasing simple urban intensity index

Standard error

EXPLANATION

Partially supporting

Fully supporting

Nonsupporting

A.Tributary sites B. Main-stem sites

Site

Figure 12. Average Stream Condition Index for richest-targeted habitat for fall macroinvertebrate samples by site 

for A, tributary sites and B, main-stem sites.
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 31

Figures 13A and B show the average MMIs for sites with 

three or more years of spring samples arranged by decreasing 

SUII. Although MMI scores for individual samples had high 

variability (table 11), sites with lower SUIIs generally had 

higher MMIs (table 15). All the MMIs place the Blue River 

and Blue River tributary site samples (with the exception of 

the upstream site 1) in the bottom half of possible MMI scores. 

The two Blue River tributary sites (sites 2 and 6) had nonsupporting ALS average SCI scores (table 12) with all MMIs in 

the lowest quartile of possible scores (table 15). No sites with 

at least three spring samples had average fully supporting SCI 

scores. The combined middle Little Blue River sites 9 and 

12 and rural site 18 had the highest average spring SCIs, and 

one or more years with a fully supporting SCI score (table 12) 

were calculated to be in the third quartile of possible scores by 

four and five MMIs (table 15).

Fall sample trends are less apparent. Figure 14 shows the 

MMI scores for the Little Blue River Basin, Rock Creek, and 

rural comparison sites with at least three fall samples. Generally, fall samples had lower scores than spring samples, but the 

SCI had more samples that were fully biologically supporting 

(39 percent) than spring samples (20 percent; table 12). Fall 

MMI scores were similar to spring sample scores. The B–IBI 

had the lowest average scores, and the 4-metric index had the 

highest average scores. Individual MMIs for stream categories 

mostly scored sites within one standard error; therefore, MMI 

scores could not be related to the SUII.

The two modeled MMIs, the best 6- and best 10-metric 

indices, and three other MMIs composed of metrics common 

to local and national studies for fall samples show similar 

results among each other. The B–IBI that included EPTR as 

a metric had the highest correlation with urban intensity as 

measured with the SUII (R2

 equals 0.71) followed by the best 

6-metric index (R2 equals 0.61). The other MMIs and the SCI 

explained less than half of the variability in macroinvertebrate 

communities in relation to urban intensity.

Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to urban 

intensity and among basins were apparent in MDS plots, community analysis, and MMIs. RICH was substantially higher 

(table 4) for the Little Blue River and rural comparison sites 

than for the Blue River sites except upstream Blue River site 

1 as well as most other richness measures used in the calculation of MMIs (table 11). One metric, percent Ephemeroptera 

taxa richness (EPEMRp) was highly correlated with the SUII 

(|ρ| greater than or equal to 0.65; table 3). However, measures 

of urban intensity used to calculate the SUII were selected 

because of a high correlation (|ρ| greater than or equal to 0.7) 

with two macroinvertebrate metrics sensitive to pollution; one 

of which includes a measure of Ephemeroptera taxa richness 

(EPTR).

Twenty metrics used in MMIs were moderately correlated 

(|ρ| greater than or equal to 0.45 and less than 0.65; table 3) 

including richness metrics (RICH, EPTR, PLECOR, and 

COLEOPR), percent richness metrics, percent EPT taxa richness (EPTRp), percent Plecoptera taxa richness (PLECORp), 

percent noninsect taxa richness (NONINSRp), and percent 

Oligochaeta taxa richness (OLIGORp); and a richness tolerance measure (RICHTOL).

Relations among Metrics and Environmental 

Variables

The 23 metrics used to calculate MMIs and the SCI 

were compared to selected environmental variables including habitat scores, hydrologic variables, physical parameters, 

and water-quality variables (table 18). Not all environmental 

variables were collected at all sites (table 1). Metrics were 

considered to be moderately correlated when Spearman’s |ρ| is 

greater than or equal to 0.45 and strongly correlated when |ρ| is 

greater than or equal to 0.65. Sixteen metrics were moderately 

or strongly correlated with at least one environmental variable 

(table 18). No metrics were at least moderately correlated with 

habitat assessment scores, hydrologic (discharge) variables, 

temperature, or pH (table 2). However, previous area studies 

have found correlations. Rasmussen and others (2009) found 

a significant correlation between habitat score and several 

metrics, including RICH and EPTR, and some hydrologic 

variables in Johnson County, Kans., streams and the upstream 

Blue River and its tributaries in Kansas (fig. 1). Wilkison and 

others (2009) found that, although habitat assessment scores 

were not robust indicators for macroinvertebrate community 

metrics for Blue River Basin sites, they were marginally 

significant.

Sample specific conductance (|ρ| equals 0.66), average 

base-flow specific conductance (|ρ| equals 0.71), and average 

base-flow chloride concentration (|ρ| equals 0.87) were highly 

correlated with the SUII (table 19). Daily discharge for the 

sampling date (|ρ| equals -0.50), average base-flow ammonium concentration (|ρ| equals 0.64), and average base-flow 

total dissolved solids concentration (|ρ| equals 0.53) were 

moderately correlated. Seven environmental variables were 

moderately correlated to the SCI, including specific conductance measures and average base-flow nutrient and chloride 

concentrations.

Table 17. Correlation coefficients for 

multimetric indices and the Stream Condition 

Index for spring samples.

[ρ, rho; B-IBI, benthic index of biotic integrity]

Multimetric index 

name

Stream Condition Index 

(Spearman’s ρ)

4-metric index 0.87

10-metric index 0.90

B-IBI index 0.78

Best-10 metric index 0.81

Best-6 metric index 0.70
32 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

4-Metric index

10-Metric index

B-IBI index

Best 10-metric index

Best 6-metric index

Standard error

EXPLANATION

4-Metric index

10-Metric index

B-IBI index

Best 10-metric index

Best 6-metric index

Standard error

EXPLANATION

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Blue River Site 7 Blue River 

Sites 4–5

Blue River Site 3 Little Blue River 

Site 16

Little Blue River 

Sites 9–12

Blue River Site 1 South Grand River 

Site 18

Decreasing simple urban intensity index A

Multimetric index score

Site

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Brush Creek Site 6 Indian Creek Site 2 Rock Creek Site 8 Crackerneck Site 13 Spring Branch Site 14

Decreasing simple urban intensity index

Multimetric index score

B

Site

Figure 13. Average spring multimetric indices for sites sampled in 3 or more years for A, the Blue River, Little 

Blue River, and South Grand River, and B, Blue River tributaries, Little Blue River tributaries, and Rock Creek.
Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities 33

4-Metric index

10-Metric index

B-IBI index

Best 10-metric index

Best 6-metric index

Standard error

EXPLANATION

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Rock Creek Site 8 Spring Branch Site 14 Little Blue River Site 16 Little Blue River Site 12 South Grand River Site 18

Multimetric index score

Decreasing simple urban intensity index Decreasing simple urban intensity index

A B

Site

Figure 14. Average fall multimeltric indices for sites sampled in 3 or more years, 2007 through 2011, for A, Rock 

Creek and Spring Branch Creek, and B, the Little Blue River and South Grand River.

Higher specific conductance and chloride concentration 

were negatively correlated with metrics that decrease with 

increasing urban intensity (tables 16 and 18). For example, 

specific conductance measured at the time of sample collection 

was consistently higher for developed tributary sites (table 2; 

sites 2, 6, 10, 13, and 14) and for upstream main-stem sites 

(table 2; sites 1, 9, and 12) compared to sites further downstream in the same basin. Specific conductance at the time of 

macroinvertebrate sampling and the average and maximum 

values calculated for the preceding 90 days were moderately 

or highly negatively correlated with six metrics. Metrics 

including EPT taxa showed the highest correlations, with 

EPTR and EPp having high negative correlation. Measured 

chloride concentrations in base-flow samples were at least 

moderately correlated with 10 metrics. Negative correlation 

with metrics that included EPT taxa and Coleoptera (beetles) 

were most evident with EPTR and EPTRp. Oligochaeta percent abundance (OLIGOp) and percent richness (OLIGORp) 

metrics were positively correlated with chloride concentration. High chloride values in tributary streams, especially peak 

concentrations during winter months from road salt application, may be toxic to aquatic life (Wilkison and others, 2009; 

Christensen and others, 2010). Higher relative abundances of 

Oligochaeta and lower relative abundances or absence of EPT 

taxa may be attributed to the higher tolerance of Oligochaeta 

taxa (Megadrile, Enychytraeidae, Tubificidae, Naididae; table 

8) and burrowing habits that may protect them from contact 

with intermittent or short-duration toxic chloride levels in 

stream water.

Higher nutrient values were negatively correlated with 

metrics that decrease with increasing urban intensity (tables 16 

and 18). Seven metrics were moderately correlated with average base-flow nutrient concentrations. Dissolved bioavailable 

nutrients (ammonium and nitrite plus nitrate) were negatively 

correlated with richness metrics (RICH, EPTR, EPTRp, and 

COLEOPR) and a functional feeding group metric (SCR). 

Ammonium concentration also was correlated with the MBI. 

Higher nutrient concentrations during base flow in the middle 

Blue River (sites 3, 4, and 5 table 2, fig.1) and the Blue River 

tributary streams receiving WWTP discharges and CSOs (sites 

2 and 6; table 2, fig. 1) likely have contributed to lower RICH 

and higher average MBI values (Wilkison and others, 2009; 

Graham and others; 2010). However, conditions for the Blue 

River Basin sites may currently (2012) be changing (2012). 
Table 18. Correlation coefficients for selected macroinvertebrate metrics and environmental variables. [Metric definitions are listed in table 3; Moderately correlated (|ρ| greater than or equal to 0.45) values in bold; *, highly correlated (|ρ| greater than or equal to 0.65) values; SC, spammonium; NO2 +NO3, nitrite plus nitrate; P, phosphorous; total P, total phosphorous; TDS, total dissolved solids] Metric Habitat score Sample discharge Sample daily discharge Sample tempera- ture Sample SC Sample pH 90-day average discharge1 90-day median discharge1 90-day peak discharge1 90-day average SC1 90-day maximum SC1 Base- flow average SC2 Base-flow average total nitrogen2 Base-flow average NH42 Base-flow average NO2 + NO32 Base- flow average total P2 B

f

av

to

RICH -0.16 -0.19 0.02 -0.28 -0.43 -0.06 -0.18 -0.16 -0.12 0.02 0.11 -0.47 -0.46 -0.56 -0.47 -0.41 -

EPTR -0.08 -0.20 0.03 0.17 -0.65* -0.05 0.05 0.01 0.12 -0.50 -0.41 -0.58 -0.46 -0.61 -0.47 -0.34 -

EPTRp -0.05 -0.22 -0.05 0.27 -0.61 -0.09 0.05 0.01 0.12 -0.58 -0.55 -0.48 -0.38 -0.50 -0.38 -0.27 -

PLECOR 0.15 0.13 0.36 -0.29 -0.21 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.12 0.20 -0.34 -0.13 -0.28 -0.12 -0.06 -

PLECO 0.14 0.13 0.36 -0.29 -0.21 0.09 0.20 0.19 0.28 0.13 0.19 -0.34 -0.13 -0.27 -0.13 -0.07 -

PLECORp 0.15 0.13 0.36 -0.29 -0.22 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.12 0.19 -0.33 -0.13 -0.27 -0.12 -0.06 -

EPp -0.07 -0.21 -0.04 0.31 -0.68* -0.10 0.09 0.03 0.14 -0.66* -0.62 -0.58 -0.47 -0.53 -0.47 -0.35 -

EPTp -0.19 -0.19 -0.12 0.30 -0.48 -0.14 0.04 0.03 0.08 -0.53 -0.47 -0.36 -0.35 -0.32 -0.36 -0.28 -

COLEOPR 0.00 0.18 0.22 -0.07 -0.44 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.07 0.18 0.23 -0.42 -0.33 -0.56 -0.32 -0.18 -

COLEOP -0.00 -0.37 -0.27 0.04 -0.23 0.03 -0.23 -0.23 -0.14 0.11 0.16 -0.01 -0.15 -0.42 -0.15 -0.13 -

COLEOPp 0.08 -0.37 -0.34 0.13 -0.06 0.05 -0.29 -0.27 -0.22 0.30 0.30 0.14 -0.05 -0.33 -0.04 -0.02 -

DIPR -0.09 -0.29 -0.04 -0.54 0.12 -0.14 -0.37 -0.32 -0.27 0.59 0.57 0.05 -0.12 -0.14 -0.12 -0.18 -

TANYp -0.15 -0.43 -0.22 -0.14 0.02 -0.22 -0.41 -0.37 -0.37 0.18 0.19 -0.02 -0.14 -0.08 -0.14 -0.25 -

NCHDIPR -0.04 -0.18 -0.10 -0.24 -0.03 0.04 -0.12 -0.11 -0.04 0.25 0.29 0.03 -0.11 -0.16 -0.11 -0.11 -

NONINSRp -0.05 0.12 -0.09 0.35 0.19 0.08 0.12 0.11 -0.01 -0.40 -0.43 0.23 0.19 0.34 0.18 0.12 

OLIGOp 0.19 0.30 0.35 -0.09 0.44 0.23 0.38 0.33 0.38 0.40 0.35 0.20 0.39 0.42 0.40 0.34 

OLIGORp 0.02 0.38 0.12 0.22 0.37 0.08 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.03 -0.10 0.34 0.29 0.43 0.29 0.20 

RICHTOL -0.25 -0.03 -0.23 -0.25 0.42 -0.13 -0.24 -0.23 -0.30 0.34 0.28 0.36 0.07 0.32 0.07 -0.05 -

MBI 0.23 0.11 -0.02 -0.17 0.45 0.13 -0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.39 0.32 0.34 0.33 0.53 0.32 0.30 

INTOLp 0.04 0.31 0.32 -0.13 -0.32 -0.08 0.08 0.10 0.01 -0.17 -0.12 -0.32 -0.17 -0.35 -0.17 -0.09 -

SHANDIV -0.20 -0.18 -0.17 -0.21 -0.07 -0.25 -0.34 -0.29 -0.30 0.17 0.23 -0.08 -0.22 -0.14 -0.23 -0.30 -

SCR -0.05 -0.05 0.10 -0.29 -0.36 -0.04 -0.16 -0.12 -0.08 0.26 0.29 -0.45 -0.37 -0.61 -0.38 -0.26 -

SCp 0.09 -0.35 -0.23 -0.09 -0.05 0.03 -0.35 -0.26 -0.28 0.42 0.45 0.09 -0.02 -0.30 -0.01 -0.00 -

1Value for measurements made during the 90 days preceding macroinvertebrate sample collection. 2Average value in base-flow samples collected June 2006 to June 2011. Number of samples ranged from one to five at each site.
Summary 35

Efforts have been initiated to reduce nutrient concentrations in streams in the Blue River Basin by Johnson County, 

Kans., improvements to WWTPs (Graham and others, 2010) 

and Kansas City, Mo., stormwater and sewer (CSO) projects 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010).

The six selected MMIs in this study were better than the 

SCI at characterizing urban intensity effects on water-quality 

conditions of streams and macroinvertebrate communities. All 

the MMIs had significant (p less than or equal to 0.05) differences among the Blue River tributary sites (sites 2 and 6; table 

11) and all other basin categories except the Blue River sites 

(sites 3–5, and 7; fig. 1) that receive WWTP effluent. Metrics based on EPT and Coleoptera taxa that were positively 

correlated with the SUII (table 3) are better represented using 

MMIs, rather than the SCI, for urban streams in the Kansas 

City metropolitan area. The common B-IBI (R2

 equals 0.71) 

and the best 6-metric index (R2 equals 0.61) explained more 

than half of the variability among sites and were best at determining differences in macroinvertebrate communities among 

sites.

Differences between the Blue River Basin and Little Blue 

River Basin macroinvertebrate community metrics were identified. Blue River Basin sites affected by WWTP discharges, 

CSOs, and other urban intensity factors had higher specific 

conductance and nutrient concentrations that likely contribute 

to water-quality impairment and lower ALS (Wilkison and 

others, 2009; Graham and others, 2010). Regulated low-flow 

releases from upstream reservoirs in the Little Blue River 

Basin, with lower specific conductance values, suspended 

sediment, and dissolved constituent concentrations, have an 

overall benefit to base-flow water quality and may raise the 

ALS of streams (Christensen and others, 2010). Average baseflow chloride concentrations had the highest correlation with 

the SUII (ρ equals 0.87; table 19), and were negatively correlated with SCI scores (ρ equals -0.53; table 19) and pollution 

sensitive EPT taxa metrics (ρ equals -0.42 to -0.80; table 18), 

and were positively correlated with pollution tolerant Oligochaeta taxa metrics (ρ equals 0.45 to 0.62; table 18). Higher 

average impervious cover, a component of the SUII, for most 

Blue River Basin sites (table 1) likely contributes to higher 

chloride concentrations as a result of increased runoff from 

winter road salt applications. Study results show that the easily 

calculated SUII and the selected modeled multimetric indices 

are effective for comparing urban basins and for evaluation of 

water quality in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

Summary

This report examined macroinvertebrate communities from the Blue River, Little Blue River, and Rock Creek 

Basins, which are adjacent urban basins largely located in 

Kansas City and Independence, Missouri, and two rural comparison sites. Macroinvertebrate community structure, community metrics, multimetric indices (MMI) and their relation 

to environmental variables were used to determine aquatic-life 

status (ALS) of streams and to evaluate sites and river basins. 

Combinations of commonly used macroinvertebrate bioassessement metrics were related to a simple urban intensity index 

(SUII) consisting of three variables; forest cover in a 30-meter 

stream-buffer zone, percent impervious cover, and population density. Hydrologic, water-quality, macroinvertebrate, 

and habitat data collected for two water-quality studies in 

the Kansas City metropolitan area were analyzed to evaluate 

individual sites, differences among sites and river basins, and 

stream ALS. MMIs with 2 to 10 metrics were related to the 

SUII to characterize stream condition using a proportional 

scaling approach. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (MDS) 

and analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) were used to analyze the 

relative dissimilarities of biologic conditions among sites.

Initial screening using macroinvertebrate four-metric 

scores, individual component metrics, and pair-wise comparison showed differences among the Blue River, Little Blue 

River, their tributaries, and rural stream categories. The Blue 

River middle and downstream categories were significantly 

Table 19. Correlation coefficients for selected 

environmental variables with the simple urban 

intensity index (SUII) and the Stream Condition Index 

(SCI).

[ρ, rho; SUII, simple urban intensity index; SCI, Stream Condition Index; Moderately correlated |ρ| greater than or equal to 

0.45 values in bold; *, highly correlated (|ρ|)]

Environmental variable Spearman’s ρ

SUII SCI

Habitat score -0.30 -0.30

Sample discharge -0.29 -0.28

Sample temperature -0.08 0.27

Sample specific conductance 0.66* -0.50

Sample pH -0.26 -0.24

90-day average discharge -0.43 -0.18

90-day median discharge -0.42 -0.22

90-day peak discharge -0.39 -0.14

Daily sample discharge -0.50 -0.25

90-day specific conductance 0.43 -0.50

90-day maximum specific conductance0.32 -0.36

Base-flow specific conductance 0.71* -0.38

Base-flow total nitrogen 0.34 -0.47

Base-flow ammonium 0.64 -0.54

Base-flow nitrite plus nitrate 0.35 -0.49

Base-flow dissolved phosphorous 0.08 -0.43

Base-flow total phosphorous 0.11 -0.46

Base-flow chloride 0.87* -0.53

Base-flow suspended sediment 0.20 0.39

Base-flow total dissolved solids 0.53 -0.22
36 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

different (p less than or equal to 0.05) than the middle and 

downstream Little Blue River categories. The Blue River 

tributary category was significantly different (p less than or 

equal to 0.05) from all other categories except the middle 

and downstream Blue River categories. The rural comparison 

category was significantly different (p less than or equal to 

0.05) from the Blue River middle, downstream, and tributary 

categories.

The Blue River Basin sites had the lowest richness of 

intolerant taxa and the Little Blue River sites had the highest. 

The rural comparison sites had the highest relative abundance 

of highly intolerant taxa. Both the Blue River Basin sites and 

the Little Blue River Basin sites had low abundances of highly 

intolerant taxa. Although the Little Blue River sites had higher 

intolerant taxa richness, it also had lower relative abundance 

of intolerant taxa than the Blue River Basin and rural comparison sites. This indicates there are likely additional factors 

affecting the ability of these streams to support an intolerant 

community than the urban-intensity factors considered for this 

study.

The Blue River Basin had the lowest relative abundance 

of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa. 

More than 25 percent of the identified taxa at the Little Blue 

River Basin sites and the rural comparison sites were EPT 

taxa. Ephemeroptera were the most abundant EPT order in 

spring samples although the average tolerance values for the 

10 mayfly taxa identified in spring samples were in the moderately tolerant range. Plecoptera taxa were poorly represented 

in these streams likely because of their pollution sensitivity.

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plots of spring sample 

macroinvertebrate community structure based on richness, 

relative abundance, tolerance, and functional feeding groups 

showed differences among the Blue River, Little Blue River, 

tributary, and rural stream categories, the SUII of sites, and 

environmental variables. ANOSIM was used to compare basin 

categories. BEST analysis was performed to determine the 

species “best explaining” dissimilarities among basins.

Generally, there were clear groupings of samples within 

basin categories showing less dissimilarity within basin 

categories than among samples from different basin categories. ANOSIM results indicated that basin category was the 

most substantial indicator for dissimilarities in percent taxa 

abundance among basin categories (R equals 0.55). Pair-wise 

ANOSIM analysis indicated a significant difference among all 

basin categories based on percent taxa abundance.

 BEST analysis was performed in PRIMER to determine 

the species “best explaining” dissimilarities among basins 

based on percent taxa abundance. Six of the macroinvertebrate 

taxa that had the largest effect on driving dissimilarities in 

percent taxa abundance were in the family Chironomidae. The 

four remaining taxa consisted of one mayfly, one caddisfly, 

and two noninsect taxa. Six functional feeding groups are represented in the “best-explaining” taxa; two filterer-collectors, 

one predator, two collector-gatherers, three shredders, one 

omnivore, and one scraper. The most common taxon identified 

at all sites among the “best explaining” taxa was a chironomid 

and moderately tolerant shredder, Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 

MDS plots based on taxa abundance, taxa tolerance, 

and functional feeding groups were similar, with Blue River 

tributary sites having high dissimilarity to other basin categories. ANOSIM results generally indicated a high dissimilarity 

among basin categories compared to within basin sample dissimilarity. Pair-wise analysis indicated the Blue River tributary 

category was statistically different than all other categories 

when comparing taxa abundance, taxa tolerance, and functional feeding groups. Blue River main-stem samples that had 

higher dissimilarity than other samples within this category 

were from the upstream site. This site was the only Blue 

River main-stem site above the outfalls from two wastewater 

treatment plants on Indian Creek. Basin categories that were 

not statistically different based on MBI were the Little Blue 

River tributary category with the Blue River and Little Blue 

River main-stem categories. All other basin categories were 

statistically different in taxa abundance, taxa tolerance, and 

functional feeding groups indicating dissimilarities in macroinvertebrate communities.

Previous studies in the Kansas City metropolitan area 

have determined that urban streams likely are incapable of 

fully supporting aquatic life. For this study there were no sites 

within the Blue River Basin having a fully supporting score. 

About 80 percent of all samples combined were less than fully 

biologically supporting, and only about 11 percent of spring 

samples were fully biologically supporting. The aquatic-life 

status for the Little Blue River and its tributaries were more 

supportive than for the Blue River and its tributaries. Three 

Little Blue River Basin sites and the rural comparison sites 

had fully supporting Stream Condition Index (SCI) scores for 

spring samples, and no site with more than one sample had an 

average fully supporting score. Fall samples, collected only for 

the Little Blue River Basin and rural sites, had four Little Blue 

River Basin sites and one rural site with fully supporting ALS 

scores in one or more years. Three Little Blue River sites had 

fully supporting average fall ALS scores.

Several best MMIs were determined to characterize 

macroinvertebrate communities in relation to the SUII and 

three other MMIs from previous studies. The calculated best 

6- and best 10-metric MMIs were selected for further comparison to the three other MMIs. Although MMI scores of spring 

samples for individual sites were variable, sites with lower 

SUIIs generally had higher MMIs. All five MMIs place the 

two Blue River tributary sites with nonsupporting aquatic-life 

status average SCI scores in the lowest quartile of possible 

scores. The combined middle Little Blue River sites 9 and 12 

and rural site 18 had the highest average spring SCIs, and one 

or more years with a fully supporting SCI score were calculated to be in the third quartile of possible scores by four and 

five MMIs. Results were less clear for fall samples. Generally, 

fall samples had lower scores than spring samples, but the SCI 

had more samples that were fully biologically supporting than 

spring samples.
References Cited 37

The two calculated MMIs and the three MMIs composed 

of metrics common to local and national studies had similar 

results. The common benthic index of biotic integrity (R2

equals 0.71) and the best 6-metric index (R2 equals 0.61) were 

best at determining differences in macroinvertebrate communities among sites. The other MMIs and the SCI explained less 

than half of the variability in macroinvertebrate communities 

in relation to urban intensity.

Twenty-three metrics were compared to selected environmental variables. Not all variables were correlated with 

the metrics. Specific conductance at the time of macroinvertebrate sampling and the average and maximum values 

calculated for the preceding 90 days were moderately or 

highly negatively correlated with six metrics. Chloride concentrations in base-flow samples showed at least moderate 

correlation with 10 metrics. High chloride values in tributary 

streams in the study area, especially peak concentrations 

during winter months, may be toxic to aquatic life. Seven 

metrics were moderately correlated with average base-flow 

nutrient concentrations. Higher nutrient concentrations during base flow for the middle Blue River sites and the Blue 

River tributary streams receiving wastewater discharges and 

combined sewer overflows likely contributed to lower taxa 

richness and higher average abundance tolerance. Chloride 

concentrations during base flow that were attributable to 

winter road salt applications had the highest correlation with 

the SUII (ρ equals 0.87) and were negatively correlated with 

SCI scores (ρ equals -0.53) and pollution sensitive EPT taxa 

metrics and positively correlated with pollution tolerant 

Oligochaeta taxa metrics.

Differences between the Blue River Basin and Little 

Blue River Basin macroinvertebrate community metrics were 

identified. Blue River Basin sites affected by WWTP discharges, combined sewer overflow, and other urban intensity 

factors had higher specific conductance and nutrient concentrations that likely contribute to water-quality impairment 

and lower ALS. Differences between the Blue River Basin 

and Little Blue River Basin macroinvertebrate community 

metrics were identified. Upstream reservoirs in the Little 

Blue River Basin reduced specific conductance, suspended 

sediment, and dissolved constituent concentrations with 

regulated releases, which may have had an overall benefit to 

water quality and raised the ALS of streams. Study results 

show that the easily calculated SUII and the selected modeled multimetric indices are effective for comparing urban 

basins and for evaluation of water quality in the Kansas City 

metropolitan area.

References Cited

Allen, D.M., 1974, The relationship between variable selection 

and data augmentation and a method for prediction: Technometrics, v. 16, no. 1, p. 125–127.

Armitage, P.D., Cranston, P.S., and Pinder, L.C.V., 1995, The 

Chironomidae—Biology and ecology of non-biting midges: 

London, Chapman & Hall, p. 572.

Barbour, M.T., Plafkin, J.L., Bradley, B.P., Graves, C.G., and 

Wisseman, R.W., 1992, Evaluation of EPA’s rapid bioassessement benthic metrics—Metric redundancy and variability 

among reference stream sites: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 11, p. 437–449.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G.E., Frydenborg, R., 

McCarron, E., White, J.S., and Bastian, M.L., 1996, A 

framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using 

benthic macroinvertebrates: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 15, no. 2, p. 185–211.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 

1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and 

wadeable rivers—Periphyton, benthic Macroinvertebrates 

and fish (2d ed.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency EPA 841–B–99–002, Office of Water.

Blocksom, K.A., and Winters, L., 2006, The evaluation of methods for creating defensible, repeatable, objective and accurate 

tolerance values for aquatic taxa: Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, p. 52.

Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., Abele, L.E., Heitzman, D.L., and 

Smith, A.J., 2002, Quality assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York State: Albany, New 

York, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 

122 p.

Bray, J.R., and Curtis, J.T., 1957, An ordination of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin: Ecological Monographs, v. 27, no. 4, p. 325–394.

Bressler, D.W., Stribling, J.A., Paul, M.J., and Hicks, M.B., 

2006, Stressor tolerance values for benthic macroinvertebrates in Mississippi: Hydrobiologia, v. 573, p. 155–172.

Cao, Y., and Hawkins, C.P., 2011, The comparability of 

bioassessments—A review of conceptual and methodological issues: Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society, v. 30, no. 3, p. 680–701.

Carlisle, D.M., and Clements, W.H., 1999, Sensitivity and 

variability of metrics used in biological assessments of 

running waters: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 18, no. 2, p. 285–291.

Chapman, S.S., Omernik, J.M., Freeouf, J.A., Huggins, D.G., 

McCauley, J.R., Freeman, C.C., Steinauer, G., Angelo, R.T., 

and Schlepp, R.L., 2001, Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri 

(color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, 

and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey 

(map scale 1:1,950,000), accessed October 2008 at http://

www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/moia_eco.htm.
38 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on longterm method detection levels and some considerations 

for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p., 

accessed November 2012 at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/

OFR_99-193/ofr99_193.pdf.

Christensen, E.D., Harris, T.E., and Neisen, S.L., 2010, Water 

quality and ecological condition of urban streams in Independence, Missouri, June 2005 through December 2008: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2010–5074, 113 p.

Clarke, K.R., 1993, Non-parametric multivariate analyses of 

changes in community structure: Australian Journal of Ecology, v. 18, p. 117–143.

Clarke, K.R., and Gorley, R.N., 2006, PRIMER v6—User 

Manual/Tutorial: Plymouth, United Kingdom, PRIMER_E 

Ltd., 192 p.

Clarke, K.R., and Warwick, R.M., 2001, Changes in marine communities—An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation: Plymouth, United Kingdom, PRIMER_E Ltd., 174 p.

Coffman, W.P., and Ferrington,L.C., Jr., 1996. Chironomidae, 

in Merrit, R.W., and Cummins, K.W., eds., An introduction 

to the aquatic insects of North America (3d ed.): Dubuque, 

Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., p. 635–754.

Cuffney, T.F., Bilger, M.D., and Haigler, A.M., 2007, Ambiguous taxa—Effects on the characterization and interpretation 

of invertebrate assemblages: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society , v. 26, no. 2, p. 286–307.

Cuffney, T.F., and Brightbill, R.A., 2011, User’s manual for the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program Invertebrate 

Data Analysis System (IDAS) software, version 5: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 7–C4, 126 p. 

(available only online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/7c4/).

Cuffney, T.F., Brightbill, R.A., May, J.T., and Waite, I.R., 

2010, Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates to environmental changes associated with urbanization in nine metropolitan areas: Ecological Applications, v. 20, p. 1384–1401.

Cuffney, T.F., Zappia, H., Giddings, E.M.P., and Coles, J.F., 

2005, Effects of urbanization on benthic macroinvertebrate 

assemblages in contrasting environmental settings: Boston, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salt Lake 

City, Utah: in Brown, L.R., Gray, R.H, Hughes, R.M., and 

Meador, M.R., eds., Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems: Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries Society, 

Symposium 47, p. 361–407.

DeWalt, R.E., Favret, C., Webb, D.W., Favret, D., and Webb, 

D.W., 2005, Just how imperiled are aquatic insects? A case 

study of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Illinois: Annals of the 

Entomological Society of America, v. 98, no. 6, p. 941–950.

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in 

water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 93–125, 217 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1989, Methods 

for determination of inorganic substances in water and 

fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, p. 545, 

accessed January 2005 at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/

twri5-a1/.

Garbarino, J.R., and Struzeski, T.M., 1998, Methods of 

analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory—Determination of elements in wholewater digests using inductively coupled plasma- optical 

emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98–165, 101 p.

Graham, J.L., Stone, M.L., Rasmussen, T.J., and Poulton, 

B.C., 2010, Effects of wastewater effluent discharge and 

treatment facility upgrades on environmental and biological 

conditions of the upper Blue River, Johnson County, Kansas, and Jackson County, Missouri, January 2003 through 

March 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5248, 85 p.

Grotheer, S.A., Moulton, S.R., Carter, J.L., Cuffney, T.F., and 

Short, T.M., 2000, Quality-control of benthic macroinvertebrate identifications—A taxon-based approach, in North 

American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, Keystone 

Colorado, 2000, Abstracts: accessed July 2009 at http://

www.benthos.org/meeting/nabs2000/nabstracts2000.cfm/

id/233.

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. C1, 58 p.

Hannaford, M.J. and Resh, V.H., 1995, Variability in macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment and habitat assessments in a 

northern California stream: Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, v. 14, no. 3, p. 430–439.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water resources—Studies in environmental science 49: New 

York, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 522 p.
References Cited 39

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1977, Use of arthropods to evaluate water 

quality of streams: Technical Bulletin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, no. 100, p. 15.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1988, Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index: Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society, v. 7, p. 65–68.

Huggins, D.G., and Moffett, M.F., 1988, Proposed biotic and 

habitat indices for use in Kansas streams: Lawrence, Kansas, Kansas Biological Survey Report No. 35, p. 128.

IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 2009, IDEXX QuantiTray, accessed July 2012 at http://www.idexx.com/

pubwebresources/pdf/en_us/water/0602030.pdf.

Karr, J.R. ,1981, Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities: Fisheries v. 6, p. 21–27.

Karr, J.R., 1999. Defining and measuring river health: Freshwater Biology, v. 41, p. 221–234.

Karr, J.R. and Kerans, B.L.. 1992, Components of biological integrity—Their definition and use in development of 

an invertebrate IBI in Simon, T.P. and Davis, W.S.,eds.:, 

Environmental Indicators— Measurement and assessment 

endpoints: Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, p. 1–16.

Kenney, M.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Smith, R.F., and Gresens, 

S.E., 2009, Benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of 

water quality—The intersection of science and policy: Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews, v. 2, p. 99–128.

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.

Klein, R.D., 1979, Urbanization and stream quality impairment: Water Resource Bulletin, v. 15, p. 948–963.

Klemm, D.J., Blocksom, K.A., Thoeny, W.T., Fulk, F.A., 

Herlihy, A.T., Kaufmann, P.R., and Cormier, S.M., 2002, 

Methods development and use of macroinvertebrates as 

indicators of ecological conditions for streams in the MidAtalantic Highlands Region: Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment, v. 78, p. 169–212.

Kreis, R.G., Jr., 1988, Integrated study of exposure and biological effects of in-place sediment pollutants in the Detroit 

River, Michigan—An upper Great Lakes connecting channel: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, final report to 

the EPA Office of Research and Development, EPA ERL—

Duluth, Minnesota, and EPA LLRS—Grosse Ile, Michigan, 

153 p.

Kruskall, W.H., and Wallis, W.A., 1952, Use of ranks in onecriterion variance analysis: Journal of the American Statistical Association, v. 47, no. 260, p. 583–621.

Lee, C.J., Mau, D.P., and Rasmussen, T.J., 2005, Effects of 

nonpoint and selected point contamination sources on 

stream-water quality and relation to land use in Johnson 

County, northeastern Kansas, October 2002 through June 

2004: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations 

Report 05–5144, 104 p.

Lenat, D.R., 1993, A biotic index for the southeastern United 

States—Derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria 

for assigning water quality ratings: Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society, v. 12, no. 3, p. 279–290.

Lenat, D.R., and Crawford, J.K., 1994, Effects of land use 

on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina 

Piedmont streams: Hydrobiologia, v. 294, p. 185–199.

Lydy, M.J., Crawford, C.G., and Frey, J.W., 2000, A comparison of selected diversity, similarity and biotic indices 

for detecting changes in benthic-invertebrate community 

structure and stream quality: Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology, v. 39, p. 469–479.

Mallows, C.L., 1973, Some comments on Cp

: Technometrics, 

v. 15, no. 4, p. 661–675.

Merritt, R. W., and Cummins, K.W., eds., 1996, An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America (revised 3rd 

ed.): Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall and Hunt Publishing Co., 

862 p.

Miller, A.J.,1990, Monographs on statistics & applied probability 40—Subset selection in regression: London, England, 

New York, N.Y., Chapman and Hall.

Missouri Spatial Data Information Service, 2011, accessed 

November 2012 at http://msdis.missouri.edu/data/themelist.

html.

Moulton, S.R. II, Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, 

T.S., and Short, T.M., 2000, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Processing, taxonomy, and quality control of benthic 

macroinvertabrates samples: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 00–212, 49 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.

Mueller, D.S., and Wagner, C.R., 2009, Measuring discharge 

with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 3A–22, 

72 p., accessed July 2012 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/

tm3a22.

Nigh, T.A., and Schroeder, W.A., 2002, Atlas of Missouri 

ecoregions: Missouri Department of Conservation, 212 p.
40 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

Nowak, D.J., and Greenfield, E.J., 2010, Evaluating the 

National Land Cover Database tree canopy and imperviouscover estimates across the conterminous United States—A 

comparison with photo-interpreted estimates: Environmental Management, v. 46, p. 378–390.

Oberg, K.A., Morlock, S.E., and Caldwell, W.S., 2005, 

Quality-assurance plan for discharge measurements using 

acoustic Doppler profilers: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5183, 35 p.

Omernik, J.M., 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States: Association of American Geographers, v. 77, 

p. 118–125.

Patton, C.J., and Truitt, E.P., 1992, Methods of analysis by 

the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of total phosphorus by a Kjeldahl 

digestion method and an automated colorimetric finish 

that includes dialysis: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 92–146, 39 p.

Patton, C.J., and Truitt, E.P., 2000, Methods of analysis 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Determination of ammonium plus organic 

nitrogen by a Kjeldahl digestion method and an automated 

photometric finish that includes digest cleanup by gas diffusion: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00–170, 

31 p.

Paul, M.J., and Meyers, J.L., 2001, Streams in the urban landscape: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 32, 

p. 333–365.

Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Goss, S.K., and 

Hughes, R.M., 1989, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use 

in streams and rivers—Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish: 

EPA/444/ 4–89/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C.

Poulton, B.C., Rassmussen, T.J., and Lee, C.J, 2007, Assessment of biological conditions at selected stream sites in 

Johnson County, Kansas, and Cass and Jackson Counties, 

Missouri, 2003 and 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5108, 68 p.

Rabeni, C.F., Sarver, R.J., Wang, N.,Wallace, G.S., 

Wieland, M., and Petersen, J.T., 1997, Development of 

regionally based biological criteria for streams of Missouri: 

Unpublished report to the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources from the U.S. Geological Survey, 270 p.

Rasmussen, T.J., Lee, C.J., and Ziegler, A.C., 2008, Estimation 

of constituent concentrations, loads, and yields in streams of 

Johnson County, northeast Kansas, using continuous waterquality monitoring and regression models, October 2002 

through December 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2008–5014, 103 p.

Rasmussen, T.J., Poulton, B.C., and Graham, J.L., 2009, Quality 

of streams in Johnson County, Kansas, and relations to environmental variables, 2003–07: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5235, 84 p. with appendices.

Roy, A.H., Rosemond, A.D., Paul, M.J., Leigh, D.S., and 

Wallace, J.B., 2003, Stream macroinvertebrate response to 

catchment urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.): Freshwater Biology, v. 48, p. 329–346.

Sarver, R.J., 2003a, Semi-quantitative macroinvertebrate 

stream bioassessment: Jefferson City, Missouri, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, Air and Lands Protection 

Division, Environmental Services Program 24 p., accessed 

July 2009 at http://www.cpcb.ku.edu/datalibrary/assets/

library/techdocs/Semiquant2003Aug.pdf. 

Sarver, R.J., 2003b, Stream habitat assessment: Jefferson 

City, Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 

Air and Lands Protection Division, Environmental Services Program, 40 p., accessed February 2008 at http://

www.cpcb.ku.edu/datalibrary/assets/library/techdocs/

Streamhab2003Aug.pdf.

Sarver, R.J., 2005, Taxonomic levels for macroinvertebrate 

identifications: Jefferson City, Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Air and Lands Protection 

Division, Environmental Services Program, 30 p., accessed 

July 2009 at http://www.cpcb.ku.edu/datalibrary/assets/

library/techdocs/Taxlevels2005May.pdf.

Sarver, R.J., Harlan, Stuart, Rabeni, Charles, and Sowa, S.P., 

2002, Biological criteria for wadeble/perennial streams of 

Missouri: Jefferson City, Missouri, Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources, Air and Lands Protection Division, 

Environmental Services Program, 47 p., accessed July 2009 

at http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/docs/BiologicalCriteriafo

rWadeableStreamsofMissouri.pdf.

Sauer, V.B., and Turnipseed, D.P., 2010, Stage measurement 

at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods book 3, chap. A7, 45 p., accessed August 2012 at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm3-a7/.

Seager, J., and Abrahams, R.G., 1990, The impact of storm 

sewage discharges on the ecology of a small urban river: 

Water Science and Technology, v. 22, p. 169–171.

Shannon, C.E., and Weaver, W.W., 1949, The mathematical 

theory of communication: Urbana, Illinois, University of 

Illinois Press, 125 p.

Tate, C.M., Cuffney, T.F., McMahon, G., Giddings, E.M.P., 

Coles, J.F., and Zappia, H., 2005, Use of an urban intensity 

index to assess urban effects on streams in three contrasting environmental settings, in Brown, L.R., Gray, R.H., 

Hughes, R.M., and Meador, M.R., eds., Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems: Bethesda, Maryland, American 

Fisheries Society, Symposium 47, p. 291–315.
References Cited 41

The Information Bus Company Software Inc., 2008, TIBCO 

Spotfire S+ 8.1 for Windows User’s Guide, 572 p.

Tukey, J.W., 1953, The problem of multiple comparisons,in 

Braun, H.I, 1994, The collected works of John W. Tukey; 

Multiple comparisons 1948–1983 (v. VIII): New York, N.Y., 

Chapman & Hall, 396 p.

Turnipseed, D.P., and Sauer, V.B., 2010, Discharge measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods book 3, chap. A8, 87 p., accessed 

August 2012 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm3-a8/.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a, American FactFinder: accessed 

February 2012 at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/

pages/index.xhtml.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b, 2010 Tiger/Line® Shapefiles: 

Census Tracts: accessed February 2012 at http://www.

census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles2010/layers.cgi.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, Using biological data as indicators of water quality: accessed September 2012 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm/

calm_ch5.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Kansas City, 

Missouri Clean Water Act Settlement: accessed July 2012 

at http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/

kansascity.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Policy on the use of the 

FlowTracker for discharge measurements: Office of Surface 

Water Technical Memorandum 2004.04, p. 6: accessed February 2009 at http://hydroacoustics.usgs.gov/memos.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, SonTek/YSI FlowTracker firmware version 3.10 and software version 2.11 upgrades and 

additional policy on the use of FlowTrackers for discharge 

measurements: Office of Surface Water Technical Memorandum 2007.01, p. 12, accessed February 2009 at http://

hydroacoustics.usgs.gov/memos.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, The USGS Land Cover Institute (LCI), USGS land cover, accessed September 2011 at 

http://landcover.usgs.gov/usgslandcover.php.

U.S. Geological Survey, [variously dated], National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

Book 9, Chapters A1–A9: accessed April 2008 at http://

pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. 

Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R., 

and Cushing, C.E., 1980, The river continuum concept: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 37, 

p. 130–137.

Wagner, R.J., Boulger R.W., Jr., Oblinger, C.J., and Smith, 

B.A., 2006, Guidelines and standard procedures for continuous water-quality monitors—Station operation, tecord 

vomputation, and fata reporting: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques and Methods1–D3, 51 p.

Walsh, C.J., Roy, A.H., Feminella, J.W., Cottingham, P.D., 

Groffman, P.M., and Morgan, R.P., II, 2005, The urban 

stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a 

cure: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 

v. 24, no. 3, p. 706–723.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J., and Blevins, D.W., 2002, 

Effects of wastewater and combined sewer overflows on 

water quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, July 1998–October 2000: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4107, 

62 p.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J, Brown, R.E., Poulton, B.C., 

Cahill, J.D., and Zaugg, S.D., 2005, Water quality and 

biologic data for the Blue River Basin, Kansas City metropolitan area, Missouri and Kansas, October 2000 to October 

2004: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series Report 127, 

p. 158, [cd rom; http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/127/.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.A., and Hampton, S.A., 2009, 

Water-quality and ecological trends and patterns in the Blue 

River Basin, Kansas City metropolitan area, Missouri and 

Kansas, 1998 to 2007: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5169, 211p.

Wilkison, D.H., Armstrong, D.J., Norman, R.D., Poulton, 

B.C., Furlong, E.T., and Zaugg, S.D., 2006, Water quality in 

the Blue River Basin, Kansas City metropolitan area, Missouri and Kansas, July 1998 to October 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5147, 

170 p.

Wright, I.A., Chessman, B.C., Fairweather, P.G., and Benson 

L.J., 1995, Measuring the impact of sewage effluent on the 

macroinvertebrate community of an upland stream–The 

effect of different levels of taxonomic resolution and quantification: Australian Journal of Ecology, v. 20, p. 142–149.

Xian, G., and Homer C., 2010, Updating the 2001 National 

Land Cover Database impervious surface products to 2006 

using Landsat imagery change detection methods: Remote 

Sensing of Environment, v. 114, p. 1676–1686.
42 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011
Glossary 43

Glossary

abundance The number of organisms collected or identified in a sample.

ambiguous child A taxon that occurs at a 

lower taxonomic level in a group.

ambiguous taxon A taxon for which data are 

reported at more than one taxonomic level.

ambiguous parent A taxon within a group 

of ambiguous taxa that is identified at a higher 

taxonomic level than other taxa in the group.

community metric A calculated numerical 

value that summarizes some aspect or characteristic of a macroinvertebrate community.

diversity How the abundance of a sample 

is variably distributed among the taxa in a 

sample.

dominant taxa The most abundant taxon in 

a sample.

functional feeding group Classification of 

taxa that have similar physical adaptations or 

behavior for food acquisition.

macroinvertebrate Animals that do not have 

backbones, such as worms, crustaceans and 

insects, that are visible to the unaided eye.

macroinvertebrate community The listing 

of macroinvertebrate taxa and their relative 

abundances found in a designated stream 

reach or sample.

relative abundance The percentage composition in a sample of a particular taxon.

richest-targeted habitat The habitat in a 

stream reach, usually riffle habitat, with the 

theoretically richest macroinvertebrate community.

similarity A measure of how alike two or 

more samples are based on taxa composition 

and abundance.

taxa The plural of taxon.

taxa richness The number of taxa in a 

sample.

taxon A group of related organisms that are 

sufficiently distinct that can be placed in a 

definite category of the taxonomic hierarchy 

and designated with a unique name.

taxonomic hierarchy The ordering of taxa 

into groups based on morphological similarity. The hierarchal order from most general 

to most specific similarity is: phylum, class, 

order, suborder, family, subfamily, tribe, 

genus, and species.

tolerance A numerical value assigned to a 

taxon from low (intolerant) to high (tolerant) 

to indicate a taxon’s tolerance to pollution and 

environmental stress.
44 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011
Tables 45

Tables

Table 2. Measured and calculated habitat scores and selected physical properties, streamflow, and 

water-quality parameters for macroinvertebrate samples. The Excel file may be downloaded from 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284/downloads/tables.xlsx.

Table 4. Macroinvertebrate community richness by major taxonomic group and site with summaries 

by basin category for combined spring and fall samples, 2007 through 2011. The Excel file may be

downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284/downloads/tables.xlsx.

Table 5. List of macroinvertebrate taxa identified in samples collected at sites in Kansas City and 

Independence, Missouri, and selected sites in Cass and Ray Counties, Missouri, March 2007 through 

March 2011. The Excel file may be downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284/downloads/

tables.xlsx.

Table 8. Tolerance values and functional feeding groups for taxa identified at study sites, 

March 2007 through March 2011. The Excel file may be downloaded from 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284/downloads/tables.xlsx.

Table 10. Five most dominant taxa and functional feeding groups collected at macroinvertebrate 

sampling sites, March 2007 through March 2011. The Excel file may be downloaded from 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284/downloads/tables.xlsx.

Table 11. Selected macroinvertebrate metric values and multimetric indices for spring and fall 

samples, March 2007 through March 2011. The Excel file may be downloaded from 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5284/downloads/tables.xlsx.
46 Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011

Publishing support provided by:

Rolla and Lafayette Publishing Service Centers

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Missouri Water Science Center

1400 Independence Road

Rolla, MO 65401

(573) 308–3667

Or visit the Missouri Water Science Center Web site at:

http://mo.water.usgs.gov
Back cover. Top, left to right—South Grand River below Freeman, Missouri. Photograph by Heather M. Krempa, U.S. Geological 

Survey. U.S. Geological Survey personnel preparing to collect macroinvertebrate samples, Rock Creek at Kentucky Road in 

Independence, Missouri. Photograph by Sophia A. Mingoia, U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Geological Survey personnel collecting 

macroinvertebrate samples, Rock Creek at Kentucky Road in Independence, Missouri. Photograph by Sophia A. Mingoia, U.S. 

Geological Survey.

Middle, left to right—Macroinvertebrate sampling net and kick sample. Photograph by Heather M. Krempa, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Macroinvertebrate sampling net and kick sample. Photograph by Heather M. Krempa, U.S. Geological Survey. Crayfish (Orconectes

sp.). Photograph by Sophia A. Mingoia, U.S. Geological Survey.

Bottom, left to right— Dobsonfly (Corydalus cornutus). Photograph by Heather M. Krempa, U.S. Geological Survey. Mayfly (Baetisca

sp.) under a microscope. Photograph by Scott A. Grotheer, National Water Quality Laboratory. U.S. Geological Survey personnel 

identifying macroinvertebrates at the National Water Quality Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado. Photograph by Scott A. Grotheer, 

National Water Quality Laboratory. 
Christensen and Krempa— Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Adjacent Urban Stream Basins, Kansas City, Missouri, 2007 through 2011—SIR 2012–5284