Australian jfournal of Ecology (1995) 20, 122-129

Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: A

procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level
identification and a biotic index
BRUCE C. CHESSMAN
Australian Water Technologies, PO Box 73, West Ryde, NSW 2114, Australia

Abstract This paper describes a simple and inexpensive procedure for the rapid biological
assessment of water quality in rivers and streams in eastern Australia. The procedure involves
the standardized collection of samples of 100 macroinvertebrates from defined habitat types
within a water body. Specimens are identified to family level only and a biotic index is
calculated. Proposed future testing and evaluation are described, and the limitations of the
rapid approach are discussed.

Key words: biological assessment, biotic index, macroinvertebrates, water quality.

INTRODUCTION not vary significantly from those of similar, local un-

A crucial step towards the sustainable management of
Australia's water resources was taken with the release of
the National Water Quality Management Strategy
(ANZECC/AWRC 1992). A key element of this strategy
is the Australian Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC
1992). These guidelines differ from the State guidelines
issued earlier (e.g. VEPA 1983; SPCC 1990) in that for
the first time they incorporate a range of biological and
ecological indicators of water quality. Specifically, the
Australian guidelines list the following four biological
factors as indicators of water quality for the protection of
aquatic ecosystems:
(1) In any waterbody, the species richness of the
predominant macrophyte, periphytic, phytoplanktonic,
benthic and planktonic invertebrate or vertebrate assem-
blages, as measured by the appropriate standardized index,
should not be altered.
(2) In any waterbody, impacts that result in significant
changes in species composition compared with those in
similar, local unimpacted systems should not be per-
mitted.
(3) In any waterbody, net primary production should
not vary from the levels encountered in similar, local
unimpacted habitats under similar light, temperature
and nutrient loading regimes.
(4) In any waterbody, changes that vary the relative
importance of the detrital and grazing food chains should
be minimized. Production to respiration ratios should
Accepted for publication October 1994.
impacted systems.
The inclusion of these goals provides a great stimulus
for the inclusion of biological indicators in routine pro-
grammes of water quality assessment and monitoring,
something that aquatic biologists in this country have
been advocating for nearly three decades (Jolly & Chap-
man 1966; Mclvor 1976; Williams 1980a; Campbell
1982). However, the wording of these goals raises some
practical issues for biologists involved in such pro-
grammes.
One problem is the requirement to compare the bio-
logical characteristics of the water body under investi-
gation with those of 'similar, local unimpacted systems'.
In many parts of Austraha, all water bodies across a wide
area have suffered a degree of impact from anthropogenic
changes such as land clearing and river regulation. Where,
for example, can a 'local unimpacted system' similar to
the lower Murray River be found? Even in areas where
near-pristine streams and lakes are present, the disturbed
and undisturbed water bodies often differ in natural
features such as altitude, geomorphology and bed type.
This is because water bodies have not been disturbed at
random, but in relation to patterns of agricultural, urban
and industrial development. These activities have been
concentrated where climate, soils and topography are
most suitable. For example, in the Sydney region virtually
all undisturbed streams drain sandstone catchments;
catchments on shale have been developed for agriculture
because of their deeper and more fertile soils. If the
disturbed and undisturbed water bodies differ in natural
environmental factors, they are likely to differ also in
 M A C R O I N V E R T E B R A T E S AND RIVER A S S E S S M E N T
their biological communities and properties, even in the
absence of a significant human impact.
A second difficulty is that aquatic biological com-
munities are influenced by many human activities other
than those that directly impinge on water quality. Activ-
ities such as removal of riparian vegetation, desnagging,
channelization and river regulation can affect the aquatic
biota by altering habitat availability, without necessarily
changing the physical and chemical properties of the
water itself. Where the intent of biological assessment is
to assess the 'health' (CEPA 1992) or 'biological integrity'
(Karr 1991) of a water body, this may not be an issue.
However, in other instances it may be necessary to assess
water quality impacts independently of those of habitat
modification, for example in order to regulate point
discharges of waste water.
The third, and most pressing, dilemma for the practis-
ing water pollution biologist is that the guidelines do not
specify the methods to be used to measure the biological
indicators they advocate, or the levels of statistical signific-
ance and power that should be attached to terms such as
'should not be altered', 'significant changes' and 'should
not vary'. Noting that the development of biological
assessment procedures is in its infancy in Australia, the
guidelines instead advocate that professional biologists
develop assessment programmes tailored to the specific
circumstances existing in each waterway system. They
provide some general advice on ways in which this can be
achieved.
Faced with the need for a biological procedure for
routine assessment of water quality in the Hawkesbury-
Nepean River system, NSW, I developed a rapid assess-
ment technique based on macroinvertebrates. I chose
macroinvertebrates for four reasons. First, they are ubi-
quitous and diverse in Australian rivers (Williams 1980b;
Lake 1982; Pearson et al, 1986), and the different taxa
vary widely in their sensitivities to pollutants. Therefore,
it is probable that most types of pollution will change
macroinvertebrate community composition. Second,
macroinvertebrates occupy a central role in the ecology
of Australian rivers and with their diverse feeding habits
(Chessman 1986) form many of the key links in aquatic
food chains. Their diversity and abundance are therefore
crucial to maintaining a balanced, functioning and healthy
river ecosystem. Third, macroinvertebrates are generally
sedentary and have life cycles ranging from a few weeks
to a few years (Marchant 1986), so their communities
recover only slowly if damaged by a disturbance episode.
The recent history of pollution or other disturbances in a
river can therefore be inferred from macroinvertebrate
assessment, even if the disturbance is not present at the
time of sampling. Finally, macroinvertebrates are a con-
venient size for field examination, storage and transport,
and can be readily collected in large numbers with
simple lightweight equipment.
123
A technique for low-cost, rapid assessment was re-
quired because of the need to survey large numbers of
sites using limited resources, and provide timely feedback
to water resource and wastewater managers. Several
procedures for rapid assessment using macroinvertebrates
have been developed, especially in the United States
(reviewed by Resh & Jackson 1993). However, many of
these require the presence of particular habitats, such as
riffles, of which there were none at many of the Hawkes-
bury-Nepean sites. Others involve relatively heavy equip-
ment which is not suitable for sampling sites in rugged
terrain where the only access is on foot. The Hawkes-
bury-Nepean procedure was designed to satisfy the
following key requirements: (i) it can be used in any type
of stream, ranging from upland cascades to meandering
lowland rivers and non-perennial creeks; (ii) it involves
only simple collecting gear, which can be readily trans-
ported, even to remote sites; (iii) collections are made
separately from all of the major habitat types present
within most streams. Comparisons between sites can
therefore be made separately for each habitat type. This
provides corroboration and reduces the confounding
effect of differences in the habitats present at each site;
(iv) all picking of specimens is done in the field and a
standardized number is collected. This avoids collection
of unwanted specimens, reduces the amount of material
to be transported to the laboratory, and results in a small
and predictable laboratory workload; and (v) a provisional
biological assessment of water quality can be made from
sampling at a single site, by calculating a simple biotic
index. However, comparison sites are always sampled
where suitable ones are available.
PROCEDURE
Site selection
At each site to be assessed, samples are collected from
within a 100 m reach of stream that does not traverse any
significant influence on water quality or flow volume,
such as a tributary, waste discharge point, waterfall, dam
or major weir. Small ( < 5 m ) weirs may be included in
the reach if there is flow over them and they do not
divert large amounts of water away from the river.
Sampling within 100 m of stream junctions is avoided
because of the possible influence of invertebrate drift
from a tributary into the main river, upstream migration
from the main river into a tributary, and incomplete
mixing of water below the junction. Sites are sampled
only under conditions of base or near-base flow.
Macroinvertebrate sampling and identification
Standardized samples are obtained from up to six habitat
types, depending on the number present at a site. These
 124 B, C, C H E S S M A N
are riffles, pool edges/backwaters, submerged macrophyte
beds, pool rocks, submerged wood and soft sediments.
For each habitat, 100 animals are normally collected.
However, collecting is terminated if this target cannot be
reached in 1 person hour. The aim is to collect as wide a
range of macroinvertebrates as possible within these
constraints; where a species is present in very large
numbers, no more than 10 specimens need to be collected.
The selection of only conspicuous or colourful specimens
is deliberately avoided and efforts are made to obtain
small and cryptic animals as well as larger ones. Since the
specimens are selected while alive, small and encased
animals are easily detected by their movements. All
specimens selected are preserved immediately in 70%
ethanol. Collecting gear is washed thoroughly between
samples.
Riffles are sampled with a hand-held dip net with
320x250 mm opening and 0,25 mm mesh. The sub-
stratum is disturbed to dislodge benthic organisms while
holding the collecting net downstream with its mouth
facing the disturbed area. Stones are moved, overturned
and scrubbed by kicking with the feet and rubbing with
the hands. Where possible, the feet are dug well into the
sediments to dislodge burrowing organisms, A total
distance of about 10 m is covered, including areas of
faster and slower current; this generally takes about 3-5
min. The net contents are then emptied into a large
white sorting tray and spread out in a small amount of
water to allow macroinvertebrate specimens to be picked
out with fine forceps and pipettes. Extra material is
collected if required to reach the target of 100 animals.
Pool edges and backwater areas with little or no
current are sampled with the same dip net used for riffle
sampling. Areas with overhanging banks and trailing
terrestrial vegetation are ideal, and the presence of surface-
dwelling insects is a good indication of a suitable collect-
ing point. The net is swept from open water towards the
shore, working over a bank length of about 10 m. In the
process, deposits of silt and detritus on the stream
bottom are stirred, so that benthic animals are suspended
and then caught in the net. The net contents are emptied
into a tray and processed as for riffle samples. Again,
extra material is collected if required,
Beds of aquatic macrophytes are sampled in a similar
manner to edges and backwaters, A dip net is swept over
a length of about 10 m, passing across the upper, middle
and lower portions of the plants. The net contents are
processed in a sorting tray and extra material is collected
as needed.
Pool-rock samples are taken from shallow stony areas
with little or no current. Rocks of various sizes, in
sufficient quantities to yield the target number of animals,
are quickly removed from the water and placed in buckets.
Very large rocks are usually a particularly rich source of
specimens. The rocks and any washings remaining in the
buckets are then placed on trays. As the rocks become
partly dry, specimens retreat to their undersides or emerge
from surface layers of periphyton and sediment, Macro-
invertebrates are picked off with forceps, care being
taken to probe through silt accumulations and the silken
retreats of caddis fly larvae.
Fallen branches and twigs lying in the stream are
removed from the water and allowed to become partly
dry. Specimens are picked off with forceps, bark being
lifted up and soft wood pulled apart to reveal cryptic
species. At some sites only a single piece of wood can be
found within the sampling reach, but where possible,
several pieces from different points, in areas of both fast
and slow current, are examined.
In deep lowland rivers, samples of soft sediments are
obtained with grabs lowered from a boat, Macroinverte-
brate specimens are separated by sieving (0,25 mm mesh)
and elutriation, and processed in a sorting tray as for
riffle, pool-edge and macrophyte samples.
All macroinvertebrate specimens are examined in the
laboratory under a stereomicroscope and identified to
family level using available keys (Hawking 1993), The
occurrence of each family is scored as rare (1-2 speci-
mens), scarce (3-4), common (5-8) or abundant (>8).
Calculation of biotic index
A biotic index is calculated using a modification of the
British Biological Monitoring Working Party score system
(Armitage et al. 1983), Numerous families of macro-
invertebrates that are widespread in river systems in
southeastern Australia have been awarded sensitivity
grades (Table 1), according to their tolerance or intoler-
ance of common types of pollutants as revealed in pub-
lished studies (Campbell 1978; Nicholas & Thomas 1978;
Arthington et al. 1982; Norris et al. 1982; Watson et al.
1982; Marchant et al. 1984; Norris 1986; Chessman &
Robinson 1987; Pearson & Penridge 1987; Cosser 1988;
Mackey 1988; Hogg & Norris 1991) and by the author's
unpublished observations. In some cases the grades are
necessarily a compromise, either because of variation in
the sensitivities of species within a family or because
some families are sensitive to certain types of poOutants
but relatively tolerant of others. For example, hydrobiid
snails are apparently sensitive to trace metal contamin-
ation (Norris et al. 1982) but tolerant of organic pollution
(CampbeU 1978; Cosser 1988).
For each collection from a defined habitat, the grades
of all families present are summed and the total is
divided by the number of families to provide an average
grade per family (SIGNAL or Stream Invertebrate Grade
Number Average Level). The calculation of average
grades is designed to reduce possible bias associated with
variations in stream size and sampling technique (Armi-
tage et al. 1983), A weighted index (SIGNAL-W) can be
 M A C R O I N V E R T E B R A T E S AND RIVER A S S E S S M E N T 125

calculated by multiplying the grade of each family present
by a value to represent its occurrence level (e.g. 1 for
rare, 2 for scarce, 3 for common and 4 for abundant),
summing the products, and dividing by the sum of the
occurrence values.
The status of sampling sites is classified according to
SIGNAL values as follows: SIGNAL value = greater
than 6, water quality status = clean water; 5-6, doubtful
quality, possible mild pollution; 4-5 probable moderate
pollution; and less than 4, probable severe pollution.
Time required for assessment
When using the procedure, two people can generally
sample two to four sites in a normal working day,
depending on access and the number of habitats present.
A person with substantial experience in macroinvertebrate
identification can process the samples from one site in
0.5 to 1 day, including the calculation of index values. It
is possible, although this has not yet been tested, that the
entire assessment could be made on site, using magnifying
glasses and portable microscopes {cf. Hilsenhoff 1988).
Preliminary results could then be reported to managers
within a day of the start of sampling.

Table 1. Interim pollution sensitivity grades for common families of eastern Australian river macroinvertebrates

Family Grade Family Grade Family Grade

Aeshnidae'.s," 6 Gelastocoridae 6 Naididae2.v,io,i2 1

Ameletopsidae 10 Gerridaeii 4 Nannochoristidae 10
Amphipterygidae 8 Glossiphoniidae" 3 Naucoridae 5
Ancylidae 6 Glossosomatidae'' 8 Nepidae" 5
Antipodoecidae 10 Gomphidae3,5>ii,i2 7 Neurorthidae 8
Athericidae 7 Gordiidae 7 Notonectidae'^Aii 4
Atriplectididae 10 Gripopterygidae2'4.6,8 7 Notonemouridae*'^ 8
AtyitJae 3,6,7,8,9,11 6 Gyrinidae8,ii 5 Odontoceridae4 8
Austroperlidae* 10 Haliplidae 5 Oniscigastridae 10
Baetidae2.3,4,6,7,8,9,io,ii 5 Haplotaxidae 5 Osmylidae 8
Belostomatidae" 5 Hebridae 11 6 Parastacidae" 7
Blephariceridae 10 Helicophidae 10 Philopotamidae 10
Caenidae2A4,6,8,io,ii,i2 7 Helicopsychidae4 10 Philorheithridae4,8 8
Calamoceratidae3 8 Hydraenidae" 7 Phreodrihdae 5
Calocidae 8 Hydridae^ 4 Physidae3,io 3
Ceinidae4 5 Hydrobiidae'"'-!'* 5 Planorbidaei-1.7,8,10,11 3
6 Hydrobiosidae''^'8 7 Polycentropodidae 8
Chironomidae '2,3,4,6,7,8,9, lo, 11,12 1 Hydrochidae 7 Protoneuridae' 7
Coenagrionidae3.5,7,8,i 1 7 Hydrometridae 5 Psephenidae'" 5
Coloburiscidae^ 10 Hydrophilidae" 5 Psychodidaei'3.'o 2
Conoesucidae4 8 Hydropsychidae' .3.4,6,8, lo, 11 5 Ptilodactylidae 10
Corbiculidae ' 6 Hydroptilidaei.3.4.7,ii,i2 6 Pyralidaeii 6
Corduliidae ' 7 Hygrobiidae 5 Scirtidae3>4,6 8
Corixidae'-*," 5 Hyriidae" 6 Sialidae 4
Corydalidae 4 Isostictidae 7 Simuliidae'''8,io 5
Culicidae" 2 Janiridae 5 Sphaeriidaei,',!! 6
Dixidae 8 Kokiriidae 10 Staphylinidae 5
Dugesiidae 3 Leptoceridaei.3.4,7,8,10,11,12 7 Stratiomyidae 2
Dytiscidae3.4,7,ii 5 Leptophlebiidaei^.3,4,6,7,8,10,11 10 Synlestidae 7
Ecnomidae3.4.6,8,i2 4 Lestidae'." 7 Synthemidae3'5 7
Elmidae3'''A^ 7 LibeUulidae3.5,n 8 Tabanidae" 5
Empididae* 4 Limnephilidae 8 Tasimiidae'' 7
Ephydridae 2 Lumbriculidae 1 Thaumaleidae 7
ErpobdeUidae 3 Lymnaeidae" 3 Thiaridaei" 7
Eusiridae 8 Megapodagrionidae3.5,7, lo 7 Tipulidae 5
Eustheniidae* 10 Mesoveliidae" 4 Tubificidaei.'''"'."''2 1
Gammaridae 6 Muscidae* 3 Veliidae" 4

Sources of information for individual families, in addition to the author's unpublished observations, are indicated as foUows:
1, CampbeU 1978; 2, Nicholas and Thomas 1978; 3, Arthington et al. 1982; 4, Norris et al. 1982; 5, Watson et al. 1982; 6, Marchant et
al. 1984; 1, Norris 1986; 8, Chessman and Robinson 1987; 9, Pearson and Penridge 1987; 10, Cosser 1988; 11, Mackey 1988; 12, Hogg
and Norris 1991.
126 B, C, CHESSMAN
DISCUSSION
The procedure was first tested in mid-1992, and the
current version is the result of minor modifications and
developments since that time. To date it has been used
for surveys of the Nepean River and some of its tri-
butaries. Cox's River and tributaries, and numerous
streams in the Blue Mountains, Streams and rivers in
these regions range from those draining pristine catch-
ments to others affected by broad-scale agricultural dev-
elopment and industrial activities such as quarrying,
coal mining and power generation. Some sites are immedi-
ately downstream of large dams or the discharges from
secondary wastewater treatment plants. The surveys have
had a variety of objectives, ranging from the identification
of degraded streams within water supply catchments to
the establishment of baseline conditions before the imple-
mentation of regional sewerage schemes and decommis-
sioning of outmoded sewage treatment works.
Like most rapid assessment methodologies, the Hawkes-
bury-Nepean procedure does not involve quantitative
sampling equipment such as Surber samplers because
such gear is bulky and time-consuming to operate. Non-
quantitative techniques such as kick sampling using
pond nets may obtain more or fewer taxa than Surber
samplers, depending on operator technique and the sub-
strata being sampled (Mackey et al. 1984; Storey et al.
1991; Kerans eta/, 1992), A particular advantage of non-
quantitative methods is that they can be used on sub-
strata that are not amenable to quantitative techniques
but contain characteristic taxa (Chessman & Robinson
1987), Quantitative data are not essential for river assess-
ment because classifications and ordinations of sites based
on binary (presence and absence) data are typically httle
different from those based on quantitative data (Bunn et
al. 1986; Marchant 1990), That is, most of the critical
information is provided by the occurrence of taxa rather
than their numerical abundance. Similarly, biotic indices
have been used successfully with binary or semi-quanti-
tative data (Hilsenhoff 1988; Lenat 1993; Wright et al.
1993),
In some respects, the Hawkesbury-Nepean sampling
procedure is similar to Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
(RBP) II and III of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (Plafkin et al. 1989), which are some-
times advocated for Australian application (e,g, ANZECC
1992), Rapid Bioassessment Protocols II and III involve
collections from both riffle/run habitats and coarse par-
ticulate organic matter (CPOM: leaves, needles, twigs
and bark). Where stony riffles or runs are not available,
other submerged fixed structures such as logs and bridge
abutments are substituted. At some ofthe Hawkesbury-
Nepean sites, especially in agricultural areas, none of
these habitats was present and RBP II or III could not
have been used. However, it was always possible to
obtain at least a pool-edge sample.
The Hawkesbury-Nepean sampling methods are more
akin to those developed by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (Lenat 1988). These in-
volve obtaining a composite sample of about 400-800
macroinvertebrates from 10 collections from a wide range
of habitats at each site, including riffles, banks, leaf
packs, rocks, logs and sand, Lenat (1988) has shown that
such samples yield large numbers of taxa for a relatively
low commitment of time, have low variability, and are
highly effective at detecting between-site differences.
Recently, Eaton and Lenat (1991) have achieved reliable
water quality assessment with a simplified version of the
North Carolina procedure, involving only four samples
(riffle kick-net, batik area sweep net, leaf packs and
rocks/logs). Only Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Tricho-
ptera are considered for this reduced version.
The current Hawkesbury-Nepean procedure requires
that macroinvertebrate specimens are identified only to
family level. There are several groups of Australian river
macroinvertebrates for which no keys are available at the
generic or specific levels. Even where keys are available,
accurate keying to species level is often possible only for
adults of a particular sex, or mature larvae, and may
require time-consuming procedures for dissection, chemi-
cal treatment and mounting of body parts. In many
cases, reliable identification to species level requires the
involvement of taxonomic experts.
Species-level identification is therefore difficult for
low-cost, rapid assessment of Australian rivers. Some
authors have questioned whether the environmental re-
quirements of particular groups of freshwater inverte-
brates can be generalized at taxonomic levels above
species (Resh & Unzicker 1975; Campbell 1981; Cranston
1990), However, when whole communities are considered,
discrimination between sites using classification and ordi-
nation can be as effective, or nearly as effective, at the
family level as at the species level (Furse et al. 1984;
Marchant 1990; Rutt et al. 1993), Family-level studies of
river macroinvertebrates have been used successfully for
such purposes as describing biogeographical pattems
across large areas (Corkum 1989) and assessing responses
to regulation (Armitage et al. 1987),
In the derivation of biotic indices similar to the one
proposed here, there is often considerable variation in
sensitivity or tolerance values between genera or species
in the same family (Hilsenhoff 1987; Lenat 1993), Never-
theless, where family-level values have been employed,
the resulting indices have still proved very useful
(Camargo 1993; Wright et al. 1993), Hilsenhoff (1988)
found a high degree of correlation between a family-level
biotic index and a species- and genus-level index applied
to streams in Wisconsin; as would be expected from the
averaging effect, the family index tended to indicate
slightly worse quality than the genus/species index in
clean streams and better quality in polluted streams.
Unfortunately, there is simply not enough information
 M A C R O I N V E R T E B R A T E S AND RIVER A S S E S S M E N T
available to derive species-level or even genus-level sensi-
tivity values for Australian stream macroinvertebrates.
A preliminary evaluation of the Hawkesbury-Nepean
procedure has been completed using data from the
Nepean River and its tributaries and streams in the Blue
Mountains (Growns et al, 1995). This testing has vali-
dated the current procedure for the assessment of stream
salinization and organic pollution from sewage treatment
plants. Several other studies are planned in order to
evaluate the procedure for application to other forms of
pollution, and to refine it further. The sensitivity grade
of each family will be tested and where necessary revised,
using procedures similar to those described by Hilsenhoff
(1987) and Lenat (1993). Several grades may be developed
for each family, each applicable to a different form of
pollution. Grades will also be derived at the genus level.
The relationships between biotic index values and various
environmental variables will also be explored, as has
been done in Britain and Italy (Armitage et al, 1983;
Rossaro & Pietrangelo 1993; Wright et al, 1993). This
may enable index values to be corrected, if necessary, for
seasonal and altitudinal factors and natural variations in
river morphology and hydrology. It may also assist in
disentangling the influences of habitat degradation and
deterioration in water quality.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the rapid tech-
niques described here are not advocated as a substitute
for detailed quantitative studies at the species level. Such
studies will always be needed, for example where the
precise quantification of the impact of a major develop-
ment is required, or where the conservation of rare
species is of concem. Rapid techniques are particularly
appropriate in two circumstances. The first of these is
when a preliminary survey is required over a broad area
and at a large number of sites. In such cases rapid
assessment can be used to describe general pattems and
to pick out those sites which appear to be most degraded.
Such sites can then be subjected to more detailed studies,
in order to confirm or modify the preliminary findings,
determine cause and effect relationships, and provide a
firmer basis for remedial management. The second main
use of rapid techniques is when a preliminary assessment
of the condition of a waterway is needed immediately for
management purposes.
There seems to be no reason, however, why rapid
techniques could not be used in impact assessment, in
cases where detection of impacts is required rather than
precise quantification. In some instances, quantification
may not provide sufficient additional information to
justify the expense of quantitative studies. If rapid assess-
ment is repeated in space and time according to an
appropriate design, the index values can be subjected to
parametric techniques of statistical analysis (e.g. Under-
wood 1991,1993; Green 1993). Alternatively, the matrix
of family occurrences in collections can be analysed by
non-parametric techniques, based on the calculation of
127
association measures, such as those advocated by Faith et
al, (1991) and Clarke (1993). The scope for further
development of such applications is wide.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to Jane Growns, Paul McEvoy and Debbie
Rae for helpful suggestions during the development of
the procedure and the preparation of this paper. Adam
Boey, Ruth O'Connor and Ian Wright also tested the
procedure and provided valuable feedback on its appli-
cation. Other members of the Stream Studies Section of
Australian Water Technologies are thanked for their help
in the field and laboratory.
REFERENCES
ANZECC (1992) National Water Quality Management Strategy.
Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine
Waters. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conserv-
ation Council, Canberra.
ANZECC/AWRC (1992) National Water Quality Management
Strategy, Folicies and Principles, A Draft Reference Document,
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation
Council and Australian Water Resources Council, Canberra.
Armitage P. D., Moss D., Wright J. F. & Furse M. T (1983) The
performance of a new biological water quality score system
based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted
running-water sites. Wat. Res, 17, 333-47.
Armitage P. D., Gunn R. J. M., Furse M. T, Wright J. F. &
MossD. (1987) The use of prediction to assess macroinverte-
brate response to river regulation. Hydrobiologia 144, 25-32.
Arthington A. H., Conrick D. L., ConneU D. W. & Outridge P. M.
(1982) The Ecology ofa FoUuted Urban Creek, Australian Water
Resources Council Technical Paper No. 68. Australian Govem-
ment Publishing Service, Canberra.
Bunn S. E., Edward D. H. & Loneragan N. R. (1986) Spatial and
temporal variation in the macroinvertebrate fauna of streams
of the northern jarrah forest, Westem Australia: Community
structure. Freshwat. Biol. 16, 6791.
Camargo J. A. (1993) Macrobenthic surveys as a valuable tool for
assessing freshwater quality in the Iberian Peninsula. Envir,
Momt. Assess. 24,71-90.
Campbell I. C. (1978) A biological investigation of an organically
polluted urban stream in Victoria. Aust, J. Mar, Freshwat,
Res, 29,275-91.
Campbell I. C. (1981) Biology, taxonomy and water quality monitor-
ing in Australian streams. Water 8, 11-17.
Campbell 1. C. (1982) Biological water quality: An Australian
viewpoint. In: Water Quality Management: Monitoring Frograms
and Diffuse Runoff (ed. B. T Hart) pp. 39-66. Chisholm
Institute of Technology, Melbourne.
CEPA (1992) Towards Healthier Rivers: The Ills Affecting Our Rivers
and How We Might Remedy Them. Commonwealth Environ-
ment Protection Agency, Canberra.
Chessman B. C. (1986) Dietary studies of aquatic insects from two
Victorian rivers. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 37, 129-46.
Chessman B. C. & Robinson D. P. (1987) Some effects of the
1982-83 drought on water quality and macroinvertebrate
 128 B, C. CHESSMAN
fauna in the lower La Trobe River, Victoria, Aust. J. Mar.
Freshwat. Res. 38, 289-99,
Qarke K, R. (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes
in community structure, Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117-43.
Cosser P, R, (1988) Macroinvertebrate community structure and
chemistry of an organically polluted creek in south-east Queens-
land. Amt. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 39, 671-83.
Cranston P. S. (1990) Biomonitoring and invertebrate taxonomy,
Envir. Monit. Assess. 14, 265-73.
Corkum L. D. (1989) Patterns of benthic invertebrate assemblages
in rivers of northwestern North America. Freshwat. Biol. 21,
191-205,
Eaton L, E. & Lenat D. R. (1991) Comparison of a rapid bioassess-
ment method with North Carolina's qualitative macroinverte-
brate collection method. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 10, 335-8.
Faith D, P., Humphrey C. L, & Dostine P. L. (1991) Statistical
power and BACI designs in biological monitoring: Comparative
evaluation of measures of community dissimilarity based on
benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Rockhole Mine
Creek, Northern Territory, Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat.
Res. 42, 589-602.
Furse M, T,, Moss D., Wright J. F. & Armitage P. D. (1984) The
influence of seasonal and taxonomic factors on the ordination
and classification of running-water sites in Great Britain and
on the prediction of their macro-invertebrate communities.
Freshwat. Biol. 14, 257-80.
Green R. H. (1993) Application of repeated measures designs in
environmental impact and monitoring studies. Aust. J. Ecol.
18, 81-98.
Growns J. E., Chessman B. C , McEvoy P. K. & Wright L A.
(1995) Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates:
Case sudies in the Nepean River and Blue Mountains, NSW.
Aust.J. Ecol. 20, 130-41.
Hawking J. (1993) A guide to keys and zoological information to
identify macroinvertebrates from fresh waters in Australia. Aust.
Soc. Limnol. Newsl. 31, 44-57.
Hilsenhoff W. L. (1987) An improved biotic index of organic
stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomol. 20, 31-9.
Hilsenhoff W, L. (1988) Rapid field assessment of organic pollution
with a family-level biotic index. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7,
65-8.
Hogg L D. & Norris R, H, (1991) Effects of runoff from land
clearing and urban development on the distribution and abund-
ance of macroinvenebrates in pool areas of a river. Aust. J.
Mar. Ereshwat. Res. 42, 507-18.
Jolly V, H, & Chapman M, A, (1966) A preliminary biological study
of the effects of pollution on Farmer's Creek and Cox's River,
New South Wales. Hydrobiologia 27, 160-87.
Karr J, R, (1991) Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of
water resource management. Ecol. Applic. 1, 66-84,
Kerans B. L,, Karr J. R, & Ahlstedt S. A, (1992) Aquatic inverte-
brate assemblages: Spatial and temporal differences among
sampling protocols, 7, N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 11, 377-90.
Lake P. S, (1982) Ecology of macroinvertebrates of Australian
upland streams review of current knowledge. Bull. Aust.
Soc. Limnol. 8, 1-16,
Lenat D. R, (1988) Water quality assessment of streams using a
qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates.
J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1, 222-33,
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, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 12,
279-90.
Mackey A. P. (1988) The biota of the River Dee (Central Queens-
land, Australia) in relation to the effects of acid mine drainage,
Proc.R. Soc. Qld 99, 9-19.
Mackey A. P., Cooling D. A, & Berrie A. D. (1984). An evaluation
of sampling strategies for qualitative surveys of macroinverte-
brates in rivers, using pond nets. jf. Appl. Ecol. 21, 515-34,
Marchant R, (1986) Some quantitative aspects of the life history of
aquatic insects in temperate Australian rivers. In: Limnology in
Australia (eds P, de Decker & W. D, Williams) pp, 151-8.
CSIRO, Melbourne and W. Junk, Dordrecht.
Marchant R, (1990) Robustness of classification and ordination
techniques applied to macroinvertebrate communities from
the La Trobe River, Victoria. Aust. J. Mar. Ereshwat. Res. 41,
493-504.
Marchant R., Mitchell P. & Norris R. (1984) Distribution of
benthic invertebrates along a disturbed section of the La Trobe
River, Victoria: An analysis based on numerical classification,
Aust. J. Mar. Ereshwat. Res. 35, 355-74.
Mclvor C, C, (1976) The effect of organic and nutrient enrichment
on the benthic macroinvertebrate community of Moggill Creek,
Queensland. Water i, 16-21,
Nicholas W L. & Thomas M, (\978) Biological Release and Recycling
of Toxic Metals from Lake and River Sediments. Australian
Water Resources Council Technical Paper No. 33. Australian
Govemment Publishing Service, Canberra.
Norris R. H, (1986) Mine waste pollution of the Molonglo River,
New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory: Effec-
tiveness of remedial works at Captains Elat mining area, Aust.
J. Mar. Ereshwat. Res. 37, 147-57.
Norris R. H., Lake P. S. & Swain R. (1982) Ecological effects of
mine effluents on the South Esk River, north-eastern Tasmania
HI. Benthic macroinvertebrates. Aust. J. Mar. Ereshwat. Res.
33, 789-809.
Pearson R. G., Benson L. J. & Smith R. E. W. (1986) Diversity and
abundance of the fauna in Yuccabine Creek, a tropical; rain-
forest stream. In: Limnology in Australia (eds P, de Decker &
W. D. Williams) pp. 329-42. CSIRO, Melbourne and W
Junk, Dordrecht.
Pearson R. G. & Penridge L, K, (1987) The effeCTs of pollution by
organic sugar mill effluent on the macroinvertebrates of a
stream in tropical Queensland, Australia, J. Env. Manag. 24,
205-215,
Plafkin J. L., Barbour M. T, Porter K, D., Gross S, K, & Hughes
R. M. (1989) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams
and Rivers. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington.
Resh V. H. & Jackson J. K. (1993) Rapid assessment approaches to
biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Ereshwater
Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates (eds D, M, Rosen-
berg & V, H, Resh) pp. 195-233. Chapman & Hall, New York.
Resh V, H, & Unzicker J. D. (1975) Water quality monitoring and
aquatic organisms: The importance of species identification, J,
Wat. Pollut. Control Eed. 47, 9-19.
Rossaro B, & Pietrangelo A. (1993) Macroinvertebrate distribution
in streams: A comparison of CA ordination with biotic indices,
Hydrobiologia 263, 109-18,
Rutt G. P., Pickering T, D, & Reynolds N. R, M, (1993) The
impact of livestock farming on Welsh streams: The develop-
ment and testing of a rapid biological method for use in the
assessment and control of organic pollution from farms, Envir.
Pollut. 81, 217-28,
SPCC(1990) Water Quality Criteria for New South Wales Discussion
Paper. State Pollution Control Commission, Sydney,
 M A C R O I N V E R T E B R A T E S AND RIVER A S S E S S M E N T
Storey A. W., Edward D. H. D. & Gazey P. (1991) Surber and kick
sampling: A comparison for the assessment of macroinverte-
brate community structure in streams of south-western Aus-
tralia. Hydrobiologia 211, 111-21.
Underwood A. J. (1991) Beyond BACI: Experimental designs for
detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations
in natural populations. Aust, J, Mar, Freshwat, Res. 42, 569-87.
Underwood A. J. (1993) The mechanics of spatially replicated
sampling programmes to detect impacts in a variable world.
Aust.J, Ecol, 18,99-116.
VEPA (1983) Recommended Water Quality Criteria. First Edition.
Victorian Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne, pub-
lication No. 165.
129
Watson ]. A. L., Arthington A. H. & Conrick D. L. (1982) Effect of
sewage effluent on dragonflies (Odonata) of Bulimba Creek,
Brisbane. Aust. J, Mar. Ereshwat. Res. 33, 517-28.
Williams W. D. (1980a) Biological monitoring. In: An Ecological
Basis for Water Resource Management (ed. W. D. Williams) pp.
192-204. Australian National University Press, Canberra.
Williams W. D. (1980b) Australian Ereshwater Life. The Inverte-
brates of Australian Inland Waters. Macmillan, Melbourne.
Wright J. F., Eurse M. T, Armitage P. D. & Moss D. (1993) New
procedures for identifying running-water sites subject to en-
vironmental stress and for evaluating sites for conservation,
based on the macroinvertebrate fauna. Arch. Hydrobiol, 127,
319-26.