1749 Abstract Many land management water quality programs must assess water quality using aquatic macroinvertebrates for nonregulatory purposes but conduct these assessments using regulatory protocols. The costs of providing data using regulatory protocols can be fnancially burdensome for these programs. Macroinvertebrate water quality monitoring in Great Smoky Mountians National Park in the United States is assessed using six sampling methods (kicknet, Dnet, rockwash, sand, leafpack, and visual samples). Data for this study were collected from nine wadeable streams fowing through high-gradient mountainous forests. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa were identifed to the lowest taxonomic unit as was practical. Comparisons were made among diferent sampling methods to determine if nonregulatory programs can obtain similar data with fewer collection methods. Richness, abundance, Shannon diversity, evenness, and dominance were compared among each of the sampling methods. Efort ratio (abundance/richness) was also compared. Methods producing high-diversity samples were then combined and compared with the current six-method protocol. All comparisons were made using an ANOVA and general linear model (P < 0.05). Using combinations of kicknet– visual or rock wash–Dnet–visual samples resulted in similar richness, Shannon diversity, evenness, and dominance compared with all methods, while having lower abundance and efort ratios. Reducing sampling methods will reduce time invested in feld sampling, sorting, and identifcations, which will reduce program costs for nonregulatory management programs. Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Nonregulatory Water Quality Programs Elizabeth McCarty,* Rebecca Nichols, John McCreadie, and Jerome Grant L and management agencies (e.g., the US National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, multiple state resource agencies, and many private land management groups) as well as government regulatory agencies (the USEPA, European Environmental Agency [European Water Framework Directive and European Marine Strategy Framework Directive], and the South African Department of Environmental Afairs) use water quality monitoring programs that depend on aquatic macroinvertebrate data. Te USEPA and state environmen- tal agencies have been at the forefront of using aquatic insects to assess water quality in a regulatory context in the United States (USEPA 2016). Standard operating procedures are deter- mined by these regulatory agencies for collecting and assessing aquatic macroinvertebrate community data (Barbour et al. 1999; TDEC, 2011; NCDENR, 2013). However, many land manage- ment programs that collect water quality data are not under the same mandate as environmental regulatory agencies and do not operate with the same level of environmental monitoring bud- gets. Tese programs do have to show that their management tactics are preserving water quality, but they do not report water quality data within the regulatory framework. Ofen these pro- grams use regulatory protocols, which may be more rigorous than what is necessary for their purposes or practical for their operating budgets. Macroinvertebrate bioassessment protocol implementation, while providing critical water quality data, can be time consum- ing and costly. Ofen management programs face shrinking bud- gets, while their charge to monitor and maintain water quality remains the same. For example, national parks must show that management tactics are preserving water quality, but they are not required to report water quality with standardized methods that ultimately will be incorporated into a water quality report to the US Congress, as US state regulatory programs are required to do. In addition, many of these programs have overlap between Abbreviations: EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; GRSM, Great Smoky Mountains National Park; HWA, hemlock woolly adelgid; kick–vis, kicknet and visual sampling method combination; NCDENR, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; PAST, Paleontological Statistics Program; rock–Dnet–vis, rockwash, Dnet, visual sampling method combination; rock–vis, rockwash and visual sampling method combination. E. McCarty, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, 2360 Rainwater Rd., Univ. of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793; R. Nichols, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 1316 Cherokee Orchard Rd., National Park Service, Gatlinburg, TN 37738; J. McCreadie, Dep. of Biology, 5871 USA Dr. North, Univ. of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688; J. Grant, Dep. of Entomology and Plant Pathology, 2505 E. J. Chapman Dr., 370 Plant Biotechnology Building, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996. Assigned to Associate Editor Nikolina Udikov-Kolic. © 2019 The Author(s). Re-use requires permission from the publisher. J. Environ. Qual. 48:1749–1757 (2019) doi:10.2134/jeq2019.01.0024 Received 23 Jan. 2019. Accepted 30 July 2019. *Corresponding author (elizabeth.mccarty@uga.edu). Journal of Environmental Quality LANDSCAPE AND WATERSHED PROCESSES TECHNICAL REPORTS Core Ideas • Aquatic macroinvertebrate nonregulatory sampling methods can be reduced. • Rockwash–Dnet–visual or kicknet–visual samples have similar diversity to all methods. • Reducing sampling methods will save field, sorting, and identification time. • Programs can get similar nonregulatory water quality data for less money and efort. Published September 19, 2019