text: It is possible to create IBIs for use by minimally trained monitoring personnel, however the precision obtainable is lower than that conducted by trained professionals. Safeguards to assure robustness in spite of potential misidentifications or protocol variations require careful testing. Ongoing quality control by established experts is needed to maintain data integrity, and the analysis of IBI results becomes more complex.  Use of trained volunteers is being pioneered by government agencies responsible for monitoring large numbers of water bodies with limited resources, such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and local volunteer stream monitoring programs supported by MPCA. EPA has published guidance to assist volunteer programs in formulating IBIs and related findings. While IBIs from such programs are legally admissible in US courts, defending the validity of conclusions based solely on such results is unlikely to be feasible.
  Agreement among multiple IBIs from data collected by established professionals can be more conclusive. A case in point is the phenomenon that stream IBI scores indicate significant impairment, or partial ecological collapse where more than 10 to 15 percent of the immediately surrounding watershed is impervious due to urbanization. Identifying reasons for such impairments, and possible exceptions to these trends, are major research challenges for academics studying cumulative watershed effects, and the use of low-impact development techniques to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff pollution.