A bioassessment approach for mid-continent great rivers: the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio (USA)

The objectives of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Great River Ecosystems (EMAP-GRE) are to (1) develop and demonstrate, in collaboration with states, an assessment program yielding spatially unbiased estimates of the condition of mid-continent great rivers; (2) evaluate environmental indicators for assessing great rivers; and (3) assess the current condition of selected great river resources. The purpose of this paper is to describe EMAP-GRE using examples based on data collected in 2004–006 with emphasis on an approach to determining reference conditions. EMAP-GRE includes the Upper Mississippi River, the Missouri River, and the Ohio River. Indicators include biotic assemblages (fish, macroinvertebrates, plankton, algae), water chemistry, and aquatic and riparian physical habitat. Reference strata (river reaches for which a single reference expectation is appropriate) were determined by ordination of the fish assemblage and examination of spatial variation in environmental variables. Least disturbed condition of fish assemblages for reference strata was determined by empirical modeling in which we related fish assemblage metrics to a multimetric stressor gradient. We inferred least disturbed condition from the y-intercept, the predicted condition when stress was least. Thresholds for dividing the resource into management-relevant condition classes for biotic indicators were derived using predicted least disturbed condition to set the upper bound on the least disturbed condition class. Also discussed are the outputs of EMAP-GRE, including the assessment document, multimetric indices of condition, and unbiased data supporting state and tribal Clean Water Act reporting, adaptive management, and river restoration.

[1]  C. Seeliger,et al.  Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams : surface waters , 1999 .

[2]  Thomas P. Simon,et al.  Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities , 2020 .

[3]  G. Seegert.  Considerations regarding development of index of biotic integrity metrics for large rivers , 2000 .

[4]  Meeting the Goal of Biological Integrity in Water-Resource Programs in the US Environmental Protection Agency , 1994, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[5]  Don L. Stevens,et al.  VARIABLE DENSITY GRID‐BASED SAMPLING DESIGNS FOR CONTINUOUS SPATIAL POPULATIONS , 1997 .

[6]  Jonathan G. Kennen,et al.  Revised Protocols for Sampling Algal, Invertebrate, and Fish Communities as Part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program , 2002 .

[7]  R. Hughes,et al.  Historical changes in large river fish assemblages of the Americas , 2005 .

[8]  William L. Graf,et al.  Damage Control: Restoring the Physical Integrity of America’s Rivers , 2001 .

[9]  D. Bolgrien,et al.  Bank stabilization, riparian land use and the distribution of large woody debris in a regulated reach of the upper Missouri River, North Dakota, USA , 2004 .

[10]  M. Miller,et al.  9 – OHIO RIVER BASIN , 2005 .

[11]  B. Cade,et al.  A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists , 2003 .

[12]  D. Bolgrien,et al.  Environmental Monitoring and Assessment of a Great River Ecosystem: The Upper Missouri River Pilot , 2005, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[13]  K. Blocksom.  A Performance Comparison of Metric Scoring Methods for a Multimetric Index for Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams , 2003, Environmental management.

[14]  Keith M. Somers,et al.  Considerations when Using the Reference Condition Approach for Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems , 2005 .

[15]  D. Bolgrien,et al.  Inter‐habitat variation in the benthos of the Upper Missouri River (North Dakota, USA): implications for Great River bioassessment , 2006 .

[16]  J. Lyons,et al.  Development, Validation, and Application of a Fish-Based Index of Biotic Integrity for Wisconsin's Large Warmwater Rivers , 2001 .

[17]  Immortal River: The Upper Mississippi in Ancient and Modern Times , 2005 .

[18]  W. Gardner,et al.  Spatiotemporal Patterns and Changes in Missouri River Fishes , 2005 .

[19]  John L Stoddard,et al.  Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[20]  J. Stoddard,et al.  Using Relative Risk to Compare the Effects of Aquatic Stressors at a Regional Scale , 2006, Environmental management.

[21]  D. Blevins.  The Response of Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River , 2006 .

[22]  David P. Larsen,et al.  Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potentials , 1986 .

[23]  Richard E. Sparks,et al.  Need for Ecosystem Management of Large Rivers and Their Floodplains These phenomenally productive ecosystems produce fish and wildlife and preserve species , 1995 .

[24]  J. Thorp.  Linkage between Islands and Benthos in the Ohio River, with Implications for Riverine Management , 1992 .

[25]  W. Richardson,et al.  Past, Present, and Future Concepts in Large River Ecology How rivers function and how human activities influence river processes , 1995 .

[26]  Peter B. Bayley,et al.  Understanding Large River-Floodplain EcosystemsSignificant economic advantages and increased biodiversity and stability would result from restoration of impaired systems , 1995 .

[27]  J. Stoddard,et al.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. , 2004 .

[28]  M. Delong.  8 – UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN , 2005 .

[29]  Michael Reid,et al.  ESTABLISHING THE CONDITION OF LOWLAND FLOODPLAIN RIVERS : A PALAEO-ECOLOGICAL APPROACH , 1999 .

[30]  Erich Emery,et al.  Development of a Multimetric Index for Assessing the Biological Condition of the Ohio River , 2003 .

[31]  T. Prato.  ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF LARGE RIVERS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE MISSOURI RIVER 1 , 2003 .

[32]  Contemplating the Assessment of Great River Ecosystems , 2005, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[33]  R. Norris,et al.  What is river health , 1999 .

[34]  W. Junk.  The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems , 1989 .

[35]  C. Cushing,et al.  Rivers of North America , 2005 .

[36]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  The multimetric approach to bioassessment, as used in the United States of America. , 2000 .

[37]  J. R. Karr,et al.  Restoring life in running waters , 1998 .

[38]  R. White,et al.  10 – Missouri River Basin , 2005 .

[39]  F. Douglas Shields,et al.  Can Large Rivers Be Restored?Most restoration projects are only attempts to rehabilitate selected river sections to a predetermined structure and functio , 1995 .

[40]  R. Jacobson,et al.  Flow and form in rehabilitation of large-river ecosystems: An example from the Lower Missouri River , 2006 .

[41]  Wayne S. Davis,et al.  Biological assessment and criteria : tools for water resource planning and decision making , 1995 .

[42]  Limin Yang,et al.  Development of a 2001 National land-cover database for the United States , 2004 .

[43]  J. Meyer,et al.  Standards for ecologically successful river restoration , 2005 .