Landscape Based Identification of Human Disturbance Gradients and Reference Conditions for Michigan Streams

  • Lizhu Wang
  • Travis Brenden
  • Paul Seelbach
  • Arthur Cooper
  • David Allan
  • Richard ClarkJr.
  • Michael Wiley
Article

Abstract

Identification of reference streams and human disturbance gradients are crucial steps in assessing the effects of human disturbances on stream health. We describe a process for identifying reference stream reaches and assessing disturbance gradients using readily available, geo-referenced stream and human disturbance databases. We demonstrate the utility of this process by applying it to wadeable streams in Michigan, USA, and use it to identify which human disturbances have the greatest impact on streams. Approximately 38% of cold-water and 16% of warm-water streams in Michigan were identified as being in least-disturbed condition. Conversely, approximately 3% of cold-water and 4% of warm-water streams were moderately to severely disturbed by landscape human disturbances. Anthropogenic disturbances that had the greatest impact on moderately to severely disturbed streams were nutrient loading and percent urban land use within network watersheds. Our process for assessing stream health represents a significant advantage over other routinely used methods. It uses inter-confluence stream reaches as an assessment unit, permits the evaluation of stream health across large regions, and yields an overall disturbance index that is a weighted sum of multiple disturbance factors. The robustness of our approach is linked to the scale of disturbances that affect a stream; it will be less robust for identifying less degraded or reference streams with localized human disturbances. With improved availability of high-resolution disturbance datasets, this approach will provide a more complete picture of reference stream reaches and factors contributing to degradation of stream health.

Keywords

Bioassessment Fish Human disturbance Reference Stream 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscape and riverscapes: The influence of land use on river ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 35, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, J. D., Erickson, D. L., & Fay, J. (1997). The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology, 37, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, G. G. (2005). ‘The state of stream restoration in the upper Midwest, USA’, Master’s Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  4. Booth, D. (1991). Urbanization and the natural drainage system – Impacts, solutions and prognoses. Northwest Environmental Journal, 7, 93–118.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, D., & Reinelt, L. (1993). Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems – Measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In Proceedings of Watershed 93, A National Conference on Watershed Management (pp. 545–550). March 21–24, 1993, Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  6. Brenden, T. O., Clark, R. D., Jr., Cooper, A. R., Seelbach, P. W., Wang, L., Aichele, S. S., et al. (2006). A GIS framework for collecting, managing, and analyzing multi-scale variables across large regions for river conservation and management. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, & P. W. Seelbach (Eds.), Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages (pp. 49–74). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, M. T., & Vivas, M. B. (2005). Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 101, 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cade, B. S., Terrell, J. W., & Schroeder, R. L. (1999). Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. Ecology, 80, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crunkilton, R., Kleist, J., Ramcheck, J., DeVita, W., & Villeneueve, D. (1996). Assessment of the response of aquatic organisms to long-term in situ exposures of urban runoff. In L. A. Roesner (Ed.), Effects of watershed development on aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of an engineering foundation conference. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  10. Dale, V. H., & Beyeler, S. C. (2001). Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, 2, 287–293.Google Scholar
  11. Danz, N. P., Regal, R. R., Niemi, J., Brady, V. J., Hollenhorst, T., Johnson, L. B., et al. (2005). Environmental stratified sampling design for the development of Great Lakes environmental indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 102, 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ESRI (2002). PC ARC/GIS Version 8.2. Redlands, California: Environmental System Research Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Fausch, K. D., Lyons, J., Karr, J. R., & Angermeier, P. L. (1990). Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 8, 123–144.Google Scholar
  14. Galli, J. (1991). Thermal impacts associated with urbanization and storm water management best management practices (p. 188). Washington, District of Columbia: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Maryland Department of Environment.Google Scholar
  15. Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S., & Jones, E. B. D. (1998). Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past. Proceedings of National Science USA, 95, 14843–14847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hughes, R. M. (1995). Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In W. S. Davis & T. P. Simon (Eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making (pp. 31–48). Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P., & Omernik, J. M. (1986). Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potential. Environmental Management, 10, 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes, R., Wang, L., & Seelbach, P. W. (2006). Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological communities. American Fisheries Society Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, R. C., & Clark, C. C. (1987). Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect communities. Water Resources Bulletin, 23, 1047–1055.Google Scholar
  20. Karr, J. R., & Chu, E. W. (1999). Restoring life in running waters, better biological monitoring. Covelo, California: Island Press.Google Scholar
  21. Klein, R. D. (1979). Urbanization and stream quality impairment. Water Resources Bulletin, 15, 948–963.Google Scholar
  22. Koel, C. J., & Stevenson, K. E. (2002). Effects of dredged material placement on benthic macroinvertebrates of the Illinois River. Hydrobiologia, 474, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laessig, R. E., & Duckett, E. J. (1979). Canonical correlation analysis: potential for environmental health planning. AJPH, 69, 353–359.Google Scholar
  24. Lyons, J. (1992). Using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to measure environmental quality in warmwater streams of Wisconsin. US Forest Service, St. Paul, Minnesota, General Technical Report NC-149.Google Scholar
  25. Lyons, J., Wang, L., & Simonson, T. D. (1996). Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for cold-water streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDonnell, M. J., & Pickett, S. T. A. (1990). Ecosystem structure and function along urban–rural gradients: An unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology, 71, 1232–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moscrip, A. L., & Montgomery, D. R. (1997). Urbanization, flood frequency, and salmon abundance in Puget Lowland streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33, 1289–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norris, R. H., & Hawkins, C. P. (2000). Monitoring river health. Hydrobilogia, 435, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Omernik, J. M. (2003). The misuse of hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, reporting, and ecosystem management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39, 563–573.Google Scholar
  30. Paul, M. J., & Meyer, L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roth, N. E., Allan, J. D., & Erickson, D. L. (1996). Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology, 11, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SAS Institute (2004). SAS/STAT online user’s guide, version 9.1. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Schlosser, I. J. (1982). Trophic structure, reproductive success, and growth rate of fishes in a natural and modified headwater stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 39, 968–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seelbach, P. W., & Wiley, M, J. (1997). Overview of the Michigan rivers inventory project. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fish Division Technical Report 97-3, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  35. Seelbach, P. W., Wiley, M. J., Baker, M. E., & Wehrly, K. E. (2006). Initial classification of river valley segments across Michigan’s lower Peninsula. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, & P. W. Seelbach (Eds.), Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages (pp. 25–48). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, R. A., Schwarz, G. E., & Alexander, R. B. (1997). Regional interpretation of water-quality monitoring data. Water Resources Research, 33, 2781–2798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suter, G. W. II., Norton, S. B., & Cormier, S. M. (2002). A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21, 1101–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1996). Biological criteria: Technical guidance for streams and small rivers. EPA/822/B-96/00, Washington, District of Columbia.Google Scholar
  39. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2000) Stressor identification guidance document. EPA-822-B-00-025, Washington, District of Columbia.Google Scholar
  40. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2005). Use of biological information to better define designated aquatic life uses in state and tribal water quality standards: Tiered aquatic life uses. EPA-822-R-05-001, Washington, District of Columbia.Google Scholar
  41. Wang, L., & Lyons, J. (2003). Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages as indicators of stream degradation in urbanizing watersheds. In T. P. Simon (Ed.), Biological response signatures: Multimetric index patterns for assessment of freshwater aquatic assemblages (pp. 227–250). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, L., Lyons, J., & Kanehl, P. (2002). Effects of watershed best management practices on habitat and fish in Wisconsin streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38, 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, L., Lyons, J., & Kanehl, P. (2003). Impacts of urban land cover on trout streams in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 132, 825–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., Bannerman, R., & Emmons, E. (2000). Watershed urbanization and changes in fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36, 1173–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., & Gatti, R. (1997). Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22(6), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Rasmussen, P., Kanehl, P., Seelbach, P., Simon, T., et al. (2003). Influences of landscape- and reach-scale habitat on stream fish communities in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 60, 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang, L., Seelbach, P. W., & Hughes R. (2006a). Introduction to landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, & P. W. Seelbach (Eds.), Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages (pp. 1–23). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  48. Wang, L., Seelbach, P. W., & Lyons, J. (2006b). Effects of levels of human disturbance on the influence of catchment, riparian, and reach scale factors on fish assemblages. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, & P. W. Seelbach (Eds.), Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages (pp. 199–219). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  49. Weaver, L. A., & Garman, G. C. (1994). Urbanization of a watershed and historical changes in a stream fish assemblage. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society, 123, 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wernick, B. G., Cook, K. E., & Schreier, H. (1998). Land use and streamwater nitrate-N dynamics in an urban–rural fringe watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34, 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whittier, T. R., Stoddard, J. L., Hughes, R. M., & Lomnicky, G. (2006). Associations among catchment- and site-scale disturbance indicators and biological assemblages at least- and most-disturbed stream and river sites in the Western USA. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, & P. W. Seelbach (Eds.), Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages (pp. 641–664). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  52. Wichert, G. A. (1995). Effects of improved sewage effluent management and urbanization on fish associations of Toronto streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15, 440–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilhelm, J. G. O., Allan, J. D., Wessell, K. J., Merritt, R. W., & Cummins, K. W. (2005). Habitat assessment of non-wadeable rivers in Michigan. Environmental Management, 35, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lizhu Wang
    • 1
  • Travis Brenden
    • 1
    • 3
  • Paul Seelbach
    • 1
  • Arthur Cooper
    • 1
  • David Allan
    • 2
  • Richard ClarkJr.
    • 1
  • Michael Wiley
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Fisheries Research, Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Quantitative Fisheries Center, Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations