Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angradi, T. R. (Ed.). (2006). Environmental monitoring and assessment program, Great River ecosystems field operations manual. EPA/620/R-06/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. www.epa.gov/emap/greatriver/. Accessed 20 February 2008

  • Angradi, T., Bolgrien, D., Meyer, R., Nawrocki, T., & Starry M. (2006a). GIS model for assessing potential great river reference reaches. Paper presented at the American Water Resources Association 2006 Spring Specialty Conference on GIS and Water Resources IV, Houston, Texas

  • Angradi, T. R., Schweiger, E. W., & Bolgrien, D. W. (2006b). Inter-habitat variation in the benthos of the Upper Missouri River (North Dakota, USA): Implications for Great River bioassessment. River Research and Applications, 22, 755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angradi, T. R., Schweiger, E. W., Bolgrien, D. W., Ismert, P. C., & Selle, T. (2004). Bank stabilization, riparian land use and the distribution of large woody debris in a regulated reach of the Upper Missouri River, North Dakota, USA. River Research and Applications, 20, 829–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., & Yoder, C. O. (2000). The multimetric approach to bioassessment as used in the United States of America. In J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe, & M. T. Furse (Eds.), Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques (pp. 281–292). Ambleside, Cumbria: Freshwater Biological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayley, P. B. (1995). Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. BioScience, 45, 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benke, A. C., & Cushing, C. E. (Eds.) (2005). In Rivers of North America. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blevins, D. W. (2006). The response of suspended sediment, turbidity, and velocity to historic alterations of the Missouri River. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1301.

  • Blocksom, K. A. (2003). A performance comparison of metric scoring methods for a multimetric index for mid-Atlantic highlands streams. Environmental Management, 31, 670–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, M. F., & Somers, K. M. (2005). Considerations when using the reference condition approach for bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 40, 347–360.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cade, B. S., & Noon, B. R. (2003). A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 412–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chick, J. (2006). Zooplankton indicators for Great River bioassessment. (Paper presented at the EPA EMAP-GRE Reference Condition Workshop, Cincinnati, Ohio). www.epa.gov/emap/greatriver/rcw/Chick.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2008

  • DeLong, M. D. (2005). Upper Mississippi River Basin. In A. C. Benke & C. E. Cushing (Eds.), Rivers of North America (pp. 327–373). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, E. B., Simon, T. P., McCormick, F. H., Angermeir, P. L., DeShon, J. E., Yoder, C. O., et al. (2003). Development of a multimetric index of assessing the biological condition of the Ohio River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 132, 791–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fremling, C. R. (2005). Immortal river: The Upper Mississippi in ancient and modern times. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galat, D. L., Berry, C. S., Gardner, W. M., Hendrickson, J. C., Mestle, G. E., Power, G. J., et al. (2005a). Spatiotemporal patterns and changes in Missouri River fishes. In J. N. Rinne, R. M. Hughes, & B. Calamusso (Eds.), Historical changes in large river fish assemblages of the Americas (pp. 249–291). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galat, D. L., Berry, C. S., Peters, E. J., & White, R. G. (2005b). Missouri River Basin. In A. C. Benke & C. E. Cushing (Eds.), Rivers of North America (pp. 427–480). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, J. A., & Shields, F. D. (1995). Can large rivers be restored? BioScience, 45, 142–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, W. L. (2001). Damage control: Restoring the physical integrity of America’s rivers. Presidential Address. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, L. W. (1996). Floral and faunal trends in the middle Missouri River. In D. L. Galat & A. G. Frazier (Eds.), Overview of river-floodplain ecology of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Volume 3, Science for floodplain management into the 21st century (pp. 73–90). Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer, C., Huang, C., Yang, L., Wylie, B., & Coan, M. (2004). Development of a 2001 national landcover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 70, 824–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M. (1995). Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In W. Davis & T. Simon (Eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making for rivers and streams (pp. 31–47). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P., & Omernik, J. M. (1986). Regional reference sites: A method for assessing stream potential. Environmental Management, 10, 629–635.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D., & Davis, W. (1994). Meeting the goal of biological integrity in water-resource programs in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 13, 591–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. E., Kurtz, J. C., & Fisher, W. S. (Eds.) (1999). In Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. EPA/620/R-99/005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, R. B., & Galat, D. L. (2006). Flow and form in rehabilitation of large-river ecosystems: An example from the Lower Missouri River. Geomorphology, 77, 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. J., Richardson, W. B., & Naimo, T. J. (1995). Past, present, and future concepts in larger river ecology. BioScience, 45, 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B., & Sparks, R. E. (1989). The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Special Publications in Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 106, 110–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., & Chu, E. W. (1999). Restoring life in running waters. Washington, D.C.: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, P. R., Levin, P., Robison, E. G., Seeliger, C., & Peck, D. (1999). Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. EPA/600/3-88/021a. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazorchak, J. M., Hill, B. H., Avrill, D. K., Peck, D. V., & Klemm, D. J. (Eds.) (2000). Environmental monitoring and assessment program—surface waters: Field operations and methods for measuring the ecological condition of non-wadeable rivers and streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/nonws1.html. Accessed 20 February 2008

  • Lyons, J. L., Piette, R. P., & Niermeyer, K. W. (2001). Development, validation and application of a fish-based index of biotic integrity for Wisconsin’s Large Warmwater Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130, 1077–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M., Blair, R., Bolgrien, D., Brown, B., Dlugosz, J., Hale, S., et al. (2004). The U.S. environmental protection agency’s environmental monitoring and assessment program. In G. B. Wiersma (Ed.), Environmental monitoring (pp. 649–668). New York: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulton, S. R. II, Kennon, J. G., Goldstein, R. M., & Hambrook J. A. (2002). Revised protocols for sampling algal, invertebrate and fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-150, Reston, VA

  • Norris, R. H., & Thoms, M. C. (1999). What is river health? Freshwater Biology, 41, 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2002). The Missouri River ecosystem: Exploring the prospects for recovery. The National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., et al. (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 208–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, D. V., Lazorchak, J. M., & Klemm, D. J. (Eds). (2001). EMAP surface waters: Western pilot study field operations manual for wadeable streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/ewwsm01.html. Accessed 20 February 2008

  • Prato, T. (2003). Adaptive management of large rivers with special reference to the Missouri River. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39, 935–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger, E. W., Bolgrien, D. W., Angradi, T. R., & Kelly, J. R. (2004). Environmental monitoring and assessment of a great river ecosystem: the upper Missouri River pilot. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 103, 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seegert, G. (2000). Considerations regarding development of index of biotic integrity metrics for larger rivers. Environmental Science and Policy, 2, s99–s106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, T. P., & Lyons, J. (1995). Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. In W. S. Davis & T. P. Simon (Eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making (pp. 245–262). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, T. P., & Sanders, R. E. (1999). Applying an index of biotic integrity based on great-river fish communities: Considerations in sampling and interpretations. In T. P. Simon (Ed.), Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities (pp. 479–505). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, R. E. (1995). Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience, 45, 168–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens Jr., D. L. (1997). Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations. Environometrics, 8, 167–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, J. L., Larsen, D. P., Hawkins, C. P., Johnson, R. K., & Norris, R. H. (2006). Setting expectations for ecological condition of running waters: The concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications, 16, 1267–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, J. L., Peck, D. V., Olsen, A. R., Larsen, D. P., Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C.P., et al. (2005b). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): Western streams and rivers statistical summary. EPA/620/R-05/006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. www.epa.gov/emap/west/html/docs/wstream.html. Accessed 20 February 2008.

  • Stoddard, J. L., Peck, D. V., Olsen, A. R., Paulsen, S. G., Van Sickle, J., Herlihy, A. T., et al. (2005a). An ecological assessment of western streams and rivers. EPA/620/R-05/005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strobel, C. J., & Heitmuller, T. (2001). National coastal assessment field operations manual. EPA/620/R-01/003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoms, M. C., Ogden, R. W., & Reid, M. A. (1999). Establishing the condition of lowland floodplain rivers: A palaeo-ecological approach. Freshwater Biology, 41, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorp, J. E. (1992). Linkage between islands and benthos in the Ohio River, with implications for riverine management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49, 1873–1882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (2006). Best practices for identifying reference condition in Mid-Atlantic streams. EPA/260/F/06/002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • USGS. (1999). Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River System -1998: A report of the long term resource monitoring program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. LTRMP 99-T001.

  • Van Sickle, J., Stoddard, J. L., Paulson, S. G., & Olsen, A. R. (2006). Using relative risk to compare the effects of aquatic stressors at a regional scale. Environmental Management, 38, 1020–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, D., Johnston, K., & Miller, M. (2005). Ohio river basin. In A. C. Benke & C. E. Cushing (Eds.), Rivers of North America (pp. 375–424). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Boulevard, Duluth, MN, 55804, USA

    T. R. Angradi, D. W. Bolgrien, T. M. Jicha, M. S. Pearson, B. H. Hill, D. L. Taylor, A. R. Batterman, M. F. Moffett, C. M. Elonen & L. E. Anderson

  2. National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO, 80525, USA

    E. W. Schweiger

  3. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Kansas, MO, 66101, USA

    L. Shepard

Authors
  1. T. R. Angradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. W. Bolgrien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. M. Jicha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. S. Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. H. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. L. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. E. W. Schweiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. Shepard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. A. R. Batterman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. F. Moffett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. C. M. Elonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. L. E. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. R. Angradi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Angradi, T.R., Bolgrien, D.W., Jicha, T.M. et al. A bioassessment approach for mid-continent great rivers: the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio (USA). Environ Monit Assess 152, 425–442 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0327-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0327-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation