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

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Volumn 152, Issue 1-4, 2009, Pages 425-442

  Angradi, Theodore R ^a   Bolgrien, D W ^a   Jicha, T M ^a   Pearson, M S ^a   Hill, B H ^a   Taylor, D L ^a   Schweiger, E W ^b   Shepard, L ^a   Batterman, A R ^a   Moffett, M F ^a   Elonen, C M ^a   Anderson, L E ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL PARK SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioassessment; EMAP; Great rivers; Indicator; Least disturbed condition; Missouri River; Ohio River; Reference condition; Stressors; Upper Mississippi River

Indexed keywords

BIOASSESSMENT; EMAP; GREAT RIVERS; INDICATOR; LEAST DISTURBED CONDITION; MISSOURI RIVER; OHIO RIVER; REFERENCE CONDITION; STRESSORS; UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER;

ECOSYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; FISH; MEATS; OCEAN HABITATS;

RIVERS;

BIOINDICATOR; BIOMONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; RIVER; WATER QUALITY;

ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HABITAT QUALITY; HUMAN IMPACT (ENVIRONMENT); INDICATOR ORGANISM; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; RIVER ECOSYSTEM; UNITED STATES; WATER QUALITY;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOGRAPHY; HUMANS; MISSISSIPPI; MISSOURI; OHIO; RIVERS; UNITED STATES;

MISSISSIPPI RIVER; MISSOURI RIVER; NORTH AMERICA; OHIO RIVER; UNITED STATES;

ALGAE;

EID: 63749109167     PISSN: 01676369     EISSN: 15732959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0327-1     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Bayley, P. B. (1995). Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. BioScience, 45, 153-158.
7. Benke, A. C., & Cushing, C. E. (Eds.) (2005). In Rivers of North America. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Cade, B. S., & Noon, B. R. (2003). A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 412-420.
12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Fremling, C. R. (2005). Immortal river: The Upper Mississippi in ancient and modern times. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Gore, J. A., & Shields, F. D. (1995). Can large rivers be restored? BioScience, 45, 142-152.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P., & Omernik, J. M. (1986). Regional reference sites: A method for assessing stream potential. Environmental Management, 10, 629-635.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Johnson, B. J., Richardson, W. B., & Naimo, T. J. (1995). Past, present, and future concepts in larger river ecology. BioScience, 45, 131-145.
28. 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.
29. Karr, J. R., & Chu, E. W. (1999). Restoring life in running waters. Washington, D.C.: Island.
30. 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.
31. 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
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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
35. Norris, R. H., & Thoms, M. C. (1999). What is river health? Freshwater Biology, 41, 197-209.
36. NRC (2002). The Missouri River ecosystem: Exploring the prospects for recovery. The National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
37. 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.
38. 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
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Seegert, G. (2000). Considerations regarding development of index of biotic integrity metrics for larger rivers. Environmental Science and Policy, 2, s99-s106.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Sparks, R. E. (1995). Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience, 45, 168-182.
45. Stevens Jr., D. L. (1997). Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations. Environometrics, 8, 167-195.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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. 407-423.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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.