1.83 MB

Big Muddy Bioassessment:
Can Biocriteria be Developed
for the
Lower Missouri River
Barry C. Poulton – U.S. Geological Survey
Randy J. Sarver – Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
River Studies Station
Columbia Environmental Research Center

Past
Brief Overview of LMR Macroinvertebrate Studies
Characterize community in different habitats & substrate types
Examine efficiency and suitability of sampling methods
Current
Identify longitudinal effects from cumulative water quality impacts
Validate large river metrics & identify longitudinal response gradients
Future
Evaluate biological condition and water resource status
Develop large river biocriteria and relate to aquatic life use attainment

Alterations in “Great” Rivers
Habitat & Substrate Distribution (Relative Contribution)
Organic Matter (Storage, Transport, Entrainment)
Hydrology (Flow Regime, Depth & Velocity)
Cumulative Urban (CSO’s, Wastewater, Contaminants)
Collective Agricultural (Contaminants, Nutrients)
Lower Missouri River (1211 km or 752 miles)

Sioux City
Macroinvertebrate
Sampling Locations
Omaha
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Missouri
St. Joseph
Kansas City
St. Louis
Jefferson City
100 kilometers

Why Large River Bioassessment / Biocriteria
Water Resources Status Reporting (CWA, etc)
Aquatic Life - Designated Use Support (Health)
Realistic Benchmarks for Recovery & Rehabilitation
Track Community Changes due to Exotic Species
Relationship to Important Vertebrate Species

Summary of Large River Biocriteria Issues
1. Basic Ecological Knowledge of Fauna
2. Sampling Methods / Habitats
3. Index Period
4. Statistical Design & Analysis
5. Degree of Similarity with Wadeable Streams
6. Response Attributes (Metrics)
7. Metric Expectations (Reference )

Typical habitats within a meander segment
Outside Meander
Rock Revetment
Channelized Lower Missouri River
Depositional Mud
Behind Wing Dikes
Snags
(Organic Matter)
Channel Border
Sand Bar Complex
Valley Wall
Natural Rock

Rock Revetment, located on
outside bend of a meander

Depositional Mud, located
behind wing dike

Justification for Selection of the 2 LMR Habitats
1. coarse substrate (revetment) 2. depositional mud (dike fields)
Same as for bioassessments in wadeable streams / small rivers
Habitats are repeatable and have distinct composition
Sampling methods used are well-established and reliable for LMR
Many widely-used metrics were developed specifically for them
Most significant, most stable, and highest species richness
High frequency allows randomization within relatively short reaches

Percent (%) of Taxa Richness in 4 Substrate Types Lower
Missouri River - mainstem
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Other
Chiron
Trichop
Odonat
Plecop
Ephem
0%
Rock Mud Sand Organic Total
78 69
12 30 132
49 21 4
2
21
Total Species
Unique Species

Two Examples of Rare and Unique Macroinvertebrate Taxa Restricted to Large Rivers
Attaneuria ruralis
Pseudiron centralis

Taxa Distribution in 2 Habitats – Lower Missouri River
9
18
13
EPOT
Chironomidae
E - 24
P - 11
O - 9
T - 13
57
Rock Basket & Kick Net
(Coarse Substrate)
9
24
Non-Insect
Other
12
E - 9
P - 3
O - 2
T - 10
24
Petite Ponar
(Depositional Mud)

Summary - Currently Funded LMR Study
Goal
Establish longitudinal response gradient to validate endpoint metrics
18 sites, 2 habitats, 3 methods, Autumn index period
Simultaneous basic water quality and sediment contaminants
Sampling Design & Approach
upstream/downstream site selection based on longitudinal features
(urban areas, tributaries), with pre-stratification by habitat
“Site” Definition
A 10 km reach that includes repetition of the 2 selected habitats

LMR Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment - Assumptions Made
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Wadeable stream approaches will work with some
modifications or adjustments
Some reliable metrics used in wadeable streams tell us
the same story when used in large rivers
Communities in “Great” rivers must be viewed as
integrators of all combined or cumulative stressors
Cumulative effects of perturbations can be separated
from other effects (biogeography, geology, lattitude)
Each “Great” river needs to be evaluated individually

One Possible Approach for Assessment of Large River Sites
Metric Value, Condition Score, or % of Reference
Benchmark (State Criteria Based on Reference EDU or Highest Attainable Value)
75 th Percentile
Best Value for a Missouri River Site or Reach Based on Large Number of Sites
50 th Percentile
25 th Percentile
Sites To Be Evaluated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

List of Candidate Metrics – LMR Macroinvertebrates
*
*
*
*
Total Taxa Richness
EPT (% and richness)
% Chironomidae
% Ephemeroptera
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index
Scraper/Filtering Collector Ratio
Density (# / m 2 )
% Dominant Taxon
EPT/Chironomidae Ratio
*
*
*
*
*
*
EPOT (% and richness)
% Filtering Trichoptera
% Large River Taxa
Chironomidae Taxa Richness
% Oligochaeta
For Coarse Substrate (Rock)
For Depositional Substrate (Mud)
For Both Substrates
Response trend or statistical significance
among sites detected in pilot study

Percent (%) Ephemeroptera
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Percent (%) Mayflies for 6 LMR sites
Petite Ponar data from 1996
50 th Percentile
25 th Percentile
0
Nebraska City
(RM 559)
St. Joseph
(RM 505)
Parkville
(RM 377)
Sites Above Kansas City Metro Area
Lexington
(RM 319)
Glasgow
(RM 228)
Hermann
(RM 93)
Sites Below Kansas City Metro Area

Relative score for 6 LMR sites – Biotic Condition
60
Rock basket data and 10 macroinvertebrate metrics
50
10-Metric Score
40
30
20
50 th Percentile
25 th Percentile
10
0
Nebraska City
(RM 559)
St. Joseph
(RM 505)
Parkville
(RM 377)
Sites Above Kansas City Metro Area
Lexington
(RM 319)
Glasgow
(RM 228)
Hermann
(RM 93)
Sites Below Kansas City Metro Area

Summary – What we know so far about Big Muddy Bioassessment
Habitats / substrates are distinct and longitudinally repeatable,
and can be successfully sampled using standard methods
Community contains both generalists and habitat specialists,
including some taxa that are restricted to large rivers
Even though most of the rock has been artificially added, it
contains the most diverse macroinvertebrate communty
Site assessment possible with standard metrics and approaches,
but modifications or adjustments needed are not well understood
Relative biological condition among sites can be evaluated, but
“best value” may need to be used for reference benchmark

LMR Future Research Needs
Validation of large river metrics – include
simultaneous measurements of sediment
and water quality indicators
Higher site density – 50 or more
Biological condition gradient tiers
need to be developed
Biological response signatures
need to be identified
Multi-state consortium – implementation