An Overview of Fish Assemblage - US EPAWabash River Gammon (1967-present) Simon & Stahl (1999)...

Chris O. YoderMidwest Biodiversity Institute &

Center for Applied Bioassessment & BiocriteriaP.O. Box 21561

Columbus, Ohio 43221-0561

An Overview of Fish Assemblage Assessments in Great and Large Rivers of

the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River Basins

2002 EMAP SymposiumMay 9, 2002

#########################################################################################################################

##############################################################################################################################################################################################################################

###############################

#######################################################################################################

##########################################################################################################################

#

######################################

#######################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

##############################################################################################

#Wabash RiverGammon

(1967-present)Simon & Stahl (1999)

IDNR/IDEM

Major Ohio RiverTributaries

Ohio EPA(1979-present)

Ohio RiverMainstem

ORSANCO(1992-present)

Ohio EPA(1986-1992)

Gammon(1971-1978)

Electric Utilities(1974-present)

Fish Assemblage Assessments of Large and Great Rivers in the Upper Ohio Basin

Slide Used Courtesy of John Lyons, Wisconsin DNR

Wisconsin – Upper Mississippi Basin

History of Large River Fish Assemblage Assessment

Since Late 1960s – improved electrofishing equipment & technology (pulsed DC, sophisticated electronics).

·Early 1970s: – Gammon’s work on the Wabash River, Indiana; resulted in development of single-gear approach (shoreline electrofishing based on distance).

·

1980s/1990s – Ohio EPA initiated statewide use of electrofishing to survey fish assemblages; followed by IBI development and biological criteria adoption.

·

Late 1980s – Hughes & Gammon work on the Willamette River, Oregon; addressed challenges with depauperate fish faunas in bioassessment and IBI development.

·

1990s – Western EMAP (Large Coldwater Rivers), ORSANCO (Ohio R. mainstem), and Wisconsin Statewide Large Rivers (Lyons, IBI), several others in midwest U.S.

·

Large Rivers: SingleLarge Rivers: Single--Gear Electrofishing ApproachGear Electrofishing Approach

Sampling along shoreline Sampling along shoreline of main channel borderof main channel border

Ohio EPA NonOhio EPA Non--Wadeable MethodsWadeable Methods

Electrofishing Gear Array: Electrofishing Gear Array: Wadeable to NonWadeable to Non--WadeableWadeable Effort: Distance SampledEffort: Distance Sampled

Logistics: Equipment & Logistics: Equipment & Access IssuesAccess Issues Multiple Habitats SampledMultiple Habitats Sampled

ELECTROFISHING METHODSELECTROFISHING METHODS

WisconsinWisconsinOne mile of shoreline; daytime sampling; 3000 W, 60 Hz; 1 netter (17 mm mesh); motor in downstream direction

EPA EPA –– EMAPEMAP80X width along shoreline; daytime sampling; 2500 W, 120 Hz; 1 netter (1/4” mesh); row in downstream direction

OhioOhio500m of shoreline; daytime sampling; 5000 W, 120 Hz; 1 netter (1/4” mesh); motor in downstream direction

ORSANCO (Ohio R.)ORSANCO (Ohio R.)500m of shoreline; nighttime sampling; 5000 W, 120 Hz; 1 netter (1/4” mesh); motor in downstream direction

Sample Processing & Data ManagementSample Processing & Data Management

Fish Are Placed OnFish Are Placed On--BoardBoardIndividual or Batch Individual or Batch Measurements (Weights, Measurements (Weights, Anomalies, etc.)Anomalies, etc.)

Data Recorded in FieldData Recorded in Field Data Stored ElectronicallyData Stored Electronically

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Num

ber o

f Spe

cies

IBI S

core

Cumulative Distance Sampled (Km)

Methods testing to determine effect of effort and effectiveness.

Methods Testing and Evaluation

•

• Conduct repeated samplings under controlled circum-stances.

• Species richness increases with distance; rate of increase diminishes.

• IBI reaches asymptote at shorter distance.

DayNight

Num

ber o

f Spe

cies

5

10

15

20

25

Muskingum RiverOhio River

Effect of Time of Day on Electrofishing Efficiency: Impounded Rivers

Large Rivers Fish Assemblage Assessments

Standardized & Representative Sampling - pulsed D.C. electrofishing methods, summer – fall seasonal index period.

·Relative Abundance - numbers and weight (biomass) per unit distance (effort).Data Quality Objectives - species level I.D. based on regional ichthyology keys and AFS nomenclature.Key Component of Biocriteria - IBI, MIwb, and component metrics; support development of tiered use classes.Longitudinal Sampling Design - longitudinal reach-scaleSampling and interpretation of results.·Reach Scale Considerations - include entirety of mainstemand all habitat types; metric development considers each.·Experienced Biologists - regional fauna, natural history, response signatures, impact types.·

···

Standardized Data Standardized Data Collection SupportsCollection Supports

Biocriteria Biocriteria Development Development

(IBI, etc.)(IBI, etc.)

Fisheries Management

Resource Management

Basic Knowledge of

Resources

NongameManagement

Water Quality Management

The Abundance and Size of Smallmouth Bass Corresponds to the IBI in Ohio Streams & Rivers• Smallmouth bass are one of the most popular and wide- spread game fish in Ohio and achieve their highest numbers and size in streams and rivers which attain WWH and EWH.• As a top carnivore, smallmouth bass abundance and size decrease as overall aquatic community condition and health declines.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Rel. Wt.

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Rel. No.

V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEP.

V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEP.

n=50 n=356 n=1178 n=1846 n=683

n=50 n=356 n=1178 n=1846 n=683

IBI<18

IBI<28

IBI<38IBI<48

IBI>50

IBI<18

IBI<28

IBI<38 IBI<48

IBI>50

IBI>18

IBI>28IBI>38

IBI>18

IBI>28 IBI>38

INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY <18 18-27 28-37 38-47 48-60

Developing an IBI that accurately

depicts human impacts

on large rivers...


Wisconsin Wisconsin ––N. Lakes/ForestsN. Lakes/Forests Ohio Ohio –– Allegheny PlateauAllegheny Plateau

Ohio River Ohio River –– Ohio/Ky.Ohio/Ky. Oregon Oregon –– CascadesCascades

REFERENCE CONDITIONREFERENCE CONDITION

POINT SOURCESPOINT SOURCES

Domestic WastewaterDomestic Wastewater Industrial WastewaterIndustrial Wastewater

Multiple, Interactive SourcesMultiple, Interactive Sources Acute/Chronic EffectsAcute/Chronic Effects

NONPOINT SOURCESNONPOINT SOURCES

Severe Bank ErosionSevere Bank Erosion Urban StormwaterUrban Stormwater

Siltation of SubstratesSiltation of SubstratesRiparian EncroachmentRiparian Encroachment

HYDROMODIFICATION HYDROMODIFICATION

Hydroelectric ProductionHydroelectric Production Flow FluctuationsFlow Fluctuations

Habitat ModificationHabitat Modification LowLow--head Damshead Dams

Characteristics of a good IBI:Relatively fast, straightforward sampling and analysis

Accurate depiction of human impacts on ecosystem

Low variation when no change in human impacts

Ability to disaggregate individual metrics and data attributes for other uses

····

OHIO EPA HEADWATER WADEABLE BOATABLE MODIFIED SITE TYPE SITE TYPE SITE TYPE IBI METRICs (<20 SQ. MI.) (20-300 MI.2) (200-6000 MI.2)

1. Total Native Species X X X 2. #Darter Species X #Darters + Sculpins X* %Round-bodied Suckers X* 3. #Sunfish Species X X #Headwater Species X* %Pioneering Species X* 4. #Sucker Species X X #Minnow Species X* 5. #Intolerant Species X X #Sensitive Species X* 6. %Tolerant Species X X X 7. %Omnivores X X X 8. %Insectivores X X X 9. %Top Carnivores X X10. %Simple Lithophils X* X* X*11. %DELT Anomalies X X X12. Number of Individuals X X X

- Substitute for original IBI metric described by Karr (1981) and Fausch et al. (1984)*

Ohio EPA Modified IBIs for Streams and Rivers

Development, Validation, and Application

of a Fish-Based Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)

for Wisconsin’s Large Warmwater Rivers

John Lyons

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources


Hydropower Peaking

Major effects on short (< 5 km)

riverine tailwaters; reduced

effects on long (> 35 km)

riverine tailwaters


Biological Criteria: I• Narrative ratings or numerical values which are based on the numbers and kinds of aquatic organisms (i.e., assemblage) which are found to inhabit a particular stream or river sampling location.

Biological Criteria: II

• Biological criteria are indexed to the reference assemblage of aquatic organisms within a particular geographical region (i.e., ecoregion) and with respect to stream and river size.

Con

ditio

n of

the

Bio

tic C

omm

unity

[Spe

cific

to E

coty

pe] Evident changes in structure due to loss of some rare native

taxa; shifts in relative abundance; ecosystem level functions fully maintained through redundant attributes of the system.

Natural structural, functional, and taxonomic integrity is preserved.

Human Disturbance GradientLOW HIGH

Extreme changes in structure; wholesale changes in taxonomic composition; extreme alterations from normal densities; organism condition is often poor;

Tiered Aquatic Life Use Conceptual Model: Draft Biological Tiers(10/22 draft)

proposed CWA protection & propagation threshold

3

2

1

5

4

6

Structure and function similar to natural community with some additional taxa & biomass; no or incidental anomalies; sensitive non-native taxa may be present; ecosystem level functions are fully maintained

Moderate changes in structure due to replacement of sensitive ubiquitous taxa by more tolerant taxa; overall balanced distribution of all expected taxa; ecosystem functions largely maintained.

Sensitive taxa markedly diminished; conspicuously unbalanced distribution of major groups from that expected; organism

condition shows signs of physiological stress; ecosystem function shows reduced complexity and redundancy; increased build up or export of unused materials.

anomalies may be frequent; ecosystem functions are extremely altered.

Ohio Biological Criteria: Adopted May 1990(OAC 3745-1-07; Table 7-14)

Demonstrating Changes Through Time: Scioto River 1980 - 1994

Stressor Agent(s)

Habitat Structure

Biological Response

Flow Regime

Energy Source

Biotic Interactions

Water Quality & Toxicity

Biological Index or metric

Stressor Metric

This model is an explicit statement of multiple causation

The Linkage From Stressor Effects to Ecosystem Response

LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for Columbus WWTPs

LEVEL 2:Columbus constructs AWT by July 1, 1988; permit conditions attained

ADMINISTRATIVE INDICATORS

WWTP

$$$$NPDES

LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD, etc. are reduced

STRESSORS

LEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream pollutant levels; enhanced assimilation

EXPOSURE

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Amm

onia

Loa

ding

(kg/

day)

N=143 148 151 134 152 153 151 153152 153121

YEAR

153153153153153153153153 153

30 Days Average Permit LimitWeekly Average Permit Limit

O30S

Columbus S outherly WWTP

Amm

onia

-N (m

g/l)

No

Dat

a

Summer: Data CollectedJune through October

N = 18 36 54 104

No

Dat

a

66 7134 105108 104

30-Day Average Criteria*

Maximum Criteria*

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1971

-72

1973

-74

1975

-76

1977

-78

1979

-80

1981

-82

1983

-84

1985

-86

1987

-88

1989

-91

1992

-93

1994

-95

Scioto River Near Commercial Point (RM 115.3)

LEVEL 6: Biological recovery evidenced in biocriteria; 3 yrs. post AWT

RESPONSE

An Overview of Fish Assemblage - US EPAWabash River Gammon (1967-present) Simon & Stahl (1999)...

Documents

Transcript of An Overview of Fish Assemblage - US EPAWabash River Gammon (1967-present) Simon & Stahl (1999)...