Grantee Research Project Results
2002 Progress Report: A Biologically Driven National Classification Scheme for U.S. Streams and Rivers
EPA Grant Number: R829498Title: A Biologically Driven National Classification Scheme for U.S. Streams and Rivers
Investigators: Herlihy, Alan T. , Pan, Yangdong , Hughes, Robert
Institution: Oregon State University , Portland State University
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2005 (Extended to January 31, 2006)
Project Period Covered by this Report: February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003
Project Amount: $747,541
RFA: Development of National Aquatic Ecosystem Classifications and Reference Conditions (2001) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Aquatic Ecosystems , Water
Objective:
Analyzing stream biological assemblage data at a national scale is extremely difficult and rarely attempted due to the problems of compiling the necessary database. The overall goal of this project is to assemble a national database for the conterminous 48 U.S. states of stream/river fish, macroinvertebrate, and periphyton assemblages derived from regional-scale synoptic surveys. Our specific objectives are to: (1) use our national database to develop 10-30 biologically driven national "classes" of stream systems, (2) separate natural from anthropogenic effects on stream ecological condition within each class, and (3) establish quantitative relationships between catchment and riparian condition and water-body condition (structure and function).
Progress Summary:
Most of the first year has been devoted to the process of constructing the national-scale database of fish, macroinvertebrate, and periphyton species data and associated chemical, habitat, and locational information. Complete Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)/Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) state-wide probability survey data have been obtained for 20 states representing about half the land area of the 48 states. EMAP data also exist for portions of another 11 states. All told, we acquired data for 2,980 sites. Data from another 4,146 sites were gathered from non-EMAP sources to fill in spatial data gaps. Not all indicators were measured at all sites. The combined national database has more than 7,000 sites with 4,831 sites having fish data, 4,881 sites having macroinvertebrate data, and 1,504 sites having periphyton data.
Future Activities:
We will be formatting all of the taxonomic data into a common nomenclature and resolving inconsistencies and differences in taxonomic names across datasets. This is not much of a problem with the fish data as the total species pool is relatively well known and there already is an existing EMAP fish species coding scheme. Bug and periphyton data, however, require a thorough evaluation of taxa names to identify those that are the same species due to either misspellings or differences in taxonomic naming. We will spend most of the next project period conducting the multivariate analyses of the national database and identifying preliminary national clusters as outlined in the original proposal.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 42 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
streams, rivers, fish, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, aquatic indicators, stream ecology, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, EMAP, classification, monitoring., RFA, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Scientific Discipline, Aquatic Ecosystem, Aquatic Ecosystems & Estuarine Research, Hydrology, Ecology and Ecosystems, rivers, water quality, anthropogenic impact, bioassessment, classifying reference conditions, ecological classification, streams, riverine ecosystems, national classification system, aquatic ecosystems, anthropogenic stressProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.