Driftless Area Streams in Karstic Agricultural Watersheds: Best Management Practices, Biotic Integrity, and Environmental Stressors

Abstract

To protect streams in agricultural watersheds, best management practices (BMPs) are implemented to reduce or prevent contaminated runoff from reaching surface waters. Over the course of three growing seasons (2000–2002), this study assessed physical, chemical, and biological indicators of water quality at 13 total stream sites in two agricultural watersheds (Garvin Brook, Whitewater River) in southeastern Minnesota USA, where BMPs have been used for over 50 years prior to the study period. Some sites in both watersheds exhibited impaired water quality due to high turbidities, high levels of total suspended solids (TSS) and fecal coliform bacteria, and low fish and benthic macroinvertebrate biotic integrities. Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling of water quality indicators and principal components analysis of fish and invertebrate communities highlighted varying degrees of differences between watersheds. On average, Garvin watershed sites exhibited better water quality during 2000–2002 than sites in the Whitewater watershed, likely because more headwater reaches were surveyed in Garvin Brook. A fish community index biotic integrity (IBI) was significantly negatively correlated with turbidities, TSS, and fecal coliform bacteria levels, but the benthic macroinvertebrate community IBI was not correlated to any water quality indicator or to the fish IBI. More recent studies in these watersheds and current impaired waters listings continue to indicate significant and ongoing water quality issues, so continued water quality monitoring is needed in these two watersheds to highlight and prioritize problematic subwatersheds for future conservation efforts to reduce or prevent agriculture-related runoff from reaching the stream networks.

Keywords

Agriculture / Trout streams / Coldwater / Fish IBI / Benthic macroinvertebrates / Turbidity / Fecal coliform bacteria / BMPs

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be found at: https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/1031, Table S1: Summary of water quality variables at stream sites in the Whitewater River and Garvin Brook watersheds, 2000–2002. Values are medians, with minimum and maximum values in parentheses; Table S2: Fish collected at stream sites in the Whitewater River and Garvin Brook watersheds during 2002. Stream site designations as in Figure 1; Table S3: Benthic macroinvertebrates collected at stream sites in the Whitewater River and Garvin Brook watersheds during 2002. Stream site designations as in Figure 1.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the many Winona State University biology students who assisted with field collections and macroinvertebrate sorting and identification. Laboratory analysis of water samples was conducted by the Southeast Minnesota Analytical Service, Department of Chemistry, Winona State University. Collecting permits were provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Fisheries.

Ethics Statement

Fish collections were carried out under special permit (No. 10907; approved 4 February 2002) from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Section of Fisheries. At the time the field studies were conducted (2000–2002), the Winona State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee excluded field studies of lower vertebrates from its purview. However, this research complied with all current ethical standards.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Funding

Funding was provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Armour CL, Duff DA, Elmore W. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 1991, 16, 7-11. Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/19911957963 (accessed on 26 December 2025).

[2] Matthaei CD, Piggott JJ, Townsend CR. Multiple stressors in agricultural streams: Interactions among sediment addition, nutrient enrichment and water abstraction. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 639-649. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365—2664.2010.01809.x

[3] Hall LW, Jr., Anderson RD, Killen WD, Alden RW, III. An analysis of multiple stressors on resident benthic communities in a California agricultural stream. Air Soil Wat. Res. 2018, 11, 1178622118777761. DOI: 10.1177/1178622118777761

[4] Derose KL, Battaglia CF, Eastburn DJ, Roche LM, Becchetti TA, George HA, et al. Riparian health improves with managerial effort to implement livestock distribution practices. Rangeland J. 2020, 42, 153-160. DOI: 10.1071/RJ20024

[5] Burdon FJ, McIntosh AR, Harding JS. Habitat loss drives threshold response of benthic invertebrate communities to deposited sediment in agricultural streams. Ecol. Appl. 2013, 23, 1036-1047. DOI: 10.1890/12—1190.1

[6] Agouridis CT, Workman SR, Warner RC, Jennings GD. Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: A review. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 2005, 41, 591-606. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752—1688.2005.tb03757.x

[7] Davis S, Golladay SW, Vellidis G, Pringle CM. Macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in intermittent coastal plain streams impacted by animal agriculture. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 1036-1043. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2003.1036

[8] Fitzpatrick FA, Scudder BC, Lenz BN, Sullivan DJ. Effects of multi—scale environmental characteristics on agricultural stream biota in eastern Wisconsin. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 2001, 37, 1489-1507. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752—1688.2001.tb03655.x

[9] Dale VH, Polasky S. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 286-296. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009

[10] Teufl B, Weigelhofer G, Fuchsberger J, Hein T. Effects of hydromorphology and riparian vegetation on the sediment quality of agricultural low—order streams: Consequences for stream restoration. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 1781-1793. DOI: 10.1007/s11356—012—1135—2

[11] Heitke JD, Pierce CL, Gelwicks GT, Simmons GA, Siegwarth GL. Habitat, land use, and fish assemblage relationships in Iowa streams: Preliminary assessment in an agricultural landscape. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2006, 48, 287-303.

[12] Schilling KE, Tomer MD, Gassman PW, Kling CL, Isenhart TM, Moorman TB, et al. A tale of three watersheds: Nonpoint source pollution and conservation practices across Iowa. Choices 2007, 22, 87-95. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/choices.22.2.0087.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2025).

[13] Herringshaw CJ, Stewart TW, Thompson JR, Anderson PF. Land use, stream habitat and benthic invertebrate assemblages in a highly altered Iowa watershed. Am. Midl. Nat. 2011, 165, 274-293. DOI: 10.1674/0003—0031—165.2.274

[14] Brendel C, Soupir ML. Relating watershed characteristics to elevated stream Escherichia coli levels in agriculturally dominated landscapes: An Iowa case study . Water 2017, 9, 154. DOI: 10.3390/w9030154

[15] Waters TF. The Streams and Rivers of Minnesota ; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1977.

[16] Trimble SW. Historical Agriculture and Soil Erosion in the Upper Mississippi Valley Hill Country ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.

[17] Poudel DD. Surface water quality monitoring of an agricultural watershed for nonpoint source pollution control. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2016, 71, 310-326. DOI: 10.2489/jswc.71.4.310

[18] Kroll SA, Oakland HC. A review of studies documenting the effects of agricultural best management practices on physiochemical and biological measures os stream ecosystem integrity. Nat. Areas J. 2019, 39, 58-77. DOI: 10.3375/043.039.0105

[19] Palacios—Linares D, Guzman SM. Systematic review of best management practice implementation for agricultural phosphorus management in Florida: A 30—year overview. J. Nat. Res. Agric. Ecosys. 2024, 2, 139-152. DOI: 10.13031/jnrae.15912

[20] Bodrud—Doza M, Yang W, Liu Y, Yerubandi R, Daggupati P, DeVries B, et al. Evaluating best management practices for nutrient load reductions in tile—drained watersheds of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin: A literature review. Sci. Total Environ . 2025, 965, 178657. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178657

[21] Liu Y, Yang W, Bass B, Rao YR. Effectiveness of agricultural BMPs on phosphorus load reduction for the Canadian Lake Erie Basin: A literature review. Environ. Rev. 2025, 33, 1-24. DOI: 10.1139/er—2024—0069

[22] Johengen TH, Beeton AM, Rice DW. Evaluating the effectiveness of best management practices to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Lake Reserv. Manag. 1989, 5, 63-70. DOI: 10.1080/07438148909354682

[23] Gitau MW, Veith TL, Gburek WJ. Farm—level optimization of BMP placement for cost—effective pollution reduction. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng . 2004, 47, 1923-1931. DOI: 10.13031/2013.17805

[24] Vieth TL, Wolfe ML, Heatwole CD. Cost—effective BMP placement: Optimization versus targeting. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2004, 47, 1585-1594. DOI: 10.13031/2013.17636

[25] Pearce NJT, Yates AG. Agricultural best management practice abundance and location does not influence stream ecosystem function or water quality in the summer season. Water 2015, 7, 6861-6876. DOI: 10.3390/w7126661

[26] Lintern A, McPhillips L, Winfrey B, Duncan J, Grady C. Best management practices for diffuse nutrient pollution: Wicked problems across urban and agricultural watersheds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 9159-9174. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b07511

[27] Yates AG, Bailey RC, Schwindt JA. Effectiveness of best management practices in improving stream ecosystem quality. Hydrobiologia 2007, 583, 331-344. DOI: 10.1007/s10750—007—0619—4

[28] Yuan Y, Dabney SM, Bingner RL. Cost effectiveness of agricultural BMPs for sediment reduction in the Mississippi Delta. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2002, 57, 259-267. DOI: 10.1080/00224561.2002.12457455

[29] Easton ZM, Walter MT, Steenhuis TS. Combined monitoring and modeling indicate the most effective agricultural best management practices. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1798-1809. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2007.0522

[30] Rao NS, Easton ZM, Schneiderman EM, Zion MS, Lee DR, Steenhuis TS. Modeling watershed—scale effectiveness of agricultural best management practices to reduce phosphorus loading. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1385-1395. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.011

[31] Merriman KR, Gitau MW, Chaubey I. A tool for estimating best management practice effectiveness in Arkansas. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2009, 25, 199-213. DOI: 10.13031/2013.26333

[32] Tuppad P, Kannan N, Srinivasan R, Rossi CG, Arnold JG. Simulation of agricultural management alternatives for watershed protection. Water Res. Manag. 2010, 24, 3115-3144. DOI: 10.1007/s11269—010—9598—8

[33] Zhang X, Zhang M. Modeling effectiveness of agricultural BMPs to reduce sediment load and organophosphate pesticides in surface runoff. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 1949-1958. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.02.012

[34] Liu R, Zhang P, Wang X, Wang J, Yu W, Shen Z. Cost—effectiveness and cost—benefit analysis of BMPs in controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution in China based on the SWAT model. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 9011-9022. DOI: 10.1007/s10661—014—4061—6

[35] Geng R, Wang X, Sharpley AN, Meng F. Spatially—distributed cost—effectiveness analysis framework to control phosphorus from agricultural diffuse pollution. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130607. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130607

[36] Xie H, Chen L, Shen Z. Assessment of agricultural best management practices using models: Current issues and future perspectives. Water 2015, 7, 1088-1108. DOI: 10.3390/w7031088

[37] Li P, Muenich RL, Chaubey I, Wei X. Evaluating agricultural BMP effectiveness in improving freshwater provisioning under changing climate. Water Res. Manag . 2019, 33, 453-473. DOI: 10.1007/s11269—018—2098—y

[38] Sharma S, Bijukshe S, Puppala SS. Monitoring, modeling and planning best management practices (BMPs) in the Atwood and Tappan Lake watersheds with stakeholders engagements. Water 2023, 15, 3028. DOI: 10.3390/w15173028

[39] Chen G, Liu L, Wang W, Wang R, Li Y, Tang X, et al. Effectiveness of best management practices for non—point source pollution in intensively managed agricultural watersheds. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 495, 145076. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145076

[40] Meals DW, Dressing SA, Davenport TE. Lag time in water quality response to best management practices: A review. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 85-96. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2009.0108

[41] Melland AR, Fenton O, Jordan P. Effects of agricultural land management changes on surface water quality: A review of meso—scale catchment research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 84, 19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.011

[42] Edwards DR, Daniel TC, Scott HD, Moore PA, Jr., Murdoch JF, Vendrell PF. Effect of BMP implementation on storm flow quality of two northwestern Arkansas streams. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1997, 40, 1311-1319. DOI: 10.13031/2013.21389

[43] Vowell JL. Using stream bioassessment to monitor best management practice effectiveness. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 143, 237-244. DOI: 10.1016/S0378—1127(00)00521—1

[44] Inamdar SP, Mostaghimi S, McClellan PW, Brannan KM. BMP impacts on sediment and nutrient yields from an agricultural watershed in the Coastal Plain region. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2001, 44, 1191-1200. DOI: 10.13031/2013.6449

[45] Gabel KW, Wehr JD, Truhn KM. Assessment of the effectiveness of best management practices for streams draining agricultural landscapes using diatoms and macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 2012, 680, 247-264. DOI: 10.1007/s10750—011—0933—8

[46] Wilcock RJ, Monaghan RM, Quinn JM, Srinivasan MS, Houlbrooke DJ, Duncan MJ, et al. Trends in water quality of five dairy farming streams in response to adoption of best practice and benefits of long—term monitoring at the catchment scale. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2013, 64, 401-412. DOI: 10.1071/MF12155

[47] Lizotte R, Knight S, Locke M, Steinriede W, Testa S, Bryant C. Water quality monitoring of an agricultural watershed lake: The effectiveness of agricultural best management practices. Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 160, 283-294. DOI: 10.2495/DN120251

[48] Liu Y, Engel BA, Flanagan DC, Gitau MW, McMillan SK, Chaubey I. A review on effectiveness of best management practices in improving hydrology and water quality: Needs and opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601—602, 580-593. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.212

[49] Varela WL, Mundahl ND, Bergen S, Staples DF, Cochran—Biederman J, Weaver CR. Physical and biological stream health in an agricultural watershed after 30+ years of targeted conservation practices. Water 2023, 15, 3475. DOI: 10.3390/w15193475

[50] Mundahl ND, Mundahl ED. Aquatic community structure and stream habitat in a karst agricultural landscape. Ecol. Process. 2022, 11, 18. DOI: 10.1186/s13717—022—00365—1

[51] Mundahl ND, Varela WL, Weaver C, Mundahl ED, Cochran—Biederman JL. Stream habitats and aquatic communities in an agricultural watershed: Changes related to a mandatory riparian buffer law. Environ. Manag. 2023, 72, 945-958. DOI: 10.1007/s00267—023—01864—3

[52] Mundahl ND, Hunt AM. Recovery of stream invertebrates after catastrophic flooding in southeastern Minnesota, USA. J. Freshw. Ecol. 2011, 26, 445-457. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2011.596657

[53] Anderson D. Economic Impact of Recreation Trout Angling in the Driftless Area ; University of Wisconsin—La Crosse: La Crosse, WI, USA, 2016.

[54] Troelstrup NH, Jr., Perry JA. Water quality in southeastern Minnesota streams: Observations along a gradient of land use and geology. J. Minn. Acad. Sci. 1989, 55, 6-13. Available online: https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/jmas/vol55/iss1/2/ (accessed on 26 December 2025).

[55] Nerbonne BA, Vondracek B. Effect of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environ. Manag . 2001, 28, 87-99. DOI: 10.1007/s002670010209

[56] Vondracek B, Blann KL, Cox CB, Nerbonne JF, Mumford KG, Nerbonne BA, et al. Land use, spatial scale, and stream systems: Lessons from an agricultural region. Environ. Manag . 2005, 36, 775-791. DOI: 10.1007/s00267—005—0039—z

[57] Thorn WC, Anderson C, Lorenzen W, Hendrickson D, Wagner J. A review of trout management in southeast Minnesota streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1997, 17, 860-872. DOI: 10.1577/1548—8675(1997)017<0860:AROTMI>2.3.CO;2

[58] Mundahl ND. Characterizing stream condition with benthic macroinvertebrates in southeastern Minnesota, USA: Agriculture, channelization, and karst geology impact lotic habitats and communities. Insects 2025, 16, 59. DOI: 10.3390/insects16010059

[59] Wall DB, McGuire SA, Magner JA. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment in the Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project Area ; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 1989.

[60] Kruse CG, Hubert WA, Rahel FJ. Single—pass electrofishing predicts trout abundance in mountain streams with sparse habitat. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1998, 18, 940-946. DOI: 10.1577/1548—8675(1998)018<0940:SPEPTA>2.0.CO;2

[61] Meador MR, McIntyre JP, Pollock KH. Assessing the efficacy of single—pass backpack electrofishing to characterize fish community structure. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2003, 132, 39-46. DOI: 10.1577/1548—8659(2003)132<0039:ATEOSP>2.0.CO;2

[62] Bertrand KN, Gido KB, Guy CS. An evaluation of single—pass versus multiple—pass backpack electrofishing to estimate trends in species abundance and richness in prairie streams. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 2006, 109, 131-138. DOI: 10.1660/0022—8443(2006)109[131:AEOSVM]2.0.CO;2

[63] Kauth MJ, Schumann DA, Graeb KNB, Hoback WW. Suitability of single—pass backpack electrofishing to estimate fish abundance and describe assemblage structure in prairie streams. Prairie Nat. 2019, 51, 17-24. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tpn/275/ (accessed on 26 December 2025).

[64] Franz JL. Procedure Manual and Quality Assurance Plan ; Southeast Minnesota Analytical Service, Department of Chemistry, Winona State University: Winona, MN, USA, 2002.

[65] Hilsenhoff WL. Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin: Generic Keys and Notes on Biology, Ecology and Distribution ; Technical Bulletin No. 89; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI, USA, 1975.

[66] Pennak RW. Fresh—Water Invertebrates of the United States , 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1978.

[67] Merritt RW, Cummins KW. (Eds.). An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America , 2nd ed.; Kendall—Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1984.

[68] Thorp JH, Covich AP. (Eds.). Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates ; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1991.

[69] Minnesota Water Pollution Control Agency . Water Quality Standards ; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2025. Available online: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business—with—us/water—quality—standards (accessed on 26 December 2025).

[70] Brower JE, Zar JH, von Ende CN. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology , 4th ed.; WCB McGraw—Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 1998.

[71] Mundahl ND, Simon TP. Development and application of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams of the upper midwestern United States. In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resource Quality Using Fish Assemblages; Simon TP,Ed.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1998; pp. 383-415.

[72] Wittman E, Mundahl ND. Development and validation of a benthic index of biotic integrity (B—IBI) for streams in southeastern Minnesota. Winona State Univ. Floruit 2004, 1, 41-48.

[73] Legendre P, Gallagher ED. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 2001, 129, 271-280. DOI: 10.1007/s004420100716

[74] Wall DB, Evenson MG, Regan CP, Magner JA, Anderson WP. Understanding the groundwater system: The Garvin Brook experience. In Proceedings of the National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium; US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; pp. 59-70.

[75] Schnaser AC, Mundahl ND. Recovery of a headwater stream population of brown trout after a fish kill in southeastern Minnesota, USA. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2022, 105, 1179-1192. DOI: 10.1007/s10641—022—01331—8

[76] Mundahl ND. Recovery of a population of slimy sculpin (Uranidea cognata) after an autumn fish kill in the headwaters of a Minnesota trout stream . Water 2024, 16, 283. DOI: 10.3390/w16020283

[77] Herman MR, Nejadhashemi AP, Daneshvar F, Ross DM, Woznicki SA, Zhang Z, et al. Optimization of conservation practice implementation strategies in the context of stream health. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84, 1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.07.011

[78] Ahsan A, Das SK, Khan MHRB, Ng AWM, Al—Ansari N, Ahmed S, et al. Modeling the impacts of best management practices (BMPs) on pollution reduction in the Yarra River catchment, Australia. Appl. Water Sci. 2023, 13, 98. DOI: 10.1007/s13201—022—01812—2

[79] Doppelt B, Scurlock M, Frissell C, Karr J. Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Save America’s River Ecosystems ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.

[80] Runkel AC, Tipping RG, Alexander EC, Jr., Green JA, Mossler JH, Alexander SC. Hydrogeology of the Paleozoic Bedrock in Southeastern Minnesota ; Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations 61; Minnesota Geological Survey: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2003.

[81] Karr JR, Chu EW. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.

[82] Simon TP. (Ed.). Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003.

[83] Gammon JR, Faatz WC, Simon TP. Patterns in water quality and fish assemblages in three central Indiana streams with emphasis on animal feedlot operations. In Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities; Simon TP, Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 373-417.

[84] Carlisle DM, Stewart PM, Butcher JT. Macroinvertebrate assemblages associated with patterns in land use and water quality. In Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities; Simon TP, Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 271-285.

[85] Waters TF. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and Control ; American Fisheries Society Monograph 7; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1995.

[86] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. River and Stream Biological Monitoring ; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2026. Available online: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air—water—land—climate/river—and—stream—biological—monitoring (accessed on 2 January 2026).

[87] Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life ; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: Columbus, OH, USA, 2025. Available online: https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions—and—offices/surface—water/reports—data/biological—criteria—for—the—protection—of—aquatic—life (accessed on 2 January 2026).

[88] Huff DD, Miller LM, Vondracek B. Patterns of ancestry and genetic diversity in reintroduced populations of the slimy sculpin: Implications for conservation. Conserv. Genet. 2010, 11, 2379-2391. DOI: 10.1007/s10592—010—0124—6

[89] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Brook Trout Reintroduction Program ; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: Lanesboro, MN, USA, 2026. Available online: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/lanesboro/brooktrout.html (accessed on 2 January 2026).

[90] Lamothe KA, Drake DAR, Pitcher TE, Broome JE, Dextrase AJ, Gillespie A, et al. Reintroduction of fishes in Canada: A review of research progress for SARA—listed species. Environ. Rev. 2019, 27, 575-599. DOI: 10.1139/er—2019—0010

[91] Williams DD, Williams NE. The upstream/downstream movement paradox of lotic invertebrates: Quantitative evidence from a Welsh mountain stream. Freshw. Biol. 1993, 30, 199-218. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365—2427.1993.tb00802.x

[92] Petersen I, Winterbottom JH, Orton S, Friberg N, Hildrew AG, Spiers DC, et al. Emergence and lateral dispersal of adult Plecoptera and Trichoptera from Broadstone Stream, U.K. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 42, 401-416. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365—2427.1999.00466.x

[93] Mundahl ND. Analysis of a catch—and—harvest fishing contest for brown trout spanning 50+ years: Long—term trends influenced by fisheries management actions and angler behavior. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2022, 42, 1653-1664. DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10853

[94] Mundahl ND, Schnaser AC. Abundance, cover use, and clustering of brown trout spawning redds during stream habitat rehabilitation. Ecol. Freshw. Fish. 2023, 32, 902-915. DOI: 10.1111/eff.12731

[95] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota’s Impaired Waters List ; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2026. Available online: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air—water—land—climate/minnesotas—impaired—waters—list (accessed on 27 March 2026).