Use of biological indicators in TMDL assessment and implementation

Transactions of the ASABE

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1023-1032

  Yagow, Gene ^a   Wilson, Bruce ^b   Srivastava, Puneet ^c   Obropta, Christopher C ^d  

^a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Algae; Benthic macroinvertebrates; Bioassessment; Biological indicator; Fish; Periphyton; Stressor analysis; TMDL; Water quality; Watershed

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS; TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION; TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) PROGRAM;

ECOLOGY; FISHERIES; MICROORGANISMS; WATER POLLUTION; WATERSHEDS;

WATER QUALITY;

ALGA; ASSESSMENT METHOD; BIOINDICATOR; BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS; COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; FISH; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; MACROINVERTEBRATE; WATER QUALITY;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

ALGAE;

EID: 33750597463     PISSN: 21510032     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Ambrose, H. E., M. A. Witzbach, and K. W. Cummins. 2004. Periphyton response to increased light and salmon carcass introduction in northern California streams. J. North American Benthol. Soc. 23(4): 701-712.
2. Bahls, L. L. 1993. Periphyton bioassessment methods for Montana streams. Helena, Mont.: Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science, Water Quality Bureau.
3. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in wadeable streams and rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-022. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
4. Boward, P., L. D. Teeter, B. G. Lockaby, M. K. Hurd, and T. P. Prochaska. 1999. From the mountains to the sea: The state of Maryland's freshwater streams. EPA 903-R-99-023. Annapolis, Md.: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division.
5. Brumley, J. 2005. Kentucky's experience with using diatoms for bioassessment. Powerpoint presentation to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia.
6. Bryce, S. A., and R. M. Hughes. 2003. Variable assemblage responses to multiple disturbance gradients: Case studies in Oregon and Appalachia, USA. In Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns using Aquatic Communities, 539-560. T. P. Simon, ed. Washington, D.C.: CRC Press.
7. Chirhart, J. 2003. Development of a macroinvertebrate index of biological integrity for rivers and streams of the St. Croix River basin in Minnesota. St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Biological Monitoring Program.
8. Crumpton, W. G. 1989. Algae in northern prairie wetlands. In Northern Prairie Wetland, 188-203. A. G. van der Valk, ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
9. Davis, S., S. Golladay, G. Vellidis, and C. Pringle. 2003. Macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in intermittent coastal plain streams impacted by animal agriculture. J. Environ. Qual. 32(3): 1036-1043.
10. DeShon, J. E. 1995. Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). In Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, 217-243. W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon, eds. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.
11. EPA. 2000. Stressor identification guidance document. EPA 822-B-00-025. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development.
12. EPA. 2002a. Summary of biological assessment programs and biocriteria development for states, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions: Streams and wadeable rivers. EPA 822-R-02-048. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information and Office of Water.
13. EPA. 2002b. The twenty needs report: How research can improve the TMDL program. EPA 841-B-02-002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OWOW, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
14. EPA. 2005. Watershed assessment tracking and environmental results: WATERS expert query tool. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html. Accessed 26 August 2005.
15. EPA. 2006a. Urbanization and streams: Studies of hydrologic impacts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/urbanize/report.html. Accessed 9 February 2006.
16. EPA. 2006b. Watershed Characterization System (WCS). Atlanta, Ga.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Available at: www.epa.gov/athens/ wwqtsc/WCS-toolbox.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2006.
17. Evans, B. M., S. A. Sheeder, K. J. Corradini, and W. S. Brown. 2001. AVGWLF version 3.2. Users Guide. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, Environmental Resources Research Institute; Harrisburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Watershed Conservation.
18. Gaiser, E. E., D. L. Childers, J. A. Browder, S. M. Davis, and K. C. Tarboton. 2004. Chapter 5: Periphyton habitat suitability index. In Habitat Suitability Indices for Evaluating Water Management Alternatives. South Florida Water Management District. Office of Modeling Technical Report. K. C. Tarboton, M. M. Irizarry-Ortiz, D. P. Loucks, S. M. Davis, and J. T. Obeysekera, eds. Available at: www.sfwmd.gov. Accessed 9 December 2005.
19. Griffith, M. B., B. H. Hill, A. T. Herlihy, and P. R. Kaufmann. 2002. Multivariate analysis of periphyton assemblages in relation to environmental gradients in Colorado Rocky Mountain streams. J. Phycol. 38(1): 83-95.
20. Griffith, M. B., B. H. Hill, F. H. McCormick, P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, and A. R. Selle. 2005. Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecol. Indicators 5(2): 117-136.
21. Haith, D. A., R. Mandel, and R. S. Wu. 1992. GWLF: Generalized Watershed Loading Functions, version 2.0. User's Manual. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering.
22. Hawkins, C. P., and R. H. Norris. 1997. Abstract: Comparison of the ability of multimetric and multivariate assessment techniques to detect biological impairment in mountainous streams of California. Bull. North American Benthol. Soc. 14(1): 96.
23. Hawkins, C. P., R. N. Norris, J. N. Hogue, and J. W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecol. Applications 10(5): 1456-1477.
24. Hill, B. H., F. H. McCormick, A. T. Herlihy, P. R. Kaufmann, R. J. Stevenson, and C. Burch Johnson. 2000. Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity. J. North American Benthol. Soc. 19(1): 50-67.
25. Hill, B. H., A. T. Herlihy, P. R. Kaufmann, S. J. DeCelles, and M. A. Vander Borgh. 2003. Assessment of streams of the eastern United States using a periphyton index of biotic integrity. Ecol. Indicators 2(4): 325-338.
26. Illinois EPA. 2006. Total Maximum Daily Loads: A citizens' guide to achieving water quality. Springfield, Ill: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water. Available at: www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/. Accessed 13 February 2006.
27. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
28. Karr, J. R., and C. O. Yoder. 2004. Biological assessment and criteria improve Total Maximum Daily Load decision making. J. Environ. Eng. 130(6): 594-604.
29. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and L. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Special Publication 5. Springfield, Ill.: Illinois Natural History Survey.
30. Kelly, M. G. 1998. Use of the trophic diatom index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Water Research 32(1): 236-242.
31. Kentucky DEP. 1993. Methods for assessing biological integrity of surface waters. Frankfort, Ky.: Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water.
32. Kerans, B. L., and J. R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecol. Applications 4(4): 768-785.
33. Konrad, C. P., and D. B. Booth. 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance. American Fish. Soc. Symp. 47: 157-177.
34. Lane, C., and S. Cormier. 2004. Screening-level causal analysis and assessment of an impaired reach of the Groundhouse River, Minnesota. Cincinnati, Ohio: EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
35. Muñoz-Carpena, R., G. Vellidis, A. Shirmohammadi, and W. W. Wallender. 2006. Modeling tools for TMDL development and implementation. Trans. ASABE 49(4): 961-965.
36. Niemela, S., and M. D. Feist. 2002. Index of biological integrity guidance for coolwater rivers and streams of the Upper Mississippi River basin. St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Biological Monitoring Program.
37. NMNH. 2006. Algae: An introduction. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. Available at: www.hrw.com/science/si-science/biology/plants/algae/Alg-Div.html. Accessed 9 February 2006.
38. Novotny, V. 2003. Water Quality: Diffuse Pollution and Watershed Management. 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.
39. NRC. 2001. Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
40. NWCC. 1999. A procedure to estimate the response of aquatic systems to changes in phosphorus and nitrogen inputs. Washington, D.C.: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center.
41. Ohio EPA. 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volumes I-III. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
42. Ostermiller, J. D., and C. P. Hawkins. 2004. Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: Application to RIVPACS-type models. J. North American Benthol. Soc. 23(2): 363-382.
43. Park, R. A., and J. S. Clough. 2004. Aquatox (release 2): Modeling environmental fate and ecological effects in aquatic ecosystems. Volume 2: Technical documentation. EPA 823-R-04-002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
44. Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA 440-4-89-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
45. Ponader, K., and D. Charles. 2003. Understanding the relationship between natural conditions and loadings on eutrophication: Algal indicators of eutrophication for New Jersey streams. Final Report Year 2. Report No. 03-04. Philadelphia, Pa.: The Academy of Natural Sciences, Patrick Center for Environmental Research. Available at: www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/wq/wq.htm. Accessed 9 December 2005.
46. Ponader, K. C., D. F. Charles, and T. J. Belton. 2006. Diatom-based TP and TN inference models and indices for monitoring nutrient enrichment of New Jersey streams. Ecol. Indicators (in press).
47. Prygiel, J., and M. Coste. 1999. Progress in the use of diatoms for monitoring rivers in France. In Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers III, 165-179. J. Prygiel, B. A. Whitton, and J. Bukowska, eds. Douai, France: Agence de l'eau Artois-Picardie.
48. Prygiel, J., L. Lévêque, and R. Iserentant. 1996. A new practical diatom index for the assessment of water quality in monitoring networks [in French]. Rev. Sci. Eau 9(1): 97-113.
49. Romero, J. R., M. R. Hipsey, J. P. Antenucci, and D. P. Hamilton. 2004. Computational aquatic ecosystem dynamics model CAEDYM v2.1. Science manual. Crawley, W. Australia: University of Western Australia, Centre for Water Research.
50. Shoemaker, L., T. Dai, and J. Koenig. 2005. TMDL model evaluation and research needs. EPA 600-R-05-149. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
51. Smith, E. P., and J. R. Voshell, Jr. 1997. Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in streams within EPA Region 3 for development of biological indicators of ecological condition. Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech.
52. Tetra Tech. 2003. A stream condition index for Virginia non-coastal streams. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region 3, Wheeling, W.V.; U.S. EPA Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.; and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Va. Owings Mill, Md.: Tetra Tech, Inc. Available at: www.deq.virginia.gov/watermonitoring/pdf/vastrmcon.pdf.
53. VAC. 2005. Virginia Administrative Code. Water quality standards. General criteria. Available at: leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+9\AC25- 260-20. Accessed 31 August 2005.
54. Warren, M. L., Jr., and B. M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes of the U.S.: Overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries 19(1): 6-18.
55. Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe, and M. T. Furse, eds. 2000. Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Ambleside, U.K.: Freshwater Biological Association.
56. Yagow, G. 2004. Using GWLF for development of "reference watershed approach" TMDLs. ASAE Paper No. 042262. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.