Critical technical elements of state bioassessment programs: A process to evaluate program rigor and comparability

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Volumn 150, Issue 1-4, 2009, Pages 31-42

  Yoder, Chris O ^a   Barbour, Michael T ^b  

^a Midwest Biodiversity Institute   (United States)

^b TETRA TECH INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Aquatic life uses; Biological assessments; Biological criteria; Designated uses; State tribal programs; Tiered uses

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC LIFE USES; BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS; BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA; DESIGNATED USES; STATE/TRIBAL PROGRAMS; TIERED USES;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY;

REFINING;

CONFERENCE PROCEEDING; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; WATER QUALITY;

ANIMALS; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; HUMANS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 60349093361     PISSN: 01676369     EISSN: 15732959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0671-1     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Barbour, M. T., & Yoder, C. O. (2007). Critical technical elements of a bioassessment program (p. 71). Washington, DC.: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
2. Bonada, N., Prat, N., Resh, V. H., Statzner, B. (2006). Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology, 51, 495-523.
3. Courtemanch, D. C. (2007). A tale of two rivers. Use of biological information to more precisely define aquatic life uses: Tiered Aquatic Life Uses (TALU). Baltimore, MD: U.S. EPA Office of Water Workshop Presentations.
4. General Accounting Office (GAO) (2003). Major management challenges and program risks: Environmental protection agency. GAO-03-112, performance and accountability series. Washington, D.C: U.S. General Accounting Office.
5. Eagleson, K., Lenat, D., Ausley, L., & Winborne, F. (1990). Comparison of measured instream biological responses and responses predicted using the Ceriodaphnia dubia chronic toxicity test. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9(8), 1019-1028.
6. Karr, J. R., & Yoder, C. O. (2004). Biological assessment and criteria improve TMDL planning and decision-making. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 130(6), 594-604.
7. Houston, L., Barbour, M. T., Lenat, D., & Penrose, D. (2002). A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 4, 279-292.
8. Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) (1992). Ambient water quality monitoring in the United States: First year review, evaluation, and recommendations (p. 51). Washington, D.C.: Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data.
9. Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) (1995). The strategy for improving water-quality monitoring in the United States: Final report of the intergovernmental task force on monitoring water quality. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey.
10. Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI) (2004). Region V state bioassessment and ambient monitoring programs: Initial evaluation and review. Midwest Biodiversity Institute Tech. Rept. MBI/01-03-1. 36 pp. + appendices. http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/wqb/wqb_r5mon.htm.
11. National Research Council (NRC) (2001). Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management. ISBN 0-309-07579-3 (p. 109). Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press.
12. Riva-Murray, K., Bode, R. W., Phillips, P. J. (2002) Impact source determination with biomonitoring data in New York State: Concordance with environmental data. Northeastern Naturalist, 9(2), 127-162.
13. Simon, T. P. (2003). Biological response signatures: Patterns in biological integrity for assessment of freshwater aquatic assemblages (p. 576). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.
14. U.S. EPA (1995a). Environmental indicators of water quality in the United States. EPA 841-R-96-002. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
15. U.S. EPA (1995b). A conceptual framework to support development and use of environmental information in decision-making. EPA 239 R-95-012. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
16. U.S. EPA (1996). Biological criteria: Technical guidance for streams and rivers. Authors: G. A. Gibson, M. T. Barbour, J. B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen, and J. R. Karr. EPA 822-B-96-001. Washington, D.C.: Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
17. U.S. EPA (1998). Lake and reservoir bioassessment and biocriteria. Technical guidance document. Authors: J. Gerritsen, R. Carlson, D.L. Charles, D. Dycus, C. Faulkner, G.R. Gibson, R.H. Kennedy, and S.A. Markowitz. EPA 841-B-98-007. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
18. U.S. EPA (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2nd ed.) Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Authors: M. T. Barbour, J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. EPA 841-B-99-002. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water.
19. U.S. EPA (2000). Estuarine and coastal marine waters: Bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance. Authors: G. R. Gibson, M. L. Bowman, J. Gerritsen, and B. D. Snyder. EPA 822-B-00-024. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water.
20. U.S. 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.: Office of Environmental Information and Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
21. U.S. EPA (2002b). Consolidated assessment and listing methodology: Toward a compendium of best practices (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/ calm.html.
22. U.S. EPA (2005). Use of biological information to better define designated aquatic life uses in state and tribal water quality standards: Tiered aquatic life uses. EPA-822-R-05-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
23. Yoder, C. O. (1998). Important concepts and elements of an adequate state watershed monitoring and assessment program. In Proceedings of the NWQMC national conference monitoring: Critical foundations to protecting our waters (pp. 615-628). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
24. Yoder, C. O., & DeShon, J. E. (2003). Using biological response signatures within a framework of multiple indicators to assess and diagnose causes and sources of impairments to aquatic assemblages in selected Ohio rivers and streams. In T. P. Simon (Ed.), Biological response signatures: Patterns in biological integrity for assessment of freshwater aquatic assemblages (pp. 23-81). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.
25. Yoder, C. O., & Rankin, E. T. (1998). The role of biological indicators in a state water quality management process. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 51 (1-2), 61-88.