Adding value to water resource management through biological assessment of rivers

Hydrobiologia

Volumn 651, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 17-24

  Barbour, Michael T ^a   Paul, Michael J ^a  

^a TETRA TECH INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Aquatic ecology; Bioassessment; Biomonitoring; Ecosystem services; Environmental assessment; River ecology; Water law; Water resource management

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC ECOLOGY; BIOASSESSMENT; BIOMONITORING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; RIVER ECOLOGY; WATERRESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; MONITORING; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RESTORATION; RIVERS; WATER MANAGEMENT;

ECOSYSTEMS;

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM; BIOINDICATOR; BIOMONITORING; ECOSYSTEM HEALTH; ECOSYSTEM RESPONSE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; HUMAN ACTIVITY; POLLUTION EFFECT; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIVER POLLUTION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER PLANNING; WATER RESOURCE; WATERSHED;

EID: 77953870961     PISSN: 00188158     EISSN: 15735117     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-010-0287-7     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Allan, J. D., 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman & Hall, New York.
2. Bailey, R. C., R. H. Norris & T. B. Reynoldson, 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems Using the Reference Condition Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
3. Bailey, J., C. Boschen, J. Burton, J. Gerritsen, B. Lowman, J. Ludwig, D. Montali, S. Wilkes, J. Wirts & L. Zheng, 2009. Inferring causes of biological impairment in the Clear Fork watershed, West Virginia. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. NCEA-C-1951.
4. Barbour, M. T., 2008. The societal benefit of biological assessment and monitoring in rivers. In Moog, O., D. Hering, S. Sharma, I. Stubauer & T. Korte (eds) ASSESS-HKH: Proceedings of the Scientific Conference "Rivers in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya - Ecology & Environmental Assessment". ISBN 978-3-00-024806-1: 5-7.
5. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
6. Barbour, M. T., W. F. Swietlik, S. K. Jackson, D. L. Courtemanch, S. P. Davies & C. O. Yoder, 2000. Measuring the attainment of biological integrity in the USA: a critical element of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 453-464.
7. Barbour, M. T., N. L. Poff, R. H. Norris & J. D. Allan, 2008. Perspective: communicating our science to influence policy. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(3): 562-569.
8. Carlisle, D. M., M. M. Meador, S. R. Moulton II & P. M. Ruhl, 2007. Estimation and application of indicator values for common macroinvertebrate genera and families of the United States. Ecological Indicators 7: 22-33.
9. Cowx, I. G. & M. van Zyll de Jong, 2004. Rehabilitation of freshwater fisheries: tales of the unexpected? Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 243-249.
10. Davies, S. P. & S. K. Jackson, 2006. The biological gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic systems. Ecological Applications 16: 1251-1266.
11. Dodds, W. K., 2002. Freshwater Ecology: Concepts and Environmental Applications. Academic Press, New York.
12. Flotemersch, J. E., J. B. Stribling & M. J. Paul, 2006. Concepts and Approaches for the Bioassessment of Non-Wadeable Streams and Rivers. EPA/600/R-06/127. U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
13. Gortz, P., 1998. Effects of stream restoration on the macroinvertebrate community in the River Esrom, Denmark. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Systems 8: 115-130.
14. Gritzalis, K. C., 2006. Biological monitoring of Mediterranean rivers with special reference to Greece. In Ziglio, G., M. Siligardi & G. Flaim (eds), Biological Monitoring of Rivers. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England: 295-325.
15. Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. N. Hogue & J. W. Feminella, 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications 10: 1456-1477.
16. Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), 2004. Integrated assessment of running waters in Europe. Hydrobiologia 516: 1-379.
17. Jungwirth, M., S. Muhar & S. Schmutz (eds), 2000. Assessing the ecological integrity of running waters. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 1-487.
18. Karr, J. R., 1995. Protecting aquatic ecosystems: clean water is not enough. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 7-13.
19. Karr, J. R. & E. W. Chu, 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.
20. Lazorchak, J. M., D. J. Klemm & D. V. Peck (eds), 1998. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
21. Moog, O. & A. Chovanec, 2000. Assessing the ecological integrity of rivers: walking the line among ecological, political and administrative interests. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 99-109.
22. Muotka, T., R. Paavola, A. Haapala, A. Novikmec & P. Laasonen, 2002. Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation 105: 243-253.
23. Overton, W. S., D. White & D. L. Stevens, 1991. Design Report for EMAP, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA 600-3-91-053. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
24. Paul, M. J. & J. L. Meyer, 2001. The ecology of urban streams. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333-365.
25. Rathbun, S. L., 1999. Sampling Design Issues for Section 305(b) Water Quality Monitoring. Appendix G in Savannah River Basin REMAP: A Demonstration of the Usefulness of Probability Sampling for the Purpose of Estimating Ecological Condition in State Monitoring Programs. EPA 904-R-99-002. US Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, SESD, Athens, GA.
26. Resh, V. H., 2007. Multinational, freshwater biomonitoring programs in the developing world: lessons learned from African and Southeast Asian river surveys. Environmental Management 39: 737-748.
27. Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh (eds), 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York.
28. Smith, M. J., W. R. Kay, D. H. D. Edward, P. J. Papas, K. S. Richardson, J. C. Simpson, A. M. Pinder, D. J. Cale, P. H. J. Horwitz, J. A. Davis, F. H. Yung, R. H. Norris & S. A. Halse, 1999. AusRivAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 269-282.
29. Stoddard, J. L., D. V. Peck, S. G. Paulsen, J. van Sickle, C. P. Hawkins, A. T. Herlihy, R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. P. Larsen, G. Lomnicky, A. R. Olsen, S. A. Peterson, P. L. Ringold & T. R. Whittier, 2005. An Ecological Assessment of Western Streams and Rivers. EPA 620-R-05-005, Washington, DC.
30. Stoddard, J. L., D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R. K. Johnson & R. H. Norris, 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 16: 1267-1276.
31. Suren, A. M. & M. McMurtrie, 2005. Assessing the effectiveness of enhancement activities in urban streams: II. Responses of invertebrate communities. River Research and Applications 21: 439-453.
32. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996. Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Rivers. EPA 822-B-94-001. EPA Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
33. USEPA, 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA 822-B-00-025. EPA Office of Water, Washington, DC.
34. Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), 2000. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, UK.
35. Yoder, C. O., 1995. Policy issues and management applications for biological criteria. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 327-343.
36. Yuan, L. L., 2007. Using biological assemblage composition to infer the values of covarying environmental factors. Freshwater Biology 52: 1159-1172.