Sampling for environmental flow assessments

Fisheries

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 434-443

  Williams, John G ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957335791     PISSN: 03632415     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1577/1548-8446-35.9.434     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. American Fisheries Society (AFS). 2008. Resolution on the development of instream flow programs. Fisheries 33(11):563.
2. Annear, T., and 15 others. 2004. Instream flows for riverine resource stewardship, revised edition. Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
3. Bovee, K. D., B. L. Lamb, J. M. Bartholow, C. B. Stalnaker, J. Taylor, and J. Henriksen. 1998. Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technical Report USGS/BRD-1998-0004. Available at: www.mesc.usgs.gov/products/ publications/3910/3910.pdf (May 2007).
4. Castleberry, D. T., J. J. Cech Jr., D.C. Erman, D. Hankin, M. Healey, G. M. Kondolf, M. Mangel, M. Mohr, P. B. Moyle, J. Nielsen, T. P. Speed, and J. G. Williams. 1996. Uncertainty and instream flow standards. Fisheries 21(8):20-21.
5. Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques, third edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
6. Converse, J. M. 1987. Survey research in the United States: roots and emergence 1890-1960. University of California Press, Berkeley.
7. Gallagher, S. P., and M. F. Gard. 1999. Relationship between Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd densities and PHABSIM-predicted habitat in the Merced and Lower American rivers, California. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:570-577.
8. Guay, J. C., D. Boisclair, D. Rioux, M. Leclerc, M. Lapointe, and P. Legrendre. 2000. Development and validation of numerical habitat models for juveniles of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:2065-2075.
9. Hardin, T. S., R. T. Grost, M. B. Ward, and G. E. Smith. 2005. Habitat suitability criteria for anadromous salmonids in the Klamath River, Iron Gate Dam to Scott River, California. California Department of Fish and Game Stream Evaluation Report 05-1, Sacramento.
10. Hardy, T. B., R. C. Addley, and E. Saraeva. 2006. Evaluation of instream flow needs in the lower Klamath River, Phase II, Final Report. Institute for Natural Systems Engineering, Utah State University, Logan.
11. Jesson, R. J. 1978. Statistical survey techniques. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
12. Kristolic, J. L.; D. C. Hayes, and P. M. Ruhl. 2006. Physical habitat classification and instream flow modeling to determine habitat availability during low-flow periods, North Fork Shenandoah River, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5025.
13. Manly, B. F. J., L. L. McDonald, D. L. Thomas, T. L. McDonald, and W. P. Erickson. 2002. Resource selection by animals, second edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
14. Maret, T. R., J. E. Hortness, and D. S. Ott. 2006. Instream flow characterization of upper Salmon River Basin streams, central Idaho, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5230.
15. Mier, K. L., and S. J. Picquelle. 2008. Estimating abundance of spatially aggregated populations: comparing adaptive sampling with other study designs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65(2):176-197.
16. National Research Council (NRC). 2008. Hydrology, ecology, and fishes of the Klamath River Basin. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
17. Neyman, J. 1934. On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 97:558-606.
18. Payne, T. R., S. D. Eggers, and D. B. Parkinson. 2004. The number of transects required to compute a robust PHABSIM habitat index. Hydroécologie Appliquée 14: 27-53.
19. R2 Resource Consultants. 2004. Instream flow claims for the Snake River Basin, Volume 1, Part 1, Main Report. R2 Resource Consultants, Redmond, Washington.
20. Railsback, S. F., and B. C. Harvey. 2001. Individual-based model formulation for cutthroat trout, Little Jones Creek, California. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-182, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
21. Railsback, S. F., and J. Kadvany. 2008. Demonstration flow assessment: judgment and visual observation in instream flow studies. Fisheries 33(5):217-236.
22. Richter, B. D., J.V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D. P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37:231-249.
23. Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262-278.
24. Stevens, D. L. Jr., D. P. Larsen, and A. R. Olsen. 2007. The role of sample surveys: why should practitioners consider using a statistical sampling design. Pages 11-24 in D. H. Johnson, B. M. Shrier, J. S. O'Neil, J. A. Knutzen, X. Augerot, T. A. O'Neil, and T. N. Parsons, eds. Salmonid field protocols handbook: techniques for assessing status and trends in salmon and trout populations. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
25. Tenent, D. L. 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1(4):6-10.
26. Thompson, S. K. 2002. Sampling, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
27. Waddle, T. J. (editor). 2001. PHABSIM for Windows: user's manual and exercises. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2001-340.
28. Williams, J. G. 1996. Lost in space: minimum confidence intervals for idealized PHABSIM studies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:458-465.
29. Williams, J. G 2010. Lost in space, the sequel: spatial sampling issues with 1-D PHABSIM. River Research and Applications 26:341-352. Published online March 2009, DOI: 10.1002/rra.1258.
30. Williams, L. R., M. L. Warren, Jr., S. B. Adams, J. L. Arvai, and C. M. Taylor. 2004. Basin visual estimation technique (CVET) and representative reach approaches to wadeable stream surveys: methodological limitations and future directions. Fisheries 29(8):12-22.