SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Groethe DR, Dickson KL, Reed-Judkins DK. 1996. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA.
  • 2
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical support document for water quality-based toxics control. EPA 505/2–90–001. Washington, DC.
  • 3
    DeGraeve G, Smith G, Clement W, McIntyre D. 1998. Whole effluent toxicity survey: Assessing the implementation status of the whole effluent toxicity testing program. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA, USA.
  • 4
    Karr JR. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol Appl 1: 6684.
  • 5
    Gibson GR, Barbour MT, Stribling JB, Gerritsen J, Karr JR. 1996. Biological criteria technical guidance for streams and small rivers. EPA 822-B-96–001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
  • 6
    Barbour MT, Diamond JM, Yoder CO. 1996. Biological assessment strategies: Applications and limitations. In GrotheDR, DicksonKL, Reed-JudkinsDK, eds, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 2426.
  • 7
    Neimi G, DeVore P, Detenbeck N, Taylor D, Lima A, Pastor J, Yount J, Naiman R. 1990. Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems from disturbance. Environ Manage 14: 571587.
  • 8
    Birge W, Black J, Short T, Westerman A. 1989. A comparative ecological and toxicological investigation of a secondary waste-water treatment plant effluent and its receiving stream. Environ Toxicol Chem 8: 437450.
  • 9
    Eagleson K, Lenat D, Ausley L, Winborne F. 1990. Comparison of measured instream biological responses with responses predicted by Ceriodaphnia chronic toxicity tests. Environ Toxicol Chem 9: 10191028.
  • 10
    Dickson K, Waller W, Kennedy J, Ammann L. 1992. Assessing the relationship between ambient toxicity and instream biological response. Environ Toxicol Chem 11: 13071322.
  • 11
    Lenat D. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern U.S. J North Am Benthol Soc 12: 279290.
  • 12
    Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring. 1995. The strategy for improving water quality monitoring in the United States. Open-File Report 95–742. Technical Appendices and Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
  • 13
    Plafkin, JL, Barbour MT, Porter KD, Gross SK, Hughes RM. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic invertebrates and fish. EPA/440/4–89–001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
  • 14
    Cuffney TG, Gurtz ME, Meador MR. 1993. Guidelines for processing and quality assurance of benthic invertebrate samples collected as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Open-File Report 93–407. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
  • 15
    Cuffney TF, Gurtz ME, Meador MR. 1993. Methods for collecting benthic invertebrate samples as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Open-File Report 93–406. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
  • 16
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Vol III—Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Columbus, OH, USA.
  • 17
    Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Standard Operating Procedures Manual: Biological Assessment. Tallahassee, FL, USA.
  • 18
    Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, White J. 1996. Development of the stream condition index (SCI) for Florida. Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Management Section. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
  • 19
    Barbour MT, Stribling JB. 1994. A technique for assessing stream habitat structure. Proceedings, Humid U.S.—Functions and Values of Riparian Ecosystems, National Association Conservation Districts, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Atlanta, GA, March 18, 1991, pp 156178.
  • 20
    Afifi A, Clark V. 1990. Computer-Aided Multivaruate Analysis, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA.
  • 21
    Mount D. 1998. Midcourse corrections in WET testing program. SETAC News 18: 1920.
  • 22
    Dickson KL, Waller WT, Kennedy JH, Ammann LP, Guinn R, Norberg-King TJ. 1996. Relationships between effluent toxicity, ambient toxicity, and receiving system impacts: Trinity River de-chlorination case study. In GrotheDR, DicksonKL, Reed-JudkinsDK, eds, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 287308.
  • 23
    Sprague JB. 1995. Review of methods for sublethal aquatic tox-icity tests relevant to the Canadian metal-mining industry and design of field validation programs. Aquatic Effects Technology Evaluation Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  • 24
    Marcus M, McDonald L. 1992. Evaluating the statistical bases for relating receiving water impacts to effluent and ambient tox-icities. Environ Toxicol Chem 11: 13891402.
  • 25
    Waller WT, et al. 1996. Predicting instream effects from wet-tests: Discussion synopsis. In GrotheDR, DicksonKL, Reed-JudkinsDK, eds, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 271286.
  • 26
    Parkhurst B. 1996. Predicting receiving system impacts from effluent toxicity. In GrotheDR, DicksonKL, Reed-JudkinsDK, eds, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Evaluation of Methods and Prediction of Receiving System Impacts. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 309321.
  • 27
    Diamond J, Daley C, Moore T. 1999. Evaluating whole effluent toxicity testing as an indicator of instream biological conditions. Report 95-HHE. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA, USA.
  • 28
    deVlaming V, Norberg-King TJ. 1999. A review of single species toxicity tests: Are the results of single species toxicity tests reliable predictors of aquatic ecosystem community responses? EPA 600/R-97/11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Du-luth, MN.