27 Poster - Bioassessment

Tuesday, May 19, 2009: 1:30 PM-4:30 PM
Ambassador Ballroom
Development of an algal bioassessment tool for freshwater streams in South Carolina
Emily K. Hollingsworth, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; James B. Glover, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Advantages of a statewide database for developing evidence in a watershed causal assessment
Susan M. Cormier, US EPA; Jeffrey Bailey, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; Ben Lowman, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; Jeroen Gerritsen, Tetra Tech Inc.; Lei Zheng, Tetra Tech Inc.
Evaluating thresholds in stream macroinvertebrate community responses to stress
David R. Smith, U. S. Geological Survey; Nathaniel P. Hitt, U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center; Craig D. Snyder, U. S. Geological Survey
Bioassessment of STREAMS in the NEW RIVER watershed of eastern Tennessee impacted by surface MINING of coal—a multidecade EVALUATION
Amanda Whitley, Austin Peay State University; Joseph Schiller, Austin Peay State University; Jamie Miller, Austin Peay State University; Rachel Peacher, Austin Peay State University
Comparison of invertebrate sampling methods in the Middle Rio Grande
Jane S. Fencl, University of New Mexico; Ayesha S. Burdett, University of New Mexico; Thomas F. Turner, University of New Mexico
Detecting changes in stream health: Advantages of multiple-community bioassessments
Cathy M. Tate, U.S. Geological Survey; Terry M. Short, U.S. Geological Survey
Linking changes in macroinvertebrate community composition to sources of water quality impairment in Minnesota streams
Christine Dolph, University of Minnesota; David Huff, University of Minnesota; Christopher Chizinski, University of Minnesota; Bruce Vondracek, USGS, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Evaluation of single and two-stage adaptive sampling designs for estimation of density and abundance of freshwater mussels in the upper Mississippi River
David R. Smith, U. S. Geological Survey; Jim Rogala, United States Geological Survey; Brian Gray, United States Geological Survey; Steve Zigler, United States Geological Survey; Teresa J. Newton, United States Geological Survey
Land cover influence on macroinvertebrate assemblages in Marquette County, Michigan
James C. Olson, University of Michigan; Ashley M. Burtner, University of Michigan; Donna R. Kashian, Wayne State University
Assessing aquatic invertebrate response to reduced flows from run-of-the-RIVER hydropower projects on STREAMS in British Columbia
Mark E. LeRuez, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd.; Jim A. Trask, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd.
Efficient and effective aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring for rocky coasts
Valerie Brady, Natural Resources Research Institute; Lucinda B. Johnson, University of Minnesota Duluth
Comparison of macroinvertebrate assemblages within a coffee growing region of Manizales, Colombia
Ely Kosnicki, University of Missouri - Columbia; Jorge A. Botero, Cenicafe-FNC
Marchant box vs. Caton tray: A comparison of macroinvertebrate subsampling repeatability and cost effectiveness
Gary Lester, EcoAnalysts, Inc.; Steve Wells, EcoAnalysts, Inc.; Dawn Hamilton, EcoAnalysts, Inc.
Overs and unders. fine sediment in the riverbed or transport through a reach: Relationships with macroinvertebrates
Evan Harrison, University of Canberra; Richard H. Norris, University of Canberra; Scott Wilkinson, CSIRO Land and Water
Using macroinvertebrate response to inform sediment criteria development in mountain streams
Sandra A. Bryce, Dynamac Corporation; Philip R. Kaufmann, USEPA; Gregg A. Lomnicky, USEPA
See more of: Contributed Sessions