Major Research and Monitoring Needs for Urban Streams and Watersheds

Chapter

Abstract

Successful rehabilitation of salmonid habitat and populations in urban streams requires fundamental understanding of what works and thus requires an adaptive management approach that is based on continuing to fill our major knowledge gaps. Major research and monitoring needs for urban streams and watersheds are similar to those in other land uses (Wenger et al. 2009). This chapter provides a review of those needs including rigorous assessments of the ecological condition of urban waters, assessing urban stormwater mitigation and groundwater contamination, determining the extent of fish passage barriers in urban areas, evaluating chronic toxicities of salmonids and other aquatic biota to commonly occurring urban chemical mixtures, conducting futures analyses that include both human settlement and climate change scenarios, evaluating the effectiveness of urban watershed and stream rehabilitation projects, establishing the effectiveness of urban environmental regulation and ecosystem mitigation efforts, implementing intergovernmental and interdisciplinary research and monitoring of urban aquatic systems, and improving the general understanding of how to effectively educate urban and exurban citizens regarding urban ecosystems.

Keywords

Toxicity Transportation Mold 

References

  1. Baker JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, White D, Van Sickle J, Berger PA, Dole D, Schumaker NH (2004) Alternative futures for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Ecol Appl 14(2):313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilby RE, Mollot LA (2008) Effect of changing land use patterns on the distribution of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Puget Sound region. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65(10):2138–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown LR, Cuffney TF, Coles JF, Fitzpatrick F, McMahon G, Steuer J, Bell AH, May JT (2009) Urban streams across the USA: lessons learned from studies in 9 metropolitan areas. J North Am Benthol Soc 28(4):1051–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colvin R, Giannico GR, Li J, Boyer KL, Gerth WJ (2009) Fish use of intermittent watercourses draining agricultural lands in the upper Willamette River valley, Oregon. Trans Am Fish Soc 138(6):1302–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn RR, Gavin MC, Sanchez MC, Solomon JN (2006) The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conserv Biol 20:1814–1816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner T et al (2013) A social and ecological assessment of tropical land uses at multiple scales: the Sustainable Amazon Network. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368:20120166Google Scholar
  7. Hughes RM (1995) Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In: Davis W, Simon T (eds) Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis, Chelsea, MI, pp 31–47Google Scholar
  8. Hughes RM, Peck DV (2008) Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:837–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hughes RM, Paulsen SG, Stoddard JL (2000) EMAP-surface waters: a national, multiassemblage, probability survey of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422(423):429–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes RM, Dunham S, Maas-Hebner KG, Yeakley JA, Schreck C, Harte M, Molina N, Shock CC, Kaczynski VW, Schaeffer J (2014) A review of urban water body challenges and approaches: 1. rehabilitation and remediation. Fisheries 39(1):xxx-xxxGoogle Scholar
  11. Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (2012) Urban and rural-residential land uses in Oregon: a synthesis of an IMST technical workshop on watershed functions and salmonid recovery. IMST Technical Report 2012-1. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, ORGoogle Scholar
  12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. Accessed 16 April 2012
  13. Katz SL, Barnas K, Hicks R, Cowen J, Jenkinson R (2007) Freshwater habitat restoration action in the Pacific Northwest: a decade’s investment in habitat improvement. Restor Ecol 15:494–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacCoy DE (2006) Fish communities and related environmental conditions of the Lower Boise River, southwestern Idaho, 1974–2004. Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5111. US Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  15. McMahon G, Cuffney TF (2000) Quantifying urban intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecological conditions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36(6):1247–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meehl GA, Tebaldi CL, Walton G, Easterling D, McDaniel L (2009) Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S. Geophys Res Lett 36:L23701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mulvey M, Leferink R, Borisenko A (2009) Willamette Basin rivers and streams assessment. DEQ 09-LAB-016. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council (1992) Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. National Research Council (2000) Ecological indicators for the Nation. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Ozawa CP, Yeakley JA (2007) Performance of management strategies in the protection of riparian vegetation in three Oregon cities. J Environ Plan Manage 50:803–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skidmore P, Beechie T, Pess G, Castro J, Cluer B, Thorne C, Shea C, Chen R (2013) Developing, designing and implementing restoration projects. In: Roni P, Beechie T (eds) Stream and watershed restoration: a guide to restoring riverine processes and habitat. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, pp 215–253Google Scholar
  22. Stapp WB, Wals A, Stankorb S (1996) Environmental education for empowerment. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IAGoogle Scholar
  23. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. EPA-620-R-99-005. Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NCGoogle Scholar
  24. US Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Protecting water resources with smart growth. EPA 231-R-04-002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. US Environmental Protection Agency (2013) National rivers and streams assessment 2008–2009: a collaborative survey. EPA/841/D-13/001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Waite IR, Sobieszczyk S, Carpenter KD, Arnsberg AJ, Johnson HM, Hughes CA, Sarantou MJ, Rinella FA (2008) Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems in the Willamette River Basin and surrounding area, Oregon and Washington. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5101-D. National Water-Quality Assessment Program, US Geological Survey, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Wenger SJ, Roy AH, Jackson CR, Bernhardt ES, Carter TL, Filoso S, Gibson DA, Hession WC, Kaushal SS, Marti E, Meyer JL, Palmer MA, Paul MJ, Purcell AH, Ramirez A, Rosemond AD, Schofield KA, Sudduth EB, Walsh CJ (2009) Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science. J North Am Benthol Soc 28:1080–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehn E, Hostmann M, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S, Tiegs S, Tockner K, Weber C, Peter A (2007) A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw Biol 52:752–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amnis Opes Institute, Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences and ResourcesPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations