The Case for Regime-based Water Quality Standards

Abstract Conventional water quality standards have been successful in reducing the concentration of toxic substances in US waters. However, conventional standards are based on simple thresholds and are therefore poorly structured to address human-caused imbalances in dynamic, natural water quality parameters, such as nutrients, sediment, and temperature. A more applicable type of water quality standard—a “regime standard”—would describe desirable distributions of conditions over space and time within a stream network. By mandating the protection and restoration of the aquatic ecosystem dynamics that are required to support beneficial uses in streams, well-designed regime standards would facilitate more effective strategies for management of natural water quality parameters.

[1]  Charles C. Coutant,et al.  A GENERAL PROTOCOL FOR RESTORATION OF REGULATED RIVERS , 1996 .

[2]  L. Reid Cumulative Watershed Effects and Watershed Analysis , 2001 .

[3]  Thomas F. Waters,et al.  Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control , 1995 .

[4]  National Research Council,et al.  Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. , 1993 .

[5]  J. Kershner,et al.  Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. , 2002, Journal of environmental management.

[6]  G. Poole Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum , 2002 .

[7]  Sarah Birkeland EPA's TMDL Program , 2001 .

[8]  Klement Tockner,et al.  Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration , 2001 .

[9]  J. Stanford,et al.  Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation , 1995 .

[10]  J. Mandrup-Poulsen Findings of the National Research Council’s Committee on Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management , 2002 .

[11]  Jason B. Dunham,et al.  Metapopulations and salmonids: a synthesis of life history patterns and empirical observations , 2000 .

[12]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  Implications of Streamflow Variability and Predictability for Lotic Community Structure: A Regional Analysis of Streamflow Patterns , 1989 .

[13]  A. Arthington,et al.  Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity , 2002, Environmental management.

[14]  K. Fausch,et al.  Landscapes to Riverscapes: Bridging the Gap between Research and Conservation of Stream Fishes , 2002 .

[15]  N. Poff Why Disturbances Can Be Predictable: A Perspective on the Definition of Disturbance in Streams , 1992, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[16]  T. Quinn,et al.  Behavioural thermoregulation and homing by spring chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum), in the Yakima River , 1991 .

[17]  R. Sparks,et al.  THE NATURAL FLOW REGIME. A PARADIGM FOR RIVER CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION , 1997 .

[18]  J. Agee,et al.  Dynamic Landscape Systems , 2005 .

[19]  G. Petts A perspective on the abiotic processes sustaining the ecological integrity of running waters , 2000, Hydrobiologia.

[20]  R. Naiman,et al.  Watershed Management and Pacific Salmon: Desired Future Conditions , 1997 .