Application of the probability-based Maryland Biological Stream Survey to the state's assessment of water quality standards

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Volumn 150, Issue 1-4, 2009, Pages 65-73

  Southerland, Mark T ^a   Vølstad, Jon H ^a   Weber, Edward D ^a   Klauda, Ronald J ^b   Poukish, Charles A ^c   Rowe, Matthew C ^c  

^a VERSAR INC   (United States)

^b MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES   (United States)

^c Maryland Department of the Environment   (United States)

Author keywords

303d list; IBI; MBSS; Random sampling; Water quality standards

Indexed keywords

303D LIST; IBI; MBSS; RANDOM SAMPLING; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LANDFORMS; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARDS; SURVEYS; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHEDS;

RIVERS;

CONFERENCE PROCEEDING; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY; MACROINVERTEBRATE; PROBABILITY; STREAM; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHED;

ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DATA COLLECTION; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FRESH WATER; MARYLAND; PROBABILITY; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 60349113399     PISSN: 01676369     EISSN: 15732959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0682-y     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Bady, P., Dolédec, S., Fesl, C., Gayraud, S., Bacchi, M., & Schöll, F. (2005). Use of invertebrate traits for the biomonitoring of European large rivers: The effect of sampling effort on genus richness and functional diversity. Freshwater Biology, 50, 159-173.
2. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 481-B-99-002.
3. Bartsch, L. A., Richardson, W. B., & Naimo, T. J. (1998). Sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in a large flood-plain river: Considerations of study design, sample size, and cost. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2, 425-439.
4. Cao, Y., & Hawkins, C. P. (2005). Simulating biological impairment to evaluate the accuracy of ecological indicators. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 954-965.
5. Downing, J. A. (1989). Precision of the mean and the design of benthos sampling programmes: Caution revised. Marine Biology, 103, 231-234.
6. Duggan, I. C., Scarsbrook, M. R., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Comparison of coded abundance and fixed count rapid assessment techniques for biomonitoring in New Zealand streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 37, 23-30.
7. General Accounting Office (GAO) (2000). Water quality - key EPA and state decisions limited by inconsistent and incomplete data. GAO/ RCED-00-54. Washington, DC.
8. King, R. S., & Richardson, C. J. (2002). Evaluating subsampling approaches and macro invertebrate taxonomic resolutions for wetland bioassessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 21, 150-171.
9. Klauda, R., Kazyak, P., Stranko, S., Southerland, M., Roth, N., & Chaillou, J. (1998). The Maryland biological stream survey: A state agency program to assess the impact of anthropogenic stresses on stream habitat quality and biota. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 51, 299-316.
10. Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) (2000). Report of the biological criteria advisory committee to the Maryland Department of the Environment on the interim framework for the regulatory application of biological assessments. In R. Eskin, J. E. Lathrop-Davis, & T. C. Rule (Eds.). Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Environment.
11. Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) (2006). Draft 2006 list of impaired surface waters [303(d) List] and integrated assessment of water quality in Maryland. Part G: Appendix II - Listing methodologies. Retrieved from http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/ 2006DRAFTList_Appendices(1).pdf.
12. Paulsen, S. G., Hughes, R. M., & Larsen, D. P. (1998). Critical elements in describing and understanding our nation's aquatic resources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34, 995-1005.
13. Peterson, S. A., Urquhart, N. S., & Welch, E. B. (1999). Sample representativeness: A must for reliable regional lake condition estimates. Environmental Science and Technology, 33, 1559-1565.
14. Roth, N., Vølstad, J., Erb, L., Weber, E., Kazyak, P., Stranko, S., et al. (2005). Maryland biological stream survey 2000-2004 volume 6: Laboratory, field, and analytical methods. Annapolis, MD: Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, DNR-12-0305-0108 EA-05-3.
15. Somers, K. M., Reid, R. A., & David, S. M. (1998). Rapid biological assessments: How many animals are enough? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 17, 348-358.
16. Southerland, M. T., Rogers, G. M., Kline, M. J., Morgan, R. P., Boward, D. M., Kazyak, P. F., et al. (2007a). Improving biological indicators to better assess the condition of streams. Ecological Indicators, 7, 751-767.
17. Southerland, M., Vølstad, J., Weber, E., Morgan, R., Currey, L., Holt, J., et al. (2007b). Using MBSS data to identify stressors for streams that fail biocriteria in Maryland. Baltimore: Maryland Department of the Environment.
18. U.S. EPA (2002). Summary of biological assessment programs and biocriteria development for states, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions: Streams and wadeable rivers. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-822-R-02-048.
19. Vlek, H. E., Sporka, F., & Krno, I. (2006). Influence of macroinvertebrate sample size on bioassessment of streams. Hydrobiologia, 566, 523-542.
20. Vølstad, J. H., Roth, N. E., Southerland, M. T., & Mercurio, G. (2003). Pilot study for Montgomery County and Maryland DNR data integration: Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling protocols for freshwater streams. Fort Meade, MD: Office of Environmental Information and Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Team, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-903-R-03/005.