Angermeier, P. L. & J. R. Karr, 1986. Applying an index of biotic integrity based on stream-fish community considerations in sampling and interpretation. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manag. 6: 418–429.Google Scholar
APHA et al., 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Amer. Public Health Assoc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Baker, J. P. & S. W. Christensen, 1991. Effects of acidification on biological communities in aquatic ecosystems. In: D. F. Charles (ed.), Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems
. pp. 83–106. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Baker, J. P., D. P. Bernard, S. W. Christensen, M. J. Sale, J. Freda, K. Heltcher, D. Maromorek, L. Rowe, P. Scanlon, G. Suter, W. Warren-Hicks & P. Welbourn, 1990. Biological Effects of Changes in Surface Water Acid-Base Chemistry. NAPAP Report 13. In: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Vol. II, Washington, DC.
Balon, E. K., 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: a proposal and definition. J. Fish. Res. Broad Can. 32: 821–864.Google Scholar
Berkman, H. E. & C. F. Rabeni, 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environ. Biol. Fishes 18: 285–294.Google Scholar
Cooper, E. L., 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. Penn. State Univ. Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 243 pp.Google Scholar
Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simmons, 1989. Proceedings of the 1989 Midwest Pollution Control biologists Meeting. U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency, EPA-905/9-89-007.
Dickson, K. L., W. T. Waller, J. H. Kennedy & L. P. Ammann, 1992. Assessing the relationship between ambient toxicity and instream biological response. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 1307–1322.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. & H. Smith, 1981. Applied Regression Analysis
, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 709 pp.Google Scholar
Eddy, S. & J. C. Underhill, 1978. How to know the freshwater fishes. 3rd edn. W.C. Brown Comp. Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 215 pp.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. A., L. W. Hall, Jr., W. D. Killen, Jr., M. C. Ziegenfuss, R. D. Anderson & R. J. Klauda, 1992a. Concurrent fish community metric, physical and chemical approaches for assessing environmental degradation in Maryland coastal plain streams. In: R.E. Stroud (ed.), Fisheries Management and Watershed Development AFS Symposium 13. p. 270. Bethesda, Maryland.
Fischer, S. A., L. W. HallJr. & W. D. KillenJr., 1992b. Distribution of the endangered glassy darter, Etheostoma vitreum
, in Maryland coastal plain streams. Virg. J. Sci. 43: 47–52.Google Scholar
Gammon, J. R., 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Wabash River. Purdue Univ. Water Resources Res. Center, Tech. Rep. 86, West Lafayette, IN.
Gammon, J. R., 1980. The use of community parameters derived from electrofishing catches of river fish as indicators of environmental quality. In: Seminar on Water Quality Management Trade-offs. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, EPA-905/9-80-009: 335–363.
Gorman, O. T. & J. R. Karr, 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59: 507–515.Google Scholar
Greening, H. S., A. J. Janicki & W. P. Saunders, 1987. An evaluation of stream liming effects on water quality and yellow perch spawning in Maryland coastal plain streams: 1986 Final Report. Internat. Sci. Technol. Inc, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
Greening, H. S., A. J. Janicki, R. J. Klauda, D. M. Boulder, D. M. Levin & E. S. Perry, 1989. An evaluation of stream liming effects on water quality and spawning of migratory fishes in Maryland coastal plain streams: 1988 results. Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Chesapeake Bay Res. Monit. Div., final Rep. AD-89-5.
Greer, J., 1991. Shaping the watershed: How should we manage growth. Watershed Summer/Spring: 2–14.
Hall, L. W.Jr., S. A. Fischer, W. D. KillenJr., M. C. Ziegenfuss & R. D. Anderson, 1992. 1991 Doser Study in Maryland coastal plain: Use of lime doser to mitigate stream acidification. Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Chesapeake Bay Res. Monit. Div., Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
Henshaw, J. M., T. E. Lewis & E. M. Heithman (in press). A semi-automatic calorimetric method for the determination of monomeric aluminum species in natural waters by flow injection analysis. Internat. J. Environ. Anal. Chem.
Hillman, D. C., S. H. Pia & J. J. Simon, 1986. Analytical methods manual for the National Surface Water Stream Survey (Middle Atlantic Phase I, Southeast Screening and Middle Atlantic Episode Pilot). Lockheed Engin. Managem. Serv. Co., Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. M. & J. R. Gammon, 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 116: 196–209.Google Scholar
IST (International Science and Technology, Inc.), 1988. Maryland Synoptic Stream Chemistry Survey: Estimating the number and distribution of streams affected by or at risk from acidification. Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Rep. AD-88-2.
Jacobson, R., P. Kazyak, A. Janicki, D. Wade, H. Wilson & R. P. Morgan, 1992. Feasibility of using an index of biotic integrity (IBI) approach for synthesizing data from a Maryland biological stream survey. Rep. prep. by Versar Inc., Columbia, Maryland.
Janicki, A. J. & H. S. Greening, 1988. An evaluation of stream liming effects on water quality and anadromous fish spawning in Maryland coastal plain streams: 1987 results. Rep. Internat. Sci. Technol. Inc., Reston, Virginia.
Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.Google Scholar
Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity; A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Appl. 1: 66–84.Google Scholar
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant & I. J. Schlosser, 1987. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natur. Hist. Surv., Spec. Pub. 5.
Klauda, R. J., 1989. Definitions of critical environmental conditions for selected Chesapeake Bay finfish exposed to acidic episodes in spawning and nursery habitats. Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Chesapeake Bay Res. Monit. Div., Acid Deposition Program, Rep. CBRM AD-89-6.
Klauda, R. J., S. A. Fischer, L. W. HallJr. & J. A. Sullivan, 1991. Alewife and Blueback Herring. In: S. L. Funderburk, J. A. Mihursky, S. J. Jordan & D. Riley (eds), Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources
, 2nd edn. pp. 10.1–10.29, Chesapeake Research Consortium Inc., Solomons, MD.Google Scholar
Kramer, J. R., 1984. Modified gram analysis for acid and based titrations. Environ. Geochem. Rep. 1984–2.
Lee, D. S., A. Norden, C. R. Gilbert & R. Franz, 1976. A list of the freshwater fishes of Maryland and Delaware. Chesapeake Sci. 17: 205–211.Google Scholar
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister & J. R. StaufferJr., 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Caroline State Mus. Natur. Hist., Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Mahon, R., 1980. Accuracy of catch-effort methods for estimating fish density and biomass in streams. Environ. Biol. Fishes 5: 343–360.Google Scholar
Majumdar, S. K., L. W. HallJr. & H. M. Austin, 1987. Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources, Pennsylvania Acad. Sci., Easton, Pennsylvania. 573 pp.Google Scholar
Maryland Office of Planning, 1991. Maryland's Land 1973–1990 A Changing Resource. Off. State Planning, Baltimore, Maryland. Pub. 91–8.Google Scholar
Miller, D. L., P. M. Leonard, R. Hughes, J. R. Karr, P. B. Moyle, L. H. Schrader, B. A. Thompson, R. A. Daniels, K. D. Fausch, G. A. Fitzhugh, J. R. Gannon, D. B. Halliwell, P. L. Angermeier & D. J. Orth, 1988. Regional Applications of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource management. Fisheries 13: 12–20.Google Scholar
Milliken, G. A. & D. Johnson, 1984. Analysis of Messy Data. Volume 1: Designed Experiments
. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 473 pp.Google Scholar
Myers, T. J. & S. Swanson, 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, stream type and livestock bank drainage in northern Nevada. Water Res. Bull. 27: 667–676.Google Scholar
Oberdorff, T. & R. M. Hughes, 1992. Modification of an index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages to characterize rivers of the Seine River, France. Hydrobiologia 228: 117–130.Google Scholar
OECD (Orangization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 1986. Water Pollution by Fertilizers and Pesticides. Paris, France.
OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency), 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II: users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface water. Div. Water Qual. Monit. Assess. Surface Water Sect., Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
OEPA, 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods and application. Div. Water Qual. Monit. Assess., Surface Water Sect., Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Page, L. M., 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Inc., Neptune City, NJ. 271 pp.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. R., Y. Maita & C. M. Lalli, 1984. A Manual of Chemical and Biological Methods for Sea Water Analysis
. Pergamon Press, New York. 174 pp.Google Scholar
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes, 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency, EPA/440/4-89/001.
Scott, D. & T. Hall, 1991. Comparative analysis of agricultural land use practices on two similar size Choptank River watersheds. Rep. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Chesapeake Estuary Program, Annapolis, Maryland.
Smith, P. W., 1979. The fishes of Illinois
. Univ. Ill. Press, Urbana. Illinois. 314 pp.Google Scholar
Speir, H. J., D. R. Weinrich & W. R. Carter, III, 1976. Evaluation of the effects of channelization on small Coastal Plain streams of Maryland. Rep. to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Rep. F-24-R, Annapolis, Maryland.
Steedman, R. J., 1988. Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in Southern California. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 492–501.Google Scholar
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1979. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020.
USEPA, 1987. Water quality criteria summary. Off. Water Regulations and Standards. Criteria and Standards Div.
USEPA, 1991. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List. Report prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee's by the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee's Living Resources Subcommittee's Joint Criteria and Standards Workgroup, Annapolis, Maryland.
Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The River continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130–137.Google Scholar