Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 51, Issue 1–2, pp 299–316 | Cite as

Maryland Biological Stream Survey: A State Agency Program to Assess the Impact of Anthropogenic Stresses on Stream Habitat Quality and Biota

  • R. Klauda
  • P. Kazyak
  • S. Stranko
  • M. Southerland
  • N. Roth
  • J. Chaillou
Article

Abstract

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources is conducting the Maryland Biological Stream Survey, a probability-based sampling program, stratified by river basin and stream order, to assess water quality, physical habitat, and biological conditions in first through third order, non-tidal streams. These streams comprise about 90% of all lotic water miles in the state. About 300 sites (75 m segments) are being sampled during spring and summer each year. All basins in the state will be sampled over a three-year period, 1995-97. MBSS developments in 1995-96 included (1) an electrofishing capture efficiency correction method to improve the accuracy of fish population estimates, (2) two indices of biotic integrity (IBI) for fish assemblages to identify degraded streams, and (3) land use information for catchments upstream of sampled sites to investigate associations between stream condition and anthropogenic stresses. Based on fish IBI scores at 270 stream sites in six basins sampled in 1995, 11% of non-tidal stream miles in Maryland were classified as very poor, 15% as poor, 24% as fair, and 27% as good. IBIs have not yet been developed for stream sites with catchment areas less than 120 hectares (23% of non-tidal stream miles). IBI scores declined with stream acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and pH, an association that was also evident for fish species richness, biomass, and density. Low IBI scores were associated with several measures of degraded stream habitat, but not with local riparian buffer width. There was a significant negative association between IBI scores and urban land use upstream of sampled sites in the only extensively urbanized basin assessed in 1995. Future plans for the MBSS include (1) identifying all benthic macroinvertebrate samples to genus, (2) developing benthic macroinvertebrate, herpetofaunal, and physical habitat indicators, and (3) enhancing the analysis of stream condition-stressor associations by refining landscape metrics and using multi-variate techniques.

Keywords

Landscape Metrics Benthic Macroinvertebrate Acid Neutralize Capacity Physical Habitat Anthropogenic Stress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, J.P. and Christensen, S.W.: 1991, Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, J.P., VanSickle, J., Gagen, C.J., DeWalle, D.R., Sharpe, W.E., Carline, R.F., Baldigo, B.P., Murdock, P.S., Bath, D.W., Kretser, W.E., Simonin, H.A., Wigington, R.J., Jr.: 1996, Ecol. Applications 6, 422–437.Google Scholar
  3. Barbour, M.T. and Stribling, J.B.: 1991, Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Bode, R.W.: 1988. Methods for Rapid Bioassessment of Streams, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Cochran, W.G.: 1977, Sampling Techniques, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, G.T.: 1991. Preparation of 1990 Land Use/Land Cover Maps and ARC/INFO Digital Data Base, Daft-McCune-Walker, Towson, Maryland.Google Scholar
  7. Frissel, C.A., Liss, W.J., Warren, C.E., Hurley, M.D.: 1986, Environ. Mgmt. 10, 199–214.Google Scholar
  8. Gerritsen, J., Dietz, J.M., Wilson, H.T., Jr.: 1996, Ecol. Applications 6, 438–448.Google Scholar
  9. Heimbuch, D.G., Wilson, H.T., Weisberg, S.B., Volstad, J.H., Kazyak, P.F.: 1997, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. (In press).Google Scholar
  10. Herlihy, A.T., Kaufman, P.R., Mitch, M.E.: 1991, Water Resources Res. 27, 629–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hilsenhoff, W.L.: 1987, Great Lakes Entomol. 20, 31–39.Google Scholar
  12. Hilsenhoff, W.L.: 1988, Great Lakes Entomol. 21, 9–13.Google Scholar
  13. Jessen, R.J.: 1978. Statistical Survey Techniques, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Karr, J.R.: 1991, Ecol. Applications, 1, 66–84.Google Scholar
  15. Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., Schlosser, I.J.: 1986, Nat. History Survey Spec. Publ. 5: 1–28.Google Scholar
  16. Kaufman, P.R., Herlihy, A.T., Baker, L.A.: 1992. Environ. Pollut. 77, 115–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Knapp, C.M., Saunders, W.P., Heimbuch, D.G., Greening, H.S., Filbin, G.J.: 1988, Maryland Sympotic Stream Chemistry Survey, International Science and Technology, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  18. Lenat, D.R.: 1993, N. Amer. Benthological Soc. 12, 279–290.Google Scholar
  19. Ohio EPA: 1987, Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  20. Padmanabah, A.P. and Olem, H.: 1991, Water Environ. Tech. 3, 5, 40.Google Scholar
  21. Pennington, M. and Volstad, J.H., 1994, Biometrics 50, 725–732.Google Scholar
  22. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., Hughes, R.M.: 1989, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  23. Rankin, E.T.: 1989, The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  24. Roth, N.E., Southerland, M.T., Chaillou, J.C., Volstad, J.H., Neisberg, S.B., Wilson, H.T., Heimbuch, D.G., Seibel, J.C.: 1977a. Maryland Biological Stream Survey, Versar, Inc., Columbia, Maryland.Google Scholar
  25. Roth, N.E., Southerland, M.T., Chaillou, J.C., Klauda, R.J., Kazyak, P.F., Stranko, S.A., Hall, L.W., Jr., Morgan, R.P., II: 1977b, Environ. Monit. Assess. (this volume).Google Scholar
  26. Saemdal, C.E., Swensson, B., Wretman, J.: 1992, Model Assisted Survey Sampling, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Seber, G.A.F. and LeCren, E.D.: 1967, Jour. Animal Ecol. 36:631–643.Google Scholar
  28. Southerland, M.T. and Stribling, J.B.: 1995, Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resources Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  29. Strahler, A.N.: 1957, Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, 38, 913–920.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. EPA: 1987, Handbook of Methods for Acid Deposition Studies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. VanSickle, J., Baker, J.P., Simonin, H.A., Baldigo, B.P., Kietsei, W.A., Sharpe, W.E.: 1996. Ecol. Applications 6, 408–421.Google Scholar
  32. Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R., Cushing, C.E.: 1980, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 130–137.Google Scholar
  33. Volstad, J.H., Southerland, M., Chaillou, J., Wilson, H., Heimbuch, D., Jacobson, P., Weisberg, S.: 1995, The Maryland Biological Stream Survey, Versar, Inc., Columbia, Maryland.Google Scholar
  34. Volstad, J.H., Southerland, M.T., Weisberg, S.B., Wilson, H.T., Heimbuch, D.G., Seibel, J.C.: 1996, Maryland Biological Stream Survey, Versar, Inc., Columbia, Maryland.Google Scholar
  35. Wigington, P.J., Jr., DeWalle, D.R., Murdoch, P.S., Simonin, H.A., VanSickle, J., Baker, J.P.: 1996, Ecol. Applications 6, 389–407.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Klauda
    • 1
  • P. Kazyak
    • 1
  • S. Stranko
    • 1
  • M. Southerland
    • 2
  • N. Roth
    • 2
  • J. Chaillou
    • 2
  1. 1.Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesAnnapolisUSA
  2. 2.Versar, Inc.ColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations