![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Developing Biological Indicators: Lessons Learned from Mid-Atlantic Streams
Table of Contents
NOTICE | FIGURES | TABLES | ABSTRACT | ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. SAMPLING DESIGN
A probabilistic sampling design was
the best choice for MAIA
Free information is cost-effective
Reference sites did not always meet criteria for
reference condition
III. THE PERILS OF DATA MANAGEMENT
Different "names" for the
same site caused confusion
Original data must be archived
File structure mattered
Simple files were best
IV. LINKING HUMAN DISTURBANCE TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE
Addressing concerns about circular
reasoning
Metric testing included safeguards against circular
reasoning
Patterns of human disturbance were complex
Integrated measures of disturbance were better predictors
of index values
V. METRIC TESTING
Simple criteria were used first
to eliminate potential metrics
Statistical precision was no substitute for correlation
with disturbance
Watershed features were confounded with metric
response to disturbance
Metrics from different assemblage types were eliminated
for different reasons
VI. DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF MULTIMETRIC INDEXES
Biological criteria depend on the
definition of reference sites
Patterns of index variability were similar across
assemblage types
Invertebrate and diatom index values were comparable
for pool and riffle samples
Assemblages differed in their sensitivity to disturbance
types
VII. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Download this report:
Developing Biological Indicators: Lessons Learned from Mid-Atlantic Streams (EPA/903/R-03/003, March 2003)(54pp, 1.6MKB, About PDF)