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

The Clean Water Act presents a daunting task for states by requiring them to assess and restore all their waters. Traditional monitoring has led to two beliefs: (1) ad hoc sampling (i.e., non-random) is adequate if enough sites are sampled and (2) more intensive sampling (e.g., collecting more organisms) at each site is always better. We analyzed the 1,500 Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) random sites sampled in 2000-2004 to describe the variability of Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores at the site, reach, and watershed scales. Average variability for fish and benthic IBI scores increased with increasing spatial scale, demonstrating that single site IBI scores are not representative at watershed scales and therefore at best 25% of a state's stream length can be representatively sampled with non-random designs. We evaluated the effects on total taxa captured and IBI precision of sampling for twice as many benthic macroinvertebrates at 73 MBSS sites with replicate samples. When sampling costs were fixed, the precision of the IBI decreased as the number of sites had to be reduced by 15%. Only 1% more taxa were found overall when the 73 sites where combined. We concluded that (1) comprehensive assessment of a state's waters should be done using probability-based sampling that allows the condition across all reaches to be inferred statistically and (2) additional site sampling effort should not be incorporated into state biomonitoring when it will reduce the number of sites sampled to the point where overall assessment precision is lower.

Environmental impacts of dispersed development from federal infrastructure projects.

Dispersed development, also referred to as urban growth or sprawl, is a pattern of low-density development spread over previously rural landscapes. Such growth can result in adverse impacts to air quality, water quality, human health, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, agricultural land, military training areas, water supply and wastewater treatment, recreational resources, viewscapes, and cultural resources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is charged with protecting public health and the environment, which includes consideration of impacts from dispersed development. Specifically, because federal infrastructure projects can affect the progress of dispersed development, the secondary impacts resulting from it must be assessed in documents prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has oversight for NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act requires that U.S. EPA review and comment on federal agency NEPA documents. The adverse effects of dispersed development can be induced by federal infrastructure projects including transportation, built infrastructure, modifications in natural infrastructure, public land conversion and redevelopment of properties, construction of federal facilities, and large traffic or major growth generation developments requiring federal permits. This paper presents an approach that U.S. EPA reviewers and NEPA practitioners can use to provide accurate, realistic, and consistent analysis of secondary impacts of dispersed development resulting from federal infrastructure projects. It also presents 24 measures that can be used to mitigate adverse impacts from dispersed development by modifying project location and design, participating in preservation or restoration activities, or informing and supporting local communities in planning.