v/EPA
United States Offtea of Water EPA-440/5-90-004
Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards (WH-585) April 1990
Agency Washington. PC 20460
Biological Criteria
National Program Guidance
For Surface Waters
-------
-------
Biological Criteria
National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U, S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
-------
Contents
Acknowledgments iv
Dedication iv
Definitions . . .v
Executive Summary vii
Parti: Program Elements
1. Introduction 3
Value of Biological Criteria 4
Process for Implementation 6
Independent Application of Biological Criteria 7
How to Use This Document 7
2. Legal Authority 9
Section 303 9
Section 304 10
Potential Applications Under the Act 10
Potential Applications Under Other Legislation 10
3. The Conceptual Framework 13
Premise for Biological Criteria 13
Biological Integrity 14
Biological Criteria 14
Narrative Criteria 15
Numeric Criteria 16
Refining Aquatic Life Use Classifications 17
Developing and Implementing Biological Criteria 18
-------
4, Integrating Biological Criteria in Surface Water Management 21
Implementing Biological Criteria 21
Biological Criteria in State Programs 22
Future Directions 24
Fart II: The Implementation Process
5. The Reference Condition 27
Site-specific Reference Condition 28
The Upstream-Downstream Reference Condition 28
The Near Field-Far Field Reference Condition 28
The Regional Reference Condition , . 29
Paired Watershed Reference Condition 29
Ecoregional Reference Condition 29
6. The Biological Survey 33
Selecting Aquatic Community Components 34
Biological Survey Design 35
Selecting the Metric 35
Sampling Design 36
7. Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method 37
Hypothesis Testing , 37
Diagnosis 38
References 43
Appendix A: Common Questions and Their Answers 45
Appendix B: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Technical Reference Guide , 49
Appendix C: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Development By States ......... 51
Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers . ,.,..,, 53
111
-------
Acknowledgments
Development of this document required the combined effort of ecologists, biologists, and policy makers from States, EPA
Regions, and EPA Headquarters. Initial efforts relied on the 1988 document Report of the National Workshop on Instream
Biological Monitoring and Criteria that summarizes a 1987 workshop sponsored by the EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, EPA Region V, and EPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis. In December 1988, contributing and
reviewing committees were established (see Appendix D). Members provided reference materials and commented on drafts.
Their assistance was most valuable.
Special recognition goes to the Steering Committee who helped develop document goals and made a significant contribu-
tion toward the final guidance. Members of the Steering Committee include:
Robert Hughes, Ph.D. Chris Yoder
Susan Davies Wayne Davis
John Maxted Jimmie Overton
James Plafkin, Ph.D. Dave Courtemanch
Phil Larsen, Ph.D.
Finally, our thanks go to States that recognized the importance of a biological approach in standards and pushed forward
independently to incorporate biological criteria into their programs. Their guidance made this effort possible. Development of
the program guidance document was sponsored by the U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards and developed, in
part, through U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3533 to Dynamac Corporation. Thanks to Dr. Mark Southerlandfor his technical
assistance.
Suzanne K. Macy Marcy, Ph.D.
Editor
In Memory of
James L. Plafkin, Ph.D.
iv
-------
Definitions
To effectively use biological criteria, a clear understanding of how these criteria are developed and ap-
plied in a water quality standards framework is necessary. This requires, in part, that users of biological
criteria start from the same frame of reference. To help form this frame of reference, the following defini-
tions are provided. Please consider them carefully to ensure a consistent interpretation of this document.
Definitions
0 An AQUATIC COMMUNITY is an association of in-
teracting populations of aquatic organisms in a given
waterbody or habitat.
0 A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of
the biological condition of a waterbody using biologi-
cal surveys and other direct measurements of resi-
dent biota in surface waters.
Q BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA, or biocriteria, are numeri-
cal values or narrative expressions that describe the
reference biological integrity of aquatic communities
inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life
use.
Q BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY is functionally defined as
the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting
unimpaired waterbodies of a specified habitat as
measured by community structure and function.
Q BIOLOGICAL MONITORING is the use of a biologi-
cal entity as a detector and its response as a
measure to determine environmental conditions.
Toxicity tests and biological surveys are common
biomonitoring methods.
Q A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, or biosurvey, consists of
collecting, processing and analyzing representative
portions of a resident aquatic community to deter-
mine the community structure and function.
Q A COMMUNITY COMPONENT is any portion of a
biological community. The community component
may pertain to the taxomonic group (fish, inver-
tebrates, algae), the taxonomic category (phylum,
order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy
(herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) or organizational
level (individual, population, community association)
of a biological entity within the aquatic community.
Q REGIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIMILARITY describe
a relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity
of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegeta-
tion, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant vari-
able. Regions of ecological similarity help define the
potential for designated use classifications of
specific waterbodies.
Q DESIGNATED USES are those uses specified in
water quality standards for each waterbody or seg-
ment whether or not they are being attained,
Q An IMPACT is a change in the chemical, physical or
biological quality or condition of a waterbody caused
by external sources.
Q An IMPAIRMENT is a detrimental effect on the
biological Integrity of a waterbody caused by an im-
pact that prevents attainment of the designated use.
Q A POPULATION is an aggregate of interbreeding in-
dividuals of a biological species within a specified
location.
Q A WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
of the condition of a waterbody using biological sur-
veys, chemical-specific analyses of pollutants in
waterbodies, and toxicity tests.
0 An ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
of the condition of a waterbody using water quality
and physical habitat assessment methods.
-------
Executive Summary
The Clean Water Act (Act) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
programs that will evaluate, restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in-
tegrity of the Nation's waters. In response to this directive, States and EPA implemented
chemically based water quality programs that successfully addressed significant water pollution
problems. However, these programs alone cannot identify or address all surface water pollution
problems. To create a more comprehensive program, EPA is setting a new priority for the develop-
ment of biological water quality criteria. The initial phase of this program directs State adoption of
narrative biological criteria as part of State water quality standards. This effort will help States and
EPA achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act set forth in Section 101 and comp y with statutory
requirements under Sections 303 and 304. The Water Quality Standards Regulation provides additional
authority for biological criteria development.
In accordance with priorities established in the FY1991 Agency Operating Guidance, States are to
adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 trien-
nium. To support this priority, EPA is developing a Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program and is providing this program guidance document on biological
criteria.
This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological
criteria. Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to facilitate
development and implementation of narrative and numeric criteria for each of the surface water
types.
When implemented, biological criteria will expand and improve water quality standards
programs, help identify impairment of beneficial uses, and help set program priorities. Biological
criteria are valuable because they directly measure the condition of the resource at risk, detect
problems that other methods may miss or underestimate, and provide a systematic process for
measuring progress resulting from the implementation of water quality programs.
vii
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Biological criteria require direct measurements of the structure and function of resident aquatic
communities to determine biological integrity and ecological function. They supplement, rather than
replace chemical and toxicological methods. It is EPA's policy that biological survey methods be fully
integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment methods and that chemical-specific criteria,
whole-effluent toxicity evaluations and biological criteria be used as independent evaluations of non-
attainment of designated uses.
Biological criteria are narrative expressions or numerical values that describe the biological in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given aquatic life use. They are developed
under the assumptions that surface waters impacted by anthropogenic activities may contain im-
paired aquatic communities (the greater the impact the greater the expected impairment) and that
surface waters not impacted by anthropogenic activities are generally not impaired. Measures of
aquatic community structure and function in unimpaired surface waters functionally define biologi-
cal integrity and form the basis for establishing the biological criteria.
Narrative biological criteria are definable statements of condition or attainable goals for a given
use designation. They establish a positive statement about aquatic community characteristics ex-
pected to occur within a waterbody (e.g., "Aquatic life shall be as it naturally occurs" or "A natural
variety of aquatic life shall be present and all functional groups well represented"). These criteria can
be developed using existing information. Numeric criteria describe the expected attainable com-
munity attributes and establish values based on measures such as species richness, presence or ab-
sence of indicator taxa, and distribution of classes of organisms. To implement narrative criteria and
develop numeric criteria, biota in reference waters must be carefully assessed. These are used as the
reference values to determine if, and to what extent, an impacted surface waterbody is impaired.
Biological criteria support designated aquatic life use classifications for application in standards.
The designated use determines the benefit or purpose to be derived from the waterbody; the criteria
provide a measure to determine if the use is impaired. Refinement of State water quality standards to
include more detailed language about aquatic life is essential to fully implement a biological criteria
program. Data collected from biosurveys can identify consistently distinct characteristics among
aquatic communities inhabiting different waters with the same designated use. These biological and
ecological characteristics may be used to define separate categories within a designated use, or
separate one designated use into two or more use classifications.
To develop values for biological criteria, States should (1) identify unimpaired reference water-
bodies to establish the reference condition and (2) characterize the aquatic communities inhabiting
reference surface waters. Currently, two principal approaches are used to establish reference sites: (1)
the site-specific approach, which may require upstream-downstream or near field-far field evalua-
tions, and (2) the regional approach, which identifies similarities in the physico-chemical charac-
teristics of watersheds that influence aquatic ecology. The basis for choosing reference sites depends
on classifying the habitat type and locating unimpaired (minimally impacted) waters.
viii
-------
Executive Summary
Once reference sites are selected, their biological integrity must be evaluated using quantifiable
biological surveys. The success of the survey will depend in part on the careful selection of aquatic
community components (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, algae). These components should serve as ef-
fective indicators of high biological integrity, represent a range of pollution tolerances, provide pre-
dictable, repeatable results, and be readily identified by trained State personnel. Well-planned quality
assurance protocols are required to reduce variability in data collection and to assess the natural
variability inherent in aquatic communities. A quality survey will include multiple community com-
ponents and may be measured using a variety of metrics. Since multiple approaches are available,
factors to consider when choosing possible approaches for assessing biological integrity are
presented in this document and will be further developed in future technical guidance documents.
To apply biological criteria in a water quality standards program, standardized sampling
methods and statistical protocols must be used. These procedures must be sensitive enough to iden-
tify significant differences between established criteria and tested communities. There are three pos-
sible outcomes from hypothesis testing using these analyses: (1) the use is impaired, (2) the biological
criteria are met, or (3) the outcome is indeterminate. If the use is impaired, efforts to diagnose the
cause(s) will help determine appropriate action. If the use is not impaired, no action is required based
on these analyses. The outcome will be indeterminate if the study design or evaluation was incom-
plete. In this case, States would need to re-evaluate their protocols.
If the designated use is impaired, diagnosis is the next step. During diagnostic evaluations three
main impact categories must be considered: chemical, physical, and biological stress. Two questions
are posed during initial diagnosis: (1) what are obvious potential causes of impairment, and (2) what
possible causes do the biological data suggest? Obvious potential causes of impairment are often
identified during normal field biological assessments. When an impaired use cannot be easily related
to an obvious cause, the diagnostic process becomes investigative and iterative. Normally the diag-
noses of biological impairments are relatively straightforward; States can use biological criteria to
confirm impairment from a known source of impact.
There is considerable State interest in integrating biological assessments and criteria in water
quality management programs. A minimum of 20 States now use some form of standardized biologi-
cal assessments to determine the status of biota in State waters. Of these, 15 States are developing
biological assessments for future criteria development. Five States use biological criteria to define
aquatic life use classifications and to enforce water quality standards. Several States have established
narrative biological criteria in their standards. One State has instituted numeric biological criteria.
Whether a State is just beginning to establish narrative biological criteria or is developing a fully
integrated biological approach, the programmatic expansion from source control to resource
management represents a natural progression in water quality programs. Implementation of biologi-
cal criteria will provide new options for expanding the scope and application of ecological perspec-
tives.
ix
-------
Parti
Program Elements
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
The principal objectives of the Clean Water
Act are "to restore and maintain the chemi-
cal, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters" (Section 101). To achieve these ob-
jectives, EPA, States, the regulated community, and
the public need comprehensive information about
the ecological integrity of aquatic environments.
Such information will help us identify waters requir-
ing special protection and those that will benefit most
from regulatory efforts.
To meet the objectives of the Act and to comply
with statutory requirements under Sections 303 and
304, States are to adopt biological criteria in State
standards. The Water Quality Standards Regulation
provides additional authority for this effort. In ac-
cordance with the FV 1991 Agency Operating
Guidance, States and qualified Indian tribes are to
adopt narrative biological criteria into State water
quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 trien-
nium. To support this effort, EPA is developing a
Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program and providing
this program guidance document on biological
criteria.
Like other water quality criteria, biological cri-
teria identify water quality impairments, support
regulatory controls that address water quality
problems, and assess improvements in water
quality from regulatory efforts. Biological criteria are
numerical values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
communities inhabiting waters of a given desig-
nated aquatic life use. They are developed through
Anthropogenic impacts, including point source
discharges, nonpoint runoff, and habitat degradation
continue to impair tfie nation's surface waters.
the direct measurement of aquatic community com-
ponents inhabiting unimpaired surface waters.
Biological criteria complement current pro-
grams. Of the three objectives identified in the Act
(chemical, physical, and biological Integrity), current
water quality programs focus on direct measures of
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
chemical integrity (chemical-specific and whole-ef-
fluent toxicity) and, to some degree, physical in-
tegrity through several conventional criteria (e.g.,
pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen). Implementation of
these programs has significantly improved water
quality. However, as we learn more about aquatic
ecosystems it is apparent that other sources of
waterbody impairment exist. Biological impairments
from diffuse sources and habitat degradation can be
greater than those caused by point source dischar-
ges (Judy et al. 1987; Miller et al. 1989). In Ohio,
evaluation of instream biota indicated that 36 per-
cent of impaired stream segments could not be
detected using chemical criteria alone (see Fig. 1).
Although effective for their purpose, chemical-
specific criteria and whole-effluent toxicity provide
only indirect evaluations and protection of biological
integrity (see Table 1).
To effectively address our remaining water
quality problems we need to develop more in-
tegrated and comprehensive evaluations. Chemical
and physical integrity are necessary, but not suffi-
cient conditions to attain biological integrity, and
only when chemical, physical, and biological in-
tegrity are achieved, is ecological integrity possible
(see Fig. 2). Biological criteria provide an essential
third element for water quality management and
serve as a natural progression in regulatory
programs. Incorporating biological criteria into a
fully integrated program directly protects the biologi-
cal integrity of surface waters and provides indirect
protection for chemical and physical integrity (see
Table 2). Chemical-specific criteria, whole-effluent
toxicity evaluations, and biological criteria, when
used together, complement the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each approach.
Figure 1.—Ohio Biosurvey Results Agree with
Instream Chemistry or Reveal Unknown Problems
Impairment Identification
Chemical Evaluation Indicate
No Impairment: Biosurvey
Show Impairment
Biosurvey Show No
Impairment; Chemical
Evaluation Indicates
Impairment
Chemical Prediction
& Biosurvey Agree
Fig. 1: In an intensive survey, 431 sites in Ohio were assessed
using instream chemistry and biological surveys. In 36% of
the cases, chemical evaluations implied no impairment but
biological survey evaluations showed impairment. In 58% of
the cases the chemical and biological assessments agreed.
Of these, 17% identified waters with no impairment, 41%
identified waters which were considered impaired. (Modified
from Ohio EPA Water Quality Inventory, 1988.)
Biological assessments have been used in
biomonitoring programs by States for many years.
In this respect, biological criteria support earlier
work. However, implementing biological criteria in
water quality standards provides a systematic,
structured, and objective process for making
decisions about compliance with water quality
standards. This distinguishes biological criteria from
earlier use of biological information and increases
the value of biological data in regulatory programs.
Table 1.—Current Water Quality Program Protection of the Three Elements of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF ECOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY
Chemical Integrity
Physical Integrity
Biological Integrity
PROGRAM THAT DIRECTLY
PROTECTS
Chemical Specific Criteria (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (toxics)
Criteria for Conventionals
(pH, DO, turbidity)
PROGRAM THAT INDIRECTLY
PROTECTS
Chemical/Whole Effluent Toxicity
(biotic response in lab)
Table 1: Current programs focus on chemical specific and whole-effluent toxicity evaluations. Both are valuable approaches
for the direct evaluation and protection of chemical integrity. Physical integrity is also directly protected to a limited degree
through criteria for conventional pollutants. Biological integrity is only indirectly protected under the assumption that by
evaluating toxicity to organisms in laboratory studies, estimates can be made about the toxicity to other organisms inhabiting
ambient waters.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Table 2.—Water Quality Programs that Incorporate Biological Criteria to Protect Elements of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Chemical Integrity
Physical Integrity
Biological Integrity
DIRECTLY PROTECTS
Chemical Specific Criteria (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicttyjtoxics)
Criteria for conventionals (pH, temp.,
DO)
Biocriteria (biotic response in surface
water)
INDIRECTLY PROTECTS
Biocriteria (identification of
impairment)
Biocriteria (habitat evaluation)
Chemical/Whole Effluent Testing
(biotic response in lab)
Table 2: When biological criteria are incorporated into water quality programs the biological integrity of surface waters may
be directly evaluated and protected, Biological criteria also provide additional benefits by requiring an evaluation of physical
integrity and providing a monitoring tool to assess the effectiveness of current chemically based criteria.
Figure 2.—The Elements of Ecological Integrity
Fig. 2: Ecological Integrity is attainable when chemical,
physical, and biological integrity occur simultaneously.
Value of Biological
Criteria
Biological criteria provide an effective tool for
addressing remaining water quality problems by
directing regulatory efforts toward assessing the
biological resources at risk from chemical, physical
or biological impacts. A primary strength of biologi-
cal criteria is the detection of water quality problems
that other methods may miss or underestimate.
Biological criteria can be used to determine to what
extent current regulations are protecting the use.
Biological assessments provide integrated
evaluations of water quality. They can identify im-
pairments from contamination of the water column
and sediments from unknown or unregulated chemi-
cals, non-chemical impacts, and altered physical
habitat. Resident biota function as continual
monitors of environmental quality, increasing the
likelihood of detecting the effects of episodic events
(e.g., spills, dumping, treatment plant malfunctions,
nutrient enrichment), toxic nonpoint source pollution
(e.g., agricultural pesticides), cumulative pollution
(i.e., multiple impacts over time or continuous low-
level stress), or other impacts that periodic chemical
sampling is unlikely to detect. Impacts on the physi-
cal habitat such as sedimentation from stormwater
runoff and the effects of physical or structural
habitat alterations (e.g., dredging, filling, chan-
nelization) can also be detected.
Biological criteria require the direct measure of
resident aquatic community structure and function
to determine biological integrity and ecological func-
tion. Using these measures, impairment can be
detected and evaluated without knowing the im-
pact (s) that may cause the impairment.
Biological criteria provide a regulatory frame-
work for addressing water quality problems and
offer additional benefits, including providing:
* the basis for characterizing high quality
waters and identifying habitats and
community components requiring special
protection under State anti-degradation
policies;
• a framework for deciding 319 actions for best
control of nonpoint source pollution;
• an evaluation of surface water impairments
predicted by chemical analyses, toxicity
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
testing, and fate and transport modeling {e.g.,
wasteload allocation);.
• Improvements In water quality standards
(including refinement of use classifications);
• a process for demonstrating improvements in
water quality after implementation of pollution
controls;
• additional diagnostic tools.
The role of biological criteria as a regulatory tool
is being realized in some States (e.g., Arkansas,
Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, Vermont). Biological
assessments and criteria have been useful for
regulatory, resource protection, and monitoring and
reporting programs. By incorporating biological
criteria in programs, States can improve standards
setting and enforcement, measure impairments
from permit violations, and refine wasteload alloca-
tion models. In addition, the location, extent, and
type of biological Impairments measured in a water-
body provide valuable information needed for iden-
tifying the cause of impairment and determining
actions required to improve water quality. Biological
assessment and criteria programs provide a cost-
effective method for evaluating water quality when a
standardized, systematic approach to study design,
field methods, and data analysis is established
(Ohio EPA 1988a).
Process for
Implementation
The implementation of biological criteria will fol-
low the same process used for current chemical-
specific and whole-effluent toxicity applications: na-
tional guidance produced by U.S. EPA will support
States working to establish State standards for the
implementation of regulatory programs (see Table
3). Biological criteria differ, however, in the degree
of State involvement required. Because surface
waters vary significantly from region to region, EPA
will provide guidance on acceptable approaches for
biological criteria development rather than specific
criteria with numerical limitations. States are to es-
tablish assessment procedures, conduct field
evaluations, and determine criteria values to imple-
ment biological criteria in State standards and apply
them in regulatory programs.
The degree of State involvement required in-
fluences how biological criteria will be implemented.
It is expected that States will implement these
criteria in phases.
• Phase I includes the development and adop-
tion of narrative biological criteria into State
standards for all surface waters (streams,
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries). Definitions
of terms and expressions in the narratives
must be included in these standards (see the
Narrative Criteria Section, Chapter 3). Adop-
tion of narrative biological criteria in State
standards provides the legal and program-
matic basis for using ambient biological sur-
veys and assessments in regulatory actions.
• Phase II includes the development of an im-
plementation plan. The plan should include
program objectives, study design, research
protocols, criteria for selecting reference con-
ditions and community components, quality
assurance and quality control procedures,
Table 3.—Process for Implementation of Water Quality Standards.
CRITERIA
EPA GUIDANCE
STATE IMPLEMENTATION
STATE APPLICATION
Chemical Specific
Pollutant specific numeric criteria
Narrative Free Forms Whole effluent toxicity guidance
Biological
Biosurvey minimum requirement
guidance
State Standards
• use designation
• numeric criteria
• antidegradation
Water Quality Narrative
• no toxic amounts translator
State Standards
• refined use
• narrative/numeric criteria
• antidegradation
Permit limits Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteload allocation
Permit limits Monitoring
Wasteload allocation
Best Management Practices
Permit conditions Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteload allocation
Table 3: Similar to chemical specific criteria and whole effluent toxicity evaluations, EPA is providing guidance to States for
the adoption of biological criteria into State standards to regulate sources of water quality impairment.
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
and training for State personnel. In Phase II,
States are to develop plans necessary to im-
plement biological criteria for each surface
water type.
Phase III requires full implementation and In-
tegration of biological criteria in water quality
standards. This requires using biological sur-
veys to derive biological criteria for classes of
surface waters and designated uses. These
criteria are then used to identify nonattain-
ment of designated uses and make regulatory
decisions.
Narrative biological criteria can be developed
for all five surface water classifications with little or
no data collection. Application of narrative criteria in
seriously degraded waters is possible in the short
term. However, because of the diversity of surface
waters and the biota that inhabit these waters, sig-
nificant planning, data collection, and evaluation will
be needed to fully implement the program. Criteria
for each type of surface water are likely to be
developed at different rates. The order and rate of
development will depend, in part, on the develop-
ment of EPA guidance for specific types of surface
water. Biological criteria technical guidance for
streams will be produced during FY 1991. The ten-
tative order for future technical guidance documents
includes guidance for rivers (FY 1992), lakes (FY
1993), wetlands (FY 1994) and estuaries (FY 1995).
This order and timeline for guidance does not reflect
the relative importance of these surface waters, but
rather indicates the relative availability of research
and the anticipated difficulty of developing
guidance.
Independent Application
of Biological Criteria
Biological criteria supplement, but do not
replace, chemical and lexicological methods. Water
chemistry methods are necessary to predict risks
(particularly to human health and wildlife), and to
diagnose, model, and regulate important water
quality problems. Because biological criteria are
able to detect different types of water quality impair-
ments and, in particular, have different levels of sen-
sitivity for detecting certain types of Impairment
compared to lexicological methods, they are not
used in lieu of, or in conflict with, current regulatory
efforts.
As with all criteria, certain limitations to biologi-
cal criteria make independent application essential.
Study design and use influences how sensitive
biological criteria are for detecting community im-
pairment. Several factors influence sensitivity: (1)
State decisions about what is significantly different
between reference and test communities, (2) study
design, which may include community components
that are not sensitive to the impact causing impair-
ment, (3) high natural variability that makes it dif-
ficult to detect real differences, and (4) types of
impacts that may be detectable sooner by other
methods (e.g., chemical criteria may provide earlier
indications of impairment from a bioaccumulative
chemical because aquatic communities require ex-
posure over time to incur the full effect).
Since each type of criteria (biological criteria,
chemical-specific criteria, or whole-effluent toxicity
evaluations) has different sensitivities and pur-
poses, a criterion may fail to detect real impairments
when used alone. As a result, these methods should
be used together in an integrated water quality as-
sessment, each providing an independent evalua-
tion of nonattainment of a designated use. If any
one type of criteria indicates impairment of the sur-
face water, regulatory action can be taken to im-
prove water quality. However, no one type of criteria
can be used to confirm attainment of a use if
another form of criteria indicates nonattainment
(see Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the
Scientific Method, Chapter 7). When these three
methods are used together, they provide a powerful,
integrated, and effective foundation for waterbody
management and regulations.
How to Use this
Document
The purpose of this document is to provide EPA
Regions, States and others with the conceptual
framework and assistance necessary to develop
and Implement narrative and numeric biological
criteria and to promote national consistency in ap-
plication. There are two main parts of the document.
Part One (Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4) includes the es-
sential concepts about what biological criteria are
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Outdance
and how they are used in regulatory programs. Part
Two (Chapters 5, 6, and 7) provides an overview of
the process that is essential for implementing a
State biological criteria program. Specific chapters
include the following:
Parti: PROGRAM ELEMENTS
a Chapters, Legal Authority, reviews the legal
basis for biological criteria under the Clean
Water Act and includes possible applications
under the Act and other legislation.
Q Chapter 3, Conceptual Framework,
discusses the essential program elements for
biological criteria, including what they are and
how they are developed and used within a
regulatory program. The development of
narrative biological criteria is discussed in this
chapter.
o Chapter 4, Integration, discusses the use of
biological criteria in regulatory programs.
Part II: THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Q Chapter 5, The Reference Condition,
provides a discussion on alternative forms of
reference conditions that may be developed by
a State based on circumstances and needs.
o Chapter 6, The Biological Survey, provides
some detail on the elements of a quality
biological survey,
O Chapter 7, Hypothesis Testing: Biological
Criteria and the Scientific Method, discusses
how biological surveys are used to make
regulatory and diagnostic decisions,
Q Appendix A includes commonly asked
questions and their answers about biological
criteria.
Two additional documents are planned in the
near term to supplement this program guidance
document.
1. "Biological Criteria Technical Reference
Guidef will contain a cross reference of tech-
nical papers on available approaches and
methods for developing biological criteria
(see tentative table of contents in Appendix
B),
2. 'Biological Criteria Development by States?
will provide a summary of different mecha-
nisms several States have used to implement
and apply biological criteria in water quality
programs (see tentative outline in Appendix
C).
Both documents are planned for FY 1991. As
previously discussed, over the next triennium tech-
nical guidance for specific systems (e.g., streams,
wetlands) will be developed to provide guidance on
acceptable biological assessment procedures to fur-
ther support State implementation of comprehen-
sive programs.
This biological criteria program guidance docu-
ment supports development and implementation of
biological criteria by providing guidance to States
working to comply with requirements under the
Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Standards
Regulation. This guidance is not regulatory.
-------
Chapter 2
Legal Authority
The Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of
1977, and the Water Quality Act of 1987)
mandates State development of criteria based on
biological assessments of natural ecosystems.
The general authority for biological criteria
comes from Section 101 (a) of the Act which estab-
lishes as the objective of the Act the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the Nation's waters. To meet this ob-
jective, water quality criteria must include criteria to
protect biological integrity. Section 101 (a)(2) in-
cludes the interim water quality goal for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Propagation includes the full range of biological
conditions necessary to support reproducing
populations of all forms of aquatic life and other life
that depend on aquatic systems. Sections 303 and
304 provid e specific directives for the development
of biological criteria.
Balancing the legal authority for biological criteria.
Section 303
Under Section 303{c) of the Act, States are re-
quired to adopt protective water quality standards
that consist of uses, criteria, and antidegradation.
States are- to review these standards every three
years and to revise them as needed.
Section 303(c)(2)(A) requires the adoption of
water quality standards that"... serve the purposes
of the Act,' as given in Section 101. Section
303(c)(2) (B), enacted in 1987, requires States to
adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants for which
EPA has published 304(a)(1) criteria. The section
further requires that, where numeric 304(a) criteria
are not available, States should adopt criteria based
on biological assessment and monitoring methods,
consistent with information oublished by EPA under
304(a)(8).
These specific directives do not serve to restrict
the use of biological criteria in other settings where
they may be helpful. Accordingly, this guidance
document provides assistance in implementing
various sections of the Act, not just 303(c)(2)(B).
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Section 304
Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and
publish water quality criteria and information on
methods for measuring water quality and estab-
lishing water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on
bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant, including
biological monitoring and assessment methods
which assess:
* the effects of pollutants on aquatic community
components ("... plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, plant life.,,") and community
attributes ("... biological community diversity,
productivity, and stability..."); in any body of
water and;
* factors necessary"... to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of all navigable waters..."
for *... the protection of shellfish, flsh, and
wildlife for classes and categories of receiving
waters,, .*
Potential Applications
Under the Act
Development and use of biological criteria will
help States to meet other requirements of the Act,
including:
Q setting planning and management priorities for
waterbodies most in need of controls
[Sec. 303(d)];
a determining impacts from nonpoint sources
[i.e., Section 304(f) "(1) guidelines for
identifying and evaluating the nature and
extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and
(2) processes, procedures, and methods to
control pollution., .*].
a biennial reports on the extent to which waters
support balanced biological communities
(Sec. 305(b)];
Q assessment of lake trophic status and trends
[Sec. 314];
o lists of waters that cannot attain designated
uses without nonpoint source controls
[Sec. 319];
a development of management plans and
conducting monitoring in estuaries of national
significance [Sec. 320];
a issuing permits for ocean discharges and
monitoring ecological effects [Sec, 403(c) and
301(h)(3)];
a determination of acceptable sites for disposal
of dredge and fill material [Sec. 404];
Potential Applications
Under Other Legislation
Several legislative acts require an assessment
of risk to the environment (including resident aquatic
communities) to determine the need for regulatory
action. Biological criteria can be used in this context
to support EPA assessments under:
a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976
a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA),
a Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA),
Q Superfund Amendments and Reauthorlzatlon
Act of 1986 (SARA),
O Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);
a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
a Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA).
a The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
a Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act
a Coastal Zone Management Act
10
-------
Chapter 2: Legal Authority
Q Wild snd Scenic Rivers Act
Q Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
Amended in 1965
A summary of the applicability of these Acts for
assessing ecological impairments may be found in
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund-Environ-
mental Evaluation Manual (Interim Final) 1989.
Other federal and State agencies can also
benefit from using biological criteria to evaluate the
biological integrity of surface waters within their
jurisdiction and to the effects of specific practices on
surface water quality. Agencies that could benefit in-
clude:
o Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and
Wildlifa Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
Bureau of Mines, and Bureau of Reclamation,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, and National Park Service),
Q Department of Commerce (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service),
Q Department of Transportation (Federal
High way Administration)
a Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest
Service, Soil Conservation Service)
Q Department of Defense,
Q Department of Energy,
Q Arm y Corps of Eng Ineers,
Q Tennessee Valley Authority.
11
-------
-------
Chapter 3
The Conceptual Framework
Biological integrity and the determination of
use impairment through assessment of am-
bient biological communities form the foun-
dation for biological criteria development. The
effectiveness of a biological criteria program will
depend on the development of quality criteria, the
refinement of use classes to support narrative
criteria, and careful application of scientific prin-
ciples.
Premise for Biological
Criteria
Biological criteria are based on the premise that
the structure and function of an aquatic biological
community within a specific habitat provide critical
information about the quality of surface waters. Ex-
isting aquatic communities in pristine environments
not subject to anthropogenic impact exemplify
biological integrity and serve as the best possible
goal for water quality. Although pristine environ-
ments are virtually non-existent (even remote
waters are impacted by air pollution), minimally im-
pacted waters exist. Measures of the structure and
function of aquatic communities inhabiting unim-
paired (minimally impacted) waters provide the
basis for establishing a reference condition that may
be compared to the condition of impacted surface
waters to determine impairment.
Based on this premise, biological criteria are
developed under the assumptions that: (1) surface
waters subject to anthropogenic disturbance may
contain impaired populations or communities of
aquatic organisms—the greater the anthropogenic
Aquatic communities assessed in unimpaired
waterbodies (top) provide a reference for evaluating
impairments in the same or similar waterbodies suffering
from Increasing anthropogenic impacts (bottom).
13
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
disturbance, the greater the likelihood and mag-
nitude of impairment; and (2) surface waters not
subject to anthropogenic disturbance generally con-
tain unimpaired (natural) populations and com-
munities of aquatic organisms exhibiting biological
integrity.
the basis for establishing water quality goals for
those waters. When tied to the development of
biological criteria, the realities of limitations on
biological integrity can be considered and incor-
porated into a progressive program to improve
water quality.
Biological Integrity
The expression "biological integrity" is used in
the Clean Water Act to define the Nation's objec-
tives for water quality. According to Webster's New
World Dictionary (1966), integrity is, "the quality or
state of being complete; unimpaired." Biological in-
tegrity has been defined as "the ability of an aquatic
ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, in-
tegrated, adaptive community of organisms having
a species composition, diversity, and functional or-
ganization comparable to that of the natural habitats
within a region" (Karr and Dudley 1981). For the pur-
poses of biological criteria, these concepts are com-
bined to develop a functional definition for
evaluating biological integrity in water quality
programs. Thus, biological integrity is functionally
defined as:
the condition of the aquatic community
inhabiting the unimpaired waterbodies
of a specified habitat as measured by
community structure and function.
It will often be difficult to find unimpaired waters
to define biological integrity and establish the refer-
ence condition. However, the structure and function
of aquatic communities of high quality waters can be
approximated in several ways. One is to charac-
terize aquatic communities in the most protected
waters representative of the regions where such
sites exist. In areas where few or no unimpaired
sites are available, characterization of least im-
paired systems approximates unimpaired systems.
Concurrent analysis of historical records should
supplement descriptions of the condition of least im-
paired systems. For some systems, such as lakes,
evaluating paledecological information (the record
stored in sediment profiles) can provide a measure
of less disturbed conditions.
Surface waters, when inhabited by aquatic com-
munities, are exhibiting a degree of biological in-
tegrity. However, the best representation of
biological integrity for a surface water should form
Biological Criteria
Biological criteria are narrative expressions or
numerical values that describe the biological in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a
given designated aquatic life use. While biological
integrity describes the ultimate goal for water
quality, biological criteria are based on aquatic com-
munity structure and function for waters within a
variety of designated uses. Designated aquatic life
uses serve as general statements of attained or at-
tainable uses of State waters. Once established for
a designated use, biological criteria are quantifiable
values used to determine whether a use is impaired,
and if so, the level of impairment. This is done by
specifying what aquatic community structure and
function should exist in waters of a given designated
use, and then comparing this condition with the con-
dition of a site under evaluation. If the existing
aquatic community measures fail to meet the
criteria, the use is considered impaired.
Since biological surveys used for biological
criteria are capable of detecting water quality
problems (use impairments) that may not be
detected by chemical or toxicity testing, violation of
biological criteria is sufficient cause for States to in-
itiate regulatory action. Corroborating chemical and
toxicity testing data are not required (though they
may be desirable) as supporting evidence to sustain
a determination of use impairment. However, a find-
ing that biological criteria fail to indicate use impair-
ment does not mean the use is automatically
attained. Other evidence, such as violation of physi-
cal or chemical criteria, or results from toxicity tests,
can also be used to identify impairment. Alternative
forms of criteria provide independent assessments
of nonattainment.
As stated above, biological criteria may be nar-
rative statements or numerical values. States can
establish general narrative biological criteria early in
program development without conducting biological
assessments. Once established in State standards,
narrative biological criteria form the legal and
14
-------
Chapters: The Conceptual Framework
programmatic basis for expanding biological as-
sessment and biosurvey programs needed to imple-
ment narrative criteria and develop numeric
biological criteria. Narrative biological criteria
should become part of State regulations and stand-
ards.
Narrative Criteria
Narrative biological criteria are general state-
ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water quality for a given use
designation. Although similar to the "free from"
chemical water quality criteria, narrative biological
criteria establish a positive statement about what
should occur within a water body. Narrative criteria
can take a number of forms but they must contain
several attributes to support the goals of the Clean
Water Act to provide for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Thus, narrative
criteria should include specific language about
aquatic community characteristics that (1) must
exist in a waterbody to meet a particular designated
aquatic life use, and (2) are quantifiable. They must
be written to protect the use. Supporting statements
for the criteria should promote water quality to
protect the most natural community possible for the
designated use. Mechanisms should be established
in the standard to address potentially conflicting
multiple uses. Narratives should be written to
protect the most sensitive use and support an-
tidegradation.
Several States currently use narrative criteria
In Maine, for example, narrative criteria were estab-
lished for four classes of water quality for streams
and rivers (see Table 4). The classifications were
based on the range of goals in the Act from "no dis-
charge" to "protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife" (Courtemanch and Davies
1987). Maine separated its "high quality water" into
two categories, one that reflects the highest goal of
the Act (no discharge, Class AA) and one that
reflects high integrity but is minimally impacted by
human activity (Class A). The statement "The
aquatic life... shall be as naturally occurs* is a nar-
rative biological criterion for both Class AA and A
waters. Waters in Class B meet the use when the
life stages of all indigenous aquatic species are sup-
ported and no detrimental changes occur in com-
munity composition (Maine DEP 1986). These
criteria directly support refined designated aquatic
life uses (see Section D, Refining Aquatic Life Use
Classifications).
These narrative criteria are effective only if, as
Maine has done, simple phrases such as "as
naturally occurs" and "nondetrimental" are clearly
operationally defined. Rules for sampling proce-
dures and data analysis and interpretation should
become part of the regulation or supporting
documentation. Maine was able to develop these
criteria and their supporting statements using avail-
Table 4.—Aquatic Life Classification Scheme for Maine's Rivers and Streams.
RIVERS AND
STREAMS
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
LEVEL OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Class AA High quality water for preservation of
recreational and ecological interests. No
discharges of any kind permitted. No
impoundment permitted.
Class A High quality water with limited human
interference. Discharges restricted to noncontact
process water or highly treated wastewater of
quality equal to or better than the receiving
water, Impoundment permitted.
Class B Good quality water. Discharges of well treated
effluents with ample dilution permitted.
Class C Lowest quality water. Requirements consistent
with interim goals of the federal Water Quality
Law (fishable and swimmable).
Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
Ambient water quality sufficient to support life
stages of all indigenous aquatic species. Only
nondetrimental changes in community
composition may occur.
Ambient water quality sufficient to support the
life stages of all indigenous fish species.
Changes in species composition may occur but
structure and function of the aquatic community
must be maintained.
15
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
able data from water quality programs. To imple-
ment the criteria, aquatic life Inhabiting unimpaired
waters must be measured to quantify the criteria
statement.
Narrative criteria can take more specific forms
than illustrated in the Maine example. Narrative
criteria may include specific classes and species of
organisms that wilt occur In waters for a given desig-
nated use. To develop these narratives, field evalua-
tions of reference conditions are necessary to
identify biological community attributes that differ
significantly between designated uses. For example
in the Arkansas use class Typical Gulf Coastal
Ecoregion (i.e., South Central Plains) the narrative
criterion reads:
"Streams supporting diverse
communities of indigenous or adapted
species offish and other forms of
aquatic life. Fish communities are
characterized by a limited proportion of
sensitive species; sunfishes are
distinctly dominant, followed by darters
and minnows. The community may be
generally characterized by the following
fishes: Key Species—Redfin shiner,
Spotted sucker, Yellow bullhead, Flier,
Slough darter, Grass pickerel; Indicator
Species—Pirate perch, Warmouth,
Spotted sunfish, Dusky darter, Creek
chubsucker, Banded pygmy sunfish
(Arkansas DPCE1988).
In Connecticut, current designated uses are
supported by narratives in the standard. For ex-
ample, under Surface Water Classifications, Inland
Surface Waters Class AA, the Designated Use is:
"Existing or proposed drinking water supply; fish
and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, in-
dustrial supply, and other purposes (recreation uses
may be restricted)."
The supporting narratives include:
Benthlc Invertebrates which inhabit lotlc
waters: A wide variety of
macroinvertebrate taxa should normally
be present and all functional groups
should normally be well represented...
Water quality shall be sufficient to
sustain a diverse macroinvertebrate
community of Indigenous species. Taxa
within tfie Orders Plecoptera
(stoneflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
Coleoptera (beetles), Trlcoptera
(caddlsflles) should be well represented
(Connecticut DEP1987).
For these narratives to be effective in a biologi-
cal criteria program expressions such as "a wide
variety" and "functional groups should normally be
well represented* require quantifiable definitions
that become part of the standard or supporting
documentation. Many States may find such narra-
tives in their standards already. If so, States should
evaluate current language to determine if It meets
the requirements of quantifiable narrative criteria
that support refined aquatic life uses.
Narrative biological criteria are similar to the
traditional narrative "free froms* by providing the
legal basis for standards applications. A sixth "free
from" could be incorporated into standards to help
support narrative biological criteria such as "free
from activities that would impair the aquatic com-
munity as it naturally occurs." Narrative biological
criteria can be used immediately to address obvious
existing problems.
Numeric Criteria
Numerical indices that serve as biological
criteria should describe expected attainable com-
munity attributes for different designated uses, it is
important to note that full implementation of narra-
tive criteria will require similar data as that needed
for developing numeric criteria. At this time, States
may or may not choose to establish numeric criteria
but may find it an effective tool for regulatory use.
To derive a numeric criterion, an aquatic com-
munity's structure and function is measured at refer-
ence sites and set as a reference condition.
Examples of relative measures include similarity in-
dices, coefficients of community loss, and com-
parisons of lists of dominant taxa. Measures of
existing community structure such as species rich-
ness, presence or absence of indicator taxa, and
distribution of trophic feeding groups are useful for
establishing the normal range of community com-
ponents to be expected in unimpaired systems. For
example, Ohio uses criteria for the warmwater
habitat use class based on multiple measures in dif-
ferent reference sites within the same ecoregion.
Criteria are set as the 25th percentile of all biologi-
cal index scores recorded at established reference
16
-------
Chapters: The Conceptual Framework
sites within the ecoregion. Exceptional warmwater
habitat index criteria are set at the 75th percentile
(Ohio EPA 1988a). Applications such as this require
an extensive data base and multiple reference sites
for each criteria value.
To develop numeric biological criteria, careful
assessments of biota in reference sites must be
conducted (Hughes et al. 1986). There are
numerous ways to assess community structure and
function in surface waters. No single index or
measure is universally recognized as free from bias.
It is important to evaluate the strengths and weak-
nesses of different assessment approaches. A multi-
metric approach that incorporates information on
species richness, trophic composition, abundance
or biomass, and organism condition is recom-
mended. Evaluations that measure multiple com-
ponents of communities are also recommended
because they tend to be more reliable (e.g.,
measures of fish and macroinvertebrates combined
will provide more information than measures of fish
communities alone). The weaknesses of one
measure or index can often be compensated by
combining it with the strengths of other community
measurements.
The particular indices used to develop numeric
criteria depend on the type of surface waters
(streams, rivers, lakes, Great Lakes, estuaries, wet-
lands, and nearshore marine) to which they must be
applied. In general, community-level indices such
as the Index of Biotic Integrity developed for mid-
western streams (Karr et al. 1986) are more easily
interpreted and less variable than fluctuating num-
bers such as population size. Future EPA technical
guidance documents will include evaluations of the
effectiveness of different biological survey and as-
sessment approaches for measuring the biological
integrity of surface water types and provide
guidance on acceptable approaches for biological
criteria development.
Refining Aquatic Life Use
Classifications
State standards consist of (1) designated
aquatic life uses, (2) criteria sufficient to protect the
designated and existing use, and (3) an an-
tidegradation clause. Biological criteria support
designated aquatic life use classifications for ap-
plication in State standards. Each State develops its
own designated use classification system based on
the generic uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife).
Designated uses are intentionally general. How-
ever, States may develop subcategories within use
designations to refine and clarify the use class.
Clarification of the use class is particularly helpful
when a variety of surface waters with distinct char-
acteristics fit within the same use class, or do not fit
well into any category. Determination of nonattain-
ment in these waters may be difficult and open to al-
ternative interpretations. If a determination Is In
dispute, regulatory actions will be difficult to ac-
complish. Emphasizing aquatic community structure
within the designated use focuses the evaluation of
attainment/nonattainment on the resource of con-
cern under the Act.
Flexibility inherent in the State process for
designating uses allows the development of sub-
categories of uses within the Act's general
categories. For example, subcategories of aquatic
life uses may be on the basis of attainable habitat
(e.g., cold versus warmwater habitat); innate dif-
ferences in community structure and function, (e.g.,
high versus low species richness or productivity); or
fundamental differences in important community
components (e.g., warmwater fish communities
dominated by bass versus catfish). Special uses
may also be designated to protect particularly uni-
que, sensitive, or valuable aquatic species, com-
munities, or habitats.
Refinement of use classes can be ac-
complished within current State use classification
structures. Data collected from biosurveys as part of
a developing biocriteria program may reveal unique
and consistent differences among aquatic com-
munities inhabiting different waters with the same
designated use. Measurable biological attributes
could then be used to separate one class Into two or
more classes. The result is a refined aquatic life
use. For example, in Arkansas the beneficial use
Fisheries "provides for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and other forms of aquatic life"
(Arkansas DPCE 1988). This use is subdivided into
Trout, Lakes and Reservoirs, and Streams, Recog-
nizing that stream characteristics across regions of
the State differed ecologically, the State further sub-
divided the stream designated uses into eight addi-
tional uses based on regional characteristics (e.g.,
Springwater-influenced Gulf Coastal Ecoregion,
Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion). Within this clas-
sification system, it was relatively straightforward for
17
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Arkansas to establish detailed narrative biological
criteria that list aquatic community components ex-
pected in each ecoregion (see Narrative Criteria
section). These narrative criteria can then be used
to establish whether the use is impaired.
States can refine very general designated uses
such as high, medium, and low quality to specific
categories that include measurable ecological char-
acteristics. In Maine, for example, Class AA waters
are defined as "the highest classification and shall
be applied to waters which are outstanding natural
resources and which should be preserved because
of their ecological, social, scenic, or recreational im-
portance." The designated use includes 'Class AA
waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable
... as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The
habitat shall be characterized as free flowing and
natural." This use supports development of narra-
tive criteria based on biological characteristics of
aquatic communities (Maine DEP 1986; see the
Narrative Criteria section).
Biological criteria that include lists of dominant
or typical species expected to live in the surface
water are particularly effective. Descriptions of im-
paired conditions are more difficult to interpret.
However, biological criteria may contain statements
concerning which species dominate disturbed sites,
as well as those species expected at minimally im-
pacted sites.
Most States collect biological data in current
programs. Refining aquatic life use classifications
and incorporating biological criteria into standards
will enable States to evaluate these data more ef-
fectively.
Developing and
Implementing Biological
Criteria
Biological criteria development and implemen-
tation in standards require an understanding of the
selection and evaluation of reference sites, meas-
urement of aquatic community structure and func-
tion, and hypothesis testing under the scientific
method. The developmental process is important for
State water quality managers and their staff to un-
derstand to promote effective planning for resource
and staff needs. This major program element deser-
ves careful consideration and has been separated
out in Part II by chapter for each developmental step
as noted below. Additional guidance will be provided
in future technical guidance documents.
The developmental process is illustrated in Fig-
ure 3. The first step is establishing narrative criteria
in standards. However, to support these narratives,
standardized protocols need to be developed to
quanitify the narratives for criteria implementation.
They should include data collection procedures,
selection of reference sites, quality assurance and
quality control procedures, hypothesis testing, and
statistical protocols. Pilot studies should be con-
ducted using these standard protocols to ensure
they meet the needs of the program, test the
hypotheses, and provide effective measures of the
biological integrity of surface waters in the State.
Figure 3.—Process for the Development and
Implementation of Biological Criteria
Develop Standard Protocols
(Test protocol sensitivity)
Identify and Conduct Biosurveys at
Unimpaired Reference Sites
Establish Biological Criteria
*
Conduct Biosurveys at Impacted Sites
(Determine impairment)
Impaired Condition
Not Impaired
Diagnose Cause of
Impairment
I
No Action Required
Continued Monitoring
Recommended
Implement Control
Fig. 3: Implementation of biological criteria requires the in-
itial selection of reference sites and characterization of resi-
dent aquatic communities inhabiting those sites to establish
the reference condition and biological criteria. After criteria
development, impacted sites are evaluated using the same
biosurvey procedures to assess resident biota. If impairment
is found, diagnosis of cause will lead to the implementation
of a control. Continued monitoring should accompany con-
trol implementation to determine the effectiveness of in-
tervention. Monitoring is also recommended where no im-
pairment is found to ensure that the surface water maintains
or improves in quality.
18
-------
Chapters: The Conceptual Framework
The next step is establishing the reference con-
dition for the surface water being tested. This refer-
ence may be site specific or regional but must
establish the unimpaired baseline for comparison
(see Chapter 5, The Reference Condition). Once
reference sites are selected, the biological Integrity
of the site must be evaluated using carefully chosen
biological surveys. A quality biological survey will in-
clude multiple community components and may be
measured using a variety of metrics (see Chapter 6,
The Biological Survey). Establishing the reference
condition and conducting biological surveys at the
reference locations provide the necessary informa-
tion for establishing the biological criteria.
To apply biological criteria, impacted surface
waters with comparable habitat characteristics are
evaluated using the same procedures as those used
to establish the criteria. The biological survey must
support standardized sampling methods and statis-
tical protocols that are sensitive enough to identify
biologically relevant differences between estab-
lished criteria and the community under evaluation.
Resulting data are compared through hypothesis
testing to determine impairment (see Chapter 7,
Hypothesis Testing).
When water quality impairments are detected
using biological criteria, they can only be applied in
a regulatory setting if the cause for impairment can
be identified. Diagnosis is iterative and investigative
(see Chapter 7, Diagnosis). States must then deter-
mine appropriate actions to implement controls.
Monitoring should remain a part of the biological
criteria program whether impairments are found or
not. If an impairment exists, monitoring provides a
mechanism to determine if the control effort (inter-
vention) is resulting in improved water quality. If
there Is no impairment, monitoring ensures the
water quality is maintained and documents any im-
provements. When improvements in water quality
are detected through monitoring programs two ac-
tions are recommended. When reference condition
waters improve, biological criteria values should be
recalculated to reflect this higher level of integrity.
When impaired surface waters improve, states
should reclassify those waters to reflect a refined
designated use with a higher level of biological in-
tegrity. This provides a mechanism for progressive
water quality improvement.
19
-------
-------
Chapter 4
Integrating Biological
Criteria Into Surface Water
Management
Integrating biological criteria into existing water
quality programs will help to assess use attain-
ment/nonattainment, improve problem dis-
covery in specific waterbodies, and characterize
overall water resource condition within a region.
Ideally, biological criteria function in an Iterative man-
ner. New biosurvey information can be used to refine
use classes. Refined use classes will help support
criteria development and improve the value of data
collected in biosurveys.
Implementing Biological
Criteria
As biological survey data are collected, these
data will increasingly support current use of
biomonitoring data to identify water quality
problems, assess their severity, and set planning
and management priorities for remediation. Monitor-
ing data and biological criteria should be used at the
outset to help make regulatory decisions, develop
appropriate controls, and evaluate the effectiveness
of controls once they are implemented.
The value of incorporating biological survey In-
formation in regulatory programs is illustrated by
evaluations conducted by North Carolina. In
To integrate biological criteria into water quality
programs, states must carefully determine where and
how data are collected to assess the biological Integrity
of surface waters.
response to amendments of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act requiring secondary effluent limits
for all wastewater treatment plants, North Carolina
became embroiled in a debate over whether meet-
ing secondary effluent limits (at considerable cost)
would result in better water quality. North Carolina
chose to test the effectiveness of additional treat-
ment by conducting seven chemical and biological
surveys before and after facility upgrades (North
21
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Carolina DNRCD 1984). Study results indicated that
moderate to substantial in-stream improvements
were observed at six of seven facilities. Biological
surveys were used as an efficient, cost-effective
monitoring tool for assessing in-stream Improve-
ments after facility modification. North Carolina has
also conducted comparative studies of benthic mac-
roinvertebrate surveys and chemical-specific and
whole-effluent evaluations to assess sensitivities of
these measures for detecting Impairments
(Eagleson et al. 1990).
Narrative biological criteria provide a scientific
framework for evaluating biosurvey, bioassessment,
and biomonitoring data collected in most States, ini-
tial application of narrative biological criteria may re-
quire only an evaluation of current work. States can
use available data to define variables for choosing
reference sites, selecting appropriate biological sur-
veys, and assessing the response of local biota to a
variety of impacts. States should also consider the
decision criteria that will be used for determining ap-
propriate State action when impairment is found.
Recent efforts by several States to develop
biological criteria for freshwater streams provide ex-
cellent examples for how biological criteria can be
integrated into water quality programs. Some of this
work is described in the National Workshop on In-
stream Biological Monitoring and Criteria proceed-
ings which recommended that "the concept of
biological sampling should be integrated into the full
spectrum of State and Federal surface water
programs" (U.S. EPA 1987b). States are actively
developing biological assessment and criteria
programs; several have programs in place.
Biological Criteria in State
Programs
Biological criteria are used within water
programs to refine use designations, establish
criteria for determining use attainment/nonattain-
ment, evaluate effectiveness of current water
programs, and detect and characterize previously
unknown impairments. Twenty States are currently
using some form of standardized ambient biological
assessments to determine the status of biota within
State waters. Levels of effort vary from bioassess-
ment studies to fully developed biological criteria
programs.
Fifteen States are developing aspects of
biological assessments that will support future
development of biological criteria. Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and
Virginia conduct biological monitoring to evaluate
biological conditions, but are not developing biologi-
cal criteria. Kansas is considering using a com-
munity metric for water resource assessment.
Arizona is planning to refine ecoregions for the
State. Delaware, Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin
are developing sampling and evaluation methods to
apply to future biological criteria programs. New
York is proposing to use biological criteria for site-
specific evaluations of water quality impairment.
Nebraska and Vermont use informal biological
criteria to support existing aquatic life narratives in
their water quality standards and other regulations.
Vermont recently passed a law requiring that
biological criteria be used to regulate through per-
mitting the indirect discharge of sanitary effluents.
Florida incorporated a specific biological
criterion into State standards for invertebrate
species diversity. Species diversity within a water-
body, as measured by a Shannon diversity index,
may not fall below 75 percent of reference values.
This criterion has been used in enforcement cases
to obtain injunctions and monetary settlements.
Florida's approach is very specific and limits alter-
native applications.
Four States—Arkansas, North Carolina, Maine,
and Ohio—are currently using biological criteria to
define aquatic life use classifications and enforce
water quality standards. These states have made
biological criteria an integral part of comprehensive
water quality programs.
• Arkansas rewrote its aquatic life use classifica-
tions for each of the State's ecoregions. This has al-
lowed many cities to design wastewater treatment
plants to meet realistic attainable dissolved oxygen
conditions as determined by the new criteria.
• North Carolina developed biological criteria to
assess impairment to aquatic life uses written as nar-
ratives in the State water quality standards. Biologi-
cal data and criteria are used extensively to identify
waters of special concern or those with exceptional
water quality. In addition to the High Quality Waters
(HQW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
designations, Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) at
risk for eutrophication are assessed using biological
22
-------
Chapter 4: Integrating Biological Criteria
criteria. Although specific biological measures are
not in the regulations, strengthened use of biological
monitoring data to assess water quality is being
proposed for incorporation in North Carolina's water
quality standards.
• Maine has enacted a revised Water Quality
Classification Law specifically designed to facilitate
the use of biological assessments. Each of four
water classes contains descriptive aquatic life condi-
tions necessary to attain that class. Based on a
statewide database of macroinvertebrate samples
collected above and below outfalls, Maine is now
developing a set of dichotomous keys that serve as
the biological criteria. Maine's program is not ex-
pected to have a significant role in permitting, but will
be used to assess the degree of protection afforded
by effluent limitations.
• Ohio has instituted the most extensive use of
biological criteria for defining use classifications and
assessing water quality. Biological criteria were
developed for Ohio rivers and streams using an
ecoregional reference site approach. Wittiin each of
the State's five ecoregions, criteria for three biologi-
cal indices (two for fish communities and one for
macroinvertebrates) were derived. Ohio successfully
uses biological criteria to demonstrate attainment of
aquatic life uses and discover previously unknown or
unidentified environmental degradation (e.g., twice
as many impaired waters were discovered using
biological criteria and water chemistry together than
were found using chemistry alone). The upgraded
use designations based on biological criteria were
upheld in Ohio courts and the Ohio EPA successfully
proposed their biological criteria for inclusion in the
State water quality standards regulations.
face water type by researchers in EPA, States and
the academic community.
EPA will also be developing outreach work-
shops to provide technical assistance to Regions
and States working toward the implementation of
biological criteria programs in State water quality
management programs. In the interim, States
should use the technical guidance currently avail-
able in the Technical Support Manuals): Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
tainability Analysis (U.S. EPA 1983b, 1984a,b).
During the next triennium, State effort will be
focused on developing narrative biological criteria.
Full implementation and integration of biological
criteria will require several years. Using available
guidance, States can complement the adoption of
narrative criteria by developing implementation
plans that include:
1. Defining program objectives, developing
research protocols, and setting priorities;
2. Determining the process for establishing
reference conditions, which includes
developing a process to evaluate habitat
characteristics;
3. Establishing biological survey protocols that
include justifications for surface water
classifications and selected aquatic
community components to be evaluated;
and
4, Developing a formal document describing
the research design, quality assurance and
quality control protocols, and required
training for staff.
States and EPA have learned a great deal about
the effectiveness of integrated biological assess-
ments through the development of biological criteria
for freshwater streams. This information is par-
ticularly valuable in providing guidance on develop-
ing biological criteria for other surface water types.
As previously discussed, EPA plans to produce sup-
porting technical guidance for biological criteria
development in streams and other surface waters.
Production of these guidance documents will be
contingent on technical progress made on each sur-
Whether a State begins with narrative biological
criteria or moves to fully implement numeric criteria,
the shift of the water quality program focus from
source control to resource management represents
a natural progression in the evolution from the tech-
nology-based to water quality-based approaches in
water quality management. The addition of a
biological perspective allows water quality programs
to more directly address the objectives of the Clean
Water Act and to place their efforts in a context that
is more meaningful to the public.
23
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Future Directions
Biological criteria now focus on resident aquatic
communities in surface waters. They have the
potential to expand in scope toward greater ecologi-
cal integration. Ecological criteria may encompass
the ambient aquatic communities in surface waters,
wildlife species that use the same aquatic resour-
ces, and the aquatic community inhabiting the
gravel and sediments underlying the surface waters
and adjacent land (hyporheic zone); specific criteria
may apply to physical habitat. These areas may rep-
resent only a few possible options for biological
criteria in the future.
Many wildlife species depend on aquatic resour-
ces. If aquatic population levels decrease or if the
distribution of species changes, food sources may
be sufficiently altered to cause problems for wildlife
species using aquatic resources. Habitat degrada-
tion that impairs aquatic species will often impact
important wildlife habitat as well. These kinds of im-
pairments are likely to be detected using biological
criteria as currently formulated. In some cases,
however, uptake of contaminants by resident
aquatic organisms may not result in altered struc-
ture and function of the aquatic community. These
impacts may go undetected by biological criteria,
but could result in wildlife impairments because of
bioaccumulation. Future expansion of biological
criteria to include wildlife species that depend on
aquatic resources could provide a more integrative
ecosystem approach.
Rivers may have a subsurface flood plain ex-
tending as far as two kilometers from the river chan-
nel. Preliminary mass transport calculations made
in the Flathead River basin in Montana indicate that
nutrients discharged from this subsurface flood
plain may be crucial to biotic productivity in the river
channel (Stanford and Ward 1988). This is an unex-
plored dimension in the ecology of gravel river beds
and potentially in other surface waters.
As discussed in Chapter 1, physical integrity is a
necessary condition for biological integrity. Estab-
lishing the reference condition for biological criteria
requires evaluation of habitat. The rapid bioassess-
ment protocol provides a good example of the im-
portance of habitat for interpreting biological
assessments (Plafkin et al. 1989). However, it may
be useful to more fully integrate habitat charac-
teristics into the regulatory process by establishing
criteria based on the necessary physical structure of
habitats to support ecological integrity.
24
-------
Part II
The Implementation
Process
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
The implementation of biological criteria requires: (1) selection of unimpaired
(minimal impact) surface waters to use as the reference condition for each desig-
nated use, (2) measurement of the structure and function of aquatic communities in
reference surface waters to establish biological criteria, and (3) establishment of a
protocol to compare the biological criteria to biota in impacted waters to determine
whether impairment has occurred. These elements serve as an interactive network
that is particularly important during early development of biological criteria
where rapid accumulation of information is effective for refining both designated
uses and developing biological criteria values. The following chapters describe
these three essential elements.
-------
Chapter 5
The Reference Condition
A key step in developing values for support-
ing narrative and creating numeric biologi-
cal criteria is to establish reference
conditions; it is an essential feature of environmental
impact evaluations (Green 1979). Reference condi-
tions are critical for environmental assessments be-
cause standard experimental controls are rarely
available. For most surface waters, baseline data
were not collected prior to an impact, thus impair-
ment must be inferred from differences between the
impact site and established references. Reference
conditions describe the characteristics of waterbody
segments least impaired by human activities and are
used to define attainable biological or habitat condi-
tions.
Wide variability among natural surface waters
across the country resulting from climatic, landform,
and other geographic differences prevents the
development of nationwide reference conditions.
Most States are also too heterogeneous for single
reference conditions. Thus, each State, and when
appropriate, groups of States, will be responsible for
selecting and evaluating reference waters within the
State to establish biological criteria for a given sur-
face water type or category of designated use. At
least seven methods for estimating attainable condi-
tions for streams have been identified (Hughes et at.
1986). Many of these can apply to other surface
waters. References may be established by defining
models of attainable conditions based on historical
data or unimpaired habitat (e.g., streams in old
growth forest). The reference condition established
as before-after comparisons or concurrent mea-
Reference conditions should be established by
measuring resident biota In unimpaired surface waters.
sures of the reference water and impact sites can be
based on empirical data (Hall et al. 1989).
Currently, two principal approaches are used for
establishing the reference condition. A State may
opt to (1) identify site-specific reference sites for
each evaluation of impact or (2) select ecologically
similar regional reference sites for comparison with
impacted sites within the same region. Both ap-
proaches depend on evaluations of habitats to en-
sure that waters with similar habitats are compared.
The designation of discrete habitat types is more
fully developed for streams and rivers. Development
of habitat types for lakes, wetlands, and estuaries is
ongoing.
27
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Site-Specific Reference
Condition
A site-specific reference condition, frequently
used to evaluate the impacts from a point discharge,
is best for surface waters with a strong directional
flow such as in streams and rivers (the upstream-
downstream approach). However, it can also be
used for other surface waters where gradients in
contaminant concentration occur based on
proximity to a source (the near field-far field ap-
proach). Establishment of a site-specific reference
condition requires the availability of comparable
habitat within the same waterbody in both the refer-
ence location and the impacted area.
A site-specific reference condition is difficult to
establish if (1) diffuse nonpoint source pollution con-
taminates most of the water body; (2) modifications
to the channel, shoreline, or bottom substrate are
extensive; (3) point sources occur at multiple loca-
tions on the waterbody; or (4) habitat characteristics
differ significantly between possible reference loca-
tions and the impact site (Hughes et al. 1966; Plaf-
kin et al. 1989). In these cases, site-specific
reference conditions could result in underestimates
of impairment. Despite limitations, the use of site-
specific reference conditions is often the method of
choice for point source discharges and certain
waterbodies, particularly when the relative impair-
ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
mined.
The Upstreom-Downstream
Reference Condition
The upstream-downstream reference condition
is best applied to streams and rivers where the
habitat characteristics of the waterbody above the
point of discharge are similar to the habitat charac-
teristics of the stream below the point of discharge.
One standard procedure is to characterize the biotic
condition just above the discharge point (accounting
for possible upstream circulation) to establish the
reference condition. The condition below the dis-
charge is also measured at several sites. If sig-
nificant differences are found between these
measures, Impairment of the biota from the dis-
charge is indicated. Since measurements of resi-
dent biota taken in any two sites are expected to
differ because of natural variation, more than one
biological assessment for both upstream and
downstream sites is often needed to be confident in
conclusions drawn from these data (Green, 1979).
However, as more data are collected by a State, and
particularly if regional characteristics of the water-
bodies are incorporated, the basis for determining
impairment from site-specific upstream-downstream
assessments may require fewer individual samples.
The same measures made below the "recovery
zone" downstream from the discharge will help
define where recovery occurs.
The upstream-downstream reference condition
should be used with discretion since the reference
condition may be impaired from impacts upstream
from the point source of interest. In these cases it is
important to discriminate between individual point
source impact versus overall impairment of the sys-
tem. When overall impairment occurs, the resident
biota may be sufficiently impaired to make it impos-
sible to detect the effect of the target point source
discharger.
The approach can be cost effective when one
biological assessment of the upstream reference
condition adequately reflects the attainable condi-
tion of the impacted site. However, routine com-
parisons may require assessments of several
upstream sites to adequately describe the natural
variability of reference biota. Even so, measuring a
series of site-specific references will likely continue
to be the method of choice for certain point source
discharges, especially where the relative impair-
ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
mined.
The Near Field-Far Field Reference
Condition
The near field-far field reference condition is ef-
fective for establishing a reference condition in sur-
face waters other than rivers and streams and is
particularly applicable for unique waterbodies (e.g.,
estuaries such as Puget Sound may not have com-
parable estuaries for comparison). To apply this
method, two variables are measured (1) habitat
characteristics, and (2) gradient of impairment. For
reference waters to be identified within the same
waterbody, sufficient size is necessary to separate
the reference from the impact area so that a
gradient of impact exists. At the same time, habitat
characteristics must be comparable.
-------
Chapters: The Reference CondWon
Although not fully developed, this approach may
provide an effective way to establish biological
criteria for estuaries, large lakes, or wetlands. For
example, estuarine habitats could be defined and
possible reference waters identified using physical
and chemical variables like those selected by the
Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. EPA I987a, e.g.,
substrate type, salinity, pH) to establish comparable
subhabitats in an estuary. To determine those areas
least impaired, a "mussel watch" program like that
used in Narragansett Bay (i.e., captive mussels are
used as indicators of contamination, (Phelps 1988))
could establish impairment gradients. These two
measures, when combined, could form the basis for
selecting specific habitat types in areas of least im-
pairment to establish the reference condition.
Regional Reference
Conditions
Some of the limitations of site-specific reference
conditions can be overcome by using regional refer-
ence conditions that are based on the assumption
that surface waters integrate the character of the
land they drain. Waterbodies within the same water-
shed in the same region should be more similar to
each other than to those within watersheds in dif-
ferent regions. Based on these assumptions, a dis-
tribution of aquatic regions can be developed based
on ecological features that directly or indirectly re-
late to water quality and quantity, such as soil type,
vegetation (land cover), land-surface form, climate,
and land use. Maps that incorporate several of
these features will provide a general purpose broad
scale ecoregional framework (Gallant et al. 1989).
Regions of ecological similarity are based on
hydrologic, climatic, geologic, or other relevant
geographic variables that influence the nature of
biota in surface waters. To establish a regional refer-
ence condition, surface waters of similar habitat
type are identified in definable ecological regions.
The biological integrity of these reference waters is
determined to establish the reference condition and
develop biological criteria. These criteria are then
used to assess impacted surface waters in the
same watershed or region. There are two forms of
regional reference conditions: (1) paired water-
sheds and (2) ecoregions.
Paired Watershed Reference
Conditions
Paired watershed reference conditions are es-
tablished to evaluate impaired waterbodies, often
impacted by multiple sources. When the majority of
a waterbody is impaired, the upstream-downstream
or near field-far field reference condition does not
provide an adequate representation of the unim-
paired condition of aquatic communities for the
waterbody. Paired watershed reference conditions
are established by identifying unimpaired surface
waters within the same or very similar local water-
shed that is of comparable type and habitat. Vari-
ables to consider when selecting the watershed
reference condition include absence of human dis-
turbance, waterbody size and other physical charac-
teristics, surrounding vegetation, and others as
described in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion" feature.
This method has been successfully applied
(e.g., Hughes 1985) and is an approach used in
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al.
1989). State use of this approach results in good
reference conditions that can be used immediately
in current programs. This approach has the added
benefit of promoting the development of a database
on high quality waters in the State that could form
the foundation for establishing larger regional refer-
ences (e.g., ecoregions.)
Ecoregional Reference Conditions
Reference conditions can also be developed on
a larger scale. For these references, waterbodies of
similar type are identified in regions of ecological
similarity. To establish a regional reference condi-
tion, a set of surface waters of similar habitat type
are identified in each ecological region. These sites
must represent similar habitat type and be repre-
sentative of the region. As with other reference con-
ditions, the biological integrity of selected reference
waters is determined to establish the reference.
Biological criteria can then be developed and used
to assess impacted surface waters in the same
region. Before reference conditions may be estab-
lished, regions of ecological similarity must be
defined.
29
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Regional Reference Site
Selection
To determine specific regional reference sites
for streams, candidate watersheds are selected
from the appropriate maps and evaluated to
determine if they are typical for the region. An
evaluation of level of human disturbance is made
and a number of relatively undisturbed reference
sites are selected from the candidate sites.
Generally, watersheds are chosen as regional ref-
erence sites when they fall entirely within typical
areas of the region. Candidate sites are then
selected by aerial and ground surveys. Identifica-
tion of candidate sites is based on: (1) absence
of human disturbance, (2) stream size, (3) type
of stream channel, (4) location within a natural or
political refuge, and (5) historical records of resi-
dent biota and possible migratton barriers.
Final selection of reference sites depends on
a determination of minimal disturbance derived
from habitat evaluation made during site visits.
For example, indicators of good quality streams in
forested ecoregions include: (1) extensive, old,
natural riparian vegetation; (2) relatively high het-
erogeneity in channel width and depth; (3) abun-
dant large woody debris, coarse bottom sub-
strate, or extensive aquatic or overhanging vege-
tation; (4) relatively high or constant discharge;
(5) relatively clear waters with natural color and
odor; (6) abundant diatom, insect, and fish as-
semblages; and (7) the presence of piscivorous
birds and mammals.
One frequently used method is described by
Omernik (1987) who combined maps of land-sur-
face form, soil, potential natural vegetation, and
land use within the conterminous United States to
generate a map of aquatic ecoregions for the
country. He also developed more detailed regional
maps. The ecoregions defined by Omernik have
been evaluated for streams and small rivers in
Arkansas (Rohm et al. 1987), Ohio (Larsen et al.
1986; Whittier et al. 1987), Oregon (Whittier et al.
1988), Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989), and Wiscon-
sin (Lyons 1989) and for lakes In Minnesota (Heis-
kary et al. 1987). State ecoregion maps were
developed for Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989) and
Oregon (Clarke et al. mss). Maps for the national
ecoregions and six multi-state maps of more
detailed ecoregions are available from the U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallls,
Oregon.
Ecoregions such as those defined by Omernik
(1987) provide only a first step in establishing
regional reference sites for development of the ref-
erence condition. Field site evaluation Is required to
account for the inherent variability within each
ecoregion. A general method for selecting reference
sites for streams has been described (Hughes et al.
1986). These are the same variables used for com-
parable watershed reference site selection.
Regional and on-site evaluations of biological fac-
tors help determine specific sites that best represent
typical but unimpaired surface water habitats within
the region. Details on this approach for streams Is
described in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion" feature. To date, the regional approach has
been tested on streams, rivers, and lakes. The
method appears applicable for assessing other in-
land ecosystems. To apply this approach to wet-
lands and estuaries will require additional
evaluation based on the relevant ecological features
of these ecosystems (e.g. Brooks and Hughes,
1988).
Ideally, ecoregional reference sites should be
as little disturbed as possible, yet represent water-
bodies for which they are to serve as reference
waters. These sites may serve as references for a
large number of similar waterbodies (e.g., several
reference streams may be used to define the refer-
ence condition for numerous physically separate
streams if the reference streams contain the same
range of stream morphology, substrate, and flow of
the other streams within the same ecological
region).
An important benefit of a regional reference sys-
tem is the establishment of a baseline condition for
the least Impacted surface waters within the
dominant land use pattern of the region. In many
areas a return to pristine, or presettlement, condi-
tions is impossible, and goals for waterbodies in ex-
tensively developed regions could reflect this.
Regional reference sites based on the least im-
pacted sites within a region will help water quality
programs restore and protect the environment in a
way that is ecologically feasible.
30
-------
Chapters: The Reference Condition
This approach must be used with caution for two
reasons. First, in many urban, industrial, or heavily
developed agricultural regions, even the least im-
pacted sites are seriously degraded. Basing stand-
ards or criteria on such sites will set standards too
low if these high levels of environmental degrada-
tion are considered acceptable or adequate. In such
degraded regions, alternative sources for the
regional reference may be needed (e.g., measures
taken from the same region in a less developed
neighboring State or historical records from the
region before serious impact occurred). Second, in
some regions the minimally-impacted sites are not
typical of most sites in the region and may have
remained unimpaired precisely because they are
unique. These two considerations emphasize the
need to select reference sites very carefully, based
on solid quantitative data interpreted by profes-
sionals familiar with the biota of the region.
Each State, or groups of States, can select a
series of regional reference sites that represent the
attainable conditions for each region. Once biologi-
cal criteria are established using this approach, the
cost for evaluating local impairments is often lower
than a series of measures of site-specific reference
sites. Using paired watershed reference conditions
immediately in regulatory programs will provide the
added benefit of building a database for the
development of regions of ecological similarity.
31
-------
-------
Chapter 6
The Biological Survey
A critical element of biological criteria is the
characterization of biological communities
inhabiting surface waters. Use of biological
data is not new; biological information has been used
to assess impacts from pollution since the 1890s
(Forbes 1928), and most States currently incor-
porate biological information in their decisions about
the quality of surface waters. However, biological in-
formation can be obtained through a variety of
methods, some of which are more effective than
others for characterizing resident aquatic biota.
Biological criteria are developed using biological sur-
veys; these provide the only direct method for
measuring the structure and function of an aquatic
community.
Different subhabltat within the same surface water will
contain unique aquatic community components. In
fast-flowing stream segments species such as (1) black
fly larva; (2) brook trout; (3) water penny; (4) crane fly
larva; and (5) water moss occur.
However, In slow-flowing stream segments, species
like (1) water strlder. (2) smallmouth bass; (3) crayfish;
and (4) fingernail clams are abundant.
Biological survey study design is of critical im-
portance to criteria development. The design must
be scientifically rigorous to provide the basis for
legal action, and be biologically relevant to detect
problems of regulatory concern. Since it is not finan-
cially or technically feasible to evaluate all or-
ganisms in an entire ecosystem at all times, careful
selection of community components, the time and
place chosen for assessments, data gathering
methods used, and the consistency with which
these variables are applied will determine the suc-
cess of the biological criteria program. Biological
surveys must therefore be carefully planned to meet
scientific and legal requirements, maximize informa-
tion, and minimize cost.
33
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Biological surveys can range from collecting
samples of a single species to comprehensive
evaluations of an entire ecosystem. The first ap-
proach is difficult to interpret for community assess-
ment; the second approach is expensive and
impractical. A balance between these extremes can
meet program needs. Current approaches range
between detailed ecological surveys, biosurveys of
targeted community components, and biological in-
dicators (e.g., keystone species). Each of these
biosurveys has advantages and limitations. Addi-
tional discussion will be provided in technical
guidance under development.
No single type of approach to biological surveys
is always best. Many factors affect the value of the
approach, including seasonal variation, waterbody
size, physical boundaries, and other natural charac-
teristics. Pilot testing alternative approaches in
State waters may be the best way to determine the
sensitivity of specific methods for evaluating biologi-
cal integrity of local waters. Due to the number of al-
ternatives available and the diversity of ecological
systems, individuals responsible for research
design should be experienced biologists with exper-
tise in the local and regional ecology of target sur-
face waters. States should develop a data
management program that includes data analysis
and evaluation and standard operating procedures
as part of a Quality Assurance Program Plan.
, When developing study designs for biological
criteria, two key elements to consider include (1)
selecting aquatic community components that will
best represent the biological integrity of State sur-
face waters and (2) designing data collection
protocols to ensure the best representation of the
aquatic community. Technical guidance currently
available to aid the development of study design in-
clude: Wafer Quality Standards Handbook (U.S.
EPA1983a), Technical Support Manual: Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
tainability Analyses (U.S. EPA 1983b); Technical
Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assess-
ments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses,
Volume II: Estuarine Systems (U.S. EPA 1984a);
and Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems (U.S. EPA
1984b). Future technical guidance will build on
these documents and provide specific guidance for
biological criteria development.
Selecting Aquatic
Community Components
Aquatic communities contain a variety of
species that represent different trophic levels,
taxonomic groups, functional characteristics, and
tolerance ranges. Careful selection of target
taxonomic groups can provide a balanced assess-
ment that is sufficiently broad to describe the struc-
tural and functional condition of an aquatic
ecosystem, yet be sufficiently practical to use on a
daily basis (Plafkin et al. 1989; Lenat 1988), When
selecting community components to include in a
biological assessment, primary emphasis should go
toward including species or taxa that (1) serve as ef-
fective indicators of high biological integrity (i.e.,
those likely to live in unimpaired waters), (2) repre-
sent a range of pollution tolerances, (3) provide pre-
dictable, repeatable results, and (4) can be readily
Identified by trained State personnel.
Fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and zooplank-
ton are most commonly used in current bioassess-
ment programs. The taxonomic groups chosen will
vary depending on the type of aquatic ecosystem
being assessed and the type of expected impair-
ment. For example, benthic macrolnvertebrate and
fish communities are taxonomic groups often
chosen for flowing fresh water. Macroinvertebrates
and fish both provide valuable ecological informa-
tion, while fish correspond to the regulatory and
public perceptions of water quality and reflect
cumulative environmental stress over longer time
frames. Plants are often used in wetlands, and
algae are useful in lakes and estuaries to assess
eutrophication. In marine systems, benthic macroin-
vertebrates and submerged aquatic vegetation may
provide key community components. Amphipods,
for example, dominate many aquatic communities
and are more sensitive than other invertebrates /
such as polychaetes and molluscs to a wide variety /
of pollutants including hydrocarbons and heavy me-
tals (Reich and Hart 1979; J.D. Thomas, pers.
comm.).
It is beneficial to supplement standard groups
with additional community components to meet
specific goals, objectives, and resources of the as-
sessment program. Biological surveys that use two
or three taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, macroinver-
tebrates, algae) and, where appropriate, include dif-
ferent trophic levels within each group (e.g.,
primary, secondary, and tertiary consumers) wilt
34
-------
Chapters: The Biological Survey
provide a more realistic evaluation of system
biological integrity. This is analogous to using
species from two or more taxonomlc groups in
bioassays. Impairments that are difficult to detect
because of the temporal or spatial habits or the pol-
lution tolerances of one group may be revealed
through impairments in different species or as-
semblages (Ohio EPA 1988a).
Selection of aquatic community components
that show different sensitivities and responses to
the same perturbation will aid in identifying the na-
ture of a problem. Available data on the ecological
function, distribution, and abundance of species in a
given habitat will help determine the most ap-
propriate target species or taxa for biological sur-
veys in the habitat. The selection of community
components should also depend on the ability of the
organisms to be accurately identified by trained
State personnel. Attendent with the biological
criteria program should be the development of iden-
tification keys for the organisms selected for study
in the biological survey.
Biological Survey Design
Biological surveys that measure the structure
and function of aquatic communities will provide the
information needed for biological criteria develop-
ment. Elements of community structure and function
may be evaluated using a series of metrics. Struc-
tural metrics describe the composition of a com-
munity, such as the number of different species,
relative abundance of specific species, and number
and relative abundance of tolerant and intolerant
species. Functional metrics describe the ecological
processes of the community. These may include
measures such as community photosynthesis or
respiration. Function may also be estimated from
the proportions of various feeding groups (e.g., om-
nivores, herbivores, and insectivores, or shredders,
collectors, and grazers). Biological surveys can
offer variety and flexibility in application. Indices cur-
rently available are primarily for freshwater streams.
However, the approach has been used for lakes and
can be developed for estuaries and wetlands.
Selecting the metric
Several methods are currently available for
measuring the relative structural and functional well-
being of fish assemblages in freshwater streams,
such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI); Karr 1981;
Karr et al. 1986; Miller et al. 1988) and the Index of
Well-being (IWB; Gammon 1976, Gammon et al.
1981), The IBI is one of the more widely used as-
sessment methods. For additional detail, see the
"Index of Biotic Integrity" feature.
Index of Biotic Integrity
The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is commonly
used for fish community analysis (Katr 1981). The
original IBI was comprised of 12 metrics:
• six metrics evaluate species richness and
composition
* number of species
* number of darter species
* number of sucker species
* number of sunfish species
* number of intolerant species
' proportion of green sunfish
• three metrics quantify trophic composition
* proportton of omnivores
* proportion of insectivorous cyprinids
* proportion ofpiscivores
• three metrics summarize fish abundance and
condition information
* number of individuals in sample
* proportion of hybrids
* proportion of individuals with disease
Each metric is scored 1 (worst), 3, or 5 (best),
depending on how the field data compare with an
expected value obtained from reference sites. All
12 metric values are then summed to provide an
overall index value that represents relative in-
tegrity. The IBI was designed for midwestern
streams; substitute metrics reflecting the same
structural and functional characteristics have
been created to accommodate regional variations
In fish assemblages (Miller et al. 1988),
35
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
. Several indices that evaluate more than one
community characteristic are also available for as-
sessing stream macroinvertebrate populations.
Taxa richness, EPT taxa (number of taxa of the in-
sect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricop-
tera), and species pollution tolerance values are a
few of several components of these macroinver-
tebrate assessments. Example indices include the
Invertebrate Community Index (ICI; Ohio EPA,
1988) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI; Hilsenhoff,
1987).
Within these metrics specific information on the
pollution tolerances of different species within a sys-
tem will help define the type of impacts occurring in
a waterbody. Biological indicator groups (intolerant
species, tolerant species, percent of diseased or-
ganisms) can be used for evaluating community
biological integrity if sufficient data have been col-
lected to support conclusions drawn from the in-
dicator data. In marine systems, for example,
amphipods have been used by a number of re-
searchers as environmental indicators (McCall
1977; Botton 1979; Mearns and Word 1982).
Sampling design
Sampling design and statistical protocols are re-
quired to reduce sampling error and evaluate the
natural variability of biological responses that are
found in both laboratory and field data. High
variability reduces the power of a statistical test to
detect real impairments (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981).
States may reduce variability by refining sampling
techniques and protocol to decrease variability in-
troduced during data collection, and increase the
power of the evaluation by increasing the number of
replications. Sampling techniques are refined, in
part, by collecting a representative sample of resi-
dent biota from the same component of the aquatic
community from the same habitat type in the same
way at sites being compared. Data collection
protocols should incorporate (1) spatial scales
(where and how samples are collected) and (2) tem-
poral scales (when data are collected) (Green,
1979):
• Spatial Scales refer to the wide variety of sub-
habitats that exist within any surface water
habitat. To account for subhabitats, adequate
sampling protocols require selecting (1) the
location within a habitat where target groups
reside and (2) the method for collecting data on
target groups. For example, if fish are sampled
only from fast flowing riffles within stream A, but
are sampled from slow flowing pools in stream
B, the data will not be comparable.
Temporal Scales refer to aquatic community
changes that occur over time because of diurnal
and Fife-cycle changes in organism behavior or
development, and seasonal or annual changes
in the environment. Many organisms go through
seasonal life-cycle changes that dramatically
affect their presence and abundance in the
aquatic community. For example, macroinver-
tebrate data collected from stream A in March
and stream B in May, would not be comparable
because the emergence of insect adults after
March would significantly alter the abundance
of subadults found in stream B in May. Similar
problems would occur if algae were collected in
lake A during the dry season and lake B during
the wet season.
Field sampling protocols that produce quality
assessments from a limited number of site visits
greatly enhance the utility of the sampling techni-
que. Rapid bioassessment protocols, recently
developed for assessing streams, use standardized
techniques to quickly gather physical, chemical, and
biological quantitative data that can assess changes
in biological integrity (Plafkin et al. 1989). Rapid
bioassessment methods can be cost-effective
biological assessment approaches when they have
been verified with more comprehensive evaluations
for the habitats and region where they are to be ap-
plied.
Biological survey methods such as the IBI for
fish and ICI for macroinvertebrates were developed
in streams and rivers and have yet to be applied to
many ecological regions. In addition, further re-
search is needed to adapt the approach to lakes,
wetlands, and estuaries, including the development
of alternative structural or functional endpoints. For
example, assessment methods for algae (e.g.
measures of biomass, nuisance bloom frequency,
community structure) have been used for lakes. As-
sessment metrics appropriate for developing
biological criteria for lakes, large rivers, wetlands,
and estuaries are being developed and tested so
that a multi-metric approach can be effectively used
for all surface waters.
36
-------
Chapter 7
Hypothesis Testing:
Biological Criteria and the
Scientific Method
Biological criteria are applied in the standards
program by testing hypotheses about the
biological integrity of impacted surface
waters. These hypotheses include the null
hypothesis—the designated use of the waterbody is
not impaired—and alternative hypotheses such as
the designated use of the waterbody is impaired
(more specific hypotheses can also be generated
that predict the type(s) of impairment). Under these
hypotheses specific predictions are generated con-
cerning the kinds and numbers of organisms repre-
senting community structure and function expected
or found in unimpaired habitats. The kinds and num-
bers of organisms surveyed in unimpaired waters
are used to establish the biological criteria. To test
the alternative hypotheses, data collection and
analysis procedures are used to compare the criteria
to comparable measures of community structure and
function in impacted waters.
Hypothesis Testing
To detect differences of biological and regula-
tory concern between biological criteria and ambient
biological integrity at a test site, it is important to es-
tablish the sensitivity of the evaluation. A10 percent
difference In condition is more difficult to detect than
a 50 percent difference. For the experimental/sur-
vey design to be effective, the level of detection
should be predetermined to establish sample size
Multiple Impacts In the same surface water such as
discharges of effluent from point sources, leachate from
landfills or dumps, and erosion from habitat degradation
each contribute to impairment of the surface water. All
impacts should be considered during the diagnosis
process.
for data collection (Sokal and Rohlf 1981).
Knowledge of expected natural variation, experi-
mental error, and the kinds of detectable differences
that can be expected will help determine sample
37
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
size and location. This forms the basis for defining
data quality objectives, standardizing data collection
procedures, and developing quality assurance/
quality control standards.
Once data are collected and analyzed, they are
used to test the hypotheses to determine if charac-
teristics of the resident biota at a test site are sig-
nificantly different from established criteria values
for a comparable habitat. There are three possible
outcomes:
1. The use is impaired when survey design and
data analyses are sensitive enough to detect
differences of regulatory importance, and
significant differences were detected. The
next step Is to diagnose the cause(s) and
source(s) of impairment.
2. The biological criteria are met when survey
design and data analyses are sensitive
enough to detect differences of regulatory
significance, but no differences were found.
In this case, no action is required by States
based on these measures. However, other
evidence may indicate impairment (e.g.,
chemical criteria are violated; see below).
3. The outcome is indeterminate when survey
design and data analyses are not sensitive
enough to detect differences of regulatory
significance, and no differences were
detected. If a State or Region determines
that this is occurring, the development of
study design and evaluation for biological
criteria was incomplete. States must then
determine whether they will accept the
sensitivity of the survey or conduct
additional surveys to increase the power of
their analyses. If the sensitivity of the
original survey is accepted, the State should
determine what magnitude of difference the
survey is capable of detecting. This will aid
in re-evaluating research design and desired
detection limits. An Indeterminate outcome
may also occur if the test site and the
reference conditions were not comparable.
This variable may also require re-evaluation.
As with all scientific studies, when implementing
biological criteria, the purpose of hypothesis testing
is to determine if the data support the conclusion
that the null hypothesis is false (i.e., the designated
use is not impaired in a particular waterbody).
Biological criteria cannot prove attainment. This
reasoning provides the basis for emphasizing inde-
pendent application of different assessment
methods (e.g., chemical verses biological criteria).
No type of criteria can "prove" attainment; each type
of criteria can disprove attainment.
Although this discussion is limited to the null
and one alternative hypothesis, it is possible to
generate multiple working hypotheses (Popper,
1968) that promote the diagnosis of water quality
problems when they exist. For example, if physical
habitat limitations are believed to be causing impair-
ment (e.g., sedimentation) one alternative
hypothesis could specify the loss of community
components sensitive to this impact. Using multiple
hypotheses can maximize the information gained
from each study. See the Diagnosis section for addi-
tional discussion.
Diagnosis
When impairment of the designated use is
found using biological criteria, a diagnosis of prob-
able cause of impairment is the next step for im-
plementation. Since biological criteria are primarily
designed to detect water quality impairment,
problems are likely to be identified without a known
cause. Fortunately the process of evaluating test
sites for biological impairment provides significant
information to aid in determining cause.
During diagnostic evaluations, three main im-
pact categories should be considered: chemical,
physical, and biological. To begin the diagnostic
process two questions are posed:
• What are the obvious causes of impairment?
• If no obvious causes are apparent, what
possible causes do the biological data
suggest?
Obvious causes such as habitat degradation,
point source discharges, or introduced species are
often identified during the course of a normal field
biological assessment. Biomonitoring programs nor-
mally provide knowledge of potential sources of im-
pact and characteristics of the habitat. As such,
diagnosis is partly incorporated into many existing
State field-oriented bioassessment programs. If
more than one impact source is obvious, diagnosis
38
-------
will require determining which impact(s) Is the cause
of impairment or the extent to which each impact
contributes to impairment. The nature of the biologi-
cal impairment can guide evaluation (e.g., chemical
contamination may lead to the loss of sensitive
species, habitat degradation may result in loss of
breeding habitat for certain species).
Case studies illustrate the effectiveness of
biological criteria in identifying impairments and
possible sources. For example, in Kansas three
sites on Little Mill Creek were assessed using Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al. 1989; see
Fig. 4). Based on the results of a comparative
analysis, habitats at the three sites were com-
parable and of high quality. Biological impairment,
however, was identified at two of the three sites and
directly related to proximity to a point source dis-
charge from a sewage treatment plant. The severely
impaired Site (STA 2) was located approximately
100 meters downstream from the plant. The slightly
impaired Site (STA 3) was located between one and
two miles downstream from the plant. However, the
unimpaired Site (STA 1(R)) was approximately 150
meters upstream from the plant (Plafkin et al. 1989).
This simple example illustrates the basic principles
of diagnosis. In this case the treatment plant ap-
pears responsible for impairment of the resident
biota and the discharge needs to be evaluated.
Chapter 7: Hypothesis Testing
Based on the biological survey the results are clear.
However, impairment in resident populations of
macroinvertebrates probably would not have been
recognized using more traditional methods.
In Maine, a more complex problem arose when
effluents from a textile plant met chemical-specific
and effluent toxicity criteria, yet a biological survey
of downstream biota revealed up to 80 percent
reduction in invertebrate richness below plant out-
falls. Although the source of impairment seemed
clear, the cause of impairment was more difficult to
determine. By engaging in a diagnostic evaluation,
Maine was able to determine that the discharge con-
tained chemicals not regulated under current
programs and that part of the toxicity effect was due
to the sequential discharge of unique effluents
(tested individually these effluents were not toxic;
when exposure was in a particular sequence,
toxicity occurred). Use of biological criteria resulted
in the detection and diagnosis of this toxicity prob-
lem, which allowed Maine to develop workable alter-
native operating procedures for the textile industry
to correct the problem (Courtemanch 1989, and
pers. comm.).
During diagnosis it is important to consider and
discriminate among multiple sources of impairment.
In a North Carolina stream (see Figure 5) four sites
were evaluated using rapid bioassessment techni-
Figure 4.—Kansas: Benthic Bioassessment of Little Mill Creek (Little Mill Creek = Site-Specific Reference)
Relationship of Habitat and Bioassessment
Habitat Quality (% of Reference)
Fig. 4: Three stream segments sampled in a stream in Kansas using Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al. 1989) revealed
significant impairments at sites below a sewage treatment plant.
39
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Figure 5.—The Relationship Between Habitat Quality and Benthic Community Condition at the North Carolina
Pilot Study Site.
Habitat Quality (% of Reference)
Fig. 5: Distinguishing between point and nonpoint sources of impairment requires an evaluation of the nature and magnitude
of different sites in a surface water. (Plafkin, et al. 1989)
ques. An ecoregional reference site (R) established
the highest level of biological integrity for that
stream type. Site (1), well upstream from a local
town, was used as the upstream reference condi-
tion. Degraded conditions at Site (2) suggested non-
point source problems and habitat degradation
because of proximity to residential areas on the
upstream edge of town. At Site (3) habitat altera-
tions, nonpoint runoff, and point source discharges
combined to severely degrade resident biota. At this
site, sedimentation and toxicity from municipal
sewage treatment effluent appeared responsible for
a major portion of this degradation. Site (4), al-
though several miles downstream from town, was
still impaired despite significant improvement in
habitat quality. This suggests that toxicity from
upstream discharges may still be occurring (Bar-
bour, 1990 pers. comm,). Using these kinds of com-
parisons, through a diagnostic procedure and by
using available chemical and biological assessment
tools, the relative effects of impacts can be deter-
mined so that solutions can be formulated to im-
prove water quality.
When point and nonpoint impact and physical
habitat degradation occur simultaneously, diagnosis
may require the combined use of biological, physi-
cal, and chemical evaluations to discriminate be-
tween these impacts. For example, sedimentation of
a stream caused by logging practices is likely to
result in a decrease in species that require loose
gravel for spawning but increase species naturally
adapted to fine sediments. This shift in community
components correlates well with the observed im-
pact. However, if the impact is a point source dis-
charge or nonpoint runoff of toxicants, both species
types are likely to be impaired whether sedimenta-
tion occurs or not (although gravel breeding species
can be expected to show greater impairment if
sedimentation occurs). Part of the diagnostic
process is derived from an understanding of or-
ganism sensitivities to different kinds of impacts and
their habitat requirements. When habitat is good but
water quality is poor, aquatic community com-
ponents sensitive to toxicity will be impaired. How-
ever, if both habitat and water quality degrade, the
resident community Is likely to be composed of
tolerant and opportunistic species.
When an impaired use cannot be easily related
to an obvious cause, the diagnostic process be-
comes investigative and iterative. The iterative diag-
nostic process as shown in Figure 6 may require
additional time and resources to verify cause and
source. Initially, potential sources of impact are
identified and mapped to determine location relative
40
-------
Chapter 7: Hypothesis Testing
Figure 6.— Diagnostic Process
Establish Biological Criteria
*
Conduct Field Assessment to Determine Impairment
Yes
±
No
No Further
Action
Evaluate Data to Determine
Probable Cause
t
Generate Testable Hypotheses
for Probable Cause
Collect Data and
Evaluate Results
t
No Apparent Cause
Obvious Cause
I
— Propose New Alternative
Hypotheses and Collect
New Data
Formulate Remedial (
Action
to the area suffering from biological impairment. An
analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the study area will help identify the
most likely sources and determine which data will
be most valuable. Hypotheses that distinguish be-
tween possible causes of impairment should be
generated. Study design and appropriate data col-
lection procedures need to be developed to test the
hypotheses. The severity of the impairment, the dif-
ficulty of diagnosis, and the costs involved will
determine how many iterative loops will be com-
pleted in the diagnostic process.
Normally, diagnoses of biological impairment
are relatively straightforward. States may use
biological criteria as a method to confirm Impairment
from a known source of Impact. However, the diag-
nostic process provides an effective way to identify
unknown impacts and diagnose their cause so that
corrective action can be devised and implemented.
Fig. 6: The diagnostic process is a stepwise process for
determining the cause of impaired biological integrity in sur-
face waters. It may require multiple hypotheses testing and
more than one remedial plan.
41
-------
-------
References
Angermeler, P.L. and J.R. Karr. (1986). Applying an Index of Blotlc
Integrity Based on Stream-Fish Communities: Considera-
tions In Sampling and Interpretation. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 6:
418-429.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. (1988).
Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas. Regulation No. 2.
Barbour, ?.?. (1990). Personal communication. EA Engineering,
Science and Technology, Inc., Sparks, MD.
Botton, M.L (1979). Effects of sewage sludge on the benthlc In-
vertebrate community on the Inshore New York Bight Es-
tuar. Coast. Shelf. Sd. 8:169-180
Brooks, R.P. and R.M. Hughes. (1988). Guidelines for assessing
the blotic communities of freshwater wetlands. Pages 276-
82 In JA Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, eds. Proc.
National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and
Losses. Ass. State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (1989). Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act as Amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.
Washington, D.C.
Cairns, J. Jr. (1975). Quantification of biological Integrity. Pages
171-85 in R.K. Ballentlne and LJ. Guarrle, eds., The In-
tegrity of Water, A Symposium. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Clarke, S., D. White, and A. Schaedel. Mss. Oregon ecological
regions and subreglons for water management Connecticut
1987.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. (1987).
Water Quality Standards.
Courtemanch, D.L. (1989). Implementation of blocrlterla In the
water quality standards program. Water Quality Standards
for the 21 st Century: Proc. Nati. Conf. Office of Drinking
Water. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C.
Courtemanch, D.L and S.P. Davles. (1987). Implementation of
biological standards and criteria In Maine's water classifica-
tion law. In Proc. Instream Blomonltorlng and Biological
Criteria Workshop. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Uncolnwood,
IL
Courtemanch, D.L, S.P. Davles, and E.B. Laverty. (1989). Incor-
poration of biological Information In water quality planning.
Environ. Manage. 13:35-41.
Courtemanch, D.L. and S.P. Davles. (1989). Why Maine has
Chosen to Integrate Biological Impact Standards Into State
Water Quality Law. Maine Dep. Environ. Prot., Augusta.
Eagleson, K.W., D.L Lenat, LW. Rusley and R.B. Winbome.
Comparison of Measured Instream Biological Responses
with Responses Predicted Using the Ceriodaphnla dubla
Chronic Toxlclty Test. Environ. Tox. and Chemistry 9:1019-
1028.
Forbes, S. (1928). Foreword. In R.E. Richardson, The bottom
fauna of the middle Illinois River, 1913-1925. Bull. III. Nat.
Hist. Surv. Vol. 17, Article 7,387-472.
Gakstatter, J., J.R. Gammon, R.M. Hughes, LS. Ischlnger, M.
Johnson, J. Karr, T. Murphy, T.M. Murray, and T. Stuart.
(1981). A recommended approach for determining biological
Integrity In flowing waters. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Cor-
vallls, OR.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whlttier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omemlk, and R.M.
Hughes. (1989). Reglonallzation as a Tool for Managing En-
vironmental Resources. EPA/600/3-89/060. U.S. Environ.
Res. Lab. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallls, OR.
Gammon, J.R. (1976). The fish populations of the middle 340 km
of the Wabash River. Tech. Rep. 86. Purdue Univ. Water
Resour. Res. Center, West Lafayette, IN.
Gammon, J.R., A. Spade, J.L Hamellnk, and R.L. Kaesler.
(1981). Role of electrofishlng In assessing environmental
quality of the Wabash River. Pages 307-24 in J.M. Bates and
C.I. Weber, eds., Ecological Assessments of Effluents Im-
pacts on Communities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms.
STP 703. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.
Green, R.H. (1979). Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for
Environmental Biologists. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hall, J.D., M.L Murphy, and R.S. Aho. (1989). An Improved
design for assessing Impacts of watershed practices on
small streams. Proc. Int. Ass. Theoret Appl. Llmnol. 20:
1359-65.
Hleskary, SA, C.B. WOson, and D.P. Larsen. (1987). Analysis of
regional patterns In lake water quality: using ecoreglons for
lake management In Minnesota. Lake Reserv. Manage. 3:
337-344.
Hllsenhoff, W.L. (1987). An Improved blotic Index of organic
stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomol. 20(1): 31-39.
Hughes, R.M. (1989a). What can biological monitoring tell us
about the environmental health of aquatic ecosystems? In
R.C. Ward, J.C. Loftls, and G.B. McBride, eds., Proc. Int.
Symp. on the Design of Water Quality Information Systems.
Inf. Ser. No. 61. Colo. Water Resour. Res. Inst. Colorado
State Univ., R. Collins.
Hughes, R.M. (1989b). Ecoreglonal biological criteria. In Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century. Proc. Nati. Conf. Off.
Water. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hughes, R.M., E. Rexstad, and C.E. Bond. (1987). The relation-
ship of aquatic ecoreglons, river basins, and physiographic
provinces to the Ichthyogeographlc regions of Oregon.
Copela: 423-432.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernlk. (1986). Regional
reference sites: a method for assessing stream pollution. En-
viron. Manage. 10(5): 629-625.
Hughes, R.M. (1985). Use of watershed characteristics to select
control stream for estimating effects of metal mining wastes
43
-------
Biological Criteria National Program Guidance
on extensively disturbed streams. Environ. Manage. 9:253-
262.
Judy. R.D. Jr., P.N. Seely, T.M, Murray, S.C. Svlrsky, M.R. Whit-
worth, and L.S. Ischinger. (1987). 1982 National Rsherias
Survey. Vol. 1 FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S. Fish Wlidl. Serv.
Karr, J.R, (1981). Assessment of blotic Integrity using fish com-
munities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
Karr, J.R and D.R. Dudley. (1981). Ecological Perspectives on
Water Quality Goals. Environ. Manage. 5:55-68.
. (1087). Biological monitoring and environmental assess-
ment a conceptual framework. Environ. Manage. 11(2):
249*256.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermier, P.R. Yant, and I.J.
Schlosser. (1986). Assessing biological Integrity In running
waters: a method and Its rationale. Spec. Publ. S. III. Nat.
Hist Surv,
Larsen, D.P., J.M. Omemlk, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whlt-
tler, AJ. KJnney, A.L. Gallant, and D.R. Dudley. (1986). The
correspondence between spatial patterns In fish as-
semblages In Ohio streams and aquatic ecoreglons. En-
viron. Manage. 10:815-828.
Lenat, D.R. (1988). Water quality assessment of streams using a
qualitative collection method for benthlc macrolnvertebrates,
J. N. Am. Bentholog. Soc. 7:222-33.
Lyons, J. (1889). Correspondence between the distribution of fish
assemblages In Wisconsin streams and Omemik's
ecoreglons. Am. Midland Nat 122(1): 163-182.
Maine Water Quality Classification Program. (1986). Maine
Revised Status Annotation. Title 38 Article 4-A Section 465.
McCaB, P.L (1977). Community patterns and adaptive strategies
of the Infaunal benthos of Long Island Sound. J. Mar. Res.
35:221-266.
Mearns, A.J. and J.Q. Word. (1982). Forecasting effects of
sewage solids on marine benthlc communities. Pages 495-
512 in G.F. Mayer, ed., Ecological Stress and the New York
Bight: Science and Management Estuar. Res. Fed., Colum-
bia, SC.
Miller, D.L. et a). (1988). Regional applications of an Index of
biotic Integrity for use In water resource management.
Fisheries 13(5): 12.
Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. (1989). Extinctions
of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries
14:22*38.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. (1984). The Before and After Studies. Report
No. 84-15.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (1988a). The Role of
Biological Data In Water Quality Assessment Vol. I. Biologi-
cal Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Ufe. Dlv. Water
Qual. Monitor. Assess. Surf. Water Section, Columbus.
-. (1988b). Water Quality Inventory 305(b). Report. Vol 1.
Dlv. Water Qua). Monitor. Assess. Columbus.
. (1990). Ohio Water Quality Standards. Ohio Admin.
Code 3745-1. Adopted Feb. 2.
Omemlk, J.M. (1987). Ecoreglons of the Conterminous United
States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geog. 77(1): 118-125.
Pheips, D. K. (1988). Marlne/Estuarlne Biomonltoring: A Concep-
tual Approach and Future Applications. Permits Dlv. Off.
Water, EPA 600/X-88/244. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Plafkln, J.L (1988). Water quality based controls & ecosystem
recovery. In J. Calms, Jr., ed., Rehabilitating Damaged
Ecosystems. Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Plafkln, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S. K Gross, and R.M.
Hughes. (1989). Rapid Bloassessment Protocols for Use In
Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macrolnvertebrates and Fish.
EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Popper, K.R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper
and Row, New York.
Reich and Hart (1979). Pollution Ecology of Estuarine Inver-
tebrates. Academic Press.
Rohm, C.M., J.W. Glese, and C.C. Bennett (1987). Evaluation of
an aquatic eooreglon classification of streams In Arkansas.
J. Freshw. Ecol. 4:127-40.
Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. (1981). Biometry: The Principles and
Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 2nd Ed. W.H.
Freeman, San Francisco.
Stanford, J.A. and J.B. Ward. (1988). The hypomelc habitat of
river ecosystems. Nature 335:64-66.
Thomas J.D. (1990), Personal communication. Reef Foundation.
Big Pine Key, FL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983a). Water Quality
Standards Handbook. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
D.C.
. (1983b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses,
Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington D.C.
. (1984a). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
Vol II. Estuarine Systems. Off. Water Reg. Stand.
Washington D.C.
. (1984b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
Vol ill. Lake Systems. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
D.C.
. (1989a). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund—En-
vironmental Evaluation Manual. Inter. Final. Off. Emerg.
Remed. Response. Washington, D.C.
. (1989b). Report of a Workshop on Biological Criteria:
Diagnosis Strategies for Impaired Waterbody Uses. Sub-
mitted by Batteiie. Sept. 30,1989. Unpubl.
. (1987a). Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
Change. Off. Water. Off. Policy Plann. Eval. Washington,
D.C.
. (19B7b). Report of the National Workshop on Instream
Biological Monitoring and Criteria. Off. Water Reg. Stand. In-
stream Bioiog. Criteria Comm. Region V. Environ. Res. Lab.
U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, CorvaRIs
Water Quality Act of 1987. (1989). In The Environment Reporter.
Bur. Nati. Affairs. Washington, D.C.
Whlttter, T.R., D.P. Larsen, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, A.L Gal-
lant, and J.M. Omemlk. (1987). Ohio Stream Reglonallzatlon
Project: A Compendium of Results. Environ. Res. Lab. U.S.
Environ. Prot Agency, Corvallls, OR.
Whittler, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and D.P. Larsen,. (1988). Correspon-
dence between ecoreglons and spatial patterns In stream
ecosystems In Oregon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sd. 45: 1264-
78.
Yoder, C.O. (1989). The development and use biological criteria
for Ohio surface waters. Water Quality Standards for the
21st Century. Proc. Natl. Conf. Off. Water. U.S. Environ,
Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
Code of Federal Regulations. (1989). Vol. 40, Part 131.10, U.S.
Gov. Print. Off. Washington, D.C.
44
-------
Appendix A
Common Questions and
Their Answers
Q. How will implementing biological criteria
benefit State water quality programs?
A. State water quality programs will benefit from
biological criteria because they:
a) directly assess impairments in ambient
biota from adverse impacts on the
environment;
b) are defensible and quantifiable;
c) document improvements in water quality
resulting from agency action;
d) reduce the likelihood of false positives (i.e.,
a conclusion that attainment is achieved
when it is not);
e) provide information on the integrity of
biological systems that is compelling to the
public.
Q. How will biological criteria be used in a
permit program?
A. When permits are renewed, records from
chemical analyses and biological assessments are
used to determine if the permit has effectively
prevented degradation and led to improvement. The
purpose for this evaluation is to determine whether
applicable water quality standards were achieved
under the expiring permit and to decide if changes
are needed. Biological surveys and criteria are par-
ticularly effective for determining the quality of
waters subject to permitted discharges. Since
biosurveys provide ongoing integrative evaluations
of the biological integrity of resident biota, permit
writers can make informed decisions on whether to
maintain or restrict permit limits.
Q. What expertise and staff will be needed to
implement a biological criteria program?
A. Staff with sound knowledge of State aquatic
biology and scientific protocol are needed to coor-
dinate a biological criteria program. Actual field
monitoring could be accomplished by summer-hire
biologists led by permanent staff aquatic biologists.
Most States employ aquatic biologists for monitor-
ing trends or issuing site-specific permits.
Q. Which management personnel should be
involved in a biologically-based approach?
A. Management personnel from each area
within the standards and monitoring programs
should be involved in this approach, including per-
mit engineers, resource managers, and field per-
sonnel.
Q. How much will this approach cost?
A. The cost of developing biological criteria is a
State-specific question depending upon many vari-
ables. However, States that have implemented a
biological criteria program have found it to be cost
effective (e.g., Ohio). Biological criteria provide an
integrative assessment over time. Biota reflect mul-
tiple impacts. Testing for impairment of resident
aquatic communities can actually require less
monitoring than would be required to detect many
impacts using more traditional methods (e.g.,
chemical testing for episodic events).
45
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Q. What are some concerns of dischargers?
A. Dischargers are concerned that biological
criteria will identify impairments that may be er-
roneously attributed to a discharger who is not
responsible. This is a legitimate concern that the
discharger and State must address with careful
evaluations and diagnosis of cause of impairment.
However, it is particularly important to ensure that
waters used for the reference condition are not al-
ready impaired as may occur when conducting
site-specific upstream-downstream evaluations. Al-
though a discharger may be contributing to surface
water degradation, it may be hard to detect using
blosurvey methods if the waterbody is also impaired
from other sources. This can be evaluated by test-
ing the possible toxicity of effluent-free reference
waters on sensitive organisms.
Dischargers are also concerned that current
permit limits may become more stringent if it is
determined that meeting chemical and whole-ef-
fluent permit limits are not sufficient to protect
aquatic life from discharger activities. Alternative
forms of regulation may be needed; these are not
necessarily financially burdensome but could in-
volve additional expense.
Burdensome monitoring requirements are addi-
tional concerns. With new rapid bioassessment
protocols available for streams, and under develop-
ment for other surface waters, monitoring resident
biota is becoming more straightforward. Since resi-
dent biota provide an integrative measure of en-
vironmental impacts over time, the need for
continual biomonitoring is actually lower than
chemical analyses and generally less expensive.
Guidance is being developed to establish accept-
able research protocols, quality assurance/quality
control programs and training opportunities to en-
sure that adequate guidance is available.
Q. What are the concerns of
environmentalists?
A. Environmentalists are concerned that biologi-
cal criteria could be used to alter restrictions on dis-
chargers if biosurvey data indicate attainment of a
designated use even though chemical criteria
and/or whole-effluent toxicity evaluations predict im-
pairment. Evidence suggests that this occurs infre-
quently (e.g., in Ohio, 6 percent of 431 sites
evaluated using chemical-specific criteria and
biosurveys resulted in this disagreement). In those
cases Where evidence suggests more than one con-
clusion, independent application applies. If biologi-
cal criteria suggest impairment but chemical-
specific and/or whole-effluent toxicity implies attain-
ment of the use, the cause for impairment of the
biota is to be evaluated and, where appropriate,
regulated. If whole effluent and/or chemical-specific
criteria imply impairment but no impairment is found
in resident biota, the whole-effluent and/or chemi-
cal-specific criteria provide the basis for regulation.
Q. Do biological criteria have to be codified
in State regulations?
A. State water quality standards require three
components: (1) designated uses, (2) protective
criteria, and (3) an antidegradation clause. For
criteria to be enforceable they must be codified in
regulations. Codification could involve general nar-
rative statements of biological criteria, numeric
criteria, and/or criteria accompanied by specific test-
ing procedures. Codifying general narratives
provides the most flexibility—specific methods for
data collection the least flexibility—for incorporating
new data and improving data gathering methods as
the biological criteria program develops. States
should carefully consider how to codify these
criteria.
Q. How will biocriteria ft into the agency's
method of implementing standards?
A. Resident biota integrate multiple impacts
over time and can detect impairment from known
and unknown causes. Biocriteria can be used to
verify improvement in water quality in response to
regulatory efforts and detect continuing degradation
of waters. They provide a framework for developing
improved best management practices for nonpoint
source impacts. Numeric criteria can provide effec-
tive monitoring criteria for inclusion in permits.
Q. Who determines the values for biological
criteria and decides whether a waterbody meets
the criteria?
The process of developing biological criteria, in-
cluding refined use classes, narrative criteria, and
numeric criteria, must include agency managers,
staff biologists, and the publ ic through public hear-
ings and comment. Once criteria are established,
determining attainment\nonattainment of a use re-
46
-------
Appendix A: Common Questions and Their Answers
quires biological and statistical evaluation based on
established protocols. Changes in the criteria would
require the same steps as the initial criteria: techni-
cal modifications by biologists, goal clarification by
agency managers, and public hearings. The key to
criteria development and revision is a dear state-
ment of measurable objectives.
Q. What additional information is available
on developing and using biological criteria?
A. This program guidance document will be
supplemented by the document Biological Criteria
Development by States that includes case histories
of State implementation of biological criteria as nar-
ratives, numerics, and some data procedures. The
purpose for the document is to expand on material
presented In Part I. The document will be available
in October 1990.
A general Biological Criteria Technical Refer-
ence Guide will also be available for distribution
during FY 1991. This document outlines basic ap-
proaches for developing biological criteria In all sur-
face waters (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands,
estuaries). The primary focus of the document is to
provide a reference guide to scientific literature that
describes approaches and methods used to deter-
mine biological integrity of specific surface water
types.
Over the next triennium more detailed guidance
will be produced that focuses on each surface water
type (e.g., technical guidance for streams will be
produced during FY 91). Comparisons of different
biosurvey approaches will be included for accuracy,
efficacy, and cost effectiveness.
47
-------
-------
Appendix B
Biological Criteria Technical
Reference Guide
Table of Contents (tentative)
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
a Purpose of the Technical Support Document
a Organization of the Support Document
SECTION 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
o Definitions
o Biocriteria and the Scientific Method
o Hypothesis Formulation and Testing
a Predictions
a Data Collection and Evaluation
SECTION 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
a Data Quality Objectives
a Quality Assurance Program Plans and Project Plans
a Importance of QA/QC for Bioassessment
a Training
a Standard Procedures
o Documentation
o Calibration of Instruments
SECTION 4. PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOCRITERIA
a Designated Uses
a Reference Site or Condition
o Biosurvey
a Biological Criteria
49
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
SECTION 5. BIOASSESSMENT STRATEGIES TO DETERMINE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
a Detailed Ecological Reconnaissance
a Biosurveys of Targeted Community Segments
o Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
a Bioindicators
SECTION 6. ESTABUSH1NG THE REFERENCE CONDITION
o Reference Conditions Based on Site-Specific Comparisons
Q Reference Conditions Based on Regions of Ecological Similarity
Q Reference Conditions Based on Habitat Assessment
SECTION 7. THE REFERENCE CATALOG
SECTION 8. THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT ON BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Q Habitat Assessment for Streams and Rivers
o Habitat Assessment for Lakes and Reservoirs
Q Habitat Assessment for Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
a Habitat Assessment for Wetlands
SECTION 9. BIOSURVEY METHODS TO ASSESS BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
a Biotic Assessment in Freshwater
a Biotic Assessment in Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
a Biotic Assessment in Wetlands
SECTION 10. DATA ANALYSIS
a Sampling Strategy and Statistical Approaches
o Diversity Indices
o Biological Indices
a Composite Community Indices
APPENDIX A. Freshwater Environments
APPENDIX B. Estuarine and Near-Coastal Environments
APPENDIX C. Wetlands Environments
APPENDIX D. Alphabetical Author/Reference Cross Number Index for the Reference Catalog
APPENDIX E. Reference Catalog Entries
LIST OF FIGURES
a Figure 1 Bioassessment decision matrix
o Figure 2 Specimen of a reference citation in the Reference Catalog
50
-------
Appendix C
Biological Criteria
Development by States
Table of Contents (tentative)
I. Introduction
II. Key Concepts
III. Biological Criteria Across the 50 States
IV. Case Study of Ohio
A. Introduction
1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
2. Application of Biological Criteria
B. History
1. Development of Biological Criteria
2. Current Status of Biological Criteria
C. Discussion
1. Program Resources
2. Comparative Cost Calculations
3. Program Evaluation
V. Case Study of Maine
A. Introduction
1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
2. Application of Biological Criteria
B. History
1. Development of Biological Criteria
2. Program Rationale
C. Discussion
1. Program Resources
2. Program Evaluation
VI. Case Study of North Carolina
A. Introduction
1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
2. Application of Biological Criteria
B. History
1. Development of Biological Criteria
2. Current Status of Biological Criteria
C. Discussion
1. Program Resources
2. Program Evaluation
VII. Case Study of Arkansas
A. Introduction
1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
2. Application of Biological Criteria
B. History
1. Development of Biological Criteria
2. Current Status of Biological Criteria
C. Discussion
1. Program Resources
2. Program Evaluation
Vlll. Case Study of Florida
A. Introduction
1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
2. Application of Biological Criteria
B. History
C. Discussion
IX. Case Summaries of Six States
A. Connecticut
B. Delaware
C. Minnesota
D. Nebraska
E. New York
F. Vermont
51
-------
-------
Appendix D
Contributors and Reviewers
Contributors
Gerald Ankley
USEPA Environmental Research
Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
John Arthur
USEPA
ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Patricia Bailey
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
StPaul,MN55155
Joe Ball
Wisconsin DNR
Water Resource Management
(WR/2)
P.O. Box 7291
Madison, Wl 53707
Michael Barbour
EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology Inc.
Hunt Valley/Loveton Center
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152
Raymond Beaumler
Ohio EPA
Water Quality Laboratory
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
John Bender
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 69509
Mark Blosser
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources - Water Quality Mgmt.
Branch
P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Way
Dover, DE19903
Robert Bode
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
Albany, NY 12201
Lee Bridges
Indiana Department of Environment
Management
5500 W. Bradbury
Indianapolis, IN 46241
Claire Buchanan
Interstate Commission on Potomac
River Basin
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20852-3903
David Couitemanch
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
Director, Division of Environmental
Evaluation and Lake Studies
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Norm Crisp
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
Susan Davies
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Wayne Davis
Environmental Scientist
Ambient Monitoring Section
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. {5-SMQA)
Chicago, IL 60605
Kenneth Duke
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201 -2693
Gary Fandrel
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Division of Water Quality
520 La Fayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Steve Flske
Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation
6 Baldwin St.
Montpelier, VT 05602
53
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
John Glass
Arkansas Department Of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Steven Glomb
Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
USEPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Steve Goodbred
Division of Ecological Services
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1825 B.Virginia Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Jim Harrison
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St. (4WM-MEB)
Atlanta, GA 30365
Margaret* Heber
Office of Water Enforcements and
Permits
USEPA (EN-336)
401M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Steve Hedtke
US EPA Environmental Research
Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Robert Hlte
Illinois EPA
2209 West Main
Marion, IL 62959
Linda Hoist
USEPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Evan Hornlg
USEPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank at Fountain
Place
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
William B. Homing II
Aquatic Biologist, Project
Management Branch
USEPA/ORD Env. Monitoring
Systems
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Robert Hughes
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Jim Hulbert
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
'Suite 232
3319Maguire Blvd.
Orlando, FL 32803
James Kennedy
Institute of Applied Sciences
North Texas State University
Denton.TX 76203
Richard Langdon
Vermont Department of
Environmental
Conservation—10 North
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury.VT 05676
John Lyons
Special Projects Leader
Wisconsin Fish Research Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
3911 Fish Hatchery Rd.
Fitchburg.WI 53711
Anthony Maclorowskl
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Suzanne Marcy
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards
USEPA (WH 585)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Scott Mattee
Geological Survey of Alabama
PO Drawer O
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
John M axted
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
39 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Jlmmle Overton
NC Def>t of Natural Resources and
Commu nity Development
P.O. BOJK 27687
512 N. Salisbury
Raleigh. NC 27611-7617
Steve P aulsen
Environmental Research Center
University of Nevada -La_s Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkey
LasVegas, NV89154
Loys Pairrlsh
USEPA Region 8
P.O. 80X25366
Denver federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
David P enrose
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources anal
Community Development
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleighr NC 27611
Don Phelps
USEPA
Environmental Research Lab
South Ferry Road
Narraga nsett, Rl 02882
Ernest PIzzuto
Connecticut Department
Environmental Protect! on
122 Washington Street
Hartford t CT 06115
James P*lafkln
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards
USEPA «WH 553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ronald Preston
Biological Science Coordi nator
USEPA Region 3
Wheeling Office (3ES12)
303 Metfiodist Building
Wheeling, WV 26003
54
-------
Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers
Ronald Raschke
Ecological Support Branch
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 4
Athens ,GA 30613
Mark Souther-land
Dynamac Corporation
The Dynamac Building
11140 Rickville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
James Thomas
Newfound Harbor Marine Institute
Rt 3, Box 170
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
Nelson Thomas
USEPA, ERL-Duluth
Senior Advisor for National Program
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Randall Walte
USEPA Region 3
Program Support Branch (3WMIO)
841 ChesnutBldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
John Wegrzyn
Manager, Water Quality Standards
Unit
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 95004
Thorn Whlttier
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Bill Wuerthele
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 8 (WM-SP)
99918th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Chris Yoder
Asst. Manager, Surface Water
Section
Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment
Ohio EPA-Water Quality Lab
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
David Yount
US EPA Environmental Research
Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Lee Zenl
Interstate Commission on Potomac
River Basin
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20852-3903
Reviewers
Paul Adamus
Wetlands Program
NSI Technology Services
200 S.W, 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Rick Albright
USEPA Region 10 (WD-139)
1200 6th Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98101
Max Anderson
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605
Michael D. Bllger
USEPA Region 1
John F, Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
Susan Boldt
University of Wisconsin Extension
Madison, Wl
Paul Campanella
Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
USEPA (PM222-A)
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Cindy Carusone
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Box1397
Albany, NY 12201
Brian Choy
Hawaii Department of Health
645 Halekauwila St.
Honolulu, HI 96813
Bill Creal
Michigan DNR
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
Phil Crocker
Water Quality Management Branch
USEPA Region 6/1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Kenneth Cummins
Appalachian Environmental Lab
University of Maryland
Frostburg, MD21532
Jeff DeShon
Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
Peter Farrlngton
Biomonitoring Assessments Officer
Water Quality Branch
Inland Waters Directorate
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario K1AOH3
Kenneth Fenner
USEPA Region 5
Water Quality Branch
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Jack Freda
Ohio EPA
Surface Water Section
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield ,IL 62706
Cynthia Fuller
USEPA GLNPO
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
55
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Jeff Gagler
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604
Mary Jo Garrels
Maryland Department of the
Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Building 30
Baltimore, MD 21224
Jim Glattlna
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604
Jim Green
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 3
303 Methodist Bldg.
11th and Chapline
Wheeling, WV 26003
Larlndo Gronner
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta. GA 30365
Martin Gurtz
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
P.O. Box 2857
Raleigh, NC 27602-2857
RiekHafele
Oregon Department Environmental
Quality
1712 S.W. 11th Street
Portland, OR 97201
Steve Helskary
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
SLPaul, MN55155
Rollie Hemmett
USEPA Region 2
Environmental Services
Woodridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Charles Hocutt
Horn Point Environmental
Laboratory
Box 775 University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD 21613
Hoke Howard
USEPA Region 4
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605
Peter Husby
USEPA Region 9
215FreemontSt
San Francisco, CA94105
Gerald Jacobl
Environmental Sciences
School of Science and Technology
New Mexico Highlands University
Las Vegas, NM 87701
James Karr
Department of Biology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406
Roy Klelnsasser
Texas Parks and Wildlife
P.O. Box 947
San Marcos, TX 78667
Don Klemm
USEPA Environmental Monitoring
and Systems Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Robin Knox
Louisiana Department of
Environment Quality
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70726
Robert Koroncai
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 3
847 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Jim Kurztenbach
USEPA Region 2
WoodbridgeAve.
Rariton Depot Bldg. 10
Edison, NJ 08837
Roy Kwlatkowskl
Water Quality Objectives Division
Water Quality Branch
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
K1AOH3
Jim Laforchak
EMSL-Cincinnati
U.S. Eravironmental Protection
Agency
Cincinnati, OH
David L_enat
NC Dept of Natural Reso urces and
Community Development
512 N.Salisbury St.
Raleighi.NC 27611
James Luey
USEPA Regions
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS»
Chicago, IL 60604
Terry Maret
Nebraska Department of
Envir onmental Control
Box 948977
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 69509
Wally rVlatsunaga
Illinois EEPA
1701 First Ave,, #600
Maywood, IL 60153
Robert Mosher
Illinois EEPA
2200 Churchill Rd. #15
P.O. Bow 19276
Springfi«ld, IL 62794
Phillip Oshlda
USEPA Region 9
215Fre*nontStreet
San Fra ncisco, CA94105i
Bill Painter
USEPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW (W435B)
Washington, DC 20460
Rob Pepin
USEPA ;Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Wayne Poppe
Tenness-ee Valley Authority
270 Harvey Bldg,
Chattanooga, TN 37401
Walter Redmon
USEPA Region 5
230 S. dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
56
-------
Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers
Landon Ross
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Jean Roberts
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
2655 East Magnolia
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Charles Saylor
Tennessee Valley Authority
Reid Operations Eastern Area
Division of Services and Field
Operations
Morris, TN 37828
Robert Schacht
Illinois EPA
1701 First Avenue
Maywood, IL60153
Duane Schuettpelz
Chief, Surface Water Standards and
Monitoring Section-Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Bruce Shacklef ord
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Larry Shepard
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, !L 60604
Jerry Shulte
Ohio River Sanitation Commission
49 E, 4th St., Suite 851
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Thomas Simon
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605
J. Singh
USEPA Region 5
536 Clark St. (5SCDO)
Chicago, IL 60605
Marc Smith
Biomonitoring Section
Ohio EPA
1030 King Avenue
Columbus. OH 43212
Denise Steurer
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
William Tucker
Supervisor, Water Quality
Monitoring
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
4500 S. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62706
Stephen Twldwell
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Barbara Williams
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
57
-------
------- |