United State* Oftte* of Water EPA-44WS-91-003
Envifooinwrtil Protection (WH*S86)
Ap«ney Wathtngton. DC 20480
Biological Criteria
State Development And
Implementation Efforts
-------
-------
Biological Criteria
State Development and
Implementation Efforts
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 1991
-------
-------
Contents
Acknowledgements ,..-.' .......
Definitions .......
....................... . . . ............... v
Executive Summary ........
J ............... ............ ........ vii
Foreword .......
............. ............................ ix
Chapterl: Introduction . . . .,
Overview of Biocriteria Development
Chapter2: State Biological Criteria Development Programs ........ 3
Biological Surveys ........................... .
Biological Criteria ............ .................. .
States with Active Biological Criteria Programs ................... 5
States Developing Biological Criteria ................... 6
Chapter 3: Case Studies of Biological Criteria Programs in Five States 11
ow° ...................... ....... ... ....... ;;;.';;.";;;;,'n
Maine ........................
.................... ................ . 18
North Carolina
Florida
Arkansas
Chapter4: Case Summaries of Biological Criteria in Seven States 31
Te™' ............ ....................... .'.'.'.''.'.'.'.'.'-i.'.'.'.'.'si
Connecticut .......................
Vermont .................. ...................... 33
New York ........... ........... ,.
........ ............................. 34
Nebraska ..........
................................ ..... 34
Delaware . . ...... , , ......
Minnesota ............
"**"""***"""****•*•••••••••• i53
References
III
-------
Acknowledgements
The US. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water sponsored development of
this document through U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3533 to Dynamac Corporation
Suzanne Marcy and George Gibson of the Office of Water managed document
development, and Mark Southerland of the Dynamac Corporation served as technical editor.
This document is essentially a compilation of State experiences with biological criteria
Therefore, EPA is especially indebted to the officials who contributed information on their'
water quality programs, helped in the review process, and offered to further share their
expertise with readers of this report. We wish to thank Patricia Bailey, John Bender Mark
TimSH,?l£t p°d%DaVe Cou*e™anf' Susan Davi^ Steve Fiske, John Geise, GuyHoffman,
Jim Hulbert, Roy Keinsasser, Richard Langdon, John Maxted, Jimmie Overton, Dave Penrose
Ernest P&zuto, Steve Tidwell, and Chris Yoder. We especially wish to acknowledge Dave '
Penrose for his expertise and efforts in the preparation of this report while he was temporarily
assigned to the EPA. r j
iv
-------
Definitions
To protect water quality, States must adopt and apply water quality standards that
incorporate a designated use for the body of water, criteria that describe conditions the
waterbody must attain to meet that use, and an antidegradation policy When
developing biological criteria to protect a designated aquatic life use, States need to understand
the concepts and techniques of ambient biological assessment, primarily those applicable to the
selection of target groups within aquatic communities and the definition of biological integrity
by which to measure the condition of the biota. To this end, readers should consider the
following definitions, which provide a standard frame of reference for the concepts discussed
in this document. r
Q An AQUATIC COMMUNITY is an association
of interacting populations of aquatic organisms
in a given waterbody or habitat.
Q A BIOASSAY is a toxicity test that uses selected
organisms to determine the acute or chronic
effects of a chemical pollutant or whole effluent.
Q A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evalua-
tion of the biological condition of a waterbody
that uses biological surveys and other direct
measurements of resident biota in surface
waters.
Q BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA, or biocriteria, are
numeric values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of
aquatic communities inhabiting waters that
have been given a 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 com-
munity structure and function.
Q BIOLOGICAL MONITORING is the use of a
biological entity as a detector and its response
as a measure to determine environmental cond-
itions. Toxicity tests and biological surveys are
common biomonitoring methods.
Q A BIOLOGICAL STANDARD is a legally
established State rule that includes a designated
biological use (goal) and biological criteria.
QA BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, or biosurvey,
consists of collecting, processing, and analyzing
representative portions of a resident aquatic
community to determine the community
structure and function.
Q An ECOREGION is a relatively homogeneous
area defined by similarity of vegetation,
hydrology, and land use. Ecoregions help define
designated use classifications of specific
waterbodies.
Q DESIGNATED USES are specified in wate*
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 that is caused by external sources.
Q An IMPAIRMENT is a detrimental effect on the
biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an
impact that prevents attainment of the
designated use.
-------
-------
Executive Summary
States are showing increasing interest in developing biological criteria as part of then-
water quality programs. Some have already instituted biological criteria to support their
TT c r Standards" To Courage adoption of biological criteria throughout the country, the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing both program and technical
guidance for the development and implementation of State programs.
th n , hC m°St reCCnt reviCW °f biolo&cal ^eria development in each of
he 50 States (plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands). Most States
(39) conduct special site studies to assess the impacts of specific point and/or nonpoint sources
of pollution. However, use of the results has been limited to defining regional reference
conditions or to establishing biological criteria. Fewer States (31) are conducting biological
network trend monitoring, in which data are used to define regional reference conditions and
establish the foundation of biological criteria. Most of these State programs are hampered by
constraints on staffing and funding. F y
A total of 31 State biomonitoring organizations are actively involved in the research
development or implementation of biological criteria. The level of participation ranges'from
he 17 States that are conducting biological investigations aimed at assessing biological criteria
(but are not actively developing criteria), to the five States that are currently developing
biological criteria, to the eight State organizations that are using narrative or numeric biological
criteria in support of their water quality regulations. Several otherStates are designing
monitoring surveys to assess the effectiveness of ecoregional reference conditions.
This document includes five case studies on States with the most active biological criteria
programs-Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, Florida, and Arkansas-and seven case summaries on
States with substantial experience in biological criteria-Texas, Connecticut, Vermont, New
York, Nebraska, Delaware, and Minnesota.
Ohio's experience with biological criteria has demonstrated that an effective program can
be cost effective, compared with traditional approaches, and needs only representative, not
exhaustive, samples of aquatic biota. In Ohio and North Carolina, biological assessments have
uncovered previously unidentified water quality impairments or revealed problems before they
became severe. Maine recommends adoption of explicit standards to give a statutory basis for
enforcement and management efforts that are aimed at aquatic life. Court decisions in Ohio and
Florida have upheld the validity of biological criteria for determining nonattainment of water
quality standards. Arkansas' experience illustrates the usefulness of ecoregional biological
criteria in setting standards that are realistically attainable and ecologically relevant
vii
-------
-------
Foreword
In 1987, EPA's Office of Water published a report, Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
Change, that strongly recommended expanded use of biomonitoring in water quality
programs. In December 1987, the National Workshop on Instream Biological Monitoring
and Cntena recommended that "the concept of biocriteria and the information generated by
ambient biological sampling should be integrated into the full spectrum of State and Federal
surface water programs."
Biological Criteria: State Development and Implementation Efforts is one of a series of three
reports prepared by the Office of Water and its contractors to provide guidance to States as they
develop biological criteria. This report supplements EPA's other biological criteria guidance
documents, with practical examples that show how States are currently developing and using'
the criteria. It also serves as a status report on efforts throughout the 50 States to establish
biological criteria.
!x
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
This document is designed to be a valuable
resource for States that are planning or
developing biological criteria programs. It
supplements EPA's program guidance with case
histories about existing State programs and
reviews State efforts to develop biological criteria.
Key concepts relating to biological criteria are
provided in Definitions. These terms, which are
common to all EPA guidance documents for
biological criteria, have been used to provide con-
sistency in the discussion of State programs. Chap-
ter 2 of this report describes current biological
criteria efforts in the 50 States. Detailed case
studies of five States that have intensive biological
criteria programs are included in Chapter 3, and
case summaries of seven additional State efforts to
develop biological criteria are presented in Chap-
ter^
Overview of Biocriteria
Development
Biological criteria are narrative expressions that
may be accompanied by numeric values describ-
ing the biological integrity of aquatic communities
inhabiting waters that have a given aquatic life
use. As such, they directly address the objective
under section 101 of the Clean Water Act: to re-
store and maintain the biological "integrity of the
Nation's waters.
Biological criteria supplement rather than
replace current programs by providing a direct
measure of aquatic communities at risk from
human activities. Used together, chemical criteria,
whole-effluent toxitity evaluations, and biological
criteria provide a powerful, integrated, ecological
approach to water quality evaluation.
In September 1987, EPA published a major
management study entitled Surface Water Monitor-
ing: A Framework for Change that strongly em-
phasized the need to "accelerate development and
application of promising biological monitoring
techniques" in State and EPA monitoring
programs. In December 1987, the National
Workshop on Instream Biological Monitoring and
Criteria advocated the same measures but also
stressed the importance of combining the new
biological criteria and assessment methods with
traditional chemical and physical procedures. Both
recommendations were presented at the June 1988
National Symposium on Water Quality Assess-
ment, where a work group of representatives from
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
several State and Federal agencies unanimously
agreed that a national bioassessment policy
should be developed to both encourage the ex-
panded use of the new biological tools and direct
their rational implementation across the water
quality programs. In April 1990, EPA's Office of
Water Regulations and Standards issued a policy
statement encouraging States to develop biological
criteria and published Biological Criteria: National
Program Guidance for Surface Waters. Another
guidance document, Biological Criteria: National
Technical Guidance for Surface Waters, is being
developed.
-------
Chapter 2
State Biological Criteria
Development Programs
In developing biological criteria for water
quality programs, States have used a wide
range of efforts to improve biological assess-
ment methods, transform biological monitoring
programs into ones using biological criteria, and
incorporate biological criteria into water quality
standards. The legislative and administrative en-
vironments of State programs ultimately deter-
mine the most effective structure for particular
biological criteria programs. This survey of State
efforts in biological criteria development il-
lustrates both the differences and the many
similarities of existing and emerging programs.
Although most States conduct some kind of
biological survey program, few have developed
biological criteria. Biological survey programs
vary, but they generally fall into two categories:
network trend monitoring—systematic biological
surveys conducted over set intervals, usually from
fixed stations, and special site studies—biological
surveys conducted at selected locations, usually to
assess impacts from specific sources. However,
State efforts to develop biological criteria are often
unique to a particular area.
Table 1 (at the end of this chapter) lists the
status of biological survey and biological criteria
programs in the 50 States (plus the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).-
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the status of biological
survey programs and biological criteria programs
in each State.
Biological Surveys
All but four of the States (and Puerto Rico) con-
duct some form of biological survey program that
includes either special site studies or network
trend monitoring. Special site studies are biologi-
cal surveys that are conducted at selected loca-
tions, usually to assess impacts from specific
sources—including use attainment assessments by
States and dischargers. In network trend monitor-
ing, systematic biological surveys are collected
over set intervals, usually from fixed stations. Fish
and macroinvertebrates are commonly collected
for both kinds of biological surveys; however,
plankton, periphyton, and macrophytes are also
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
D
No Bwiujvtyi
Spec i»l Situ Studwt (SSS)
Network Trend Monitoring (NTM)
SSS
-------
Chapter 2: State Biological Criteria Development pn
'ograms
NoBiooilaria
Researching Biocriteria
Developing Biocriteria
Administraljvs Us* of Bocriteria
Biocriteria in Standards
Figure 2.-Status of biological criteria programs In the 50 States.
Ohio has developed the most detailed use of
biological criteria throughout different ecoregions
and waterbody types. Use classifications based on
biological criteria have been upheld in Ohio
courts, and, in 1990, biological criteria were direct-
ly incorporated into that State's water quality
standards. Maine has developed specific aquatic
life use classifications in anticipation of incor-
porating criteria based on statewide macroinver-
tebrate sampling into its water quality standards.
North Carolina uses biological criteria for different
geographical regions to assess impairment of resi-
dent biota and identify waterbodies that are excep-
tional aquatic life sites.
Two other States also use biological criteria for
specific objectives. Florida has a long-standing
numeric criterion for freshwaters and a new stand-
ard for wetlands; both mandate specific levels of
invertebrate species diversity. Arkansas has com-
pleted an ecoregion project that defines areas with
naturally low dissolved oxygen. The State plans to
develop different criteria for these regions.
Seven additional State programs currently
developing biological criteria are summarized in
Chapter 4. Texas, Connecticut, Vermont, New
York, and Nebraska have adopted different
methods for evaluating biological conditions in
support of narrative standards. Minnesota and
Delaware are just beginning to develop biological
criteria programs.
States With Active Biological
Criteria Programs
Five States are using biological criteria to define
aquatic life use classifications and enforce water
quality standards. Three—Ohio, Maine, and North
Carolina—have made biological criteria an in-
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
tcgral part of comprehensive water quality
programs.
Ohio has instituted the most extensive use of
biological criteria in defining use classifications
and assessing water quality. The State used an
ecoregional reference site approach to develop
biological criteria for Ohio rivers and streams.
Within each of the State's five ecoregions, criteria
were .derived for three biological indices (two for
fish communities and one for macroinvertebrates).
Ohio has used its biological criteria to demonstrate
attainment of aquatic life uses and find previously
unknown environmental degradation. Twice as
' many impaired waters were discovered by using
biological criteria and chemistry assessments
together than with chemistry assessments alone.
Upgraded use designations based on biological
criteria have been upheld in Ohio courts. In
February 1990, Ohio EPA adopted numeric
biological criteria for its water quality standards
regulations.
Maine has enacted a revised water quality
classification law specifically designed to facilitate
use of biological assessments. Descriptions of each
of the four water classes include aquatic life condi-
tions necessary to attain that class. Maine is now
developing a set of dichotomous keys to serve as
biological criteria that are based on a statewide
database of macroinvertebrate samples. The
State's program will not play a significant role in
permitting; however, it will be used to assess the
degree of protection afforded by effluent limita-
tions.
To assess impairments to aquatic life uses,
North Carolina has developed biological criteria
that are written as narratives in its water quality
standards. Biological data and criteria are used ex-
tensively to identify waters of special concern or
those with exceptional water quality. The State
employs biological criteria to assess high quality
waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters
(ORW), and nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) that
are at risk from eutrophication. Although the
regulations do not stipulate specific biological
measures, strengthened use of biological monitor-
ing data to assess water quality is being proposed
for incorporation into North Carolina's water
quality standards.
Two additional States are using biological
criteria for specific water quality problems in their
streams and rivers. Florida has a biological
criterion for invertebrates within its State stand-
ards: species diversity within a waterbody, as
measured by the index, may not fall below 75 per-
cent of reference measures. This criterion has been
used in enforcement cases to obtain injunctions
and monetary settlements.
Arkansas has rewritten aquatic life use clas-
sifications to reflect biological criteria developed
for each of its ecoregions. Many Arkansas cities are
designing wastewater treatment plants that meet
the realistically attainable dissolved oxygen condi-
tions determined by the new criteria.
States Developing Biological
Criteria
Seven States are making limited use of biological
criteria or are developing them for future applica-
tions.
• Texas has narrative biological criteria that
describe aquatic life attributes on a sliding
scale from limited to exceptional.
• Connecticut is developing qualitative
bioassessment methods to complement
narrative biological criteria for benthic
macroinvertebrates.
• Vermont uses a set of administrative rules;to
•support existing aquatic life narratives in its
water quality standards.
• New York has developed numeric biological
criteria to support enforcement actions and
intends to incorporate these criteria into state
water quality standards.
• Nebraska uses aquatic life bioassessments
based on narrative biological criteria to
support permit writing and pollution control.
• Delaware and Minnesota are in the early
stages of developing reference conditions for
biological criteria programs.
-------
Chapter 2: State Biological Criteria Development Programs
Table 1.—Biological criteria programs across the 50 States.
STATE
BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Alabama Network Trend Monitoring
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Alaska Special Site Studies
Arizona None
Arkansas Network Trend Monitoring
(macroinvertebrates, fish)
California Special Site Studies (marine)
Colorado Special Site Studies
Connecticut Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Delaware Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (marine)
Special Site Studies (macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates, fish)
Special Site Studies (macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring
(phytoplankton, macroinvertebrates, fish)
Special Site Studies (phytoplankton, macroinvertebrates, fish)
Network Trend Monitoring
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (macroinvertebrates, fish, periphyton)
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Conducting a cooperative ecoregion project
with Mississippi that may be used to Imple-
ment biocrlteria.
None
Long-term research plan for applying
ecoreglons to water quality standards and .
biological criteria.
Completed ecoregion project with regional
standards for fish, physical habitat, and water
quality.
None
Developed evaluative metrics for biota.
Informal biological criteria for benthic macro-
invertebrates in place since 1987. Several
ecoregional reference sites have been desig-
nated.
Biological criteria development under way with
preliminary sampling and Identification of pos-
sible reference sites.
District of Columbia Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates, plankton) None
Longstanding legal biological criterion based
on macroinvertebrates diversity Index.
None
None
Evaluating ecoregional reference sites In the
Snake River catchment using rapid bioassess-
ment techniques.
Using Index of Biotic Integrity (IB!) for basin
survey and to assess use attainment for 305b
reports.
Planning for biocrlteria development
Conducting ecoregional sampling to classify
streams.
Considering fish community metric for existing
water resource assessments.
Index of Static Integrity (IBI) Is determined for
all mine projects.
None
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
T«bl» 1 (continued)
STATE
BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mlnnatota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Onto
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Network Trend Monitoring (macrolnvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (macrolnvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (macrolnvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (macrolnvertebrates)
Special Site Studies
Special Site Studies (fish, macrolnvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (macrolnvertebrates, fish)
Special Site Studies (fish)
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (plankton, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macrolnvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (macrolnvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (macrolnvertebrates. periphyton)
None
Network Trend Monitoring
(fish, macrolnvertebrates, periphyton)
Special Site Studies (macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring
(macrolnvertebrates, phytoplankton)
Special Site Studies (fish, macrolnvertebrates, phytoplankton)
None
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macrolnvertsbrates)
Five Year Basin Approach* (fish, macrolnvertebrates)
M framework from which basins, sub-basins ormainstem
surveys are selected on a priority basis on a five year
rotation.
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macrolnvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macrolnvertebrates, periphyton)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (macrolnvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macrolnvertebrates. macrophytes)
None
Revised water quality standards to Include
narrative biological criteria based on decision
matrix of ambient macrolnvertebrates com-
munity data. Data are used to assess attain-
ment of standards for designated uses.
None
Classified streams with extensive field data on
fish species and habitats.
Evaluating biological criteria for Michigan.
Developing regional fish community metrics.
Conducting a cooperative ecoreglon project
with Alabama that may be used to implement
btocriteria.
Conducting ecoregional sampling to classify
streams.
Completed muftiyear, statewide stream biosur-
vey aimed at establishing a standards
framework with regional criteria, reference
sites, and species lists.
None
None
None
None
Proposing btocriteria based on comparison of
macroinvertebrate measures with control sites.
Administrative biological criteria support
aquatic life use classes In standards. Develop-
ing detailed map of State to refine ecoregions.
None ,
Biocrtterla are used In all surface water
programs. Adopted (Feb. 1990) quantitative
ecoregional biological criteria for fish and mac-
roinvertebrate communities In water quality
standards regulations. Using Index of Biotic In-
tegrity and two other Indices to rate streams.
Currently assessing long-term trends and may
develop ecoregional chemical criteria.
None
Planning for biocriteria development.
None
None
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (estuarine)
Network Trend Monitoring
(phytoplankton, fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (marine, fish, macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring (macroinvertebrates)
Special Site Studies (fish, macroinvertebrates)
Network Trend Monitoring
(macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton)
None
None
None
None
Using a modified IBI to monitor basins, assess
nonpoint source pollution, and determine at-
tainable resource quality.
Narrative biological criteria are In the State's
water quality standards and are used to sup-
port aquatic life uses. Ecoregion studies are
currently being conducted on least disturbed
Texas streams.
None
Use in-stream biocriteria to determine If two
biological standards are being met through an
administrative rules procedure.
Using biomonftoring and benthlc programs to
determine the degree of water quality impair-
ment In streams. Planning for biocriteria is
underway with preliminary sampling and
evaluation of possible reference sites.
None
None
None
Modifying IBI for subsequent development of
biological criteria. Stream classifications are
based on slope gradient and summer
temperature.
None
-------
-------
CHAPTER 3
Case Studies of Biological
Programs in Five States
Five States are using biological criteria to
define aquatic life use classifications and en-
force water quality standards. Ohio, Maine,
and North Carolina have made biological criteria
an integral part of comprehensive water quality
programs. Florida and Arkansas are using biologi-
cal criteria for specific water quality problems in
their streams and rivers.
• OHIO
Ohio has taken the most comprehensive approach
to developing biological criteria as a replacement
for best professional judgment (BPJ) evaluations of
surface water quality. To ensure that biological
evaluations would be applicable to all its surface
waters, Ohio based biological criteria on
ecoregions and regional reference sites. Criteria for
the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Invertebrate
Community Index (ICI), and Modified Index of
Well-being (Mlwb) have been developed for dif-
ferent site types within each ecoregion. These
numeric indices provide specific quantitative
measures that must be met to attain the tiered
aquatic life uses stipulated in Ohio's water quality
standards.
Upgraded use designations based on biologi-
cal criteria have been upheld in Ohio courts, and
an appeal of these decisions has been recently sus-
tained in Ohio EPA's favor. As of February 1990,
the Ohio EPA has adopted biological criteria in the
State water quality standards regulations.
Derivation of Biological
Criteria
Biological criteria for Ohio surface waters are
based on the biological community performance
that can be attained at regional reference sites. This
is consistent with the definition of biotic integrity
as discussed by Karr and Dudley (1981), Hughes et
al. (1986), and Karr et al. (1986). Ohio's biological
criteria represent ecological structures and func-
tions that can be reasonably attained given
11
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
present-day background conditions (Whittier et al.
1987); they do not attempt to define pristine, pre-
Columbus conditions (Hughes et al. 1986). The
biocriteria system does allow, however, for future
adjustments based on long-term changes in back-
ground conditions. Ohio will determine the need
to make adjustments to the biocriteria, biological
indices, or both concurrently with the triennial
water quality standards review.
The Ohio EPA uses three biological indices.
Two are based on fish: the Mlwb (Gammon, 1976;
Gammon et al. 1981; Ohio Environ. Prot. Agency,
1987a) and the IBI (Karr, 1981; Fausch et al. 1984).
" The third, the ICI, is based on macroinvertebrates
(Ohio Environ. Prot. Agency, 1987a). Previously,
the State used traditional biological measures such
as diversity indices and taxa richness values that
extracted a limited amount of ecologically mean-
ingful and relevant information from the raw data.
Biological criteria derived from the indices
vary according to organism group, biological
index, site type, ecoregion, and aquatic life use
designation. The geographic organization of Ohio
biocriteria uses concepts from the Ohio Stream
Regionalization Project (SRP) and the ecoregional-
regional reference site approach (Omemik, 1987;
Hughes et al. 1986; Whittier et al. 1987). Mlwb and
IBI criteria have been defined for each of the five
Ohio ecoregions for three site types: headwaters
(drainage area < 20 square miles), wading sites
(streams sampled with wading methods, usually
20 to 300 square miles), and boat sites (streams and
rivers sampled with boat methods, usually 200 to
6,000 square miles). ICI criteria are based primari-
ly on an artificial substrate sampling method and
incorporate stream size differences based on
drainage area. The calibration of the indices and
the resultant biocriteria consider the effects of
stream size and sampling gear selectivity.
Biological data from the reference sites have
been used to calibrate the biological indices and to
establish ecoregional biocriteria for all three in-
dices. The individual metric scores must be
calibrated for both the IBI and ICI. Sampling
results from reference sites were pooled statewide
to derive metric scores; procedures generally fol-
lowed those described by Fausch et al. (1984) and
Karr et al. (1986). Several of the IBI and all of the
ICI metrics vary according to stream size. A
relationship between drainage area (square miles)
and each individual metric was used to determine
the IBI and ICI scoring ranges for each.
Once the biological index scores for each refer-
ence site were calculated, box plots were con-
structed for each biological index by ecoregion
and site type. These plots contain sample size,
medians, ranges with outliers, and 25th and 75th
percentiles. Box plots were preferred over means
and standard deviations because they do not as-
sume a particular distribution of the data. Further-
more, outliers do not exert as much influence on
box plots as they do on means and standard er-
rors. Ecoregional biocriteria for Ohio's warmwater
habitat use designation are established as the 25th
percentile value of the biological index scores
recorded at the reference sites by ecoregion. For
Ohio's exceptional warmwater habitat use desig-
nation, biocriteria are based on the combined
statewide reference site data set and index criteria
are set at the 75th percentile value.
Both warmwater and exceptional warmwater
habitats are defined in narrative terms in the Ohio
water quality standards and reflect attainment of
the "fishable-swimmable" goals of the Water
Quality Act. In addition, a modified warmwater
habitat use designation is being proposed because
certain waterbodies have been so physically
modified that a warmwater habitat use is unat-
tainable. These biocriteria were determined from a
separate set of modified reference sites. The format
of the biocriteria proposed in Ohio's water quality
standards is illustrated by the accompanying IBI
values for wading sites for each ecoregion (Table
2).
Application of Bioloaical
Criteria
The longitudinal study design (i.e., tracking the
status of an aquatic resource oyer time) is fun-
damental to Ohio EPA's biological monitoring ap-
proach and an important factor in determining
waterbody-specific regulatory options. Lon-
gitudinal study results also document improve-
ments emanating from pollution abatement over a
given period. For example, the general improve-
ment in the IBI in the Scioto River (downstream
from Columbus, Ohio) between 1979 and 1987 cor-
responds to overall reductions in wastewater treat-
ment plant loadings of suspended solids,
ammonia, nitrogen, and biochemical oxygen
demand (Figure 3). The effluent loading reduc-
tions were most consistent at the wastewater treat-
ment plant farthest downstream,, particularly at
12
-------
Chapters: 6ase Studies of Biological Criteria Pn
tenri, °f ,*.he «bIOSr'Le?a '" the °hi° water quality 'towards regulations for the Index of Blotlc In-
tegrlty and wading sites for fish (comparable tables exist for other Indices and site types).
INDEX/SITE TYPE
MODIFIED WARMWATER HABITAT (MWH)
ECOREGION
1. Index of Biotic Integrity
(fish)
A. Wading Sites
1. Huron/Erie Lake
Plain
2. Interior Plateau
3. Erie/Ontario Lake
Plain
4. W. Allegheny
Plateau
5. Eastern Com Belt
Plain
* AnnliAc +*» U/ AllnnUn.... m«.*__
Channel
Modified
!
22
24
24
24
24 ' ;
Mine
Affected*
24
i
Impounded"
•
Warmwater
Habitat (WWH)
32
40
38
44
I
AC\ i
•»w |
Exceptional
Warmwater Habitat (EWH)
50
50
CA
ou
CA
Ow
50
" Applies to boat site type only.
IBI
SO
40
30
20
50
40
30
20
CSO WWTP
^
1OB7 »
MnlBNI?
Flow.
135 ISO 125 120 115 I 10 105 100
River Mile
Figure 3.—Longitudinal trend of the Index of Biotic
Integrity for the Scloto River In and downstream from
the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area in 1979 and
1987. Major water quality Impacts are Indicated (vertical
arrows), and flow direction Is from left to right
(descending river mile order). Source: Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (1987b).
the plant bypass. In contrast, although historical
loading reductions did occur at the upstream was-
tewater treatment plant, they were not entirely
consistent with substantial increases noted during
1984 to 1987.
These data correspond to a continued sig-
nificant impairment of the warmwater habitat use
that extends several miles downstream of the
upstream facility; however, neither wastewater
treatment plant was using advanced treatment
technology during the 1987 sampling. Other
evidence that biological stress remained in 1987, in-
cluded an increased number of eroded fii\s,
lesions, and tumors on individual fish. Follow-up
sampling continued in 1988 and 1989 to assess the
effects of further anticipated loading reductions.
According to a 1986 U.S. General Accounting Of-
fice report, State and Federal strategies to assess
the direct benefits of improved wastewater treat-
ment lack analyses that compare in-stream
response with effluent loadings over time.
Biological field data have also led to the dis-
covery and improved understanding of significant
environmental problems that otherwise would
have gone unnoticed or received less critical atten-
tion. An example is the toxic impact of the Akron
Wastewater Treatment Plant on the fish and mac-
roinvertebrate communities of the Cuyahoga
River. The magnitude, severity, and pattern of the
response indicated a severe toxic impact unlike the
usual response observed downstream from most
of these facilities. According to in-stream and ef-
fluent monitoring data, conventional parameters
13
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
such as dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and phos-
phorus improved to levels that are generally com-
patible with healthy aquatic communities.
Concurrent and follow-up bioassay testing"
showed acute toxicity in the influent, effluent,
bypass, and receiving stream in 1984 and 1986.
Toxicity was reduced in late 1985 and substantially
lower in 1986.
, In 1985 and 1986, the fish community under-
went modest structural improvements (e.g.,
higher number and biomass of tolerant species);
however, it was functionally degraded and
showed the remaining effects of significant toxic
stress. Of particular note were the very low IBI and
the remaining high incidence of skeletal deform-
ities and other anomalies in fish, findings that in-
dicate continued subacute stress. This is a classic
example of how toxic problems can be discovered,
quantified, and identified by measuring in-stream
biological community.response. In this situation,
the use of chemical sampling or bioassay testing
alone could have significantly underestimated a
serious, continuing, environmental problem.
The result of a 1986 survey of the Little
Cuyahoga River subbasin shows how biological
data can reveal environmental degradation that
would otherwise have gone unnoticed. The pat-
tern of biological community response indicated
severe toxic impacts in the upper and middle por-
tions of the main stream and impacts of a com-
bined toxic and organic sewage problem in the
lower segment; however, there were no violations
of chemical water quality standards under low
flow conditions. Visual observations reported
good water clarity and no extensive sludge
deposits.
In contrast, the biological response in the mid-
dle portion of the Little Cuyahoga River indicated
the severe impact of toxic substances. Several
point sources located in this segment are
authorized to discharge noncontact cooling water
and sanitary wastes. Most of the permitted
facilities manufacture plastic and rubber; there-
fore, they use and handle organic chemical
products. The observed in-stream biological
response indicates that contamination of the
re* :ng stream is occurring frequently enough to
k«= ne resident biota suppressed. A follow-up
in; • ;ion of the study area could focus on how
chenucals are reaching the stream—either through
combined sewer overflows or unauthorized dis-
charges. In this case, current NPDES monitoring
and discharge requirements may be inadequate.
The Cuyahoga and Little Cuyahoga River ex-
amples demonstrate the value of biological field
evaluations in supplementing chemical-specific
and bioassay strategies for point sources. Toxics
programs currently concentrate on process
analyses of the wastewaters. A significant concern
with this approach is its inability to accurately as-
sess and characterize impacts that occur through
runoff, "non-contact" cooling water, spills, and
dumping—all pathways to the receiving waters
other than process discharges. Chemical sampling,
biosurveys, and bioassay testing provide com-
plementary results, therefore concurrent use of all
three approaches is recommended (Ohio Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1987b).
History
Development of Biological Criteria
Ohio has intensively surveyed the biological com-
munities and water quality of its surface waters
since 1979. These efforts were initially designed to
add a biological component to evaluations that
had been historically based solely on chemical and
physical data. The State also wanted to develop a
protocol (other than by best professional judg-
ment) for assigning the newly adopted tiered sys-
tem of aquatic life uses to individual streams and
rivers. By 1980, use of biological data in assigning
aquatic life uses to surface waters was firmly es-
tablished.
In 1981, Ohio was awarded a construction
grants program to deal with water treatment is-
sues, which necessitated expansion of the biologi-
cal and water quality survey program.
Overlapping NPDES permit issues were included,
along with the existing concerns of the water
quality standards program. In 1983 and 1984, Ohio
conducted a joint project with EPA's Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory (ERL) in Corvallis
(Oregon) to determine the feasibility of organizing
and evaluating biological and water quality data
by ecoregions. The success of this project led to the
eventual development of Ohio's ecoregion-based
biocriteria in 1987.
Since 1984, the biological and water quality
survey program and associated techniques have
been used to evaluate nonpoint source impacts,
toxicants, antidegradation issues, spills, combined
sewer overflows, hazardous wastes, posttreatment
upgrades, and habitat modifications. Recently, the
role of this program in litigation and enforcement
14
-------
Chapters: Case Studies of Biological Criteria Prograi
ims
has begun to be realized. The data collected in
these surveys have facilitated discovery of pre-
viously unknown impairments and an enhanced
understanding of poorly defined problems. The in-
formation provided by this program has been use-
ful for virtually all regulatory, resource protection,
and monitoring and reporting programs pertain-
ing to surface waters.
Current Status of Biological Criteria
.Ohio EPA's Surface Water Section conducts ap-
proximately 10 to 12 biological surveys with an
average effort of just over 13 work-year
equivalents per year (based on actual Federal fiscal
year 1987 and 1988 data). This total is down from
the 15 to 20 surveys conducted yearly during the
biocriteria development phase between 1983 and
1986. Approximately 26 percent of Ohio EPA's
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assess-
ment resources are devoted to field, assessment,
and laboratory activities.
New initiatives present the possibility of a
continuation, if not an outright expansion, of the
existing level of effort. Potential new areas of in-
volvement include supporting projects within the
Ohio EPA Division of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Ohio Senate Bill 180, Lake Erie initia-
tives, and several miscellaneous projects.
The 1989 Ashtabula River Survey, made at the
request of the Division of Emergency and
Remedial Response, was the first official effort in
support of natural resource damage assessment
(NRDA). The biocriteria and associated impair-
ment quantification approaches are particularly
useful for NRDA types of projects. Senate Bill 180,
if passed in a suitable form, could provide addi-
tional resources for field and data evaluation as-
sociated with NPDES permit issues, which would
coincide with existing efforts and help to offset im-
pending declines in Federal grant support.
Currently, Ohio EPA's resources will cover ap-
proximately 75 percent of the NPDES issues that
need at least one biosurvey evaluation. The agency
has instituted a "five-year basis approach" to
NPDES permit reissuance and ambient support
monitoring. This rotating basis system is designed
to promote more efficient use of ambient monitor-
ing resources and ensure timely results.
Anticipated benefits of continuing the existing
survey program include follow-up evaluations of
newly constructed or upgraded treatment facilities
and responses to concerns about current water
quality-based permit limits, particularly "low"
metal limits. The Lake Erie initiatives include an
effort to refine aquatic life assessment criteria and
conduct the basic monitoring needed to charac-
terize problems in the Lake Erie tributary river
mouth and harbor areas. Other areas include inter-
actions with environmental groups—such as The
Nature Conservancy—and with nongame
programs sponsored by the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources.
Discussion
Program Resources
Since Ohio's quantitative biological surveys began
as a grass roots effort in the late 1970s, it is difficult
to identify all of the resources that went into initial
development of biological criteria. In addition, a
critical part of the program was basic research into
the ecoregion concept that serves as the basis for
the reference site evaluations in the criteria. Ohio
was one of three test States for EPA ERL-Corvallis'
Stream Regionalization Project, which developed
general concepts, procedures, and specific maps
that greatly aided other States that were initiating
ecoregional biocriteria programs and undertaking
similar habitat classification research.
In Ohio, the sampling required for the refer-
ence site system (approximately 300 sites) was ac-
complished over an .eight- to nine-year peridd.
Although most reference sites were sampled in
1983-84, costs for other States could be spread out
over a longer period. Ohio's cost estimates for
ecoregional criteria development are $222,000 for
fish sampling (300 sites at 2.1 work-year
equivalents) and $247,200 for macroinvertebrate
sampling (300 sites at 4.8 work-year equivalents),
for a total of $469,200 or approximately $1,500 per
site for both fish and macroinvertebrates. Thinly
populated States will need approximately $50,000
to develop a reference site system, while very
heavily populated States might need more than
$500,000. In Ohio, regular reference site survey ef-
forts are spread over several programs, and about
10 percent of the sites are resampled each year.
Other States' existing survey programs may pro-
vide an adequate database.
Ohio EPA has operated an intensive stream
and river survey program since 1977. In the last 10
years, the program has assessed more than 500
15
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
streams, rivers, and lakes covering nearly 8,000
miles by using standard field collection and data
analysis techniques. Fish have been monitored at
nearly 3,000 locations, macroinvertebrates at near-
ly 2,200 locations, and chemical and physical
water quality at nearly 2,300 locations (with an
average of three to five samples per location) in
each individual segment and basin evaluation.
More than 950 point source discharges have been
evaluated for environmental impact. Overlapping
nonpoint source influences and previously un-
known or unqualified impacts, such as combined
sewers, bypasses, and unauthorized discharges,
were identified and evaluated in many areas, and
monitoring in support of wasteload allocations
and whole effluent toxicity assess- ments was per-
formed as well.
This history of using a standard and sys-
tematic application of biological field monitoring
techniques, along with more traditional chemical,
physical, and recently emerging bioassay assess-
ments, has allowed a detailed comparison of the
costs of each component. Out of the nearly 100
work-year equivalents devoted to monitoring and
laboratory activities within Ohio's Division of
Water Quality Planning and Assessment in
Federal fiscal years 1987 and 1988, biosurvey ac-
tivities used 19.34 work-year equivalents or just
over 19 percent of the division total. By com-
parison, activities related to toxics and permit sup-
port used 26.45 work-year equivalents (26
percent), chemical sampling and laboratory
analysis 36.18 work-year equivalents (36 percent),
and other activities (general technical assistance,
enforcement, 401 program, 305b report) 17.96
work-year equivalents (19 percent).
Comparative Cost Calculations
The costs offish, macroinvertebrate, and chemical
and physical grab sampling and bioassay evalua-
tions were calculated using Federal fiscal year
1987 and 1988 data available from Ohio EPA's
Time Accounting System and Integrated Work
Programs and were submitted to EPA for each fis-
cal year. Cost items considered were personnel
(salary, fringe benefits, and overtime), supplies,
equipment, travel, communication, utilities and
rent, maintenance, computer charges, printing,
and miscellaneous expenses.
An attempt was made to account for the uni-
que requirements of each monitoring component.
For example, the equipment costs for the fish,
macroinvertebrate, and bioassay monitoring were
amortized over periods ranging from 5 to 10 years.
For other cost categories, such as rent and utilities,
the percentage of the work-year equivalents
devoted to each monitoring component was used
to determine the share of such costs based on the
total budget (Table 3). A factor of 23 percent was
assessed to reflect fringe benefits and other in-
direct costs.
Administrative support costs common to each
of the monitoring components were not included
because they are shared equally and would be
activities.
1987 and 1988
PROGRAM
Blotofltec, Field1
Toxlc8/Perm!tsb
Chemical/Lab6
Other13
TOTAL
WORK-YEAR EQUIVALENTS
1987 1988
9.82 9.52
13.96 12.49
16.72 19.46
7.55 10.41
48.05 51.88
Total
19.34
26.45
36.18
17.96
99.93
DOLLARS
1987
275,763
343,594
409,663
245,263
1,274,283
1988
280.518
384,276
517.367
325,423
1.507,584
Total
556,281
727.870
927,030
570,686
2,781.867
•SSKffwS
fcems *«**»• 'ateS P"'™' *«* «— * *
, en-
16
-------
provided even if a component is eliminated After
total costs are calculated, the cost per unit is
derived by using work outputs from Federal fiscal
years 1987 and 1988. Costs are broken down by
sample collection, laboratory analysis, test, evalua-
tion, and all data analysis and interpre- tation ac-
tivities as appropriate for each component.
For fish community assessment, the cost per
sample was $340 and the cost per site, $740 (The
cost difference reflects multiple sampling in cer-
tain sites.) Standard electrofishing techniques are
used, and each site is sampled once, twice, or three
times (depending on type of sampler and stream
size) dunng the summer (June through early Oc-
tober). These semi-quantitative methods measure
relative abundance (in contrast to population and
standing crop estimates).
Macroinvertebrate sampling costs $824 per
site for artificial substrates (which includes
qualitative dip net monitoring) and $275 per
sample for qualitative dip net efforts only. Artifi-
cial substrate data are collected by using com-
posite samples of five artificial substrate samplers
sets for six weeks during the summer. Qualitative
samples from the natural substrate are collected at
the time artificial substrates are retrieved and fig-
ure in the $824 cost. Some smaller streams can be
sampled through qualitative techniques alone.
The cost information presented here is con-
trary to the widely held view that collecting
biological field data is unusually expensive The
cost effectiveness demonstrated in this assessment
can be attributed to a standard, systematic ap-
proach to study design, field methods, and data
analysis. The information and analysis presented
rn this assessment demonstrate that biological
field monitoring is cost competitive with chemical,
physical, and bioassay monitoring components
when using a reasonable and systematic approach
to data collection. Water monitoring programs are
faced with two competing objectives: (1) the need
to evaluate as many sources as rapidly as possible
and (2) the need to have valid, accurate, and com-
plete data on which to base and defend decisions
A program that judiciously uses an appropriate
mix of chemical-specific, bioassay, and biosurvey
components should adequately meet these objec-
tives. '
While the foregoing analysis discusses relative
monitoring costs, complete assessments of the en-
vironmental costs of biological field monitoring
programs should also consider the negative conse-
quences to decisionmaking and regulatory actions
that can result from not having an adequate un-
derstanding of an aquatic system.
Program Evaluation
Three important lessons were learned from Ohio's
experience with biological criteria:
• Crucial decisions made on what information
to collect have long-term consequences;
• A standard system for consistent data collec-
tion and analysis is essential; and
• Only adequate representative samples,
rather than exhaustive inventories, are'
needed at each site.
The decision to use a standard system kept the
program sufficiently flexible to accommodate new
water quality objectives and changing data evalua-
tion methods. Ohio undertook test sampling to
determine the sample sizes necessary for drawing
valid conclusions and thus, by limiting sampling
effort, demonstrated that biological sampling is
cost effective. B
By adhering to these three principles, Ohio's
biological criteria program was able to evolve
from an initiar'qualitative assessment of benthic
communities (good, fair, or poor, based on best
professional judgment) to a quantitative set of
ecological indices—IBI, Mlwb, and ICI-based on
comparisons with ecoregional reference sites For
Ohio, the outgrowth of the Stream Regionalizatton
Project of 1983-84 was the refinement of quantita-
tive indicators, including the develop- ment of
their own Invertebrate Community Index, and the
eventual adoption of biological criteria in water
quality standards.
A third and still partially unresolved problem
encountered during this process was the difficulty
in communicating the principles and advantages
of biological criteria to nonbiologists. Ad-
ministrators unfamiliar with this approach often
viewed it as unnecessary or overly expensive
Ohio has learned that it is essential to emphasize
the link between biological criteria and the ability
to make better decisions relating to water quality
regulations. Knowledge of the importance of this
hnk must be communicated to agency personnel,
tl A, legislators, and the regulated community.
Ohio has attempted to communicate through a
series of recently instituted three-day training ses-
sions on water quality surveys and permit proce-
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
dure. These programs, which were held in each of
pur five district offices, were successful in break-
ing down some of the barriers to communication.
For further information, contact Chris Yoder, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, 1800 Water-
mark Drive, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, OH 43266-
0149; (614) 466-1488.
• MAINE
To improve its surface water management
capabilities, Maine is applying a biological ap-
proach to water quality classifications and criteria.
In April 1986, after four years of negotiation with
industry and environmental groups, the Maine
legislature enacted the revised Water Quality Clas-
sification Law, which includes language specifical-
ly designed to facilitate biological assessments.
Each waterbody class lists the descriptive aquatic
life conditions necessary to attaining it. To imple-
ment the new classification system, the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection has
developed specific biological criteria that will be
used to support the statutory aquatic life uses in
the Water Quality Classification Law.
Development of Biological
Criteria
The initial water quality classification system for
Maine was developed in the 1950s and survived,
essentially unmodified, through the early 1980s.
During that period, dramatic changes occurred in
Maine's water quality, regulatory policy, and the
sophistication of available assessment techniques.
After State and Federal restrictions were placed on
the discharge of pollutants, water quality im-
proved and the public's perception of uses for the
State s aquatic resources changed. The original use
classification law contained unrealistically restric-
tive aquatic life standards that were undifferen-
tiated by water quality class and were, therefore,
unenforceable. For these reasons, the Bureau of
Water Quality decided to overhaul the use clas-
sification system.
Administrators at the Water Bureau recog-
nized that in-stream biological surveys provided
important information that was generally unavail-
able. Staff with advanced training and experience
in using benthic macroinvertebrates in water
quality assessments had been collecting macroin-
vertebrate data since the mid-1970s to evaluate
point source and nonpoint source impacts; there-
fore, they had developed a fairly sophisticated un-
.derstanding of how biological communities in
Maine s rivers and streams responded to environ-
, mental stress.
With this basis, the Department of Environ-
mental Protection's Water Bureau began to revise
the use classification law to define different levels
of ecological integrity for each classification. Con-
currently, they developed a standard macroinver-
tebrate sampling regime and began surveys above
and below all major point sources in the State as
well as in a diversity of undisturbed river and
stream reaches. The new classification system was
then ushered through the lawmaking process Two
macroinvertebrate biologists drafted the aquatic
life standards and interpreted and negotiated the
law s language with legislators, dischargers, and
environmental conservation groups.
Water quality standards in the Maine law were
written to be broadly applicable. Specific im-
plementation is accomplished through a set of
rules or regulations that can be changed to accom-
modate advances in assessment techniques These
rules (the numeric and qualitative biological
criteria) are currently being developed from the
empirical findings and statistical analyses of the
standard macroinvertebrate database.
Program Rationale
The need to revise the classification law opened up
the possibility of expanding the roles of biological
information both in program planning and as a
feedback loop to evaluate overall water quality
management efforts. The Water Bureau believed
that the creation of explicit aquatic: life standards
would ensure active consideration of aquatic life
resources in management decisions and give a
statutory basis for enforcing and managing dis-
charges harmful to aquatic life.
Macroinvertebrates were chosen to be the rep-
resentative subcommunity because of their practi-
cal and theoretical advantages as indicators and
because staff with substantial familiarity and tech-
nical expertise with these organisms worked
within the Water Bureau—two masters-level
aquatic entomologists, both with masters' theses
on the use of aquatic invertebrates in water quality
assessment and extensive field experience.
-------
Chapters: Case Studies of Biological Criteria Prooram
History
Derivation of Biological Criteria
The 1986 law that revised Maine's water classifica-
tion system was not designed to change existing
water quality levels but to improve the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection's ability to
monitor and manage surface waters. Under a pre-
vious law, a single aquatic life statement—"Dis-
charges shall cause no harm to aquatic
life"—applied to four water quality classes. Count-
less biological studies demonstrated that it was
impossible to enforce this restrictive statement
across all classes of effluent-receiving waters.
Maine waters that were clearly attaining the mini-
mum chemical and physical standards of the
lowest class could not meet the "no harm to
aquatic life" criterion because some sensitive in-
digenous species had been displaced.
The revised classification system has classes of
different quality and therefore, different aquatic
life uses, including both pristine recreation-
oriented waters and waters of lesser quality with
industry and agriculture. The 1986 law defines dif-
ferent levels of aquatic life use (ecological in-
tegrity) for each water quality classification (Table
4) and also specifies bacteria and dissolved oxygen
criteria.
With its refined biological classification system
and standard benthic macroinvertebrate database
in place, Maine has identified sets of significant,
measurable ecological attributes associated with
each aquatic life standard (Table 5). For example,
the State's highest water quality class—AA—has a
standard stating that "aquatic life shall be as
naturally occurs." The ecological attributes iden-
tified for this standard are taxonomic equality (as
compared to a pristine reference site), numerical
equality (as naturally occurs), and the presence of
pollution-intolerant indicator taxa. The identifica-
tion of ecological attributes associated with each
standard allows designation of indices and
measures of macroinvertebrate community struc-
ture that are most sensitive to the evaluation of
sets of attributes.
For example, for Class AA, the set of metrics
includes measures of similarity, abundance, rich-
ness, EFT (pollution-intolerant Ephem- eroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera), lists of indicator taxa,
and biotic indices. Criteria are derived from statis-
tical evaluation of the statewide database and are
designed to provide a pass, fail, or no decision test
specific to each class (Courtemanch and Davies,
1989), rather than arbitrary ranks of good, fair, or
poor. A linear discriminant model is constructed
that provides'a probability that a community fits a
particular class. The data set is also tested using in-
Table 4.—Classification scheme for aquatic life uses In Maine's fresh waters.
WATERBODY
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
LEVEL OF INTEGRITY
Rivers and streams High quality water for preservation of recreational and
Class AA 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.
Good quality water. Dischargers of well-treated effluents
with ample dilution permitted.
Lowest quality water. Requirements consistent with interim
goals of the Federal Water Quality Act (fishable and
swimmable).
Class B
Class C
Lakes and ponds
Class GPA
Preservation of their natural quality to sustain a variety of
habitats and recreational uses. No new discharges allowed
in their tributaries.
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 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.
Trophic state shall be stable or
decreasing. Water shall be free of
culturally induced algae blooms.
19
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
TablB 5.—Determination of biological standards for Maine surface waters.
LEVEL OF INTEGRITY
ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
METRICS
Natural
Unimpaired
Maintain structure
and function
Taxonomte equality
Numeric equality
Presence of Intolerant taxa
Retention of taxa
Retention of numbers
Absence of hyperdomlnance
Presence of Intolerant taxa
Balanced distribution
Redundance
Resistance to change
Resource assimilation
Percent similarity, taxonomic similarity,
total abundance, richness, EP,
Indicator taxa, biotic indox
Coefficient of community toss, richness,
diversity, EPT, relative tsxa abundance,
functional feeding groups, indicator taxa,
btotic Index
Coefficient of community loss, richness,
diversity, relative taxa abundance,
total abundance, Indicator taxa,
functional feeding groups
dicator taxa and comparative indices to further
verify placement in a particular classification.
Application of Biological Criteria
In Maine, both chemical-specific and effluent
toxicity criteria are used to evaluate water quality
treatment, while ambient biocriteria provide
evaluations of aquatic life use attainment. Within
the textile industry, Maine has found numerous
situations where reliance on only one or two of
these types of criteria would have incorrectly indi-
cated compliance with a designated use category.
In one example, chemical-specific and effluent-
toxicity criteria were in compliance, yet evaluation
of the resident biological community found
declines of up to 80 percent in macroinvertebrate
richness and numbers. Positive in-stream findings
of nonattainment serve to trigger cooperative
problem identification and resolution among
biologists, operations and maintenance engineers,
enforcement staff, and technical staff employed by
the discharger. The primary goal of Maine's
Department of Environmental Protection in-
stream biomonitoring program is to provide feed-
back concerning the results of State efforts to
protect aquatic life resources. The program is not
expected to play a significant role in permit writ-
ing; however, information from it will be used to
assess the degree of protection afforded by effluent
limitations. As the freshwater biomonitoring pro-
gram is becoming operational, the State is
developing a marine biomonitoring and bio-
criteria program.
Discussion
Program Resources
Initially, one full-time and "two part-time ad-
ministrative and planning biologists worked in the
biological effort; most of the taxortomic identifica-
tion and sample-sorting was contracted out. A con-
tractor was hired to program the database
management system, and State university faculty
contracted to give professional statistical advice. A
second full-time aquatic biologist was hired in
December 1988, when the two part-time biologists
significantly reduced their day-to-day activities.
During the summer field season, a quarter-time or
half-time summer student assisted in field ac-
tivities and data editing.
The annual salaries for the full-time biologists
range from $25,000 to $30,000 annually. The part-
time biologists were employed for less than 20 per-
cent of the time and drew full-time equivalent
salaries of $33,000 to $35,000. The contracts for
taxonomic work average $9,000 to $11,000 per year
during intensive baseline data collection years. A
somewhat lesser amount is expected during
routine -monitoring years.
Maine's Department of Environmental Protec-
tion received a $15,000 Supplemental 106 program
grant through EPA Headquarters and Region I at
the end of 1988; of this, the department spent
$6,000 on a computer programming contract. The
data management system uses dBASE III and
Microsoft Excel on a IBM PS/2 Model 70 com-
20
-------
puter. Statistical support is funded through a
$2,800 contract from the Supplemental 106 fund-
ing source.
The sampling gear used by the program-
dredges, D-nets, wire baskets for artificial sub-
strates, and homemade deep river samplers—is
durable and costs less than $2,000. Most of the gear
lasts 3 to 5 years, except for dredges, which last 10
to 15 years. The depart- ment's methods manual
describes field, lab- oratory, and analytical techni-
ques.
Program Evaluation
In 1983, Maine started sampling for baseline data.
The law stipulating baseline monitoring was first
drafted and submitted in 1982; then it was
redrafted in different legislative sessions until be-
coming law in 1986. Intensive legislative commit-
tee negotiations consumed nearly a year and took
precedence over advancing the technical aspects of
the program. Because industry was wary about
perceived radical changes in assessments and
standards (impact standards versus traditional
performance standards) that Maine was propos-
ing, considerable time was spent hying to gain its
acceptance.
Developing a data management system took a
large amount of time because, initially/the depart-
ment lacked a full-time programmer. Because the
program was understaffed, improvement in tech-
nical aspects had to be delayed to sustain ad-
ministrative momentum. Program staff have
recommended that adequate backup personnel be
hired for the extremely labor-intensive sampling
and data-handling activ- ities. For further informa-
tion, contact David Courtemanch or Susan Davies
of the Maine Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, State House Station No. 17, Augusta ME
04333; (207) 289-7789
• NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina has used its extensive biological
monitoring program as the basis for developing
administrative biological criteria to protect aquatic
life in surface waters. The State uses standard
biological methods to assess impairments of narra-
tive water quality criteria that define the status of
aquatic life. Biological classification criteria also
define outstanding resource waters and high
quality waters. Currently, North Carolina is
Chapter 3: Case Studies of Biological Criteria Programs
evaluating ecoregions and stream size variables as
a means to refine present use classifications.
Derivation of Biological
Criteria
North Carolina has a variety of geographic zones
and waterbody types. Criteria have been
developed for each of the State's major geographi-
cal regions to measure the degree of impairment of
resident biota. The resultant standard method fol-
lows a scientific protocol and allows for rapid and
cost-efficient data collecting and processing. The
method provides a good sample of the stream in-
vertebrate community, relates well to chemical
water quality, and is reproducible. Seasonal
variability exists within different ecoregions, but
the standard method provides data consistency
within a rapidly growing database.
Biological information has been included in
the water quality program in North Carolina since
the mid-1970s. At first, in-stream benthic macroin-
vertebrate sampling was used extensively in sup-
port of the original 208 nonpoint source program-
however, various qualitative and quantitative col-
lection techniques have been instituted and
evaluated for cost-effective data collection and as
defensible assessments of streamwater quality
This assessment led to the development of a
qualitative method that can be used to sample the
entire benthos within a stream and collect num-
bers of total taxa and sensitive taxa—such as.
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.
Macroinvertebrate surveys provide excellent
information in flowing, wadeable streams but are
of limited value in lakes, large rivers, and es-
tuaries. Where eutrophication problems are of spe-
cial concern, phytoplankton populations are
evaluated in association with physical, chemical,
and hydrological analyses. Phytoplankton assess-
ments are made by a scientifically accepted
method and provide comparable data from
various waterbodies throughout the State
Documenting existing and potential problems by
these means has resulted in management decisions
and use classifications that provide additional
protection to these waterbodies.
North Carolina's regulations do not contain
specific biological indices and metrics, yet biologi-
cal data and biocriteria are intrinsically linked to
the use classifications and the standards that
protect these uses. These data and criteria are used
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
extensively to identify waters of special concern
and those of exceptional quality. Narrative? for the
protection of aquatic life are incorporated into
both the regulations and standard biological
methods and are used to assess impairments to
water quality. Proposed revisions of North
Carolina's water quality standards in the triennial
review process address the use of biomonitoring
data in use classification and antidegradation
policy.
Application of Biological
Criteria
All use classifications in North Carolina's regula-
tions require protection of aquatic life. The least
restrictive freshwater classification is for general
waters (Class C) defined in the regulations as fol-
lows:
II Class C: freshwaters protected for secon-
dary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life
including propagation and survival; all
freshwaters are classified to protect these
uses at a minimum.
The State employs biological, chemical, and
lexicological data to identify impairments to uses
in-stream, define the sources (point or nonpoint)
of impairment, and ensure that management
decisions lead to appropriate corrective actions.
More restrictive standards apply to drinking water
supplies, including restrictions on types of dis-
charges and requirements for local land manage-
ment programs. Stricter limits to prevent
bacteriological contamination have been
developed for waters classified for organized
swimming.
Aquatic life uses are also protected in coastal
waters, which are defined as follows:
• Tidal Saltwater Classifications (SC).
Class SC: saltwaters protected for secon-
dary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life
including propagation and survival; all
saltwaters are classified to protect these
uses at a minimum.
Again, more restrictive standards apply to
waters identified as suitable for organized swim-
ming (SB) and for waters classified as suitable for
commercial shellfishing (SA). These restrictions in-
clude both point and nonpoint source controls.
There are supplemental classifications within
the regulations to protect waters with unique fea-
tures that require specific criteria or management
tools (Table 6). Use attainability analyses, includ-
ing biological data, define the segments or water-
sheds to which supplemental classifications are
added.
Both high quality waters and outstanding
resource waters require a rating of excellent by the
biological criteria. The biological classification
criteria for this-determination, listed in Table 7, are
used for free-flowing streams across the State.
Work continues on addressing other variables
such as ecoregions and stream size to expand or
improve the resolution of the bioclassifications
relative to water quality. •.;•,
Table 6.—Supplemental use classifications In North Carolina's water quality standards.
USE
DESCRIPTION
Trout Waters (Tr)
Swamp Waters (Sw)
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW)
Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW)
High Quality Waters
(HQW)
Freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
Waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from adjacent
streams.
Waters subject to excessive growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations
on nutrient inputs.
Unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological sfonificance
that require special protection to maintain existing uses.
Waters rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through
Division of Environmental Management monitoring or special studies, all natiw and special native
trout waters (and their tributaries) designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission all water
supply watersheds that are either classified as WS-I or WS-II or those for which a formal petition for
reclassffication as WS-I or WS-II has been received from the appropriate local government and ac-
cepted by the Division of Environmental Management, and all Class SA waters.
22
-------
Chapter 3: Case Studies of Biological Criteria Programs
Table 7.—Biological criteria (SEPT)" for different
regions of North Carolina used to determine water
quality levels for specific use classifications.18
WQ Rating Mountains Piedmont Coastal Ae Coastal Bd
Excellent >41 TSi 7z7 Til
Good 32-41 24-31 21-27 9-11
Good/Fair 22-31 16-23 14-20 6-8
Fair 12-21 8-15 7-13 3-5
Poor 0-11 0-7 0-6 0-2
' SEPT - Taxa richness for Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera +
Trtehoptera
b Taxa richness values may need adjustment for seasonability
"and/or stream size
'Shallow, fast moving
* Deep, slow moving
The nutrient sensitive water classification re-
quires a determination of existing or potential
degradation relative to eutrophication; to make
this determination, North Carolina uses
phytoplankton data combined with measures of
chlorophyll a, nutrients, and other limnological
data. Target values are derived, nutrient budgets
prepared, and management strategies (including
point and nonpoint source controls) developed to
protect uses in nutrient sensitive water water-
sheds.
The algal bloom program has successfully
identified waterbodies that have impacts restricted
to cove areas with problematic nutrients derived
from a particular source or sources rather than an
entire watershed. The following chlorophyll a
standard, accompanied by biological data, pro-
vides a means to prohibit or limit discharges of
waste into impaired waters.
• Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater
than 40 ng/L for lakes, reservoirs, and
other slow-moving waters not designated
as trout waters, and not greater than 15
Mg/L for lakes, reservoirs, and other slow-
moving waters designated as trout waters
(not applicable to lakes and reservoirs less
than 10 acres in surface area); the commis-
sion or its designee may prohibit or limit
any discharge of waste into surface waters
if, in their opinion, the surface waters ex-
perience or the discharge would result in
growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation such that the standards estab-
lished pursuant to this rule would be vio-
lated or the intended best usage of the
waters would be impaired.
History
Development of Biological Criteria
Before 1974, North Carolina monitored water
quality by collecting data for conventional pol-
lutants in streams receiving poorly treated wastes
bearing large amounts of biochemical, oxygen-
demanding substances. A combination of special
monitoring studies and an extensive ambient net-
work documented the often severe impacts on
North Carolina waters. At the time, the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management
consisted entirely of engineers, chemists, and tech-
nicians. Transport and fate models were used to
determine the extent and location of oxygen deple-
tion points in streams.
In 1974, North Carolina's Division of Environ-
mental Management hired its first biologist and
began to use EPA-approved methods to gather
data on plankton, periphyton, and benthos. As col-
lection of in-stream biological data was new to the
State, division managers had to be convinced of
their value as a tool in water quality management.
At the same time, staffing to assess in-stream
water quality was expanded with 208 funds. New
personnel provided increased expertise in macro-
invertebrate ecology that was used to document
nonpoint source impacts throughout the State. Al-
though the division was diversifying by using new
funding, it was not integrating the programs to
fully use in-stream results and maximize staff ef-
ficiency. The parallel operation of two prograrns
with the same objective exacerbated the problems
of limited funds and starring.
The biologists within the Division of Environ-
mental Management recognized a need to develop
a new macroinvertebrate sampling methodology.
The artificial substrates then being used did not
sample the entire benthic community, required
repeated trips to the site, and were often found
missing on return trips because of vandalism or
high flows. Therefore, semi- qualitative techniques
were developed (Lenat, 1988) that improved ways
data were used for biological assessment and
proved to be more cost effective. As a result, more
useful criteria and bioclassifications are
developed.
The impacts associated with cumulative load-
ings of nutrients into lakes and slow-moving
rivers led the Division of Environmental Manage-
ment to add expertise in limnology,
23
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
phytoplankton analysis, and watershed modeling.
The staff of the Water Quality Section, including
planners, modelers, and biologists, worked
together to develop management strategies for
State watersheds that eventually lead to the addi-
tional classification of nutrient sensitive waters.
This program provided cost-share funds to the
agricultural community and required nutrient
reductions of permitted dischargers throughout
these basins. A statewide algal bloom program, in-
itiated to document the occurrence and magnitude
of algal blooms associated with fishkills or aes-
thetic problems, provided feedback to the regional
' offices, information to managers dealing with con-
cerned citizens, and identification of areas that
needed more intensive investigations.
In 1983, an Aquatic Toxicology Group was
formed to complement the traditional water
qucHty assessment of impacts from permitted dis-
charges. This program has worked closely with
EPA throughout its development and has become
a unit within the division's Water Quality Section.
Intensive surveys being conducted by this unit in-
clude the identification of causative factors of
toxicity within the effluent and in-stream assess-
ments by the biologists to verify the extent of im-
pact in the receiving waters. "Tox limits" are now
designated for all major and complex wastes
within the NPDES discharge permits.
In 1981, a lakes program was initiated to iden-
tify the trophic status of public lakes throughout
the State. Twenty to 30 lakes have been sampled
each summer on a rotational basis to characterize
their existing water quality status. This informa-
tion has been useful in addressing public concerns
and identifying lakes in need of more intensive
work. The Intensive Survey and Biological Assess-
ment groups are now located within the Ecosys-
tems Analysis Unit, which collects, analyzes, and
reports the chemical, physical, hydrological, and
biological data needed for assessments.
Integration of biological and chemical data has
identified impacts in cove areas and other poorly
circulating waters before whole lake or whole es-
tuary problems have occurred. The North Carolina
Environmental Management Commis- sion has
passed regulations that allow the director to limit
nutrient discharges into areas that have been
determined impacted or may be potentially im-
pacted from excessive growth of macroscopic or
microscopic vegetation. More intensive lake sur-
veys are continuing in lakes with these problems.
Current Status of Biological Criteria
Catchments with water quality that exceeds the
standards and criteria necessary to maintain a
healthy aquatic community and support all exist-
ing use classifications have also been identified.
New regulations include an antidegradation state-
ment and use classifications that provide added
protection. As previously mentioned, these clas-
.sifications are outstanding resource waters and
high quality waters, both of which are discussed in
some detail in EPA's draft monitoring program
guidance. It is important to note that, in these clas-
sifications, excellent water quality must be iden-
tified from both biological and chemical
monitoring data. Staff biologists must survey to
determine which watersheds and stream reaches
should be given these new classifications.
Cumulative impacts associated with multiple
discharges and nonpoinl source inputs are the
most difficult to identify through monitoring.
North Carolina's Water Quality Program deter-
mined that measuring a second trophic level of or-
ganisms in free-flowing streams would aid
assessments of such impacts; therefore, fish com-
munity structure surveys and (eventually) criteria
will be developed to address this need. This work
should be especially helpful in addressing impacts
from sedimentation, which is one of North
Carolina's largest pollution problems.
Discussion
Program Resources
The most important aspect of a new or expanding
monitoring program is that it meet the needs of
the administration by improving evaluative
capabilities cost efficiently. As in any program, the
scope of North Carolina's monitoring and criteria
efforts is determined by available resources. Data
use is driven by the regulations. In North Carolina,
narrative biological criteria are tied to use clas-
sifications within the regulations and to a strong
antidegradation statement. This structure, com-
bined with the support of water quality managers
and the Environmental Management Committee,
has produced a program that can successfully con-
duct assessments for enforcement actions,
management plans, nonpoint impacts, and im-
pacts from NPDES discharges.
24
-------
As programs grow, it will be important to
maintain efficiency by integrating all aspects of
monitoring. Biological, chemical, and toxicolpgical
surveys often address only one problem when a
set of coordinated conclusions is needed This
coordination is enhanced if all monitoring efforts
are located within one section in the organization
Program diversification through the addition of
specialists in different aspects of monitoring is
only as efficient as this coordination. Also, funding
must increase as programs grow in response to ad-
ditional management needs, or the quality and ef-
ficiency of the work will suffer.
Fluctuating funding is one of the most difficult
challenges that face States' biological monitoring
and criteria programs. In North Carolina, the 208
funds that provided expansion capabilities disap-
peared and a similar history applies to the 205
funds Clean Lakes grants are short-term, and the
fate of 319 funds is in question.
Water quality monitoring should be a stable
and progressive process. Expanding programs on
short-term or unpredictable funding is generally
detrimental. North Carolina water resource staff
feel that better decisions about the program's level
of effort would be possible if the existing
patchwork of funds were diverted to the 106 grant
A more stable source of Federal funding would
allow the State to better deal with the balance of
State and Federal funding and to maintain consis-
tency in its program.
Program Evaluation
Biological information has become integrated into
every phase of operations within the Water
Quality Section. Narrative standards within North
Carolina's Water Quality Regulations.support the
use of biological assessments in evaluating point
and nonpoint source pollution as well as in iden-
tifying and protecting best uses of North
Carolina's surface waters. Within North Carolina's
program, biological assessments can accomplish
the following:
• Identify temporal and spatial changes or
trends in water quality,
• Analyze effects of point source pollutant
discharges in streams,
• Screen for potential toxic impacts,
• Verify toxic in-stream impacts,
• Identify cumulative impacts for use in a
watershed modeling approach,
• Provide use attainability analyses for
determining existing and appropriate uses,
• Identify watersheds with water quality
higher than existing standards,
• Provide data support for enforcement
actions,
• Conduct ecosystem analyses for complaint
investigations such as fishkills and aesthetic
problems,
• Provide trophic status analyses for lake
characterizations,
• Assess existing or potential impacts relative
to nutrient enrichment,
• Supply data to support 401 review
processes,
• Document improvements that result from
wastewater facility improvements,
• Provide data support for 305b documents, -
• Assess nonpoint source impacts, and
• Document in-stream improvements that
result from implementation of best
management practices.
For more information, contact Jimmie Over-
ton, North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, 4401 Reedy Creek
Road, Raleigh, NC 27607-6445; (919) 733-9960.
• FLORIDA
Florida possesses a specific numeric biological
criterion based on invertebrate species diversity
The strict construction of the statute in terms of
sampling method and parameter computation
allow this criterion to be used to enforce the water
quality standard. However, the criterion is not
flexible enough to be used with many other water
quality problems.
Derivation of Biological
Criteria
The main biological criterion in Florida's various
rules is biological integrity, which is defined legal-
ly as follows:
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
"The Shannon-Weaver diversity index ofben-
thic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to
less than 75 percent of established background
levels as measured using organisms retained
by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and, in
• predominantly fresh waters, collected and
composited from a minimum of three Hester-
Dendy type artificial substrate samplers of
0.10 to 0.15 m area each, incubated far a
period of four weeks; and, in predominantly
marine waters, collected and composited from
a minimum of three natural substrate samples,
taken with Ponar-type samplers with mini-
mum sampling area of 225 square cen-
timeters."
This definition mandates the type of sampling
to be used for different habitats (Hester-Dendy ar-
tificial substrates for fresh water and Ponars for
marine areas) as well as the number of samples to
be taken. The number of grabs making up one
replicate for natural substrate samples is not in the
rule but is included in a standard operating proce-
dure manual. Also, the rule calls for "established
background levels" of the Shannon-Weaver diver-
sity index (d). The Shannon-Weaver Diversity
Index is defined as "negative summation (from i=l
to s) of (ni/N) Iog2 (ni/N) where s is the number of
species in a sample, N is the total number of in-
dividuals in a sample, and m is the total number of
individuals in a species i" (Fla. Dep. Environ. Reg.
1988a).
The Florida rules basically say d cannot be
reduced to less than 75 percent of established
ba kground. However, a new rule for the use of
certain types of wetlands for advanced secondary
domestic wastewater effluent disposal also has a
biological integrity standard that allows for a 50
percent reduction in d value (Fla. Dep. Environ.
Reg. 1988b). Considerable biological monitoring,
including macroinvertebrates, is required and
since most wetlands are naturally stressed ecosys-
tems, this rule will undoubtedly need modifica-
tion after data are gathered for a few years.
to assess how instrumental biological criteria have
been in swaying a hearing officer or judge.
Biologists are continually challenged when ex-
plaining biological parameters and concepts to
nonecologically oriented judges.
Some uses of biological criteria in Florida in-
clude support for: . .
• Point source and dredge/ fill permit denials,
• Permit compliance evaluation,
• Determining needs for wasteload allocations,
and
• Designation of outstanding Florida waters, a
special protection category where an
unusually high d value can help determine
"exceptional ecological significance" (Fla.
Dep. Environ. Reg. 1988c).
Use of biological criteria in enforcement may
have the greatest impact in the following types of
cases:
Type of Case
Citrus concentrate spills
Wastewater treatment
plant discharges
Battery toxic waste
discharge
Toxic waste/oil spills
Mining/spoil spills
Lake filling
Resolution
Out-of-court monetary
settlements
Out-of-court monetary
settlements
$11 million judgment
(none collected because
discharging company
declared bankruptcy)
Out-of
-------
Chapter 3: Case Studies of Biological Criteria progt
'rams
The Shannon-Weaver diversity index (d)
criterion was developed in Florida in 1975 and in-
corporated into the Florida Administrative Code
Water Quality Rules in 1978. Florida had ex-
perience with d in lake work dating back to 1969.
The lack of precision of natural substrate grabs for
reproducibility of d, especially in lotic ecosystems,
threatened this parameter in the hearings; there-
fore, artificial substrates were mandated for all
freshwater sampling.
Many biologists in Florida wanted a qualita-
tive index such as Beck's Biotic Index, especially
since its use in Florida dated back to 1950 (Beck,
'1954, 1955). However, it was dropped from the'
rule proposal because it applies only to flowing
fresh water and organic pollution (low dissolved
oxygen). In addition, the index was found too sen-
sitive to the presence of even one individual of a
rare species.
Discussion
The biological integrity standard (d) appears in
Florida's rules for surface water and wetlands 12
times. Unfortunately, it also appears three times in
the Florida statutes with a totally different mean-
ing: referring to the pruning of mangroves. There-
fore, regulators should be aware of potentially
conflicting meanings in the rules and statutes.
Florida also has designated a vegetative index
as a biological criterion to determine State jurisdic-
tion in dredge and fill permitting. In determining
this index, two exotics and three ubiquitous native
species (including the cabbage palm) are desig-
nated as "invisible" species and not to be used in
calculating the index (Fla. Dep. Environ. Reg.
1988c). This approach might be applied when
determining macroinvertebrate diversities if data
are skewed because of the abundance of oppor-
tunistic species such as Chaoborus, Rheotanytarsus
Corbicula, hydropsychid caddisflies, and
simuliids). In such cases, the community structure
can change completely without violating the rule
For example, while one Florida dredge and fill
spoil case was being litigated, the degraded site
(originally with a d value reduced by 80 percent)
became colonized by a silt-tolerant community
that elevated the d value back to more than 75 per-
cent of background.
Several aspects of the statutory biocriteria for
fresh water can present problems. For example, ar-
tificial substrates are inappropriate in some areas
(such as the open water area of lakes); require time
for incubation; are subject to vandalism; and are of
limited use where water levels fluctuate greatly
Allowing a 25 percent reduction of d value in sur-
face water and 50 percent in wetlands appears to
be loo lenient, especially since the measures are
logarithmic. Additionally, it is often difficult to es-
tablish a background d value. Fortunately, the EPA
ecoregion approach should help in establishing
background where historical data do not exist. No
flexibility exists in the Florida rules interpretation,
as for example when drastic variations in d occur
as a result of natural causes such as seasonal ef-
fects. Therefore, giving nonbiologist admin-
istrators, lawyers, planners, and engineers, a d
value without supporting explanations inevitably
causes problems.
Overall, biological criteria are working in
Florida. However, revisions and additions to the
standards are warranted and will be handled
through the routine EPA triennial rule review
process. For more information, contact Jim Hul-
bert, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, 3319 Maquire Boulevard, Orlando FL
32803; (407) 894-7555.
• ARKANSAS
Arkansas addressed the specific problem of unat-
tainable dissolved oxygen standards by restructur-
ing its water quality program to include criteria
based on natural dissolved oxygen levels. These
biological criteria allowed Arkansas to reclassify
streams to use designations that would protect the
existing fish communities observed in reference
streams within the same ecoregion.
Introduction
In 1982, the Water Division of Arkansas' Depart-
ment of Pollution Control and Ecology began a
five-year project to evaluate the aquatic ecoregions
concept as a basis for reevaluating stream clas-
sifications. The State examined the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of carefully
selected streams in the six Arkansas ecoregions
and subsequently employed ecoregion data to
develop use attainability analyses.
The motivation for undertaking the Arkansas
ecoregion program was the knowledge that many
of the State's cleanest streams did not meet nation-
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
al water quality standards—not because of pollu-
tion but because of naturally occurring physical
and chemical conditions. Rather than enforce in-
appropriate standards, State officials undertook an
ambitious program to assess water quality and
ecological conditions in representative least dis-
turbed streams. These least disturbed streams
were used as reference streams to refine use cias-
sifications and associated water quality criteria for
similar streams and rivers around the State.
The Arkansas ecoregion program provides a
sound basis for reclassifying streams where exist-
ing criteria and standards were either too stringent
or too lenient. Arkansas has demon- strated the
usefulness of the ecoregional approach for
developing and evaluating water quality stand-
ards, particularly those concerned with fish com-
munity use designations and dissolved oxygen
criteria (Ark. Dep. Pollut. Control Ecol. 1988;
* Rohm etal. 1987).
History
In Arkansas, the biological criteria effort began
more than 10 years ago. During the late 1970s, the
section 208-funded State Policy Advisory Commit-
tee devoted much discussion and effort to iden-
tifying solutions to water quality problems, which
resulted in a proposed reclassification of Arkansas'
streams according to hydrological types. The
public comment during water quality program
review was generally favorable toward the docu-
ment, but further refinement was recommended.
The committee agreed and encouraged the staff to
continue working on the concept. In 1981, a Na-
tional Science Foundation Grant was administered
through the governor's office to convene en-
gineers and scientists within the State to recom-
mend directions for water quality programs. This
State Ecological Congress recommended designat-
ing reference streams.
The development of biological criteria in
Arkansas was closely related to several other
aspects of the State water quality program. With
the passage of Public Law 92-500, additional funds
were provided for municipal wastewater treat-
ment systems. Earlier, the wasteload allocations of
the 303e basin plans had developed effluent limits
for all dischargers. For the large rivers adjacent to
metropolitan areas, secondary wastewater treat-
ment was good enough to meet the five parts per
million, dissolved oxygen water quality standards.
However, the majority of smaller towns were lo-
cated on small headwater streams that never
reached this level during low-flow periods—even
in pristine conditions. The 303e wasteload alloca-
tion process had determined that these small
towns had to meet effluent limits that were often
stringent and cost prohibitive. Arkansas deter-
mined that the water quality standard driving this
process needed revision.
As this problem was addressed and the
ecoregion concept was being developed, a new
source of funding became available. Section 205j of
the Clean Water Act set aside 1 percent of the sec-
tion 201 Facility Grants monies to be used in water
quality planning and management activities. This
1 percent set-aside for Arkansas averaged ap-
proximately $120,000 per year over the life of the
Ecoregion Project, with approximately 14 percent
going toward boats, motors, computers, gener-
ators, and other equipment. Over a three-year
period, data were obtained from intensive field in-
vestigations of 37 reference streams during both
the low-flow, high-temperature season and the
higher flow and cooler temperatures of spring
(Rohm et al. 1987). Information was obtained at an
approximate cost of $360,000 to satisfy the primary
goals of the project, which were to:
• Provide baseline data from waterbodies
with the least amount of point source and
nonpoint source disturbance,,
• Complete a characterization of the streams
within each ecoregion,
• Develop a classification of streams based on
in-stream uses,
• Provide a reference gauge to evaluate
monitoring data, abatement activities, and
perturbations in other streams, and
• Provide a sound basis for development of
realistic water quality standards and
beneficial uses within ecoregions.
The ultimate result of this long-term effort was
the specific identification of the biological com-
munity to be protected and a methodology to en-
sure its protection. Arkansas has now
implemented water quality standards specific to
sites and locations that are both higher and lower
than the Red Book dissolved oxygen criteria. This
has allowed small towns to begin building treat-
ment plants that will attain effluent limits ap-
propriate for the new water quality standards.
28
-------
Chapter 3: Case Studies of Biological Criteria Programs
Discussion
While it is impossible to accurately account for the
full range of resources used during those efforts,
Arkansas' final solution to the inapplicability of
the dissolved oxygen-water quality standard was
the Ecoregion Project, which was funded with
$360,000 of 205j money. Approximately 10 to 15
people were involved in the project, and all had
numerous other responsibilities.
The Ecoregion Project process formally started
in 1983 and ended in 1988. The first major obstacle
was overcome with the procurement of 205j
monies. Although the State was convinced that
this project was needed, equipment and personnel
had to be scheduled so that other program respon-
sibilities could be met during this project.
After the project was initiated, many indirect
benefits to the water quality program became ap-
parent. For the first time in Arkansas, good
baseline information (physical, chemical, and
biological) was available for specific ecoregions,
revealing that each region was distinctly different.
The staff soon realized that if these findings were
ultimately to be incorporated into the water
quality standards, the public would have to be
continually educated. Therefore, presentations
were made to a wide range of audiences, including
water user groups, conservation groups,
municipal leagues, colleges, and Lions Clubs. Per-
haps for this reason, the project was a success and,
in 1988, one of the most extensive changes to the
Arkansas Water Quality Standards was imple-
mented with very little opposition from industrial,
municipal, or conservation organizations.
Initially, EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, laid out what
they called "good, better, and best" approaches to
the Ecoregion Project. As it turned out, Arkansas
had only enough money and people to do some-
thing slightly less than the "good" project; Al-
though money and staff remain a constraint, in
retrospect the State would have liked to have in-
vested greater resources and to have done the
"better" project. They also would have added me-
tals to their chemical parameter list (for measure-
ments in water, sediment, and fish tissue) so that
this background information would now be avail-
able. For further information, contact John Giese,
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little Rock, AR
72209; (501) 562-7444.
29
-------
-------
Chapter Four
Case Summaries of Biological
Criteria in Seven States
Seven States are currently developing biologi-
cal criteria as part of their water quality
standards program. Texas, Connecticut, Ver-
mont, New York, and Nebraska are developing
reference conditions and qualitative assessment
methods to support narrative biological criteria in
the standards; Delaware and Minnesota are in the
early stages of developing biological criteria
programs.
• TEXAS
The Texas Surface Water Quality Standards pro-
vide the framework that the Texas Water Commis-
sion uses to protect water resources. The standards
recognize the geologic and hydrologic diversity of
the State by dividing major rivers, streams, reser-
voirs, estuaries, and bays into classified segments.
They contain narrative biological criteria that
describe aquatic life attributes (species richness
and composition, diversity, trophic structure, and
abundance) on a sliding scale from limited to ex-
ceptional.
Segment-specific uses such as aquatic life, con-
tact or noncontact recreation, oyster waters, public
water supply, aquifer protection, industrial water
supply, and navigation may be assigned by the
Texas Water Commission. Narrative and quantita-
tive numerical criteria are derived to ensure
protection for some of the uses. One of four levels
of aquatic life use (exceptional, high, intermediate,
limited) is assigned to each classified segment.
Minor waterbodies are grouped as unclass-
ified waters and provided protection under the
general criteria of Texas' water quality standards.
A contact recreational use and one of the four
aquatic life uses are assigned to perennial unclass-
ified waterbodies by the commission at the time of
administrative or regulatory action. Appropriate
24-hour and absolute minimum dissolved oxygen
criteria are assigned to classified and unclassified
31
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
waters to protect aquatic life. The four levels of
aquatic life use accurately describe Texas waters
and are sufficiently broad and flexible to encom-
pass the range of expected conditions.
Assignment of an appropriate aquatic life use
to a waterbody is primarily driven by an assess-
ment of biotic integrity. Preliminary quantitative
biological criteria, based on six measures of the
benthic macroinvertebrate community and four
measures of the fish community, were developed
by Twidwell and Davis (1989). The ranges for the
criteria were derived from the published literature
and the professional judgment of investigators
with 30 years of combined experience performing
biological assessments of Texas streams. Biological
data collected in the field, usually during summer,
are compared to the narrative and quantitative
criteria to provide the basis for aquatic life use as-
signment. Benthic macroinvertebrate (macro- ben-
thos) and/or fish communities may be used,
although emphasis is placed on the collection of
both groups because of their differing sensitivities.
During the summer of 1987, the Texas Water
Commission conducted a pilot study on six un-
classified freshwater streams located in different
areas of the State. The study was conducted to as-
sess the applicability of the preliminary biological
criteria and determine if unclassified streams
should be assigned aquatic life use designations
The study revealed that most of the streams pos-
sessed physical habitat heterogeneity that en-
hanced the development of communities of
diverse aquatic fauna. The occurrence of high
biotic integrity in small streams during adverse
summertime conditions was particularly notewor-
thy. In response to these findings, the commission
changed the manner in which it assigned aquatic
life uses to unclassified waterbodies during the
1987 triennial revision of the standards.
The biological data collected during the study
also suggested that differences among water-
bodies sampled in different areas of the State were
spatially related. In the summer of 1988, the com-
mission initiated a three-year study in cooperation
with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to
determine if the regional patterns would cor-
respond to the ecoregions of Texas mapped by
OmernSk and Gallant (1987). Waterbody charac-
terizations have been conducted at 72 carefully
selected reference sites located in Texas' 11 dif-
ferent ecoregions.
The resulting physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal (macrobenthos and fish) data are being as-
sessed to indicate the water quality, levels of
habitat complexity, and biotic integrity that can be
naturally attained within each region, determine
to what extent Texas ecoregions have distinctive
fish and macrobenthic assemblages, and regional-
ly calibrate the existing quantitative biological
criteria. The eventual goal of these studies is to
develop water quality standards that are in-
dividually tailored to the different ecoregions of
the State. For further information, contact Stephen
Twidwell and Jack Davis, Water Quality Division,
Texas Water Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Cap
Sta., Austin, TX 78711; (512) 463-8475; or Roy Kein-
sasser and Gordon Linam, Resource Protection,
Texas Parks and Wildlife, P.O. Box 947, San Mar-
cos, TX 78667; (512) 353-3474.
• CONNECTICUT
Narrative biological criteria for benthic macroin-
vertebrates (lotic waters) were proposed in draft
form by Connecticut in 1985 and adopted in its
water quality standards in 1987.
Connecticut has a biological monitoring
database that goes back to 1973 and contains semi-
quantitative -macroinvertebrate data on ap-
proximately 75 sites. Bioassessments based on
these data originally relied on the evaluation of
community structure parameters (taxa richness,
dominant taxa, sensitive taxa or EPT—insect or-
ders Ephemoptera, Plecoptera, and Tricop- tera—
average diversity, abundance) and the Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol ffl
(Plafkin et al. 1989) was incorporated into the pro-
gram in 1987 and adopted as the primary assess-
ment method in 1989.
Connecticut routinely uses the bioassessment
process to evaluate spill incidents, point source
impacts, and the effectiveness of waste treatment
installations. Recent 305(1?) assessments for the
years 1988 and 1990 have also incorporated
biomonitoring information as a measure of use at-
tainment. In 1989, biological monitoring data were
employed to assess use attainment and impair-
ment at 22 sites in support of numeric criteria
development for copper and zinc based on am-
bient water quality monitoring.
Also in 1989, Connecticut initiated develop-
ment of a numeric component to complement ex-
isting narrative biological criteria. A general
description of the intended procedure is outlined
below:
32
-------
Chapter 4: Case Summaries of Biological Criteria
• Initial work involved reviewing existing
biological, physical, and chemical data to
identify prospective ecoregional reference
sites. (Connecticut is a relatively small State,
existing entirely within one ecoregion.)
• The existing database contains seven
reference sites. Current efforts are directed at
expanding this database and characterizing
variations that result from sampling methods
and temporal and spatial effects.
• Connecticut's goal is to develop a
methodology using Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol III (for benthos) or selected
component metrics that can describe existing
narrative criteria for the various water quality
classes and provide a standard means to
evaluate waterbodies relative to these criteria.
For further information, contact Ernest Piz-
zuto or Guy Hoffman, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, Water Management
Bureau, 122 Washington Street, Hartford, CT
06106; (203) 566-2588.
• VERMONT
Vermont uses biological criteria from in-stream
data to determine if two different types of biologi-
cal standards are being met. These standards are
the following narratives, which are found in the
State's water quality standards:
• No Significant Alteration of the Aquatic
Biota (NSAAB). This standard is applied to
all nonpoint discharges through a permit
process that uses compliance monitoring
data generated by the discharger. The
NSAAB criterion is designed to detect com-
munity-level changes that result from slight
(benign) enrichment.
• No Undue Adverse Effect (NUAE). This
standard is Vermont's classification stand-
ard. At the present time, a single biological
standard will probably be applied to both
Class B and C waters. Class C water will be
set apart from Class B only because of
human health concerns—as a bacterial
standard.
Both of these biological standards are narra-
tive statements within the State's water quality
standards. The Vermont Department of Environ-
mental Conservation has developed a set of ad-
ministrative rules to define the NSAAB narrative
standard. The department is negotiating with the
State's Water Resources Board to develop a similar
set of administrative rules to define NUAE. It
believes that, by using the administrative rules
process to define biological standards for a class of
water, it can exercise the flexibility needed to
sample and describe the different communities
found in different ecotypes (lakes, rivers, and
small streams).
For the past four years, the Water Quality
Division has been developing both a macroinver-
tebrate and fish database to use in establishing
biocriteria for streams; the program is called the
Ambient Biomonitoring Network. The division ex-
perimented with sampling and analysis
methodologies several years before it felt confi-
dent that it could both measure the biological im-
pacts and be cost and time efficient.
The Water Quality Division has drafted
preliminary biocriteria for small streams in Ver-
mont using both macroinvertebrate and fish com-
munity metrics. The fish community evaluation is
based on a modified Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
for Vermont streams. Two regions have been iden-
tified for fish communities, based on elevation.
The macroinvertebrate community is evaluated
using several biological metrics in series. Presently,
these metrics are mean taxa richness, EPT richness,
presence/absence of EPT orders, Hilsenhoff-Ver-
mont modified-biotic index, and species
dominance. At paired sites (above and below dis-
charges), the Pinkham-Pearson similarity index
and the difference in density between sites are also
used to evaluate impairment to both the fish and
macroinvertebrate communities. Functional group
metrics are currently being evaluated for future
use.
Vermont can evaluate two to four sites within
one week, using one expert biologist and two tech-
nicians trained in taxonomy. Generally, the macro-
invertebrate Ambient Biomonitoring Net- work
trend monitoring is done yearly; samples are col-
lected from 40 to 50 sites within three to four
weeks (usually during September or October), and
data are worked up during the winter months. In
this way, many sites can be monitored over the
long term, and a large database can be generated
for a specific season. This routine also frees staff
for more intensive, site-specific evaluations and to
33
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
spend time in the field conducting fish surveys
during the short summer.
The Ambient Biomonitoring Network pro-
gram (used to define NUAE) and the Compliance
Monitoring Program (NSAAB) have helped docu-
ment biological improvements after treatment
plant upgrades and have identified extensively
impaired stream communities. This work focuses
water quality management activities on specific
problems that need to be addressed from a biologi-
cal standpoint.
Most of the information generated by the
biological monitoring program is reported in
memo form to appropriate department chiefs. An
annual biological condition report is being
developed to make the information more acces-
sible to other governmental bodies and public
groups. For further information, contact Steve
Fiske or Rich .Langdon, Department of Environ-
mental Conservation Laboratory, R.A. LaRosa
Laboratory, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury VT
05676; (802) 244-4520.
• NEW YORK
The State of New York has developed a set of
biological impairment criteria based on five
measures of the benthic macroinvertebrate com-
munity. These criteria are designed to measure sig-
nificant biological impairment of the stream biota
as determined by site-specific comparisons be-
tween locations upstream and downstream of
given discharges. Using the paired-site com-
parison method (Green, 1979), significant biologi-
cal impairment in discharge sites can be
determined relative to an upstream control, or, if
none is available, relative to a comparable nearby
stream.
Methods equivalent to a replicated EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol-3 (Plafkin et al. 1989) are
used to determine five macroinvertebrate commu-
nity parameters:
* Species richness,
« EPT value (number of species of cleanwater
insect orders),
* Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (average species
tolerance),
• Species dominance (percentage
contribution of dominant species), and
• Percent Model Affinity (similarity to a
model community).
Once habitat and substrate evaluations have deter-
mined that the paired sites are comparable, repli-
cated values are compared between the two sites
to determine if the criterion is exceeded for any
parameter. Any criterion violation shown to be
statistically significant with a West giving a value
of p=0.05 is considered to be a biological impair-
ment.
New York's biological impairment criteria
have been drawn from 214 data sets collected on
27 streams between 1983 and 1987. Of the sites
designated as having significant biological impair-
ment based on these criteria, 68 percent had
known problems, 26 percent were probable new
detections, and 6 percent were questionable. This
demonstrates the usefulness of the approach for
problem detection, problem assessment, and trend
monitoring. The Stream Biomonitoring Unit of the
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation recently completed a two-year pro-
gram of field testing and modifying the proposed
criteria. For further information, contact Robert
Bode, Stream Biomonitoring Unit, Bureau of
Monitoring and Assessment, Division of Water,
Department of Environmental Conservation, 50
Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-3503; (518) 432-2624.
• NEBRASKA
Biological criteria in Nebraska's water quality
standards are narrative and directed at preventing
human activities that would significantly impact
or displace identified key species. The key species
listed in the standards are endangered, threatened,
sensitive, and recreationally important aquatic
species. Nebraska has a large biological monitor-
ing program and currently uses biological indices
to evaluate the condition of aquatic life. In Nebras-
ka 305(b) assessments, both the Index of Biotic In-
tegrity (IBI) and Invertebrate Community Index
(ICI) are used with reference sites. Nebraska's am-
bient monitoring stresses evaluation of both the
fish and macroinvertebrate communities but, be-
cause of the pattern of barriers and seasonal
drying of waterbodies in the State, macroinver-
tebrate measures may eventually prove more in-
formative.
Nebraska is currently expanding its evalua-
tion approach by incorporating ecoregion- and
34
-------
Chapter 4: Case Summaries of Biological Criteria
resource-specific factors. Regional ICI and IBI
values that indicate unimpaired conditions for
various stream types are being developed. Nebras-
ka hopes that this will lead to the establishment of
numeric biological criteria in the future.
Nebraska has determined that enforcing water
quality on the standards alone is difficult. There-
fore, the Department of Environmental Control
uses its standards and aquatic life evaluations to
write permits. For example, although there is a
"free of junk" provision in the water quality stand-
ards, it is easier in Nebraska to establish the legal
basis for a violation of the 404 permit to fill a wet-
land. Therefore, informal biological criteria ap-
plied to the ambient monitoring program in
Nebraska are used to identify problem areas for
enforcement by permit or for mitigation through
increased nonpoint prevention efforts.
Site-specific studies employing a modified
EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol are another
tool increasingly used by the department to iden-
tify in-stream problems from point source dischar-
ges. Parameters identified include EPT richness
and Chironomidae exuvia. Problems identified by
these procedures range from the need for addition-
al treatment capabilities and water quality-based
permits to poor operation and maintenance of
facilities. For further information, contact John
Bender, Department of Environ- mental Control,
P.O. Box 98922, State House Station, Lincoln, NE
68509; (402) 471-4700.
• DELAWARE
Delaware began the early stages of a biological
criteria development program in 1988. The project
was initiated for several reasons: EPA priorities for
the water quality standards program; requests
from EPA Headquarters to include biological
criteria development in the nonpoint source
management program; and staff knowledge of the
potential advantages of biological criteria for in-
tegrated assessments of water quality conditions.
To date, Delaware has identified possible ref-
erence sites for ecoregions and established control
and effect sites in nonpoint source demonstration
project subbasins. Three sets of 19 samples are
planned for the early stages of the project, includ-
ing work in the spring, summer, and fall. Delaware
is using the rapid bioassessment protocols
developed by EPA (Plafkin et al. 1989) and is at-
tempting to modify these protocols for coastal
plain and estuarine systems (dominant stream
types in Delaware).
A database of literature was gathered and as-
sessed before Delaware selected approaches. All
involved staff were trained in the protocols.
Delaware has approximately two full-time
equivalents committed to the project, divided
among field biologists, an office scientist, and pro-
gram oversight and management.
Partial funding for the work has been obtained
from the State's nonpoint source management pro-
gram grant. The State's near-term goals are to use
the rapid bioassessment protocols to assess im-
pacts of nonpoint source pollution on small
streams and develop an ecoregional reference site
database.
In the long term, Delaware hopes to develop
narrative and numeric criteria, possibly in line
with EPA's goals of the second and third triennium
(1992 and 1995). For further information, contact
John Maxted, Division of Water Resources,
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O.
Box 1401, Dover, DE 19903; (302) 736-4590.
• MINNESOTA
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is inves-
tigating the application of biological criteria for
designating aquatic life use designation and water
resource assessment. The initial focus of this inves-
tigation is to develop attainable regional goals in
terms of fish community characteristics using the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). IBI community
metrics will have to be modified in. Minnesota's
various regions because of significant geographic
variations in fish assemblages. Three continental
drainages and the transition zone between the
eastern woodlands and western prairies all exist
within Minnesota's borders.
The Pollution Control Agency will determine
metric composition and expected metric values by
using historical information and data collected at
reference or at least impacted sites throughout the
State. The historical information is available from
stream surveys conducted by the University of
Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
The Minnesota River watershed is the first
area where the IBI is being applied. During the
summer of 1990, staff from the State's Department
35
-------
Biological Criteria: State Development & Implementation
of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control
Agency sampled 45 reference sites throughout the
watershed, including headwater, midsize, and
large river segments. Habitat evaluations were
conducted. Flow and limited water chemistry in-
formation was also obtained at each site, and data
from over 500 collections were reviewed. Metric
modifications and expected metric ratings will be
completed early in 1991. The IBI developed will be
used during the summer to identify impacted
areas in a major river system within the Minnesota
River watershed.
In the future, Minnesota wants to develop the
IBI for the rest of the State, add a macro- inver-
tebrate component to the stream assessment pro-
gram, and develop biological criteria for wetlands,
primarily by using macroinvertebrates. Presently,
there is one full-time person working on the
stream project with some additional contract staff
assistance from Minnesota's Department of
Natural Resources. An additioned half-time person
will be hired for the wetlands project if funding is
secured. For further information, contact Patricia
Bailey or Judy Helgen, Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol Agency, Division of Water Quality, 520 La-
Fayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155; (612)
296-8878.
36
-------
References
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology. 1988. Reg. No. 2. Water Quality
Standards for Surface Waters of the State of
Arkansas. Little Rock.
Beck, W.M., Jr. 1954. Studies in stream pollution
biology: a simplified ecological classification
of organisms. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 17:4.
. 1955. Suggested method for reporting
biotic data. Sewage Ind. Wastes 27:10.
Courtemanch, D.L. and S. Davies. 1989. Why
Maine Has Chosen To Integrate Biological Im-
pact Standards into State Water Quality Law.
Maine Dep. Environ. Prot., Augusta.
Fausch, D.O., J.R. Karr, and P.R. Yant. 1984.
Regional application of an index of biotic in-
tegrity based on stream fish communities.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113:39-55.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
1988a. Water Quality Standards. Florida
Admin. Code, ch. 17-3. Orlando.
. 1988b. Wastewater Facilities. Florida
Admin. Code, ch. 17-6. Orlando.
. 1988c. Dredge and Fill Activities. Florida
Administrative Code, ch. 17-4. Orlando.
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. Spacie, J.L. Hamelink, and R.L.
Kaesler. 1981. Role of electrofishing in assess-
ing environmental quality of the Wabash
River. Pages 307-23 in J.M. Bates and C.I.
Weber eds. Ecological Assessments of Effluent
Impacts on Communities of Indigenous
Aquatic Organisms. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.,
Philadelphia, PA.
Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical
Methods for Environmental Biologists. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik.
1986. Regional reference sites: method for as-
sessing stream pollution. Environ. Manage
10(5):629-35.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using
fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological
perspective on water quality goals. Environ.
Manage. 5(l):55-68.
Karr, J.R. et al. 1986. Assessing biological integrity
in running waters: a method and its rationale.
n. Nat. History Sur. Spec. Pub. 5.
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of
streams using a qualitative collection method
for benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Ben-
tholog. Soc. 7:222-33.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a.
Biological Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Life: Vol. II. Users Manual for the
Biological Field Evaluation of Ohio's Rivers
and Stream. Ohio Environ. Prot. Agency, Div.
Water Qual. Monitor. Assess.,.Columbus.
. 1987b. Biological Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Life: Vol. I. The Role of Biological
Data in Water Quality Assessment. Ohio En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Div. Water Qual. Monitor.
Assess., Columbus.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conter-
minous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr
77:118-25.
Omernik, J.M. and A.F. Gallant. 1987. Ecoregions
of the South-Central States. EPA/600/D-
87/315. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis;
OR.
Plafkin, J.L. et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Ben-
thic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-
89-001. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, DC.
Rohm, C.M., J.W. Giese, and C.C. Bennett 1987.
Test of an aquatic ecoregion classification of
streams in Arkansas. J. Freshwater Ecol
4(1):127-40.
Twidwell, S.R. and J.R. Davis. 1989. An Assess-
ment of Six Least Disturbed Unclassified Texas
Streams. Texas Water Comm., Austin.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1986. The
Nation's Water Key Unanswered Questions
About the Quality of Rivers and Streams.
GAO/PEMD-86-6. Prog. Eval. Methods Div.,
Washington, DC.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991—526-392/40828
37
-------
-------
-------
I f I
*f fi
8
------- |