United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-586)t
EPA-440/5-91-004
July 1991
Biological Criteria
Guide To Technical
Literature
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Biological Criteria:
Guide To Technical
Literature
U.S. Enviivnmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Washington, D.C. 20460
July 1991
-------
EPA Contract No. 68-03-3534
Work Assignment H2-43
Work Assignment Leader: A.F. Maciorowski
Work Assignment Manager: S.K.M. Marcy
BATTELLE
Washington Environmental Program Office
2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22201
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction -j
The Reference Catalog 1
The Influence of Habitat on Biological Integrity 3
Habitat Assessment for Streams and Rivers 3
Habitat Assessment for Lakes and Reservoirs .4
Habitat Assessment for Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas 5
Habitat Assessment for Wetlands , 6
Biosurvey Methods to Assess Biological Integrity . . 7
Biotic Assessment in Freshwater ......... ,,.,.-. .7
Biotic Assessment in Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas 9
Biotic Assessment in Wetlands 10
Data Analysis : ... 10
Sampling Strategy and Statistical Approaches .11
Diversity Indices -j-j
Biological Indices . . . 11
Composite Community Indices . 12
Appendix A. Freshwater Environments .A-1
Appendix B. Estuarine and Near-Coastal Evnironments B-1
Appendix C. Wetlands Environment .^ . C-1
Appendix D. Alphabetical Author/Reference Number Cross-Index
for the Reference Catalog D-1
Appendix E. Reference Catalog Entries . E-1
-------
-------
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Biological surveys of populations and com-
munities inhabiting waterbodies have long
been used to assess the impact of con-
taminants on receiving waters. However, the
development and widespread use of formal biologi-
cal criteria (biocriteria) has lagged behind chemical-
specific or toxicity-based water quality criteria (U.S.
EPA 1985, 1986) in water quality management.
Recent recommendations (U.S. EPA 1987), regarding
water monitoring strategies point to the need to ac-
celerate the development of ambient biological sam-
pling in surface water programs.
Biocriteria are derived directly from ambient
biological sampling programs. Briefly stated,
biocriteria require direct measurements of the struc-
ture and function of resident aquatic communities to
determine biological integrity and ecological func-
tion. When implemented, biological criteria will ex-
pand and improve water quality standards, help
identify impairment of beneficial use, and help set
program priorities. Biological criteria are valuable
because they directly measure the condition of the
resource at risk, detect problems that others may
miss or understand, and provide a systematic
process for measuring progress resulting from the
implementation of water quality programs.
Based on State interest in having EPA guidance
(U.S. EPA 1988), program and technical guidance
documents for implementing biological criteria are
being developed. The EPA Biological Criteria Na-
tional Program Guidance Document for Surface
Waters (U.S. EPA 1990) discusses program issues
pertinent to biocriteria development including legis-
lative authority, steps in developing biocriteria, and
the application of biocriteria to surface water
management. Interested readers are referred to the
program guidance document for discussion of these
issues.
In addition, EPA is in the process of developing
technical guidance for streams and rivers, lakes and
reservoirs, estuaries and near-coastal areas, and wet-
lands. The technical guidance for streams and small
rivers is currently in draft form and guidance for the
remaining habitat types is scheduled for publication
over the next several years.
The present document is intended to serve as a
general technical reference source for publications
pertinent to the development of biological criteria.
The references listed herein discuss methods and
procedures appropriate to the development of
biocriteria in streams and rivers, lakes and reser-
voirs, estuaries and near coastal areas, and wet-
lands. These references represent an initial
compilation, and if it proves to be sufficiently use-
ful, the reference catalog will be periodically up-
dated.
Please direct comments or inquiries to Dr.
George R. Gibson Jr., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (WH-585), 401 M Street SW, Washington,
D.C., 20460.
The Reference Catalog
The Reference Catalog presents methods and proce-
dures relevant to bioassessment and the develop-
ment of biocriteria. It is intended to summarize the
references, and provide general information on
manpower requirements to implement methods for
developing biocriteria. The Section on "The In-
fluence of Habitat on Biological Integrity" presents
methods and procedures pertinent to habitat
evaluation in bioassessment. The presentation con-
sists of a list of references found in the Reference
Catalog, followed by a general discussion for
streams and rivers, lakes and reservoirs, estuaries
and near-coastal areas, and wetlands. This general
format is followed for the Sections on "Biosurvey
Methods to Assess Biological Integrity," and "Data
Analysis." The reference entries which make up the
bulk of the Catalog are given in the back.
Each entry in the Reference Catalog is presented
in a standard format (Figure 1). In addition to the
basic reference, each entry provides information on
the procedure objectives, suitability of the entry for
the four major surface water types, advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure, level of education
needed to perform the procedure, field team size,
collection time required, sample processing time,
and data analysis time. Each entry is further
categorized regarding its applicability for major
subsections and community groups (see Figure 1).
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 3
1 Basic Reference: Adamus. P. R. E. J. Clairain, Jr., R. D. Smith and R. E. Young. 1987. "Wetland Evaluation
Technique: Vol. II - Methodology," AD-A189. Report to the Department of the Army and U.S. Department of
Transportation, 206 pp. .
2. Procedure Objectives: Outline of a wetland evaluation technique for the assessment of wetland functions and values.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Assists managers in techniques for wetland evaluation.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction .
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment ,
Community Group
x Macrophytes Zooplankton
Periphyton • Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Population Structure
Community Structure
x Other Vertebrates
Phytoplankton
Reference Number - 4;
1. Basic Reference: Aggus, L. R., J. P. Clugstoh, A. Houser, R. M. Jenkins, L. E. Vogele and C. H, .Wafcurg. 1980.
"Monitoring of Fish In Reservoirs", in Biological Monitoring of Fish, C. H. Hocutt and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. Eds., D.C. Heath
and Co., pp. 149-175.
2. Procedure Objectives: Review of fish-sampling gear and methods in terms of reservoir sampling (gillnets, trammul
nets, fyke nets, trap nets, trawls, seines; rotenone, SCUBA, electrofishing).
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Various techniques discussed with respect to
advantages and disadvantages in biomonitoring in reservoirs. .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge of fish collection methods and
identification. Also knowledge of sample design and analysis.
6. Field Team Size: Varies with method .
7. Collection Time Required: Varies with method
8. Sample Processing Time: Varies with method
9. Data Analysis Time: Varies with method • ....:.. -
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis •
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Figure 1.—Specimen of a reference citation In the reference catalog.
-------
introduction
The references are arranged alphabetically and
are sequentially numbered. Each reference number
is unique and is used to cross-index the references
by habitat type, the major subsection categories, and
community group. To provide ease of use, the Refer-
ence Catalog is arranged as a series of appendices.
• Appendix A provides a list of reference
numbers for freshwater environments.
Entries are categorized under General
Freshwater, Streams and Rivers, and Lakes
and Reservoirs, as well as the major
subsections and community groups shown in
Figure 1.
• Appendix B provides a list of references
numbers for estuarine and near-coastal
environments categorized under the major
subsections and community groups shown in
Figure 1.
• Appendix C provides a list of reference
numbers for wetland environments. Entries
are categorized under the major subsections
and community groups shown in Figure 1.
• Appendix D provides an alphabetical
author/reference number cross-index.
• Appendix E consists of the actual catalog
entries.
The Influence of Habitat on
Biological Integrity
All surface water types exhibit functional similar-
ities regarding ecological community function.
However, the biological integrity of a given site is
dependent upon its physical habitat. and the or-
ganisms that live within the habitat. Therefore, dif-
ferent surface water types and different habitats
within a specific surface water type may contain
unique species assemblages. Furthermore, different
surface water types may require different habitat as-
sessment techniques tailored to the unique charac-
teristics of the waterbody of interest. This section
presents habitat measures that may be used in bioas-
sessment involving streams and rivers, lakes and
reservoirs, estuaries and near-coastal areas, and wet-
lands. A listing of references pertinent to habitat as-
sessment methods and procedures are provided in
Appendices A, B, and C for freshwater, estuarine
and near-coastal, and wetland surface water types,
respectively. For readers interested in work of
specific authors, an alphabetical author/reference
number cross index appears in Appendix D. Full ref-
erences and highlights of the reference are presented
in the Reference Catalog (Appendix E).
Habitat Assessment for Streams
and Rivers
Habitat measures for streams and rivers have been
extensively studied. A general overview of habitat
assessment is presented in the Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol Guidance Document (U.S. EPA 1989), and
summarized below. Habitat assessment in streams
and rivers can be based on evaluating primary,
secondary, and tertiary habitat components.
• Primary habitat parameters have a direct in-
fluence on species composition and abundance.
Primary parameters for streams and rivers in-
clude the following: ,
•Bottom substrate refers to the composition of
the stream or river bottom ranging from rocks'
to mud. Bottom substrate can also refer to struc-
tures such as logs, tree roots, vegetation, and
undercut banks. The amount and desirability of
the bottom substrate will directly affect the type
of aquatic life present.
•Embeddedness is the degree to which
boulders, rubble, or gravel are surrounded by
•fine sediment. Embeddedness affects habitat
which directly affects benthic macroinver-
tebrate distribution and abundance and fish
spawning. •. •
• Stream or river flow and/or velocity relates to
the ability of the habitat to provide and main-
tain a stable environment. For practical pur-
poses, flow should not be excessively slow or
fast at the ideal collection site. ,
• Secondary habitat parameters refer to channel
morphology and have less impact on aquatic life
, 'than the primary parameters. Secondary
parameters for streams and rivers include the fol-
lowing: ' ' ' .
• Sediment deposits from watershed and bank
erosion indicate stream/river stability. Chan-
nelization straightens, and consequently in-
creases stream- and river velocity contributing
to bottom scouring. , _
•High velocity flows contribute to scouring,
which results in the movement of sediment into
pools and riffles. '
•Pool-to-riffle or run-to-bend ratios refer to
habitat diversity, which increases aquatic life
diversity. Use whichever parameter is
dominant.
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
• Tertiary habitat parameters refer to riparian and
bank structure and have less effect on aquatic life
than primary or secondary parameters. Tertiary
parameters for streams and rivers include:
•Bank stability refers to the bank's ability to
prevent soil loss into the stream or river. Steep-
ness of the bank and soil type affect bank
stability. Unstable banks cause increased
sedimentation of systems.
•Bank vegetation is the main factor affecting
bank stability. Larger substrates, such as rocks
or gravel, will also help maintain banks.
•Streamside cover refers to vegetation that
provides cover or shading and possible refuge
for fish. Streamside cover also provides vegeta-
tive material that serves as nutrients for streams
or rivers, and may maintain lower summer
temperature through shading.
Habitat assessment references for; streams and
rivers (Appendix A) are listed hi the Reference
Catalog (Appendix E), and include references 17, 55,
65, 84,102,107,110,112,117,123,131, 132,136,157,
173,179,180,181,189, and 207.
Habitat Assessment for Lakes
and Reservoirs
Certain habitat measures for lakes and reservoirs are
similar to those for streams and rivers, with some
modification. Lotic (non-flowing) systems lack the
flow of lentic (flowing) systems, and parameters
such as flow and velocity, channel alteration, bottom
scouring and deposition, and pool-to-riffle or run-
to-bend ratios are deleted or replaced, furthermore,
primary, secondary, and tertiary habitat parameters
have not been categorized with respect to their in-
fluence in the distribution and abundance of biota in
lakes and reservoirs.
• Habitat characteristics for lakes and reservoirs
that may be useful in bioassessment are discussed
below:
•Bottom substrate refers to the lake or reservoir
bottom sediment ranging from rocks to mud.
Bottom substrate can also refer to structures
such as logs, tree roots, vegetation, and under-
cut banks. The amount and quality of bottom
substrate will directly affect the type of aquatic
life present.
•Embeddedness is the degree to which
boulders, rubble, or gravel are surrounded by
fine sediment. Embeddedness affects benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish spawning.
•Lake/reservoir inflow and outflow, currents,
wave action, and flushing rate refer to water
movement. These parameters vary with the
type and size of the waterbody system studied.
All affect aquatic life to some degree.
•Lake and reservoir water level has a direct im-
pact on aquatic life. A system during a natural
or artificial drawdown functions differently
than a system during flood conditions.
• Sedimentation refers to the rate at which sedi-
ment accumulates in lakes and reservoirs.
Sedimentation will affect benthic macroinver-
tebrates directly by possible smothering, and
fish indirectly by destruction of spawning
areas.
•Morphology refers to factors such as surface
area, shoreline volume, mean depth, maximum
depth, and bottom shape (bathymetry). The
shape of the system helps to dictate the type of
aquatic life supported.
•Stratification refers to a vertical thermal
gradient that develops during warmer periods
and divides the system into two distinct layers.
Stratification will affect both benthic macroin-
vertebrates and fish. For example, oxygen
depletion in the colder, bottom layer may limit
fish and some benthic macroinvertebrates.
•Bank stability affects sedimentation soil loss
into lakes and reservoirs. Steepness of bank and
soil type will effect bank stability. Unstable
banks cause increased sedimentation into sys-
tems.
•Bank vegetation is the main factor affecting
bank stability. Larger substrates such as rocks
will also help maintain banks.
•Lakeside cover refers to vegetation that
provides cover of shading and possible refuge
for fish. Lakeside cover provide allochthonous
material for the system.
•Geomorphology affects water quality and the
biota, A lake is the product of its watershed,
and is influenced by the size and overall charac-
teristics of a drainage basin.
•Trophic status refers to the productivity and
food chains of a system. Trophic status may
range from oligotrophic (low production) to
-------
introduction
mesotrophic, (medium production)
eutrophic (high production).
and
•Water quality characteristics include a number
of variables such as temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, conductivity, alkalinity, hardness,
color, turbidity.
Habitat assessment references for lakes and
reservoirs (Appendix A) are listed in the Reference
Catalog (Appendix E), and include references 6, 50,
61,125,134,163, 201, and 207.
Habitat Assessment for Estuaries
and Near-Coastal Areas
Estuaries and surrounding near-coastal areas are
transition zones from fresh to salt water that form
complex, highly-variable habitats. Because estuarine
classification is a necessary aspect of estuarine and
near-coastal habitat assessment, several classifica-
tion systems precede a discussion of habitat meas-
urement methods. To date, habitat measures in
estuaries have not been categorized into the
primary, secondary, and tertiary parameter
categories described for freshwater streams and
rivers.
" Habitat within an estuary is a function of physi-
cal factors that influence water circulation and allied
conditions such as salinity, dissolved oxygen, and
turbidity. When conducting bioassessment studies
in estuaries and near-coastal areas, the system under
study must be carefully classified to determine
which habitat measures are most important.
Generally, geomorphology, tides, and freshwater in-
flow are the major factors influencing circulation
and salinity. Other factors include topographic fric-
tional resistance, the Coriolis effect (an effect of the
earth's rotation), and vertical and horizontal mixing.
Estuarine classification systems are fully described
elsewhere (Ketchum, 1983 and U.S. EPA, 1984) and
are only briefly summarized here.
Estuaries and near-coastal areas are generally
classified according to geomorphology, salinity and
density stratification, and the characteristic type of
circulation. Such classifications are interdependent
because geomorphology, combined with tidal ran-
ges and river flows, affects salinity distribution and
determines dominant circulation mechanisms.
• Geomorphological estuarine categories are
described below.-
• Coastal plain estuaries are shallow with gently
sloping bottoms and uniformly increasing
depth towards the mouth. Such estuaries are
drowned river valleys cut by erosion, and often
display a dendritic pattern fed by several
streams (e.g., Chesapeake Bay). Coastal plain
estuaries are usually moderately stratified and
can be highly influenced by wind.
•Fjords are characterized by deep water, steep
sides, and are generally long and narrow. Fjords
, are typical of Alaska rather than the contiguous
United States. Little sediment deposition occurs
in fjords that receive freshwater from streams
passing through rocky terrain. Fjords are usual-
ly highly stratified, with deeper waters cooler
and more saline than the surface layer.
•Bar-built estuaries are enclosed by a sand bar
with a channel that exchanges water with the
open sea. Bar-built estuaries typically service
rivers with relatively small discharges. These
estuaries are unstable and subject to gradual
seasonal and catastrophic variations in con-
figuration (e.g., Gulf coast estuaries). They are
generally a few meters deep, well mixed, and
highly influenced by wind.
•Other estuaries (not described above) are
usually produced by tectonic activity, faulting,
landslides, or volcanic eruptions (e.g., San
Francisco Bay, formed by movement of the San
Andreas Fault). Due to the great variability
within this category, few generalizations can be
made.
Estuarine categories derived from salinity and
density-induced stratification include highly
stratified, ' partially mixed, and vertically
homogeneous estuaries. The salinity stratification
classifications generally reflect stream discharge.
•Highly stratified estuaries are characterized by
large freshwater inflows riding over saline
waters, with little mixing between layers.
Averaged over a tidal cycle, such estuaries ex-
hibit net seaward movement in the freshwater
layer, arid net landward movement in the salt
water layer (e.g., Mississippi River).
•Partially mixed estuaries are systems where
the density differences between fresh- and salt
water layers are partially disrupted at the inter-
face of the layers. Tidal flows are generally
greater than river flows. Flow reversals in the
, lower layers may be observed, but are usually
smaller than those of highly stratified systems.
Examples include Chesapeake Bay and James
Bay.
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
•Vertically homogenous estuaries generally
have a small river inflow. Such systems are
usually shallow with a large amplitude to
depth ratio so tidal flow easily penetrates the
water column, resulting in a thoroughly mixed
vertical system (e.g., Delaware and Raritan
River estuaries).
Estuarine classification categories based on cir-
culation have not been established. However, cir-
culation is important in determining the physical
and biotic processes of estuaries. Circulation is af-
fected by freshwater outflow, tidal flow, and wind.
In turn, the density difference between inflow and
outflow establishes secondary currents that affect
the salinity distribution across the entire estuary.
Salinity is an important determinant for the dis-
tribution of fauna and flora. Frictional forces, size,
and geometry of an estuary also contribute to cir-
culation patterns. Estuarine geometry, wind, and the
effect of the earth's rotation (Coriolis effect) result in
residual currents (longer period than the tidal cycle)
that influence estuarine mixing. Detailed discus-
sions of estuarine circulation are given in Ketchum
(1983) and U.S. EPA (1984).
Freshwater inflow is another characteristic that
influences estuarine habitat. Primary sources of
freshwater inflow for estuaries include direct
precipitation and streamflow. Streamflow con-
tributes more freshwater than precipitation and has
the greatest effect on estuarine salinity gradients. Be-
cause salinity influences the distribution of es-
tuarine biota, salinity gradients are important in
determining the comparability of estuarine and
near-coastal reference and study sites. Salinity
gradients are affected by low and high streamflows.
The resultant variability may induce population
shifts as species adjust to salinity changes. Salinity
variations generally follow seasonal patterns, with
the salt front occurring further down-estuary during
periods of high freshwater inflow. Salinity profiles
may also undergo major changes caused by
meteorological events such as hurricanes or severe
drought.
Because estuaries are complex systems with
varied habitat, dividing an estuary into segments
provides a framework for evaluating the influence
of circulation, mixing, salinity, and geomorphology
on reference sites and study sites. Segmentation al-
lows compartmentalization of an estuary into com-
parable subunits with homogeneous physical
characteristics. Accordingly, differences in biological
communities can be compared among similar seg-
ments. These segments may be delineated based on
physical factors such as salinity and circulation pat-
terns. The segmentation approach has been used in
large estuary studies such as the U.S. EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. EPA 1984).
Another method to evaluate estuarine physical
processes involves calculating indicator parameters
including:. degree of stratification, flushing time,
and various pollutant concentrations. Formulae for
such calculations are located in U.S. EPA (1984).
Habitat classification systems and measures for
estuaries and near-coastal areas (Appendix B) listed
in the Reference Catalog (Appendix E) include refer-
ences 10, 36, 96,136,147, and 170.
Habitat Assessment for
Wetlands
Like estuaries, wetland environments are, complex
and require some consideration of classification
schemes and habitat measures. Wetland habitats are
defined by plants, soils (hydric soils), and frequency
of flooding. The .Canadian government has
developed a classification system based on species
composition, stability, and gross appearance (Millar,
1976). In the United States, the wetland classification
system most frequently used was developed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al. 1979).
This classification system is hierarchical, and in-
cludes wetlands and deepwater habitats,
categorized into systems, subsystems, classes (based
on substrate material and flooding regimen, or on
vegetative life form), subclasses, and dominance
type (named for the dominant plant or animal
forms). The hierarchical system allows flexibility in
the level of wetland discrimination based on the
needs of the investigation. Each hierarchial level is
discussed below.
• Systems include Marine, Estuarine, Riverine,
Lacustrine, and Palustrine classifications. The
first four systems include deepwater habitats
(2 meters deep) as well as wetlands. Palustrine
systems include only nqn-tidal, low-salinity
wetlands dominated by emergent trees or
shrubs.
• Subsystems are delineated for four of the
major systems. Marine and Estuarine systems
each have Subtidal and Intertidal subsystems.
The Riverine system has Tidal, Lower Peren-
nial, Upper Perennial, and Intermittent sub-
systems. The Lacustrine system has Littoral
and Limnetic subsystems. The Palustrine sys-
tem has no subsystems, but like the others, is
divided into various classes.
-------
Introduction
• Classes describe the general appearance of the
habitat by dominant vegetation if 30% of the
substrate is vegetation-covered, or by
physiography and substrate composition if 30
percent of the substrate is vegetation-covered.
Vegetative classes are further characterized by
life forms (trees, shrubs, emergents, emergent
mosses, lichens, aquatic beds).
• Subclasses are based on finer distinctions of
vegetation type (i.e. Forested Wetlands are
further classified as Broad-leaved Evergreen
or Dead).
• Dominance types are based on the dominant
plant species.
The most abundant wetland habitat types iden-
tified under this system are Estuarine Emergent
Wetlands, Estuarine Intertidal Flats, Estuarine
Scrub-Shrub Wetlands, Palustrine Emergent Wet-
lands, Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands, and
Palustrine Forested Wetlands (liner 1984).
Several recent studies have addressed the issue
of cumulative impacts on wetlands using landscape
perspectives. Klopatek (1988) presented a
laridscape-oriented classification scheme that uses
environmental constructs of the wetland to obtain
information on life-support functions. The
landscape approach separates wetlands into hierar-
chical ecological regions and landscape elements.
This classification also allows for predetermination
of environmental constraints and the possible
natural limits of wetland food chain support. Pres-
ton and Bedford (1988) . presented a generic
framework for evaluating cumulative effects on
three basic wetland landscape functions: flood
storage, water quality, and life support. Issues that
need to be defined for this framework include
delineation of scales> identification of threshold
responses, and the influence on wetland functions
of wetland size, shape, and position in the
landscape.
Adams et al. (1987) developed a "Wetland
Evaluation Technique" (WET) for the assessment of
wetland functions and values. WET includes an as-
sessment of social "value" of wetlands in addition to
functional components. Functions and values in-
clude groundwater recharge, groundwater dis-
charge, flood flow alteration, sediment stabilization,
sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal and
transformation, product export, wildlife diversity
and abundance, aquatic diversity and abundance,
uniqueness and heritage, and recreation. The func-
tions and values are evaluated using predictors,
which are simple or integrated variables correlated
.with the physical, chemical, and biological charac-
teristics of the wetland and its surroundings. WET
also, assesses the suitability of wetland habitat for 14
waterfowl species groups, 4 freshwater fish species
groups, 120 species of wetland-dependent birds, 133
species of saltwater fish and invertebrates and 90
species of freshwater fish.
Habitat classification and assessment references
for wetlands (Appendix C) in the Reference Catalog
(Appendix E) include references 1,2, 3,18,19,21, 22,
42, 43, 56, 58, 104, 120, 124, 126, 129, 136, 140, 168,
and 202.
Biosurvey Methods to Assess
Biological Integrity
A listing of references pertinent to biotic measures
are provided in Appendices A, B, and C for fresh-
water, estuarine and near-coastal, and wetland sur-
face water types respectively. For readers interested
in work by specific authors, an alphabetical
author/reference number cross index appears in
Appendix D, Full references and highlights of the
references are presented in the annotated Reference
Catalog (Appendix E).
Ecological systems are composed of populations
and communities. However, species assemblages,
dominant taxa, and ecologically and economically
important species may vary by region, by locality,
by surface water type, and by habitat. Therefore,
methods for the collection of data about various as-
semblages, taxa, and species must be carefully
selected to ensure compatibility with the study ob-
jective, surface water type, and habitat. As an ex-
ample, fish community structure may be a useful
biological criterion in streams, rivers, lakes, reser-
voirs, estuaries, and near-coastal waters. However,,
different collection methods are necessary to. ade-
quately sample different species assemblages. Fur-
thermore, evaluating the fish communities in
different surface, water types will, require specific
knowledge about different communities in .these
waters to allow informed judgments of their biologi-
cal integrity.
Biotic Assessment in Freshwater
Previous sections of this report categorized fresh-
water references into streams and rivers, and lakes,
and reservoirs. Such categories are useful because
different habitat types require a different selection of
collection methods for biosurveys. However, there is
a great deal of overlap in freshwater organism col-
lection methods. Accordingly, these collection; pro-
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
cedures are arranged by major taxonomic grouping
rather than by habitat type. . .;
Biotic assessment references for freshwater (Ap-
pendix A) are listed in the Reference Catalog (Ap-
pendix E). Reference numbers for citations pertinent
to general freshwater, streams and rivers, and lakes
and reservoirs include:
General 5, 7,11,18,19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27,
Freshwater 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46,
48, 49, 52, 55, 58, 59, 63, 66, 69,
70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81,
85, 86,87,89,93,94,97,101,103,
09, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
119, 121, 122, 123, 128,130, 131,
132, 135,136, 141,144, 145,146,
152,153,154, 158,159, 164,165,
169, 173,174,175,179, 180, 181,
185, 186, 187, 188,194, 195, J97,
199,200,203,205,206,209
Streams and 8, 9,12,15,16,17, 35, 37, 41, 51;
River Freshwater 54, 64, 65, 71, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84,
88, 90, 91, 92, 99, 102, 106, 107,
108, 110, 111, 134, 137, 138, 139,
142, 143,148, 149,156, 157, 162,
166,167,189,190,196,198
Lakes and 4, 6, 23, 33, 34, 40, 50, 53, 60, 61,
Reservoirs 62, 68,95,100,104,118,125,134,
Freshwater 150, 151,160, 161,163, 191,193,
201,204,207
A variety of fish collection methods and gears
are available, but each has selection biases (size class
or species) that require consideration prior to use.
General discussions regarding the selection of fish
capture techniques are found in Hocutt and Stauffer
(1980) and Nielsen and Johnson (1983). Reference
numbers for fish references listed in this catalog in-
clude 4,8,9,11,16,18,19,46,48,51, 54,55, 60, 62, 65,
66, 69, 71, 72, 78, 81, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,101, 102,
103, 108, 110, 113, 114, 123, 125, 130, 146, 155, 161,
162, 163, 170, 173, 179, 180, 181, 185, 194, and 203.
The following discussion is a summary of techni-
ques listed in the Reference Catalog (Appendix E);
• Gillnets and trammel nets are size and
species selective and should only be used to
collect target species. Such nets were designed
for lentic environments, but modified techni-
ques can make them useful in Ibtic systems.
These nets can be used for age and growth and
condition-factor analysis, as well as food habit
analysis. A disadvantage of these nets is that
fish are usually killed.
• Trap nets, hoop nets and fyke nets are also
size and species selective, but have an ad-
vantage over gill nets because fish can usually
be released alive. Trapping devices can collect
data similar to that from gill and trammel nets
except that fish may feed in the net, excluding
their use in food habit analysis.
I Seines are less biased than the previous cap-
ture devices, but are restricted to shallow
areas with unobstructed bottoms in lotic
habitats. Seines can be used in various ways
and are usually fished until further sampling
will not yield new species. Knowledge of fish
habitats is an important factor in the use of
seines.
I Purse seines have been used in lakes and
reservoirs to collect fish associated with the
surface. Purse seines are rarely used in fresh-
water, but have provided useful information
for some habitats.
I Trawls are best used in larger systems with
limited bottom obstructions. Midwater trawls
are also good devices for collecting pelagic
fish, and are non-selective, especially when
used at night to eliminate fish avoidance.
Trawls are labor- and capital-intensive and
fish are sometimes killed by smothering.
However, trawls may be the only feasible fish
collecting technique for certain habitats.
Ichthyocides are selective poisons that pro-
vide standardized and non-selective data but
are time- and seasonal-intensive. Rotenone is a
commonly used fish poison. Following ap-
plication, dead or dying fish are collected by
dipnets or blocknets. Appropriate rotenone
application and subsequent oxidation with
potassion permanganate is critical so that fish
kills are restricted to the sampling location.
Electrofishing is perhaps the best-suited
general method for control collection of fish.
Electrofishing gear is less selective than net-
ting devices, more cost-effective than icrt-
thyocides, and produces semi-quantitative
data, The specific type of electrofishing equip-
ment and technique depends on the size of the
system being sampled. Back-pack shockers are
relatively effective for smaller systems, while
boat-mounted shocking units work bejter in
large systems. Safety precautions should be
strictly enforced while using electroshocking
devices.
Other methods are available, including scuba,
underwater television, sport and commercial
catch records, and biotelemetry.
8
-------
Introduction
Macroinvertebrates are perhaps the most com-
monly used group of aquatic organisms to assess
impacts on freshwater habitats. The following dis-
cussion is a summary of macroinvertebrate refer-
ences listed in the Reference Catalog (Appendix E).
Reference numbers for citations listed include 7,11,
12, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 29, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 49, 52, 53,
63, 64, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 83, 85, 86, 87, 95, 97,
99,100,104,106, 107,112,115,125,128,131,137,138,
139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156,
157, 159, 163, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173, 179, 180,
181, 185, 186, 189, 191, 194, 195, 198, 203, 204, and
205.
The basic methods used for macroinvertebrate
collection are dependent upon the habitat type and
objectives of the study. Ekman and ponar dredges
are well suited for use in soft freshwater sediments.
Both devices grab bottom sediment, but the ponar is
heavier and better suited for firmer substrate or
large lakes of greater depth. The two dredges pro-
vide quantitative data that can be statistically
analyzed. Using dredges in weedy or debris-filled
areas, as well as shoreline areas can be problematic.
Artificial substrates are amenable for use in lotic
as well as lentic systems. In practice, artificial sub-
strates introduce a uniform substrate for coloniza-
tion by invertebrates for a period of one to four
weeks. When used, they should be carefully equated
to existing habitat conditions so data collected is not
misinterpreted. Two types of artificial substrates
have been extensively used. The multi-plate and
rock-basket artificial substrates have advantages
and disadvantages. The main advantage of artificial
substrates is that sampling is quantitative and can
be statistically analyzed. A disadvantage of artificial
substrates is that the colonization period increases
field time because placement and retrieval are re-
quired. Artificial substrates are also prone to loss
throtigh vandalism.
Kick-nets have been used with success to collect
qualitative data quickly and easily. Kick-net samples
can be obtained from a variety of habitats in near
shore area. However, kick-net samples are restricted
to shore areas and may be difficult to quantify statis-
tically. The travelling kick-net method is one means
of quantifying samples by the amount of time spent
sampling over the approximate surface area
sampled. A Surber square-foot sampler can also be
used to provide reproducible samples. Kick-net and
Surber type samples are effective in straight stream
riffles and other shallow habitats, but do not allow
quantitative estimates of densities or biomass of
macroinvertebrates per unit area. Nevertheless,
such sampling devices are suitable for determining
taxa richness, presence of indicator organisms, rela-
tive abundance, and similarity between sites.
Biotic Assessment in Estuaries
and Near-Coastal Areas
Reference numbers for citations pertinent to es-
tuaries and near-coastal areas include references 10,
13, 14,18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 38, 47, 48, 57,
58, 66, 67, 69, 73, 78, 79, 81, 85, 86, 89, 96, 116, 119,
121, 122, 127, 130, 133, 135, 136, 145, 146, 155, 158,
164, 170, 171, 172, 174, 182, 192, 206, 208, 209, and
210.
Estuarine biota are typically characterized by
low diversity and high productivity. The low species
diversity is attributable to widely fluctuating en-
vironfriental conditions, such as seasonal salinity
changes and desiccation during low tides. High
productivity is generally attributed to the increased
availability of nutrients. Fish and benthos are the
groups usually measured. However, other groups
such as phytoplankton, zooplankton and sub-
merged aquatic vegetation may also be assessed.
References pertinent to fish collection in es-
tuarine and near-coastal areas include 10,18,19, 48,
66, 69, 78, 81, 86, 89, 96, 127, 130,152, 155, 170, 182,
192, and 206. Eight major methods are available for
collection of fish data (Richkus, 1080). These include
bottom trawls, midwater trawls, hauls (beach seine),
purse seines, drop nets, sonar, gill nets, and trap
nets. Bottom trawls, seines, and gill nets are the
most commonly used. Sonar is one of the newest
methods, and purse seines and drop nets are the
least used. Richkus (1980) compared the aforenamed
methods by sample type (active or passive), the
water column segment or target species sampled,
the catch units, and the major factors influencing
catch. The strengths and weaknesses of a specific
method must be matched to the specific objectives
of the study. For example, the catch efficiency of the
method will -be important in studies that estimate
the absolute abundance.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are an important es-
tuarine group that can be used to evaluate biological
integrity. Citations pertinent to macroinvertebrates
in estuarine and near-coastal areas include refer-
ences 10,18,19, 47, 57, 67, 72, 73, 79, 85, 86, 96,133,
145,152,155,170,171,182,192, and 208.
Estuarine sampling methods for macroinver-
tebrates are generally similar to those described for
freshwater, including nets, dredges, and artificial
substrates. The method selected should be ap-
propriate to specific conditions of the estuary or
portion of the estuary being sampled. Methods for
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
sampling estuarine and marine benthos are
described in several general references mentioned
above (Baker and Wolff 1987; and U.S. EPA 1983,
1989) and in Holme and Mclntyre (1984).
In lieu of sampling the entire benthic com-
munity, indicator species have been used for long-
term monitoring. DeGoursey et al. (1984) described
a field technique for in situ monitoring of the mussel
Mytilus edulis in which mussels were placed in net
bags and attached to sampling platforms that could
be easily located for repeated sampling over time.
References pertinent to zooplankton (10,13, 14,
18, 19, 92, 182, 192), phytoplankton (10, 18, 19, 96,
182, 192), periphyton (10, 18, 19), and macrophyton
(10, 18, 19, 86) for estuaries and near-coastal areas
(Appendix B) are listed in the Reference Catalog
(Appendix E). ,
Baker and Wolff (1987) describe methods for
sampling estuarine flora and fauna. U.S. EPA (1989)
provides methods for sampling water, sediment,
biota, and air. References for methods specific to
particular geographic regions have been developed,
such as the Puget Sound Estuary Program protocols
(US. EPA 1986-90).
Habitat requirements of target species can also
be used to evaluate the biological integrity of an
ecosystem. The Chesapeake Bay Program
(Chesapeake Executive Council 1988) recently com-
pleted a study to determine the habitat requirements
of living resources in the bay. Selected components
of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem (plankton, vegeta-
tion, benthos, and fish), habitat zonation by depth
and salinity, and representative species of the
various zones are described. Target species were
selected from lists of representative species based on
commercial, recreational, aesthetic, or ecological sig-
nificance. The threat of population decline or serious
habitat degradation to sustained production was
also considered for target species selection. Critical
life stages and critical life periods were next deter-
mined for these species, and a matrix of habitat re-
quirements developed for each. ;
Biotic Assessment in Wetlands
Very few methods have been designed specifically
to measure biota of wetlands. Biotic assessment ref-
erences for wetlands (Appendix C) are listed in the
Reference Catalog (Appendix E) for fish (1, 2, 3,18,
19, 46, 86,89,103,164,168, 206), macroinvertebrates
(18, 19, 86,145,152, 168, 209), macrophytes (18, 19,
42, 43, 56, 86,120), and other vertebrates (1, 2, 3,18,
19,22,168,202).
Many of the methods previously discussed for
freshwater and estuarine systems are applicable to
wetlands. However, the characteristics of a par-
ticular wetland should be considered before such
methods are applied. For example, wetlands that are
seasonally dry would not be expected to support
diverse fish populations, but these areas may be util-
ized by fish during the wet season for feeding and
reproduction. , i.
In addition to methods using aquatic life as
monitors for wetland quality, vertebrates, primarily
birds, have also been useful to assess wetland condi-
tions. Cable et al. (1989) developed a wetland techni-
que using birds as indicators of habitat quality. The
index is calculated by dividing measures of species
diversity and uniqueness (rare vs. common), by a
factor that accounts for wetland size. Weller (1.988)
presented an approach for evaluating change in
wetlands by assessing loss of waterbird habitat'.
Data Analysis
Bioassessment study design has a straightforward
objective: to determine whether anthropogenic'im-
pacts cause change in surface water ecosystems, and
if so, to describe the nature of that change. Accord-
ingly, study design and data analysis are an integral
aspect of bioassessment.
Listings of references pertinent to data analysis
are provided in Appendices A, B, and C, respective-
ly for freshwater, estuarine an.d near-coastal, and
wetland surface water types, For readers interested
in the work of specific authors, an alphabetical
author/reference number cross-index appears. in
Appendix D. Full references and highlights of the
references are presented in the. Reference Catalog
(AppendixE). . ' ... ,..„'.,.'
Because few data analysis techniques are
specific to surface water type or taxonomic, group-
ings, procedures are discussed by major categories.
Specific data analysis reference numbers for fresh-
water, estuarine and near-coastal, and wetlands
cited in the Reference Catalog (Appendix ,E) are
listed below.
Freshwater 8, 9,11, 15,17, 18,19, 20, 27, 29,
, • , , , 31, 35, 38, 40, 48, ,49, 50, 51, 53,
. .- . 54,58,61,63,64,70,72,74,75,"
78,80,85,86,88,89,90,91,92,
93,97,99,101,106,111,112,113,
116, 121, 122, 123, 130, 131, 138,
139,145,156,157,158,162,163,
165, 171, 173, 179, 180, 181,185,
187, 189,190, 191,193, 194,195,
198,203,204,205,206,207
10
-------
Introduction
Estuarine and
Near-Coastal
Wetlands
10, 18, 19, 38, 31, 48, 58, 67, 78,
85, 86, 89,116,121,122,130,145,
155,170,171,192,206,208
18,19, 31, 38, 58, 86, 89,116,121,
122,145,158, 206
Sampling Strategy and Statistical
Approaches
In any impact study, choices must be made about
how many samples, locations, variables, areas, and
collection times should be used. Green (1978)
provided an optimal sampling and analysis design
which represents a theoretical ideal. The optimal
design warrants attention, but recognizes that prac-
tical considerations generally dictate suboptimal
designs.
Generally, the total number of samples collected
in a bioassessment study will be determined by the
number of locations and the number of areas under
consideration, and at least three replicates per loca-
tion should be considered. The number of variables
should be consistent with an adequate description
of the potential impact effects and natural back-
ground variation. Regarding the number, of sam-
pling areas, Green (1978) suggested a single control
area and a single impact area has a logical neatness,
but the use of several areas representing different
degrees of impairment is advantageous. The op-
timal sampling times are immediately before an im-
pact, with the after-impairment time chosen with
regard to the type of impact involved and the
response .pattern of the biological community. Statis-
tically, the optimal number of locations depends on
distribution among locations and variability within
locations. The interested reader is referred to refer-
ences on sampling design (Cochran 1963; Saila et al.
1976; Sheldon 1984; Millard and Lettenmaier 1986;
U.S. EPA 1973,1989) for greater detail.
A number of statistical approaches are available
for the analysis of bioassessment data. Bivariaite and
multivariate analyses may be applied to impact data
and include analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis
of covariance (ANCOVA), correlation, and regres-
sion. Rigorous parametric statistical analysis re-
quires Validation of assumptions for the statistical
distribution of the data. Nonparametric statistical
analyses may be performed and are not reliant on
data distribution assumptions. These tests include
the chi-square test, binomial test, rank correlations,
and nonparametric t-tests such as the Mann-Whit-
ney U-test. The reader is referred to standard statis-
tical references to obtain more detail of the statistical
analyses of data.
Diversity Indices
Several diversity indices have been developed that
combine, the number of species and the number of
individuals in a numerical grouping which can be
used to compare a reference and a study site. In con-
cept, the integrity of a community increases with the
numerical value of the diversity index. However,
low diversity may be caused by natural perturba-
tions such as floods, drought, seasonally, or habitat
modifications. Diversity indices, such as the Shan-
non-Weaver index (Shannon and Weaver 1949) or
Brillouin's index (Brillouin 1962), remain in
widespread use, yet various authors have ques-
tioned the reliability of diversity indices to detect
certain perturbations (Hilsenhoff 1977, Hughes
1978, Washington 1984, Resh 1988). The history and
use of diversity indices is reviewed by Washington
(1984).
Biological Indices
Biotic indices use pollution tolerance scores for in-
dividual animal taxa and are weighted by the num-
ber of individuals assigned to each tolerance value.
The first widely used biotic index was that of Beck
(1955). More recently, Hilsenhoff's (1977, 1982)
biotic index has gained widespread acceptance.
Tolerance values for macroinvertebrates have been
published by Hilsenhoff (1987). Biotic community
indices are generally limited to streams and rivers
impacted by Organic enrichment or other perturba-
tions (Hilsenhoff 1977, Murphy 1978, Hawkes 1979,
Depauw et al 1986). " :; ' '
Similarity indices measure the similarity be-
tween benthic communities at. a reference and a
study site. High similarity indicates little difference
between sites. Such indices have been reviewed
elsewhere (Brock 1977, Washington 1984). Examples
of similarity indices include those of Jaccard (1908),
Van Horn (1950), Bray and Curtis (1957), and Brock
(1977). ' "' '" -'"' ': . ' ' '. '"'.'''..'''
Because less work has been done in lentic sys-
tems, similar techniques for lakes and reservoirs are
less developed. Techniques that have been used in
lentic systems include oligochaete populations,
oligochaete to chronomidae ratios, :and.other mathe-
matical indices (U.S., EPA 1984)., .. . /
Composite Community Indices
Composite community indices combine selected
structural or functional measures, or "metrics," in a
cumulative scoring index. Such indices have been
11
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
developed for several community and surface water
types/ and cover species richness and composition,
functional feeding groups, and density.
Composite community indices (metrics) have
been developed for fish (Karr 1981, Karr et al 1986,
Ohio EPA 1987, Plafkin et al 1989) and macroinver-
tebrates (Plafkin et al 1989). The individual com-
munity indices for fish communities represent
species abundance and composition (Figure 2,
metrics 1 through 6), trophic composition (Figure 2,
metrics 7 through 10), and fish abundance and con-
dition (Figure 2, metrics 10 through 12). The in-
dividual metrics are scored using a value of 1,3, or 5
depending upon the derived value of the metric
(Figure 2). The individual score are then added to
yield a total score which provides a numerical
measure of the index of biological integrity (IBI) for
the collection (Figure 3). The IBI score can range
from excellent to very poor, and provides a measure
for comparison to a reference site or condition.
Originally developed for midwestern U.S.
streams, composite community index metrics have
not yet been developed for.lakes and reservoirs. The
IBI has been modified for estuaries in Louisiana. The
Index of Biotic Integrity concept has been used in
Louisiana estuaries, but is considered a prototype
(Miller 1988). The estuarine metrics include:
Species Richness and Composition
Metric 1. Total number of fish species
Metric 2. Number and identity of resident
estuarine species
Metric 3. Number and identity of marine species
Metric 4. Number and identity of sciaenids
Metric 5. Number and identity of freshwater
species
Metric 6. Proportion of individuals as bay
anchovy
Metric 7. Measure of seasonal overlap of fish
community
Metric 8. Number of species necessary to make
up 90% of collection
Trophic Composition
Metric 9. Proportion of individuals as
generalized benthic feeders
Metric 10. Proportion of individuals as
generalized planktonic grazers
Metric 11. Proportion of individuals as top
carnivores
Metric Scores
Metric
1. Number of native fish species .
2. Number of darter or benthic species
3. Number of sunfish or pool species
4. Number of sucker or long-lived species
5. Number of intolerant species
6. Proportion of green sunfish or tolerant individuals
7. Proportion ommnivorous individuals
8. Proportion insectivores
9. Proportion top carnivores
1 0. Total number of individuals
1 1 . Proportion hybrids or exotics
12. Proportion with disease/anomalies
(a) Metrics 1-5 are scored relative to the maximum species richness line
(IBI)
5
>67%
>67%
>67%
>67%*
>67%
<10%
<20%
>45%
> 5%
>67%
0%
< 1%
Scoring Criteria(a)
3
33-67%
33 - 67%
33 - 67%
33-67%
33 - 67%
10-25%
20-45%
20-45%
1 - 5%
33 - 67%
0 - .1%
1 - 5%
1
<33%
<33%
<33%
<33%
<33%
>25%
>45%
<20%
< 1%
<33%
> 1%
> 5%
Metric 1 0 Is drawn from reference data.
Figure 2.—Individual fish community metric scoring criteria.
12
-------
Introduction
IBI
58-60 •
48-52
40 - 44
12-22
(a) From Karr ot al. 1 986; Ohio EPA 1 987.
Index Score
Integrity Class
Excellent
Good
Poor
Very Poor
Interpretation^
Characteristics
Comparable to pristine conditions, exceptional
assemblage of species
Decreased species richness, intolerant species in
particular; sensitive species present
Top carnivores and many expected species absent
or rare; omnivores and tolerant species dominant
Few species and individuals, present; tolerant
•species dominant; diseased fish frequent
Figure 3.—Fish community index score interpretation for determining the index of bilogical integrity (IBI) and integrity class,
Fish Abundance and Condition
Metric 12. Proportion of young of year in sample
or number of individuals in sample
Metric 13. Proportion of individuals with disease,
tumors, fin damage, and other
anomalies
The IBI concept was originally developed for
fish communities, but has been adopted and
modified for use with macroinvertebrate com-
munities (U.S. EPA 1989). The macroinvertebrate
community indices for Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol III included eight individual metrics (Fig-
ure 4) which are described below.
Metric 1. Taxa Richness—looks at the variety of
.. taxa (families) present.
Metric 2. Modified Family Bidtic Index—Use of
tolerance limits of family-level
organisms.
Metric 3. Ratio of Scraper and Filtering Collector
Functional Feeding Groups. This
metric reflects the riffle/run
community foodbase..
Metric 4. Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae .
Abundance—Uses a measure of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichopters, and Chironomidae to
detect community balance.
Metric 5. Percent Contribution of Dominant
Family. Uses abundance of dominant
taxa relative to the rest of the
population to determine community
balance at the family level.
Biological Condition Scoring Criteria
Metric 6
1 . Taxa Richness*8' >80%
2. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (modified)03' >85%
3. Ratio of Scrapers/Filt. Collectors'8'0' . >50%
4. Ratio of EPT and Chironomid Abundances'8' >75%
5. % Contribution of Dominant Taxon(d) • <20%
6. EPT Index'8' >90%
7. Community Loss Index'9' <0.5
8. Ratio of Shredders/total'8'0' >50%
4
60 - 80%
70 - 85%
35 - 50%
50 - 75%
20 - 30%
80 - 90%
0.5-1.5
35 - 50%
2
40 - 60%
50 - 70%
20 - 35%
25 - 50%.
30 - 40%
70 - 80%
1.5-4.0
20 - 35%
0
<40%
<50%
<20%
<25%
>40%
<70%
>4.0
<20%.
(a) Score is a ratio of study site to reference site X 1 00.
(b) Score is a ratio of reference site to study site X 100. ,
(c) Determination of Functional Feeding Group is independent of taxonomic grouping.
(d) Scoring criteria evaluate actual percent contribution, not percent comparability to the reference station.
(e) Range of values obtained. A comparison to the reference station is incorporated in the indices.
Figure 4.—Individual macroinvertebrate community scoring criteria,
13
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide i
: Metric 6. EPT Index—Measures abundance of
pollution intolerant organisms y '
(Ephemeroptera, Plecpptera,
Trichoptera). '' ; • " ;^
Metric 7. Community Similarity Indices—Use of
a reference community to compare to
the test site. Three'of the main indices:;
used are : (1) Community loss index; '
(2) Jaccard coefficient of community
similarity; and (3) Pinkham and
Pearson Community Similarity Index.
Metric 8. Ratio of Shredder Functional Feeding
Group and Total Number of , ,
Individuals Evaluates the shredder
group in comparison with the other
functional groups to determine
possible loss of the detritus-based
shredder community.
As with the fish community (Figures 2 and 3),
the individual macroinvertebrate metrics are scored
and totaled, but the process is somewhat different
for the two community segments. Each macroinvef-
;. tebrate metric is given a score of 0,2,4, or 6 based on
percent comparability to a reference station (Figure
4). Scores are then totaled and a Biological Condi-
tipri category is assigned based on percent com-
parability and the reference station score (Figure 5).
The obtained values may be intermediate to estab-
, : lished ranges, and will then require best profes-
sional judgement as to the biological condition.
The growing acceptance and flexibility of com-
posite community index metrics make them desire-
able for the development of biological criteria.
However, other approaches have also been
employed and are equally acceptable.
, .Community based methods and procedures
such as IBI, the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols, and
ecoregional reference conditions focus attention on
"practical, yet scientifically defensible information in
. biocriteria .development and bioassessment. The
composite community index approach reflects the
'-inherent ecological information in biosurvey data,
and this approach will likely see increased develop-
ment for different surface water types and habitats.
Bioassessment
% Comp. to Rof.
ScoreW
Biological Condition
Category •*
^Attributes
>83%
54-79%
<21-50%
Nonimpaired
Slightly Impaired
Moderately Impaired
Severely Impaired
Comparable to the best situation to be expected within an
ecoregion. Balanced trophic structure.
Optimum community structure (composition and
dominance) for stream size and habitat quality.
Community structure less than expected. Composition
(species richness) lower than expected due to loss of some
intolerant forms. Percent contribution of tolerant forms in-
crease..
Fewer species due to loss of most intolerant forms. Reduc-
tion in EPT index.
Few species present. If high densities of organisms, then
dominated by one or two taxa.
(a) Percentage values obtained that are intermediate to the above ranges will require subjective judgement as to the correct placement. Use
of tha habitat assessment and physlochemlcal data may be necessary to aid In the decision process.
Figure 5.—Macroinvertebrate community biological condition category for determining Impairment.
14
-------
APPENDIX A
Freshwater Environments
Listing of references in the Reference Catalog for freshwater environments.
Catalog entries are sorted by the following major headings:
Habitat Assessment •'....
Population Structure
Community Structure , , , ,;•;
Population and Community Interactions
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment ,..•..
Listings under each of the major headings shown above are further sorted under the following
subheadings:
Macrophytes
Periphyion
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
•• .-••.- • •• . • Other . !,-•,;-.- -.- •..,• .,:.-• -..; . :i, ..,,,.. .
-------
-------
Appendix A: Freshwater Environments
General
Freshwater
Streams and
River Freshwater
Lakes and
Reservoirs Freshwater
5, 7, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55,
58, 59, 63, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 89, 93, 94, 97, 101,
103, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,119, 121, 122, 123, 128, 130, 131, 132, 135,
136, 141, 144, 145, 146, 152, 153, 154, 158, 159, 164, 165, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174,
175, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 194, 195, 197, 199, 200, 203, 205, 206, 209
8, 9, 12, 15,16, 17 35, 37, 41,51, 54, 63, 64, 65, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 84, 88, 90,
91,92,99, 102,106, 107, 108, 110, 111,134,137,138, 139,142, 143, 148, 149, 156,
157, 159, 162, 166, 167, 186, 187, 189, 190, 196, 198
4, 6, 23, 33, 34, 40, 50, 53, 60, 61, 62, 68, 95, 100,104, 118, 125,134,150,151,160,
161,163,191,193,201,207
Habitat Assessment 6, 17, 18, 19, 50, 55, 58, 61, 65, 84, 102, 107, 110, 112, 117, 123, 125, 131, 132, 134,
136, 144, 157, 163, 173, 179, 180, 181, 189, 201, 207
Macrophytes 18,19,50,180
Periphyton 18,19
Phytoplankton 18,19,180
18,19,180
17,18, 19, 107, 112, 125, 131, 144, 157, 163, 173, 179, 180, 181, 189
18, 19,55,65, 102, 110, 123, 125, 134, 163, 173, 179, 180, 181,201
18,19
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
Population Structure
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 29, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
53, 58, 59, 60, 63, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90,
91,93,95,97, 100,101, 103,104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112,113, 114, 116, 118,
125, 128, 130, 131, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 151, 153, 154, 157, 159,
160, 161, 162, 167, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 196, 198,
203,204,205,206
18,19,50,86,180
18, 19, 68, 109, 154, 185, 193, 196, 203
18,19,160,180,185,203
18,19,160,161,180,185,203
7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 39, 40, 41, 45, 49, 52, 53, 58, 63, 70, 74, 76, 77, 80,
83, 85, 86, 87, 95, 97,100, 104,106, 107, 112,118,125,128,131,137, 138,139,143,
144, 145, 148, 151, 153, 157, 159, 167, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 189, 191, 198, 203,
204, 205
4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 46, 48, 51, 54, 59, 60^62, 66, 69, 71, 78, 81, 86, 89, 90, 91, 93,
101, 103, 108, 111, 113, 114, 125, 130, 146,161, 162, 179, 180, 185, 188,190,203,
206
Other 18,19,185
Community Structure
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 32, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 46, 48,
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 123, 125, 128, 130, 131, 132, 137,
138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 159,
160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167,169, 173, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191,
194, 195, 196, 198, 200, 203, 204, 205
18,19,33,34,50,72,86,150,180
18,19, 32, 72, 109, 141, 149, 165, 185, 196, 199, 200, 203
18,19, 72, 160, 180, 185, 203
18, 19, 20, 72, 160, 161, 180, 185, 203
A-1
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 49, 52, 53, 63, 64, 70, 72, 73, 74,
75,76,77,83,85,86,87,95,97,99,100,104,106, 107,112,115,125..128,131,137,
138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 159, 163, 166, 167, 169,
173,179, 180,181, 185, 186, 189, 191, 194, 195,.198, 203, 204, 205
4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 46, 48, 51, 54, 55, 60i 62, 65, 66, 69,71, 72, 78, 81, 86, 89, 90,
91, 92,93,101,102,103,108,110,113,114,123,125,130,146,161,162,163,173,
179,180,181,185,194,203
Other 18,19,72,185 ' ; ''.•".
Population and 4, 8, 11,16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 46, 51, 60; 63s 66, 69, 71, 74, 76, 77, 81, 89, 90, 91, 93,
Community Interaction 97,112,116,130,131,144,157,160,161,179,189,196,203
Macrophytes 18,19
Periphyton 18,19,196,203
Phytoplankton 18,19,160,203
Zooplankton 18,19,160,161,203 -'
Macroinvertebrates 11,16,17,18,19, 63, 74, 76, 77, 97,112,131,144,157,179,189, 203
Fish 4, 8, 11, 16, 18, 19,46, 51, 60, 66, 69, 70, 71, 81, 89, 90, 91, 93, 130, 161,179, 203
Other . 18,19 .
Data Analysis
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 27, 29, 31, 35, 38, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 58, 61, 63, 64, 70,
72, 74, 75, 78, 80, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 99, 101, 106, 111, 112, 113, 116,
121, 122, 123, 130, 131, 138, 139, 145, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 165, 171, 173, 179,
180, 181, 185, 187, ,189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 198, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207
18,19,50,72,86,180
18, 19, 72, 165, 185, 193, 203
18,19,72,180,185,203 : '
18,19,20,72,180,185,203
11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 29, 35, 40, 49, 53, 63, 64, 70, 72, 74, 75, 80, 85, 86, 97, 99, 1,06,
112, 131, 138, 139, 145, 156, 157, 163, 171, 173, 179, 180, 181, 185, 189, 191, 194,
195, 198,1203, 204, 205 «
8,9,11,18,19,48,51,54,72,78,86,89,90,91,92,93,101,111,113,123,130,162,
163, 173,179,180, 181, 185,190, 194, 203, 206
18,19,72,185
Interpretive
Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
5, 7, 9,11,12,15,16, 17,18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 39, 40,
41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70, 72, 74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 84, 87,
88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,99, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115,
116, 119, 121, 123, 128, 132, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150,
151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 171, 173,
174, 175, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209
18,19,50,72,150
5, 18, 19, 72, 109, 141, 149, 154, 165, 193, 196, 199, 200, 203
18,19,72,160,203
18,19,20,72,160,161,203
7, 11, 12, 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 52, 53, 63, 64, 70, 72, 74, 75,
80, 82,83, 87, 95, 99,106,107,115,128,137,138,143,148,151,152,153,156,157,
166, 169, 171, 173, 191, 194, 195, 198, 203, 204, 205, 209
9,11,16,118,19,28,48,51,55,62,65,72,89,90,91,92,93,101,102,108,110,111,
114, 123, 146, 161, 162, 163, 164, 173, 194, 203, 206
18,19,72 .
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
Estuarine and Near-Coastal
Environments
Listing of references in the Reference Catalog for estuarine and near-coastal environments.
Catalog entries are sprted by the^following major headings:, " .
Habitat Assessment
, Population Structure
. Community Structure
Population and Community Interactions
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment ,;
Listings under each of the major headings shown above are further sorted under the followinq
subheadings: „ • : -* -
^ Macrophytes " ;v
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
• . : "• ' . . - •.- :., Zooplankton •-. :;-,...: '-f '•••. •!^.l«-;^.'->:v
Macrpinvertebrates j A ^
-------
-------
Appendix B: Estuarine and Near-Coastal Environments
Estuarine and
Near-Coastal:
10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 38, 47, 48, 57, 58, 66, 67, 69, 73, 78, 79,
81, 85, 86, 89, 96, 116, 119, 121, 122, 127, 130, 133, 135, 136, 145, 152, 155, 158,
164, 170, 171, 172, 174, 182, 192, 206, 208, 209, 210
Habitat Assessment 10,18,19, 36, 58, 96,136,170,182
Macrophytes 10,18,19
Periphyton 10,18,19
Phytoplankton 10,18,19, 96,182
Zooplankton 10,18,19, 96,182
Macroinvertebrates 10,18, 19, 96, 170,182
Fish 10,18,19,96,170,182
Other 10,18,19
Population Structure 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 48, 58, 66, 69, 72, 78, 81, 85, 86, 89, 96, 116, 130, 145, 147, 152,
182,192,206,208,210
Macrophytes 10,18, 19, 86
Periphyton 10,18,19
Phytoplankton 10,18,19,96,192
Zooplankton 10, 18,19, 96,182, 192
Macroinvertebrates 10,18, 19, 47, 67, 85, 86, 96,133, 145, 182,192, 208
Fish 10,18,19, 48, 66, 69, 78, 81, 86, 89, 96, 127, 130, 147, 182, 192, 206
Other 10,18,19
Community Structure 10,13,14,18,19, 48, 57, 58, 66, 69, 72, 73, 78, 81, 85, 86, 89, 96,116,145,152,170,
182, 192
Macrophytes 10, 18, 19, 86 '.
Periphyton 10,18,19
Phytoplankton 10, 18, 19, 96, 182, 192
Zooplankton 10, 13, 14, 18,19, 96, 182, 192
Macroinvertebrates 10, 18, 19, 57, 72, 73, 85, 86, 96, 145, 152, 170, 182, 192
Fish 10,18,19,48,66,69,78,81,86,89,96,130,147,170,182,192
Other 10, 18, 19
Population and
Community Interaction 8, 19, 66, 69, 81, 89, 96,116, 130,182
Macrophytes 18,19
Periphyton 18, 19
Phytoplankton 18, 19, 96, 182
Zooplankton 18,19,96,182
Macroinvertebrates 18,19,96,182
Fish 18, 19, 66, 69, 81, 89, 96,130,147, 192
Other 18, 19
Data Analysis 10,18,19,31, 38, 48, 58, 67, 78, 85, 86, 89, 116, 121, 122, 130, 145, 155, 158, 170,
171,192,206,208
Macrophytes 10, 18, 19, 86
B-1
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Periphyton 10,18,19
Phytoplankton 10,^8,-10', 192;; ;V^ ^,:;,
Zooplankton 10,18,"19,%2' • '^'r^ * ; ,,
Macroinvertebrates 10^ 18,19, 67* ,85,"86,1^5, 155,^70^ 1\ ^
Fish 10,18, 19, 48, 78, 86, 89,130, 155, 170, 192, 206
Other - 18,19 , ; - .-, £ ;| - ••.-•'.':''• ' •. •-•-.* •
Interpretive Assessment 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 38, 58, 59, 79, 89, 1 16, 1 19, 121 , 133, 135,
136, 145, 152, 158, 164, 171, 174, 192, 206, 209
Macrophytes 10, 18, 19
Periphyton 10, 18, 19
Phytoplankton 10, 18, 19, 192 '
Zooplankton 10,13,14,18,19,192 , .. .
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
1 0, 1 8, 1 9, 57, 79, 1 33, 1 45, 1 52, 1 71 , 1 92 , 209
10, 18, 19, 28; 164, 192,' 206 '
10,18,19 ,
-------
APPENDIX C
Wetland Environments
Listing of references in the Reference Catalog for estuarine and near-coastal environments.
Catalog entries are sorted by the following major headings:
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Population and Community Interactions
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Listings under each of the major headings shown above are further sorted under the following
subheadings:
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
-------
-------
Appendix C: Wetland Environments
Wetlands
1, 2, 3, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 38, 42, 43, 46, 56, 58, 73, 86, 89, 98, 103,
104, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 12,4, 126, 129, 135, 136, 140, 145, 152, 158, 164, 168,
172,202,206,209
Habitat Assessment 1, 2, 3, 18, 19, 21, 22, 42, 43, 56, 58, 104, 120, 124, 126, 129, 136, 140, 168, 202
Macrophytes 1 , 2, 3, 1 8, 1 9, 42, 43, 56, 1 20
Periphyton 18, 19
Phytoplankton 18, 19
Zooplankton 18, 19
18,19,168
1,2,3,18,19,168
1 , 2, 3, 1 8, 1 9, 22, 1 68, 202
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
Population Structure
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
Community Structure
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
Population and
Community Interaction
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other
Data Analysis
Macrophytes
Periphyton:
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
18, 19, 42, 43, 46, 58, 86, 89, 103, 116, 145, 202, 206
18,19,42,43,86
18,19
18,19
18,19
18,19,86,145
18,19,46,86,89,103,206
18,19,202
18, 19, 22, 46, 58, 73, 86, 89, 103, 116, 145, 152, 168, 202
18,19,86
18,19
18,19
18,19
18,19,73,86,145,152, 168
18, 19, 46, 86, 89, 103, 168
18,19,22,168,202
18,19,46,89,98,116
18,19
18,19
18,19
18,19
18,19
18,19,46,89
18,19
18, 19, 31, 38, 58, 86, 89, 116, 121, 122, 145, 158, 206
18, 19,86
18,19
18,19
18,19
0-1
-------
Biological Technical Reference Guide
.. , Macroinvertebrates , 18,19, 86,145
Fish ' 18, 19, 86, 89,'206'
Other 18,19
Interpretive 18,19,21, 22, 24, 25,26,30,31, 38,56,58, 89, 98,104,116,119,120,121,126,129,
Assessment 135, 145,1152, 158, 164, 168,206, 209
Macrophytes 18,19,56,120 .
Periphyton 18,19 •...-. -..";,.••, , •
Phytoplankton 18,19
Zooplankton 18,19
Macroinvertebrates 18,19,145,152,168,209
Fish 18,19,89,164,168,206
Other 18,19,22,168
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
Alphabetical Author/Reference Number
Cross-Index for the Reference Catalog
-------
-------
Appendix D: Alphabetical Author/Reference Number
Author Index-Reference Number
Adamus, P. R. (1,2,3)
Aggus, L. R. (4)
Ahlf, W. (5)
Albert, R. C. (6)
Altouney, E. (125)
Anderson, J. B. (7)
Angermeier, P. L (8, 9,91,123)
Arimoto, R. (47)
Armitage, P. D. (53)
Austin, A. (109)
Baez, A. P. (151)
Bagchi, M. M. (127)
Baker, J. M. (10)
Bass, J. A. B. (138)
Bates, J. M. (199)
Beck, (11)
Beckett, D.C. (12)
Bedford, B.L (140)
Beers, J. R. (13,14)
Benfleld, E. F. (15)
Berkman, H. E. (16)
Black, V., Jr. (22)
Bllomfied, J. A. (161)
Bode, R.W. (17)
Boesel, M. W. (205)
Boyle, T. P. (16)
Bray, J. R. (18)
Breedlove, B. W. (169)
Brillouin, L. (19)
Brink, J.J. (186)
Brock, D. A. (20)
Brown, M.T. (21)
Buikema.A. L.Jr. (116)
Cable, T. T. (22)
Cairns, J., Jr. (15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 44, 59, 72,
116,149)
Canfield, D. E., Jr. (33)
Canton, S. P. (35)
Carlson, R. E. (34)
Carter, V. (43)
Chadwick, J. W. (35)
Cherry, D. S. (34)
Chesapeake Executive Council (36)
Chutter, F. M. (37)
Clairain, E. J., Jr. (3)
Clugston, J. P. (4)
Cochran, W. G. (38)
Color, R. A. (139)
Cook, S. E. K. (39)
Courtemanch, D. (40,41)
Cowardin, L. M. (40,42)
Creese, E. (118)
Grossman, J. S. (44,88)
Gulp, J. M. (209)
Curtis, J. T. (18)
Cushman, R. M. (45)
Daniels, R. A. (123)
Danks, H.V. (152)
Davies, W. D. (46)
Davies, R. W. (209)
DeGoursey, R. E. (47)
Demory, R. L. (48)
Dendy, J. S. (73)
DePauw, N. (49)
Desinger, J. (109)
Diamond, C. (21)
Dickson, K. L (28, 29,149)
Dortch, M. S. (207)
Dudley, D. R. (94,102)
Dunn, B. (21)
Edrhiston, H. L. (50)
Edwards, R.W. (135)
Erman, D. C. (148)
Ettinger.W. H. (156)
Farrell, M. P. (195, 205)
Fausch.K. D. (51,90,91,123)
Feng, S. Y. (47)
Fitzhugh, G.A. (123)
Flemer, D.A. (123)
Fontoura, A. P. (49)
Fullner, R. W. (52)
Fursel M. T. (48, 53)
Gallant, A. L (102)
Gammon, J. R. (54,123)
Ghosh, B. B. (127)
Gibbs, K. F. (142,143)
Gilbert, C. R. (55)
Gledholl.T. (138)
Glooschenko, V. (56)
Goddard, C. I. (57)
Godfrey, P. J. (139)
Golden, J. T. (48)
Golet, F. C. (43)
Goodwin, M. H. (57)
Greeff, C. G. (186)
Green, R. H. (58)
Greig, L. A. (57)
Grillo, R. V. (47)
Grogan, K. B. (87)
Gruber, D. (59)
Gunn, J. M. (60)
Halliwell, D. B. (123)
Hamelink, J. L. (54)
Hanson, M. J. (61)
Hartman, W. L. (62)
Hawkes, C. L. (64, 65)
Hawkes, H. A. (63)
Hegre, C. S. (192)
Heidinger, R. C. (92)
Heip, C. (67)
Heiskary, S. (68)
Helfman, G- S. (69)
Hellawell, J. (70)
Helmer, E. H. (92)
Hendricks.A. C. (15)
Hendricks, M. L (71)
Herricks, E. E. (72, 88)
Hester, F. E. (73)
Hilsenhoff, W. L (74, 75, 76, 77)
Hocutt, C. H. (71,78,114)
Holland, A. F. (136)
Holme, N. A. (79)
Holmes, V. R. (22)
Houser, A. (4)
Howmiller, R. P. (80)
Hubert, W. A. (81)
Hughes, R.M. (84,102,123)
Hughes, B. D. (82,83)
Hulbert, J. L. (85)
Jaccard, P. (86)
Jarrett, F. L. (87)
Jenkins, R. M. (4)
Johnson, D.L (103,130)
Jones, J. R. (33)
Joshi, H. C. (127)
Julian, E.G. (115)
Kaesler, R. L. (54, 88)
Karmakar, H.C. (127)
Karr, J. R. (9, 51, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,
94, 123)
Kathman, D. (95)
Kerster, H. W. (156)
Ketchum, B. H. (96)
Keup, L. E. (97)
Khristoforova, N. K. (102)
Kihney, A. J. (88)
Klopatek, J. M. (98)
Kovalak, W. P. (99)
Krieger, K.A. (100)
Kuhn, D. L. (32)
Ladle, M. (138)
Langdon, R. (101)
LaRoe, E. T. (43)
LarsenD. P. (84,102)
Larson, E. W. (103)
Lauher, W. G. (65)
Lauritsen, D. D. (104)
Lehmkul, D. M. (152)
Leitch, W. G. (105)
Lenat, D. R. (106,107)
Leonard, P.M. (108,123)
Lettenmaier, D. P. (122)
Lewis, D. (118)
Lewis, P. A. (115)
Lowe.R. L (141)
Lucey.W. P. (109)
Lynch, W. F., Jr. (103)
Lyons, J. (110)
Mackey, L. E. (60)
Mahon, R. (111)
D-1
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Maine,E.P.A.(112)
Malvestuto, S. P. (113)
Martin, D. L. (87)
Masnik.M.T. (114)
Mason, W.T., Jr. (7,115)
Matthews, R. A. (116)
Matthews, A. M. (138)
Mazari,M.(151)
McClave.J.T. (165)
McFarland.B. H. (196)
Mclntosh.J.W. (87)
Melntyre, A. D. (79)
McKay, P. (21)
Medina, A. J. (117)
Meier, E. P. (136)
Melktc.A. (118)
Menge.B.A. (119)
Mihursky.J.A. (208)
Millar, J.B. (120)
Millard.S. P. (121,122)
Miller. D.L (65,123)
Miller, M.C. (12)
Montanari, J. H. (124)
Morhadt,J.E. (125)
Morris, J. (126)
Moss, D. (53)
Moyie.P.B. (123)
Mozley.S.C. (104)
Mukopadhyay.M.K. (127)
Murphy, P.M. (128)
Myers, V. B. (50)
Newbold.J.D. (148)
Newting,C.J.(129)
Nielson.LA. (130)
Noonan, M. (21)
Ohio, E.P.A. (131)
Omemik, J. M. (84,102,132)
Orlando, E. (133)
Orth, D.J. (108,123,134)
Pascoe, D. (135)
Paul.J. F. (136)
Peckarshy, B. L. (137)
Phelps, H. L (208)
Pikanowski, R. A. (155)
Pinder, L. C. (138)
Plafkin,J.L(32)
Porcella, D. B. (117)
Pratt, J.R. (30,31)
Pratt, J. M. (139)
Preston, E. M. (140)
Pryfogle.P.A. (141)
Putnam, H.D. (16,165)
Rabeni.C.F. (16,142,153)
Resh.V.H. (145,153,144)
Reynolds, J.B. (146)
Richkus,W.A. (147)
Riley.M. (61)
Roby,K.B. (148)
Rodgers,J.H.,Jr. (116,149)
Roels, D. (49)
Rohm, C. M. (102)-
Roline, R.A. (150): , .
Rosas, I. (151)
Rosenberg, D. M. (152,153)
Ruth, P. (154)
.Saavedra, J. (151)
Saila.'S. B. (155)
Sartoris, J. J. (150)
Schaeffer, D.J. (156)
Schierow, L. J. (163)
Schlosser, I. J. (8,90,91)
Schrader, L. H. (123)
Schrieber, S. (21)
iScott, K.J. (136)
Scott, M. A. (80)
Sendzimir.J. (21)
Shackleford, B. (157)
Shannon, C.E. (158)
Sheldon, A. L. (159)
Siegfried, C. A. (160,161)
Simmons, G. M., Jr. (191)
Smith, R. D. (3)
Smith, H. K. (129)
ISonzogni, W. C. (163)
Spacie, A. (54)
Starnes.E. M. (21)
Stauffer, J. R., Jr. (71,78,114)
Steedman, R. J. (162)
Stefan, H. G. (61)
Steinhart, C. E. (163)
Stewart, G.L (13,14)
Strange, R.J. (164)
Strickland, J. D. H. (14)
Sullivan, J. H. (165)
Sutherland, J.W. (161) ,
Sutherland, J. P. (119)
Swift, D.R. (165)
Szcztyko,S.W.(166)
Teed.J. C. (198)
Tesmer, M.G. (167)
Thompson, B. A. (123)
Thompson, S. (21)
Tighe, B. (21) ,
Tiner, R.W.,Jr. (168)
Tonk, I. R. (188)
Townsend, J. E. (124)
Tsui, P. T. P. (169)
Tucker, W.J. (156)
U.S., E.P.A. (170,171, 172, 173,
174,175, 176,177,178,179,
180,181,182,183,184,185)
Unzickes, J. D. (45)
Van Dyk, L. P. (186)
•Van Horn, W. M. (187)
Vaughan, D.S. (155) '
Verma,S. R. (188)
Vermont, ANR (189)
Vincent, R. (190)
1 Vogele, L. E. (4)
Voshell.J. R.,Jr. (191)
Walburg, C. H. (4)
Waldichuk, M. (192)
Walker, W. W., Jr. (68,193)
Washington, H.G. (194)
Waterhouse, J. C. (195)
Watson, J. K. (47)
Weaver, W. (158)
Weber, A. (50)
Weber, C.I. (115,196,197)
Wefring.D. R. (167,198)
Weitzel, R. L. (199, 200)
Welch, E.B. (201)
Weller, M. W. (202)
Wetzel, R. G. (203)
White, D. S. (203)
Whitter.T. R. (102)
Wiederholm, T. (204)
Winner, R. M. (205)
Winter, J. D. (206)
Wlosinski, J. H. (207)
Wolff, W.J. (10)
Wright, D. A. (208)
Wright, J. F. (53)
Wrona, F. J. (209)
Yant, P. R. (51,90, 91)
Young, E. (3)
Zabra, C. S. (97)
Zhirmunsky, A. V. (210)
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
Reference Catalog Entries
-------
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Adamus, P. R. 1983. "A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment: Vol. I - Critical Review and
Evaluation Concepts", PB84-241157, Report from the Center of Natural Areas, South Gardner, Maine, 176 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comprehensive review of wetland functions.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Guidance for professionals concerned with the impacts
of highways on wetland systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
x Other Vertebrates
Reference! Number - 2
1. Basic Reference: Adamus, P. R. 1983. "A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment: Vol. II - FHWA Assessment
Method", PB84-241165, Report from the Center for Natural Areas, Gardner, Maine, 138 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of a rapid assessment procedure for screening functional values of wetlands.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Guidance for professionals concerned with the impacts
of highways and wetland systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
x Other Vertebrates
E-1
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 3
1. Basic Reference: Adamus, P. R., E. J. Clairain, Jr., R. D. Smith and R. E. Young. 1987. "Wetland Evaluation
Technique: Vol. II - Methodology," AD-A189, Report to the Department of the Army and U.S. Department of
Transportation, 206 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Outline of a wetland evaluation technique for the assessment of wetland functions and values.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Assists managers in techniques for wetland evaluation.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
x Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 4
1. Basic Reference: Aggus, L R., J. P. Clugston, A. Houser, R. M. Jenkins, L. E. Vogele and C. H. Walburg. 1980.
"Monitoring of Fish In Reservoirs", in Biological Monitoring of Fish, C. H. Hocutt and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. Eds., D.C. Heath ,
and Co., pp. 149-175.
2. Procedure Objectives: Review of fish-sampling gear and methods in terms of reservoir sampling (gillnets, trammul
nets, fyke nets, trap nets, trawls, seines; rotenone, SCUBA, electrofishing).
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Various techniques discussed with respect to
advantages and disadvantages in biomonitoring in reservoirs.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge of fish collection methods and
identification. Also knowledge of sample design and analysis.
6. Field Team Size: Varies with method
• 7. Collection Time Required: Varies with method
8. Sample Processing Time: Varies with method
9. Data Analysis Time: Varies with method ,
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Popuiatjon Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -5
1. Basic Reference: Ahlf, W. and A. Weber. 1981. "A Simple Monitoring Technique to Determine the Heavy Metal Load of
Algae in Aquatic Ecosystems", Environ. Technol. Lett., 2:317-322.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of standardized, uncontaminated algae grown in lab exposed to environmental
contaminants to assess heavy metal load of algae.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Measures accumulation of heavy metals in algae.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 6
1. Basic Reference: Albert, R. C. 1986. "Effective Low-Cost Area Wide Water Quality Monitoring", in Lake and Reservoir
Management, Vol. II., G. Redfield, J. Taggart and L. M. Moore, Eds., North American Lake Management Society,
Washington, D. C., 458 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of low-cost monitoring program based on water quality screening system.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The system is a low-cost monitoring technique for water
quality. .-.•--.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 7
1. Basic Reference: Anderson, J. B. and W. T. Mason, Jr. 1971. "A Comparison of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected
by Dredge and Basket Sampler", Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 40:252-259.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of dredge and basket macroinvertebrate samples for use in large streams.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Rock basket was found to collect a more representative
benthic macroinvertebrate sample than the Peterson dredge.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macrinvertebrates. .
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 8
1. Basic Reference: Angermeier, P. L. and I. J. Schlosser. 1987. "Assessing Biotic Integrity of the Fish Community in a
Small Illinois Stream", North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 7:331-338.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of IBI and Shannon-Weaver diversity index.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: IBI assessed water quality better than Shannon-weaver
diversity Index. IBI incorporates more information making it a better indicator of water quality.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment x
x Population Structure x
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton x
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-4
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 9
1. Basic Reference: Angermeier, P. L, and J. R. Karr. 1986. "Applying and Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Stream
Fish Communities: Consideration in Sampling and Interpretation", North American Journal of Fisheries Management,
6:418-429.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use attributes of fish communities to assess stream degradation.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: IBI good measure of degradation and should be used in
conjunction with measures of water and habitat quality.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Experience in electrofishing procedures and safety. Experience
in fish taxonomy and sample design.
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One hour per sample (three persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure x
x Community Structure x
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton > x
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-10
1. Basic Reference: Baker, J. M. and W. J. Wolff, Eds. 1987. "Biological Surveys of Estuaries and Coasts", Cambridge
University Press, 449 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of organisms and methods of sampling in estuarine ecosystems.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
. Freshwater Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of sampling for estuaries and coasts.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Interpretive Assessment
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
x Other Vertebrates
E-5
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Beck, 1955. "Suggested Method for Reporting Biotic Data", Sew. Ind. Wastes, 27:1193-1197.
2. Procedure Objectives: Data repoting.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time:
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zopplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -12
1. Basic Reference: Beckett, D. C. and M. C. Miller. 1982. "Macroinvertebrate Colonization of Multiplate Samplers in the
Ohio Riven The Effect of Dams", Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 39:1622-1627.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine the effect of dams on colonization of multiplate samplers.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Differences were discovered in the colonization of
artificial substrate in fast and slow moving currents.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-6
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number-13
1. Basic Reference: Beers, J. R. and G. L Stewart. 1967; "Micro-Zooplankton in the Euphotic Zone at Five Locations
Across the California Current". J. Fish Res. Bd. Can., 24(10):2053-2068.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of micro-zooplankton communities sampled at five locations across the California
current.
3, Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Pumping system an effective method for sampling
plankton in many different systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of pumping technique and zooplankton identification.
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: 20 - 30 minutes per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 2 - 3 hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: 2 - 4 hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-14
1. Basic Reference: Beers, J. R., G. L. Stewart and J. D. H. Strickland. 1967. "A Pumping System for Sampling Small
Plankton", J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 24:1811-1818.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of new seawater pumping system to sample plankton.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Pump method reduces avoidance and biases due to
patchiness of plankton distribution.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of pumping technique ans zooplankton identification.
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: 20 - 30 minutes per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 2-3 hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: 2-4 hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-7
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -15
1. Basic Reference: Benfield, E. R, A. C. Hendricks and J. Cairns, Jr. 1974. "Proficiencies of Two Artificial Substrates in
Collecting Stream Macroinvertebrates", Hydrobiologia, 45:431 -440. , .
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of two artificial substrate - conservation webbing and cone-shaped concrete
blocks with bottom net collections to determine best method. . . •
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands , .
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Cone shaped artificial substrate found to be better
collection device when compared to a webbing design. Diversity indices were higher for net collections.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates. , -.. . „ . ^
6. Reid Team Size: One or two people
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons) '
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person) .
Subsection ',
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis ,
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Berkman, H. E., C. F. Rabeni, T. P. Boyle. 1986. Biomonitors of Stream Quality in Agricultural Areas:
Fish Versus Invertebrates", Environmental Management, 10:413-419.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of the ability of fish and macroinvertebrates to reflect habitat quality of
sediment-impacted streams. , ; ,,. v
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Fish found to be less effected by agricultural runoff.
More of a direct effect was found with benthic macroinvertebrates.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-8
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -17
1. Basic Reference: Bode, R. W. 1988. "Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York
State", Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment Division of Water, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Albany, New York. 58 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Assessment of water quality based on samples of benthic macroinvertebrates using artificial
substrate, kick-net, tissue analysis.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Uses both artificial substrate and kick-nets to collect
benthic macroinvertebrates.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both collection and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or Two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-18
1. Basic Reference: Bray, J. R. and J. T. Curtis. 1957. "An Ordination of the Upland Forest Communities of Southern
Wisconsin", Ecol. Monpgr. 27:325-349.
2. Procedure Objectives: A comparative rahking method to evaluate similarity.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
x Other Vertebrates
E-9
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -19
1. Basic Reference: Brillouin, L. 1962. Science and Information Theory. Academic Press, New York, NY., pp. 1-347.
2. Procedure Objectives: A diversity index method.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment x
x Population Structure x
x Community Structure x
Community Group
x Macrophytes x
x Periphyton x
x Phytoplankton x
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
x Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 20
1. Basic Reference: Brock, D. A. 1977. "Comparison of Community Similarity Indexes", J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.,
49:2488-2494.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of 2 community similarity indexes based on field data.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Pinkham and Pearson's index too sensitive to rare
species and not sensitive enough to dominant forms. PSC a better index. Does not rely on just one index.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Requiredf NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure x
x Community Structure x
Community Group
Macrophytes x
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-10
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 21
1. Basic Reference: Brown, M. T., E. M. Starnes, C. Diamond, B. Dunn, P. McKay, M. Noonan, S. Schrieber, J.
Sendzimir, S. Thompson and B. Tighe. 1983. "A Wetlands Study of Seminole County. Identification, Evaluation and
Preparation of Development Standards and Guidelines", Technical Report 41, Center for Wetlands Research,
University of Florida.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of a system to identify, evaluate and develop standards and guidelines for wetland
ecosystems.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: This procedure evaluates various impacts and
incorporates them into one value for an overall comparison of individual wetlands.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 22
1. Basic Reference: Cable, J. T., V. Black, Jr. and V. R. Holmes. 1989. "Simplified Method for Wetland Habitat
Assessment", Environmental Management, 13:207-213.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of a habitat assessment technique using birds as indicators of habitat quality.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The use of birds to assess wetland habitat is quick and
inexpensive.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of wetland habitat and bird identification.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: One to three hours (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
x Other Vertebrates
E-11
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 23
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. 1988. "Politics, Economics, Science -Going Beyond Disciplinary Boundaries to Protect
Aquatic Ecosystems", in Toxic Contaminants and Ecosystems Health: A Great Lakes Focus, M. S. Evans Ed.,Wiley
and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 1-16.
2. Procedure Objectives: Outline problems in protecting aquatic ecosystems.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine ^ Estuarine ' Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of biological monitoring is presented.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection .
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 24
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. 1988. "What Constitutes Field Validation of Predictions Based on Laboratory
Evidence", Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, ASTM STP 971, W. J. Adams, G. A. Chapman, and W. G.
Landis, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 361-368.
2. Procedure Objectives: Development of more explicit prediction and validation criteria based on laboratory data in the
area of hazard evaluation.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine
x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Difficult to validate some bioassessment methods in the
real world. Single species toxicity test not a good indicator of a whole system.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytopiankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-12
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 25
1. Basic,Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. 1987. "Disturbed Ecosystems as Opportunities for Research in Restoration Ecology",
in Restoration Ecology, W. R. Jordan, M. E. Giipin and J. D. Aber, Eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 307-320.
2. Procedure Objectives: Outline varieties of disturbed ecosystems available for study and draw attention to kinds of
research that might be carried out on them.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Disturbed systems provide a good opportunity to study
structure, function and dynamics.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population Structure
Community Structure
Zooplankton.
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. 1986. "Management of Water Quality and Natural Habitats to Enhance Both Human
and Wildlife Needs", in Environmental Regeneration II: Managing Water Resources, John Cairns, Jr. and Ruth Patrick,
Eds., Praeger Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 86-99.
2. Procedure Objectives: Development of biocriteria and methods of ecosystem regeneration to minimize human impact
on natural habitats.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands ,
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Some of the means of implementing the management
of aquatic systems is discussed.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA .
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection -
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-13
-------
Biological Catena Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 27
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. 1981. "Biological Monitoring. Part VI: Future Needs", Water Research, 15:941 -952.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of future needs in biological assessment of pollution. = •
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA .''" " ',
7. Collection Time Required: NA - ,
8. Sample Processing Time: NA .
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection • v
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Periphyton Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Reference Number - 28
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J. Jr. and K. L Dickson. 1980. 'The ABC's of Biological Monitoring", in Biological Monitoring
of Fish, C. H. Hocutt and J. Stauffer, Jr., Eds., D. C. Heath and Co., pp. 1-32.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of general information about the biological monitoring of fish.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types , , , -, - ,
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of biological monitoring and fish.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA ,
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA .
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection ;»
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-14
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 29
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. and K. L. Qickson. 1971. "A Simple Method for the Biological Assessment of the
Effects of Waste Discharges on Aquatic Bottom-Dwelling Organisrns", J. Water Ppllut. Control Fed., 43:755-772.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of the sequential comparison index to assess effects of waste discharge on benthic
macroinvertebrate populations.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Looks at a variety of sampling devices for benthic
macroinvertebrates for use in biomonitoring.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledgeable of sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis .
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton ...
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
. Fish . .
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 30
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. and J. R. Pratt. 1987. "Ecotoxicological Effect Indices: A Rapidly Evolving System",
Wat. Sci. Tech., 19(11):1-12. .. - ; ., .;
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of micro and mesocosms to serve as complex natural communities for testing and
validating predictions.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Using test situations that closely resemble the real
world improves the final results.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA "
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
. Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-15
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 31
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J., Jr. and J. R. Pratt. 1986. "Developing a Sampling Strategy in Rationale for Sampling and
Interpretation of Ecological Data", The Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, ASTM STP 894, B. G. Isom Ed.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 168-186.
2. Procedure Objectives: Considerations in developing a sampling strategy for aquatic ecosystems with emphasis on
data analysis and collection. -
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Keys to developing a sampling strategy are discussed.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection , . , ' ,
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 32
1. Basic Reference: Cairns, J. Jr., D. L. Kuhn and J. L Plafkin. 1979. "Protozoan Colonization of Artificial Substrates",
Methods and Measurements of Periphyton Communities: A Review, ASTM STP 690, R. C. Weitzel, Ed., American
Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 34-57. ;
2. Procedure Objectives: Analyzing and interpreting variations in the dynamics of species accrual.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands ,
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Artificial substrates collect different trophic levels in one
collection device.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge in sampling with artificial substrates and identification
of periphyton taxa.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 5 -10 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One to two hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours '(one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Population Structure Data Analysis
x Community Structure Interpretive Assessment , ,
Community Group ,
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-16
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 33
1. Basic Reference: Canfield, D. E., Jr. and J. R. Jones. 1984. "Assessing the Trophic Status of Lakes with Aquatic
Macrophytes", in Lake and Reservoir Management - Vol. I, pp. 446-450. :
2. Procedure Objectives: Using nutrients in macrophytes and water with existing classification systems to determine the
trophic status of lakes. . .
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of macrophytes along with water conditions give a
better classification of lake trophic status. » ;; .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of aquatic plant sampling and identification. Also
knowledge of techniques for measuring potential phosphorus content.
6. Field Team Size: Two to three
7. Collection Time Required: Variable
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community .Interaction
Data Analysis ;
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 34
1. Basic Reference: Carlson, R. E. 1994. "The Trophic State Concept A Lake Management Perspective", in Lake and
Reservoir Management - Vol. I, pp. 427-429.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describes the confusion over the term trophic state, stemming from overabundance of
definitions.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of macrophytes to assess trophic status as one
way to simplify confusion.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA , .,-,-,..
8. Sample Processing Time: NA .-•-.->'
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other-Vertebrates
E-17
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 35
1. Basic Reference: Chadwick, J. W. and S. P. Canton. 1984. "Inadequacy of Diversity Indices in Discerning Metal Mine
Drainage Effects on Stream Invertebrate Community", Water, Air, Soil Pollution, 22:217-233.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of the failure of several biotic indices to correctly assess water quality in a stream
subject to metal mine drainage.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine " Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Diversity indices found to be inadequate in assessing
the effects of mine drainage. •• • •
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group ,
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 36
1. Basic Reference: Chesapeake Executive Council. 1988. "Habitat Requirements For Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources", Chesapeake Bay Program, Agreement Commitment Report, Annapolis, MD., 86 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: To establish a technically defensible approach in setting regional habitat objectives for
Chesapeake Bay by initially assembling habitat requirements for individual target species.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ;
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
interpretive Assessment
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-18
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog., Entries
Reference Number - 37
1. Basic Reference: Chutter, F. M. 1972. "An Empirical Biotic Index of the Quality of Water in South African Streams and
Rivers", Water Research, 6:19-30.
2. Procedure Objectives: Reducing data on stones-in-current faunal .communities to a linear scale of water quality in
terms of organic pollution. ,
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine. Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The biotic index value BIU is compared with other
indices.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9: Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
, Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 38
1. Basic Reference: Cochran, W. G. 1963. Sampling Techniques. Wiley, New York, NY.
2. Procedure Objectives: An overview of statistical validation of sampling techniques.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types.
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
^ Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-19
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Cook, S. E. K. 1976. ''Quest for an Index of Community Structure Sensitive to Water Pollution"
Environ. Pollut., 11:269-288. :
2. Procedure Objectives: Review of indices for summarizing benthic macroinvertebrate data and description of results of
a field test.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Indices found to be variable in assessing environmental
disturbances. Shannon-Weaver index found to be imprecise while the modified Chandler score was found to be the
most reliable.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
X Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Pppulation and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 40
1. Basic Reference: Courtemanch, D. 1987. 'Trophic Classification of Maine Lakes Using Benthic Chironomid Fauna",
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, Maine. (Submitted to Lake and Reservoir Malmanagement)
2. Procedure Objectives: Trophic classification based on benthic chironomids as they relate to chlorophyll a and
phosphorus content.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine
Estuarine
Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Benthic chironomids were a good indicator of lake
trophic level. , •
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macrolnvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 1 0 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One to eight hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-20
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 41
1. Basic Reference: Courtemanch, D. L. .1984. "A Closing Artificial Substrate Device for Sampling Benthic
Macroinvertebrates in Deep Rivers", Freshwater Invertebrate Biology, 3(3):143-146.
2. Procedure Objectives: Artificial substrate device to collect benthic macroinvertebrates from deep rivers with minimal
loss of organisms.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands -
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: A closing artificial substrate was found to be effective in
reducing sample loss during retrieval.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates. .
6. Field Team Size: One to two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 42
1. Basic Reference: Cowardin, L. M. 1978. "Wetland Classification in the United States", Journal of Forestry, 76:666-668.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of a hierarchical classification system for wetlands.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Classification of wetlands help managers in managing
these systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection '
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-21
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 43
1. Basic Reference: Cowardin, L M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. "Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States", U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 103 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Criteria for the classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats help
managers in managing these systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
X Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 44
1. Basic Reference: Grossman, J. S. and J. Cairns, Jr. 1974. "A Comparative Study Between Two Different Artificial
Substrate Samplers and Regular Sampling Techniques", Hydrobiologia, 44:517-522.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison between 2 artificial sampling methods and regular sampling techniques to
determine most efficient method. . ,
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine
Estuarine
Wetlands,,
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: A comparison of two different types of artificial
substrates is examined. ., . .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates. . .
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons) :
8. Sample Processing Time: 30-60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection ' . =••• -••'..•;" ' . :
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-22
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 45
1. Basic Reference: Cushman, R. M. 1984. "Chironomid Deformities as Indicators of Pollution frpm a Synthetic,
Coal-Derived Oil", Freshwater Biology, 14:179-182. .
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of study relating chironomid deformities to oil pollution.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine . Estuarine , .Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Chironomid deformities found to be less sensitive than
population structure in assessing oil pollution. ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA , . ,
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ,=
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis .-.-:.,-. :
x Interpretive Assessment : : <
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-46
1. Basic Reference: Davies, W. D. 1983. "Sampling with Toxicants", in Fisheries Techniques, L. A. Nielsen and D. L.
Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 199-214. ..-••• ;
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of the various aspects of sampling fish populations with approved toxicants; ;,
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of the use of toxicants. Non-selective method
but labor intensive. May be public relations problems. ,. .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of the use of fish toxicants, sample design and fish
identification.
6. Field Team Size: 5 to 10
7. Collection Time Required: Two to four hours per sample (5 -10 persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 4 - 6 hours per sample (5 - 7 persons) :
9. Data Analysis Time: 3 - 6 hours per sample (one person) «
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction
DataAnalysis .
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-23
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 47
1. Basic Reference: DeGoursey, R. E., J. K, Watson, R. V. Grillo, R. Arimoto and S. Y. Feng. 1984. "Field Techniques for
In-Situ Long Term Monitoring of the Effects of Dredged Material Disposal on the Mussel, Mytilus edulis". Mar Technol
Soc.Journal,18(4):9-16.
2. Procedure Objectives: Monitor environmental contaminates in mussels using free standing PVC platform at disposal
site. . • - •
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The advantages of a platfor.m for mussels to monitor the
effects of pollutants such as heavy metals from dredged material disposal sites.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of mussel biology and sampe design. Also analytical
background for metals extraction.
6. Field Team Size: Two or three
7. Collection Time Required: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: 2-4 hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment ,
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 48
1. Basic Reference: Demory, R. L. and J. T. Golden. 1983. "Sampling the Commercial Catch", in Fisheries Techniques,
L. A. Nielsen and D. L. Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 421-430.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of approaches to obtaining harvest statistics through census and sampling of the
commercial catch. :
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat types
.x Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of surveys to collect information about commercial
fisheries is an inexpensive method to colject a wide variety of information. Can have problems with survey biases.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of survey design.
6. Field Team Size: One
7. Collection Time Required: One to two hours per sample (one person)
8. Sample Processing Time: Two to four hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: Two to four hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-24
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number-49
1. Basic Reference: DePauw, N., D. Roels and A. P. Fontoura. 1986. "Use of Artificial Substrates for Standardized
Sampling of Macrbinvertebrates in the Assessment of Water Quality by the Belgian Biotic Index", Hydrobiologia,
133:237-258.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of the uses of the Belgian biotic index to assess water quality.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Able to use artificial substrates in different water
courses to obtain a quantitative sample for water quality assessment.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates using artificial substrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One or two hours per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: 2 - 4 hours (one person)
o
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Pppulation Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 50
1. Basic Reference: Edmiston, H. L. and V. B. Myers. 1984. "Florida Lakes Assessment: Combining Macrophyte,
Chlorophyll, Nutrient and Public Benefit Parameters into a Meaningful Lake Management Scheme", Lake and
Reservoir Management - Vol. I, Bureau of Water Management, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Tallahassee, Florida. ,
2. Procedure Objectives: Assessment of lake water quality based on several biotic and chemical indices.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of macropnyte abundance along with secci disk,
chlorophyll a , total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations give good indication of trophic status.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of macrophyte sampling and identification, nutrient
sampling, and chlorophyll a analysis. „
6. Field Team Size: Two or three
7. Collection Time Required: Two to four hours per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: Two to four hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One or two hours (one person)
.Subsection
Population and Community Interaction,
Data Analysis
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-25
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Fausch, K. D., J. R. Karr and P. R. Yant. 1984. "Regional Application of an Index of Biotic Integrity
Based on Stream Fish Communities", Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 113:39-55: ' •
2. Procedure Objectives: Use basic relationships of fish species richness versus stream size, calculated from historical
fish community data for watersheds to define lines of maximum species richness.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands . . ,., •,.--.,,
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Five of the IBI (Index of Biotic Integrity) metrics were
found to need adjustment for different zoogeographic regions.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA , 1,
6. Field Team Size: NA - ! ,
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA .. . .( ,
Subsection -.....-'.
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment ~
Zpoplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 52
1. Basic Reference: Fullner, R. W. 1971. "A Comparison of Macroinvertebrates Collected by Basket and Modified
Multi-Plate Samplers", Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,43:494r499 " .,.'"'.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of basket and multi-plate sampling for aquatic macroinvertebrates.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands^ r , :
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The multi-plate sampler collected less insect larvae
than the rock basket, but this was not enough to eliminate the multi-plate sampler as a good collection method for
water quality monitoring. , , . . .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:. Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates. ; "•.".• , ,'.-.,
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons) .......
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person) , .......
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-26
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -53
1. Basic Reference: Furse, M. T., J. F. Wright, P. D. Armitage, and D. Moss. 1981. "An Appraisal of Pond-Net Samples
for Biological Monitoring of Lotic Macroinvertebrates", Water Research, 15:679-689.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine accuracy of a sampling technique by conducting a field trial on a river in England.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Kick-nets had some disadvantages in sampler bias but
this bias was not enough to change data when statistically analyzed. Three minute samples collected 50% of the
species and 62% of the families that could be obtained in a 18 minute sample. ..'....
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge in both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minute per sample (one person)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Communityjnteraction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 54
1. Basic Reference: Gammon, J. R., A. Spacie, J. L. Hameiink, and^R.,L. Kaesler. 1981. "Role of Electrofishing in
Assessing Environmental duality of the Wabash RiverYin Ecological Assessments of Effluent Impacts on Communities
of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms, ASTM STP 730J American Society fo'r Testing and Materials, pp. 307-324.
2. Procedure Objectives: Analysis offish samples (collected by electroshocking) with cluster analysis and community
and composite indices to assess water quality.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater , Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Good procedure for collecting fish samples from a river
system for biomonitoring; can be moderately labor and time intensive. ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Experience in electrofishing procedures and safety. Experience
in fish taxonomy and sample design and analysis.
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One hor per sample (three persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: 5 -10 hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-27
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 55
1. Basic Reference: Gilbert, C. R. 1980. "Zoogeographic Factors in Relation to Biological Monitoring of Fish", in
Biological Monitoring of Fish, C..H. Hocutt and J. Stauffer, Jr. Eds., D. C. Heath and Co., pp. 309-356.
2. Procedure Objectives: Role of zoogeography in the interpretation and comparison of biotas from different areas;
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine . Estuarine . Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of zoogeographic factors in relation to
biological monitoring.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 56
1. Baste Reference: Glooschenko, V. 1983. "Development of an Evaluation System for Wetlands in Southern Ontario",
Wetlands, 3:192-200. ;
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of a quantitative system for wetland evaluation.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Provides professionals with framework to use in
wetland management.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection ,
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Population Structure Data Analysis
Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-28
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 57
1. Basic Reference: Gbddard, C. I., M. H. Goodwin and L A. Greig, 1975. "The Use of Artificial Substrates in Sampling
Estuarine Benthos", Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 104:50-52. :
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison between density estimates of estuarine benthos based on artificial substrate
sampling and diver estimation.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Artificial substrate may preferentially sample certain
portions of the benthic population. Diving is expensive and is prone to sampler bias.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA .
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment , ,
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Green, R. H. 1978. "Optimal Impact Study Design and Analysis", in Biological Data in Water
Pollution Assessment: Quantitative and Statistical Analyses, K. L Dickson, J. Cairns, Jr., and R. L. Livingston, Eds.,
ASTM STP 652, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA., pp. 3-28.
2. Procedure Objectives: To discuss study design in the evaluation of pollution impact.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA .
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-29
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 59
1. Basic Reference: Gruber, D. and J. Cairns, Jr. 1981. "Industrial Effluent Monitoring Incorporating a Recent Automated
Fish Biomonitoring System", Water, Air and Soil Pollution,' 15(4):471 -481. , . .''"':;.,'
2. Procedure Objectives: Assessment of water quality by automated monitoring of fish ventilatory behavior.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types . .
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Detailed information offish physiology and waste water
discharge. Very capital intensive (equipment) time intensive.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge on computer and fish monitoring :
equipment (automated fish biomonitoring system). Knowledge of fish physiology and effluent testing.
6. Field Team Size: One or two , ,- ,
7. Collection Time Required: Collected by computer .
8. Sample Processing Time: Automated I , '.
9. Data Analysis Time: Two to six hours ! ••.-..•••
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment , . •..,.-.'.
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number — 60
1. Basic Reference: Gunn, J. M., L. E. Mackey, L. I. Deacon, T. J. Stewart, F. J. Hicks, B. P. Munroe, G. L. Boggs. 1988.
"Long Term Monitoring of Fish Communities in Acid Sensitive Lakes in Ontario", Lake and Reservoir Management,
4(1):123-134.
2. Procedure Objectives: Monitor fish communities for presence, abundance, age, composition, growth, recruitment to
assess acid deposition effects.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types !
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands ,••..„,
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Long term projects yield extensive data but are time
and labor intensive and results and conclusions take time to develop.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge on fish sampling and analytical techniques
Knowledge on sampling design and analysis.
6. Reid Team Size: Three or more . .
7. Collection Time Required: One to five hours for 10-600 ha lake ,,
(three persons) ,
8. Sample Processing Time: Two to six hours for 10-600 ha lake (three persons) .
9. Data Analysis Time: 10 - 20 hours (one person)
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction . , .. .
Data Analysis , .' ,
Interpretive Assessment , . ,'. .
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-30
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference? Number^- 61
1. Basic Reference: Hanson, M. J., H. G. Stefan and M. Riley. 1986. "Dynamic (Mathematical) Modeling of Lake
Processes for Management Decisions", in Lake and Reservoir Management - Vol. II, G. Redf ield, J. Taggart and L. M.
Moore, Eds., North American Lake Management Society, Washington, D. G., 458 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describes lake management model which simulates changes in physical, chemical and
biological lake parameters with depth and time variability.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Do not have to do actual sampling. Able to test many
different scenarios at low cost. These are not "real world" situations. !
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Nurhber-62
1. Basic Reference: Hartman, W. L. 1980. "Fish-Stock Assessment in the Great Lakes", in Biological Monitoring of Fish,
C. H. Hocutt and J. Stauffen Jr. Eds., D. C: Heath and Co., pp. 119-148.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of the application offish-stock information to assess resource management
problems.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands •
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of the biological monitoring of the Great
Lakes.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of Great Lakes fish sampling techniques and
identification.
6. Field Team Size: Varies with method .
7. Collection Time Required: Varies with method
8. Sample Processing Time: Varies with method
9. Data Analysis Time: Varies with method
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
E-31
Other Vertebrates
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 63
1. Basic Reference: Hawkes, H. A. 1979. "Invertebrates as Indicators of River Water Quality", in Biological Indices pf
Water Quality, Chapter 2, A. James and L. Evison, Eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 1-45. '. '
2. Procedure Objectives: Provides a general overview pf several methods employing invertebrates as biological
indicators. , ' • . ,
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA '
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Wetlands
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-64
1. Basic Reference: Hawkes, H. A. 1977. "Biological Classification of Rivers: Conceptual Basis and Ecological Validity",
In Biological Monitoring of Inland Fisheries, J.S. Alabaster, Ed,, Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 55-67.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine ecological validity of several different types of indices used in .classification of river
wator nualitv ' i- ..•.;•• - • - =-••, •••.- ••;• ':- ••...•' . •... -;' •,' . -• ••
water quality.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine
Estuarine
Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The need for educated use of, biological data is
emphasized when using benthic macroinvertebrates in biomonitoring. ' ; • 'f"
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA , .,;;
7. Collection Time Required: NA ;
8. Sample Processing Time: NA , ^ ; ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA ,
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure x
x Community Structure x
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton •
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-32
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 65
1. Basic Reference: Hawkes, C. L., D. L. Miller, W. G. Layher. 1986. "Fish Ecoregions of Kansas: Stream Fish
Assemblage Patterns and Associated Environmental Correlates", Env. Biol. Fishes, 17:267-279.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine environmental characteristic which affects fish assemblage patterns.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Value of ecoregions will enable researchers to develop
a better ability to assess and manage fish populations.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 66
1. Basic Reference: Hayes, J. L 1983. "Active Fish Capture Methods", in Fisheries Techniques, L. A. Nielsen and D. L.
Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 123-146.
2. Procedure Objectives: Provide information needed to select, construct and operate active fishing gear to sample fish
and macroinvertebrate in a wide range of habitats.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of active sampling gear. More labor intensive
than passive gear. Less selective but still has biases.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge of fish collection methods and
identification. Also knowledge of sample design and analysis.
6. Field Team Size: Variable
7. Collection Time Required: Variable
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection
• Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-33
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 67
1. Basic Reference: Heip, C. 1984. "Nematode Species Abundance Patterns and Their Use in the Detection of
Environmental Perturbations", Hydrobiologia, 118(1):59-66.
2. Procedure Objectives: Diversity comparisons based on assessment of shifts in dominance patters to be used with
Simpson's dominance-weighted diversity index for assessment of marine pollutant impacts.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of all species in diversity indices instead of single
groups is discussed.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge in benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and :
nematode identification.
6. Reid Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One to two hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 68
1. Basic Reference: Heiskary, S. and W. W. Walker, Jr. 1987. "Developing Phosphorus Criteria for Minnesota Lakes",
Presented at The Annual Symposium of the North American Lake Management Society, Orlando, Florida, 17 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Lake management strategies based on assessment of phosphorus impacts on lake condition.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of chlorophyll a (blooms), reduced transparency
and user-perceived impairment can be used to set phosphorus criteria.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of chlorophyll a measurements and survey design.
6. Field Team Size: Variable ; ,
7. Collection Time Required: Variable
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable ' :
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes . Zooplankton
x Periphyton Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis , . •
Interpretive Assessment
Other Vertebrates
E-34
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 69
1. Basic Reference: Helfman, G. S. 1983. "Underwater Methods", in Fisheries Techniques, L. A. Nielsen and D. L.
Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 349-369.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of techniques involved in observation of fish populations by divers.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of underwater methods to sample and observe fish
populations. Can collect data other methods, but special training is needed.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge of the use of SCUBA in fish collection and
observation. Also knowledge of sample design and analysis.
6. Field Team Size: Varies with method
7. Collection Time Required: Variable
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
DataAnalysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zpoplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 70
1. Basic Reference: Hellawell, J. 1977. "Biological Surveillance and Water Quality Monitoring", in Biological Monitoring
of Inland Fisheries, J. S. Alabaster, Ed., Applied Science Publishers,:London, pp. 69-88.
2. Procedure Objectives: Evaluation of macroinvertebrate biological surveillance in water quality monitoring.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Macroinvertebrates recommended in biomonitoring.
Need to sample enough are to reduce bias due to patchy distributidn. Use a variety of sampling devices to cover all
habitats. Diversity indices best method for analysis. '
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and
identification. :
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x DataAnalysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-35
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 71
1. Basic Reference: Hendricks, M. L, C. H. Hocutt and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1950. "Monitoring of Fish in Lotic Habitats", in
Biological Monitoring of Fish, C. H. Hocutt and J. R. Stauffer, Jr., Eds., D.C.' Heath and Co., Lexington, MA., 416 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of gill nets, trap nets, seines, electroshocking and ichthyocides to collect fish for species
analysis.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Explains advantages/disadvantages of fish collection
methods in biomonitoring of flowing waters.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge of fish collection methods and
Identification. Also knowledge of sample design and analysis.
6. Field Team Size: Varies with method
7. Collection Time Required: Varies .
8. Sample Processing Time: Varies
9. Data Analysis Time: Varies ' •
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Herricks, E. E. and J. Cairns, Jr. 1982. "Biological Monitoring. Part III: Receiving System
Methodology Based on Community Structure", Water Research, 16:141-153.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of the use and limitations of data that describe the structure of aquatic
communities.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Need to develop information that will allow the
quantification of cause and effect relationships.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Interpretive Assessment
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
x Other Vertebrates
E-36
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Hester, F. E. and J. S. Dendy. 1962. "A Multiple-Plate Sampler for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates",
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 91:420-421.
2. Procedure Objectives: Multi-plate sampler to act as artificial substrate for aquatic macroinvertebrates.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The multi-plate sampler was found to be simple to use,
quantitative, and a good sampling device for collecting a variety of macroinvertebrates!
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of bentnjc macroinvertebrate sampling and
identification.
6. Field Team Size: One to two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction ,
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplanktbn
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 74
1. Basic Reference: Hilsenhoff, W. L, 1988. "Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family-level Biotic
Index", Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7(1 ):65-68.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine biotic integrity of macroinvertebrates to provide a rapid, but less critical evaluation
of streams using arthropods.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: It is a quicker approach but this technique loses some
accuracy in the process. ' .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and
identification. ' ' '
6. Field Team Size: One or Two
7. Collection Time Required: 5 -10 minutes per station (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 15-30 minutes per sample (two persons) ,
9. Data Analysis Time: 30 - 60 minutes (one person) -
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-37
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 75
1. Basic Reference: Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1987. "An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution", Great Lakes
Entomologist, 20:31-39. .
2. Procedure Objectives: Improved biotic index of arthropod fauna to evaluate organic stream pollution.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of arthropods to assess organic pollution is fast but
restricted in its use.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of collection of benthic macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two .
7. Collection Time Required: 5-10 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: 30 - 60 minutes (one person)
Subsection ,
Population and Community Interaction
x : Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1982. "Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams", Technical
Bulletin No. 132, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wl., 23 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Utilizes macroinvertebrate community structure to provide an index of water quality.'
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
: Zooplankton
, Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-38
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 77
1. Basic Reference: Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1977. "Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality of Streams", Technical Bulletin
No. 100, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wl., 15 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Utilizes macroinvertebrate community structure to evaluate stream water quality.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
OtherVertebrates
Reference Number - 78
1. Basic Reference: Hocutt, C. H. and J. Stauffer, Jr., Eds. 1980. Biological Monitoring of Fish. D. C. Heath and Co.
2. Procedure Objectives: An overview of different biological monitoring methods using fish.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment ;
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
OtherVertebrates
E-39
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 79
1. Basic Reference: Holme, N. A. and A. b. Mclntyre, Eds. 1984. "Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos", 2nd
Edition, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, MA., 387 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of techniques for sampling marine benthos.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of sampling methods for marine benthos.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 80
1. Baste Reference: Howmiller, R. P. and M. A. Scott. 1977. "An Environmental Index Based on Relative Abundance of
OHgachaete Species", J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 49:809-815.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of several types of proposed indices distinguished by the sort of information they
summarize.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands .
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Discussion of several indices and the use of
oligochaete species to detect water quality changes.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA ,
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection .
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-40
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number—81
1. Basic Reference: Hubert, W. A. 1983. "Passive Capture Techniques", in Fisheries Techniques, L. A. Nielsen and D L
Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 95-122.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description, advantages and disadvantages and equipment involved in several passive
capture techniques. .......
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
. x Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of passive capture techniques. Easy to use
but gear has biases. *
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge of fish collection methods and ' :
identification. Also knowledge of sample design and analysis.
6. Field Team Size: Varies with method
7. Collection Time Required: Variable
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection ,
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 82
1. Basic Reference: Hughes, B. D. 1978. 'The Influence of Factors Other Than Pollution on the Value of Shannon's
Diversity Index for Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Streams", Water Research, 12:359-364,
2. Procedure Objectives: The effects of six factors on the value of Shannon's diversity index were examined using field
data from a polluted river. .
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands .
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection ;
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-41
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 83
1. Basic Reference: Hughes. B. D. 1975. "A Comparison of Four Samplers for Benthic Macroinvertebrates Inhabiting
Coarse River Deposits", Water Research, 9:61-69. . .
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of four different macroinvertebrate sampling devices for coarse river deposits.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The surber and box samplers were found to be better
than the electric shock sampler and the artificial substrate. ' •
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methods and
Identification.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person) , ,
Subsection
, Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 84
1. Basic Reference: Hughes, R. M., D. P. Larsen and J. M. Omernik. 1986. "Regional Reference Sites: A Method for
Assessing Stream Potentials", Environmental Management, 10:629-635.
2. Procedure Objectives: Set up regional reference sites to act as controls in the field assessment of impacted streams.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine " Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Ecoregions advantageous for using as control sites to
compare to suspected impacted sites.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis .- .
x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population Structure
Community Structure
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-42
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number-85
1. Basic Reference: Hulbert, J. L 1987. "Biological Standards in the Florida Water Quality Rules", Presented at the U;S
EPA, Biocrrteria Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, December 2-4. ' '
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine the biological integrity of benthic macroinvertebrates using Shannon-Weaver index
Using artificial substrate and ponar type sampler. '
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Natural grabs better for lakes but forced to use artificial
substrate. Use natural grabs for marine environments. Shannon-Weaver has some problems. This is a start for
Biocriteria in Florida.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge about sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons).
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons).
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person).
Subsection .
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference NuWbii^
1. Basic Reference: Jaccard, P. 1908. "Nouvelles Recherches sur la Distribution Florale", Bull. Soc Vaud Sci Nat
XLIV(163):223-269. • • -,
2. Procedure Objectives: Provides a coefficient that can be used to compare the similarity of communities.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction :
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-43
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 87
1. Basic Reference: Jarrett, F. L, K. B. Grogan, D. L Martin and J. W. Mclntosh, Jr. 1975. "Use of Artificial Substrate for
Sampling Macroinvertebrate Organisms", The Virginia Journal of Science, 26:56.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of net versus Plate artificial substrate sampler.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types .
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Two artificial substrate designs are compared to
samples collected with a surber sampler.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Reid Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
. Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 88
1. Basic Reference: Kaesler, R. L, E. E. Herricks and J. S. Grossman. 1978. "Use of Indices of Diversity and
Hierarchical Diversity in Stream Surveys", in Biological Data in Water Pollution Assessment: Quantitative and Statistical
Analysis, ASTM STP 652, K. L. Dickson, J. Cairns, Jr., and R. J. Livingston, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, pp. 72-112.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of Brillouins equation with other equations of species diversity in stream systems.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of generic diversity as opposed to species diversity
revealed similar results and saves time and money. Hierarchal diversities show promise in the future.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA .
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x':Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
•. Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-44
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 89
1. Basic Reference: Karr, J. R. 1987. "Biological Monitoring and Environmental Assessment: A Conceptual Frame Work",
Environmental Management, 11(2) :249-256.
2. Procedure Objectives: Importance of biological monitoring with emphasis on metrics like the IBI (Index of Biotic
Integrity).
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: IBI takes into account individual, population, community
and ecosystem attributes.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton s
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number— 90
1. Basic Reference: Karr, J. R., P. R. Yant, K. D. Fausch, and I. J. Schlosser. 1987. "Spatial and Temporal Variability of
the Index of Biotic Integrity in Three Midwestern Streams", Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 116:1-11.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of IBI for comparison over time and between sites.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Consistently ranked sites. Sampling should be done
during summer.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Experience in the concept of the IBI and fish identification.
Knowledge in the use of electrofishing techniques.
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One hour per sample (three persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction •
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton,
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-45
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 91
1. Basic Reference: Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, I. J. Schlosser. 1986. "Assessing Biological
Integrity in Running Waters a Method arid Its Rational", Special Publication 5, Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana,
Illinois. ! . '
2. Procedure Objectives: The use of the Index of Biotic Integrity to determine the integrity of fish communities in running
water.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands ' •
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Index able to identify a variety of forms of degradation.
Care must be taken to appropriately interpret results. .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Experience in the concept of the IBI and fish identification.
Knowledge in the use of electrofishing techniques.
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One hour per sample (three persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x .population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
'Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 92
1. Basic Reference: Karr, J. R., R. C. Heidinger, E. H. Helmer. 1985. "Effects of Chlorine and Ammonia from Waste
Water Treatment Facilities on Biotic Integrity", J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed., 57:912-915.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine if the IBI (Index of Biotic Integrity) is sensitive enough to track changes in biota of
streams subjected to various concentrations of chlorine and ammonia.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands :
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: IBI was a good indicator of the effects of chlorine and
ammonia from waste water.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA :
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x 'Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
; Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
E-46
Other Vertebrates
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 93
1. Basic Reference: Karr, J. R. 1981. "Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities", Fisheries, 6:21-27.
2. Procedure Objectives: An assessment system using a series of fish community attributes related to species
contribution and ecological structure to evaluate the quality of an aquatic biota.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: IBI (Index of Biotic Integrity) reflects the status offish
communities and the environment supplying them.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Experience in the concept of the IBI and fish identification.
Knowledge in the use of electroshocking techniques. •
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One hour per sample (three persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment >
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 94
1. Basic Reference: Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. "Ecological Perspective on Water Quality Goals", Environmental
Management, 5(1):55-68.
2. Procedure Objectives: Outline inadequacies ,,of use of only physical chemical conditions to assess water quality and
propose new approach.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: New approaches discussed in the use of aquatic life as
well as traditional physical, chemical conditions to assess improvements.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: N A
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-47
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 95
1. Basic Reference: Kathman, D. 1978. "Artificial Substrate Sampler for Benthic Invertebrates in Ponds, Small Lakes
and Reservoirs", Prog. Fish Cult, 40:114-115.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of artificial substrate for benthic macroinvertebrates.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Device prevents organisms from being dislodged and
lost on retrieval due to bag enclosure. ' ,, .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two .
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons) ; i i
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection >
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton .
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 96
1. Basic Reference: Ketchum, B. H., Ed. 1983. "Ecosystems of the World. Volume 26: Estuaries and Enclosed Seas",
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 500 pp. •
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of physical, chemical and biological characteristics of estuarine ecosystems of the
world.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of estuarine ecosystems and enclosed seas
with information on physical and biological aspects.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection :
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-48
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number"- 97
1. Basic Reference: Keup, L E. and C. S. Zabra. 1987. "Benthic Quality Standards", presentation at the 35th annual
meeting, North American Benthological Society, Orono, Maine. 15pp. ;
2. Procedure Objectives: Development of biological criteria for benthic, macroinvertebrates to assess water quality and
pollutant effects.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Numerical criteria for water quality determination.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis , -
Interpretive Assessment,,,.,. ,-<•..
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 98
1. Basic Reference: Klopatek, J. M. 1988. "Some Thoughts on Using a Landscape Framework to Address
Cumulative Impacts on Wetland Food Chain Support", Environmental Management, 12:703-711.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of the problems of using food chain support as a functional attribute of a wetland.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Problems associated with using food chain support as a
functional attribute of wetlands are discussed.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-49
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 99
1. Basic Reference: Kovalak, W. P. 1981. "Assessment and Prediction of Impacts of Effluents on Communities of
Benthic Stream Macroinvertebrates", Ecological Assessments of Effluent Impacts on Communities of Indigenous
Aquatic Organisms, ASTM STP 730, American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 255-263.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine species richness as a function of oxygen demand based on impact prediction
model with the Shannon-Weaver and Brillouin indices.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine . Estuarine . Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Both indices have their short falls and should be used
along with community analysis based on species richness and population densities.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure •
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x bata Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -100
1. Basic Reference: Krieger, K. A. 1984. "Benthic Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Environmental Degradation in the
Southern Nearshore Zone of the Central Basin of Lake Erie", J. Great Lakes Res., 10(2) :197-209.
2, Procedure Objectives: Description of program to monitor macroinvertebrate populations to assess environmental
degradation.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Program was able to sample a large area of Lake Erie.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and
Identification.
6. Field Team Size: Two
7. Collection Time Required: 20 - 30 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One to two hours per sample (two prsons)
9. Data Analysis Time: Two to four hours (one person)
Subsection , ,
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive'Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-50
-------
. Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -101
1. Basic Reference: Langdon, R. 1987. "Development of Fish Population Based Biocriteria in Vermont", EPA Region 5,
Proceedings of National Workshop on Instream Biological Criteria, Lincolnwood, Illinois.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine integrity offish communities with the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Pinkham and
Pearson's similarity coefficients. ,
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Found that the Vermont version of the IBI was sound
with potential use in biocriteria, The PPCS (Pinkham and Pearson's similarity coefficient) had less potential.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Population Structure x Data Analysis , • -.-,-
x Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -102
1. Basic Reference: Larsen, D. P., J. M. Ofnernik, R. M. Hughes, C. M. Rohm, T. R. Whitter, A. J. Kinney, A! L Gallant,
D. R. Dudley. 1986. "Correspondence Between Spatial Patterns in Fish Assemblages in Ohio Streams and Aquatic
Ecoregions", Environmental Management, 10:815-828. •• .......
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine correspondence offish spatial patterns and patterns in the surrounding landscape.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Four distinct ecoregions were classified in Ohio and
found to be good indicators of fish distributions.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA ,
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis "- • .
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-51
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -103(
1. Basic Reference: Larson, E. W., D. L. Johnson and W. F. Lynch, Jr. 1986. "A Buoyant Pop Net for Accurately
Sampling Fish at Artificial Habitat Structures", Trans, of the Amer. Fish. Soc., 115(2):351-355.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description and evaluation of a buoyant pop net for fish sampling.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Pop net was found to sample 100% of fish associated
with artificial structure. Technique is labor intensive.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge offish usage of artifical structure, pop-net sampling
and fish identification. SCUBA skills also necessary.
6. Field Team Size: Four or Five
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per sample (four persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: 30 - 60 minutes (one person)
Subsection .
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -104
1. Basic Reference: Lauritsen, D. D., S. C. Mozley and D. S. White. 1985. "Distribution of Oligochaetes in Lake Michigan
and Comments on Their Use as Indices of Pollution", J. Great Lakes Res., 11 (1):67-76.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of oligochaete distribution in Lake Michigan and their use as indices of pollution.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Benthic organisms considered good indicators of water
quality. )
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group .
Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Periphyton x Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
E-52
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -105
1. Basic Reference: Leitch, W. G. 1966. "Historical and Ecological Factors in Wetland Inventory", Trans. N. Am. Wildl.
Nat. Resour. Conf., 31:88-96.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of the necessity of ecological and historical information in classification of wetlands.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Designed to help identify important wetlands for proper
management.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population Structure
Community Structure
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number- 106
1. Basic Reference: Lenat, D. R. 1988. 'Water Quality Assessment of Streams Using a Qualitative Collection Method for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates", J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 7(3):222-223. ,
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of taxa richness criteria to assess water quality of streams based on multi-habitat
collections of benthic macroinvertebrates with coarse and fine mesh samplers.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Multi-habitat collections reduce sample bias by
collecting organisms from different available habitats. Slightly more labor intensive.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: Two .
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-53
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -107!
1. Basic Reference: Lenat, D. R. 1984. "Agriculture and Stream Water Quality: A Biological Evaluation of Erosion Control
Practices", Environmental Management, 8:333-334. .
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine effects of agricultural runoff on the lower taxa richness of streams.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Benthic macroinvertebrates found to be good indicator
of agricultural runoff effects. Effecting the EPT group the most.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA „
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis • . •
x interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton .
Macroinvertebrates
Fish'
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -108
1. Basic Reference: Leonard, P. M. and D. J. Orth. 1986. "Application and Testing of an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) in
Small, Coolwater Streams", Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 115:401-414.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine if the Index of Biotic Integrity is useful in evaluating fish community integrity in
small, coolwater streams.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: A modified six metric IBI was found to be a good
indicator of stream degradation.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of the IBI and fish sampling and identification.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-54
-------
Appendix E:, Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -109
I. Basic Reference: Lucey, W. P., J. Desinger, A. Austin. 1986. "A Comparison of Algal Periphyton Communities
Developed on Artificial Substrata in Two Dissimilar Containment Systems", Nat. Can., 113(2): 153-164.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of algal communities utilizing two artificial substrates - testing effectiveness of
new substrate design.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Can be used to assess impacts where other devices
are inappropriate.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of periphyton with
artifical substrates.
6. Field Team Size: Two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 2 - 3 hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community.lnteraction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -110
1. Basic Reference: Lyons, J. 1988. "Correspondence Between the Distribution of Fish Assemblages in Wisconsin
Streams and Proposed Aquatic Ecoregions", Am. Midland Nat. (in press).
2. Procedure Objectives: To determine usefulness of ecoregions classification in determining the distribution offish
assemblages.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine .. Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Ecoregions can be used as a reference or baseline
sites for comparison with potentially affected areas. Development of ecoregions takes time to develop.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-55
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -111
1. Basic Reference: Mahon, R. 1980. "Accuracy of Catch-effort Methods for Estimating Fish Density in Streams", Biol.
Fish., 5(4):343-360.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine accuracy of Leslje and DeLury estimates by electrofishing stream section and
comparing to rotenone control. .
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Leslie and Rickes catch-effort methods were the least in
error. Better estimates could be obtained by more effort but is more costly.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of fish sampling and identification. Knowledge of
estimates for fish desities. :
6. Field Team Size: Four to six ,
7. Collection Time Required: 8 hours for multiple sample estimate (six persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 4 hours (six persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: 2-4 hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction •
x Population Structure x Data Analysis
Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
x Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Periphyton Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton x Fish
Reference Number -112
1. Basic Reference: Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1987. "Methods for Biological Sampling and
Analysis of Maine's Waters", 18 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of rock filled baskets, artificial substrates, sieves, and nets to collect benthic
macroinvertebrates.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Has the advantage of using both artificial substrate and
natural substrate sampling methods to collect benthic macroinvertebrates.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling techniques
and identification.
6. Field Team Size: Two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment x Population and Community Interaction
x Population Structure x 0ata Analysis
x Community Structure Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Periphyton x Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
— £-56
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Malvestuto, S. P. 1983. "Sampling the Recreation Fishery", in Fisheries Techniques, L. A. Nielsen
and D. L, Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 397-420.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of the collection of recreational fishery information using direct interview, on-site,
Survey sampling techniques.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary .Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of surveys to collect information about recreational
fishery. Inexpensive and can collect a wide variety of information. Can have problems with survey biases.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of survey design.
6. Field Team Size: One
7. Collection Time Required: 4 - 6 hours per sample (one person)
8. Sample Processing Time: Two to four hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -r 114
1. Basic Reference: Masnik, M. T., J. Ft. Stauffer, Jr., and C. H. Hocutt. 1978. "A Comparison of Fish Collection Methods
After Rotenone Application in New River Virginia", Virginia J. Sci., 29(1 ):5-9.'"
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of block net versus dip net of fish during rotenone application.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Block nets found to be a more effective method than
hand dipping for collecting fish from rotenoning.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of fish toxicant sampling and fish identification.
6. Field Team Size: 5 -10
7. Collection Time Required: 2 - 4 hours per sample (5-10 persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 4-6 hours per sample (5-7 persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: 3 - 6 hours per sample (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-57
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -115
1. Basic Reference: Mason, W. T., Jr., C.,1. Weber, P. A. Lewis, E. C. Julian. 1973. "Factors Affecting the Performance of
Basket and Multi-Plate Macroinvertebrate Samplers", Freshwater Biology, 3:409-436.
2. Procedure Objectives: Factors affecting the performance of basket and multi-plate samplers, such as sampling depth
and amount of exposure time were determined. ; , , • .,
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Depth and duration of colonization time affected the
type and number of organisms collected with rock filled baskets. . '
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community, Interaction
Data Analysis ,
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group '
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -116
1. Basic Reference: Matthews, R. A., A. L. Buikema, Jr., J. Cairns, Jr. and J. H. Rodgers, Jr. 1982. "Biological -
Monitoring. Part HA: Receiving System Functional Methods, Relationships and Indices", Water Research, 16:129-139,
2. Procedure Objectives: Examination of biological monitoring from a functional view, integrating structure and function
Into a more complete picture of ecosystem response to stress.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat types .
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands . "; ;;
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Functional information helps to give a clear
understanding of ecosystem responses. , -,, ',
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA ..-.-,
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA v
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-58
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number-117
1. Basic Reference: Medine, A. J. and D. B. Porcella. 1982. "Eutrophication", J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
54(6):770-778. r
2, Procedure Objectives: Review of 116 publications on eutrophication.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-118
1. Basic Reference: Melkic, A., E. Creese and D. Lewis. 1986. "Development of a Standard Clam Biomonitoring
Methodology for the Detection of Trace Contaminants within Water of the Ontario Great Lakes Region", Technology
Transfer Conference, Part B: Water Quality Research, pp. 205-218.
2. Procedure Objectives: Clam biomonitoring methodology for the detection of trace elements.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: The use of clams as a bioindicator for trace
contaminants. Resulfe are time integrated over whole exposure period but new source of uncontaminated clams need
to be found.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-59
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number-
1. Basic Reference: Menge, B. A. and J. P. Sutherland. 1987. "Community Regulation : Variation in Disturbance,
Competition and Predation in Relation to Environmental Stress and Recruitment", American Naturalist, 130:730-757.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describe predictions of a model of community regulation and the effects of variation in
disturbance, competition, predation in relation to environmental stress and recruitment.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of modeling in assessing impacts of aquatic
organisms.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of modeling and its use in aquatic systems.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -120
1. Basic Reference: Millar, J. B. 1976. "Wetland Classification in Western Canada: A Guide to Marshes and Shallow
Open Water Wetlands in the Grasslands and Parks of the Prairie Provinces", Canadian Wildlife Service Report, Section
37, 38 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of classification system of marshes and shallow open waters.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: This classification technique categorizes wetlands with
respect to vegetation parameters and will assist in wetland management. . • .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population Structure
Community Structure
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
'Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-60
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -121
1. Basic Reference: Millard, S. P. 1987. "Environmental Monitoring, Statistics and the Law: Room for Improvement", The
American Statistician, 41:249-256.
2. Procedure Objectives: Alert the statistical community to deficiencies in the use of statistics in environmental
monitoring. .
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marinex Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Stress the importance of integrating proper statistical
procedures in environmental monitoring.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of statistical procedures and use for environmental
monitoring.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA •
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Com munity I nteraction
Population Structure x Data Analysis
Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -122
1. Basic Reference: Millard, S. P and D. P. Lettenmaier. 1986. "Optimal Design of Biological Sampling Programs Using
the Analysis of Variance", Est. Coast. Shelf Sci., 22:637-656.
2. Procedure Objectives: Provides design considerations for establishing statistically sound studies.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA .
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Periphyton Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
E-61
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -123
1. Basic Reference: Miller, D. L, P. M. Leonard, R. M. Hughes, J. R. Karr, P..B. Moyle, L H. Schrader, B. A. Thompson, ,
R. A. Daniels, K. D. Fausch, G. A. Fitzriugh, J. R. Gammon, D. B. Halliwell, P. L. Angermeier, and D. J. Orth.,1988. '
"Regional Applications of an Index of Bioftc Integrity for Use in Water Resource Management", Fisheries, 13(5) :12-20.
2. Procedure Objectives: Adapting the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to different regions by changing metrics to
accommodate regional differences in fish distribution and assemblage structure and function.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types . ••,...;
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: IBI is a flexible index that can be adapted to conform to
different regions. . , ; , ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA ,
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA '
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis , . , ;
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -124
1. Basic Reference: Montanari, J. H. and J. E. Townsend. 1977. "Status of the National Wetlands Inventory", Trans. N.
Am. Wildl. Resour. Conf., 42:66-72.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of project to classify and map North American wetlands.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of the status of the national wetlands
Inventory.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA ...... ,,...*•.-
8. Sample Processing Time: NA f
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection .
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-62
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
ReferenceNumber-125
1. Basic Reference: Morhadt, J. E. and E. Altouney. 1986. "Instream Flow Requirements Below Reservoirs: Conclusions
from the EPRI Study", in Lake and Reservoir Management - Vol. II., G. Redfield, J. Taggart and L. M. Moore, Eds.,
North American Lake Management Society, Washington, D. C., 458 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Reviews models for determining instream flows below reservoirs and biological effects of flow
alteration.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine
Estuarine
Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Morris, J. 1987. "Evaluating the Wetland Resource", Environmental Management, 24:147-156.
2. Procedure Objectives: Review of possible methods for identifying and measuring costs, benefits and impacts of
wetlands and agriculture systems.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Giving wetlands a monetary value as a way of
measuring wetland worth.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-63
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -127
1. Basic Reference: Mukopadhyay, M. K., B. B. Ghosh, H. C. Joshi, M. M. Bagchi and H. C. Karmakar. 1987.
"Biomonitoring of Pollution in the Hooghly Estuary by Using Ritarita as Jest Fish, J. Env. Biol., 8(4):297-3Q6.
2. Procedure Objectives: Observations of growth rate and deterioration of haematological condition to determine effects
of estuary pollutants. .'.••'•"•••
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types .
Freshwater Marine* Estuarine Wetlands .
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of an indicator species for pollution monitoring.
Some of the techniques for evaluation were laboratory intensive. ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge offish sampling in estuaries and fjsh physiology.
6. Field Team Size: Two or three ,
7. Collection Time Required: Variable >"•...-'
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
X Population Structure Data Analysis ,
Community Structure Interpretive Assessment
Community Croup '•'—'•'
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -128
1. Basic Reference: Murphy, P. M. 1978. 'The Temporal Variability in Biotic Indices", Environ, Pollut, 17:227-236.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determination of the seasonal stability of six biotic indices used in the assessment of water
quality. • , •
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Chandler Biotic Score and Average .Chandler Biotic
Score gave more consistant results than community based indices.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA , , ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis ,
x Interpretive Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-64
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number — 129
1. Basic Reference: Newling, C. J. and H. K. Smith. 1982. "The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program"
Wetlands, 2:280-285. '
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of program to develop methods of wetland delineation, techniques for determining
wetland values and wetland restoration.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Provides professionals with a framework to help in
wetland management.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -130
1. Basic Reference: Nielsen, L.A. and D.'L Johnson, Eds., 1983. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD. 468 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: A compendium of techniques for the analysis of fish populations and communities.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection '
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-65
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -131
1. Basic Reference: Ohio E.P.A. 1987. "Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Volume III. Standardized
Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities", Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, 55 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Quantitative and qualitative methods of sampling fish and macroinvertebrate populations with
indices for relating community structure to water quality.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Uses both quantitative (Hester-Dendy) and qualitative
techniques to assess benthic macroinvertebrates. :
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates. >
6. Field Team Size: Two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -132
1. Basic Reference: Omernik, J. M. 1987. "Ecoregidns of the Conterminous United States", Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 77(1):118-125.
2. Procedure Objectives: Compilation of a map of the ecoregions of the conterminous U.S.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Development of a map of ecoregions for the United
States. ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA , ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
; Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-66
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -133
1. Basic Reference: Orlando, E. 1985. "Evaluation of Heavy Metals Sea Pollution by Marine Bioindicators", Oebalia,
11 (1) •93" 100* ' ; - • -
2. Procedure Objectives: Evaluation of heavy metal sea pollution.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine, Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Problems of an appropriate bioindicator and methods of
sampling to monitor heavy metal pollution are discussed,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA ,
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction ,
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment 7
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
• Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -134
1. Basic Reference: Orth, D. J. 1983. "Aquatic Habitat Measurements", in Fisheries Techniques, LA. Nielsen and D L
Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 61-84.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of sources of information, techniques, equipment and biases relating to aquatic
habitat assessment.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of habitat measurements for lakes and
streams/rivers. .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of habitat measurement techniques for aquatic
habitats.
6. Field Team Size: Variable
7. Collection Time Required: Variable '.
8. Sample Processing time: Variable '.'.' ;
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable ;
Subsection ' ;';
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-67
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Pascoe, D. and R. W. Edwards (Eds.). 1985. "Compliance Biomonitoring Standard Development
and Regulation Enforcement Using Biomonitoring Data", Freshwater Biological Monitoring: Proceedings of a
Specialized conference held in Cardiff, U.K., 12-14 September, 1984., Adv. Water Pollut. Control.
2. Procedure Objectives: Review requirements for implementation of compliance biorrionitoring and evaluates several
methods of data collection and analysis.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Emphasizes the importance of stringent collection and
analysis of data to be statistically reliable and have interpretative strength.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes 2ooplankton Other Vertebrates
Periphyton ' :Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Reference Number -136
1. Basic Reference: Paul, J. F., A. F. Holland, K. J. Scott, D. A. Flemerand E. P. Meier. 1989. "An Ecological Status and
Trends Program: EPA's Approach to Monitoring the Condition of the Nation's Ecosystems", Presentation at Oceans '89,
September 18-21, Seattle, WA.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of EPA's environmental monitoring and assessment program to monitor the
nation's ecosystems.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) will help to monitor coastal waters, forests, freshwater wetlands, surface waters and agroecosystems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA '
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-68
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number-137
1< S^'^ToSS" Pe°karShy' B< L 1986' "Colonization of Natural Substrates by Stream Benthos", Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
of benthos communities colonizing artificial substrates between seasonal and
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine ? Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Temporal succession was observed on artificial
substrate but the importance of biological interactions in determining these changes are unclear.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis ••,....
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -138
1. Basic Reference: Pinder, L. C. V., M. Ladle, T. Gledholl, J. A. B. Bass and A. M. Matthews, 1987. "Biological
Surveillance of Water Quality. 1. A Comparison of Macroinvertebrate Surveillance Methods in Relation to Assessment
of Water Quality in a Chalk Stream", Arch. Hydrobiol., 109(2):207-226. ™«.ew»mern
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of macroinvertebrates obtained from various types of sediments with diversity
and pollution indices to determine optimum surveillance method. w ™ »«*"»> wim aiversiiy
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine
Estuarine
Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: A comparison of different sampling methods and
analysis techniques are discussed for benthic macroinvertebrates.
5; Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling techniques for benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA = ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-69
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -139j
1. Basic Reference: Pratt, J. M., R. A. Color and P. J. Godfrey. 1981. "Ecological Effects of Urban Stormwater Runoff on
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Inhabiting the Green River, Massachusetts", Hydrobiologia, 83:29-42.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of benthic macroinvertebrates to assess urban runoff in a river system.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Four analytical procedures identified effects of urban
stormwater runoff on benthic macroinvertebrates.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons) >
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysjs
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x .Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -140
1. Basic Reference: Preston, E. M. arid B. L. Bedford. 1988. "Evaluating Cumulative Effects on Wetland Functions: A
'conceptual Overview and Generic Framework", Environmental Management, 12:565-583.
2. Procedure Objectives: Provide a generic framework for evaluating cumulative effects on three basic wetland
'landscape functions: flood storage, water quality and life support.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Foundation for further study to quantify cumulative
' effects of wetland loss or degradation on the functioning of interacting wetland systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform. Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA .
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection •
x Habitat Assessment population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis " •
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish . •
Other Vertebrates
E-70
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number-141
inhM Pl^°9le' ? A',lnd R' L L°Wa 197£>- "SamP'in9 and Interpretation of Epilithic Diatom Communities",
m Methods and Measurements of Periphyton Communities: A Review, ASTM STP 690, R. L Weitzel Ed American
Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 77-89. , , , / •'"1"ol"-a"
2. Procedure Objectives: Analysis of diatoms from quantitative samples for density and species diversity and affects of
including dead cells.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4' steS aopTrS dhfeSty DIsadvantages of the Procedure: Inclusion of dead diatom cells in analysis-increased
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis • ,.
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number ^142
and
1. Basic Reference: Rabeni, C. F. and K. F. Gibbs. 1988. "Ordination of Deep River Invertebrate Communities in
Relation to Environmental Variables", Hydrobiologia, 74:67-76.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of artificial structure and divers to assess environmental changes on a deep river system.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: A method for collecting a quantitative benthic
macromvertebrate sample from large rivers. Labor intensive.
i Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both
s. Skill in Scuba diving.
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: 20 - 30 minutes per sample (three persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-71
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -143
1. Basic Reference: Rabeni, C. F. and K. E. Gibbs. 1978. "Comparison of Two Methods Used by Divers for Sampling
Benthic Invertebrates in Deep Rivers", J. Fish Res. Bd. Can., 35:332-336.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison between basket and Hess samplers for collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Both Hess sampler and rock-basket found to be
efficient samplers in deep rivers.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and idetification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
t Data Analysis
x; Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -144
1 Basic Reference: Resh, V. H. 1988. "Variability, Accuracy, and Taxonomic Costs of Rapid Assessment Approaches in
'Benthic Biomonitoring", Draft, Presented at the 1988 N. Amer. Benthological Soc. Tech. Info. Workshop, Tuscaloosa,
AL
2. Procedure Objectives: Discusses implications of rapid bioassessment approaches for benthic communities.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection : ,
x Habitat Assessment x Population and Community Interaction
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-72
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -145
1. Basic Reference: Resh, V. H. and J. Di Unzickes. 1975. "Water Quality Monitoring and Aquatic Organisms: The
Importance of Species Identification", Water Quality Monitoring, 47:9-1 7.
2. Procedure Objectives: To point out the importance of species lever identification of benthic macroinvertebrates for
biological monitoring.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Need species level identification but need to
appropriate keys for effective biomonitoring. Species level identification takes more time.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate identification.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: N A
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment •
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -146
1. Basic Reference: Reynolds, J. B. 1983. "Electrofishing", in Fisheries Techniques, L A. Nielson and D. L Johnson
Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Junnson
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of electricity to capture fish.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
Needed tO Perfprm Procedure: Knowledge of electrofishing techniques, fish behavior and fish
6. Field Team Size: Variable
7. Collection Time Required: Variable
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure x
Community Group .
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton x
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis '•
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-73
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -147
1. Basic Reference: Richkus, W. A. 1980. "Problems in Monitoring Marine and Estuarine Fishes", in Biological Monitoring
' of Fish, Hocutt, O. H. and J. Stauffer, Jr., Eds., D. C. Heath and Co., pp. 83-118.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describe problems in sampling strategy and data analysis of marine and estuarine fishes.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Explains advantages and disadvantages of
biomonitoring of fish in marine and estuarine systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of various sampling techniques and fish behavior in
marine and estuary systems.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA •-."•'
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure Data Analysis
x Community Structure Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -148
1. Basic Reference: Roby, K. B., J. D. Newbold and D. C. Erman. 1978. "Effectiveness of an Artificial Substrate for
Sampling Macroinvertebrates in Small Streams", Freshwater Biology, 8:1-8.
2. Procedure Objectives: Effectiveness of small porcelain balls as an artificial substrate for collecting
macroinvertebrates in small streams.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Artificial substrate sampler (porcelain balls) was found
to be undependable in the collection of benthic macroinvertebrates. •
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
xi Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-74
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -149
t R.e.ferenc^RQd9ers; J. H> Jr., K. L Dicksdn, J. Cairns, Jr. 1979. "A Review and Analysis of Some Methods
l™rs\P^^^^
, ASTM STP 690, R. L. Weitzel, Ed,, American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 142-167.
2. Procedure Objectives: Analysis of methods used to measure the functional aspects of periphyton.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine .Wetlands
Procedure: Sessona, periphyton did not indicate changes in
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of periphyton sampling, structure and funtion
6. Field Team Size: Variable
7. Collection Time Required: Variable
8. Sample Processing Time: Variable
9. Data Analysis Time: Variable
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes Zooplankton
x Periphyton Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis --• • /
x Interpretive Assessment
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -i 150
1' .wfrfj^"6^"06;, R(?^,f',R;A' and J" J- Sartoris-1988. "Changes in the Mbrphometry of Las Vegas Wash and the
Impact on Water Quality", Lake and Reservoir Management, 4(1):135-142. -
Physical/chemical parameters due to changes in morphometry of the wash
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
, ?d Dls»dvanta9es °* t"e Procedure: Need to use macrophytes in trophic classification
r H » US6d W'th diSCreti°n Whe" imPlementin9 restoration. A eutrophic lake with high TSI (trophic
status indices) does not mean poorer quality in all situations. onuuymu
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-75
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -151
1. Basic Reference: Rosas, I., M. Mazari, J. Saavedra and A. P. Baez. 1985. "Benthic Organisms as Indicators of Water
Quality in Lake Patzcuaro, Mexico", Water, Air, Soil Pollution, 25:401 -414.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of benthic macroinvertebrates to assess water quality in a Mexican lake.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Benthic organisms were good indicators of both
industrial and domestic waste.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction.
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -152
1. Basic Reference: Rosenberg, D. M., H. V. Danks, D. M. Lehmkul. 1986. "Importance of Insects in Environmental
Impact Assessmenf, Environmental Management, 10:773-783.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describe usefulness of insects in environmental impact assessment.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4 Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Insects are good for environmental assessment
'because they are diverse, ubiquitous in occurrence, and important in the functioning of natural ecosystems. Species
level identification is emphasized.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of insect collection and identication.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
, Population Structure
x Community Structure
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-76
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -153
1. Basic Reference: Rosenburg, D. M. and V. H. Resh. 1982. "The Use of Artificial Substrates in the Study of Freshwater
Bentnic Macromvertebrates", in Artificial Substrates, J. Cairns, Jr. Ed., Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
2. Procedure Objectives: Assess advantages and disadvantages in the use of artificial substrates and elucidate the
general principles governing the dynamics of colonization.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Advantages: standardization of microhabitat flexible
precise. Disadvantage: seasonal variation, long exposure requirement.. '
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of the use of artificial substrates and identification of
benthic macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number—154
1. Basic Reference: Ruth, P. 1973. "Use of Algae, Especially Diatoms, in the Assessment of Water Quality", in Biological
Methods for the Assessment of Water Quality, ASTM STP 528, J. Cairns, Jr., K. L. Dickson, Eds., American Society for
Testing and Materials, pp. 76-95.
2. Procedure Objectives: Observation and analysis of natural and laboratory cultures of algae (diatoms) on artificial
substrates for pollution impacts.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Advantages and disadvantages of single species
versus natural community structure are discussed.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of diatoms usinq
artificial substrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis ,
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
, x. Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-77
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -155
1. Basic Reference: Saila, S. B., R. A. Pikanowski and P. S. Vaughan, 1976. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, Vol.
4., pp. 119-128. . ! ' , •••.-..:-•.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discusses sampling design considerations for estuarine field programs. • v
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine x Estuarine . Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA > ; "
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x
x
Reference Number-156
1. Basic Reference: Schaeffer, D. J., W. H. Ettinger, W. J. Tucker and H. W. Kerster. 1985. "Evaluation of a
Community-Based Index Using Benthic Indicator Organisms for Classifying Stream Quality", J. Water Pollut. Contr.
Fed., 57:167-171. ' "
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine whether benthic classification of stream quality accurately represents the chemical
classification of stream quality. ••'" • ' »
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Benthic classification to determine stream quality is f
discussed. .-...-
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA , n
6. Field Team Size: NA .
7. Collection Time Required: NA , : ,
8. Sample Processing Time: NA .
9. Data Analysis Time: NA ! , , ,, , :
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure x
x Community Structure x
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton x
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis ,, r
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-78
-------
= Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number-157
n~ Refer£"ce: Shackleford, B. 1988. "Rapid Bioassessment of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Communities: Biocriteria
Developmenf , State of Arkansas, Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 45 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of benthic macroinvertebrates to assess water quality in flowing waters.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine -Wetlands
4' ^aC7 Advantages and Disa^vanta9es of the Procedure: Accurate cost-effective tool way of assessing water
5> Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and
identification.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
2. Procedure Objectives: Discusses the use of information theory in evaluating diversity. :;
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x I nterpretive Assessment •. • •
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-79
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -159
1. Basic Reference: Sheldon, A. L 1984. ICost and Precision in a Stream Sampling Program", Hydrobiologia,
111:147-152.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discusses options concerning resource expenditures and data precision.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine; Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:
6. Field Team Size:
7. Collection Time Required:
8. Sample Processing Time:
9. Data Analysis Time:
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Siegfried, C. A. 1988. "Planktonic Indicators of Lake Acidification in the Adirondack Mountain Region
of New York State", Lake and Reservoir Management, 4(1):115-121. ,
2. Procedure Objectives: Relationship between lake acidity and plankton community structure using species richness.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of biomass of certain plankton groups are good
indicators of acidification problems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of plankton sampling and identification.
6. Field Team Size: Two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: Two to four hours per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person) , ,. , ,
Subsection
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment ; ,
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-80
-------
;. AppendixE: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Siegfried. C. A., J. A. Blopmfield and J. W. Sutherland. 1987. "Acidification, Vertebrate and
Invertebrate Predators and the Structure of Zooplankton Communities in Adirondack Lakes", Lake and Reservoir
Management, 3:385-393.
2. Procedure Objectives: The interaction of acidity status and vertebrate plaktivore abundance relating to zooplankton
grazer community variation.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Lowest level of trophic community which effects whole
system. Not a high profile organism in publics mind.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number —162
1. Basic Reference: Steedman, R. J. 1988. "Modification and Assessment of an Index of Biotic Integrity to Quantify
Stream Quality in Southern Ontario", Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 45:492-501.
2. Procedure Objectives: Adaptation of IBI to conditions in Canada, i
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Good indicator of stream quality from land use
disturbances.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of electrofishing and fish identification. Knowledge of
the use of the IBI (Index of Biotic Integrity). ,
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA ,
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Population Structure x Data Analysis
x Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton .
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-81
-------
Biological Criteria -Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -163
1. Basic Reference: Steinhart, C. E., L J. Schierow arid W. C. Sonzogni. 1982. "Environmental Quality Index for the
Great Lakes", Water Resources Bulletin, 18(6): 1025-1031.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describes new index for summarizing water quality for nearshore waters of the Great Lakes,
based on physical, chemical, biological and toxic substance variables.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Index combines many variables to assess water quality
but this can be expensive.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA .
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection .
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes'
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -164
1. Basic Reference: Strange, R. J.-1983. "Field Examination of Fish", \nFisheries Techniques, L. A. Nielsen and D. L.
Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 337-348.
2. Procedure Objectives: Discussion of techniques and limitations in the field examination of fish.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Procedures discussed in assessing fish health and
illness by field examination. Need to be trained to assess fish health.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of fish health and diseases.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection .
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-82
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number- 165
1. Basic Reference: Sullivan, J. K, H. D. Putnam, J. T. McClave and D. R. Swift. 1981. "Statistical Techniques for
Evaluating Procedures and Results for Periphyton Sampling", \nEcplogicalAssessments of Effluent Impacts on
Communities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms, ASTM STP 730, J. M. Bates and C. I. Weber, Eds., American society
for Testing and Materials, pp. 132-141. , .-; ,
2. Procedure Objectives: The evaluation of density, diversity and dominant organisms on glass slides incubated at
various locations in a reservoir receiving industrial effluent. .......
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Evaluation of sampling techniques for periphyton are
discussed along with statistical procedures. , .......
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of periphyton.
6. Field Team Size: Two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: Two to four hours per sample (one person) , ;
9. Data Analysis Time: Two to three hours (one person)
Subsection . ,
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis :. : .
x Interpretive Assessment . , ,
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number ^166
1. Basic Reference: Szcztyko? S. W. ,1988. "Investigation of New Interpretive Techniques for Assessing Biomonitoring
Data and Stream Water Quality in Wisconsin Streams", Report to the Surface, Water Monitoring Committee, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 85 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Investigate the Utility of using new techniques (similarity indices, diversity indices, species and
generic richness, dominate species, Ephemeroptera - Plecoptera - Tricoptera index) to supplement Hilsehhoff biotic
index data.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands . . • .,
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: HBI keys on arthropods which are a good indicator of
intermittent or mild organic enrichment. Index is limited to detection of organic enrichment.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ;
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Periphyton x Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment .-.-
E-83
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -167
1. Basic Reference: Tesmer, M. G. and D. R. Wefring. 1981. "Annual Macroinvertebrate Sampling - A Low Cost Tool for
Ecological Assessment of Effluent Impact", in Ecological Assessment of Effluent Impacts on Communities of
Indigenous Aquatic Organisms, ASTM STP 730, J.M. Bates and C.I. Weber, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, pp. 214-279.
2. Procedure Objectives: Annual sampling of macroinvertebrates to assess impacts of effluent discharge on rivers.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Annual sampling of macroinvertebrates was able to
distinguish between natural fluctuations and fluctuations due to effluent discharge.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
; Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -168
1. Basic Reference: Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. 'Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends", U.S.
EPA, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 57 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describe current status and historical trends of U.S. Wetlands.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of the importance of wetlands for wildlife as
well as water quality and economic issues. ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection .
x Habitat Assessment , Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
x Other Vertebrates
E-84
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -169
1. Basic Reference: Tsui, P. T. P. and B. W. Breedlove. 1978. "Use of the Multi-Plate Sampler in Biological Monitoring of
the Aquatic Environment", Florida Scientist, 4(2):110-116. - .
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine effectiveness of multi-plate sampler to collect aquatic macroinvertebrates and
compare results with data from Ponar grab to determine most efficient collector.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands •
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Differences in exposure time of artificial substrates and
comparisons between artificial substrates and Ponar grabs are discussed for both lotic and lentic systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-170
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986-1990. "Recommended Protocols for Measuring
Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound", Puget Sound Estuary Program, U. S. EPA, Region 10 Office of
Puget Sound, Seattle, WA.
2. Procedure Objectives: A compendium of procedures for environmental monitoring of estuarine waters. Includes
biological and toxicity test methods.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine x Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA .
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-85
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number-171!
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. "Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for
Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters", D. J. Klemm, P. A. Lewis and J. M. Lazorchak (Authors), Draft
Report No. EPA/600/0-90/000, U. S. EPA; Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Modeling,
Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH., 236 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describes guidelines and standardized procedures for using benthic invertebrates
(macrolnvertebrates) in evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine
Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:
6. Reid Team Size:
7. Collection Time Required:
8. Sample Processing Time:
9. Data Analysis Time:
Subsection ;
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis "
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -172
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agertcy. 1990. "Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters", Report No. EPA-440/5-90-004, U. S. EPA, Office of Water Regulation and Standards, Washington,
D.C.57pp. ' . • '- .. v" -.-;•'.: •••.-.,•• •.-"• ..:.,-«!•.•• •..•••.:• " ,•:.,-.:.••.
2. Procedure Objectives: Presents general program guidance for the development of biological criteria.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marinex Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: NA
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA ,, ,
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ,
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction , . .
Data Analysis ,
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-86
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number 4-173
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. "Proceedings of the First National Workshop on
biological Criteria", Lincolnwood, Illinois, December 2-4,1987. Repprt No. 9Q5/9-89/003, U.S. EPA, Chicago, Illinois.
2. Procedure Objectives: Workshop was designed to consolidate ideas from professionals oh the concept of biological
monitoring. „
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine
Estuarine
Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Consolidated information on biological monitoring so
that other professionals could benefit.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -174
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
Change", Office of Water, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 41 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: To determine where EPA's surface water monitoring program should be in the late 1980s to
ensure that it can meet the information needs of water quality managers in the 19990's, and to identify where and how
adjustments to the program should be made. •
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine , Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: This document would streamline, procedures for water
monitoring. , ; ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: N A " '
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton .
Phytoplankton
Population arid Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-87
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -175
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. 'Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control", Report No. 440/4-85/03, Office of Water, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
2. Procedure Objectives: Provides procedural recommendations for identifying, analyzing and controlling adverse Water
quality Impacts. ;
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Treatment systems are more easily designed to meet
chemical requirements. All toxicants in complex wastewater may not be known making requirements difficult.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA ,
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment ,
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -176
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. "Guidance for Preparation of Combined Work/Quality
Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Monitoring", Report No. OWRS QA-1, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
2. Procedure Objectives: Work quality assurance project plans ensure quality of environmental monitoring.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types .
Freshwater Marine ''Estuarine Wetlands
I " . " '••.-,-,'' :<-',-
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Ensure quality in environmental monitoring.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment .,'..,.
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
; Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-88
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number— 177
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. 'The Development of Data Quality Objectives",
prepared by the EPA Quality Assurance Management staff and the DQO workgroup, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
2. Procedure Objectives: Data quality objectives ensure the quality of the data to strengthen results.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine . Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Ensures the quality of the data collected.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction .
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment ;
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton ,'
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-178
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. "Policy and Program Requirement to Implement the
Quality Assurance Program", EPA order 5360.1, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
2. Procedure Objectives: Quality assurance programs used to ensure the quality of programs.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Ensures the quality of programs.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population Structure
Community Structure
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-89
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -179'
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems. U. S. EPA, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D. C. ,
2. Procedure Objectives: Guidance prepared by EPA to assist states in implementing the revised water quality
standards regulation.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:. Procedures for surveys of lake systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of lake systems with emphasis on habitat and \
biological assessment. . ' ; • ••-•.'. • ,
6. Field Team Size: Varies ,
7. Collection Time Required: Varies • •
8. Sample Processing Time: Varies , » •-•••.
9. Data Analysis Time: Varies .
Subsection •'•••:•
Population and Community Interaction •
x Data Analysis .......
Interpretive Assessment ; <
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Macrophytes
Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-180!
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. "Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses", [Volume I. Rivers and Streams]. U. S. EPA, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
2. Procedure Objectives: Guidelines for use attainability of a waterbbdy. '
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Gives technical guidance to professionals to analyze
data to ascertain use attainability.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA '"";'.
6. Field Team Size: NA .
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton x
Phytoplankton x
Population Structure
Community Structure
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-90
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -181
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. ,'Technical'Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and :
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses", Volume Ili Estuarine Systems. U. S. EPA., Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., 227 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: General information about physical, chemical and biological characteristics of aquatic habitat
for water quality assessment.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine .Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Procedures for surveys of waterbodies to determine
use attainability. , . .
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both benthic and fish sampling and identification.
6. Field Team Size: Varies
7. Collection Time Required: Varies
8. Sample Processing Time: Varies
9. Data Analysis Time: Varies
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis „
Interpretive Assessment
: Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -182
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and
Assessments for Conducting Use.Attainability Analysis. Volume II: Estuarine systems. U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
186pp. -
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of the major physical, chemical and biological attributes of estuaries.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marinex Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Procedures for assessing use attainability for estuarine
systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of estuaries with emphasis on habitat and biological
attributes.
6. Field Team Size: Varies
7. Collection Time Required: Varies
8. Sample Processing Time: Varies
9. Data Analysis Time: Varies
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-91
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -183
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. "Intern Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing
Quality Assurance Project Plans", Report No. QAMS-005180, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
2. Procedure Objectives: Quality assurance project plans help to ensure the quality of projects.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Ensures the quality of projects.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA "
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis .
Interpretive Assessment . . -
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phyloplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-184;
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. "Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality
Assurance Program Plans", Report No. QAMS-004180, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
2. Procedure Objectives: Quality assurance program plans help to ensure the quality of programs.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Ensure the quality of programs.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-92
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. "Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for
Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents", C. I. Weber, Ed., EPA-670/4-73-001, U. S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
2. Procedure Objectives: Selection of methods for use in routine field and laboratory work in fresh and marine waters
arising during short-term enforcement studies, water quality trend monitoring, effluent testing and research projects.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Selection of methods for various types of work.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:
6. Field Team Size:
7. Collection Time Required:
8. Sample Processing Time:
9. Data Analysis Time:
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -186
Wetlands
1. Basic Reference: Van Dyk, L. P., C. G, Greeff and J. J. Brink. 1975. "Total Population Density of Crustacea and
Aquatic Insecta as an Indicator of Fenthion Pollution of River Water", Bull. Environ. Contam. Tqxicol., 14:426-431.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of a monitoring program involving macroinvertebrates and residue analysis of
water. _
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure:
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure:
6. Field Team Size:
7. Collection Time Required:
8. Sample Processing Time:
9. Data Analysis Time:
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-93
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -187
1. Basic Reference: Van Horn, W. M. 1950. 'The Biological Indices of Stream Quality", Proc. 5th Ind. Waste Conf.,
Purdue Univ. Est. Ser., 72:215.
2. Procedure Objectives: Provides numeric indices for biological stream data.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Of historic value but outdated.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA , - ,• ..
Subsection , , . •
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -188
1. Basic Reference: Verma, S. R. and I, R.; Tonk. 1984. "Biomonitoring of the Contamination of Water by a Sublethal
Concentration of Pesticides, A System Analysis Approach", ACTA Hydrochem. Hydrobiol., 12:399-409.
2. Procedure Objectives: Observation of sublethal effects of several biocides on fish respiration and enzyme activity.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types ? ;
x Freshwater Marine , Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Detailed information on fish physiology with respect to
pesticide contamination. Technology and time intensive.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Extensive knowledge offish physiology and fish biomonitoring
systems. - '. '• ' " •; ' f"'..''.",..; ' '.,.',
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: Automated • . :; •
8. Sample Processing Time: Automated . i
9. Data Analysis Time: Two to six hours
Subsection . , '•-.
Population and Community Interaction ,
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment ;
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-94
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -189
1. Basic Reference: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 1988. "Biological Compliance Monitoring Methods Manual",
Department of Environmental Conservation, 72 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: Sampling and analytical procedures to assess effects of indirect discharges on high quality
running waters (bases on macroinvertebrates populations using rock filled baskets).
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine
Estuarine
Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use rock filled basket to sample benthic
macroinvertebrates because best suited for Vermont streams and rivers. Quantitative sample.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and
identification.
6. Field Team Size: Two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection ..
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -190
1. Basic Reference: Vincent, R. 1971. "River Electrofishing and Fish Population Estimates", Progressive Fish Culturist,
33(3):163-167.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of electrofishing to make estimates of fish populations in rivers.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands :
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Effective method for collecting fish from rivers for
biomonitoring. Can be moderately labor and time intensive.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Experience in electrofishing and safety procedures. Experience
in taxonomy and sample design and analysis. '
6. Field Team Size: Three
7. Collection Time Required: One hour per station (three persons) '
8. Sample Processing Time: Two hours per station (three persons) . :
9. Data Analysis Time: 10 -15 hours (one person)
Subsection -t
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-95
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Voshell. J. R., Jr. and G. M. Simmons, Jr. 1977. "An Evaluation of Artificial Substrates for Sampling
Macrobenthos in Reservoirs", Hydrobiologia, 53:257-269.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of artificial substrates.with,Ponar grab for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in
lakes to find which technique was best for assessing thermal effluent effects.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine , Estuarine Wetlands ......
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Artificial substrates collected more individuals and taxa
than ponar grab. Incubation period (4 weeks) needed for artificial substrate..
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates using artificial substrates.
6. Reid Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons) . .
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection . • ,, , ,
Population and Community Interaction
x DataAnalysis
x Interpretive Assessment .
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number -192
1. Basic Reference: Waldichuk, M. and C. S. Hegre. 1973. "Trends in Methodology for Evaluation of Effects of Pollutants
on Marine Organisms and Ecosystems", in CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, 3:167-210.
2. Procedure Objectives: Review of methodology for evaluation of effects of pollutants on marine organisms.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of the changes in methodology for assessing
the effect of pollutants on marine organisms and ecosystems. . ,
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection .........
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
x- Phytoplankton
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-96
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number -193
1. Basic Reference: Walker, W. W. Jr. "Statistical Bases for Mean Chlorophyll a Criteria", Water Quality Cirteria and
Standards, Lake and Reservoir Management, pp.57-62.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of indices relating chlorophyll a values to use impairment of lakes - development of
criteria for lake protection standards.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of chlorophyll a to predict extreme conditions such
a maximum chlorophyll a or nuisance bloom frequency.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of periphyton sampling and chlorophyll a analysis.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One to two hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours per sample
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Washington, H. G. 1984. "Diversity, Biotic and Similarity Indices: A Review with Special Relevance
to Aquatic Ecosystems", Water Res., 18:653-694.
2. Procedure Objectives: Evaluation of several indices listing where they are best applied, advantages and limitations.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Should narrow down list of indices to only those
biologically relevant.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-97
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -195
1. Basic Reference: Waterhouse, J. C. and M. P. Farrell. 1985. "Identifying Pollution and Related Changes in Chironomid
Communities as a Function of Taxonomic Rank", Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 42:406-443.
2. Procedure Objectives: Comparison of specific and generic level analysis of chironomid preference/absence data
along with heavy metal gradient. r ;
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Changes in chironomid community as a function of
taxonomic rank are investigated.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of chironomid identification.
6. Field Team Size: NA '
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Weber, C. I. and B. H, McFarland. 1981. "Effects of Exposure Time, Season, Substrate Type and
Planktonlc Populations on the Taxonomic Composition of Algal Periphyton on Artificial Substrates in the Ohio and Little
Miami Rivers", in Ecological Assessments of Effluent Impacts on Communities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms,
ASTM STP 730, J. M. Bates and C. I. Weber, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.166-219.
2. Procedure Objectives: Observe effects of exposure time season, substrate type and planktonic populations on
composition of periphyton communities.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types ,
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Succession not observed but seasonal changes were
observed in periphyton communities. Expose time necessary ranged from 1 to 4 weeks.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA .
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group . --..
Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
x Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
E-98
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference N tiipber~M
1. Basic Reference: Weber, C. 1.1980. "Federal and State Biomonitpring Programs", in Biological Monitoring for
Environmental Effects, D. Wort, Ed., Lexington Books, Lexington, MA., pp. 25-52.
2. Procedure Objectives: Review of state and federal biomonitoring programs.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine ; Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of federal and state biomonitoring programs.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA ;
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
. Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Nuitibe*'••-198
1. Basic Reference: Wefring, D. R. and J. C. Teed. 1980. "Device for Collecting Replicate Artificial Substrate Samples of
Benthic Invertebrates in Large Rivers", Prog. Fish Cult., 42:26-28. .
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of artificial substrate collecting device which provides replicate samples of benthic
invertebrates in large rivers.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands .
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Design for a triplicate multi-plate artificial substrate was
found to be an effective replicate method.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of both sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates. . ,
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person) <
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-99
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number -199
1. Basic Reference: Weitzel, R. L. and J. M. Bates. 1981. "Assessment of Effluent Impacts Through Evaluation of
Periphyton Diatom Community Structure", in Ecological Assessment of Effluent Impacts on Communities of Indigenous
Aquatic Organisms, ASTM STP 730, American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.142-165.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determination of species richness and diversity of diatom communities collected with artificial
substrates to determine the impact of electroplating waste discharge. ,
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Periphyton was able to show changes due to waste
discharge. 1000 diatom counts most cost effective.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of diatom collection and identification. ,
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10-20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One to two hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Population Structure Data Analysis .
x Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment . ,
Community Group , -
Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
x Periphyton Macroinvertebrates •' ,. •
Phytoplankton Fish
Reference Number - 200
1. Basic Reference: Weitzel, R. L. 1979. "Periphyton Measurements and Applications", in Methods and Measurement of
Periphyton Communities: A Review, ASTM STP 690, R. L. Weitzel, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.
3-33.
2. Procedure Objectives: Measurement of species diversity, species abundance, biomass, biovolume and
phytopigments of perlphyton communities to be used as an indicator of water quality.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine. Estuarine Wetlands .
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: A useful way to determine environmental effect. Need
understanding of periphyton communities to interpret results.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of periphyton collection and identification.
6. Reid Team Size: One or two ,
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: One to two hours per sample (one person)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person) ,
Subsection .'',','
Habitat Assessment Population and Commuhity Interaction
Population Structure Data Analysis
x Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes Zooplankton Other Vertebrates
x Periphyton Macroinvertebrates
Phytoplankton Fish
E-100 ~~~~
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 201
1. Basic Reference: Welch, E. B. 1989. "Alternative Criteria for Defining Lake Quality for Recreation", in Enhancing
States'Lake Management Programs, North American Lake Management Society, Washington, D. C., Proceedings of
National Conference, Chicago, IL, May 12-13, pp. 7-15.
2. Procedure Objectives: Evaluates eutrophication indicators from the viewpoint of recreation, water supply and fish.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
'. ' ,' ^
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: This approach uses asthetics to measure
eutrophication which takes into account public opinion, but this is not always the best approach for lake biology.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection -
x Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number--202
1. Basic Reference: Weller, M. W. 1988. "Issues and Approaches in Assessing cumulative Impacts on Waterbird Habitat
in Wetlands", Environmental Management, 12:695-701.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of several approaches for estimating bird habitat losses in wetlands.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types •
Freshwater Marine Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of vertebrates mainly birds to assess chanaes in
wetlands.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection I
x Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton •
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-10f
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 203i
1. Basic Reference: Wetzel, R. G. 1975. "Limnology", W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA., 743 pp.
2. Procedure Objectives: General textbook on limnology.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types .
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Overview of limnological procedures.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA ,
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophyles
x Periphyton
x Phytoplankton
x Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
x Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
x Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 204
1. Basic Reference: Wiederholm, T. 1980. "Use of Benthos in Lake Monitoring", Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, 52:537-547. .
2. Procedure Objectives: Demonstrate usefulness of benthos in lake monitoring.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Benthic macroinvertebrates incorporate both
autotrophic and heterotrophic lake processes.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates in lakes.
6. Field Team Size: Two ' .
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-102
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Winner, R. M., M. W. Boesel and M. P. Farrell. 1980. "Insect Community Structure as an Index of
Heavy Metal Pollution in Lotic Ecosystems", Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 37:647-655.
2. Procedure Objectives: Use of aquatic macroinvertebrates as an index of heavy metal pollution.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine . Estuarine , Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Percent composition of chironomids found as a qood
index of heavy metal pollution. M
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of sampling and identification of aquatic
macroinvertebrates in lotic systems.
6. Field Team Size: One or two
7. Collection Time Required: 10 - 20 minutes per sample (two persons)
8. Sample Processing Time: 30 - 60 minutes per sample (two persons)
9. Data Analysis Time: One to two hours (one person)
Subsection
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment ,
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
x Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number-206
1. Basic Reference: Winter, J. D. 1983. "Underwater Biotelemetry", in Fisheries Techniques, L. A. Nielsen and D
Johnson, Eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 371-396.
2. Procedure Objectives: Description of telemetry systems, methods of attaching transmitters, methods of tracking
free-ranging aquatic animals and data collection and processing. "* -
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Biotelemetry can collect information on fish movements
Can be costly to invest in needed equipment. Special training necessary.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: Knowledge of fish behavior and biotelemetry techniques.
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-103
-------
Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide
Reference Number - 207
1. Basic Reference: Wlosinski, J. H., and M. S. Dortch. 1985. "Development and Evaluation of a Model (ce-qual-Ri) of
Reservoir Water Quality", in Lake and Reservoir Management - Practical Applications, North American Lake
Management Society, Washington, D. C., pp. 186-194.
2. Procedure Objectives: Describes development of ce-qual-Ri reservoir water quality model.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Models allow for manipulation of parameters to test
different scenarios, but these are not "real world" situations.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
x Habitat Assessment - Population and Community Interaction
x Data Analysis
x Interpretive Assessment
Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group •
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number
1. Basic Reference: Wright, D. A., J. A. Mihursky, and H. L. Phelps. 1985. "Trace Elements in Chesapeake Bay Oysters:
Intra-Sample Variability and Its Implications for Biomonitoring", Mar. Environ, Res., 16(3):181 -197.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determination of intra-sample variability to determine optimum sample size of bay oysters.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Use of a single indicator organisms simplifies
biomonitoring. This method is specific to certain pollutants and not a broad range of environmental impacts.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Reid Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
E-104
-------
Appendix E: Reference Catalog Entries
Reference Number - 209
1. Basic Reference: Wrona, F. J., J. M. Gulp and R. W. Davies. 1982. "Macroinvertebrate Subsampling: A Simplified
Apparatus and Approach", Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci., 39:1051-1054;
2. Procedure Objectives: Protocols for the use of a volumetric subsampling apparatus for processing
macroinvertebrates. .
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
x Freshwater ,x Marine x Estuarine x Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Subsampling apparatus is advantages in reducing the
amount of sample (randomly) to reduce processing time.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA '
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Population Structure DataAnalysis
Community Structure x Interpretive Assessment
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
x Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
Reference Number - 210
1. Basic Reference: Zhirmunsky, A. V. and.N. K. Khristoforova. 1986. "Some Methods of Biological Assessment of
Marine Environment Pollution", in Integrated Global Ocean Monitoring, Proceedings of the 1 st International
Symposium, Tallin, U.S.S.R., pp. 110-116.
2. Procedure Objectives: Determine useful indicator organisms to monitor pollution levels. Describe cellular and
molecular responses.
3. Suitability for the Four Major Habitat Types
Freshwater x Marine Estuarine Wetlands
4. Primary Advantages and Disadvantages of the Procedure: Aquatic organisms may be used as indicator organisms
to assess heavy metal pollution in marine systems.
5. Level of Education Needed to Perform Procedure: NA
6. Field Team Size: NA
7. Collection Time Required: NA
8. Sample Processing Time: NA
9. Data Analysis Time: NA
Subsection
Habitat Assessment Population and Community Interaction
Data Analysis
Interpretive Assessment
x Population Structure
Community Structure
Community Group
Macrophytes
Periphyton
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Other Vertebrates
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993-717-615/61005
E-105
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
CO -$m
sll.
Z
o
ii
TJ
3
22
03
CD
CO
m
------- |