United States         Office of Science and Technology   EPA-822-8-92-002
Environmental Protection    Office of Water          October 1992
Agency           Washington, D.C. 20460




                                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                         OFFICE OF

To:           Users of "Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria"

Regarding:    Guidance for the development of narrative biological criteria

From:        Margarete Stasikowski, Director
              Health and Ecological Criteria Division
              Office of Science and Technology
              U.S. EPA
       This guidance was written in response to requests from  many State water resource
agencies for specific information about EPA expectations of them as  they prepare narrative
biological criteria for the assessment of their surface water resources.

       The array of State experiences with this form of water quality evaluation extends from
almost no experience in some cases to national leadership roles in others. It may therefore, be
that some readers will find this information too involved, while others will feel it is too basic.
To the latter we wish to express the sincere hope that this material is a fair approximation of
their good examples. To the former,  we emphasize that there is no expectation that a State just
entering the process will develop a full blown infrastructure overnight. The intent is to outline
both the initiation and the subsequent implementation and application of a State program based
on commonly collected data as a starting point. User agencies are encouraged to progress
through this material at  their own best pace as needs and resources determine.

       Specific advice, clarification and assistance may be obtained from  the U.S. EPA Regional
Offices by consultation  with the designated resource personnel listed, in  the appendix to this
                                                                            Printed on Recycled Paper

          George R. Gibson, Jr., Coordinator
            Biological Criteria Program
         Health and Ecological Criteria Division
                Office of Water
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Washington, DC
                October 1992


   Appreciation is extended to all the specialists in the States, EPA Headquarters pro-
gram offices, and the ten EPA Regional Offices for their suggestions and review com-
ments in the preparation of this document.

   Fred Leutner, Kent Ballentine, and Robert Shippen of the Standards and Applied
Sciences Division contributed advice and citations pertinent to the proper application
of these criteria to EPA regulatory standards.

Purpose  of this  Paper

    The Biological  Criteria Program was initiated by EPA in response to re-
    search and interest generated over the last several years by Agency, State,
and academic investigators. This interest has been documented in several re-
ports and'conference proceedings that were the basis for creation of the pro-
gram and for the preparation of Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). The overall concept and
"narrative biological criteria" are described in that guide.
   Because establishing narrative criteria is an important first step in the pro-
cess, the material that follows here is intended to be an elaboration upon and
clarification of the term narrative biological criteria as used in the guide. The
emphasis here is on a practical, applied approach with particular attention to
cost considerations and the need to introduce the material to readers who may
not be familiar with the program.
Introduction  and  Background

    Biological monitoring, assessment and the resultant biological criteria rep-
    resent the current and increasingly sophisticated process of an evolving
water quality measurement technology. This process spans almost 200 years in
North America and the entire 20 years of EPA responsibility.
   The initial efforts in the 1700's to monitor and respond to human impacts
on watercourses were based on physical observations of sediments and debris
discharged by towns,  commercial operations, and ships in port (Capper, et al.
   Later, chemical analyses were developed to measure less directly observ-
able events. With industrialization,  increasing technology, and land develop-
ment pressures, both types of monitoring were incorporated into the body of
our State and Federal  public health and environmental legislation.
   Valuable as these methods were, early investigations and compliance with
water quality standards relied primarily on water column measurements re-
flecting only conditions at a given time of sampling. Investigators and manag-
ers have long recognized this limitation and have used sampling of resident
organisms in the streams, rivers, lakes, or estuaries to enhance their under-
standing of water resource quality over a greater span of time. During the past
20 years, this biological technique has become increasingly sophisticated  and
reliable and is now a necessary adjunct to the established physical and chemi-
cal measures of water resources quality. In fact, the Clean Water Act states in
Section 101 (a) that the objective of the law is to restore and maintain the chemi-
cal, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's wateiy.
   EPA has therefore  concluded that biological assessment and consequent bi-
ological criteria are an appropriate and valuable complement to the Nation's
surface water management programs. This added approach not only expands
and refines this management effort, it is also consistent with the country's
growing concern that the  environment must be protected and managed for
more than the legitimate interests of human health and welfare. The protection

of healthy ecosystems is part of EPA's responsibility and is indeed related to
the public's welfare. Fish, shellfish, wildlife, and other indigenous flora and
fauna of our surface waters require protection as intrinsic components of the
natural system. Inherent to the Biological Criteria Program is the restoration
and protection of this "biological integrity" of our waters.
    A carefully completed survey and subsequent assessment of these resident
organisms in relatively undisturbed areas reveal not only the character, e.g.,
biological integrity, of a natural, healthy waterbody, they also provide a bench-
mark or biological criterion against which similar systems may be compared
where degradation is suspected. Biological measurements also help record
waterbody changes  over time with less potential temporal variation than
physical or  chemical approaches to water  quality measurement. Thus, they
can be used to help determine "existing aquatic life uses" of waterbodies re-
quiring protection under State management programs.
    This document elaborates on the initiation of narrative biological criteria
as described in Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.
Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to
facilitate development and implementation of both  narrative and numerical
criteria for each of the surface water types.
Narrative Biological  Criteria

T I "*he first phase of the program is the development of "narrative biological
 -L criteria". These are essentially statements of intent incorporated in State
water laws to formally consider the fate and status of aquatic biological com-
munities. Officially stated, biological criteria are "... numerical values or nar-
rative expressions  that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use" (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a).
    While a narrative criterion does not stipulate that numerical indices or
other population parameters be used to indicate a particular level of water
quality, it does rely upon the use of standard measures and data analyses to
make qualitative determinations of the resident communities.
    The State, Territory, or Reservation should not only carefully compose the
narrative biological criteria statement but should also indicate how its applica-
tion is to be accomplished. The determination of text (how the narrative bio-
logical criteria are written) and measurement procedures (how the criteria will
be applied) is up to the individual States in consultation with EPA. Some de-
gree of standardization among States sharing common regions and waters will
be in their best interests. This regional coordination and cooperation could
help improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand the data base available to
each State so that management determinations can be made with greater cer-

Attributes of A Sound Narrative Criteria Statement

    A narrative biological criterion should:

    1. Support the goals of the Clean Water Act to provide for the protection
      and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and to restore and
      maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
      Nation's waters;

    2. Protect the most natural biological community possible by
      emphasizing the protection of its most sensitive components.

    3. Refer to specific aquatic, marine, and estuarine community
      characteristics that must be present for the waterbody to meet a
      particular designated use, e.g., natural diverse systems with their
      respective communities or taxa indicated; and then,

    4. Include measures of the community characteristics, based on sound
      scientific principles, that are quantifiable and written to protect and or
      enhance the designated use;

    5. In no case should impacts degrading existing uses or the biological
      integrity of the waters be authorized.
An Example of A Narrative Biocriteria Statement

   The State will preserve, protect, and restore the water resources of [name
of State] in their most natural condition. The condition of these waterbodies
shall be determined from the measures of physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of each surface waterbody type, according to its designated use.
As a component of these measurements,  the biological quality of any given
water system shall be assessed by comparison to a reference condition(s)
based upon similar hydrologic  and watershed characteristics that represent
the optimum natural condition for that system.
   Such reference conditions or reaches of water courses shall be those ob-
served to support the greatest variety and abundance pf aquatic life in the re-
gion as is expected to be or has been historically found in natural settings
essentially undisturbed or minimally disturbed by human impacts, develop-
ment, or discharges. This condition shall be determined by consistent sam-
pling and reliable measures of selected indicative communities of flora and/or
fauna as established by ... [appropriate State agency or agencies]... and may
be used in  conjunction with acceptable  chemical, physical, and  microbial
water quality measurements and records judged to be appropriate to this pur-
   Regulations and other management efforts relative to these criteria shall
be consistent with the objective of preserving, protecting, and restoring the
most natural communities  of fish, shellfish, and wildlife attainable in these
waters; and in all cases shall protect against degradation of the highest exist-
ing or subsequently attained uses or biological conditions pursuant to State
antidegradation requirements.

Data Gathering to Establish and Support Narrative
Biological Criteria

    A State need not specifically list in the narrative statement the sampling
procedures and parameters to be employed, but it should identify and charge
the appropriate administrative authority with this responsibility as indicated
parenthetically in the preceding example.
    The selection and sampling process, certainly at the outset, should be sim-
ple, reliable, and cost effective. In many instances existing data and State pro-
cedures will be adequate to initiate a biological criteria program; but there is
no limitation on the sophistication or rigor of a State's procedures.
 •   In reviewing existing procedures and in designing new ones, it is impor-
tant that  the planning group include the  water resource managers, biologists,
and chemists directly involved with the resource base. They should be the pri-
mary participants from the outset to help ensure that the data base and de-
rived information adequately support the decisions to be made.
    The State may choose to create procedures and regulations more complex
and complete than are indicated here; however, the basic design and method-
ology should include the following elements:

       • 1. Resource Inventory- A field review of State water resource
    conditions and a first hand documentation of the status of water qual-
    ity relative to the use designation categories ("305(b)" reports) are es-
    sential to provide reliable data for the selections  of reference sites, test
    sites, and for setting program priorities.

       • 2. Specific  Objectives and Sampling Design. States will
    need  to design a system identifying  "natural, unimpacted" reference
    sources appropriate to each surface waterbody type in each of the des-.
    ignated use categories in the State (e.g., streams, lakes  and reservoirs,
    rivers, wetlands, estuaries and coastal waters) and the use categories
    (see example, Page 8) for  each grouping of these waterbody  types.
    Sources for defining reference condition  may include historical data
    sets, screening surveys, or a consensus of experts in the region of inter-   c
    est, particularly in significantly disrupted areas as discussed later (see
    item 6, page 7).
       Because natural water courses  do  not always follow political.
    boundaries, the most effective approach may be a joint or group effort
    between two or more States. Where this coordination and cooperation
    is possible, it may produce a superior data base at less cost than any
    individual State effort. EPA is working through its regional offices to
    assist in the development of such joint operations through the use of
    ecoregions and subregions (Gallant et al. 1988). Regional EPA biolo-
    gists and water quality or standards coordinators can advise and assist
    with these interstate cooperative efforts.
       In any case, reference sites or sources for each waterbody type,
    subcategory of similar waters,  and designated  use category will be
    needed. These  may be drawn from "upstream* locations, "far field*
    transects or selected nearby or "ecoregionaT sites representative of rel-

atively unimpacted,  highest quality natural settings  (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990a).
    Care must be taken to equate comparable physical characteristics
when selecting reference sites for the waterbodies to be evaluated. For
example, a site on a piedmont stream cannot be the reference source
against which sites on a coastal plain stream are compared; similarly,
coastal tidal and nontidal wetlands should not be compared.
    The organisms  to be collected and communities sampled should
represent an array of sensitivities to be as responsive and informative
as possible. An example would be to collect fish, invertebrates repre-
senting both  insects and shellfish, and perhaps macrophytes as ele-
ments of the sampling scheme.

    • 3. Collection Methods. The same sampling techniques should
always be employed at both the reference sites and test sites and
should be consistent as much as possible for both spatial and temporal
conditions. For example, a consistent seining or electroshocking tech-
nique should always be used in collecting fish over the same length of
stream and with the same degree of effort using the same gear. In ad-
dition, the sampling area must be representative of the entire reach or
waterbody segment. The temporal conditions to be considered include
not only such factors as the length of time spent towing a trawl at a
constant speed but also extend to the times of year when data are gath-
    Seasonality of  life  cydes and  natural  environmental pressures
must  be  addressed to make legitimate evaluations. For example, the
spring hatch of aquatic insects is usually avoided as a sampling period
in favor  of more stable community conditions later  in the summer.
Conversely, low- nutrient availability in mid-summer may temporarily
but cyclically reduce  the abundance of estuarine or marine benthos.
Dissolved oxygen cycles are another seasonal condition to consider as
are migratory patterns of some fish and waterfowl. The entire array of
temporal and spatial patterns must be accommodated to avoid incon-
sistent and misleading data gathering.
    Processing and analysis of the collected specimens is usually based
on the number and identity of taxa collected and the number of  indi-
viduals per taxort This preliminary information is the foundation of
most of the subsequent analytical processes used to evaluate commu-
nity composition. In the course of examining and sorting the plants or
animals, notations should be made of any abnormal gross morphologi-
cal or pathological  conditions such as deformities, tumors  or lesions.
This information on disease and deformities in itself can be an impor-
tant assessment variable.
    Taxonomic sorting can also be the basis for functional groupings of
the data, and preservation of the specimens allows for the option of
additional analyses after the field season is concluded.
    Table 1 is not all inclusive in the sense of a thorough biological in-
vestigation, but it does represent an initial approach to the selection of
parameters for biological assessment to support the narrative criteria.

Table 1.—Indicator communities and reference sources tor biological criteria.

Freshwater     Rsh, periphyton &
Streams        macroinvertebrates, incl.
               Insects & shellfish

Lakes &        Same, also macrophytes
Rivers          Same as lake & reservoirs
Wetlands       AH of above, plus emergent
               and terrestrial vegetation &
               perhaps wildlife & avlan spp.

Estuarine &     Rsh,  periphyton &
near-coastal     macroinvertebrates, esp.
Waters         shellfish, echinoderms,
Ecoregion, upstream and
downstream stations
May need to start with trophic
groups; far- and near-field
transects, ecoregions*

Upstream and downstream stations;
where appropriate, far- and
near-field transects, ecoregions"

Ecoregion;" far- and near-field
Far- and near-field transects;
ecoregion* or physiographic
* Whore appropriate; ecoregions that are heterogeneous may need to be subdivided Into
 cohesive subreglons or these subreglons aggregated where financial resources are Bmrted or
 aquatic systems are large (tidal rivers, estuaries, near-coastal marine waters). Also, major
 basins and watersheds could be considered for "keystone indicators* for fish and shellfish.
      • 4.  Quality Control. Much  of the  analytical potential and
  strength of any conclusions reached will depend upon the precision
  and accuracy of sampling techniques and data handling procedures.
  Rigorous attention should therefore be given to the design and consis-
  tency of data gathering techniques and to the training and evaluation
  of field and laboratory staff. Data cataloging and record keeping pro-
  cedures also must be carefully designed and strictly adhered to by all
  parries involved. EPA Regional Office personnel can provide advice
  and Agency guidance manuals on this subject; an example is the 1990
  field and  laboratory manual by  the U.S.  Environmental Protection
  Agency, (1990b). Similarly, many States already have excellent quality
  assurance procedures that can be used as a foundation for their biolog-
  ical criteria program.

      • 5. Analytical Procedures. The usual approach to biological
  analyses is to identify the presence of impairment and establish the
  probability of being certain in that judgment.
      For example, if there is a significant increase in the number of de-
  formed or diseased organisms, and a significant decrease in the taxa
  and/or individuals and in sensitive or intolerant  taxa — given that the
  physical habitats and collection techniques  are equivalent — then the
  study site may be presumed to be  degraded. This conclusion will have
  further support if the trend holds  true over time; is  also supported by
  applicable chemical or physical data; or if probable sources are identi-
  fied The apparent source or sources of perturbation should then be in-
  vestigated and further specific diagnostic tests conducted to establish
  cause. Remedial action may then follow through regulatory or other
  appropriate management procedures.

       • 6. Reference Condition and Criteria for Significantly Dis-
    rupted Areas. In regions of significantly disrupted land use such as
    areas of intensive agricultural or urban/suburban development, the
    only data base available to serve as a reference condition might be sim-
    ply "the best of what is left." To establish criteria on this basis would
    mean an unacceptable  lowering of water quality objectives and  de
    facto acceptance of degraded conditions as the norm; or worse, as the
    goal of water quality management. The alternative would be to estab-
    lish perhaps impossible goals to restore the water system to pristine,
    pre-development conditions.
       A rational solution avoiding these two pitfalls is to'establish the
    reference condition from the body of historical research for the region
    and the consensus opinion of a panel of qualified water resource ex-
    perts. The panel, selected in consultation with EPA, should be required
    to establish an objective and reasonable expectation of the restorable  ,
    (achievable) water resource quality for the region. The determination  .,
    would become the basis of the biological criteria selected.
       Consistent with State antidegradation requirements, the best exist-
    ing conditions achieved since November 28,1975 [see 40 CFR 131.3(c)
    and 131.12(a)(l)J must be the lowest acceptable status for interim con-
    sideration while planning/  managing,  and  regulating to meet the
    higher criteria established above. In this way reasonable progress can
    be  made to  improve water quality without making  unrealistic de-
    mands upon the community.

Application  of Biological Criteria to State  Surface
Water Use Attainability Procedures

    Another application of  the data collected is in helping define the desig-
nated uses to be achieved by comparing all test sites relative to the benchmark
of reference conditions established per designated use category. Biological cri-
teria can be used to help define the level of protection for "aquatic life use"
designated uses for surface  waters. These criteria also help determine relative
improvement or decline of  water resource quality, and should be equated to
appropriate reference site conditions as closely as possible. Determinations of
attainable uses and biological conditions should be made in accordance with
the requirements stipulated in Section 131.10 of the EM Water Quality Stan-
dards Regulations (40 CFR 131). A hypothetical State-designated use category
system might be as follows:

    • Class A: Highest quality or Special Category State waters. In-
     cludes those designated as unique aesthetic or habitat resources and
     fisheries, especially protected shellfish waters. No discharges of any
     kind and no significant landscape- alterations are permitted in the
     drainage basins of these waters. Naturally occurring biological life
     shall be attained, maintained, and protected in all respects. (Indica-
     tor sensitive resident species might be designated  to help define
     each dass, e.g., trout, some darters, mayflies, oysters, or dams, etc)

    • Class B: High quality waters suitable for body  contact.  Only
     highly treated nonimpacting discharges and land development with

          well established riparian vegetative buffer zones are allowed. Natu-
          rally occurring biological life shall be protected and no degradation
          of the aquatic communities of these waters is allowed. (Indicator
          sensitive species might be suckers and darters, stoneflies, or soft-
          shelled dams, etc.)

        II Class C: Good quality water but affected by runoff from pre-
          vailing developed land uses. Shore zones are protected, but buffer
          zones are not as extensive as Class B. Highly treated, well-diluted
          final effluent permitted. Existing aquatic life and community com-
          position shall be protected and no further degradation of the aquatic
          communities is allowed. (Indicator sensitive species might be sun-
          fish, caddisflies, or blue crabs, etc.)

        • Class D: Lowest quality water in State's designated use sys-
          tem. Ambient water quality must be or become sufficient to support '
          indigenous  aquatic life and no further degradation of the aquatic '
          community is allowed. Structure and function of aquatic community
          must be preserved, but species composition mayi differ from Class C

        Since all States have some form of designated use classification system,
    bioassessment procedures can be applied to each surface water type by class
    and the information used to help determine relative management success or
    failure. In concert with other measurements, bioassessments and biocriteria
    help determine designated use attainment under the Clean Water Act. This at-
    tainment or  nonattainment in turn determines the need for or the conditions
    of such regulatory requirements as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In addi-
    tion, biological assessments based on these biological criteria can be used to
    help meet section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires periodic re-
    ports from the States on the status of their surface water resources. The proce-
    dure  also can be used  to support regulatory  actions,  detect previously
    unidentified problems, and help establish priorities for management projects
    (see "Additional Applications of Biological Criteria," Page 10).
        Table 2 is a simplified illustration of this approach to evaluating compre-
    hensive surface water quality conditions by each designated use to help deter-
    mine and report "designated use attainment" status.
        It is important to construct and calibrate each table according to consistent
    regional and habitat conditions.
        Using quantitative parameters or metrics derived from the data base and
    the reference condition, standings in the tables can be established from which
    relative status can be defined. This material can eventually serve as the basis
    for numeric biological criteria.
        A well-refined quantitative approach to the narrative process can be ad-
    ministratively appended to the States' preexisting narrative criteria to meet fu-
    ture needs for numeric criteria. This can be accomplished fairly easily by
    amending the narrative statement, as illustrated on page 3, to include a desig-
    nated regulatory responsibility for the appropriately identified agency. The
    advantage of this approach is as changes in the supportive science evolve, the.
    criteria can be appropriately adjusted.

 Table 2.—Data display to facilitate evaluating waterbody condition and
 relative designated use attainment
(per Sf. wattr type) Taxa Taxa Invertebrates Fish Disused
Inverts Fish Intolerants Intolersnts
Highest quality in hi
designated use
Good quality in
designated use
Adequate to
designated use
Marginal for
designated use
gh h

gh hi

3h hi

jh . lo


 Poor quality
(per Sf. water type) T. Coll E. Coli O.O. pH PO4 NO3 Turb.
Highest quality in low low high
designated use
Good quality in
designated use
Adequate to
designated use
Marginal for
designated use

Usually Usually Usually

)W 10



Poor quality high high low Usually Usually Usually
high high high
    Further, the compiling of physical and chemical data with the biological
data facilitates comprehensive evaluations  and aids in the investigation of
causes of evident water quality declines. Having the numbers all in one place
helps the water resource manager assess conditions. However, it is important
to note that none of these parameters should supercede the others in manage-
ment or regulations because  they have unique as well as overlapping attri-
butes. Failure of a designated site to meet any one of a State's  physical,
chemical, or biological criteria should be perceived as sufficient justification
for corrective action.
    One other note on the use of biological criteria is important. The data gath-
ered should be comprehensively evaluated on a periodic basis. This gives the
manager an opportunity to assess relative monitoring and management suc-
cess, monitor the condition of the reference sites, and adjust procedures ac-
cordingly. As  conditions improve, it will also be important to reassess and
adjust the biological criteria. This may be particularly appropriate in the case
of "significantly disrupted areas" discussed earlier.

    Additional Applications of Biological Criteria

        As shown in the previous illustrations, narrative biological criteria can
    have many applications to the management and enhancement of surface water

        II Refinement and augmentation of existing waterbody monitor-
          ing procedures. With between 200 and 500 new chemicals entering
          the market annually, it is impossible  to develop  chemical criteria
          that address them  all. Further, synergism between even regulated
          chemicals meeting  existing standards  may create degraded condi-
          tions downstream that are identifiable only by using biological mon-
          itoring  and criteria. Thus, the approach may help identify and
          correct problems not previously recognized.

        II Non-chemical impairments (e.g., degradation of physical habitats,.
          changes in hydrologic conditions, stocking, and harvesting) can be..
          identified. Remediation of these impairments, when they are the pri-
          mary factor, can be less expensive and more relevant than some
          point source abatements.                    '

        • Waterbody management decisionmaking. By reviewing an array
          of diverse parameters in a comprehensive manner, the decisionma-
          ker is able to make better judgments. The strengths of this diversity
          can be used to determine with greater confidence the resources to
          assign to a given waterbody or groups of waterbodies in the alloca-
          tion of scarce manpower or funds. The information can also be used
          to set priorities where required by law, such as section 303 (d) of the
          Clean Water Act, or to help guide regulatory decisions.
             In conjunction  with nutrient,  chemical,  and sediment parame-
          ters, biological information and criteria are an important tool for wa-
          tershed investigations. The combined data helps the manager select
          areas of likely  nonpoint as well as point sources of pertebation and
          makes it possible to focus remedial efforts on key subbasins.

        • Regulatory aspect. Once established to the satisfaction of the State
          and EPA, the biocriteria process may be incorporated in the State's
          system of regulations as part  of its surface water quality protection
          and  management program. Biological assessment and criteria  can
          become an important additional tool in this context as the Nation in-
          creasingly upgrades the quality of our water resources.

    Perspective of the Future: Implementing
    Biological Criteria                  '

        This' guide to narrative biological criteria was composed with the  fiscal
    and technical constraints of all the States,  Territories,  and Reservations in
    mind. The array of scientific options available to biological assessment and cri-
    teria illustrated here is by no" means exhaustive, and many jurisdictions will
    prefer a more involved approach. In no way is this guide intended to restrain
    States from implementing more detailed or  rigorous programs. In fact, we
    welcome comments and suggestions for additional techniques and parameters
    to consider.

    The basic approach discussed here, while compiled to be the least de-
manding on State budgets, equipment, and manpower pools, consists of a reli-
able, reproducible scientific method. The  metrics considered  should not be
restricted to those illustrated in this  guide. Rather, they should be developed
from the expertise of State biologists and water resource managers — perhaps
in concert with colleagues in neighboring States for a coordinated regional ap-
proach to waterbodies and  natural biological  regions  that  cross political
boundaries. Good science should be applied to a realistic appraisal of what
can actually be accomplished, and the EPA regional office specialists, listed on
the following pages,  can assist in such assessments and  coordination. For
more detailed discussions of sampling and analytical methods, the reader is
also referred to the references appended to  this  text
    The structure for narrative biological criteria described here is an appro-
priate interim step for the eventual development of numeric biological criteria.
The infrastructure developed now may be expanded and refined to meet f\i-
ture needs.

Capper, ]., G. Power and F.R. Shivers, Jr. 1983. Chesapeake Waters, Pollution, Public Health,
    and Public Opinion, 1607-1972. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville, MD.
Gallant, A.L. et al. 1989. Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources.
    EPA/600-3-89-060. Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Corvallis, OR.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Biological Criteria National Program Guid-
    ance for Surface Waters. EPA/440-5-90-004. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Prot Agency,
    Washington, DC
	. 1990b. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biologi-
    cal Integrity of Surface Waters. EPA/600/4-90/030. Environ. Monitor. Syst Lab., U.S.
    Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
	. 1990c Protection of Environment Code of Fed. Reg. (CFR), Part 131. Off. Fed. Regis-
    ter, Nat. Archives and Records Admin., Washington, DC.
Additional  References

Plafkin, J.L. et aL 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
    Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Prot.
    Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century.
    Proceedings of a national conference. Office of Water, Standards and Applied Science
    Division*. Washington, DC.
	. 1991. Technical  Support  Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control:
    EPA/505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC
	. 1991. Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation. Proceedings of a symposium.
    EPA-440/5-91-005. Office  of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washing-
    ton, DC.
	. 1991. Biological Criteria: Guide to Technical Literature. EPA-440/5-91-004. Office of
    Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
       1991. Biological Criteria: State Development and Implementation Efforts. EPA-
    440/5-91-003. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.


     U.S.  EPA  Regional  Sources  of

     Technical  Assistance

     REGION 1 s  JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203
        Regional Biologist: Pete Nolan/Celeste Barr (617) 860-4343
        Monitoring Coordinator: Diane Switzer (617) 860-4377
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Eric Hall (617) 565-3533

     REGION 2s  26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278
        Regional Biologist: Jim Kurtenbach (908) 321-6716
        Monitoring Coordinator. Randy Braun (908) 321-6692
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Felix Locicero (212) 264-5691

     REGION 3s  841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
        Regional Biologist Ron Preston (304) 233-2315
        Monitoring Coordinator. Chuck Kanetsky (215) 597-8176
        Water Quality Standards-Coordinator. Helene Drago (215) 597-3359

     REGION 4;  345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365
        Regional Biologist: Hoke Howard/Jerry Stober/William Peltier (706) 546-2296
        Monitoring Coordinator. Larinda Tervelt (706) 347-2126     '
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator. Fritz Wagener/Jim Harrison (706) 347-3396

     REGION S:  230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604
        Regional Biologist: Charles Steiner (312) 353-9070
        Monitoring Coordinator. Donna Williams (312) 886-6233
        Water Quality Standards Coordinators: David Pfiefer (312) 353-9024
                                       Tom Simon (312) 353-5524

     REGION 6«  1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202
        Regional Biologist: Evan Homig/Philip Crocker/Terry HolHster (214) 655-2289
        Monitoring Coordinator. Charles Howell (214) 655-2289
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Cheryl Overstreet (214) 655-7145

     REGION 7:  726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101
        Regional Biologist: Michael Tucker/Gary Welker (913) 551-5000
        Monitoring Coordinator. John Helvig (913) 551-5002
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Lawrence Shepard (913) 551-7441

     REGION 8:  99918th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2405
        Regional Biologist: Lays Parrish (303) 236-5064
        Monitoring Coordinator: Phil Johnson (303) 293^1581
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator. Bill Wuerthele (303) 293-1586

     REGION Ss  75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
        Regional Biologist: Peter Husby (415) 744-1488
        Monitoring Coordinator: Ed Lra (415) 744-2006
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Phillip  Woods (415) 744-1997

     REGION 10s 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
        Regional Biologist: Joseph Cummins (206) 871-0748, ext. 1247
        Monitoring Coordinator: Gretchen Hayslip (206) 553-1685
        Water Quality Standards Coordinators: Sally Marquis (206) 553-2116
                                       Marica Lagerloeff (206) 553-0176

     HEADQUARTERS: 401 M Street SW, Biocriteria Program (WH 586),
     Washington, DC 20640
        Program Coordinators: George Gibson (202) 260-7580
                           Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

     NOTE: Address provided is the EPA Regional Office; personnel indicated may be located at
     satellite facilities.