United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation
Washington, DC 20460
February 1996
EPA 230-R-96-007
Summary of State
Biological Assessment
Programs for
Streams and Rivers
-------
Acknowledgment
The primary authors of this document are Elaine D. Snyder, James B. Stribling (both of Tetra
Tech, Inc.), Wayne S. Davis (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation), and Candace Stoughton (U. S. EPA, Office of Science and Technology). They
would like to thank all of the State biological monitoring staffs and numerous personnel
throughout the EPA Regions and Headquarters for the tremendous response received. In
particular, to members of the Biological Integrity and Environmental Indicators Workgroups, who
worked well in providing review and advice on document structure and the process for gathering
information, the .authors are grateful. They would like to express their appreciation to Chris
Faulkner (Office of Water) and Susan Jackson (Office of Science and Technology), for their
thoughtful review and constructive criticism on document structure. We also acknowledge the
instrumental roles of Elizabeth Fellows (Office of Water) and Kim Devonald (Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation) for their dedicated support of this effort. The following Tetra Tech
staff were essential in the progress and completion of this document: Nolan Rhem, Sue Laufer,
Christiana Gerardi, Erik Leppo, Michael Barbour, and Abby Markowitz. This work was
completed under U. S. EPA Contract No. 68-C3-0303 to Tetra Tech, Inc.
Appropriate Citation: Davis, W. S., B. D. Snyder, J. B. Stribling and C.
Stoughton. 1996, Summary of State Biological Assessment Programs for Streams
and Wadeable Rivers. EPA 230-R-96-007. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; Washington, DC.
Cover Illustration Design by B. D. Snyder, Tetra Tech, Inc.
-------
SUMMARY OF STATE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
PROGRAMS FOR STREAMS AND RIVERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0... SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
3.0 DESCRIPTIONS OF STATE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
PROGRAMS
4.0 BIOCRITERIA LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS FOR STATES
AND TERRITORIES
5.0 LITERATURE CITED AND INFORMATION SOURCES
6.0 , LIST OF CONTACTS
Recycled/Recyclable « Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
-------
TABLES
2-1,,,,, Table 1. National Summary of State Bioassessment Programs for
Streams and Rivers in 1995 (50 States, the District of Columbia
and the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission)
2-2.. Table 2. Comparison of Biological Condition Results and Aquatic
Life Use Attainment (based on 1994 State CWA Section 305(b)
Reporting)
2-4 , Table 3. National Summary of State Bioassessment Programs in
1989 and Net Changes (in bold) in 1995.
3-4 , Table 4. State Bioassessment Programs for Streams (1995).
FIGURES
2-5 Figure 1. Use of Bioassessments in State Water Resource
Programs.
2-6,2-7 Figure 2. Target Assemblages Used in Under Development by
State Bioassessment Programs.
2-8 Figure 3. Use of Ecoregional Reference Conditions in State
Bioassessment Programs.
2-9 Figure 3. Biocriteria in State Water Quality Standards.
-------
Section 1. Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND
Biological integrity is commonly defined as "the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and
adaptive community with a biological diversity, composition, and functional organization comparable to
those of natural aquatic ecosystems in the region" (Frey 1977, Karr and Dudley 1981, and Karr et al. 1986).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has endorsed the use of biological integrity as an indicator of
environmental condition and, more specifically, ecological health (U.S.EPA 1990a,b). It is unique among
currently used indicators in that i) it uses _
information gathered directly from the aquatic
organisms and the biological community of
which they are a part, H) the biota with which
biological integrity is concerned is shaped by all
environmental factors to which it is exposed over
time, whether chemical, physical, or biological,
and iii) it combines multiple, community level,
biological response characteristics into an
indicator of cumulative environmental impacts
(Karr 1991,1993).
A cooperative effort among the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon, was started in the early
1980s to demonstrate how indicators of
biological integrity could be used in state-wide
water quality management programs/The effort
resulted in unique tools for state use such as the
applicability of ecological regions to reduce
natural variability in biological data sets, the use
of multiple reference sites within an ecoregion to
develop attainable water resource goals (i.e.,
reference conditions), a consistent sampling
methodology for fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages, and a multiple
metric approach for analyzing biological data
(i.e., Index of Biological Integrity) that made the
interpretation of biological data less subjective
(Whlttier et al. 1987). In 1987, U.S. EPA hosted
the first national workshop on biological
monitoring and assessment and was directed
toward building EPA's understanding of state
programs and their needs, as well as providing
support for state agencies to build their
capabilities by learning what other states found
to be successful approaches (Simon et al.
1988, U.S. EPA 1987). Since that workshop,
U.S. EPA and the state agencies have been
Involved in several cooperative ventures and the
implementation of biological integrity indicators
within state programs has grown.
Definitions of Terms and Phrases
Bioassessment-m evaluation of the biological condition of a
waterbody that uses biological surveys and other direct
measurements of resident biota in surface waters
WaterResource Management (Non-Regulatory) • decisions
on management acflvKies refevarttto a water resource such '
as problem identification, need for and placement of best •
management practices, pollution abatement actions, and :
effectiveness of program activity.
Interpret Aquatic Life Use • biological assessment results are
used to help interpret attainment of aquatic life use, a-.
beneficial use designation In which the waterbody provides
suitable habitat for survival and reproduction of desirable fish,
shelisli, and other aquatic organisms; aquatic life use
designation is part of the state water quality standard
Water Quality Standard - a Jaw or regulation that consists of
the beneficial designated use or uses of a waterbody, the
numerical and narrative water-quality criteria (including •
biocriteria) that are necessary to protect the use or uses of
that particular waterbody; biological criteria are defined as
numeric values or narrative expressions that describe a
reference biological condition of aquatic communities
Organism Group - equivalent to assemblage', a group of
phyfogenetieally (e. g,, fish) or ecologically (benthic
macroinvertebrates, periphyton) related organisms that, are
part of the aquatic community or biota
Reference Conditions - the chemical,, physical, or biological
quality or condition exhibited at either a single site or an
aggregation of sites that are representative of the least*
impacted and attainable condition; an ecoregional reference
condition is a description of the chemical, physical, or
biological condition based on art aggregation of data from
least-impacted sites that are representative of a waterbody
type in an eeoregion, subecoregion, watershed, or political
unit ...
Multiple Metrics - of the mulfimetric approach, a technique for
characterizing arid assessing biological condition; % metric is a
calculated term or enumeration that represents an aspect of
biological assemblage structure, function, or other
measurable characteristic that changes in some predictable
way with changes in human influence; a muitimetric approach
aggregates metrics into art overall assessment of biological
condition
State programs report on the quality of their waters through a biennial report referred to as the "305(b)
report". U.S. EPA compiles and analyzes this state information in a biennial report to Congress called the
National Water Quality Inventory (U.S. EPA 1994a). Traditionally, little documentation was available on the
amount and quality of biological information used in these state assessments. But as U.S. EPA faces more
pressures on documenting true environmental results achieved by the Nation, these biological measures
have become a focus for measuring the degree to which the biological integrity objective of the Clean
1-1
-------
Water Act Is being met nationwide. Some of these pressures are legislative such as the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, while others are as a result of U.S. EPA's internal strategic planning
efforts (e.g., National Environmental Goals Project and the Office of Water Environmental Indicators Effort).
In any case, the need for direct and accurate measures of the quality of our water resources is widely
recognized, and those measures have consistently been identified as biological integrity indicators (U.S.
EPA 1990a, U.S. EPA 1990b, U.S.EPA 1995a).
Although the National Water Quality Inventory includes information on the nationwide status of aquatic life
designated use attainment 0.e., state water quality standards), it is recognized that the results reported do
not consistently present information necessary to determine the ecological/biological condition of the
Nation's water resources. As currently reported in state 305(b) water quality assessments, aquatie.life use
attainment may be determined solely by chemical parameters and comparison with state chemical water
quality standards. This can result in an underestimate of biological degradation since chemical water
quality criteria do not detect degradation due to nonchemical stressors or cumulative effects of those
stressors; in addition, not ail chemicals are monitored. Attainment of chemical water quality standards
alone does not ensure a healthy biological condition (Yoder and Rankin 1995). Efforts are underway to
incorporate a greater amount of biological information in the aquatic life use attainment determinations and
this does show great promise, but it is difficult to estimate when these approaches would be fully integrated
into state programs.
This project has grown out of the need to produce nationwide assessments of biological condition for our
water resources. Diversity of contemporary state bioassessment programs for streams and rivers generally
ranges from: 0 pilot projects developed to explore the utility of biological monitoring, assessment, and
criteria; i0 to approaches that use bioassessments and biocriteria concepts to enhance water quality
programs; il) to programs that use sophisticated biological assessment methods and incorporate numeric
biological criteria into water quality standards. The purpose of this document is to present an aggregated
assessment of national water resource quality using biological monitoring and assessment results from
state monitoring programs. It uses data qualifiers to evaluate and select data that are appropriate for
aggregation and records state program characteristics and capabilities. This document also contains the
biocriteria language appear in water quality standards from the states and territories, and definitions related
to those standards.
1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Minimum requirements for state biological assessment programs have been suggested by U.S. EPA
(1995a) as part of the Section 305(b) reporting requirements and by the Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM 1995). These requirements are based upon existing state programs and
would ensure greater accuracy and consistency in state biological assessment and criteria development
efforts. They are also the basis for the data qualifiers used in this project (see Section 3).
Recommended Bioassessment
Program Characteristics
• Multiple assemblages
assessment.
Multiple metric indices
Habitat structure assessment
Regional reference condition
Standard operating procedures and quality
assurance program
Multiple assemblages - use of more than one organism
group (e.g., benthos and/or fish and/or periphyton) is
believed to give greater accuracy in detecting water
resource quality impairment from human activities, as
well as substantially decreasing uncertainty in the
Multiple metric Indices- are recommended to strengthen
data interpretation and reduce error in judgement based
on isolated indices and measures. Reliance on several
ecological attributes of the community that can be tested
Index oeriod anc' comWned into an index is recommended for an
™ overall assessment of biological condition.
Habitat structure assessment- is a critical element of a
biosurvey to assist in the interpretation of biological data
and discerning effects of physical habitat alteration from
chemical impacts. Habitat structure assessments are used with biosurveys to establish the biological
potential of waterbodies.
1-2
-------
tiosutvey resulte, The regional reference condition is based on data collected from those mmimally-
knpaired sites representing regions of similar physical characteristics such as climate, soils type,
physiography and vegetation (e.g., ecoregions) and further stratified by drainage area, stream order, size,
and/or subecoregions.
Index period-a defined time period during which data are collected; minimizes effects of year to year
variability, reduces seasonal variability, and provides optimal accessibility of the target assemblages, and
maximizes the efficiency of sampling gear.
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) and quality assurance (QA) program - the validity of an biological
assessment and the interpretation of the results is dependent upon an effective QA plan. The QA plan
contains several important guidelines for the program to follow such as objectives and milestones for
achieving those objectives, lines of responsibility, accountability of staff for meeting data quality objectives,
and accountability for ensuring precision, accuracy, completeness of the data collection activities, and
documentation of the sample custody process. Documented SOPs for developing study plans,
maintenance and application of field sampling gear, performance of laboratory activities and data analysis
are integral quality control components for any program.
For additional information, please refer to the Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1996 State Water
Quality Assessments (305b Reports), the final report and appendices of the Intergovernmental Task Force
for Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM 1995), and the Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidance for
Programs Using Community Level Biological Assessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers (U.S. EPA
1995c).
1-3
-------
Section 2. Summary of Findings
2.1 SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
This report shows the national breadth of biological monitoring and assessment (Table 1). Biological
monitoring and assessment programs are in place in 41 states, in varying degrees, and the results are used
in making decisions in both the interpretation of aquatic life use attainment (Figure 1a), and aiding non-
regulatory decisions related to
Table 1. National Summary of State Bioassessment Programs for
Streams and Rivers in 1995 (50 States, the District of Columbia and
the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission).
STATE PROGRAM (1i95)
In-place
Under
Develop-
ment
None
Water Resource Management
(Non-Regulatory)
41
Interpret Aquatic Life Use Attainment
31
13
Narrative Water Quality Standard
29
11
12
Numeric Water Quality Standard
15
35
Fish
29
18
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
water resource management
(Figure 1b).
There are three major biological
assemblages, or groups,
monitored in comprehensive
biological assessment programs:
fish, benthic macroinvertebrates,
and algae (periphyton). Benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish are
the assemblages most often
used. The algal assemblage is
also used but by a much smaller
number of states (Figures 2a-b).
Twenty-six states use more than
one assemblage and another ten
currently use one, but are
developing the capability of using
a second (Figure 2c).
The key to successful use of
biological assessments is
establishing reference conditions
to help discern human impacts
from natural influences.
Ecoregional reference conditions
in state decision-making
frameworks depends upon
regionaiization, classification of
streams, and development of the
bioassessment program.
Regionaiization of reference
conditions can take five years,
which is why ft is still ongoing and
under development in many
states (Figure 3).
States that have narrative j^HBMBHHBBMBBBHBHI^MB^B^^Hi^^HMMnBBBBHBBIB
biological criteria are shown in
Figure 4a; those that have adopted quantitative (numeric) biological criteria into their water quality standards
regulations, and those in the developmental phase of doing so, are shown in Figure 4b. Activity in all of
these areas will lead to increased use of data from biological monitoring and assessments in environmental
decision making. It will also further the refinement of biological indicators and lead to a greater
understanding of ecological responses to degradation.
Algae (Periphyton, Diatoms)
More than one assemblage
Ecoregional
Site-Specific
State-Wide or Basin-Specific
Biology
Habitat
26
15
31
42
33
10
26
45
16
11
21
46
13
2-1
-------
2.2 USE OF BIOASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSING BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Table 2. Comparison of Biological Condition Results and Aquatic Life Use
Attainment (based on 1994 State CWA Section 305(b) reporting).
Biological integrity indicators are used to characterize the condition of rivers and streams with respect to
their biological potential, or expectations. Whereas biological integrity is one of the overall objectives of the
Clean Water Act, biological condition (or "health") is the ecological measure used to gauge progress toward
meeting that objective. States designate water quality objectives, or uses, for most of their waters which
include protection of warmwater (e.g., bass) and coldwater (e.g., trout) fisheries, among others. These
"aquatic life designated uses" appear in state water quality standards and may include a wider range of
acceptable conditions than would be considered solely for biological community health. This is because
most state water quality standards rely upon chemical measures to represent conditions that protect
biological
community health.
In some states,
biological
community health
is used to directly
interpret aquatic
life use attainment
goals. Table 2
presents the
results from states
that have stream
and river
assessments
based upon
biological
community data
and aquatic life
use attainment
and met the
qualifiers
presented on . • •,
page 3-1.
AL
CT
DC
DE
Fl
GA
!A
It
IN
KS
KY
MA
MO
ME
Ml
MS
NC
NE
NJ
NM
NY
OH
PA
Rl
SC
TN
VA
VT
Wl
WV
WY
ORSANCO
.-ttf&IFt:
£*lfcwii&l
' Stesaif i:-:
.--MMi^'
47077
5484
40.1
2472
22993
44056
26630
30246
21094
23731
34334
7133
12343
23879
29033
26454
37536
16090
6450
8682
46266
27825
24948
979
25729
19124
44852
5264
32010
21114
32520
981
AQUATIC LIFE USE
W-i^K'X'Mv"^':;.::;!;'!!'!''';"
•*3&8$m®xif*.
25.1
16.3
97.4
36.2
34.5
NA
21,4
46.8
34.8
70.1
43.5
19.1
35.5
100
70.9
33.9
70.4
41.9
24.5
49.6
100
27.1
63.1
68.1 •
100
57
77.1
100
68.9
25.1
13.2
100
:^8UWtWiS
3093
222
23
180
4127
4025
2755
7257
1479
15651
2424
362
1865
148
443
7580
7742
4754
516
289
4386
4904
4647
106
2275
3816
1810
998
4153
3672
2808
981
S9491
8405
668
14
714
7753
2217
2957
6902
5860
1176
12512
998
4135
31508
20132
1278
18321
2694
1101
4021
45701
3433
20301
561
24039
7091
32765
4266
17201
2662
1476
0
292862
BIOLOGICAL CONDITION
m
1.1
4.7
99
100
2.1
5.8
19.5
• 25.5
8.6
1.7
4.7
3.9
12.2
1.3
9.2
1,4
18.7
40.5
8.8
7.1
2.1
28.6
5
34.7
1.2
0.5
2.6
25
16,7
1.5
2.2
100
litllillflll
85
105.5
28.9
2063
320
1835
2413
3839
729
100,5
260
134
1175
28
1535
63
1914.9
4515
348
304
. 713
4905
674.9
79
40
70.3
685
425
1419.8
170
506
981
32465
8iliiii£ligi|£
:;:-:flif|!!£fif:@£
415
188
9.7
364
157
700
2776
3865
1094
292
1359
141
325
272
1140
301
5105
2006
222
314
367
3432
1297
261
260
36,2
460
890
3915
155
207
0
32325
'from state 1994 305(b) reports or EPA National Water Quality Inventory when state data not available;
2percentage of slate perennial miles or EPA perennial miles when state perennial miles are not available - total
state miles used for NC, NJ, TN, VT (perennial miles listed are greater than total).
Only thirty'states
plus the District of
Columbia and the
Ohio River Valley
Sanitation
Commission
(ORSANCO)
currently have
numeric data of
sufficient quality to
be confident in the
determination of
biological
condition (see
Table 2). These
data will serve as
a baseline for
EPA's biological
health (a.k.a.
biological
integrity)
environmental
indicator.
2-2
-------
Based on 1994 CWA Section 305(b) reporting, a total of 64,790 miles were assessed by these states, the
District, and ORSANCO based on biological condition while 392,353 miles were assessed for aquatic life
designated use assessments as required for CWA Section 305(b). Only Iowa, Ohio, and Nebraska appear
to use biological condition as the predominant measure of aquatic life use attainment.
This comparison shows a difference in the percentage of miles rated as impaired between assessment to
determine aquatic life use attainment and assessment of biological condition. Of the 392,353 miles
assessed for aquatic life use attainment using biological or non-biological methods, 25.4% (99,491 miles)
showed impairment and 74,6% (292,862 miles) showed no impairment. In contrast, based on biological
condition, about half (50.1 %; 32,465 miles) revealed impairment and only 49.9% (32,325 mile) showed no
impairment.
Several factors could contribute to the differences in these results. First, the goals for biological community
health and aquatic life use are different in that aquatic life use attainment is a state standard that is set
considering social and economic needs, as well as ecological requirements. Second, selection of
biological assessment sites could be biased toward examining impaired conditions despite the widespread
use of watershed based approach that encourages a greater understanding of the factors potentially
affecting a site. Third, the additional river miles assessed for aquatic life use could reflect sampling in less
impaired waters. Fourth, the biological assessments could represent a more accurate depiction of the
ability of the waters to support healthy communities and reveal impairments from sources that are episodic,
cumulative, and/or nonchemical that may be missed in non-biological sampling. A comparison study done
by Ohio EPA supports the assertion that more impaired waters may be revealed with biological
assessments than with non-biological assessments alone. Yoder and Rankin (1995) reported that Ohio
EPA assessed 645 waterbody segments using both biological and chemical sampling and found that
biological impairment was indicated in 49.8% of the cases where no impairment was revealed based on
chemical criteria violations. In nearly all of the cases in which chemical impairment was found, biological
impairment was also seen.
The use of multiple assemblages may also be an important consideration in determining the condition of
waters. U.S.EPA (1995a) has recommended the use of multiple assemblages for determining aquatic life
use attainment in states. There has been considerable discussion regarding the potential financial and
resource burden this could place on state programs; however, 26 states are already using more than one
assemblage for biological assessments and another 10 (including ORSANCO) are developing the
capability of assessing a second.
The importance of using more than one assemblage may also be overlooked. In a recent study, Ohio EPA
(Yoder and Rankin 1995) examined more than 1300 sites to evaluate the relationship of determining
aquatic life use attainment using only fish or only benthic macroinvertebrates, rather than using them
together to make an assessment. Ohio EPA examined the relationship in large rivers (> 500 mi2), small
rivers and larger streams (50 to 500 mi2), and small streams (< 50 mi2) separately. They found that the
level of agreement between assessments based on fish indices (IBI, Mlwb) and those based on a benthos
index (ICI) was only 43.5% for large rivers, 65% for small rivers and streams, and 74.8% for small streams.
Based on the comparison, Ohio EPA concluded that using only one group will be from 80.4% effective
(benthos) to 84.4% effective (fish) at identifying aquatic life use attainment or nonattainment. They
concluded that, especially in larger streams, both groups should be used whenever possible.
2.3 BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM SUCCESS SINCE 1989
When EPA was developing the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers, the Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) summarized the bioassessment and biomonitoring capabilities in
state regulatory programs (U.S.EPA 1989). The summary did not determine the actual use of the
bioassessment data for all states, but provided an estimate based upon past knowledge of the state
programs and on the documentation gathered during the 1989 summary. Table 3 presents a summary of
the 1989 results along with an indication of changes made in the programs relative to 1995. Although
extensive information was requested in 1989, the responses varied greatly in the amount of detail provided.
Therefore, no estimates of bioassessment use for interpreting aquatic life use attainment or for narrative
water quality standards could be made. Similarly, the number of states using statewide or basin-specific
reference conditions and multimetric habitat assessments could not be determined. It appeared that many
2-3
-------
states used single sites for their reference conditions and that their use was in the form of upstream-
downstream comparisons, but this could not be thoroughly documented.
Most states used bioassessments for both point and nonpoint source impact assessments in 1989,
therefore, there is little change in the overall numbers for water resource management use in 1995. The
changes that did occur are in the level of technical rigor and analytical abilities of the programs. Since
1989, nine states have added the capability to conduct fish assessments, six have added the capability to
assess benthic macroinvertebrates, and four fewer states now conduct periphyton assessments (three
states have this capability "under development"), Twenty-four states used more than one assemblage in
1989 compared with 26 today and 10 more states are developing capabilities to use more than one
assemblage.
Perhaps the greatest progress made since 1989 occurred in the use of ecoregional reference conditions
and multiple metrics to assess both reference and ambient conditions. In 1989, only four states (Arkansas,
Nebraska, North Carolina, and Ohio) were actively using reference conditions to establish numeric values
for biological community expectations. As of 1995,15 states used ecoregional reference conditions and
another 24 states, some of which indicated interest in using ecoregions during the 1989 study, have
programs under development.
Multiple metric approaches
have become widely used
since they first appeared in
Karr's Index of Biotic integrity
(Karri981,1986). U.S.EPA's
Rapid Bloassessment
Protocols (Plafkin et al. 1989)
are based on this analytical
approach. Forty-two states
now use multiple metric
assessments compared with
only three states in 1989. An
additional six programs are
being developed. This
approach is more objective
and systematic, reducing the
chance for conflicting findings
among different investigators.
However, there is still
considerable discussion within
the scientific community
regarding the application of
multiple metric and
multivariate approaches.
Some state programs (e.g,,
Maine) are now using
multivariate approaches to
provide additional insight into,
and sometimes calibrate, their
multimetric reference
conditions. The close and
cooperative relationship
among EPA and the states
has resulted in the
proliferation of more rigorous
and standardized biological
assessment approaches
since .1989.
Table 3. National Summary of State Bioassessment Programs in 1989
and Net Change (in bold) in 1995.
STATE PROGRAM (1989)
Use of Bioassessments
Water Resource Management
(Non-Regulatory)
Interpret Aquatic Life Use Attainment
Narrative Water Quality Standard
Numeric Water Quality Standard
Organism Group Used
Fish
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Algae (Periphyton, Diatoms)
More than-one assemblage
Reference Conditions
Ecoregional
Site-Specific
State-Wide or Basin-Specific
Multiple Metrics for Data Analysis
Biology
Habitat
In-place
+3 (37)
unknown
unknown
+KD
+7 (22)
+5 (39)
-3(7)
+2 (24)
+11 (4)
unknown
unknown
+39 (3)
unknown
Under
Develop-
ment
+S(3)
unknown
unknown
unknown
+4(1)
+2 (3)
+3 (0)
+6(4)
+24 (2)
unknown
unknown
+5(11)
unknown
None
-5(8)
unknown
unknown
-1 (49)
-10 (28)
-7(10)
+1 (44)
-10 (26)
-33 (44)
unknown
unknown
-21 (35)
unknown
2-4
-------
|g| Program In Place |j!jjjj| Under Development [ | None
1a. INTERPRETATION OF AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT
HH Program In Place ^T|Tj Under Development | [ None
1b. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (NON-REGULATORY)
Figure 1. Use of Bioassessments in State Water Resource Programs
2-5
-------
Banthic Maeroinvertebrates In Place
Algae (Periphyton) in Place *"'
Benthlc Macroinvertebrates Under Development (p Algae (Periphyton) Under Development
2a, Benlhic Macroinvertebrates and Algae I I O None
Fish In Place Fish Under Development [ | None
2b. Fish
Figure 2. Target Assemblages Used or Under Development by
State Bioassessment Programs.
2-6
-------
State Using More Than One Assemblage In Their
Bioassessment Program
None
2c. Multiple Assemblages in States
States Using One Assemblage In Their Bioassessment Program
Figure 2 (cont). Target Assemblages Used or Under Development by
State Bioassessment Programs,
-------
Ni
00
Ecoregional Reference Conditions In Place
None
Eeoregional Reference Conditions Under Development
Figure 3. Use of Ecoregional Reference Conditions in State Bioassessment Programs
-------
Adopted Into Regulations pj|j| Under Development [~~j None
4a. BIOCRiTERIA LANGUAGE IN NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
U Adopted Into Regulations g Under Development
4b. BIOASSESSMENTS IN NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
None
Figure 4, Biocriteria in State Water Quality Standards.
2-9
-------
Section 3. Descriptions of State Biological
Assessment Programs
3.1 STATE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
The following information on the biological assessment programs in each state is current as of December
1995. We attempted to gather as much information as possible to allow for a comparison among states
and to describe what changes occurred since the last summary was complied in 1989. We hope this
information is used to build upon the strengths in the programs and to correct the weaknesses, State
programs are dynamic and new initiatives occur frequently, as do closure of existing initiatives. Please use
the names listed as state contacts on the following pages and other contacts listed in Section 6 if you need
additional information about these programs.
3.2 METHODS USED IN ASSEMBLING STATE BIOASSESSMENT INFORMATION
State program information was collected by a preliminary assessment of state water quality inventory
reports (prepared in fulfillment of 305(b) requirements), and direct contact with the state program
management or staff if insufficient information was provided in the 305(b) report. In most cases, state
officials initially contacted were from programs focused on regulatory applications or statutory
requirements, such as state water quality inventories required under Section 305(b). For other states, a
different department, division or unit may have been responsible for collection of monitoring data, using
them more for water resource management purposes than for judging attainment of aquatic life designated
use for state water quality standards. U.S. EPA Regional contacts were the water monitoring and 305(b)
coordinators, regional biologists, and some water quality standards specialists. They were sent initial drafts
of the summary table for comment and asked to obtain additional information from the states, and they
were sent draft final copies of the report for review. All listed state contacts were asked to review draft and
draft final versions of the report.
State Sampling and Analysis Methods
Information on the technical components of state programs (I. e., reference conditions, methods used,
assemblage(s) assessed) was obtained either from their 305(b) reports, or more usually, from state
protocols documents.
Data Qualifiers
The use of biological assessment data in this analysis (i.e., number of river miles impaired and unimpaired)
was based on whether they met several qualifiers that reflect recommendations the Agency is providing for
development of biological monitoring programs. These qualifiers were used for biological data captured
under the category "Miles Assessed for Biological Integrity".
1) Community/Assemblage Level Data. State-supported biological survey information for fish,
benthos, or periphyton used in 305(b) reporting or are provided in other state sources. Data NOT
included are those from toxicity testing, fish tissue analyses, and single species indicators. Site
impairment data from pilot programs are not included, since they are often tentative models of
future programs, are often difficult to obtain, and may skew a national assessment by reflecting
results only from reference sites.
This qualifier is based on the Agency's endorsement of the multimetric approach for assessing biological
condition relative to biological integrity, the maintenance and restoration of which is a primary goal of the
3-1
-------
Clean Water Act. The ecological basis and technical rationale for the multimetric approach is presented by
Frey (1977), Karr (1981,1993), Karr and Dudley (1981), Karr et al. (1986), Gibson (1994), and Barbour et
at. (1995).
2) Site Assessments Must Be Performed. Data may or may not be used strictly for determining
aquatic life use attainment; and are included providing that they are community/assemblage level
survey information used for determining the level of biological impairment (e. g., impaired,
unimpaired, excellent, good, fair, poor, etc).
Biological monitoring results that are used in this analysis have been converted (by the state) into
categorical assessments of the biological condition. Categorical assessments result from assigning a
narrative classification to a calculated numerical value, such as Ohio EPA's "poor" rating for sites receiving
an IBI score in the range of 16-25 (Yoder and Rankin 1995),
3) Recency of Sample/Data Collections, Data used are at most five years old, per 305(b) guidelines.
Some states use two years of data in their 305(b) reports whereas others use five years (or more)
as "monitored" data. Other states are beginning programs and only have limited temporal
coverage.
Older btoassessment results are not used because the potential for change in the condition of a site
becomes more likely with longer time intervals. If they were used, there would be an increase in the
uncertainty associated with aggregation of the results.
4) Type of Bioassessment Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) levels II and III are appropriate for
benthos and are minimally acceptable as are the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI, and/or RBP V) for
fish, and/or a mulflmetric approach for algae. RBP I and IV are highly qualitative and are not
appropriate for use in this compilation.
Data used are from sampling and analysis procedures comparable to, or more sophisticated than (e.g.,
Ohio EPA's Invertebrate Community Index), the RBPs. Plafkin et al. (1989) presented a general framework
for an assessment methodology using fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. The set of protocols consisted
of five tiers of assessments:
RBP I - benthic macroinvertebrates; order-level field taxonomy; no standardized level of effort for
sampling; requires much "best professional judgment"
RBP II - benthic macroinvertebrates: field or laboratory taxonomy, family-level; with standardized
level of effort for sampling; assessment decisions based on numerical data
RBP III - benthic macroinvertebrates; laboratory taxonomy, genus/species-level', with standardized,
level of effort for sampling; assessment decision based on numerical data
RBP IV - fish; no sampling, data based on questioning of local citizens, state game & fish
biologists, or others that may have familiarity with the site; requires much "best professional
judgment*'
RBP V - fish; equivalent to the IBI (Karr et al. 1986); standardized level of effort for sampling;
assessment decisions based on numerical data
Many states have adapted the specific sampling approach and metrics to be most appropriate for their
region and stream types. Though the states have not necessarily indicated that they are using one of the
"Rapid Bioassessment Protocols", the monitoring and assessment programs have usually retained basic
components of the framework. Some states such as Illinois and Wisconsin conduct genus/species level
3-2
-------
macroinvertebrate identifications and employ a long used biotic index developed or modified for that state.
These results were included since the states also use other metrics, although less formally applied.
5) Basis of Impairment Decision, Assessments should be based upon comparison with a suitable
reference condition.
In general, assessments that are strictly derived from upstream-downstream comparisons are not included,
although those that use the original RBP guidance of a single representative reference site in a watershed
are accepted. Preferred assessments are those that use an ecoregional reference condition or a reference
condition developed for some waterbody class. For a discussion of ecoregions, waterbody classification,
and reference conditions, see Gallant et al. (1989), Hughes (1995), Hughes etal. (1986,1990,1994),
Gibson (1994) and Omernik (1995).
6) Assessment Coverage, State must provide river miles assessed or number of sites.
To allow the aggregation of state program results, it was necessary that an estimate of stream miles
assessed accompany each bioassessment. In some cases, e. g., with the state of Delaware, the program
design is based on a probabilistic site selection process, and it is thus, valid to say that 100% of the waters
have been assessed. The number of miles assessed, then, is taken to be that representing all non-tidal,
freshwater streams, or 2427 miles. If no estimate of stream mileage was given by the state, then a default
rule of five miles per assessment site was used, after consultation with the individual states' staff.
7) Results. Results must be documented either through specific state 305(b) reports, biological trend
reports, written communication, or documented and verifiable telephone contacts.
The sources and hard copy documentation for all information is organized by state in several records
notebooks that will be retained by the U.S. EPA. The primary data sources and how they are documented
in the records notebooks are:
o State 305(b) report (pertinent pages photocopied)
o State protocols document (pertinent pages photocopied)
o National 305(b) report (pertinent pages photocopied)
o Direct contact with state monitoring personnel (E-mail messages; typed transcriptions of
telephone conversations)
o Direct contact with EPA regional 305(b) and/or monitoring coordinators (E-mail messages;
typed transcriptions of telephone conversations)
Questions on the results and documentation may be addressed by contacting Wayne Davis,
USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, at 202-260-4906 (phone), 202-260-4903 (fax), or
email at DAWS.WAYNE&EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.
3-3
-------
Table 4, State Bfoassessment Programs For Streams (1995).
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
!A
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
Tola] Miles
{EPA/Stale)*
Total
365.000
77,274
87,617
104,200
211,513
105,581
5,830
39
3,158
51,858
70,150
249
71,665
115,595
32,190
35,673
134.338
89,431
66.294
Perennial
-
47,077
28,408
3,300
64.438
31,415
5,484
-
2.427
22,993
44.056
249
26,630
54,948
30,246
21.094
23,731
34,334
32,955
MBes Assessed*
Aquatic Life Use
Mies
-
11,873
7,231
5,472
11.725
-
893
37
894
11,880
-
-
5,702
-
14,159
7,416
16,827
14.936
9.164
%b
Miles
-
25.1
25.5
100
18.3
-
16.3
97.4
36.8
34.5
-
-
21.4
-
46.8
34.8
70.1
43.5
27.8
Miles Assessed-
BMogtealCotKWon*
%b
Miles
Impaired
Not
Impaired
pilot studies
1.1
85
415
special studies
under development
special studies
under development
4.7
99
100
2.1
5.8
105.5
28.9
2063
320
1835
188
9.7
364
157
700
pilot studies
19.5
2,413
2,776
not reported
25.5
8.6
1.6
.4-7
3,839
729
100.5
260
3,865
1.094
292
1.359
pilot studies
Biological Indicator
Fish
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Benthos
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
UD
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
Algae
/
/
Reference Condition
Eco-
region
UD
/
UD
UD
UD
UD
/
UD
/
UD
UD
UD
UD
/
UD
UD
Site-
single
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Other
/
/
/
Muttbnetrtc
Bio
V
/
/
UD
/
/
/
UD
/
UD
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Hat»
/
V
UD
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/.
UD
/
# of Sites
Monitored
Ref
25
100
3
10
66
60
45
25
Amb
-25
100
30
50
87
29
179
69
507
25
-390
1170
700
341
36
66
Decision Thresholds*
W
R
M
UD
UD
/
UD
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
UD
A
L
U
/
UD
UD
UD
UD
/
/
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
VWS
Nar
/
UD
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
UD
UD
UO
UD
/
Num
UD
UD
UD
/
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
'Total and perennial-miles, and aquatic life use support, from 1994 National Water Quality Inventory (U.S. EPA 1995).D Percent of perrenial miles, or total miles when pernenial miles not available. 'Refer to the Its
qualifiers in Section 3.. Five mite default used for AL, MD, Ml, MS, NY, SC, VA, VT, and WV. "Decision Thresholds are based on biological data used to make decisions on: WRM - water resource manageme
(non-regulatory management decisions); ALU - aquatic life use; WQS - water quality standards, narrative and numeric btocriteria. / = incorporated into program; UD = under development; REF = reference site;
AMB = ambient sites; NR = not reported; not applicable = did not meet minimum requirements as per the attached data qualifiers. ORSANCO = Ohi o River VaBey Sanitation Commission.
-------
Table 4 (continued}.
State
MA
MD
ME
Ml
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
Total Mites
(EPA/State) *
Total
8,229
17,000
31,672
51,438
91,944
51,015
84,003
176,750
37,536
11,868
81,573
10,881
6,450
110,741
143,578
52,337
29,113
78,778
114,823
Perennial
7,133
12,343
23,879
29,033
32,985
21,015
26,454
53,221
-
9340
16,090
8,636
-
8,682
14,988
46,266
27,825
22,386
51,695
Miles Assessed-
Aquatic Life Use
Miles
1,360
6,000
31,656
20,575
3,440
21,005
8,974
17,680
26,063
7,120
7,448
10,841
1,617
4,310
1,440
52,337
8,337
6718
-
%b
Mites
19.0
35.5
100
70.9
10.4
100
33.9
.33.2
70.4
72.4
46.3
100
24.5
49.6
9.6
100
27.1
30
-
Miles Assessed-
Biological Condition'
%"
Miles
3:9
12.2
1.3
9.2
Impaired
134
1,175
28
1,535
Not
Impairec
141
325
272
1.140
pilot studies
not applicable
1.4
63
301
pilot studies
18.7
1,914.9
5,104.7.
pilot studies
40.5 1 4,515
2,006
under development
8.8
7.1
348
304
222
314
not applicable
2.1
28.6
713
4,905
367
3,432
not reported
pilot studies
Biological Indicator
Fish
UD
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
UD
/
/
UD
Benthos
/
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Algae
UD
/
/
UD
UD
Reference Condition
Eco-
region
UD
UD
UD
UD
/
UD
UD
UD
/
UD
/
UD
/
/
UD
UD
Site-
single
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Other
/
/
Muttimetric
Bio
/
/
/
/
UD
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
V
/
/
Hab
/
/
/
UD
/
UD
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
» of Sites
Monitored
Ref
60
50
180
15
38
17
40
246+
34
Amb
21
300
71
535
57
74
63
737
104
100
9
190
58
216
1830
128
Decision Thresholds'
W
R
M
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
A
L
U
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
UD
/
WQS
Hat
UD
/
/
/
/
UD
/
/
UD
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
Hum
UD
UD
UD
UD
/
"Total and perennial mites, and aquatic life use support, from 1994 National Water Quality Inventory (U.S. EPA 1995).B Percent of perrenial miles, or total miles when perrenial miles not available. cRefer to the list of
qualifiers in Section 3.. Five mile default used for: AL, MD, Ml, MS, NY, SC, VA, VT, and WV, dDecision Thresholds are based on biological data used to mate decisions on: WRM - water resource management
(non-regulatory management decisions); ALU - aquatic life use; WQS - water quality standards, narrative and numeric biocriteria. / = incorporated into program; UD = under development; REF = reference sites;
AMB = ambient sites; NR = not reported; not applicable = did not meet minimum requirements as per the attached data qualifiers. ORSANCO = Ohi o River Valley Sanitation Commission.
-------
Stale
PA
Rl
SO
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
Wl
vw
WY
ORSA
NCO
Total
Total Miles
(EPA/State)*
ToW
53,962
1,106
35,461
9,937
19,124
191,228
85,916
44,852.
5,264
73,886
57,698
32,278
113,422
081
3.542,499
PerenraW
39,510
979
25,729
1,932
-
40,194
16,457
44,852
-
39,483
32,010
21,114
32,520
981
1,182,017
Mies Assessed-
Aquatic Life Use
Miles
24,948
667
26,314
3,352
10,907
14,324
5,726
34,575
5,264
7,021
21,411
6,334
4,284
981
521.268
%"
Miles
63.1
68.1
100
-
57
35.0
45.9
77.1
100
17.8
66.9
25.1
13.2
100
46.6
Miles Assessed-
BiotostcalCondilton'
%b
Miles
5.0
34.7
1.2
Impaired
674.9
79
40
Not
Impaired
1,296.6
261
260
not applicable
0.5
70.3
36.2
not reported
not applicable
2.6
25.0
.685
425
. 460
mo
pilot studies
16.7
1.5
2.2
100.0
8.9
1,419.8
170
506
981
32,465
3,915
155
207
0
32,325
Biological Indicator
Fish
UD
/
/
4
/
/
Benthos
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
V
/
/
UD
Algae
Reference Condition
Eco-
tegion
UD
UD
/
/
/
/
/
UD
/
Site-
single
/
/
/
/
/ -
/
/
/
Other
/
KMteetric
Bio
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Hab
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
# of Site J
Monitored
Ref
14
30
19
831
Amb
168
56
60
44
42
229
263
87
900+
65
59
25
8980
Decision Thresholds*
W
R
M
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
A
L
U
/
/
/
UD
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
was
Nar
/
/
/
/
/
/
V
/
/
UD
Num
UD
UD
UD
CO
o.
"Total and perennial miles, and aquatic life use support, from 1994 National Water Quality Inventory (U.S. EPA 1995).b Percent of perrenial mites, or total miles when perrenial miles not available. °Refer to the III
qualifiers in Section 3.. Five mile default used for AL, MD, Ml, MS, NY, SC, VA, VT, and WV. "Decision Thresholds are based on biological data used to make decisions on: WRM - water resource manageme
(non-regulatory management decisions); ALU - aquatic life use; WQS - water quality standards, narrative and numeric biocriteria. / = incorporated into program; UD = under development; REF = reference sites
AMB = ambient sites; NR = not reported; not applicable = did not meet minimum requirements as per the attached data qualifiers. ORSANCO = Ohi o River Valley Sanitation Commission.
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
3-7
-------
ALABAMA
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (DEM) monitoring programs integrate chemical
criteria, whole effluent toxicity evaluations, and biological assessments to evaluate the water quality of
Alabama's surface waters. Biological monitoring allows the assessment of a wide range of stressors and
the type of biomonitoring is determined by the primary objectives of each program and the responsibilities of
DEM, Benthic macroinvertebrate community assessments have proven to be a cost-effective water quality
monitoring tool and as a result, DEM currently conducts macroinvertebrate surveys as part of the ambient
monitoring program, water quality demonstration projects, nonpoint source demonstration projects, and
other special studies.
A modified multihabitat bloassessment protocol (MBP), based on USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
III (RBP III), Is used to sample wadeabie streams. A similar multihabitat bioassessment protocol modeled
after the North Carolina Department of Environmental Regulation Multihabitat Assessment of large rivers, is
used for nonwadeable streams. DEM standardized procedures include the utilization of the Habitat
Assessment Matrix (as described in RBPs for streams and wadeabie rivers), and the collection of
macroinvertebrate fauna from comparable habitat types present at each monitoring station. A total of 43
wadeabie and 6 nonwadeable sites were sampled using MBP during 1993. The biological scoring criteria
(as outlined in the RBPs) are currently utilized to evaluate the biotic integrity of each stream In relation to
ecoregional reference sites.
A Joint ecological reference site development project was initiated in 1990 by Alabama, Mississippi, EPA
Region IV and EPA-Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis. This pilot project allowed participating
states to further refine the largest shared (Alabama/Mississippi) ecoregions and locate candidate reference
sites, and provided the groundwork for DEM to independently begin subecoregion-level reference site work.
Sites in the Southeastern Plains Ecoreglon (Blackland Prairie, Flatwoods Alluvial Margins, Sand Hills,
Piedmont, Southeastern Plains and Hills, Southern Pine Plains and Hills, Dougherty/MaHanna Plains
Subregions), Central Appalachians Ridges and Valleys, Southwestern Appalachians, and Interior Plateau
Ecoregions have been visited to determine their suitability as least-impacted reference sites. A total of 33
reference sites are currently sampled on an annual basis.
At present, Alabama has not adopted specific biocriteria. However, to assist in determining support of use
classifications, the support/non-support for the aquatic life use designations utilized in the 1992-1993 305(b)
report were based upon the Biological Condition Scoring Criteria (Plafkin et al, 1989). Streams falling into
the "nonimpaired" bioassessment category are designated as "fully supporting" aquatic life use, and
"moderately impaired" streams are designated as "partially supporting". The application of these criteria for
use in the 30S(b) report was OEM's initial use of ecoregional reference sites to determine overall aquatic life
use support.
3-8
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE. ALABAMA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Robert W. Cooner
Dept. of Environmental Management
Field Operations Division
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
(334)260-2700/272-8131
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
.415.
_85_
500
Wadable streams: 38 (1992) -15 candidate reference
43 (1993) - 24 candidate reference
Non-wadable streams: 6(1993)
Non-wadable special study stations: 10(1992)
3 (1993)
5 mile (default) per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Modified RBP III = MBP (Multihabitat Bioassessment Protocol);
Semi-quantitative collection -JHester-Dendy Multiplate Samplers
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 33 sampled annually
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysts—Statistical routines used:
X Multlmetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Taxa Richness, EPT Index, Chironomid Taxa Richness, Biotic Index, % Contrib. Dominant Taxon, EPT/(EPT+Chironomidae)
Sorenson's Community Similarity Index, Quantitative Similarity Indices.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Alabama DEM (1992,1994a,b, 1995); Harrison (1995a); Hulcher (1995); Sabock (1994); SEWPBA (1995); U.S.
EPA(1994a).
10. Comments: Bioassessments conducted during 1992-1993 reporting period. Alabama DEM (1994b) also conducted a trend analysis
of their macroinvertebrate assessments at selected stations (1974-1992).
3-9
-------
ALASKA
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is conducting pilot bioassessments of
streams on Admiralty Island and Prince of Wales Island through 319 grant monies. The two projects have
been initiated to evaluate USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for use in Alaska, especially the
southeastern part of the state. Macro-invertebrate communities and habitat are being assessed in order to
describe the biological condition of streams and identify impaired waterbodies within the study region.
Specific objectives of the Admiralty Island (Michael Creek) pilot study are to assess the effectiveness of
Alaska Forest Practices Act riparian buffers best management practices, and to assess the effectiveness of
macroinvertebrates as an indicator of overall stream health. Macroinvertebrate community analysis will
include the calculation of community structure metrics, and metric values tabulated for downstream sample
locations will be compared to upstream reference values.
Prince of Wales Island pilot studies have been initiated to:
• validate RBPs as appropriate tools for the assessment of stream water quality in Alaska,
• describe the biological condition of Prince of Wales Island reference streams using the multimetric
approach,
• assess prevailing condition of Prince of Wales Island streams using RBPs,
• identify impaired streams that will require further evaluation to characterize impairment sources and
severity, and
• refine and adapt stream assessment procedures for application in conjunction with current
nonpoint source water quality assessment programs.
DEC has initiated discussions with the U.S. Forest Service (Southeast Alaska), National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Alaska Fish and Game to foster the development and adoption of a set of multiagency-
endorsed bioassessment protocols. At present, DEC has not developed formal biological criteria or
incorporated bioassessments into their water quality standards regulations.
The Department does maintain, however, narrative criteria in the water quality standards that prohibit toxic
effects on aquatic life in sediments or in the water column (18 AAC 70.020). Some investigators outside the
Department (e.g., University of Alaska) have conducted rapid bioassessment surveys in the Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and Denali regions. These studies have established a close relationship between pollution and
benthic macroinvertebrate community composition that supports the ADEC narrative standard prohibiting
toxic effects.
3-10
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: ALASKA
Contact: Jeffrey Hock
Address: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Technical Services-Section
10107 Benhvood Place
Juneau.AK 99801-8552
Phone/Fax: (907)790-2169
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2." Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Pilot Studies
approximately 25
<1
Bentrtie macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
6. Decision criteria based on: ,
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7, Data Analysis/Interpretation: . ,
Muitivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Taxa richness, EPT index, Pinkham-PearsonCommunity similarity index, family biotic index, % contribution of dominant family,
% EPT/(EPT + Chironomidae)
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocrtteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Stan
X
Used in Water
Resource Mgrnt.
JL
Aquatic
Life Use
X
9. Pertinent citations: Hayslip (1993); Hook (1995); Redburn (1995); Sabock {1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Information on number of sites sampled from D. Redburn, personal communication. Additional investigations of the
utility of RBP's have been conducted by Environmental and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI), of University of Alaska Fairbanks ~
streams studied in Anchorage vicinity.
3-11
-------
ARIZONA
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has implemented a plan for the eventual
development of narrative biological criteria, and incorporation of the criteria into state water quality
standards. Initial program efforts have focused on small to medium-sized perennial waters, with
approximately 100 streams statewide sampled from 1992-1995, These streams, along with 14 sites
sampled within Grand Canyon National Park by Park Service personnel, are intended to be reference sites
or representative least-impacted streams within their respective regions. A few additional locations with
known sources of impact have been sampled to serve as comparisons to the least-impacted sites, Sites
were not selected on the basis of ecoregion designation, but rather were selected to provide as broad a
coverage as possible with an even distribution among Arizona's major river basins.
Current reference condition development efforts focus on testing the adequacy of the ecoregion approach
for differentiating among macroinvertebrate communities throughout the state. Data will be collected from
least-impacted/reference sites for three to fivs years before narrative biological criteria are developed. The
multiple-year data set will be used to address temporal biological vacation, and will ultimately comprise the
reference conditions for Arizona.
Since the present knowledge of the non-fish aquatic resources is iimiced, the bioassessment program is in a
biological inventory phase. Macroinvertebrate kick samples and algal (periphyton) rock scrapings have
been collected for three years (1992-1994), and DEQ is beginning to process the data and consider
biological metrics. Candidate biological metrics have not yet been individually tested for their ability to
distinguish biological impairment or ecoregional differences.
Bioassessments of macroinvertebrates and algae, along with assessments of stream habitat (i.e., habitat
evaluation as per U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol guidance) are intended to be used to: develop
an Inventory of aquatic biological resources in Arizona streams; evaluate various assessment methods;
investigate biological community-habitat relationships; identify regional differences in community structure;
and develop narrative biocriteria for inclusion in Arizona water quality standards. The present
bioassessment program is the initial step toward the development of narrative biocriteria in Arizona, and as
the program develops, ADEQ plans to expand its scope to develop numeric biocriteria for perennial
streams as well as other waterbody types (e.g., large rivers, intermittent, effluent-dominated, and
ephemeral streams).
3-12
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE; ARIZONA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact: Patti Spindler
Address: Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Standards Unit
3033 North Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone/Fax: (602) 207-4543/4528
Under Development
30 sites for Verde River bioassessment project
Benthic macroinvertebrates; periphyton
Benthic macroinvertebrates = D-frame kicknet
Periphyton - Cobble/gravel scrapings
6, Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 90-100
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
UP Muftivariate analysis—Statistical routines used: Canoco; cluster analysis
UP Multimetrlc approach—Metrics used or under development:
Family HBI. Considering; species richness; EPT;
EPT/Chironomidae; scrapers/filterers; shredders/total; % contribution domlnanat 5 taxa; Shannon-Wiener diversity
index; % Hydropsyche/Trichoptera; % Baetidae/Ephemeroptera; % Tanytarsini; % Chironomidae; % Simuliidae;
% Diptera+non-insect taxa.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
andards
JL_
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Meyerhoff and Spindler (1994); Sabock (1994); Spindler (1995a,b); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: 1995 represents fourth year of sampling. Initiated analysis of 3 years of reference sire data, and development of
reference site database. Sampling for first assessment begun in Verde River watershed, spring 1995.
3-13
-------
ARKANSAS
The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) has, since the 1970s, used
bfoassessments to investigate point source pollution, nonpoint source pollution, and water quality trends.
Pilot studies Initiated by the ADPCE Biomonitoring Section, focus on the evaluation of bioassessment
techniques, the design of a biological metric scoring system, and the development of biocriteria for the
determination of aquatic life use status. The ADPCE biological metric scoring criteria, based on aquatic
macroinvertebrate community measures, follow the technical guidance of U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (RBPs), Semi-quantitative and qualitative measures of stream macroinvertebrate communities
are utilized in metrics representative of community diversity, indicator organism, and functional group
approaches.
ADPCE bfomonitoring stations are chosen on a priority basis and are primarily at streams possessing high
resource values and/or potential for water quality impairment. A priority list aids in the selection of
monitoring locations, and is formulated from information such as discharge monitoring reports, knowledge
of potential sources of pollutants, and land use information. Current bioassessment program emphasis is
on pollution point sources.
Arkansas has identified and conducted extensive research on the least-disturbed streams within its
ecoregions, and combines an ecoregional reference .and paired-station approach to bioassessments.
Paired stations or sample sites that bracket pollutant sources not only examine site-specific changes in
water quality, but also compare biological communities within the same ecoregion. ADPCE also uses
habitat evaluations to verify whether significant differences between biological communities are attributable
to habitat or to water quality. Field habitat measures, maps, aerial photos, discharge permit information,
and discharge monitoring reports form the basis of the habitat evaluation; and prior knowledge of land uses,
potential pollutants, gradient, ecoregion and watershed size facilitate the consistency of sampling effort and
the selection of sample sites.
Bioassessments in Arkansas are used in a decision matrix for impact identification which triggers further
investigative action (e.g., chemical analysis of water, sediment, fish tissue; toxicity testing). The use of
bioassessments and resulting biocriteria as a permit limit or water quality standard is in the proposal stage.
Arkansas water quality standards provide for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish and other
forms of aquatic life through protection of fisheries use. The inclusion of macroinvertebrate biocriteria as a
water quality standard are intended to enhance protection of fisheries uses and provide a measure of
alterations of biological properties. The application of biocriteria is being proposed to aid in the
determination of aquatic life use status of Arkansas streams. Streams failing into the "non-impaired"
bioassessment classification would be designated as "fully supporting" aquatic life use. Locations rated as
"minimally impaired", "substantially impaired", or "excessively impaired" would designate aquatic life use
full, partial, and non-support, respectively.
3-14
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: ARKANSAS
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good "
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
John Giese
Address: Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control & Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
Phone/Fax: {501) 570-2121
Not Reported
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol-Type
{RBP precursor - RBPII equivalent)
6, Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
JS_ Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Dominants in common; Common Taxa Index, Quantitative Similarity Index; Taxa Richness; Indicator Assemblage Index;
Missing Genera; Functional Group Percent Similarity.
8. Biocriteria/Declsfon Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
9, Pertinent citations:; Arkansas DPCE (1994); Giese (1995); Sabock (1994); Shackleford (1988); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10, Comments: Once regarded as a model state program, bioassessments have not been widely used recently. There is no current data
on stream health.
3-15
-------
CALIFORNIA
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Water Pollution Control Laboratory uses chemical,
lexicological, and biological techniques to assess status, damage, and monitor recovery of California
streams. In December 1993, CDFG released a bioassessment plan consisting of a regional modification of
U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs). These "California Stream Bioassessment Procedures"
(CSBP) outline benthic macroinvertebrate sampling, maeroinvertebrate laboratory analysis, and field and
laboratory quality control procedures.
Current CSBP pollution point source monitoring strategies call for the comparison of macroinvertebrate kick
samples from downstream (affected) sections and upstream (unaffected) sections of stream with
homogenous gradient, substrate, and habitat condition. CDFG conducts a RBP habitat assessment at
each sampling site if they have not previously collected habitat information from the location using their
fisheries protocol quantitative habitat assessment procedures. The non-point source monitoring strategy
calls for the comparison of macroinvertebrate communities from potentially impacted streams to
communities from a local reference stream (or stream section) of similar habitat condition and channel
type. All macroinvertebrate data are analyzed using the multimetric approach as recommended in the U.S.
EPA biological criteria technical guidance document for streams and small rivers.
The CSBP has been successfully used to assess point source pollution of organic enrichment and
Inorganic sediment. Currently, the CSBP is being tested in pilot programs to assess biological condition of
streams influenced by timber harvest practices, and to develop biocriterta as a water quality management
tool in the Consumnes and Russian River basins. Specific pilot programs initiated during 1995 include:
Consumnes River bioassessment and biocriteria development; Watershed Academy to train the timber
Industry in bioassessment protocols; Russian River bioassessment and development of citizen monitoring
quality control procedures; Auburn River bioassessments to evaluate effluents and develop biocriteria for
Sacramento Valley urban streams; and bioassessments of wild trout streams (i.e., potential reference
streams for biocriteria development) for CDFG Inland Fisheries Division.
At present, California does not incorporate bioassessment results into aquatic life use attainment
designations. CDFG, in cooperation with the State Water Resources Control Board and funding from U.S.
EPA, has formed the California Aquatic Bioassessment Workgroup: to facilitate the development of
ecoregional reference conditions, bioassessment procedures, and biocriteria; and to review and distribute
standard procedures for bioassessments of California waters. The state has also formed an ecoregion
workgroup with U.S. EPA and the Forest Service to begin work on the establishment of ecoregional
reference conditions for streams.
3-16
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: CALIFORNIA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact: Jim Harrington
Address: California Fish and Game Department
Water Pollution Control Laboratory
2005 Nimbus Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Phone/Fax: (916)358-2858/985-4301
Under Development
Benthic macroinvertebrates
California Stream Bioassessment Procedures (CSBP)
(Regional Application of Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III)
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions — Number of reference sites
_ Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
_ Multivariate analysis — Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach — Metrics used or under development:
Species Richness; Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; % Contribution of Dominant Taxon; EPT Index; Community Similarity
Index; Diversity Index. :
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
UD
9. Pertinent citations: California Dept. of Fish & Game (1995); Harrington (1995a,b); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: CSBP released in December 1993 and revised in March 1995. Pilot programs in 1994 & 1995: Consumnes River
Bioassessment and Biocriteria Development; Watershed Academy; Russian River Bioassessment; Auburn River Bioassessment;
and Bioassessment of Wild Trout Streams.
3-17
-------
COLORADO
Starting in 1992 the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment has shifted its emphasis from statewide monitoring to a watershed-specific approach. This
approach provides more comprehensive information about the water quality and biological conditions within
any one basin by focusing the majority of the Division's resources in that basin. Each of the major basins in
Colorado will be revisited on a six-year cycle. The Rio Grande basin, and the Arkansas River basin have
been completed. The Division is currently assessing the lower Colorado River Basin and the Gunnison
River Basins. A number of programs participate in this watershed effort including the standards and
nonpoint programs.
In addition to water quality sampling, one of the main objectives of this approach is to build a database for
biological water quality criteria (biocriteria) for streams and lakes. It will be used to develop biocriteria for
possible adoption as stream standards and to evaluate the appropriateness of the existing aquatic life use
classifications. The sample plan for developing this data set is based upon selecting approximately 50
reference stream sites and six lake/reservoir sites for each of the major river basins. Selection of sites is
based upon a regional approach, with least impaired sites selected to represent as many of the ecological
subregions (EPA) as are found in each of the basins.
The following information is gathered at each site if it is not already available from other studies or
agencies:
1. Identification and enumeration of macrobenthos in standardized traveling kick net samples in riffles,
equivalent to level 3 of EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols;
2. Identification, enumeration and length/frequency offish in standardized samples (equivalent to RBPV);
3. Assessment of physical habitat with modified RBP rapid habitat protocols, supplemented with
standardized pebble counts and instantaneous stream flow measurements; and
4. Trophic status of lakes/reservoirs is determined with Carlson's TSI based on chlorophyll a, total
phosphorus, and Secchi disk. Profundal benthos are collected in ponar samples and identified and
enumerated.
Bioassessments on a variety of stream types using the same protocols is also used by the standards
program to evaluate the aquatic life use classifications and use attainability and by the nonpoint source
program in project monitoring.
The nonpoint source program within the Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division
(WQCD) is conducting pilot biological assessments and habitat characterizations based on U.S. EPA's
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols. The pilot studies focus on Cherry Creek and South Platte River, with the
primary goal being the identification of nonpoint source pollution impacts. Approximately 100 sites in the
Denver vicinity are being studied using physical, chemical, and bioassessment techniques. The pilot study
is somewhat unique due to the intensity of the sampling effort within an urban area (i.e., 100 sites sampled
four times per year along an approximate 15 mile length of stream). Locations of the monitoring sites were
selected to specifically bracket stormwater outfalls or other pollution point sources. WQCD will use the
data in conjunction with land use information to identify and prioritize the most impaired areas in the Denver
vicinity.
At present; Colorado is developing statewide bioassessment procedures but has not developed formal
biological criteria. However, the WQCD does use biological information from a variety of sources (e.g.,
Water Quality Control Division special studies, Superfund/NRDS studies, Colorado Nonpoint Assessment
Reports) to supplement or reinforce water quality information in the determination of the intensity of
designated aquatic life use impairment. When the survival, propagation, production, dispersion, community
structure, and/or species diversity of aquatic life is protected within the limits of the physical habitat, full
support of designated uses is implied. However, nonsupport of aquatic life uses is indicated when any or all
of the above biological components are impaired and are coupled with state-prescribed water quality
standard exceedances.
3-18
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: COLORADO
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent,
Good •
Fair'
Poor
Total
Contact: Bob McConneli
Address: Colorado Dept, of Public Health and Environment, Water
Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
Phone/Fax: (303) 692-3578
Under Development
2. Number of sites sampled:
50 per basin for ecoregional reference conditions
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Benthic macrolnvertebrates, fish
5, Sampling gear or Method:
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
6, Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites about SO per basin
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used;
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat
8. Biocriteria/Decislon Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
Aquatic
9. Pertinent citations: McConnell (1995); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a, d).
10. Comments: Pilot studies conducted on a watershed basis.
3-19
-------
CONNECTICUT
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management (CTDEP/BWM),
has utilized ambient biological monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates to evaluate water quality in
wadeable streams since 1973. Sampling methods initially consisted of Surber samplers and multiple-plate
artificial substrates. Bioassessments were based on the evaluation of community structure parameters and
derived indices. U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III (RBP III) was incorporated into the program
in 1987 and adopted as the primary assessment method in 1989.
The CTDEP/BWM routinely utilizes the bioassessment process to evaluate spill incidents, pollution source
Impacts, and effectiveness of waste treatment installations. Benthic invertebrate community data has been
collected to date at 219 sites on 76 waterbodies, and a fixed network is maintained that consists of 50 sites
on 34 waterbodies that are visited on a rotating schedule. Intensive basin surveys are conducted as needed.
Twelve monitoring sites have been identified as reference sites, six of these are utilized as primary
reference sites for RBP ill assessments.
Narrative biological criteria for benthic macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams were adopted into
Connecticut Water Quality Standards in 1987. Work was initiated to develop numeric biological criteria in
1989 and continues as limited resources permit. In 1989, macroinvertebrate community data were
employed to assess aquatic life use support and impairment at 22 sites in support of numeric criteria
development for copper and zinc based on ambient water quality monitoring.
Connecticut's 305(b) reports have directly incorporated biornonitoring information as a measure of aquatic
life use support since 1988; however, the bioassessment program continues to be subject to sever resource
constraints (1-2 FTE). The bioassessment program relies heavily on macroinvertebrate community data,
but fish community assessments are also utilized whenever possible. Fish community information is
obtained through cooperation with the CTDEP Fisheries Division. Analyses of contaminants in fish and
invertebrate tissues are also incorporated into both 305(b) and other assessments.
3-20
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: CONNECTICUT
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
188.
105.5
293.5
Earnest Pizzuto, Guy Hoffman
Bureau of Water Management PERD
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127 •
(860) 424-3715 , 3733; (860) 566-8650 (fax)
2. Number of sites sampled:
3, Miles per site:
4. Assembiage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
87
3.4, but variable and site specific
Benthic macroinvertebrates; fish (not reported)
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
6, Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7, Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivarlate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Muitimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrate: Taxa Richness, Hllsenhoff Biotic Index (modified), ratio of serapers/filterer-collecters, ratio of EPA and
chlronomid adundance, % contribution of dominant taxon, EPT index, community loss index
8. BIocriterla/Decision Thresholds:
Btocrlteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (In place)
Under development
Water Quality
JL_
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
JL
Aquatic
LifeUse
JL
9. Pertinent citations: Connecticut DEP (1992); Pizzuto (1995); Sabock (1994); Switzer (1995); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent 5 year period prior to spring 1995, Fisheries studies conducted by the CDEP Fisheries Division.
3-21
-------
DELAWARE
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) bioassessment
program focuses on overall assessment of non-tidal streams. The DNREC assesses these streams with
application to the biennial water quality assessment reporting process, management of water resources,
and as a tool for determining nonpoint source impacts to streams. The bioassessment program has been
in existence for nearly five years, and standard operating procedures are at present being finalized. The
objective of the bioassessment program is to establish narrative and numeric biocriteria in state water
quality standards. These biocriteria will in the future be used to identify and control activities the impact
designated uses.
The DNREC bioassessment program began with the sampling of invertebrate communities at 93 locations
in Kent and Sussex Counties during 1991. A total of 96 sites were surveyed during 1993, and all surveys
(during survey years) included habitat quality measurements. The primary objective of the studies was to
provide an assessment of the biological and habitat condition of nontidal streams throughout the state, A
secondary objective was to quantify the relationships between biological quality using macroinvertebrates
and habitat quality.
DNREC habitat assessment procedures follow the technical guidance of USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (RBPs), with some modifications. Habitat scores are compiled separately for the Northern
Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions. Canonical correlation analysis is used to identify reference sites
according to habitat and biological variables. Site scores were divided by reference values to provided a
"percent of reference" final score.
Biological assessment procedures follow RBP guidance and focus on the macroinvertebrate community. In
the Piedmont Region, collection methods are the same as those contained in the RBP guidance. In the
Coastal Plain Region, collection methods utilize procedures developed in conjunction with several other
states fn USEPA Regions II, 111, and IV. The Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams workshop has established a
standardized macroinvertebrate method consisting of 20 "jabs" with a D-frame net in stable and productive
habitats. DNREC uses a probability-based design to select sampling stations for 305(b) reporting. The
primary advantage to using this statistical approach is that results obtained at a subset of sites can be
applied to the larger total complement of streams with a greater degree of confidence.
Multiple sources of impairment (including various chemical stressors and habitat degradation) have been
detected using the DNREC approach to water quality assessment. Impairment of aquatic life use
attainment is determined using the reference condition as a point of comparison. Site are ranked as good,
fair, or poor based on biological quality (percent of reference). Values in the "good" range are comparable
to the reference and indicate high quality. Whereas, values in the "poor" range are not comparable to the
reference and indicate severe degradation. And site values rated as "fair" are moderate in quality as
compared to the reference.
3-22
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: DELAWARE
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
364
2.063
2.427
John Maxted
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
84 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
(302)739-4590/6140
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
179 plus 10 reference
(93 sites in 1991; 96 sites in 1993)
Probability design (100 meters per station)
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (not reported)
D-frame dipnet; 20- jab method; 100 organism subsample;
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 10
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - Taxa Richness; EPT; % EPT.; % Dominant family; % Chironomidae; Family Biotic Index; BCI.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
ds
X
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
JL
Aquatic
Life Use
X
9. Pertinent citations: Delaware DNREC (1994); Maxted (1994,1995a,b); Sabock (1994); Shaver, et.al. (draft manuscript); MACS
(1993, draft); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent information (for 1991-1993 bioassessments) as per John Maxted. State program moving toward use
of RBP ill.
3-23
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
\
The District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Regulation
Administration, Water Resources Management Division (WRMD) surface water quality standards include an
aquatic life use class designation to assure the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife.
The District's chemical, physical and hydrological programs are by themselves inadequate to protect or
determine aquatic life use. Fish are systematically sampled by the District's Fisheries Management
Division; however, the data are primarily applicable to resource management, not water quality monitoring.
WRMD collects monthly plankton samples from the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers; however, the resulting
data are not yet in a form that can be used for assessments. The indicator assemblage chosen by WRMD
for bioassessments is the macroinvertebrate community.
District-wide bioassessments were initiated during 1992 and 1993 through a grant from WRMD. The
intensive surveys used U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) (combined with physical and
chemical data) to assess most (29) of the District's surface streams. Approximately 150 measurements or
metrics were determined for each monitoring site and compared to three least impaired reference sites to
estimate biological and habitat quality (based on RBP technical guidance). This initial effort was used to:
establish a specific methodology for future assessments; characterize available habitat and habitat
degradation; establish baseline for stream monitoring and appraisal of future remediation efforts; and help
locate areas of significant biological impact.
The District now uses bioassessment data for water resource management and to aid in the evaluation of
aquatic life use attainability. In some cases, WRMD relies on bioassessments rather than
chemical/physical standards to make aquatic life use decisions. Aquatic life use determinations (based on
RBP data) are made using the following criteria:
• when reliable data show that the biological community has not been modified beyond the
natural range of the reference condition, full support of aquatic life use is indicated,
• when at least one biological assemblage indicates less than full support with slight to
moderate modification of the biological community, partial support of aquatic life use is
indicated, and
• when data clearly show severe modification of at least one assemblage of the biological
community, non-support of aquatic life use is indicated.
3-24
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAcontaot:
Address:
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Phone/Fax:
28.9
38.6
Hamid Karimi
Chief, Water Quality Monitoring Branch
DC Environmental Regulation Administration
Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20020-5732
(202) 645-6601
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
29
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Benthic macroinvertebrates; fish
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites (3 reference streams)
_ Ecoregional reference conditions— Number of reference sites _
_ Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
_ Multivariate analysis — Statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach — Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat RBP III used for Aquatic Life Use
Support decisions.
Macroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; modified HBI; Ratio of scrapers/filterers; Ratio EPT/chironomid abundance; %
contribution dominant taxon; EPT; community loss index; Ratio of shredders/total.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriterla
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
_x_
JJD.
Used in Water
Resource Mqmt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9 Pertinent citations: Banta (1993); District of Columbia, Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (1994); Karimi (1995); Sabock
(1994); U.S. EPA(1994a).
10. Comments: Bioassessments conducted January 1992 to March 1993. RBP III used for Aquatic Life Use Support decisions.
3-25
-------
FLORIDA
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has established a Surface Water Ambient
Monitoring Program (SWAMP) for the purposes of:
identifying and documenting prevailing surface water conditions,
determining trends in surface water quality and documenting problem areas,
determining support of water quality criteria,
establishing stream ecoregion reference sites, and
providing information for management, legislators, other agencies and the public.
DEP primary strategies for monitoring include the determination of ecoregion subregions and the '
development of community bioassessment protocols. Standard operating procedures have been written for
laboratory and sample collection activities. DEP bioassessment protocols provide a multi-metric
assessment methodology for evaluating Florida streams. The subregionalization of Florida from three
ecoregionsto 13 subregions has also been completed. Reference sites were established on 66 streams
for use in development of community bioassessment protocols. The sites were selected to represent least-
impacted or background sites for each of the subregional types, and were sampled two times per year
(winger and summer). The goal of this sampling effort was to determine the best quality macroinvertebrate
community present for the representative habitat and water chemistry.
Currently, Florida DEP has established a fixed-station network for monitoring reference sites scattered
throughout three aggregated subecoregions. The reference condition developed from a composite of the
reference sites within each of the three subecoreginal groupings is used to characterize a multimetric
biological index for assessing impairment to Florida's streams. This monitoring approach, which is based
on macroinvertebrate assemblage, is used to asses the condition of streams as part of the nonpoint source
program and is used as a benchmark for assessing condition in the point-source program.
Macroinvertebrate assessment results are also used in the process of determining aquatic life use support.
During the 1994 Water Quality Assessment reporting period, macroinvertebrate community information was
used to assess aquatic life use support for a total of 69 watersheds. Biological-based water rules for
Florida involve three major lines of evidence which include: determination of biotic integrity of a site,
dominance of nuisance species, and imbalance of flora and fauna. The biological criteria protecting biotic
integrity are based on Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index values for macroinvertebrate communities
(sampled via Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samplers). Community imbalance is defined as a 25%
departure from reference conditions that is a 25% reduction in the diversity index from established
background levels.
Stream monitoring in Florida will add a site randomization aspect, which is intended to enable a more
accurate assessment of biological condition throughout the state. Fixed reference stations have been
randomly selected to be sampled on a 5-year rotational cycle. In addition, 75% of the monitoring effort in
any given year will focus on non-reference sites that will be randomly chosen for assessment. This
monitoring approach of sampling both reference and non-reference sites in a random manner will provide
data on the status of the reference database as well as a statewide assessment of biological condition and
impairment.
3-26
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: FLORIDA
Ellen MeCarron :
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 488-0782/6579
1, Miles assessed as;
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
J5L
320
JZL
69
Average is 7,2 miles per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol 111
(currently testing difference between 20-jab method and artificial substrates)..
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites :
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites _§§_
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
UP, Multimetrie approach—Metrics used or under development:
Biological and Habitat. Macroinvertebrates • Number of taxa; EPT; Number of Chironomidae taxa; Number of
Crustacean/Mollusc taxa; Shannon-Wiener Index; % Dominant taxon; % Diptera; % Crustacan/Moliusc; Florida Index; % Class
I and Class II; Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; % Collector-Gatherers; % Collector-Fiiterers; % Shredders.
8, Biocriteria/Deeision Thresholds:
Biocriterla
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (In place)
Under development
Water Quality
Used in Water
Resourde Mgmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
-X
9. Pertinent citations: Florida DEP (1994); Florida DER (1992); Hand (1994); MeCarron (1994,1995); Sabook (1994); U.S. EPA
(1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers presented in #1 & 2 (above) represent 1994 305(b) reporting cycle -1992-1993. Florida 305(b) program is
coordinated by Joe Hand (904) 921 -9926.
3-27
-------
GEORGIA
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) uses trend monitoring, intensive surveys, and
biological monitoring and assessments as surface water monitoring tools to manage and regulate Georgia
water resources. EPD operates a fixed station trend monitoring network in cooperation with the U.S.
Geological Survey that includes 145 strategically located stations. Intensive stream surveys, which
complement fixed station monitoring, are conducted to address specific issues such as cause-effect
relationships, wasteload allocations, and water quality assessments. During the 1994 Water Quality
Assessment reporting period, EPD surveyed macroinvertebrates at six of the trend monitoring network
stations.
EPD is continuing to refine state biological monitoring methods and is currently preparing a standard
operating procedures manual for macroinvertebrate bioassessments. This Georgia bioassessment
protocol will represent an intensive, multi-habitat, multi-biometric approach to assessing macroinvertebrate
communities. Biological monitoring activities have begun for Georgia's River Basin Management Project on
the Chattahoochee and Flint River basins; however, current Water Quality Management Program (WQMP)
emphasis Is on the solidification of bioassessment methodologies for streams throughout the state,
development of the protocol, and the initiation of a long-term reference site monitoring program. Members
of the WQMP are currently being trained in macroinvertebrate field collection techniques and habitat
assessment methods. WQMP teams have assessed more than 20 streams using U.S. EPA's Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) revised habitat assessment methods for riffle/run and glide/pool prevalent
streams.
Biological assessment information is used by EPD in the designated use support characterization process.
Fish survey information provided by the Wildlife Resources Division has placed 494 miles of streams on the
partial support list. The Index of BiotJc Integrity is used to classify fish populations as excellent, good, fair,
poor, or very poor. Stream segments rated as poor or very poor are considered as not meeting the "fishing"
water use classification and are included in the partially supporting list.
In an expanded look at the work done by the Wildlife Resources Division, four drainages were sampled
from 1990 -1993: Ocmulgee, Flint, Chattahoochee, and Oconee drainages. These efforts covered 507
sites for fish assemblage assessments using the Index of Biotic Integrity, and were initiated to determine the
effects of various land use practices on stream fish communities. A single IBI was developed basin on the
ecregion approach for use across the west-central region of Georgia, across two major drainages
(Apalachida and Altmaha). Physiographic areas included the Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain.
Statistical and graphical analysis indicated no significant differeneces in IBI scoring across both drainage
and physiographic region. Principal components analyses was used to identify 12 factors that explained
70% of the variation in the data set. A preliminary discriminant analyses also revealed some important
relationships among the physical-chemical data and the 12 IBI metrics.
3-28
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: GEORGIA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
TOO
1835_
jgpi
(640)
(1310)
(470V
(55)
2535 miles
Mark Winn, III
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Water Quality Management Program
205 Butler Street, SE
Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4905/7843
Contact: Steve Schleiger
Address: Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife Resources Division
Fisheries Management Section
Highway 341 South, Route 3, Box 75
Fort Valley, GA 31030
Phone/Fax: (912)825-7841
507
5 mile (default) per site.
Fish; Benthio macroinvertebrates (not reported)
Fish Index of Biotte Integrity (modified metrics)
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multlmetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Fish - Index of Blotic Integrity pilot studies,
Fish IBI: Proportion of lithophilic spawners; number of sensitive/intolerant species; proportion of tolerant species; proportion of
omnivorous species; proportion of insectivorous cyprinids; proportion of pioneer/piscivorous species; proportion of DELTs; total
number of species; number of individuals; number of darter species; number of sucker species; number of sunflsh species.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
JL.
JJP_
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
JL.
Aquatic
Life Use
JL.
9. Pertinent citations: Georgia DNR (1994); Sabock (1994); Schleiger (1995); U.S. EPA (1994a); Winn (1995).
10. Comments: Bioassessments conducted 1990-1993 for fish IBI.
3-29
-------
HAWAII
Rapid bioassessment protocols (RBPs) are under development to assess aquatic life uses of Hawaiian
streams and support the narrative biological criteria proposed for incorporation Into the State's Water
Quality Management Program. The general approach of the Hawaiian stream bioassessment protocol
(RBP) is to compare measures of community characteristics , and habitat, of a study stream to a minimally
impacted ecoregional reference condition. Much of the basis for evaluation is the presence or absence of
native taxa and the introduction of non-native species. Low abundance or low diversity of native fauna is
indicative of diminished biological integrity. Standardized bioassessments using regional reference
conditions can be used to augment the commonly used physical and chemical water quality assessments
performed during ambient monitoring, use attainability studies, and other investigations. Ultimately, these
methods may be used as a regulatory option in permitting dischargers and other regulated activities.
The RBP is incorporated into a standard operating procedure (SOP) made up of several activities: visual
surveys, habitat characterizations, flow measurements, and physical/chemical water quality data collection.
The time demands of each task is dependent upon the number of aquatic organisms in the stream, the size
of the stream, and other local conditions.
Visual Surveys: Fish, crustaceans and larger mollusks are surveyed for relative abundance using
randomized point counts or a linear transect method, depending upon the stream size and the number of
aquatic organisms in the site. This survey technique was selected for its non-intrusive nature and relatively
low cost
Habitat Characterizations: Habitat evaluation involves scoring none habitat attributes grouped in three
weighted tiers. Two characteristics are quantitative (pool-riffle ratio and width to depth ratio), and two are
semiquantitative in nature (substrate composition and embeddedness). The remaining five habitat
characteristics must be evaluated qualitatively. The scoring for these characteristics was developed from
other bioassessment protocols, however each was analyzed separately to produce scoring ranges
applicable to Hawaiian streams.
Flow Measurement and Wafer Quality Data Collection: These activities provide information that is not
directly included in either the visual survey, macroinvertebrate sampling, or habitat characterization. Stream
discharge measurement and information such as bed slope, altitude, pH and conductivity are intended to
be logistically feasible, yet not so time consuming ncr equipment intensive that other efforts are
jeopardized.
Metrics have been developed for the Hawaiian Stream Bioassessment Index with scores ranging from 6 to
30. Additional testing of these methods and metrics will continue.
3-30
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: HAWAII
1. Miles assessed as;
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Gordon Smith
Hawaii Dept. of Health and Environmental Planning
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 586-4351/4370
Email: gordo@hawaii.edu
-Pilot studies
2. Number of sites sampled:
25 sites on 14 streams for the pilot study
3, Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Fish and larger invertebrates
5, Sampling gear or Method:
Visual surveys; randomized point count or linear surveys.
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
_ Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Number of native amphidromous macrofauna; percent contribution native taxa; sensitive native fish species; introduced tolerant
fish species; community weighted average; number of Introduced taxa.
8. Btocriteria/Decision Thresholds: -
Biocriterla
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
UP
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
UP
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Hawaii Department of Health (1994); Sabock (1994); Smith (19953, b, c, d, e); U.S. EPA (1994a),
10. Comments: The new narrative biocriteria will reference a technical document that will provide instructions on how to conduct the
stream biosurveys.
3-31
-------
IDAHO
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not established
biological criteria for use in Water Quality Standards at the present time; however, bioassessment protocols
have been developed for Idaho streams and wadable rivers. Bioassessments of the macroinvertebrate and
fish communities are used in both the nonpoint source control and antidegradation facets of DEQ's water
quality program.
Under an Antidegradation Agreement finalized in 1988, DEQ cosponsors Basin Area meetings every 2
years to: provide current water quality and fish habitat status information; discuss current and future
nonpoint source activities; obtain public input; and identify stream segments of concern. Another key
provision of the agreement is the establishment of a coordinated monitoring program. Three levels of
monitoring intensity—basic, reconnaissance, and intensive—have been developed for water quality
monitoring in support of the Antidegradation Program. Basic monitoring consists of an office compilation of
existing monitoring and beneficial use data. Reconnaissance level monitoring includes: field inventories
and qualitative assessments of instream beneficial uses conducted on all stream segments of concern;
U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) habitat assessments; and RBP macroinvertebrate surveys.
Biological assessments at the intensive level of study involve quantitative habitat monitoring for selected
parameters; use of a Hess sampler for macroinvertebrate surveys; and the four-step removal method for
fish community assessments.
The DEQ biological monitoring program has expanded since the 1988 Idaho Antidegradation agreement.
DEQ has conducted biological assessments at 1170 selected stream segments of concern (reference sites
and 303d listed streams). The biological data are evaluated using a RBP and Index of Biotic Integrity-based
approach for macroinvertebrates and fish, respectively. In order to provide consistency in monitoring and
assessment methods, DEQ has prepared a series of protocols that address fish, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and habitat including:
» Protocols for Evaluation and Monitoring of Stream-Riparian Habitats Associated with
Aquatic Communities in Rangeland Streams,
• Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity (Macroinvertebrates) in Idaho Streams, and
• Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity (Fish) in Idaho Streams.
Biological assessments have been included in a variety of project-specific applications in Idaho as part of:
State Agricultural Water Quality projects; enforcement cases; ecoregion refinement and Rocky Mountain
ecoreglon BMP effectiveness monitoring on forest lands; the Beneficial Use Reconnaissance project; and a
variety of use attainability studies in northern Idaho.
Despite the large number of sites sampled, assessment information for Idaho rivers and streams is not
available. To aid in shifting to a watershed approach, and to restore the utility of 303(d) lists of water quality
limited segments, it was decided to limit the availability of stream bioassessment information. Assessments
on which regulatory actions may be based will no longer be available through the State's Water Quality
Status Report (305b). However, the DEQ emphasizes the use of biological integrity measurements for
aquatic life use assessment.
3-32
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: IDAHO
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Bill Clark
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1253
(208) 373-0260/0576
Not Reported
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
1170
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
Fish - backpack electrofishing; Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V;
Macroinvertebrates - travelling kicknet, Hess (primary method), or Surber; Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol III.
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Fish - total number of species, number of native species, number of introduced species, number of salmonid species, number
of benthic insectivores, number of intolerant species, % introduced species, Jaccard coefficient, % carnivores, % omnivores,
% insectivores, % salmonids, density (# and weight), salmonid (density & biomass), % Young of Year (YOY), % YOY
salmonids, % anomalies, salmonid condition factor.
Macroinvertebrates - taxa richness, EPT, HBI, abundance-catch/unit effort, percent scrapers, percent filterers, percent
shredders, Jaccard coefficient.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
JL_
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Clark (1990); Clark and Maret (1993); Chandler et al. (1993); Hayslip (1993,1995); Idaho DHW (1994); Maret
et al. (1993); Robinson and Minshall (1995); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a)
10. Comments: Idaho DEQ has developed a series of 8 in-depth protocol documents that address fish, benthic macroinvertebrates,
habitat, and use attainability analysis. An important aspect of the biological monitoring program is the proper care and disposition of
voucher specimens into permanent museum collections. Arrangements have been made with the Orma J. Smith Museum of
Natural History, Albertson College of Idaho, to house these voucher collections for future reference and research.
3-33
-------
ILLINOIS
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water monitoring programs consist of a combination of fixed
station networks and intensive stream surveys of specific watersheds. 1EPA operates an Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring Network of 206 fixed stations to characterize and define trends in the physical, chemical,
and biological condition of Illinois surface waters. Facility-related stream surveys target municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment discharges, and consist of upstream-downstream comparisons of
macroinvertebrate communities, water chemistry, stream flow, and habitat. The survey results are used to
evaluate point source impacts, determine the significance of the biological impact, and evaluate the need
for additional wastewater treatment controls.
IEPA conducts intensive river basin surveys in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Conservation
(IDOC). Fish, macroinvertebrate, water chemistry, and habitat data are collected to: refine and update
biological stream characterization activities; identify biological integrity and potential of streams in the basin;
assess designated use attainment; and identify water quality limited resources and priority waterbodies.
IEPA and IDOC biologists have also developed a Biological Stream Characterization Program (BSC). In
addition to providing a stream classification system for Illinois, the BSC is also used in the determination of
designated use attainment for streams. The BSC system consists of a provisional five-tier stream
classification, predicted largely on attributes of stream fish communities. BSC "unique" and "highly valued"
resource designations indicate full support of aquatic life use; "moderate" and "limited" aquatic resources
classes indicate partial support; and "restricted" aquatic resource class denotes non-support. In the
absence of adequate fish survey data, macroinvertebrate data or physical habitat descriptors (in that order)
may be used to develop a provisional stream classification.
Illinois aquatic life use assessments are based on a combination of biological and physiochemical data
generated from the various IEPA monitoring programs. The biological data consist offish and
macroinvertebrate community information which are evaluated using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and
the IEPA Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI), respectively. Stream habitat data are used to estimate biotic
potential in the form of a Predicted index of Biotic Integrity (PIBI) value generated from a multiple regression
equation.
Illinois is in the process of developing multimetric biocriteria through an existing Biocriteria Workgroup.
Although IEPA biologists have been characterizing streams for years using various biological criteria, no
existing state water quality standard addresses the quality of the aquatic life community in Illinois. Biocriteria
as state water quality standards would set narrative and numeric goals for the quality of individual
ecosystems throughout the state. The present schedule for adoption of biocriteria as Illinois Pollution
Control Board standards targets the 1996 Triennial Standards Review.
3-34
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: ILLINOIS
Contact:
Address:
Mike Branham
Illinois EPA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
: Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Phone/Fax:
3.839
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362/785-1225
2. Number of sites sampled:
700 intensive basin sites (chemical, biological and habitat)
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Approx. 11 miles, on average.
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Illinois EPA (benthos), Illinois DOC (fish)
MBI - Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
IBI - Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain: statewide criteria apply
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat
Fish - IBI
Macroinvertebrates- Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index)
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
x_
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Branham (1994,1995);lllinois EPA (1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1994 305(b) reporting period and include monitoring conducted over a 5-year period (1989-1993).
3-35
-------
INDIANA
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (DEM) biological monitoring programs involve the
intermittent sampling of Indiana lakes, rivers, and streams to assess various components of the biological
community including fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and bacteria. Periodic comprehensive studies of
entire watersheds have been conducted as needed to evaluate the status of the entire cross section of
biological communities. Typically, DEM biological studies have involved upstream-downstream
comparisons of point source discharge effects.
DEM biological assessments of streams and wadable rivers focus on fish and macroinvertebrate
communities. The department has been working cooperatively with U.S. EPA Region 5 to evaluate the
biological integrity of Indiana streams using the fish community. A total of 197 headwater and wadable
stream sites have been sampled in the Central Corn Belt Plain ecoregion in order to develop and calibrate
an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for use in Indiana. The results of the IBI study are being used to: identify
areas of least disturbance within ecoregions for use as reference sites; verify Indiana ecoregion boundaries;
develop expectation criteria for each IBI metric considering stream order and proximity to Lake Michigan;
and develop biological criteria for the ecoregions using IBI scores and habitat classifications.
Indiana streams and wadable rivers are also assessed using macroinvertebrates as water quality indicators.
DEM is using U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) to direct the technical methods for
macroinvertebrate sampling and habitat assessment. This long-term effort will eventually lead to the
development of a database which will allow the evaluation of nonpoint source impacts. A total of 341 sites
on 244 rivers and streams have been sampled, to date. Habitat assessments are performed at all
biological monitoring sites. Numerical habitat evaluations include physical, chemical, and
riparian/watershed characteristics, and are combined with bioassessments to determine overall ecological
integrity. This multiphase program entails a long-term commitment of DEM to accumulating an extensive
unified biological database from which comparisons of ecological integrity can be made both now and in the
future.
Indiana has addressed and included narrative biological criteria in its water quality standards to prevent
degradation of biological resources. Both warm water and cold water aquatic communities are recognized
within a multiple use classification and protected under narrative criteria. An "exceptional use" classification
has been established to provide stringent protection to waters possessing unusual aquatic; habitat or
support unique assemblages of aquatic organisms. Some Indiana streams have been found incapable of
supporting diverse aquatic communities during much of the year simply because there is not enough water,
food, or sustainable habitat present to support them (even under excellent water quality conditions). A
"limited use" designation has been established for these streams.
DEM criteria for evaluating support of designated uses include classification guidelines based on
bioassessments. Full support of designated uses is indicated when there is no evidence of modification to
the biological community within the natural range of control (or ecoregion). If there is some uncertainty
about use support or if some modification of the biological community is noted, partial support is indicated.
Streams exhibiting a definite modification of the aquatic community are classified as not supporting
designated uses.
3-36
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: INDIANA
1, Miles assessed as;
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
Contact: ,
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1.094.
729
.1.823
341 benthic macroinvertebrate sites
197 fish community sites
Lee Bridges
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
1053. Meridian
P.O. Box6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)243-5030/5056
4. Assemblage(s):
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; Algae (not reported)
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Benthio maoroinvertebrates-RapId Bioassessment Protocol ll/lll
Fish-Index of Biotic Integrity
Habitat - Qualitative (QHEI, RBP)
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivarlate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Muitimetrio approach—Metrics used or under development: Macroinvertebrates - RBP ll/lll; Fish - IBI.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Hilsenhoff Biotio Index; EPT Count; Chironomld Count; EPT/Chlronomio ratio; Number of
Individuals,
Fish (IBI): LARGE RIVER: total number species; number of darter/sculpin/madtorfi species; number sunflsh species; number
round-bodied suckers species; number sensitive species; percent tolerant species; percent omnivores; percent insectivores;
percent carnivores; catch per unit effort; percent simple lithophlls; percent DELT anomalies,
GREAT RIVER: total number species; percent large river taxa; number sunfish species; number round-bodied suckers
species; number sensitive species; percent tolerant species; percent omnivores; percent insectivores; percent carnivores;
catch per unit effort; percent simple lithophils; percent DELT anomalies.
8. Biocrlteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
JU£L
Used in Water
ResourceMgmt.
X
9. Pertinent citations: Indiana DEM (1992); Newhouse (1994); Sabock (1994); Simon (1992,1994,1995); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1992305(b) reporting period -1990-1991. Modification of the IBI has been made for different
ecoregions (see Simon 1992,1994,1995).
3-37
-------
IOWA
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses bioassessments as part of special studies (such
as nonpolnt source pollution control projects), as well as for the determination of aquatic life designated use
support. Recently, DNR has been refining classifications for stream use designations. Since streams
designated for warm water aquatic life in Iowa Water Quality Standards are defined on the basis of the
characteristics of the aquatic community (primarily fish),
DNR has begun to use bioassessments for the evaluation of stream uses. Biological and habitat
assessment methods are based on the guidance of U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs).
At present, the state does not Include biological criteria in the Iowa Water Quality Standards program,
however, pilot studies are underway to build a database for the development of biocriteria for wadable
streams and rivers. The Iowa Ecoregional Subdivision Project was initiated in July 1991 to establish a
framework from which ecoregionally-based biological criteria can be developed for Iowa streams. Aquatic
habitat, physioehemicai water quality, fish community, and macroinvertebrate community data are being
collected from candidate ecoregional reference sites.
An evaluation of physical habitat is being completed at all reference sites to define attainable habitat quality
for streams in each ecoreglon or subecoregion. The fish assemblage is being surveyed using standardized
electrofishing methods, and fish community data are being used to develop a multi-metric biological index
similar to the Index of Biotic Integrity. Macroinvertebrates are being collected from both artificial and natural
substrates. Artificial substrate data will be used in biometrics that require estimates of taxa proportional
abundances. Natural substrate data will be used in qualitative-type biometrics, and will allow a more
comprehensive appraisal of macroinvertebrates than artificial substrate data would alone.
DNR anticipates a total 5-year (through 1997) field survey period, during which both reference and
monitoring sites will be sampled. The sampling of approximately 110 reference sites (representing ten
ecoreglons or subecoregions) has been proposed. A rotational schedule for revisiting reference locations
may be established for trend monitoring purposes, and the reference sites in each region will be evenly
distributed across sampling years to protect against sampling year bias. Sampling of approximately 40
monitoring site locations is also proposed. These sites represent streams with known or suspected impacts
ranging from habitat alteration to point source discharges. A variety of statistical tools are being used to
analyze the biological data. Scatter plots have been used to initially examine data patterns and will be used
to Illustrate relationships between physical or habitat data and biological attributes. Analysis of variance
methods will be used to test for significant effect of independent variables such as ecoregion, sampling
season, and sampling year on dependent biological variables. The relationships between biological,
habitat, and physioehemicai variables will be explored to the extent possible using correlation and multiple
regression analyses.
3-38
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: IOWA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor-
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
2.776
2.413
5.189
John Olson
Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources
Water Resources Section
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905/8895
2. Number of sites sampled:
390 stream use assessments
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Average length of stream assessments is 13.4 miles (standard deviation = 15.2
miles; minimum stream length = 0.26 miles; maximum stream length = 125.4)
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates (under development)
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocols III & V
6. Decision criteria based on:
_ Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions — Number of reference sites _
_ . Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
_ Multivariate analysis — Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach — Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat
Fish: Number of species; percentage of species with over 20 specimens per species; percentage of pollution tolerant species;
percent of individuals with DELTs, exteranl parasites and fungus.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
~
UP
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
X
9. Pertinent citations: Iowa DNR (1991,1994); Olson (1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA(1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers presented represent 1994 305(b) 2-year reporting cycle. Biocriteria program beginning to be developed using
fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and habitat. Benthic macroinvertebrate pilot projects underway per Tom Wilton, Personal
communication.
3-39
-------
KANSAS
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (DHE) initiated a stream biological monitoring network
in 1972. The initial program involved a total of 33 stations that were located to monitor major river basins,
major tributaries, interstate streams, and to bracket selected municipal point sources. The original
monitoring locations were selected to provide long-term water quality trend information for Kansas streams,
and were coincident with the ambient stream chemical monitoring network. During the 1989 to 1993
monitoring period, the number of biological network sites was increased to 59. These stations continue to
be sampled annually on a seasonal rotation (i.e., a station is sampled in spring the first year, summer the
second, and fall the third).
Biological monitoring network surveys focus on macroinvertebrates, and the pollution tolerance of the
dominant taxa is used to indicate relative water quality at each monitoring location. Macroinvertebrates are
sampled using a method that facilitates sampling of all available habitat types and the collection of the
majority of species present at each station in numbers relative to their abundance. The resulting data are
summarized using biological metrics including the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index and the Kansas Biotic
Index. The index values are used to characterize the overall pollution tolerance of the macroinvertebrate
community,'and help to distinguish the degree of aquatic life use support attainment (i.e., non-support,
partial support, or full support). DHE primarily uses these bioassessments to assess water qualify impacts
on stream biota in relation to point source discharges.
The Kansas rapid biological assessment (RBA) program is specifically designed to; rapidly screen instream
water quality conditions for problem identification; provide data to assess conformity with water quality
standards; and provide basic data to evaluate use attainment (especially aquatic life use). RBAs are used
primarily to assess water quality impacts on the biota of streams receiving effluent discharges. They are
often performed by KDHE in association with water quality certification reviews required ynder K.A.R. 28-
16-28f(c). When biological data indicate that a stream Is fully supporting a balanced aquatic community,
full support of designated use is implied. If, after evaluating the data, there is some uncertainty as to
whether or not a balanced aquatic community is supported, the waters are deemed as partially supporting
designated uses. In these cases, some species may not be able to propagate in the stream, although a
put-and-take fishery may exist. Non-support of aquatic life use is indicated when the aquatic community is
definitely imbalanced and/or severely stressed (e.g., few or none of the expected species exist in the
waterbody).
The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks proposed a Stream Monitoring Program as a long term
survey designed to describe the status and trends in the condition of the State's stream resources. The
program planned to integrate information about fish and macroinvertebrate communities, water quality,
instream habitat, riparian condition and human uses.
3-40
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: KANSAS
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
292
100.5
Mike Butler
Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment
Bureau of Water Protection
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-5580/291-3266
2. Number of sites sampled;
3, Miles per site:
4, Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
36 sites near municipal facilities (59 fixed network stations not included)
approx. 10 miles per site; 30 for the fixed stations (20 miles upstream and 10 miles
downstream)
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (conducted by Kansas Department of Wildlife and
Parks- not available)
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol - based Macrotnvertebrate Biotlc Index. D-frame net
with hand-pciking of ail available habitat types.
6. Decision criteria based on;
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites.
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates • Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI); EPT Index; Taxa richness; Total taxa; Kansas Biotte Index (KBI).
Habitat - Habitat Development Index
8. Biocrlterla/Oecision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
9. Pertinent citations: Butler (1994); Carney (1994); Cooter (1994); Kansas DHE (1992,1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10, Comments: Numbers represent 1992 and 1994 305(b) reporting period - surveys conducted 1989-1993. Results from two reports
were added together. Fixed station surveys using a macorinvertebrate biotic index (single metric results not included in this study)
showed 1110 miles in full support and 600 miles impaired.
3-41
-------
KENTUCKY
The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (DEP) uses bioassessments for special water
research management studies as well as for surveying fixed-station biological monitoring sites. Algae,
macroinvertebrates, and fish are sampled, and several community structure and function metrics are
analyzed for each indicator assemblage. The biological metrics are used to determine biotic integrity and
water quality designated use support for each monitored stream reach. Biological metric expectations are
based on streams size, ecological region, and habitat quality. Warm water aquatic habitat use support
decisions are based on these expectations.
During 1991, DEP began implementation of a Reference Reach Program. Biological sampling protocols
and habitat assessment methods were developed and tested at six locations in the Appalachian ecoregion
during a summer index period. Habitat and bioassessment methods followed the technical guidance of
USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs). Bioassessments integrated physicochemical data,
habitat data, data from each assemblage, and professional judgement of DEP biologists.
Algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish have been collected from more than 60 sites since the inception of the
Kentucky RBP program. Algae samples were collected from each station using both artificial substrates
and natural substrates to obtain biomass and relative abundance information, respectively. Algal
community integrity was determined using the periphyton biotic index (PBI), which integrates the scores of
six biological metrics. The PBI is used to rank periphyton communities as excellent (supporting Warm
water aquatic habitat), good (supporting), fair (partially supporting), or poor (not supporting).
DEP collects macroinvertebrates from artificial substrates and all available natural substrate habitats at
each monitoring location. Macroinvertebrate data analysis for wadable streams is accomplished by using a
multi-metric approach. A base core of four metrics are always used. Additional metrics vary, depending on
type of impact or ecoregion. A minimum of six metrics are used for each analysis. The individual metric
scores are averaged to produce a Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index (MBI), Warm water aquatic
habitat use support is reflected if there are no alternatives in community structure or function, and if habitat
conditions are relatively undisturbed. Locations are considered partially supporting uses when survey
information indicates that community structure is slightly altered, that functional feeding components are
noticeably influenced, and available habitats reflect alterations or reductions. Survey reaches are
considered not supporting if survey information reflects sustained alterations in community structure, taxa
richness and functional feeding groups, or if available habitats are severely reduced.
Fish are also collected at biological monitoring sites, and community condition is determined by using the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBl). Twelve community attributes are used to categorize fish immunities as
excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor, or no fish present. Monitoring locations with IBl 'atings of excellent or
good are considered to fully support uses. Partial support of designated uses is indicated by the IBl rating
of fair, whereas, IBl categories of poor, very poor, and no fish reflect nonsupport of uses.
3-42
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: KENTUCKY
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact;
Address;
Phone/Fax:.
Tom VanArsdale
Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection
Division of Water
14ReiliyRoad
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)S54-3410
_J19
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4, Assemblage(s):
5, Sampling gear or Method:
42 (1990-1991 biological monitoring program)
24 (1992-1993 biological monitoring sites)
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; Algae
Fish Index of Blotto Integrity
Macroinvertebrates - Traveling kick-net; Hester-Dendy Samplers
6, Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain: statewide (45 reference streams)
7, Data Analysis/Interpretation: • .
Multlvariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
_X_ Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat (UD)
Macroinvertebrates - Total Number of Individuals; Taxa Richness; EPT; Jaccard Coefficient of Community Similarity; Percent
Community Similarity Index; Modified HBI; EPT/Chironomidae; Percent Contribution Dominant Taxa; Dominants in Common,
Five; Dominants in Common, Ten; Percentage Circotopus plus Chironomus Abundance to Total Chiranomidae; Percentage of
Shredders to Total Abundance; Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index,
Fish - Total species; Number and indentity of darter species, sunfish species, sucker,species, Intolerant species; Proportion of
individuals as green sunfish, omnlvores, insectivorous cyprinids, top carnivors; number of individuals with disease, tumors, fin
damage, and other anomalies; number of individuals in sample; proportion of individuals as hybrids.
Diatom Bioassessment Index: Total number of diatom taxa; Shannon diversity; percent community similarity; pollution tolerance
index; percent sensitive species; other metrics as appropriate.
8, Blocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in ptace)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
9, Pertinent citations: Kentucky DEP (1992,1993,1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a); VanArsdale (1994).
10. Comments: Numbers represent cumulative total for 1990-1991 and 1992-1993 bioassessesrnents as per Tom VanArsdall.
3-43
-------
LOUISIANA
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently conducting pilot studies to describe
ecoregional reference conditions for wadeable Louisiana streams. The studies for two ecoregions - South
Central Plains and Upper Mississippi Alluvial Plains ecoregions have been completed. The
macroinvertebrate and fish communities, water chemistry and physical habitat of 25 reference streams
were sampled and analyzed over a three year period (1991 to 1994). The study results suggest the need
to subdivide the South Central Plains ecoregion into two subregions for establishment of reference
conditions. The southern subregion was characterized by higher velocity streams inhabited by rheophilic
taxa the northern subregion was characterized by sluggish streams inhabited by fauna tolerant of low
dissolved oxygen conditions. Louisiana is continuing the efforts to characterize reference stream
communities by sampling 12 streams in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain and Terrace Uplands ecoregions.
Macroinvertebrates and fish have been collected using standardized qualitative techniques, and stream
habitat has been assessed by assigning relative scores for habitat attributes of a glide/pool system.
DEQ has not formally incorporated a state-wide bioassessment program into the water quality standard and
assessment process; however, the Louisiana pilot studies represent the initial step in the process of
developing recommendations for biocriteria.
3-44
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE; LOUISIANA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Dugan Sabins
Louisana Dept. of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
P.O. Box82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504)765-0511/0635
Pilot studies
2, Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Fish; Benthic macrofnvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 25 reference streams
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multlvariate analysis—Statistical routines used;
X Multimetrtc approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat
8. Biocrlteria/Decision Thresholds:
Blocnterla
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
JL_ •
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Sabins (1995); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a, 1995).
10, Comments: Aquatic life use support assessments are currenly made with limited input of biological data.
3-45
-------
MAINE
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducts an extensive biological sampling
program for the assessment of the overall health of stream biological communities. The program began in
the early 1970s and used surber sampling to characterize benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Since
1981, the monitoring program has used artificial substrates (wire baskets filled with rocks) to enhance the
comparability of samples collected from a variety of sites. Over 200 sites have been monitored using these
methods, including stations located below all significant inland dischargers of wastewater. Reference
stations have been established upstream of most of,the discharges as well as on pristine (or relatively
undisturbed) waters.
The standardized macroinvertebrate sampling program was developed to build a database to be used to
establish the criteria that would allow DEP to classify a waterbody according to Maine's aquatic life
standards. Since Maine recognized the need to assess biological integrity over a decade ago, they were in
an excellent position to formally incorporate biological assessments into water quality practices, and by
1986 had passed a revised water classification law that included consideration of the condition of aquatic
biota. The law states that it is the state's objective to restore and maintain biological integrity o fits waters,
establishes a water quality classification system to allow the management of surface waters so as to protect
their quality. The Maine aquatic life use standards establish, in narrative form, the characteristics of the
aquaflc community that are required to exist in order for a waterbody to attain a given classification, and the
characteristics are specific and different for each waterbody classification. The biological standard for
Maine surface waters specifies that waters must be of sufficient quality to support all species of fish
indigenous to the receiving waters and must maintain the structure and function of the resident biological
community.
Numeric criteria and decision rules that precisely define the way that aquatic life uses are assessed are
specified in the Water Bureau's Aquatic Life regulations. Examples of quantitative measures used to
assess aquatic life use standard attainment include the abundance of selected (e.g., mayfly, stonefly,
caddisfly) taxa, numbers of different types of organisms (e.g., taxa richness) and indices that summarize
quantitative biological data into one number (e.g., diversity or similarity indices). The macroinvertebrate
database is analyzed by examining a set of approximately 30 quantitative variables that summarize the
Identity and abundance of benthic community attributes. The decision-making thresholds of this approach
begin with statistical models (e.g., linear discriminant analysis) that use some of the variables to make water
quality classifications of an unknown sample by comparing it to characteristics of each classification
identified in the baseline database.
The output from analyses using the primary statistical analysis model is a list of probabilities of membership
for each of four classes (i.e., A, B, C, and non-attainment Class C). The use of a system based on
probabilities of attainment of standards allows a determination to be made even in the "grey" area between
classes, once the regulations establish the probability level required for attainment. The development of
numeric criteria in support of the aquatic life standards has been a time-consuming process. It has required
the collection and statistical analysis of a baseiine data set of sufficient size and coverage (of time and
space) to afford a high degree of certainty that valid generalizations can be drawn from the data. The final
evaluation of the statistical outcome is accomplished by using professional judgment methods. This
process provides a mechanism for adjustment of the decision models. It is the responsibility of DEP to
decide if any adjustment of a decision should occur, based on analytical, biological, or habitat information.
This final evaluation process relies on professional biological judgment as well as documented evidence of
physical, chemical, and biological conditions.
3-46
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MAINE Contact: Dave Courtemanch
Address: Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House, Suite 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Phone/Fax: (207) 287-7789/7826
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired 272
Impaired _28_
Excellent .
Good '
Fair
Poor
Total .300.
2. Number of sites sampled: 71 biomonitoring sites during 1992-1993 study period
(165 test and 60 reference-total sites in program since 1981)
3. Miles per site: 4.2 mile average
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: Artificial substrates (rock baskets) for benthic macroinvertebrates
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UO Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain: Statewide model (discriminant analyses) by use class of waters.
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
X Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used: Linear discriminant analyses.
X. Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates -Total abundance; species or selected group richness; EPT; EPT/Diptera; Oligochaetes/total,
Gastropoda/total; Diptera/Generic richness; Tribelosrtotal; Glossosoma/total; % predator abundance; Number of functional
feeding groups; Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index; generic richness; Plecoptera/total abundance; Ephemeroptera/generic
richness; Plecoptera/total; Ephemeroptera/generic richness; Plecoptera/generic richness; EP richness/generic richness; Non
EPT richness/generic richness; Hirudinea/total; Tanypodinae/total; Chironomus/total; Hydropsyche/total; Branchycentms/total;
Ratio eoilector-filterer+colleeter-gatherer/predators-t-shredders; HBI.
8, Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water
Blocriteria Standards Resource Mgmt.
Narrative 0n place) _X_ X.
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: Courtemanch (1994a,b; 1995); Davies et al. (1993); Maine DEP (1992); Sabock (1994); Switzer (1995); U.S.
EPA(1994a).
10. Comments:Numbers represent 2-year study period (1992-1993), as per D. Courtemanch personal communication. Please be sure
to read Davies et al. (1993) for a thorough description of their program.
3-47
-------
MARYLAND
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is conducting biological monitoring for use. in their
overall water resource management program. An additional program that is used to monitor the statewide
status of stream resources, the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS), is administered by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division.
MBSS results are not currently included within Maryland's 305(b) report.
In 19iO, MDE began conducting biological sampling (benthic macroinvertebrates) at approximately 300
locations (the Rapid Assessment Network) around the state using RBP II and compositing eight metrics.
Assessments are completed by comparison with site-specific reference sites. Reference conditions are
currently being developed. The sampling program is on a two-year rotation, with all targeted sites sampled
to coincide with the National 305(b) cycle.
The MBSS is a probability-based, biological survey of 1st, 2nd and 3rd order streams and rivers In Maryland
(collectively, these comprise more than 90% of the stream and river miles in Maryland. The primary
objectives of the MBSS are to: 1) assess the current status of biological resources in non-tidal streams
using biological integrity and fishability endpoints and 2) to establish a benchmark for long-term monitoring
of trends. The secondary objectives of the MBSS are to: 1) examine water quality, physical habitat, and
land use factors that may explain the current status of biological resources in streams, and 2) focus habitat
protection and restoration efforts. The MBSS sampling sites (called segments) are selected on the basis of
stream reach, stream order and drainage basin. As sites on a stream reach are randomly selected within a
given strata, we are able to make statistically valid inferences or conclusions about the population of
streams of a given order, or as a whole, either on a statewide or drainage basin basis. The MBSS involves
a number of qualitative and quantitative technique that are based on the U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols. Fish, water chemistry, and certain aspects of physical habitat are quantified, while benthic
macroinvertebrates, herpetofauna, aquatic vegetation and physical habitat are qualitatively sampled and
described. Methods used are backpack electroshocking for fish; multihabitat, D-frame net sampling for
benthics; herpetofauna by visual observation; and habitat quality using a modified RBP habitat assessment
approach. The specific approach for analysis of MBSS data is currently being developed but will entail
calculation of community level, multlmetric indices and comparison with reference conditions.
The state Is beginning to develop lines of communication among different biomonitoring entities to establish
coordination, sharing of data, and use of comparable methods and indicators. The Maryland Monitoring
Committee has been established by the Maryland Geological Survey to coordination the committee. The
goal of this effort is to increase efficiency and the amount of data that can be integrated into an assessment
of the state's natural resources.
MDE uses its biological assessment results in problem identification, to communicate them to the
appropriate regulatory agencies, and to track the effectiveness of remedial actions. They are not used in
directly determining aquatic life use attainment at this time. In the sumroer of 1995, MDE's monitoring and
assessment functions were transferred to the MDNR. It is expected that this move will further help the
coordination of the biological assessments done for the State 305(b) reporting and the MBSS, as well as
other efforts.
3-48
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE. MARYLAND
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair •
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
325
1.175
(3251
;(950)
(225)
1..SQQ
Niles Primrose/Paul Kazyak
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment/Monitoring and Nontidal
Assessment
416 Chinquapin Round Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 974-323S/ (410) 974-3361
2, Number of sites sampled:
300 sites (over a two-year period)
3, Miles per site:
5 mile (default) per site
4, Assemblage(s):
Benthic maeroinvertebrates; fish (under development)
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
. Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites,
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multlvariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multlmetrte approach—Metrics used or under development:
Biological and Habitat; Probability-based design.
Maeroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; Modified HBI; Scraper/Filterer ratio; EPT; EPT/Chironomidae ratio; Percent
Contribution dominant family; Community Similarity Index; Ratio of Shredders to total individuals.
8. Blocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality Used in Water
Standards Resource Mamt.
JL. JL_
Aquatic
Life Use
J5_
9. Pertinent citations: Garrison (1994); Hall et ai. (1995); Hartweli et al. (1995); Maryland DNR (1993); Primrose (1994); Ranasinghe et
al. (1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent two-year study period (1992-1993) as per Nlles Primrose personal communication. The MBSS
has an excellent newletter called "An Eye on Maryland Streams" that can be obtained by calling Ann Smith of MDNR at 410-974-
3782.
3-49
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) includes bioassessment as an integral
component of the State's watershed-based water quality management program. DEP biologists perform
habitat assessments and conduct biological sampling to supplement other water quality monitoring and
management programs. A Biomonitoring Program Standard Operating Procedures manual documents all
field and laboratory methods used to implement the various program elements.
USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) are used to monitor the health of benthic
macrolnvertebrate communities in Massachusetts' streams and wadable rivers. RBP samples are collected
at monitoring sites for upstream-downstream comparisons, comparisons to regional or surrogate reference
locations, or for long-term trend monitoring at fixed locations. Two different levels of bioassessments are
employed (for example, RBP II or RBP III) depending on the survey objectives.,
The RBP macroinvertebrate assessments are conducted at up to 25 monitoring sites per year, in
conjunction with comprehensive water quality surveys. Macrolnvertebrate data are summarized to rank
water quality by calculating a series of seven biological metrics. The results are used to supplement
traditional physicochemical analyses by demonstrating biological impact as well as assessing ambient
water quality and habitat conditions throughout a particular watershed.
The bioassessment results identify three categories of impairment using RBP II (nonimpaired, moderately
impaired, and severely impaired) and four categories using RBP 111 (nonimpaired, slightly impaired,
moderately impaired, and severely impaired). These biological community analyses are used to aid in the
aquatic life use support determination process. Full support of designated use is indicated where no
significant community modifications are observed (for example, nonimpaired). Partial and non-support
denotes the fact that some community modifications are present; however, the community is generally
viable (for example, slight to moderate impairment). Adverse modification of the biological community is
Indicative of non-support of aquatic life use (severely impaired).
3-50
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MASSACHUSETTS
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
J34_
_2Z5_
Arthur Johnson
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protecetion
Office of Watershed Management
40 Institute Road
North Grafton, MA 01536
(508) 792-7470/839-3469
2. Number of sites sampled:
21 (RBP sites 1992-1993)
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Benthic maoroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Benthic macroinvertebrate 100 organism subsample
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II and III
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; Modified HBI; Functional feeding groups; scrapers/filtering collectors; EPT/Chironomidae;
EPT Index; % similarity of community structure; percent contribution dominant taxon.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Johnson (1995); Massachusetts DEP (1994); Sabock (1994); Switzer (1995); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1994305(b) reporting period- 1992-1993.
3-51
-------
MICHIGAN
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses bioassessments as one of the principal means
of assessing progress toward achieving the goals of state and federal water quality control laws and to
monitor the effectiveness of water pollution control efforts. Biological studies may involve surveys of an
entire river system or may be oriented toward a site-specific problem evaluation. The majority of the
bioassessments conducted by DNR are the problem evaluation type such as the assessment of point
source discharges, the evaluation of remediation program success, or the^investigation of a more general
concern such as nonpoint source effects.
DNR employs three types of problem evaluation bioassessments—reference site evaluations, site
Investigations, and biosurveys—that are distinguished primarily by the level of effort involved. Reference
site evaluations are limited in effort and generally involve only one station. Site investigations are more
intensive, generally, including two to three stations. Biosurveys are the most comprehensive and usually
include five or more stations. Qualitative biological assessment and habitat survey protocols have been
developed by DNR for wadable rivers and streams and have been used in all types of problem evaluation
surveys.
The DNR biological and habitat assessment protocols were developed in 1991 as the result of the
increasing demand for a more vigorous and standardized evaluation of nonpoint source impacts. At
present, one of the principal applications of biosurveys is to support Michigan's NPDES permit program
which is managed on a 5-year cycle and on a river basin basis. DNR bioassessments can consist of an
evaluation of any one or combination of three parts including the macroinvertebrate community, the fish
community and habitat quality. The assessment data are analyzed using a group of selected biological
metrics based on Index of Biotic Integrity and U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) methods, in
1993, approximately 185 stations were surveyed using biological procedures, including 106 for nonpoint
source and 79 for point source evaluations. In total, over 1,000 stream sites have been biologically
evaluated since the inception of the program, accounting for over 80 percent of Michigan's streams.
The DNR biological information is analyzed using metrics selected from RBPs, Ohio EPA protocols; Illinois
biological procedures, and measurements developed specifically for Michigan and tested by DNR
biologists. The metrics represent a wide array of criteria for the majority of biological or habitat conditions
known to occur in response to various stream quality conditions in Michigan. The accuracy and utility of the
DNR protocols relies on the selection and evaluation of appropriate reference sites. Stream reference sites
are selected from the most pristine or least impacted streams within each of Michigan's ecoregions. The
reference site database included 21 sites in 1992, and was enlarged by 18 sites in 1993. These reference
evaluations are becoming the standard against which ail other stream biological and physical parameters
are compared. Each ecoregion will have several reference sites categorized by stream order or watershed
size.
Each DNR bioassessment site should be evaluated using the habitat and biological protocols; however, in
some Instances, only single evaluations are performed (in using only one assemblage). The overall
application and integration process is accomplished via a weight of evidence approach, used to give a site a
single classification. In general, the lowest category assigned to a single assemblage will be used alone to
categorize the overall stations biological condition. Michigan's Qualitative Rapid Bioassessment Methods
(Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section Procedure 51) and Fisheries Division fish community
surveys are used to assess stream quality and to determine designated use status. Stream biological
protocol results of excellent, good, fair, and poor translate to impairment designations of nonimpaired,
slightly impaired, moderately impaired, and severely impaired, respectively. Those streams assessed as
severely impaired (poor rating) based on the biota supported, are placed on Michigan's nonattainment list.
3-52
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MICHIGAN
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
William Creal
Michigan Oept. of Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
Stevens T. Mason Building
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517)335-4181
(59 sites)
(169 sites)
(253 sites)
2.675
535 sites rated for impairment/non-impairment (1990-1992)
5 mile (default) per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
Benthic macroinvertebrates-Modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (ll-ll
equivalent); Fish-Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - Total taxa; total mayfly taxa; total caddisfly taxa; total stonefly taxa; % mayfly; % caddisfly; percent
contribution of dominant taxa; percent surface dependent; percent isopods, snails, leeches.
Fish - Total species; total darter species; total sunfish species; total sucker species; % insectivorous cyprinids; % piscivores;
density of individuals; % anomalie; % carp, green sunfish, white sucker; % omnivores.
Water Quality
dards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
Aquatic
Life Use
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: Creal (1994); Michigan DNR (1991,1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent bioassessments conducted from 1990 through 1992, as per W. Creal.
3-53
-------
MINNESOTA
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has recently conducted surveys offish,
macroinvertebrate, and zooplankton communities to develop field techniques and interpretive tools needed
to establish meaningful water quality evaluations. These pilot studies have involved sampling in a
standardized fashion at least impaired reference sites. The MPCA, in cooperation with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, recently completed fish surveys in streams of the Minnesota River basin.
The surveys were conducted primarily to develop a fish community index from biological data collected at
50 reference sites within the basin. The development of an index for this region (based on the Index of
Biot'c Integrity) represents a first product for MPCA's effort toward establishing working numerical biological
criteria.
Fisheries field work began in 1993 with the sampling of 57 stations in the Redwood River and Blue Earth
River watersheds of the Minnesota River basin. The objective of the fish community study was to develop
biological criteria or goals (i.e., fish community health) that can be used as a benchmark for monitoring the
biological condition of streams in the watershed. IBI metrics were evaluated and the original metrics were
modified for application in the Minnesota River watershed. Both historical data and reference data from
1990 surveys were utilized in the development of metric expectation values. The adoption of biological
criteria as part of Minnesota Water Quality Standards will require considerable additional effort and will only
be undertaken after intensive study. The IBI pilot study represents an initial step in biocriteria development.
Development of a macroinvertebrate protocol would help strengthen bioassessment capabilities and utility.
Presently, Minnesota standards define three aquatic life use designations—one addressing cold water
fisheries, one cool water, and one warm water. In establishing criteria for aquatic life use it should be noted
that the IBI was developed for warm water streams. Therefore, an index and biocriteria will need to be
developed for cold water streams.
The IBI pilot studies represent an important shift in approach for MPCA assessments. This method
incorporates biological and habitat data with water chemistry data. Habitat information is being used to
determine the biological impairment attributable to habitat degradation. Discrepancies between chemistry
and biological assessments are being tracked and a weight of evidence approach is being employed to
interpret differences in proposed use support between water chemistry data and biological data. Based on
experience gained through the Minnesota River watershed pilot studies, MPCA has developed proposed
IBI-designated use class associations. IBI scores resulting in integrity class ratings of no fish, very poor,
poor, and fair all translate to the nonattainment designated use class category. Integrity classes of good
and exceptional are proposed to represent warm water habitat and exceptional warm water habitat
designated use classes, respectively.
3-54
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MINNESOTA
Contact: Judy Helgen
Address: MPCA, Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone/Fax: (612) 296-7240/296-7213
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3, Miles per site:
4, Assemblage(s):
5, Sampling gear or Method:
Pilot Studies
Fish: 57 sites in the Redwood and Blue Earth River watersheds (1992-1993)
Fish
Fish-Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based'on:
_X Reference sites
J$ Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites Fish: 50 (Minnesota River basin)
_ Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
_X_ Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Fish - Total number of native fish species; number of darter species; number of sunfish species; number of minnow species
(excluding carp, creek chub, fathead minnows) at sites < 100 sq. mi. drainage area; number of sucker species (excluding white
sucker); number of intolerant species; proportion as tolerants; proportion as omnlvores; proportion as specialized insectivores;
proportion as top carnivores; number of top carnivore species - at sites < 200 sq. mi drainage area; catch per unit effort;
proportion as simple llthophils; proportion with deformities, eroded fins, and tumors.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
X
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Minnesota PCA (1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1994 305(b) reporting period -- Oot 1991-Oct 1993.
3-55
-------
MISSISSIPPI
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) implements an ambient biological integrity
program that includes biological sampling of the macroinvertebrate community, DEQ relies on the
macroinvertebrate bioassessments, and upon the ecoregional approach for biological criteria development.
Macroinvertebrate rapid bioassessments, based on USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) and
North Carolina methods, are performed at reference sites three times per year, Macroinvertebrate RBPs
are used in all DEQ monitoring work including long-term intensive studies, ambient, monitoring, and to
investigate complaints. In order to adequately characterize ecoregional reference streams and ultimately
develop bfocriteria language, DEQ is striving toward the development of species-specific information.
A mulfiagency Alabama/Mississippi project has provided DEQ with a framework for biocriteria development,
with approximately 15 reference sites sampled within the two states. Currently, three to four years of data
are being analyzed, and the results will lead to the establishment of a series of expectations for biological
parameters of the subecoregions. An Alluvial Plains ecoregion project with Louisiana DEQ and historical
records from Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology have yielded seven reference sites
within the region. Currently no Mississippi site samples meet least-disturbed (reference) expectations,
therefor, DEQ is faced with developing biocriteria for Mississippi based solely upon data obtained from
streams outside of State borders. DEQ continues to explore National Forests and Wildlife Management
Areas for suitable reference streams, and have located two potential candidates. These will be studied
intensively to determine their suitability. DEQ also recognizes the need to expand the search for reference
sites into the freshwater portion of the Southern Coastal Plains. At present, the feasibility of how to derive
biocriteria Is being studied. The two current prospects are to take all biological characteristics of reference
sites within a subecoregion and calculate percentiles for each similar to Ohio EPA methods. A second
approach would involve examination of all reference sites and then using the highest or best metric value
from each to develop an ultimate set of expectations.
A total of 25 sites were monitored in 1994 using bioassessments, and 49 were surveyed in 1993. Under the
RBP macroinvertebrate assessment approach each site in the monitoring network is visited once per
sampling season. Specific methods are a synthesis of RBP and North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management Water Quality Section protocols. All habitat types present at a monitoring site are sampled,
and a habitat evaluation is completed to identify all major habitats available at each site. Macroinvertebrate
samples are analyzed using measures of abundance and species richness, biotic indices, and metrics of
diversity and trophic community structure.
Currently, neither narrative nor numeric biocriteria language is included in Mississippi water quality
standards; however, bioassessment method standardization and ecoregional reference condition
development represent the initial steps necessary to develop applicable biocriteria.
3-56
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MISSISSIPPI
Mike Beiser
Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality
Biological Services Section
1542 Old Whitfield Road
Pearl, MS 39208
(601)939-8553/8773
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
.301
_63_
_364_
49 in 1993; and 25 in 1994
Five mile (default) per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III and NC DEM Water Quality Section Protocol.
Gear: Primarily D-frame net and petite ponar dredge; occasionally a surber sampler
and artificial substrate samplers
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 15 (between MS and AU
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Taxa richness, EPT, North Carolina Biotic Index, % contribution of dominant taxon, trophic structure, similarity index; HBI;
EPT/Chironomidae.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Used in Water
Resource Mqmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Beiser (1994,1995); Sabok (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Miles represent 1993 and 1994 monitoring results.
3-57
-------
MISSOURI
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses chemical sampling and only cursory biological
survey information in the biennial water quality assessment reporting process. Biological survey methods
involve rapid assessment/stream walk procedures equivalent to U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
(RBP) I, and are used primarily for water resource management purposes. DNR is, however, in their third
year of developing biological criteria. A total of 45 reference streams have been sampled (in the first 2 full
years), and resulting information will be used in the development of biocriteria by ecoregion. The University
of Missouri is analyzing the reference data.
DNR and University of Missouri staff began biological sampling in 1993 to test sampling methodologies and
habitat evaluations. Habitat surveys were based on a modified RBP approach and biological surveys were
limited to invertebrates (i.e., no fish sampling in the initial phase). Invertebrate sampling also involved RBP-
based methods consisting of kick net sampling and hand-picking or brushing of specific habitats. The 1993
sampling included 45 streams with four sites per stream. Spring 1994 sampling (eight streams) focused on
evaluating the adequacy of the sampling protocols and the need for multiple sampling sites within each
stream. Metric scores indicated that virtually all metrics did not change significantly after sampling two to
four sites. As a result, during fail 1994, only two sites per stream were sampled. In addition, selected sites
known to be impaired were sampled to compare metric scores with reference sites. Site degradation was
then identified as water quality or habitat related.
These initial assessments, consisting primarily of candidate reference site investigations, have concentrated
on three ecoregions—the Central Irregular Plains, Ozark Highlands, and Mississippi Alluvial Plain. The
various sites have been grouped by drainage basin size and have been selected from areas free from
point-source influences. The macroinvertebrate data are being analyzed for the surveyed ecoregions and
the University of Missouri has been supported to incorporate fish sampling into current evaluations of the
Ozark Highlands ecoregion. These efforts represent the initial steps in the development of statewide
ecoregionai reference expectations and resulting biocriteria for Missouri.
3-58
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MISSOURI
Contact: John Ford
Address: Missouri Oept. of Natural Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone/Fax: (314)751-7024
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
. Fair
Poor-
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Not Applicable
180 (45 streams with four sites per stream during 1983)
Benthic macroinvertebrates; fish (under development)
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol! (does not meet minimum requirements)
6. Decision criteria based on;
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 45 reference streams
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivarlate analysis—Statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat - under development
8. Biocriteria/Deeisfon Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
JL.
UP
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X,
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations; Ford (1994,1995); Missouri PNR (1992); Saboek (1994); Shepard (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10, Comments: Despite narrative biocriteria and promising reference condition development by the Univesity of Missouri, DNR does not
appear to be interested in promoting biological assessments as a primary monitoring tool.
3-59
-------
MONTANA
The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science Water Quality Bureau (WQB) has
conducted studies to describe the composition and structure of benthic macroinvertebrate, periphyton, and
fish communities inhabiting selected least-impaired reference streams in six ecoregions. Objectives for
establishing benchmark biological conditions for the state include: contributing valuable information to the
Nonpoint Source Program (ranking prospective watershed demonstration projects and measuring the
effectiveness of best management practices); providing the basis for development of narrative and
numerical biological criteria and enforceable biological standards in streams; and describing the natural
biodiversity of algal and macroinvertebrate communities found in Montana streams.
The benchmark biology study of Montana reference streams included sampling of 38 streams (or 6-7
streams in each ecoregion) during the summer of 1990, Sampling sites were located upstream from
Impoundments and areas of human disturbance, or at the boundaries of roadless areas or National
Forests. Periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish were the chosen indicator assemblages since: WQB has
expertise in using periphyton and macroinvertebrate communities as indicators; standardized protocols
(USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols [RBPs]) are available for the assemblages; and fish are elevated
to Importance in environmental law ("fishable and swtmmable" goals),
WQB has employed a multi-metric approach to their analysis of stream biological information based on the
technical guidance of RBPs. Included with the Montana stream biological survey information is supporting
Information that Is needed to understand the factors that regulate the communities and determine the value
of the metrics. Three types" of supporting information are gathered: a suite of chemical and physical water
quality variables; an assessment of physical habitat (adapted from RBPs); and an assessment of overall
stream conditions using the WQB's Nonpoint Source Stream Reach Assessment technique and ranking
criteria. This information is currently being examined in concert with the biological data, to help classify
ecoregional reference streams and to explain variation in the biological metrics.
The WQB has prepared a manual for using the periphyton community to assess biological integrity and
biological impairment of Montana streams. Much of the manual is based on the findings of the Montana
Reference Stream Study, and only structure and composition of stream periphyton communities Is
addressed, WQB uses the numeric periphyton biocriteria developed from the protocols as assessment
tools but has yet to incorporate them into legally enforceable standards,
A variety of information sources are used by the WQB in developing waterbody assessments for the
biennial water quality reporting process. Approximately 10 of the original 30 reference streams are visited
annually. Fixed station, long-term monitoring networks supported by WQB have emphasized the Clark
Fork River Basin and Flathead Lake. Ambient monitoring sites total 63, and include 27 in the Clark Fork
River Network and 36 in Nonpoint Source projects. The Montana aquatic life use support category includes
fishery use and associated aquatic life use. Monitored and evaluated assessments are made using
biological data, water chemistry data, and stream habitat assessments. These extensive contemporary
methods and resulting data sets are valuable tools for monitoring aquatic life use support, as well as, trends
In priority water bodies in Montana.
3-60
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MONTANA
Contact: Bob Bukantis
Address: Montana Dept. of Health and Environmental
Science, Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building, 1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620
Phone/Fax: (406)444-4684/1374
1, Miles assessed as;
Non-Impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4, Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Plloistudles
63 total ambient sites (27-Clark Fork River network; 36-Nonpoint Source projects)
38 reference sites
Benthic macrolnvertebrates; periphyton; fish
Benthic macrolnvertebrates; D-frame net-travelling kick technique; Perlphyton-
com posited rock scrapings
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Eooreglonai reference conditions—Number of reference sites 38 total with approximately 10 visited annually
Other Explain:
7, Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Periphyton-PRA dominant diatom taxon; Diatom Species Diversity; PRA Tolerant and Sensitive Species; Pollution Index,
Macroinvertebrates-percent dominants taxon; taxa richness; EPT; % chironomidae; HBI; % collectors; % scrapers;
ecrapers/scrapers+fllter feeders; community tolerance quotient; quantitative similarity index for taxa; quantitative similarity index
for functional feeding groups; five dominants in common.
Fish - total species; native species; Introduced species.
8. Biocriteria/Declsion Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
HL
Used in Water
Re.sp.urcjLMgmt.
JL
Aquatic
LifftUse
JL
9. Pertinent citations: Bahis{1993,1994); Bahls et ai. (1992); Levlne (1994),; Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a.).
10. Comments:
3-61
-------
NEBRASKA
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) developed the Nebraska Stream Inventory and
Biological Stream Classification in 1991 to: provide a systematic, scientific approach to classifying stream
resources according to existing or attainable uses; develop bioassessment techniques to measure
community condition based on regional expectations; collect current data applicable to standards revisions,
construction grants prioritization, nonpoint source programs, and reporting of impaired waters as in the
biennial Water Quality Report; and identify faunal regions based on the macroinvertebrate and fish
communities. The stream inventory and biological stream classification represent comprehensive surveys
of all major streams in the thirteen river basins of the state.
The stream inventory was conducted to compile information on the physical characteristics of each
perennial stream in the state, and included watershed characteristics, riparian characteristics, and instream
habitat information. The biological stream classification involves direct field measures of physical,
chemical, macroinvertebrate, and fish assemblages at sites representing cold and warm water streams.
Streams are categorized by flow class and are analyzed by ecqregion. Reference sites are selected for
each ecoregion using sampling locations that are representative of areas that are relatively undisturbed and
have diverse fauna.
The Nebraska ambient biological network is based on 100 locations sampled once per year (during a May-
September index period) for macroinvertebrates, fish, and habitat condition. Seventeen fixed reference
sites are located statewide, divided among river basins, with larger basins having two reference sites. Data
collected through the network are used to provide a database for the 305(b) report, nonpoint source
activities, and to provide an inventory for long-term monitoring. The measurements of overall stream fish
and macroinvertebrate community condition are determined using modifications of the Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), respectively. The IBI and ICI biological metrics
assess the species richness, diversity, and health of major taxonomic groups. For each of the metrics, plots
of macroinvertebrate and fish associations in least disturbed ecoregional reference streams are used to
define the standards for healthy conditions.
The IBI and ICI (modeled after U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols) metrics are combined into a
Community Biotic Index (CBI) to provide a measure of the distance a stream segment is from an ideal point
or best expected aquatic life conditions within an ecoregion. This reference site approach is a more realistic
approach to assessing the integrity of aquatic life than a single diversity or biotic index. The CBI results are
used to classify aquatic life use support. Categories of excellent, good, fair, and poor for the indices
translate to full support, partial support, and nonsupport of designated use, respectively. Excellent or full
support conditions are comparable to the best expected aquatic communities (i.e., all regionally expected
species are present for habitats and stream size). Good or full support ratings are characterized by
streams with species richness somewhat below expectations, especially due to loss of intolerant forms.
Attributes of streams scoring fair or indicating partial support include reduced species richness, skewed
trophic structure, and reduced abundance of certain taxa. Nonsupport of designated use (as indicated by
poor index scores) is characterized by streams with few or no taxa, unbalanced trophic structure, and biotic
communities dominated by tolerant taxa.
3-62
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NEBRASKA
Ken Bazata
Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality
301 Centennial Mall
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402)471-4700
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3,^ Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5, Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
2.006
4.515,
6.521
Ambient biological network-100 sites sampled once per year
Benthic macroinvertebrates; fish
Benthic macroinvertebrates-lnvertebrate Community Index (modified RBP III); Fish-
Index of Btotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X : Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 17 (annually)
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - total taxa; HBI; % dominant taxon; EPT taxon index; Jaccard coefficient; Ratio scrapers/flerers; Ratio
EPT density/total density; Ratio of shredder density/total density.
Fish - Total species; Number of benthic insectivores; number of sunfish species; number of native eyprinid species; % tolerant
species; Number of intolerant species; % omnivores; total insectivores; % carnivores; % of individuals as hybrids; % of
individuals with anomalies; fish captured per minute.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Blocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
JL.
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
9. Pertinent citations: Bazata (1995); Nebraska DEQ (1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Miles presented represent 1994 305(b) reporting period (data for 1989-1993 assessments)
3-63
-------
NEVADA
The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection does no routine biological sampling. Some whole
effluent toxicity (WET) testing is done at selected locations; routine bacteriological sampling is done at
several locations. All aquatic life use determinations are made using chemical data and there is no
Indication that a change will occur.
3-64
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NEVADA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Jim Cooper
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670/885-0868
Not Applicable
2. Number of sites sampled:
3, Miles per site;
4. Assembiage(s):
5, Sampling gear or Method:
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation; .
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
and
X
Used in Water
Resource Mqmt.
Aquatic
LifeUse
9. Pertinent citations: Cooper (1995); Hashimoto (1995); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10, Comments:
3-65
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services is in the first year of developing a biological
monitoring program for the State. Initial efforts are being conducted through a piiot study basin, consisting
of nine stations, and is in process for the development of protocols for fish and macroinvertebrates utilizing
kick nets, artificial substrates, and electrofishing equipment. Ambient water chemistry has also been
conducted to complement the biological data. Pilot project results will assist in the development of field and
laboratory protocols appropriate for the State of New Hampshire and it's development of biological criteria.
Upstream reference sites have been selected for this pilot study, but development of long term
blomonitoring reference stations is anticipated for future efforts and for the establishment of baseline
conditions in the State.
3-66
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NEW HAMPSHIRE
Contact: Bob Estabrook
Address: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301-6528
Phone/Fax: (603)271-3503/2867
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Under Oevetopment/Pilot Studies
Nine macroinvertebrate sites and 9 fish sites sampled during 1995 in Souheyn
watershed, Merrimack River Basin
Benthic macroinvertebraf.es; Fish
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II under development
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites - upstream stations
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat
8, Biocriteria/Deciston Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
standards
_UP_
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Sabock (1994); Switzer (1995); Snook (1995); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments:
3-87
-------
NEW JERSEY
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) Office of Land and Water
Planning uses both monitored and evaluated assessment methodologies to assess surface water quality
and pollution sources. Comparisons of current use attainment observations with prior NJDEPE
assessments is not encouraged due to the different assessment methodologies, past versus present.
Extensive macroinvertebrate assessments have replaced many of the older fisheries survey methods,
which had in turn replaced methodologies based exclusively on water chemistry.
All New Jersey surface waters have been assigned a set of designated uses as defined in the State's
Surface Water Quality Standards regulations, which are generally based on a set of numeric and narrative
water quality criteria. The designated uses correspond to the swimmable and fish propagation and
maintenance goals of national clean water legislation. The fish propagation and maintenance goal is
designed to have all surface waters supporting healthy and reproducing biota.
Biological assessments of macroinvertebrate and fish communities are used to supplement ambient
chemical monitoring in New Jersey. These bioassessments are useful in revealing the impact of
contaminants as well as detecting chronic water quality conditions that may be overlooked by the
"snapshot" results provided by ambient chemical sampling. Beginning with the 1992 water quality inventory
reporting period, watershed-specific intensive macroinvertebrate monitoring surveys have been used,
whenever possible, to assess the aquatic life designated use. From these Ambient Biomonitoring Program
surveys (at nearly 200 monitoring sites) evaluations regarding the overall health of instream biota are
estimated. Macroinvertebrate community and stream habitat assessments follow the methods and
recommendations of U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs), and fish are ass>essed using the
Index of Biotic Integrity. NJDEPE has incorporated habitat quality assessments into the macroinvertebrate
community assessment process, and has established ecoregion biological reference sites (over 40) for
New Jersey streams.
Bioassessment results (and comparisons to ecoregional reference conditions) allow the NJDEPE to
estimate the overall health of instream biota and determine attainment of aquatic life uses.
Prior to the 1994 water quality inventory reporting period, fisheries resource information was used as an
assessment tool for determining aquatic life use. The fish assessments were (and are) provided by
NJDEPE Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and describe the diversity and health offish communities.
Health classifications were defined as healthy, moderately degraded, degraded or threatened. This
assessment scheme is still being used for areas where RBPs have not yet been performed. Data from the
RBP-based bioassessments, in concert with the Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife fish community data,
provide the basis for the determination of aquatic life support within New Jersey rivers and streams. RBP
ratings of "no impairment" are judged to be fully supporting aquatic life use. Locations rated as "moderately
impaired" are judged to be partially supporting use, and no support of use is based on a protocol rating of
"severe impairment". The New Jersey rapid bioassessments are available for 13 watersheds, and NJDEPE
hopes that their use will continue to increase and that they will continue to supplement fishery surveys as
determinants of aquatic life use.
3-68
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NEW JERSEY
Kevin Berry
New Jersey DEPE
Office of Land and Water Planning
401 East State Street, 4th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)633-1179
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
222
348.
570
190 benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations in ambient biomonitoring network.
54 streams and rivers monitored for aquatic life support (1992-1993).
Average 10.5 miles per stream/river
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates-Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
Fish-Index of. Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—N umber of reference sites Approximately 40
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - Total family richness, EPT richness, %EPT, % contribution of dominant family, Family Biotic Index.
Fish - Total number of fish species (excluding trout), number and identity of benthic insectivorous species, number and identity
of trout or sunfish species (excluding stocked trout), number and identity of intolerant species, proportion of individuals as
white sucker, proportion of individuals as omnivores, proportion of individuals as insectivorous cyprinids, proportion of
individuals as trout (non-stocked) and/or proportion of individuals as piscivores, proportion of individuals with disease or
anomalies, number of individuals in sample.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
X
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
JL
Aquatic
Life Use
JL
9. Pertinent citations: Berry (1994); Kurtenbach (1995); Leu (1995); New Jersey DEPE (1994); Olsen, et al. (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Numbers presented represent 1994 305(b) reporting period (1992 and 1993).
3-69
-------
NEW MEXICO
The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has not established criteria for use in water quality
standards at the present time. NMED has, since 1974, used bioassessment sin addition to chemical and
physical data to investigate point and nonpoint source pollution and to determine water quality trends.
These bioassessments are useful in determining the impact of contaminants as well as detecting chronic
water quality conditions that may not be discovered by ambient chemical and physical grab samples, from
1979 to 1987, NMED evaluated benthic community structure in streams and wadable rivers using the U.S.
Forest Service's Biological Condition Index (BCI). From 1988 to the present, NMED has used USEPA's
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) in conjunction with assessments of stream habitats to appraise
benthic community structure in streams and wadable rivers. Occasional assessments of fish populations
have also been conducted, although the limited diversity of fish species in many waters of New Mexico
diminishes the value of such assessments. All bioassessment data obtained are entered into the USEPA
BIOS database.
NMED has conducted intensive water quality surveys on reservation lands in cooperation with Tribes and
Pueblos in an effort to: add valuable information to the statewide database; give Tribes and Pueblos
background data for the development of water quality standards; and train Tribal and Pueblo environmental
personnel. Benthic invertebrate data have been collected from all of these studies, and fish data have been
collected from certain stream reaches in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New
Mexico Game and Fish Department.
In all of these studies, benthic macroinvertebrate community data are compared to data generated from
reference sites in each watershed or ecoregion, and habitat assessments are used to determine whether
detected differences between stream sites and reference sites are due to habitat, water quality, or both.
Data are compared between various sampling stations on a watercourse and are also compared to past
biological data collected from the same stations. The benthic macroinvertebrate assessments are usually
conducted during intensive water quality surveys and are usually times to coincide with annual periods of
stress for the fish and macroinvertebrates of the waterbody, such as periods of annual low stream flow or
highest ambient temperature.
3-70
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NEW MEXICO
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3, Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
JH
3Q4
618
Erik Galloway
New Mexico Environment Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505)827-2923/0160
58
Average 10.7
Benthio macroinvertebrates; Fish
Benthic macroinvertebrates-Rapid Bioassessment Protocol 111
Fish-Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetrlc approach—Metrics used or under development:
Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity
Macroinvertebrates-per RBP III
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
-UBL.
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt,
X
Aquatic
life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Galloway (I994a,b, 1995); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Miles presented represent bioassessments conducted 1990 to 1994 per Erik Galloway.
3-71
-------
NEW YORK
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has been using surveys of
biological communities to monitor and assess water quality since 1972. During the period from 1972 to
1992,721 sites were sampled for macroinvertebrates on 170 streams. The sampling site location selection
process has focused, and continues to focus on affected stream reaches. A total of 216 of the currently
monitored sites have prior or historical data, allowing temporal trend analyses.
DEC uses kick sampling techniques to sample macroinvertebrates in wadable streams and rivers. The
resulting data are analyzed using four Indices or metrics, and the indices are plotted on a common scale to
provide a biological profile. The DEC Stream Biomonitoring Unit developed impairment criteria for New
York State streams in 1990, and since that time they have been used in an unofficial capacity (i.e., they
have not been made part of state standards). Regardless of their placement, they have seen increasing
use since their development, for the process of defining significant biological impairment.
The overall biological water quality assessment is computed using an average of the four metric values,
normalized on a common zero to ten scale of water quality. Each metric measures a different aspect of the
community and contributes a different piece of information to the final assessment. This diagnosis of
stream water quality uses a four-tiered system of classification, and reflects both an attempt to facilitate the
interpretation of bioassessments and a realization of the limitations of assessments based on non-
replicated biological sampling. General descriptions of the four levels of impact are as follows:
» Non-Impacted — Indices reflect excellent water quality. The macroinvertebrate community is
diverse with several major groups present. Most species are intolerant or facultative. Water quality
is not limiting to fish survival or propagation.
• Slightly impacted — Indices reflect good water quality. Macroinvertebrate species richness is lower
than found at non-impacted sites. The fauna are composed mostly of facultative organisms. Water
quality is usually not limiting to fish survival, but may be limiting to fish propagation.
• Moderately impacted - indices reflect fair water quality. Macroinvertebrate species richness is
restricted. The fauna are dominated by facultative or tolerant organisms. Water quality often is
limiting to fish propagation, but usually not to fish survival.
* Severely impacted — Indices reflect poor water quality. The macroinvertebrate community is
limited to a few tolerant species. The dominant species are almost all tolerant. Water quality is
often limiting to both fish propagation and fish survival.
The New York State Museum routinely collects fish for purposes of distributional studies. A draft IBI for fish
communities In New York State has been developed, and is under review and possible revision. Currently,
however, no fish collections are being made for the purposes of water quality assessment.
3-72
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NEW YORK
Robert Bode
New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation
SO Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3503
(518)285-5682/5601
1. Miles assessed as;
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total'
2. Number of sites sampled:
3, Miles per site:
4, Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:,
Address:
Phone/Fax:
_367
J13.
1.080
216
5 mile (default) per site
Berthic macroinvertebratea
Benthic macroinvertebrates-multiple samplers and kick sampling techniques
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites; for impact assessment
Ecoreglonal reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain: State-wide temporal trends analysis. Statewide biological impairment criteria and biological impairment
detection criteria procedures are established.
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivarlate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates-specles richness; Shannon-Wiener species diversity; Hilsenhoffs Blotto Index; EPT; Percent Model
Affinity.
8. Bioeriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriterla
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
dan
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
Aquatic
Life_Use
9, Pertinent citations; Bode (1995); Bode et ai. (1993); Bode and Novak (1995); Hansen (1994); Leu (1995); Sabok (1994); U.S. EPA
(1994a).
10. Comments: Miles presented represent 1994 305(b) 2-year reporting period. Fisheries studies may result in development of an Index
of Biotlc Integrity for the State.
3-73
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) uses numerous assessment tools in
evaluating prevailing water quality conditions and stream biological integrity, including, among others,
macroinvertebrate surveys and fish community structure analyses. Uses of biological information range
from identifying appropriate classifications for waters within entire North Carolina watersheds, to
determining compliance of specified discharges with narrative standards for protecting aquatic life.
Biological ratings from 1983 to 1993, as determined from benthic macroinvertebrate surveys, constitutes a
valuable source of data for the most recent state biennial water quality assessment report.
The 1991 macroinvertebrate survey represents the last report that includes comprehensive statewide data.
Results of these investigations have been summarized in Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) reports. Under the new basin-wide management program, benthic macroinvertebrate and fish
community data are presented in individual basin-wide assessment reports prepared by the Biological
Assessment Group. Plans are being developed for all 17 of the state's major river basins based on a five-
year cycle. Macroinvertebrate and fish community surveys, special studies, and other water quality
sampling activities are conducted in the second and third years of the cycle to provide information for
assessing water quality status and trends throughout the basin, in addition, DEM is evaluating ecoregions,
stream size, and seasonal variability as means of refining present bioclassifications. Macroinvertebrate
data from North Carolina's basinwide network and special investigations are ranked on a five-point scale;
excellent, good, good-fair, fair, and poor. The scale in prior years (1983-1990) had been based on taxa
richness for the three pollution intolerant groups; Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and
Trichoptera (caddisflies), referred to as EPT. At present, in addition to taxa richness, biotic index (Bl) values
are being calculated for each sample. Biotic indices are calculated for both the full scale, or standard,
qualitative collection technique and the abbreviated EPT collection technique. However, the biotic index Is
used only in full scale collections to assign a bioclassification. Classification criteria have been derived by
examining EPT taxa richness and biotic index values for each combination of bioclassification, ecoregion,
and season, Ffsh community structure data are analyzed using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
(NCIBI). This index uses twelve metrics to categorize the ecological health of the waterbody as excellent,
good-excellent, good, fair-good, fair, poor-fair, poor, very poor- poor, very poor, and no fish.
Specific biological indices, metrics, or numeric biocriteria are not included in North Carolina water quality
regulations. Biological data and narrative biocriteria are, however, intrinsically linked to designated use
classifications and to standards that protect those uses. Narratives for the protection of aquatic life are
incorporated into the regulations, and the standardized biological methods are used to assess water quality
impairments. All use classes in North Carolina regulations require protection of aquatic life. Both High
Quality waters and Outstanding Resource waters require a rating of excellent based on biological data. In
general, for use support ranking purposes, locations rated as poor with regard to biological information are
not supporting, and stations rated fair are partially supporting. Stations rated as good-fair translate to
support-threatened and those having good to excellent ratings are classified as supporting their designated
uses.
3-74
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NORTH CAROLINA
Contact; Dave Penrose
Address: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607 . ,
Phone/Fax; (919)733-6946/9959
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4, Assembiage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
17 river basins; biological rating for 737 sites (1989-1992)
Benthlc macroinvertebrates; Fish (not reported); Periphyton (pilot studies)
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III, North Carolina IBI
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivarlate analysis—Statistical routines used:
_X_ Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Taxa richness; EPT taxa richness; Biotte index (Bl); EPT Biotic index (BIEPT)
Fish: IBI metrics: Number species; number of individuals; number of darter species; number of sunfish and salmonid species;
number of suckers species; number of intolerant species; percent tolerant; percent omnivores; percent insectivores; percent
piscivores; percent diseased; percent length distribution.
8, Biocriteria/Declsion Thresholds;
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
X
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
9, Pertinent citations: Metz (1994); NCDEM (1992,1994,1995); Penrose (1992,1995); Sabock (1994); U.S..EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: 5-year monitoring cycle, therefore, results span two consecutive 305(b) reporting periods (1992 and 1994 reports), and
only basins sampled during 1991-1993 are updated in the 1994 report.
3-75
-------
NORTH DAKOTA
In July of 1993 the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) began its biological monitoring efforts in the
Red River of the North basin. This was initiated with a grant form the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and involved a number of state and federal agencies. Participants included Regions V and VIII of
EPA, the US Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), and the
North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDG&F). The main focus of the project was to conduct
biological assessments in the Red River and its tributaries to establish biological criteria for the Red River
Ecoregion.
The methodology includes assessment of the fish community and the use of the Index of Biological Integrity
(IBI) modified for the Red River Ecoregion. This consisted of evaluating metrics specific to the area and
suitable for application in the Red River Ecoregion. Use of EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols modified
by M. Barbour for low gradient streams is also incorporated into the assessment
During 1993 and 1994,54 sites were surveyed in North Dakota. Potential reference sites for the Red River
Ecoregion will be established through evaluation of all the data collected in North Dakota as well as in
Minnesota. Another 59 sites are located on the Minnesota side of the Red River which are also being
assessed for this project.
For 1995 the NDDH has continued the fish community assessment and has added macroinvertebrate
community sampling to compliment the fish data. 50 sites were sampled in the upper Red River basin
including the Sheyenne, Bois de Sioux, Wild Rice, Maple, Rush and Red rivers. Objectives of this separate
study are to develop field sampling procedures for stream macroinvertebrate communities, develop
laboratory procedures for macroinvertebrate identification and enumeration, and to develop potential
metrics for macroinvertebrates and evaluate their usefulness in developing biological criteria along with the
IBI as a stream water quality protection and assessment tool.
3-76
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: NORTH DAKOTA
Contact: Mike Eli
Address: North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
Phone/Fax: (701)328-5210/5200
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-Impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampiing gear or Method:
Pilot Studies
Pilot studies in Red River ecosystem. 54 sites sampled during 1993-1994 and 50
sites added In 1995
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates {under development)
Index of Biotic Integrity (under development)
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Muitivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity, and habitat under development
8. Blocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use
X X
9. Pertinent citations: Ell (1994); Fewless (1995); Pearson (1995); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1993a, 1994a).
10. Comments: Fish IBI-Joint agency participation in identifying potential reference sites and evaluating metrics for the Red River basin.
3-77
-------
OHIO
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Division of Surface Water, Monitoring and Assessment
Section, Ecological Assessment Unit uses biological monitoring and assessment data to support their water
quality standards program. Narrative biocriteria were established in 1980 and reflected the ecological
components-of the narrative aquatic life use designations. The purposes of the early narrative biocriteria
were to provide a logical process for assignment of aquatic life use categories and provide a consistent
approach for determining and communicating the severity of impairment to the aquatic biota. However,
considerable "best professional judgement" was necessary for these assignments to be made. Biological
monitoring and assessment using standardized sampling, analysis, and interpretive approaches
(multimetric approach and ecoregional reference conditions) allowed development of scientificaliy-rigorous
biological decision thresholds. These thresholds became a formal component of Ohio's water quality
standards program when they were adopted as numerical biological criteria in 1990.
Ohio EPA samples both fish and benthic macroinvertebrates using electroshocking for fish and artificial
substrates (Hester-Dendy Multiplate Samplers) supplemented with a qualitative, natural substrate sample
for benthic mpcroinvertebrates. Twelve fish metrics are used for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and ten are
used in the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI). A multiparameter physical habitat assessment approach,
the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), is used to assess and document degradation of physical
habitat that may be preventing attainment of the aquatic life use.
The determination of aquatic life use attainment status is the most common application of biological
assessments. Individual locations can be assessed as in "full", "partial", or "non-attainment" using a
combination of fish and benthic macroinvertebrate indices. The biomonitoring results are also used for
reporting the status of a water resource relative to biological integrity or reference conditions. Results
indicate that biological integrity is either being maintained or that it needs to be restored (as per the Clean
Water Act), and are used to track progress towards meeting that goal.
There are five primary uses of the biomonitoring and assessment results in the realm of water resource
management in Ohio:
the Ohio Water Resource Inventory (CWA Section 305b report),
nonpoint source assessment and management,
dredge-and-fili (401 Certifications),
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program, and
risk assessment to aquatic life from hazardous waste sites.
3-78
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: OHIO
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
" ' Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
3.432
4.905
Chris Yoder
Ohio EPA
Ecological Assessment Unit
1685 Westbeit Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614)728-3382
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Approximately 1830 sites sampled from 1989 through 1993
Approximate 4.6 site/mile average
Benthic macroinvertebrates; .Fish
Benthie macroinvertebrates- invertebrate Community Index; Hester-Dendy Artifical Substrates and Dip-Net/Hand-Pick of
natural substrate,
Fish- IBI, modified index of well-being; electrofishlng.
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions
Other Explain:
-Number of reference sites over 246
7, Data Analysis/Interpretation:
_ Multivariate analysis — Statistical routines used:
X Multimetrte approach — Metrics used or under development:
Fish - IBI and modified IWB (including number of indigenous species, darter species, sunfish species, headwater species,
sucker species, minnow species, intolerant species, sensitive species; Proportion as round-bodied Catostomidae; % as
tolerant species; proportion as omnivores, insectivores, top carnivores, pioneering species, simple lithophils; number of
individuals in sample; number of simple lithophilio species; proportion of individuals with deformities, eroded fins, lesions,
tumors).
Macroinvertebrates - total taxa; total mayfly, caddisfly, dipteran taxa; % mayflies; % oaddisflies; % tolerants; EPT; % Tribe
Tanytarsini; % Other Dipterans and other non-insects; Community Similarity Index.
8. Biocn'teria/Deeision Thresholds:
Biooriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (In place)
. Under development
Water Quality
Standards
X
X
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
X
X
Aquatic
LifeUse
JL
9. Pertinent citations: DeShon (1995); Ohio' EPA (1994a,b); Rankin (1995a.b); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a); Yoder and Rankin
(1995a,b).
10. Comments: Miles presented represent the 199430i(b) reporting period (1989-1993 biosurveys).
3-79
-------
OKLAHOMA
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) uses bioassessment results to measure
nonpoint source implementation effectiveness and to identify impaired waters for biennial reporting ip the
Water Quality Assessment Report. A multimetric approach based on the technical guidance of U.S. EPA's
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) and the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is used to assess the
community condition of Oklahoma macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages for water resource
management purposes, DEQ is beginning to examine ecoregional differences in biota and initiating the
process of developing regional reference expectations.
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) has developed and is refining protocols for rapid
bioassessments using diatom communities. In the process of developing the protocol, OCC sampled
approximately 25 streams in three geographic areas of Oklahoma, Bioassessments using existing RBPs
were conducted twice per year for macroinvertebrates, once per year for fish, and simultaneously (i.e.,
along with each fish and macroinvertebrate collection) for diatoms. The streams selected for
bioassessment primarily draining rural watersheds; however, some drain urban areas, and of these, some
receive discharge from municipal wastewater treatment plants. The goals of the OCC research have
included: the identification of optimal sampling substrates and seasons, the investigation into the
relationship between chemical parameters and community response, and the investigation into ecoregional
differences In biotic (especially diatom) communities.
At present, Oklahoma has not developed numeric biocriteria or formally incorporated bioassessment
scores or ratings into their water quality standards. Biological narratives are however included as an
aquatic life use designation component. Aquatic life use support is composed of warm water aquatic
community, habitat limited aquatic community, cool water aquatic community, and trout fishery
subcategories. Criteria for support status include biological components of: evidence of habitat or
community modification; point or nonpoint source effects on habitat or community; and no algal blooms,
surface scum, mats, nuisance macrophyte growth, or periphyton growth. Water bodies with no evidence of
habitat or community modification; no nonpoint or point source affects on habitat or communities; and no
nuisance algal periphyton or macrophyte growths possess attributes that are indicative of full support of
designated aquatic life use.
3-80
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: OKLAHOMA
Contact: John Dyer
Address; Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 Tenth Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
Phone/Fax: (405)271-5205
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3, Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5, Sampling gear or Method:
Not Reported
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; periphyten; diatoms (UD)
Benthic macroinvertebrates-Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
Fish-Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V
6, Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregfonal reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Muitivarlate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetrto approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - taxa richness; modified HBI; ratio of scrapers to scrapers and filtering collectors; ratio EPT/Chironomid +
EPT; percent contribution of dominant taxa; EPT index; community loss index.
Fish - Total species;, number of sensitive benthic species; number of sunfish species, minnow species, intolerant species;
proportion of individuals as tolerant species, omnivores, insectivorous cyprinids, top carnivores; number of individuals in
sample.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
X
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
JL.
Aquatic
LifeUse
9. Pertinent citations: Butler (1994); Dyer (1994); Oklahoma Conservation Commission (1993); Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (1994); Sabock (1994); Smithee (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments:
3-81
-------
OREGON
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has developed a state-wide biological monitoring
and assessment strategy. Objectives of the DEQ bioassessment strategy include
* assessment of monitoring techniques and development of guidelines for the entire state,
• determination of the sensitivity of different monitoring techniques to nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
effects,
* evaluation of the effectiveness of monitoring techniques for different NPS problems (e.g., logging,
agriculture), and
• collection of reference site data to allow the development of biocriteria.
The DEQ biological monitoring programs include macroinvertebrate and fish community assessments, and
periphyton growth studies. The methods currently used by DEQ for macroinvertebrate and fish
assessments are U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs). Algae are an important component
of aquatic systems; however, their use in monitoring water quality impacts is not as widespread as the use
of macroinvertebrate periphyton growth studies in a project-specific application to monitor changes in
nutrient concentrations in the Grande Ronde River in eastern Oregon.
Oregon state bioassessment protocols represent an integrated, comprehensive approach to water quality
monitoring that involves the analysis of stream habitat, physicochemieal parameters, and the biological
community. The characterization of physical habitat includes 26 habitat parameters and follows the
technical guidance of the RBPs. The application of this integrated bioassessment approach focuses on
determination of NPS effects. In that context, DEQ completed 83 stream biosurveys during the 1994 Water
Quality Status Assessment reporting period. During the same time period, DEQ initiated studies to establish
background data at reference sites within subecoregions of the Oregon Coast Range, and implemented a
long-term watershed assessment study in the Grande Ronde Basin.
DEQ refinement of bioassessment field monitoring and analysis methods continue. Analysis of
macroinvertebrate and fish community data and the assessment of biological condition is based on a
number of biological metrics or population characteristics. The biological metrics are scored for each
monitoring site according to their percent of variation from the reference condition, and are summed to
provide an overall site assessment (as per RBP guidance). DEQ uses the assessment results to evaluate
areas that allow conditions of concern, including point source discharges as well as areas of potential NPS
Impact.
3-82
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: OREGON
Contact: Rick Hafele
Address: Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
1712 S.W. 11th Street
Portland, OR 97201
Phone/Fax: (503) 229-5983
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total-
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Pilot Studies •
45 sites for benthic macroinvertebrates in 1991
83 stream biosurveys in 1992-1993 (fish, macroinvertebrates and habitat)
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; Periphyton (under development)
Benthic macroinvertebrates-Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
Fish-Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V (under development)
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
JJD_Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - taxa richness; HBI; ratio scrapers/filtering collectors; ratio EPT and Chironomid abundance; percent
contribution dominant taxa; EPT Index; Community Loss Index.
Fish - Number of native species; Number of salmonid age classes; Number of sculpin species; Number of salmonid yearlings;
Number of cyprinid species; Number of sucker species; Number of adult trout species.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Hafele (1994); Hayslip (1993); Oregon DEQ (1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Information on number of sites sampled taken from 1994 305(b) report.
3-83
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has operated an ambient, fixed station
surface water quality monitoring system, the Water Quality Network (WQN) since 1950. DEP has been
conducting biological assessments since 1968, The WQN data, which has Included benthic
macroinvertebrate data since 1972, is used primarily for trends assessment and as background data for
permitting. Other biological assessments focus primarily on benthic maeroinvertebrates and are used to
establish cause and effect relationships, evaluate aquatic life use attainability, and to evaluate candidate
waters for special water quality protection (antidegradation).
Traditionally, biological assessment have been based on qualitative (kick screen) or quantitative (Surber
sampler) benthic macroinvertebrate data. However, PA DEP has recently begun development of a
multimetric approach based upon modification of the U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs).
Pennsylvania has been divided into nine ecoregions and 27 sub-ecoregions by Omernik, allowing for
possible establishment of ecoregion reference stations.
DEP Central Office biologists have been using a modification of RBP III since 1992 in evaluating candidate
waterbodies for special water quality protection. Habitat is assessed using the RBP methodology tr ensure
that habitat is not a limiting factor in the bioassessment. Benthos samples come from two D-frarr '3ts,
with 100 organism subsamples identified and enumerated for calculating metrics (see opposite p .In
addition to this application, some regional biologists are using RBP III in cause and effect surveys.
DEP is working to further apply RBP benthic macroinvertebrate methods and ecoregions in the
bioassessment program, and possibly may move toward numeric biocriteria. A U.S. EPA funded project is
underway to evaluate metrics, determine the best metrics to classify various stream types (i.e., coldwater,
warmwater, freestone, limestone, various drainage areas), and possibly define ecoregion reference
stations.
DEP recognizes the need to incorporate assessment offish populations into the program. A U.S. EPA
funded project conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) will soon begin to
evaluate metrics for various types offish communities.
3-84
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: PENNSYLVANIA
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3, Miles per site:
4, Assemblage(s):
5, Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
129SJL
J74JL
1971.5
168 fixed annual monitoring stations
Benthic macrolnvertebrates
Modified Rapid Bloassessment Protocol I
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Management
P.O. Box 848S, 10th floor
Harrlsburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)783-3638/5156
6, Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Evaluating RBP macroinvertebrate metrics: taxa richness, modified EPT index, modified Hisenhoff Biotic Index, % dominant
taxon, and modified % mayflies.
8. Biocriteria/Deeision Thresholds:
Narrative (In place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
ndan
X
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
9. Pertinent citations: Frey (1994,1995a,b); Sabock, (1994); Shertzer (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Miles represent 5 years of data (1989-1993) per 305(b) guidance and R. Frey personal communication.
3-85
-------
RHODE ISLAND
The importance of biological assessments in the evaluation of water quality has long been recognized in
Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Water Resources
(RIDEM/DWR) uses two types of benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs: artificial substrates to
evaluate deep freshwater habitats, and EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for shallow
freshwater habitats.
Artificial substrate sampling has been part of the State program since 1974, Fullner muMplate samplers
with 14 plates are used and the macroinvertebrates are classified according to their tolerance to organic
wastes by the following categories: tolerant, facultative or intermediate, and intolerant or sensitive. Stations
selected for this sampling included those used for the U.S. Geological Survey chemical trend assessments,
RBPs involve an Integrated assessment, comparing habitat (physical structure, flow regime) and biological
measures with defined reference site conditions. Since 1990, a network of 42 stream riffles have been
surveyed by Roger Williams University in cooperation with, and contracted, by RIDEM. Each site is visited
during the spring-summer season and macroinvertebrates are sampled for a minimum of 100 organisms
per site (where feasible). Data are analyzed using RBP I, II, and/or III which include varying degrees of field
and laboratory identification.
The streams sampled within the state range in stream order from first order to fifth order. Eight of the
streams are considered to be first order, 18 second order, 12 third order, four fourth order and three fifth
order. The 1993 data collection occurred during drought conditions that may have resulted in fewer riffles,
lower dilution and lack of runoff. This probably affected the types of organisms collected and resulted in an
altered picture of the stations based on the metrics, from that seen in 1991 and 1992.
Initial btoassessment work involved establishing and field testing the RBPs, and the Fall River was selected
as the reference station in 1992. Further evaluation resulted in using the Wood River station as the
reference site for 1993. Refinements of the protocols has established the presence of two sub-ecoregions
within the State: coastal areas and inland areas, incorporation of the presence of these two sub-ecoregions
into selection of reference sites and application of the protocols continued in 1994.
3-86
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: RHODE ISLAND
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
.261
Carlene Newman
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-3961
340
56
Average 6 miles per site.
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain: State-wide
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and habitat
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
_X_
_UQ_
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Newman (1995); Rhode Island DEM (1994); Richardson (1995a,b); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a)
10. Comments: Miles and site numbers taken from Rl DEM - R. Richardson and C. Newman, personal communication -- and
represent the 1994 305(b) reporting period for 1992 and 1993.
3-87
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) conducts bioassessments as
part of the state trend monitoring program and during special intensive project-specific investigations.
Typically, DHEC has used bioassessments to document discharge permit violations of narrative biocriteria,
primarily through upstream comparisons of macroinvertebrate communities.
The current DHEC biological monitoring network for wadable rivers and streams consists of a total of 125
stations, Macroinvertebrates are collected from the monitoring stations on a five-year rotating basis in
conjunction with the DHEC watershed Water Quality Management Strategy. Approximately on-fifth (i.e.,
one watershed) of the stations are sampled each year. The biological sampling stations are located in
headwater reaches of selected impoundments; in streams subject to possible pollution point and nonpoint
sources; and in critical waters used for water supplies, recreation, and fish and wildlife propagation.
Qualitative collection techniques are used during macroinvertebrate surveys. Data collected from the
biological monitoring program are summarized using measures of relative abundance and species
richness. Reference data are collected at upstream locations or, in some cases, from neighboring
catchments. In addition to macroinvertebrate community assessments, DHEC biologists have been
conducting pilot studies of the fish community to test the utility of the index of Biotic integrity.
Narrative biological criteria in South Carolina provide for the survival and propagation of a balanced
Indigenous aquatic community. DHEC uses biological data to aid in processes to determine if water quality
meets the standards established to protect state classified uses. In general, support of aquatic life uses is
determined by the percentage of dissolved oxygen or pH excursions, heavy metal concentrations, and
impacts to the macroinvertebrate community. In the process of determining classified use attainment in
South Carolina, biological data will override chemical data. For example, if ambient chemical
concentrations are higher than national criteria, the criteria are not considered violated if biological
monitoring has demonstrated that the instream Indigenous biological community is not adversely impacted.
Conversely, an impacted macroinvertebrate community reduces use support to non-support status, even if
chemical data indicate full support 0.e., ambient concentrations lower than national criteria).
3-88
-------
STATE BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAMS FOR STREAMS
STATE: SOUTH CAROLINA
David Chestnut
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4, Assemblage(s):
5, Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
J0_
JQQ
125 on 5-year rotating basis - approximately 25 sampled annually
5 mile (default) per station
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (Under development)
Benthic macroinvertebrates - Qualitative collection techniques
Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity pilot studies
(803)734-5300
Full Support
Partial Support
NonSupport
S2jflaa
3jsjjg§
5_sltes
6, Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites,
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
8, Blooriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Blocriteria •
Narrative (in place)
'Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: Penrose (1992); Renfrew (1995); South Carolina DHEC (1993,1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Samples collected during 1991-1993 from the Savannah River basin (1991), Saluda and Edisto River basins(1992) and
the Catawba/Wateree River bains (1993). An additional 56 sites from 1994 and 1995 are being evaluated from the Pee Dee River
basin and Broad River basin.
3-89
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
The South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) does not have a
statewide btoassessment program. Cursory biological sampling, however, may be included as part of a
diagnostic/feasibility study or a special study such as the sampling of macroinvertebrates for the Whitewood
Creek Project in the Black Hills.
Fisheries surveys, conducted by the DENR Office of Water Quality, are used in conjunction with water
quality surveys to evaluate wastewater point source impact on receiving streams. Although qualitative in
nature, fish survey results (e.g., fish abundance and diversity trends) assist in the evaluation of water quality
perturbations or impact. Typically, fisheries sample sites are situated upstream and downstream from
wastewater treatment plant effluents, and surveys are conducted prior to and following facility construction
and/or upgrades. Fisheries surveys are also conducted to evaluate the fish life propagation classification of
streams or stream segments. South Dakota surface waters are classified for beneficial uses which include
the following narrative fisheries standards: cold water permanent, cold water marginal,.warm water
permanent, warm water semipermanent, and warm water marginal fish life propagation waters.
3-90
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE SOUTH DAKOTA
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Resource Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building, Room 425 Pierre, SD
57501-3181 • •
(605) 773-3696
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions
Other Explain:
Not Applicable
-Number of reference sites
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
, • Multimetrie approach—Metrics used or under development:
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
X
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
9. Pertinent citations: Repsys (1995); Sabock (1994); South Dakota DENR (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: No bioassessment program. A small study of benthic macroinvertebrates (Hess samples) was initiated in
Black Hills streams but not completed. Narrative Fisheries Standards are used in water quality standards program.
3-91
-------
TENNESSEE
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) sponsored a habitat assessment
and bioassessment workshop during 1i94. The purpose of the workshop was to initiate a multiagency
effort to: standardize habitat assessment, macroinvertebrate and fish sampling protocols; update and
refine current methods; and develop a groundwork based on consensus for a written set of state standard
operating procedures. Technical issues addressed during the workshop included selecting reference
conditions, taking representative samples (i.e., standard field sampling methodologies), identifying source
and cause (i.e., habitat versus chemical), and accounting for seasonal effects. The workgroup adopted use
of: U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) modified habitat assessment procedures; modified
RBP V fish protocols developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency (TWRA); and modified RBPIII for macroinvertebrates. The primary result of the
workshop was the product of draft state bioassessment protocols, initially by TDEC, Department of Health,
and TWRA, with other state agencies to be included as they are identified.
The State of Tennessee draf protocols for the bioassessments of fish and macroinvertebrates use the
multimetric approaches of the Index of Biotic Integrity and RBPHI, respectively. With some modifications,
the twelve IBI metrics may be applicable in most ecoregions of the state. Macroinvertebrate RBPIII is
applicable to most of the state and utilizes riffle/run habitat as the most productive habitat, when riffle/run is
characteristic in that stream system, in western Tennessee, however, many streams lack this habitat
Therefore, to ensure the accuracy of evaluating communities in that region, RBPIII has been modified to
Include sampling of other productive habitats Including rocks, logs, banks and roots, macrophyte beds, pool
sediments, etc. Effects among sampling locations are then evaluated using only comparable habitats.
The overall assessment of ecological condition derived using the draft protocols first focuses on the
evaluation of habitat quality, then analyzes the biological components of the system In light of the habitat
data. The matrix used for habitat assessment is based on physical characteristics of the waterbody and
surrounding land. The assessment process involves rating the parameters as optimal, suboptimal,
marginal, or poor based on the modified RBP guidance. A total score is obtained for each station and
compared to a site-specific control and/or regional reference station. The ratio between the indicator
station and reference provides a percent comparability measure, allowing the classification of each station
based on its potential to support an acceptable level of biological health. The eventual understanding of
ecoregional relationships in Tennessee and establishment of ecoregional reference sites will help to
eliminate the limitations of assessing impairments that occur when site-specific or upstream-downstream
comparisons are used.
Two ecoregional reference locations have been established as part of the state's nonpolnt source pollution
program. Effective July 1,1995, the nonpoint source pollution program was transferred from TDEC to the
Tennessee Department of Agriculture. Until additional statewide ecoregional reference sites are
established, TDEC is using upstream reference sites to assess stream impacts on a case by case basis.
On the average, twenty bioassessments and intensive strearn surveys were conducted by DEC during the
last five years. Prior to the development of the new draft bioassessment protocols (and until the protocols
are refined) TDEC has used (and is using) biotic indices and tolerance estimates for invertebrates that have
been modified from North Carolina and Hilsenhoff indices. The refinement and calibration of the new draft
protocols is emphasized by TDEC as a priority need, and the eventual development of numeric biocriteria is
a Department initiative.
The Tennessee Valley Authority also conducts biological assessments, and in 1994, sampled the Holston
River watershed for fish assemblages and assessed quality using an Index of Biotic Integrity. The results
from that study are presented for the Tennessee portion of the watershed.
3-92
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: TENNESSEE
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair _
Poor
Total
Contact: Greg Denton
Address; Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street, L&C Annex, 6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
Phone/Fax: (615)532-0699
36.2
70.3
Excellent
Good/Excellent
Good
Fair/Good
Fair
Poor/Fair
Poor
Very Poor/Fair
J03.
15.3-
JQ.GL
2i.4
_2U
18.0
_06_
106.5 miles'
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method;
20 rapid bioassessment/stream surveys conducted during FY1991, and on an
average over each of the past five years. 44 locations in the Holston River
watershed were sampled by TVA in 1994 and reported here.
Approximately 2.4 miles per site.
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (under development, conducted by TVA)
Benthic macroinvertebrates - qualitative techniques and Hester-Pendy multiplates
Fish - Index of Biotlc Integrity. Currently developing statewide protocols for modified
RBPIII and V,
6, Decision criteria based on:
_2i. Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Macroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; EPT index; modified HBi; Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae organism abundance; Ratio of
scraper and filtering collectors; Ratio of shredders to total individuals; Indicator Assemblage Index; % Contribution dominant
taxon; Dominants in common; community loss index; Jaccard Coefficient.
Fish - Total number of native species, darter species, sunflsh species (less Micropterus), sucker species, intolerant species;
% as tolerant species, omnivores, specialized insectivores, plscivores, hybrids; catch rate (catch per area or catch per effort);
% of fish with disease, fin damage, and other anomalies.
8. Biocrtteria/Deciston Thresholds;
Bloeo'teria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
X
_UP_
Used in Water
Resource Mqmt.
JL
Aquatic
Life Use
JL.
9. Pertinent citations: Broach (1995); Harrison (1995b); Penrose (1982); Sabock (1994); Tennessee DEC (1994,1995a,b); U.S. EPA
(1994a).
10. Comments: Results are based on Tennessee Valley Authority sampling during 1994.
3-93
-------
TEXAS
The TNRCC Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program (SWQMP) uses biological monitoring (fish and
macrobenthos) to provide integrated evaluations of water quality. Standard procedures for freshwater
macrolnvertebrate monitoring are being evaluated and may change to be modeled after the EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs). Currently, Surber samplers are used in riffles and Ekman dredges in
pooled areas. During 1994, macrobenthic community monitoring was conducted at 47 SWQMP fixed
stations. Fish communities are also monitored, with electrofishing (both generator powered boat mounted
rigs, and battery powered backpack units) the most common collection method. In areas where
electrofishing is not feasible, seines, gill nets, and trawls may be used. During 1994, fish community
monitoring was conducted at 47 SWQMP stations. The biological protocols are under review and may
change when ecoregional studies are completed and evaluated.
Ecoregional monitoring is also conducted cooperatively, involving the TNRCC, Texas Parks and Wildlife,
and U.S. EPA Region 6, to describe the characteristic water quality, habitat diversity, and biological
communities of least impacted waters in ecoregions of the State. All TNRCC regional office boundaries are
overlapped by at least two ecoregions and one has portions of four. Ecoregional monitoring was initiated in
1990 to encourage SWQMP personnel to explore realistically attainable conditions that exist in least
impacted waterbodies within their regions. Fifteen sites are monitored for at least one year at quarterly
frequencies to ascertain seasonal influences. Sites are usually rotated annually to different locations within
the same ecoregions to allow better determination of the range of expectations within the region, or to a
different ecoregion to ascertain differences among regions. Existing sites may be resampled several years
later to provide evaluate trends. Ecoregion monitoring will generate regional reference databases that may
be used to establish water quality standards, develop biological criteria, establish background conditions,
and assist in the assessment of aquatic life uses in unclassified waters. At this point, the TNRCC has not
developed formal biological criteria, but they have incorporated bioassessments into their aquatic life use
assessments.
Recently TNRCC led a multi-agency team in a synoptic survey of the Rio Grande River as part of the Rio
Grande Toxic Substances Agreement. The survey was designed to examine the presence, magnitude and
Impacts of toxic chemicals in the river. The study area extended from Brownsville/Matamoros to El
Paso/Juarez, with sampling concentrated in eight river reaches where the greatest likelihood for toxic
chemical contamination exists, A total of 19 Rio Grande and 26 tributary sites were sampled. Biological
assessments offish and macroinvertebrate were included as a major study component. Study results
indicated that some concentrations of toxicants exceeded water quality standards, whereas the biological
survey results indicated that if toxic impacts were occurring, the effects were relatively slight.
3-94
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: TEXAS
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-Impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Charles Bayer ,
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087 • • - -. •
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-4583/4420
Not Reported
2. Number of sites sampled:
47 fixed stations; 35 Rio Grande basin sites
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Benthic macroinvertebrates: Surber samplers in. riffles, Ekman dredges in pools
Fish: Site dependent; seines, electrofishers, gill nets, hoop nets
6, Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecpregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 14
Other Explain: • . . .
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetrte approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: species richness; standing crop; EPT index; diversity Index; equitability; community trophic
structure,
Fish: Species richness; standing crop; diversity index; Index of Biotic Integrity. IBI Metrics: total number fish species; total
number darter species; total number sunfish species; total number suckers species; total number intolerant species; proportion
of individuals as tolerants; proportion of individualsas omnivores; proportion of individuals as insectivores; proportion of
individuals as piscivores; number of individuals in sample; proportion of individualsas hybrids; proportion of individuals with
disease or other anamoly.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocrlteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
0 JL
51
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
_X_
Aquatic
Life Use
JL
JL
9. Pertinent citations: Bayer (1995a,b); Sabock (1994); Twidweil (1994); Twidweii and Davis (1989); U.S. EPA (1994a.c).
10. Comments: Bioassessments used to determine designated uses for NPDES permit applications.
3-95
-------
UTAH
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) does not have a statewide bioassessment program.
DEQ biological monitoring of streams has been limited to a study that was initiated approximately 20 years
ago. The study was developed to monitor long-term trends in the benthic macroinvertebrate community,
and was (and is) conducted using a Hess sampler at 20 sites (sampled twice per year). An additional 10
sites are sampled annually as part of the DEQ nonpoint source program; however, they are strictly project
oriented. At present, DEQ does not use bioassessments or biological criteria in their water quality
standards program.
3-96
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: UTAH
Contact:
Richard Denton
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6859
Not Applicable
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3.' Miles per site:
4. Assemblages):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites.
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivartate analysis—Statistical routines used:
Multimetrie approach—Metrics used or under development:
Water Quality
ards
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
Aquatic
Life Use
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Bloerlterla
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: Denton (1995); Sabook (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Undertaking habitat monitoring in addition to chemical sampling. Long-term benthic monitoring program
started 20 years ago to monitor trends. An additional 10 stations sampled each year as part of nonpoint source
program - strictly project oriented. Much of the biological sampling in the state is conducted by various Federal agencies.
3-97
-------
VERMONT
The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has had an active biomonitoring program
since 1982. It became formalized into the present Ambient Biomonitoring Network (ABN) Program in 1985.
The ABN is the most extensive program implemented by the Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Unit. ABN
goals are to:
» monitor long-term trends in water quality as revealed in changes over time to ambient aquatic
biological communities,
» evaluate site-specific impacts of point and nonpoint discharges to aquatic biological communities,
and
• establish baseline data to assist in establishing biological criteria for water quality classification
attainment determinations.
Since the inception of the ABN, DEC has utilized standardized methods for sampling fish and
macroinvertebrate communities, evaluating physical habitat, processing samples, and analyzing and
evaluating data. The program has led to the development of a Vermont fish community Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI), as well as guidelines for determining water quality classification attainment using
macroinvertebrate community biological metrics and the Vermont IBI. The DEC protocols represent a
Vermont-specific modification of U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs).
A total of approximately 350 individual sites have been sampled sine the inception of the ABN in 1985.
Presently, between 50 and 60 sites are evaluated each year during a 2-month summer-to-fall index period.
Fifteen reference sites are sampled each year from a group of 30 reference sites that have been selected
to define the biological potential of different stream types (as defined by gradient, drainage area, elevation
and alkalinity).
Measures of biological integrity are used in the determination of aquatic life use attainment for Vermont
streams. Both fish and macroinvertebrate communities are used to assess the overall community integrity.
Fish biological integrity ratings are based on IBi scores, and macroinvertebrate community integrity is
determined by evaluating the rating and degree of each metric and evaluating the number of metrics that
are found to be in an acceptable versus unacceptable range. Biological integrity ratings of poor, fair, good
and excellent indicate non-support, partial support, support, and support (equal to reference condition) of
aquatic life uses, respectively.
3-98
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE; VERMONT
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Steve Fiske
Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Agency of Natural Resources
Water Quality Division
1033, Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-CMOS
(802) 244-4520/241-3308
1, Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2, Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
.425.
1.315
Average 50-60 per year; 263 during 1990-1993 reporting period
5 mile (default) per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
Modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocols including modified Index of Biotic integrity
S. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 30 total -15 sampledfyear
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Muitimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Biological and Habitat: Macroinvertebrates - relative abundance; Biotic Index; Shannon Weaver Diversity Index; Pinkham-
Pearson Coefficient of Similarity; EPT taxa richness; % dominant genera; EPT/EPT +Chironomidae; functional group analysis
(under development).
Fish - number of species; number and identity of intolerant species; number and identity of benthic insectivore species;
proportion of individuals as blacknose dace; proportion of individuals as generalist feeders; proportion of individuals as
insectivores; proportion of individuals as top carnivores; proportion of individuals with disease, tumors, fin damage or other
anomalies; abundance in sample.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocrtteria
Narrative (In place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
X
UP
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
X
9. Pertinent citations: Bumham (1994,1995); Fiske (1994,1995); McArdle (1994); Sabock(1994); U.S. EPA (1994a); Vermont DEC
(1994).
10, Comments: Miles presented represent 1994305(b) information for bioassessments conducted from 1990-1993. During 1995 and
1996, VT DEC will be considering all possible bioiogicai metrics (from the literature and other states). The metrics and the
ecoregional reference condition approach will be used to define "expected" biological conditions for Vermont streams.
3-99
-------
VIRGINIA
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Biological Monitoring Program is an integral
component of the state's Surface Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program. The Biological Monitoring
Program utilizes the study of benthic macroinvertebrate communities to determine overall water quality.
The program is composed of approximately 187 monitoring stations that are examined twice (spring and
fall) annually.
DEQ has been conducting qualitative and semi-quantitative biological assessments since 1978. Beginning
In 1990, DEQ adopted use of U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for bioassessments of
Virginia streams. Technical guidance provided by RBP's is used for both .macroinvertebrate community and
stream habitat assessments. The habitat assessments are used to provide information on the
comparability of each stream station to a reference site.
Virginia stream bloassessment data are used to assess water quality for support of designated uses and the
Clean Water Act fishabie and swimmable goals. In assessing the degree of support of the flshable goal,
communities characterized as non-impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired via RBPs
methodologies correspond directly to Clean Water Act goal categories of fully supporting, partially
supporting, and non-supporting, respectively.
3-100
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: VIRGINIA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
460
Lou Seivard
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality
Water Division
P.O. Box11143
Richmond, VA 23230-1143
(804)762-4121/4522
1.145
2. Number of sites sampled:
229(1991-1993)
3. Miles per site:
5 mile (default) per station
4. Assemblage(s):
Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat per RBP
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds: *
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
X
Aquatic
Life Use
X
9. Pertinent citations: Sabock (1994); Seivard (1995); U.S. EPA (1994a); Virginia DEQ (1994).
10. Comments: Miles represent the 1994305(b) reporting period (1 Jul 1991 -30 Jun 1993).
3-101
-------
WASHINGTON
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) uses biological assessments of surface waters to
supplement traditional chemical evaluations. Bioassessments have historically been used in Washington
State on a project-specific basis. Typically, an upstream-downstream approach has been used to
document biological impacts during investigations of pollution point sources, or during regional projects to
evaluate sampling and analytical protocols. An ambient bioassessment program was initiated by DOE in
1993 to investigate the biological integrity of Washington state streams and rivers. The biological condition
of streams throughout the state had not previously been defined. The contemporary biological database is
comprised of continuous monitoring information that describes the condition of aquatic resources in detail,
and can be used to confirm or validate conclusions derived from physicochemical monitoring programs.
The primary goal of the DOE Freshwater Ambient Biological Assessment Program is to collect long-term
Information to refine knowledge of stream conditions (i.e., define baseline conditions of instream biology,
and measure spatial and temporal variability of community attributes). The program uses representative
multiple-habitat sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and physical habitat to describe biological
community condition,, Sampling sites are selected non-randomly and stratified at either target reference
locations or areas representative of impacted conditions. Macroinvertebrates are collected following a
modified approach of U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs), and the resulting data are
analyzed using the RBP multi-metric approach. Each of the metrics is used as a component of a diagnostic
tool that defines ecosystem condition. Qualitative and quantitative habitat characterizations are completed
along with the characterizations of the macroinvertebrate community. Habitat measures follow RBP
guidance and include site-specific, detailed instream measurements as well as riparian and upstream
watershed information.
An ecoregion bfoassessrnent project was initiated in 1991 to evaluate the usefulness of a monitoring
protocol to detect water resource impacts due to forest practices. The initial study focused on three of
Washington's eight ecoregions. Bioassessment activities are currently being conducted in all ecoregions of
the state. Reference site selection in each ecoregion is based on historical habitat information and
professional judgment of regional biologists. Final reference site selection is based on detailed aspects of
candidate streams (e.g., elevation, gradient, substrate size, discharge) in order to select conditions that are
most representative of each ecoregion.
Stream bioassessments are intended for use in Washington state to supplement the Statewide Water
Quality Assessment Report, to prioritize streams for intensive surveys and development of total maximum
daily loads, and to assess the success of pollution abatement programs. DOE anticipates that stream
biological information will eventually support the development of narrative (and eventually numerical)
biological water quality criteria in Washington state.
3-102
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: WASHINGTON
Miles assessed as:
, Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total'
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Robert Plotnikoff
WA State Dept, of Ecology
P.O. Box47710
Olympia,WA 98504-7710
(360) 407-6687
Pilot Studies
2. Number of sites sampled:
47 during 1993; 20 during 1994; 20 during 1995
3. Miles per site:
40x average stream width (maximum of 500m)
4. Assemb!age(s):
Benthio macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
D-frame kicknet; riffle and deposittonal (4 samples/habitat type)
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 19
, Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
X Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used: OCA and CCA
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat.
Macroinvertebrates -species richness; modified HBI; Biotlc condition index; Benthic Index of Biological Integrity; EPT index;
relative abundance; Ephemerellidae and Heptageniidae richness; caddis and stonefly shredder richness; Rhyacophilidae
richness; % contribution dominant taxon; % predators; % shredders; % scrapers; % collector-gatherers; % colleotor-filterers;
% intolerant mayfly and caddisfly and stonefly; % Glossosomatidae; % Hydropsychidae; Voltinism,
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
ards
Used in Water
Resource Marnt.
X
Aquatic
9. Pertinent citations: Hayslip (1993); Plotnikoff (1992,1994a,b, 1995a,b); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Information on number of sites sampled — from R. Piotnikoff, personal communication.
3-103
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
The West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) has traditionally used an Ambient Biological
Monitoring Network (AMB) to detect long term biological trends. The ABM network was established in
1975, and after a few modifications has remained relatively unchanged since 1979, The initial objective of
the ABM network was to establish baseline biological information using the macrpinvertebrate community at
42 field locations throughout the state. The long-term goal of the program is to detect temporal trends at
the monitoring locations. In addition, spatial comparisons of biological data are possible on streams with
more than one station. These objectives support DEP's overall management goal of maintaining or
improving the quality of waters in the state.
ABM network stations are sampled annually for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Samples are collected using
Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samplers that are installed for a six to eight week colonization period. The
ABM network was designed to provide biological information at fixed locations over time. It was not
designed to provide specific information at points other than the fixes sites. A separate investigation is
conducted when a problem is detected upstream. The fixed station biological network is utilized by DEP to:
provide site-specific background data for a large number of sites overtime; allow spatial and temporal
comparisons of biological data; detect emerging problems as trends begin to develop; and detect and
reflect improvements In water quality.
DEP uses biological assessments to document biological impacts during investigations of point sources of
pollution. U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols II and III are used for macroinvertebrate and habitat
assessments of wadeable streams. Artificial substrates are employued to assess point source impacts in
larger streams and rivers. Typically, an upstream-downstream approach is used in the comparison of
refgerence and point source affected sampling locations.
The west Virginia DEP Watershed Assessment Program (WPAP, initiated in October 1995) was established
In response to the developing trend of assessing and monitoring water resources through intensive
Investigations of individual watersheds. This program will supercede a majority of the sampliong activities
used in the traditional ABM network; however, DEP will maintain the ABM on selected larger streams. The
sampling methods used ion the WAP are qualitative and follow the RBPII methodology for sampling the
macroinvertebrate community in wadeable rivers and streams. The technical guidance of RBP II will also
be used to assess habitats and calculate associated community metrics.
The WAP will tentatively include the following components:
• A statewide screening proce • using existing data to establish a priority watershed list;
• The priority watershed list wis sflect both resource protection (i.e., maintenance and protection of water
quality in least impacted wateisneds) and pollution priorities (i.e., watershed where work is necessary to
attain improvements;
• Existing monitoring programs of all offices within DEP will be reviewed for integration into a watershed
monitoring program; and
« Ail data will be stored in databases supported by DEP GIS.
3-104
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: WEST VIRGINIA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-Impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
J55
JZQ.
325
Janice Smithson
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 2533-1088
(304)558-2108/5905
2. Number of sites sampled:
65
3. Miles per site:
5 mile (default) per site
4. Assemblage(s):
Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Rapid Bioasses'sment Protocol II and III
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites.
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
JJD.
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
Aquatic
Life Use
X
9. Pertinent citations: Arcuri (1994); Bailey (1995); Smithson (1994); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a).
10. Comments: Benthic surveys performed during period of 1 Jan 1989 -18 Nov 1994.
3-105
-------
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources emphasizes biological monitoring as a major component of
the state monitoring program. The kinds of the samples taken for this program include benthic
macroinvertebrates, fish, and bacteriological.
WDNR also has a lake monitoring program that samples and interprets fish assemblages, rooted
macrophytes, and plankton. They use sampling and analysis procedures similar to U.S. EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) and kicknet samples supplemented with artificial substrates in channels
without riffles. Invertebrate samples are analyzed using the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index in combination with
other indices; fish data are used to calculate an IBI. Habitat assessment data are used to assess use
attainability. Triennial reviews are performed on "various streams" - channels that cannot attain narrative
fishable/swimmable goals due to some natural characteristics).
3-106
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: WISCONSIN
1. Miles assessed as:'
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
3.915
1.419.8
Joe Ball
Wisconsin Dept, of Natural Resources
Bureau of Water Resources Management
101 S. Webster Street, GEFII
Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
(608) 266-7390
2. Number of sites sampled:
More than 900 macrolnvertebrate.samples were collected and analyzed from 1992 to
1993. No number for fish is available.
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): .
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
5. Sampling gear or Method;
Maeroinvertebrates - Mcfcnet in riffles
Fish - backpack and boat-mounted electroshockers
6. Decision criteria based on:
_ Reference sites
. X Ecoregiona! reference conditions—Number of reference sites
_J(. Other Explain: Benthic macroinvertebrates are assessed statewide using the same reference condition.
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multlvariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetrfc approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological
Fish Assemblage IBI: Total number of native species; number of darter species; number of sucker species; number of sunfish
species; number of intolerant species; % intolerant species; % omnivores; % insectivores; % top carnivores; % simple
lithophils; number of individuals per 300 square meters; % DELT (deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors).
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
• Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development -
Water Quality
Standards
JL_
Used in Water
Resource Mgmt.
9. Pertinent citations: Lyons (1992); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a); Wisconsin DNR (1992,1994).
10. Comments: Miles represent 1994 305(b) reporting period and represents monitored assessments. The IBI has a scoring range from
0-100 using corrections factors (negative scoring) for the last two metrics (subtract 10 from the overall IBI score for less than 50 fish
• or for more than 4% DELTs).
3-107
-------
WYOMING
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Division is beginning to
incorporate biological monitoring into the overall surface water monitoring and assessment process. Even
though biological monitoring data will be of increasing importance, chemical monitoring will remain a
primary critical component of DEQ's water quality program. Much of the monitoring work will be performed
on a volunteer basis and will focus on macroinvertebrate sampling. Nonpoint source monies are being
used to train conservation district/school district teams in water quality monitoring procedures. In the
coming years, DEQ is hoping to increase coordination and consistency of data collection and analysis, and
to include more biological Information in the determination of water quality impacts.
DEQ stream bfoassessment and habitat evaluation methods are based on the technical guidance of U.S.
EPA's Rapid Bfoassessment Protocols (RBPs). Macroinvertebrate bioassessments,are used in Wyoming
point source discharge and nonpoint source investigations, and monitoring approaches (i.e., upstream-
downstream, paired stream, paired watershed, and downstream only) vary depending on specific study
objectives. Macroinvertebrate data are processed using a multi-metric design. DEQ uses eight primary
biological metrics as the basis to define water quality changes, and is evaluating 18 additional metrics for
possible ecoregion use. Refined regional metrics (representing clean, moderately impaired, and poor
water quality) involving specific organisms or indicator assemblages are being developed as regional and
sub-regional data bases continue to be evaluated.
DEQ is currently in the process of defining ecological reference conditions. Candidate reference streams
are being examined for macroinvertebrate species composition, species abundance and relative habitat
condition. The data will be used for the purpose of: defining existing statewide habitat; assessing point
source water quality changes; evaluating effectiveness of nonpoint source implementation projects;
initiating attempts to describe macroinvertebrate biodiversity; and initiating attempts to develop biocriteria for
streams. Once reference conditions are established, they will serve as a basis for assessing other streams
fn the same ecoregion, and will be critical to the development of a water quality impact pfioritization
process.
Beginning with the 1994 water quality assessment reporting period, DEQ developed a new use
support/data-source decision matrix to broaden application of use support designations, and to shift water
quality survey results from qualitative to more quantitative. In the new matrix, biological data aid in the
determination of the degree of use support for fishery, public water supply, primary contact recreation and
secondary contact recreation uses. Because of the subjectivity of evaluated data, DEQ will not assign a
"not supporting" classification unless the decision can be justified via reliable chemical or biological data.
3-108
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE; WYOMING
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4, Asse'mbiage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
JSZ
506
J13
59
Benthic maoroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
Dick Johnson
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division
Hersohler Building, 4th Floor
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-6891
6, Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites,
UP. Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
Biological and Habitat, Macroinvertebrates - taxa richness; Modified HBl; ratio scraper/filtering collectors; ratio
EPT/Chironomidae; % contribution dominant taxa; EPT index; Community Loss index; % Hydropsychidae/total Trichoptera
8, Biooriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
X
9. Pertinent citations: Gumtow (1994); King (1993); Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a); Wyoming DEQ (1994).
10, Comments; Miles represent 1994 305(b) 2-year reporting period. Data from various government agencies, as indicated in the state
305(bJ report..
3-109
-------
Section 4. Biocriteria Language and Definitions
for States and Territories
This section presents information taken directly from the regulatory codes/documents of states and
territories which have reported having biological criteria within their standards, and reproduces verbatim the
language promulgated within state legislatures. There has been no interpretation of the language other
than its identification as the narrative or numeric biocriteria language or as definitions published along with
that language in the state water quality standards.
ARKANSAS
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Biological integrity - All waters with specifically designated Fisheries uses must demonstrate aquatic life
communities which are similar in variety and abundance to least-disturbed waters within the same
ecoregion and with similar hydrologic conditions. Measurements of biological integrity should include fish
community structure and other associated aquatic life e.g., macroinvertebrates, periphyton, plankton, etc.
Measurements should be extensive and timely in order to compensate for the seasonal and natural
variability of aquatic life communities. A distinguishable alteration of the abundance or variety of the aquatic
life community constitutes a violation of these water quality standards.
SOURCE; Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas
(Draft-July 94) Sec. 5(E).
CALIFORNIA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Ch.H.E. Biological Characteristics
1. Marine communities, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species, shall not be degraded.
DEGRADE: Degradation shall be determined by comparison of the waste field and reference site(s) for
characteristics species diversity, population density, contamination, growth anomalies, debility, or
supplanting of normal species by undesirable plant and animal species. Degradation occurs if there are
significant differences in any of three major biotic groups, namely, demersal fish, benthic invertebrates, or
attached algae. Other groups may be evaluated where benthic species are not affected, or are not the only
ones affected. Note: This provision is an example: other California waters have similar provisions.
SOURCE: Water Quality Standards for the State of California (ocean waters) are contained in: Amendment
of the Water quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, State Water Resources Control Board
Resolution No. 90-27. (Adopted and effective March 22,1990).
CONNECTICUT
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Surface waters and sediments shall be free from chemical constituents in concentrations or combinations
which will or can reasonably be expected to result in acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms or impair
the biological integrity of aquatic or marine ecosystems outside of any allocated zone of influence or which
will or can reasonably be expected to bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate in tissues offish, shellfish and other
aquatic organisms to levels which will impair the health of aquatic organisms or wildlife or result in
unacceptable tastes, odors or health risks to human consumers of aquatic life. In determining consistency
with this Standard, the Commissioner shall at a minimum consider the specific number criteria listed in
Appendix D and any other information she or he deems relevant.
Benthic invertebrate criteria may be utilized where appropriate for assessment of biological integrity of
surface waters. The criteria apply to the fauna of erosional or riffle habitats in flowing waters which are not
subject to tidal influences.
SOURCE: Connecticut Water Quality Standards January 1992,1113; I114
4-1
-------
DELAWARE
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Section 4.1(a)(iii):
AH surface waters of the State. ..shall meet the following minimum criteria:
(a) Waters shall be free from substances that are attributable to wates of industrial, municipal,
agricultural or other human-Induced origin. Examples include but are not limited to the following:
(ill) Any pollutants,... that may Interfere with attainment and maintenance of designated uses of the
water, may Impart Indesirable odors, tastes, or colors to the water or to aquatic life found therein,
may endanger public health, or may result in dominance of nuisance species.
Section9.2(a)a(b)
(a) Waters of the State shall not exhibit acute toxiclty to fish, aquatic life, and wildlife except in special
cases applying to regulatory mixing zones as provided in Section 6.
(b) Waters of the State shall not exhibit chronic toxicity to fish, aquatic life, and wildlife except in
regulatory mixing zones as provided in Section 6, at flows less than critical flows as provided in
Section 8, or in low flow waters as provided in Section 12.
NUMERIC BIOCRITERIA
Information currently not available.
SOURCE: State of Delaware surface Water Quality Standards (as Amended, February 26, 1993) .Section
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
The surface waters of the District shall be free from substances attributable to point or nonpoint sources
discharged in amounts that Impair the biological community which naturally occurs in the waters or depends
on the waters for their survival and propagation.
SOURCE: DC District of Columbia Water Quality Standards March 4, 1 994. 1 1 04.1 (f)
FLORIDA
NARRATIVE BlOCRiTERIA
Nuisance Species: [Class I, II, III (fresh & marine), IV, V] Substances in concentrations which result in the
dominance of nuisance species. None shall be present.
Nutrients:[Class I, II, III (fresh & marine), IV, V] In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be
altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of flora or fauna.
NUMERIC BIOCRITERIA
Biological Integrity: [Units: Percent reduction of Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index]
Class I: The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 78% of background
levels or increased using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and
composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samples of 0.10 to 0.15 m2
area each incubated fora period of four weeks.
Class II: The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of established
background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and
collected and composited from a minimum of three natural substrate samples taken with Ponartype
samplers with minimum sampling area of 225 em2.
Class HI Fresh: The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of
established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No, 30 sieve
and collected and composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samples
of 0.10 to 0.15 mzarea each incubated for a period of four weeks.
4-2
-------
Class \\\ Marine-. The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of
established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve
and collected and composited from a minimum of three natural substrate samples taken with Ponar
type samplers with minimum sampling area of 225 em2.
DEFINITIONS
"Background" shall mean the condition of waters in the absence of the activity or discharge under
consideration, based on the best scientific information available to the Department
"Natural Background" shall mean the condition of waters in the absence of man-induced alterations based
on the best scientific information available to the Department. The establishment of natural background for
an altered waterbody may be based upon a similar unaltered waterbody or on historical pre-alteration date.
"Nuisance Species" shall mean species of flora or fauna whose noxious characteristics or presence in
sufficient number, biomass, or areal extent may be reasonably expected to prevent, or unreasonably
interfere with, a designated use of those waters.
"Propagation" shall mean reproduction sufficient to maintain the species' role in its respective ecological
community.
"Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index" shall mean negative summation (from I = 1 to s) or (n/N) Iog2 (n/N)
where s Is the number of species In a sample, N is the total number of Individuals in a sample, and n, is the
total number of individuals in species I.
SOURCE: Florida Surface Water Quality Standards (1/23/95). 62-302.200 (3),(14),(15),(22),(24); 62-
302.530(11),(48)(b),(47).
GEORGIA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
The purpose and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of
water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the
public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation offish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and
agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve
the biological integrity of the waters of the State.
DEFINITIONS
"Biological integrity" is functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting least
impaired waterbodies of a specified habitat measured by community structure and function.
SOURCE: Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control Chapters 391-3-6-.03.2(a);391-3-6-
.Q3.3(a).May 29,1994.
HAWAII
NARRATIVE BIQCRITERIA
Basic water quality criteria applicable to all waters.
(a) All waters shall be free of substances attributable to domestic, industrial, or other controllable sources
of pollutants Including:
High or low temperatures; biocides; pathogenic organisms; toxic, radioactive, corrosive, or other
deleterious substances at levels or in combinations sufficient to be toxic or harmful to human, animal,
plant, or aquatic life, or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water
SOURCE: Hawaii Administrative Rules 11 -54-04(4). October 29,1992.
LOUISIANA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Biological and Aquatic Community Integrity. The biological and community structure and function in state
waters shall be maintained, protected, and restored except where not attainable and feasible as defined in
4-3
-------
LAC 33:iX.1109,8.3. This is the ideal condition of the aquatic community inhabiting the unimpaired water
bodies of a specified habitat and region as measured by community structure and function. The biological
Integrity will be guided by the fish and wildlife propagation use designated for that particular water body.
Fish and wildlife propagation uses are defined in LAC 33.IX.1111 .C. The condition of these aquatic
communities shall be determined from the measures of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
each surface water body type, according to its designated use (LAC 33.IX.1123). Reference site conditions
will represent naturally attainable conditions. These sites should be the least impacted and most
representative of water body types. Such reference sites or segments of water bodies shall be those
observed to support the greatest variety and abundance of aquatic life in the region as Is expected to be or
has been recorded during past surveys in natural settings essentially undisturbed by human impacts,
developments, or discharges. The condition shall be determined by consistent sampling and reliable
measures of selected, indicative communities of animals and/or invertebrates as established by the office
and may be used in conjunction with accepted chemical, physical, and microbial water quality
measurements and records as deemed for this purpose.
SOURCE: Louisiana Water Quality Regulations. Chap. 11, Sec. 1113.12. August 20,1994.
MAINE
NARRATIVE BIOCR1TERIA
The Legislature declares that it is the State's objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological Integrity of the State's waters and to preserve certain pristine state waters. The Legislature
further declares that in order to achieve this objective, the State's goals are: That water quality be sufficient
to provide for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and
on the water.
Class AA waters shall be the highest classification
A. Class AA waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable.,,as habitat for fish and other aquatic
life. The habitat shall be characterized as free flowing and natural.
B. The aquatic life, dissolved oxygen and bacteria content of Class AA waters shall be as naturally
occurs.
Class A waters shall be the 2nd highest classification.
A. Class A waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable...as habitat for fish and other aquatic
life. The habitat shall be characterized as natural.
B. The aquatic life and bacteria content of Class A waters shall be as naturally occurs.
Class B waters shall be the 3rd highest classification.
A, Class B waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable...as habitat for fish and other aquatic
life. The habitat shall be characterized as unimpaired.
C. Discharges to Class B waters shall not cause adverse impact to aquatic life in that the receiving
waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all aquatic species indigenous to the receiving water
without detrimental changes in the resident biological community.
Class C waters shall be the 4th highest classification.
A. Class C waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable...as a habitat for fish and other aquatic
life.
C. Discharges to Class C waters may cause some changes to aquatic life, provided that the receiving
waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters
and maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community.
DEFINITIONS
"Aquatic life" means any plants or animals which live at least part of their life cycle in fresh water.
"Community function" means mechanisms of uptake, storage, and transfer of life-sustaining .materials
available to a biological community which determines the efficiency of use and the amount of export of the
materials from the community.
4-4
-------
ture" means the organization of a biological community based on numbers of individuals
within different taxonomic groups and the proportion each taxonomic group represents of the total
community,
"Indigenous" means supported in a reach of water or known to have been supported according to historical
records compiled by State and Federal agencies or published scientific literature,
"Natural" means living in, or as if in, a state of nature not measurably affected by human activity,
"Resident biological community means aquatic life expected to exist in a habitat which is free from the
influence of the discharge of any pollutant. This shall be established by accepted monitoring techniques.
"Without detrimental changes in the resident biological community" means no significant loss of species or
excessive dominance by any species or group of species attributable to human activity.
SOURCE: ME Maine Water Classification Program July 1994. 38 S 464.1 (C); 38 S 465.1,2,3,4; 38 S
466.1,3,4,8,9,10,12
MASSACHUSETTS
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Control of Eutrophtcation; From and after the date 314 CMR 4.00 become effective there shall be no new
or increased point source discharge of nutrients, primarily phosphorus and nitrogen, directly to lakes and
ponds. There shall be no new or increased point source discharge to tributaries of lakes or ponds that
would encourage cultural eutrophication or the growth of weed or algae in these lakes or ponds. Any
existing point source discharge containing nutrients in concentrations which encourage eutrophication or
growth of weeds or algae shall be provided with the highest and best practical treatment to remove such
nutrients. Activities which result in the nonpoint source discharge of nutrients to lakes and ponds shall be
provided with all reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control.
Class B Waters: These waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, and for
primary and secondary contact recreation.
1. Dissolved Oxygen
b. Natural, seasonal and daily variations above these levels shall be maintained; levels shall not be
lowered below 75% of saturation in cold water fisheries nor 60% of saturation in warm water
fisheries due to a discharge,
2, Temperature
a. Shall not exceed 68°F (20°C) in cold water fisheries nor 83°F (28,3°C) in warm water fisheries,
and the rise in temperature due to a discharge shall not exceed 3°F (1 J°C) in rivers and streams
designated as cold water fisheries nor 5°F (2.8°C) In rivers and streams designated as warm
water fisheries (based on the minimum expected flow for the month); in lakes and ponds the rise
shall not exceed 3°F (17°C) in the epilimnion (based on the monthly average of maximum daily
temperature); and r
b. Natural seasonal and daily variations shall be maintained. There shall be no changes from
background conditions that would impair any use assigned to this Class, including site-specific
limits necessary to protect species diversity, successful migration, reproductive functions or
growth of aquatic organisms.
Additional minimum criteria applicable to all surface waters:
(a) Aesthetics - All surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that
settle to form objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum or other matter to form nuisances;
produce objectionable odor, color, taste or turbidity; or produce undesirable or nuisance species of
aquatic life.
(b) Bottom pollutant or Alterations - All surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations
or combinations or from alterations that adversely affect the physical or chemical nature of the
bottom, interfere with the propagation offish or shellfish, or adversely affect populations of non-
mobile or sessile benthic organisms.
4-5
-------
(e) Toxic Pollutants - All surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations
that are toxic to humans, aquatic life or wildlife.
Stte Specific limits: Where recommended limits for a specific pollutant are not available or where they are
Invalid due to site-specific physical, chemical or biological considerations, the Division shall use a site-
specific limit as the allowable receiving water concentration for the affected waters. In all cases, at a
minimum, site-specific limits shall not exceed safe exposure levels determined by toxicity testing using
methods approved by the Director.
Accumulation of Pollutants: Where appropriate the Division shall use an additional margin of safety when
establishing water quality based on effluent limits to assure that pollutants do not persist in the environment
or accumulate in organisms to levels that:
a, are toxic to humans or aquatic life; or
b. Result in unacceptable concentrations in edible portions or marketable fish or shellfish or for the
recreational use offish, shellfish, other aquatic life or wildlife for human consumption.
DEFINITIONS
Aquatic Life - A native, naturally diverse, community of aquatic flora and fauna
Background Conditions - That water quality which exists or would exist in the absence of discharges of
pollutants requiring permits and other controllable cultural factors that are subject to regulation Under
M.G.L. c, 21, §§ 26 through S3,
SOURCE: Massachusetts Surface Quality Standards 12/1/93. 314CMR 4.02; 4.04:(5); 4.05(b),(b)1,
(b)2;4,05:(5)(a)(b)(e);4.05:(e)(1){3).
MARYLAND
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Water Quality and Watershed Management Plans. A regulated activity may not cause or contribute to a:
Degradation of ground waters or surface waters, including individual and cumulative effects on:
Plankton, fish, shellfish, and wildlife,
Aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability
General Water Quality Criteria. The waters of the State may not be polluted by:
High temperature or corrosive substances attributable to sewage, industrial waste, or other waste in
concentrations or combinations which:
(a) Interfere directly or indirectly with designated uses, or
(b) Are harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
SOURCE: Trtle 26, Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water Pollution, Subpart 26.08.02. June 7,
1993,
MINNESOTA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
The biological quality of any given surface water body shall be assessed by comparison to the biological
integrity of a reference condition or conditions which best represents the most natural condition for that
surface water body type within a geographic region. The biological quality shall be determined by reliable
measures of indicative communities of fauna and flora.
SOURCE: Chapter 7050 Minnesota Standards For Protection of Quality and Purity 7050.01 SO;April 18,
1994.
MISSOURI
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
The biological Integrity of waters, as measured by lists or numeric diversity indices of benthic invertebrates,
fish, algae, or other appropriate indicators shall not be significantly different from reference waters. Waters
shall be compared with reference waters of similar size within an ecoregion.
4-6
-------
DEFINITIONS
Biocriteria: Numeric values or narrative expressions that describe the reference biological integrity of
aquatic communities Inhabiting waters that have been designated for aquatic life protection.
Reference stream reaches: Stream reaches determined by the department to be the best available
representatives of ecoregion waters in a natural condition, with respect to habitat, water quality, biological
integrity and diversity, watershed land use and riparian conditions.
SOURCE: Missouri Rules of Department of Natural Resources Div, 20-Clean Water Commission.Chap. 7-
Water Quality, Title 10CSR 20-7.031 (D),(R). (3/30/94).
NEBRASKA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Any human activity which would significantly impact or displace an identified "key species" shall not be
allowed.
DEFINITIONS
Key species are identified endangered, threatened, sensitive, or recreationally-important aquatic species.
Key species are designated by stream segment.
SOURCE; Title 117-Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards. Chap. 4, 003.01 F, 003.01 F1. November
17,1993.
NEVADA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Waters must be free from high temperatures, biocides, organisms pathogenic to human beings, toxic,
corrosive or other deleterious substances attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable
sources at levels or combinations sufficient to be toxic to human, animal, plant or aquatic life or in amounts
sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water. Compliance with the provisions of this subsection
may be determined in accordance with methods of testing prescribed by the department. If used as an
indicator, survival of test organisms must not be signiflcantiy less in test water than in control water.
SOURCE: Nevada Administrative Code 445.119.4. September 26,1994.
NEW JERSEY
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Water is vital to life and comprises an invaluable natural resource which is not to be abused by any
segment of the State's population or economy. It is the policy of the State to restore, maintain, and
enhance the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of its waters, to protect the public health, to
safeguard the aquatic biota, protect scenic and ecological values, and to enhance the domestic, municipal,
recreational, industrial, agricultural, and other reasonable uses of the State's waters.
Toxic substances in waters of the State shall not be at levels that are toxic to humans or the aquatic biota,
or that bioaccumulate in the aquatic biota so as to render them unfit for human consumption,
SOURCE: New Jersey Water Quality Standards April 1994. 7:9B-1.5(a)2 & 3.
NEW YORK
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Fresh Surface Waters (Class AA-Special, Class A-Special, Class AA, Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D):
The waters shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival.
Saline Surface Waters (Class SA, Class SB, Class SC, Class I, Class SD): These waters shall be suitable
for fish propagation and survival.
SOURCE: Water Quality Regulations for Surface Waters and Groundwaters September 1,1991. 6NYCRR
Parts 701.3,701.4,701.5,701.6,701.7,701.8, 701.9,701.10,701.11,701.12,701.13,701.14.
4-7
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
NARRATIVE BIOCRJTERIA
All fresh surface waters (Class C)
(1) Best Usage of Waters, Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including
fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary
recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters will be suitable for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture; sources of water
pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis will be
considered to be violating a water quality standard.
AH tidal salt waters (Class SC)
(1) Best Usage of Waters. Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including
fishing, fish, and functioning PNAs), wildlife, secondary recreation, and any other usage except
primary recreation or shellfishing for market purposes;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters will be suitable for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, and secondary recreation; any source of water pollution
which precludes any of these uses, including their functioning as PNAs, on either a short-term or a
long-term bass will be considered to be violating a water quality standard.
BIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
Methods published by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural resources, as
outlined in "Standard Operating Procedures; Biological Monitoring" (1990; division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section) or subsequent versions, or such other methods as approved by the
Director.
DEFINITIONS
Biological integrity means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced and
indigenous community of organisms having species composition, diversity, population densities and
functional organization similar to that of reference conditions.
SOURCE: 15ANCAC2B .0100-Proceduresfor Assignment of Water Quality Standards, Sec. ,0103(b),
1994.15A NCAC 2B .0200-Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of
North Carolina .0202(10), .0211(b)(1)&(2),.0212(b)(1)&(2). 1994.
OHIO
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Biological criteria presented in table 7-17 to this rule provide a direct measure of the attainment of the warm
water habitat, exceptional warm water habitat and modified warm water habitat aquatic life uses. Biological
criteria and the exceptions to chemical-specific or whole-effluent criteria allowed by this paragraph do not
apply to any other use designations.
(a) Demonstrated attainment of the applicable biological criteria in a water body will take precedence
over the application of chemical-specific or whole-effluent criteria associated with these uses when
the director, upon considering appropriately detailed chemical, physical and biological data, finds
that one or more chemical-specific or whole-effluent criteria are inappropriate. In such cases the
options which exist include:
(i) The director may develop, or a discharger may provide for the director's approval, a justification
for a site-specific water quality criterion according to methods described in "Water Quality
Standards handbook, 1983, U.S. EPA Office of Water";
(li) The director may proceed with establishing water quality based effluent limits consistent with
attainment of the designated use.
(b) Demonstrated nonattainment of the applicable biological criteria in a water body with concomitant
evidence that the associated chemical-specific criteria and whole-effluent criteria are met will cause
the director to seek and establish, if possible, the cause of the nonattainment of the designated
use. The director shall evaluate the existing designated use and, where not attainable, propose to
change the designated use. If the designated use is deemed attainable, the director shall,
4-8
-------
whenever possible and reasonable, implement regulatory controls or make other
recommendations regarding water resource management to restore the designated use,
Definitions-
"Warmwater"- these are waters capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive
community of warmwater aquatic organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to the twenty-fifth percentile of the identified reference sites within each of the
following ecoregions: the interior plateau ecoregion, the Erie/Ontario lake plains ecoregion, the western .
Allegheny plateau ecoregion and eastern corn belt plains ecoregion. For the Huron/Erie lake plains
ecoregion, the comparable species composition, diversity and functional organization are based upon the
ninetieth percentile of all sites within the ecoregion. For all ecoregions, the attributes of species
composition, diversity and functional organization will be measured using the index of biotic integrity, the
modified index of well-being and the invertebrate community index as defined in "Biological Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life: volume II, Users Manual for Biological field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters,"
... Attainment of this use designation is based on the criteria in table 7-17 to this rule. A temporary variance
to the criteria associated with this use designation may be granted as described in paragraph (G) of rule
3745-1-01 of the Administrative Code.
"Exceptional Warmwater" - these are waters capable of supporting and maintaining an exceptional or
unusual community of warmwater aquatic organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to the seventy-fifth percentile of the identified reference sites on a statewide basis.
The attributes of species composition, diversity and functional organization will be measured using the index
of biotic integrity, the modified index of well-being and the invertebrate community index as defined in
"Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: volume II, Users Manual for Biological field
Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters,",., In.addition to those stream segments designated in rules 3745-1-
08 to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code, all lakes and reservoirs, except upground storage reservoirs,
are designated exceptional warmwater habitats. Attainment of this use designation (except for lakes and
reservoirs) is based on the criteria in table 7-17 to this rule. A temporary variance to the criteria associated
with this use designation may be granted as described, in paragraph (G) of rule 3745-1-01 of the
Administrative Code.
"Modified Warmwater" - these are waters that have been the subject of a use attainability analysis and have
been found to be incapable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of
warmwater organisms due to irretrievable modifications of the physical habitat Such modifications are of a
long-lasting duration (i.e., twenty years or longer) and may include the following examples: extensive
stream channel modification activities permitted under sections 401 and 404 of the act or Chapter 6131 of
the Revised Code, extensive sedimentation resulting from abandoned mine land runoff, and extensive
permanent impoundment of free-flowing water bodies. The attributes of species composition The attributes
of species composition, diversity and functional organization will be measured using the index of biotic
integrity, the modified index of well-being and the invertebrate community index as defined in "Biological
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: volume II, Users Manual for Biological field Assessment of Ohio
Surface Waters,"... Attainment of this use designation is based on the criteria in table 7-17 to this rule. Each
water body designated modified warmwater habitat will be listed in the appropriate use designation rule
(rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code) and will be identified by ecoregion and type of
physical habitat modification as listed in table 7-17 to this rule. The modified warmwater habitat designation
can be applied only to those waters that do not attain the warmwater habitat designation that do not attain
the warmwater habitat biological criteria in table 7-17 to this rule because of irretrievable modifications of
the physical habitat. All stream segments designated modified warmwater habitat will be reviewed an a
triennial basis (or sooner) to determine whether the use designation should be changed. A temporary
variance to the criteria associated with this use designation may be granted as described, in paragraph (G)
of rule 3745-1-01 of the Administrative Code.
NUMERIC BIG-CRITERIA
See Table 7-17 below
SOURCE; Ohio Water Standards Administrative Code May 1,1990. Rule 3745-1-07(5),(a),(1),(11),(b);
3745-1-07(B)(1)(a),(c),(d); Table 7-17.
4-9
-------
Ohio Numeric Biocriteria: Table 7-17
Biological criteria for Warm water, Exceptional Warm water, and Modified Warm water Habitats. Description and
derivation of Indices and ecoregions are contained in "Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II.
Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters" cited in paragraph (B) of Rule 3745-1 -03 of the
Administrative Code. These criteria do not apply to the Ohio River, lakes or Lake Erie river mouths.
Modified Warm water Habitat
Index
Sampling Site Channel Mine
tcoregion Modification Affected impounded
I, Index of Biotte Integrity (Fish)
A. Wading Sites2
HELP 22 „ _
IP 24
II.
III.
1
z
3
4
EOLP 24
WAP 24
ECBP 24
B, Boat Sites2
HELP 20
IP 24
EOLP 24
WAP 24
ECBP 24
C. Headwater Sites3
HELP 20
IP 24
EOLP 24
WAP 24
ECBP 24
Modified Index of Weil-Being (Fish)4
A. Wading Sites2
HELP 5.6
IP 6.2
EOLP 6,2
WAP 6,2
ECBP 6.2
B. Boat Sites2
HELP 5.7
IP 5.8
EOLP 5.8
WAP 5.8
ECBP 5.8
Invertebrate Community Index
(Maeroinvertebrates)
A, Artificial Substrate
Samplers2 22
HELP 22
IP 22
EOLP 22
WAP 22
ECBP
HELP = Huron/Erie Lake Plain Ecoregion. IP =
__
24
—
..
_
„
24
—
..
—
..
24
„
_
_
5.5
—
_
. —
_
5.4
_
„
._
30
Interior Plateau
..
._
—
22
30
30
30
30
„
_,
..
_
—
.
.
.
.
-
5.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
—
—
._
Ecoreaion, EOLP
Exceptional
Warm water Warm water
Habitat Habitat
32 .
40
38
44
40
34
38
40
40
42
28
40
40
44
40
' 7.3
8,1
7.8
. 8.4
8.3
8,6
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.5
34
30
34
36
36
50
50
50
50
50
48
48
48
48
48
50
50
50
.50
50
9.4
9.4
9.4
•9,4
9.4
9,6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
46
46
46
46
46
= Erie/Ontario Lake Plain
Eeoregion, WAP = Western Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion. ECPB = Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion
Sampling methods descriptions are found in the "Manual of Ohio EPA Surveillance Methods and Quality
Assurance Practices," cited in paragraph (B) of Rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code.
Modification of the IBI that applies to sites with drainage areas less than 20 souare miles.
Does not apply to sites with drainage areas less than 20 square
(Effective February 14, 1978; April 4,
miles.
1985; August 19, 1985; April 30, 1987; May 1, 1990)
4-10
-------
OKLAHOMA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
(A) Aquatic life In all waterbodies designated Fish and Wildlife Propagation (excluding waters designated
"Trout, put-and-take") shall not exhibit degraded conditions as indicated by one or both of the
following:
(i) comparative regional reference data from a station of reasonably similar watershed size or flow,
habitat type and Fish and Wildlife beneficial use subcategory designation or
(ii) by comparison with historical data from the waterbody being evaluated.
(B) Compliance with the requirements of 785:45-5-12(e) (5) shall be based upon measures including,
but not limited to, species tolerance, trophic structure, dominant species, indices of biotic integrity
(IBI's), indices of well being (IWB's), or other measures.
SOURCE: Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards, 785:45-5-12(e)(5),5-26-92,
OREGON
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Waters of the State shall be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in
the resident biological communities.
DEFINITIONS
"Aquatic species" means any plants or animals which live at least part of their life cycle in waters of the
State,
"Biological criteria" means numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the biological integrity of
aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use,
"Designated beneficial use" means the purpose or benefit to be derived from a water body as designated by
the Water Resources Department of the Commission.
"Indigenous" means supported in a reach of water or known to have been supported according to historical
records compiled by State and Federal agencies or published scientific literature.
"Resident biological community" means aquatic life expected to exist in a particular habitat when water
quality standards for a specific ecoregion, basin, or water body are met. This shall be established by
accepted biomonitoring techniques.
"Without detrimental changes In the resident biological community" means no loss of ecological integrity
when compared to natural conditions at an appropriate reference site or region.
"Ecological integrity" means the summation of chemical, physical, and biological integrity capable of
supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region.
"Appropriate reference site or region" means a site on the same water body, or within the same ecoregion
that has similar habitat conditions, and represents the water quality and biological community attainable
within the area of concern.
SOURCE: Oregon Administrative Rules, State-Wide Water Quality Management Plan; Beneficial Uses,
Policies, Standards, and Treatment Criteria for Oregon 340-41-027,340-41-006 (32),(33),(34),(35),
(36),(37),(38),(39). January 1993.
4-11
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Water may not contain substances attributable to point or nonpoint source waste discharges in
concentration or amounts sufficient to be inimicable or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to
human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
SOURCE: Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards May 1990. Chapter 93.6(a).
SOUTH CAROLINA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Purpose and Scope: It is the goal of the department to maintain and improve all surface waters to a level to
provide for the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community of flora and fauna
and to provide for recreation in and on the water. It is also a goal to provide, where appropriate and
desirable, for drinking water after conventional treatment, shellfish harvesting, and industrial and
agricultural uses.
Applicability of Standards: Mixing zones shall not be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms, shall allow safe
passage of aquatic organisms when passage is otherwise obstructed, and shall allow for the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of aquatic organisms in and on the water body. The
mixing zone size shall be based upon critical flow conditions. The mixing zone shall not be an area of
waste treatment nor shall it interfere with or impair existing recreational uses, existing drinking water supply
uses, existing industrial or agricultural uses, or existing or classified shellfish harvesting uses.
Antidegradation Rules: A new activity or an expansion of an existing activity will not be allowed in Class
ORW orShellfish Harvesting waters if it would exclude, through establishment of a closed safety zone, an
existing shellfish harvesting or culture use. A new activity or expansion of an existing activity which will result.
in a closed safety zone may be allowed in Class SA or SB waters when determined to be appropriate by the
Department.
General Rules and Standards Applicable to All Waters: It is declared to be the public policy of the State to
maintain reasonable standards of purity of the air and water resources of the State, consistent with the
public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, maximum employment, the industrial development of the
State, the propagation and protection of terrestrial and marine flora and fauna, and the protection of
physical property and other resources. It is further declared that to secure these purposes and the
enforcement of the provisions of this Act, the Department of Health and Environmental Control shall have
authority to abate, control, and prevent pollution.
Discharge of fill into State waters is not allowed unless the activity is consistent with Department regulations
and will result in enhancement of classified uses with no significant degradation to the aquatic ecosystem or
water quality.
Derivation of effluent limits: When the derived effluent limit is below the limits of analytical detectability for a
substance, either the derived effluent limit will include an accompanying statement in the* permit that the
detection limit using approved analytical methods will be considered as being in compliance with the limit or
an effluent limit based on limits of decjectability may be established. In both cases, appropriate biological
monitoring requirements will be incorporated into the permit to determine compliance with appropriate
water quality standards. Additionally, if naturally occurring instream concentrations for a substance is
higher than the derived limit, the Department may establish permit limits at a level higher than the derived
lim'rt, but no higher than the natural background concentration. In such cases, the Department may require
effluent bioassays and instream monitoring.
Evaluation of Ambient Water Quality:
(1) If the national criterion described in Section (a) above is lower than the analytical detection limit, the
criterion is not considered violated if the ambient concentration is below the detection limit and the instream
indigenous biological community is not adversely impacted.
4-12
-------
t2> tf \he ambient concentration is higher than the national criterion described in Section (a) above, the
criterion Is not considered violated If biological monitoring has demonstrated that the instream indigenous
biological community is not adversely impacted.
The Department may require biological monitoring in NPDES permits to further ascertain any
bioaccumulatlve effects of pollutants. Biological assessment methods may be employed in appropriate
situations to determine abnormal nutrient enrichment, median tolerance limits (TLm), concentration of toxic
substances, acceptable instream concentrations, or acceptable effluent concentrations for maintenance of
a balanced indigenous aquatic community.
Specific Standards for Surface Waters: All water use classifications protect for a balanced indigenous
aquatic community of flora and fauna. In addition, Trout Natural and Trout Put, Grow, and Take
classifications protect for reproducing trout populations and stocked trout populations, respectively.
SOURCE: South Carolina Water Classifications and Standards Sec. A; Sec. C(7)(a); Sec. D(1)(a); Sec. E
(first paragraph), E(4), E(7)(b)(2), E(7)(c)(1), E(7)(c)<2), E(8)(d), E(10)(b); Sec. F; Sec. G. May 28,1993.
SOUTH DAKOTA
NARRATIVE BIG-CRITERIA
Biological integrity of surface waters of the state. All waters of the state must be free from substances
whether attributable to human-induced point source discharges or nonpoint source activities, in
concentrations or combinations which will adversely impact the structure and function of indigenous or
intentionally introduced aquatic communities.
SOURCE: South Dakota Surface Water Quality Standards. 74:03:02:59. August 8,1994.
TENNESSEE
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Biological Integrity - The waters shall not be modified through the addition of pollutants or through physical
alteration to the extent that the diversity and/or productivity of aquatic biota within the receiving waters are
substantially decreased or adversely affected. The condition of biological communities will be measured by
use of metrics suggested in guidance such as Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers (EPA/444/4-89-001) or other scientifically defensible methods. Effects to biological populations will
be measured by comparisons to upstream conditions or to appropriately selected reference sites in the
same ecoregion.
DEFINITIONS
Ecoregion - A relatively homogenous area defined by similarity of climate, landform, soil, potential natural
vegetation, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant variables.
Reference Site - least impacted waters within an ecoregion that have been monitored to establish a
baseline to which alterations of other waters can be compared.
SOURCE: Tennessee General Water Quality Criteria, November 1994 Chapter 12QO-4-3.Q3(j);1200-4-3-
.04(8); 1200-4-3-.04(7).
VERMONT
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
It is the policy of the State of Vermont to assure the maintenance of water quality necessary to sustain
existing aquatic communities.
In making a determination of the uses to be protected and maintained, the Secretary shall consider the
beneficial values or uses for that water body and:
a. Fish and aquatic life present in the water body;
b. Wildlife that utilize the water body;
c. Habitat, including wetlands, within a water body supporting existing populations of fish, aquatic life,
wildlife, or plant life that is maintained by the water body.
4-13
-------
Aquatic habitat—No change from background conditions that would have an undue adverse effect on the
composition of the aquatic biota, the physical or chemical nature of the substrate or the species
composition or propagation of fishes,
SOURCE: Vermont Water Quality Standards. Sec. 1-02 A.4; Sec 1-02 B.1 .a, b and c; Sec. 3-01 B.5
August 1,1994.
VIRGINIA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITiRIA
All state waters shall be maintained at such quality as will protect all existing beneficial uses attained on or
after November 28,1975 and will support the propagation and growth of all aquatic life, including game
fish, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them,
SOURCE: Virginia Surface Water Standards 5/20/92. VR680-21 -01.2(A).
WEST VIRGINIA
NARRATIVE BIOCRITER1A
No significant adverse impact to the chemical, physical, hydrologic, or biological components of aquatic
ecosystems shall be allowed.
SOURCE: Title 46, Legislative Rules, Environmental quality Board, Series 1, Requirements Governing
Water Quality Standards, 46-1-3.2(1).
AMERICAN TERRITORIES
American Samoa
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Waters shall be substantially free from substances and conditions or combinations thereof attributable to
sewage, industrial wastes, or other activities of man which may be toxic to humans, other animals, plants,
and aquatic life or produce undesirable aquatic life.
Toxic Substances: Compliance with paragraph (a)(4) of this section will be determined by use of indicator
organisms, analysis of species diversity, populations density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate
duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the EQC.
SOURCE: American Samoa Administrative Code; Sec. 24.0201 -24.0211,24.0207(a) CNMI. September
25,1990.
Guam
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
General Criteria Applicable to All Waters: Effects of high temperature, biocide, pathogenic o'rganisms, toxic,
corrosive, or other deleterious substances at levels or combinations sufficient to be toxic or harmful to
human, animal, plant or aquatic life or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water,
shall be evaluated as a minimum, by use of a 96-hour bioassay as described in the most recent edition of
the EPA Manual of ASTM.
SOURCE: Guam Water Quality Standards Sec. II A. Palau Palau National Code; Environmental quality
Protection Act; Marine and Fresh Water Quality Standard Regulations PNC Part 3.1 (e). March 23,1992.
Mariana Islands
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Basic Water Quality Criteria Applicable to All Waters: Ail waters shall be free of substances attributable to
domestic, industrial, or other controllable sources of pollutants and shall be capable of supporting desirable
aquatic life and be suitable for recreation in and on the water
4-14
-------
High temperatures; biocldes; pathogenic organisms; toxic, radioactive, corrosive, or other deleterious
substances at levels or in combinations sufficient to be toxic or harmful to human health or aquatic life, or in
amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water.
Toxic Pollutants: In order that the designated uses of State waters be protected, all waters shall be free
from toxic pollutants in concentrations that are lethal to, or that produce detrimental physiological
responses in human, plant, or animal life. Detrimental responses include, but are not limited to, decreased
growth rate and decreased reproductive success of resident or indicator species and/or significant
alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota.
In order to determine compliance with this section, the Chief may require additional studies of indicator
organisms which include, but are not limited to, analyses of species diversity, species abundance,
reproductive success, population density and growth anomalies. Additionally, effects on human health due
to bioconcentration shall be considered.
SOURCE: Mariana Islands Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands Water Quality Standards, Part
6,6(d),7.10, November 25,1991.
Palau
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
3.1 Basic Criteria Applicable to all Waters:
All waters shall be capable of supporting desirable aquatic life and be suitable for recreation in and on the
.water. In furtherance of this goal, all waters shall be:
(e) Maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to or that produce detrimental
physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be
determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis of species diversity, population density, growth
anomalies, bioassay of appropriate duration or other appropriate methods as specified by the Board.
The survival of aquatic life in waters subjected to waste discharge or other controllable water quality
factors shall not be less than that for the same water body in areas unaffected by the waste discharge or
when necessary for other control water that is consistent with the requirements for "experimental water"
as described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater latest edition. As a
minimum, compliance with this objective as stated in the previous sentence shall be evaluated with a
ninety-six (96) hour bioassay.
SOURCE: Palau National Code; Environmental Quality Protection Act1 Marine and Freshwater Quality
Standards Regulations PNC Part 3.1(e). December 8,19iO.
Puerto Rico
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
Class SA: Coastal waters whose existing characteristics should not be altered in order to preserve the
existing natural phenomena. ,
Class SB: Coastal waters intended for uses...in propagation and preservation of desirable species.
Class SC: Coastal waters...for use in propagation and maintenance of desirable species.
Class SD: Surface waters Intended for...propagation and preservation of desirable species.
Class SE: Surface waters of exceptional ecological value, whose existing characteristics should not be
altered in order to preserve the existing natural phenomena.
DEFINITIONS
Communities—Populations dominated by one species or a specific group of organisms. The community
derives its name from that of the dominant organism (s), such as coral reefs, and including mangroves and
limestone beds.
Desirable Species—Species indigenous to the areas or introduced to the area because of ecological or
commercial value.
4-15
-------
SOURCE: Water Quality Standards Regulation of Puerto Rico. March 2,1983. Article 1; Articles 2.2.1 (A),
2.2.2(A), 2.2.3(A), 2.2.4.(A), 2.2.5(A)
Virgin Islands
NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA
AH surface waters shall be capable of supporting diversified aquatic life.
Class B and Class C~Best usage of waters: For propagation of desirable species of marine life.
SOURCE: Title 12 Virgin Islands Code of Rules and Regulations Chap. 7, Subehapter 186 Water Quality
Standards for Coastal Waters of the Virgin Islands Sec. 186-1,186.3,186.4. May 8,1985.
Questions on the
contacting CandaceSiou
4-16
-------
Section 5. Literature Cited and Information
Sources
Abe, J., W. Davis, T. Flanigan, A. Schwarz, and M. McCarthy. 1992. Environmental Indicators for Surface
Water Quality Program—Pilot Study. EPA-905-R-92-Q001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Chicago, Illinois and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 1992. Standard Operating Procedures and Quality
Control Assurance Manual. Volume II. Alabama Department of Environmental Management.
Montgomery, Alabama.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 1994a. Water Quality Report to Congress for
Calendar Years 1992 and 1993. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Montgomery,
Alabama.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 1994b. Water Quality Trends of Selected Ambient
Monitoring Stations In Alabama Utilizing Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Assessments: 1974-1992. Field
Operations Division, Special Studies Section. Montgomery, Alabama.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 1995. Alabama/Mississippi Pilot Reference Site
Project 1990-1994. Alabama Department of Environmental Management Montgomery, Alabama.
Arcuri, M. 1994. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. Personal communication. 6 October.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 1994. 1994 Water Quality Inventory Report. State
of Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Little Rock, Arkansas.
Bahls, L, R. Bukantis and S. Trades. 1992. Benchmark Biological of Montana Reference Streams.
Periphyton bioassessment methods for Montana streams. Water Quality Bureau, Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena, Montana.
Bahls, L. 1993. Periphyton bioassessment methods for Montana streams. Water Quality Bureau, Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena, Montana.
Bahls, L 1994. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science. Personal communication. 29
August. Water Quality Bureau, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena,
Montana,
Bailey, J. 1995. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Letter faxed to W. Davis. Comments
and corrections on draft report. 29 August.
Banta, W.C. 1993. Biological Water Quality of the Surface Tributary Streams of the District of Columbia.
Occasional Publications of the Department of Biology, American University Volume 2, Number 1.
Washington, D.C.
Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and
measuring biological condition. Chapters, pages63-77, in Davis and Simon (eds). Biological Assessment
and Criteria. Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Bayer, C. 1995a. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft final report. 27 September.
Bayer, C. 1995b. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Fax to W. Davis. Further
documentation on biological methods and metrics. 7 December.
5-1
-------
Bazata, K. 1995. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Personal communication to W. Davis.
Comments on draft report. 18 October.
Beiser, M. 1994. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. Letter to W. Davis. Status of biological
monitoring efforts, Biological Services Section. 9 pages. 6 December.
Beiser, M. 1995. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. Letter to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft final report. 25 August,
Berry, K. 1994. New Jersey Office of Land and Water Planning. Fax to W. Davis. 4 May.
Bode, R. W. 1995. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Faxes to W. Davis.
Comments and corrections on draft final report. 7,8 November.
Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, L.E. Abele. 1993. 20 Year Trends in Water Quality of Rivers and Streams in New
York State Based on Macroinvertebrate Data. 1972-1992. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Stream Biomoriitoring Unit,
Albany, New York.
Bode, R.W., MA. Novak, and L.E. Abele. 1995. implementation and Testing of Biological Impairment
Criteria in Flowing Waters with Suspected Nonpoint Source Pollution. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Stream
Blomonftoring Unit. Albany, New York.
Bode, R.W. and M. A. Novak. 1995. Development and Application of Biological Impairment Criteria for
Rivers and Streams in New York. Chapter 8, pages 97-107, in Davis and Simon (eds). Biological
Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Boca Raton, Florida.
Branham, M. 1994. Illinois EPA. Fax to W. Davis. Monitored miles with biological data in Illinois. 26
September.
Branham, M. 1995. Illinois EPA. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and corrections on draft final report. 15
September.
Broach, J. 1995. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Fax to W. Davis. Comments
and corrections on draft final report. 1 September.
Burnham, D. 1995. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation.
Memorandum to D. Switzer, U.S. EPA Region I. 6 March.
Burnham, D. 1994. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation.
Personal communication. 3 October.
Buller, M. 1994. Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Personal communication. 17 November.
Butler, D. 1994. Oklahoma Conservation Commission. Personal communication. 25 August
California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. California Stream Bioassessment Procedure. California
Department of Fish and Game, Water Pollution Control Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, CA. March
Revision.
Carney, E. 1994, Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Personal communication. 17
November.
Chandler, G.L., T.R. Maret, and D.W Zaroban. 1993. Protocols for assessment of biotic integrity (fish) in
Idaho streams. Water Quality Monitoring Protocols-Report No. 6. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality Bureau, Boise, Idaho. 40 pp.
5-2
-------
Clark, W, H. 1990, Coordinated Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Program for Idaho. Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau, Boise, Idaho,
Clark, W.H. and T.R, Maret. 1993. Protocols for assessment of biotic integrity (macroinvertebrates) in
Idaho streams. Water Quality Monitoring Protocols-Report No. 5. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality Bureau, Boise, Idaho. 55 p.
Connecticut DEP. 1992. State of Connecticut Water Quality Assessment 1992 305(b) Report.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Hartford, Connecticut.
Cooper, J. 1995. Nevada Department of Environmental Protection. Personal communication to Sam
Stribling, Tetra Tech, Inc. General program update. 7 August.
Cooter, W. 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds. Email to W. Davis. Waters assessed with biological data in the water body system. 17
November.
Courtemanch, D.L 1995. Merging the science of biological monitoring with water resource management
policy: Criteria development. Chapter 20, pages 315-326, in Davis and Simon (eds.), Biological
Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Courtemanch, D.L. 1994a. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Personal communication. 21
November.
Courtemanch, D.L. 1994b. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Fax to W. Davis. River miles
monitored using biology. 23 November.
Creal, W. 1994. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Fax to W. Davis. Biological assessment
results for 535 sites. 9 November.
Davies, S.P., L. Tsomides, D.L. Courtemanch, F. Drummond. 1993. Maine Biological Monitoring and
Biocriteria Development Program. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water
Quality Control, Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies. Augusta, Maine.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 1994. 1994 Delaware Watershed
Assessment Report. 40-08/94/04/04. -State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Division of Water Resources, Watershed Assessment Branch. Dover, Delaware.
Denton, R. 1995. Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Personal communication with B. Snyder,
Tetra Tech, Inc. General program status. 18 July.
DeShon, J.E. 1995. Development and Application of the invertebrate Community Index (ICI). Chapter 15,
pages 217-243, in Davis and Simon (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource
Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1994. The District of Columbia
Water Quality Assessment 1994 Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Congress
Pursuant to Section 305(b) Clean Water Act. D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Water
Resources Management Division. Washington, D.C.
Dyer, J. 1994. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Personal communication. 23 August.
Ell, M. 1994. North Dakota Department of Health, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control.
Personal communication. 3 November.
Fewless, D. 1995. North Dakota Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories. Letter to M.
Barbour, Tetra Tech, Inc. 12 July.
5-3
-------
Fiske, S, 1994. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Memorandum to W. Davis. 17
November.
Ffske, S, 1995. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft report. 21 July.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1992. 1992 Florida Water Quality Assessment 305(b)
Mafn Report. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Surface Water Management.
Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. 1994 Florida Water Quality Assessment 305(b)
Main Report. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Surface Water Management.
Tallahassee, Florida.
Ford, J. 1995. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication. No comments on
draft report. 8 September.
Ford, J. 1994. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication. 21 November.
Fountain, J. 1994. Research Triangle Institute. Fax to B. Burgan. 13 June.
Fountain, J. 1995. Research Triangle Institute. Fax to S. Stribling. 29 March.
Frey, R. 1994. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Personal communication. 30
November.
Frey, R. 1995a. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Memorandum to R. Preston. 5
April.
Frey, R. 1995b. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Faxes to W. Davis. Comments
and corrections on draft final report. 1,7 September.
Frey, D. G. 1977. Biological integrity of water — an historical approach. Pages 127-140, in R. K. Ballentine
and L, J. Guarraia (editors). The Integrity of Water. Proceedings of a Symposium. March 10-12,1975. U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Gallant, A. L., T. R. Whittier, D. P. Larsen, J. M. Omernik, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Regionalization as a
Tool for Managing Environmental Resources, EPA-600-3-89-060. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Galloway, E. 1994a. New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau. Personal
communication. 30 August.
Galloway, E. 1994b. New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau. Fax to W.
Davis. 7 November.
Galloway, E. 1995. New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau. Fax to W. Davis.
Comments and corrections on draft final report. 29 August.
Garrison, J. S. (ed). 1994. Maryland Water Quality Inventory. A Report on the Status of Maryland's Waters
and on the Progress Towards Meeting the Goals of the Federal Clean Water Act. Maryland Department of
the Environment, Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management Division. Technical Report #94-002.
Baltimore, Maryland.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Water Quality in Georgia 1992-1993. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, Georgia.
5-4
-------
Gibson, G. R, (editor). 1994. Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and SmaM Rivers. EPA-
822-B-94-QQ1, DRAFT. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology.
Washington, DC.
Giese, J. 1995, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Fax to W. Davis. Concurrence with
draft report. 22 August.
Gumtow, R. 1994. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Personal communication. 15
September.
Hafele, R. 1994. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Personal communication. 16 August.
Hall, L.W.,Jr.( S. A. Fischer, W. D. KNIen,Jr., M.C. Scott, M.C. Ziegenfuss, and R. D. Anderson. 1993. A Pilot
Study to Evaluate Biological, Physical, Chemical, and Land-use Characteristics in Maryland Coastal Plain
Streams. CBRM-AD-94-1. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and
Monitoring Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
HaII,L.W.,Jr., M.C. Scott, W. D. KiHen.Jr. and R. D. Anderson. 1995. A Pilot Study to Evaluate Biological,
Physical, Chemical, and Land-use Characteristics in Maryland Coastal Plain Streams - Year 2.
CBRM-AD-95-8. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
Hand, J. 1994. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Fax to W. Davis. Biological assessment
results used for 305(b) reporting. 22 November.
Hansen, G. 1994a. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Personal
communication. 22 September.
Hansen, G. 1994b. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Personal
communication. 27 September.
Harrington, J. 1995a. California Fish and Game Department. Personal communication. Comments and
corrections on draft report. 16 March.
Harrington, J. 1995b. California Fish and Game Department Fax to W. Davis. Comments and corrections
on draft final report. 1 September.
Harrison, J. 1995a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Fax to W. Davis. 1 March.
Harrison, J. 1995b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Fax to W. Davis. TVA's IBI results
for the Holston River watershed. 11 August.
Hartwell, S.I., C.E. Dawson, D.H. Jordan! and E.Q. Durell. 1995. Demonstration of a Method to Correlate
Measures of Ambient Toxicity and Fish Community Diversity. CBRM-TX-95-1. Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
Hashimoto, J. 1995, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Email to W. Davis. Updates on
Nevada and Hawaii biological assessment programs. 31 July.
Hawaii Department of Health. 1994. 305(b) Water Quality Report for the State of Hawaii. Environmental
Planning Office, Clean Water Branch. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Hayslip, G.A. (ed.). 1993. EPA Region 10 In-Stream Biological Monitoring Handbook (for Wadable
streams in the Pacific Northwest). EPA-910-9-92-013. U.S. EPA Region 10, Environmental Services
Division. Seattle, Washington.
Hayslip, G.A. 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Fax to W. Davis. 31 August
Heath, J. 1994. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. Personal communication. 13 October.
5-5
-------
Hock, J. 1995. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft final report. 5 September.
Hornig, E. 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI. Personal communication. August.
Huggtns, D. G. and M.F, Moffett. 1988. Proposed Biotic and Habitat Indices for Use in Streams. Report No.
35, Kansas Biological Survey. Lawrence, Kansas.
Hughes, R. M. 1995, Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions.
Chapter 4, pages 31-47, in Davis and Simon (eds). Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for Water
Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Hughes, R. M., S. A. Heiskary, W. J. Matthews, and C. O. Yoder. 1994. Use of ecoregioris in biological
monitoring. Pages 125-151, IN S. L. Loeb and A. Spacie (editors). Biological Monitoring of Aquatic
Systems. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
Hughes, R. M., D. P. Larsen, and J. M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for assessing
stream potential. Environmental Management 10:629-635.
Hughes, R. M., T. R, Whittier, C. M. Rohm, and D. P. Larsen. 1990. A regional framework for establishing
recovery criteria. Environmental Management 14:673-683.
Hulcher, V. 1995. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft final report. 8 September.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 1994. The 1994 Idaho Water Quality Status Report. Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho.
Illinois EPA. 1994. Illinois Water Quality Report Volume I: 1992-1993. IEPA/WPC/94-160. State of
Illinois, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water. Springfield, Illinois.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 1992. Indiana 305(b) Report: 1990-1991. Indiana
Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Management. Indianapolis, Indiana.
ITFM 1995. The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States. Final report of the
Intern wernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). (OFR 9i5-742). Office of Water Data
Coor nation, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Methods for Review of Use Designations of Warmwater
Streams in Iowa. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Water Quality
Section. Des Moines, Iowa.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1994. State of Iowa Water Quality Assessment: 1994 305(b)
Report. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality Section. Des Moines, Iowa.
Johnson, A. 1995. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Email to W. Davis. Comments
and corrections on draft report. 21 August.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 1994. 1994 Kansas Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report). Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Topeka, Kansas.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 1992. Kansas Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report)
1992. Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Topeka, Kansas.
Karimi, H. 1995. Water Quality Monitoring Branch, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.
Letter to R. Preston, U.S. EPA Region 3. Comments and corrections on draft report. 28 March.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.
5-6
-------
Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management Ecological
Applications 1:66-84,
Karr, J. R. 1993, Defining and assessing ecological integrity: beyond water quality. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 12:1521-1531,
Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental
Management 5:55-68.
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986, Assessing Biological
Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and Its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey. Special
Publication 5, Champaign, Illinois.
Kazyak, P. F. and P.T. Jacobson.1994. Maryland Biological Stream Survey Sampling Manual.
Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Annapolis, Maryland,
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. 1994. 1994 Kentucky Report to
Congress on Water Quality. Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division
of Water. Frankfort, Kentucky,
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. 1992. 1992 Kentucky Report to Congress on Water
Quality. Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department for
Environmental Protection, Division of Water. Frankfort, Kentucky.
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. 1993. Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of
Surface Waters. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Water Quality
Branch, Ecological Support Section. Frankfort, Kentucky.
King, K.W. 1993. A bioassessment method for use in Wyoming stream and river quality monitoring.
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Kurtenbach, J. 1995, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Environmental Services Division,
Fax to W. Davis. New Jersey biological metrics. 21 July.
Leu, J. 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Water Management Division. Email to W.
Davis. Comments on draft final report. 30 August.
Levine, C. 1994. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science. Personal communication.
19 September.
Lyons, J. 1992. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IB!) to Measure Environmental Quality in Warmwater
Streams of Wisconsin. General Technical Report NC-149. North Central Forest Experiment Station, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota,
MACS. 1993 (draft). Standard operating procedures and technical basis. Macroinvertebrate collection and
habitat assessment for low gradient, nontidal streams. Prepared by The Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams
Workgroup. 24 August. (For further Information, contact John Maxted, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources, 302-739-4590).
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1992. State of Maine 1992 Water Quality Assessment.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Control. Augusta, Maine.
Maret, T., T.A. Burton, G.W. Harvey, and W. H. Clark. 1993. Field Testing of New Monitoring Protocols to
Assess Brown Trout Spawning Habitat in an Idaho Stream. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 13(3): 567-580.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Maryland Biological Stream Survey Design Report.
CBRM-AD-93-1. Maryland DNR, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
5-7
-------
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Summary of Water Quality 1994. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Water Pollution Control and Office of Watershed Management. Boston, Massachusetts.
Maxted, J. 1994b. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Personal
communication. 4 May,
Maxted, J. 1994a. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Personal
communication. 30 November.
Maxted, J. 1995a. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Personal
communication. 18 February.
Maxted, J. 1995b. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Personal
communication. 17 May.
Maxted, J. 1995c. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Note to W.
Davis. Comments and corrections on draft final report. 12 October.
McArdle, J. 1994. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation.
Personal communication. 3 October.
McCarron, E. 1995. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Personal communication with M.
Barbour, Tetra Tech, Inc. Evolution of Florida DEP biomonitoring plan. 20 July.
McCarron, E. 1994. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Personal communication with W.
Davis. Update on program. 22 November.
McConnell, R. 1995. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Fax to W. Davis.
Comments and corrections on draft final report. 2 October.
Metz, C. 1994. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Personal communication. 1
December.
Meyerhoff, R. and P. Spindler. 1994. Biological Sampling Protocols: Reference Site Selection and
Sampling Methods. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, A2.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for
Wadable Streams and Rivers. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division,
Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section. Lansing, Michigan.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Water Quality and Poiiution Control in Michigan 1994
Report. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division. Lansing, Michigan.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1994. 1994 Minnesota Water Quality Assessment Report to the
Congress of the United States Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the 1972 Clean Water Act Covering Years
1992-1993 (October 1991 - October 1993). Minnesota Poiiution Control Agency, Water Quality Division.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Missouri Water Quality Report 1992. Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Program. Jefferson City, Missouri.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 1994. Nebraska 305(b) Report. Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. Lincoln, Nebraska.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. New Jersey 1994 State Water Quality
Inventory Report. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Regulation,
Office of Land and Water Planning. Trenton, New Jersey.
5-8
-------
, S. 1994. \ndiarva Department of Environmental Management. Personal communication. 14
September.
Newman, C. 1995. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Water
Resources, Letter to D. Switzer. 5 March.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1992. Water Quality Progress
in North Carolina: 1990-1991 305(b) Report. Report No. 92-06. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, 1994. State of North Carolina
Water Quality Assessment; 1994 305(b) Report. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Ohio EPA. 1994b. Ohio Water Resource Inventory Volume I: Summary, Status, Trends 1994. Ohio EPA,
Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio EPA. 1994a. Summary Briefing: Ohio Water Resource Inventory Status of Designated Use Support
for Surface Water 1994 Reporting Cycle. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water. Columbus, Ohio.
Oklahoma Conservation Commission. 1993. Development of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
Oklahoma Utilizing Characteristics of the Diatom Community.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 1994. The State of Oklahoma Water Quality
Assessment Report 1994 ed. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
Olsen, P., B. Kurtz, and J. Kurtz. 1994. The Establishment of Ecoregion Biological Reference Sites for
New Jersey Streams: Incorporating Habitat Quality and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. New
Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Bureau of Water Monitoring,
Biomonitoring Operations Section.
Olson, J. 1994. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Letter to S. Stribling, Tetra Tech, Inc. 8
December.
Omernik, J. M. 1995. Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management Chapter 5, pages
49-62, in Davis and Simon (eds). Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for Water Resource Planning
and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1994. Oregon's 1994 Water Quality Status Assessment
Report. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Portland, Oregon.
ORSANCO. 1994. Assessment of Water Quality Conditions: Ohio River Main Stem, Water Years 1992-
1993. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
ORSANCO, 1992. Assessment of ORSANCO Fish Population Data Using the Modified Index of Well
Being (Mlwb). Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
Pearson, E. 1995. North Dakota Department of Health. Email to W. Davis. Comments and corrections on
draft final report. 7 November.
Penrose, D. 1995. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Fax to W. Davis. 29 August.
Penrose, D. 1992. Issue Paper: Status of Biocriteria Development in EPA Region IV, Prepared for The
Southeastern Water Pollution Biologist Association.
Pizzuto, E. 1995. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft final report. 11,18,19 September,
5-9
-------
Plafkin, J. L, M, T. Barbour, K. D, Porter, S. K. Gross, and R, M, Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthlc Macroinvertebrates and Fish, EPA 440-4-89-001. Office
of Water Regulations and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Plotnikoff, R. 1992. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Ecoregion Bioassessment Pilot Project. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, Watershed
Assessments Section. Olympia, Washington.
Plotnikoff, R. 1994c. Instream Biological Assessment Monitoring Protocols: Benthie Macroinvertebrates.
Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental investigations and Laboratory Services, Ambient
Monitoring Section. Oiympia, Washington.
Piotnikoff, R, 1994b. Washington Department of Ecology. Personal communication. 6 September.
Piotnlkoff, R. 1994a, Washington Department of Ecology. Personal communication. 2 December.
Plotnikoff, R, 1995b. Ambient Monitoring instream Biological Assessment: Progress Report of 1993 Pilot
Survey. Publication No. 95-333, Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and
Laboratory Services, Ambient Monitoring Section. Olympia, Washington.
Plotnikoff, R. 1995a. Washington Department of Ecology. Fax to W. Davis. 25 August.
Primrose, N. 1994. Maryland Department of the Environment. Personal communication. Biological
assessment results for 300 sites, 3 November.
Ranasinghe, J.A., S.B. Weisberg, J, Gerritsen, and D.M. Dauer. 1994. Assessment of Chesapeake Bay
Benthie Macroinvertebrate Resource Condition in Relation to Water Quality and Watershed Stressors.
Prepared by Versar, Inc. for The Governors Council on Chesapeake Bay Research Fund and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, MD.
RanWn, E.T. 1995a. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Email to W. Davis. Comments and corrections
on draft final report. 6 September.
Rankin, E.T. 1995b. Habitat Indices in Water Resource Quality Assessments. Chapter 13, pages 181-208,
In Davis and Simon (eds). Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for Water Resource Planning and
Decision Making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Redburn, D. 1995. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Personal communication. 21
February.
Renfrew, R. 1995. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Fax to W. Davis.
Macroinvertebrate status and aquatic life use categories. 12 September.
Repsys, A. 1995. South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. Personal
communication with B. Siiyder, Tetra Tech, Inc. General program update. 18 July.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 1994. The State of the State's Waters - Rhode
Island. A Report to Congress (PL-94-500, 305b). Rhode Island DEM, Division of Water Resources,
Providence, Rl.
Richardson, R, 1995a. Rhode island Department of Environmental Management. Fax to D. Switzer. 8
March,
Richardson, R. 1995b. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Fax to W. Davis.
Comments on draft report and description of biological assessment program. 10 October.
Robinson, C.T. and G. W. Minshall. 1995. Biological Metrics for Regional Biomonitoring and Assessment of
Small Streams in Idaho. By Idaho State University (for Idaho Division of Environmental Quality). Pocatello,
ID,
5-10
-------
Sabins, D. 1995. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft final report. 18 October.
Sabock, D, 1994. Memorandum to Addressees on State Water Quality Standards Information Survey.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards Branch. Washington, O.C. 9 December.
Schertzer, R, 1994. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Personal communication. 6
October.
Schlelger, S. 1995. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Fort Valley,
GA, Letter and attachment to W. Davis. Description of DNR biological assessment program and results
using the Index of Biotic Integrity. 26 September.
Seivard, L. 1995, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division. Fax to W. Davis.
Comments and corrections on draft final report. 29 August.
Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid Bioassessments of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Communities: Biocriteria
Development. State of Arkansas, Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Little Rock, Arkansas.
Shaver, E., J. Maxted, G, Curtis, and D. Carter. Watershed Protection Using an Integrated Approach. Draft
manuscript.
Shepard, L. 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Email to W, Davis. 21 December.
Simon, T. 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V. Personal communication. 22
September.
Simon, T. P., L. L. Hoist, and L. J. Shepard (editors). 1988. Proceedings of the First National Workshop on
Biological Criteria. EPA-9Q5-9-89-OQ3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.
Simon, T. P. 1991. Development of Ecoregion Expectations for the Index of Biotic Integrity for the
Ecoregions of Indiana. I. Central Corn Belt Plain. EPA 905-9-91-025. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois,
Simon, T. P. 1992. Development of Biological Criteria for Large Rivers with an Emphasis on an Assessment
of the White River Drainage, Indiana. EPA 905-R-92-026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Chicago, Illinois.
Simon, T. P. 1994. Development of the Index of Biotic Integrity Expectations for the Ecoregions of Indiana.
II. Huron-Erie Lake Plain. EPA 905-R-92-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago,
Illinois.
Simon, T. P. 1995. Biological Characterization of the Middle Fork Anderson River, Perry County, Indiana.
U.S. EPA Technical Report, Chicago, Illinois.
Smith, G. 1995a. Hawaii Department of Health and Environmental Planning. Personal communication.
15 May.
Smith, G. 1995b. Hawaii Department of Health and Environmental Planning. Email to M. Barbour. 24
May.
Smith, G. 1995c. Hawaii Department of Health and Environmental Planning. Letter and attachment to W.
Davis. Stream bioassessment program in Hawaii. 9 October.
Smith, G. 1995d. Hawaii Department of Health and Environmental Planning. Fax to W, Davis. Comments
and corrections on draft final report. 28 November.
5-11
-------
Smith, G. 1995e, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols and Habitat Assessment Protocols for Streams in
Hawaii: Technical Support for Biological Surveys (draft). Environmental Planning Office, Hawaii
Department of Health, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Smithee, D, 1994. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Personal communication. 24
August,
Smlthson, J. 1994, West Virginia Division of Environmentai Protection. Fax to W. Davis. 18 November.
Snook, H. 1995. Hew Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
corrections on draft final report, 1 September.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1994. Water Quality Assessment Fiscal
Year 1992-1993. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Water
Pollution. Columbia, South Carolina.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1993. State of South Carolina
Monitoring Strategy for Fiscal Year 1993. Technical Report No. 001-92. South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmentai Control, Office of Environmental Quality Control, Bureau of Water Pollution
Control. Columbia, South Carolina.
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1994. The 1994 South Dakota Report
to Congress: 305(b) Water Quality Assessment. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Pierre, South Dakota.
Southeastern Water Pollution Biologist's Association. 1995. April 1995 Newsletter, pages 11-12.
Southerland, M.T. and J.B. Stribling. 1995. Status of biological criteria development and implementation.
Pages 79-94, Chapter 7, in Davis and Simon (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water
Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.
Splndler, P. 1995a. Arizona Department of Environmentai Quality. Letter to W. Davis. 28 June.
Splndler, P. 1995b. Arizona Department of Environ mental Quality. Fax to W. Davis. Comments and
correction on draft final report. 23 August.
Switzer, D. 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I, Fax to W. Davis. Brief overview of state
bioassessment programs in Region I, 8 March.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1995a. Draft Tennessee Standard Operating
Procedures Manual. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution
Control. Nashville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1995b. Draft Tennessee Standard Operating
Procedures Manual: Protocol for Conducting an Index of Biotic Integrity Biological Assessment. Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1994. The Status of Water Quality in
Tennessee: 1994 305(b) Report. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of
Water Pollution Control. Nashville, Tennessee.
Twidwell, S.R. 1994. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Personal communication. 3
October.
TwJdwell, S.R, and J. R. Davis, 1989. An Assessment of Six Least Disturbed Unclassified Texas Streams.
Report No, L.P. 89-04. Texas Water Commission, Austin, Texas.
5-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change.
Office of Water and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Feasibility Report on Environmental Indicators for Surface
Water Programs. Office of Water Regulations and Standards and Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters. EPA 440-5-90-004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a. The Water Monitor. EPA841-N-93-009. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. June
1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. The Water Monitor. EPA841-N-93-008, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C. May
1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to
Congress. EPA841-R-94-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994b. The Water Monitor. EPA841-N-94-009. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C.
October 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994c. The Water Monitor. EPA841-N-94-008. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C.
September 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994d. The Water Monitor. EPA841-N-94-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. March
1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality
Assessments <305(b) Reports). EPA 841 B-95-001. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. The Water Monitor. EPA841-N-95-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. May
1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995c. Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidance for
Programs Using Community Level Biological Assessment in Wadable Streams and Rivers. EPA 841-B-95-
004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. July 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995d. National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress
-Appendices. EPA841-R-95-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington,
D.C. December 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Biological Assessment Methods, Biocriteria, and Biological
Indicators: Bibliography of Selected Technical, Policy, and Regulatory Literature. EPA 230-B-96-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Washington, D.C. December
1995.
Van Arsdall, T. 1994. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. Personal communication. 3
May.
5-13
-------
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 1994, State of Vermont 1994 Water Quality Assessment 305(B)
Report, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality
Division, Waterbury, Vermont.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1994. Virginia Water Quality Assessment for 1994.
Information Bulletin #597, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia.
Whittfer, T.R., DP. Larsen, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, A.L Gallant, and J.M. Omernik. 1987. The Ohio
Stream Regionalization Project: A Compendium of Results. EPA 600-3-87-025. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental.Research Laboratory, Cotvallis, Oregon.
Wilton, T. 1994, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication. 25 August.
Winn, M. 1995, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Fax to W.
Davis, Comments and corrections on draft final report. 1 i September.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report to
Congress 1992. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1994. 1994 Wyoming Water Quality Assessment,
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Yoder, C.O. 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation In Ohio. Pages 327-343,
Chapter 21, fn Davis and Simon (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria; Tools for Water Resource
Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Yoder, C.O, and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio.
Pages 109-144, Chapter 9, in Davis and Simon (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water
Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Zaroban, D. 1994. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Personal communication. 7 August.
Zaroban, D. 1993, Water Quality Advisory Working Committee Designated Stream Segments of Concern
1992-1994. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID. 90 pp.
For additional Information, please see the accompanying bibliography "Biological Assessment
Methods, Blocrlterla, and Biological lnci>~jtors: Bibliography of Selected Technical, Policy, and
Regulatory Literature" (U.S. EPA 1996). •
5-14
-------
Section 6, List of Contacts
State Contacts
ALABAMA
Robert W. Cooner
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
Field Operations Division
P.O. Box301463
Mon^omery, AL 36130-1463
(334)260-2700/272-8131 (fax)
ALASKA
Jeffrey Hock
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality,Technical Services Section
10107 Bentwood Place
Juneau.AK 99801-8552
(907)790-2169
ARIZONA
Patti Spindler
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Standards Unit
3033 North Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602)207-4543/4528 (fax)
ARKANSAS
John Giese
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501)570-2121
CALIFORNIA
Jim Harrington
California Fish and Game Department
Water Pollution Control Laboratory
2005 Nimbus Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916)358-2858/985-4301 (fax)
COLORADO
Robert McConnell
Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303)692-3578/782-0390
CONNECTICUT
Ernest Pizzuto or Guy Hoffman
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Water Management, PERD
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3715 or 3733/566-8650 (fax)
DELAWARE
John Maxted
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
84 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
(302)739-4590/6140 (fax)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Hamid Karimi
Chief, Water Quality Monitoring Branch
DC Environmental Regulation Administration
Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue,SE
Washington, DC 20020-5732
(202)645-6601
FLORIDA
Ellen McCarron
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904)488-0782/6579 (fax)
GEORGIA
Mark Winn, III
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Water Quality Management Program
205 Butler Street, SE, Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404)656-4905
Steve Schleiger
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife Resources Division
Fisheries Management Section
Highway 341 South, Route 3, Box 75
Fort Valley, GA 31030
(912)825-7841
6-1
-------
HAWAII
Gordon Smith
Hawaii Department of Health and Environmental
Planning
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808)586-4351/4370 (fax)
Emaii:gordo@hawaii.edu
IDAHO
Bill Clark
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1253
(208)373-0260/0576 (fax)
ILLINOIS
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362/785-1225 (fax)
INDIANA
Lee Bridges
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
10SS, Meridian
P.O. Box 601S
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)243-5030/5056 (fax)
IOWA
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Water Resources Section
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905/8895 (fax)
KANSAS
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health & Environment
Bureau of Water Protection
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)296-5580/291-3266 (fax)
KENTUCKY
Tom VanArsdale
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
Division of Water
14ReiIIyRoad
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
LOUISIANA
Dugan Sabins
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
P.O. Box82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504)765-0511/0635 (fax)
MAINE
Dave Courtemanch
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House, Suite 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207)287-7789/7826 (fax)
MARYLAND
Niles Primrose
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment
416 Chinquapin Round Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-3238
Paul Kazyak
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Monitoring and Nontidal Assessment
Tawes State Office Building, B-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-3361
MASSACHUSETTS
Arthur Johnson
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
Office of Watershed Management
40 Institute Road
North Grafton, MA 01536
(508)792-7470/839-3469 (fax)
MICHIGAN
William Creal
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
Stevens T. Mason Building
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517)335-4181
MINNESOTA
Judy Helgen
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-7240/7213 (fax)
6-2
-------
MISSISSIPPI
Mike Beiser
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Biological Services Section
1542 Old Whiffield Road
Pearl, MS 39208
(601)939-8553/8773 (fax)
MISSOURI
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(314)751-7024
MONTANA
Bob Bukantis
Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Science
Water Quality Bureau, Cogswell Building
1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620
(406)444-4684/1374 (fax)
NEBRASKA
Ken Bazata
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
301 Centennial Mall
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402)471-4700
NEVADA
Jim Cooper
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702)687-4670/885-0868 (fax)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bob Estabrook
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services
Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301-6528
(603)271-3503/2867 (fax)
NEW JERSEY
Kevin Berry
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
Office of Land and Water Planning
401 East State Street, 4th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)633-1179
NEW MEXICO
Erik Galloway
New Mexico Environment Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505)827-2923/0610 (fax)
NEW YORK
Robert Bode
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3503
(518)285-5682/5601 (fax)
NORTH CAROLINA
Dave Pen rose
North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management
Water Quality Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919)733-6946/9959 (fax)
NORTH DAKOTA
Mike Ell
North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
(701)328-5210/5200 (fax)
OHIO
Chris Yoder
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Assessment Unit
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614)728-3382
OKLAHOMA
John Dyer
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NE Tenth Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405)271-5205
OREGON
Rick Hafeie
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
1712 S.W. 11th Street
Portland, OR 97201
(503)229-5983
6-3
-------
ORSANCO
Jason Heath
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
PENNSYLVANIA
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Management
P.O. Box8465,10th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)783-3638/772-5156 (fax)
RHODE ISLAND
Carlene Newman
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-3961
SOUTH CAROLINA
David Chestnut
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)734-5300
SOUTH DAKOTA
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of the Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Resource Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building Room 425
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605)773-3696
TENNESSEE
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street, L&C Annex, 6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
TEXAS
Charles Bayer
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-4583/4420 (fax)
UTAH
Richard Denton
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6859
VERMONT
Steve Fiske
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation
Agency of Natural Resources
Water Quality Division
1038. Main Street
Waterbury.VT 05671-0408
(802)244-4520/241-3308 (fax)
VIRGINIA
Lou Seivard
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Water Division
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230-1143
(804)762-4121/4522 (fax)
WASHINGTON
Robert Plotnikoff
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box47710
Olympia.WA 98504-7710
(360)407-6687
WEST VIRGINIA
Janice Smithson
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25331-1088
(304)558-2108/5905 (fax)
WISCONSIN
Joe Ball
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Water Resources Management
101 S. Webster Street, GEFil
Box7921
Madison, Wl 53707
(608)266-7390
WYOMING
Dick Johnson
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building, 4th Floor
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307)777-6891
6-4
-------
EPM Contacts
Region 1-Boston
Ray Thompson
US EPA - Region I
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
617-860-4372/4397(fax)
Regional Monitoring Coordinator
Diane Switzer
U.S. EPA-Region I
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
617-860-4343/4397(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
Peter Nolan
U.S. EPA-Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-860-4343/4397(fax)
Regional Biologist
Bill Beckwith
U.S. EPA - Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3539
Regional Standards Coordinator
Region 2 - New York
Randy Braun
U.S. EPA-Region I!
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Raritan Depot, Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
908-321 -6692/6616(fax)
Regional Monitoring Coordinator
Jane Leu
U.S. EPA-Region II
Water Management Division
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-264-3188/2194(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
John Malleck
US EPA-Region II
Water Management Division
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-264-1833/2194(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
Jim Kurtenbach
US EPA-Region II
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Building 10, Bay-B (MS 220)
Edison, NJ 08837
908-321-6695/6616(fax)
Regional Biologist
Wayne Jackson
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212-264-3709
Regional Standards Coordinator
Region 3 - Philadelphia
Chuck Kanetsky
U.S. EPA Region 3 (3ESII)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-8176/7906 (fax)
Regional Monitoring & 305(b) Coordinator
Margaret Passmore
U.S. EPA Region 3 (3ESII)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-6149/79Q6(fax)
Regional Indicators Coordinator
Ron Preston
U.S. EPA - Region 3
303 Methodist Building
11th & Cttapline Streets
Wheeling, WV 26003
304-234-0245/026Q)fax)
Regional Biologist
Evelyn MacKnight
U.S. EPA Region 2
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-4491
Regional Standards Coordinator
Region 4 - Atlanta
Jim Harrison
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street
25th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3396/1799(fax)
Regional Water Quality Expert
6-5
-------
David Melgaard
U.S. EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404-347-2126/3269(fax)
305(b) Coordinator
Regional Monitoring Coordinator
Bill Peltier, Biologist
US EPA-Region IV
960 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30365-2700
706-546-2296/2459(fax)
Regional Biologist
Fritz Wagener
U.S. EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404-347-3555 x 6633
Regional Standards Coordinator
Region 5 - Chicago
Dave Stoitenberg.
US EPA-Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-5784/4342(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
Thomas Simon
U.S. EPA Region 5 (WQ-16J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-8341/886-7804
Regional Biologist
David Pfheiffer
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 609604-3507
312-353-9024
Regional Standards Coordinator
Region 6- Dallas
Charlie Howeli
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8354/7446
Monitoring Coordinator
Regional Biologist
Russell Nelson
U.S. EPA - Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-6646/6490(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
Cheryl Overstreet
U.S. EPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-655-6643
Regional Standards Coordinator
Region 7 - Kansas City
John Houlihan
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7423/7765(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
Larry Shepard
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7441
Regional Standards Coordinator
Lyle Cowles
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-5042/5218(fax)
Regional Monitoring Coordinator
Mike Tucker/Gary Welcker
US EPA - Region VII
25 Funston Road
EMCM/ENSV
Kansas City, KS 66115
913-551-5080/5079 (fax)
Regional Biologists
Region 8 - Denver
Phil Johnson
U.S. EPA Region 8 (SWM-vVQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
303-293-1581/1386(fax)
Monitoring Coordinator
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
6-6
-------
B\tt \Nuerthele
U.S. EPA Region 8
One Denver Place
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
303-312-6280
Regional Standards Coordinator
Loys Parrish
US EPA - Region VIII
P.O. Box 25366
Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
303-236-5055/5109(fax)
Regional Biologist
Region 9 - San Francisco
Ed Liu
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
4.15-744-1934/1078(fax)
Regional Monitoring Coordinator
Janet Hashimoto
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1933/1078(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
Peter Husby
US EPA - Region IX
Water Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
510-412-2331/2304(fax)
Regional Biologist
Phil Woods
US EPA - Region IX
Water Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1997
Regional Standards Coordinator
Region 10 -Seattle
Gretchen Hayslip
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1685/01.19(fax)
Regional Monitoring Coordinator
Regional Biologist
Donna Walsh
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-8293/0119(fax)
Regional 305(b) Coordinator
Lisa Macchio
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue (WS-139)
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1834
Regional Standards Coordinator
6-7
-------
EPA Headquarters Contacts
Barry Burgan
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Office of Water, Monitoring Branch
401 M Street, SW (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7060
National 305(b) Coordinator
Wayne Davis
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
401 M. Street, SW (2162)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-4906
Water Indicators Liaison
Chris Faulkner
U. S. EPA
Office of Water, Monitoring Branch
401 M Street, SW (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6228
National Biological Monitoring Program
Elizabeth Fellows
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Office of Water, Monitoring Branch
401 M Street, SW (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7062
Chief, Monitoring Branch
Coordinator - Water Indicators
George Gibson
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Central Lab, Suite 200
201 Defense Highway
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-
Natlonal Blocriteria Program
Jim Home
U.S. EPA Headquarters
(WH-546)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-
National Goals Project- Water
Susan Jackson
Office of Water
U.S. EPA Headquarters
401 M Street, SW
Room E-940
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1800
National Biocriteria Program
William Painter
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
401 M Street, SW (2124)
Washington, DC 20460
Donna Reed
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW (4203)
Washington, DC 20460
National Permitting Program
Candace Stoughton
US Environmental Protection Agency
(WH-586)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-
National Biocriteria Program
Peter Truitt
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
401 M Street, SW (2162)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-
Coordinator National Goals Project
6-8
------- |