REPORT OF
THE NATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON
INSTREAM BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING AND CRITERIA
-------
REPORT OF
THE NATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON
INSTREAM BIOLOGICAL MONITORING AND CRITERIA
held in
LINCOLNWOOD, ILLINOIS
DECEMBER 2-4, 1987
sponsored by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, DC
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INSTREAM BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA COMMITTEE
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS
CORVALLIS, OREGON
-------
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
Terminology iii
Executive Summary v
I. Introduction 1
II. Biocriteria in State Programs 4
III. Workgroup Summaries and Recommendations
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 7
Water Quality Standards 9
Sampling and Data Evaluation For Fish and Benthic
Macroinvertebrates 12
Ecoregions 18
Bibliography 21
Appendices
A. Region V Draft Statement 23
B. Speakers and Workgroup Leaders 27
C. List of Participants 30
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This national workshop was sponsored by the U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
U.S. EPA Region V Instream Biological Criteria Committee, and U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory -- Corvallis through U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3246 to Northrop Services, Inc.
Funding for the invited speakers' expenses was provided by U.S. EPA Office of Water.
The principal contributors to this report were Wayne Davis, Jim Luey and Thomas Simon, Region
V; John Maxted and Jim Plafkin, Office of Water; Robert Hughes and Thorn Whittier, Northrop
Services, Inc. The workshop and this report could not have been accomplished without the interest
and support of: the Director of the Office of Water Regulations and Standards; the Directors of
Region V's Water, and Environmental Services Divisions; and the Director of the Environmental
Research Laboratory — Corvallis.
Essential contributions came from the States' Representatives and academic researchers who spoke
at the workshop, who are listed in Appendix B, and from all participants in the workgroups
through their discussions at the workshop and their review of this document. Susan Davies, James
Giattina, John Giese and Chris Yoder served as official reviewers. Thorn Whittier assembled and
edited this report.
Copies of this report are available from:
U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (WH 585)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Atten: John Maxted or James Plafkin
or
U.S. EPA Region V
Instream Biological Criteria Committee
536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA)
Chicago, IL 60605
Atten: Wayne Davis
or
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Atten: Thorn Whittier
11
-------
TERMINOLOGY
This section "defines" some of the terms used at the Workshop. These are working definitions
only, and somewhat general; they are presented for purposes of clarification and continuity in
this report. It is apparent from discussions at the workshop and from comments to earlier drafts
of this document, that many of these terms are used inconsistently or are misunderstood. The U.S.
EPA should provide clear definitions for these terms and foster consistent usage.
Standards -- the legally established State rules consisting of two parts, designated uses and criteria.
Designated Uses -- the purposes or benefits to be derived from a waterbody, e.g., drinking water,
aquatic life.
Criteria — the conditions presumed to support or protect the designated use(s), e.g., dissolved
oxygen not less than 5 mg/1 to protect a cold-water fishery use designation.
Biocriteria — the numerical or narrative expressions of the biological characteristics of ambient
aquatic communities (often structural measures, e.g., species composition, organism
abundance and diversity). Biocriteria, as generally applied in State programs, are designed
to reflect attainable characteristics under minimally impacted conditions. As such,
biocriteria describe the ecological potential for aquatic community health in a given
watershed, drainage basin or ecological region.
Ambient (Instream) Biological Sampling -- the process of collecting a representative portion of
the organisms living in the waterbody of interest, to determine the characteristics of the
lotic or lentic aquatic community. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrates are usually sampled.
This term includes short- or long-term surveys and monitoring.
Biosurvey -- used synonymously with ambient biological sampling, in this report.
Biological Integrity -- a measure of the state of health in aquatic communities. A healthy aquatic
community is a balanced community of organisms having a species composition, diversity
and functional organization comparable to that found in natural (unimpaired) habitats in
the region (Karr et al. 1986). Also called "Biotic Integrity".
Bioassay — the procedure of exposing test organisms, in a laboratory setting, to various
concentrations of suspected toxicants or dilutions of whole effluent.
Toxicity Test — used synonymously with bioassay, in this report.
Jn Situ Bioassay — is conducted on test organisms, in the ambient water or discharge mixing
zones, for known exposure periods, e.g., with caged fish or clams.
Chemical-Specific Criteria — criteria that set specific allowable concentrations of individual
chemicals in the water. These criteria are presumed to be protective of the designated
aquatic life uses, as well as other uses, e.g., drinking water or human health ("swimmable"
conditions).
Whole Effluent Testing ~ a bioassay using the complete discharge "as it comes from the pipe",
as opposed to separate bioassays on the individual component chemicals.
Ecoregions — broad scale areas with a common ecological characteristic, e.g., Central Corn Belt
Plains, Western Allegheny Plateau, etc. Also called Ecological Regions.
iii
-------
Biosurveillance -- used synonymously with biosurvey in this report. Also can be used to describe
a series of systematic biosurveys.
Bioassessment -- assessment of the condition of a waterbody using any available biological
methods. Biosurvey and bioassay are common bioassessment methods.
Biomonitoring -- is conducted to ensure standards or effluent limitations are being met using
either the ambient community or toxicity tests.
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the National Workshop on Biocriteria was to assess the role of biocriteria* and
information generated by ambient biological sampling in the State and Federal surface water
programs. This workshop was convened, in part, in response to the Water Quality Act (WQA)
of 1987, Section 303(c)(2)(B), which requires U.S. EPA to develop criteria based on biological
assessment methods when numerical criteria are not established for the priority pollutants listed
in Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA); and in part to bring together a nationwide group
of aquatic biologists and water resource managers who are presently developing and/or applying
biocriteria to protect or restore the biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
This report summarizes the recommendations of the workshop and illustrates to regulatory agencies
that biosurveys are an important monitoring and evaluation tool, and that biocriteria can provide,
in a quantifiable regulatory context, a measure of the attainment of the interim goals of Section
101(a)(2) of the WQA.
The workshop participants represented 18 States, nine U.S. EPA Regional offices, three EPA
laboratories and three headquarters Offices and Divisions, as well as other organizations and
universities (TVA, U.S. Geological Survey, Environment Canada, etc.). This illustrates the interest
in biological criteria and ambient biological sampling to protect the Nation's waters, and the need
for guidance and support in developing these tools.
STATE APPROACHES TO BIOCRITERIA
In the past, the U.S. EPA and States have generally been discouraged by: perceived problems of
variability, complexity, and cost of assessing ambient biological conditions; applying such
information to water resource management; setting standards and assessing attainment of those
standards; and formulating and implementing regulatory controls. However, several States have
independently found that reliance solely on chemical-specific criteria and toxicity tests is
insufficient for protecting aquatic life designated uses as mandated by the WQA. These States
have therefore included biocriteria in developing a more integrated approach to the protection
of aquatic life. At the Biocriteria Workshop, ten States presented their development and use of
biocriteria and biosurvey methods. While no two States use exactly the same biocriteria and
biosurvey procedures, several common themes were evident from their presentations:
o States in different regions of the country face different problems and conditions, but
appropriate biocriteria have been established to successfully address many of these
problems. There is considerable potential for applying similar ambient biological sampling
methods among neighboring States that share similar ecological regions.
o Within each State, extensive knowledge concerning the biological conditions of the
waterbodies exists among State regulatory personnel and academic researchers. These
experiences, in combination with databases from biological surveys can provide the initial
framework for establishing biocriteria and developing biosurveys (i.e., no State needs to
start from a "no information" position).
o In the ten States presenting papers at the workshop, professional aquatic biologists have
been active participants in the process of establishing biocriteria, performing biosurveys,
analyzing data, and writing and reviewing reports.
Boldface terms "defined" in the Terminology Section p. iv.
v
-------
All ten States use systematic and standardized methods to collect and analyze ambient
biological community based data (as opposed to indicator species). Measures of biological
integrity range from a fairly simple diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrate
communities, to a combination of several more complex measures of aquatic community
health. All of these data measure deviation from conditions found in minimally impacted
reference sites.
Biosurvey data have been used primarily to establish designated uses and assess their
attainment. Biocriteria and ambient biological sampling have been integrated into existing
State programs (monitoring, permits, nonpoint source assessments, etc.).
Valuable information can be obtained without performing intensive, complete surveys of
ambient biological conditions. The costs of biosurveys make them competitive with toxicity
testing and chemical-specific analyses.
WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Workshop's major recommendations are: (1) the concept of biocriteria and the information
generated by ambient biological sampling should be integrated into the full spectrum of State and
Federal surface water programs; and (2) the U.S. EPA should provide strong guidance to, and
support for, State programs using these concepts. The development and implementation of
biocriteria and ambient biological assessments is consistent with National statutory and regulatory
mandates and clearly consistent with National policy. These conclusions are based upon a
consensus of workshop participants and the practical experiences described by the States'
representatives.
The Workshop was a forum for discussion and formulation of specific recommendations for the
continued development and implementation of biocriteria. A summary of recommendations
follows:
o The use of ambient biological sampling should be supported in State programs to identify
aquatic life use impairment due to toxic and conventional parameters, from point and
nonpoint sources. The States should use biosurvey data to evaluate aquatic life use
attainability and attainment for WQA Sections 305(b), 304(1), 314, and 319 reporting
requirements; spill evaluations; and "monitoring for environmental results."
o U.S. EPA should prepare a Technical Support Document for Development of Biocriteria
and Use of Ambient Biological Sampling in surface water programs. This guidance would
be consistent with requirements in the WQA Section 304(a)(8) and can be developed using
information from existing State and U.S. EPA programs. States should be permitted
flexibility to use methods and approaches suitable to their needs.
o In general, biosurvey data should be considered the optimum means to assess attainment
of designated aquatic life uses. However, if chemical-specific, toxicity, and biosurvey
methods yield apparently contradictory indications, none of the three types of evaluation
should be assumed, a priori, to be superior to the others; rather the quality and
appropriateness of the data used in each approach should determine the course of action.
A protective strategy for decision making should be adopted in these cases until further
studies are completed.
VI
-------
The integration of biocriteria, and biosurvey and physical habitat assessment data into
surface water programs should consider the relative strengths and appropriate uses of all
assessment tools to maximize the effectiveness of monitoring programs. Integration into
the effluent limits should be through the wasteload allocation and water quality standards
process using a protective "weight of evidence" evaluation of information from all
assessment tools. Guidance is needed on procedures to make these evaluations.
Appropriate controls should not be withheld in the absence of any particular piece of
information from biological or chemical assessments.
Technology and information transfer among States, U.S. EPA and other Federal agencies,
and academic institutions should be promoted. Simultaneous implementation of public
education and participation programs for ambient biological studies will result in better
understanding of the needs and goals of the regulatory agencies.
The ecoregion concept and ecoregional reference sites should be used as:
benchmarks for evaluating use attainment and defining biological, chemical and
physical integrity;
alternatives, or supplements, to upstream reference and downstream recovery sites;
tools to evaluate nonpoint source influences, as well as point source impairment; and
a framework for developing ecoregional biocriteria and water quality standards.
A process should be developed for site-specific criteria (both chemical and biological)
modification that incorporates biosurvey data.
The Agency should support the development, evaluation, implementation, and use of
numerical biocriteria by the States. These numerical criteria should be used to translate
narrative criteria for protecting aquatic life uses into more quantifiable measures of
attainment.
vn
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this workshop was to assess the role of biocriteria and information generated by
ambient biological sampling in the variety of surface water programs. The workshop was
convened in response to (1) the 1987 Office of Water report, Surface Water Monitoring: A
Framework For Change, calling for increased ambient biomonitoring and an improved framework
for monitoring, assessment and reporting, and (2) the sections of the Water Quality Act (WQA) of
1987, which amended the Clean Water Act (CWA), referring directly to biological assessments,
requiring:
o restoration and maintenance of biological Integrity, Sec. 101;
o U.S. EPA to develop criteria based on biological assessment methods when numerical
criteria for toxicity are not established, Sec. 303(c)(2)(B); and
o guidance and criteria based on biological monitoring and assessment methods,
Sec. 304(a)(8).
There are several other sections of the CWA whose implementation would be improved by
biocriteria and biosurvey data, requiring:
o development of improved measures of the effects of pollutants on biological integrity,
Sec. 105;
o guidelines for evaluating Nonpoint Sources (NFS), Sec. 304(f);
o lists of waters unable to support balanced biological communities, Sec 304(1);
o biennial reports of the extent to which waters support balanced aquatic communities,
Sec. 305(b);
o assessments of lake trophic states and trends, Sec. 314;
o lists of waters that cannot attain designated uses without additional NFS controls, Sec. 319;
and
o prohibitions against dredge and fill disposal adversely affecting balanced wetland
communities, Sec. 404.
In addition, there are several U.S. EPA program activities that address biological assessments;
including, the 305(b) reporting guidance, the Surface Water Monitoring Strategy, the Water
Quality-based Program Policy (49 FR 9016), the Rapid Bioassessment Protocol, and the Water
Quality Standards Framework being developed by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
This report summarizes the recommendations of the workshop to illustrate to regulatory agencies
that biosurveys are an important monitoring and evaluation tool, and that biocriteria can provide,
in a quantifiable regulatory context, a measure of the interim goals of Section 101(a)(2) of the
CWA.
The workshop participants represented 18 States, nine U.S. EPA Regional offices, three laboratories
and three headquarters Offices and Divisions, as well as other organizations (TVA. USGS,
Environment Canada, etc.) and the academic community. This illustrates the regulatory
Boldface terms "defined" in the Terminology Section p. iv.
1
-------
community's interest in ambient biological assessments and the twin needs for increased use of
biocriteria to protect the Nation's waters and for guidance and support in developing these tools.
A list of workshop participants is in Appendix C. The workshop consisted of two parts. On the
first day, two university researchers related the current state of aquatic ecological knowledge to
biocriteria and biosurvey issues, two speakers from EPA-Office of Water (OW) discussed
conceptual and practical issues facing regulators, a speaker from EPA-Office of Research and
Development (ORD) presented ecological regions as a framework for stratifying variability to solve
regulatory problems, and, most importantly, representatives from ten States presented their
development, methods, and uses of biocriteria (See Appendix B for a list of speakers).
For the remainder of the workshop, attendees participated in one of five discussion groups.
These groups were responsible for defining issues of concern, areas of consensus, and areas
requiring further effort, including research questions as well as the guidance and support needed
to use ambient biological sampling and biocriteria. The discussion topics were: water quality-
based effluent limitation (permits), water quality standards, sampling and data evaluation for fish
and for benthic macroinvertebrates, and use of ccoreglons.
An Overview of Issues
The WQA of 1987 seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters. The U.S. EPA and the States have developed a variety of standards to
achieve these goals, by specifying beneficial uses for waterbodies and criteria to evaluate whether
the uses are being attained (and thus, whether the standards are being met). The traditional
approach to criteria has been to develop chemical-specific limits deemed to be protective of the
designated uses. These limits were usually established by performing single chemical toxicity tests
on test organisms. More recently whole effluent testing has been added to the array of assessment
tools.
This approach to water quality has produced significant improvement in the Nation's waters.
These laboratory derived criteria are particularly appropriate for designated uses related to human
activities, e.g., drinking water, irrigation water, human contact (swimming, water skiing), etc.
Chemical-specific criteria and subsequent water quality sampling are essential to establish effluent
limitations in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits program. The
chemical-specific criteria approach also has been applied to protecting designated aquatic life uses.
However, an increasing body of evidence indicates that regulatory agencies cannot rely solely on
these criteria without also sampling the ambient biological communities to verify the results of
pollution control measures.
The existing criteria are insufficient to protect aquatic life uses for two main reasons. Primarily,
they are laboratory-based simulations that cannot address all factors affecting resident aquatic
communities (e.g. habitat limitations, additive impacts of multiple dischargers, etc.). Thus they
are only surrogates for actually evaluating for achievement of the desired results. There are
several related limitations to single chemical toxicity tests: they have been completed on a minority
of the suspected toxicants; they cannot assess bioaccumulation and indirect (food chain,
competition, etc.) effects; the test organisms often are not appropriate to the waters in question;
and chemical toxicity changes as receiving water chemistry changes. Whole effluent toxicity
testing compensates for some of these deficiencies, but must be evaluated on a site-specific basis
and is thus relatively expensive. Chemical concentrations and toxicity must be monitored
continuously to effectively track changes in processes, spills, and flows; this is an expensive (and
rare) undertaking for regulators and dischargers.
In addition, chemical-specific criteria cannot always address potential impacts from habitat
modifications and many "npntoxic" pollutants, particularly those from nonpoint sources (e.g.
sediments and nutrients) which affect a vast majority of river miles. These issues are discussed
-------
in more detail in the 1987 Office of Water - Office of Processes, Planning and Evaluation report,
Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework For Change.
In the past, the U.S. EPA and States have generally been discouraged by actual and perceived
problems in sampling and evaluating the health of the ambient "aquatic life" and using this
information in regulation. Natural communities were thought to be too variable and complex to
be precisely and consistently measured and therefore could not be used as the basis for standards
and criteria in the way "hard" data such as chemical concentrations were used. Indices (such as
species diversity) intended to reduce this complexity proved unreliable. There was considerable
debate about sampling methods (what kinds, how extensive/intensive, and where to sample) and
which organisms to sample. Finally, the costs of sampling and evaluating ambient biological
conditions were considered too high for the level of information obtained.
The past ten years of aquatic ecosystem research and assessments support a change in direction.
There is an increased awareness of the limitations of the chemical-specific, toxicological approach,
as outlined above. At the same time the tools for assessing ambient biological conditions (sampling
protocols, sampling gear, ecoregions, new indices, analytical methods, etc.) have been markedly
improved, tested and refined, thus addressing many of the issues that limited the establishment of
biocriteria and use of biosurveys. Most importantly, advances have been made in the development
of more tractable definitions of biological integrity, and the analytical tools to assess the integrity.
These developments have allowed for standardization of sampling and analysis, thus making
workable biocriteria possible.
One result of these improvements is that expensive, intensive biological surveys of all organisms
over long periods are not necessary for many regulatory purposes. Research in field methods has
shown that reliable data, useful for monitoring, can be collected without excessive expense, usually
a few hundred dollars annually per site. This makes biosurvey data especially valuable as a
screening tool, while reserving more expensive investigatory techniques for more complex
situations, e.g., where there is a high probability of litigation.
Biosurveys provide a valuable set of tools to more directly assess attainment of the objectives of
Section 101 of the 1987 WQA; to restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation's
waters. Biological communities integrate impact effects over a variety of spatial and temporal
scales. Water chemistry sampling usually provides only instantaneous "snapshots' of conditions.
Limited biological sampling often suffices to demonstrate ongoing impacts (e.g., "midnight
dumpers", chronic sublethal toxic levels, etc.) that may be missed even by monthly chemical
samples. Meanwhile, equipment costs and increasingly complex chemical analyses are making
chemical-specific regulation relatively more expensive.
On the other hand, biosurvey data indicate effects; they also may indicate the category of pollution
causing an effect on the biological community (e.g., enrichment, siltation, toxicity). As such,
biosurvey data are generally used in a "reactive" manner, e.g., to detect where current controls are
inadequate. Chemical-specific criteria are a "proactive" tool, e.g., to set limits for discharge
permits. These proactive and reactive functions form an important balance in the regulatory
process. Biosurvey data and biocriteria are not meant to replace chemical water quality assessments
and chemical-specific criteria, but should be integrated into the surface water programs to more
fully evaluate and protect water quality.
-------
II. BIOCRITERIA IN STATE PROGRAMS
Several States have been acutely aware that a reliance solely on chemical criteria and toxicity tests
may not be fully protective of aquatic life as mandated in the CWA and State legislation. These
States have begun to develop biocriteria to directly address the protection of aquatic life. At the
workshop, ten States presented their development, methods, and uses of biocriteria. The States
have used four general approaches to develop biological criteria: (1) State law explicitly defines
an appropriate biological use classification system, or a particular biological measure or set of
measures (Maine, Vermont, Florida and Ohio have such legislative mandates). (2) The State
regulatory agency develops detailed lists of characteristic and key organisms expected in healthy
waterbodies for each ecological region (Arkansas uses this approach). (3) The State regulatory
agency develops quantitative numerical criteria based on several biological indices and sets regional
expectations for minimally-impacted waterbodies (e.g., Ohio's numerical biocriteria). (4) The
State regulatory agency uses biosurvey data as decision-support information. Many States currently
use this less structured approach.
Experiences in Common Among States Developing Biocriteria
While no two States use exactly the same set of ambient biological assessment tools, several
common themes were evident from the presentations. This section discusses these themes and
presents an overview of the States' development of biocriteria, the kinds of problems being
addressed, and the sampling methods.
o States in different parts of the country face a variety of water quality problems and natural
conditions. Despite this variety of regulatory issues, several States have been able to
successfully develop appropriate biocriteria tools to address the problems of protecting
aquatic life.
o There is considerable potential for applying similar biosurvey methods among neighboring
states that share similar ecological regions. For example, the southeast Atlantic Seaboard
States (except Florida) all share portions of four distinct ecoregions and should be able to
conserve fiscal resources to develop the needed biosurvey tools.
o Within each State there exists extensive knowledge about the biological condition of the
waterbodies among State regulatory personnel and academic researchers. These experiences
and databases from biological surveys can provide the initial framework for establishing
biocriteria. That is, no State needs to start from a "no information" position.
o In the ten States presenting talks at the workshop, professional aquatic biologists have been
active participants in the process of establishing water quality standards and biocriteria and
in monitoring the environmental results of pollution and pollution controls. This is an
important point, because development of meaningful biocriteria and biosurvey methods
requires knowledge of both aquatic biological communities and the regulatory process.
o All ten States use community-based biological data (as opposed to indicator species) from
ambient biosurveys. These data range from a fairly simple diversity index of
macroinvertebrate communities, to a combination of several more complex measures of
macroinvertebrate and fish community health. All ten States have methodologies to define
benchmarks of attainability to which they compare this community-based data. They have
established levels of deviation from attainable conditions that, when exceeded, warrant
remedial action.
-------
o Biosurvey data have been used to establish and define aquatic life uses, to plan programs
and as a corrective feedback device in monitoring activities. Biocriteria have been
integrated into existing State programs and have not replaced ongoing chemical monitoring
programs.
State Applications of Biosurvev Data and Biocriteria
From a practical standpoint, there are three interrelated issues that bear directly on performing
ambient biological sampling and establishing biocriteria. They are, in broad terms, defining health
or integrity of aquatic communities, developing measurements that address the definition(s), and
applying the information from biosurveys to the legalities of monitoring, standards and permits.
A healthy aquatic community is usually defined as one that possesses a diversity, an abundance
of organisms, a trophic structure, and a species composition closely matching those found in
relatively unimpacted or natural conditions. This definition implies a spatial and ecological
framework for comparing sites. Measuring the health of a system has two components, sampling
(data collection) and analysis of data. States must also decide how to apply this information in
their water quality programs. States implement their findings by determining which waters will
be subject to which measures, which impacts can be assessed biologically, and how to establish
reasonable and adequate standards. A summary of the States' approaches to these three issues
follows.
Data Collection -- Data collection represents a compromise between the resource expended and
the information gained. This compromise is one of the factors that has led to a fairly wide variety
of State biosurvey programs. However, all ten States presenting talks at the workshop have
developed standard field methods and quality assurance documents to insure consistent and
defensible results.
All ten States sample macroinvertebrates in their biosurveys. There was no clear preference
between artificial substrate samplers or sampling natural substrates. The major expense of
macroinvertebrate sampling is in the identification of specimens. This has led to varying levels
of resolution among State programs (e.g.. field identification to the family level as in North
Carolina, subsampling and identifying 100 organisms per sample as in New York's rapid
bioassessment protocol, and identification to the species level and counting all organisms in a large
subsample as with, Ohio and Vermont). The suitability of these levels depends on the impact
being examined, the level of certainty needed, the resolution needed to detect changes, the need
for rapid turnaround and the probability of litigation.
Five of these States also sample fish. Fish sampling requires a larger field effort than for
macroinvertebrates, but the specimens are typically identified to the species level and counted in
the field. Thus, the data are quickly available for analysis. In addition, fish have a greater public
appeal. Four of the States use electrofishing techniques for most of their collecting. Arkansas uses
a combination of electrofishers and rotenone, depending on the waterbody being sampled.
The States also reported collecting physical habitat data. The physical condition of the waterbody
greatly affects the health of the biological communities and the ability of a waterbody to attain
a given use. A separate assessment of the habitat helps to determine whether any measured
impairment to the biota results from water quality or habitat limitations and whether they are
controllable. These data begin to address the issues of nonchemical and nonpoint degradation.
They also help refine the comparability of sites. There is a wide range of uses of this information
among States.
Reference Sites — To assess the level of impact at a site it is necessary to refer to one or more
similar sites that are relatively unimpaired. These are often upstream from a point or nonpoint
source of pollution. All States use this approach for most of their assessments. Many States assess
-------
a point source impact by surveying several upstream and downstream recovery sites to better
evaluate ambient variability.
When conditions upstream are also impacted, the States typically choose reference sites in nearby
streams (or lakes). Four States are beginning to use ecoregions to define attainable conditions.
This allows assessment without paired samples. Ohio developed explicit ecoregional standards for
all stream classes, for fish and macroinvertebrates. Arkansas uses ecoregional species signatures
(profiles) of "characteristic" and "key" fish to define the expected communities in unimpacted
streams. Nebraska and North Carolina are in the process of developing regional criteria.
Interpretation of Field Data — For regulatory purposes there are two parts to the analysis of field
data: defining quantifiable features of the biological community that describe its health, and
comparing those results to some standard usually derived from unimpacted or minimally impacted
communities. The simplest measures of biotic health are species richness and diversity. Florida
defines an impact as reducing the macroinvertebrate species diversity index to less than 75% of
established background levels. Because opportunistic species can colonize a site and inflate the
index, Florida's state biologists have proposed removing these species from their analysis. Other
States calculate species diversity among their analyses, but only Florida's rules have specific
reference to that index.
Another feature of a healthy biotic community is the presence and abundance of species intolerant
of degraded conditions. A growing body of research continues to improve our knowledge of
species' tolerances. Traditionally, three Orders of insects (Stoneflies, Mayflies, and Caddisflies)
have been considered intolerant of a variety of pollution impacts. This relatively coarse level of
resolution (initially developed by North Carolina) is one of the metrics used by New York, Ohio,
North Carolina and others. Maine, Ohio, Vermont and others identify individual species tolerances
to environmental disturbances. Florida uses Beck's Biotic Index of macroinvertebrate tolerances
to pollution and New Mexico uses Winget and Mangum's Biotic Condition Index that was
developed for the Rockies. Fish species tolerances are also used by some States.
There is growing interest in and use of more complex assessments of biotic health. These
evaluations use multiple features of community structure e.g., diversity, abundance, trophic
structure, and tolerance to degradation. The advantage of this type of evaluation is that it
provides a more complete, ecologically sound assessment of the health of the aquatic community.
One approach examines each component of biological integrity serially through a decision matrix.
Maine and Vermont use this approach with macroinvertebrate community data.
The other approach sums the values of individual metrics into one index value. For fish, the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is gaining wider acceptance. Currently, the IBI is most applicable
to small streams and rivers, but research is continuing to expand it for use in major rivers, lakes
and estuaries. Ohio and Illinois are using the IBI and Vermont is modifying it for use in its
streams. Several similar indices are being developed for macroinvertebrate communities. Ohio has
developed an Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) modeled closely on the IBI.
Application of biosurvev data to criteria — There is currently a wide range in the uses of ambient
biological data by the States. New Mexico, Nebraska and North Carolina do not have explicit
biological language in their standards but are considering its inclusion. New York, Illinois and Ohio
have proposed explicit narrative and numerical criteria. Vermont, Maine, Florida and Arkansas
have biocriteria in place. Vermont and New Mexico use biosurvey data primarily to measure the
level of impact of recreational development on mountain streams. Florida uses ambient biological
data to assess impacts from point sources and dredge/fill operations. Maine has developed a
detailed decision matrix to assess whether a waterbody is attaining its designated uses. Ohio's
proposed criteria use ecoregional values for several indices of biotic health to assess point and
nonpoint source, and habitat impacts and as an arbiter of aquatic life use attainment.
-------
Thus, despite diverse natural settings and legislative mandates, at least ten States have taken a
community oriented approach to analyzing biosurvey data and to applying the results to regulatory
decision making and planning.
III. WORK GROUP SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To facilitate effective consideration of the diverse technical, and program/policy related issues
specific discussion groups were established to address each major topic. This section summarizes
the discussions of the five workgroups. Some recommendations were presented by more than one
group. These repetitions emphasize the importance of those issues, and concurrence among groups
working independently, while showing their relationship to each topic. The recommendations of
the two sampling and data evaluation workgroups (for fish and for benthic macroinvertebrates) are
combined to present an overview of biological sampling and data issues related to the surface water
programs.
WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATION (PERMITS) WORKGROUP
Technical Support Document for Biocriteria and Biosurvev
Standardized, documented methods and procedures are necessary to integrate biocriteria and
biosurvey information into the water programs. Further, development and documentation of these
procedures are particularly critical to their integration into the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits program.
To promote and guide development of these procedures, it is recommended that U.S. EPA produce
a Technical Support Document that describes the use of ambient biosurveys and development of
biocriteria. This document should draw upon the experiences and knowledge of the existing State
programs while encouraging States to tailor biosurvey programs to their specific needs. The
document should present guidance on a broad range of subjects to include:
o The necessity and description of standard operating procedures. Carefully conceived and
documented field and laboratory procedures are essential for effective evaluation of impacts
and for enforcement of standards;
o Quality assurance/quality control plans. These are an integral part of standardized
operating procedures;
o The use of specific indices, i.e., definitions of each index, what each measures, the range
resolution each provides, and appropriate uses for each category of regulatory concern;
o The ecoregion concept and regionalization of criteria, both biological and chemical;
o Consideration of the appropriate uses (and limitations) of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for fish and macroinvertebrate community evaluation.
A Biocriteria "Policy" Document
The Region V draft statement "Regarding the Use of Ambient Biosurvey Data in Implementing
the Objectives, Goals and Policies of the Clean Water Act" served as the focal point for the
workgroup's discussions regarding integration of biocriteria and biosurvey data into the regulatory
permits program. The Region V statement was subsequently redrafted, based on recommendations
contained in this report. The concepts contained in the statement are broadly applicable and this
-------
workgroup recommends the statement (Appendix A) as a guide for the Office of Water and other
Regions and States. The following are specific recommendations from this workgroup.
Most importantly, biosurvey information should be used, where applicable in all surface water
programs, to include broad use in monitoring, planning, water quality standards, permitting,
hazardous waste, wetlands and other programs.
To facilitate integration of biosurvey data specifically into the regulatory permits program:
o The U.S. EPA should actively encourage the States to use ambient biological sampling as
an additional monitoring tool for toxicity screening and environmental problem discovery.
o lo general, site-specific biosurvey data should be considered the optimum assessment of
attainment of designated aquatic life uses. However, if chemical-specific, toxicity, and
biosurvey methods yield apparently contradictory indications, none of the three types of
evaluation should be assumed, a priori, to be superior to the others. Rather, the quality
of the data and analysis used in each of the three approaches should determine the
appropriate course of action.
o An integrated approach should be taken in the development of NPDES permit limitations,
using a weight of evidence evaluation of bioassay, biosurvey, and chemical-specific
information at a level of complexity dictated by site-specific concerns. The necessity of
any particular piece of information should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
o Although many population effects are revealed, it should be recognized that biosurvey
information may not address potential wildlife or human health concerns, allocations
necessary to prevent the cumulative impacts of long-term low level discharges to lakes and
wetlands, or potential accumulation of pollutants to deleterious levels in sediment or tissue.
o Discussion of the use of biosurvey data in the water programs should be included in an
update of the Regional Water Monitoring Strategy.
o Personnel performing ambient biological sampling should be actively involved in
formulating and approving water quality based permitting requirements in State and
Regional programs.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WORKGROUP
The discussion focused on two main topics. First, does the water quality standards program need
criteria that are based on assessments of the resident biological community? The States have
limited resources and are justifiably reluctant to develop new types of criteria and assessment
procedures, unless there is a clear and convincing need for them. Second, how can those States
that are interested in biocriteria incorporate them into their standards and what needs to be done
next, by both EPA and the States? The experiences of the States that have developed biocriteria
were discussed. A summary of the uses of biosurvey data and biocriteria in several States is
presented in Section II
Biosurvev Data and Biocriteria Fill a Critical Gap in the Standards Program
Ambient biological sampling provides a direct assessment of the biological community in the
waterbody being evaluated, and therefore, a measurement of aquatic life use attainment that cannot
be obtained by laboratory-based criteria, (chemical-specific, toxicity or whole effluent testing).
Biocriteria provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of existing pollution controls and for
identifying previously unknown sources of impairment. They also can be used to identify where
site-specific criteria modifications are needed. Currently, there is no ecologically based mechanism
within the standards program for evaluating the appropriateness of existing criteria for protecting
aquatic life uses. It is necessary to recognize the value of biosurvey data or the adoption of
biocriteria in State standards to provide a "reality check" on State and Federal chemical-specific
criteria.
There are no criteria to address many pollutants from nonpoint sources, particularly sedimentation
and its effect on aquatic habitats. Nonpoint sources are the major causes of surface water use
impairment (Judy, et al. 1984). The Agency policy on nonpoint source control (updated SAM-32,
of 1987) recommends that biological assessments and other site-specific evaluations (e.g., for
physical habitat degradation) be used to determine the effectiveness of Best Management Practices
(BMP's).
Biosurvey data and biocriteria can also be applied to use attainability analyses. Biocriteria, coupled
with regional use classifications, such as those that employ the ecpregion concept, provide a more
quantitative basis for establishing aquatic life uses. This specificity is often necessary to identify
use impairment. These tools provide an effective mechanism for characterizing the ecological
value of high quality waters, i.e., those waters that possess exceptional water quality or that
support sensitive and/or endangered aquatic species. This evaluation of high quality waters is a
necessary component of State antidegradation policies and State standards.
Biocriteria and biosurvey data provide a screening tool for other programs such as monitoring and
permits. These tools along with all other relevant information such as chemical-specific and whole
effluent criteria, should be used in the permit setting process. Conflicts between these assessment
approaches should be resolved using a "weight of evidence" approach, which considers the "power"
of each type of assessment to address the issues and the level of resolution of the data. The lack
of evidence of biological impairment in the receiving water should not preclude establishing permit
limits based on other evidence. Biosurvey data maybe useful in modifying the application of
chemical-specific and bioassay based criteria.
Characterization of a waterbody based on biosurvey data and in terms of biological criteria is more
understandable to the general public and encourages their involvement in the regulatory process.
-------
Biocriteria Development in State Programs
Many of the applications discussed above do not require any changes in State water quality
standards statutes. They include the following:
o Use attainability analyses
o Identifying areas where site-specific criteria (both biological and chemical) are needed
o Characterizing the value of high quality waters as required by antidegradation statutes
o Determining the need for additional controls
o Identifying previously unknown sources of pollution
o Use attainment to achieve the swimmable/fishable goals of the CWA.
Some minor modifications or clarifications of State statutes may be warranted to better describe
the specific applications of biosurvey data (and biocriteria where they exist) in the standards.
Existing aquatic life and fishery use designations generally do not adequately describe the types
of organisms that should be found in the waterbody. Uses are generally distinguished only as
warmwater and coldwater aquatic life (usually meaning salmonid and nonsalmonid waters). This
has been adequate where one numeric criterion is developed for a particular contaminant; e.g.,
national criteria recommendations under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. However, there
are several examples that show that national criteria are not applicable in all cases; e.g., natural
conditions (regional patterns in Arkansas dissolved oxygen), species composition responses to
impacts in warmwater habitats, etc.
There is evidence that the need for site-specific criteria (biological, chemical and physical) may
follow regional patterns similar to those developed by Omernik (i.e., ecoregions). The biosurvey
information used to define these patterns can be used to develop more descriptive designated uses.
The Ohio and Arkansas standards are examples of ecoregional use designations that describe the
types of species that should be found in waterbodies within each class. These more descriptive
use classes provide a basis for site-specific criteria, conducting use attainability analyses, long-
term monitoring, problem discovery, etc. In addition, designated uses based on species composition
allow for greater public involvement in a range of surface water programs.
Biocriteria can be numeric, narrative, or both. Where a narrative statement is used, a process
should be in place that describes how biological information will be collected and evaluated to
determine compliance. This is similar to the implementation procedure required for the narrative
criteria currently in all State standards. Biocriteria should initially be narrative until sufficient
data have been collected to develop numeric criteria. Narrative criteria can take the form of a
general statement that the waterbody exhibit an unimpaired biological community. This must be
supported by procedures to evaluate the level of impairment. Maine's standards are an example
of appropriate use of narrative criteria.
Numeric criteria may be based on individual measurements or indices such as species richness,
diversity, trophic composition, abundance or biomass. Preferably, they should also integrate
several indices to provide an overall measure of aquatic health, e.g., Karr's Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI), Gammon's Index of Weil-Being (IWB), or the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI).
Ohio's standards, for example, set regional numeric biocriteria for all three of these indices.
Implicit in any "standard" is the issue of comparability. In the case of biocriteria, the standards
are biological conditions in relatively unimpacted waterbodies. When assessing suspected impacts
on the biological community, and appropriate nearby unimpacted stations exist upstream, the
10
-------
biological characteristics of upstream and downstream reaches can be directly compared. This
would be most applicable in high quality headwater streams. Where such stations do not exist,
(e.g. heavily industrialized waterbodies, waters impaired by nonpoint sources or large waterbodies
such as lakes and estuaries) the biological quality must be compared to similar (usually nearby)
unimpacted or less impaired waterbodies. Another approach uses data from a set of minimally
impacted reference sites that are considered to be similar ecologically. This approach does not
require paired sample comparisons and is often used in conjunction with the ecoregion
methodology for defining relatively homogeneous areas and a series of minimally impacted
reference reaches. State standards should allow both types of methods for using biosurvey data
and when establishing biocriteria.
It is recommended that:
o States begin developing biocriteria. Biocriteria and ambient biological surveys fill important
gaps in the water quality standards program.
o EPA develop national guidance on the use of biocriteria and biosurvey data in the water
quality-based program; similar to the 1985 Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control". This should include guidance on physical habitat
assessments.
o EPA develop a national policy on the inclusion of biocriteria in State standards and clarify
how this information will be used in the surface water programs. This policy should
clarify the legal basis for application of biocriteria and biosurvey data.
o Further evaluations be made of how biosurvey information compares with chemical-specific
or whole effluent assessments.
11
-------
SAMPLING AND DATA EVALUATION: FISH AND BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
WORKGROUPS
Two aquatic life discussion groups were established, one for fish and the other for benthic
macroinvertebrates. The intent of separating these workgroups was not to discourage exchange
between them but to consider the particular attributes of each aquatic life groups in greater detail.
The experiences and knowledge of the participants convinced us that evaluation of both aquatic
life groups is clearly optimal and often necessary. We do not advocate the routine use of one
group over the other on a programmatic basis. The knowledge and professional experience of a
qualified field biologist should be applied to decide how best to biologically assess a particular
environmental project.
Surface Water Program Issues
Ambient biological sampling and evaluation of these data should be integrated into a variety of
State and Federal surface water programs to more completely assess and monitor the health of the
Nation's waters. Biosurveys improve our ability to assess attainment and nonattainment of aquatic
life uses, as well as enhance use attainability studies. These assessments should be included among
the measures of the success of pollution abatement programs.
Biosurvey data should be used for surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement of water quality
standards for point source discharges. These data enable evaluation of multiple point sources, and
can be used to identify additive impacts of multiple dischargers. Even when designated uses are
being attained, small incremental impacts can be identified by quantitative and qualitative shifts
in biological community structure and function. A single sampling session is adequate for
screening purposes, to indicate where further sampling is needed, or to initiate some other
regulatory action. However, the need for more complete information increases as the complexity
of the issues increases.
Whereas there are a variety of surrogate methods (e.g., chemical monitoring and bioassay) for
estimating point source impacts to the biota, surrogates are unsatisfactory for estimating many
kinds of nonpoint source (NFS) impacts. Biosurveys should be used to screen for location, severity
and extent of suspected (or known) areas of NFS impacts and to evaluate long-term trends.
Results of previous biological surveys should be incorporated into subsequent 305(b) reports to
identify lakes and stream segments with NFS impacts, and to demonstrate trends.
A conceptual framework (Figure 1) for using ambient biological sampling data in surface water
programs has been proposed by some of the staff of the Ohio EPA. Most importantly, this
framework shows that when decisions are made on aquatic life use attainability, attainment and
nonattainment, those decisions should be based largely on a direct assessment of the aquatic
community. This framework does not represent a policy statement by either U.S. EPA or Ohio
EPA, rather it should be a starting point for further discussions.
Professional aquatic biologists (both fisheries and benthic) should be active participants in all
phases of the biosurvey programs; from planning, sampling site selection, data collection, specimen
identification, analysis and interpretation of data, to report and permit writing and review.
A technical support or guidance document should be developed by U.S. EPA to identify how
biocriteria and ambient biological assessments can be implemented in the surface water programs.
This document should provide:
o Clear definitions of terms to eliminate the confusion that currently exits about usage and
meaning. These workgroups recommend the definitions used in this report;
o Guidance to State and Federal personnel in surface water programs about the appropriate
uses and advantages of ambient biological sampling; and,
12
-------
ficure 1. ». conceptual framework for assessing anslent biological perfornance
•no tne success or laplnejited pollution control strategies.
Presurvfy Reconnaissance
(SeeOnloCPAQAmanual for auils)
^Recent ^ (Surrogate Evaluation}
Biological l<.« vp»nf
Analysis ol
lanouse
Practices nc
Permit Limits "T
I Control Slategles
Implementation
if Pollution Control
Strategies
• Screening blesurvcys us* widely spaced Mvpling slt«s to obtain general
viter quality Inioraatlon •bout a watershed.
e Ceaiprehenslve/ blosurveyt require nuaeroiu eaapling altes to docuwnt
severity and extent of lapacts. Saapllng occurs at reference sites, sites
up and oovnstreu fro* point sources, and areas of expected changes In
water quality.
c Biologies! coaraunltlei react predictably to warloui water quality probleas
le.g.. tOKlclty. 0.0 sags, slltatlen). Us a result, blosurveys Indicate
tne type of lupact. and vhen coupled with receiving vator Bonttorlng
provide greater resolution of tne sourcefel and typels) of Impacts.
13
-------
o An evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various chemical, physical
and biological assessment methods to address different regulatory issues. Table 1 is one
such evaluation and is presented here only as an example and a suggestion for additional
calculations. The cost effectiveness of biological sampling as an assessment tool has been
demonstrated by the Ohio EPA (Ohio EPA 1987). Other States and regulatory agencies
should document the relative costs of these methods.
Sampling Issues
It is essential that biosurveys be performed with the same degree of procedural rigor used in
chemical monitoring and toxicity testing. Clear data quality objectives (DQOs) need to be
developed and implemented before ambient biological sampling is done. States need to develop
(with guidance from U.S. EPA) and document standard field and data evaluation methods to
achieve the data quality objectives. The rationale for using particular assessment procedures to
address a given regulatory issue should be included in such a document. However, it is understood
that States may need to use the results of ambient biological sampling without having completely
documented their methods or DQOs,(e.g., while they are in the process of testing and selecting
methods). The data evaluation techniques currently used by many of the States should serve as
models or beginning points for other State programs.
Both fish and benthic macroinvertebrate (benthos) communities should be used in any ambient
biological sampling program. The experiences of the State biologists at the workshop indicate that
frequently results of ambient fish and benthos assessments corroborate each other. However, these
two groups are not equally sensitive to all perturbations in all circumstances. An understanding
of these differences is important in selecting assessment methods and evaluating data.
The following are some considerations in selecting assessment methods. These considerations do
not imply a superiority of either biological group for regulatory assessment purposes and are not
reasons to use only one group exclusively.
Fish
Fish populations and individual fish tend to remain in the same area during summer, when
most sampling occurs. Fish communities are persistent and recover rapidly from droughts
and floods. Thus, large community fluctuations are unlikely for purely natural reasons.
Comparable results can be expected from an unperturbed site at various times during a
summer.
Fish are a highly visible component of the aquatic community to the general public.
Aquatic life uses and regulatory language are typically characterized in terms of fish (e.g.,
coldwater, warmwater, sport, etc.).
Most fish species have long life spans (3-10* years) and can reflect both long term and
current environmental quality. The sampling frequency required for trend estimates is less
than for shorter-lived organisms.
Fish have larger ranges and are less affected by natural microhabitat differences than
smaller organisms. This makes fish especially useful for assessing regional and macrohabitat
differences.
Fish continuously inhabit the receiving waters and integrate the chemical, physical, and
biological histories of the waters that are not directly measured by chemical or short-term
bioassays alone.
14
-------
Table 1. The comparative ability and "power" of various chemical, physical, and biological
assessment techniques to measure or indicate key components of factors affecting
biological Integrity of surface waters (D - directly measures; I - Indirectly measures!
S - strongly reflects; C - casual relationship). Modified from Ohio EPA (1987).
Factors/Components
Level 1&2
Exposure
Assess . 1
Level 3
Exposure
Assess.'
Toxlcity
(acute)
Toxlcity
(chronic)
Physical
Assessment
Ambient
Biological
Evaluation
X. CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY
Conventional substances D D I
Heavy metals D D I
Toxic organic* D I
Static interactions SSI
Dynamic Interactions I
s
s
M/A
S
II. ENERGY DYNAMICS
1° and 2° dynamics C I I
Nutrient cycling C I I
Organic Inputs C I
III. HABITAT QUALITY
Substrate D S
Water velocity D S
Instreara cover ____§} 5
Channel integrity D S
Riparian buffer D S
Habitat diversity D S
IV. FLOW REGIME
Low Extremes I I S
High Extremes - S
Temporal cycles C - - C S
Volume D D - - D S
V. BIOITC RESPONSES
Acute effects I I D D - S
Chronic effects Ills- S
Abundance, bicmass - D
Structural ----- D
Functional ----- n
Disease, etc. C C D
Tolerances _____ D
Competition _____ s
Reproduction S S
Predatlon _____ s
Growth C - S D
1 primarily models for oxygen demanding substances and simple mass-balance dilution calculations
for other substances; steady-state conditions assumed.
2 applications ranging from probaballstic dilution to dynamic fate-assessment models.
-------
o The taxonomy of fish is well established, allowing experienced biologists to identify most
species in the field, reducing data generation time.
o Distributions, life histories and tolerances to environmental stresses of many fish species
are documented in the scientific literature. Fishes are collected annually by a variety of
agencies and organizations. Thus, the relative abundances of tolerant and intolerant species
and the absence of expected, but generally intolerant species, provide evidence about a
site's quality.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
o Most benthos are sessile or have limited migration patterns, making them well-suited for
assessing site-specific impacts (upstream/downstream studies).
o Benthic communities integrate the effects of short-term impacts since most species have
complex life cycles of one to two years or less. The sensitive life stages respond quickly
to stress.
o Degraded stream conditions may be detected with only a cursory examination of the
benthos since many sensitive taxa are relatively easy to identify to the family level in the
field.
o Sampling for benthos is easy, requiring few biologists with inexpensive equipment, and has
no detrimental effect on the resident biota.
o Benthos are a primary food source for important recreational and commercial fish.
Abundant food is a primary requirement for healthy fish populations.
o Many small streams (1st and 2nd order) naturally support a diverse macroinvertebrate fauna
and can provide ample data for many rigorous statistical analyses and tests. Likewise,
tributaries to lakes and large rivers are best evaluated using benthos due to the ability of
fish to freely migrate in and out of the larger waterbody.
o Many State regulatory agencies routinely collect benthos and thus have extensive data
available.
For evaluating specific impacts, a series of reference sampling sites should be selected from
upstream and downstream recovery areas wherever possible. If the upstream or recovery segments
are impacted, a series of reference sites may be chosen in adjacent streams of similar drainage
areas and morphology, within the same ecoregion. These data should serve as the basis for
evaluating data from suspected impact areas.
Long-term biomonitoring should be conducted at regional reference sites. Data from these sites
may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall water quality control program and to
detect any long-term trends. The range of data collected from regional reference sites should be
the basis for developing regional biocriteria. For either long-term or site-specific purposes,
sampling and data evaluation should be done within an ecoregional framework.
Selection of actual sampling locations and specific habitats within those locations should be made
by the field biologists, within State defined guidelines. The choice of habitats to sample (e.g.,
riffles, pools, etc) will be dictated by their availability at the site, other site conditions and
whether they are representative of that ecoregion. Likewise, the use of artificial or natural
substrate sampling for benthos should depend on site conditions, the data needs of a particular
program and past experience. The rationale for site and substrate choices should be included in
State guidelines and the choice documented for each sample.
16
-------
Larval fish, or young-of-the-year, although not used in most indices, are sensitive to particular
kinds of stresses. Their presence should be included in a narrative discussion of the survey results.
The issues of seasonality and low-flow sampling continue to generate much discussion. Although
sampling is not limited by season, for purposes of assessing environmental impact, fish should be
sampled during the low- to moderate-flow periods of summer and early fall and benthos should
be sampled during stable base flows conditions. Sampling during these periods produces the most
consistent and ecologically meaningful results.
It is not necessary to sample during 7Q10 conditions because not only do the biological
communities integrate ecosystem effects over a long time period, but biological populations are
most stable and easily collected at base-flow. The longer term (annual, seasonal) impact of chronic
toxicity can be evaluated. Low-level chronic toxicity occurring only during the 7Q10 may not be
detected; however, the ecological significance of this toxicity is also questionable. The ecological
significance of toxicity occurring only during extreme low flow conditions can be highly variable,
depending in part on the flow regime of the stream. It is recommended that, whenever possible,
flow data be used to help interpret results of biosurveys.
Benthic surveys are useful for instances when potential toxicity is predicted from effluent toxicity
tests. If the biosurvey data does not support the toxicity evaluation, the information may be
reevaluated, where feasible using a "weight of evidence" approach. If biosurveys indicate a
potential toxicity problem with a discharge, an effluent toxicity test is recommended.
An evaluation of physical habitat quality should be conducted in conjunction with the biological
assessment. The health of biological communities is as dependent on the physical habitat as on
the chemical water quality. Many NFS impacts affect the physical condition of the waterbody.
A habitat evaluation is necessary to delineate these effects and to account for natural ecoregional
and site-specific differences. Different evaluations should be made for fish and benthos. Benthos
habitat assessments should collect information on the riparian zone.
State and regional training is needed on the use of the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP). The
RBP may be used to augment, but does not necessarily replace, any more intensive State biosurvey
methods. In addition, the U.S. EPA biological field methods manual should be updated to address
all of these issues and to provide information about advances in sampling techniques.
Data Evaluation Issues
The State and Federal surface water programs need to develop guidance regarding the quantity,
quality and kinds of data (from biosurveys, chemical sampling, bioassays, etc.) required to address
each regulatory issue. There needs to be a mechanism (e.g., a decision tree) to determine the level
of sampling and data effort and resolution of information that is sufficient for various purposes.
Perturbations in aquatic communities should be demonstrated by measuring shifts in the structural
and functional composition from conditions expected in unimpaired or minimally impacted
situations. For example, increases in the number of species tolerant of pollution and decreases in
the number of carnivore species indicate structural and functional shifts. This approach should
be considered for parallel studies with in situ bioassays and toxicity testing.
To effectively assess the health (or integrity) of a biological community, it is necessary to use a
multimetric approach. A reliance on one or two measures (e.g., species richness and diversity) is
often inadequate. Data evaluation methods now are available to more completely assess biotic
integrity. One approach combines several community measures, e.g., species richness and
composition, trophic composition, condition of individuals, etc. into one index, while making the
original measures available for further analyses or evaluation. Karr's Index of Biotic Integrity
(IBI) is an example of this approach. Another method uses several community measures placed
in a "decision matrix" or "decision tree" to evaluate the level of impact on a biological community.
17
-------
Again, these measures are used to compare results with those expected of communities in
minimally impacted sites.
There should be increased use of computer programs and databases, including (but not limited to)
the U.S. EPA BIOS system for storage, retrieval and analyses of biological data. Rigorous data
quality checks, including automated spelling, locational controls and duplicate data entry, are
needed to ensure data quality. The U.S. EPA should encourage exchange of data and analytical
tools among all agencies (Federal and State) involved with surface water programs. Ideally, there
should be a mechanism to evaluate existing data and sampling programs from among various
agencies and to coordinate efforts by neighboring States to evaluate cross-boundary streams and
watersheds.
ECOREGIONS WORKGROUP
Ecological regions (rather than political or hydrographic regions) are a useful geographic
framework for developing biological criteria. Ecoregions reduce (but do not eliminate) overall
variability among sites. Thus they provide a method to determine a range of attainable conditions
and allow development of protective yet reasonable standards on a regional basis. This framework
allows a means to develop biological expectations that is far less expensive than site specific
approaches and much more accurate than national criteria.
Relatively unimpacted reference sites are essential for evaluating known or suspected impacts. The
ecoregion methodology provides alternatives to, or can augment, the currently used
upstream/downstream site selection methods. This is especially important for monitoring and
reporting an entire State's waterbodies (305b and 319 reports) and where upstream sites are
disturbed or naturally different.
Regional reference sites function as: checks on upstream reference sites and downstream recovery
sites; tools to evaluate nonpoint source problems; a means to develop regional biological criteria;
and benchmarks for evaluating use attainment. In addition, the process of establishing regional
reference sites provides the States with a list of their best waters. These sites may be considered
for special protection from degradation.
The U.S. EPA and the States should invest in the up-front cost of locating and evaluating regional
reference sites. These sites would then form the framework for a long term monitoring network
that has enormous potential in long term cost savings and status and trend assessment.
The States and U.S. EPA should evaluate the usefulness of alternative ecoregion maps, based on
their needs and applications. For example, in Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon, Omernik's ecoregions
showed better correspondence with patterns in fish communities and/or water chemistry than did
Bailey's ecoregions, river basins or physiographic regions. In Arkansas, Omernik's ecoregions and
physiographic regions both corresponded better to aquatic ecosystem patterns than did Bailey's
ecoregion or river basins. However, the USDA map of Major Land Resource Areas may be more
applicable to chemical patterns in Nebraska and Iowa. These ecoregion evaluations must include
data from minimally impacted regional sites. Using a mix of disturbed and "clean" sites blurs any
regional patterns and defeats the purpose of establishing benchmarks of attainability.
Regional biological criteria should initially be narrative, until sufficient data exist to develop
numeric criteria. Narrative criteria should be in the form of key, characteristic and dominant
species expected in minimally impacted sites, as well as those species that dominate disturbed sites
on a regional basis. Numeric criteria should be based on expected regional values for species
richness and composition, diversity, trophic composition, abundance and/or biomass, and condition.
As many of these measures as possible should be analyzed to evaluate the overall health of the
biotic communities. Eventually the individual metrics should be incorporated into a multimetric
18
-------
analysis of aquatic community integrity; either as a "decision matrix" such as Maine's, or as an
index of integrity such as Karr's IBI.
Ecoregions can be used to organize data for 30S(b) reporting on an ecological, rather than a
statewide or site specific, basis. Regions can stimulate a broader ecosystem perspective on water
issues, helping managers to prioritize problems and locate outliers. Ecoregions do not yield
biological numbers for permits. Ecoregions are not "magic bullets" with static, precisely defined
boundaries. Instead, they require a fair amount of thought and biogeographical knowledge to use
properly.
EPA and the States should:
o 'Use ecoregions as a geographic framework for stratifying biological variability;
o Use minimally-impacted ecoregional reference sites to set regional biological expectations
(narrative or numerical);
o Locate and monitor these ecoregional reference sites;
o Test the relative usefulness of various ecoregion maps based on data from these reference
sites;
o Support a technology transfer program to assist States in the development of regional
biological criteria.
19
-------
20
-------
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arkansas DPCE. 1988. Regulation No. 2, As Amended. Regulation Establishing Water Quality
Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR.
Courtemanch, D. L. and S. P. Davies. 1987. A Coefficient of Community Loss to Assess
Detrimental Change in Aquatic Communities. Water Research. 21:217-222.
Cummins, K. W., and M. A. Wilzbach. 198S. Field Procedures For Analysis of Functional Feeding
Groups of Stream Macro-invertebrates. Appalachian Environmental Laboratory.
Contribution 1611. Frostburg, MD.
Gammon, J. R. 1980. The Use of Community Parameters Derived from Electrofishing Catches of
River Fish as Indicators of Environmental Quality, pp 335-363 in Seminar on water quality
management tradeoffs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-90S/9-80/009.
Washington, DC.
Hellawell, J. M. 1978. Biological surveillance of rivers. Water Research Centre. Stevenage, England.
Hughes, R. M. and D. P. Larsen. 1988. Ecoregions: An Approach to Surface Water Protection.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 60:486-493.
Hughes, R. M., D. P. Larsen and J. M. Omernik. 1986. Regional Reference Sites: a Method For
Assessing Stream Potentials. Environmental Management 10:629-635.
Judy, R. D., P. N. Seeley, T. M. Murray, S. C. Svirsky, M. R. Whitworth, and L. S. Schinger.
1984. 1982 National Fisheries Survey. Vol. 1. Technical Report Initial Findings. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/06. Washington, DC.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
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. Special Publication
5. Illinois Natural History Survey. Champaign, IL.
Nebraska DEC. 1987. A Summary of NDEC's Stream Inventory and Classification Process. Lincoln,
NE.
Ohio EPA. I987a. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Vol 1. The Role of
Biological Data in Water Quality Assessment. Division of Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment. Columbus, OH.
. 1987b. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Vol. 2. Users' Manual for
Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. Division of Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment. Columbus, OH.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. (Map Supplement). Annals
Of the Association of American Geographers. 77(1):118-125.
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. In Press. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Monitoring and Data Support Division.
Washington, DC.
21
-------
Robertson, P. G. 1988. A Critique of and Proposal for Modifying Maryland's Surface Water
Monitoring Program. Maryland Department of the Environment. Baltimore, MD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework For Change.
Washington, DC.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1986. The Nation's Water: Key Unanswered Questions About The
Quality of Rivers and Streams. U.S. GAO Progress, Evaluations and Methods Division.
Washington DC. GAO/PEMD-86-6.
22
-------
Appendix A: The Region V Statement sent as a letter to all six State Water Program Malagas
(example letter to Ohio).
^v^t TJ
i REGION 5
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
REPLY TO THE ATTEKTION OF
2 6 MAY i:0 5WQS-TUB-8
Richard L. Shank, Ph.D.
Director
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
1800 WaterMark Drive
Columbus. Ohio 43266-0149
Re: Region V Statement Regarding the Use of Instream Biosurvey Data in
Implementing the Objectives, Goals and Policies of the Clean Water Act
Dear Dr. Shank:
The purpose of this letter is to reinforce Sections 308(c) and (d) of the
1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) amendments by encouraging Region V States to
gather and use instream biological survey data, where possible, when
implementing pollution control requirements mandated by the Act. In the
past, the emphasis of both Federal and State regulatory programs has been on
the control of point source discharges of pollutants to surface waters
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
The 1987 amendments reaffirm our past efforts, but also broaden the focus
of our respective agencies hy requiring additional efforts in a number of
areas. These areas of increased emphasis include nonpoint source concerns
(e.g.. Section 319 of the CWA), identification and control of toxic substance
influences (e.g., Sections 304 and 305 of the CWA), follow-up studies to
examine benefits of pollution control efforts, and other initiatives. As
efforts to control surface water pollution diversify and as our understanding
of the complexity of the problems increases (particularly in the toxic
substance control area), it is important that the regulatory agencies fully
utilize and integrate available assessment and control methods (i.e.,
biological, chemical and treatment technology) to ensure the goals of the
CWA are achieved. This integration appears critical to developing and
implementing the most efficient and appropriate monitoring and control
programs given limited resources.
On August 25, 1987, Region V distributed guidance on implementing whole
effluent toxicity controls in NPDES permits. This guidance was consistent
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) 1984 National
23
-------
policy for the development of water quality-based permit limitations for
toxic pollutants (FR 49 [48]: 9016-9019, March 9, 1984). To further encourage
the Region V States to adopt and implement the truly Integrated approach to
pollution control referenced in the National policy statement. Region V
(through the Environmental Sciences Division and Regional Instream Biological
Criteria Committee) will work with each State agency to update the State
water monitoring strategy. The purpose of this effort should be to ensure
the appropriate biosurvey. toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analytical
capabilities are Incorporated into ongoing programs. Encouraging the expanded
and integrated use of biosurvey Information Is clearly consistent with National
policy and objectives.
The biomonltoring capabilities (both biosurvey and toxicity testing expertise)
of all of the Region V States are recognized. In addition, expanded use of
Instream assessments and efforts to develop and implement biocrlteria are
apparent in selected States both within and outside Region V. These activities
are encouraged where appropriate and the information should be used in the
appropriate manner to effectively Influence regulatory decisions and actions.
Instream assessments can also be utilized to document environmental Improvements
resulting from these actions. The Region V Instream Biological Criteria
Committee can provide technical assistance, and review biocriteria or other
proposals.
It is clear that toxicity testing and toxicity controls are playing an
important role in complementing traditional chemical-specific controls on
toxic substances. In addition to these tools, biosurvey information can
complement ongoing monitoring activities and play an important role in such
areas as:
(1) determining if the aquatic life use designation is being attained;
(?) indicating whether additional point or non-point source abatements are
needed;
(3) verifying the effectiveness of pollution abatement programs;
(4) indicating th? general level of treatment necessary to attain, or
maintain, the desired use designation by comparison with pollutant
loadings from similar receiving waters with demonstrated healthy aquatic
communities;
(5) satisfying water program reporting requirements under Clean Water Act
Sections 304(1). 305(b), 314 and 319 and
(6) educating the public about water quality assessment and management.
Along with the expanded use and integration of biosurvey information Into
the variety of surface water programs. Integration Into the NPDES program
is critical. Because the focus on controlling discharges of toxic substances
from point sources must be intensified to ensure compliance with Section
304(1) and other objectives of the CWA, 1t Is important to utilize all
available tools to satisfy these CWA requirements. With particular regard
24
-------
to the role of biosurvey Information in the development of toxic substance
controls and individual strategies, U.S. EPA guidance recommends the use of
biosurvey results, where appropriate, in the water quality standards and
wasteload allocation programs. This information should be used to complement
effluent toxicity information when developing water quality-based effluent
limitations for NPDES permits. The integration of chemical and biological
assessment methods will provide b.etter protection of receiving water
quality by lending considerable insight into the source, character, or
magnitude of potential environmental Impacts and by helping State agencies
focus resources and prioritize additional abatement efforts.
In cases where there appear to be significant differences in the estimates
of receiving water quality based on the different assessment methods
(i.e., biosurvey. toxicity testing and chemical-spedfie analyses), Region V
recommends use of a "weight of evidence" evaluation which utilizes the
relative strengths of all of the assessment tools. Integration of biosurvey
information into the NPDES program as opposed to other water programs may
be a more sensitive process because the NPDES program is relatively well
established with a number of specific procedures and policies. Also,
biosurvey information and inferences are generally not as directly applicable
(as toxicity or chemical-specific measures) to the formulation of permit
limitations. Therefore, the following specific recommendations are intended
to address the effective integration of biosurvey information into State
programs specifically from the NPDES permitting perspective:
(1) The States should be encouraged to use instream biosurveys as an
additional monitoring tool for environmental problem discovery.
(2) In general, site-specific biosurvey data should be considered the most
direct measure of designated aquatic life use attainment. However,
when chemical-specific, bioassay. and biosurvey methods yield contra-
dictory indications, none of the three types of methods should be
assumed, a priori, to be superior to the others; rather the quality
of data and analysis utilized in each of the three approaches will
determine the appropriate course of action.
(3) An integrated approach should be taken to the development of NPDES
permit limitations, using bioassay. biosurvey and chemical-specific
information at a level o* complexity dictated by site-specific concerns.
The necessity of any particular piece of information should be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
(4) Although many chronic and acute population effects are revealed, it
should be recognized that biosurvey information may not address
potential wildlife or human health concerns, allocations necessary to
prevent the cumulative impacts of long-term low-level discharges to
lakes, or potential accumulation of pollutants to deleterious levels
in sediment or tissue.
(5) Discussion of the use of instream biosurvey data in the water programs
should be included in an update of the Regional Water Monitoring
Strategy and respective State strategies.
25
-------
(6) Personnel performing biomonitoring (biosurvey and bioassay) evaluations
should be an integral part of the formulation and approval of water
quality-based permitting requirements in State and Regional programs.
Although relatively concise, these recommendations are intended to address
a number of critical aspects with respect to integration of biosurvey
information into ongoing State programs. "Institutionalization" of
biosurvey information into State programs is deemed necessary to maximize
the effectiveness of State monitoring, wasteload allocation and control
efforts.
As a final note, the recent National Biocriteria Workshop recommended that
U.S. EPA assemble a Technical Support Document for the development and
implementation of biocriteria. This document is expected to present more
detailed methods and technical material regarding development of biocriteria
and instream assessment programs consistent with this statement. Also,
copies of the National Biocriteria Workshop Report will be sent to your
office within the next few weeks. If you have any questions regarding the
application of biosurvey data or biocriteria, please contact the Regional
Water Quality Standards Coordinator, James Luey, at 312-886-0132, or the
Instream Biological Criteria Committee Chairperson, Wayne Davis, at
312-886-6233.
Sincerely yours,
^Charles H. SutTin & William H. Sanders III, Director
Director, Water Division Environmental Sciences Division
26
-------
Appendix B. Speakers and Work Group Leaders:
Resource people to contact for further information.
I. State Program Presenters
Arkansas
John Giese
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 562-7444
Florida
Jim Hulbert
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Suite 232
3319 Maguire Blvd.
Orlando, FL 32803
(305) 894-7555
Illinois
Robert Hite
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2209 West Main
Marion, IL 62959
(618) 997-4371
Maine
David Courtemanch or Susan Davies
Dept of Environmental Dept. of Environ.
Protection Protection
State House No. 17 State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333 Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-7789 (207) 289-7778
Ohio
Chris Yoder
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Laboratory
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 466-1488
Nebraska
Terry Maret
Department of Environmental Control
Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NB 69509
(402) 471-2186
27
-------
New Mexico
Gerald Jacobi
Environmental Sciences
School of Science and Technology
New Mexico Highlands University
Las Vegas, NM 87701
(505) 425-7511
New York
Robert Bode
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
Albany, NY 12201
(518) 432-2624
North Carolina
David Penrose or David Lenat
Dept. of Natural Resources &
Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-6946
Vermont
Richard Langdon or Steve Fiske
Dept. of Environmental Dept. of Environ.
Conservation 10 North Conserv. Lab.
103 S. Main Street 6 Baldwin St.
Waterbury, VT 05676 Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 244-5638 (802) 828-3369
II. Ecological Issues Speakers
Fish Ecology
Charles Hocutt
Horn Point Environmental Lab.
Box 775
University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD 21613
(301) 228-8200
Benthic Ecology
Kenneth Cummins
Appalachian Environmental Laboratory
University of Maryland
Frostburg, MD 21532
(301) 689-3115
28
-------
III. Work Group Leaders
Water-Quality Based Limitation Permits
James Luey
U.S. EPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0132 FTS 886-0132
Water Quality Standards
John Maxted
Criteria and Standards Division
U.S. EPA WH 585
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5907 FTS 382-5907
Field Sampling -- Benthos
Wayne Davis
U.S. EPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA)
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 886-6233 FTS 886-6233
or
James Plafkin
Monitoring and Data Support Division
U.S. EPA WH 553
401 M. Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7005 FTS 382-7005
Field Sampling — Fish
Tom Simon
U.S. EPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5-CRL)
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 353-9070 FTS 353-5524
Ecoregions
Bob Hughes
Northrop Services, Inc.
1600 SW Western Ave.
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 757-4666 x333 FTS 420-4666 x333
29
-------
Appendix C: 1987 National Biocriteria Workshop Participants
Paul Adamus
Corvallis ERL, Wetlands Program
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 757-4666 FTS 420-4666
EXT. 341
Rick Albright
USEPA Region 10, WD-139
1200 6th Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-8514 FTS 399-8514
Max Anderson
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 353-9070 FTS 353-9070
John Arthur
USEPA
Environmental Research Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
(218) 720-5565 FTS 780-5565
Joe Ball
Wisconsin DNR
Water Resource Management, WR/2
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-7390
Robert Bode
New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
Albany, NY 12201
(518) 432-2624
Susan Boldt
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0141 FTS 886-0141
Greg Bright
Department of Environmental
Management
5500 W. Bradbury
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317)243-5114
Paul Campanella
USEPA Headquarters. OPPE
401 M St. S.W., PM 222-A
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4906 FTS 382-4906
Brian Choy
Hawaii Department of Health
645 Halekauwila Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 548-6767
David Courtemanch
Department of Environmental
Protection
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-7789
Bill Creal
Michigan DNR
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-2867
Norm Crisp
Environmental Services Div.
USEPA Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City. KS 66115
(913) 236-3881 FTS 757-3881
Phil Crocker
Water Quality Mgmt. Branch
USEPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-7145
Kenneth Cummins
Appalachian Environmental Lab
University of Maryland
Frostburg, MD 21532
(301) 689-3115
30
-------
Susan Davies
Department of Environmental
Protection
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-7778
Wayne Davis
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA)
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 886-6233 FTS 886-6233
Jeff DeShon
Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 294-5841
Gar> Fandrei
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Division of Water Quality
520 La Fayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-7363
Kenneth Fenner
USEPA Region 5
Water Quality Branch
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2079 FTS 353-2079
Steve Fiske
Department of Environmental
Conservation Laboratory
6 Baldwin St.
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3369
Jack Freda
Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 294-5841
Toby Frcvert
Illinois EPA
Div. of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-3362
Cynthia Fuller
USEPA GLNPO
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-7942 FTS 353-7942
Jeff Gagler
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6679 FTS 886-6679
Jim Giattina
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6107 FTS 886-6107
John Giese
AR Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 562-7444
Jim Green
Environmental Services Div.
USEPA Region 3
303 Methodist Bldg.
llth and Chapline
Wheeling, WV 26003
(304) 233-1271
Martin Gurtz
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
P.O. Box 2857
Raleigh, NC 27602-2857
(919) 856-4791 FTS 672-4791
Rick Hafele
OR Dept. Environmental Quality
1712 S.W. llth Street
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5983
Jim Harrison
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St. (4WM-MEB)
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-2930 FTS 257-7788
Steve Heiskary
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-7217
31
-------
Rollie Hemmett
USEPA Region 2
Environmental Services
Woodridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Robert Hite
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
2209 West Main
Marion, IL 62959
(618) 997-4371
Charles Hocutt
Horn Point Environmental
Laboratory Box 775
University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD 21613
(301) 228-8200
Linda Hoist
USEPA - Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-1506 FTS 886-1506
William B. Horning II
U.S. EPA
Environmental Monitoring &
Support Lab
3411 Church Street
Cincinnati, OH 45244
(513) 727-8350 FTS 527-8350
Hoke S. Howard
USEPA, Region 4
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605
(404) 546-2207
Robert Hughes
Northrop Services Inc.
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 757-4666 FTS 420-4666
EXT. 333
Jim Hulbert
Florida Dept Environmental
Regulations
Suite 232
3319 Maguire Blvd.
Orlando, FL 32803
(305) 894-7555
Gerald Jacobi
Environmental Sciences
School of Science & Technology
NM Highlands University
Las Vegas, NM 87701
(505) 425-7511
Roy Kleinsasser
Texas Park & Wildlife
P.O. Box 947
San Marcos, TX 78667
(512) 353-3480
Robert Koroncai
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 3
847 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(205) 597-0133 FTS 597-0133
Jim Kurtenbach
USEPA Region 2
Woodbridge Ave.
Rariton Depot Bldg. 10
Edison, NJ 08837
(201) 321-6695 FTS 340-6695
Roy Kwiatkowski
Water Quality Objectives Div.
Water Quality Branch
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A OH3
(819) 953-3198
Richard Langdon
Department of Environmental
Conservation — 10 North
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
(802) 244-5638
James Luey
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0132 FTS 886-0132
Terry Maret
Dept. Environmental Control
Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NB 69509
(402) 471-2186
32
-------
Wally Matsunaga
Illinois EPA
1701 First Ave., *600
May wood, IL 60153
(312) 345-9780
John Maxted
Criteria & Standards Division
USEPA WH 585
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
'(202) 382-5907 FTS 382-5907
Robert Mosher
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd. *15
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794
(217) 782-3362
Phillip Oshida
U.S. EPA, Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 974-8318
Bill Painter
USEPA HQ, OPPE
401 M Street, SW (W435B)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-9530 FTS 475-9530
Loys Parrish
USEPA Region 8
P.O. Box 25366
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-5064
David Penrose
Dept of Natural Resources &
Community Development
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-6946
Rob Pepin
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0157 FTS 886-0157
James Plafkin
Monitoring & Data Support Div.
USEPA WH 553
401 M Street. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7005 FTS 382-7005
Wayne Poppe
Tennessee Valley Authority
270 Haney Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN 37401
(615) 751-7333
Walter Redmon
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-6110 FTS 886-6110
Jean Roberts
AZ Dept. Environmental Quality
2655 East Magnolia
Phoenix, AZ 85034
(602) 628-5321
Charles Saylor
Tennessee Valley Authority
Field Operations Eastern Area
Division of Services & Field Operations
Norris, TN 37828
(615) 632-1792
Robert Schacht
Illinois EPA
1701 First Avenue
May wood, IL 60153
(312) 345-9780
Larry Shepard
USEPA - Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-1980 FTS 886-1980
Jerry Shulte
OH River Sanitation Commission
49 E. 4th St., Suite 851
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(S13) 421-1151
Bruce Shackleford
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution
Control & Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock. AR 72209
(501) 562-7444
33
-------
Thomas Simon
USEPA - Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 6060S
(312) 353-5524 FTS 353-5524
J.P. Singh
USEPA Region 5
536 Clark St. (5SCDO)
Chicago, IL 60605
(312) 353-9637 FTS 353-9637
Marc Smith
OH EPA Biomonitoring Section
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 466-3981
Denise Steurer
USEPA - Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-6115 FTS 886-6115
Bill Tucker
Illinois EPA
Div. of Water Pollution Control
4500 S. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 786-0315
Stephen Twidwell
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 463-8464
Thorn Whittier
Northrop Services, Inc.
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 757-4666 FTS 420-4666
EXT. 337
Barbara Willliams
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0149 FTS 886-0149
Bill Wuerthele
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 8 WM-SP
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1586 FTS 564-1586
Chris Yoder
Ohio EPA
Water Quality Lab
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 466-1488
34
------- |