State Biological Monitoring And Assessment Programs For Streams And Wadable Rivers


State Biological Monitoring and Assessment
Programs for Streams and Wadable Rivers
Prepared for:
Wayre S. Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, P.anning, and Evaluation
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington DC 20460
Prepared by:
Tetra ~ech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 110
Owings Mil s, MD 21117
DRAFT -- 11 AUGUST 1995 -- DRAFT
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE OR DISTRIBUTE

-------
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (to be completed)
1.	INTRODUCTION	1-1
2.	METHODS USED IN ASSEMBLING STATE BIO ASSESSMENT INFORMATION	2-1
3.	SUMMARY OF STATE BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAMS FOR STREAMS	3-1
3.1	Table Summary of State Bioassessment Programs for Streams	3-3
3.2	State Program Descriptions and Program Characterization Fact Sheets	3-8
3.3	Information Sources	3-110
3.4	List of State Contacts	3-119
4.	BIOCRITERIA LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS FOR SELECTED
STATES AND TERRITORIES	4-1
5.	LITERATURE CITED	5-1
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE

-------
Executive Summary
(To be completed.)
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE

-------
Section 1. Introduction
Biological integrity, in the sense of Frey (1977), Karr and Dudley (1981), and Karr et al. (1986), is
defined as "the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community
with a biological diversity, composition, and functional organization comparable to those of natural
aquatic ecosystems in the region". The US
Environmental Protection Agency has
endorsed the use of biological integrity as an
integrating indicator of environmental
conditions (U.S.EPA 1990). It is integrated
in that i) it uses information gathered directly
from the aquatic organisms and the
biological community of which they are a
part, ii) the biota that biological integrity is
concerned with, is shaped by all
environmental factors to which it is exposed
over time, whether chemical, physical, or
biological, and iii) it combines multiple,
community level, biological response
characteristics into an indicator of
cumulative environmental impacts (Karr
1991, 1993).
A cooperative effort among the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon, was started in the early
1980s to demonstrate how indicators of
biological integrity could be used in
State-wide water quality management
programs. The effort resulted in unique tools
for State use such as the applicability of
ecological regions to reduce natural
variability in biological data sets, the use of
multiple reference sites within an ecoregion
to develop attainable water resource goals
(i.e., reference conditions), a consistent
sampling methodology for fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages, and a
multiple metric approach for analyzing
biological data (i.e., Index of Biological
Integrity) that made the interpretation of
biological data less subjective (Whittier et al.
1987). In 1987, U.S. EPA hosted the first
national workshop on biological monitoring
and assessment and was directed toward
building EPA's understanding of State
programs and their needs, as well as
providing support for State agencies to build
their capabilities by learning what other
States found to be successful approaches
(USEPA 1987, 1988). Since that workshop,
U.S. EPA and the State agencies have been involved in several cooperative ventures and the
implementation of biological integrity indicators within State programs has grown.
Definitions of Terms and Phrases
Used in Table 1
Bioassessment - an evaluation of the biological condition
of a waterbody that uses biological surveys and other
direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters
Water Resource Management (Non-Regulatory) -
decisions on management activities relevant to a water
resource such as problem identification, need for and
placement of best management practices, pollution
abatement actions, and effectiveness of program
activity.
Interpret Aquatic Life Use • means that biological
assessment results are used to help interpret attainment
of aquatic life use, a beneficial use designation in which
the waterbody provides suitable habitat for survival and
reproduction of desirable fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
organisms; aquatic life use designation is part of the
state water quality standard
Water Quality Standard - a law or regulation that
consists of the beneficiai designated use or uses of a
waterbody, the numerical and narrative water-quality
cnteria (including biocriteria) that are necessary to
protect the use or uses of that particular waterbody;
biological criteria are defined as numeric values or
narrative expressions that describe the reference
biological condition of aquatic communities
Organism Group - equivalent to assemblage] a group of
phylogenetically
-------
State programs report on the quality of their waters through a biennial report referred to as the
"305(b) report". U.S. EPA compiles and analyzes this State information in a biennial report to
Congress called the
National Water Quality
Inventory (U.S. EPA 1994).
Traditionally, little
documentation was
available on the amount and
quality of biological
information used in these
State assessments. But as
U.S. EPA faces more
pressures on documenting
the environmental results
achieved by the Nation,
these biological measures
have become a focus for
measuring the degree to
which the biological
integrity objective of the
Clean Water Act is being
met nationwide. Some of
these pressures are
legislative such as the
Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993,
while others are as a result
of U.S. EPA's internal
strategic planning efforts
(e.g., National
Environmental Goals Project
and the Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
Effort). In any case, the
need for direct and accurate
measures of the quality of
our water resources is
widely recognized, and
those measures have
consistently been identified
as biological integrity indicators (U.S. EPA 1990a , U.S. EPA 1990b, U.S. EPA 1995).
This project has grown out of the need to produce nationwide assessments of biological condition
for our water resources. Although the National Water Quality Inventory includes information on the
nationwide status of aquatic life designated use attainment (i.e., State water quality standards), it
is recognized that the results reported do not consistently present information necessary to
determine the ecological condition of the nation's water resources. As currently measured, aquatic
life use attainment can be determined solely with chemical parameters and comparison with State
chemical water quality standards. This can result in a gross underestimate of biological degradation
since attainment of water quality standards does not ensure a healthy biological condition (Yoder
and Rankin 1995). Therefore, aquatic life use attainment is currently a poor indicator of biological
condition. However, efforts are underway to incorporate a greater amount of biological information
in the aquatic life use attainment determinations and this does show great promise, but it is difficult
to estimate when these approaches would be fully integrated into State programs.
The diversity of contemporary state bioassessment programs for streams and wadable rivers
generally ranges from: i) pilot projects developed to explore the utility of biological monitoring,
Table 1. National Summary of State Bioassessment Program
Capabilities; Includes 50 States and the District of Columbia,
Draft 8/8/95).
STATE CAPABILITY
In-place
Under
Develop-
ment
None
Use of Bioassessments

Water Resource Management
(Non-Regulatory)
42
6
3
Interpret Aquatic Life Use Attainment
30
5
16
Narrative Water Quality Standard
28
8
15
Numeric Water Quality Standard
2
18
31
Organism Group Used

Fish
32
5

Benthic Macroinvertebrates
47
2

Algae (Periphyton, Diatoms)
7
1

Reference Conditions

Ecoregional
13
23

Site-Specific
29

State-Wide or Basin-Specific
6

Using Multiple Metrics for Data Analysis

Biology
40
7
4
Habitat
27
7
17
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
1-2
-------
assessment, and criteria; ii) to approaches that use bioassessments and biocriteria concepts to
enhance water quality programs; iii) to programs that use sophisticated biological assessment
methods and incorporate numeric biological criteria into water quality standards.
The purpose of this document is to present an aggregated assessment of national water resource
quality using biological monitoring and assessment results from state monitoring programs. It uses
data qualifiers to evaluate and select data that are appropriate for aggregation and records state
program characteristics and capabilities. From selected states and territories, it presents verbatim
biocriteria language from their water quality standards, and definitions related to those standards.
Summary of State Capabilities in Biological Assessment
A summary evaluation of the results gives strong indication of the national breadth of biological
monitoring and assessment (Table 1). Biological monitoring programs are in place in most states
and the results are used in making decisions in one or more of the following areas: for
defining/applying narrative and numeric biocriteria to water quality standards (Figures 1a-b), to aid
in interpretation of aquatic life use attainment (Figure 1c), or non-regulatory decisions related to
water resource management (Figure 1d). The targeted assemblage used by biomonitoring programs
is dominated by benthic macroinvertebrate and fish; the algal (or periphyton) assemblage is also
used but by a much smaller number of states (Figures 2a-b). Use of ecoregional reference
conditions by states as a basis for their decisionmaking framework (Figure 3) is driven by
regionalization, classification of streams, and development of the bioassessment program. There is
considerable development activity in all of these areas that will lead to increased use of biological
monitoring data in environmental decisionmaking. It will also further the refinement of biological
indicators and lead to a greater understanding of environmental responses to degradation.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
1-3
-------
o
o
o
H
o
p
c
o
o
33
g
-------
o
o
o
H
o
o
c
o
o
39
o
<75
H
2
00
c
2a.
Figure 2. Target assemblages used by state bioassessment programs.
2b.
-------
Figure 3. Use of ecoregional reference conditions in bioassessment
programs.
-------
Section 2. Methods Used in Assembling State
Bioassessment Information
Compilation of state information proceeded along two lines, i) preliminary assessment of individual
programs through state level water quality inventory reports (prepared in fulfillment of 305(b)
requirements), and ii) direct contact with the states if insufficient information was provided in the
305(b) report. In most cases, those state officials initially contacted were from programs focused
on regulatory applications, usually directing the water quality inventory program. For other states,
a different division or unit may have been responsible for collection of monitoring data, using them
more for water resource management purposes than for judging attainment of aquatic life use. For
the U. S. EPA regions, the monitoring coordinators and the 305(b) coordinators were sent drafts of
the table for comment and to determine if they had additional information not obtained from the
states.
State Sampling and Analysis Methods
Information on the technical components state programs, i. e., reference conditions, methods used,
assemblage(s) assessed, was obtained either from their 305(b) reports, or more usually, from state
protocols documents.
Data Qualifiers
Whether data were used in this analysis was based on whether they met several qualifiers that
reflect recommendations the Agency is providing for development of biological monitoring
programs. These qualifiers were used for biological data captured under the category "Miles
Assessed for Biological Integrity".
1) Community/Assemblage Level Data. State-supported biological survey information for fish,
benthos, or periphyton used in 305(b) reporting or are provided in other state sources. Data
NOT included are those from toxicity testing, fish tissue analyses, and single species
indicators. Site impairment data from pilot programs are not included, since they: are often
tentative models of future programs; are often difficult to obtain; may skew information;
and are often performed only on reference sites.
This qualifier is based on the Agency's endorsement of the multimetric approach for assessing
biological condition relative to biological integrity, the maintenance and restoration of which is a
primary goal of the Clean Water Act. The ecological basis and technical rationale for the
multimetric approach is presented by Frey (1977), Karr (1981, 1993), Karr and Dudley (1981), Karr
et al. (1986), Gibson (1994), and Barbour et al. (1995).
2) Site Assessments Must Be Performed. Data may or may not be used strictly for
determining aquatic life use attainment; and are included providing that they are
community/assemblage level survey information used for determining the level of biological
impairment (e. g., impaired, unimpaired, excellent, good, fair, poor).
Biological monitoring results that are used in this analysis have been converted fbv the state) into
categorical assessments of the biological condition. Categorical assessments result from assigning
a narrative classification to a calculated numerical value, such as Ohio EPA's "poor" rating for sites
receiving an IBI score in the range of 16-25 (Yoder and Rankin 1995).
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
2-1
-------
3) Recency of Sample/Data Collections. Data used are at most five years old, per 305(b)
guidelines. Some states use two years of data in their 305(b) reports whereas others use
five years (or more) as "monitored" data.
Older bioassessment results are not used because the potential for change in the condition of a site
becomes more likely with longer time intervals. If they were used, there would be an increase in
the uncertainty associated with aggregation of the results.
4) Type of Bioassessment. Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) levels II and III are appropriate
for benthos and are minimally acceptable; Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)(and/or RBP V) for
fish, and/or a multimetric approach for algae. RBP I and IV are highly qualitative and are not
appropriate for use in this compilation.
Data used are from sampling and analysis procedures comparable to the RBPs. Plafkin et al. (1989)
presented a general framework for an assessment methodology using fish and benthic
macroinvertebrates. The set of protocols consisted of five tiers of assessment "rigor":
RBP I - benthic macroinvertebrates; order-level field taxonomy; no standardized level of
effort for sampling; requires much "best professional judgment"
RBP II - benthic macroinvertebrates: field or laboratory taxonomy, family-level; with
standardized level of effort for sampling; assessment decisions based on numerical data
RBP III - benthic macroinvertebrates; laboratory taxonomy, genus/species-level-, with
standardized level of effort for sampling; assessment decision based on numerical data
RBP IV - fish; no sampling, data based on questioning of local citizens, state game & fish
biologists, or others that may have familiarity with the site; requires much "best
professional judgment"
RBP V - fish; equivalent to the IBI (Karr et al. 1986); standardized level of effort for
sampling; assessment decisions based on numerical data
Most of the states have, or are in the process of doing so, tailored the specific sampling approach
and metrics to be most appropriate for their region and stream types. Though the states have not
necessarily indicated that they are using one of the "Rapid Bioassessment Protocols", the
monitoring and assessment programs have usually retained basic components of the framework.
5) Basis of Impairment Decision. Assessments should be based upon comparison with a
suitable reference condition.
In general, assessments that are strictly derived from upstream-downstream comparisons are not
included. Preferred assessments are those that use an ecoregional reference condition or a
reference condition developed for some waterbody class. For a discussion of ecoregions,
waterbody classification, and reference conditions, see Gallant et al. (1989), Hughes (1995),
Hughes et al. (1986, 1990, 1994), Gibson (1994) and Omernik (1995).
6) Assessment coverage. State must provide river miles assessed or number of sites.
To allow the aggregation of state program results, it was necessary that an estimate of stream
miles assessed accompany each bioassessment. In some cases, e. g., with the state of Delaware,
the program design is based on a probabilistic site selection process, and it is thus, valid to say that
100% of the waters have been assessed. The number of miles assessed, then, is taken to be that
representing all non-tidal, freshwater streams, or 2427 miles. If no estimate of stream mileage was
given by the state, then a default rule of five miles per assessment was used.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
2-2
-------
7) Results. Results must be documented either through specific state 305(b) reports,
biological trend reports, written communication, or documented and verifiable telephone
contacts.
The sources and hard copy documentation for all information is organized by state in several
records notebooks that will be retained by the U. S. EPA. The primary data sources and how they
are documented in the records notebooks are:
o State 305(b) report (pertinent pages photocopied)
o State protocols document (pertinent pages photocopied)
o National 305(b) report (pertinent pages photocopied)
o Direct contact with state monitoring personnel (E-mail messages; typed
transcriptions of telephone conversations)
o Direct contact with EPA regional 305(b) and/or monitoring coordinators (E-mail
messages; typed transcriptions of telephone conversations)
:Questt
-------
Section 3. Summary of State Bioassessment
Programs for Streams
(Introductory paragraph(s), to be completed. Additional necessary definitions for
Table 2 will be also included.)
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE. OR DISTRIBUTE
3-1
-------
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
-------
Section 3.1. Table Summary of State Bioassessment Programs for
Streams
Table 2. State Bioassessment Programs For Streams (Draft August 8, 1995).
w
i
w
State
Total Miles
(EPA)'
Total Miles
(State)"
Miles Assessed
For Aquatic Life
Use
Miles Assessed For
Biological Integrity*
Biological Indicator
Reference Condition
Multlmetrlc
0 of Sites
Monitored
Decision Thresholds'

Total
Perennial
Total
Perennial
' Miles
%of
Total
Miles*
ttof
Total
Miles'
Impaired
Not
Impaired
Fish
Benthos
Algae
Eco-
reglon
Site-
single
Other
Bio
Hab
Ref
Amb
WRM
ALU
M
ros
Nar
Num
AK
385.000
-
405.400
-
-
-
pilot studies

/
/

UO
4

AL
77.274
47.077
76,825
47,077
11,815
25.1
1.1
85
415
-
4

UD
4

/
V
25
100
/
4

UD
AR
87,617
28.408
93.275
28,408
6,902
24.3
pilot studies

V
UD

AZ
104.200
3,300
104,175
3,275
5,471
100.0
under development

4
/
UD

UD
UD
100
30
UD
UD
UO

CA
211,513
64,438
211,513
64,438
20.037
31.1
under development

UD
4

/
/

4
UD
CO
105,581
18,892
27,195
-
26.489
100.0
pHot studies

V
/

UD
CT
5,830
5.484
8,119
8,239
895
16.3
3.8
115
95
4
4

UD
/
/
V
V

/
4
4
UD
DC
39
•
186
-
38
97.4
99.0
28.9
6.7
4
4

UD
UD
3
29
4
4
4
UD
DE
3,158
2,427
3,208
-
802
33.0
100.0
2063
384
/
4

/
/
10
179
•f
4
4

FL
51.858
22,993
52,887
22,993
7,933
34.5
2.1
320
157

UD
4

UD
/
68
69
4
4
4
4
GA
70,150
44,056
67.567
-
-
-
NR
494
NR
/
4

145
4
4
4
UD
HI
249
249
250
-
-
-
pilot studies
/
/

IA
71,685
26.830
83,192
-
9,980
37.5
19.5
2.413
2,776
4
UD

/
/

4
4
UD
UD
ID
115,595
54.948
118,064
-
12,987
23.6
not reported
4
4

V
/

51
4

IL
32.190
31,156
34.950
30,246
13,980
44.9
24.7
3,839
3,865
/
4

/
V
/

206
4
4
UD
UD
IN
35,673
21.094
36.048
21.094
6,849
32.5
8.6
729
1,094
/
4
/
/
4

/
/

341
4
4

UD
"Draft RF3 total miles (or 1994 National Water Quality Inventory. Taken from 1992 National Water Quality Inventory individual state summaries (U.S. EPA 1994). 'Refer to the list of qualifiers for (he use of State Bioassessment data following
summary table. Five mile default used for the following slates: AL, CT, MD, Ml, NY. VA, VT, and WV. 'Decision Thresholds are thresholds based on biological data used to make decisions relaled to or on the following: WRM - waler
resource management (non-regulatory management decisions); ALU - aquatic life use; WQS - water quality standards, narrative end numeric biocrfleiia. "Percentage of EPA perennial miles (or percentage of EPA total miles when perennial
mileage Is not available). For those states assessing 100% or more of perennial miles, the use of random sampling method Is assumed. V = incorporated Mo program; UD => under development; REF »reference sites; AMB = ambient sites:
NR a not reported; not applicable • did not meel minimum requirements as per the attached data qualifiers.
-------
Table 2 (continued).
W
State
Total Miles
(EPA)'
Total Miles
(State)"
Miles Assessed
For Aquatic Life
Use
Miles Assessed For
Biological Integrity'
Biological Indicator
Reference Condition
Multlmetric
U of Sites
Monitored
Decision Thresholds'1

Total
Perennial
Total
Perennial
Miles
%of
Total
Miles*
%of
Total
Miles'
Impaired
Not
Impaired
Fish
Benthos
Algae
Eco-
region
Site-
single
Other
Bio
Hab
Ref
Amb
WRM
ALU
WQS
Nar
Num
KS
134.338
23,731
131,562
23,731
17,103
72.1
1.3
69.5
228
4
4

4
4

54
4
4

KY
89.431
-
88,519
-
9.181
10.3
1.8
260
1.359
4
4
4
UD
4
4
4
UD

66
4
4
UD
UD
LA
66.294
32,955
64,922
32,955
-
-
pilot studies
4
4

4
4
25

MA
8,229
-
8,728
-
1.529
18.6
3.3
134
141
/
4
4
UD
4

4
4

21
4
4
UD

MD
17.000
12,343
17,000
12,343
6,039
35.5
12.2
1.175
325
UD
4

UD
4

4
4

300
4
UD
4

ME
31,672
-
31.672
-
31,672
100.0
0.9
28
272
/
4

UD
4
4
4
4

71
4
4
4
UD
Ml
51,438
29.033
56,475
29,033
22,590
77.8
9.2
1.535
1,140
4
4

UD
4

535
4
4

MN
91,944
-
92,680
-
3,508
3.8
pilot studies
4
4
4
4
4

MO
51,015
21,015
116,750
12.000
21.015
100.0
not applicable
UD
4

UD
4

UD
UD

4
UD
MS
84,003
26,454
83,382
-
35.251
100.0
1.4
63
301
4
4

UD
4

4
UD
15
77
4
4

UD
MT
176.750
53,221
179.659
-
84.906
100.0
pilot studies
4
4
4
UD

4
4
38
63
4
4

UD
NC
37,600
-
37,699
-
35,060
93.2
18 7
1.914.9
5,104.7
4
4

4
4

737
4
4
4

ND
11,868
-
11,912
-
9,204
77.6
pilot studies
4
UD

4
UD

UD
NE
81,573
16,090
80,610
17,783
6,211
38.6
40.5
4,515
2.008
4
4

4
4
17
100
4
4
4

NH
10,881
8,636
10,841
-
10,841
100.0
under development
4
4

UD
4

4
4

4
4
UD

NJ
6,450
-
6,587
-
1,419
22.0
8.8
348
222
4
4

/
4

4
4
40
190
4
4
4

'Draft RF3 total miles (or 1994 National Water Quality Inventory. Taken from 1992 National Water Quality Inventory individual slate summaries (U.S. EPA 1994). 'Refer to the list of qualifiers for the use of State Bioassessment data following
summary table. Five mile default used for the following states: AL, CT, MO. Ml. NY, VA, VT, and WV. "Decision Thresholds are thresholds based on biological data used to make decisions related to or on the following: WRM - water
resource management (non-regulatory management decisions); ALU - aquatic life use; WQS - water quality standards, narrative and numeric biocriteria. 'Percentage of EPA perennial miles (or percentage of EPA total miles when perennial
mileage Is not available). For those slates assessing 100% or more of perennial miles, the use of random sampling method is assumed. 4 " incorporated into program; UD = under development; REF = reference sites; AMB = ambient sites'
NR = not reported; not applicable = did not meet minimum requirements as per the attached data qualifiers.
-------
Table 2 (continued).

-------
Table 2 (continued).
W
i
O)
State
Total Miles
(EPA)"
Total Miles
(State)"
Miles Assessed
For Aquatic Life
Use
Miles Assessed For
Biological Integrity0
Biological Indicator
Reference Condition
Multlmetric
# of Sites
Monitored
Decision Thresholds*

Total
Perennial
Total
Perennial
Miles
%of
Total
Miles*
%of
Total
Miles'
Impaired
Not
Impaired
Fish
Benthos
Algae
Eco-
reglon
Site-
single
Other
Bio
Hab
Ref
Amb
WRM
ALU
WQS
Nar
Num
Wl
57.698
32,010
56,680
32,010
11,409
35.6
16.7
1,419.8
3,915
/
/

V
V
/

WV
32,278
21,114
33,044
•
5,290
25.1
1.5
170
155

¦r

•r
V
UD

WY
113,422
32,520
23,127
32,520
-
-
2.2
506
207

Total
3,542,563
962,413
3,385,026

556,815
58.9
6.4
30,498
31,168

Draft RF3 total miles for 1994 National Water Quality Inventory. "Taken from 1992 National Water Quality Inventory individual state summaries (U.S. EPA 1994). 'Refer to the list of qualifiers for Ihe use of Slate Bioassessment data following
summary table. Five mile default used for the following states: AL, CT, MO. Ml, NY, VA, VT, and WV. "Decision Thresholds are thresholds based on biological data used to make decisions related to or on the following: WRM - water
resource management (non-regulatory management decisions); ALU - aquatic life use: WQS - water quality standards, narrative and numeric biocriteria. 'Percentage of EPA perennial miles (or percentage of EPA total miles when perennial
mileage is not available). For those states assessing 100% or more of perennial miles, the use of random sampling method is assumed. / = incorporated into program; UD = under development: REF = reference sites; AMB = ambient sites:
NR = not reported; not applicable = (fid not meet minimum requirements as per the attached data qualifiers. ORSANCO = Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. All mileage Is from Ohio River mainstream; not duplicated by states
within drainage area.
-------
Qualifiers for the use of State Bioassessment Data
The following qualifiers were applied to determine whether information from State bioassessment
programs could be used in support of the National Environmental Goals Project, Office of Water
Indicators, and OPPE's State of the Environment Report. State biological survey data has been
collected and aggregated so that, as a composite, it could be used as a national biological integrity
indicator. These data are not necessarily representative of all waters, and the compilation is not an
attempt to redefine aquatic life use attainment (i.e. the use designation which is part of water
quality standards programs). Virtually all information provided was based upon biological surveys
from perennial streams, a subset of total stream miles.
These qualifiers are for biological data captured under "Miles Assessed For Biological Integrity".
1. COMMUNITY/ASSEMBLAGE LEVEL DATA. State-supported biological survey information
for fish, benthos, and/or algal assemblages and data are used in 305(b) reporting, or are
provided in other State sources. Data NOT included are those from toxicity testing, fish
tissue analyses, and single species indicators. Site impairment data from pilot programs are
not included, since they: are often tentative models of future programs; are often difficult
to obtain; may skew the information; and are often performed strictly on reference sites.
2. SITE ASSESSMENTS MUST BE PERFORMED. Data may or may not be used strictly for
determining aquatic life use attainment; and are included providing that they are
community/assemblage level survey information used for determining the level of biological
impairment (i.e., impaired, unimpaired, excellent, good, fair, or poor).
3. RECENCY OF SAMPLE/DATA COLLECTIONS. Data are at most five years old, per 305(b)
guidelines. Some states use two years of data in their 305(b) reports whereas others use
five years (or more) as "monitored" data.
4. TYPE OF BIOASSESSMENT. Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) levels II and III are
appropriate for benthos and are minimally acceptable; Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (and/or
RBP V) for fish, and/or a multimetric approach for algae. RBP I and RBP IV are highly
qualitative and are not appropriate for use in this compilation.
5. BASIS OF IMPAIRMENT DECISION. Assessments should be based upon comparison with a
suitable reference condition.
6. ASSESSMENT COVERAGE. State must provide river miles assessed or number of sites.
7. RESULTS. Results must be documented either through specific State 305(b) reports,
biological trend reports, written communication, or documented and verifiable telephone
conversations.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-7
-------
Section 3.2. State Program Descriptions and Program
Characterizaton Fact Sheets
ALABAMA
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (DEM) monitoring programs integrate chemical
criteria, whole effluent toxicity evaluations, and biological assessments to evaluate the water
quality of Alabama's surface waters. Biological monitoring allows the assessment of a wide range
of stressors and the type of biomonitoring is determined by the primary objectives of each program
and the responsibilities of DEM. Benthic macroinvertebrate community assessments have proven to
be a cost-effective water quality monitoring tool, and as a result, DEM currently conducts
macroinvertebrate surveys at ambient monitoring stations, water quality demonstration project
stations, and other special study project locations.
A modified multihabitat bioassessment protocol (MBP), based on USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (RBPs), is used to sample wadeable streams. A similar multihabitat bioassessment
protocol modeled after the North Carolina Department of Environmental Regulation Multihabitat
Assessment of large rivers, is used for nonwadeable streams. DEM standardized procedures include
the utilization of the Habitat Assessment Matrix (as described in RBPs for streams and wadeable
rivers), and the collection of macroinvertebrate fauna from comparable habitat types present at
each monitoring station. The nine evaluated habitat parameters are potentially limiting factors for
aquatic biota, and are related to overall aquatic life use attainment. A total of 43 wadeable and 6
nonwadeable sites were sampled using MBP during 1993. The biological scoring criteria (as
outlined in the RBPs) are utilized to evaluate the biotic integrity of each stream in relation to
ecoregional reference sites.
A joint ecological reference site development project was initiated in 1990 by Alabama, Mississippi,
EPA Region IV and EPA-Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis. This pilot project allowed
participating states to further refine shared ecoregions and locate possible candidate reference
sites, and provided the groundwork for DEM to begin subecoregion-level reference site work. Sites
in the Southeastern Plains, Piedmont, Sand Hills, Southwestern Appalachians, Dougherty/Marianna
Plains, Southeastern Plains and Hills, Blackland Prairie, and Interior Plateau have been visited to
determine their suitability as least-impacted reference sites. A total of approximately 25 reference
sites are currently sampled on an annual basis.
Data from the bioassessments are used to determine aquatic life use designations (fish and wildlife
use classification) of Alabama streams. Streams falling into the "nonimpaired" bioassessment
category are designated as "fully supporting" aquatic life use, and "moderately impaired" streams
are designated as "partially supporting". These comparisons have aided the DEM in evaluating the
"best attainable biotic community" within an ecoregion.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-8
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: ALABAMA
Contact:
Vicki Hulcher
Address: Dept. of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman W.L.
Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Phone/Fax: (205) 260-2752
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired *15
Impaired 85
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total 500
2. Number of sites sampled: Wadable streams: 38 (1992) - 15 candidate reference
43 (19931 - 24 candidate reference
Non-wadable streams: 6 (1993)
Norvwadable special study stations: 10(1992)
3 (1993)
3. Miles per site: 5 mile (default) per site
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: Modified RBP III = MBP (Multihabitat Bioassessment Protocol);
Semi-quantitative collection - Hester-Dendy Multiplate Samplers
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 25 sampled annually
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Taxa Richness, EPT,
Chironomid Taxa Richness, Biotic Index, % Contrib. Dominant Taxon, EPT/EPT + Chironomidae.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Biocriteria Standards Resource Mamt. life IJ56
Narrative (in place) X X
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: Harrison, J. 1995. Fax to W. Pavis; Alabama DEM (1992); Alabama PEM (1994);
U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994).
10. Comments: Bioassessments conducted during 1992-1993 reporting period.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-9
-------
ALASKA
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is conducting pilot bioassessments of
streams on Admiralty Island and Prince of Wales Island through 319 grant monies. The two
projects have been initiated to evaluate USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for use in
Alaska, especially the southeastern part of the state. Macroinvertebrate communities and habitat
are being assessed in order to describe the biological condition of streams and identify impaired
waterbodies within the study region.
Specific objectives of the Admiralty Island (Michael Creek) pilot study are to assess the
effectiveness of Alaska Forest Practices Act riparian buffers best management practices, and to
assess the effectiveness of macroinvertebrates as an indicator of overall stream health.
Macroinvertebrate community analysis will include the calculation of community structure metrics,
and metric values tabulated for downstream sample locations will be compared to upstream
reference values.
Prince of Wales Island pilot studies have been initiated to:
• validate RBPs as appropriate tools for the assessment of stream water quality in Alaska,
• describe the biological condition of Prince of Wales Island reference streams using the
multimetric approach,
• assess prevailing condition of Prince of Wales Island streams using RBPs,
• identify impaired streams that will require further evaluation to characterize impairment
sources and severity, and
• refine and adapt stream assessment procedures for application in conjunction with current
nonpoint source water quality assessment programs.
DEC has initiated discussions with the U.S. Forest Service (Southeast Alaska), National Marine
Fisheries Service, and Alaska Fish and Game to foster the development and adoption of a set of
multiagency-endorsed bioassessment protocols. At present, DEC has not developed formal
biological criteria or incorporated bioassessments into their water quality standards regulations.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-10
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: ALASKA
Contact: Jeffrey Hock
Address: Alaska Division of Environmental Quality
Juneau Environmental Analysis Laboratory
10107 Bentwood Place
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone/Fax: (907)790-2169
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Pilot Studies
5(12 streams proposed for Prince of Wales project)
<1
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: taxa richness, EPT index, Pinkham-Pearson
Community similarity index, family biotic index, % contribution of dominant family, % EPT/IEPT + Chironomidae)
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: Redburn, D. 1995. Personal communication; Hock, J. 1994. Personal communication;
Sabock (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a); Hayslip (1993).
10. Comments: Information on number of sites sampled from D. Redburn, personal communication. Additional
investigations of the utility of RBP's have been conducted by Environmental and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI), of
University of Alaska Fairbanks - streams studied in Anchorage vicinity.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-11
-------
ARIZONA
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has implemented a plan for the eventual
development of narrative biological criteria, and incorporation of the criteria into state water quality
standards. Initial program efforts have focused on small to medium-sized perennial waters, with
approximately 100 streams (primarily in central and southeastern Arizona) sampled during 1992.
These streams, along with 14 sites sampled within Grand Canyon National Park by Park Service
personnel, are intended to be reference sites or representative least-impacted streams within their
respective regions. A few additional locations with known sources of impact have been sampled to
serve as comparisons to the least-impacted sites. Sites were not selected on the basis of ecoregion
designation, but rather were selected to provide as broad a coverage as possible with an even
distribution among Arizona's major river basins.
Current reference condition development efforts focus on testing the adequacy of the ecoregion
approach for differentiating macroinvertebrate communities throughout the state. Data will be
collected from least-impacted/reference sites for three to five years before narrative biological
criteria are developed. The multiple-year data set will be used to address temporal biological
variation, and will ultimately comprise the reference conditions for Arizona.
Since the present knowledge of the non-fish aquatic resources is limited, the bioassessment
program is in a biological inventory phase. Macroinvertebrate kick samples and algal (periphyton)
rock scrapings have been collected for three years (1992-1994), and DEQ is beginning to process
the data and consider biological metrics. Candidate biological metrics have not yet been
individually tested for their ability to distinguish biological impairment or ecoregional differences.
Bioassessments of macroinvertebrates and algae, along with assessments of stream habitat (i.e.,
habitat evaluation as per U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol guidance) are intended to be used
to: develop an inventory of aquatic biological resources in Arizona streams; evaluate various
assessment methods; investigate biological community-habitat relationships; identify regional
differences in community structure; and develop narrative biocriteria for inclusion in Arizona water
quality standards. The present bioassessment program is the initial step toward the development of
narrative biocriteria in Arizona, and as the program develops, DEQ plans to expand its scope to
develop numeric criteria and biocriteria for other waterbody types (e.g., large rivers; intermittent,
effluent-dominated, and ephemeral streams).
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-1 2
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: ARIZONA
Contact:
Patrice Spindler
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total. Under Development
2. Number of sites sampled: 30
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates; periphyton
5. Sampling gear or Method: Benthic macroinvertebrates = D-frame kicknet
Periphyton - Cobble/gravel scrapings
Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Standards Unit
3033 North Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4543/4528
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 90-100
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
UP Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used: Canoco; cluster analysis
UP Muhimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Family HBI. Considering: species richness; EPT;
EPT/Chironomidae; scrapers/fitterers; shredders/total; % contribution dominanat 5 taxa; Shannon-Wiener diversity
index; % Hydropsyche/Trichoptera; % Baetidae/Ephemeroptera; % Tanytarsini; % Chironomidae; % Simuliidae;
% Dipteral non-insect taxa.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Bioeriteria Standards Resource Momt. Life USQ
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place) _
Under development X X X
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Meyerhoff, R. 1992. Personal communication;
Spindler, P. 1995. Personal communication.
10. Comments: 1995 represents fourth year of sampling. Initiated analysis of 3 years of data, and development of
reference site database.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-13
-------
ARKANSAS
The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) has, since the 1970s, used
bioassessments to investigate point source pollution, nonpoint source pollution, and water quality
trends. Pilot studies initiated by the ADPCE Biomonitoring Section, focus on the evaluation of
bioassessment techniques, the design of a biological metric iscoring system, and the development
of biocriteria for the determination of aquatic life use status. The ADPCE biological metric scoring
criteria, based on aquatic macroinvertebrate community measures, follow the technical guidance of
U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs). Semi-quantitative and qualitative measures of
stream macroinvertebrate communities are utilized in metrics representative of community
diversity, indicator organism, and functional group approaches.
ADPCE biomonitoring stations are chosen on a priority basis and are primarily at streams possessing
high resource values and/or potential for water quality impairment. A priority list aids in the
selection of monitoring locations, and is formulated from information such as discharge monitoring
reports, knowledge of potential sources of pollutants, and land use information. Current
bioassessment program emphasis is on pollution point sources.
Arkansas has identified and conducted extensive research on the least-disturbed streams within its
ecoregions, and combines an ecoregional reference and paired-station approach to bioassessments.
Paired stations or sample sites that bracket pollutant sources not only examine site-specific changes
in water quality, but also compare biological communities within the same ecoregion. ADPCE also
uses habitat evaluations to verify whether significant differences between biological communities
are attributable to habitat or to water quality. Field habitat measures, maps, aerial photos,
discharge permit information, and discharge monitoring reports form the basis of the habitat
evaluation; and prior knowledge of land uses, potential pollutants, gradient, ecoregion and
watershed size facilitate the consistency of sampling effort and the selection of sample sites.
Bioassessments in Arkansas are used in a decision matrix for impact identification which triggers
further investigative action (e.g., chemical analysis of water, sediment, fish tissue; toxicity testing).
The use of bioassessments and resulting biocriteria as a permit limit or water quality standard is in
the proposal stage. Arkansas water quality standards provide for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish and other forms of aquatic life through protection of fisheries use. The inclusion of
macroinvertebrate biocriteria as a water quality standard are intended to enhance protection of
fisheries uses and provide a measure of alterations of biological properties. The application of
biocriteria is being proposed to aid in the determination of aquatic life use status of Arkansas
streams. Streams falling into the "non-impaired" bioassessment classification would be designated
as "fully supporting" aquatic life use. Locations rated as "minimally impaired", "substantially
impaired", or "excessively impaired" would designate aquatic life use full, partial, and non-support,
respectively.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-14
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: ARKANSAS
Contact:
John Giese
Address:
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control & Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
Phone/Fax:
(501) 570-2121
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent _
Good
Fair __
Poor
Total Pilot Studies
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: Rapid Bioassessment Protocol-Type
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Dominants in common; Common Taxa Index,
Quantitative Similarity Index; Taxa Richness; Indicator Assemblage Index; Missing Genera; Functional Group
Percent Similarity.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
(RBP precursor • RBP II equivalent)
fijpcriterifl
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Resource Momt. Life US9
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development

9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Arkansas DPCE (1994); Sabock (1994); Shackleford (1988).
10. Comments:
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-15
-------
CALIFORNIA
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Water Pollution Control Laboratory uses
chemical, toxicological, and biological techniques to assess status, damage, and monitor recovery
of California streams. In December 1993, CDFG released a bioassessment plan consisting of a
regional modification of U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs). These "California
Stream Bioassessment Procedures" (CSBP) outline benthic macroinvertebrate sampling,
macroinvertebrate laboratory analysis, and field and laboratory quality control procedures.
Current CSBP pollution point source monitoring strategies call for the comparison of
macroinvertebrate kick samples from downstream (affected) sections and upstream (unaffected)
sections of stream with homogenous gradient, substrate, and habitat condition. CDFG conducts a
RBP habitat assessment at each sampling site if they have.not previously collected habitat
information from the location using their fisheries protocol quantitative habitat assessment
procedures. The non-point source monitoring strategy calls for the comparison of
macroinvertebrate communities from potentially impacted streams to communities from a local
reference stream (or stream section) of similar habitat condition. All macroinvertebrate data are
analyzed using the multimetric approach as recommended in the U.S. EPA biological criteria
technical guidance document for streams and small rivers.
The CSBP has been successfully used to assess point source pollution of organic enrichment and
inorganic sediment. Currently, the CSBP is being tested in pilot programs to assess biological
condition of streams influenced by timber harvest practices, and to develop biocriteria as a water
quality management tool in the Consumnes and Russian river basins. Specific pilot programs
initiated during 1995 include: Consumnes River bioassessment and biocriteria development;
Watershed Academy to train the timber industry in bioassessment protocols; Russian River
bioassessment and development of citizen monitoring quality control procedures; Auburn River
bioassessments to evaluate effluents and develop biocriteria for Sacramento Valley urban streams;
and bioassessments of wild trout streams (i.e., potential reference streams for biocriteria
development) for CDFG Inland Fisheries Division.
At present, California does not incorporate bioassessment results into aquatic life use attainment
designations. CDFG, in cooperation with the State Water Resources Board and funding from U.S.
EPA, has formed the California Aquatic Bioassessment Workgroup: to facilitate the development of
ecoregional reference conditions, bioassessment procedures, and biocriteria; and to review and
distribute standard procedures for bioassessments of California waters. The state has also formed
an ecoregion workgroup with U.S. EPA and the Forest Service to begin work on the establishment
of ecoregional reference conditions for streams.
DO NOT CITE. QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-16
-------
STATE: CALIFORNIA
Contact:
Jim Harrington
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: California Stream Bioassessment Procedures (CSBP)
(Regional Application of Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III)
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Species Richness; Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index; % Contribution of Dominant Taxon; EPT Index; Community Similarity Index; Diversity Index.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality
Biocriteria Standards
Narrative (in place) X
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Harrington, J. 1995. Personal communication; Sabock (1994);
California Dept. of Fish & Game (1995).
10. Comments: CSBP released in December 1993. Pilot programs in 1994 & 1995: Consumnes
River Bioassessment and Biocriteria Development; Watershed Academy; Russian River
Bioassessment; Auburn River Bioassessment; and Bioassessment of Wild Trout Streams.
California Fish and Game Department
Water Pollution Control Laboratory
2005 Nimbus Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 355-0856/4301
Under Development
Used in Water Aquatic
Resource Momt. Life Use
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-17
-------
COLORADO
The Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) is conducting pilot
biological assessments and habitat characterizations based on U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols. The pilot studies focus on Cherry Creek and South Platte River, with the primary goal
being the identification of nonpoint source pollution impacts. Approximately 100 sites in the
Denver vicinity are being studied using physical, chemical, and bioassessment techniques. The
pilot study is somewhat unique due to the intensity of the sampling effort within an urban area
(i.e., 100 sites sampled four times per year along an approximate 15 mile length of stream).
Locations of the monitoring sites were selected to specifically bracket stormwater outfalls or other
pollution point sources. WQCD will use the data in conjunction with land use information to
identify and prioritize the most impaired areas in the Denver vicinity.
At present, Colorado has not developed statewide bioassessment procedures or formal biological
criteria. However, the WQCD does use biological information from a variety of sources (e.g., Water
Quality Control Division special studies, Superfund/NRDS studies, Colorado Nonpoint Assessment
Reports) to supplement or reinforce water quality information in the determination of the intensity
of designated aquatic life use impairment. When the survival, propagation, production, dispersion,
community structure, and/or species diversity of aquatic life is protected within the limits of the
physical habitat, full support of designated uses is implied. However, nonsupport of aquatic life
uses is indicated when any or all of the above biological components are impaired and are coupled
with state-prescribed water quality standard exceedances.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-18
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS

STATE: COLORADO
Contact:
Bob McConnell
Address:
Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, Water
Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
Phone/Fax:
(303) 692-3578
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair __
Poor
Total Pilot Studies
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: Rapid Bioassessment Protocol pilot studies
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Water Quality . Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Resource Momt. Life Use
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
-UE.

9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); U.S. EPA |1994d); Sabock (1994).
10. Comments: Pilot studies conducted during 1994 in Denver city and county.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-19
-------
CONNECTICUT
The Connecticut Bureau of Water Management (CTBWM) has a biological monitoring program that
allows evaluation of water quality through assessments of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates.
The RBP III results were provided in the 1992 Connecticut 305(b) document.
DO NOT CITE. QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-20
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: CONNECTICUT
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
st\/ ¦>
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
.25.
Hi
Donald Gonyea
Bureau of Water Management PERD
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(203) 566-2588
210
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
42
5 mile (default) per site
Fish (not reported); Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessmerrt Protocol III
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites.
X Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Biocrittria Standards Resource Momt. Life Use
Narrative (in place) X X X
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Switzer, D. 1995. Fax to W. Davis; Connecticut DEP (1992).
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1992 305(b) two-year reporting period.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-21
-------
DELAWARE
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) bioassessment
program focuses on overall assessment of non-tidal streams. The DNREC assesses these streams
with application to the biennial water quality assessment reporting process, management of water
resources, and as a tool for determining nonpoint source impacts to streams. The bioassessment
program has been in existence for nearly five years, and standard operating procedures are at
present being finalized. The objective of the bioassessment program is to establish narrative and
numeric biocriteria in state water quality standards. These biocriteria will in the future be used to
identify and control activities the impact designated uses.
The DNREC bioassessment program began with the sampling of invertebrate communities at 93
locations in Kent and Sussex Counties during 1991. A total of 96 sites were surveyed during
1993, and all surveys (during survey years) included habitat quality measurements. The primary
objective of the studies was to provide an assessment of the biological and habitat condition of
nontidal streams throughout the state. A secondary objective was to quantify the relationships
between biological quality using macroinvertebrates and habitat quality.
DNREC habitat assessment procedures follow the technical guidance of USEPA's Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs), with some modifications. Habitat scores are compiled separately
for the Northern Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions. Canonical correlation analysis is used to
identify reference sites according to habitat and biological variables. Site scores were divided by
reference values to provided a "percent of reference" final score.
Biological assessment procedures follow RBP guidance and focus on the macroinvertebrate
community. Methods used in Delaware were developed in conjunction with several other states in
USEPA Regions II, III, and IV. The Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams workshop has established a
standardized macroinvertebrate method consisting of 20 "jabs" with a D-frame net in stable and
productive habitats. DNREC uses a probability-based design to sample macroinvertebrates. The
primary advantage to using this statistical approach is that results obtained at a subset of sites can
be applied to the larger total complement of streams with a greater degree of confidence.
Multiple sources of impairment (including various chemical stressors and habitat degradation) have
been detected using the DNREC approach to water quality assessment. Impairment of aquatic life
use attainment is determined using the reference condition as a point of comparison. Site are
ranked as good, fair, or poor based on biological quality (percent of reference). Values in the
"good" range are comparable to the reference and indicate high quality. Whereas, values in the
"poor" range are not comparable to the reference and indicate severe degradation. And site values
rated as "fair" are moderate in quality as compared to the reference.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-22
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: DELAWARE
Contact:
John Maxted
Address: Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
84 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
Phone/Fax:
(302)739-4590/6140
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
364
2.063
2.427
2. Number of sites sampled: 179 plus 10 reference
(93 sites in 1991; 96 sites in 1993)
3. Miles per site: Probability design (100 meters per station)
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (not reported)
5. Sampling gear or Method: D-frame dipnet; 20- jab method; 100 organism subsample;
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 10
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Macroinvertebrates - Taxa Richness; EPT; % EPT;
% Dominant family; % Chironomidae; Family Biotic Index; BCI.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Biacrfaria Standards Resource Momt. Life Use
Narrative (in place) X X
Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Maxted, J. 1994. Personal communication; Delaware DNREC (1994);
Shaver, et.al. (draft manuscript); Sabock (1994); Maxted, J. 1995. Personal communication; MACS (1993, draft).
10. Comments: Numbers represent information (for 1991-1993 bioassessments) as per John Maxted.
State program moving toward use of RBP III.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-23
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Regulation
Administration, Water Resources Management Division (WRMD) surface water quality standards
include an aquatic life use class designation to assure the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife. The District's chemical, physical and hydrological programs are by
themselves inadequate to protect or determine aquatic life use. Fish are systematically sampled by
the District's Fisheries Management Division; however, the data are primarily applicable to resource
management, not water quality monitoring. WRMD collects monthly plankton samples from the
Anacostia and Potomac Rivers; however, the resulting data are not yet in a form that can be used
for assessments. The indicator assemblage chosen by WRMD for bioassessments is the
macroinvertebrate community.
District-wide bioassessments were initiated during 1992 and 1993 through a grant from WRMD.
The intensive surveys used U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) (combined with
physical and chemical data) to assess most (29) of the District's surface streams. Approximately
150 measurements or metrics were determined for each monitoring site and compared to three
least impaired reference sites to estimate biological and habitat quality (based on RBP technical
guidance). This initial effort was used to: establish a specific methodology for future assessments;
characterize available habitat and habitat degradation; establish baseline for stream monitoring and
appraisal of future remediation efforts; and help locate areas of significant biological impact.
The District now uses bioassessment data for water resource management and to aid in the
evaluation of aquatic life use attainability. In some cases, WRMD relies on bioassessments rather
than chemical/physical standards to make aquatic life use decisions. Aquatic life use
determinations (based on RBP data) are made using the following criteria;
• when reliable data show that the biological community has not been modified
beyond the natural range of the reference condition, full support of aquatic life use
is indicated,
• when at least one biological assemblage indicates less than full support with slight
to moderate modification of the biological community, partial support of aquatic life
use is indicated, and
• when data clearly show severe modification of at least one assemblage of the
biological community, non-support of aquatic life use is indicated.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-24
-------
/-K:.n=T>„
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS

STATE: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
JL2
28.9
38.6

Hamid Karimi
Chief, Water Quality Monitoring Branch
DC Environmental Regulation Administration
Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20020-5732
(202) 645-6601
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
29
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Benthic macroinvertebrates; fish
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites (3 reference streams)
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat
RBP III used for Aquatic Life Use Support decisions. Macroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; modified HBI; Ratio of
scrapers/filterers; Ratio EPT/chironomid abundance; % contribution dominant taxon; EPT; community loss index;
Ratio of shredders/total.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality
P'ocmena Standards
Narrative (in place) X
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development ¦
Used in Water Aquatic
Resource Momt. Life Use
_X_
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); District of Columbia, Dept'. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (1994);
Sabock (1994); Karimi, H. 1995. Letter to R. Preston; Banta (1993).
10. Comments: Bioassessments conducted January 1992 to March 1993. RBP III used for Aquatic Life Use Support
decisions.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-25
-------
FLORIDA
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has established a Surface Water Ambient
Monitoring Program (SWAMP) for the purposes of :
• identifying and documenting prevailing surface water conditions,
• determining trends in surface water quality and documenting problem areas,
• determining support of water quality criteria,
• establishing stream ecoregion reference sites, and
• providing information for management, legislators, other agencies and the public.
DEP primary strategies for monitoring include the determination of ecoregion subregions and the
development of community bioassessment protocols. Standard operating procedures have been
written for laboratory and sample collection activities. DEP bioassessment protocols provide a
multi-metric assessment methodology for evaluating Florida streams. The subregionalization of
Florida from three ecoregions to 13 subregions has also been completed. Reference sites were
established on 66 streams for use in development of community bioassessment protocols. The
sites were selected to represent least-impacted or background sites for each of the subregional
types, and were sampled two times per year (winger and summer). The goal of this sampling effort
was to determine the best quality macroinvertebrate community present for the representative
habitat and water chemistry.
Currently, Florida DEP has established a fixed-station network for monitoring reference sites
scattered throughout two aggregated subecoregions. The reference condition developed from a
composite of the reference sites within each of the two subecoreginal groupings is used to
characterize a multimetric biological index for assessing impairment to Florida's streams. This
monitoring approach, which is based on macroinvertebrate assemblage, is used to asses the
condition of streams as part of the nonpoint source program and is used as a benchmark for
assessing condition in the point-source program.
Macroinvertebrate assessment results are also used in the process of determining aquatic life use
support. During the 1994 Water Quality Assessment reporting period, macroinvertebrate
community information was used to assess aquatic life use support for a total of 69 watersheds.
Biological-based water rules for Florida involve three major lines of evidence which include:
determination of biotic integrity of a site, dominance of nuisance species, and imbalance of flora
and fauna. The biological criteria protecting biotic integrity are based on Shannon-Weaver Diversity
Index values for macroinvertebrate communities (sampled via Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate
samplers). Community imbalance is defined as a 25% departure from reference conditions that is a
25% reduction in the diversity index from established background levels.
Stream monitoring in Florida will add a site randomization aspect, which is intended to enable a
more accurate assessment of biological condition throughout the state. Fixed reference stations
have been randomly selected to be sampled on a 5-year rotational cycle. In addition, 75% of the
monitoring effort in any given year will focus on non-reference sites that will be randomly chosen
for assessment. This monitoring approach of sampling both reference and non-reference sites in a
random manner will provide data on the status of the reference database as welj as a statewide
assessment of biological condition and impairment.
00 NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-26
-------
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Phone/Fax:
(904) 488-0782/6579
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
157
320
AIL
69
Average is 7.2 miles per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
(currently testing difference between 20-jab method and artificial
substrates).
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 66
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
__ Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat. Macroinvertebrates -
Number of taxa; EPT; Number of Chironomidae taxa; Number of Crustacean/Mollusc taxa; Shannon-Wiener Index;
% Dominant taxon; % Diptera; % Crustacan/Mollusc; Florida Index; % Class I and Class II; Hilsenhoff Biotic Index:
% Collector-Gatherers; % Collector-Filterers; % Shredders.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Biocriteria Standards Resource Momt. Life Use
Narrative (in place) X X X
Numeric (in place) X
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Florida DEP (1994); Hand, J. 1994. Personal
communication. McCarron, E. 1995. Personal communication; Florida DER (1992); Sabock
(1994).
10. Comments: Numbers presented in #1 & 2 (above) represent 1994 305(b) reporting cycle --
1992-1993. Florida 305(b) program is coordinated by Joe Hand (904) 921-9926.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-27
-------
GEORGIA
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) uses trend monitoring, intensive surveys, and
biological monitoring and assessments as surface water monitoring tools to manage and regulate
Georgia water resources. EPD operates a fixed station trend monitoring network in cooperation
with the U.S. Geological Survey that includes 145 strategically located stations. Intensive stream
surveys, which complement fixed station monitoring, are conducted to address specific issues such
as cause-effect relationships, wasteload allocations, and water quality assessments. During the
1994 Water Quality Assessment reporting period, EPD surveyed macroinvertebrates at six of the
trend monitoring network stations.
EPD is continuing to refine state biological monitoring methods and is currently preparing a standard
operating procedures manual for macroinvertebrate bioassessments. This Georgia bioassessment
protocol will represent an intensive, multi-habitat, multi-biometric approach to assessing
macroinvertebrate communities. Biological monitoring activities have begun for Georgia's River
Basin Management Project on the Chattahoochee and Flint River basins; however, current Water
Quality Management Program (WQMP) emphasis is on the solidification of bioassessment
methodologies for streams throughout the state, development of the protocol, and the initiation of
a long-term reference site monitoring program. Members of the WQMP are currently being trained
in macroinvertebrate field collection techniques and habitat assessment methods. WQMP teams
have assessed more than 20 streams using U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) revised
habitat assessment methods for riffle/run and glide/pool prevalent streams.
Biological assessment information is used by EPD in the designated use support characterization
process. Fish survey information provided by the Wildlife Resources Division has placed 494 miles
of streams on the partial support list. The Index of Biotic Integrity is used to classify fish
populations as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. Stream segments rated as poor or very
poor are considered as not meeting the "fishing" water use classification and are included in the
partially supporting list.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-28
-------
vr v
STATE: GEORGIA Contact: Mark Winn, III
Address: Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Water Quality Management Program
205 Butler Street, SE
Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone/Fax: (404) 656-4905
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled: 145
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates (not reported)
5. Sampling gear or Method: Fish Index of Biotic Integrity pilot studies
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity pilot studies.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality
Biocriteria Standards
Narrative (in place) ¦ X
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: Georgia DNR (1994); U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994).
10. Comments: Bioassessments conducted 1992-1993.
494
Not recorded
Used in Water Aquatic
Resource Momt. Life Use
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-29
-------
HA WAU
The Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) collects fish and shellfish samples for tissue analysis;
however, state-wide bioassessment procedures are not developed at the present time. DOH is in
the process of initiating pilot studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, and is considering the
application of a multi-metric approach. During this preliminary stage of development, selected
candidate biological metrics are being considered for use in support of narrative biocriteria for
streams in Hawaii.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-30
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: HAWAII
Contact:
Gordon Smith
Address:
Hawaii Dept. of Health and Environmental Planning
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
Phone/Fax:
(808) 586-4351
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total Pilot studies
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage (si: Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
5. Sampling gear or Method:
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Fish - species richness Inumber native and number
introduced); relative abundance (native taxa, sensitive native taxa, tolerant introduced taxa); sentivity index
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Smith, G. 1995. Personal communication; Smith, G. 1995.
Email to M. Barbour.
10. Comments:
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Biocriteria
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Resource MqffiL kite Use
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE. OR DISTRIBUTE
3-31
-------
IDAHO
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not
established biological criteria for use in Water Quality Standards at the present time; however,
bioassessment protocols have been developed for Idaho streams and wadable rivers.
Bioassessments of the macroinvertebrate and fish communities are used in both the nonpoint
source control and antidegradation facets of DEQ's water quality program.
Under an Antidegradation Agreement finalized in 1988, DEQ cosponsors Basin Area meetings every
2 years to: provide current water quality and fish habitat status information; discuss current and
future nonpoint source activities; obtain public input; and identify stream segments of concern.
Another key provision of the agreement is the establishment of a coordinated monitoring program.
Three levels of monitoring intensity—basic, reconnaissance, and intensive—have been developed
for water quality monitoring in support of the Antidegradation Program. Basic monitoring consists
of an office compilation of existing monitoring and beneficial use data. Reconnaissance level
monitoring includes: field inventories and qualitative assessments of instream beneficial uses
conducted on all stream segments of concern; U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP)
habitat assessments; and RBP macroinvertebrate surveys. Biological assessments at the intensive
level of study involve quantitative habitat monitoring for selected parameters; use of a Hess
sampler for macroinvertebrate surveys; and the four-step removal method for fish community
assessments.
DEQ has conducted biological assessments at 51 selected stream segments of concern. The
biological data are evaluated using a RBP and Index of Biotic Integrity-based approach for
macroinvertebrates and fish, respectively. In order to provide consistency in monitoring and
assessment methods, DEQ has prepared a series of protocols that address fish, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and habitat including:
• Protocols for Evaluation and Monitoring of Stream-Riparian Habitats Associated with
Aquatic Communities in Rangeland Streams,
• Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity (Macroinvertebrates) in Idaho Streams,
and
• Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity (Fish) in Idaho Streams.
Biological assessments have been included in a variety of project-specific applications in Idaho as
part of: State Agricultural Water Quality projects; enforcement cases;~ecoregion refinement and
Rocky Mountain ecoregion BMP effectiveness monitoring on forest lands; the Beneficial Use
Reconnaissance project; and a variety of use attainability studies in northern Idaho.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-32
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: IDAHO
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Not Reported

\ r" —
Bill Clark
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1253
(208) 334-5860
2. Number of sites sampled: 51
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: Fish - electrofishing; Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V; Macroinvertebrates • travelling kicknet,
Hess, or Surber; Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III.
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/lnterpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Fish - total number of
species, number of native species, number of introduced species, number of salmonid species, number of benthic
insectivores, number of intolerant species, % introduced species, Jaccard coefficient, % carnivores, % omnivores,
% insectivores, % salmonids, density (# and weight), salmonid (density & biomass), % YOY, % YOY salmonids, %
anomalies, salmonid condition factor. Macroinvertebrates - taxa richness, EPT, HBI, abundance-catch/unit effort,
percent scrapers, percent filterers, percent shredders, Jaccard coefficient.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds
Biocritaria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Idaho DHW (1994); Sabock (1994); Hayslip (1993);
Clark and Maret (1991); Chandler and Maret (1991).
10. Comments: Idaho DEQ has developed a series of 8 protocol documents that address fish,
benthic macroinvertebrates, habitat, and use attainability analysis.
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Resource Momt. t,ife U5S
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-33
-------
ILLINOIS
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water monitoring programs consist of a combination
of fixed station networks and intensive stream surveys of specific watersheds. IEPA operates an
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network of 206 fixed stations to characterize and define trends
in the physical, chemical, and biological condition of Illinois surface waters. Facility-related stream
surveys target municipal and industrial wastewater treatment discharges, and consist of upstream-
downstream comparisons of macroinvertebrate communities, water chemistry, stream flow, and
habitat. The survey results are used to evaluate point source impacts, determine the significance of
the biological impact, and evaluate the need for additional wastewater treatment controls.
IEPA conducts intensive river basin surveys in cooperation with the Illinois Department of
Conservation (IDOC). Fish, macroinvertebrate, water chemistry, and habitat data are collected to:
refine and update biological stream characterization activities; identify biological integrity and
potential of streams in the basin; assess designated use attainment; and identify water quality
limited resources and priority waterbodies. IEPA and IDOC biologists have also developed a
Biological Stream Characterization Program (BSC). In addition to providing a stream classification
system for Illinois, the BSC is also used in the determination of designated use attainment for
streams. The BSC system consists of a provisional five-tier stream classification, predicted largely
on attributes of stream fish communities. BSC "unique" and "highly valued" resource designations
indicate full support of aquatic life use; "moderate" and "limited" aquatic resources classes indicate
partial support; and "restricted" aquatic resource class denotes non-support. In the absence of
adequate fish survey data, macroinvertebrate data or physical habitat descriptors (in that order)
may be used to develop a provisional stream classification.
Illinois aquatic life use assessments are based on a combination of biological and physiochemical
data generated from the various IEPA monitoring programs. The biological data consist of fish and
macroinvertebrate community information which are evaluated using the Index of Biotic Integrity
(IBI) and the IEPA Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI), respectively. Stream habitat data are used
to estimate biotic potential in the form of a Predicted Index of Biotic Integrity (PIBI) value generated
from a multiple regression equation. IBI and MBI integrity classifications of "good", "fair", and
"poor" indicate full, partial, and non-support of aquatic life use, respectively. PIBI score ratings of
"good" and "fair" denote full and partial aquatic life use support, respectively.
Illinois is in the process of developing biocriteria through an existing Biocriteria Workgroup;
Although IEPA biologists have been characterizing streams for years using various biological criteria,
no existing state water quality standard addresses the quality of the aquatic life community in
Illinois. Biocriteria as state water quality standards would set narrative and numeric goals for the
quality of individual ecosystems throughout the state. The present schedule for adoption of
biocriteria as Illinois Pollution Control Board standards targets the 1996 Triennial Standards Review.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-34
-------
STATE: ILLINOIS
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
Contact:
Mike Branham
Address: Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Phone/Fax: (217)782-3362
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled: 206 fixed stations
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: Illinois EPA
MBI - Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
IBI • Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain: statewide
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat
Fish - IBI
Macroinvertebrates- MBI
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality
Biocriterifl Standards
Narrative (in place) __
Numeric (in place)
Under development X
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Braham. M. 1994. Fax to W. Davis; Branham, M. 1994.
Personal communication; Illinois EPA (1994); Sabock (1994).
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1994 305(b) reporting period and include monitoring
conducted over a 5-year period (1989-1993).
3-865
3.839
7-704
Used in Water Aquatic
Resource Momt. Life U56
-JL_
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-35
-------
INDIANA
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (DEM) biological monitoring programs
involve the intermittent sampling of Indiana lakes, rivers, and streams to assess various
components of the biological community including fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and bacteria.
Periodic comprehensive studies of entire watersheds have been conducted as needed to evaluate
the status of the entire cross section of biological communities. Typically, DEM biological studies
have involved upstream-downstream comparisons of point source discharge effects.
DEM biological assessments of streams and wadable rivers focus on fish and macroinvertebrate
communities. The department has been working cooperatively with U.S. EPA Region 5 to evaluate
the biological integrity of Indiana streams using the fish community. A total of 197 headwater and
wadable stream sites have been sampled in the Central Corn Belt Plain ecoregion in order to
develop and calibrate an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for use in Indiana. The results of the IBI
study are being used to: identify areas of least disturbance within ecoregions for use as reference
sites; verify Indiana ecoregion boundaries; develop expectation criteria for each IBI metric
considering stream order and proximity to Lake Michigan; and develop biological criteria for the
ecoregions using IBI scores and habitat classifications.
Indiana streams and wadable rivers are also assessed using macroinvertebrates as water quality
indicators. DEM is using U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) to direct the technical
methods for macroinvertebrate sampling and habitat assessment. This long-term effort will
eventually lead to the development of a database which will allow the evaluation of nonpoint
source impacts. A total of 341 sites on 244 rivers and streams have been sampled, to date.
Habitat assessments are performed at all biological monitoring sites. Numerical habitat evaluations
include physical, chemical, and riparian/watershed characteristics, and are combined with
bioassessments to determine overall ecological integrity. This multiphase program entails a long-
term commitment of DEM to accumulating an extensive unified biological database from which
comparisons of ecological integrity can be made both now and in the future.
Indiana has addressed and included narrative biological criteria in its water quality standards to
prevent degradation of biological resources. Both warm water and cold water aquatic communities
are recognized within a multiple use classification and protected under narrative criteria. An
"exceptional use" classification has been established to provide stringent protection to waters
possessing unusual aquatic habitat or support unique assemblages of aquatic organisms. Some
Indiana streams have been found incapable of supporting diverse aquatic communities during much
of the year simply because there is not enough water, food, or sustainable habitat present to
support them (even under excellent water quality conditions). A "limited use" designation has been
established for these streams.
DEM criteria for evaluating support of designated uses include classification guidelines based on
bioassessments. Full support of designated uses is indicated when there is no evidence of
modification to the biological community within the natural range of control (or ecoregion). If there
is some uncertainty about use support or if some modification of the biological community is noted,
partial support is indicated. Streams exhibiting a definite modification of the aquatic community are
classified as not supporting designated uses.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-36
-------
/' A
\ ,
\ \ •'
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
"H?_ . vV
STATE: INDIANA
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
Lee Bridges
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1 09*
729
JLS23.
341 benthic macroinvertebrate sites
197 fish community sites

Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
105 S. Meridian
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 243-5030/5056
4. Assemblage(s):
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; Algae- (not reported)
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Benthic macroinvertebrates-Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III
Fish-Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach —Metrics used or under development: Macroinvertebrates - RBP III; Fish - IBI.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
IE
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Indiana DEM (1992); Sabock (1994); Newhouse, S. 1994. Personal
communication; Simon, T. 1994. Personal communication.
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1992 305(b) reporting period -- 1990-1991.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE. OR DISTRIBUTE
3-37
-------
IOWA
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses bioassessments as part of special studies
(such as nonpoint source pollution control projects), as well as for the determination of aquatic life
designated use support. Recently, DNR has been refining classifications for stream use
designations. Since streams designated for warm water aquatic life in Iowa Water Quality
Standards are defined on the basis of the characteristics of the aquatic community (primarily fish),
DNR has begun to use bioassessments for the evaluation of stream uses. Biological and habitat
assessment methods are based on the guidance of U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs).
At present, the state does not include biological criteria in the Iowa Water Quality Standards
program, however, pilot studies are underway to build a database for the development of biocriteria
for wadable streams and rivers. The Iowa Ecoregional Subdivision Project was initiated in July
1991 to establish a framework from which ecoregionally-based biological criteria can be developed
for Iowa streams. Aquatic habitat, physiochemical water quality, fish community, and
macroinvertebrate community data are being collected from candidate ecoregional reference sites.
An evaluation of physical habitat is being completed at all reference sites to define attainable
habitat quality for streams in each ecoregion or subecoregion. The fish assemblage is being
surveyed using standardized electrofishing methods, and fish community data are being used to
develop a multi-metric biological index similar to the Index of Biotic Integrity. Macroinvertebrates
are being collected from both artificial and natural substrates. Artificial substrate data will be used
in biometrics that require estimates of taxa proportional abundances. Natural substrate data will be
used in qualitative-type biometrics, and will allow a more comprehensive appraisal of
macroinvertebrates than artificial substrate data would alone.
DNR anticipates a total 5-year (through 1997) field survey period, during which both reference and
monitoring sites will be sampled. The sampling of approximately 110 reference sites (representing
ten ecoregions or subecoregions) has been proposed. A rotational schedule for revisiting reference
locations may be established for trend monitoring purposes, and the reference sites in each region
will be evenly distributed across sampling years to protect against sampling year bias. Sampling of
approximately 40 monitoring site locations is also proposed. These sites represent streams with
known or suspected impacts ranging from habitat alteration to point source discharges. A variety
of statistical tools are being used to analyze the biological data. Scatter plots have been used to
initially examine data patterns and will be used to illustrate relationships between physical or
habitat data and biological attributes. Analysis of variance methods will be used to test for
significant effect of independent variables such as ecoregion, sampling season, and sampling year
on dependent biological variables. The relationships between biological, habitat, and
physiochemical variables will be explored to the extent possible using correlation and multiple
regression analyses.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-38
-------
r- CV- .-,V
—> \
vy
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS .A' -v-' V^.;, \
.V-x"o\r'~" vi
STATE: IOWA Contact: John Olson
Address: Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources
Water Resources Section
Wallace State Office Building
Pes Moines, IA 50319
Phone/Fax:
(515) 281-8905/8895
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2.776
2-413
5.189
2. Number of sites sampled:
390 stream use assessments
3. Miles per site: Average length of stream assessments is 13.4 miles (standard deviation = 15.2 miles;
minimum stream length = 0.26 miles; maximum stream length = 125.4)
4. Assemblage(s):
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method: Modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocols III & V
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
.7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach —Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Biocriteria Standards Resource Momt. kite Use
Narrative (in place) UP
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Iowa DNR (1991); Sabock (1994); Olson, J. 1994. Personal communication;
Iowa DNR (1994).
10. Comments: Numbers presented represent 1994 305(b) 2-year reporting cycle. Biocriteria
program beginning to be developed using fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and habitat.
Benthic macroinvertebrate pilot projects underway per Tom Wilton, Personal communication.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-39
-------
KANSAS
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (DHE) initiated a stream biological monitoring
network in 1972. The initial program involved a total of 33 stations that were located to monitor
major river basins, major tributaries, interstate streams, and to bracket selected municipal point
sources. The original monitoring locations were selected to provide long-term water quality trend
information for Kansas streams, and were coincident with the ambient stream chemical monitoring
network.. During the 1989 to 1990 monitoring period, the number of biological network sites was
increased to 54. These stations continue to be sampled annually on a seasonal rotation (i.e., a
station is sampled in spring the first year, summer the second, and fall the third).
Biological monitoring network surveys focus on macroinvertebrates, and the pollution tolerance of
the dominant taxa is used to indicate relative water quality at each monitoring location.
Macroinvertebrates are sampled using a method that facilitates sampling of all available habitat
types and the collection of the majority of species present at each station in numbers relative to
their abundance. The resulting data are summarized using biological metrics including the
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index and the Kansas Biotic Index. The index values are used to
characterize the overall pollution tolerance of the macroinvertebrate community, and help to
distinguish the degree of aquatic life use support attainment (i.e., non-support, partial support, or
full support). DHE primarily uses these bioassessments to assess water quality impacts on stream
biota in relation to point source discharges.
The Kansas bioassessment program is specifically designed to: rapidly screen instream water
quality conditions for problem identification; provide data to assess conformity with water quality
standards; and provide basic data to evaluate use attainment (especially aquatic life use). When
biological data indicate that a stream is fully supporting a balanced aquatic community, full support
of designated use is implied. If, after evaluating the data, there is some uncertainty as to whether
or not a balanced aquatic community is supported, the waters are deemed as partially supporting
designated uses. In these cases, some species may not be able to propagate in the stream,
although a put-and-take fishery may exist. Non-support of aquatic life use is indicated when the
aquatic community is definitely imbalanced and/or severely stressed (e.g., few or none of the
expected species exist in the waterbody).
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-40
-------

PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS

STATE: KANSAS
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
228
69.5
297.5
Mike Butler
Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment
Bureau of Water Protection
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-5580
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
54 stations
30 (20 miles upstream and 10 miles downstream)
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol - based Macroinvertebrate
Biotic Index
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Macroinvertebrates - Macroinvertebrate Biotic
Index (MBI); EPT Index; Taxa richness; Total taxa; Kansas Biotic Index (KBI).
8. Biocrrteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place) •
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Carney, E. 1994. Personal communication; Butler, M. 1994.
Personal communication; Kansas DHE (1992); Kansas DHE (1994); Sabock (1994); Cooter, W. 1994.
Email to W. Davis.
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1992 305(b) reporting period - surveys conducted 1989-1990.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-41
-------
KENTUCKY
The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (DEP) uses bioassessments for special
water research management studies as well as for surveying fixed-station biological monitoring
sites. Algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish are sampled, and several community structure and
function metrics are analyzed for each indicator assemblage. The biological metrics are used to
determine biotic integrity and water quality designated use support for each monitored stream
reach. Biological metric expectations are based on streams size, ecological region, and habitat
quality. Warm water aquatic habitat use support decisions are based on these expectations.
During 1991, DEP began implementation of a Reference Reach Program. Biological sampling
protocols and habitat assessment methods were developed and tested at six locations in the
Appalachian ecoregion during .a summer index period. Habitat and bioassessment methods
followed the technical guidance of USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs).
Bioassessments integrated physicochemical data, habitat data, data from each assemblage, and
professional judgement of DEP biologists.
Algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish have been collected from more than 60 sites since the
inception of the Kentucky RBP program. Algae samples were collected from each station using
both artificial substrates and natural substrates to obtain biomass and relative abundance
information, respectively. Algal community integrity was determined using the periphyton biotic
index (PBI), which integrates the scores of six biological metrics. The PBI is used to rank
periphyton communities as excellent (supporting Warm water aquatic habitat), good (supporting),
fair (partially supporting), or poor (not supporting).
DEP collects macroinvertebrates from artificial substrates and all available natural substrate habitats
at each monitoring location. Macroinvertebrate data analysis for wadable streams is accomplished
by using a multi-metric approach. A base core of four metrics are always used. Additional metrics
vary, depending on type of impact or ecoregion. A minimum of six metrics are used for each
analysis. The individual metric scores are averaged to produce a Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment
Index (MBI). Warm water aquatic habitat use support is reflected if there are no alternatives in
community structure or function, and if habitat conditions are relatively undisturbed. Locations are
considered partially supporting uses when survey information indicates that community structure is
slightly altered, that functional feeding components are noticeably influenced, and available habitats
reflect alterations or reductions. Survey reaches are considered not supporting if survey
information reflects sustained alterations in community structure, taxa richness and functional
feeding groups, or if available habitats are severely reduced.
Fish are also collected at biological monitoring sites, and community condition is determined by
using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). Twelve community attributes are used to categorize fish
communities as excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor, or no fish present. Monitoring locations with
IBI ratings of excellent or good are considered to fully support uses. Partial support of designated
uses is indicated by the IBI rating of fair, whereas, IBI categories of poor, very poor, and no fish
reflect nonsupport of uses.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE. OR DISTRIBUTE 3-42
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: KENTUCKY
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1.358
-2££L
1-619
Tom VanArsdale
Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assembiage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
42 (1990-1991 biological monitoring program)
24 (1992-1993 biological monitoring sites)
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; Algae (not reportedl
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
Macroinvertebrates - Traveling kick-net; Hester-Dendy Samplers
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain: statewide (45 reference streams)
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat (UD)
Macroinvertebrates - Total Number of Individuals; Taxa Richness; EPT; Jaccard Coefficient of Community
Similarity; Percent Community Similarity Index; Modified HBI; EPT/Chironomidae; Percent Contribution Dominant
Taxa; Dominants in Common, Five; Dominants in Common, Ten; Percentage Circotopus plus Chironomus
Abundance to Total Chironomidae; Percentage of Shredders to Total Abundance; Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment
Index. Fish - Total species; Number and indentity of darter species, sunfish species, sucker species, intolerant
species; Proportion of individuals as green sunfish, omnivores, insectivorous cyprinids, top camivors; number of
individuals with disease, tumors, fin damage, and other anomalies; number of individuals in sample; proportion of
individuals as hybrids.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
_S_
Aquatic
kits US8
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); VanArsdale, T. 1994. Personal communication; Kentucky DEP (1992);
Kentucky DEP (1993); Kentucky DEP (1994); Sabock (1994).
10. Comments: Numbers represent cumulative total for 1990-1991 and 1992-1993
bioassessesments as per Tom VanArsdall.
DO NOT CITE. QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-43
-------
LOUISIANA
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has directed Louisiana State University
pilot studies to describe ecoregional reference conditions for streams in the South Central Plains
and Upper Mississippi Alluvial Plains ecoregions. The macroinvertebrate and fish communities of 25
reference streams have been studied over a three year period (1992 to present).
Macroinvertebrates and fish have been collected using standardized qualitative techniques, and
stream habitat has been assessed by assigning relative scores for habitat attributes of a glide/pool
system. Louisiana is continuing the efforts to Characterize reference stream communities by
sampling streams in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain and Terrace Uplands ecoregions.
DEQ has not formally incorporated a state-wide bioassessment program into the water quality
standard and assessment process; however, the Louisiana pilot studies represent the initial step in
the process of developing recommendations for biocriteria.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE. OR DISTRIBUTE 3-44
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: LOUISIANA Contact: Jane Fugler
Address: Louisana Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
Phone/Fax: (504)765-0511
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage (s): Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates
5. Sampling gear or Method:
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 25 reference streams
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological; Habitat
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1995); U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Fugler, J. 1994. Personal communication.
10. Comments: Louisana DEQ and Louisana State University are characterizing reference stream conditions using habitat,
macroinvertebrate and fish surveys in South Central Plains and Upper Mississippi Alluvial Plains Streams (3-year study
through 1994).
,.v
ii-.' ¦ -1 -
V\ : '--7-- "1
r
/
Pilot studies
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Resource Mamt. Life Use
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-45
-------
MAINE
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducts an extensive biological sampling
program for the assessment of the overall health of stream biological communities! The program
began in the early 1970s and used surber sampling to characterize benthic macroinvertebrate
communities. Since 1981, the monitoring program has used artificial substrates (wire baskets filled
with rocks) to enhance the comparability of samples collected from a variety of sites. Over 200
sites have been monitored using these methods, including stations located below all significant
inland dischargers of wastewater. Reference stations have been established upstream of most of
the discharges as well as on pristine (or relatively undisturbed) waters.
The standardized macroinvertebrate sampling program was developed to build a database to be
used to establish the criteria that would allow DEP to classify a waterbody according to Maine's
aquatic life standards. Since Maine recognized the need to assess biological integrity over a decade
ago, they were in an excellent position to formally incorporate biological assessments into water
quality practices, and by 1986 had passed a revised water classification law that included
consideration of the condition of aquatic biota. The law states that it is the state's objective to
restore and maintain biological integrity o fits waters, establishes a water quality classification
system to allow the management of surface waters so as to protect their quality. The Maine
aquatic life use standards establish, in narrative form, the characteristics of the aquatic community
that are required to exist in order for a waterbody to attain a given classification, and the
characteristics are specific and different for each waterbody classification. The biological standard
for Maine surface waters specifies that waters must be of sufficient quality to support all species of
fish indigenous to the receiving waters and must maintain the structure and function of the resident
biological community.
Numeric criteria and decision rules that precisely define the way that aquatic life uses are assessed
are specified in the Water Bureau's Aquatic Life regulations. Examples of quantitative measures
used to assess aquatic life use standard attainment include the abundance of selected (e.g., mayfly,
stonefly, caddisfly) taxa, numbers of different types of organisms (e.g., taxa richness) and indices
that summarize quantitative biological data into one number (e.g., diversity or similarity indices).
The macroinvertebrate database is analyzed by examining a set of approximately 30 quantitative
variables that summarize the identity and abundance of benthic community attributes. The
decision-making thresholds of this approach begin with statistical models (e.g., linear discriminant
analysis) that use some of the variables to make water quality classifications of an unknown sample
by comparing it to characteristics of each classification identified in the baseline database.
The output from analyses using the primary statistical analysis model is a list of probabilities of
membership for each of four classes (i.e., A, B, C, and non-attainment Class C). The use of a
system based on probabilities of attainment of standards allows a determination to be made even in
the "grey" area between classes, once the regulations establish the probability level required for
attainment. The development of numeric criteria in support of the aquatic life standards has been a.
time-consuming process. It has required the collection and statistical analysis of a baseline data set
of sufficient size and coverage (of time and space) to afford a high degree of certainty that valid
generalizations can be drawn from the data. The final evaluation of the statistical outcome is
accomplished by using professional judgment methods. This process provides a mechanism for
adjustment of the decision models. It is the responsibility of DEP to decide if any adjustment of a
decision should occur, based on analytical, biological, or habitat information. This final evaluation
process relies on professional biological judgment as well as documented evidence of physical,
chemical, and biological conditions.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-46
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MAINE
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Dave Courtemanch
Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House. Suite 17
Augusta. ME 04333
(207) 287-7789/7826
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
221
_2S_
300
71 biomonitoring sites during 1992-1993 study period
(165 test and 60 reference-total sites in program since 1981)
4.2 mile average
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (not reported)
Artificial substrates (rock baskets) for benthic macroinvertebrates
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Macroinvertebrates -Total abundance; species or
selected group richness; EPT; EPT/Diptera; Oligochaetes/total, Gastropoda/total; Diptera/Generic richness;
Tribelos/total; Glossosoma/total; % predator abundance; Number of functional feeding groups; Shannon-Wiener
Diversity Index; generic richness; Plecoptera/total abundance; Ephemeroptera/generic richness; Plecoptera/total;
Ephemeroptera/generic richness; Plecoptera/generic richness; EP richness/generic richness; Non EPT
richness/generic richness; Hirudinea/total; Tanypodinae/total; Chironomus/total; Hydropsyche/total;
Branchycentrus/total; Ratio collector-filterer + collector-gatherer/predators + shredders; HBI.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality
Biocriteria Standards
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Courtemanch, P. (1994) Fax to W. Davis; Courtemanch, D. (1994) Personal
communication; Courtemanch, D. (1995); Maine DEP (1992); Davies et al. (1993); Sabock, D. (1994) Switzer, D. (1995)
Fax to W. Davis.
10. Comments: Numbers represent 2-year study period (1992-1993), as per D. Courtemanch personal communication.
Used in Water Aquatic
Resource Momt. Life Use
JL
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-47
-------
MARYLAND
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is conducting biological monitoring for use in
their overall water resource management program. An additional program that is used to monitor
the statewide status of stream resources, the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS), is
administered by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Chesapeake Bay Research
and Monitoring Division. MBSS results are not currently included within Maryland's 305(b) report.
In 1990, MDE began conducting biological sampling (benthic macroinvertebrates) at approximately
300 locations (the Rapid Assessment Network) around the state using RBP II and compositing eight
metrics. Assessments are completed by comparison with site-specific reference sites. Reference
conditions are currently being developed. The sampling program is on a two-year rotation, with all
targeted sites sampled to coincide with the National 305(b) cycle. The MBSS samples fish, benthic
macroinvertebrates, herpetofauna, and habitat; methods used are backpack electroshocking for
fish; multihabitat, D-frame net sampling for benthics; herpetofauna by visual observation; and
habitat quality using a modified RBP habitat assessment approach. The specific approach for
analysis of MBSS data is currently being developed but will entail calculation of community level,
multimetric indices and comparison with reference conditions.
The state is beginning to develop lines of communication among different biomonitoring entities to
establish coordination, sharing of data, and use of comparable methods and indicators. The
Maryland Monitoring Committee has been established by the Maryland Geological Survey to
perform as the coordination point and to function as a state-level ITFM. The goal of this effort is to
increase efficiency and the amount of data that can be integrated into an assessment of the state's
natural resources.
MDE uses its biological monitoring results in problem identification, to communicate them to the
appropriate regulatory agencies, and to track the effectiveness of remedial actions. They are not
used in directly determining aquatic life use attainment.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-48
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MARYLAND
Contact:

Niles Primrose
Address: Maryland Dept. of the Environment
416 Chinquapin Round Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone/Fax: (410) 974-3238
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
325
1.175
<325)
1950)
(225)
1.500
2. Number of sites sampled:
300 sites (over a two-year period)
3. Miles per site:
5 mile (default) per site
4. Assemblage(s):
Benthic macroinvertebrates; fish (under development)
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat; Probability-based design.
Macroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; Modified HBI; Scraper/Filterer ratio; EPT; EPT/Chironomidae ratio; Percent
Contribution dominant family; Community Similarity Index; Ratio of Shredders to total individuals.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative tin place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Primrose, N. 1994. Personal communication; Sabock (1994).
10. Comments: Numbers represent two-year study period (1992-1993) as per Niles Primrose personal communication.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-49
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) includes bioassessment as an
integral component of the State's watershed-based water quality management program. DEP
biologists perform habitat assessments and conduct biological sampling to supplement other water
quality monitoring and management programs. A Biomonitoring Program Standard Operating
Procedures manual documents all field and laboratory methods used to implement the various
program elements.
USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) are used to monitor the health of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities in Massachusetts' streams and wadable rivers. RBP samples are
collected at monitoring sites for upstream-downstream comparisons, comparisons to regional or
surrogate reference locations, or for long-term trend monitoring at fixed locations. Two different
levels of bioassessments are employed (for example, RBP II or RBP III) depending on the survey
objectives.
The RBP macroinvertebrate assessments are conducted at up to 25 monitoring sites per year, in
conjunction with comprehensive water quality surveys. Macroinvertebrate data are summarized to
rank water quality by calculating a series of seven biological metrics. The results are used to
supplement traditional physicochemical analyses by demonstrating biological impact as well as
assessing ambient water quality and habitat conditions throughout a particular watershed.
The bioassessment results identify three categories of impairment using RBP II (nonimpaired,
moderately impaired, and severely impaired) and four categories using RBP III (nonimpaired, slightly
impaired, moderately impaired, and severely impaired). These biological community analyses are
used to aid in the aquatic life use support determination process. Full support of designated use is
indicated where no significant community modifications are observed (for example, nonimpaired).
Partial and non-support denotes the fact that some community modifications are present; however,
the community is generally viable (for example, slight to moderate impairment). Adverse
modification of the biological community is indicative of non-support of aquatic life use (severely
impaired).
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE. OR DISTRIBUTE 3-50
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MASSACHUSETTS
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
_L±L
.121.
275
Robert Nuzzo
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protecetion
P.O. Box 116
North Grafton, MA 01536-0116
(508) 792-7470/839-3469
2. Number of sites sampled:
21 (RBP sites 1992-1993)
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblagels):
Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; Algae (not reported)
5. Sampling gear or Method: Benthic macroinvertebrate 100 organism subsample
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II and III
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Macroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; Modified HBI;
Functional feeding groups; EPT/Chironomidae; EPT; % similarity of community structure; percent contribution
dominant taxon.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
-Un-
used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Massachusetts DEP (1994); Sabock (1994); Switzer, D. 1995. Fax to W. Davis.
10. Comments: Numbers represent 1994 305(b) reporting period - 1992-1993.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-51
-------
MICHIGAN
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses bioassessments as one of the principal
means of assessing progress toward achieving the goals of state and federal water quality control
laws and to monitor the effectiveness of water pollution control efforts. Biological studies may
involve surveys of an entire river system or may be oriented toward a site-specific problem
evaluation. The majority of the bioassessments conducted by DNR are the problem evaluation type
such as the assessment of point source discharges, the evaluation of remediation program success,
or the investigation of a more general concern such as nonpoint source effects.
DNR employs three types of problem evaluation bioassessments—reference site evaluations, site
investigations, and biosurveys—that are distinguished primarily by the level of effort involved.
Reference site evaluations are limited in effort and generally involve only one station. Site
investigations are more intensive, generally, including two to three stations. Biosurveys are the
most comprehensive and usually include five or more stations. Qualitative biological assessment
and habitat survey protocols have been developed by DNR for wadable rivers and streams and have
been used in all types of problem evaluation surveys.
The DNR biological and habitat assessment protocols were developed in 1991 as the result of the
increasing demand for a more vigorous and standardized evaluation of nonpoint source impacts. At
present, one of the principal applications of biosurveys is to support Michigan's NPDES permit
program which is managed on a 5-year cycle and on a river basin basis. DNR bioassessments can
consist of an evaluation of any one or combination of three parts including the macroinvertebrate
community, the fish community and habitat quality. The assessment data are analyzed using a
group of selected biological metrics based on Index of Biotic Integrity and U.S. EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) methods. In 1993, approximately 185 stations were surveyed using
biological procedures, including 106 for nonpoint source and 79 for point source evaluations. In
total, over 1,000 stream sites have been biologically evaluated since the inception of the program,
accounting for over 80 percent of Michigan's streams.
The DNR biological information is analyzed using metrics selected from RBPs, Ohio EPA protocols,
Illinois biological procedures, and measurements developed specifically for Michigan and tested by
DNR biologists. The metrics represent a wide array of criteria for the majority of biological or
habitat conditions known to occur in response to various stream quality conditions in Michigan.
The accuracy and utility of the DNR protocols relies on the selection and evaluation of appropriate
reference sites. Stream reference sites are selected from the most pristine or least impacted
streams within each of Michigan's ecoregions. The reference site database included 21 sites in
1992, and was enlarged by 18 sites in 1993. These reference evaluations are becoming the
standard against which all other stream biological and physical parameters are compared. Each
ecoregion will have several reference sites categorized by stream order or watershed size.
Each DNR bioassessment site should be evaluated using the habitat and biological protocols;
however, in some instances, only single evaluations are performed (in using only one assemblage).
The overall application and integration process is accomplished via a weight of evidence approach,
used to give a site a single classification. In general, the lowest category assigned to a single
assemblage will be used alone to categorize the overall stations biological condition. Michigan's
Qualitative Rapid Bioassessment Methods (Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section
Procedure 51) and Fisheries Division fish community surveys are used to assess stream quality and
to determine designated use status. Stream biological protocol results of excellent, good, fair, and
poor translate to impairment designations of nonimpaired, slightly impaired, moderately impaired,
and severely impaired, respectively. Those streams assessed as severely impaired (poor rating)
based on the biota supported, are placed on Michigan's nonattainment list.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-52
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
A-W*^
STATE: MICHIQAN
Contact:
William Creal
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblagels):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Address: Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
Stevens T. Mason Building
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, Ml 48909
Phone/Fax: (517)335-4181
1.HP
1.535
'59 sitesl
(169 sites)
(253 sitesl
(54 sitesl
2.675
535 sites rated for impairment/non-impairment (1990-1992)
5 mile (default) per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
Benthic macroinvertebrates-Modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (ll-lll
equivalent); Fish-Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Macroinvertebrates - Total taxa; total mayfly taxa;
total caddisfly taxa; total stonefly taxa; % mayfly; % caddisfly; percent contribution of dominant taxa; percent
surface dependent; percent isopods, snails, leeches; Fish - Total species; total darter species; total sunfish species;
total sucker species; % insectivorous cyprinids; % piscivores; density of individuals; % anomalie; % carp, green
sunfish, white sucker; % omnivores.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality
Biocriteria Standards
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: Michigan DNR (1991); U.S. EPA (1994a); Michigan DNR. (1994); Creal, W. (1994) Fax to W. Davis;
Sabock (1994); Oemke, M. (1994) Personal communication.
10. Comments: Numbers represent bioassessments conducted from 1990 through 1992, as per W. Creal.
Used in Water Aquatic
Resource Momt. Life Use
_a_ _2L_
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-53
-------
MINNESOTA
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has recently conducted surveys of fish,
macroinvertebrate, and zooplankton communities to develop field techniques and interpretive tools
needed to establish meaningful water quality evaluations. These pilot studies have involved
sampling in a standardized fashion at least impaired reference sites. The MPCA, in cooperation
with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, recently completed fish surveys in streams of
the Minnesota River basin. The surveys were conducted primarily to develop a fish community
index from biological data collected at 50 reference sites within the basin. The development of an
index for this region (based on the Index of Biotic Integrity) represents a first product for MPCA's
effort toward establishing working numerical biological criteria.
Fisheries field work began in 1993 with the sampling of 57 stations in the Redwood River and Blue
Earth River watersheds of the Minnesota River basin. The objectiveof the fish community study
was to develop biological criteria or goals (i.e., fish community health) that can be used as a
benchmark for monitoring the biological condition of streams in the watershed. IBI metrics were
evaluated and the original metrics were modified for application in the Minnesota River watershed.
Both historical data and reference data from 1990 surveys were utilized in the development of
metric expectation values. The adoption of biological criteria as part of Minnesota Water Quality
Standards will require considerable additional effort and will only be undertaken after intensive
study. The IBI pilot study represents an initial step in biocriteria development. Development of a
macroinvertebrate protocol would help strengthen bioassessment capabilities and utility. Presently,
Minnesota standards define three aquatic life use designations—one addressing cold water
fisheries, one cool water, and one warm water. In establishing criteria for aquatic life use it should
be noted that the IBI was developed for warm water streams. Therefore, an index and biocriteria
will need to be developed for cold water streams.
The IBI pilot studies represent an important shift in approach for MPCA assessments. This method
incorporates biological and habitat data with water chemistry data. Habitat information is being
used to determine the biological impairment attributable to habitat degradation. Discrepancies
between chemistry and biological assessments are being tracked and a weight of evidence
approach is being employed to interpret differences in proposed use support between water
chemistry data and biological data. Based on experience gained through the Minnesota River
watershed pilot studies, MPCA has developed proposed IBI-designated use class associations. IBI
scores resulting in integrity class ratings of no fish, very poor, poor, and fair all translate to the
nonattainment designated use class category. Integrity classes of good and exceptional are
proposed to represent warm water habitat and exceptional warm water habitat designated use
classes, respectively.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-54
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: MINNESOTA
Contact:
Steve Heiskary
Address:
MPCA, Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul. MN 55155
Phone/Fax:
(612) 296-7217/297-1456
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total Pilot Studies
2. Number of sites sampled: Fish: 57 sites in the Redwood and Blue Earth River watersheds (1992-1993)
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Fish; Benthic macroinvertebrates; zooplankton
5. Sampling gear or Method: Fish-Index of Biotic Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites Fish: 50 (Minnesota River basin)
Other Explain:
.7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Fish - Total number of native fish species; number
of darter species; number of sunfish species; number of minnow species (excluding carp, creek chub, fathead
minnows) at sites <100 sq. mi. drainage area; number of sucker species (excluding white sucker); number of
intolerant species; proportion as tolerants; proportion as omnivores; proportion as specialized insectivores;
proportion as top carnivores; number of top carnivore species - at sites < 200 sq. mi. drainage area; catch per unit
effort; proportion as simple lithophils; proportion with deformities, eroded fins, and tumors.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Resource Momt. life fSS
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development

Vv
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS

' •• r~\.
\ - V~\ ^
r
STATE: PENNSYLVANIA
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Management
P.O. Box 8465,10th floor
Harnsburg, PA 17105-8465
(717) 783-2959
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
1296.6
674.9
1971.5
168 fixed annual monitoring stations
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocol I
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Evaluating RBP macroinvertebrate metrics
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
JL-
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Frey, R. 1994. Personal communication; Sabock, (1994); Frey, R. 1995. Memo to R.
Preston; Schertzer, R. 1994. Personal communication.
10. Comments: Miles represent 5 years of data (1989-1993) per 305(b) guidance and R. Frey personal communication.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-85
-------
RHODE ISLAND
More information is needed for text. Existing information consists only of tabular data from Bob
Richardson, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, and Diane Switzer, U.S. EPA
Region 1.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-86
-------
STATE: RHODE ISLAND Contact:
Address:
.w-> V
Cartene Newman
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
Phone/Fax: (401) 277-3981
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired 261
Impaired 79
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total 340
2. Number of sites sampled: 56
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Average 6 miles per site.
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
X Other Explain: State-wide
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and habitat
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Biocritena Standards Resource Momt. Life Use
Narrative (in place) X X X
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Newman, C. 1995. Letter to D. Switzen Richardson, R. 1995.
Fax to D. Switzer.
10 Comments: Miles and site numbers taken from Rl DEM - R. Richardson and C. Newman, personal communication -
and represent the 1994 305(b) reporting period. (Miles considered biologically assessed if data was less than 5 years
old and equivalent to RBPII).
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-87
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) conducts
bioassessments as part of the state trend monitoring program and during special intensive project-
specific investigations. Typically, DHEC has used bioassessments to document discharge permit
violations of narrative biocriteria, primarily through upstream comparisons of macroinvertebrate
communities.
The current DHEC biological monitoring network for wadable rivers and streams consists of a total
of 125 stations. Macroinvertebrates are collected from the monitoring stations on a five-year
rotating basis in conjunction with the DHEC watershed Water Quality Management Strategy.
Approximately on-fifth (i.e., one watershed) of the stations are sampled each year. The biological
sampling stations are located in headwater reaches of selected impoundments; in streams subject
to possible pollution point and nonpoint sources; and in critical waters used for water supplies,
recreation, and fish and wildlife propagation.
Qualitative collection techniques are used during macroinvertebrate surveys. Data collected from
the biological monitoring program are summarized using measures of relative abundance and
species richness. Reference data are collected at upstream locations or, in some cases, from
neighboring catchments. In addition to macroinvertebrate community assessments, DHEC
biologists have been conducting pilot studies of the fish community to test the utility of the Index
of Biotic Integrity.
Narrative biological criteria in South Carolina provide for the survival and propagation of a balanced
indigenous aquatic community. DHEC uses biological data to aid in processes to determine if water
quality meets the standards established to protect state classified uses. In general, support of
aquatic life uses is determined by the percentage of dissolved oxygen or pH excursions, heavy
metal concentrations, and impacts to the macroinvertebrate community. In the process of
determining classified use attainment in South Carolina, biological data will override chemical data.
For example, if ambient chemical concentrations are higher than national criteria, the criteria are not
considered violated if biological monitoring has demonstrated that the instream indigenous
biological community is not adversely impacted. Conversely, an impacted macroinvertebrate
community reduces use support to non-support status, even if chemical data indicate full support
(i.e., ambient concentrations lower than national criteria).
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-88
-------
STATE BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAMS FOR STREAMS

STATE: SOUTH CAROLINA
Contact:
David Chestruitt
Address: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone/Fax: (803)734-5300
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total Not reported
2. Number of sites sampled: 125 on 5-vear rotating basis - approximately 25 sampled annually
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (Under development)
5. Sampling gear or Method: Benthic macroinvertebrates - Qualitative collection techniques
Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity pilot studies
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions —Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Pipcrittria Standards Resource Mamt. Life Use
Narrative (in place) X X X
Numeric (in place)
Under development
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); South Carolina DHEC. (1993); South Carolina DHEC. (1994); Sabock (1994);
Penrose (1992).
10. Comments: Information on number of sites sampled taken from DHEC 1993 monitoring strategy report.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-89
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
The South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) does not have a
statewide bioassessment program. Cursory biological sampling, however, may be included as part
of a diagnostic/feasibility study or a special study such as the sampling of macroinvertebrates for
the Whitewood Creek Project in the Black Hills.
Fisheries surveys, conducted by the DENR Office of Water Quality, are used in conjunction with
water quality surveys to evaluate wastewater point source impact on receiving streams. Although
qualitative in nature, fish survey results (e.g., fish abundance and diversity trends) assist in the
evaluation of water quality perturbations or impact. Typically, fisheries sample sites are situated
upstream and downstream from wastewater treatment plant effluents, and surveys are conducted
prior to and following facility construction and/or upgrades. Fisheries surveys are also conducted to
evaluate the fish life propagation classification of streams or stream segments. South Dakota
surface waters are classified for beneficial uses which include the following narrative fisheries
standards: cold water permanent, cold water marginal, warm water permanent, warm water
semipermanent, and warm water marginal fish life propagation waters.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-90
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS

STATE: SOUTH DAKOTA
Contact
Andrew Repsys
Address:
South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Resource Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building, Room 425 Pierre. SD
57501-3181
Phone/Fax: (605) 773-3696
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total Not Applicable
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage^): Fish
5. Sampling gear or Method:
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Numeric (in place)
Underdevelopment
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Repsys, A. (1995). Personal communication; South Dakota
DENR (1994).
10. Comments: No bioassessment program. A small study of benthic macroinvertebrates (Hess samples) was initiated in
Black Hills streams but not completed. Narrative Fisheries Standards are used in water quality standards program.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-91
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Pwwrgft Mqmt, Ufr
X
-------
TENNESSEE
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) sponsored a habitat
assessment and bioassessment workshop during 1994. The purpose of the workshop was to
initiate a multiagency effort to: standardize habitat assessment, macroinvertebrate and fish
sampling protocols; update and refine current methods; and develop a groundwork based on
consensus for a written set of state standard operating procedures. Technical issues addressed
during the workshop included selecting reference conditions, taking representative samples (i.e.,
standard field sampling methodologies), identifying source and cause (i.e., habitat versus chemical),
and accounting for seasonal effects. The workgroup adopted use of: U.S. EPA's Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) modified habitat assessment procedures; modified RBP V fish
protocols developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency (TWRA); and modified RBPIII for macroinvertebrates. The primary result of the workshop
was the product of draft state bioassessment protocols, initially by DEC, Department of Health, and
TWRA, with other state agencies to be included as they are identified.
The State of Tennessee draft protocols for the bioassessments of fish and macroinvertebrates use
the multimetric approaches of the Index of Biotic Integrity and RBPIII, respectively. With some
modifications, the twelve IBI metrics appear to be applicable in most ecoregions of the state.
Macroinvertebrate RBPIII is applicable to most of the state and focuses on riffle/run habitat as the
most productive habitat available in stream systems. In western Tennessee, however, many
streams are lacking this valuable habitat. Therefore, to ensure the accuracy of evaluating
communities in that region, RBPIII has been modified to include sampling of other productive
habitats including rocks, logs, banks and roots, macrophyte beds, pool sediments, etc. Effects
among sampling locations are then evaluated using only comparable habitats.
The overall assessment of ecological condition derived using the draft protocols first focuses on the
evaluation of habitat quality, then analyzes the biological components of the system in light of the
habitat data. The matrix used for habitat assessment is based on physical characteristics of the
waterbody and surrounding land. The assessment process involves rating the parameters as
optimal, suboptimal, marginal, or poor based on the modified RBP guidance. A total score is
obtained for each station and compared to a site-specific control and/or regional reference station.
The ratio between the indicator station and reference provides a percent comparability measure,
allowing the classification of each station based on its potential to support an acceptable level of
biological health. The eventual understanding of ecoregional relationships in Tennessee and
establishment of ecoregional reference sites will help to eliminate the limitations of assessing
impairments that occur when site-specific or upstream-downstream comparisons are used.
Four ecoregional reference locations have been established as part of the state's nonpoint source
pollution program. Until additional statewide ecoregional reference sites are established, DEC is
using upstream reference sites to assess stream impacts on a case by case basis. Twenty
bioassessments and intensive stream surveys were conducted by DEC during the 1991 fiscal year.
Prior to the development of the new draft bioassessment protocols (and until the protocols are
refined) DEC has used (and is using) biotic indices and tolerance estimates for invertebrates that
have been refined for Tennessee taxa. The refinement and calibration of the new draft protocols is
emphasized by DEC as a priority need, and the eventual development of numeric biocriteria is a
Department initiative.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-92
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS

STATE: TENNESSEE
Contact:
Greg Denton
Address: Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street, L&C Annex, 6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
Phone/Fax: (615)532-0699
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total Pilot Studies
2. Number of sites sampled: 20 rapid bioassessment/stream surveys conducted during FY 1991.
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s): Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish (under development)
5. Sampling gear or Method: Benthic macroinvertebrates - qualitative techniques and Hester-Dendy
multiplates
6. Decision criteria based on:
X Reference sites
UP Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
UP Multimetric approach—Metrics used or underdevelopment: Macroinvertebrates - Taxa richness; EPT index;
modified HBI; Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae organism abundance; Ratio of scraper and filtering collectors; Ratio of
shredders to total individuals; Indicator Assemblage Index; % Contribution dominant taxon; Dominants in common;
community loss index; Jaccard Coefficient. Fish - Total number of native species, darter species, sunfish species (less
Micropterus), sucker species, intolerant species; % as tolerant species, omnivores, specialized insectivores, piscivores,
hybrids; catch rate (catch per area or catch per effort); % of fish with disease, fin damage, and other anomalies.
8. Biocnteria/Decision Thresholds:
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
gjpcrjteri? Standards Resource Momt. Life Use
Narrative (in place) X
Numeric (in place) UP
Under development
9 Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Penrose (1992); Tennessee PEC (1995a); Tennessee DEC (1995b).
10. Comments:
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-93
-------
TEXAS
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (NRCC) has not developed formal biological
criteria or incorporated bioassessments into Texas water quality standards program; however,
bioassessments are conducted on a project-specific basis and are of ten included as part of the
discharge permit application process. U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) have been
utilized in both the special study applications and the discharge monitoring activities.
Recently NRCC led a multi-agency team in a synoptic survey of the Rio Grande River as part of the
Rio Grande Toxic Substances Agreement. The survey was designed to examine the presence,
magnitude and impacts of toxic chemicals in the river. The study area extended from
Brownsville/Matamoros to El Paso/Juarez, with sampling concentrated in eight river reaches where
the greatest likelihood for toxic chemical contamination exists. A total of 19 Rio Grande and 26
tributary sites were sampled. Biological assessments of fish and macroinvertebrate were included
as a major study component. Study results indicated that some concentrations of toxicants
exceeded water quality standards, whereas the biological survey results indicated that if toxic
impacts were occurring, the effects were relatively slight.
A cooperative effort involving the Texas Water Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and U.S.
EPA Region 6 is underway to evaluate regional variability of physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of Texas streams. The objectives of this Texas Ecoregion Project include the
development of regional water quality standards and biocriteria, the verification of Texas
ecoregions, and the refinement of use attainment procedures.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-94
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: TEXAS
Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 908-1000
Not Reported
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III for benthic macroinvertebrates
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
X Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality Used in Water Aquatic
Standards Resource Momt. Life Use
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); U.S. EPA (1994c); Sabock (1994); Twidwell. S. 1994. Personal
communication; Bayre, C. 1994. Personal communication.
10. Comments: Bioassessments used to determine designated uses for NPDES permit applications.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-95
-------
UTAH
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) does not have a statewide bioassessment
program. DEQ biological monitoring of streams has been limited to a study that was initiated
approximately 20 years ago. The study was developed to monitor long-term trends in the benthic
macroinvertebrate community, and was (and is) conducted using a Hess sampler at 20 sites
(sampled twice per year). An additional 10 sites are sampled annually as part of the DEQ nonpoint
source program; however, they are strictly project oriented. At present, DEQ does not use
bioassessments or biological criteria in their water quality standards program.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE. OR DISTRIBUTE
3-96
-------
PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
STATE: UTAH
Contact:
Address:
Phone/Fax:
Richard Denton
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6859
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Not Applicable
20 (twice per year)
Benthic macroinvertebrates
modified Hess sampler
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development:
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Mamt.
Aquatic
ytgJJsa
9. Pertinent citations: U.S. EPA (1994a); Sabock (1994); Denton, R. (1995). Personal communication.
10. Comments: Undertaking habitat monitoring in addition to chemical sampling. Long-term benthic monitoring program
started 20 years ago to monitor trends. An additional 10 stations sampled each year as part of nonpoint source
program - strictly project oriented.
OO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE
3-97
-------
VERMONT
The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has had an active biomonitoring
program since 1982. It became formalized into the present Ambient Biomonitoring Network (ABN)
Program in 1985. The ABN is the most extensive program implemented by the Biomonitoring and
Aquatic Studies Unit. ABN goals are to:
• monitor long-term trends in water quality as revealed in changes over time to ambient
aquatic biological communities,
• evaluate site-specific impacts of point and nonpoint discharges to aquatic biological
communities, and
• establish baseline data to assist in establishing biological criteria for water quality
classification attainment determinations.
Since the inception of the ABN, DEC has utilized standardized methods for sampling fish and
macroinvertebrate communities, evaluating physical habitat, processing samples, and analyzing and
evaluating data. The program has led to the development of a Vermont fish community Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI), as well as guidelines for determining water quality classification attainment
using macroinvertebrate community biological metrics and the Vermont IBI. The DEC protocols
represent a Vermont-specific modification of U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs).
A total of approximately 350 individual sites have been sampled sine the inception of the ABN in
1985. Presently, between 50 and 60 sites are evaluated each year during a 2-month summer-to-
fall index period. Fifteen reference sites are sampled each year from a group of 30 reference sites
that have been selected to define the biological potential of different stream types (as defined by
gradient, drainage area, elevation and alkalinity).
Measures of biological integrity are used in the determination of aquatic life use attainment for
Vermont streams. Both fish and macroinvertebrate communities are used to assess the overall
community integrity. Fish biological integrity ratings are based on IBI scores, and macroinvertebrate
community integrity is determined by evaluating the rating and degree of each metric and
evaluating the number of metrics that are found to be in an acceptable versus unacceptable range.
Biological integrity ratings of poor, fair, good and excellent indicate non-support, partial support,
support, and support (equal to reference condition) of aquatic life uses, respectively.
DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE 3-98
-------

PROGRAM CHARACTERIZATION FACT SHEETS
W
STATE: VERMONT
Contact:
Address:
Steve Fiske
Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Agency of Natural Resources
Water Quality Division
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
(802) 244-4520/241-3308
1. Miles assessed as:
Non-impaired
Impaired
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total
2. Number of sites sampled:
3. Miles per site:
4. Assemblage(s):
5. Sampling gear or Method:
Phone/Fax:
890
425
1315
Average 50-60 per year; 263 during 1990-1993 reporting period
5 mile (default) per site
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Fish
Modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocols including modified Index of Biotic
Integrity
6. Decision criteria based on:
Reference sites
Ecoregional reference conditions—Number of reference sites 30 total -15 sampled/vear
Other Explain:
7. Data Analysis/Interpretation:
Multivariate analysis—Statistical routines used:
X Multimetric approach—Metrics used or under development: Biological and Habitat: Macroinvertebrates -
relative abundance; Biotic Index; Shannon Weaver Diversity Index; Pinkham-Pearson Coefficient of Similarity; EPT
taxa richness; % dominant genera; EPT/EPT + Chironomidae; functional group analysis (under development). Fish
number of species; number and identity of intolerant species; number and identity of benthic insectivore species;
proportion of individuals as blacknose dace; proportion of individuals as generalist feeders; proportion of individuals
as insectivores; proportion of individuals as top carnivores; proportion of individuals with disease, tumors, fin
damage or other anomalies; abundance in sample.
8. Biocriteria/Decision Thresholds:
Biocriteria
Narrative (in place)
Numeric (in place)
Under development
Water Quality
Standards
Used in Water
Resource Momt.
Aquatic
Life Use

Ohio Numeric Biocriteria: Table 7-17

Biological criteria for Warm water, Exceptional Warm water, and Modified Warm water Habitats.
Description
and derivation of indices and ecoregions are contained in "Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life:
Volume II. Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters" cited in paragraph (B) of
Rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code. These criteria do not apply to the Ohio River, lakes or Lake Erie
river mouths.

Modified Warm water Habitat

Index

Exceptional
Sampling Site
Channel
Mine

Warm water
Warm water
Ecoregion1
Modification
Affected
Impounded
Habitat
Habitat
1. Index of Biotic Integrity (Fish)

A. Wading Sites2

HELP
22
—
—
32
50
IP
24
—
—
40
50
EOLP
24
—
—
38
50
WAP
24
24
—
44
50
ECBP
24
—
-
40
50
B. Boat Sites2

HELP
20
~
22
34
48
IP
24
—
30
38
48
EOLP
24
—
30
40
48
WAP
24
24
30
40
48
ECBP
24
-
30
42
48
C. Headwater Sites3

HELP
20
—
—
28
50
IP
24
—
—
40
50
EOLP
24
—
—
40
50
WAP
24
24
—
44
50
ECBP
24
--
--
40
50
II. Modified Index of Weil-Being (Fish)4

A. Wading Sites2

HELP
5.6
—
—
7.3
9.4
IP
6.2
—
—
8.1
9.4
EOLP
6.2
—
—
7.9
9.4
WAP
6.2
5.5
—
8.4
9.4
ECBP
6.2
—
—
8.3
9.4
B. Boat Sites2

HELP
5.7
—
5.7
8.6
9.6
IP
5.8
—
6.6
8.7
9.6
EOLP
5.8
—
6.6
8.7
9.6
WAP
5.8
5.4
6.6
8.6
9.6
ECBP
5.8
--
6.6
8.5
9.6
III. Invertebrate Community Index

(Macroinvertebrates)

A. Artificial Substrate

Samplers2
22
—
—
34
46
HELP
22
—
—
30
46
IP
22
—
—
34
46
EOLP
22
30
—
36
46
WAP
22
—
—
36
46
ECBP

1 HELP = Huron/Erie Lake Plain Ecoregion. IP =
Interior Plateau Ecoregion.
EOLP = Erie/Ontario Lake Plain
Ecoregion. WAP = Western Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion.
ECPB = Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion
2 Sampling methods descriptions are found in the
"Manual of Ohio EPA Surveillance Methods and Quality
Assurance Practices," cited in paragraph (B) of Rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code.

3 Modification of the IBI that applies to sites with drainage areas less than 20 square miles.

Does not apply to sites with drainage areas less than 20 square miles.