Region IV Workshop on
Biomonitoring and Biocriteria
Athens, GA
March 7-9,1989
Prepared By
Kilkelly Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 31265
Raleigh, NC 27622
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Water Quality Management Branch
Ecological Support Branch
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all of the Region IV Biocriteria Workshop participants for their hard work and
for their sage and candid input. Special thanks go to Mr. Clayton S Creager and Dr. Miles M. (Bud)
Smart of Kilkelly Environmental Associates for their tireless efforts in facilitating the workgroup
discussions and for their patient drafting and editing of this report. I take full responsibility for any
errors that remain.
This report reflects the advice and opinion of the participants, not necessarily EPA or statepolicies on
any subject. It is hoped that the results of this workshop will provide a helpful perspective as we
begin the process of biocriteria policy and program development. Please refer any questions,
thoughts, or comments on this report to
Jim Harrison, Environmental Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Monitoring and Planning Unit 4MW-WQM
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-5242
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 OVERVIEW 3
3 CURRENT STATUS OF STATE PROGRAMS IN REGION IV 5
3.1 Biocriteria Regulations and Use of Biomonitoring Information 5
3 2 Reference Sites 6
3.3 Ecoregions 6
3.4 Sampling Methods 7
3.5 Habitat Evaluation 13
3.6 Data Management and Application 13
3 7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13
3 8 EPA Technical Support 13
4 PREFERRED OPTIONS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS IS
4.1 Biocriteria 15
4.2 Ecoregions 15
4.3 Reference Sites 16
4.4 Sampling Issues 17
4.5 Habitat Evaluation 19
4 6 Data Analysis and Data Base Management 19
4.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 19
5 PROGRAM NEEDS 21
Glossary 24
References 26
Appendix A - Participant List
TABLES
1.1 Workshop Presentations 2
3.1 Methods for Collecting Biomonitoring Samples 8
3.2 Metrics Used by States in Region IV for Analysis of Biological Data and
Data Management
5.1 Rating of Resources Necessary for Each State to Conduct Assessments to
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the proceedings of the Region IV Biocriteria Workshop held in Athens, GA,
March 7-9,1989. The biocriteria workshop was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IV Water Quality Management Branch and Ecological Support Branch in response to
the 1987 Office of Water report. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change. The report
called for increased ambient biomonitoring and an improved framework for monitoring, assessment,
and reporting. The primary purpose of the workshop was to provide support and assistance to the
region's eight states in developing specific narrative and numerical biocriteria that are consistent
with Section 304(a)(8) of the Gean Water Act. Workshop participants included state water quality
biologists who represent each of the region's eight state environmental regulatory agencies, a
Tennessee Valley Authority biologist, academics and consultants specializing in ecology and aquatic
resources, and EPA scientists and administrators from Region IV. The workshop emphasized free-
flowing, wadeable streams and rivers. The primary objectives of the workshop were
to survey the biomonitoring programs of Region IV states
to briefly compare approaches and methods of specific components of biomonitoring
methods and biocriteria programs
to recommend consensus approaches and methods to improve comparability between
programs in the Region
to identify the primary resource and research needs for the states in Region IV
Aquatic ecosystems are exceedingly complex and dynamic. To assess them rationally, an array of
biological metrics that conveys information about their structural and functional attributes must be
developed. The past 10 years of aquatic ecosystems research and assessments indicate a need to
change from the chemical-specific toxicological approach alone to an integrated approach that fully
incorporates biological surveys, biocriteria, and physical habitat Assessing ambient biological
conditions has become possible because sampling tools and protocols have been markedly improved,
tested, and refined. Thus, many issues that limited the use of biocriteria and biomonitoring are no
longer relevant. Also more tractable definitions of biological integrity and improved analytical tools
to assess this integrity have standardized sampling and analyses.
-------
Kegion IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
Conclusions
Biocriteria, combined with determinations of physical habitat, chemical concentration, and
toxicity testing, provide an integrated, conceptually valid approach for assessing aquatic
resources. Biocriteria are especially useful for determining whether other established
criteria are protecting aquatic life.
Biocriteria can quantitatively measure the interim goals of restoring and maintaining
biological integrity as mandated in Section 101(a)(2) of the Water Quality Art.
o Biocriteria should be established on an ecoregion basis because each ecoregion has a
unique biotic potential. However, the goal of biocriteria, that is maintaining biological
integrity in a water resource system, should not be altered within ecoregions unless a site's
natural habitat differs substantially from the reference.
A sound biomonitoring program should include benthos, fish, and aquatic plant life
monitoring capabilities.
Despite limited resources, several Region IV states have successfully implemented initial
phases of biocriteria.
Progress in developing biocriteria has been hampered by a lack of resources and will
continue to be severely restricted without additional resources.
Recommendations
Ideally, states should have numeric biocriteria in place within 5 years. Narrative criteria
with an implementation plan are appropriate interim steps. Region IV assistance is
essential to achieving biocriteria development goats.
States should establish several relatively unimpacted reference sites per ecoregion. These
sites should be tested for seasonality, size, and intra-regional variability. Reference sites
should be incorporated into monitoring programs.
A series of field validations, sponsored by Region IV, should be held to provide assistance
for training and methods comparisons.
A menu of sampling methods should be developed for the Region IV states. The menu will
allow each state to choose appropriate methods based on its data needs and resources.
The sampling methods must be rigorously defined, standardized, and documented in a
methods manual.
Habitat evaluations should be standardized using numerical'descriptors. Habitat analysis
should include watershed factors.
Region IV states should define a set of metrics that allows a rigorous, statistically defensible
sampling and data analysis program.
A quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program must be developed and
implemented. This program should include standardized biologist training and evaluation
of sampling and analysis methods.
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
Database it; nagement requirements are large and are not yet being met. Significant
resources art- required for computer systems, software, data entry, and data analysis.
EPA Region IV should develop a regional policy supporting biomonitoring and biocriteria
development. The policy should incorporate individual state resources and needs.
-------
Region IV Biocnteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
1. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the proceedings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Biocriteria Workshop held in Athens, GA, March 7-9,1989. The EPA Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
was sponsored by the Water Quality Management and the Ecological Support Branches at EPA
Region IV in response to the 1987 Office of Water report, Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework
for Change. This report called for increased ambient biomonitoring and an improved framework for
monitoring, assessment, and reporting. The primary purpose of the workshop was to support and
assist the region's eight states in developing specific narrative and numerical biocriteria that are
consistent with the mandate stated in Section 304(a)(8) of the Gean Water Act (CWA). The workshop
also supported the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987, Section 303(c)(2)(B), requirements for EPA to
develop criteria based on biological assessment methods when numerical criteria have not been
established for the priority pollutants listed in Section 307(a) of the CWA. Biocriteria regulations can
provide a quantitative measure of the interim goals (i.e., restoring and maintaining biological
integrity) of Section 101 of the WQA.
Biocriteria and biomonitoring data will also improve the implementation of other sections of the
CWA:
methods of measuring the effects of pollutants on biological integrity, Section 105
guidelines for evaluating Nonpoint Sources (NPS), Section 304(f)
lists of waters unable to support balanced biological communities, Section 304(1)
biennial reports of the extent to which waters support balanced aquatic communities,
Section 305(b)
assessments of lake trophic status and trends, Section 314
9 lists of waters that cannot attain designated uses without additional NPS controls,
Section 319
9 prohibitions against dredge and fill disposal adversely affecting balanced wetland
communities, Section 404
9 reclassification of water resources (e.g., outstanding resource water)
All Region IV states conduct biomonitoring to provide information to water quality regulatory
programs, and many state programs have accumulated enough practical experience and technical
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
expertise to take the lead in developing biocriteria. With this in mind, the Region IV Biocriteria
Workshop was designed with four primary objectives:
to survey the biomonitoring programs of the Region IV states
to briefly compare methods and approaches used by Region IV states in their
biomonitoring and biocriteria programs
to recommend consensus methods and approaches to improve the comparability between
programs in the region
to identify the primary resource and research needs for the states in Region IV
This information will enable EPA Region IV to assume the lead in providing the states with technical
and programmatic guidelines for developing biocriteria.
Workshop participants included state water quality biologists who represented each of the region's
eight state environmental regulatory agencies, a Tennessee Valley Authority biologist, academics and
consultants specializing in ecology and aquatic resources, and EPA scientists and administrators from
Region IV. A list of workshop participants is included as Appendix A.
The workshop consisted of two parts: presentations by individual speakers {see Table 1.1) and group
discussion. The second component of the workshop involved small discussion groups where
participants addressed issues relative to reference sites, sampling methods, habitat evaluation, data
analysis and database management, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QQ programs. When
appropriate, consensus positions were defined and/or recommendations were made. The groups also
discussed key steps in developing biocriteria. The workshop emphasized free-flowing, wadeable
streams and rivers.
Table 1.1 Workshop Presentations
Name
Topic
Mr. Mike McGhee
Welcome
Mr. Fritz Wagener
Water quality standard perspective
Dr. James Karr
Need for biological monitoring; advantages and disadvantages of various
approaches for assessing biological integrity
Dr. Robert Hughes
Use of the ecoregion approach and the emerging strategic triad concept in
water quality
Or. Richard Wiegart
Ecological research initiatives
Region IV states
Status of th
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
2. OVERVIEW1
Biomonitoring data and biocriteria should be used in conjunction with chemical water quality
assessments and chemical-specific criteria. This concept is the strategic triad for protection of water
quality. Biomonitoring data and biocriteria directly define and measure instream biological integrity
and must be fully integrated into surface water programs. Additionally, habit assessment should be
incorporated to allow detection of significant non-toxic stressors. Biomonitoring data are generally
used in a reactive manner to detect inadequacies in current controls. In contrast, chemical-specific
criteria are a proactive tool used, for example, to set limits for discharge permits These proactive and
reactive functions form an important balance in the regulatory process.
Biomonitoring provides a valuable set of tools to directly determine whether the objective of
restoring and maintaining the biological integrity of the nation's waters (Section 101 of the 1987
WQA) has been met. The past 10 years of aquatic ecosystems research and assessments indicate a
need to change from the chemical-specific/toxicological approach alone to an integrated approach
that fully incorporates the strategic triad. Assessing ambient biological conditions has become more
reliable because sampling tools and protocols have been markedly improved, tested, and refined.
Thus, many of the issues that limited the use of biocriteria and biomonitoring are no longer relevant.
Also, more tractable definitions of biological integrity and improved analytical tools to assess this
integrity have standardized sampling and analyses.
Historically, the EPA and the states have developed a variety of standards to achieve the goals of the
1987 WQA. These standards specify beneficial uses for waterbodies and criteria to evaluate whether
the uses are being attained (and thus, whether the standards are being met). Most of these criteria
have followed the traditional approach of developing chemical-specific limits deemed to be
protective for the designated uses. These limits were usually established by performing single
chemical toxicity tests on test organisms. More recently, whole-effluent testing has been added to
the array of assessment tools.
This approach to water quality has produced significant improvement in the nation's waters.
Laboratory-derived criteria are particularly appropriate for designated uses related to human
activities such as drinking water or human contact (swimming, water skiing). Chemical-specific
1 From U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987, Pages 2-3 Reprinted with changes
-------
Region IV 8iocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
criteria and subsequent water quality sampling are essential to establish effluent limitations in th >
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits program. The chemical-spec^ c
criteria approach also has been applied to protecting designated aquatic life uses. However, an
increasing body of evidence indicates that regulatory agencies cannot solely rely on these criteria
without also sampling the ambient biological communities to verify the results of pollution control
measures and to detect non-toxic stressors.
The existing criteria are insufficient to protect aquatic life uses for two main reasons. First, they are
derived from laboratory-based simulations, which cannot address all factors affecting resident
aquatic communities (e.g., habitat limitations, additive impacts of multiple dischargers). Thus, they
are only surrogates for achieving desired results. Secondly, chemical-specific criteria cannot always
address potential impacts from habitat modifications and many nontoxic pollutants, particularly
those from nonpoint sources such as sediments and nutrients, which affect a vast majority of river
miles. These issues are discussed in more detail in the 1987 Office of Water report. Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework for Change.
EPA and the states have previously been discouraged by actual and perceived problems in sampling
and evaluating the health of the ambient aquatic life, which made them hesitant to use this
information in regulation. Natural communities were thought to be too variable and too complex to
be precisely and consistently measured. As long as these beliefs prevailed, regulators could not justify
using biological criteria in the same way as chemical criteria. Indices (such as species diversity) that
were intended to reduce this complexity proved unreliable; there was considerable debate about
sampling methods (what kinds, how extensive or intensive, and where to sample) and which
organisms to sample. Finally, the costs of sampling and evaluating ambient biological conditions
were considered too high for the level of information obtained.
One result of recent improvements is that expensive, intensive biological surveys of all organisms over
long periods are not necessary for many regulatory purposes. Research in field methods has shown
that reliable data, useful for monitoring, can be collected without excessive expense. This makes
biomonitoring data especially valuable as a screening tool, while reserving more expensive
investigatory techniques for more complex situations, such as where a high probability of litigation
exists.
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
3. CURRENT STATUS OF STATE PROGRAMS IN REGION IV
Each state presented a synopsis of its biomonitoring and biocriteria activities. The areas of interest
included a brief review of biocriteria regulations and use of biomonitoring information, reference
streams, ecoregions, sampling methods, habitat evaluation, data interpretation (metrics), database
management, and QA/QC programs. The objective of the state presentations on the status of their
biomonitoring/biocriteria programs was to gain insight into specific activities that are critical to
implementation of biocriteria into water quality standards. These presentations varied considerably
in format and content, reflecting the substantial differences between states in both approach and
status of their programs.
3.1 Biocriteria Regulations and Use of Biomonitoring Information
Each state in Region IV is conducting some form of biomonitoring; however, the extent, nature, and
the manner in which the information is used varies considerably between states. Four states
(Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia) have a general narrative statement in their water
quality regulations requiring the protection of aquatic life. Two other states (Florida and North
Carolina) use biological criteria to protect biological integrity of aquatic resources.
Florida is the only Region IV state with a numerical biocriteria regulation. Florida's biocriteria
regulation, which has been in place since 1975, defines biological integrity as the maintenance of
>. 75% of the established background diversity (as measured by the Shannon-Weaver Diversity
Index). The Florida rule mandates the type of sampling, the number of samples, and the specific
metric to be applied. There are several concerns with this approach (e.g., the reliability of the
Shannon-Weaver Index as an effective indicator of biological integrity and the inability to adopt
improved sampling and data analysis methods). Florida makes extensive use of its biocriteria
information in alt facets of its water quality program.
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama biomonitoring teams file reports to their water quality divisions.
In Alabama, biological information is used in conjunction with water quality demonstration studies,
standards review, ambient monitoring and special problems monitoring. In Kentucky, South
Carolina, and Tennessee biological data is used for trend monitoring, reference data, the biennial
305(b) report to Congress on Water Quality, and Health Advisories for fish consumption. Kentucky,
South Carolina, and Tennessee also have an intensive survey program that collects biological,
physical, chemical, and sediment data for stream use designations and investigation of the effects of
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
point source discharges and nonpoint source run-off. North Carolir appears to make the most
extensive use of narrative biomonitoring information in Region IV. Worth Carolina has had dei'acto
biological criteria in place for three ecoregions since 1983. This state's approach to biocriteria is
flexible, can be alteredas natural changes occur or improved methods are developed, and relies on
the expert judgment of experienced personnel. North Carolina's use of narrative biocriteria
information includes
Investigations of Point Source Dischargers
Special Studies, Complaints
Toxicity Reduction Surveys
" Before and After" surveys
Investigations of Nonpoint Source Runoff
Test of Management Strategies
Use of Attainability Designations
Water Use Reclassifications
Outstanding Resource Water
High Quality Water (Proposed)
Basin Assessment
Trend Analysis (BMAN)
3.2 Reference Sites
North Carolina has selected at least one reference site for each of its three defined ecoregions,
based primarily on landuse. Mississippi is establishing a reference site for each of its five defined
ecoregions and has historical monitoring on 22 stream sites. However, many of these streams are
impacted, particularly within the Delta. Kentucky has proposed a reference reach program; specific
sites are under consideration. Alabama, Georgia, and Florida have not yet established independent
reference sites. In 1983, Tennessee sampled 20 unimpacted reference sites seasonally (twice) for
benthos, fish, and algae. Alabama has several candidate sites where the Alabama Geological Survey
has conducted intensive biomonitoring. Georgia has 10-15 candidate reference sites; the state
anticipates selecting a site for each ecoregion by 1994. The states in Region IV have not dearly
defined their criteria for reference sites and have not incorporated the biomonitoring results into
their biocriteria programs.
3.3 Ecoregions
The ecoregion concept received enthusiastic support from the state biologists in Region IV. Three
states (North Carolina, Kentucky, and Georgia) have adopted some form of ecoregions and assigned
drainage basins to the appropriate ecoregion. Because the states do not ."'are the same criteria or
system of defining ecoregions, omparisons or cooperation across state i s is difficult. The lites
that have assigned ecoregion classifications have not defined the biotic potential for biocrite.
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
standards. The remaining states have not yet incorporated this approach into their biomonitoring
programs.
3.4 Sampling Methods.
Most biological data bases represent a compromise between resources expended and information
gained. This compromise is one factor that has led to a fairly wide variety of state biomonitoring
programs. Another factor is the ultimate use of the data. Regardless of the use of the data, all states
have developed standard field methods and quality assurance to ensure consistent and defensible
results. It is essential that biomonitoring is performed with the same rigor as procedures used to
monitor chemicals and test for toxicity.
All Region IV states sample macroinvertebrates. Artificial substrate samplers are used by all the states
except North Carolina and Mississippi, which is currently replacing them with natural substrate
samplers (Table 3.1). Kick sampling is conducted by Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee, and selected picks are conducted by Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Sweep nets are used to collect samples in Mississippi, North
Carolina and Tennessee, and leaf packs are used by Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee. The other methods employed (epifauna samplers, sand samplers, surber samplers, timed
streamside sampling, and limestone baskets) are each used by only one or two states.
Identifying specimens from any of the collection methods is time consuming, and states use different
metrics to evaluate data according to their needs and resources (Table 3.2). Some of the more
common metrics were EPT richness, total taxa richness, the Biotic Index (used to assess organic
pollution), abundance, indicator groups, equitability, and the Shannon-Weaver index. The other
metrics listed in Table 3.2 are used by only one or two states.
Fish are collected by North Carolina and Kentucky water quality agencies as part of their
biomonitoring program. In Florida and Georgia a different state agency collects fish. Most states
focus on game fish. Although fish require a greater field effort to collect than marroinvertebrates,
they can be identified to a relatively low taxonomic level in the field, and data are quickly available
for analyses. Electrofishing, seining, and trammel/gill nets are used to collect fish. Kentucky and
North Carolina calculate the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for fish. North Carolina also determines fish
density, reproductive success, and taxa richness. Most of the states monitor toxics in fish tissue in
conjunction with biomonitoring.
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee collect algae data.
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee use periphytometers to collect
-------
Table 3.1 Methods for Collecting Biomonitoring Samples
Organism Group Method
States
AL FL» GA» KY MS NC SC TN
Macroi n vertebrates
Fine Mesh Samplers
Epifauna samplers x
Sand samplers x
Artificial Substrate Samplers
Limestone baskets x
Multiple plate samplers x x x x x x x
Disturbance Samplers
Sweep nets x x x
Kick samples x x. x x x
-------
Table 3.1 Continued.
Organism Group
Method
States
AL FL« GA« KY MS NC SC TN
Other
Leaf packs
Selected pick x
Timed, streamside sampling
x
x
x x
x x
x
Algae
Periphytometers
Substrate samplers
Water sample-plankton
Natural substrate
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
X X
Fish
Electrofishing
Seine
Trammel/gill nets
-------
Table 3.2 Metrics Used by States in Region IV for Analysis of Biological Data and Data Management
Organism Group
Method
States
AL FL« GA« KY MS NC SC TN
Macroinvertebrates
Taxa Richness
Biotic Index
Diversity Related
Chironomid richness
EPT/Chironomid ratio
EPT richness
% change in total taxa richness
Total taxa richness
Biotic index
Indicator Assemblage Index (IAI)
Indicator groups
Abundance
Equitability
Shannon-Weaver diversity
% change in abundance
% dominants
Dominants in common
Index of Community Integrity (ICI)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30
0>
lO
o
3
<
cp
O
r\
>21 Q)
«| 2" $
oo g 0
-------
Table 3.2 Continued.
Organism Group
Method
States
AL FL« GA* KY MS NC SC TN
Other
Morphology
% similarity
Functional feeding groups
x
X X
Algae
Biovolume
Chlorophyll §
% community similarity
Species present
Taxa richness
Density
Biomass
x x
x
x
x x
x x
x x
Fish
Density
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
Reproductive success
Taxa richness
Toxics burden
x
X X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 3.2 Continued.
States
Organism Group Method
AL
FL* GA«
KY
MS
NC
SC
Paper files
X
X X
X
X
X
X
Personal computers
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mainframe
X
X
X
TN
Data Management
-------
Region iv Biocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
attached algae, and Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina collect water samples
(lakes only) for determinations of planktonic algae. Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee determine chlorophyll a as an estimate of biomass. Kentucky also
determines community similarity and taxa richness of the algae, and North Carolina and South
Carolina determine density and species present. North Carolina also determines biovolume.
3.5 Habitat Evaluation
All states in Region IV collect physical data and evaluate habitats as part of routine surveys. The
format and intensity of these surveys vary considerably between the states. Several states take only
rudimentary notes on the sample site. No state has developed a rigorous numerical format to allow
precise comparisons between sample sites or to eliminate confounding factors for data
interpretation. Understanding the inseparable link between the watershed and stream assists in
addressing nonpoint and nonchemical degradation of the biological community To accomplish this,
habitat evaluations must look beyond instream and bankside parameters. The southeastern states
attempt to characterize the landuse or other factors in watersheds surrounding sample sites when
appropriate.
3.6 Data Management and Application
Data management and analysis capabilities are highly varied among the states. All have data in
paper files (Table 3.2), and all would like to have these data computerized in workable software
packages. In Region IV states, biomonitoring data are used to support use attainability designations,
or for permitting compliance. Florida and North Carolina have computerized (PC and mainframe)
data bases and also have the most developed biocriteria. These states also use the data to detect
trends; to determine nonpoint source effects; to make basin assessments; to identify outstanding
natural resource waters, nutrient sensitive waters, or eutrophication; or to test management
strategies.
3.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The states all use some EPA sampling methods and procedures as defined by the Biological Field and
Laboratory Methods. All states agree that the manual needs to be updated by EPA Region IV to
account for improvements in sampling methodology and data analysis techniques. No state has a
formal training and certification program for field biologists.
3.8 EPA Technical Support
A consistent theme in each presentation was that these states need guidance and support from EPA
to implement biocriteria. EPA should prepare a technical support document for developing
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
biocriteria and using ambient biological sampling in surface water progr ;ms. The documentsould
address a variety of topics including greater resolution of ecoregions, rr... aging data, developing
software, and establishing a menu from which the states can pick methods for stream and habitat
evaluations. States need flexibility in choosing methods and approaches suitable to their needs;
however, those methods need to be as sophisticated and reliable as physico/chemical monitoring.
EPA should support the development, evaluation, implementation of refined-use designations and
numerical biocriteria by the states. These numerical criteria should be used to translate narrative
criteria for protecting aquatic life uses into more quantifiable measures of attainment.
-------
Region iv Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
4. PREFERRED OPTIONS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Each of the two workshop discussion groups was charged with the task of defining and assessing key
concepts and issues in biocriteria. Each group attempted to define key concepts relative to reference
sites, sampling methods and timing, habitat evaluation, and data analysis and management. Each
issue was examined in detail and, where appropriate, a consensus was reached.
4.1 Biocriteria
The goal of biocriteria is to protect water resources through evaluation of biological integrity.
Combined with determinations of chemical concentration/toxicity testing, physical habitat
assessments, and biocriteria form the strategic triad for protecting aquatic resources. The strategic
triad provides an integrated, conceptually valid approach to assessing aquatic resources. The criteria
can be either narrative or numerical.
Biocriteria narrative standards are in place in Arkansas (Shakleford 1988), Maine, and Ohio (Ohio EPA
1987) and have been proposed in North Carolina. The state of Maine's approach has been to set
narrative standards in the law that establish general characteristics necessary for a biological
community to attain a given classification and a given level of integrity (Courtemanch et al. 1989).
The narrative criteria are basically a refined use classification. Although narrative criteria provide a
basis of protection for aquatic resources, the workshop consensus was that the ideal situation would
be an ecoregion-specific numeric standard. The numeric biocriteria need to allow for flexibility and
account for variability. Ohio has proposed numerical biocriteria, and several other states (Arizona,
Idaho, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) are developing them.
Even though the idealistic goal of biocriteria is to establish numeric criteria, initial biocriteria will rely
on narrative. The narrative criteria should have support from documents, have a methodology in
place, and be open for review. Regardless of whether a biocriterion is numeric or narrative criteria, it
must be defensible in a court of law.
4.2 Ecoregions
The ecoregion concept, which groups naturally similar ecosystems into regions that are substantially
less diverse than the entire nation or a state, is critical to the successful development and application
of biocriteria. Sites stratified by ecoregion have similar ecological potentials that can be quantified
with known levels of precision (Hughes and Larsen 1988). Omernik (1987) developed an ecoregion
-------
Region iv Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
map of the southeastern United States. These ecoregions incorporate less ecosystem variation than
an entire state or major river basin, and they are more widely applicable than ecological regions
defined by a single characteristic or purpose.
Workshop participants agreed that biocriteria should be established on an ecoregion basis. They also
agreed that Omernik's defined ecoregions were a starting point, but that in some cases the
ecoregions would need to be refined to minimize natural variability for between-system
comparisons. The participants also noted the potential problem of ecoregions overlapping political
boundaries; therefore, a procedure must be established to facilitate interstate cooperation.
Interstate cooperation will be required to define ecoregions and should be encouraged in
biomonitoring and biocriteria development.
4.3 Reference Sites
There are two distinct types of reference sites: site-specific and regional. The site-specific site is the
traditional upstream sample point that is used as a reference for suspected point discharges. State
standards may require that a demonstrable difference not exist between upstream (reference) and
downstream areas. A regional reference site serves as a relatively unimpacted benchmark for
disturbed streams in a given ecoregion (Hughes et al. 1986). Regional reference sites are required as a
reference for nonpoint source discharges.
Reference sites should mimic, as closely as possible, the natural characteristics of the sites of concern.
The reference sites should be in the same ecoregion and have similar types of biological and chemical
data collected. They should have similar stream morphology, stream order, and watershed
size/discharge, and should be minimally impacted. This will be difficult where nonpoint pollution,
including atmospheric deposition, is a problem. Under ideal circumstances, there should be a
minimum of three size classifications of reference sites within an ecoregion and at least six sites per
size class to capture the degree of natural variability in the ecoregion.
When defining a reference site, the stream should be sampled at least two times per year, preferably
four, for macroinvertebrates and one to two times per year (in late summer or autumn) for fish.
Greater sampling frequency may be needed to detect the effects of seasons on transient, elusive,
ephemeral, and rare species. Historical data should be used when available. However, resampling
reference sites validates the program and assesses long-term climatic and landscape changes.
Therefore, reference streams should be incorporated into a trend monitoring program.
-------
Region IV Biocnteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
If an ecoregion lacks suitable reference sites, the least impacted sites in the ecoregion may suffice.
Historical data for a stream that was once suitable as a reference stream can also be used provided
that methodologies are comparable.
Suitable reference sites may not be in the same state as the site of interest. Two options exist: (1)use
an existing instate reference site or (2) interact with colleagues in the adjacent state. Although
excellent communication and interactions now exist among Region IV biologists, communication
needs to be improved to facilitate the exchange of information among states This exchange could
be achieved through memoranda of agreement, including delineation of higher resolution
ecoregions and maintenance of a reference site data base by the states in EPA Region IV.
4.4 Sampling Issues
Fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae are all suitable taxa to monitor for establishing criteria.
Each state should use similar methods for biomonitoring and levels of species identification to
maximize data comparability. Different methodologies are adapted to different water resource
types. Rigorous identification and use of multiple metrics enhances our ability to make accurate
decisions and, thus, provide greater protection for water resources shared by neighboring states.
Comparable sampling methods also allow interstate comparisons of the limited number of reference
sites, thereby maximizing the use of such data. Different sampling approaches (see Table 3.1) now
used by the states should be standardized to increase data comparability on a per-unit basis A suite
of methods should be chosen based on sound scientific criteria; once established, sampling
methodologies should remain in place. When a change in sampling strategies is considered, the
alternate methods should be compared to allow conversions between older and newer methods
A menu of methods needs to be developed for the Region. Workshop participants recommended
that the EPA sponsor field studies to examine method comparability and efficiency of each method
for use in Region IV states. When the studies are complete, a methods workshop for Region IV states
should be conducted. Methods currently used by the states in Region IV are summarized in Table 3 1
The type of sampling conducted depends on the metrics examined and the degree of resolution
required for making decisions. Each ecoregion may have a different set of metrics with different
expectations. In Ohio, for example, there are different expectations for different sized streams and
different ecoregions. Metrics differ by stream size, but are the same statewide. In Region IV, metrics
and expectations could be developed as they were in Ohio, or states could lump all metrics together
and then determine different metrics for different ecoregions.
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
Quantitative sampling is usually employed if an estimate of organisms per unit effort or space is
required. Qualitative sampling is conducted to provide an inventory (e.g., presence/absence,
abundant/common/rare) of organisms. Both yield usable data; which data are used -- hence the
method employed - depends on the data objectives. The majority of Region IV states use qualitative,
multi-habitat collection techniques for macroinvertebrates. Appropriate statistics should be applied
to the data derived from these methods to ensure that comparisons can confidently be made.
However, quantitative data tractable to statistics will be required for long-term trend monitoring and
regulatory purposes.
Workshop participants agreed that the practice of using rapid bioassessment protocols and diversity
indices needs to be re-examined. Data analysis methods are sensitive to sample size, thus limiting the
usefulness of some rapid bioassessment protocols a biocriteria program. Some of the rapid
bioassessment protocols are appropriate for biocrt ria and should be included in the Region IV
method comparison study. However, rapid should be omitted from the method name. Additionally,
the methods need to be redefined.
Diversity indices, once widely used, have largely been supplanted. Although they work under select
conditions, they are not a valid parameter for biotic criteria.
A key component of sampling is defining and stratifying inherent natural variability of stream
ecosystems. Natural variability and ways to stratify it must be taken into consideration when
establishing biocriteria that are defensible in a court of law. Natural variation in the biota of streams
is both spatial and temporal. Spatial variability can be reduced by factoring stream morphology,
stream size, habitat, and ecoregion into study designs. Ohio's biocriteria program attempts to reduce
spatial variation by incorporating watershed area and ecoregion in its experimental design.
Temporal variability can be reduced by incorporating stream physical variables (e.g., stable flow,
seasonal temperature) and biological attributes of organisms (e.g., longer lived species, emphasis on
structural and functional properties of assemblages) in the study design.
The use of multiple metrics, reference sites, and ecoregions can reduce the effect of natural variation.
Expectations for the biota in a stream are determined from reference sites, previous experience, or
the literature. Sampling, at comparable stream conditions and season, is conducted to determine
whether expectationsare met. IBI and Invertebrate Community Index (1CI) are examples of measures
that reduce variability.
Biological trend monitoring can provide a baseline for establishing biological criteria. Historical
insights into the biota of a stream, or in a region, are invaluable.
-------
Region IV Biocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
4.5 Habitat Evaluation
Habitat evaluations should be an integral part of biomonitoring. Evaluation of habitat quality is
important because differences in habitats between sites may confound interpretation of sampling
data. In addition, changes in habitat at a particular site may be the major stress on the biological
community.
Each state should develop a standard habitat evaluation procedure (possibly with ecoregion specific
metrics and scoring criteria) using numerical descriptors for various parameters. Interstate and
Region IV cooperation will assist development of the evaluation procedures. Developing a methods
manual to provide guidance on procedures would be beneficial. Existing habitat evaluation
procedures, developed by the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U S. Forest Service, EPA and several state
agencies, may serve as models. A field workshop for methods comparison and development is critical
to ensure comparable results ecoregion wide.
4.6 Data Analysis and Data Base Management
Metrics need to be tailored to the state using them and to the state's objectives. In Ohio, for example,
IBI metric expectations were developed on a statewide basis. This provides the state with data that
meets biomonitoring needs and allows for comparisons across the state. The data are used to make
decisions for permitting and use/attainability determinations. Region IV states need to define a set of
metrics, as Ohio has done, that allow a rigorous, statistically defensible sampling and data analysis
program. The metrics should measure shifts in the structural and functional composition of aquatic
communities from conditions expected in unimpacted or minimally impacted regional reference sites.
To enhance our ability to make water resource decisions and to report results, biomonitoring data
must be organized in computerized data bases. Data in paper files are much less likely to be used
than computerized data. Technology exists that will facilitate data transfers from paper to computer;
however, resources to complete the data transfers do not yet exist. States in Region IV have widely
varying capabilities in computer and data management systems. Those states that are more advanced
in computerization could shire techniques and knowledge with the other Region IV states. A
regionwide common data management system would facilitate sharing data from ecoregions that
cross state boundaries. Meetings of the Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists Association
(SEWPBA) are one potential regionwide forum for discussion and technology transfer in this area.
4.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Experienced and trained biologists as well as quality assurance and quality control procedures, insure
the success of a biomonitoring program. An effective biomonitoring program will require eventual
-------
Region iv Biocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
certification of state biologists and consultants. Collection, analysis, and interpretation must be done
by biologists experienced in techniques and ecology. Inexperienced personnel can be trained on
reference streams where the biota and stream physical conditions are known. Personnel standards
can be achieved through scientific society certification (e.g., the Ecological Society of America) or by
establishing education, training, and experience requirements.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control is an important part of sampling. Scientifically sound sampling
protocols are paramount to accurate, reliable data. States have standard operating procedures in
place through EPA Region IV programs. Although these procedures are established, it is important to
consider flow conditions, time of year, and time of day when designing sampling programs.
Consistency in sampling is important; it can reduce sampling error and increase data comparability.
-------
Region iv Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
5. PROGRAM NEEDS
During the workshop, the states identified areas where they need assistance in program
development. Biomonitoring is an active, ongoing program in the states; although the states do not
require assistance for any new programs, they did name specific areas that they would like expanded
in their existing programs. These areas are staff, data management, metrics determinations,
sampling methods, ecoregion definition, communications and cooperation, and refinement of data
interpretation techniques. At the conclusion of the workshop, there was a consensus among
participants that a week-long SEWPBA field/laboratory workshop addressing these topics is necessary.
All states share the greatest need: to increase staff. Most states do not have the personnel necessary
to quickly develop and implement biocriteria (Table 5.1). Another need common among the states is
for increased data management. Computers and software are required to get data from the field and
file cabinets into a computerized data management system. Manually compiled data are relatively
Table 5.1. Rating of Resources Necessary for Each State to Conduct Assessments to
Establish Biocriteria*
Metric
Data
Management
Assistance from Other
State Agencies
State
Fish
Benthos
Plant
Alabama
1
2
0
.5
1
Florida
0
4
4
4
4 (fish)
Georgia
1
25
.5
1
4 (fish)
Kentucky
3.5
35
2.5
1
3
Mississippi
.5
1.5
2.5
15
2
North Carolina
3
4
3
2 5
3
South Carolina
2
3
1.5
1
2
Tennessee
2
3
1
0
3
Scale of 0-5 was used: 0 « no resources available and 5 - all resources available
* Two workgroups were surveyed; each number rating represents the average of both workgroups
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
inaccessible and are less likely to be used than computerized data Additionally, historical data that
yield insights into past water quality and biota may be effectively lost without computerization.
Computerization will also improve the efficiency of data analysis and will provide the means to
statistically analyze large data bases. Computerization is critical, to the full implementation of
biocriteria into the standards program.
Region IV states need to address how they intend to quantify features of the biological community
they intend to examine. For example, are the states going to use multiple metrics of community
structure separately (e.g., diversity, richness, and abundance) or combine individual metrics into a few
index values (e.g., IBI; ICI; Fauschetal. 1989)? The IBI and ICI are gaining wider acceptance. A
regionwide overview outlining the Region's approach must be developed. Once the general
framework is established, several choices of metrics should be made available to each state; this
concept was termed a metrics menu at the workshop. The metrics menu approach provides the
necessary comparability at the EPA Region level, but allows flexibility for each state.
Sampling methods should be standardized across Region IV states. To allow for flexibility, however,
there should be several standardized methods available for sampling the organisms chosen for
monitoring. Each method should yield results that can be used for assessing biotic integrity. Several
metrics, such as those listed in Table 3.2, are available for fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae. Ideally,
a multiple metric assessment, such as IBI, will be used. This type of assessment should incorporate the
following criteria:
The measure must be biological.
The measure must be interpretable at several trophic i«vels or provide a connection to
other organisms not directly involved in monitoring.
The measure must be sensitive to the environmental conditions being monitored.
The response range of the measurement ought to be suitable for the intended application.
The measure must be reproducible and precise within defined and acceptable limits for
data collected over space and time.
The variability of the measure must be low (Karretal. 1986).
Differences among the state's resources make it appropriate for the states to exercise their own
options in selecting methods. Flexibility will be a key factor in the success of Region IV biocriteria.
Data comparability within the ecoregion (i.e., reference sites versus sample sites) and data
defensibility are critical for implementation of biocriteria. Participants suggested that EPA update
-------
Region IV Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
the 1973 biological methods manual (EPA/670-4->1-001) and that the revised manual become the
Region IV methods manual.
Ecoregions provide the geographical framework for biocriteria; therefore, determining ecoregion
boundaries is critical to the program's success. Despite the publication of Ecoregions of the
Southeastern United States (Omernik 1987), states and Region IV may need to refine such ecoregion
delineations to provide a consistent, regionwide approach.
Because ecoregions cross several state boundaries, communication among the states in Region IV is
critical to the success of biocriteria. Currently, communication at the biologist level is quite good
(evidence SEWPBA); however, communication needs to be improved at the administrative level.
Memoranda of agreement should be established among the states to facilitate interstate
cooperation.
-------
Region IV- Biocriteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
GLOSSARY'
This section defines some of the terms used at the workshop. These are only working definitions, and
are somewhat general; they are presented for purposes of clarification and continuity in this report.
It is apparent from discussions at the workshop that many of these terms are used inconsistently or
are misunderstood. The EPA should provide clear definitions for these terms and foster consistent
usage.
AMBIENT (INSTREAM) BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING - the process of collecting a representative portion of
the organisms living in the waterbody of interest, to determine the characteristics of the lotic or lentic
aquatic community. Fish, algae, and benthic macroinvertebrates are usually sampled. This term
includes short- or long-term surveys and monitoring.
BIOASSAY -- the procedure of exposing test organisms, in a laboratory setting, to various
concentrations of suspected toxicants or dilutions of whole effluent.
BIOASSESSMENT -- assessment of the condition of a waterbody using any available biological
methods. Biomonitoring and bioassay are common bioassessment methods.
BIOCRITERIA - the numerical or narrative expressions of the biological characteristics of ambient
aquatic communities. (Often structural measures, e.g.. species composition, organism abundance,
and diversity). Biocriteria, as generally applied in state programs, are designed to reflect attainable
characteristics under minimally impacted conditions. As such, biocriteria describe the ecological
potential for aquatic community health in a given watershed, drainage basin, or ecological region.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY - a measure of the state of health in aquatic communities. A healthy aquatic
community is a balanced community of organisms having a species composition, diversity and
functional organization comparable to that found in natural (unimpaired) habitats in the region
(Karretal. 1986). Also called "Biotic Integrity."
BIOMONITORING -- monitoring conducted to ensure standards or effluent limitations are being met
using either the ambient community or toxicity tests.
BIOSURVEILLANCE - used synonymously with biomonitoring in this report. Also can be used to
describe a series of systematic biomonitorings.
BIOSURVEY -- used synonymously with ambient biological sampling in this report.
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC CRITERIA - criteria that set specific allowable concentrations of individual
chemicals in th« water. These criteria are presumed to be protective of the designated aquatic life
uses, as well as other uses, e.g., drinking water or human health ("swimmable" conditions).
CRITERIA - the conditions presumed to support or protect the designated use(s), e.g., dissolved
oxygen not less than 5 mg/L to protect a coldwater fishery use designation.
DESIGNATED USES - the purposes or benefits to be derived from a waterbody, e.g., drinking water,
aquatic life.
-------
Kegion iv Biocnteria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
ECOREGIONS -- broad scale areas with a common ecological characteristic, e.g., Central Corn Belt
Plains, Western Allegheny Plateau. Also called Ecological Regions.
IN SITU BIOASSAY -- assay conducted on test organisms, in the ambient water or discharge mixing
zones, for known exposure periods, e g., with caged fish or clams.
STANDAROS - the legally established state rules consisting of two parts, designated uses and criteria.
TOXICITY TEST -- used synonymously with bioassay in this report.
WHOLE EFFLUENT TESTING - a bioassay using the complete discharge "as it comes from the pipe," as
opposed to separate bioassays on the individual component chemicals.
' From U S Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. pages nt-iv
-------
Region IV Biocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
REFERENCES
Courtemanch, D L S.P. Davies, and E.8. Laverty. 1989. Incorporation of Biological Information in
Water Quality Planning. Environmental Management 13:35:41.
Fausch, K.D., J. Lyons, J.R. Karr, and P.L. Angermeier 1989. Fish communities as indicators of
environmental degradation. In press.
Hughes, R.M., J.M. Omernik, and D.P. Larsen. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for assessing
stream potentials. Environmental Management 10:629.
Hughes, R.M., and D.P. Larsen. 1988. Ecoregions: An approach to surface water protection. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and F.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Special Publication S, Illinois Natural History
Survey, Champaign, IL.
Ohio EPA. 1987. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Vol. HI. Division of Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment. Columbus, OH.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Southeast States. Map (scale 1:2,500,00) EPA/600/D-87/314.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Shakleford, 8. 1988. Rapid Bioassessment of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 45 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Report of the national workshop on instream
biological monitoring and criteria, Lincolnwood, IL. 34 p.
Weber, C. (ed.) Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters
and Effluents, EPA-67Q/4-73-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
-------
Region IV Biocrueria Workshop
Final Repon
August 1989
appendix a
-------
Region IV Biocnieria Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
PARTICIPANT LIST
Name
Address
Telephone
Steven Ahlstedt
Tennessee Valley Authority
Aquatic Biology Department
Fisheries Lab
Norris, TN 37828
615/494-9800
Ext. 1781
Linda Anderson-Carnahan
U.S. EPA Water Quality Standards
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
404/347-2126
FTS/257-2126
Mike C. Beiser
Bob Cooner
Clayton Creager
Bev Ethridge
Morris Flexner
Tim Forester
Larinda T. Gronner
Jim Harrison
MS Bureau of Pollution Control Lab. 601/961-5183
121 Fairmont Plaza
Pearl, MS 39208
Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management 205/271-7700
1751 Cong W L Dickinson Blvd.
Montgomery, AL 36130
Kilkelly Environmental Associates 919/781-3150
P.O. Box 31265
Raleigh, NC 27622
Nonpoint Source Coordinator 404/347-2126
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Tennessee Dept. of Health & Environment 615/741-0638
Div. of Construction Grants & Loans
Nonpoint Source Program
TERRA Bldg.
ISO Ninth Avenue, N.
Nashville, TN 37219
AL Dept. of Environmental Management 205/271-7700
1751 Cong. W.L. Dickinson Blvd
Montgomery, AL 36130
U.S. EPA Water Quality Standards
345 Courtland Street. NE 404/347-2126
Atlanta. GA 30365 FTS/257-2126
U.S. EPA 404/347-2126
345 Courtland Street FTS/257-2126
-------
Region IV Biocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
PARTICIPANT LIST
Name
Address
Telephone
Del Hicks
Hoke Howard
Bob Hughes
Matt Kadlec
David Kamps
James Karr
Bill Kennedy
Dave Lenat
Howard Marshall
Scott Mettee
U.S. EPA
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30613-7799
U S. EPA
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30613
NSI Technology Services, Inc.
Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
MS Bureau of Pollution Control Lab.
121 Fairmont Plaza
Pearl, MS 39208
GA Environmental Protection Division
Water Quality Management Program
7 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SW
Suite 643
Atlanta, GA 30334
Department of Biology
VA Polytechnic Institute & State Univ.
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406
GA Environmental Protection Division
Water Quality Management Program
7 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Suite 643
Atlanta, GA 30334
NC Depart, of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27627
Raleigh, NC 27611
Planning and Monitoring Unit
U.S. EPA
34S Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Director, Biological Resources
Alabama Geological Survey
P.O. Drawer O
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
404/546-2294
404/546-2294
503/757-4666
601/961-5183
404/656-4905
703/231-4139
404/656-4905
919/733-6946
404/347-2126
-------
Region iv Biocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
PARTICIPANT LIST
Name
Address
Telephone
Lythia Metzmeier
Mike Mills
Dave Penrose
Ken Pointer
Diane M Reid
Stanley Rodgers
Thomas Savage
Vince Schneider
Russell Sherer
Bud Smart
Lee Tebo
Fritz Wagner
Division of Water
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Division of Water
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
NC Depart, of Natural Resources
P O Box 27627
Raleigh, NC 27611
Tenessee Dept. of Health and Environment
Div. of Water Pollution Control
TERRA Bldg
150 Ninth Avenue, N.
Nashville, TN 37219-5040
NC NRCD-DEM/WQ
P O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
MS Bureau Pollution Control Lab
121 Fairmont Plaza
Pearl, MS 39208
FL Dept. of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahasse, FL 32301
NC Division of Environ. Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
SC Dept. of Health & Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Kilkelly Environmental Associates
P.O. Box 31265
Raleigh, NC 27622
Box 1426
Athens, GA 30603
U.S. EPA Water Quality Standards
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
502/564-3410
502/564-3410
919/733-6946
615/741-6623
919/733-6946
601/961-5183
904/488-6221
919/733-6510
803/734-5296
919/781-3150
404/789-3737
404/347-2126
-------
Region IV Biocritena Workshop
Final Report
August 1989
PARTICIPANT LIST
Name Address Telephone
Karen Wilson U.S. EPA Planning and Monitoring Unit 404/347-2126
345 Courtland Street NE FTS/257-2126
Atlanta. GA 30365
Edward (Butch) Younginer SC Dept. of Health & Environmental Control 803/734-5401
2600 Bull Street
------- |