Water Quality Standards Handbook

APPENDIX C

Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

SECOND EDITION United States Office of Water EPA-440/5-90-004 Environmental Protection AgencyRegulations and Standards (WH-585) Agency Washington, DC 20460 EPA Biological Criteria

National Program Guidance For Surface Waters Biological Criteria

National Program Guidance for Surface Waters

Criteria and Standards Division Office of Water Regulations and Standards U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20460 Contents

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Dedication ...... iv

Definitions ...... v

Executive Summary ...... vii

Part I: Program Elements

1. Introduction ...... 3 Value of Biological Criteria ...... 4 Process for Implementation ...... 6 Independent Application of Biological Criteria ...... 7 How to Use This Document ...... 7

2. Legal Authority ...... 9 Section 303 ...... 9 Section 304 ...... 10 Potential Applications Under the Act ...... 10 Potential Applications Under Other Legislation ...... 10

3. The Conceptual Framework ...... 13 Premise for Biological Criteria ...... 13 Biological Integrity ...... 14 Biological Criteria ...... 14 Narrative Criteria ...... 15 Numeric Criteria ...... 16 Refining Aquatic Life Use Classifications ...... 17 Developing and Implementing Biological Criteria ...... 18

ii 4. Integrating Biological Criteria in Surface Water Management ...... 21 Implementing Biological Criteria ...... 21 Biological Criteria in State Programs ...... 22 Future Directions ...... 24

Part II: The Implementation Process

5. The Reference Condition ...... 27 Site-specific Reference Condition ...... 28 The Upstream-Downstream Reference Condition ...... 28 The Near Field-Far Field Reference Condition ...... 28 The Regional Reference Condition ...... 29 Paired Watershed Reference Condition ...... 29 Ecoregional Reference Condition ...... 29

6. The Biological Survey ...... 33 Selecting Aquatic Community Components ...... 34 Biological Survey Design ...... 35 Selecting the Metric ...... 35 Sampling Design ...... 36

7. Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method ...... 37 Hypothesis Testing ...... 37 Diagnosis ...... 38

References ...... 43

Appendix A: Common Questions and Their Answers ...... 45

Appendix B: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria-Technical Reference Guide ...... 49

Appendix C: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria-Development By States ...... 51

Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers ...... 53

iii Acknowledgments

Development of this documentcombined required effortthe of ecologists, biologists, and policy makers from States, EPA Regions, and EPAHeadquarters. Initial efforts relied on the 1988 document Report of the National Workshop on Instream Biological Monitoring and Criteria that summarizes a 1987 workshop sponsored by the EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA Region V, and EPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis. In December 1988, contributing and reviewing committeeswere established(see Appendix D). Members provided referencematerials and commentedon drafts. Their assistancewas most valuable. Special recognition goesto the Steering Committee who helped developdocument goals and madea significant contribu- tion toward final guidance. Members ofthe Steering Committeeinclude: Robert Hughes, Ph.D. Chris Yoder Susan Davies Wayne Davis John Maxted Jimmie Overton JamesPlafkin, Ph.D. Dave Courtemanch Phil Larsen, Ph.D. Finally, our thanks go to States that recognizedthe importance of a biological approach instandards and pushedforward independently to incorporate biological criteria into their programs. Their guidance madethis effort possible. Developmentof the program guidance document was sponsoredby the U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations andStandards and developed,in part, through U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3533 to Dynamac Corporation. Thanks to Dr. Mark Southerland forhis technical assistance. Suzanne K. Macy Marcy, Ph.D. Editor

In Memory of

James L. Plafkin, Ph.D.

iv Definitions

o effectively use biological criteria, a clear understanding of how these criteria are developed and applied in a water quality standards framework is necessary. This requires, in part, that users of biological T criteria start from the same frame of reference. To help form this frame of reference, the following definitions are provided. Please consider them carefully to ensure a consistent interpretation of this document.

Definitions q An AQUATIC COMMUNITY is an association of in- (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) or organizational teracting populations of aquatic organisms in a given level (individual, population, community association] waterbody or habitat of a biological entity within the aquatic community.

q A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of q REGIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIMILARITY describe the biological condition of a waterbody using biologi- a relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity cal surveys and other direct measurements of resi- of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegeta- dent biota in surface waters. tion, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant variable. Regions of ecological similarity help define the q BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA, or biocriteria, are numeri- potential for designated use classifications of cal values or narrative expressions that describe the specific waterbodies. reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life q DESIGNATED USES are those uses specified in use. water quality standards for each waterbody or seg- ment whether or not they are being attained. q BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY is functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting q An IMPACT is a change in the chemical, physical or unimpaired waterbodies of a specified habitat as biological quality or condition of a waterbody caused measured by community structure and function. by external sources.

q BIOLOGICAL MONITORING is the use of a biologi- q An IMPAIRMENT is a detrimental effect on the cal entity as a detector and its response as a biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an im- measure to determine environmental conditions. pact that prevents attainment of the designated use. Toxicity tests and biological surveys are common biomonitoring methods. q A POPULATION is an aggregate of interbreeding individuals of a biological species within a specified q A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, or biosurvey, consists of location. collecting, processing and analyzing representative portions of a resident aquatic community to deter- q A WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT is an evaluation mine the community structure and function. of the condition of a waterbody using biological surveys, chemical-specific analysis of pollutants in q A COMMUNITY COMPONENT is any portion of a waterbodies, and toxicity tests. biological community. The community component may pertain to the taxomonic group (fish, inver- q An ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation tebrates, algae), the taxonomic category (phylum, of the condition of a waterbody using water quality order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy and physical habitat assessment methods.

v Executive Summary

he Clean Water Act (Act) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop programs that will evaluate, restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in- T tegrity of the Nation’s waters. In response to this directive, States and EPA implemented chemically based water quality programs that successfully addressed significant water pollution problems. However, these programs alone cannot identify or address all surface water pollution problems. To create a more comprehensive program, EPA is setting a new priority for the development of biological water quality criteria. The initial phase of this program directs State adoption of narrative biological criteria as part of State water quality standards. This effort will help States and EPA achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act set forth in Section 101 and comply with statutory requirements under Sections 303 and 304. The Water Quality Standards Regulation provides additional authority for biological criteria development. In accordance with priorities established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance, States are to adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 triennium. To support this priority, EPA is developing a Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program and is providing this program guidance document on biological criteria. This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological criteria. Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to facilitate development and implementation of narrative and numeric criteria for each of the surface water types. When implemented, biological criteria will expand and improve water quality standards programs, help identify impairment of beneficial uses, and help set program priorities. Biological criteria are valuable because they directly measure the condition of the resource at risk, detect problems that other methods may miss or underestimate, and provide a systematic process for measuring progress resulting from the implementation of water quality programs.

vii Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

Biological criteria require direct measurements of the structure and function of resident aquatic communities to determine biological integrity and ecological function. They supplement, rather than replace chemical and toxicological methods. It is EPA’s policy that biological survey methods be fully integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment methods and that chemical-specific criteria, whole-effluent toxicity evaluations and biological criteria be used as independent evaluations of nonattainment of designated uses. Biological criteria are narrative expressions or numerical values that describe the biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given aquatic life use. They are developed under the assumptions that surface waters impacted by anthropogenic activities may contain impaired aquatic communities (the greater the impact the greater the expected impairment) and that surface waters not impacted by anthropogenic activities are generally not impaired. Measures of aquatic community structure and function in unimpaired surface waters functionally define biological integrity and form the basis for establishing the biological criteria. Narrative biological criteria are definable statements of condition or attainable goals for a given use designation. They establish a positive statement about aquatic community characteristics expected to occur within a waterbody (e.g., “Aquatic life shall be as it naturally occurs” or “A natural variety of aquatic life shall be present and all functional groups well represented”). These criteria can be developed using existing information. Numeric criteria describe the expected attainable community attributes and establish values based on measures such as species richness, presence or absence of indicator taxa, and distribution of classes of organisms. To implement narrative criteria and develop numeric criteria, biota in reference waters must be carefully assessed. These are used as the reference values to determine if, and to what extent, an impacted surface waterbody is impaired. Biological criteria support designated aquatic life use classifications for application in standards. The designated use determines the benefit or purpose to be derived from the waterbody; the criteria provide a measure to determine if the use is impaired. Refinement of State water quality standards to include more detailed language about aquatic life is essential to fully implement a biological criteria program. Data collected from biosurveys can identify consistently distinct characteristics among aquatic communities inhabiting different waters with the same designated use. These biological and ecological characteristics may be used to define separate categories within a designated use, or separate one designated use into two or more use classifications. To develop values for biological criteria, States should (1) identify unimpaired reference waterbodies to establish the reference condition and (2) characterize the aquatic communities inhabiting reference surface waters. Currently, two principal approaches are used to establish reference sites: (I) the site-specific approach, which may require upstream-downstream or near field-far field evaluations, and (2) the regional approach, which identifies similarities in the physico-chemical characteristics of watersheds that influence aquatic ecology, The basis for choosing reference sites depends on classifying the habitat type and locating unimpaired (minimally impacted) waters.

viii Once reference sites are selected, their biological integrity must be evaluated using quantifiable biological surveys. The success of the survey will depend in part on the cad-u! selection of aquatic community components (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, algae). These components should seme as effective indicators of high biological integrity, represent a range of pollution tolerances, provide pre- dictable, repeatable results, and be readily identified by trained State personnel. Well-planned quality assurance protocols are required to reduce variability in data collection and to assess the natural variability inherent in aquatic communities. A quality survey wilI include multiple community components and may be measured using a variety of metrics. Since multiple approaches are available, factors to consider when choosing possible approaches for assessing biological integrity are presented in this document and wi.lI be further developed in future technical guidance documents. To apply biological criteria in a water quality standards program, standardized sampling methods and statistical protocols must be used. These procedures must be sensitive enough to identify significant differences between established criteria and tested communities. There are three possible outcomes from hypothesis testing using these analyses: (1) the use is impaired, (2) the biological criteria are met, or (3) the outcome is indeterminate. If the use is impaired, efforts to diagnose the cause(s) will help determine appropriate action. If the use is not impaired, no action is required based on these analyses. The outcome will be indeterminate if the study design or evaluation was incum- plete. In this case, States would need to re-evaluate their protocols. If the designated use is impaired, diagnosis is the next step. During diagnostic evaluations three main impact categories must be considered: chemical, physical, and biological stress. Two questions are posed during initial diagnosis: (1) what are obvious potential causes of impairment, and (2) what possible causes do the biological data suggest? Obvious potential causes of impairment are otten identified during normal field biological assessments. When an impaired use cannot be easily related to an obvious cause, the diagnostic process becomes investigative and iterative. Normally the diagnoses of biological impairments are relatively straightforward; States can use biological criteria to confirm impairment from a known source of impact. There is considerable State interest in integrating biological assessments and criteria in water quality management programs. A minimum of 20 States now use some form of standardized biological assessments to determine the status of biota in State waters. Of these, 15 States are developing biological assessmenti for future criteria development. Five States use biological criteria to define aquatic life use classifications and to enforce water quality standards. Several States have established narrative biological criteria in their standards. One State has instituted numeric biological criteria. Whether a State is just beginning to establish narrative biological criteria or is developing a fully integrated biological approach, the programmatic expansion from source control to resource management represents a natural progression in water quality programs. Implementation of biological criteria will provide new options for expanding the scope and application of ecological perspec- tives. Part I

Program Elements Chapter 1

Introduction

The principal objectives of the Clean Water Act are ‘to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters’ (Section 101). To achieve these objectives, EPA. States, the regulated community, and the public need comprehensive information about the ecological integrity of aquatic environments. Such information will help us identify waters requiring special protection and those that will benefit most from regulatory efforts. To meet the objectives of the Act and to comply with statutory requirements under Sections 303 and 304. States are to adopt biological criteria in State standards. The Water Quality Standards Regulation provides additional authority for this effort. In accordance with the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance, States and qualified Indian tribes are to adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 triennium. To support this effort, EPA is developing a Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program and providing this program guidance document on biological Anthropogenicimpacts, including point source criteria. discharges,nonpoint runoff, and habitatdegradation Like other water quality criteria, biological cri- continueto impairthe nation'ssurface waters. teria identify water quality impairments, support regulatory controls that address water quality problems, and assess improvements in water the direct measurement of aquatic community com- quality from regulatory efforts. Biological criteria are ponents inhabiting unimpaired surface waters. numerical values or narrative expressions that Biological criteria complement current pro- describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic grams. Of the three objectives identified in the Act communities inhabiting waters of a given desig- (chemical, physical, and biological integrity), current nated aquatic life use. They are developed through water quality programs focus on direct measures of

3 chadal htagtity (ctlomical-specik and Wilde-ef- F&urn l.-Ohlo blorunoy Ro~ultr Agm with tnrtnrm Chemlrtry or Rewrl Unknown Problems RUM totic@) ud, to some degree, physical integrity through several conventional crlt8ria (e.g., pH. turbidity, dlssokad oxygen). lmplem8ntatiOn Of lmpalrmetnt ldentlflcation these programs he8 dgnifcantly improved water Chemlcar Evaluation lndxzate quelity. However, as we learn more about aquatic No Impairment: Biosurvey BlOSUNey Show No ecosyst8w it is apparent that other sources of Show lmpalrment lmpalrment; Chemical waterbody impairment exist. Biological impairments Evaluation lndlcares from dimu8 sources and habital degradation can be \ ImDalrment greatw than those caused by point source discharges (Judy et al. 1987; Milfer et al. 1989). In Ohio, evaiuatlon of Inattream biota indicated that 36 percent of Impaired stream segments could not be detected using chemial criteria alone (see Fig. 1). Although effective for their purpose, chemical- specific criteria and whole&fluent toxicity provide only indirect evaluatkms and protection of biological integrity (see Table 1). Chemical Pr 6 &OSUNOy Agree To effectively address our remaining water quality problems we need to develop more integrated and comprehensive evaluations. Chemical Fig. 1. In an ~nterwve Survey. 431 sites In Ohlo were assessed usmg Inslream chemistry and b~ologtcal sutwys. In 36% of and physkzal integrity are necessary, but not suffi- Ins cases, chernca~ 0v~Iu~tions implwJ no 1mpa4rmenl bur derM condition8 to atWn biological integrity, and b10Ioqc~1 survey ovaluatlons showd imgairrnenr. In !SSBKof the ~8~0s the chemical rnd blologlcaf l sse8amanls agreea only when chatnbal, ptlysm, and bkaglcu in- Of these. 17% ldenflfiti waters wfth no vmparrmenf. 41% tegrity are achieved. Is eco+ogMl integrity possible ldentifred walers whch were conslderod ImpaWed (Modlfled (see Fig. 2). BidogtcaJ aft* provide an essential trom Ohlo EPA Water Ourl~ty Invenfory, 1968.) third element for water qu&y management and serve as a natural pmgreaaion in regulatory Biologicaf assessments have been used in programs. tncotporating biologlcal criteria into a biomonitoring programs by States for many years fully integrated program directly protects the biologi- In this respect, biological criteria suppcrt earker cal integrity of surface waters and provides indirect work. However, implementing biological criteria in protection for chemical and physical integrity (see water quality standards provides a systematic, Table 2). Chemicakpecifk c&ens. whole-efffuent structured, and objective process for making toxicity evaluatIona, and biological criteria, when decisions about compliance with water quality used together, complement the relative strengths standards. This dbtinguish8s biologiai crit8ria from and woakneases of each approach. earlier use of biological information and increases the value of biological data in regulrtory programs.

Tebbk l.-cumnt WM &wty Progmm Protmctlon d tfBaThm Eknwntr of Ecological IntogrHY.

ELEMENTS OF ECOUQE AL i PROGRAY THAT DIRECTLY I PROQAAM THAT INDtRECTLY INTEQRrTY j PROTECTS ! PROTECTS Chemical Integnty i Chemcal Speck Cntena lloxlcs] I 1 WW. Effluent Toxlcrty (toxlcs] 1 phys4cal Integrity Crtterra for Conventlonars I I l.PH. 00. llJrblcilty) 8uAogcal fntegnty ’ Chemical Whole Efftuenc Toxlclty tbiobc response In lab)

Table 1 Current programs focus on chemical spedc and whole-etfluent toxrc~tyevalualmns. Both are valuable approaches for lhe direct evababoon and protection of chemical lntegnly Phystcal lntegrrty 1s also dlrecctty pro&ctec! 10 a llmlted degree through cntena for conventIonal DoIIulants Blologlcal wwgnty IS only lndlrectly prowted under the assumprlon :hat t, OvahJatlng loxlclty lo organisms In laboratory stbdles eStlmateS can 5e made about !he loxMy lo other organisms tnba%’ -3 amblent waters

4 TabI@ 2.-watar Ou8llty P+ogrrms thrt Incorporate 9kkgitil Critorir to Prot8ct Eloment8 of Ecologkal Integrq.

I ELEMENTSOF PROTECTS . ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY DIRECTLY PFIOTECTS ’ INOIKtiClLY Chemical lnregnty Chemcat Spedc Crlterla I tox~cs) Bccnterla 1Identlhcahon of Whore Effluent Toxrctty (~OXICS) Impamnent)

Physlcal In!egnty Cnteria for conventlonals 1pt-l. temp Biocntena 1habital evaluation) , Do) Biologlca! lntegnly B0critena (biottc response m surface Chemical Who& Eftluent Testing water) I biotH: resows8 in labl

Table 2 When blologlcat cntena are incorporated Into waler quaMy programs the bIological mtegnty of surface waters may be dlrec!;y evaluated and promted Blologlcal crltena also prwde additional benefits by requlnng an evaluation of physical lntegrdy and zrovdng a monllonng tool 10 assess Ihe efffXtlVeness 01 current chemically based cntena flgurr 2.- The Elemontr of Ecological Integrity Biological assessments provide integrated evaluations of water quality. They can identify impairments from contamination of the water column and sediments from unknown or unregulated cheml- cals. non-chemical impacts, and altered physical habitat. Resident biota function as continual monitors of environmental quality, increasing the likelihood of detecting the elfects of episodic events (e.g., spills, dumping, treatment @ant malfunctions, nutrient enrichment), toxic nonpoint source pollution (e.g., agricultural pesticides), cumulative pollution (i.e., multiple impacts over time of continuous low- level stress), or other impacts that periodic chemical sampling is unlikely to detect. Impacts on the physical habitat such as sedimentation from stormwater runoff and the effects of physical or structural habitat alterations (e.g., dredging, filling, chan- nelization) can also be detected. Biological criteria require the dinct measure of resident aquatic community structure and function to determine biological intagrity and ecological func- Fig 2. EcologIcal lntegrlty IS l ttrlndlo &on chemlcrl, physIcal. and blologlcat wttegrity occur simultaneously tion. Using these measuree, impairmant can be detected and evaluated without knowing the impact(9) that may cause tha impa&nent. Value of Biological Biotogical criteria provide a regulatory framework for addressing water quality problems and Criteria offer additional benefits, including providing:

l the basis for cttamcterizing high quality Biological criteria provide an effective tool for waters and identifying habitats and addressmg remaining water quality problems by community cornpononts requiring special directing regulatory efforts toward assessing the protection under Stat. anti-degradation biological resources at risk from chemical, physical policies; or biologIcal impacts. A primary strength of biological criteria is the detection of water quality problems l a framework for deciding 319 actions for best that other methods may miss or underestimate. control of nonpoint source pollution: Biological crlterla can be used to determine to what l an evaluation of surface water imwrrnents extent current regulations are protecting the use. predicted by chemical anaJyse& toxicrty

5 testing, and fate and transport modeling (e.g., speccitic and wholaeflluent toxicity applications: na- wastebad al-);, tional guidance produced by U.S. EPA will support States working to establish State standards for the improvement8 In water quality standards implementation of regulatory programs (seer Table (including reflment of use ctasaifications); 3). Biological criteria differ, however, in the degree a process for demonstrating improvements in of State involvement required. Because surface water quality after implementation of pollution waters vary significantly from region 10 region, EPA COMf0k; will provide guidance on acceptable approaches for biological criteria development rather than specrfic additional diagnostic tools. critena with numerical limitations. States are to establish a!3SeSSment procedures, conduct field The role of biological criteria as a regulatory tool evaluations, and determine criteria values to imple- is being realized in some States (e.g., Arkansas, ment biological criteria in State standards and apply Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, Vermont). Biological them in regulatory programs. assessments and criteria have been useful for regulatory, resource protectjon, and monitoring and The degree of State involvement required in- reporting programs. By incorporating biologlcal fluences how biological criteria will be implemented. critena in programs, States can improve standards It is expected that States WIU implement these setting and enforcement, measure impairments criteria in phases. from permit vroiations, and refine wasteload alloca- tron models. In addition, the localron, extent, and l Phase I ncludes the development and adoc- type of brologlcal impairments measured in a water- tlon of narrative biologlcal criteria into State body provide valuable information needed for iden- standards for all surface waters (streams, tifying the cause of impairment and determining rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries). Definitions actlons required to improve water quality. Biological of terms and expressions in me narratives assessment and criteria programs provide a cost- must be Included in these standards (see the effective method for evaluating water quality when a Narrative Criteria Section, Chapter 3). Adop- standardized, systematic approach to study design, tion of narrative biological criteria in State field methods, and data analysis is established standards provides the legal and program- iOh;o EPA 1988a). matic basis for using ambient biologlcal surveys and assessments In regulatory acttons Process for m Pheu II Includes the devetopment of an implementation plan. The plan should include Implementation program objectives, study design, research protocols, criteria for selecting reference con- The implementation ot biokgical criterra will fol- ditions and community components, quality low the same process used for current Cbmbd- assurance and quality control procedures,

Tabk 3.-W for w of water ouallty sland8rd8.

CRITERIA EPA GUIDANCE STATE IMPLEMENTATION STATE APPUCATtON Chmul Simchc poHucncacleclticccntula Sutr SWmt¶ PefmlI llfnlt$ Muutoflna use~atlon Besl Mn89emem Prahces numeric cmoflnr wastebae l ocatlon ‘=--em-W Numtnm Free Forms whotoemuonltoxltnygulemce watw oudlty Numlve wmt hmlts Monltonng ng tome arnams transtamr wutetoae aNoc8tm Best Managomsnt Pwrces B0qpcal Bosufvey mmlmum requmment sra1r stares Pefmtt conchtmns Momtor~ng g- mmee use Best Mnmt Pracrtces nanamwwnonc cntena was1ekme Mocaml

Tablet 3 Swnllar !o chemical smhc cntena and whole effluent tomc~fy evaluaf~ons. EPA IS provlalng guidance 10 States Ic- the aoootton 01 bdogrcal cntena into State standards to regulate sources of water quality lmoalrment MCI trahlng for State p8rsonnd. In Phase II, compared to toxicological methods, they are not States are to develop plans necessary to im- used in lieu of, or in confkt with, current regulatory plement bldogical criteria for each surface efforts. water type. AS with all criteria, certain limitations to biological criteria make Independent application essential. m Phree Ill requires full implementation and in- Study design and use influences how sensitive tegration of Mological criteria in water quality biological criteria are for detecting community Im- standards. This requites using biological sur- pairment. Several factors Influence sensrtivlty: (1) veys to derive biological criteria for classes of State decisions about what IS significantly different surface waters and designated uses. These between reference and test communities, (2) study criteria are then used to identify nonattain- design, which may include community components m8nt of designated uses and make regulatory that are not sensitive to the impact causing imparr- decisions. ment, (3) high natural variability that makes it difficult to detect real differeclces, and (4) types of Narrative biological criteria can b8 developed impacts that may be detectable sooner by other for all five surface water classifications with We or methods (e.g., chemical cnteria may provide earlier no data collection. Application of narrative criteria in indications of impairment from a bioaccumulatlve seriously degraded waters is possible in the short chemical because aquatic communities require ex- term. However, because of the diversity of surface posure over time to incur the full effect). waters and the biota that inhabit these waters, sig- Since each type of criteria (bIological cntena. nificant planning, data collection, and evaluation will chemical-specific cnteria, or whole-eff!uent tox~ty be needed to fully implement the program. Criteria evaluations) has differ8nt sensitivities and pur- for each type of surface water are Ilkely to be poses, a criterion may fail to detect real impairments developed at different rates. The order and rate of when used alone. As a result, these methods should development will depend, in part, on the develop- be us8d together in an integrated water quality as- ment of EPA guidance for specific types of surface sessment, each providing an independent evalua- water. Biological criteria technicel guidance for tion of nonattainmecrt of a designated use. If any streams will be produced during Fy 1991. The ten- one type of critetia indicates impairment of the sur- tative order for future technical guidance documents face water, regulatory action can be taken to Im- mcludes guidance for nvers (FY 1992), lakes (N prove water quality. However. no one type of criteria 1993), wetlands (N 1994) and estuaries (FY 1995). can be used to confirm attainment of a use II This order and timeline for guidance does not reflect another form of criteria indicates nonattalnment the relative importance of these surface waters, but (see Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the rather indicates the relative availabillty of research Scientific Method, Chapter 7). When these three and the anticipated dilliculty of developing methods are used together, they provide a powerful, guidance. integrated, and 8ffectlvo foundation for waterbody rnenzd8ment and regulations. Independent Application of Biological Criteria How to Use this Document Biological critotia supplement, but do not replace, chemical and toxicobgical methods. Water The purpose of this document is to provide EPA chemistry methods are necessary to predict risks Regions, States and others with the conceptual (particularly to human health and wildlife), and to framework and assistance necessary to develop diagnose, model, and regulate impohent water and implement narrative and numeric biologlcal quality problems. Because biological criteria are criteria and to promote national consistency m ap- able to detect different types of water quality impair- plication. There are two main parts of the document. ments and, in particular, have different levels of sen- Part One (Chapters 1, 2. 3, and 4) includes the es- sltivity for detecting certain types of impairment sential concepts about what biological criteria are

7 amj how they are uaod in regulatory programs. Part Two additional documents are planned in the Two (Chapters $6, and 7) provides an overview of near term to supplement this program guidance the process that is essential for implemenUng a document. State biological critorio program. Specific chapters include the following: ‘Biokgical Ctiteria Technid Reference Guide’ will contain a cross reference of tech- nlcal paper8 on available approaches and Pwt I: PROGRAM ELEMENTS methods for developing biological criteria (soa tentative table of contec\ts in Appendix Q Chrptor 2, Legal Authority, reviews the legal 41 basis for biological criteria under the Clean Water Act and includes possible applications ‘Biological Cfhia Development by State< under the Act and other legislation. will provide a summary of different mechanisms several Slates have used to implement 3 Cheptor 3, Conceptual Framework, and apply biological criteria in water quality discusses the essential program elements for programs (see tentative outline in Appendix biological criteria, in&ding what they are and Cl. how they are developed and used within a regulatory program. The development of Both documents are planned for Ft’ 1991. As narrative biological critena is discussed in this previously discussed. over the next triennlum tech- chapter. nical guidance for specific systems (e.g., streams. wetlands) will be developed 10 provide guidance on J Chapter 4, Integration, discusses the use of acceptable biological assessment procedures to fur- biological critetria in regulatory programs. ther support State implementation of comprehensive programs. Part II: THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS This biological criteria program guidance document supports development and implementation of 3 Chapter 5, The Refonnce Condition, biological criteria by providing guidance lo States provides a discussion on alternative forms of working to comply with requirements under the reference conditons that may be developed by Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Standards a State based on circumstances and needs. Regulation. Thrs gurdance IS not regulatory.

3 Chapter 6, The Biological Survey, provides 3ome detail on the elements of a quality biological survey.

J Chapter 7, Hypotheeie Testing: EIologlcrl Crfterla and the Sclentlfk Method, dtscusses how bidogical rurveys are used 10 make regulatory and dlegnostic decisions.

3 Appendix A Inctudes commonly asked questions and their answers about biological criteria. Chapter 2

Legal Authority

he Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of T 1977, and the Water Quality Act of 1987) mandates State development of criteria based on biological assessments of natural ecosystems. The general authority for biological criteria comes from Section 101(a) of the Act which estab- lishes as the objective of the Act the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. To meet this objective, water quality criteria must include criteria to protect biological integrity. Section 101(a)(2) includes the interim water quality goal for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Propagation includes the full range of biological conditions necessary to support reproducing populations of all forms of aquatic life and other life that depend on aquatic systems. Sections 303 end 304 provide specific directives for the development Balancing the legal authority for biological criteria, of biological criteria

adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants for which Section 303 EPA has published 304(a)(1) criteria. The section further requires that, where numeric 304(a) criteria Under Section 303(c) of the Act, States are re- are not available, States should adopt criteria based quired to adopt protective water quality standards on biological assessment and monitoring methods, that consist of uses, criteria and antidegradation. consistent with information published by EPA under States are to review these standards every three 304(a)(8). years and to revise them as needed. These specific directives do not serve to restrict Section 303(c)(2)(A) requires the adoption of the use of biological criteria In other settings where water quality standards that ". . . serve the purposes they may be helpful. Accordingly, this guidance of the Act," as given in Section 101. Section document provides assistance in implementing 303(c)(2)(B), enacted in 1987, requires States to various sections of the Act, not just 303(c)(2)(B)

9 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

q lists of waters that cannot attain designated Section 304 uses without nonpoint source controls [Sec. 319]; Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and publish water quality criteria and information on q development of management plans and methods for measuring water quality and estab- conducting monitoring in estuaries of national lishing water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on significance [Sec. 320]; bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant, including biological monitoring and assessment methods q issuing permits for ocean discharges and which assess: monitoring ecological effects [Sec. 403(c) and • the effects of pollutants on aquatic community 301(h)(3)]; components (". . . plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life . . .") and community q determination of acceptable sites for disposal attributes (". . . biological community diversity, of dredge and fill material [Sec. 404]; productivity, and stability. ..");in any body of water and; • factors necessary "... to restore and Potential Applications maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all navigable waters . .." Under Other Legislation for "... the protection of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for classes and categories of receiving Several legislative acts require an assessment waters . .." of risk to the environment (including resident aquatic communities) to determine the need for regulatory action. Biological criteria can be used in this context Potential Applications to support EPA assessments under: Under the Act q Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 q Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Development and use of biological criteria will (RCRA), help States to meet other requirements of the Act. including: q Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 q setting planning and management priorities for (CERCLA), waterbodies most in need of controls [Sec. 303(d)]; q Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizartion Act of 1986 (SARA), q determining impacts from nonpoint sources (i.e., Section 304(f) "(1) guidelines for q Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and identifying and evaluating thenature and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and (2) processes, procedures,and methods to q National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); control pollution . . ."]. q Federal Lands Policy and Management Act q biennial reports on the extent to which waters (FLPMA). support balanced biological communities [Sec. 305(b)]; q The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980

q assessment of lake tropics status and trends q Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries [Sec. 314]; Act q Coastal Zone Management Act

10 3 Md and Scenic f?ivers Act

3 Fish and W7kYife Coordinafion Act, as Amendedin 1965

A summary of the applicability of these Acts for assessing ecological impairments may be found in Risk Assessment Guidance for Supetiund-Environ- mental Evaluation Manual (Interim Final) 1989. Other federal and State agencies can also benefit from using biological criteria to evaluate the biological integrity of surface waters within their jurisdiction and to the effects of specific practices on surface water quality. Agencies that could benefit include:

3 Department of the tntrrior (U.S. Fish and Wildltfe SeMce, U. S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines, and Bureau of Reclamalion, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Serwce) ,

3 Deprrtmont of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmosphenc Administration, National Marine Fishenes Service).

3 Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Admmrstratron)

3 Department of Agriculture (U.S. fores! Servrce. Soil Consen/abon Service)

3 Doprrtment of Defonre,

3 Doprrtmrnt of Enargy,

3 Army Corpa of EngIneera,

2 Tennerrn Valley Authortty. Chapter 3

The Conceptual Framework

iological integrity and the determination of use impairment through assessment of am- B bient biological communities form the foundation for biological criteria development. The effectiveness of a biological criteria program will depend on the development of quality criteria, the refinement of use classes to support narrative criteria, and careful application of scientific principles.

Premise for Biological Criteria Biological criteria are based on the premise that the structure and function of an aquatic biological community within a specific habitat provide critical information about the quality of surface waters. Ex- isting aquatic communities in pristine environments not subject to anthropogenic impact exemplify biological integrity and serve as the best possible goal for water quality. Although pristine environments are virtually non-existent (even remote waters are impacted by air pollution), minimally impacted waters exist. Measures of the structure and function of aquatic communities inhabiting unimpaired (minimally impacted) waters provide the basis for establishing a reference condition that may be compared to the condition of impacted surface waters to determine impairment. Aquatic communities assessed in unimpaired waterbodies (top) provide a reference for evaluating Based on this premise, biological criteria are impairments in the same or similar waterbodies suffering developed under the assumptions that: (1) surface from increasing anthropogenic impacts (bottom). waters subject to anthropogenic disturbance may contain impaired populations or communities of aquatic organisms-the greater the anthropogenic

13 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance disturbance, the greater the likelihood and mag- the basis for establishing water quality goals for nitude of impairment and (2) surface waters not those waters. When tied to the development of subject to anthropogenic disturbance generally con- biological criteria, the realities of limitations on tain unimpaired (natural) populations and com- biological integrity can be considered and incor- munities of aquatic organisms exhibiting biological porated into a progressive program to Improve integrity. water quality.

Biological Integrity Biological Criteria

The expression "biological integrity" is used in Biological criteria are narrative expressions or the Clean Water Act to define the Nation’s objec- numerical values that describe the biological in- tives for water quality. According to Webster’s New tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a World Dictionary (1966), integrity is, ‘the quality or given designated aquatic life use. While biological state of being complete; unimpaired." Biological in- integrity describes the ultimate goal for water tegrity has been defined as "the ability of an aquatic quality, biological criteria are based on aquatic com- ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, in- munity structure and function for waters within a tegrated, adaptive community of organisms having variety of designated uses. Designated aquatic life a species composition, diversity, and functional or- uses serve as general statements of attained or at- ganization comparable to that of the natural habitats tainable uses of State waters. Once established for within a region" (Karr and Dudley 1989). for the pur- a designated use, biological criteria are quantifiable poses of biological criteria, these concepts are com- values used to determine whether a use is impaired. bined to develop a functional definition for and if so, the level of impairment. This is done by evaluating biological Integrity in water quality specifying what aquatic community structure and programs. Thus, biological integrity is functionally function should exist in waters of a given designated defined as: use, and then comparing this condition with the condition of a site under evaluation. If the existing the condition of the aquatic community aquatic community measures fail to meet the inhabiting the unimpaired waterbodies criteria, the use is considered impaired. of a specified habitat as measured by community structure and function. Since biological surveys used for biological criteria are capable of detecting water quality It will often be difficult to find unimpaired waters problems (use impairments) that may not be to define biological integrity and establish the refer- detected by chemical or toxicity testing, violation of ence condition. However, the structure and function biological criteria is sufficient cause for States to in- of aquatic communities of high quality waters can be itiate regulatory action. Corroborating chemical and approximated in several ways. One is to charac- toxicity testing data are not required (though they terize aquatic communities in the most protected may be desirable) as supporting evidence to sustain waters representative of the regions where such a determination of use impairment. However, a find- sites exist. In areas where few or no unimpaired ing that biological criteria fail to indicate use impair- sites are available, characterization of least im- ment does not mean the use is automatically paired systems approximates unimpaired systems. attained. Other evidence, such as violation of physi- Concurrent analysis of historical records should cal or chemical criteria, or results from toxicity tests, supplement descriptions of the condition of least im- can also be used to identify impairment. Alternative paired systems. For some systems, such as lakes, forms of criteria provide independent assessments evaluating paleoecological information (the record of nonattainment. stored in sediment profiles) can provide a measure As stated above, biological criteria may be nar- of less disturbed conditions. rative statements or numerical values. States can Surface waters, when inhabited by aquatic com- establish general narrative biological criteria early in munities, are exhibiting a degree of biological in- program development without conducting biological tegrity. However, the best representation of assessments Once established in State standards. biological integrity for a surface water should form narrative biological criteria form the legal and

14 progremnutic buia for expanding biological as- protect the most sonsitivo use and support an- 8essment and biowwey programs needed to imple tidegradation. ment narrative criteria and develop numenc Several States currently use narrative criteria. biological criterir Narrative biological cntena In Maine, for example, narrative criteria were estab- should become put of State regulations and stand- lished for four classes of water quality for streams ards. and rivers (see Table 4). The classifications were based on the rang8 of goal8 in the Act from ‘no discharge’ to ‘protection and propagation of fish. Narrative Ctitetia shellfish, and wildlife’ (Courtemanch and Oavies 1987). Maine separated its ‘high quality water’ into Narrative biological criteria are general state- two categories, one that reftects the highest goal of ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi- the Act (no discharge, Ctass AA) and one that cal integrity and water quality for a given use reflects high integrity but i8 minimalty impacted by de8ignation. Although similar to the ‘free from’ human activity (Class A). The statement ‘The chemical water quality criteria, narrative biological aquatic life . shall be as naturally occurs’ is a nar- criteria establish a positive statement about what rative biological criterion for both Class AA and A should occur within a water body. Narrative criteria waters. Waters in Class B meet the use when the cart take a number of forms but they must contain life stages of all indigenous aquatic species are sup- several attributes to support the goals of the Clean ported and no detrimental changes occur in com- Water Act to provide for the protection and propaga- munity composition (Maine DEP 1986). These tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Thus, narrative criteria directly support refined designated aqua!lc criteria should include specific language about life uses (see Section 0, Refining Aquatic Life Use aquatic community characteristics that (1) must Clauifications). exist in a watarbody to meet a particular designated aquatic life use, and (2) are quantifiable. They must These nenative criteria are effective only if, as be written to protect the use. Supporting statements Maine ha8 done, simple phrase8 such as ‘as for the criteria should promote water quality to naturalty occurs’ and ‘nondetrimental’ are clearly protect the most natural community possible for the Op8ratiOnally defined. RUIGBSfor Sampling proce- designated use. Mechanisms should be established dUr8S and data analysis and interpretation should rn the standard to address poteotially conflicting become part of the regulation or supponlng multlple uses. Narratives should be wntten to documentation. Mame was able to develop tkese criteria and their supporting statem8nts usmg avaIl-

Table 4.-Aquatic Llh c lauinwtlon scholno tot Meho’s Rlvmrs 8nd streama.

RIVERS AND STREAMS MANAGEMENT PERSPECllVE LEVEL OF BIoLOGiCAL INTEGRITY Class AA High quality w8tef for prsservatiorrof AquarK:life shall be as naturally occurs. recrwtional and wobglcal Interests. No diechqp of any kind penn~tted. No irnpmmmt pormltted. Class A Hgh qualtty water mm llmfted human Aquattc Me shall be as naturally Occurs tntdemmx. Discharges restnctad to noncontact pfoces8 wataf or htghty treated wastewater of quatityequ~h3~bett8rrnsntherecetwng waler Impoundment permttted. Class B Good qualrty water Discharges of well treated AmMt water quaMy suttimnl to support l!fe effluents mm amp& dilution permitted stages ot all 1ndr9enousatyuatn: species Omv nondetnmental changes In community COmDOSlhOf7may occur Class C Lowest quality water Requirements consistent Amblent water quality sutfic~t lo supper? :re W&I mtenm goals 01 the federal Waler QuaMy life stages ot all mdgmous hsh spmes Law (tlshable and sw!mmable) Changes In spexxts composltlon may OCCL- t,’ sfructure and Iuncwx~ ot the aQuatIc iomm- *- must De malntarned

IS able data from water quality programs. To impb (stone flies), Ephetneroptera (maflies), ment the criteria. aquatic life inhabiting unimpaired Cdeoptera (beetles), Tricoptwa waters must be measured to quantify the cnteria (caddisflies) should be well represented statement. (Connecticut DEP 1987). Narrative criteria can take more specific forms than illustrated in the Maine example. Narrative For these narratives to be effective in a biologi- criteria may include specific classes and species of cal crrteria program expressions such as ‘a wide organbns that will occur in waters for a given desig variety’ and ‘functional groups should normally be nrted use. To develop these narratives, field evalua- well represented’ require quantifiable definitions tlons of reference conditions are necessary to that berzme part of the standard or supporting Identify biological community attributes that differ docur :t;on. Many States may find such narra- signiftcantly between designated uses. For example tives in =Ir standards already. If so, States should in the Arkansas use class TV&a/ Gulf Coastal evaluate current language to determine if it meets Ecorepion (i.e., South Central Plains) the narrative the requirements of quantifiable narrative criteria criterion reads: that support refined aquatic life uses. Narrative biological criteria are similar to the ‘Streams supporting diverse traditional narrative ‘free froms’ by providing the communities of indigenous or adapted legal basis for standards applications. A snrth ‘free species of fish and other forms of from’ could be incorporated into standards to help aquatic life. fish communities are support narrative biological cnteria such as “free charactenred by a limited pfooportion of from activities that would impair the aquatrc com- sensitive species; sunfishes are munity as it naturalty occurs.’ Narrative biological distinctly dominant, followed by dariers criteria can be used immediately to address obvious and minnows. The community may be existing problems. generally chamcttized by the to/lowing fishes: Key Spec/e+RedtTn shinec Spotted sucker, Yellow bullhead. Flier, Siough darter, Grass pickerel; Indicator Numeric Criteria Speciet-Pirare perch, Warmouth. Numerical indices that serve as biologrcal Spotted sunfish. Dusky darter, Creek criteria should descnbe expected attaInable t:m- chubsucker, Banded pygmy sunfish munrty attrlbcrtes for different designated uses. It IS (Arkansas DPCE 1988). Important to note that full rmplementatlon of narrative criteria will require similar data as that needed In Connecticut, current designated uses are for developing numeric criteria. At this time, States supported by narratives in the standard. For ex- may or may not choose to establish numeric cnteria ample, under Surface Water Classifications, Inland but may find it an effective tool for regulatory use. Surface Waters Class AA, the Designated Use is: ‘Exrsting or proposed drinking water supply; fish To derive a numeric criterion, an aquatic community’s structure and function is measured at refer- and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, in- ence sites and set as a reference condition. dustrial supply, and other purposes (recreation uses Examples of retative measures include similanty In- may be restricted).’ dices, coefficients of community loss, and com- The supporting narrativesi include: parisons of lists of dominant taxa. Measures of existing community structure such as species rich- Benthic inwrte&ates which inhabit loric ness, presence or absertco of indicator taxa, and wuten: A wide vtiefy ot m8winvertebfate taxa ShouM normally distribution of trophic feeding group are useful for establishing the normal range of community com- be present and all functional groups should normally be well represented. . ponents to be expected in unimpaired systems. For example, Ohio uses criteria for the warmwater Water quality shall be sut’kienr 10 sustsin a diverse macroinvertebrate habitat use class based on multiple measures in different reference sites within the same ecoreglon. community of indigenous species. Taxa wrthin the Orders Pkoptera Cnteria are set as the 25th percentile of all blologc- cal index scores recorded at established reference

16 9110swithin the eaxegion. Exceptional warmwater own designated us8 classificaUon system based on habitat Index Crltefia are set at the 75th percentile the generic uses cited in tha Act (e.g., protection (Ohio EPA 1988a). Applications such as this require and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife). an extensive data base and multiple reference sites Designated uses are intentionally general. How- for each criteria value. ever, States may develop subcategories within use To develop numeric biological criteria, careful designations to refine and clarify the use class. assessments of biota in reference sites must be Clarification of the use class is particularly helpful conducted (Hughes et al. 1988). There are when a variety of surface waters with distinct char- numerous ways to assess community structure and acteristics fit within the same use class, or do not fit function in surface waters. No single index or well into any category. Determination of nonattain- measure is universally recognized as free from bias. ment in these waters may be difficult and open to al- It is important to evaluate the strengths and weak- ternative interpretations. If a determination is in nesses of different assessment approaches. A multi- dispute, regulatory actions will be difficult to ac- metric approach that incorporates information on complish. Emphasizing aquatlc community structure species richness, trophic composition, abundance within the designated use focuses the evaluation of or biomass, and organism condition is recom- attainmentlnonattainment on the resource of con- mended. Evaluations that measure multiple com- cern under the Act. ponents of communities are also recommended Flexibility inherent in the State process for because they tend to be more reliable (e.g., designating uses allows the development of sub- measures of fish and macroinvertebrates combined categories of uses within the Act’s general WIII provide more information than measures of fish categories. For example, subcategories of aquatlc communities alone). The weaknesses of one life uses may be on the basis of attainable habitat measure or index can often be compensated by (e.g., cold versus warmwater habitat); innate dif- combining it with the strengths of other community ferences in community structure and function, (e.g., measurements. high versus low spedes richness or productivity); or The particular indices used to develop numeric fundamental differences in important community critena depend on the type of surface waters components (e.g., warmwater fish communities (streams, rivers, lakes, Great Lakes, estuaries, wet- dominated by bass versus catfish). Special uses lands. and nearshore marine) to which they must be may also be designated to protect particularly uni- applied. In general, community-level indices such que, sensitive, or valuable aquatic species, corn- as the Index of Biotic Integrity developed for mid- munities, or habitats. western streams (Karr et al. 1986) are more easily Refinement of use classes can be ac- interpreted and less variable than fluctuating num- complished within current State use classification bers such as population size. Future EPA technical structures. Data collected from biosutveys as part of guidance documents will include evaluations of the a developing biocriteria program may reveal unique effectiveness of different biological survey and as- and consistent differences among aquatic com- sessment approaches for measuring the biological munities inhabiting different waters with the same integrity of surface water types and provide designated use. Measurable blotogical attributes guidance on acceptable approaches for biological could then be used to separate one class into two or criteria development. more classas. The result is a refined aquatlc life use. For example, in Arkansas the beneficial use Fisheries ‘provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other forms of aquatic life’ Refining Aquatic Life Use (Arkansas OPCE 1988). This use Is subdivided into Classifications Trout, Lakes and Reservoirs, and Streams. Recog- nizing that stream characteristics across regions of State standards consist of (1) designated the State differed ecologicalty, the State further sub- aquatic life uses, (2) criteria sufficient to protect the divided the stream designated uses into eight addi- designated and existing use, and (3) an an- tional uses based on regional characteristics (e E tidegradation clause. Biological criteria support Springwater-influenced Gulf Coastal Ecoreglcn designated aquatic life use classifications for ap- Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion). Within this clas- plication in State standards. Each State develops its sification system, it was relatively straightforward fzr

17 Arkanou to establlah detailed narrative biological vea careful consideration and has bea separated criteria that list aqwtk community components ex- out in Part II by chapter for each developmental step pected In each ecoreglon (see Narrative Criteria as noted below. Additlonal guidance will be provided sectlon). These nermtke critetia can then be used in future technical guidance documents. to establish whether the use is impaired. The developmental process is illustrated in Fig- States can refine very general designated uses ure 3. The first step is establishing narrative criteria such aa high, medium, and low quality to specific in standards. However, to support these narratives, categories that include measurable ecological char- standardlted protocols need to be developed to acteristics. In Maine, for example, Class AA waters quanitify the narratives for criteria implementation. are defined as We highest ciassifkatlon and shall They should Include data collectlon procedures, be applied to waters which are outstanding natural selection of reference sites, quality assurance and resources and which should be preserved because quality control procedures, hypothesis testing, and of their ecological, social, scenic, or recreatlonal im- statistical protocols. Pilot studies should be con- portance.’ The designated use includes ‘Class AA ducted using these standard protocols 10 ensure waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable they meet the needs of the program, test the * as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The hypotheses, and provide effective measures of the habitat shall be characterized as free flowing and biological integrity of surface waters in the State. natural.’ This use supports development of narrative criteria based on biological characteristics of Figun 3. -Procors for iho Development and aquatlc communities (Maine DEP 1986; see the Implomontation of Biological Criteria Narrative Criteria sectlon). Elobgkal criteria that mclude lists of dominant Develop Standard Protocola or typical spedes expected to live in the surface (Test protocol sensrtrvlty) wa!or ~0 putlcularty effective. Descriptions of impaired conditions are more difficult to interpret However, biological criteria may contain statemenb Identify and Conduct B~OSUNOYS ai concerning which specks dominate disturbed sites, Untmpolred Reference Sites as well as those species expected at minimally impacted sttes. t Establlsn Blologtcal Crlterla Most States collect biologfcal data in current programs. Refinmg aquatic life use classifications and incorporating blological criteria into standards Conduct BIOSUNOYJ at Impacted Sites will enable States to evaluate these data more ef- (Oetermlne Impabrment) fectively.

Impaired Condition Not Impaired Developing and Diagnose Cause of No Action Required Implementing Biological lmpaltment Contmued Monltorbng Ascommended Criteria + Implement Control

Biological criteria development and implemen- Fig. 3: ImplO~ntJtlon of bloiOglCJl crltefle raqulrer the in. tation in standards require an undentandlng of the steal seIecC(10nof reference sites and characterlzatlon 01 real. selectjon and evaluation of reference sites, meas- dent JauJfic CommunmeJ InhSblting those sites loestabl~sn the reference conditron and blologlcal crttefla. After crrlerla urement of aquatic community structure and func- development. lmpactea sites are evaluated using Ine same tion, and hypothesis testing under the scientific blosurvey procedures to assess rewdent blota. It lmpairmcnr IS tound. diagnosis 01 cause will lead lo the ~mplemental~on method. The developmental process is Important for of a control Contlnusd momlorlng should accompany con. State water quality managers and their staff 10 un- trol Implementation lo delermlne the effectiveness of I”. derstand to promote effective planning for resource terventlon Monltormg IS also recommended where no #f-n pamem 1s found toensure that the surface *aler maInfaIn and staff needs. This major program element deser- or lmprowes In guallfy

18 The next step is establishing the reference con- dttlon for the swfaco water being tested. This reference may bo rlto spectfic or regional but must establish the unimpaired baseline for comparison (see Chapter 5, The Reference Condition). Once reference sites are selected, the biological integrity of the site must be evaluated using carefully chosen biological surveys. A quality biological survey will indude multiple community components and may be measured using a variety of metrics (see Chapter 9. The Biological Survey). Establishing the reference condition and conducting biological surveys at the reference locations provide the necessary information for establishing the biological criteria. To apply biological criteria, impacted surface waters with comparable habitat characteristics are evaluated using the same procedures as those used to establish the cnteria. The biological survey must support standardized sampling methods and statistical protocols that are sensitive enough to identify biologlcally relevant differences between established criteria and the community under evaluation. Resulting data are compared through hypothesis testing to determine impairment (see Chapter 7, Hypothesis Testing). When water quality impairments are detected using biological criteria, they can only be applied in a regulatory settmg if the cause for impairment can be Identified. Oiagnosis is iterative and investtgative (see Chapter 7. Diagnosis). States must then determine appropriate actions to implement controls, Monitoring should remain a part of the biological criteria program whether impairments are found or not. If an impeirment exists, monitoring provides a mechanism to determine if the control effort (inter- vention) is resulting in improved water quality. If there is no impairment, monitoring ensures the water quality is maintained and documents any improvements. When improvements in water quality are detected through monitoring programs two actions are recommended. When reference condition waters improve, biological criteria values should be recalculated to reflect this higher level of integrity. When impaired surface waters improve, states should reclassify those waten to reftect a refined designated use with a higher level of biological integnty. This provides a mechanism for progressive water quality improvement.

19 Chapter 4

Integrating Biological Criteria Into Surface Water Management

ntegrating biological criteria into existing water quality programs will help to assess use attain- I ment/nonattainment, improve problem dis- covery in specific waterbodies, and characterize overall water resource condition within a region. Ideally, biological criteria function in an iterative man- ner. New biosurvey Information can be used to refine use classes. Refined use classes will help support criteria development and improve the value of data collected in biosurveys.

Implementing Biological

Criteria to integrate biological criteria into water quality programs, states must carefully determine where and As biological survey data are collected, these how data are Collected to assessthe biological integrity data will increasingly support current use of of Surface waters. biomonitoring data to identify water quality problems, assess their severity, and set planning response to amendments of the Federal Water Pol- and management priorities for remediation. Monitor- lution Control Act requiring secondary effluent limits ing data and biological criteria should be used at the for all wastewater treatment plants, North Carolina outset to help make regulatory decisions, develop became embroiled in a debate over whether meet- appropriate controls, and evaluate the effectiveness ing secondary effluent limits (at considerable cost) of controls once they are implemented. would result in better water quality. North Carolina The value of incorporating biological survey in- chose to test the effectiveness of additional treat- formation in regulatory programs is illustrated by ment by conducting seven chemical and biological evaluations conducted by North Carolina. In surveys before and after facility upgrades (North

21 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

Carolina DNRCD 1984). Study results indicated that Fifteen States are developing aspects of moderato to substantial in-stream improvements biological assessments that will support future were observed at six of seven facilities. Biological development of biological criteria. Colorado, Illinois, surveys were used as an efficient, cost-effective Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and monitoring tool for assessing in-stream improve- Virginia conduct biological monitoring to evaluate ments after facility modification. North Carolina has biological conditions, but are not developing biologi- also conducted comparative studies of benthic mac- cal criteria. Kansas is considering using a com- roinvertebrate surveys and chemical-specific and munity metric for water resource assessment. whole-effluent evaluations to assess sensitivities of Arizona in planning to refine ecoregions for the these measures for detecting impairments State. Delaware, Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin (Eagleson et al. 1990). are developing sampling and evaluation methods to Narrative biological criteria provide a scientific apply to future biological criteria programs. New framework for evaluating biosurvey, bioassessment, York is proposing to use biological criteria for site- and biomonitoring data collected in most States. Ini- specific evaluations of water quality impairment. tial application of narrative biological criteria may re- Nebraska and Vermont use informal biological quire only an evaluation of current work. States can criteria to support existing aquatic life narratives in use available data to define variables for choosing their water quality standards and other regulations. reference sites. selecting appropriate biological sur- Vermont recently passed a law requiring that veys. and assessing the response of local biota to a biological criteria be used to regulate through per- variety of impacts. States should also consider the mitting the indirect discharge of sanitary effluents. decision criteria that will be used for determining ap- Florida incorporated a specific biological propriate State action when impairment is found. criterion into State standards for invertebrate Recent efforts by several States to develop species diversity. Species diversity within a water- biological criteria for freshwater streams provide ex- body, as measured by a Shannon diversity index, cellent examples for how biological criteria can be may not fall below 75 percent of reference values. integrated into water quality programs. Some of this This criterion has been used in enforcement cases work is described in the National Workshop on In- to obtain injunctions and monetary settlements. stream Biological Monitoring and Criteria proceed- Florida’s approach is very specific and limits alter- ings which recommended that "the concept of native applications. biological sampling should be integrated into the full Four States-Arkansas, North Carolina, Maine, spectrum of State and Federal surface water and Ohio-are currently using biological criteria to programs" (U.S. EPA 1987b). States are actively define aquatic life use classifications and enforce developing biological assessment and criteria water quality standards. These states have made programs; several have programs in place. biological criteria an integral part of comprehensive water quality programs.

n Arkansas rewrote its aquatic life use classifica- Biological Criteria in State tions for each of the State’s ecoregions. This has al- Programs lowed many cities to design wastewater treatment plants to meet realistic attainable dissolved oxygen Biological criteria are used within water conditions as determined by the new criteria. programs to refine use designations, establish criteria for determining use attainment/nonattain- n North Carolina developed biological criteria to ment, evaluate effectiveness of current water assess impairment to aquatic life uses written as nar- programs, and detect and characterize previously ratives in the State water quality standards. Biologi- unknown Impairments. Twenty States are currently cal data and criteria are used extensively to identify using some form of standardized ambient biological waters of special concern or those with exceptional assessments to determine the status of biota within water quality. In addition to the High Quality Waters State waters. Levels of effort vary from bioassess- (HOW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) ment studies to fully developed biological criteria designations, Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) at programs. risk for eutrophication are assessed using biological

22 criteria. Although spe&fk biological measures are face water type by researchers in EPA, States and not in the regulations, strengthened use of biological the academic community. monitoring data to assess water qualily is being EPA will also be developing outreach work- proposed for incorporation in North Carolina’s water shops to provide technical assistance to Regions quality standards. and States working toward the implementation of biological criteria programs in State water quality n Main0 has enacted a revised Water Quality management programs. In the interim, States Classification Law speclfically designed to facilitate should use the technical guidance currently avail- the use of biological assessments. Each of four able in the Technical Support Manual(s): Waterbody water classes contains descriptive aquatic life condi- Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At- tions necessary to attain that class. Based on a tainability Analysis (U.S. EPA 1983b, 1984a.b). statewide database of macroinvertebrate samples During the next triennium, State effort WIII be collected ahwe and below ou!falls, Maine is now focused on developing narrative biological cntena. developing a set of dichotomous keys that serve as Full implementation and integration of btologlcal the biological criteria. Maine’s program is not ex- criteria will require several years. Using avallabIe pected to have a significant role in permitting, but will guidance, States can complement the adoptlon of be used to assess the degree of protection afforded narrative criteria by developing implementation by effluent limitations. plans that include:

l Ohlo has instituted the most extensive use of 1. Defining program objectlves, developing biological critena for defining use dasslfications and research protocols, and setting pnoritles; assessing water quatity. Biological criteria were developed for Ohio rivers and streams using an 2. Determining the process for establishing ecoregional reference site approach. Within each of reference conditions, which includes the State’s five ecoregions, criteria for three biologi- developing a process to evaluate habitat cal indices (two for fish communities and one for characteristics; macroinvertebrates) were derived. Ohio successfully uses biological criteria to demonstrate attainment of 3. Establishing biological survey protocols that aquatic life uses and discover previously unknown or include justifications for surface water unidentified environmental degradation (e.g., twice classifications and selected aquatic as many Impaired waters were discovered using community components to be evaluated; blological criteria and water chemistry together than and were found using chemistry alone). The upgraded use designations based on biological criteria were 4. Developing a formal document describing upheld in Ohio courts and the Ohio EPA successfully the research design, quality assurance and proposed their biological criteria for inclusion in the quality control protocols, and required State water quality standards regulations. training for staff.

States and EPA have learned a great deal about Whether a State begins with narrative biological the effectivenes8 of integrated biological assess- criteria or moves to fully implement numeric critena, ments through the development of biological criteria the shift of the water quality program focus from for freshwatcH streams. This information is par- source control to resource management represents !icular!y valuable in providing guidance on develop- a natural progression in the evolution from the tech- ing biological criteria for other surface water types. nology-based to water quality-based approaches In As previously discussed, EPA plans to produce sup- water quality management. The addition of a porting technical guidance for biological critena biological perspective allows water quality programs development in streams and other surface waters. to more directly address the objectives of the Clean Production of these guidance documents will be Water Act and to place their efforts in a contex? that contingent on technical progress made on each sur- is more meaningful to the public. Future Directions

Biological criteria now focus on resident aquatic communities in r&ace waters. They have the potential to expand in scope toward greater ecological integration. Ecological criteria may encompass the ambient aquatic communities in surface waters, wrldlife species that use the same aquatic resources, and the aquatic community inhabiting the gravel and sediments underlying the surface waters and adjacent land (hyporheic zone): specific criteria may apply to physical habitat. These areas may represent only a few possible options for biological criteria in the future. Many wildlife species depend on aquatic resources. If aquatic population levels decrease or if the cistnbution of species changes, food sources may be sufficrently altered to cause problems for wildlife specres using aquahc resources. Habrtat degraaa- tlon thal impalrs aquahc species WI/I often rmpact Important wildlife habitat as well. These kinds of Im- parrments are likely to be detected usmg blologrcal criteria as currently formulated. In some cases, however, uptake of contaminants by resdent aquatic organisms may not result in altered structure and function of the aquatic community. These Impacts may go undetected by biological cnteria. but could result in wildlife impairments because of bloaccumulation. Future expansion of biologrcal crlterta to Include wlldllfe species that depend an aquatlc resources could provide a more Integrative ecosystem approach. Rivers may have a subsurface ffood plain ex- tending as far as two kikmeton from the river channel. Preliminary mass transport calculations made In the Rathead River basin in Montana indicate that nutrients discharged from this subsurface flood plain may be crucial to biotic productivity in the river channel (Stanford and Ward 1998). This is an unex- plored dimension in the ecology of gravel river beds and potentially in other surface waters. As discussed in Chapter 1, physical integrity is a necessary condition for biological integrity. Estab- lishing tha reference condition for biological criteria requiru evaluation of habitat. The rapid bioassessment protocol provides a good exampie of the importance of habitat for interpreting biological assessments (Plafkin et al. 1989). However. it may be useful to more fully integrate habitat characteristics into the regulatory process by establishing crtteria based on the necessary physlcal structure of habdats to support ecological integrity.

24 Part II

The Implementation Process Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

The implementation of biological criteria requires: (1) selection of unimpaired (minimal impact) surface waters to use as the reference condition for each designated use, (2) measurement of the structure and function of aquatic communities in reference surface waters to establish biological criteria, and (3) establishment of a protocol to compare the biological criteria to biota in impacted waters to determine whether impairment has occurred. These elements serve as an interactive network that is particularly important during early development of biological criteria where rapid accumulation of information is effective for refining both designated uses and developing biological criteria values. The following chapters describe these three essential elements.

26 Chapter 5

The Reference Condition

key step in developing values for supporting narrative and creating numeric biologi- A cal criteria is to establish reference conditions; it is an essential feature of environmental impact evaluations (Green 1979). Reference conditions are critical for environmental assessments because standard experimental controls are rarely available. For moat surface waters, baseline data were not collected prior to an impact, thus impairment must be inferred from differences between the impact site and established references. Reference conditions describe the characteristics of waterbody segments least impaired by human activities and are used to define attainable biological or habitat conditions. Reference conditions should be established by Wide variability among natural surface waters measuring resident biota in unimpaired surface waters. across the country resulting from climatic, landform, and other geographic differences prevents the development of nationwide reference conditions. sures of the reference water and impact sites can be Most States are also too heterogeneous for single based on empirical data (Hall et al. 1989). reference conditions. Thus, each State, and when Currently, two principal approaches are used for appropriate, groups of States, will be responsible for establishing the reference condition. A State may selecting and evaluating reference waters within the opt to (1) identify site-specific reference sites for State to establish biological criteria for a given sur- each evaluation of impact or (2) select ecologically face water type or category of designated use. At similar regional reference sites for comparison with least seven methods for estimating attainable condi- impacted sites within the same region. Both ap- tions for streams have been identified (Hughes etal. proaches depend on evaluations of habitats to en- 1986). Many of these can apply to other surface sure that waters with similar habitats are compared. waters. References may be established by defining The designation of discrete habitat types is more models of attainable conditions based on historical fully developed for streams and rivers. Development data or unimpaired habitat (e.g., streams in old of habitat types for lakes, wetlands, and estuaries is growth forest). The reference condition established ongoing. as before-after comparisons of concurrent mea-

27 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

biological assessment for both upstream and Site-Specific Reference downstream sites is often needed to be confident in Condition conclusions drawn from these data (Green, 1979). However, as more data are collected by a State, and A site-specific reference condition, frequently particularly if regional characteristics of the water- used to evaluate the impacts from a point discharge, bodies are incorporated, the basis for determining is best for surface waters with a strong directional impairment from site-specific upstream-downstream flow such as in streams and rivers (the upstream- assessments may require fewer individual samples. downstream approach). However, it can also be The same measures made below the "recovery used for other surface waters where gradients in zone" downstream from the discharge will help contaminant concentration occur based on define where recovery occurs. proximity to a source (the near field-far field ap- The upstream-downstream reference condition proach). Establishment of a site-specific reference should be used with discretion since the reference condition requires the availability of comparable condition may be impaired from impacts upstream habitat within the same waterbody in both the refer- from the point source of interest. In these cases it is ence location and the impacted area. important to discriminate between individual point A Me-specific reference condition is difficult to source impact versus overall impairment of the sys- establish if (1) diffuse nonpoint source pollution con- tem. When overall impairment occurs, the resident taminates most of the water body; (2) modifications biota may be sufficiently impaired to make it impos- to the channel, shoreline, or bottom substrate are sible to detect the effect of the target point source extensive; (3) point sources occur at multiple loca- discharger. tions on the waterbody; or (4) habitat characteristics The approach can be cost effective when one differ significantly between possible reference loca- biological assessment of the upstream reference tions and the impact site (Hughes et al. 1986; Plaf- condition adequately reflects the attainable condi- kin et aI. 1989). In these cases, site-specific tion of the impacted site. However, routine com- reference conditions could result in underestimates parisons may require assessments of several of impairment. Despite limitations, the use of site- upstream sites to adequately describe the natural specific reference conditions is often the method of variability of reference biota. Even so, measuring a choice for point source discharges and certain series of site-specific references will likely continue waterbodies, particularly when the relative impair- to be the method of choice for certain point source ments from different local impacts need to be deter- discharges, especially where the relative impair- mined. ments from different local impacts need to be determined. The Upstream-Downstream Reference Condition The Near Field-Far Field Reference Condition The upstream-downstream reference condition is best applied to streams and rivers where the The near field-far field reference condition is ef- habitat characteristics of the waterbody above the fective for establishing a reference condition in sur- point of discharge are similar to the habitat charac- face waters other than rivers and streams and is teristics of the stream below the point of discharge. particularly applicable for unique waterbodies (e.g., One standard procedure b to characterize the biotic estuaries such as Puget Sound may not have com- condition just above the discharge point (accounting parable estuaries for comparison). To apply this for possible upstream circulation) to establish the method, two variables are measured (1) habitat reference condition. The condition below the dis- characteristics, and (2) gradient of impairment. For charge is also measured at several sites. If sig- reference waters to be identified within the same nificant differences are found between these waterbody, sufficient size is necessary to separate measures, impairment of the biota from the dis- the reference from the impact area so that a charge is indicated. Since measurements of resi- gradient of impact exists. At the same time, habitat dent biota taken in any two sites are expected to characteristics must be comparable. differ because of natural variation, more than one

28 Although not My developed, this approach may Paired Watershed Reference provide an effective way to establish biological criteria for estuaries, large lakes, or wetlands. For Conditions example, estuarine habitats could be defined and Paired watershed reference conditions are es- possible reference waters identified using physical tablished to evaluate impaired waterbodies, often and chemical variables like those selected by the impacted by multiple sources. When the majority of Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. EPA 1987a. e.g., a waterbody is impaired, the upstream-downstream substrate type, salinity, pH) to establish comparable or near field-far field reference condition does not subhabitats in an estuary. To determine those areas provide an adequate representation of the unlm- least impaired, a ‘mussel watch’ program like that paired condition of aquatic communities for the used in Narragansett Bay (i.e., captive mussels are waterbody. Paired watershed reference conditions used as indicators of contamination, (Phelps 1988)) are established by identifying unimpaired surface could establish impairment gradients. These two waters within the same or very similar local water- measures, when combined, could form the basis for shed that is of comparable type and habitat. Van- selecting specific habitat types in areas of least im- able9 to consider when selecting the watershed parrmen! to establish the reference condition. reference condition include absence of human disturbance, waterbody size and other physcal characteristics, surrounding vegetation, and others as Regional Reference described in the ‘Regional Reference Ste Selec- tion’ feature. Conditions Thus method has been successfully applred (e.g., Hughes 1985) and is an approach used In Some of the limitations of site-specific reference Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et J. conditions can be overcome by using regional refer- 1989). State use of this approach results in good ence conditions that are based on the assumption reference conditions that can be used immediately that surface waters integrate the character of the in current programs. This approach has the added land they drain. Waterbodies within the same water- benefit of promoting the development of a database shed in the same region should be more similar to on high quality waters in the State that could form each other than to those within watersheds in dif- the foundation for establishing larger regional refer- ferent regions. Based on these assumptions, a dis- ences (e.g., eccreglons.) tnbutlon of aquatic regions can be developed based on ecologrcd features that directly or indirectly re- late to water quality and quantity, such as soil type, vegetation (land cover), land-surface form, climate, Ecoregional Reference Conditions and land use. Maps that incorporate several of Reference conditions can also be developed on these features will provide a general purpose broad a larger scale. For these references, waterbodies of scde ecoregional framework (Gallant et al. 1989). similar type are identified in regions of ecologlcal Regions of ecological similarity are based on similarity. To establish a regional reference condi- hydrologic, climatic, geologic, or other relevant tion, a set of surface waters of similar habitat type geographic variables that influence the nature of are identified in each ecological region. These sites biota in surfacs waters. To establish a regional refer- must represent similar habitat type and be repre- ence condition, surface waters of similar habitat sentative of the region. As with other reference con- type are identified in definable ecological regions. ditions, the biological integnty of selected reference The biological integrity of these reference waters is waters is determined to establish the reference. determined to establish the reference condition and Biological criteria can then be developed and used develop biological criteria. These criteria are then to assess impacted surface waters in the same used to assess impacted surface waters in the region. Before reference conditions may be estab- same watershed or region. There are two forms of lished, regions of ecological similarity must be regional reference conditions: (1) paired water- defined. sheds and (2) ecoregions.

29 developed for Colorado (Gaiiant et al. 1989) @nd Oregon (Clarke el al. mss). Maps for the national Regional Reference Site ecoregions and six multi-state maps of more Selection detailed ecoregions are available from the U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvaliis, Oregon. To del%rmrn% SJWCI~~C mgional n?f%fenCe Sites k~ stmum candidate watersheds are sekcted Ecoregions such as those defined by Omemik from tf~ appopnate maps and evaluated to (1987) provide only a first step in establishing oetef7nme If they am tVprco/ few me region An regional reference sites for development of the ref- evatuaticn of lewd of hunan disturbance I.S made erence condition. Field site evaluation is required to and a numlxr d fuhbvefy undStUbed r8fefenCe account for the inherent variability within each sdes are selected from the canddate siies ecoregion. A general method for selecting reference Generate wmwsheds are chosen as regixat ref- sites for streams has been described (Hughes et al. erence stes wtmn they fall eNmty mthin typnzal 1986). These are the same variables used for com- ams of the regon Candidate sites are then parable watershed reference site selection. selected by aenal and ground surveys ldentrfica- Regional and on-site evaluations of biological fac- bcn of candidate stes 6 based on. (1) absence tors help determine specific sites that best represent of human dMurbance. (2) stream sue. (3) fype typical but unimpaired surface water habitats within of skearn cnannel. (4) locate mttut-7a natural or the region. Details on this approach for streams is DOIWBI refuge and (5) h~storrcd~records of resr- described in the ‘Regional Reference Site Selec- denr biota and possble migration barrrers tion’ feature. To date, the regional approach has Final se&c~m of reference sates depends 07 been tested on streams, rivers, and lakes. The a detetmmahon 04 mrnmd dislurtrence demed method appears applicable for assessing other in- from habital evaluacm made duing site vrsirs. land ecosystems. To apply this approach to wet- For example. indicators of gmd quality streums n lands and estuaries will require addit.ionaJ forested ecoagms inch&e: It) etienwe. old. evaluation based on the relevant ecobgical features natural ripman vegeratm; (2) refab’vefy high het- of these ecosystems (e.g. Brooks and Hughes, erogentwy in channet 4th and dmh: (3) abun- 1988). dant large woody debars. codrse bottcun sub- Ideally, ecoregionai reference sites should be strate or extensve aauafc [r ovemdngng vege- 3s Me disturbed as possible, yet represent water- !dtm (41 .‘eWively hgh or COnStdf?t drscnarge. sodies tar which they are to serve as reference (51 ferar/ve/y clear waters wrth natural co& and odcx (6) abundant dfafom. msect, and rish as- waters. These sites may serve as references for a senmages; Md (7) me pfeseme of pisci#ous large number of similar waterbodies (e.g., several birds rrnd mmmals. reference streams may be used to define the refet- ence condition for numerous physically separate streams if the reference streams contain the same range of stream morphology, substrate, and flow of One frequently used method is described by the other streams within the same ecological Omernik (1987’) who combined maps of land-sur- region). face form, soil, potaMi& natural vegetation, and An important benefit of a regional reference sys- land use within the oonterminoua United States to tem is the establishment of a baseline condition for generate a map of aquatic ecoregiofu tar the the least impacted surface waters within the country. He also developed more detailed regional dominant land use pattern of the region. in many maps. The ecoregions defined by Omemik have areas a return to pristine, or presett(ement, condi- been evaluated for streams and small rivers in tions is impossible, and goals for waterbodies in ex- Arkansas (Rohm et al. 1987), Ohio (Larsen et ai. tensively developed regions could reflect this. 1986; Whittier et al. 1987), Oregon (Whittier et al. Regional reference sites based on the least im- 1988), Colorado (Gallant et al. ?989), and Wiscon- pacted sites within a region will help water quality sin (Lyons 1989) and for lakes in Minnesota (Heis- programs restore and protect the environment in a kary et al. 1987). State ecoregion maps were way that is ecologically feasible.

30 This approach must be used with caution for two reasons. First, in many urban, industriat, or heavily developed agricuttural regions, even the least impacted sites are seriously degraded. Basing standards or crrteria on such sites will set standards too low If these high levels of environmental degradation are considered acceptable or adequate. In such degraded regions, alternative sources for the regional reference may be needed (e.g., measures taken from the same region in a less developed neighboring State or historical records from the region before serious impact occurred). Second. in some regions the minimally-impacted sites are not typical of most sites in the region and may have remained unimpaired precisely because they are unique. These two considerations emphasize the need to select reference sites very carefully, based on solid quantitative data interpreted by profes- sronals familiar with the biota of the region. Each State, or groups of States, can select a seties of regional reference sites that represent the attainable conditions for ?ach region. Once biological criteria are established using this approach, the cost for evaluating local impairments is often lower than a series of measures of site-specific reference sites. Using paired watershed reference conditions immediately in regulatory programs will provide the added benefit of building a database for the development of regions of ecological similarity.

31 Chapter 6

The Biological Survey

critical element of biological criteria is the characterization of biological communities A inhabiting surface waters. Use of biological data is not new; biological information has been used to assess Impacts from pollution since the 1890s (Forbes 1928), and most States currently incorporate biological information in their decisions about the quality of surface waters. However, biological information can be obtained through a variety of methods, some of which are more effective than others for characterizing resident aquatic biota Biological criteria are developed using biological surveys: these provide the only direct method for measuring the structure and function of an aquatic community.

However,in slow-flowing stream segments, species like (1) water strider; (2)smallmouth bass; (3) crayfish' and (4) fingernail clams are abundant.

Biological survey study design is of critical importance to criteria development. The design must be scientifically rigorous to provide the basis for legal action, and be biologically relevant to detect problems of regulatory concern. Since it is not financially or technically feasible to evaluate all organisms in an entire ecosystem at all times, careful selection of community components, the time and place chosen for assessments, data gathering methods used, and the consistency with which these variables are applied will determine the suc- Differentsubhabitat within the same surface water will cess of the biological criteria program. Biological containunique aquatic community components. In surveys must therefore be carefully planned to meet fast-flowingstream segments species such as (1) black scientific and legal requirements, maximize informa- fly larva: (2)brook trout; (3) waterpenny; (4) cranefly tion, and minimize cost. larva;and (5) water mossoccur.

33 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

Biological surveys can range from collecting samples of a single species to comprehensive Selecting Aquatic evaluations of an entire ecosystem. The first ap- Community Components proach is difficult to interpret for community assessment; the second approach is expensive and Aquatic communities contain a variety of impractical. A balance between these extremes can species that represent different trophic levels, meet program needs. Current approaches range taxonomic groups, functional characteristics, and between detailed ecological surveys, biosurveys of tolerance ranges. Careful selection of target targeted community components, and biological in- taxonomic groups can provide a balanced assess- dicators (e.g., keystone species). Each of these ment that is sufficiently broad to describe the struc- biosurveys has advantages and limitations. Addi- tural and functional condition of an aquatic tional discussion will be provided in technical ecosystem, yet be sufficiently practical to use on a guidance under development. daily basis (Plafkin et al. 1989; Lenat 1988). When selecting community components to include in a No single type of approach to biological surveys biological assessment, primary emphasis should go is always best. Many factors affect the value of the toward including species or taxa that (1) serve as ef- approach, including seasonal variation, waterbody fective indicators of high biological integrity (i.e., size, physical boundaries, and other natural charac- those likely to live in unimpaired waters), (2) repre- teristics. Pilot testing alternative approaches in sent a range of pollution tolerances, (3) provide pre- Slate waters may be the best way to determine the dictable, repeatable results, and (4) can be readily sensitivity of specific methods for evaluating biologi- identified by trained State personnel. cal integrity of local waters. Due to the number of al- ternatives available and the diversity of ecological Fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and zooplank- systems, individuals responsible for research ton are most commonly used in current bioassess- design should be experienced biologists with exper- ment programs. The taxonomic groups chosen will tise in the local and regional ecology of target sur- vary depending on the type of aquatic ecosystem face waters. States should develop a data being assessed and the type of expected impair- management program that includes data analysis ment. For example, benthic macroinvertebrate and and evaluation and standard operating procedures fish communities are taxonomic groups often as part of a Quality Assurance Program Plan. chosen for flowing fresh water. Macroinvertebrates and fish both provide valuable ecological informa- When developing study designs for biological tion while fish correspond to the regulatory and criteria, two key elements to consider include (1) public perceptions of water quality and reflect selecting aquatic community components that will cumulative environmental stress over longer time best represent the biological Integrity of State sur- frames. Plants are often used in wetlands, and face waters and (2) designing data collection algae are useful in lakes and estuaries to assess protocols to ensure the best representation of the eutrophication. In marine systems, benthic macroin- aquatic community. Technical guidance currently vertebrates and submerged aquatic vegetation may available to rid the development of study design in- provide key community components. Amphipods, dude: Water Quality Standards Handbook (U.S. for example, dominate many aquatic communities EPA 1983a), Technical Support Manual: Waterbody and are more sensitive than other Invertebrates Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At- such as polychaetes and molluscs to a wide variety tainability Analyses (U.S. EPA 1983b); Technical of pollutants including hydrocarbons and heavy me- Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assess- tals (Reich and Hart 1979; J.D. Thomas, pen. ments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, comm.). Volume II: Estuarine Systems (U.S. EPA 1984a); It is beneficial to supplement standard groups and Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys with additional community components to meet and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability specific goals, objectives, and resources of the as- Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems (U.S. EPA sessment program, Biological surveys that use two 1984b). Future technical guidance will build on or three taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, macroinver- these documents and provide specific guidance for tebrates, algae) and, where appropriate, include dif- biological criteria development. ferent trophic levels within each group (e.g., primary, secondary, and tertiary consumers) will

34 provide a more realistic evaluation of system such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IN); Karr 1981; biological integrity. This is analogous to using Karr et al. 1986; Miller et al. 1988) and the Index of species from two or more taxonomic gfoups in Well-being (IWB; Gammon 1978. Gammon et al. bioassays. Impairments that are difficult to detect 1981). The IBI is one of the more widely used as- because of the temporal or spatial habits or the pol- sessment methods. For additional detail, see the lution tolerances of one group may be revealed ‘Index of Biotic Integrity’ feature. through impairments in different species or assemblages (Ohio EPA 1988a). Selection of aquatic community zomponents that show different senstivities and responses to the same perturbation will aid in identifying the na- Index Bio tic Integrity ture of a pfoblem. Available data on the ecological of functron, distribution, and abundance of species in a given habitat will help determine the most ap The fndex of 810k htegrfy (~a/) IS comm~n:y proprlate target species or taxa for biological sur- used for hsh communily analyw (Karr 198 1) ‘.ke veys in the habitat. The selection of community or~gh-tal181 was ccmpased o/ 72 memcs components should also depend on the ability of the organisms to be accurately identified by tramed m SIX metncs evaluate species ric.?wess a’3 State personnel. Attendent with the biologrcal CGmpOSltlon crlterla program should be the development of iden- l .7;roer GI soecees tlfication keys for the organisms selected for study in the biological survey. l fkmoer of darfer soecles

l number of sucker species Biological Survey Design l number 01 sunfish speck9s l number of tnfoleranf species

Biological surveys that measure the structure l proporfron ot green sunfish and function of aquatic communities WIII provide the information needed for blologlcal criteria develop l fhrea mefncs quartMy :rophc composhwn meat. Elements of community structure and function . crcocr:,on 3fomnivores may be evaluated using a series ot metrics. Struc- tural metrics descnbe the composition of a com- l proportcn 01 msectivoro~s cyprfn es munity, such as the number ot different species, l proporl~on o~p6cfvores relative abundance of specific speci88, and number and relative abundance of tolerant and intolerant 8 three metncs summarize fish sbundance and species. Functional metrics describe the ecological condrrlon Mormatm processes of the community. These may indude measures such as community photosynthesis or l numbef ol ind/wduab In sample respiration. Function may also be estimated from l propoRu)n of hybnds the proportions of various feeding groups (e.g., om- * proponron ol tndivrduefs wrfh drse8se nivores, herbivores, and insectivores, or shredders, cobcton, md grazers). 8idogical surveys can offer variety and flexibility in application. indices cur- Each rnelrrc IS scored 7 (worst). 3. or 5 (besr, rently available are primarily for freshwater streams. depending on how !he field data compare wllh ar? expecfed value obtaIned fawn reference sites A: However, the approach has been used for lakes and can be developed for estuaries and wetlands. 72 mefrrc valueS are Men summed to prowde dr: Overall Index Wue fB8t repfesenrs re/alwe n- tegnfy The I8f was desIgned for mldwesw- Selecting the metric streams. substrtufemefrrcs refkctrng fhe saFe sfruc:ura/ and ,!unchona/ characfensbcs ha;e S8Vefal methods are currently available for been creafed lo accommodare repmona/ var’at’crs measuring the relative structural and functional well- m fish assemb/ages (Mller et a/ 1988) being of fish assemblages in freshwater streams,

3s Several indic8a thrt evaluate more than On0 reside and (2) ?he method for collecting data on community chamctwfdic are Jso available for as- target groups. For exampk, if fish are sampled sessing stream mwxoinvertebrate populations. only from fast flowing riffles within stream A, but Taxa richness, EPT m (number of taxa of the in- are sampled from slow flowing pools in stream sect orders Ephemeroptera. Plecoptera. and Tricop- 8, the data will not be comparable. tera). and species pollution tolerance values are a few of several components of these macroinver- l Tomporrl Scaler refer to aquatic community tebrate assessments. Example indices include the changes that occur over time because of diurnal Invertebrate Community Index (ICI; Ohio EPA, and life-cycle changes in organism behavior or 1988) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI; Hilsenhoff, development, and seasonal or annual changes 1987-l. in the environment. Many organisms go through Within these metrics specific information on the seasonal life-c@. changes that dramatically pollution tokrances of different species within a sys- affect their presence and abundance in the tem wi??help define the type ol impacts occurring in aquatic community. For example, macroinver- a waterbody. 8idogical indicator groups (intolerant tebrate data collected from stream A in March species, tolerant species, percent of diseased or- and stream 8 in May, would not be comparable ganisms) can be used for evaluating communrty because the emergence of insect adutts after biological Integrity if sufficient data have been col- March would sbgnificantly alter the abundance lected to support conclusrons drawn from the in- of subadults found in stream 8 in May. Similar dicator data. In martne systems, for example, problems would occur if algae were collected In amphipods have been used by a number of re- lake A during the dry season and lake B dunng searchen as environmental indicators (McCall the wet season. 1977; Bot?on 1979; Meams and Word 1982). Field sampling protocola that produce quality assessments from a limited number of site visits Sampling design greatty enhance the utility of the sampling techni- que. Rapid bioassemant protocols, recently Sampling design and statistical protocols are re- developed for assessing streams, usa standardized quired to reduce sampling error and evaluate the techniques to quickly gather physical, chemical. and natural varlablllty of brological responses that ars blobglcal quantrtatlve data that can assess changes found in both laboratory and field data. High in biologicat integnty (P?an

36 Chapter 7

Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method

iological criteria are applied in the standards program by testing hypotheses about the B biological integrity of impacted surface waters. These hypotheses include the null hypothesis-the designated use of the waterbody is notimpaired-and alternative hypotheses such as the designated use of the water-body is impaired (more specific hypotheses can also be generated that predict the type(s) of impairment). Under these hypotheses specific predictions are generated concerning the kinds and numbers of organisms repre- senting community structure and function expected or found in unimpaired habitats. The kinds and numbers of organisms surveyed in unimpaired waters are used to establish the biological criteria. To test the alternative hypotheses, data collection and analysis procedures are used to compare the criteria to comparable measures of community structure and function in impacted waters.

Multipleimpacts in the samesurface water such as Hypothesis Testing dischargesof effluentfrom point sources,leachate from landfills ordumps, and erosionfrom habitat degradation To detect differences of biological and regula- each contributeto impairmentof the surfacewater. All impactsshould be consideredduring the diagnosis tory concern between biological criteria and ambient process. biological integrity at a test site, it is important to establish the sensitivity of the evaluation. A 10 percent difference in condition is more difficult to detect than for data collection (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). 50 percent difference. For the experimental/sur- Knowledge of expected natural variation, experi- vey design to be effective, the level of detection mental error, and the kinds of detectable differences should be predetermined to establish sample size that can be expected will help determine sample

37 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance size and location. This forms the basis for defining use is not impaired in a particular waterbody). data quality objectives, standardizing data collection Biological criteria cannot prove attainment. This procedures, and developing quality assurance/ reasoning provides the basis for emphasizing inde- quality control standards. pendent application of different assessment Once data are collected and analyzed, they are methods (e.g., chemical verses biological criteria). used to test the hypotheses to determine if charac- No type of criteria can "prove" attainment; each type tertstics of the resident biota at a test site are sig- of criteria can disprove attainment. nificantly different from established criteria values Although this discussion is limited to the null for a comparable habitat. There are three possible and one alternative hypothesis, it is possible to outcomes: generate multiple working hypotheses (Popper, 1968) that promote the diagnosis of water quality 1. The use is impaired when survey design and problems when they exist. For example, if physical data analyses are sensitive enough to detect habitat limitations are believed to be causing impair- differences of regulatory importance, and ment (e.g., sedimentation) one alternative significant differences were detected. The hypothesis could specify the loss of community next step is to diagnose the cause(s) and components sensitive to this impact. Using multiple source(s) of impairment. hypotheses can maximize the information gained from each study. See the Diagnosis section for addi- 2. The biological criteria are met when survey tional discussion. design and data analyses are sensitive enough to detect differences of regulatory significance, but no differences were found. In this case, no action is required by States Diagnosis based on these measures. However, other evidence may indicate impairment (e.g., When impairment of the designated use is chemical criteria are violated; see below). found using biological criteria, a diagnosis of probable cause of impairment is the next step for im- 3. The outcome is indeterminate when survey plementation. Since biological criteria are primarily design and data analyses are not sensitive designed to detect water quality impairment, enough to detect differences of regulatory problems are likely to be identified without a known significance, and no differences were cause. Fortunately the process of evaluating test detected. If a State or Region determines sites for biological impairment provides significant that this is occurring, the development of information to aid in determining cause. study design and evaluation forbiological During diagnostic evaluations, three main im- criteria was incomplete. States must then pact categories should be considered: chemical, determine whetheraccept they will the physical, and biological. To begin the diagnostic sensitivity of the survey or conduct process two questions are posed: additional surveys to increase the power of their analyses. If the sensitivity of the • What are the obvious causes of impairment? original survey is accepted, the State should • If no obvious causes are apparent, what determine what magnitude of difference the possible causes do the biological data survey is capable of detecting. This will aid suggest? in re-evaluating research design and desired detection limits. An indeterminate outcome Obvious causes such as habitat degradation, may also occur if the test site and the point source discharges, or introduced species are reference conditions were not comparable. often identified during the course of a normal field This variable may also require re-evaluation. biological assessment. Biomonitoring programs normally provide knowledge of potential sources of im- As with all scientific studies, when implementing pact and characteristics of the habitat. As such, biological criteria, the purpose of hypothesis testing diagnosis is partly incorporated into many existing is to determine if the data support the conclusion State field-oriented bioassessment programs. If that the null hypothesis is false (i.e., the designated more than one impact source is obvious, diagnosis

38 will require determining which impact(s) is the cause Based on the biological survey the results are clear. of impairment or the extent to which each impact However, impairment in resident populations of contributes to impairment. The nature of the biologi- macroinvertebrates probably would not have been cal impairment can guide evaluation (e.g., chemical recognized using more traditional methods. contamination may lead to the loss of sensitive In Maine, a more complex problem arose when species, habitat degradation may result in loss of effluents from a textile plant met chemical-specific breeding habitat for certain species). and effluent toxicity criteria, yet a biological survey Case studies illustrate the effectiveness of of downstream biota revealed up 10 80 percent biological criteria in identitying impairments and reduction in invertebrate richness below plant out- possible sources. For example, in Kansas three falls. Although the source of impairment seemed sites on Little Mill Creek were assessed using Rapid clear, the cause of impairment was more difficult to Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al. 1989; see determine. By engaging in a diagnosflc evaluation. Fig. 4). Based on the results of a comparative Maine was able to determine that the discharge con- analysis, habitats at the three sites were com- tained chemicals not regulated under current parable and of high quality. Biological impairment, programs and that part of the toxicity effect was d:e however, was identified at two of the three sites and to the sequential discharge of unlqae et(!berts directly related to proximity to a point source dis- (tested individually these effluents were not toxAc: charge from a sewage treatment plant. The severely when exposure was in a particular seqLer.ce. ImpaIred Site (STA 2) was located approximately toxicity occurred). Use of biological criter!a reh!ed 100 meters downstream from the plant. The slightly in the detection and diagnosis ot this toxlcty C:CEI- rmpalred Site (STA 3) was located between one and lem. which allowed Maine to develop wcrkab,e a:!er- two miles downstream from the plant. However, the native operating procedures for the textile ndLs1t-y unimpaired Site (STA 1 (R)) was approximately 150 to correct the problem (Courtemanch 1989, and meters upstream from the plant (Plafkin et al. 1989). pers. comm.). This simple example illustrates the basic principles During diagnosis it is important to consider and of diagnosis. In this case the treatment plant ap discriminate among multiple sources of impairment. pears responsible for impairment of the resident In a North Carolina stream (see Figure 5) four sites biota and the discharge needs to be evaluated. were evaluated using rapid bioassessment technl-

Figure 4.-Kansas: Benthic a.oastessment ol Little Mill CrHk (little Mill Creek = Site.Spocltic Reference, Relationship of Habitat and Bioassessment

80b .- .y--_____m...... I. ‘...

60 STA 3 I

HabItat Ouallty (% ot Reference) FXl 4 Three Stream wjmms m-med In a stream in Kansas using RapId Bloassessment ~~~~~~~~~ (platkjr, e! al ‘gag, ,+ .Tr i I . swlflcant ImDalrments at sbtes below a sewage trearrnevr plant

39 Flgwa S.-lha Rotrtlonrhlp 8otwoen Habltrt Qurllty and Bonthlc Community Conditlan rt the No&h Caroltna PlIol study sit..

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 ‘00 Habrtat Quality to,0 of Reference) Fip. 5: Chstmpulsnmp between point and noflpomt sources of lmpamnenl rcqulres an evaluarlon 01 the nature and magndude ofdifferenf sit03 In ; surface wylter i.Phfhn. et al. 1989) ques. An ecoregional reference site (R) established tween these impacts. For example, sedimentation of the highest Ievd of biological integrity for that a stream caused by logging practices is likely to stream type. Site (l), weil upstream from a local result in a decrease in species that require loose town, was used as the upstream reference condi- gravel for spawning but increase species naturally tlon. Degraded conditions at Site (2) suggested non- adapted to fine sediments. Tl-Ls shift In community point source problems and habitat degradation components correlates well with the observed im- because of proximity to residential areas on the pact. However, if the impact is a point source dis- upstream edge of town. At Site (3) habitat altera- charge or nonpoint runoff of toxicants, both species tions, nonpoint runoff, and point source discharges types are likely to be impaired whether sedimenta- combined to severely degrade resident biota At this tion occurs or not (although gravel breeding species site, sedimentation and toxicity from municipal can be expected to show greater impairment if sewage treatment effluent appeared responsible for sedimentation occurs). Part of the diagnostic a major portion of this degradation. Site (4), al- process is derived from an understanding of or- though several mile8 downstream from town, was ganism sensitivities to different kinds of impacts and still impaired despite slgnifkant improvement in their habitat requirements. When habitat is good but habitat quality. TM suggests that toxicity from water quality is poor, aquatic community com- upstream dkhugw may still be occurring (Bar- ponents sensitive to toxicity will be impaired. How- bour, 1990 per% comm.). Using these kinds of com- ever, il both habitat and water quality degrade, the parisons, through a diagnostic procedure and by resident community is likely to be composed of using available chemical and biological assessment tolerant and opportunistic species. tools, tha relative effects of impacts can be deter- When an impaired use cannot be easily related mined so that sduttons can be formulated to im- to an obvious cause, the diagnostic process be- prove water quality. comes investigative and iterative. The iterative diag- When point and nonpoint impact and physical nostic process as shown in Figure 6 may require habitat degradation occur simultaneously, diagnosis additional time and resources to verify cause and may require the combined use of biologicaf, physi- source. Initially, potenttal sources of impact are cal, and chemical evaluations to discriminate be- identified and mapped to determine location relative Flgun 6. -Dlrgno~tlc Procerr to the area suffering from biological impairment. An analysis of the physical, chemical, and bidcgrcal characteristics of the study area will help identify the Establish Blolog~cal Crlterla most likely sources and determine which data WA be most valuable. Hypotheses that distinguish be- t Conduct Field Assessment to DetermIne lmpalrment tween possible causes of impairment should be generated. Study design and appropriate data col- H \r lection procedures need to be developed to test the Y0S NO e No Further hypotheses. The severity of the impairment, the dif- ActIon ficulty of diagnosis, and the costs involved will determine how many iterative loops will be com- Evaluate Data to Oetermbne Probable Cause pleted in the diagnostic process. Normally, diagnoses of biological impairment t are relatively straightforward. States may use Generate Testable Hypotheses ‘Or Probable Cause biological criteria as a method to confirm impairment from a known source of impact. However, the diagnostic process provides an effective way to identify unknown impacts and diagnose their cause so that corrective action can be devised and implemented

No Apparent Cause Obvious Cause

Propose New Alternative Formulate Remedial ’ Hypotheses and Collect Actlon New Data

Fag. 6 The doagnostIc process IS a stepwIse process for determlnlng the cause 01 lmpalred blologlcal Integrity in sur. face .4aters It may reQu1r9 multlDIe hyDOthe.SCS tOstIng an0 more *t-an c-e ‘emedlal p:an

41 References

krgumei8r, P.L. and JR. l6rr. (1966). Apgplylng 8n Index of Slctk For-, S. (1928). Forewcwd. In A.E. Rrcbrdscn. Thr battom lntogrlty Bud on Strwm-Fish Commumtlos: cauidor8- feun8 of thr mk%lo lllinalr Aivor. 1913-1925. &II. III. N8t. tww h S8mphng 8nd lntrplllt(on. Am. J. Rsh. M8nrgr. 6: His: SUN. Vol. 17. Atid 7. 367-472. 416429. Galut~!u. J.. J.R. Gunman, R.M. Hughes. LS. lscmngu. M. kk~su Dop8fwnmnt of Poluttan Control vld Ecdogy. (1966). Johneon. J. br. 1. Murphy, T.M. Mumy. and 1. Stuti. Regut8Uon tt&Ushlng W8ter Ou8lity Stmndorcts for Surf813 (1981). Atecomm8nded 8ppro81.3 lor drtrrmlnlng bologru W8tws of ma St80 ot Ark~ru. RegulrOon No. 2. lntegrrty In bung waters. U.S. Enwron. Rat. Agency. Cor- &hour. 7.7, (1990). PononJ ~mmunrc8ticn. U Engmeenng. VIIIl8. OR. Scloncr md Tochnobgy, Inc.. Spukr. MD. G8ll8nt. AL.. T.R. Whrtner. D.P. Lus8n. J.M. Omrmik. ena R U. Sotton. ML. (1979). Effms ol sew8go sludge on the benthrc n- Hugha. (1989). Regronelu8tlon 8s 8 Tad for M8n8Qng En- vwto8rmto aommunfty on ttm ~nsharo New York Sight Es- vlranmenW Rescurces. EPA,‘660/3-89X)60. U S Enrron. tlw tout. shut sci 8: 169-180 Res Lab. U S Envlron. Pmt. Agency, CON~I~IS. OR books. R.P. ud R.M. Hughes (1986). Gudelmes for useumg G8mmon. J.R. (t976). The fish pcpul8trons of th8 mlddla 340 km tha bbtlc communttw of lruhwatu weU8nds. Pagw 276. Of 010 W8bUh River. T&I. Rep. 66. &U&O Urrv. W8t8f 82 h JA Kurkr. M.L Ouunmwr, 8nd 0. Braok8.8as. Pmt. R8a0uf. Ret. C8Mf. WIIt L8by8tt8, IN. NalortJ Wound Sympostum: Mitlgaaon of Imp8ct8 8nd Gumon. J.R.. A. Splclm. J.L Hemellnk. nd R.L Keesler. Lo8m8. Aa. St8r WoUnd h4~qm. Bern.. NY. (1961). Rolr of 8bctmflshlng In 88swng environmmnw l-h8 Buruu ot Nabnti Arr8lrs. Inc. (1969). FedotU W8trr P&u- qu8llty Of th8 WlbUh NvU. P8(j#8 307-24 in J.M. 88t8S 8nd bon Contrd AU u Amendad by tir Clout W8tw Act of 1977. C.I. W&a. 8dc. Ecobgr8.l &8assmnts of Et&ems Im- Wuhmgton. DC. p8cts an Commumties of lndrgenpur Aqurtlc Organruns. STP 703. Am. SOC. Tat. M8ter. Cumr, J. +. (1975). OuurttiUan of tx&gk8l Int8gry. Peg88 17196 n R.K B8llontrnr Md LJ. Gu8m8. l as., The In- Groan. R.H. (1979). Slmpbing Des@ 8nd !%btk8l M8moas fcr tegnty of W8t.r. A Symposcum. U.S. Enwrcn Prot. Agency, EnvuonmenW Biologtstr. J. Wiley 8nd Sons. New York W88hulgton. 0 c. Hall. J 0. M L Muphy. 8d R S Aho (1989) An rprsved Chrke. S.. 0. WhRo. end A SCheeael. Mse. Oregon ecologxrl arvgn for rrsesslng 1mp8cts of watershed pr8mcs on regrpns ma subregons far w8tw m8n8gement. Connectrut SIll8ti St88ITW. PfOC. tnt. ASS. Th8CWW. A&d. LfMOl. 23. 1967. t 35965. Connutkut Doputmenl of EnvianmrrtJ Plotoctbn. (1987). Hidufy, S.A. C.B. WUson. 8nd D.P. Ln8on. (1967). An8tysts of war OuJty sundudr. r8glpne! p8ttemr in l*r w8tu quaI@ u84ng ocarogm8 br I&@ mUUglrnw?t n Mhnoaotr t&o Ra8av. Mn8g8. 3: Courtmmh. 0.L (1969). ImprmunUbn of bloultwl8 In am 337-344. war orulty 8mndudr pmgmn. wlw May sutldua torthe218tCuaJy:PToc.rw.Cotlf.ofwofDfinkIng Wunhoff. W.L (1967). An Improv8d bbclc Index of orprc Wtiu. U.S. Em&on. Pmt. Agency, WuhQton, DC. slrarn polbtton. Greet bkes Entomd. 20( 1): 31-39. courtam8nch, D.L 8nd S.P. OHkr. (1967). hlplomentwnl at Hugha, R.M. (19694. Wh8 GUI bido@Ur moniwing t8U ~8 lwoglal8uldud8 U-Id cfttul8 In wno’r W8W d88uilo- r&nit ma awtronmanul huth of aqurtlc oa38yrtrms In tbn taw. In Rot, ln8faull Bklmorlrm Md BlobgM R.C. Wud. J.C. bftl& md G.B. McGrtde, eds.. Proc. Int. Crituia ‘bhrWmp U.S. Envimn. Pru. Aggmcy, Linc&wopd. Symp. an the De8lgn o( Ww Oulny lntormrtlon Systems. IL Inf. Su. No. 61. Cob Wlr ReeOur. RIG. Inst. Colorrdo stat. WV.. ft. colh8. Counm. D.L. S.P. 0d.s. md E.9. kvwty. (1969). bcpr- p0f8Uon d blologlcal hfarmtkn In w8tu quUlty plumtrig. Hughae. R.M. (19696). EcoreqbnJ bbloglai crfterk In w8tW Envlrorl.Muug*. 13:3641. OuUlty Sunduds for th 2lrt cwrtuy. Proc. N8U. Conf. Off, Courtunsnch, 0.L ud S.P. Dlvlr. (leeo). Why M8he hn Wlrr. U.S. Enulroil. Pfoc Agency. w88hington. O.C. Choun to Intograo Bk~bgW Imp8ct Stur&ds into Srrt8 Hughe8. R.M.. E. RouW, 8rid C.E. Band. (1967). The rOt8tiOfl- WIU ou8uly law. M8ho Dep. Environ. PIG.. August& ShQ Ot qU8tiC 8COrO@On% rtVU buln8. urd phyuoQr8phe h~k8or1. KW.. 0.L Lotut. LW. Rusley 8nd A.& WInborne. provinca8 to tha kzhmyogoogrqhlcrqbnr of Or8gon coqulum of Mouurd Instrwn 0kioglcu Rosponrr copeu: 423-432. wlm RupcKl8.8 Prrdcted uang WI. cuiml4ahnir tibia Hughee. R.M.. O.P. Luren, urd J.M. Omemlk. (1966). Reglonu Chronk ToxkIty Test. Environ. lox. ud Chomkty 9: 1019. rrfu8ncr mta: 8 fn8thOd for ws8lng stroun porlut~on. En- 1026. won. Managa. lo(S): 629625. higha. R.M. (1966). Us8 of waorahea ch~~~lulstics to select ‘COfitfd Stf88lTt (Of l Sttm8tiNJ dktS Of mOt8i mlnlng wUfes

43 m amwhmty d08~ftmdr(n8ma Emifm. Mm0gr. 9: 25% Pt8hln. J.L. M.T. 88rbour. KD Porter. S. K Grou. 8na R. M 262. Hugha. (1989). Raptd Bioor8s8mor-d Protocob for Us8 In JuUy. RO Jr, PN. Sdy, TM. Murr8y. S.C. !%kJry. M.R. Whit- Stre8nU 8nd River% SOnthiC MUrolmwtrbr8tr MU Ftsh worn.. Md LS. llehhgu. (1967). 1962 wowI F#luln EPU444/4-89-&ll U S. Entiron. Prot. &rncy. Wuhmgtan. SUN.)! vol. 1 nsm8Swo6. u s. Fbh wndt. serv. DC. KM. J.R. (198t). -u-x of blouc lfw@y u8ing fish oom- Poppu. KR. (1968). The Loqc of SclenU(lc Dbcwery. H8rp.r mun8J.a. Ftshenr 8(a). 21.27. Md Row, New York. KM. J.R. 8nd 0 R Dudly. (1961). EcobgW Pu8pe&w m Rlcch md Hut. (1979). Pollutbn Ecdogy ol Estuwnr tnver. WIIu Ouw &Xl8 Enwon. h4Ut8~8.% 5666. t8OrUa. Audoms Pres8. - (1967) wogw montorlng uld uwlrownent8l u8.88- Rohm, C.M.. J.W. Giar. 8nd C.C. Smnm (1967). Emurtbn of mutt 8 mncrpcull fr8rn~rk. Environ. M-0. 11(z): 017 -8OC oampon clutiam of 8tro8m8 In Mr8nsa. 249256. J. Frnhw. EmI. 4: 12740. KM. J.R.. KD. FIuSCh. P.L Anqum&. P.R. YMC 8nU I.J. slur. R.R. 8nd FJ. Rohlf. (1961). Blomrtry: Thr Prlndpbs 8ntj S&beau. (1986). baus~g bcoroqld Mo@y h rumh~ R-8 of St0UsUa In Sdoglcu Roreuch. 2nd Ed. w n w0tus 8 nlahd Md fb rabnU0. spa. Puel. 5. II. Nu. Fm, Sm Frurmco. HIU swv. SUnford. J.A 8nd J.B. Wud. (1966). Tha hqorh8b h8.bllt of Luwn. D.P. J.M. Omemk. AM. Hughu. CM. Rohm. T.R. Wh& rlvu rarrystrms. N8turr 335: 64-66. uu. AJ. Klmey. A.L G8iIurt. md D.R. Dudley. (1966). The Thomu J.D. (1990). PwaonJ ccmmunlatbn. Reef Founbtlon COff88~fWUtU -M SWti8 mW78 h fbh Y- Big Ph. Kay. FL Smtd8988 h ON0 SfYm8 Md WWtk w. &l- U.S. EntirmmenW Protectbn hency (19638. Water Oualtry vrm. M~age 10: 81 S-626. stududs Hlndtik. Off W8tOr R8g. Stud. Wlshlngton. Lln8t. D A (1966) W8tU Qudlty U8088NcIt Of StlOUlU whg 8 D.C. QUtitt8tlW mlktlon method for buwc fllKfOUWUt&f8t8S. - (1983b). Technal Support MuwJ: Wrterbow Suvcyl J N Am knthdog SOC 7 22233. 8nd &StiSmMtS fC4 COduCU~ US. &t8ln8blity AMlySeS LyOft8. J (1969) COr78spGf’ld8fK8 pOtWe8fl m8 drtikrrb!l of fish Off W8tu Reg. Send. WuMngton 0 C. -W8988 in Wlrconon stre8m8 8nd OmunlKs -. (19648). Tmnru Suppoe MMuU: W8tMwdy Surveys OCU8QkJtl8. Am. MIMnd P&l. tP(l): 163.1622. M8 hUMlWt3 fOf CWldUdflQ b@ kt0htdty AtUty8.8. Mwo W8t.f t.hw chS8ilkdWt i%QfJfUn. (lees). MUW Vd II. Ertutia Sy8tems. OIY. WUU Reg. Sund. Rd8d~&TUMbfl.~36Mbf@4-ASIctbrr466. wmlMgbll O.C. McC~.PL(l9TT).Commu~~U~nd~Or(ntrglU -. (19644). Ttinkll SuppoR Mmurl: Watwbocfy Su~syr of the lnhurul knthor of Long Itind Sound. J. Mu. Roa. 8nd AsuounoUs for Cmductlng Uu NWn8tmltty AMlyres x221-266. Vd III. l&e S~rmr. Off. W8tu Reg. Stmd. Wuhngton. Mums. A.J. 8nd J.0. Word. (lW2). For- ti o( DC. sew890 sows m m8nno benthic cornmunitur. P8gw 495 -. (19694. Rbk A88e8smmt Guidma for Suporfund-En- 512 fn G F M8yer. ea.. Ecobglul Strms md the Nm York virmment8l EvrbrUm Mnu81. Intu. Flm. Off Emerg 5 ;v SL ewe a”c %ragerce?t. Enuu Ret Feb.. Cdum- Remea. Resoonse. Wahlngton. D.C. Di8. SC -. (1969b). Report of 8 Workshop on B~oIogaI Cr.!er,a Huller 0 L. at U. (1988) Reglonai 8ppl~Uons of YI rnO8x of Olrgnoso Str8tegtes for lrrpr~rrd Wlt8rbody Uses S-c. Dbotu vttegrtty for ~88 in ~8uI resource m8n8gwnent. mmod by Butulr. Sept. 30.1969. Unpubt. hhura 13(S) 12. -. (lW78). Suffwr Wtiw tiltoring: A Frunwrxk for Mlllu. R.R.. J.D. Wllluru. nd J.E. Wlll8m8. (196!+ B Change. Off. Wltu. Off. Fbtky Pbm. Evd. Wuhington. of Nath knuian lbha durlrq Wm pII cMufy. Fhhorla D.C. 14: P-36. -. (19mb). Rm of the N8tbnrl wrkahop m Instram North CUolin8 hwftmuW d NalwU A- Mdcc-mmunlty 8lobglul MonlWng nd Crltwlr OII. WUU Rag. Stand In- hvmbpmm.(1964).T?w6obromdMuStudoal3epm S&am &O&J. m8 CWWI. fbqbn V. Environ. Rn. Lab No. 84-1s. U.S. Emmn. Prot Agmcy. cornrb Ohb EmmnmutU M &mcy. (19668). T-he Rde of W8u &aMly Aa d 1967. (1969). In m Envkonment Roportrr. EWoqWOatahwYrOtdtykaoammt vu. I. Blob@ l3ur. Nltl. MJn. Wuhingtm. D.C. CUCrctUl8tWUW- OfAdJU8kuk.DlV.W8tU Whlftlu, T.R.. D.P. L8r88n. R.M. Hugha. CM. Rohm. A.L 681. til. MQnnor. Ar*r wrf. W&a Samn,Cdumbu8. ht. and J.M. Omulk. (1967). Ohb bnvn Reglon8Iizraon - (1986b). Wlr Qlrrty hwntwy 306(b). R~pon Vd 1. Projau: A Canpmdum of Rwuit8. Environ. Ra. I&J. U S DIV. wau ouu. Mofmf. Af0aa cocnacr. Erwkm. Pnn Agoncy. Cowalla OR. - (1990). ohb W8tu OuNy sonbrdr. Ohb A&nin. WMtIu. T.R.. R.M. Hugha. md D.P. Luun.. (1966). Corwspm- Code 3745 1. AUop@d F&. 2. dutco batwun ewrogb~~ and 8pa68 p#temr h strelm Onumlk. J.M. (1987-j Eawgbns of the Contwminau United ecgyaems In Oregm. Can. J. Fish. Squat. Sd. 46: 1284. m. Ann. Au. kn. Geog. 77(l): llbl25. PhUw. 0 K (1968). h48iha’Ti8uulno Blommltoring: A Concq- Yodu. C.O. (1969). The dwebpnwnt nd u80 tJobgkel cnterls tual bxxoach and Fubrr Appllcaamr. PumC Ok. Off. for Ohb Sd8C8 wrtm. W8tu h8lUy .%~duds for tpe WIU. EPA 600iX66/244. U.S. Environ. Pru. Agency, 21# Century. PTOC. Ndl. Cocrf. Off. Wat8c U.S. Envvon wuhhgmll. O.C. Pa. Agefq Wuhhgtm, DC. m8fih. J.L (1966). W8tor qu8llty baud axlrdr 4 uo8ystrm &MO of Fodorti R8gul8tbns. (1989). Vol. 40, PM 131 10. U S mcmry In J. CAmr. Jr, ed.. RohabUtltmg 08mrged Gov Pnnt Off. W8shington, O.C. Ecosynmr. Vd. II CRC Prsu, Boc8 Raton. R Appendix A

Common Questions and Their Answers

Q. How will implementing biological criteria writers can make informed decisions on whether to benefit State water quality programs? maintain or restrict permit limits. A. State water quality programs will benefit from biological criteria because they: Q. What expertise and staff will be needed to a) directly assess impairments in ambient implement a biological criteria program? biota from adverse impacts on the A. Staff with sound knowledge of State aquatic environment; biology and scientific protocol are needed to coor- b) are defensible and quantifiable; dinate a biological criteria program. Actual field monitoring could be accomplished by summer-hire c) document improvements in water quality biologists led by permanent staff aquatic biologists resulting from agency action; Most States employ aquatic biologists for monitoring trends or issuing site-specific permits. d) reduce the likelihood of false positives (i.e., a conclusion that attainment is achieved when it is not); Q. Which management personnel should be involved in a biologically-based approach? e) provide information on the integrity of biological systems that is compelling to the A. Management personnel from each area public. within the standards and monitoring programs should be involved in this approach, including permit engineers, resource managers, end field per- Q. How will biological criteria be used in a sonnet. permit program?

A. When permits are renewed, records from Q. How much will this approach cost? chemical analyses and biological assessments are used to determine if the permit has effectively A. The cost of developing biological criteria is a prevented degradation and led to improvement. The State-specific question depending upon many vari- purpose for this evaluation is to determine whether ables. However, States that have implemented a applicable water quality standards were achieved biological criteria program have found it to be cost under the expiring permit and to decide if changes effective (e.g., Ohio). Biological criteria provide an are needed. Biological surveys and criteria are par- integrative assessment over time. Biota reflect mul- ticularly effective for determining the quality of tiple impacts. Testing for impairment of resident waters subject to permitted discharges. Since aquatic communities can actually require less biosurveys provide ongoing integrative evaluations monitoring than would be required to detect many of the biological integrity of resident biota permit impacts using more traditional methods (e.g., chemical testing for episodic events).

45 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

Q. What are some concerns of dischargers? cases where evidence suggests more than one conclusion, independent application applies. If biologi- A. Dischargers are concerned that biological cal criteria suggest impairment but chemical- criteria will identity impairments that may be er- specific and/or whole-effluent toxicity implies attain- roneously attributed to a discharger who is not ment of the use, the cause for impairment of the responsible. This is a legitimate concern that the biota is to be evaluated and, where appropriate. discharger and State must address with careful regulated. If whole effluent and/or chemical-specific evaluations and diagnosis of cause of impairment. criteria imply impairment but no impairment is found However, it is particularly important to ensure that in resident biota, the whole-effluent and/or chemi- waters used for the reference condition are not al- cal-specific criteria provide the basis for regulation. ready impaired as may occur when conducting site-specific upstream-downstream evaluations.Al- though a discharger may be contributing to surface Q. Do biological criteria have to be codified water degradation, it may be hard to detect using in State regulations? biosurvey methods if the waterbody is also impaired from other sources. This can be evaluated by test- A. State water quality standards require three ing the possible toxicity of effluent-free reference components: (1) designated uses, (2) protective waters on sensitive organisms. criteria, and (3) an antidegradation clause. For criteria to be enforceable they must be codified in Dischargers are also concerned that current regulations. Codification could involve general nar- permit limits may become more stringent if it is rative statements of biological criteria, numeric determined that meeting chemical and whole-ef- criteria, and/or criteria accompanied by specific test- fluent permit limits are not sufficient to protect ing procedures. Codifying general narratives aquatic life from discharger activities. Alternative provides the most flexibility-specific methods for forms of regulation may be needed; these are not date collection the least flexibility-for incorporating necessarily financially burdensome but could in- new data and improving data gathering methods as volve additional expense. the biological criteria program develops. States Burdensome monitoring requirements are addi- should carefully consider how to codify these tional concerns. With new rapid bioassessment criteria. protocols available for streams, and under development for other surface waters, monitoring resident Q. How will biocriteria fit into the agency's biota is becoming more straightforward. Since rest- method of implementing standards? dent biota provide an integrative measure of environmental impacts over time. the need for A. Resident biota integrate multiple impacts continual biomonitoring is actually lower than over time and can detect impairment from known chemical analyses and generally less expensive. and unknown causes. Biocriteria can be used to Guidance is being developed to establish accept- verify improvement in water quality in response to able research protocols, quality assurance/quality regulatory efforts and detect continuing degradation control programs and training opportunities to on- of waters. They provide a framework for developing sure that adequate guidance is available. improved best management practices for nonpoint source impacts. Numeric criteria can provide effective monitoring criteria for inclusion in permits. Q. What are the concerns of environmentalists? Q. Who determines the values for biological A. Environmentalists are concerned that biologi- criteria and decides whether a waterbody meets cal criteria could be used to alter restrictions on dis- the criteria? chargers if biosurvey data indicate attainment of a designated use even though chemical criteria The process of developing biological criteria, in- and/or whole-effluent toxicity evaluations predict im- cluding refined use classes, narrative criteria. and pairment. Evidence suggests that this occurs infre- numeric criteria, must include agency managers, quently (e.g., in Ohio, 6 percent of 431 sites staff biologists, and the public through public hear- evaluated using chemical-specific criteria and ings and comment. Once criteria are established. biosurveys resulted in this disagreement). In those determining attainment\nonattainment of a use re-

46 quires biological and statistical evduation based on established protocols. Changes in the criteria would require the same steps as the initial criteria: technical modifications by biologists, goal clarification by agency managers, and public hearings. The key to criteria development and revision is a clear statement of measurable objectives.

Q. Whaf additional informaHon is available on developing and using biological criteria? A. This program guidance document will be supplemented by the document Eiologfcal Criteria Development by States that includes case histories of State implementation of biological criteria as narratives, numerics, and some data procedures. The purpose for the document is to expand on material presented in Part I. The document will be available in October 1990. A general Biological Crrterra Technical Refer- ence Gurde will also be available for distribution during N 1991. This document outlines basic approaches for developing biological criteria in all surface waters (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries). The primary focus of the document is to provide a reference guide to scientific literature that describes approaches and methods used to determine biological integrity of specific surface water types. Over the next tnennium more detailed gl;idance will be produced that focuses on each surface water type (e.g., technical guidance for streams will be produced during N 91). Comparisons of different biosurvey approaches will be induded for accuracy, efficacy, end cost effectiveness.

47 Appendix B

Biological Criteria Technical Reference Guide

Table of Contents (tentative)

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION q Purpose of the Technical Support Document q Organization of the Support Document

SECTION 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA q Definitions q Biocriteria and the Scientific Method q Hypothesis Formulation and Testing q Predictions q Data Collection and Evaluation

SECTION 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL q Data Quality Objectives q Quality Assurance Program Plans and Project Plans q Importance of QA/QC for Bioassessment q Training q Standard Procedures q Documentation q Calibration of Instruments

SECTION 4. PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOCRITERIA q Designated Uses q Reference Site or Condition q Biosurvey q Biological Criteria

49 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

SECTION 5. BIOASSESSMENT STRATEGIES TO DETERMINE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY q Detailed Ecological Reconnaissance q Biosurveys of Targeted Community Segments q Rapid Bioassessment Protocols q Bioindicators

SECTION 6. ESTABLISHING THE REFERENCE CONDITION q Reference Conditions Based on Site-Specific Comparisons q Reference Conditions Based on Regions of Ecological Similarity q Reference Conditions Based on Habitat Assessment

SECTION 7. THE REFERENCE CATALOG

SECTION 8. THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT ON BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY q Habitat Assessment for Streams and Rivers q Habitat Assessment for Lakes and Reservoirs q Habitat Assessment for Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas q Habitat Assessment for Wetlands

SECTION 9. BIOSURVEY METHODS TO ASSESS BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY q Biotic Assessment in Freshwater q Biotic Assessment in Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas q Biotic Assessment in Wetlands

SECTION 10. DATA ANALYSIS q Sampling Strategy and Statistical Approaches q Diversity Indices q Biological Indices q Composite Community Indices

APPENDIX A. Freshwater Environments APPENDIX B. Estuarine and Near-Coastal Environments APPENDIX C. Wetlands Environments APPENDIX D. Alphabetical Author/Reference Cross Number Index for the Reference Catalog APPENDIX E. Reference Catalog Entries LIST OF FIGURES q Figure 1 Bioassessment decision matrix q Figure 2 Specimen of a reference citation in the Reference Catalog

50 Appendix C

Biological Criteria Development by States

Table of Contents (tentative)

I. Introduction B. History 1 Developmentof BiologicalCriteria II. Key Concepts 2. CurrentStatus of BiologicalCriteria III. Biological Criteria Across the 50 States C. Discussion Iv. Case Study of Ohio 1. ProgramResources 2. ProgramEvaluation A. Introduction 1. Derivationof BiologicalCriteria VII. Case Study of Arkansas 2. Applicationof BiologicalCriteria A. Introduction B. History 1. Derivationof BiologicalCriteria 1. Developmentof BiologicalCriteria 2. Applicationof BiologicalCriteria 2. CurrentStatus of BiologicalCriteria B. History C. Discussion 1. Developmentof BiologicalCriteria 1. ProgramResources 2. CurrentStatus of BiologicalCriteria 2. ComparativeCost Calculations C. Discussion 3. ProgramEvaluation 1. ProgramResources V. Case Study of Maine 2. ProgramEvaluation A. Introduction VIII. Case Study of Florida 1. Derivationof BiologicalCriteria A. Introduction 2. Applicationof BiologicalCriteria 1. Derivationof BiologicalCriteria B. History 2. Applicationof BiologicalCriteria 1. Developmentof BiologicalCriteria B. History 2. ProgramRationale C. Discussion C. Discussion 1. ProgramResources IX. Case Summariesof Six States 2. ProgramEvaluation A. Connecticut B. Delaware VI. Case Study of North Carolina C. Minnesota A. Introduction D. Nebraska 1. Derivationof BiologicalCriteria E. New York 2. Applicationof Biological Criteria F. Vermont

51 Appendix D

Contributors and Reviewers

Contributors

Gerald Ankloy John Bender Norm Crisp USEPA Environmental Research Nebraska Department of Environmental Services Division Lab Environmental Control USEPA Region 7 6201 Congdon Blvd. P.O. Box 94877 25 Funston Road Duluth, MN 55804 State House Station Kansas City, KS 66115 Lincoln, NE 69509 John Arthur Susan Davies USEPA Mark Blosser Maine Department of ERL-Duluth Delaware Department of Natural Environmental Protection 6201 Congdon Blvd. Resources -Water Quality Mgmt. State House No. 17 Duluth, MN 55804 Branch Augusta, ME 04333 P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Way Patricia Bailey Dover, DE 19903 Wayne Davis Division of Water Quality Environmental Scientist Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Robert Bode Ambient Monitoring Section 520 Lafayette Road New York State Department of USEPA Region 5 St. Paul, MN 55155 Environmental Conservation 536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA) Box 1397 Chicago, IL 60605 Joe Ball Albany, NY 12201 Wisconsin DNR Kenneth Duke Water Resource Management Lee Bridges Battelle (WR/2) Indiana Department of Environment 505 King Avenue P.O. Box 7291 Management Columbus, OH 43201-2693 Madison, WI 53707 5500 W. Bradbury Indianapolis, IN 46241 Gary Fandrel Michael Barbour Minnesota Pollution Control Agency EA Engineering, Science, and Claire Buchanan Division of Water Quality Technology Inc. Interstate Commission on Potomac 520 La Fayette Road North Hunt Valley/Loveton Center River Basin St Paul, MN 55155 15 Loveton Circle 6110 Executive Boulevard Suit. 300 Sparks, MD 21152 Rockville, MD 20852-3903 Steve Fiske Vermont Department of Raymond Beaumier David Courtemanch Environmental Conservation Ohio EPA Maine Department of 6 Baldwin St Water Quality Laboratory Environmental Protection Montpelier, VT 05602 1030 King Avenue Director, Division of Environmental Columbus, OH 43212 Evaluation and Lake Studies State House No. 17 Augusta, ME 04333

53 Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

John Glese William B. Horning II John Maxted Arkansas Department of Pollution Aquatic Biologist, Project Delaware Department of Natural Control andEcology Management Branch Resources and Environmental P.O. Box 9583 USEPA/ORD Env. Monitoring Control 8001 National Drive Systems 39 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401 Little Rock, AR 72209 3411 Church St. Dover, DE 19903 Cincinnati, OH 45244 Steve Glomb Jimmie Overton Office of Marine and Estuarine Robert Hughes NC Dept of Natural Resources and Protection NSI Technology Services Community Development USEPA (WN-556F) 200 SW 35th Street P.O. Box 27687 401 M Street SW Corvallis, OR 97333 512 N. Salisbury Washington, DC 20460 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 Jim Hulbert Steve Goodbred Florida Department of Steve Paulson Division of Ecological Services Environmental Regulation Environmental Research Center U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Suite 232 University of Nevada - Las Vegas 1825 B. Virginia Street 3319 Maguire Blvd. 4505 Maryland Parkey Annapolis, MD 21401 Orlando, FL 32803 Las Vegas, NV 89154

Jim Harrison James Kennedy Loys Parrish USEPA Region 4 Institute of Applied Sciences USEPA Region 8 345 Courtland St. (4WM-MEB) North Texas State University P.O. Box 25366 Atlanta, GA 30365 Denton, TX 76203 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Margarete Heber Richard Langdon Office of Water Enforcements and Vermont Department of David Penrose Permits Environmental Environmental Biologist USEPA (EN-336) Conversation - 10 North North Carolina Department of 101 M Street SW 103 S. Main Street Natural Resources and Washington, DC 20460 Waterbury, VT 05676 Community Development 512 N. Salisbury Street Steve Hedtke John Lyons Raleigh, NC 27611 US EPA Environmental Research Special Projects Leader Lab Wisconsin Fish Research Section Don Phelps 6201 Congdon Blvd. Wisconsin Department of Natural USEPA Duluth, MN 55804 Resources Environmental Research Lab 3911 Fish Hatchery Rd. South Ferry Road Robert Hite Fitchburg, WI 53711 Narragansett, RI 02882 Illinois EPA 2209 West Main Anthony Maciorowski Ernest Pizzuto Marion, IL 62959 Battelle Connecticut Department 505 King Avenue Environmental Protection Linda Holst Columbus, OH 43201-2693 122 Washington Street USEPA Region 3 Hartford, CT 06115 841 Chestnut Street Suzanne Marcy Philadelphia, PA 19107 Office of Water Regulations and James Plafkin Standards Office of Water Regulations and Evan Hornig USEPA (WH 585) Standards USEPA Region 6 401 M St. SW USEPA (WH 553) First InternationalBank at Fountain Washington. DC 20460 401 M Street, SW Place Washington, DC 20460 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Scott Mattee Dallas, TX 75202 Geological Survey of Alabama Ronald Preston PO Drawer O Biological Science Coordinator Tuscaloosa. AL 36486 USEPA Region 3 Wheeling Office (3ES12) 303 Methodist Building Wheeling, WV 26003

54 Appaar 0: cmtnbmn ma R@wowws

Ronald Raschko Randall Walb Chrlr Yodor EcoIogLcal Support Branch USEPA Region 3 Asat. Manager, S&ace Water Environmental Sawices Division Program Support Branch (3WMIO) SOCtiM USEPARegion 4 641 Chesnut Bldg. Water Duality Monitoring and Athens, GA 30613 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Assessment Ohio EPA-Water Duality Lab Mark Southwlrnd John Wegnyn 1030 King Ave. Dyruunac Corporation Manager, Water Quality Standards Columbus, OH 43212 The Dynamac Building Unit 11140 Rickville Pike Arizona Department of David Yount Rockville. MD 26652 Environmental Quality US EPA Environmental Research 2005 North Central Avonuo Lob James Thomar Phoenix, AZ 95004 6201 Congdon Blvd. Newfound .Harbor Marine Institute Duluth, MN 55804 Rt. 3. Box 170 Thorn Whlttler Big Pine Key, FL 33643 NSI Technology Servicer Lee Zenl 200 SW 35th Street Interstate Commission on Potomac Nelson Thomas Corvallis, OR 97333 River Basin USEPA. ERL-Duluth 6110 Executive Boulevard Suite X0 Senior Advisor for National Program Bill Wurrthole Rockville. MD 20852-3903 6201 Congdon Blvd. Water Management Division Duluth. MN 55804 USEPA Region 8 (WM-SP) 999 16th Street Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202

Reviewers

Paul Adrmur Clndy Carusone Petrr Farrlngton Wetlands Program New York Department of Biomonitoring Assessmenti J%cer NSI Technology Services Environmental Conservation Water Ouality Branch 200 S.W. 35th Street Box 1397 Inland Waters Directorate Corvallis. OR 97333 Albany, NY 12201 Environment Canada Ottawa, Ontano Kl A OH3 Rick Albrlght Brian Choy USEPA Regron 10 (WD-139) Hawaii Department of Health Konnrth Fonnor 1200 6th Avenue NW 645 Halekauwilr St USEPA Region 5 Seattk. WA98101 Honolulu, HI 96813 Water Ouality Branch 23os.lharbom Mu Andorson Bill Cnal Chicago, IL 60604 USEPA Region 5 Michigan DNR 536 S. Clark St. (SSCRL) Surface Water Quality Division Jack Fmda Chicago, IL 60605 P.O. Box 30026 Ohio EPA Lansing. Ml 46999 Surface Water Section Michael D. Bllger 1030 King Avenue USEPA Region 1 Phil Crockor Cdumbur, OH 43212 John F. Kennedy Building Water Quality Management Branch Boston. MA 02203 USEPA Rq$on 6 I 1U5 Ross Ave. Toby Prrvrrt Dakas, TX 75202-2733 Illinois EPA Susan Boldt Division of Water Pollution Control University of Wisconsin Extension Konnoth Cummlnr 2200 Churchill Road Madison, WI Appalachian Environmental Lab Springfie#, IL 62706 University of Marytand Paul Campanellr Frostburg, MD 21532 Cynthia FuUor OKice of Policy, Planning and USEPA GLNPO Evaluation Jeff DeShon 230 S. Dearborn USEPA (PM 222-A) Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section Chicago, IL 60604 401 M St. S.W. 1030 King Ave. Washington, DC 20460 Columbus, OH 43212

55 Jeff Qagler Hoke Howard Jlm LaJorchak USEPA Region 5 USEPA Region 4 EMSLCincinnati 230 s. Deubom (swos) College Station Road U.S. Environmental Protection Chicago, IL 60604 Athens, GA 30605 Agency Gnclnnati. OH Mary Jo Garrols Poter Husby Muyland Department of the USEPA Regron 9 David Lonat Environment 215 Freemont St NC Dept of Natural Resources and 2500 Broenmg Highway San Francisco, CA 94105 Community Development Building 30 512 N. Salisbury St. Baltimore, MD 21224 Gerald J8cobi Raleigh, NC 27611 Environmental Sciences Jlm Gtattina School of Science and Technology Jamrs Lury USEPA Region 5 New Mexico Highlands Umverslty USEPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn (SWOP) Las Vegas, NM 67701 230 S. Dearborn (SWOS) Chicago, IL 60604 Chicago. IL 60604 James Karr Jlm Groan Department of Biology Terry Maret Environmental Sorvrces Division Virglnla Polytechnic Institute and Nebraska Department of USEPA Regron 3 State University Environmental Control 303 Methodist Bldg. Blacksburg, VA 24061.0406 Box 94677 11th and Chaplme Sta:e House Station Wheelmg, WV 26003 Roy Klelnsrsscr Lmcoln. NE 69509 Texas Parks and Wlldllfe Larlndo Gronnor P.O. Box 947 Wally Matsunaga USEPA Regton 4 San Marco% TX 76667 Illinois EPA 345 Courtland st. 1701 First Ave., #600 Athnta. GA 30365 Don Klemm Maywood. IL 60153 USEPA Envrronmental Monttorlng Martln Gum and Systems Laboratory Robert Moshor U.S. f3eotogrcal Survey, WRD Cincinnati, OH 45266 lllinols EPA P.O. Box 2657 2200 Churchill Rd. Ml5 Ralelqh, NC 27602-2857 Robln Knox P.O. Box 19276 Louisiana Department of Sormgfleld. IL 62794 Rick Hafele Envwonment QuaMy Oregon Department EnvIronmental P.O. Box 44091 Philllp Oshlda Ouatrty Baton Rouge, LA 70726 USEPA Region 9 1712 S.W. 11th Street 215 Fremont Street Portland, OR 97201 Robert Koroncal San Francisco, CA 94105 Water Management Division Steve Helrkary USEPA Region 3 Bill Paintor MN Pollution Control Agency 647 Chestnut Bldg. USEPA, OPPE 520 bfayette Road Philadelphia, PA 19107 401 M Street, SW (W435B) St Paul. MN 55155 Washington, DC 20460 Jlm Kurrtonbach Rolllr Hemmett USEPA Regron 2 Rob Pepln USEPA Region 2 Woodbndge Ave. USEPA Region S Envirmmental Services Raritan Depot Bldg. 10 230 S. Dearborn Woodndge Avenue Edison, NJ 06637 Chicago, IL 60604 Edison, NJ 06637 Roy Kwlatkowskl Wayne Poppe Chartor Hocutt Waler Quality Cbiectives Division Tennessee Valley Authority Horn Point Environmental Water Ouality Branch 270 Haney Bldg. LPboratory Envtronment Canada Chattanooga, TN 37401 Box 775 Unrversrty of Maryland Ottawa, Ontario Canada Cambridge, MD 21613 KlA OH3 Waltor Redmon USEPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn Chlcago, IL 60604

56 bndon Rorr BNCO Shacklrford Marc Smith Florida Department of Arkansas Department of Pollution 6iOmonltorinQ Section Environmental Regulation Control and Ecology Ohio EPA 2600 Blair Stone RouI 8001 National Drive 1030 KiflQ Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32399 Little Rock, AR 72209 Columbus, OH 43212

Joan Robwta Larry Shepard Denise Steurer Anrona Department of USEPA ReQlOn 5 USEPA Region 5 Enwronmental QuaMy 230 S. Dearborn (5WQP) 230 S. Dearborn 2655 East Magnolia Chicago, IL 60604 ChlCaQO, IL 60604 Phoemx, AZ 65034 Jerry Shulto Wllllam Tucker Charlor Saylor Ohio River Sanitation Commlsson SupervIsor, Water Ouallty Tennessee Valley Authority 49 E. 4th St.. Suite 851 Monltorlng Field Operatlons Eastern Area Cincinnati, OH 45202 lllinols EPA Divtslon of Sewces and Field Dwslon of Waler Pollution Control Operations Thomar Simon 4500 S. Sixth Street Noms, TN 37626 USEPA Region 5 Springfield, IL 62706 536 S. Clark St. (SSCRL) Robert Schacht Chicago, IL 60605 Stephen Twldwell lllinols EPA Texas Water CornmIssIon 1701 First Avenue J. Slngh P 0. Box I 3087 Maywood. IL 60153 USEPA ReQlon 5 Capital Station 536 Clark St. (SSCDO) Aurlln, TX 7871 l-3037 Duane Schuettpclr ChlCaQO, IL 60605 Chief. Surface Water Standards and Barbara Wllllams MomtonnQ Section-Wisconsin USEPA Region 5 Department of Natural 230 S. Dearborn Resources Chicago, IL 60604 Box 792 1 Madison, WI 53707