APPENDIX K 

Procedures for the Initiation of 

Narrative Biological Criteria 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK 

SECOND EDITION 
United States Office of Science and Technology 

Environmental Protection Office of water 

Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 

EPA-822-8-92-002 

October 1992 

PROCEDURES FOR 

INITIATING NARRATIVE 

BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA 
PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING 

NARRATIVE BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA 

By 

George R. Gibson, Jr., Coordinator 

Biological Criteria Program 

Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 

October 1992 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Appreciation is extended to all the specialists in the States, EPA Headquarters program offices, and the ten EPA Regional Offices for their suggestions and review comments in the preparation of this document. 

Fred Leutner, Kent Ballentine, and Robert Shippen of the Standards and Applied 

Sciences Division contributed advice and citations pertinent to the proper application 

of these criteria to EPA regulatory standards. 
UNllED STATES ENWRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

MEIvIORANDUM 

To: Users of “Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria” 

Regarding: Guidance for the development of narrative biological criteria 

From: Margarete Stasikowski, Director 

Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

Office of Science and Technology 

U.S. EPA 

This guidance was written in response to requests from many State water resource 

agencies for specific information about EPA expectations of them as they prepare narrative 

biological criteria for the assessment of their surface water resources. 

The array of State experiences with this form of water quality evaluation extends from 

almost no experience in some cases to national leadership roles in others. It may therefore, be 

that some readers will find this information too involved, while others will feel it is too basic. 

To the latter we wish to express the sincere hope that this material is a fair approximation of 

their good examples. To the former, we emphasize that there is no expectation that a State just 

entering the process will develop a full blown infrastructure overnight. The intent is to outline 

both the initiation and the subsequent implementation and application of a State program based 

on commonly collected data as a starting point. User agencies are encouraged to progress 

through this material at their own best pace as needs and resources determine. 

Specific advice, clarification and assistance may be obtained from the U.S. EPA Regional 

Offices by consultation with the designated resource personnel listed in the appendix to this 

document. 

Attachment 

43 Pnnfed on Recycled Paper 
Purpose of this Paper 

T he Biological Criteria program was initiated by EPA in response to research and interest generated over the last several years by Agency, State, 

and academic investigators. This interest has been documented in several reports and conference proceedings that were the basis for cmation of the program and for the preparation of BiologicPJ Criteria National Progmm Guidancefor 

Surface Waters (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). The overall concept and 

‘narrative biological criteria” are desuiied in that guide. 

Because establishing narrative criteria is an important first step in the process, the material that follows here is intended to be an elaboration upon and 

clarification of the term narrative biological criteria as used in the guide. The 

emphasis here is on a practical, applied approach with particular attention to 

cost considerations and the need to introduce the material to readers who may 

not be familiar with the program. 

Introduction and Background 

B iological monitoring assessment and the resultant biological criteria represent the current and increasingly sophisticated process of an evolving 

water quality measurement technology. This process spans almost 200 years in 

North America and the entire 20 years of EPA responsibility. 

The initial efforts in the 1700’s to monitor and respond to human impacts 

on watercourses were based on physical observations of sediments and debris 

discharged by towns, commercial operations, and ships in port (Capper, et al. 

1983). 

Later, chemical analyses were developed to measure less directly observable events. With industrialization, increasing technology, and land development pressures, both types of monitoring were incorporated into the body of 

our State and Federal public health and environmental legislation. 

Valuable as these methods were, early investigations and compliance with 

water quality standards relied primarily on water column measurements reflecting only conditions at a given time of sampling. Investigators and managers have long recognized this limitation and have used sampling of resident 

organisms in the streams, rivers, lakes, or estuaries to enhance their understanding of water resource quality over a greater span of time. During the past 

20 years, this biological technique has become increasingly sophisticated and 

reliable and is now a necessary adjunct to the established physical and chemical measures of water resources quality. In fact, the Clean Water Act states in 

Section 101 (a) that the objective of the law is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integn’ty of the Nation’s waters. 

EPA has therefore concluded that biological assessment and consequent biological criteria are an appropriate and valuable complement’to the Nation’s 

surface water management programs. This added approach not only expands 

and refines this management effort, it is also consistent with the countrys 

growing concern that the environment must be protected and managed for 

more than the legitimate interests of human health and welfare. The protection 
of healthy ecosystems is part of EPA’s responsibility and is indeed related to 

the public’s welfare. Fish, shellfish, wildlife, and other indigenous flora and 

fauna of our surface waters require protection as intrinsic components of the 

natural system. Inherent to the Biological Criteria Program is the restoration 

and protection of this ‘biological integrity” of our waters. 

A carefully completed survey and subsequent assessment of these resident 

organisms in relatively undisturbed areas reveal not only the character, e.g., 

biological integrity, of a natural, healthy waterbody, they also provide a benchmark or biological criterion against which similar systems may be compared 

where degradation is suspected. Biological measurements also help record 

waterbody changes over time with less potential temporal variation than 

physical or chemical approaches to water quality measurement. Thus, they 

can be used to help determine “existing aquatic life uses” of waterbodies requiring protection under State management programs. 

This document elaborates on the initiation of narrative biological criteria 

as described in Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. 

Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to 

facilitate development and implementation of both narrative and numerical 

criteria for each of the surface water types. 

Narrative Biological Criteria 

T he first phase of the program is the development of “narrative biological 

criteria”. These are essentially statements of intent incorporated in State 

water laws to formally consider the fate and status of aquatic biological communities. Officially stated, biological criteria are “. . . numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic 

communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use” (U.S. 

Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). 

While a narrative criterion does not stipulate that numerical indices or 

other population parameters be used to indicate a particular level of water 

quality, it does rely upon the use of standard measures and data analyses to 

make qualitative determinations of the resident communities. 

The State, Territory, or Reservation should not only carefully compose the 

narrative biological criteria statement but should also indicate how its application is to be accomplished. The determination of text (how the narrative biological criteria are written) and measurement procedures (how the criteria will 

be applied) is up to the individual States in consultation with EPA. Some degree of standardization among States sharing common regions and waters will 

be in their best interests. This regional coordination and cooperation could 

help improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand the data base available to 

each State so that management determinations can be made with greater certainty. 
Attributes of A Sound Narrative Crlterla Statement 

A narrative biological criterion should: 

1. Support the goals of the Clean Water Act to provide for the protection 

and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s waters; 

2. Protect the most natural biological community possible by 

emphasizing the protection of its most sensitive components. 

3. Refer to specific aquatic, marine, and estuarine community 

characteristics that must be present for the water-body to meet a 

particular designated use, e.g., natural diverse systems with their 

respective communities or taxa indicated; and then, 

4. Include measures of the community characteristics, based on sound 

scientific principles, that are quantifiable and written to protect and or 

enhance the designated use; 

5. In no case should impacts degrading existing uses or the biological 

integrity of the waters be authorized. 

An Example of A Narrative BIocriteria Statement 

The State will preserve, protect, and restore the water resources of [name 

of State] in their most natural condition. The condition of these waterbodies 

shall be determined from the measures of physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics of each surface waterbody type, according to its designated use. 

As a component of these measurements, the biological quality of any given 

water system shall be assessed by comparison to a reference condition(s) 

based upon similar hydrologic and watershed characteristics that represent 

the optimum natural condition for that system. 

Such reference conditions or reaches of water courses shall be those observed to support the greatest variety and abundance of aquatic life in the region as is expected to be or has been historically found in natural settings 

essentially undisturbed or minimally disturbed by human impacts, development, or discharges. This condition shall be determined by consistent sampling and reliable measures of selected indicative communities of flora and/or 

fauna as established by . . . [appropriate State agency or agencies] . . . and may 

be used in conjunction with acceptable chemical, physical, and microbial 

water quality measurements and records judged to be appropriate to this purpose. 

Regulations and other management efforts relative to these criteria shall 

be consistent with the objective of preserving protecting, and restoring the 

most natural communities of fish, shellfish, and wildlife attainable in these 

waters; and in all cases shall protect against degradation of the highest existing or subsequently attained uses or biological conditions pursuant to State 

antidegradation requirements. 
4 

Data Gathering to Establish and Support Narrative 

Biological Criteria 

A State need not specifically list in the narrative statement the sampling 

procedures and parameters to be employed, but it should identify and charge 

the appropriate administrative authority with this responsibility as indicated 

parenthetically in the preceding example. 

The selection and sampling process, certainly at the outset, should be simple, reliable, and cost effective. In many instances existing data and State procedures will be adequate to initiate a biological criteria program, but there is 

no limitation on the sophistication or rigor of a State’s procedures. 

In reviewing existing procedures and in designing new ones, it is important that the planning group include the water resource managers, biologists, 

and chemists directly involved with the resource base. They should be the primary participants from the outset to help ensure that the data base and derived information adequately support the decisions to be made. . 

The State may choose to create procedures and regulations more complex 

and complete than are indicated here; however, the basic design and methodology should include the following elements: 

H 1. Rosourco Inventory. A field review of State water resource 

conditions and a first hand documentation of the status of water quality relative to the use designation categories (‘MS@)” reports) are essential to provide reliable data for the selections of reference sites, test 

sites, and for setting program priorities. 

n 2. Spoclfic Objoctlvos and Srmpllng Doslgn. States will 

need to design a system identifying “natural, unimpacted” reference 

sources appropriate to each surface waterbody type in each of the designated use categories in the State (e.g., streams, lakes and reservoirs, 

rivers, wetlands, estuaries and coastal waters) and the use categories 

(see example, Page 8) for each grouping of these waterbody types. 

Sources for defining reference condition may include historical data 

sets, screening surveys, or a consensus of experts in the region of interest, particularly in significantly disrupted areas as discussed later (see 

item 6, page 7). 

Because natural water courses do not always follow political 

boundaries, the most effective approach may be a joint or group effort 

between two or more States. Where this coordinatti and cooperation 

is possible, it may produce a superior data base at less cost than any 

individual State effort. EPA is working through its regional offices to 

assist in the development of such joint operations through the use of 

ecoregions and subregions (Gallant et al. 1988). Regional EPA biologists and water quality or standards coordinators can advise and assist 

with these interstate cooperative efforts. 

In any case, reference sites or sources for each waterbody type, 

subcategory of similar waters, and designated use category will be 

needed. These may be drawn from “upstream” locations, “far field” 

transects or selected nearby or “ecoregional” sites representative of rel- 
atively unimpacted, highest quality natural settings (U.S. Environ. 

Prot. Agency, 1990a). 

Care must be taken to equate comparable physical characteristics 

when selecting reference sites for the waterbodies to be evaluated. For 

example, a site on a Piedmont stream cannot be the reference source 

against which sites on a coastal plain stream are compared; similarly, 

coastal tidal and nontidal wetlands should not be compared. 

The organisms to be collected and communities sampled should 

represent an array of sensitivities to be as responsive and informative 

as possible. An example would be to collect fish, invertebrates representing both insects and shellfish, and perhaps macrophytes as elements of the sampling scheme. 

n 3. Collection Methods. The same sampling techniques should 

always be employed at both the reference sites and test sites and 

should be consistent as much as possible for both spatial and temporal 

conditions. For example, a consistent seining or electroshocking technique should always be used in collecting fish over the same length of 

stream and with the same degree of effort using the same gear. In addition, the sampling area must be representative of the entire reach or 

waterbody segment. The temporal conditions to be considered include 

not only such factors as the length of time spent towing a trawl at a 

constant speed but also extend to the times of year when data are gathered. 

Seasonality of life cycles and natural environmental pressures 

must be addressed to make legitimate evaluations. For example, the 

spring hatch of aquatic insects is usually avoided as a sampling period 

in favor of more stable community conditions later in the summer. 

Conversely, low nutrient availability in mid-summer may temporarily 

but cyclically reduce the abundance of estuarine or marine benthos. 

Dissolved oxygen cycles are another seasonal condition to consider as 

are migratory patterns of some fish and waterfowl. The entire array of 

temporal and spatial patterns must be accommodated to avoid inconsistent and misleading data gathering. 

Processing and analysis of the collected specimens is usually based 

on the number and identity of taxa collected and the number of individuals per taxon. This preliminary information is the foundation of 

most of the subsequent analytical processes used to evaluate community composition. In the course of examining and sorting the plants or 

animals, notations should be made of any abnormal gross morphological or pathological conditions such as deformities, tumors or lesions. 

This information on disease and deformities in itself can be an important assessment variable. 

Taxonomic sorting can also be the basis for functional groupings of 

the data, and preservation of the specimens allows for the option of 

additional analyses after the field season is concluded. 

Table 1 is not all inclusive in the sense of a thorough biological investigation, but it does represent an initial approach to the selection of 

parameters for biological assessment to support the narrative criteria. 
Teblo l.--tndlcetor communltier end reference eourcea for Mologlcrl ctltetie. 

WATERBODY FLORA / FAUNA INDICATORS REFERENCE BlATIONS 

Freshwater Fish, periphyton 6 Ecoregion. upstream and 

SW&ems macroinvertebrates, incl. downstraam stations 

insects 6 shellfish 

L8kea6 Same. also macrophytas May ne4e4d to start with trophic 

Relsefvoin groups; far- and near-field 

Wensects, acoregions* 

Rivers Same as lake 6 resevvovs Upstream and downstream stations; 

where appropriate, far- and 

near-field transects, ecoragions* 

WOtlEUtdS All of above, plus emergent Ecoregion;* far- and near-field 

and tenestfial vegetation 6 transects 

parhaps wildlifa 6 avian spp. 

Estu8fine 6 Fish, pariphyton 6 Far- and near-fidd transacts; 

neaf-tal macroinvertebrates, asp. acoragion* or physiographic 

Waters Shellfish. echinoderms, province 

poly-es 

’ Where approprbte; ecoregions thti are hetaopneour may need to be subdivided into 

cohive wbregans or these subregions aggreg&A where financial resourcea are limbed or 

aqutiic systems are large (tdal rivers. estuaries. near-coastal marine waterr). Also, map 

basns and watersheds couM be consdered for ‘keystone mdicators for fish and shetlfiih 

H 4. Quality Control. Much of the analytical potential and 

strength of any conclusions reached will depend upon the precision 

and accuracy of sampling techniques and data handling procedures. 

Rigorous attention should therefore be given to the design and consistency of data gathering techniques and to the training and evaluation 

of field and Jaboratory staff. Data cataloging and record keeping procedures also must be carefully designed and strictly adhered to by all 

parties involved. EPA Regional Office personnel can provide advice 

and Agency guidance manuals on this subject; an example is the 1990 

field and laboratory manual by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, (199Ob). Similarly, many States already have excellent quality 

assurance procedures that can be used as a foundation for their biological criteria program. 

H 5. An~l#lcA Procoduns. The usual approach to biological 

analyses is to identify the presence of impairment and establish the 

probability of being certain in that judgment. 

For example, if there is a significant increase in the number of deformed or diseased organisms, and a significant decrease in the taxa 

and/or individuals and in sensitive or intolerant taxa - given that the 

physrcal habitats and collection techniques are equivalent - then the 

study site may be presumed to be degraded. This conclusion will have 

further support if the tnznd holds true over time; is also supported by 

applicable chemical or physical data; or if probable sources are identified. The apparent source or sources of perturbation should then be investigated and further specific diagnostic tests conducted to establish 

cause. Remedial action may then follow through regulatory or other 

appropriate management procedures. 
n 6. Roforonco Condition l nd Crltorla for Slgnlflcmntly Dlsruptod Areas. In regions of significantly disrupted land use such as 

areas of intensive agricultural or urban/suburban development, the 

only data base available to serve as a reference condition might be simply “the best of what is left.” To establish criteria on this basis would 

mean an unacceptable lowering of water quality objectives and de 

facto acceptance of degraded conditions as the norm; or worse, as the 

goal of water quality management. The alternative would be to establish perhaps impossible goals to restore the water system to pristine, 

pre-development conditions. 

A rational solution avoiding these two pitfalls is to establish the 

reference condition from the body of historical research for the region 

and the consensus opinion of a panel of qualified water resource experts. The panel, selected in consultation with EPA, should be required 

tq establish an objective and reasonable expectation of the restorable 

(achievable) water resource quality for the region. The determination 

would become the basis of the biological criteria selected. 

Consistent with State antidegradation requirements, the best existing conditions achieved since November 28, 1975 [see 40 CFR 131.3(c) 

and 131.12(a)(l)] must be the lowest acceptable status for interim consideration while planning, managing and regulating to meet the 

higher criteria established above. In this way reasonable progress can 

be made to improve water quality without making unrealistic demands upon the community. 

Application of Biological Criteria to State Surface 

Water Use Attainability Procedures 

Another application of the data collected is in helping define the designated uses to be achieved by comparing all test sites relative to the benchmark 

of reference conditions established per designated use category. Biological criteria can be used to help define the level of protection for “aquatic life use” 

designated uses for surface waters. These criteria also help determine relative 

improvement or decline of water resource quality, and should be equated to 

appropriate reference site conditions as closely as possible. Determinations of 

attainable uses and biological conditions should be made in accordance with 

the requirements stipulated in Section 131.10 of the EPA Water Quality Standards Regulations (40 CFR 131). A hypothetical State-designated use category 

system might be as follows: 

H Cl888 A: Hlghort quality or Spoclal Catogory Stat0 waters. Includes those designated as unique aesthetic or habitat resources and 

fisheries, especially protected shellfish waters. No discharges of any 

kind and no significant landscape alterations are permitted in the 

drainage basins of these waters. Naturally occurring biological life 

shall be attained, maintained, and protected in all respects. (Indicator sensitive resident species might be designated to help define 

each class, e.g., trout, some darters, mayflies, oysters, or clams, etc.) 

l Class B: High qudlty waters sultablo for body contact. Only 

highly treated nonimpacting discharges and land development with 
well established riparian vegetative buffer zones are allowed. Naturally occurring biological life shall be protected and no degradation 

of the aquatic communities of these waters is allowed. (Indicator 

sensitive species might be suckers and darters, stoneflies, or softshelled clams, etc.) 

n Cl888 Ct Good qurllty w8tor but 8ff8ct8d by runoff tram pn 

v8lllng dovolopod I8nd ~88s. Shore zones are protected, but buffer 

zones are not as extensive as Class B. Highly treated, well-diluted 

final effluent permitted. Existing aquatic life and community composition shall be protected and no further degradation of the aquatic 

communities is allowed. (Indicator sensitive species might be sunfish, caddisflies, or blue crabs, etc.) 

n Cl888 0: LOW.81 qU8llty W8t.r ln tt8t.k d88lgn8tOd U8. Systom. Ambient water quality must be or become sufficient to support 

indigenous aquatic life and no further degradation of the aquatic 

community is allowed. Structure and function of aquatic community 

must be preserved, but species composition may differ from Class C 

waters. 

Since all States have some form of designated use classification system, 

bioassessment procedures can be applied to each surface water type by class 

and the information used to help determine relative’management success or 

failure. In concert with other measurements, bioassessments and biocriteria 

help determine designated use attainment under the Clean Water Act. This attainment or nonattainment in turn determines the need for or the conditions 

of such regulatory requirements as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In addition, biological assessments based on these biological criteria can be used to 

help meet section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires periodic reports from the States on the status of their surface water resources. The procedure also can be used to support regulatory actions, detect previously 

unidentified problems, and help establish priorities for management projects 

(see “Additional Applications of Biological Criteria,” Page 10). 

Table 2 is a simplified illustration of this approach to evaluating comprehensive surface water quality conditions by each designated use to help determine and report “designated use attainment” status. 

It is important to construct and calibrate each table according to consistent 

regional and habitat conditions. 

Using quantitative parameters or metrics derived from the data base and 

the reference condition, standings in the tables can be established from which 

relative status can be defined. This material can eventually serve as the basis 

for numeric biological criteria. 

A well-refined quantitative approach to the narrative process can be administratively appended to the States’ preexisting narrative criteria to meet future needs for numeric criteria. This can be accomplished fairly easily by 

amending the narrative statement, as illustrated on page 3, to include a designated regulatory responsibility for the appropriately identified agency. The 

advantage of this approach is as changes in the supportive science evolve, the 

criteria can be appropriately adjusted. 

8 
Table P.--Data display to f8cllit8to l vrlwtlng wrterbody condltlon l d 

nlrtlvo deslgnrted use attrlnment. 

DESIGNATED USE BlOl.OCNCAL ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS (by numbor) 

rpor 8f. wur typa) Tam Tutr Invutobr~* Floh Dla0n.d 

Invortm Fish Intdwulto lntolYulta 

Highest quality in 

designated use 

Good quality in 

designated use 

Adequate to 

designated use 

Marginal for 

designaM use 

Poor quality bW bw bw bw 

DESIGNATED USE PUBLIC HEALTH, CHEMICAL PHYSICAL DATA 

@or St watw typo) T. Cdl E. Coil D.O. pH PO4 NO3 nub. 

Highest quality in 

designated use 

Good quality in 

designated use 

Lidequate to 

designated use 

Marginal for 

designated use 

Poor quality 

bw 

high 

bW high 

high bW 

VM 

by 

region 

Usually Usually UelNMy 

bW bw bw 

usually UswIly Usually 

high high “W 

Further, the compiling of physical and chemical data with the biological 

data facilitates comprehensive evaluations and aids in the investigation of 

causes of evident water quality declines. Having the numbers all in one place 

helps the water resource manager assess conditions. However, it is important 

to note that none of these parameters should supercede the others in management or regulations because they have unique as well as overlapping attributes. Failure of a designated site to meet any one of a State’s physical, 

chemical, or biological criteria should be perceived as sufficient justification 

for corrective action. 

One other note on the use of biological criteria is important. The data gathered should be comprehensively evaluated on a periodic basis. This gives the 

manager an opportunity to assess relative monitoring and management success, monitor the condition of the reference sites, and adjust procedures accordingly. As conditions improve, it will also be important to reassess and 

adjust the biological criteria. This may be particularly appropriate in the case 

of “significantly disrupted areas” discussed earlier. 
Additional Applications of Biological Criteria 

As shown in the previous illustrations, narrative biological criteria can 

have many applications to the management and enhancement of surface water 

quality. 

N R8fln8m8nt 8nd 8ugm8ntatlon of 8xlstlng w8torbody monltorIng proc8dunr. With between 200 and 500 new chemicals entering 

the market annually, it is impossible to develop chemical criteria 

that address them all. Further, synergism between even regulated 

chemicals meeting existing standards may create degraded conditions downstream that are identifiable only by using biological monitoring and criteria. Thus, the approach may help identify and 

correct problems not previously recognized. 

n Non-chomlc8l Imp8lrm8nta (e.g., degradation of physical habitats, 

changes in hydrologic conditions, stocking, and harvesting) can be 

identified. Remediation of these impairments, when they are the primary factor, can be less expensive and more relevant than some 

point source abatements. 

H W8terbody m8n8gomont doclslonm8klng. By reviewing an array 

of diverse parameters in a comprehensive manner, the decisionmaker is able to make better judgments. The strengths of this diversity 

can be used to determine with greater confidence the resources to 

assign to a given waterbody or groups of waterbodies in the allocation of scarce manpower or funds. The information can also be used 

to set priorities where required by law, such as section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act, or to help guide regulatory decisions. 

In conjunction with nutrient, chemical, and sediment parameters, biological information and criteria are an important tool for watershed investigations. The combined data helps the manager select 

areas of likely nonpoint as well as point sources of pertebation and 

makes it possible to focus remedial efforts on key subbasins. 

n Rogul8tory 8sp8ct. Once established to the satisfaction of the State 

and EPA, the biocriteria process may be incorporated in the State’s 

system of regulations as part of its surface water quality protection 

and management program. Biological assessment and criteria can 

become an important additional tool in this context as the Nation increasingly upgrades the quality of our water resources. 

Perspective of the Future: Implementing 

Biological Criteria 

This guide to narrative biological criteria was composed with the fiscal 

and technical constraints of all the States, Territories, and Reservations in 

mind. The array of scientific options available to biological assessment and criteria illustrated here is by no means exhaustive, and many jurisdictions will 

prefer a more involved approach. In no way is this guide intended to restrain 

States from implementing more detailed or rigorous programs. In fact, we 

welcome comments and suggestions for additional techniques and parameters 

to consider. 

0 
The basic approach discussed here, while compiled to be the least demanding on State budgets, equipment, and manpower pools, consists of a reliable, reproducible scientific method. The metrio considered should not be 

restricted to those illustrated in this guide. Rather, they should be developed 

from the expertise of State biologists and water resource managers - perhaps 

in concert with colleagues in neighboring States for a coordinated regional approach to waterbodies and natural biological regions that cross political 

boundaries. Good science should be applied to a realistic appraisal of what 

can actually be accomplished, and the EPA regional office specialists, listed on 

the following pages, can assist in such assessments and coordination. For 

more detailed discussions of sampling and analytical methods, the reader is 

also referred to the references appended to this text. 

The structure for narrative biological criteria described here is an appro 

priate interim step for the eventual development of numeric biological criteria. 

The infrastructure developed now may be expanded and refined to meet fu- 

-ture needs. 

References 

Capper, J., G. Power and F.R. Shivers, Jr. 1983. Chesapeake Waters, Pollution, Public Health, 

and Public Opinion, 1607-1972. lidewater Publishers, Centrevjlle, MD. 

Gallant, A.L. et al. 1989. Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources. 

EPA/600-J-89-060. Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 199Oa. Biological Criteria National Program Cuidante for Surface Waters. EPA/44&5-90-004. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Rot. Agency, 

Washington, DC. 

-. 199Ob. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. EPA/600/4-90/030. Environ. Monitor. Syst. Lab., U.S. 

Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 

-. 1%. Protection of Environment. Code of Fed. Reg. (CFR), Part 131. Off. Fed. Register, Nat. Archives and Records Admin., Washington, DC. 

Additional References 

Plafkin, J.L. et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates and Pish. EPA/444/489-001. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Rot. 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century. 

Proceedings of a national conference. Office of Water, Standards and Applied Science 

Division, Washington, DC. 

-. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. 

EPA /505 /2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

-. 1991. Biologtcal Criteria. Research and Regulation. Proceedings of a symposium. 

EPA440/5-91-005. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Divtsion, Washington, DC. 

-_ 1991. Biological Criteria: Guide to Technical Literature. EPA&O/S-91-004. Office of 

Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. 

-. 1991. Biological Criteria: State Development and Implementation Efforts. EPA44015-91-003. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Critena Dtvision, Washington, DC. 
U.S. EPA Regional Sources of 

Technical Assistance 

REOION 1: JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203 

Rqionel Biologist: Pete Nolan/Celeste Barr (617) 8604343 

Mondring Coordi~tor: Diane Switzer (617) 8604377 

Water @uhty Standards Coordi~tor: Eric Hall (617) 5653533 

REQION 1: 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278 

Rqiod Bidogict: Jim Kurtenbach (908) 321 Gl6 

Monitoring Coordinator Randy Braun (908) 3216692 

W&r Qudity Sfandards Coordhtor: Felix Locicem (212) 264-5691 

REQION 3: 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Rqionul Bidogist: Ron Preston (304) 233-2315 

Monitoring Coordirwbr: Chuck Kanetsky (215) 5978176 

Water Qua/ity Stand&s Coordinator: Helene Drag0 (215) 597-9911 

REGION 4: 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, CA 30365 

Rtpond B~dogut. Hoke Howard /Jerry Stober/Wllham Pettier (706) 5462296 

Monitoring Coordinator: Larinda Tervelt (706) 347-2126 

Water Quaflty Standards Coordrnatur: Fritz Wagener/Jrm Harrison (7%) 347-3396 

REGION 5: 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 

Rtgional Bidogisk Charles Steiner (312) 353-9070 

Monifang Coord~nafor: Donna Williams (312) 8866233 

Wuttr Qualify Standurds Coordirwfors: David Pfiefer (312) 353-9024 

Tom Simon (312) 3538341 

REGION Et 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202 

Regional B&grsf. Evan Horn&/Philip CrockerlTerry Hollister (214) 6552289 

Monilang Coord~rufor: Charles Howell (214) 6552289 

Wuttr Quaky Sfandards Coordirkrtur: Cheryl Overstreet (214) 655-7145 

REGION 7: 726’Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101 

Regional Bldogut: Michael Tucker/Cat-y Welker (913) 551~5&Xl 

Monitormg Coordinufor: John Helvig (913) 551-5002 

W&r Quality Stander& Coordinutor: Lawrence Shepard (913) 551-7441 

REGION 8: 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 8U202-t405 

Regional Btdopt: Lays Parrish (303) 236-5064 

Monitonng Coordinator Phil Johnson (303) 293-1581 

W&r Quahty Stondurds Coordlnabr: BIB Wuerthele (303) 293-1586 

REGION 0: 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 

Rtgronal Btdogxt Peter Husby (415) 744-1488 

Monitang Coord~nutor: Ed Liu (415) 744-2006 

Water Quality Standards Coordfnator. Phillip Woods (415) 744-1997 

REGION 10: 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 

Rcgiond Bldogtsf. Joseph Cummms (206) 871-0748, ext. 1247 

Monifonng Coordinulor: Gretchen Hayslip (206) 553-1685 

W&r Qunhty Standurds Cawdinators: Sally Marquis (206) 553-2116 

Marica Lagerlwff (206) 55m176 

HEADQUARTERS: 401 M Street SW, Biocriteria Program (WH S86), 

Washington, DC 20640 

Program Canduutors: Gorge Gibson (202) 260-7580 

Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800 

NOlEt Address provuftd IS the EPA Rtponol qa, pcrsonntl tndiartd may bc hated of 

s?tt//lltfoc7/IIIcs