# APPENDIX K

Proceduresfor the Initiation of Narrative Biological Criteria



# WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

SECONDEDITIONUnited States Office of Science and Technology Environmental Protection Office of water Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA-822-8-92-002 October 1992 

# PROCEDURESFOR INITIATINGNARRATIVE BIOLOGICALCRITERIA

# PROCEDURESFOR 

# INITIATING

NARRATIVEBIOLOGICALCRITERIA

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,EPAHeadquarters 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 ofthese criteria to EPAregulatory standards.UNllED STATES ENWRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



### MEIvIORANDUM

To: Usersof “Proceduresfor Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria”
Regarding: Guidancefor thedevelopmentof narrativebiological criteria

From: MargareteStasikowski,Director

HealthandEcologicalCriteria Division Office of ScienceandTechnology U.S. EPA

This guidancewas written in responseto requestsfrom many Statewater resource agenciesfor specific information about EPA expectationsof themasthey preparenarrative biological criteria for theassessment of their surfacewaterresources.
Thearrayof Stateexperienceswith thisform of waterquality evaluationextendsfrom almostnoexperiencein somecases tonationalleadershiprolesin others.It maytherefore,be thatsomereaderswill find thisinformation tooinvolved, while otherswill feelit istoobasic. To thelatterwewishtoexpressthesincerehopethatthis materialisafair approximation of theirgoodexamples.To theformer, weemphasizethatthereisnoexpectationthataState just enteringtheprocesswill developafull blown infrastructureovernight.Theintent istooutline boththeinitiation andthesubsequent implementationandapplicationof aStateprogrambased
on commonly collected dataasa starting point. User agenciesare encouragedto progress throughthis materialattheirown bestpaceasneedsandresourcesdetermine.
Specificadvice,clarification andassistance maybeobtainedfromtheU.S. EPARegional Offices by consultationwith thedesignatedresourcepersonnellisted in theappendixto this document.

Attachment



# 43Pnnfedon 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 BiologicPJCriteria National Progmm Guidancefor Surface Waters (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). The overall concept and ‘narrative biological criteria” are desuiied in that guide. Becauseestablishing 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 asused 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 befamiliar 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 200years in North America and the entire 20years of EPAresponsibility. The initial efforts in the 1700’sto 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 Stateand Federal public health and environmental legislation. Valuable asthese methods were, early investigations and compliance with water quality standards relied primarily on water column measurements reflecting only conditions at agiven 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 ofwater resource quality over agreater span of time. During the past 20years, this biological technique has become increasingly sophisticated and reliable and is now anecessary 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 restoreand maintain thechemical,physical, and biological integn’ty oftheNation’s waters. EPAhastherefore 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 protectionof 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 asintrinsic 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 ofthese resident organisms in relatively undisturbed areas reveal not only the character, e.g., biological integrity, ofanatural, healthy waterbody, they also provide abenchmark 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 Statemanagement programs. This document elaborates on the initiation of narrative biological criteria
as described in Biological Criteria National Program Guidancefor SurfaceWaters. Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to facilitate development and implementation of both narrative and numerical criteria for eachof 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 arewritten) and measurement procedures (how the criteria will be applied) is up to the individual Statesin consultation with EPA. Some degree of standardization among Statessharing 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 sothat management determinations can be made with greater certainty.

### Attributes of A Sound Narrative Crlterla Statement

A narrative biological criterion should:

1. Support the goals ofthe Clean Water Act to provide for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish and wildlife, and to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity ofthe 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 bepresent 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 arequantifiable and written to protect and or enhance the designated use;

5. In no case should impacts degrading existing usesor the biological integrity ofthe waters beauthorized.



### An Example of A Narrative BIocriteria Statement

The Statewill 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 ofeach 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 offlora and/or fauna asestablished by

...[appropriate Stateagency or agencies]

...and may be used in conjunction with acceptable chemical, physical, and microbial water quality measurements and records judged to beappropriate 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 casesshall 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 beemployed, 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 atthe outset, should besimple, reliable, and cost effective. In many instances existing data and State procedures will be adequate to initiate abiological criteria program, but there is
no limitation on the sophistication or rigor of aState’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 bethe primary participants from the outset to help ensure that the data base and derived information adequately support the decisions to bemade.

. 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 afirst 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 aconsensus of experts in the region of interest, particularly in significantly disrupted areasasdiscussed later (see item 6,page 7). Because natural water courses do not always follow political boundaries, the most effective approach may beajoint or group effort between two or more States.Where this coordinatti and cooperation is possible, it may produce asuperior 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 canadvise 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 beevaluated. For example, a site on a Piedmont stream cannot be the reference source against which sites on acoastal plain stream are compared; similarly, coastal tidal and nontidal wetlands should not becompared. 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 ofthe 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 asmuch aspossible 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 beconsidered include not only such factors asthe length of time spent towing atrawl at a constant speed but also extend tothe times of year when data aregathered. 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 asasampling 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 bemade 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 bethe basis for functional groupings of the data, and preservation of the specimens allows for the option of additional analyses after the field season isconcluded. Table 1is not all inclusive in the senseof athorough 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 REFERENCEBlATIONS
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 orthese subregions aggreg&A where financial resourcea are limbed or aqutiic systems are large (tdal rivers. estuaries. near-coastal marine waterr). Also, map basns andwatersheds couM be consdered for‘keystone mdicators forfishand 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 begiven 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 Statesalready have excellent quality
assurance procedures that can beused asafoundation 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 asignificant 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 bedegraded. 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 beinvestigated 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 baseavailable to serve asareference condition might besimply “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 asthe norm; or worse, asthe goal of water quality management. The alternative would beto 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 ofthe biological criteria selected. Consistent with Stateantidegradation requirements, the best existing conditions achieved since November 28, 1975[see40CFR 131.3(c) and 131.12(a)(l)] must bethe 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 usesto beachieved by comparing all test sites relative to the benchmark of reference conditions established per designated usecategory. Biological criteria can be used to help define the level of protection for “aquatic life use” designated usesfor surface waters. These criteria also help determine relative improvement or decline of water resource quality, and should be equated to appropriate reference site conditions asclosely aspossible. Determinations of attainable uses and biological conditions should be made in accordance with the requirements stipulated in Section 131.10of the EPAWater Quality Standards Regulations (40 CFR 131). A hypothetical State-designated use category system might beasfollows:

H Cl888 A: Hlghort quality or Spoclal Catogory Stat0 waters. Includes those designated asunique 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 withwell 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. Shorezones areprotected, but buffer
zones are not as extensive as Class B. Highly treated, well-diluted final effluent permitted. Existing aquatic life and community composition shall beprotected 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 beor become sufficient to support indigenous aquatic life and no further degradation of the aquatic community isallowed. Structure and function of aquatic community must bepreserved, 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 useattainment under the Clean Water Act. This attainment or nonattainment in turn determines the need for or the conditions of such regulatory requirements astotal 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 Stateson 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 useto help determine and report “designated useattainment” status. It is important to construct and calibrate eachtable according to consistent regional and habitat conditions. Using quantitative parameters or metrics derived from the data baseand the reference condition, standings in the tables can beestablished from which relative status can be defined. This material can eventually serve asthe 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, asillustrated on page 3,to include adesignated regulatory responsibility for the appropriately identified agency. The advantage of this approach is aschanges in the supportive science evolve, the criteria can beappropriately adjusted.

8Table P.--Data display to f8cllit8to 

### lvrlwtlng wrterbody condltlon ld nlrtlvo deslgnrted use attrlnment.

DESIGNATED USE BlOl.OCNCAL ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS (by numbor)
rpor8f. 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 designateduse Goodqualityin designated use Lidequate to designateduse Marginalfor 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 assessconditions. 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 useof biological criteria isimportant. The data gathered should be comprehensively evaluated on a periodic basis. This gives the manager an opportunity to assessrelative 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 200and 500new 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 areidentifiable 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 ofthese impairments, when they arethe 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 acomprehensive 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 agiven waterbody or groups of waterbodies in the allocation of scarcemanpower or funds. The information can also be used to set priorities where required by law, such assection 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 arean important tool for watershed investigations. The combined data helps the manager select
areas of likely nonpoint aswell aspoint 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 asthe 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 ofscientific 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. 0The basic approach discussed here, while compiled to be the least demanding on Statebudgets, equipment, and manpower pools, consists of areliable, 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 Statebiologists and water resource managers - perhaps in concert with colleagues in neighboring Statesfor acoordinated 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 EPAregional 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.ChesapeakeWaters,Pollution, Public Health, and Public Opinion, 1607-1972. lidewater Publishers, Centrevjlle, MD. Gallant, A.L. etal. 1989.Regionalization asaTool 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 SurfaceWaters.EPA/44&5-90-004. Office ofWater,U.S.Environ. Rot. Agency, Washington, DC.

-. 199Ob.Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating theBiological Integrity of SurfaceWaters.EPA/600/4-90/030. Environ. Monitor. Syst. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot.Agency,Cincinnati, OH.

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



# Additional References

Plafkin, J.L.etal. 1989.Rapid BioassessmentProtocolsfor Usein Streamsand 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.WaterQuality Standards for the21stCentury. 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 ofWater,Washington, DC.

-. 1991.Biologtcal Criteria. Researchand Regulation. Proceedings of asymposium. EPA440/5-91-005. Office of Water,Health and Ecological Criteria Divtsion, Washington, DC.

-_ 1991.Biological Criteria: Guide toTechnical 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 ofWater,Health and Ecological Critena Dtvision, Washington, DC.

# U.S. EPA Regional Sources of

Technical Assistance

REOION 1: JFKFederal Building, Boston, MA 02203 Rqionel Biologist: PeteNolan/Celeste Barr (617)8604343 Mondring Coordi~tor: Diane Switzer (617)8604377 Water@uhty StandardsCoordi~tor: Eric Hall (617)5653533
REQION 1: 26Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278 Rqiod Bidogict: JimKurtenbach (908)321 Gl6 Monitoring Coordinator Randy Braun (908)3216692 W&r Qudity Sfandards Coordhtor: Felix Locicem (212)264-5691 REQION 3: 841Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 Rqionul Bidogist: RonPreston(304)233-2315 Monitoring Coordirwbr: Chuck Kanetsky (215)5978176 WaterQua/ity Stand&s Coordinator: HeleneDrag0 (215)597-9911

REGION 4: 345Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, CA 30365 Rtpond B~dogut. Hoke Howard /Jerry Stober/Wllham Pettier(706)5462296 Monitoring Coordinator: Larinda Tervelt (706)347-2126 WaterQuaflty Standards Coordrnatur: Fritz Wagener/Jrm Harrison (7%) 347-3396

REGION 5: 230South 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 TomSimon (312)3538341

REGION Et 1445RossAvenue, 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, KS66101 Regional Bldogut: Michael Tucker/Cat-y Welker(913)551~5&Xl Monitormg Coordinufor: JohnHelvig (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: BIBWuerthele (303)293-1586

REGION 0: 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, CA 94105 RtgronalBtdogxt PeterHusby (415)744-1488 Monitang Coord~nutor: EdLiu (415)744-2006 WaterQuality Standards Coordfnator. Phillip Woods(415)744-1997

REGION 10: 1200Sixth Avenue, Seattle,WA 98101 Rcgiond Bldogtsf. JosephCummms (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: 401M StreetSW,Biocriteria Program (WH S86), Washington, DC 20640 ProgramCanduutors: Gorge Gibson (202)260-7580

SusanJackson(202)260-1800

NOlEt Addressprovuftd IStheEPARtponol qa, pcrsonntl tndiartd maybchated of s?tt//lltfoc7/IIIcs