# APPENDIX C

Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

SECOND EDITIONUnited States Office ofWater EPA-440/5-90-004 Environmental Protection Agency Regulations andStandards (WH-585) Agency Washington, DC20460 

# 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

401M StreetS.W. Washington D.C. 20460

# Contents

Acknowledgments

. . . . Dedication

. . . . . . Definitions

. . . . . . Executive Summary

.

Part I: Program Elements ........................... iv

........................... iv

........................... v

........................... vii

1. Introduction

...... ........................... Value of Biological Criteria

........................... Processfor Implementation

........................... Independent Application of Biological Criteria

................... How to UseThis Document

........................... 2. Legal Authority

................................ Section 303

.................................. Section 304

.................................. Potential Applications Under the Act

....................... Potential Applications Under Other Legislation

.................. 3. The Conceptual Framework

........................... Premise for Biological Criteria

.......................... Biological Integrity

............................... Biological Criteria

............................... Narrative Criteria

.............................. Numeric Criteria

.............................. Refining Aquatic Life Use Classifications

..................... Developing and Implementing Biological Criteria

..... ........... 3 4 6 7 7

9 9 10 10 10

13 13 14 14 15 16 17 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 ByStates

. . . . . . 51 Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 53

iii

# Acknowledgments

Development ofthisdocument required the combined effort of ecologists, biologists, andpolicy makers from States, EPA Regions, and EPA

Headquarters. Initial efforts relied on the1988 document Report oftheNational Workshop onInstream Biological Monitoring andCriteria thatsummarizesa1987 workshop sponsored bytheEPAOffice ofWater Regulations and Standards,EPARegionV,and EPAEnvironmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis. InDecember 1988, contributing and reviewing committees

wereestablished(see

Appendix D). Membersprovidedreference materialsandcommented

ondrafts. Theirassistance

wasmostvaluable. SpecialrecognitiongoestotheSteeringCommitteewhohelpeddevelopdocumentgoalsand made asignificant contribution towardfinal guidance.Members of theSteeringCommitteeinclude: RobertHughes,Ph.D. Chris Yoder SusanDavies WayneDavis JohnMaxted JimmieOverton James Plafkin, Ph.D. DaveCourtemanch Phil Larsen,Ph.D. Finally, our thanksgotoStatesthat recognized theimportanceofabiologicalapproach in standardsandpushed

forward independentlytoincorporatebiologicalcriteria into their programs.Theirguidancemade thiseffortpossible.Development of theprogramguidancedocumentwassponsored bytheU.S.EPAOfficeofWaterRegulations and Standardsanddeveloped,

in part,through U.S.EPAContract No.68-03-3533toDynamacCorporation.ThankstoDr.Mark Southerland for histechnical assistance. Suzanne K. Macy Marcy, Ph.D. Editor



## In Memory of


# James L. Plafkin, Ph.D.

iv

# Definitions 

# T 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 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 interacting populations of aquatic organisms in a given waterbody or habitat

q A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody using biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters.

q BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA, or biocriteria, are numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life
use.

q BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY is functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting unimpaired waterbodies ofa specified habitat as measured by community structure and function.

q BIOLOGICAL MONITORING is the use of a biological entity as a detector and its response asa measure to determine environmental conditions. Toxicity tests and biological surveys are common biomonitoring methods.

q A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, or biosurvey, consists of collecting, processing and analyzing representative portions of a resident aquatic community to determine the community structure and function.

q A COMMUNITY COMPONENT is any portion of a biological community. The community component may pertain to the taxomonic group (fish, invertebrates, algae), the taxonomic category (phylum, order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) or organizational level (individual, population, community association] of a biological entity within the aquatic community.

q REGIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIMILARITY describe
a relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant variable. Regions of ecological similarity help define the potential for designated use classifications of specific waterbodies.

q DESIGNATED USES are those uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or segment whether or not they are being attained.

q An IMPACT is a change in the chemical, physical or biological quality or condition of a waterbody caused by external sources.

q An IMPAIRMENT is a detrimental effect on the biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an impact that prevents attainment of the designated use.

q A POPULATION is an aggregate of interbreeding individuals of a biological species within a specified location.

q AWATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of the condition of a waterbody using biological surveys, chemical-specific analysis of pollutants in waterbodies, and toxicity tests.

q An ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of the condition of a waterbody using water quality and physical habitat assessment methods.

v

# Executive Summary


# T 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 integrity 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 EPAachieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act setforth in Section 101and comply with statutory requirements under Sections 303and 304.The WaterQuality StandardsRegulation provides additional authority for biological criteria development.
In accordance with priorities established in the FY 1991Agency Operating Guidance,States are to adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during the FY 1991-1993triennium. To support this priority, EPA is developing a Policy on the Useof Biological Assessmentsand Criteria in theWaterQuality Programand 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.

viiBiological 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 befully integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment methods and that chemical-specific criteria, whole-effluent toxicity evaluations and biological criteria be used asindependent 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 agiven

use designation. They establish a positive statement about aquatic community characteristics expected to occur within awaterbody (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 asspecies richness, presence or absenceof indicator taxa, and distribution of classesof organisms. To implement narrative criteria and develop numeric criteria, biota in reference waters must be carefully assessed.These are used asthe reference values to determine if, and towhat 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 Statewater quality standards to include more detailed language about aquatic life is essential to fully implement abiological 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 useclassifications.
To develop values for biological criteria, Statesshould (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 successof the survey will depend in part on the cad-u! selection of aquatic community components 

### (e.g.,fish, macroinvertebrates, algae).These components should seme aseffective indicators of high 

### biological integrity, represent a range of pollution tolerances, provide predictable, repeatable results, and be readily identified by trained Statepersonnel. Well-planned quality

assurance protocols are required to reduce variability in data collection and to assessthe natural variability inherent in aquatic communities. A quality survey wilI include multiple community components and may be measured using avariety 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 befurther 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 theseanalyses: (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 isnot impaired, no action is required based

on 

### these analyses. 

### The outcome will be indeterminate if the study design or evaluation was incumplete. In this case,Stateswould need to re-evaluate their protocols.
If the designated use is impaired, diagnosis isthe 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 areobvious potential causesof 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 usecannot beeasily 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 20States now use some form of standardized biological assessments to determine the status of biota in State waters. Of these, 15States are 

### developing biological assessmenti for future criteria development. Five States use biological criteria to define aquatic life useclassifications and to enforce water quality standards. Several Stateshave established narrative biological criteria in their standards. One State has instituted numeric biological criteria.
Whether aState isjust beginning to establish narrative biological criteria or isdeveloping a

### fully integrated biological approach, the programmatic expansion from source control to resource management represents anatural progression in water quality programs. Implementation of biological criteria will provide new options for expanding the scope and application of 

### ecological perspectives.

# Part 

# I
Program Elements

# Chapter 1



# Introduction

The principal objectives of the Clean Water Act are ‘to restore and maintainthe chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’swaters’ (Section 101).Toachievetheseobjectives, EPA.States,the regulatedcommunity,and the public need comprehensive information about the ecological integrity of aquatic environments. Such informationwill help us identifywaters requiringspecialprotectionandthosethatwillbenefitmost fromregulatoryefforts. Tomeetthe objectivesofthe Actandto comply with statutory requirements under Sections303 and 304. States are to adopt biological criteria in State standards.The WaterQualityStandards Regulation provides additional authority for this effort. In accordance with theFY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance, States and qualified Indian tribes are to adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during theFY 1991-1993 triennium. To support this effort, EPA is developing a Policy on the Useof Biological Assessments and Criteria inthe WaterQuality Programand providing this program guidance document on biological criteria. Like other water quality criteria, biological criteria identify water quality impairments, support regulatory controls that address water quality problems, and assess improvements in water qualityfrom regulatory efforts. Biologicalcriteriaare numerical values or narrative expressions that describethe reference biological integrityofaquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use.They are developedthrough Anthropogenic impacts, including pointsource discharges,

nonpointrunoff,

andhabitatdegradation continue toimpair thenation's

surfacewaters.

the direct measurementofaquatic community components inhabiting unimpairedsurfacewaters. Biological criteria complement current programs. Of the three objectives identified inthe Act (chemical,physical,andbiological integrity),current water quality programsfocus on direct measures of

3chadal htagtity (ctlomical-specik and Wilde-efRUM totic@) ud, to some degree, physical integrity through several conventional crlt8ria (e.g., pH. turbidity, dlssokad oxygen). lmplem8ntatiOn Of these programs he8 dgnifcantly improved water quelity. However, as we learn more about aquatic ecosyst8w it is apparent that other sources of waterbody impairment exist. Biological impairments from dimu8 sources and habital degradation can be 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, chemicalspecific criteria and whole&fluent toxicity provide only indirect evaluatkms and protection ofbiological integrity (see Table 1). To effectively address our remaining water quality problems we need to develop more integrated and comprehensive evaluations. Chemical and physkzal integrity are necessary, but not suffiderM condition8 to atWn biological integrity, and only when chatnbal, ptlysm, and bkaglcu integrity are achieved. Is eco+ogMl integrity possible (see Fig. 2). BidogtcaJ aft* provide an essential third element for water qu&y management and
serve as a natural pmgreaaion in regulatory programs. tncotporating biologlcal criteria into a fully integrated program directly protects the biological integrity of surface waters and provides indirect protection for chemical and physical integrity (see Table 2). Chemicakpecifk c&ens. whole-efffuent toxicity evaluatIona, and biological criteria, when used together, complement the relative strengths and woakneases of each approach.

Tebbkl.-cumnt WM &wty Progmm Protmctlond tfBa F&urn l.-Ohlo blorunoy Ro~ultr Agm with tnrtnrm Chemlrtry or Rewrl Unknown Problems

lmpalrmetnt ldentlflcation

Chemlcar Evaluation lndxzate No Impairment: Biosurvey BlOSUNey Show No Show lmpalrment lmpalrment; Chemical

\ Evaluation lndlcares

ImDalrment

Chemical Pr 6 &OSUNOy Agree

Fig. 1.In an ~nterwve Survey. 431sites In Ohlo were assessed usmg Inslream chemistry and b~ologtcal sutwys. In 36% of Ins cases, chernca~ 0v~Iu~tions implwJ no 1mpa4rmenl bur b10Ioqc~1 survey ovaluatlons showd imgairrnenr. In !SSBK of the ~8~0s the chemical rnd blologlcaf l sse8amanls agreea Of these. 17% ldenflfiti waters wfth no vmparrmenf. 41% ldentifred walers whch were conslderod ImpaWed (Modlfled trom Ohlo EPA Water Ourl~ty Invenfory, 1968.) Biologicaf assessments have been used in biomonitoring programs by States for many years In this respect, biological criteria suppcrt earker work. However, implementing biological criteria in water quality standards provides a systematic, structured, and objective process for making decisions about compliance with water quality standards. This dbtinguish8s biologiai crit8ria from earlier use of biological information and increases the value of biological data in regulrtory programs.

Thm Eknwntr of Ecological IntogrHY.

ELEMENTS OF ECOUQE AL i PROGRAY THAT DIRECTLY I PROQAAM THATINDtRECTLY INTEQRrTY j PROTECTS ! PROTECTS ChemicalIntegnty i Chemcal Speck Cntenalloxlcs] I 1 WW. Effluent Toxlcrty (toxlcs]

1 phys4cal Integrity Crtterra for Conventlonars I I l.PH. 00. llJrblcilty) 8uAogcalfntegnty ’ Chemical Whole Efftuenc Toxlclty tbiobc response In lab)

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

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

I ELEMENTS

OF ECOLOGICALINTEGRITY DIRECTLYPFIOTECTS ’ INOIKtiClLY PROTECTS

. Chemical lnregnty Chemcat Spedc Crlterla Itox~cs) Bccnterla 1 Identlhcahon of Whore Effluent Toxrctty (~OXICS) Impamnent) Physlcal In!egnty Cnteria for conventlonals 1pt-l.temp Biocntena 1 habital evaluation)

, Do) Biologlca! lntegnly B0critena (biottc response m surface Chemical Who& Eftluent Testing water) IbiotH: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 10assess Ihe efffXtlVeness 01current chemically based cntena

flgurr 2.- The Elemontr of Ecological Integrity

Fig 2. EcologIcal lntegrlty IS l ttrlndlo &on chemlcrl, physIcal. and blologlcat wttegrity occur simultaneously


# Value of Biological Criteria

Biological criteria provide an effective tool for addressmg remaining water quality problems by directing regulatory efforts toward assessing the biological resources at risk from chemical, physical
or biologIcal impacts. A primary strength of biological criteria isthe detection ofwater quality problems that other methods may miss or underestimate. Biological crlterla can be used to determine to what extent current regulations are protecting the use. Biological assessments provide integrated evaluations of water quality. They can identify impairments from contamination of the water column and sediments from unknown or unregulated chemlcals. 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 lowlevel stress), orother 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, channelization) can also be detected. Biological criteria require the dinct measure of resident aquatic community structure and function to determine biological intagrity and ecological function. Using these measuree, impairmant can be detected and evaluated without knowing the impact(9) that may cause tha impa&nent. Biotogical criteria provide a regulatory framework for addressing water quality problems and offer additional benefits, including providing:

l the basis for cttamcterizing high quality waters and identifying habitats and community cornpononts requiring special protection under Stat. anti-degradation policies;

l aframework for deciding 319 actions for best control of nonpoint source pollution:

l an evaluation ofsurface water imwrrnents predicted by chemical anaJyse& toxicrty

5testing, and fate and transport modeling (e.g.,

wastebad al-);, improvement8 Inwater quality standards (including reflment of use ctasaifications);

a process for demonstrating improvements in water quality after implementation of pollution COMf0k; additional diagnostic tools.

The role of biological criteria as a regulatory tool is being realized in some States (e.g., Arkansas, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, Vermont). Biological assessments and criteria have been useful for regulatory, resource protectjon, and monitoring and reporting programs. By incorporating biologlcal critena in programs, States can improve standards setting and enforcement, measure impairments from permit vroiations, and refine wasteload allocatron models. In addition, the localron, extent, and type of brologlcal impairments measured in a waterbody provide valuable information needed for identifying the cause of impairment and determining actlons required to improve water quality. Biological assessment and criteria programs provide a costeffective method for evaluating water quality when a standardized, systematic approach to study design, field methods, and data analysis is established iOh;o EPA 1988a).


# Process for Implementation

The implementation ot biokgical criterra will follow the same process used for current Cbmbdspecciticand wholaeflluent toxicity applications: national guidance produced by U.S. EPAwill support States working to establish State standards for the implementation of regulatory programs (seerTable 3). Biological criteria differ, however, in the degree of State involvement required. Because surface waters vary significantly from region 10region, EPA will provide guidance on acceptable approaches for biological criteria development 

### rather than specrfic critena with numerical limitations. States are to establish a!3SeSSment procedures, conduct field evaluations, and determine criteria values to implement biological criteria in State standards and apply them in regulatory programs. The degree of State involvement required influences how biological criteria will be implemented. It is expected that States WIU implement these criteria in phases.

l Phase I ncludes the development and adoctlon of narrative biologlcal criteria into State standards for all surface waters (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries). Definitions of terms and expressions in me narratives must be Included in these standards (see the Narrative Criteria Section, Chapter 3). Adoption of narrative biological criteria in State standards provides the legal and programmatic basis for using ambient biologlcal surveys and assessments In regulatory acttons

m Pheu II Includes the devetopment of an implementation plan. The plan should include program objectives, study design, research protocols, criteria for selecting reference conditions and community components, quality
assurance and quality control procedures,

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

CRITERIA EPAGUIDANCE STATEIMPLEMENTATION STATEAPPUCATtON 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 tomearnams transtamr wutetoae aNoc8tm Best Managomsnt Pwrces B0qpcal Bosufvey mmlmum requmment sra1r staresgPefmtt conchtmnsMomtor~ng mmee use Best Mnmt Pracrtces nanamwwnonc cntena was1ekme Mocaml

Tablet 3 Swnllar !o chemical smhc cntena and whole effluent tomc~fy evaluaf~ons. EPA ISprovlalng guidance 10States Icthe aoootton01 bdogrcal cntena into State standards to regulate sources of water qualitylmoalrmentMCItrahlng for State p8rsonnd. In Phase II, States are to develop plans necessary to implement bldogical criteria for each surface water type.

m Phree Ill requires full implementation and integration of Mological criteria in water quality standards. This requites using biological surveys to derive biological criteria for classes of surface waters and designated uses. These criteria are then used to identify nonattainm8nt of designated uses and make regulatory decisions.

Narrative biological criteria can b8 developed for all five surface water classifications with We or no data collection. Application of narrative criteria in seriously degraded waters is possible in the short term. However, because of the diversity of surface waters and the biota that inhabit these waters, significant planning, data collection, and evaluation will be needed to fully implement the program. Criteria for each type of surface water are Ilkely to be developed at different rates. The order and rate of development will depend, in part, on the development of EPA guidance for specific types of surface water. Biological criteria technicel guidance for streams will be produced during Fy 1991. The tentative order forfuture technical guidance documents mcludes guidance for nvers (FY 1992), lakes (N 1993), wetlands (N 1994) and estuaries (FY 1995). This order and timeline for guidance 

### does not reflect the relative importance of these surface waters, but rather indicates the relative availabillty of research and the anticipated dilliculty of developing guidance. 

# Independent Application of Biological Criteria

Biological critotia supplement, but do not replace, chemical and toxicobgical methods. Water chemistry methods are necessary to predict risks (particularly to human health and wildlife), and to diagnose, model, and regulate impohent water quality problems. Because biological criteria are able to detect different types ofwater quality impairments and, in particular, have different levels ofsensltivity for detecting certain types of impairment compared to toxicological methods, they are not used in lieu of, or in confkt with, current regulatory efforts. ASwith all criteria, certain limitations to biological criteria make Independent application essential. Study design and use influences how sensitive biological criteria are for detecting community Impairment. Several factors Influence sensrtivlty: (1) State decisions about what ISsignificantly different between reference and test communities, (2) study 

### design, which may include community components that are not sensitive to the impact causing imparrment, (3) high natural variability that makes it difficult to detect real differeclces, and (4) types of impacts that may be detectable sooner by other methods (e.g., chemical cnteria may provide earlier indications of impairment from a bioaccumulatlve chemical because aquatic communities require exposure over time to incur the full effect). Since each type of criteria (bIological cntena. chemical-specific cnteria, or whole-eff!uent tox~ty evaluations) has differ8nt sensitivities and purposes, a criterion may fail to detect real impairments when used alone. As a result, these methods should be us8d together in an integrated water quality assessment, each providing an independent evaluation of nonattainmecrt of a designated use. If any one type of critetia indicates impairment of the surface water, regulatory action can be taken to Improve water quality. However. no one 

### typeof criteria can be used to confirm attainment of a use II another form of criteria indicates nonattalnment (see Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method, Chapter 7). When these three methods are used together, they provide a

### powerful, integrated, and 8ffectlvo foundation for waterbody rnenzd8ment and regulations.


# How to Use this Document

The purpose of this document is to provide EPA Regions, States and 

### others with the 

### conceptual framework and assistance necessary to develop and implement narrative and numeric biologlcal criteria and to promote national consistency m application. There are two main parts ofthe document. Part One (Chapters 1, 2. 3, and 4) includes the essential concepts about what biological criteria are

7amj how they are uaod in regulatory programs. Part

Two (Chapters $6, and 7) provides an overview of the process that is essential for implemenUng a State biological critorio program. Specific chapters include the following:

Pwt I: PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Q Chrptor 2, Legal Authority, reviews the legal basis for biological criteria under the Clean WaterActand includes possible applications under the Act and other legislation.

3 Cheptor 3, Conceptual Framework, discusses the essential program elements 

### for biological criteria, in&ding what they are and how they are developed and used within a regulatory program. The development of narrative biological critena isdiscussed inthis chapter.

J Chapter 4, Integration, discusses the use of biological critetriain regulatory programs.

Part II: THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

3 Chapter 5,The Refonnce Condition, provides adiscussion on alternative forms of reference conditons that may be

### developedby
a State based on circumstances and needs.

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

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

3 Appendix A Inctudes commonly asked questions and their answers about biological criteria. Two additional documents are planned in the near term to supplement this program guidance document. ‘Biokgical Ctiteria Technid Reference Guide’ will contain a cross reference of technlcal paper8 on available approaches and methods for developing 

### biological criteria (soa tentative table of contec\ts in Appendix 41
‘Biological Cfhia Development by State< will provide a summary of different mechanisms several Slates have used to implement and apply biological criteria in water quality programs (see tentative outline in Appendix Cl. Both documents are planned for Ft’ 1991. As previously discussed. over the next triennlum technical guidance for specific systems (e.g., streams. wetlands) will be developed 10provide guidance on acceptable biological assessment procedures to further support State implementation of comprehensive programs. This biological criteria program guidance 

### document supports development and implementation of biological criteria by providing guidance lo States working to comply with requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Standards Regulation. Thrs gurdance ISnot regulatory.

# Chapter 2



# Legal Authority



# T heCleanWaterAct (FederalWaterPollution Control Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Water Quality Act of 1987) mandates State development of criteria based on biologicalassessmentsofnaturalecosystems. The general authority for biological criteria comesfrom Section 101(a) ofthe Actwhich establishesasthe objectiveoftheActthe restoration and maintenance ofthe chemical, physical, and biological integrity ofthe Nation’swaters. Tomeetthisobjective,water quality criteria must includecriteriato protect biological integrity. Section 101(a)(2) includesthe interimwater quality goalforthe protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife. Propagation includes the full range of biological conditions necessary to support reproducing populations ofallformsof aquatic lifeandother life that depend on aquatic systems. Sections 303 end 304 provide specific directivesforthe development ofbiological criteria Balancing thelegalauthority forbiological criteria,



## Section 303

Under Section 303(c) oftheAct, Statesare required to adopt protective water quality standards that consist of uses, criteria and antidegradation. States are to review these standards every three yearsandto revisethemas needed. Section 303(c)(2)(A) requires the adoption of waterqualitystandardsthat ".

..servethe purposes of the Act," as given in Section 101. Section 303(c)(2)(B), enacted in 1987, requires States to adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants for which EPA has published 304(a)(1) criteria. The section further requires that, where numeric 304(a) criteria are notavailable,Statesshouldadopt criteriabased on biological assessment and monitoring methods, consistent with information published by EPAunder 304(a)(8). These specificdirectivesdo not serveto restrict the use of biological criteria Inother settingswhere they may be helpful. Accordingly, this guidance document provides assistance in implementing varioussectionsoftheAct, notjust303(c)(2)(B)

9

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance


# Section 304

Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and publish water quality criteria and information on methods for measuring water quality and establishing water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant, including biological monitoring and assessment methods which assess: q

q

q •theeffectsofpollutantsonaquaticcommunity components (".

..plankton,fish,shellfish, wildlife,plantlife

...")andcommunity attributes (".

. .biologicalcommunitydiversity, productivity,andstability. .."); inanybodyof waterand;

•factorsnecessary"... torestoreand maintainthechemical,physical,and biologicalintegrityofallnavigablewaters

. .." for"... theprotectionofshellfish,fish,and wildlifeforclassesandcategoriesofreceiving waters

..."



# Potential Applications Under the Act
Development and use of biological criteria will help States to meet other requirements ofthe Act. including:

q settingplanningand managementprioritiesfor waterbodies mostinneedofcontrols [Sec.303(d)];

q determiningimpactsfromnonpointsources (i.e.,Section304(f)"(1)guidelinesfor identifyingandevaluating the natureand extentofnonpointsourcesofpollutants,and (2)processes, procedures, and methods to controlpollution

. .."]. q

q

q

q
q

q

q

q q biennialreportsontheextenttowhichwaters supportbalanced biologicalcommunities [Sec.305(b)];

qassessmentoflaketropics statusandtrends [Sec.314]; q listsofwatersthatcannotattaindesignated useswithout nonpointsourcecontrols [Sec.319]; developmentofmanagementplansand conductingmonitoringinestuariesof national significance[Sec.320]; issuingpermitsforoceandischargesand monitoringecologicaleffects[Sec.403(c)and 301(h)(3)];
determinationofacceptablesitesfordisposal ofdredgeandfillmaterial[Sec.404];



# Potential Applications Under Other Legislation

Several legislative acts require an assessment ofrisktotheenvironment (includingresidentaquatic communities) to determine the need for regulatory action. Biologicalcriteriacan beused inthiscontext tosupport EPAassessments under:

q ToxicSubstancesControlAct (TSCA)of 1976

q Resource Conservationand RecoveryAct (RCRA), ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse, Compensationand LiabilityActof 1980 (CERCLA), SuperfundAmendmentsand Reauthorizartion Actof 1986(SARA),
Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,and RodenticideAct (FIFRA);
NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA);
FederalLands Policy andManagementAct (FLPMA).
TheFishand WildlifeConservationActof 1980
MarineProtection,Research,and Sanctuaries Act
CoastalZoneManagementAct

103 Md and Scenic f?ivers Act

3 Fish and W7kYifeCoordinafion 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-Environmental 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 

### tothe 

### effectsof 

### specificpractices on surface water 

### quality.Agencies that could benefit in

### clude:

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 

### andAtmosphenc 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


# Biological integrity and the determination of
use impairmentthrough assessment ofambient biological communitiesformthe 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
Biologicalcriteriaare basedonthe premisethat the structure and function of an aquatic biological community within a specific habitat provide critical informationabout the quality of surfacewaters. Existingaquatic 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 areimpacted by air pollution), minimallyimpactedwaters exist. Measures ofthe structure and function of aquatic communities inhabiting unimpaired (minimally impacted) waters provide the basisforestablishingareference conditionthat may be compared to the condition of impacted surface waterstodetermine impairment. Based on this premise, biological criteria are developed under the assumptions that: (1) surface waters subject to anthropogenic disturbance may contain impaired populations or communities of aquatic organisms-the greater the anthropogenic Aquatic communities assessed in unimpaired waterbodies (top)provide a reference for evaluating impairments in the same or similar waterbodies suffering from increasing anthropogenic impacts (bottom).

13

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

disturbance, the greater the likelihood and magnitude of impairment and (2) surface waters not subjecttoanthropogenic disturbance generallycontain unimpaired (natural) populations and communities of aquatic organisms exhibiting biological integrity.



## Biological Integrity

The expression "biological integrity" is used in the Clean Water Act to define the Nation’s objectivesforwater quality.According to Webster’s New World Dictionary (1966), integrity is, ‘the quality or state of being complete; unimpaired." Biological integrity has beendefined as "theabilityofanaquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity,and functional organization comparabletothatofthe natural habitats withinaregion" (Karrand Dudley 1989).for thepurposesofbiologicalcriteria,these conceptsarecombined to develop a functional definition for evaluating biological Integrity in water quality programs. Thus, biological integrity is functionally definedas: thecondition oftheaquatic community inhabitingthe unimpairedwaterbodies ofaspecifiedhabitatas measuredby communitystructureandfunction.

Itwill often bedifficulttofindunimpairedwaters to define biological integrity and establishthe referencecondition. However,the structureandfunction ofaquaticcommunitiesofhighqualitywaterscanbe approximated in several ways. One is to characterize aquatic communities in the most protected waters representative of the regions where such sites exist. Inareas where few or no unimpaired sites are available, characterization ofleast impaired systems approximates unimpaired systems. Concurrent analysis of historical records should supplementdescriptionsoftheconditionofleastimpaired systems. For some systems, such as lakes, evaluating paleoecological information (the record stored in sediment profiles) can providea measure oflessdisturbedconditions. Surfacewaters,when inhabitedbyaquaticcommunities, are exhibiting a degree of biological integrity. However, the best representation of biological integrity for a surface water should form the basis for establishing water quality goals for those waters. When tied to the development of biological criteria, the realities of limitations on biological integrity can be considered and incorporated into a progressive program to Improve water quality.



## Biological Criteria
Biological criteria are narrative expressions or numerical values that describe the biological integrityofaquaticcommunities inhabitingwaters ofa given designated aquatic life use. While biological integrity describes the ultimate goal for water quality,biologicalcriteriaare basedonaquaticcommunity structure and function for waters within a variety of designated uses. Designated aquatic life uses serveas general statements of attained or attainable uses of State waters. Once established for adesignated use,biological criteria are quantifiable valuesusedtodeterminewhether a useisimpaired. and if so, the level of impairment. This is done by specifying what aquatic community structure and functionshould existinwatersofagivendesignated use,andthencomparingthisconditionwiththecondition of a site under evaluation. If the existing aquatic community measures fail to meet the criteria,the use isconsidered impaired. Since biological surveys used for biological criteria are capable of detecting water quality problems (use impairments) that may not be detected by chemical ortoxicitytesting, violationof biological criteria issufficientcausefor Statesto initiate regulatory action. Corroborating chemical and toxicity testing data are not required (though they maybedesirable)assupporting evidencetosustain adetermination ofuse impairment. However,afindingthat biological criteria failto indicate useimpairment does not mean the use is automatically attained. Otherevidence,suchas violationofphysicalorchemicalcriteria,or resultsfromtoxicitytests, can also be usedto identify impairment.Alternative forms of criteria provide independent assessments ofnonattainment. As stated above, biological criteria maybe narrative statements or numerical values. States can establishgeneral narrativebiological criteriaearly in program developmentwithout conducting biological assessments Once established in State standards. narrative biological criteria form the legal and

14progremnutic buia for expanding biological as8essment and biowwey programs needed to imple ment narrative criteria and develop numenc biological criterir Narrative biological cntena should become put of State regulations and standards.



## Narrative Ctitetia

Narrative biological criteria are general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use de8ignation. Although similar to the ‘free from’ chemical water quality criteria, narrative biological criteria establish a positive statement about what should occur within a water body. Narrative criteria cart take a number of forms but they must contain several attributes to support the goals of the Clean Water Act to provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Thus, narrative criteria should include specific language about aquatic community characteristics that (1) must exist in awatarbody to meet a particular designated aquatic life use, and (2) are quantifiable. They must 

### bewritten to protect the use. Supporting statements for the criteria should promote water quality to protect the most natural community possible for the designated use. Mechanisms should be established rn the standard to address poteotially conflicting multlple uses. Narratives should be wntten to protect the most sonsitivo use and support antidegradation. Several States currently use narrative criteria. In Maine, for example, narrative criteria were established for four classes of water quality for streams 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. shellfish, and wildlife’ (Courtemanch and Oavies 1987). Maine separated its ‘high quality water’ into two categories, one that reftects the highest goal of the Act (no discharge, Ctass AA) and one that reflects high integrity but i8 minimalty impacted by human activity (Class A). The statement ‘The aquatic life

.shall be as naturally occurs’ is a narrative biological criterion for both Class AA and A waters. Waters in Class B meet the use when the life stages ofall indigenous aquatic species are supported and no detrimental changes occur in community composition (Maine DEP 1986). These criteria directly support refined designated aqua!lc life uses (see Section 0, Refining Aquatic Life Use Clauifications). These nenative criteria are effective only if, as Maine ha8 done, simple phrase8 such as ‘as naturalty occurs’ and ‘nondetrimental’ are clearly Op8ratiOnally defined. RUIGBS for Sampling procedUr8Sand data analysis and interpretation should become part of the regulation or supponlng documentation. Mame was able to develop tkese criteria and their supporting statem8nts usmg avaIlTable 4.-Aquatic Llh c lauinwtlon scholno tot Meho’s Rlvmrs8nd streama.

RIVERS AND STREAMS Class AA MANAGEMENT PERSPECllVE

High quality w8tef for prsservatiorr of recrwtional andwobglcal Interests.No diechqp ofany kind penn~tted. No irnpmmmt pormltted. LEVEL OF BIoLOGiCAL INTEGRITY AquarK: life shall be as naturally occurs.

Class A Hgh qualttywater mm llmfted human

tntdemmx. Discharges restnctad to noncontact pfoces8 wataf or htghty treated wastewater of quatityequ~h3~bett8rrnsntherecetwng waler Impoundment permttted. AquattcMe shall be as naturally Occurs

ClassB

Class C Good qualrtywater Discharges of well treated

effluents mm amp& dilution permitted

Lowest quality water Requirements consistent W&I mtenm goals 01the federal Waler QuaMy Law (tlshable and sw!mmable) AmMt water quaMy suttimnl to support l!fe stages ot all 1ndr9enous

atyuatn: species Omv nondetnmental changes Incommunity COmDOSlhOf7

mayoccur Amblent water quality sutfic~t lo supper? :re life stages ot all mdgmous hsh spmes Changes In spexxts composltlon may OCCL-t,’ sfructure and Iuncwx~ ot the aQuatIciomm- *- must De malntarned



### ISable data from water quality programs. To impb

ment the criteria. aquatic life inhabiting unimpaired waters must be measured to quantify the cnteria statement. Narrative criteria can take more specific forms than illustrated in the Maine example. Narrative criteria may include specific classes and species of organbns that will occur in waters for agiven desig nrted use. Todevelop these narratives, field evaluatlons of reference conditions are necessary to Identify biological community attributes that differ signiftcantly between designated uses. For example in the Arkansas use class TV&a/ Gulf Coastal Ecorepion (i.e., South Central Plains) the narrative criterion reads:

‘Streams supporting diverse communities of indigenous or adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. fish communities are charactenred by a limited pfooportion of sensitive species; sunfishes are distinctly dominant, followed by dariers and minnows. The community may be generally chamcttized by the to/lowing fishes: Key Spec/e+RedtTn shinec Spotted sucker, Yellow bullhead. Flier, Siough darter, Grass pickerel; Indicator Speciet-Pirare perch, Warmouth. Spotted sunfish. Dusky darter, Creek chubsucker, Banded pygmy sunfish (Arkansas DPCE 1988).

In Connecticut, current 

### designated uses are supported by narratives in the standard. For example, under Surface Water Classifications, Inland Surface Waters Class AA, the Designated Use is: ‘Exrsting or proposed drinking water supply; fish 

### andwildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, industrial supply, and other purposes (recreation uses may be restricted).’ The supporting narrativesi include:
Benthic inwrte&ates which inhabit loric wuten: A wide vtiefy ot m8winvertebfate taxa ShouM normally 

### bepresent and all functional groups should normally be well represented.

. Waterquality shall be sut’kienr 10 sustsin a diverse macroinvertebrate community of indigenous species. Taxa wrthin the Orders Pkoptera (stone flies), Ephetneroptera (maflies), Cdeoptera (beetles), Tricoptwa (caddisflies) should be well represented (Connecticut DEP 1987).

For these narratives to be effective in a biological crrteria program expressions such as ‘a wide variety’ and ‘functional groups should normally be well represented’ require quantifiable definitions that berzme part of the standard or supporting docur :t;on. Many States may find such narratives in =Irstandards already. If so, States should evaluate current language to determine if it meets the requirements of quantifiable narrative criteria that support refined aquatic life uses. Narrative biological criteria are similar to the traditional narrative ‘free froms’ by providing the legal basis for 

### standards applications. A snrth ‘free 

### from’ could be incorporated into standards to help support narrative biological cnteria such as “free from activities that would impair the aquatrc community as it naturalty occurs.’ Narrative biological criteria can be used immediately to address obvious existing problems.



## Numeric Criteria

Numerical indices that serve as biologrcal criteria should descnbe expected attaInable t:mmunrty attrlbcrtes for different designated uses. It IS Important to note that full rmplementatlon of narrative criteria will require similar data as that needed for developing numeric criteria. At this time, States may or may not choose to establish numeric cnteria but mayfind it an effective tool for regulatory use. To 

### derive a numeric criterion, an aquatic community’s structure and function is measured at reference sites and set as a reference condition. Examples of retative measures include similanty Indices, coefficients of community loss, and comparisons of lists of dominant taxa. Measures of existing community structure such as species richness, presence or absertco of indicator taxa, and distribution of trophic feeding group are useful for establishing the normal range of community components to be expected in unimpaired systems. For example, Ohio uses criteria for the warmwater habitat use class based on multiple measures in 

### different reference sites within the same ecoreglon. Cnteria are set as the 25th percentile of all blologccal index scores recorded at established reference

169110s

within the eaxegion. Exceptional warmwater habitat Index Crltefia are set at the 75th percentile (Ohio EPA 1988a). Applications such 

### asthis require an extensive data 

### base and multiple reference sites for each criteria 

### value.
To develop numeric biological criteria, careful assessments of biota in reference sites must be conducted (Hughes et al. 1988). There are numerous ways to 

### assess community structure and function in surface waters. No single index or measure is universally recognized asfree from bias. It is important to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses ofdifferent assessment approaches. Amultimetric approach that incorporates information on species richness, trophic composition, abundance or biomass, and organism condition is recommended. Evaluations that measure multiple components of communities are also recommended because they tend to be more reliable (e.g.,
measures of fish and macroinvertebrates combined WIII provide more information than measures of fish communities alone). The weaknesses of one
measure or index can often be compensated by combining it with the strengths of other community measurements. The particular indices used to develop numeric critena depend on the type of surface waters (streams, rivers, lakes, Great Lakes, estuaries, wetlands. and nearshore marine) to which they must be applied. In general, community-level indices such as the Index of Biotic Integrity developed for midwestern streams (Karr et al. 1986) are more easily interpreted and less variable than fluctuating numbers such as population size. Future EPAtechnical guidance documents will include evaluations of the effectiveness of different biological survey and assessment approaches for measuring the biological integrity of surface water types 

### and provide 

### guidance on acceptable approaches for biological criteria development. 

# Refining Aquatic Life Use Classifications

State standards consist of (1) designated aquatic life uses, (2) criteria sufficient to protect the designated and existing use, and (3) an antidegradation clause. Biological criteria support designated aquatic life use classifications for application in State standards. Each State develops its own designated us8 classificaUon system based on the generic uses cited in tha Act (e.g., protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife). Designated uses are intentionally general. However, States may develop subcategories within use designations 

### to refine and clarify the use class. Clarification of the use class is particularly helpful when a variety of surface waters with distinct characteristics fit within the same use 

### class, or do not fit well into any category. Determination of nonattainment in these waters may be difficult and open to alternative interpretations. If a determination is in dispute, regulatory actions will be 

### difficult to accomplish. Emphasizing aquatlc community structure within the designated use focuses the evaluation of attainmentlnonattainment 

### on the resource of concern under the Act. Flexibility inherent in the State process for designating uses allows the development of subcategories of uses within the Act’s general categories. For example, subcategories of aquatlc life uses may be on the basis of attainable habitat (e.g., cold versus warmwater habitat); innate differences in community structure and function, (e.g., high versus low spedes richness or productivity); or fundamental differences in important community components (e.g., 

### warmwater fish communities dominated by bass versus catfish). Special uses may also be designated to protect particularly unique, sensitive, or valuable aquatic species, cornmunities, or habitats. Refinement of use classes can be accomplished within current 

### State use classification structures. Data collected from biosutveys 

### as part of 

### a developing biocriteria program 

### may reveal unique and consistent 

### differences among aquatic communities inhabiting different waters with the same designated use. Measurable blotogical attributes could then be used to 

### separateone class into two or more classas. The result is a refined aquatlc life
use. For example, in Arkansas the beneficial use Fisheries ‘provides for the protection 

### and propagation offish, shellfish, and other forms of aquatic life’ (Arkansas OPCE 1988). This use Is subdivided into Trout, Lakes and Reservoirs, and Streams. Recognizing that stream characteristics across regions of the State differed ecologicalty, the State 

### furthersubdividedthe stream designated uses into eight additional uses based on regional characteristics (e E Springwater-influenced Gulf Coastal 

### Ecoreglcn Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion). Within this classification system, it was relatively straightforward fzr

17Arkanou to establlah detailed narrative biological

criteria that list aqwtk community components expected In each ecoreglon (see Narrative Criteria sectlon). These nermtke critetia can then be used to establish whether the use is impaired. States can refine very general designated uses such aa high, medium, 

### and low quality to specific categories that include measurable ecological characteristics. In Maine, for example, Class AA waters are defined as We highest ciassifkatlon and shall be applied to waters which are outstanding natural resources and which should be preserved because oftheir ecological, social, scenic, or recreatlonal importance.’ The designated use includes ‘Class AA waters shall be of such quality that they are 

### suitable * as habitat 

### for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat shall be characterized as free flowing and natural.’ This use supports development of narrative criteria based on biological characteristics of aquatlc communities (Maine DEP 1986; see the Narrative Criteria sectlon). Elobgkal criteria that mclude lists of dominant
or typical spedes expected to live in the surface wa!or ~0 putlcularty effective. Descriptions of impaired conditions are more difficult to interpret However, biological criteria may contain statemenb concerning which specks dominate disturbed sites,
as well as those species expected at minimally impacted sttes. Most States collect biologfcal data in current programs. Refinmg aquatic life use classifications and incorporating blological criteria into standards will enable States to evaluate these data more effectively. 

# Developing and Implementing Biological Criteria

Biological criteria development and implementation in 

### standards require an undentandlng of the selectjon and evaluation of reference sites, measurement of aquatic community structure and function, and hypothesis testing under the scientific 

### method.The developmental process is Important for State water quality managers and their staff 

### 10un

### derstand to promote effective planning for resource and staff needs. This major program element deservea careful consideration and has bea separated out in Part II by chapter for each developmental step as noted below. Additlonal guidance will be provided in future technical guidance documents. The developmental process is illustrated in Figure 3. The first step is establishing narrative criteria in standards. However, to support these narratives, standardlted protocols need to be developed 

### to quanitify the narratives for criteria implementation. They should Include data collectlon procedures, selection of reference sites, quality assurance and quality control procedures, hypothesis testing, and statistical protocols. Pilot studies should be conducted using these standard protocols 10 ensure they meet the needs of the program, test the hypotheses, and provide effective measures of the biological integrity of surface waters in the State.

Figun 3.-Procors for iho Development and Implomontation of Biological Criteria

Develop Standard Protocola (Test protocol sensrtrvlty)

Identify and Conduct B~OSUNOYS ai Untmpolred Reference Sites

t Establlsn Blologtcal Crlterla

Conduct BIOSUNOYJ at Impacted Sites (Oetermlne Impabrment)

Impaired Condition Not Impaired

Diagnose Cause of No Action Required lmpaltment Contmued Monltorbng

+ Ascommended

Implement Control
Fig. 3: ImplO~ntJtlon of bloiOglCJl crltefle raqulrer the in. steal seIecC(10n

of reference sites and characterlzatlon 01real. dent JauJfic CommunmeJ InhSblting thosesites loestabl~sn the reference conditron and blologlcal crttefla. After crrlerla development. lmpactea sites are evaluated using Ine same blosurvey procedures to assess rewdent blota. It lmpairmcnr IS tound. diagnosis 01 cause will lead lo the ~mplemental~on of a control Contlnusd momlorlng should accompany con. trol Implementation lo delermlne the effectiveness of I”. terventlon Monltormg IS also recommended where no #f-n pamem 1sfound toensure that the surface *aler maInfaIn or lmprowes In guallfy

18The next step is establishing the reference condttlon 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 ofthe site must be evaluated using carefully chosen biological surveys. Aquality biological survey will indude multiple community components and may be measured using avariety 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 asthose 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 (intervention) 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


# I ntegrating biological criteria into existingwater quality programswill helptoassess useattainment/nonattainment, improve problem discovery in specific waterbodies, and characterize overall water resource condition within a region. Ideally,biologicalcriteriafunctioninaniterativemanner.NewbiosurveyInformationcanbeusedtorefine use classes. Refined use classeswill help support criteriadevelopment and improvethe valueof data collectedinbiosurveys. 

# Implementing Biological Criteria

As biological survey data are collected, these data will increasingly support current use of biomonitoring data to identify water quality problems, assess their severity, and set planning andmanagement prioritiesforremediation. Monitoringdataandbiologicalcriteriashould beusedatthe outset to help make regulatory decisions, develop appropriate controls,andevaluatetheeffectiveness ofcontrolsoncetheyare implemented. Thevalue of incorporating biological survey information in regulatory programs is illustrated by evaluations conducted by North Carolina. In to integrate biological criteria into water quality programs, states must carefully determine where and how data are Collected to assess the biological integrity of Surface waters.



### responseto amendmentsofthe Federal Water PollutionControlAct requiring secondary effluentlimits for all wastewater treatment plants, North Carolina became embroiled in a debate over whether meeting secondary effluent limits (at considerable cost) would result in better water quality. North Carolina chose to test the effectiveness of additional treatment by conducting seven chemical and biological surveys before and after facility upgrades (North

21

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

Carolina DNRCD 1984).Study results indicatedthat moderato to substantial in-stream improvements were observed at six of seven facilities. Biological surveys were used as an efficient, cost-effective monitoring tool for assessing in-stream improvementsafterfacility modification. North Carolina has alsoconducted comparativestudiesofbenthic macroinvertebrate surveys and chemical-specific and whole-effluent evaluationsto assess sensitivitiesof these measures for detecting impairments (Eaglesonetal. 1990). Narrative biological criteria provide a scientific frameworkforevaluatingbiosurvey,bioassessment, and biomonitoringdatacollected inmostStates. Initialapplicationofnarrativebiologicalcriteria mayrequireonly anevaluationofcurrent work. States can use available data to define variables for choosing reference sites.selectingappropriate biologicalsurveys.andassessingthe response oflocal biotatoa variety of impacts. States should also consider the decisioncriteriathatwill beusedfordeterminingappropriate Stateactionwhen impairmentisfound. Recent efforts by several States to develop biologicalcriteriaforfreshwater streamsprovideexcellent examples for how biological criteria can be integrated intowater quality programs. Someofthis work is described in the National Workshopon Instream Biological Monitoring and Criteria proceedings which recommended that "the concept of biologicalsamplingshould beintegrated intothefull spectrum of State and Federal surface water programs" (U.S. EPA 1987b). States are actively developing biological assessment and criteria programs;severalhaveprograms inplace.



## Biological Criteria in State Programs
Biological criteria are used within water programs to refine use designations, establish criteria for determining use attainment/nonattainment, evaluate effectiveness of current water programs, and detect and characterize previously unknown Impairments.Twenty States are currently usingsomeformofstandardized ambient biological assessmentstodetermine the status ofbiotawithin Statewaters. Levels of effortvary from bioassessment studies to fully developed biological criteria programs. Fifteen States are developing aspects of biological assessments that will support future developmentofbiological criteria. Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Virginia conduct biological monitoring to evaluate biologicalconditions, butare notdeveloping biological criteria. Kansas is considering using a community metric for water resource assessment. Arizona in planning to refine ecoregions for the State. Delaware, Minnesota, Texas,and Wisconsin aredevelopingsamplingand evaluation methodsto apply to future biological criteria programs. New York is proposing to use biological criteria for sitespecific evaluations of water quality impairment. Nebraska and Vermont use informal biological criteria to support existing aquatic life narratives in their water quality standards and other regulations. Vermont recently passed a law requiring that biological criteria be used to regulate through permittingthe indirectdischarge ofsanitaryeffluents. Florida incorporated a specific biological criterion into State standards for invertebrate species diversity. Species diversity within a waterbody, as measured by a Shannon diversity index, may not fall below 75 percent of reference values. This criterion has been used in enforcement cases to obtain injunctions and monetary settlements. Florida’s approach is very specific and limits alternativeapplications. Four States-Arkansas, North Carolina, Maine, and Ohio-are currently using biological criteria to define aquatic life use classifications and enforce water quality standards. These states have made biological criteria an integral partof comprehensive water qualityprograms.

n Arkansas rewrote itsaquatic lifeuseclassificationsforeachofthe State’secoregions.This hasallowed many cities to design wastewater treatment plantsto meet realistic attainable dissolved oxygen conditionsasdeterminedbythe newcriteria.

n North Carolina developed biological criteriato assessimpairmenttoaquaticlifeuseswrittenasnarratives inthe Statewater quality standards. Biological data and criteriaare used extensivelyto identify waters of specialconcern or thosewith exceptional water quality. Inadditiontothe High QualityWaters (HOW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) designations, Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) at riskforeutrophicationare assessed using biological

22criteria. Although spe&fk biological measures are

not in the regulations, strengthened use of biological monitoring data to assess water qualily is being proposed for incorporation in North Carolina’s water quality standards.

n Main0 has enacted a revised Water Quality Classification Law speclfically designed to facilitate the use of biological assessments. Each of four water classes contains descriptive aquatic life conditions necessary to attain that class. Based on a statewide database of macroinvertebrate samples collected ahwe and below ou!falls, Maine is now developing a set of dichotomous keys that serve as the biological criteria. Maine’s program is not expected to have asignificant role in permitting, but will be used to assess the degree of protection afforded byeffluent limitations.

l Ohlo has instituted the most extensive use of biological critena for defining use dasslfications and assessing water quatity. Biological criteria were developed for Ohio rivers and streams using an ecoregional reference site approach. Within each of the State’s five ecoregions, criteria for three biological indices (two for fish communities and one for macroinvertebrates) were derived. Ohio successfully
uses biological criteria to demonstrate attainment of aquatic life uses and discover previously unknown or unidentified environmental degradation (e.g., twice
as many Impaired waters were discovered using blological criteria and water chemistry together than
were found using chemistry alone). The upgraded
use designations based on biological criteria were upheld in Ohio courts and the Ohio EPAsuccessfully proposed their biological criteria for inclusion in the State water quality standards regulations.

States and EPAhave learned a great deal about the effectivenes8 of integrated biological assessments through the development ofbiological criteria for freshwatcH streams. This information is par- !icular!y valuable in providing guidance on developing biological criteria for other surface water types. As previously discussed, EPAplans to produce supporting technical guidance for biological critena development in streams and other surface waters. Production of these guidance documents will be contingent on technical progress made on each surface water type by researchers in EPA, States and the academic community. EPA will also be developing outreach workshops to provide technical assistance to Regions and States working toward the implementation of biological criteria programs in State water quality management programs. In the interim, States should use the technical guidance currently available in the Technical Support Manual(s): Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analysis (U.S. EPA 1983b, 1984a.b). During the next triennium, State effort WIIIbe focused on developing narrative biological cntena. Full implementation and integration of btologlcal criteria will require several years. Using avallabIe guidance, States can complement the adoptlon of narrative criteria by developing implementation plans that include:

1. Defining program objectlves, developing research protocols, and setting pnoritles;

2. Determining the process forestablishing reference conditions, which includes developing a process to evaluate habitat characteristics;

3. Establishing biological survey protocols that include justifications for surface water classifications and selected aquatic community components to be evaluated; and

4. Developing aformal document describing the research design, quality assurance and quality control protocols, and required training for staff.

Whether a State begins with narrative biological criteria or moves to fully implement numeric critena, the shift of the water quality program focus from
source control to resource management represents a natural progression in the evolution from the technology-based to water quality-based approaches In water quality management. The addition of a biological perspective allows water quality programs to more directly address the objectives ofthe Clean Water Act and to place their efforts in a contex?that is more meaningful tothe 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 degraaatlon thal impalrs aquahc species WI/I often rmpact Important wildlife habitat as well. These kinds of Imparrments 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 extending 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 unexplored dimension in the ecology of gravel river beds and potentially in other surface waters. Asdiscussed in Chapter 1,physical integrity isa necessary condition for biological integrity. Establishing 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

TheImplementation

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



# A key step indevelopingvaluesforsupporting narrativeand creating numericbiological criteria is to establish reference conditions;itisanessentialfeatureofenvironmental impact evaluations (Green 1979). Referenceconditions are criticalfor environmentalassessments because standard experimental controls are rarely available. For moat surface waters, baseline data were not collected prior to an impact, thus impairmentmustbe inferredfromdifferencesbetweenthe impact site and established references. Reference conditionsdescribethe characteristicsofwaterbody segmentsleastimpairedbyhumanactivitiesandare usedto define attainable biologicalor habitatconditions. Wide variability among natural surface waters acrossthecountry resultingfromclimatic,landform, and other geographic differences prevents the development of nationwide reference conditions. Most States are also too heterogeneous for single reference conditions. Thus, each State, and when appropriate, groups ofStates,willberesponsiblefor selectingandevaluatingreferencewaterswithinthe Stateto establish biological criteria for a given surface water type or category of designated use. At leastseven methodsforestimatingattainableconditionsforstreamshave beenidentified (Hughes et al. 1986). Many of these can apply to other surface waters. References may be established by defining modelsof attainable conditions based on historical data or unimpaired habitat (e.g., streams in old growth forest).The reference condition established as before-after comparisons of concurrent meaReference conditions should be established by measuring resident biota in unimpaired surface waters.



### suresofthe referencewaterand impactsitescanbe basedonempiricaldata (Halletal. 1989). Currently,two principalapproaches are usedfor establishing the reference condition. A State may opt to (1) identify site-specific reference sitesfor each evaluation of impact or (2) select ecologically similar regional reference sitesfor comparisonwith impacted sites within the same region. Both approaches depend on evaluations of habitats to ensurethatwaterswith similarhabitatsare compared. The designation of discrete habitat types is more fullydevelopedforstreamsandrivers.Development ofhabitattypesfor lakes,wetlands, andestuaries is ongoing.

27

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance



## Site-Specific Reference Condition

A site-specific reference condition, frequently usedtoevaluatethe impactsfromapointdischarge, is best for surface waters with a strong directional flow such as in streams and rivers (the upstreamdownstream approach). However, it can also be used for other surface waters where gradients in contaminant concentration occur based on proximity to a source (the near field-far field approach). Establishment of a site-specific reference condition requires the availability of comparable habitatwithin the samewaterbody in boththe reference locationandthe impactedarea. A Me-specific reference condition is difficultto establish if(1)diffusenonpoint sourcepollutioncontaminates mostofthewater body; (2) modifications to the channel, shoreline, or bottom substrate are extensive; (3) point sources occur at multiple locationsonthewaterbody; or (4)habitatcharacteristics differsignificantly between possible reference locations andthe impact site (Hughes etal. 1986; Plafkin et aI. 1989). In these cases, site-specific reference conditions could result in underestimates of impairment. Despite limitations, the use of sitespecific reference conditions isoftenthe method of choice for point source discharges and certain waterbodies, particularly when the relative impairmentsfromdifferent local impactsneedto bedetermined.



## The Upstream-Downstream ReferenceCondition

The upstream-downstream reference condition is best applied to streams and rivers where the habitat characteristics of the waterbody above the point of discharge are similartothe habitat characteristics ofthe stream below the pointofdischarge. Onestandard procedure b tocharacterizethe biotic conditionjustabovethedischarge point (accounting for possible upstream circulation) to establish the reference condition. The condition below the discharge is also measured at several sites. If significant differences are found between these measures, impairment of the biota from the discharge is indicated. Since measurements of resident biota taken in any two sites are expected to differ because of natural variation, more than one biological assessment for both upstream and downstream sites isoften neededto beconfident in conclusions drawn fromthese data (Green, 1979). However,asmoredataarecollected bya State,and particularly if regional characteristics of the waterbodies are incorporated, the basis for determining impairmentfromsite-specificupstream-downstream assessments may requirefewer individualsamples. The same measures made below the "recovery zone" downstream from the discharge will help definewhere recoveryoccurs. The upstream-downstream reference condition should be used with discretion since the reference condition may be impaired from impacts upstream fromthe point sourceof interest. Inthese casesit is important to discriminate between individual point source impactversusoverall impairmentofthe system.When overall impairment occurs, the resident biota maybesufficiently impairedto make it impossible to detect the effectof the target point source discharger. The approach can be cost effectivewhen one biological assessment of the upstream reference condition adequately reflects the attainable condition of the impacted site. However, routine comparisons may require assessments of several upstream sites to adequately describe the natural variabilityof reference biota. Even so, measuring a series ofsite-specific referenceswill likelycontinue to be the methodof choice for certain point source discharges, especially where the relative impairmentsfromdifferent local impactsneedto bedetermined.



## TheNear Field-Far Field Reference Condition

The nearfield-farfield reference condition iseffectivefor establishing a reference condition insurface waters other than rivers and streams and is particularly applicable for unique waterbodies (e.g., estuaries such as Puget Sound may not havecomparable estuaries for comparison). To apply this method, two variables are measured (1) habitat characteristics, and (2) gradient of impairment. For reference waters to be identified within the same waterbody, sufficient size is necessary to separate the reference from the impact area so that a gradient of impact exists.At the sametime, habitat characteristics mustbecomparable.

28Although not My developed, this approach may

provide an effective way to establish biological 

## Paired Watershed Reference

criteria for estuaries, large lakes, or wetlands. For 

## Conditions example, estuarine habitats could be defined and possible reference waters identified using physical and chemical variables like those selected by the Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. EPA 1987a. e.g., substrate type, salinity, pH) to establish comparable subhabitats in an estuary. To determine those areas least impaired, a ‘mussel watch’ program like that used in Narragansett Bay (i.e., captive mussels are used as indicators of contamination, (Phelps 1988)) could establish impairment gradients. These two measures, when combined, could form the basis for selecting specific habitat types in areas of least imparrmen! to establish the reference condition. 

# Regional Reference Conditions Paired watershed reference conditions are established to evaluate impaired waterbodies, often impacted by multiple sources. When the majority of a waterbody is impaired, the upstream-downstream
or near field-far field reference condition does not provide an adequate representation of the unlmpaired condition of aquatic communities for the waterbody. Paired watershed reference conditions are established by identifying unimpaired surface waters within the same or very similar local watershed that is of comparable type and habitat. Vanable9 to consider when selecting the watershed reference condition include absence of human disturbance, waterbody size and other physcal characteristics, surrounding vegetation, and others as described in the ‘Regional Reference Ste Selection’ feature. Thus method has been successfully applred (e.g., Hughes 1985) and is an approach used In Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et J. 1989). State use of this approach results in good reference conditions that can be used immediately in current programs. This approach has the added benefit of promoting the development of a database
on high quality waters in the State that could form the foundation for establishing larger regional references (e.g., eccreglons.) Some of the limitations of site-specific reference conditions can be overcome by using regional reference conditions that are based on the assumption that surface waters integrate the character of the land they drain. Waterbodies within the same watershed in the same region should be more similar to each other than to those within watersheds in different regions. Based on these assumptions, a distnbutlon of aquatic regions can be developed based
on ecologrcd features that directly or indirectly relate to water quality and quantity, such as soil type, vegetation (land cover), land-surface form, climate, 

## Ecoregional ReferenceConditions
and land use. Maps that incorporate several of these features will provide a general purpose broad scde ecoregional framework (Gallant et al. 1989). Regions of ecological similarity are based on hydrologic, climatic, geologic, or other relevant geographic variables that influence the nature of biota in surfacs waters. Toestablish a regional reference condition, surface waters of similar habitat type are identified in definable ecological regions. The biological integrity of these reference waters is determined to establish the reference condition and develop biological criteria. These criteria are then used to assess impacted surface waters in the same watershed or region. There are two forms of regional reference conditions: (1) paired watersheds and (2) ecoregions. Reference conditions can also be developed on a larger scale. Forthese references, waterbodies of similar type are identified in regions of ecologlcal similarity. To establish a regional reference condition, a set of surface waters of similar habitat type
are identified in each ecological region. These sites must represent similar habitat type and be representative of the region. As with other reference conditions, the biological integnty of selected reference waters is determined to establish the reference. Biological criteria can then be developed and used to assess impacted surface waters in the same region. Before reference conditions may be established, regions of ecological similarity must be defined.

29

# Regional Reference Site

Selection

To del%rmrn% SJWCI~~Cmgional n?f%fenCe Sites k~ stmum candidate watersheds are sekcted from tf~ appopnate maps and evaluated to oetef7nme If they am tVprco/ fewme region An
evatuaticn of lewd of hunan disturbance I.Smade and a numlxr d fuhbvefy undStUbed r8fefenCe sdes are selected from the canddate siies Generate wmwsheds are chosen asregixat reference stes wtmn they fall eNmty mthin typnzal ams of the regon Candidate sites are then selected by aenaland ground surveys ldentrficabcn of candidate stes 6 based on. (1) absence of human dMurbance. (2) stream sue. (3) fype of skearn cnannel. (4) locate mttut-7 a natural or DOIWBI refuge and (5) h~storrcd~ records of resrdenr biota and possble migration barrrers
Final se&c~m of reference satesdepends 07

a detetmmahon 04mrnmd dislurtrence demed from habital evaluacm made duing site vrsirs. For example. indicators of gmd quality streums n forested ecoagms inch&e: It) etienwe. old. natural ripman vegeratm; (2) refab’vefy high heterogentwy in channet 4th and dmh: (3) abundant large woody debars. codrse bottcun substrate or extensve aauafc [r ovemdngng vege- !dtm (41.‘eWively hgh or COnStdf?t drscnarge. (51 ferar/ve/y clear waters wrth natural co& and odcx (6) abundant dfafom. msect, and rish assenmages; Md (7) me pfeseme of pisci#ous birds rrnd mmmals.

One frequently used method is described by Omernik (1987’) who combined maps of land-surface form, soil, potaMi& natural vegetation, and land use within the oonterminoua United States to generate a map of aquatic ecoregiofu tar the country. He also developed more detailed regional maps. The ecoregions defined by Omemik have been evaluated for streams and small rivers in Arkansas (Rohm et al. 1987), Ohio (Larsen et ai. 1986; Whittier et al. 1987), Oregon (Whittier et al. 1988), Colorado (Gallant et al. ?989), and Wisconsin (Lyons 1989) and for lakes in Minnesota (Heiskary et al. 1987). State ecoregion maps were developed for Colorado (Gaiiant et al. 1989) @nd Oregon (Clarke el al. mss). Maps for the national ecoregions and six multi-state maps of more detailed ecoregions are available from the U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvaliis, Oregon. Ecoregions such as those defined by Omemik (1987) provide only a first step in establishing regional reference sites for development of the reference condition. Field site evaluation is required to account for the inherent variability within each ecoregion. Ageneral method for selecting reference sites for streams has been described (Hughes et al. 1986). These are the same variables used for comparable watershed reference site selection. Regional and on-site evaluations of biological factors help determine specific sites that best represent typical but unimpaired surface water habitats within the region. Details on this approach for streams is described in the ‘Regional Reference Site Selection’ feature. To date, the regional approach has been tested on streams, rivers, and lakes. The method appears applicable for assessing other inland ecosystems. To apply this approach to wetlands and estuaries will require addit.ionaJ evaluation based on the relevant ecobgical features of these ecosystems (e.g. Brooks and Hughes, 1988). Ideally, ecoregionai reference sites should be 3s Me disturbed as possible, yet represent watersodies tar which they are to serve as reference waters. These sites may serve as references for a large number of similar waterbodies (e.g., several reference streams may be used to define the refetence condition for numerous physically separate streams if the reference streams contain the same range of stream morphology, substrate, and flow of the other streams within the same ecological region). An important benefit ofa regional reference system is the establishment of a baseline condition for the least impacted surface waters within the dominant land use pattern of the region. in many
areas a return to pristine, or presett(ement, conditions is impossible, and goals for waterbodies in extensively developed regions could reflect this. Regional reference sites based on the least impacted sites within a region will help water quality programs restore and protect the environment in a way that is ecologically feasible.



### 30This 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 professronals 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


# A critical elementof biological criteria isthe characterization of biological communities inhabitingsurfacewaters. Useofbiological dataisnotnew;biologicalinformationhasbeenused to assess Impacts from pollution since the 1890s (Forbes 1928), and most States currently incorporatebiological informationintheirdecisionsabout thequalityofsurfacewaters. However,biologicalinformation can be obtained through a variety of methods, some of which are more effective than others for characterizing resident aquatic biota Biologicalcriteriaaredevelopedusingbiologicalsurveys: these provide the only direct method for measuringthe structure and function of an aquatic community.

Different subhabitat within thesame surface water will containuniqueaquaticcommunity components.

In fast-flowing

streamsegments

species suchas(1)black flylarva: (2)

brooktrout;(3)waterpenny;(4)cranefly larva;and(5)watermossoccur. However, inslow-flowing stream segments, species like(1)water strider; (2)

smallmouth bass; (3)crayfish' and (4)fingernail clams areabundant.

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 problemsofregulatoryconcern. Sinceitisnotfinancially or technically feasible to evaluate all organisms inan entire ecosystem atalltimes,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 success of the biological criteria program. Biological surveysmusttherefore becarefully plannedto meet scientificand legalrequirements, maximizeinformation,and minimizecost.

33

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

Biological surveys can range fromcollecting samples ofa single species to comprehensive evaluations of anentire ecosystem. The first approach isdifficultto interpretforcommunityassessment; the second approach is expensive and impractical.Abalance between these extremescan meet program needs. Current approaches range between detailed ecological surveys, biosurveys of targeted community components, and biological indicators (e.g., keystone species). Each of these biosurveys has advantages and limitations. Additional discussion will be provided in technical guidance under development. Nosingletype ofapproach to biologicalsurveys isalways best. Manyfactors affectthe value ofthe approach, including seasonal variation, waterbody size,physical boundaries, and other naturalcharacteristics. Pilot testing alternative approaches in Slate waters may bethe bestway todetermine the sensitivityofspecific methodsforevaluatingbiological integrityoflocalwaters. Duetothenumberofalternatives available and the diversity of ecological systems, individuals responsible for research design should beexperienced biologistswith expertise in the local and regional ecology oftarget surface waters. States should develop a data management program that includes data analysis and evaluation and standard operating procedures aspartofaQualityAssurance ProgramPlan. When developing study designs for biological criteria, two key elements to consider include (1) selecting aquatic community components that will best represent the biological Integrity of State surface waters and (2) designing data collection protocols to ensure the best representation of the aquatic community. Technical guidance currently availableto rid the developmentofstudydesign indude: Water Quality Standards Handbook (U.S. EPA1983a), TechnicalSupport Manual: Waterbody Surveys andAssessments forConducting UseAttainability Analyses (U.S. EPA 1983b); Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, Volume II: Estuarine Systems (U.S. EPA 1984a); and TechnicalSupport Manual: WaterbodySurveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems (U.S. EPA 1984b). Future technical guidance will build on these documents and provide specific guidance for biologicalcriteriadevelopment. 

## Selecting Aquatic Community Components Aquatic communities contain a variety of species that represent different trophic levels, taxonomic groups, functional characteristics, and tolerance ranges. Careful selection of target taxonomic groups can provide a balanced assessmentthat issufficiently broadto describe the structural and functional condition of an aquatic ecosystem, yet be sufficiently practical to use on a daily basis (Plafkin etal. 1989; Lenat 1988).When selecting community components to include in a biological assessment, primary emphasisshould go toward includingspeciesortaxathat (1)serveaseffective indicators of high biological integrity (i.e., those likelyto live in unimpaired waters), (2) representarangeofpollutiontolerances, (3)providepredictable, repeatable results, and (4) can be readily identifiedbytrained Statepersonnel. Fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and zooplankton are most commonly used in current bioassessment programs. The taxonomic groups chosen will vary depending on the type of aquatic ecosystem being assessed and the type of expected impairment. For example, benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities are taxonomic groups often chosen for flowing fresh water. Macroinvertebrates and fish both provide valuable ecological information while fish correspond to the regulatory and public perceptions of water quality and reflect cumulative environmental stress over longer time frames. Plants are often used in wetlands, and algae are useful in lakes and estuaries to assess eutrophication. In marinesystems,benthic macroinvertebrates and submerged aquaticvegetation may provide key community components. Amphipods, for example, dominate many aquatic communities and are more sensitive than other Invertebrates such as polychaetes and molluscsto awide variety of pollutants including hydrocarbons and heavymetals (Reich and Hart 1979; J.D. Thomas, pen. comm.). It is beneficial to supplement standard groups with additional community components to meet specific goals, objectives, and resources ofthe assessment program, Biological surveysthat usetwo or three taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, algae)and,where appropriate, include different trophic levels within each group (e.g., primary, secondary, and tertiary consumers) will

34provide a more realistic evaluation of system

biological integrity. This is analogous to using species from two or more taxonomic gfoups in bioassays. Impairments that are difficult to detect because of the temporal or spatial habits or the pollution tolerances of one group may be revealed 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 nature of a pfoblem. Available 

### data on the ecological functron, distribution, and abundance ofspecies in a given habitat will help determine the most ap proprlate target species or taxa for biological surveys in the habitat. The selection of community components should also depend on the ability ofthe organisms to be accurately identified by tramed State personnel. Attendent with the biologrcal crlterla program should be the development of identlfication keys for the organisms selected for study in the biological survey. 

# Biological Survey Design

Biological surveys that measure the 

### structure and function of aquatic communities WIIIprovide the information needed for blologlcal criteria develop meat. Elements of community structure and function may be evaluated using a series ot metrics. Structural metrics descnbe the composition of a community, such as the number ot different species, relative abundance of specific speci88, and number and relative 

### abundance of tolerant and intolerant species. Functional metrics describe the ecological processes of the community. These may indude
measures such as community photosynthesis or respiration. Function may also be estimated from the proportions of various feeding groups (e.g., omnivores, herbivores, and insectivores, or shredders, cobcton, md grazers). 8idogical surveys can offervariety and flexibility in application. indices currently available are primarily for freshwater streams. However, the approach has been used for lakes and can be developed for estuaries and wetlands. 

## Selectingthemetric

S8Vefal methods are currently available for measuring the relative structural and functional wellbeing of fish assemblages in freshwater streams, such as the 

### Indexof Biotic Integrity (IN); Karr 1981; Karr et al. 1986; Miller et al. 1988) and the 

### Indexof Well-being (IWB; Gammon 1978. Gammon et al. 1981). The IBI is one of the more widely used assessment 

### methods. For additional detail, see the ‘Index of Biotic Integrity’ feature.



## Index 

# of Bio tic Integrity

The fndex of 810k htegrfy (~a/) IScomm~n:y used for hsh communily analyw (Karr 1981) ‘.ke 

### or~gh-tal 181was ccmpased o/ 72memcs

m SIXmetncs evaluate species ric.?wess a’3 CGmpOSltlon

l .7;roer GI soecees

l fkmoer of darfer soecles

l number ofsucker species

l number 01sunfish speck9s

l number of tnfoleranf species

l proporfron ot green sunfish

l fhrea mefncs quartMy :rophc composhwn

. crcocr:,on 3fomnivores

l proportcn 01msectivoro~s cyprfn es

l proporl~on o~p6cfvores

8 three metncs summarize fish sbundance and condrrlon Mormatm

l numbef ol ind/wduab In sample

l propoRu)n of hybnds
* proponron ol tndivrduefs wrfh drse8se

Each rnelrrc ISscored 7(worst). 3. or 5 (besr, depending on how !hefielddatacompare wllh ar? expecfed valueobtaIned fawn reference sites A: 72mefrrc valueS are Men summed to prowde dr: Overall Index Wue fB8t repfesenrs re/alwe ntegnfy The I8f was desIgned for mldweswstreams. 

### substrtufe

mefrrcs refkctrng fhe saFe sfruc:ura/ and ,!unchona/characfensbcs ha;e been creafed lo accommodare repmona/var’at’crs
m fish assemb/ages (Mller et a/ 1988)

3sSeveral indic8a thrt evaluate more than On0

community chamctwfdic are Jso available for assessing stream mwxoinvertebrate populations. Taxa richness, EPT m (number of taxa of the insect orders Ephemeroptera. Plecoptera. and Tricoptera). and species pollution tolerance values are a few of several components of these macroinver

### tebrate assessments. Example indices include the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI; Ohio EPA, 1988) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI; Hilsenhoff, 1987-l. Within these metrics specific information on the pollution tokrances ofdifferent species within asystem wi?? help define the type ol impacts occurring in
a waterbody. 8idogical indicator groups (intolerant species, tolerant species, percent of diseased organisms) can be used for evaluating communrty biological Integrity if sufficient data have been collected to support conclusrons drawn from the 

### indicator data. In martne systems, for example, amphipods have been used by a number of researchen as environmental indicators (McCall 1977; Bot?on 1979; Meams and Word 1982). 

## Sampling design
Sampling design and statistical protocols are required to 

### reduce sampling error and evaluate the natural varlablllty of brological responses that ars 

### found in both laboratory and field data. High 

### variability reduces the power of a statistical test to detect real impairments (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). States may reduce variability by raflning sampling techniques and protocol to decrease variability introduced during data cone&m, and Increase the power ofthe evalwtbn by incre&ng the number of replications. Sam@lng techniques are rtined, in 

### part. by co?lecUngl -t&v0 sample of resident bbta from tha sama component of the aquatic community from the w habitat typo in the same way at sites being compared. Data collection protocols should incorporate (1) spatial scales (where and how samples are wllectetd) and (2) tamponl scales (when data are collected) (Green, 1979):

l Spatlal Scales refer to the wrdavariety of subhabitats that exist within any surtace watei habitat. To account for subhabitats, adequate sampling protocols require selecting (1) the -ion mthln a habitat where target groups reside and (2) ?hemethod for collecting data on target groups. For exampk, iffish are sampled only from fast flowing riffles within stream A, but
are sampled from slow flowing pools 

### in stream 8, the data will not be comparable.

l Tomporrl Scaler refer to aquatic community changes that occur over time because ofdiurnal and life-cycle changes in organism behavior or development, and seasonal or annual changes in the environment. Many organisms go through seasonal life-c@. changes that dramatically affect their presence and abundance in the aquatic community. For example, macroinvertebrate data collected from stream A in March and stream 

### 8 in May, would not 

### becomparable because the emergence of insect adutts after March would sbgnificantly alter the abundance of subadults found in stream 8 in May. Similar problems would occur if algae were collected In lake A during the 

### dry season and lake B dunng the wet season.

Field sampling protocola that produce quality assessments from a limited number of site visits greatty enhance the utility of the sampling technique. Rapid bioassemant protocols, recently developed 

### forassessing streams, 

### usa standardized techniques to quickly gather physical, chemical. 

### and blobglcal quantrtatlve data that can assess 

### changes in biologicat integnty (P?an<inet a?. 1989). Rapld bioassessment methods can 

### bo cost-effective biological assessment approaches when they have been verified with more comprehensive evaluations for the habitats and region whwo they are to be applied. Biological survey methods ouch as ?he I61 for fish and ICI for mrcroinvortebrates were developed in streams 

### and rivers and have yet to be applied to many ecoIogical regions. In addition, further research is needed to adapt the approach to lakes, wetlands, and estuaries, including the development of attarnative struch~ral or functio~l endpoints. For example, assessment methods for algae (e.g.
measures of biomass, nuisance bloom frequency, community structure) have been used for lakes. Assessment metrics appropriate for daveloptng biological criteria for lakes, Iargo rivers, wetlands, and estuaries are being developed and tested so that a multi-metric approach can be effectively used for all surface waters.

36

# Chapter 7 

# Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method 

# Biologicalcriteriaareappliedinthestandards program by testing hypotheses about the biological integrity of impacted surface waters. These hypotheses include the null hypothesis-the designated useofthewaterbody is not impaired-and alternative hypotheses such as the designated use of the water-body is impaired (more specific hypotheses can also be generated that predictthetype(s) of impairment).Underthese hypotheses specific predictions are generated concerningthe kinds and numbersof organisms representing community structure and function expected orfound inunimpairedhabitats.The kindsand numbers of organisms surveyed in unimpaired waters are used to establish the biological criteria.Totest the alternative hypotheses, data collection and analysisproceduresareusedtocomparethecriteria tocomparablemeasuresofcommunitystructureand function inimpactedwaters.


## Hypothesis Testing

To detect differences of biological and regulatoryconcern between biologicalcriteriaandambient biological integrityatatestsite, itis importanttoestablishthesensitivityoftheevaluation.A 10percent differenceincondition is moredifficulttodetectthan 50 percent difference. For the experimental/surveydesign to be effective, the level of detection should be predetermined to establish sample size Multiple impacts inthesamesurface

watersuchas discharges ofeffluent from pointsources,leachate from landfills or dumps, anderosion

fromhabitat

degradation eachcontribute

toimpairment

ofthesurface

water. All impacts shouldbeconsidered

duringthediagnosis process.

for data collection (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). Knowledge of expected natural variation, experimentalerror,andthe kindsofdetectable differences that can be expected will help determine sample

37

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

size and location. This forms the basisfor defining dataqualityobjectives,standardizingdatacollection procedures, and developing quality assurance/ qualitycontrol standards. Once data arecollected and analyzed, they are usedto test the hypotheses to determine ifcharactertstics of the resident biota ata test site are significantly different from established criteria values for a comparable habitat. There are three possible outcomes:
1. The use isimpaired when survey design and dataanalysesaresensitiveenoughtodetect differencesofregulatory importance,and significantdifferencesweredetected.The nextstep istodiagnosethecause(s)and source(s)of impairment.
2. The biologicalcriteriaare metwhen survey designanddataanalysesaresensitive enoughtodetectdifferencesofregulatory significance,but nodifferenceswerefound. Inthiscase, noaction isrequired byStates basedonthese measures.However,other evidencemayindicateimpairment(e.g., chemicalcriteriaareviolated;seebelow).
3. Theoutcome isindeterminatewhen survey designanddataanalysesarenotsensitive enoughtodetectdifferencesofregulatory significance,andnodifferenceswere detected. Ifa Stateor Regiondetermines thatthisisoccurring, thedevelopment of studydesignandevaluation for biological criteria was incomplete. States mustthen determine whether thywill

accept the sensitivity ofthesurvey orconduct additional surveys toincrease thepower of theiranalyses. Ifthesensitivity ofthe original survey isaccepted, theState should determine what magnitude ofdifference the surveyiscapable ofdetecting.Thiswillaid inre-evaluatingresearchdesign anddesired detectionlimits.An indeterminateoutcome mayalsooccur ifthetestsiteandthe referenceconditionswere notcomparable. Thisvariablemayalsorequire re-evaluation. Aswithallscientificstudies,when implementing biological criteria,the purpose of hypothesis testing is to determine if the data support the conclusion thatthe null hypothesis isfalse (i.e.,the designated use is not impaired in a particular waterbody). Biological criteria cannot prove attainment. This reasoning providesthe basis for emphasizing independent application of different assessment methods (e.g., chemical verses biological criteria). Notypeofcriteria can "prove"attainment; eachtype ofcriteriacandisproveattainment. Although this discussion is limited to the null and one alternative hypothesis, it is possible to generate multiple working hypotheses (Popper, 1968) that promote the diagnosis of water quality problems when they exist. For example, if physical habitat limitationsare believedto becausing impairment (e.g., sedimentation) one alternative hypothesis could specify the loss of community components sensitivetothis impact. Using multiple hypotheses can maximize the information gained fromeachstudy.Seethe Diagnosissectionforadditionaldiscussion.



## Diagnosis

When impairment of the designated use is found using biological criteria, a diagnosis of probable cause of impairment is the next step for implementation. Since biological criteria are primarily designed to detect water quality impairment, problems are likelyto be identifiedwithout a known cause. Fortunately the process of evaluating test sites for biological impairment provides significant informationtoaid indeterminingcause. During diagnostic evaluations, three main impact categories should be considered: chemical, physical, and biological. To begin the diagnostic processtwo questionsare posed:

•Whataretheobviouscausesof impairment?

• Ifnoobviouscausesareapparent,what possiblecausesdothebiologicaldata suggest? Obvious causes such as habitat degradation, point source discharges, or introduced species are often identified during the course of a normal field biologicalassessment. Biomonitoring programsnormallyprovide knowledge of potential sources of impact and characteristics of the habitat. As such, diagnosis is partly incorporated into many existing State field-oriented bioassessment programs. If morethan one impact source is obvious, diagnosis

38will require determining which impact(s) is the cause

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

80b .- .y--_____m......... ‘... .I.

60 STA 3I

HabItat Ouallty (% ot Reference) FXl 4 Three Stream wjmms m-med Ina stream in Kansas using RapId Bloassessment ~~~~~~~~~ (platkjr, e! al ‘gag, ,+ .Tri I

. swlflcant ImDalrments at sbtes below a sewage trearrnevr plant

39Flgwa 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 the highest Ievd of biological integrity for that stream type. Site (l), weil upstream from a local town, was used as the upstream reference conditlon. Degraded conditions at Site (2) suggested nonpoint source problems and habitat degradation because of proximity to residential areas on the upstream edge of town. At Site (3) habitat alterations, nonpoint runoff, and point source discharges combined to severely degrade resident biota At this site, sedimentation and toxicity from municipal sewage treatment effluent appeared responsible for
a major portion of this degradation. Site (4), although several mile8 downstream from town, was still impaired despite slgnifkant improvement in habitat quality. TM suggests that toxicity from upstream dkhugw may still be occurring (Barbour, 1990 per% comm.). Using these kinds of comparisons, through a diagnostic procedure and by using available chemical and biological assessment tools, tha relative effects of impacts can be determined so that sduttons can be formulated to improve water quality. When point and nonpoint impact and physical habitat degradation occur simultaneously, diagnosis may require the combined use of biologicaf, physical, and chemical evaluations to discriminate between these impacts. For example, sedimentation of
a stream caused by logging practices is likely to result in a decrease in species that require loose gravel for spawning but increase species naturally adapted to fine sediments. Tl-Lsshift In community components correlates well with the observed impact. However, if the impact is a point source discharge or nonpoint runoff of toxicants, both species types are likely to be impaired whether sedimentation occurs or not (although gravel breeding species
can be expected to show greater impairment if sedimentation occurs). Part of the diagnostic process is derived from an understanding of organism sensitivities todifferent kinds of impacts and their habitat requirements. When habitat is good but water quality is poor, aquatic community components sensitive to toxicity will be impaired. However, il both habitat and water quality degrade, the resident community is likely to be composed of tolerant and opportunistic species. When an impaired use cannot be easily related to an obvious cause, the diagnostic process becomes investigative and iterative. The iterative diagnostic process as shown in Figure 6 may require additional time and resources to verify cause and source. Initially, potenttal sources of impact are identified and mapped to determine location relativeFlgun 6.-Dlrgno~tlc Procerr

Establish Blolog~cal Crlterla

t Conduct Field Assessment to DetermIne lmpalrment

H \r Y0S NO e No Further ActIon

Evaluate Data to Oetermbne Probable Cause

t Generate Testable Hypotheses ‘Or Probable Cause

No Apparent Cause Obvious Cause

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

Fag. 6 The doagnostIc process IS a stepwIse process for determlnlng the cause 01lmpalred blologlcal Integrity in sur. face .4aters It may reQu1r9multlDIe hyDOthe.SCS tOstIngan0 more *t-an c-e ‘emedlal p:an to the area suffering from biological impairment. An analysis of the physical, chemical, 

### and bidcgrcal characteristics ofthe study area will help identify the most likely sources and determine which data WA be most valuable. Hypotheses that distinguish between possible causes of impairment should be generated. Study design and appropriate data collection procedures need to be developed to test the hypotheses. The severity of the impairment, the difficulty of diagnosis, and the costs involved will determine how many iterative loops will be completed in the diagnostic process. Normally, diagnoses of biological impairment are relatively straightforward. States may use 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



### 41

# References

krgumei8r, P.L. and JR. l6rr. (1966). Apgplylng 8n Index of Slctk lntogrlty Bud on Strwm-Fish Commumtlos: cauidor8- tww h S8mphng 8nd lntrplllt(on. Am. J. Rsh. M8nrgr. 6: 416429. kk~su Dop8fwnmnt of Poluttan Control vld Ecdogy. (1966). Regut8Uon tt&Ushlng W8ter Ou8lity Stmndorcts for Surf813 W8tws of ma St80 ot Ark~ru. RegulrOon No. 2. &hour. 7.7, (1990). PononJ ~mmunrc8ticn. U Engmeenng. Scloncr md Tochnobgy, Inc.. Spukr. MD. Sotton. ML. (1979). Effms ol sew8go sludge on the benthrc nvwto8rmto aommunfty on ttm ~nsharo New York Sight Estlw tout. shut sci 8: 169-180 books. R.P. ud R.M. Hughes (1986). Gudelmes for useumg tha bbtlc communttw of lruhwatu weU8nds. Pagw 276. 82 h JA Kurkr. M.L Ouunmwr, 8nd 0. Braok8.8as. Pmt. NalortJ Wound Sympostum: Mitlgaaon of Imp8ct8 8nd Lo8m8. Aa. St8r WoUnd h4~qm. Bern.. NY. l-h8 Buruu ot Nabnti Arr8lrs. Inc. (1969). FedotU W8trr P&ubon Contrd AU u Amendad by tir Clout W8tw Act of 1977. Wuhmgton. DC. Cumr, J. +. (1975). OuurttiUan of tx&gk8l Int8gry. Peg88 17196 n R.K B8llontrnr Md LJ. Gu8m8. l as., The Integnty of W8t.r. A Symposcum. U.S. Enwrcn Prot. Agency, W88hulgton. 0 c. Chrke. S.. 0. WhRo. end A SCheeael. Mse. Oregon ecologxrl regrpns ma subregons far w8tw m8n8gement. Connectrut 1967. Connutkut Doputmenl of EnvianmrrtJ Plotoctbn. (1987).
war OuJty sundudr. Courtmmh. 0.L (1969). ImprmunUbn of bloultwl8 In am war orulty 8mndudr pmgmn. wlw May sutldua torthe218tCuaJy:PToc.rw.Cotlf.ofwofDfinkIng Wtiu. U.S. Em&on. Pmt. Agency, WuhQton, DC. courtam8nch, D.L 8nd S.P. OHkr. (1967). hlplomentwnl at lwoglal8uldud8 U-Id cfttul8 In wno’r W8W d88uilotbn taw. In Rot, ln8faull Bklmorlrm Md BlobgM Crituia ‘bhrWmp U.S. Envimn. Pru. Aggmcy, Linc&wopd. IL Counm. D.L. S.P. 0d.s. md E.9. kvwty. (1969). bcprp0f8Uon d blologlcal hfarmtkn In w8tu quUlty plumtrig. Envlrorl.Muug*. 13:3641. Courtunsnch, 0.L ud S.P. Dlvlr. (leeo). Why M8he hn Choun to Intograo Bk~bgW Imp8ct Stur&ds into Srrt8 WIU ou8uly law. M8ho Dep. Environ. PIG.. August& h~k8or1. KW.. 0.L Lotut. LW. Rusley 8nd A.& WInborne. coqulum of Mouurd Instrwn 0kioglcu Rosponrr wlm RupcKl8.8 Prrdcted uang WI. cuiml4ahnir tibia Chronk ToxkIty Test. Environ. lox. ud Chomkty 9: 1019. 1026. For-, S. (1928). Forewcwd. In A.E. Rrcbrdscn. Thr battom feun8 of thr mk%lo lllinalr Aivor. 1913-1925. &II. III. N8t. His: SUN. Vol. 17. Atid 7. 367-472. Galut~!u. J.. J.R. Gunman, R.M. Hughes. LS. lscmngu. M. Johneon. J. br. 1. Murphy, T.M. Mumy. and 1. Stuti. (1981). Atecomm8nded 8ppro81.3 lor drtrrmlnlng bologru lntegrrty In bung waters. U.S. Enwron. Rat. Agency. CorVIIIl8. OR. G8ll8nt. AL.. T.R. Whrtner. D.P. Lus8n. J.M. Omrmik. ena R U. Hugha. (1989). Regronelu8tlon 8s 8 Tad for M8n8Qng EnvlranmenW Rescurces. EPA,‘660/3-89X)60. U S Enrron. Res Lab. U S Envlron. Pmt. Agency, CON~I~IS. OR G8mmon. J.R. (t976). The fish pcpul8trons of th8 mlddla 340 km Of 010 W8bUh River. T&I. Rep. 66. &U&O Urrv. W8t8f
R8a0uf. Ret. C8Mf. WIIt L8by8tt8, IN. Gumon. J.R.. A. Splclm. J.L Hemellnk. nd R.L Keesler. (1961). Rolr of 8bctmflshlng In 88swng environmmnw qu8llty Of th8 WlbUh NvU. P8(j#8 307-24 in J.M. 88t8S 8nd C.I. W&a. 8dc. Ecobgr8.l &8assmnts of Et&ems Imp8cts an Commumties of lndrgenpur Aqurtlc Organruns. STP 703. Am. SOC.Tat. M8ter. Groan. R.H. (1979). Slmpbing Des@ 8nd!%btk8l M8moas fcr EnvuonmenW Biologtstr.J. Wiley 8nd Sons. New York Hall. J 0. M L Muphy. 8d R S Aho (1989) An rprsved arvgn for rrsesslng 1mp8cts of watershed pr8mcs on SIll8ti St88ITW. PfOC. tnt. ASS. Th8CWW. A&d. LfMOl. 23. t35965. Hidufy, S.A. C.B. WUson. 8nd D.P. Ln8on. (1967). An8tysts of r8glpne! p8ttemr in l*r w8tu quaI@ u84ng ocarogm8 br I&@ mUUglrnw?t n Mhnoaotr t&o Ra8av. Mn8g8. 3: 337-344. Wunhoff. W.L (1967). An Improv8d bbclc Index of orprc slrarn polbtton. Greet bkes Entomd. 20( 1): 31-39. Hugha, R.M. (19694. Wh8 GUI bido@Ur moniwing t8U ~8 r&nit ma awtronmanul huth of aqurtlc oa38yrtrms In R.C. Wud. J.C. bftl& md G.B. McGrtde, eds.. Proc. Int. Symp. an the De8lgn o( Ww Oulny lntormrtlon Systems. Inf. Su. No. 61. Cob Wlr ReeOur. RIG. Inst. Colorrdo stat. WV.. ft. colh8. Hughae. R.M. (19696). EcoreqbnJ bbloglai crfterk In w8tW OuUlty Sunduds for th 2lrt cwrtuy. Proc. N8U. Conf. Off, Wlrr. U.S. Enulroil. Pfoc Agency. w88hington. O.C. Hughe8. R.M.. E. RouW, 8rid C.E. Band. (1967). The rOt8tiOflShQ Ot qU8tiC 8COrO@On%rtVU buln8. urd phyuoQr8phe provinca8 to tha 

### kzhmyogoogrqhlc rqbnr of Or8gon copeu: 423-432. Hughee. R.M.. O.P. Luren, urd J.M. Omemlk. (1966). Reglonu rrfu8ncr mta: 8 fn8thOd for ws8lng stroun porlut~on. Enwon. 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

43m amwhmty d08~ftmd r(n8ma Emifm. Mm0gr. 9:25% 262. JuUy. RO Jr, PN. Sdy, TM. Murr8y. S.C. !%kJry. M.R. Whitworn.. Md LS. llehhgu. (1967). 1962 wowI F#luln SUN.)! vol. 1 nsm8Swo6. u s. Fbh wndt. serv. KM. J.R. (198t). -u-x of blouc lfw@y u8ing fish oommun8J.a. Ftshenr 8(a). 21.27. KM. J.R. 8nd 0 R Dudly. (1961). EcobgW Pu8pe&w m WIIu Ouw &Xl8 Enwon. h4Ut8~8.% 5666.

- (1967) wogw montorlng uld uwlrownent8l u8.88- mutt 8 mncrpcull fr8rn~rk. Environ. M-0. 11(z): 249256. KM. J.R.. KD. FIuSCh. P.L Anqum&. P.R. YMC 8nU I.J. S&beau. (1986). baus~g bcoroqld Mo@y h rumh~ w0tus 8 nlahd Md fb rabnU0. spa. Puel. 5. II. Nu. HIUswv. Luwn. D.P. J.M. Omemk. AM. Hughu. CM. Rohm. T.R. Wh&
uu. AJ. Klmey. A.L G8iIurt. md D.R. Dudley. (1966). The COff88~fWUtU -M SWti8 mW78 h fbh YSmtd8988 h ON0 SfYm8 Md WWtk w. &lvrm. M~age 10: 81S-626. Lln8t. D A (1966) W8tU Qudlty U8088NcIt Of StlOUlU whg 8 QUtitt8tlW mlktlon method for buwc fllKfOUWUt&f8t8S. J N Am knthdog SOC 7 22233. LyOft8. J (1969) COr78spGf’ld8fK8 pOtWe8fl m8 drtikrrb!l of fish
-W8988 in Wlrconon stre8m8 8nd OmunlKs
OCU8QkJtl8. Am. MIMnd P&l. tP(l): 163.1622. Mwo W8t.f t.hw chS8ilkdWt i%QfJfUn. (lees). MUW Rd8d~&TUMbfl.~36Mbf@4-ASIctbrr466. McC~.PL(l9TT).Commu~~U~nd~Or(ntrglU of the lnhurul knthor of Long Itind Sound. J. Mu. Roa. x221-266. Mums. A.J. 8nd J.0. Word. (lW2). For- ti o(
sew890 sows m m8nno benthic cornmunitur. P8gw 495 512 fn G F M8yer. ea.. Ecobglul Strms md the Nm York 5 ;v SLewe a”c %ragerce?t. Enuu Ret Feb.. CdumDi8. SC Huller 0 L. at U. (1988) Reglonai 8ppl~Uons of YI rnO8x of Dbotu vttegrtty for ~88 in ~8uI resource m8n8gwnent. hhura 13(S) 12. Mlllu. R.R.. J.D. Wllluru. nd J.E. Wlll8m8. (196!+ B of Nath knuian lbha durlrq WmpII cMufy. Fhhorla 14: P-36. North CUolin8 hwftmuW d NalwU A- Mdcc-mmunlty hvmbpmm.(1964).T?w6obromdMuStudoal3epm No. 84-1s. Ohb EmmnmutU M &mcy. (19668). T-he Rde of EWoqWOatahwYrOtdtykaoammt vu. I. Blob@ CUCrctUl8tWUW- OfAdJU8kuk.DlV.W8tU til. MQnnor. Ar*r wrf. W&a Samn,Cdumbu8.

- (1986b). Wlr Qlrrty hwntwy 306(b). R~pon Vd 1. DIV.wau ouu. Mofmf. Af0aa cocnacr.

- (1990). ohb W8tu OuNy sonbrdr. Ohb A&nin. Code 3745 1.AUop@d F&. 2. Onumlk. J.M. (1987-j Eawgbns of the Contwminau United
m. Ann. Au. kn. Geog. 77(l): llbl25. PhUw. 0 K (1968). h48iha’Ti8uulno Blommltoring: A Concqtual bxxoach and Fubrr Appllcaamr. PumC Ok. Off. WIU. EPA 600iX66/244. U.S. Environ. Pru. Agency, wuhhgmll. O.C. m8fih. J.L (1966). W8tor qu8llty baud axlrdr 4 uo8ystrm mcmry In J. CAmr. Jr, ed.. RohabUtltmg 08mrged Ecosynmr. Vd. II CRC Prsu, Boc8 Raton. R Pt8hln. J.L. M.T. 88rbour. KD Porter. S. K Grou. 8na R.M Hugha. (1989). RaptdBioor8s8mor-d Protocob for Us8 In Stre8nU 8nd River% SOnthiC MUrolmwtrbr8tr MU Ftsh EPU444/4-89-&ll U S. Entiron. Prot. &rncy. Wuhmgtan. DC. Poppu.KR. (1968). The Loqc of SclenU(lc Dbcwery. H8rp.r Md Row, New York. Rlcch md Hut. (1979). Pollutbn Ecdogy ol Estuwnr tnver. t8OrUa. Audoms Pres8. Rohm, C.M.. J.W. Giar. 8nd C.C. Smnm (1967). Emurtbn of 017-8OC oampon clutiam of 8tro8m8 In Mr8nsa. J. Frnhw. EmI. 4: 12740. slur. R.R. 8nd FJ. Rohlf. (1961). Blomrtry: Thr Prlndpbs 8ntj R-8 of St0UsUa In Sdoglcu Roreuch. 2nd Ed. w n Fm, Sm Frurmco. SUnford. J.A 8nd J.B. Wud. (1966). Tha hqorh8b h8.bllt of rlvu rarrystrms. N8turr 335: 64-66. Thomu J.D. (1990). PwaonJ ccmmunlatbn. Reef Founbtlon Big Ph. Kay. FL U.S. EntirmmenW Protectbn hency (19638. Water Oualtry stududs Hlndtik. Off W8tOr R8g. Stud. Wlshlngton. D.C.

- (1983b). Technal Support MuwJ: Wrterbow Suvcyl 8nd &StiSmMtS fC4 COduCU~ US. &t8ln8blity AMlySeS Off W8tu Reg. Send. WuMngton 0 C.

-. (19648). Tmnru Suppoe MMuU: W8tMwdy Surveys M8 hUMlWt3 fOf CWldUdflQ b@ kt0htdty AtUty8.8. Vd II. Ertutia Sy8tems. OIY. WUU Reg. Sund. wmlMgbll O.C.

-. (19644). Ttinkll SuppoR Mmurl: Watwbocfy Su~syr 8nd AsuounoUs for Cmductlng Uu NWn8tmltty AMlyres Vd III. l&e S~rmr. Off. W8tu Reg. Stmd. Wuhngton. DC.

-. (19694. Rbk A88e8smmt Guidma for Suporfund-Envirmment8l EvrbrUm Mnu81. Intu. Flm. Off Emerg Remea. Resoonse. Wahlngton. D.C.

-. (1969b). Report of 8 Workshop on B~oIogaI Cr.!er,a Olrgnoso Str8tegtes for lrrpr~rrd Wlt8rbody Uses S-c. mmod by Butulr. Sept. 30.1969. Unpubt.

-. (lW78). Suffwr Wtiw tiltoring: A Frunwrxk for Change. Off. Wltu. Off. Fbtky Pbm. Evd. Wuhington. D.C.

-. (19mb). Rm of the N8tbnrl wrkahop m Instram 8lobglul MonlWng nd Crltwlr OII. WUU Rag. Stand InS&am &O&J. m8 CWWI. fbqbn V. Environ. Rn. Lab U.S. Emmn. Prot Agmcy. cornrb W8u &aMly Aa d 1967. (1969). In m Envkonment Roportrr. l3ur. Nltl. MJn. Wuhingtm. D.C. Whlftlu, T.R.. D.P. L8r88n. R.M. Hugha. CM. Rohm. A.L 681. ht. and J.M. Omulk. (1967). Ohb bnvn Reglon8Iizraon Projau:A Canpmdum of Rwuit8. Environ. Ra. I&J. U S Erwkm. Pnn Agoncy. Cowalla OR. WMtIu. T.R.. R.M. Hugha. md D.P. Luun.. (1966). Corwspmdutco batwun ewrogb~~ and 8pa68 p#temr h strelm ecgyaems In Oregm. Can. J. Fish. Squat. Sd. 46: 1284.

Yodu. C.O. (1969). The dwebpnwnt nd u80 tJobgkel cnterls for Ohb Sd8C8 wrtm. W8tu h8lUy .%~duds for tpe 21# Century. PTOC. Ndl. Cocrf. Off. Wat8c U.S. Envvon Pa. Agefq Wuhhgtm, DC. &MO of Fodorti R8gul8tbns. (1989). Vol. 40, PM 131 10. U S Gov Pnnt Off. W8shington, O.C.

# Appendix A



# Common Questions and Their Answers

Q. How will implementing biological criteria benefit State water quality programs?
A. State water quality programs will benefit from biological criteria because they: a) directly assess impairments in ambient biota from adverse impacts on the environment; b) are defensible and quantifiable; c) document improvements in water quality resulting from agency action; d) reduce the likelihood offalse positives (i.e.,
a conclusion that attainment isachieved when it is not); e) provide information on the integrity of biological systems that iscompelling tothe public.

Q. How will biological criteria be used in a permit program?
A. When permits are renewed, records from chemical analyses and biological assessments are used to determine if the permit has effectively prevented degradation and led to improvement. The purpose for this evaluation is to determine whether applicable water quality standards were achieved under the expiring permit and to decide if changes are needed. Biological surveys and criteria are particularly effective for determining the quality of waters subject to permitted discharges. Since biosurveys provide ongoing integrative evaluations of the biological integrity of resident biota permit writers can make informed decisions on whether to maintain or restrict permit limits.

Q. What expertise and staff will be needed to implement a biological criteria program?
A. Staff with sound knowledge of State aquatic biology and scientific protocol are needed to coordinate a biological criteria program. Actual field monitoring could be accomplished by summer-hire biologists led by permanent staff aquatic biologists Most States employ aquatic biologists for monitoring trends or issuing site-specific permits.

Q. Which management personnel should be involved in a biologically-based approach?
A. Management personnel from each area within the standards and monitoring programs should be involved in this approach, including permit engineers, resource managers, end field personnet.

Q. How much will this approach cost?
A. The cost of developing biological criteria is a State-specific question depending upon many variables. However, States that have implemented a biological criteria program have found it to be cost effective (e.g., Ohio). Biological criteria provide an integrative assessment over time. Biota reflect multiple impacts. Testing for impairment of resident aquatic communities can actually require less monitoring than would be required to detect many impacts using more traditional methods (e.g., chemical testing for episodic events).

45

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

Q. Whatare some concerns ofdischargers? A. Dischargers are concerned that biological criteria will identity impairments that may be erroneously attributed to a discharger who is not responsible. This is a legitimate concern that the discharger and State must address with careful evaluations and diagnosis of cause of impairment. However, it is particularly important to ensure that waters used for the reference condition are not already impaired as may occur when conducting site-specific upstream-downstream evaluations.Although a discharger may be contributing to surface water degradation, it may be hard to detect using biosurveymethods ifthewaterbody isalso impaired from other sources.This can be evaluated by testing the possible toxicity of effluent-free reference waters onsensitiveorganisms. Dischargers are also concerned that current permit limits may become more stringent if it is determined that meeting chemical and whole-effluent permit limits are not sufficient to protect aquatic life from discharger activities. Alternative forms of regulation may be needed; these are not necessarily financially burdensome but could involveadditionalexpense. Burdensome monitoring requirements areadditional concerns. With new rapid bioassessment protocols availableforstreams,and under development for other surface waters, monitoring resident biota is becoming more straightforward. Since restdent biota provide an integrative measure of environmental impacts over time. the need for continual biomonitoring is actually lower than chemical analyses and generally less expensive. Guidance is being developed to establish acceptable research protocols, quality assurance/quality control programs and training opportunities to onsurethatadequate guidance isavailable.

Q. Whatare the concerns of environmentalists? A. Environmentalistsareconcernedthatbiologicalcriteriacould be usedtoalter restrictionsondischargers if biosurvey data indicate attainment of a designated use even though chemical criteria and/orwhole-effluenttoxicityevaluationspredict impairment. Evidence suggests that this occurs infrequently (e.g., in Ohio, 6 percent of 431 sites evaluated using chemical-specific criteria and biosurveys resulted in this disagreement). Inthose caseswhere evidencesuggests morethanoneconclusion, independent application applies. If biological criteria suggest impairment but chemicalspecificand/orwhole-effluent toxicity impliesattainment of the use, the cause for impairment of the biota is to be evaluated and, where appropriate. regulated. Ifwhole effluentand/or chemical-specific criteria implyimpairmentbut no impairment isfound in resident biota, the whole-effluent and/or chemical-specificcriteria providethebasisfor regulation.

Q. Do biological criteria have to be codified in State regulations? A. State water quality standards require three components: (1) designated uses, (2) protective criteria, and (3) an antidegradation clause. For criteria to be enforceable they must be codified in regulations. Codification could involve general narrative statements of biological criteria, numeric criteria,and/orcriteriaaccompanied byspecifictesting procedures. Codifying general narratives provides the most flexibility-specific methods for date collectionthe leastflexibility-for incorporating newdata and improvingdata gathering methodsas the biological criteria program develops. States should carefully consider how to codify these criteria.

Q. How will biocriteria fitinto the agency's method of implementing standards? A. Resident biota integrate multiple impacts over time and can detect impairment from known and unknown causes. Biocriteria can be used to verify improvement in water quality in response to regulatory effortsand detect continuing degradation ofwaters. They provideaframework fordeveloping improved best management practices for nonpoint source impacts. Numeric criteria can provide effectivemonitoringcriteriafor inclusion in permits.

Q. Whodetermines the values forbiological criteria and decides whether a waterbody meets the criteria? Theprocess ofdeveloping biological criteria, including refined use classes, narrative criteria. and numeric criteria, must include agency managers, staff biologists, and the public through public hearings and comment. Once criteria are established. determining attainment\nonattainment of a use re46quires 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 

### isavailable
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 Reference 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 PurposeoftheTechnicalSupport Document q Organization ofthe Support Document

SECTION 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
q Definitions q Biocriteriaandthe ScientificMethod q Hypothesis FormulationandTesting q Predictions q DataCollection and Evaluation

SECTION 3.QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
q DataQualityObjectives qQualityAssurance Program Plansand Project Plans q ImportanceofQA/QCfor Bioassessment qTraining q Standard Procedures q Documentation q Calibration of Instruments

SECTION 4. PROCESS FORTHE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOCRITERIA
q Designated Uses q Reference SiteorCondition q Biosurvey q BiologicalCriteria

49

### Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

SECTION 5. BIOASSESSMENT STRATEGIES TO DETERMINE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
q Detailed Ecological Reconnaissance q BiosurveysofTargetedCommunity Segments q Rapid Bioassessment Protocols q Bioindicators

SECTION 6. ESTABLISHING THE REFERENCE CONDITION
q Reference Conditions BasedonSite-Specific Comparisons q ReferenceConditions Basedon RegionsofEcological Similarity q Reference Conditions Basedon HabitatAssessment

SECTION 7.THE REFERENCE CATALOG

SECTION 8.THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT ON BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
q HabitatAssessmentforStreamsand Rivers q HabitatAssessmentfor Lakesand Reservoirs q HabitatAssessmentfor Estuariesand Near-CoastalAreas q HabitatAssessmentforWetlands

SECTION 9. BIOSURVEY METHODS TOASSESS BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
q BioticAssessment in Freshwater q BioticAssessment inEstuariesand Near-CoastalAreas q BioticAssessment inWetlands

SECTION 10. DATAANALYSIS
q SamplingStrategy andStatisticalApproaches q Diversity Indices q Biological Indices q CompositeCommunity 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 1Bioassessment decision matrix q Figure 2 Specimenofa reference citation inthe ReferenceCatalog

50

# Appendix C



# Biological Criteria Development by States

Table of Contents (tentative)

I. Introduction II. KeyConcepts III. BiologicalCriteriaAcrossthe50States Iv. CaseStudyofOhio A. Introduction 1. Derivation

ofBiological

Criteria 2. Application

ofBiological

Criteria B. History VII.

1. Development

ofBiological

Criteria 2. CurrentStatus

ofBiological

Criteria C. Discussion 1. Program

Resources 2. Comparative

CostCalculations 3. Program

Evaluation V. CaseStudyofMaine A. Introduction 1. Derivation

ofBiological

Criteria 2. Application

ofBiological

Criteria B. History VIII.

1. Development

ofBiological

Criteria 2. Program

Rationale C. Discussion 1. Program

Resources 2. Program

Evaluation IX.

VI. CaseStudyofNorthCarolina A. Introduction 1. Derivation

ofBiological

Criteria 2. Application

ofBiological Criteria B. History 1 Development

ofBiological

Criteria 2. CurrentStatus

ofBiological

Criteria C. Discussion 1. Program

Resources 2. Program

Evaluation CaseStudyofArkansas A. Introduction 1. Derivation

ofBiological

Criteria 2. Application

ofBiological

Criteria B. History 1. Development

ofBiological

Criteria 2. CurrentStatus

ofBiological

Criteria C. Discussion 1. Program

Resources 2. Program

Evaluation CaseStudyofFlorida A. Introduction 1. Derivation

ofBiological

Criteria 2. Application

ofBiological

Criteria B. History C. Discussion
CaseSummariesofSixStates A. Connecticut B. Delaware C. Minnesota D. Nebraska E. NewYork F. Vermont

51

# Appendix D


# Contributors and Reviewers

Contributors

Gerald Ankloy USEPA Environmental Research Lab 6201 Congdon Blvd. Duluth, MN 55804
John Arthur USEPA ERL-Duluth 6201 Congdon Blvd. Duluth, MN 55804
Patricia Bailey Division ofWater Quality Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155
Joe Ball Wisconsin DNR Water Resource Management (WR/2) P.O.Box 7291 Madison, WI 53707
Michael Barbour EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc. Hunt Valley/Loveton Center 15 Loveton Circle Sparks, MD 21152 Raymond Beaumier Ohio EPA Water Quality Laboratory 1030 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43212 John Bender Nebraska Department of Environmental Control P.O.Box 94877 State House Station Lincoln, NE 69509
Mark Blosser Delaware Department of Natural Resources -Water Quality Mgmt. Branch P.O.Box 1401, 89 Kings Way Dover, DE 19903
Robert Bode New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Box 1397 Albany, NY 12201
LeeBridges Indiana Department of Environment Management 5500 W. Bradbury Indianapolis, IN46241
Claire Buchanan Interstate Commission on Potomac River Basin 6110 Executive Boulevard Suit. 300 Rockville, MD20852-3903
David Courtemanch Maine Department of Environmental Protection Director, Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies State House No. 17 Augusta, ME 04333 Norm Crisp Environmental Services Division USEPA Region 7 25 Funston Road Kansas City, KS 66115
Susan Davies Maine Department of Environmental Protection State House No. 17 Augusta, ME 04333 Wayne Davis Environmental Scientist Ambient Monitoring Section USEPA Region 5 536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA) Chicago, IL 60605
Kenneth Duke Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201-2693 Gary Fandrel Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Division ofWater Quality 520 La Fayette Road North St Paul, MN 55155
Steve Fiske Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 6 Baldwin St Montpelier, VT 05602

53Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

John Glese Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology P.O. Box 9583 8001 National Drive Little Rock, AR72209
Steve Glomb Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection USEPA (WN-556F) 401 MStreet SW Washington, DC 20460
Steve Goodbred Division of Ecological Services U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1825 B.Virginia Street Annapolis, MD 21401
Jim Harrison USEPA Region 4 345 Courtland St. (4WM-MEB) Atlanta, GA30365 Margarete Heber Office ofWater Enforcements and Permits USEPA (EN-336) 101 MStreet SW Washington, DC 20460
Steve Hedtke US EPAEnvironmental Research Lab 6201 Congdon Blvd. Duluth, MN 55804
Robert Hite Illinois EPA 2209 West Main Marion, IL 62959
Linda Holst USEPA Region 3 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107
Evan Hornig USEPA Region 6 First International

Bank at Fountain Place 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202 William B.Horning II Aquatic Biologist, Project Management Branch USEPA/ORD Env. Monitoring Systems 3411 Church St. Cincinnati, OH 45244

Robert Hughes NSI Technology Services 200 SW35th Street Corvallis, OR 97333
Jim Hulbert Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Suite 232 3319 Maguire Blvd. Orlando, FL32803
James Kennedy Institute ofApplied Sciences North Texas State University Denton, TX 76203
Richard Langdon Vermont Department of Environmental Conversation -10North 103S. Main Street Waterbury, VT05676
John Lyons Special Projects Leader Wisconsin Fish Research Section Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 3911 Fish Hatchery Rd. Fitchburg, WI 53711 Anthony Maciorowski Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Suzanne Marcy Office of Water Regulations and Standards USEPA (WH585) 401 M St. SW Washington. DC 20460
Scott Mattee Geological Survey ofAlabama PO Drawer O Tuscaloosa. AL36486 John Maxted Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 39 Kings Highway, P.O.Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903
Jimmie Overton NC Dept of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 512 N. Salisbury Raleigh, NC27611-7687
Steve Paulson EnvironmentalResearch Center University of Nevada - Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkey Las Vegas, NV 89154 Loys Parrish USEPA Region 8 P.O. Box 25366 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225
David Penrose Environmental Biologist North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC27611

Don Phelps USEPA Environmental Research Lab South Ferry Road Narragansett, RI 02882

Ernest Pizzuto Connecticut Department Environmental Protection 122Washington Street Hartford, CT 06115
James Plafkin Office ofWater Regulations and Standards USEPA (WH553) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460
Ronald Preston Biological Science Coordinator USEPA Region 3 Wheeling Office (3ES12) 303 Methodist Building Wheeling, WV 26003

54Appaar 0: cmtnbmn ma R@wowws

Ronald Raschko EcoIogLcalSupport Branch Environmental Sawices Division USEPARegion 4 Athens, GA 30613
Mark Southwlrnd Dyruunac Corporation The Dynamac Building 11140 Rickville Pike Rockville. MD 26652
James Thomar Newfound .Harbor Marine Institute Rt. 3. Box 170 Big Pine Key, FL 33643

Nelson Thomas USEPA. ERL-Duluth Senior Advisor for National Program 6201 Congdon Blvd. Duluth. MN 55804



## Reviewers

Paul Adrmur Wetlands Program NSI Technology Services 200 S.W. 35th Street Corvallis. OR 97333

Rick Albrlght USEPA Regron 10 (WD-139) 1200 6th Avenue NW Seattk. WA98101
Mu Andorson USEPA Region 5 536 S. Clark St. (SSCRL) Chicago, IL 60605

Michael D. Bllger USEPA Region 1 John F. Kennedy Building Boston. MA 02203

Susan Boldt University of Wisconsin Extension Madison, WI
Paul Campanellr OKice of Policy, Planning and Evaluation USEPA (PM 222-A) 401 M St. S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Randall Walb USEPA Region 3 Program Support Branch (3WMIO) 641 Chesnut Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107
John Wegnyn Manager, Water Quality Standards Unit Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2005 North Central Avonuo Phoenix, AZ 95004
Thorn Whlttler NSI Technology Servicer 200 SW 35th Street Corvallis, OR 97333
Bill Wurrthole Water Management Division USEPA Region 8 (WM-SP) 999 16th Street Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202

Clndy Carusone New York Department of Environmental Conservation Box 1397 Albany, NY 12201

Brian Choy Hawaii Department of Health 645 Halekauwilr St Honolulu, HI 96813
Bill Cnal Michigan DNR Surface Water Quality Division P.O. Box 30026 Lansing. Ml 46999
Phil Crockor Water Quality Management Branch USEPA Rq$on 6 I 1U5 Ross Ave. Dakas, TX 75202-2733
Konnoth Cummlnr Appalachian Environmental Lab University of Marytand Frostburg, MD 21532
Jeff DeShon Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section 1030 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43212 Chrlr Yodor Asat. Manager, S&ace Water SOCtiM Water Duality Monitoring and Assessment Ohio EPA-Water Duality Lab 1030 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43212

David Yount US EPA Environmental Research Lob 6201 Congdon Blvd. Duluth, MN 55804
Lee Zenl Interstate Commission on Potomac River Basin 6110 Executive Boulevard Suite X0 Rockville. MD 20852-3903

Petrr Farrlngton Biomonitoring Assessmenti J%cer Water Ouality Branch Inland Waters Directorate Environment Canada Ottawa, Ontano Kl A OH3

Konnrth Fonnor USEPA Region 5 Water Ouality Branch 23os.lharbom Chicago, IL 60604

Jack Fmda Ohio EPA Surface Water Section 1030 King Avenue Cdumbur, OH 43212 Toby Prrvrrt Illinois EPA Division of Water Pollution Control 2200 Churchill Road Springfie#, IL 62706 Cynthia FuUor USEPA GLNPO 230 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604



### 55JeffQagler

USEPA Region 5 230 s. Deubom (swos) Chicago, IL 60604 Mary Jo Garrols Muyland Department of the Environment 2500 Broenmg Highway Building 30 Baltimore, MD 21224
Jlm Gtattina USEPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn (SWOP) Chicago, IL 60604

Jlm Groan Environmental Sorvrces Division USEPA Regron 3 303 Methodist Bldg. 11th andChaplme Wheelmg, WV 26003
Larlndo Gronnor USEPA Regton 4 345 Courtland st. Athnta. GA 30365

Martln Gum U.S. f3eotogrcal Survey, WRD P.O. Box 2657 Ralelqh,NC 27602-2857

Rick Hafele Oregon Department EnvIronmental Ouatrty 1712 S.W. 11th Street Portland, OR 97201
Steve Helrkary MN Pollution Control Agency 520 bfayette Road St Paul. MN 55155
Rolllr Hemmett USEPA Region 2 Envirmmental Services Woodndge Avenue Edison, NJ 06637
Chartor Hocutt Horn Point Environmental LPboratory Box 775 Unrversrty of Maryland Cambridge,MD 21613 Hoke Howard USEPA Region 4 College Station Road Athens, GA 30605
Poter Husby USEPA Regron 9 215 Freemont St San Francisco, CA 94105
Gerald J8cobi Environmental Sciences School of Science and Technology New Mexico Highlands Umverslty LasVegas, NM 67701
James Karr Department of Biology Virglnla Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061.0406
Roy Klelnsrsscr Texas Parks and Wlldllfe P.O. Box 947 San Marco% TX 76667
Don Klemm USEPA Envrronmental Monttorlng andSystems Laboratory Cincinnati, OH 45266
Robln Knox Louisiana Department of Envwonment QuaMy P.O. Box 44091 Baton Rouge, LA 70726
Robert Koroncal Water Management Division USEPA Region 3 647 Chestnut Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107
Jlm Kurrtonbach USEPA Regron 2 Woodbndge Ave. Raritan Depot Bldg. 10 Edison, NJ 06637 Roy Kwlatkowskl Waler QualityCbiectives Division Water Ouality Branch Envtronment Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada KlA OH3 Jlm LaJorchak EMSLCincinnati U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gnclnnati. OH
David Lonat NC Dept of Natural Resources and Community Development 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27611

Jamrs Lury USEPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn (SWOS) Chicago. IL 60604
Terry Maret Nebraska Department of Environmental Control Box 94677 Sta:e House Station Lmcoln. NE 69509 Wally Matsunaga Illinois EPA 1701 First Ave., #600 Maywood. IL60153
Robert Moshor lllinols EPA 2200 Churchill Rd. Ml5 P.O. Box 19276 Sormgfleld. IL 62794
Philllp Oshlda USEPA Region 9 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105
Bill Paintor USEPA, OPPE 401 M Street, SW (W435B) Washington, DC 20460
Rob Pepln USEPA Region S 230 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604
Wayne Poppe Tennessee Valley Authority 270 Haney Bldg. Chattanooga, TN 37401

Waltor Redmon USEPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn Chlcago, IL 60604



### 56bndon Rorr

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 BlairStone RouI Tallahassee, FL 32399

Joan Robwta Anrona Department of Enwronmental QuaMy 2655 East Magnolia Phoemx, AZ 65034

Charlor Saylor Tennessee Valley Authority Field Operatlons Eastern Area Divtslon of Sewces and Field Operations Noms, TN 37626

Robert Schacht lllinols EPA 1701 First Avenue Maywood. IL 60153

Duane Schuettpclr Chief. Surface Water Standards and MomtonnQ Section-Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Box 792 1 Madison, WI 53707 BNCO Shacklrford Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 8001 National Drive Little Rock, AR 72209
Larry Shepard USEPA ReQlOn 5 230 S. Dearborn (5WQP) Chicago, IL 60604
Jerry Shulto Ohio River Sanitation Commlsson 49 E. 4th St.. Suite 851 Cincinnati, OH 45202

Thomar Simon USEPA Region 5 536 S. Clark St. (SSCRL) Chicago, IL 60605

J. Slngh USEPA ReQlon 5 536 Clark St. (SSCDO) ChlCaQO, IL 60605 Marc Smith 6iOmonltorinQ Section Ohio EPA 1030 KiflQ Avenue Columbus, OH 43212

Denise Steurer USEPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn ChlCaQO, IL 60604

Wllllam Tucker SupervIsor, Water Ouallty Monltorlng lllinols EPA Dwslon of Waler Pollution Control 4500 S. Sixth Street Springfield, IL 62706 Stephen Twldwell Texas Water CornmIssIon P 0. Box I 3087 Capital Station Aurlln, TX 7871 l-3037

Barbara Wllllams USEPA Region 5 230 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604

57