Summary of Biological 

Assessment Programs and 

Biocriteria Development for 

States, Tribes, Territories, and 

Interstate Commissions: 

Streams and Wadeable Rivers 
EPA-822-R-02-048 

December 2002 

Office of Environmental Information & Office of Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Notice 

This document has been reviewed and approved in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency policy. Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey and should not be 

interpreted as conveying, official USEPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation for use. 

Appropriate Citation: 

USEPA. 2002. Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria 

Development for States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and 

Wadeable Rivers. EPA-822-R-02-048. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Environmental Information and Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

Cover photo by Wayne Davis, USEPA. This document can be downloaded from EPA’s website for 

Biological Indicators of Watershed Health: 

http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/ 
Foreword 

We are pleased to release the 2002 Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria 

Development for States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable 

Rivers. This summary, a joint project by the Office of Water and the Office of Environmental Information, 

provides an abundance of technical and programmatic information which illustrates the progress States, 

Tribes, Territories and Interstate Commissions are making in the utilization of biological assessments and 

criteria in their water programs. 

Biological assessments and criteria are crucial tools for measuring the health of water bodies and for 

protecting aquatic life. Biological assessments evaluate the condition of a water body using surveys and 

other direct measurements of aquatic life—aquatic vegetation and algae, fish, insects, crayfish, 

salamanders, frogs, worms, snails, mussels, etc. Biological criteria are numeric or narrative targets that 

can be set to define the desired biological condition of a water body and can even be adopted into State 

and Tribal water quality standards. In combination with other available water quality tools, such as 

chemical pollutant criteria, the use of biological assessments and criteria give States, Tribes and Interstate 

Commissions better tools than ever before for restoring and maintaining the quality of our Nation’s water 

bodies. 

The progress made by the States, Tribes and Interstate Commissions as reported in this Summary is 

impressive. Since our previous assessments in 1995 and 1989, significant progress has been made by 

virtually every State and an increasing number of Tribes and Interstate Commissions. Biological 

assessments and criteria are in the mainstream of water management programs throughout the Country. 

More States than ever before are using biological criteria in their water quality programs as definitive 

standards. 

We encourage you to take time to review this Summary to appreciate the progress that is being made. 

The information in the report is valuable to assess the progress of one program relative to other programs 

across the country. In addition, it may be possible to learn of new and different ways to employ biological 

assessments and criteria by better understanding what others have done. This Summary is another 

example of the value of public access to information and data. EPA firmly believes that analysis of and 

access to such information is the key to better environmental decision making. And lastly, since every 

State, Tribe and Interstate Commission reported in the Summary helped assemble the information, we 

thank you for your help and participation. 

Foreword December 2002 i 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

December 2002 ii 
Acknowledgments 

Development and production of this document, Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and 

Biocriteria Development for States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and 

Wadeable Rivers, was coordinated by USEPA’s Office of Environmental Information in partnership with 

the Agency’s Biocriteria Team, comprised of members from the Office of Water (Office of Science & 

Technology, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds) and the Office of Environmental Information. 

The goal of the project was to obtain the current status of biological assessment programs and biocriteria 

development for streams and wadeable rivers. 

The project team for this document was comprised of members from the USEPA offices listed above as 

well as members from the Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI); the Technology, Planning, and 

Management Corporation (TPMC); and Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tt). This work was completed under USEPA 

Contract No. 50-CMAA-900065 to Technology Planning and Management Corporation (TPMC). 

The project team extends its most sincere appreciation to all of the State, Tribal, Territorial, and Interstate 

Basin Commission biological monitoring staffs for their willingness to complete surveys, participate in 

follow-up interviews, and review numerous interim drafts. Also, we would like to recognize the numerous 

personnel at EPA headquarters and Regional offices for their time in developing the initial survey and 

reviewing various drafts. We are particularly grateful to members of EPA’s Biocriteria Team, as well as 

the EPA Regional Biocriteria Coordinators and Regional Indian Program Coordinators, who provided 

guidance on document structure and the process for gathering information. We also acknowledge the 

efforts of Brandon Peebles, an EPA intern with the Office of Water’s Office of Science and Technology. In 

addition, the following Tetra Tech staff were essential in the progress and completion of this document: 

Catherine Cresswell, Brenda Decker, and Kristen Pavlik. 

Most of all, we would like to recognize the spirit of collaboration evident throughout the development of this 

project. 

Project team: 

Elizabeth Jackson USEPA Office of Environmental Information; Environmental Analysis Division 

Wayne Davis USEPA Office of Environmental Information; Environmental Analysis Division 

Treda Smith USEPA Office of Water; Office of Science and Technology 

William Swietlik USEPA Office of Water; Office of Science and Technology 

James Campbell Technology, Planning, and Management Corporation 

Michael Barbour Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Abby Markowitz Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Margo Andrews Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Maggie Craig Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Chris Yoder Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Inc. 

Acknowledgments December 2002 iii 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

December 2002 iv 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FOREWORD ..................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... v

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ................................... vi

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1-1

1.1 Bioassessment and Biocriteria in Water Resource Assessment and 

Management ............................................. 1-1

1.2 Introduction to the Process .................................. 1-5

Chapter 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................... 2-1

2.1 Summary of Current Biological Assessment Programs ............ 2-1

2.2 Bioassessment Program Success from 1989, to 1995, to 2001 ...... 2-3

Chapter 3. PROGRAM SUMMARIES ........................................ 3-1

Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-205

Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-215

Interstate Basin Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-231

States ..................................................... 3-1

Chapter 4. RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

BIOCRITERIA LANGUAGE ...................................... 4-1

States ..................................................... 4-1

Territories ................................................. 4-72

Tribes .................................................... 4-76

Interstate Basin Commissions ................................. 4-80

Chapter 5. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS .................. 5-1

5.1 Acronyms ............................................... 5-1

5.2 Definition of Terms ........................................ 5-2

Chapter 6. LITERATURE CITED AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ................ 6-1

6.1 Literature Cited ........................................... 6-1

6.2 Additional Resources ...................................... 6-2

Appendix A. BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAMS FOR STREAMS AND WADEABLE RIVERS

(2001) ....................................................... A-1

Appendix B. EPA CONTACTS .............................................. B-1

Appendix C. ORIGINAL CHECKLIST TEMPLATE ............................... C-1

Appendix D. PROGRAM SUMMARY TEMPLATE ............................... D-1

Table of Contents December 2002 v 
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

TABLES 

Table 1 National summary of bioassessment programs for streams and wadeable rivers

in 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

Table 2 National summary of bioassessment programs for streams and wadeable rivers

in 1989, 1995, 2001, and the interim change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

FIGURES 

Figure 1 Use of bioassessments to assess water quality 

Figure 1a. Percent of total stream/river miles assessed in each State using

bioassessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Figure 1b. Use of bioassessment to determine aquatic life use (ALU) for 

305(b) reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Figure 2 Biocriteria development

Figure 2a. Narrative biocriteria development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Figure 2b. Narrative biocriteria in WQS with quantitative implementation

procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Figure 2c. Numeric biocriteria development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Figure 3 Assemblages assessed

Figure 3a. Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Figure 3b. Benthic macroinvertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Figure 3c. Periphyton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

Figure 3d. Number of assemblages assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

Figure 4 Use of ecoregional reference conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

Figure 5 Development of biological multimetric indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

Table of Contents December 2002 vi 
1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Bioassessment and Biocriteria in Water Resource Assessment and Management 

The Historical Context 

During the last half of the 20th century, the terms “environmental protection” and “natural resource 

management” underwent a profound evolution both conceptually and as applied to decision-making. Two 

landmark pieces of legislation, the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) and its 1972 

amendments contained in the Clean Water Act (CWA), stand out as milestones in this process. Until 

1948, water quality management decisions were based primarily on society’s economic and public health 

priorities (Davis 1995). The passage of the 1948 WPCA marked the first time that the propagation of fish 

and other aquatic life was articulated as a stand-alone objective of water resource protection. It was a 

significant turning point because federal law recognized the importance of protecting waterbodies and 

aquatic life for their own intrinsic value, not just for their value to human society. 

The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act) set far-reaching ideals for restoring 

the health of our Nation’s waters, as outlined in Section 101(a) Declaration of Goals and Policy: 

The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared 

that, consistent with the provisions of this Act – 

1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be 

eliminated by 1985; 

2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality 

which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and 

provides for the recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983... 

Why Bioassessment? 

Aquatic life (fish, insects, plants, shellfish, frogs, salamanders, etc.) integrate the cumulative effects of 

both point source and nonpoint source (NPS) pollution’s multiple stressors. Biological assessments, or 

bioassessments, consisting of surveys and other direct measures of aquatic life, are the most effective 

way to measure the aggregate impact of these stressors on waterbodies. Bioassessments are an 

extremely useful tool to evaluate the biological integrity of a waterbody, commonly defined as 

“the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community with a 

biological diversity, composition, and functional organization comparable to those of 

natural aquatic ecosystems in the region” (Frey 1977, Karr and Dudley 1981, and Karr et 

al. 1986). 

Because biological communities are affected by all of the environmental factors to which they are exposed 

over time, bioassessments provide information on perturbations not always revealed by water chemistry 

measurements or toxicity tests. Thus, they are crucial for determining not only biological health but the 

overall health, or ecological integrity, of a waterbody. 

In the mid-1980s, a national workgroup of EPA regional and state agency biologists was convened to 

provide oversight in the development of technical guidance for biological assessment. The result of the 

workgroup was the 1989 publication of EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) (USEPA 1989). 

The RBPs provide a technical framework for using biological assemblage data as a direct indicator of 

ecological health. The RBPs synthesized existing methods for monitoring fish and benthic 

macroinvertebrates in streams and wadeable rivers, and presented some innovative ways to assess the 

biological and physical aspects of streams. The RBP methods were designed to be cost effective, 

reliable, efficient, applicable nationwide, and easily understood by various stakeholders (USEPA 1999). In 

addition, the 1990 publication of Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters 

Introduction December 2002 1-1 
provided states with an organized approach for addressing their responsibilities as outlined in the CWA 

(USEPA 1990). In 1992, EPA issued procedures for initiating narrative biological criteria that explained 

how states and tribes could adopt narrative biocriteria in their water quality standards (USEPA 1992). 

Since the 1989 RBPs were published, the use of bioassessments in water resource programs has 

continued to grow. In 1996, EPA published a guidance document for the development of biocriteria for 

streams and small rivers (USEPA 1996a). In 1998, EPA produced bioassessment technical guidance for 

lakes and reservoirs (USEPA 1998a), followed by similar guidance for estuarine and coastal marine 

waters in 2000 (USEPA 2000) and a series of guidance modules for biological assessments and index 

development for wetlands in March 2002 (USEPA 2002). The increased use of bioassessment in water 

monitoring programs nationwide led to the 1999 revision of the original RBPs for streams and wadeable 

rivers (USEPA 1999). Guidance for large rivers and coral reefs is currently under development. 

Over the last 50 years, the science of environmental protection has come a long way both in theory and in 

practice. As a society, the United States has come to understand that protecting aquatic life is a critical 

resource management goal in its own right. We have adopted ecological integrity as a barometer of 

waterbody health. Resource management agencies at the local, state, tribal, and national levels have 

recognized the importance of biological assessments in the evaluation of water quality and ecological 

integrity. This evolution has brought us closer to realizing the CWA’s goal of restoring and maintaining the 

physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. 

Current Legal Authority 

The CWA and its amendments through 1987 provide the legal authority for the use of biological 

assessments and criteria in state and tribal water quality programs primarily under the provisions of 

sections 303 and 304. Under Section 303(c), states are required to have water quality standards that 

consist of designated uses, criteria to protect those uses, and an antidegradation policy. Also under 

section 303(c), states are required to review their standards every three years and revise them as needed 

to achieve the purposes of the Act, including the ecological integrity objective. 

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 if such pollutants interfere with, or may be expected to interfere 

with, attainment of designated uses. The section further requires that, where numeric 304(a) criteria are 

not available, states adopt criteria based on biological assessment and monitoring methods consistent 

with information published by EPA under 304(a)(8). 

Section 304(a)(8) directs EPA to develop and publish information on methods for establishing and 

measuring water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant. This 

includes biological monitoring and assessment methods that evaluate: 

the effects of pollutants on aquatic community components (“...plankton, fish, shellfish, 

wildlife, plant life...”) and community attributes (“...biological community diversity, 

productivity, and stability...”); 

factors necessary “...to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of all navigable waters...” for “...the protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife for 

classes and categories of receiving waters...” 

appropriate “...methods for establishing and measuring water quality criteria for toxic 

pollutants on other bases than pollutant-by-pollutant criteria, including biological 

monitoring and assessment methods.” 

The Uses of Bioassessment and Biocriteria in the Clean Water Act 

Biocriteria, derived from bioassessment data, are narrative descriptions and numeric values that describe 

the desired condition for the aquatic life inhabiting waters with a designated aquatic life use. Biocriteria 

are an effective tool for addressing water quality problems by providing regulatory mechanisms to assess 

Introduction December 2002 1-2 
and help protect the biological resources at risk from chemical, physical, or biological impacts. These 

narrative and/or numeric biocriteria may be formally adopted into water quality standards along with an 

antidegradation policy intended to protect waters from further deterioration. 

As required in the Clean Water Act, states, tribes, and territories report on the quality of their waters 

through a biennial report referred to as the “305(b) report”. USEPA compiles and analyzes this 

information in the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress, the primary vehicle for reporting 

water quality conditions throughout the United States. To assess water quality, states and other 

jurisdictions compare their monitoring results to the water quality standards they have set for their waters. 

Bioassessments help states, tribes, and other entities develop expectations for acceptable biological 

conditions through a technical process of establishing aquatic life goals, referred to as aquatic life uses 

(ALUs). Designated uses to support aquatic life can cover a broad range of biological conditions; not only 

do they protect intact communities in a waterbody, but they also can establish restoration goals for 

compromised ecosystems. Using several types, or tiers, of ALUs allows the allocation of limited resources 

to waterbodies in proportion to their need for protection. 

Although the 305(b) report includes information on the nationwide status of aquatic life use attainment 

(i.e., state water quality standards), the results reported do not consistently present the information 

necessary to determine the ecological/biological condition of the Nation’s water resources. As currently 

reported in 305(b) water quality assessments, aquatic life use attainment may be determined solely by 

chemical parameters and in comparison to chemical water quality criteria. However, since attainment of 

chemical water quality standards alone may not ensure a healthy biological condition, most states are 

working to integrate a greater amount of biological information in their aquatic life use attainment 

determinations (Yoder and Rankin 1995). 

Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, a second reporting mechanism requires states, tribes, and territories to 

provide lists of all impaired waters. These lists are then used to prioritize restoration activities through the 

development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs are calculations of the amount of a 

pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. Bioassessments and 

biocriteria play a critical role in enabling states, tribes, and territories to develop and implement protection 

and management strategies needed to fulfill these, and other, requirements of the Clean Water Act, 

including: 

< determining impacts from nonpoint sources [i.e., Section 304(f) "(1) guidelines for 

identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and (2) 

processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution..."]; 

< developing lists of waters unable to support "balanced population(s) of shellfish, fish and 

wildlife..." [(304(l)]; 

< conducting assessments of lake trophic status and trends, [Sec. 314]; 

< listings of waters that cannot attain designated uses without nonpoint source controls, 

[Sec. 319]; 

< developing management plans and conducting monitoring in estuaries of national 

significance [Sec. 320]; 

< determining the impacts and efficacy of NPDES permit controls [Section 402]; 

< issuing permits for ocean discharges and monitoring ecological effects [Sec. 403(c) and 

301(h)(3)]; and, 

< determining acceptable sites for disposal of dredge and fill material [Sec. 404]. 

The 2001 Bioassessment Summary 

During 1994-1995, EPA prepared an inventory of state bioassessment programs for streams and 

wadeable rivers, Summary of State Biological Assessment Programs for Streams and Rivers (USEPA 

Introduction December 2002 1-3 
1996b). The purpose of the document was to determine how many states, and in what fashion, were 

using biological assessments and criteria in water management programs. EPA used the information from 

that report to evaluate state bioassessment/biocriteria capabilities and their needs for technical support. 

During the second half of the 1990s as additional methods, guidance, and information on the use of 

biological assessments and criteria were issued by EPA, the Office of Water made it a national priority for 

state and tribal water quality standards programs to adopt biocriteria to better protect aquatic life in all 

waters where biological assessments methods were available (USEPA 1998b). In 1999, EPA’s Office of 

Water declared the following goals and objectives for the biocriteria program: 

< All states/tribes will use bioassessments/biocriteria to evaluate the health of aquatic life in 

all waterbodies. 

< Bioassessment data will be used by all states/tribes to better define aquatic life uses. 

< Numeric biocriteria will be adopted in all state/tribal water quality standards to protect 

aquatic life uses. 

< Biocriteria/bioassessments will be used in ongoing regulatory programs. 

< Biocriteria/bioassessments will be used to assess the effectiveness of water quality 

management efforts. 

< Bioassessment data and biocriteria will be used to better communicate the health of the 

Nation’s waters. 

In the late 1990s, momentum to develop and adopt biocriteria grew, and pressures increased from the 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program to have well-established biocriteria in water quality standards 

to support listings of impaired waterbodies. The Office of Water and the Office of Environmental 

Information determined it would be valuable to re-assess the progress states were making in developing 

and adopting biological assessments and criteria into their water quality management programs. In 2001, 

Geoffrey Grubbs, Director of the Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, stated that the key 

goal of the biocriteria program should be to accelerate the adoption of biocriteria in state and tribal water 

quality standards programs to better support regulatory programs. Therefore, in late 2001, the Office of 

Environmental Information and the Office of Water initiated this effort to update the 1994-95 survey 

information. This project was also supported by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and 

was coordinated through USEPA Regional Offices. 

The goal of the 2001 update was to compile a comprehensive re-assessment of state use of 

bioassessments and biocriteria for protecting streams and wadeable rivers. The update also illustrates 

changes and improvements in bioassessment capabilities over the past six years, and serves as an 

important measure of program advancement and EPA’s bioassessment technical transfer efforts. This 

documentation will enable USEPA to better focus its water quality standards and criteria development and 

implementation strategy for the next several years, target new program priorities, and assess the present 

technical support needs of states, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions. EPA will also use this 

documentation to prepare a summary report card of national progress in adopting biocriteria into water 

quality standards. 

As you will see from this report, the use of biological assessment and criteria for managing the Nation’s 

waterbodies has progressed significantly in the past six years and is equipping states, tribes, territories, 

interstate commissions, and EPA with a more effective set of monitoring and standards tools for 

determining and protecting the health of the Nation’s waters. 

1.2 Introduction to the Process 

This project was coordinated by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information in partnership with the 

Agency’s Biocriteria Team, composed of members from the Office of Water (Office of Science & 

Technology, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds) and the Office of Environmental Information. 

The goal of the project was to obtain the current status of biological assessment programs and biocriteria 

Introduction December 2002 1-4 
development for streams and wadeable rivers. The project team also coordinated with EPA Regional 

Biocriteria Coordinators and Regional Indian Program Coordinators. Because identical information would 

be solicited from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, US territories, selected tribes, and selected 

interstate commissions, this project was covered under the Water Quality Standards Program Information 

Collection Request (ICR No. 0988.07) in compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act. 

In June 2001, the project team developed a “checklist” of 57 questions covering six different categories 

(Appendix C contains a blank copy of the checklist): 

• contact information (including points of contact for biological programs for other waterbody 

types – nonwadeable rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries/near coastal marine, and 

wetlands) 

• programmatic elements 

• ALU decision making process 

• field and lab methods 

• data analysis and interpretation 

• information management 

Throughout the autumn of 2001, email “packets” were distributed to over 75 points of contact in states, 

tribes, territories, and interstate commissions (provided by EPA Regional offices). These packets 

consisted of an introductory memo, the checklist, and relevant excerpts from each entity’s water quality 

standards (where applicable). Recipients were asked to complete the checklist and review the standards 

excerpts for completeness and accuracy. As completed checklists were returned, members of the project 

team followed-up by phone and email with each entity to clarify, verify, and document information and to 

fill in gaps where necessary. Contacts from a total of 65 entities responded and provided the information 

included in this document. 

As was done for the 1996 document, the project team created a template “program summary” used to 

translate and display the information gathered from each entity. The summary pages for each responding 

entity consist of a narrative program description, documentation and further information, as well as a three 

page fact sheet. Program summaries for all 65 entities are found in Chapter 3 (there are only 64 actual 

program summaries because Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are combined into one). The 

information in the program summaries was organized into several sections as shown below (Appendix D 

contains a blank program summary coded with the corresponding sections of the original checklist): 

Contact Information 

Program Description 

Documentation and Further Information 

Programmatic elements 

• Uses of bioassessment within overall water quality program 

• Applicable monitoring designs 

Stream Miles 

• Total miles 

• Total perennial miles 

• Total miles assessed for biology

< fully supporting for 305(b)

< partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

< listed for 303(d)

< number of sites sampled

< number of miles assessed per site

Introduction December 2002 1-5 
Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision Making 

• ALU designation basis 

• ALU designations in water quality standards 

• Narrative Biocriteria in WQS 

• Numeric Biocriteria in WQS 

• Uses of bioassessment data in integrated assessments with other environmental data 

(e.g., toxicity testing and chemical specific criteria) 

• Uses of bioassessment/ biocriteria in making management decisions regarding restoration of 

aquatic resources to a designated ALU 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

• Number of reference sites 

• Reference site determinations 

• Reference site criteria 

• Characterization of reference sites within a regional context 

• Stream stratification within regional reference conditions 

• Additional information 

Field and Lab Methods 

• Assemblages assessed (no. of samples/year, level of rigor) 

• Benthos (sampling gear, habitat selection, subsample size, taxonomy) 

• Fish (sampling gear, habitat selection, sample processing, subsample, taxonomy) 

• Periphyton (sampling gear, habitat selection, sample processing, taxonomy) 

• Habitat assessments 

• Quality assurance program elements 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

• Data analysis tools and methods 

• Multimetric thresholds

< transforming metrics into unitless scores

< defining impairment in a multimetric index

• Multivariate thresholds

< defining impairment in a multivariate index

• Evaluation of performance characteristics 

• Biological data

< Storage

< Retrieval and analysis

In addition, selected relevant excerpts from state, tribal, territorial and interstate commission water quality 

standards excerpts were compiled into a separate chapter for inclusion in the document (see Chapter 4: 

Relevant Excerpts from Water Quality Standards and Biocriteria Language). 

In April 2002, a preliminary draft of the document containing the Definition of Terms and Acronyms, 

Program Summaries, Water Quality Standards and Biocriteria Language, Literature Cited, and List of 

Contacts was distributed to the full Biocriteria Team for an editorial and technical review. Individual 

program summaries and water quality excerpts were distributed to the relevant EPA Regional contacts 

and the point of contact for each responding entity for review and comment. During the summer of 2002, 

the project team compiled, organized, and incorporated the feedback received from all reviewers. 

This document, Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States, 

Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers, represents this project’s 

final product. The document’s value lies not only in the wealth of information it contains but also in the 

lessons learned from the process. In the near future, EPA hopes to initiate similar projects to assess the 

status of bioassessment and biocriteria programs for lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and wetlands. The 

effectiveness and efficiency of those efforts will be enhanced by the development of this reference 

document. 

Introduction December 2002 1-6 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Introduction December 2002 1-7 
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

2.1 Summary of Current Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development 

This report summarizes the national breadth of biological monitoring and assessment in stream and 

wadeable river management programs based on 2001 program information (Table 1). Since this summary 

pertains to more than just “states,” the term “entity” is used to refer to the combination of states, tribes, 

territories, and interstate commissions. Survey responses were received from 65 entities (50 states, 

District of Columbia, four territories, six tribes, and four interstate commissions – see Appendix A for a 

complete list). 

Although ranging across a wide spectrum – from initial pilot studies to comprehensive assessment – 57 of 

the 65 entities have bioassessment programs for streams and wadeable rivers, and two (Puerto Rico and 

the Nez Perce Tribe) have programs under development. Nearly 440,000 river and stream miles 

nationwide are assessed using biological data (see Figure 1a for state-by-state percentages). More 

importantly, as shown in Table 1, 40 entities use bioassessment to help determine aquatic life use support 

(ALUS) for their 305(b) reporting (Figure 1b), and six states (AK, CA, HI, MT, NV, OK) are developing 

processes for using biological data to interpret ALU. Thirteen entities, including seven states (AZ, AR, 

CO, DE, LA, SD, UT) either don’t have comprehensive statewide bioassessment programs in place, or 

they don’t yet use bioassessment data to determine the condition of their waters. 

A total of 29 entities have incorporated narrative biocriteria into their WQS (Figure 2a). The 11 entities 

(AZ, CO, HI, IL, IN, IA, MD, MT, NV, WA, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe) in a developmental phase of 

adopting narrative biocriteria into their WQS are at various stages in this process. While some may have 

already developed biocriteria and are working on promulgating the statements into their WQS, others are 

awaiting state or federal approval, or are in the earlier stages of developing narrative biocriteria to be 

submitted for review. Although 20 entities do not have narrative biocriteria in their WQS, several of these 

have incorporated general aquatic life statements. The following five entities – ICPRB, SRBC, Nez Perce 

Tribe, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin and Passamaquoddy Tribe - Pleasant Point Reservation – do not have 

federally approved WQS and are not currently working toward that end. Therefore, these entities are not 

included in any biocriteria counts.1 

Of the 29 entities with narrative biocriteria incorporated into their WQS, 22 have also developed 

quantitative implementation procedures or translators, and eight are working to develop them (Figure 2b). 

These procedures can be found in various documents including WQS, SOPs, 305(b) guidelines, and other 

agency documents. While numeric procedures are not numeric biocriteria per se, they do provide a 

quantitative basis for assessing attainment of specific designated aquatic life uses and are an important 

step in biocriteria development. 

1

 While the Oneida Nation does not have federally approved water quality standards, the Tribe is currently 

using bioassessments to implement their water quality program under tribal law. Inclusion of narrative and numeric 

biocriteria into the Tribe’s WQS is under development. 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-1 
Table 1. National summary of bioassessment programs for streams and wadeable rivers in 2001 

PROGRAMMATIC ELEMENT NUMBER OF ENTITIES 

In-place 

Under 

development None 

Not 

applicable 

Use of Bioassessments 

Water resource management 57 2 6 0 

Interpret aquatic life use attainment 40 6 13 62 

Narrative biocriteria in WQS 29 11 20 53 

Narrative biocriteria in WQS with quantitative 

implementation procedures or translators 

22 8 30 54 

Numeric biocriteria in WQS 4 11 45 54 

Assemblage Used 

Fish 41 0 16 84 

Benthic macroinvertebrates 56 1 0 85 

Algae (periphyton, diatoms) 20 5 32 85 

More than one assemblage 45 5 7 85 

Reference Conditions 

Ecoregional 42 2 12 95 

Site-specific 19 1 37 86 

State-wide or basin-specific 7 1 46 116 

Analysis 

Biological metrics 54 1 1 97 

Multivariate 22 2 32 98 

Assessment 

Multimetric index 41 3 12 98 

Habitat assessment 57 0 0 83 

2

 DRBC and ICPRB are not regulatory authorities. Nez Perce Tribe, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Passamaquoddy Tribe -

Pleasant Point Reservation, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe do not have federally approved WQS. 

3

 ICPRB, SRBC, Nez Perce Tribe, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin and Passamaquoddy Tribe - Pleasant Point Reservation 

do not have federally approved WQS and are not currently working toward that end. 

4

 The following entities do not use biological assessment methods as a means to assess stream and river water quality: 

American Samoa (AS), Puerto Rico (PR), U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez Perce 

Tribe, Passamaquoddy Tribe - Pleasant Point Reservation, and Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI) has a bioassessment program for marine systems only; bioassessment for freshwater is not applicable. 

5

 Virginia did not provide complete reference condition information. American Samoa, CNMI, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Passamaquoddy Tribe - Pleasant Point Reservation, and 

Seminole Tribe of Florida do not have bioassessment programs. 

6

 AS, CNMI, PR, USVI, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Passamaquoddy Tribe -

Pleasant Point Reservation, and Seminole Tribe of Florida do not have bioassessment programs. 

7

 Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe has not yet analyzed or evaluated their biological data. AS, CNMI, PR, USVI, Confederated 

Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Passamaquoddy Tribe - Pleasant Point Reservation, and Seminole Tribe of 

Florida do not have bioassessment programs. 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-2 
Four entities (FL, OH, OK, DRBC) have numeric biocriteria incorporated into their WQS (Figure 2c).8 And 

of the 11 entities for which numeric biocriteria is categorized as “under development,” Maine and Wyoming 

have developed and incorporated numeric biocriteria into other program documents, such as SOPs and 

monitoring guidance manuals, and have been using the numeric limits to maintain designated uses. 

The three major groups of biological organisms or assemblages monitored as part of comprehensive 

biological assessment programs are fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and algae (periphyton). 

Macroinvertebrates are the most common indicator assemblage used by state water quality agencies and 

are a part of all but Hawai`i’s bioassessment program, where it is currently under development (Figure 3a). 

The second most common assemblage monitored is fish, followed by periphyton (Figures 3b and 3c). 

Forty-five entities monitor for at least two assemblages, and another five (AK, HI, NV, UT, WY) currently 

use one, but are developing the capability of using a second (Figure 3d). 

One of the key elements in bioassessment programs is the establishment of reference conditions to help 

discern human impacts from natural variation. The two types of reference conditions currently used in 

biological surveys are regional and site-specific. The Ecoregion Concept, a common regionalization 

approach, recognizes geographic patterns of similarity among ecosystems and the subsequent distribution 

of biological communities grouped on the basis of environmental variables such as climate, soil type, 

physiography, and vegetation. Forty-two entities have adopted this method of stream stratification/ 

characterization in developing reference conditions (Figure 4). Site-specific reference conditions typically 

consist of condition measurements taken upstream of a point source discharge or from a “paired” 

watershed. However, their usefulness is limited since they have only site-specific value (USEPA 1999). 

Only nine entities primarily use this approach to determine reference conditions. 

Biological metrics and multivariate analysis are two types of data analysis tools/methods used to reduce a 

wealth of raw data into workable indicators of biological condition. Nearly all of the entities with 

bioassessment programs have developed biological metrics. In addition, just under half use multivariate 

analysis (techniques that look at the pattern of relationships among several variables simultaneously, such 

as principal components analysis (PCA) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS)). Of the 54 

entities that select and calculate biological metrics, 41 aggregate these metrics into a multimetric index 

(such as fish or macroinvertebrate IBIs) to assess biological condition and water quality, and to 

discriminate between impaired and unimpaired conditions (Figure 5). Finally, all entities with 

bioassessment programs also assess the physical habitat quality at their sample sites, usually employing 

visual based methods (such as QHEI and RBPs) in combination with other measurements. 

2.2 Bioassessment Program Success from 1989 to 2001 

In 1989, when developing the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers, USEPA 

summarized the bioassessment and biomonitoring capabilities in state regulatory programs (USEPA 

1989). While the 1989 summary did not determine the actual use of the bioassessment data for all states, 

it did provide an estimate based upon past knowledge of state programs and on the documentation 

gathered during its development. 

The Summary of State Biological Assessment Programs for Streams and Rivers, based on 1995 data, 

compiled a more comprehensive assessment of state uses of bioassessments and biocriteria in water 

management programs (USEPA 1996). The document serves as the baseline for determining changes 

and improvements in bioassessment capabilities over the past six years. Table 2 presents a summary of 

the 1989 and 1995 results alongside the 2001 data from Table 1. The incremental change (from 1989 to 

8

 Florida has made substantial progress in developing new multimetric indices for streams (Stream Condition 

Index and BioRecon), lakes (Lake Condition Index), and wetlands for eventual inclusion in the Florida 

Administrative Code. When the new indices are adopted as water quality standards, the role of Shannon-Weaver 

diversity as a numeric standard will be re-evaluated.

 Macroinvertebrate biocriteria were developed for DRBC’s Special Protection Waters rules issued in 1990, 

but the criteria were later found to be based upon inconsistent and non-representative methods and have not been 

used as envisioned during development of the Commission’s antidegradation policies. Program redesign 

recommendations were recently made to improve effectiveness and applicability of the criteria. 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-3 
1995, and 1995 to 2001) appears in parentheses, and an additional column indicates the net change from 

1989 to 2001. For the purposes of comparison, Table 2 only contains program information from the 

original 52 entities surveyed in 1989 and 1996 (50 states, the District of Columbia, and ORSANCO). 

Refer to Table 1, Chapter 3, and Appendix A for programmatic information on the additional entities 

surveyed for this document. 

There has been extensive progress in the development and use of biological assessments and criteria as 

revealed by virtually all measures of the survey as shown in Table 2. All 52 entities contained in this table 

have incorporated bioassessment in their water resource management programs. This is up over 30% 

from a count of 37 in 1989. Although the number of states that used bioassessments to determine aquatic 

life use attainment in 1989 is unknown, these numbers did increase noticeably from 1995 to 2001. And 

despite the fact that the number of entities with numeric biocriteria in their WQS has only increased by two 

over the past 12 years, 18 entities have developed and implemented quantitative procedures or translators 

for use in their water quality management programs (Figure 2b), and sixteen are in the process of 

developing narrative and/or numeric biocriteria for their standards. 

Since 1989, the number of entities sampling at least one of the three major assemblages has steadily 

grown. Almost every entity surveyed in 1995 now conducts benthic macroinvertebrate assessments 

(Figure 3a). Even periphyton sampling, which declined from 1989 to 1995, rose sharply from 1995 to 

2001. Studies have found that assessing only one assemblage can only achieve roughly 80 to 85% 

effectiveness at identifying aquatic life use attainment or nonattainment. Thus, since 1995, USEPA has 

recommended the use of multiple assemblages, especially in larger streams (USEPA 1996). The number 

of entities using more than one assemblage in 2001 reached 41 (an increase of 15 in just five years); and 

20 of these 41 entities sample for at least three, and even four, assemblages, such as phytoplankton, 

macrophytes and zooplankton (Figure 3d). 

One of the major advancements since 1989, and especially since 1995, has been the increased use of 

regional reference conditions as a basis for making comparisons and detecting use impairment. Only four 

states were actively using ecoregional reference conditions in 1989, and still only 15 in 1995. However, by 

2001, 39 entities characterized reference conditions using a composite or aggregation of least or minimally 

impaired sites within distinct ecoregions (Figure 4). And conversely, 11 fewer entities used a site-specific 

approach alone to determine reference conditions. 

The number of entities using biological metrics for data analysis increased by eight in 2001, in step with a 

sharp increase of 39 between 1989 and 1995. Today, all but two of the surveyed entities contained in 

Table 2 have developed biological metrics. 

Finally, for the 2001 survey, we narrowed the definition of what constitutes narrative biocriteria in WQS to 

exclude general aquatic life statements. We adhered to the definition of narrative biocriteria as “narrative 

expressions that describe biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given 

classification or designated aquatic life use.” We also required entities to clarify how the criteria were 

operationally defined in their WQS. This examination yielded a count of 28 entities with narrative 

biocriteria in their WQS, one entity less than was reported in 1995. However, had we used the 1995 

definition of narrative biocriteria, these 28 entities would grow to 40, resulting in an increase of 11 between 

1995 and 2001. 

Refer to Appendix A for a summary of pertinent information for each entity surveyed. This information is 

captured in greater detail and clarity in the individual program summaries found in Chapter 3. 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-4 
Summary of Findings December 2002 Table 2. National summary of bioassessment programs for streams and wadeable rivers in 1989, 1995, 2001 and the interim change 9 PROGRAMMATIC ELEMENT N U M B E R O F E N T I T I E S (see note below) In-place Under Development None 1989 1995 2001 net change 1989 1995 2001 net change 1989 1995 2001 net change Use of Bioassessments Water resource management 37 41 (+4) 52 (+11) +11 7 8 (+1) 0(-8) -3 8 3 (-5) 0(-3) -8 Interpret aquatic life use attainment unk 31 39 (+8) +8 unk 8 6 (-2) -2 unk 13 7 (-6) -6 Narrative water quality standard unk 29 28 (-1) -1 unk 11 10 (-1) -1 unk 12 14 (+2) +2 Numeric water quality standard 1 2 (+1) 3 (+1) +2 unk 15 10 (-5) -7 49 35 (-14) 39 (+4) -8 Organism Group Used Fish 23 29 (+6) 37 (+8) +15 1 5 (+4) 0 (-5) -1 28 18 (-10) 15 (-3) -13 Benthic macroinvertebrates 39 44 (+5) 51 (+7) +12 3 5 (+2) 1 (-4) -2 10 3 (-7) 0 (-3) -10 Algae (periphyton, diatoms) 7 4 (-3) 19 (+15) +12 0 3 (+3) 5 (+2) +5 45 45 (+0) 28 (-17) -16 More than one assemblage 24 26 (+2) 41 (+15) +17 4 10 (+6) 5 (-5) +1 26 16 (-10) 6 (-10) -20 

Reference ConditionsEcoregional 4 15 (+11) 39 (+24) +35 2 26 (+24) 2 (-24) 0 44 11 (-33) 11 10 (0) -33 

Site-specific unk 31 19 (-12) -12 unk 0 1 (+1) +1 unk 21 32 10 (+11) +11 

State-wide or basin-specific unk 6 6 (0) 0 unk 0 0 0 unk 46 46 10 (0) 0 

Multiple Metrics for Data AnalysisBiology 3 42 (+39) 50 (+8) +47 11 6 (-5) 1 (-5) -10 35 4 (-31) 1 (-3) -34 

NOTE: The same 52 entities were used for each of the years for the most accurate comparison of changes over time.9 The incremental change (from 1989 to 1995, and 1995 to 2001) appears in parentheses, and the “net change” column indicates the total change from 1989 to 2001, or 1995 to 2001

where 1989 data is unknown.

10 The Ecoregional and State-wide or basin-specific elements are not applicable to New York and Virginia’s programs (Virginia did not complete this section). The Site-specific

element is not applicable to Utah’s program. For the purposes of comparison, each has been counted as None in this table. 

2-5 
> 50% 10 – 25% Unknown

26 – 50% < 10% 

*The use of various monitoring designs, i.e. targeted vs. probabilistic, influences the derivation of these numbers. 

Figure 1a. Percent of total stream/river miles assessed in each state using bioassessments 

ORSANCO 

Seminole 

Tribe of Florida 

Confederated Tribes of 

the Colville Reservation 

SRBC 

DC 

American Samoa 

CNMI 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Bioassessment used for ALU 

Implementation under development 

Bioassessment not used for ALU 

Figure 1b. Use of bioassessment to determine aquatic life use (ALU) for 305(b) reporting 

Figure 1. Use of bioassessments to assess water quality 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-6 
ORSANCO 

DRBC 

Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

Seminole 

Tribe of Florida 

Confederated Tribes of 

the Colville Reservation 

DC 

American Samoa 

CNMI 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Narrative biocriteria adopted into WQS 

Narrative biocriteria under development 

No narrative biocriteria 

Figure 2a. Narrative biocriteria development 

DC 

DRBC 

ORSANCO Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

American Samoa 

CNMI 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Seminole 

Tribe of Florida 

Confederated Tribes of 

the Colville Reservation 

Narrative biocriteria in WQS with quantitative implementation procedures or translators 

Quantitative implementation procedures (for narrative biocriteria in WQS) are under development 

No quantitative implementation procedures (for narrative biocriteria in WQS) 

Figure 2b. Narrative biocriteria in WQS with quantitative implementation procedures 

Figure 2. Biocriteria development 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-7 
DRBC 

ORSANCO Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

Seminole 

Tribe of Florida 

Confederated Tribes of 

the Colville Reservation 

DC 

American Samoa 

CNMI 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Numeric biocriteria adopted into WQS 

Numeric biocriteria under development 

No numeric biocriteria 

Figure 2c. Numeric biocriteria development 

Figure 2 (cont). Biocriteria development 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-8 
DC

DRBC 

ICPRB 

Oneida Nation ORSANCO

of Wisconsin 

Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

SRBC 

Benthic macroinvertebrate assessment in place 

Benthic macroinvertebrate assessment under development 

None 

Figure 3a. Benthic macroinvertebrates 

Figure 3b. Fish 

Fish assessment in place 

None 

DC

DRBC 

ICPRB 

Oneida Nation ORSANCO

of Wisconsin 

Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

SRBC 

Figure 3. Assemblages assessed 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-9 
DC 

DRBC 

ICPRB 

Oneida Nation ORSANCO

of Wisconsin 

Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

SRBC 

Periphyton assessment in place 

Periphyton assessment under development 

None 

Figure 3c. Periphyton 

Figure 3d. Number of assemblages assessed 

Three or more assemblages assessed 

Only one assemblage assessed 

Two assemblages assessed 

DC

DRBC 

ICPRB 

Oneida Nation ORSANCO

of Wisconsin 

Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

SRBC 

Figure 3 (cont). Assemblages assessed 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-10 
DC 

DRBC 

ICPRB 

Oneida Nation ORSANCO 

of Wisconsin 

Pyramid 

Lake 

Paiute 

Tribe 

SRBC 

Ecoregional reference conditions 

Ecoregional reference conditions under development 

None (or not applicable for New York, Utah, Virginia) 

Figure 4. Use of ecoregional reference conditions 

DC 

DRBC 

ICPRB 

Oneida Nation ORSANCO 

of Wisconsin 

SRBC 

Biological multimetric indices 

Biological multimetric indices under development 

None 

Figure 5. Development of biological multimetric indices 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-11 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Summary of Findings December 2002 2-12 
3. PROGRAM SUMMARIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Program Summaries December 2002 
ALABAMA 

Contact Information 

Fred Leslie, Chief - Aquatic Assessment Unit

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)

P.O. Box 301463 # Montgomery, AL 36130-1463 

Phone 334/260-2752 # Fax 224/272-8131 

email: fal@adem.state.al.us 

ADEM Water Quality homepage: 

http://www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDiv/Water%20Quality%20Info/WQMainInfo.htm 

Program Description 

In the last five years the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has assessed more than 1,100 river and 

stream locations as a part of six major long-term riverine-focused monitoring programs: 

• Nonpoint Source Assessment Program 

• Source Assessment Program 

• Ecoregion Reference Assessment Program 

• Upland Alamap Monitoring and Assessment Program 

• Clean Water Act §303(d) Support Assessment/Monitoring Program 

• Fixed Ambient Trend Monitoring Program 

The Field Operations Division’s (FOD) benthic macroinvertebrate assessment program is an integral part of the Department's 

biological monitoring effort. A Multihabitat Bioassessment Protocol is currently utilized to sample wadeable and nonwadeable 

streams. All methods utilized are documented in the Department's Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Control 

Assurance Manual, Volume II (ADEM 1999). 

The Department has developed assessment criteria based on a ten-year ecoregional reference database. These assessments 

are then used to determine the Aquatic Life Use Designations. These comparisons have aided the Department in evaluating the 

“best attainable biotic community” within an ecoregion. The Department uses macroinvertebrates and a multi-habitat fish 

community assessment to evaluate water quality. Periphyton bioassessment methods are currently being tested as a more 

direct assessment of nutrient enrichment. 

Biological integrity and water quality are directly affected by physical habitat. In addition, the assessment of habitat quality is an 

important step in documenting the adverse impacts of nonpoint source pollution. The Department utilizes the Habitat 

Assessment Matrices developed by EPA (USEPA 1989) and Barbour and Stribling (1994) in conjunction with physical 

characteristics and water quality parameters to evaluate and document the habitat quality of each wadeable bioassessment 

sampling site. More intensive assessment of geomorphological survey methods are currently being implemented (in 2002) to 

evaluate sedimentation impacts. 

Through contracts and cooperative efforts, other agencies have contributed valuable information, time, data, and other resources 

to the surface and ground water management program. These contributions have included sampling and analysis efforts; flow 

information; data contribution and management; and GIS development. The Alabama Water Watch (AWW) Program and 

Association routinely provides quality citizen volunteer monitoring data to ADEM. With so much water to manage and 

diminishing program funds, the “Alabama Water Watchers” play a key role in identifying waters that need immediate or long-term 

attention. 

Documentation and Further Information 

2000 Water Quality Report to Congress, 305(b) Report: 

http://www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDiv/Water%20Quality%20Info/305b/WQ305bReport.htm 

1996, 1998 and 2000 303(d) lists, listing and delisting criteria, and maps of listed waters:

http://www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDiv/Water%20Quality%20Info/303d/WQ303d.htm 

ADEM. 1999. Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Control Assurance Manual Volume II – Freshwater

Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment. Field Operations Division ADEM, Montgomery, Alabama. 

O’Neil, P.E., and T.E. Shepard. 1998. Standard operating procedure manual for sampling freshwater fish communities and

application of the index of biotic integrity for assessing biological condition of flowing, wadeable streams in Alabama. ADEM 

Contract No. AGY7042. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 

Barbour, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1994. A technique for assessing stream habitat structure. Pages 156-178 in Conference 

proceedings, Riparian ecosystems in the humid U.S.: Functions, values, and management. National Association of 

Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C. March 15-18, 1993, Atlanta, Georgia. 

ALABAMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-1 
ALABAMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-2

 ALABAMA 

Contact Information 

Fred Leslie, Chief - Aquatic Assessment Unit 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) 

P.O. Box 301463 # Montgomery, AL 36130-1463 

Phone 334/260-2752 # Fax 224/272-8131 

email: fal@adem.state.al.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special 

projects and comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (special projects and specific river basins or 

watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 77,274 

Total perennial miles 47,077 

Total miles assessed for biology* 7,103.5 

fully supporting for 305(b) 5,124.4 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 1,979.1 

listed for 303(d) 1,979.1 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 200 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*The above miles are the total river and stream miles assessed for biological and other (chemical, physical, etc.) effects. Strictly 

biological miles are as follows: 2,992.1 monitored miles and 5,524 evaluated miles were determined as “fully supporting” for 305(b) 

using bioassessment data. These miles do not include fish tissue monitoring data from streams and rivers. 
ALABAMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-3 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 48 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) estimates of

landuse, animal densities, and sedimentation rates, etc. and 

departmental databases are used to identify potentially

least-impaired sub-watersheds. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations: Outstanding Alabama Water, Fish & Wildlife,

Limited Warmwater Fishery 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - A narrative scale of condition is used to support criteria

decisions. Draft guidelines, based upon ecoregional reference

conditions, are used in the evaluation of aquatic macroinvertebrate

community assessments. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad coverage for

watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad coverage for watershed

level) 

periphyton (currently being tested for assessment of nutrient enrichment) 

T other: phytoplankton (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad

coverage for watershed level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

wash bucket, dipnet and kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

100 per habitat 

family and genus 

backpack electrofisher and seine; 3/16" mesh 

pool/glide and riffle/run (cobble) 

biomass - batch 

none 

species 

visual based; performed both with, and independent of, bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for

biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index and return single metrics) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population 

The 2000 305(b) report states that sampling results equal to or less than fair/moderately

impaired for the macroinvertebrate index and chemical/physical field data indicate an

impairment ("excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor" or "unimpaired, slightly impaired,

moderately impaired, severely impaired") and will be considered non-support and placed on

the 303(d) list. 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (sampling - multiple crews same site/same day) 

precision (sampling, assessment and identification) 

sensitivity (sampling and assessment; standard level of identification) 

bias (identification - 10% peer review) 

accuracy (identification - 10% peer Quality Assurance; lab pick - 100% recheck; field pick

- 10% returned to lab for re-check) 

characteristics T

T

T

T

Biological data* 

Aquatic macroinvertebrate data from 1990 to present are stored in a PACE mainframe

database. ADEM has very recently developed an MS Access Fish IBI database and will begin

data entry of this information as time allows. Historical macroinvertebrate data are stored in 

paper files. Fish IBI data are mostly in spreadsheets, but will eventually be included in the

Access database. 

Both databases mentioned above include automated metric calculation. The 

macroinvertebrate database also allows some comparison of taxa lists between stations. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Additional resources are necessary to develop an in-house biological database module in Oracle that would be compatible with the 

Oracle Surface Water Quality Database currently under development. The current aquatic macroinvertebrate dataset and the fish

community data would be migrated into this database module. STORET will not be used as the primary biological data storage and 

retrieval system. 

ALABAMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-4 
 ALASKA 

Contact Information 

Kent Patrick-Riley, Section Leader - NPS Protection and Impairment 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

555 Cordova Street # Anchorage, AK 99501 

Phone 907/269-7554 # Fax 907/269-7508 

email: kent_patrick-riley@envircon.state.ak.us 

ADEC Division of Air and Water Quality homepage: 

http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dawq/dec_dawq.htm 

Program Description 

The State of Alaska is in the early stages of using bioassessments in water quality management. The lead agency 

funding bioassessment work is the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC); with the bulk of the 

development work done by the University of Alaska (UAA) Environment and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI). 

To date, bioassessments have not been used for biocriteria. Key accomplishments of Alaska’s program include: 

• method development and testing, resulting in the Alaska Stream Condition Index 

• successful interagency involvement and supplemental funding 

• extensive outreach and educational opportunities 

• development of regional reference conditions for the Cook Inlet Ecoregion 

• stream type differences incorporated into the framework for assessment 

• index development incorporating multiple community attributes 

• water quality assessments for Cook Inlet Ecoregion 

• database development compatible with STORET for the water quality information 

• relationship between degradation and habitat quality 

• nutrient enrichment issues 

• impervious surface areas influences to water quality 

Documentation and Further Information 

Alaska’s bioassessment program is being developed in conjunction with UAA-ENRI. For consistency and to avoid 

duplicate information, refer questions on protocols and reference sites to them. Their web site is: 

http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/enri/bmap 

Alaska Stream Condition Index: Biological Index Development for Cook Inlet, Summary 1997 - 2001, August 2001: 

http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/enri/bmap/pdfs/AK_SCI_2001.pdf 

Quality Assurance Project Plan, Alaska Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program, February 2002: 

http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/enri/bmap/pdfs/ENRI_QAPP_2-02.pdf 

ALASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-5
Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

ALASKA 

Contact Information 

Kent Patrick-Riley, Section Leader - NPS Protection and Impairment 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

555 Cordova Street # Anchorage, AK 99501 

Phone 907/269-7554 # Fax 907/269-7508 

email: kent_patrick-riley@envircon.state.ak.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction, special projects 

and specific river basins or watersheds) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

>3 million 

(determined using National Hydrography Database) 

Total perennial miles unknown 

Total watersheds assessed for biology 150 

watersheds fully supporting for 305(b) 140

watersheds partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 10

watersheds listed for 303(d) 10

number of sites sampled 300

number of miles assessed per site* 10

*For the purposes of decision making, a 100 meter reach represents approximately 10 stream miles. 

ALASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-6
ALASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-7 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 43 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria no channelization; no upstream impoundments; no known pointsource discharges; DO > 5 ppm; urban land use <15% in catchment;

mining or logging in <15% of catchment; forest or natural land use

>50% in catchment; riparian buffer width >18m 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed* 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*Alaska’s reference sites are considered “minimally” disturbed; variation in results is due to natural and environmental influences. 

ALU designation basis Class system (A,B,C)–Every AK stream is designated for ALL uses

(including drinking water) unless specifically exempted. 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

One designation in A: 3) aquaculture; One designation in C: 1)

growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and

wildlife 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Alaska is just beginning to use bioassessment information to help

with assessment/monitoring and in management decisions. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 to 500 samples/year; single and multiple seasons, multiple sites

- broad coverage) 

fish 

UD periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

d-frame; 200 - 400 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

300-count target 

genus level 

visual based, hydrogeomorphology; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan (in progress), periodic

meetings and training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks,

specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of all sites 

first quartile from the 95th percentile 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision (sampling replicates) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

Biological data 

EDAS 

EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

ALASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-8 
 ARIZONA 

Contact Information 

Patti Spindler, Aquatic Ecologist 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

1110 West Washington St. 5415A-1 # Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Phone 602/771-4543 # Fax 602/771-4528 

email: phs@ev.state.az.us 

ADEQ Water Quality Division homepage: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/index.html 

Program Description 

The Biocriteria Program at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has been sampling benthic 

macroinvertebrates since 1992. Data has been collected for biocriteria standards development and 305(b) assessment 

purposes for the past ten years. ADEQ has only one dedicated biocriteria staff person, however six other water quality 

monitoring staff assist in biological data collection during the spring as part of the ambient watershed monitoring program. 

ADEQ does not yet have narrative or numeric biocriteria. However, sampling methods and Indexes of Biological Integrity have 

been developed with the assistance of USEPA and contractor support. The cold and warm water Indexes of Biological Integrity 

will be used to support two designated uses, Aquatic and Wildlife (cold water fishery) (A&Wc) and Aquatic and Wildlife (warm 

water fishery) (A&Ww), which are currently listed in Arizona’s surface water quality standards. ADEQ plans to develop a 

narrative biocriterion for the next triennial review of standards and these indexes will serve as the implementation guidance for 

such a standard. ADEQ has also developed an approach to using bioassessments plus habitat assessments to implement the 

narrative bottom deposit standard, which will be proposed during a separate rulemaking on implementation guidance documents 

for all narrative standards during 2002. 

In the water quality standards rules that are currently under review by USEPA, ADEQ has updated definitions for A&Wc and 

A&Ww based upon "macroinvertebrate regions" identified in Spindler 2001. The 5000' elevation contour marks the threshold for 

a change in community type from warm to cold, as determined by statistical analysis of empirically derived statewide biological 

data. These macroinvertebrate regions will be used instead of ecoregions for predicting community types in Arizona. Addition of 

the elevation range in the A&Wc and A&Ww standards definitions allows Arizona to use the elevation model to better predict the 

correct A&W use type. Revisions to the "list of surface waters and designated uses" have correspondingly been made in the 

2001 standards rule. 

ADEQ does not have a biocriteria standard and has subsequently been unable to assess biological integrity in Arizona’s 305(b) 

report or 303(d) list. As a result of a lawsuit, ADEQ is preparing an “impaired waters rule” this year which will specifically outline 

assessment and listing procedures. Rules for conducting bioassessments will also have to be developed as part of this impaired 

waters rule, in addition to the surface water quality standard before bioassessments can be fully implemented in our assessment 

and listing process in Arizona. ADEQ is also partnering with the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to 

standardize macroinvertebrate sample collection and analysis methods in order to share data on this important ecosystem 

indicator. 

Future program directions include refining narrative bottom deposit standard implementation guidance for rule development, 

developing narrative biocriterion, starting a diatom bioassessment pilot project, refining reference condition, and developing 

bioassessments for intermittent streams and large rivers. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Status of Water Quality In Arizona - Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Report: June 2000: 

http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/assess/305/index.html 

Draft Status of Water Quality in Arizona - 2002, Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report: 

http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/assess/hsa.html#draft 

WQD Biocriteria Program information: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/assess/monit.html 

ADEQ. 2001. DRAFT Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Biocriteria Program. ADEQ, Phoenix, AZ. 

Spindler, P.H. 2001. DRAFT Narrative bottom deposit standard implementation guidelines for Arizona. ADEQ, Phoenix, AZ. 

Spindler, P.H., 1996. Using ecoregions for explaining macroinvertebrate community distribution among reference sites in 

Arizona, 1992. ADEQ OFR-95-7, Phoenix, AZ. 

Other accomplishments include macroinvertebrate community distribution among reference sites in AZ (2001), development of 

Arizona EDAS biological database (2001), development and testing of a biological index for coldwater streams of AZ (2000), 

development and testing of a biological index for warmwater streams of AZ (1998), and Macroinvertebrate Photocatalog on CD 

(1998). 

ARIZONA: Program Summary December 2002 3-9
ARIZONA: Program Summary December 2002 3-10

 ARIZONA 

Contact Information 

Patti Spindler, Aquatic Ecologist 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

1110 West Washington St. 5415A-1 # Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Phone 602/771-4543 # Fax 602/771-4528 

email: phs@ev.state.az.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

UD nonpoint source assessments 

UD monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

UD promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 127,505 

Total perennial miles 4,980 

Total miles assessed for biology* 0 

fully supporting for 305(b)* n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)* n/a 

listed for 303(d)* n/a 

number of sites sampled 324 

number of miles assessed per site site specific 

*Arizona does not have formal biocriteria and will not be using bioassessments in the 2002 305(b) or 303(d) reports. However, a 

proposal to use bioassessment plus habitat assessment as the implementation procedure for the narrative bottom deposit standard 

will be considered during a rulemaking (2002-03), which is separate from the just completed triennial review of standards. The next 

305(b) report may include bioassessments in support of the narrative bottom deposit standard, if this implementation procedure is 

approved. 
ARIZONA: Program Summary December 2002 3-11 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 89 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria For initial site selection, the following guidelines were used in the early 1990s: a site

must be accessible (within a 2-hour walk or 3-4 miles from nearest 4-wheel drive road),

> 0.5 km downstream of road crossings, no known discharges upstream, no major

impoundments upstream, no channel alterations at the site, and be only minimally

impacted by land use activities and nonpoint sources. All of the following criteria must

be attained in the field assessment of potential sites for a site to be accepted as

reference: site should be truly perennial (indicators: fish, univoltine insects, riparian

indicators), site should be free of local land use impacts, site should be free of channel

alterations, no violations of pH or dissolved oxygen water quality standards, and habitat

assessment index score > 14 using ADEQ’s 2001

5-parameter habitat index. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

ALU designation basis Warm water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Aquatic and Wildlife (A&W) cold, A&W warm, A&W-effluent dependent water,

A&W-ephemeral (AZ has acute and chronic categories for each except ephemeral in

which only acute applies.) 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development – ADEQ has developed a cold water and warm water Index of

Biological Integrity to support these two designated uses, which are currently listed in

the surface water quality standards. However ADEQ does not yet have established

biocriteria. These indexes will become the implementation guidance for proposed

biocriteria in the next triennial review of standards. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

UD assessment of aquatic resources 

UD cause and effect determinations 

UD permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

fish 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

d-frame net; 500 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

500 - 600 count target 

combination level; EPT taxa are identified to genus or species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

artificial substrate: microslides or other suitable substratum 

riffle/run (cobble); artificial substrate 

taxonomic identification 

diatoms only; identified at species level 

visual based, quantitative measurements, hydrogeomorphology; performed with 

bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings, training for

biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, and specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics* 

T repeat sampling (duplicate samples collected for 10% of sites 

annually) 

precision 

sensitivity (standard level of identification used by lab) 

bias (ADEQ uses a standard mesh size, the lab locates small

organisms, using a 6-12x dissecting microscope and a Caton

tray to randomly obtain fractions of the total sample) 

accuracy (any questionable identifications are sent to nationally

recognized taxonomic experts for confirmation and a voucher

specimen collection is maintained) 

T

T

T

Biological data 

AZ-EDAS 

Systat, EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Though multiple performance characteristics are evaluated, ADEQ has not incorporated this information into a QA/QC document. 

ARIZONA: Program Summary December 2002 3-12 
 ARKANSAS 

Contact Information 

William Keith, Water Quality Planning Branch Manager 

Jim Wise, Program Manager 

Chris Davidson, Water Quality Specialist 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

P.O. Box 8913 # Little Rock, AR 72219-8913 

Phone 501/682-0656 # Fax 501/682-0910 

email: Keith@adeq.state.ar.us, Wise@adeq.state.ar.us and Davidson@adeq.state.ar.us 

ADEQ Water Division homepage: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/ 

Program Description 

As part of the Water Division of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Water Quality 

Planning Branch has seven biologists/ecologists and two geologists on staff. This branch deals with a variety of 

issues related to water quality monitoring, standards development, and groundwater and wasteload allocations. 

The Branch is responsible for conducting water quality surveys, assessing the State’s water quality for surface and 

ground water, and 305(b) reporting. The Branch is also responsible for the development of water quality and 

biological criteria for water quality use attainability analysis and for water quality standards development. In 

addition, the Branch is responsible for developing TMDLs (303d) for those waters not meeting water quality 

standards. Finally, the Branch is responsible for the biomonitoring aspect of the NPDES program. 

Biological and habitat monitoring are currently restricted to special project needs associated with synoptic 

watershed surveys or for the development of additional data to support the establishment of biological criteria. 

For the 2000 305(b) report, portions of 106 stream segments from 17 planning segments were assessed for 

aquatic life use support using biological communities. These stream segments were either located above or below 

a point source discharge, or were part of intensive water quality surveys. Survey objectives were to determine the 

impacts of the discharge, evaluate the biological community in ecoregional reference streams, determine use 

attainment in previously listed water bodies of concern or those waters not currently meeting all designated uses. 

Macroinvertebrates were collected and evaluated following EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (USEPA 1989). 

Habitat considerations were used in the evaluation of the macroinvertebrate communities through percent 

comparability evaluation techniques at all sites. An upstream-downstream comparison of the communities, and a 

comparison of the community to a least disturbed reference stream were also used to make the assessments. Fish 

communities were analyzed following EPA's Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for 

Conducting Use Attainability Analysis (USEPA 1983). Direct comparisons were made with ecoregional fish 

community data outlined in the Department's Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of Least-Disturbed 

Reference Streams in Arkansas' Ecoregions, 1987. In addition, an upstream-downstream comparison of the 

communities was made and compared to a least-disturbed reference stream. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Water Quality Inventory Report 2000, 305(b) Report: 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/pdfs/documents/305(b)_2000.pdf 

2002 Proposed 303(d) List: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/pdfs/documents/303(d)_list_proposed_020426.pdf 

1998 Arkansas 303(d) List: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/303drprt.htm 

Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, effective Feb.1998, amended January 2001: 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_010917.pdf 

Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of Least-Disturbed Reference Streams in Arkansas' Ecoregions, 

Volume 1: Data Compilation, and Volume 2: Data Analysis. ADEQ Water Division. 1987. 

Water Quality Planning Branch, list of publications: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/pdfs/documents/publist.pdf 

ARKANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-13
ARKANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-14

 ARKANSAS 

Contact Information 

William Keith, Water Quality Planning Branch Manager 

Jim Wise, Program Manager 

Chris Davidson, Water Quality Specialist 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

P.O. Box 8913 # Little Rock, AR 72219-8913 

Phone 501/682-0656 # Fax 501/682-0910 

email: Keith@adeq.state.ar.us, Wise@adeq.state.ar.us and Davidson@adeq.state.ar.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3 and the National Hydrography Database) 

87,617 

Total perennial miles 28,408 

Total miles assessed for biology* 245 

stream segments 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) ~450 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*Currently, biological monitoring occurs as either 1) part of intensive watershed survey where water quality problems have been 

previously identified; 2) part of a site specific survey, wasteload allocation; and 3) most recently as part of expanding ecoregion 

reference stream data. Biological data are not used to list any 303(d) waters. 
ARKANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-15 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 75 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

T paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

T other: upstream/downstream 

Reference site criteria Water quality and habitat is typical of background ecoregion

conditions. Watershed is somewhat undisturbed. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: watershed size, habitat, water quality 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards

(found in ADPC&E 1987 - WQ87-06-01 & 02) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use, Fishery Based Uses and Warm Water vs.

Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: Ecologically sensitive waterbodies protecting

endangered, threatened, and endemic aquatic species. Fisheries 

are divided into Trout, Lakes and Reservoirs, and Streams (further

subdivided by ecoregion). 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria are currently found

in the project specific QAPP. Additional methods and SOPs are 

being developed. NOTE: The development of criteria and standards

is ongoing. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Currently, baseline data has been collected from numerous locations

prior to BMP implementation and NPDES limit changes. Follow-up

monitoring has occurred at some locations below point sources. No 

follow-up monitoring has occurred at nonpoint source locations. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed

level and broad coverage; multiple seasons, multiple sites) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level and

broad coverage) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame; 200-400 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble), multihabitat and woody debris 

100 count 

combination - family, genus and species 

backpack and boat electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge) and seine; 3/16" and 1/4"

mesh 

pool/glide, riffle/run (cobble), and multihabitat 

anomalies 

whole samples are sorted and identified to species 

species and life stage 

visual based with limited quantitative measurements and hydrogeomorphology, 

pebble counts, flows and canopy cover; performed with bioassessments 

quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for biologists, sorting and

taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival, and standard operating

procedures (in development stage) 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index and return

single metrics - use endpoint for each single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

As a percent of either the reference site or based on ecoregion data

dependent upon standard deviation units 

As a percent of either the reference site or based on ecoregion data

dependent upon standard deviation units 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

As a percent of either the reference site or based on ecoregion data

dependant upon standard deviation units

defining impairment in

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

Microsoft databases 

none 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

ARKANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-16 
 CALIFORNIA 

Contact Information 

Del Rasmussen, TMDL Section 

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 

1001 I Street, P.O. Box 944213 # Sacramento, CA 95812 

Phone 916/341-5545 # Fax 916/341-5550 

email: rasmd@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov 

website: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/quality.html 

Jim Harrington, State Water Quality Biologist 

California Department of Fish and Game (CA DFG) 

2005 Nimbus Road # Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 

Phone 916/358-2862 # Fax 916/985-4301 

email: jharring@ospr.dfg.ca.gov 

California Aquatic Bioassessment Workgroup homepage: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/cabw/cabwhome.html 

Program Description 

Historically, the use of bioassessment data in California water regulations and decision-making has not been a high priority. 

California's tremendous range of ecological diversity and its equally complex history of land and water use have confounded 

progress towards implementation of a state-wide bioassessment program. The recent organization of California’s Surface Water 

Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) is providing the impetus to implement a better organized and standardized biological 

assessment and monitoring program throughout the state. Current concerns over hydroaugmentation and use attainability 

analyses of targeted waterbodies will foster a greater dependence upon bioassessment information in making informed decisions 

regarding the protection and restoration of California’s streams. 

Nine regional boards are essentially independent regulatory entities within the California State Water Resources Control Board 

(SWRCB). Not all regional boards are at the same level of development regarding bioassessment. One of the first management 

actions advancing bioassessment in CA was in 1993 when the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB 6) 

required the use of EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols in a fish hatchery permit. Since that time, the use of bioassessment in 

water resource decision-making has steadily increased. Presently, bioassessment is used by several RWQCBs for a variety of 

purposes, including to: assess the impacts of human activities on the biological integrity of streams and rivers; evaluate the 

effectiveness of restoration efforts, BMP implementation, and permit conditions; develop narrative and numeric biocriteria; 

establish reference conditions; provide baseline data on the benthic macroinvertebrate community in regional streams; determine 

the biological health of streams relative to land use in specific watersheds; help identify aquatic life stressors and associated 

development of ecological indicators in agriculturally dominated and effluent dominated waterbodies; and as an additional tool to 

NPDES and stormwater permitting to supplement the chemical and toxicological information obtained to address chemical 

standards. 

The California Department of Fish and Game’s (CA DFG) Water Pollution Control Laboratory and its Aquatic Biological 

Assessment Laboratory (ABAL) perform macroinvertebrate sampling and identification, fish surveys, physical/habitat surveys, 

toxicity testing, sedimentation studies, and tissue and water chemistry. Since 1992, the ABAL has conducted projects covering 

many different applications of biological monitoring throughout California. These projects have demonstrated bioassessment and 

promoted the effectiveness of bioassessment in the State. 

In 1993, ABAL distributed a set of standard protocols for assessing biological and physical conditions of wadeable streams. The 

California Stream Bioassessment Procedures (CSBP) are regional adaptations of the national USEPA Rapid Bioassessment 

Protocols. The DFG, in cooperation with the SWRCB and USEPA Region 9, also established the California Aquatic 

Bioassessment Workgroup (CABW) to provide input and guidance for the development of a state-wide bioassessment program. 

The Workgroup was formed in 1994 to coordinate scientific and policy-making efforts towards implementing aquatic 

bioassessment in California. Members of the CABW consist of biologists from universities, consulting firms, industry, and 

representatives of state and federal agencies responsible for assessing, monitoring and protecting the biological integrity of 

surface waters. Through its Steering Committee and annual meetings, CABW participants develop objectives and strategies for 

implementing aquatic bioassessment in California. 

Documentation and Further Information 

State Water Resources Control Board. October 2000. 2000 California 305(b) Report on Water Quality. Sacramento, CA: 

SWRCB. 

Status of Aquatic Bioassessment in California and the Development of a State-wide Bioassessment Program, prepared by the 

California Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Biological Assessment Laboratory: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/cabw/status.html 

California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP): http://www.dfg.ca.gov/cabw/protocols.html 

CALIFORNIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-17
CALIFORNIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-18

 CALIFORNIA 

Contact Information 

Del Rasmussen, TMDL Section 

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 

1001 I Street, P.O. Box 944213 # Sacramento, CA 95812 

Phone 916/341-5545 # Fax 916/341-5550 

email: rasmd@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov 

Jim Harrington, State Water Quality Biologist 

California Department of Fish and Game (CA DFG) 

2005 Nimbus Road # Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 

Phone 916/358-2862 # Fax 916/985-4301 

email: jharring@ospr.dfg.ca.gov 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds) 

T probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (specific river basins or 

watersheds) 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 211,513 

Total perennial miles 64,438 

Total miles assessed for biology* unknown 

fully supporting for 305(b) unknown 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) unknown 

listed for 303(d) unknown 

number of sites sampled unknown 

number of miles assessed per site unknown 

*Due to a comprehensive, statewide overhaul of California’s database system, SWRCB was unable to break out numbers for 

stream miles assessed using biology. 
CALIFORNIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-19 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites ~ 200 - 300 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

T other: CA DFG is in the process of developing a more

quantitative method of selecting reference sites on a regional

basis using GIS land use analyses and quantitative physical

habitat measures. 

Reference site criteria under development 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: stream order 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards

(varies by region) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses, Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Regional Water Quality Boards have a Basin Planning function. 

Therefore, water quality standards are regionally specific for

establishing functional uses, criteria, and implementation plans. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Regional water quality standards contain generic statements for the

overarching protection of biological communities with an emphasis

on, but not limited to, fisheries. Procedures to support narrative

biocriteria are regionally specific. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Limited to select studies where biological data are used for

management decisions regarding urban development. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (>500 samples/year; varying levels of rigor) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame; 200 - 400 micron mesh (Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory),

500 - 600 micron mesh (California Stream Bioassessment Procedure)

riffle/run (cobble)

300 - 500 count (Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory), 300 count (CSBP)

lowest possible, usually genus or species

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (return single metrics – use endpoint for each 

single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

transforming metrics bar graph distribution function

 into unitless scores 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in under development

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

Biological data 

Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) regional

database 

CalEDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

CALIFORNIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-20 
 COLORADO 

Contact Information 

Robert McConnell, Monitoring Unit Manager 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South # Denver, CO 80246 

Phone 303/692-3578 # Fax 303/782-0390 

email: robert.mcconnell@state.co.us 

CDPHE Water Quality Control Division website: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqhom.asp 

Program Description 

The Monitoring Unit of the Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE), is responsible for designing studies and collecting chemical, physical, and biological data from a 

statewide network of sampling stations. Personnel from the Assessment Unit of the Water Quality Control Division 

evaluate this information, along with data from other agencies. Using a watershed-specific approach, the seven 

major watersheds within the State of Colorado are assessed sequentially as part of the triennial review of water 

quality standards and classifications. In addition, specific waterbodies are assessed as part of targeted synoptic 

studies, site-specific studies, and as required for evaluating waterbodies listed on the State of Colorado’s 303(d) 

list. 

Most biological assessments are performed to evaluate aquatic life use classifications and to support standards 

development. Biological assessments have occasionally been used to determine attainment of aquatic life uses or 

attainment of provisional sediment standards. However, chemical information from surface water samples is 

primarily used to assess use support determinations as reported in the State of Colorado’s biennial Status of 

Water Quality report. Biologists in the Monitoring Unit are actively developing biocriteria to more effectively utilize 

biological information as part of the State of Colorado’s water quality standards program. Initially, biocriteria will be 

developed for benthic macroinvertebrates. Over the last four years, biologists in the Monitoring Unit have collected 

benthic macroinvertebrate samples from approximately 300 potential reference/least impaired sites from all 

dominant ecoregions within the State of Colorado. This data is currently being evaluated. Combined with 

information on physical habitat and water chemistry, this benthic macroinvertebrate data will be used to develop 

provisional region-specific biocriteria. Once developed, these provisional biocriteria will be evaluated using new 

benthic macroinvertebrate information, and further refined as needed. It is anticipated that benthic 

macroinvertebrate biocriteria will be used as an assessment tool to support the water quality standards and 

classification programs within the State of Colorado. Biocriteria based on fishery information may be developed in 

the future. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Colorado’s 2002 305(b) report and 1998 303(d) list: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/wqresdoc.html 

Draft 2001 Unified Assessment Methodology, Guidance on Data Requirements and Data Interpretation Methods 

Used in Stream Standards and Classification Proceedings, July 1993: 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/Assessment/assessment_practices_and_methods.htm 

Water Quality in Colorado 2000: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/waterqualitybooklet.pdf 

COLORADO: Program Summary December 2002 3-21
COLORADO: Program Summary December 2002 3-22

 COLORADO 

Contact Information 

Robert McConnell, Monitoring Unit Manager 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South # Denver, CO 80246 

Phone 303/692-3578 # Fax 303/782-0390 

email: robert.mcconnell@state.co.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

UD promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: determine attainment of narrative sediment (clean) standard 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (comprehensive 

use throughout jurisdiction, specific river basins or watersheds, and 

special projects) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3)

 107,403 

Total perennial miles 31,415 

Total miles assessed for biology* n/a 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) 85.1 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) ~70 -100 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*Colorado does not use bioassessment in 305(b) assessments with some exceptions. Since Colorado’s water quality standards are 

chemically oriented, the majority of use support determinations are based on chemical data. Bioassessments are conducted as part 

of the Triennial Standards Review process for Colorado’s seven major watersheds; a few are used in the determination of aquatic 

life use and sediment standards attainment. The majority of CDPHE’s work in the field is spent conducting bioassessments in 

preparation for the review process. During the review process, the Water Quality Control Commission uses biological data to 

determine the appropriate aquatic life use classification for 636 stream segments. Once classifications are set, all further water 

quality monitoring and assessment is chemical. 
COLORADO: Program Summary December 2002 3-23 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*ALU classifications are defined in Colorado’s water quality standards but are not considered to be formal narrative biocriteria in the CO 

regulatory process. Colorado is presently developing biocriteria through a stakeholder workgroup process. 

Reference Site/Condition Development** 

Number of reference sites 300 total potential reference/least impaired sites 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria The condition of candidate sites is verified through field evaluation using a “checklist”

of stream attributes that include, but are not limited to, measures of riparian condition,

Rosgen channel type, land use, basin characteristics, physical habitat, substrate,

chemistry, geology, vegetation, and climate. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed*** 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

UD ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information n/a reference sites linked to ALU 

n/a reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

n/a some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

**Reference condition is used on a limited basis in Colorado. Currently, it is used as a key component in determining sediment

deposition impacts to aquatic life and has been used in the first stages of biocriteria development, to locate sampling sites, as part of

various EMAP studies underway in CO, and in the development of regional nutrient criteria. The reference condition approach is not

developed enough to be an established part of biological assessments or the standards setting process in Colorado. Most, if not all, 

assessments are conducted on a case-by-case or site-specific basis, and although CO does attempt to characterize the “expected

condition” for a particular waterbody, it is not treated as a formal reference condition. 

***Sediment guidance suggests 3 tiers for reference conditions like those described in the 1996 EPA technical guidance for

biological criteria: 1) minimally disturbed, 2) best available (least disturbed), and 3) none acceptable (“hypothetical explanation”). 

These can be considered individually and in combination. 

ALU designation basis Class System, Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three classifications: Class 1 Cold Water Aquatic Life, Class 1 Warm Water Aquatic

Life, Class 2 Cold and Warm Water Aquatic Life 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development* 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none* 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria uses in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Bioassessment endpoints are used as targets in the attainment of the sediment

standard (e.g. TMDL development). 
Field and Lab Methods* 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 - 500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at watershed level) 

UD periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Surber, dipnet; 500 - 600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) or most productive habitat if riffle/run is not available 

300 count 

lowest possible level with positive identification 

backpack electrofisher 

multihabitat 

length measurement 

none 

species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc), collect by hand 

riffle/run (cobble) 

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin, taxonomic identification 

all algae, species level 

visual based, hydrogeomorphology, pebble counts; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings and training for biologists, specimen

archival 

*Field and lab methods reported are those used by the Monitoring Unit of the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division and are patterned

after the EPA RBP approach. They do not apply to any of the other agencies collecting biological data in Colorado. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (return single metrics) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

impairment thresholds determined on case-by-case basis as part of

site-specific analyses 

Colorado is currently exploring possible metrics and indices through a

workgroup process. 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision (replicate samples collected at 10% of sites) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

Biological data 

Currently moving all biological and habitat data into EDAS 

EDAS, Excel, Minitab 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

COLORADO: Program Summary December 2002 3-24 
 CONNECTICUT 

Contact Information 

Ernest Pizzuto, Jr., Supervising Environmental Analyst 

Guy Hoffman, Environmental Biologist 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) 

79 Elm Street # Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

Phone 860/424-3715 # Fax 860/424-4055 

email: ernest.pizzuto@po.state.ct.us 

CT DEP Bureau of Water Management website: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/index.htm 

Program Description 

The Connecticut Ambient Biological Monitoring Program characterizes water quality by evaluating the biological integrity of

resident communities of aquatic organisms. This information is used as the primary indicator to meet reporting requirements for

assessment of aquatic life use support and impairment under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. There are 

currently about 3.5 full time employees dedicated to biological assessment of rivers. Biological monitoring has been conducted

by the CT DEP Bureau of Water Management since the early 1970s and has focused primarily on the benthic invertebrate

community of wadeable stream segments. Narrative criteria for benthic invertebrates were incorporated into the CT water quality

standards in 1987. Assessments are based on community structure characteristics using techniques intended to minimize the

influence of variables such as habitat, seasonality and sampling method. Since 1989, methodology has followed a modified

version of the USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) III (USEPA 1989).

 A total of 302 sites on 153 rivers have been monitored to date (February 2002). Pursuant to the five-year rotating basin

monitoring strategy that began in 1996, benthic invertebrate monitoring was conducted at approximately 50 sites each year for

the five-year period ending in 2000. Since biological monitoring integrates environmental conditions over an extended time

period, each site was sampled only once, primarily during the fall. Spring sampling is conducted on a limited basis for special

studies or to supplement fall sampling. Sampling site selection is based on a targeted approach that considers sub-basin size,

location of wastewater discharges, land use, and resource value. In addition to the rotating basin schedule, approximately ten

regional reference sites located across the State are sampled annually, as well as a limited number of sites to support special

projects. 

The Bureau of Water Management recognizes the need to obtain a broader perspective of biological integrity by incorporation of

fish community assessment data into the biological monitoring process. This has been accomplished to a limited degree by a

cooperative working relationship with the CT DEP Division of Inland Fisheries. Fish sampling information obtained by fisheries

biologists for purposes consistent with the fisheries management program has been utilized in the form of best professional

judgment assessments which CT DEP considers to be generally equivalent to USEPA RBP IV (USEPA 1989). Funds obtained 

through an EPA 104(b)(3) grant have supported part of a Fisheries Division staff position since 1999. This effort has provided for

approximately 24 fish community surveys, roughly equivalent in effort to annual RBP V assessment. This project is intended to

support development of fish community structure metrics that will provide a more quantitative approach to the assessment 

process. 

The CT DEP also promotes and directs a monitoring program for volunteers from which usable assessment information is

obtained. The details of this program, A Tiered Approach to Citizen-Based Monitoring of Wadeable Streams and Rivers, can be 

obtained from the CT DEP Bureau of Water Management or viewed online at http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/tierapp.pdf 

Section 305(b) of the CWA requires that states provide a description of the water quality of all navigable waters within their

boundaries. Even with program improvements resulting from the rotating basin approach and incorporation of volunteer data, a

complete census of State waters is not possible based on this focused approach to monitoring. To accomplish the goal of

comprehensive monitoring, CT DEP is currently utilizing funds and technical assistance from USEPA to conduct a pilot statewide

probabilistic monitoring program during 2002-2003. This project will sample the benthic invertebrate, fish, and periphyton

communities at approximately 60 randomly selected sites. Through probabilistic monitoring, this statistically valid sample of

wadeable streams in Connecticut will provide an estimate of conditions of all wadeable streams in the State. During this twoyear period, the rotating basin approach will be suspended. However, limited focused monitoring will continue for reference

sites, special projects, intensive surveys and to support TMDL development. 

Documentation and Further Information 

DRAFT 2002 List of Connecticut Waterbodies Not Meeting Water Quality Standards, 303(d) list, May 2002: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/implist.pdf 

Draft Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology for 305(b) and 303(d) Reporting, April 2002: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wq/method.pdf 

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Ambient Biological Monitoring, March 1996. CT DEP Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division, CT06106. 

Beauchene, M. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Ambient Biological Monitoring -- Fish Community Structure. CT DEP 

Bureau of Water Management. 

Ambient Monitoring Strategy for Rivers and Streams, Rotating Basin Approach. CT DEP 1999. 

CONNECTICUT: Program Summary December 2002 3-25
CONNECTICUT: Program Summary December 2002 3-26

 CONNECTICUT 

Contact Information 

Ernest Pizzuto, Jr., Supervising Environmental Analyst 

Guy Hoffman, Environmental Biologist 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) 

79 Elm Street # Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

Phone 860/424-3715 # Fax 860/424-4055 

email: ernest.pizzuto@po.state.ct.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins and watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special 

projects, specific river basins and watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction beginning in 2002 and 2003) 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determinations) 

5,830 

Total perennial miles 5,484 

Total miles assessed for biology 961 

fully supporting for 305(b) 764 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 195 

listed for 303(d)* n/a 

number of sites sampled* 311 

number of miles assessed per site* site specific 

*The existing 303(d) doesn't use mileage, although it contains a subset of partially/non-supporting stream miles listed in the 305(b). 

These numbers will be the same in the next report. Of the 311 sites sampled, 221 were sampled by the state, 30 by contractors and 

60 by volunteers. The number of miles assessed per site is site specific and varies according to land use, geomorphology, etc. 
CONNECTICUT: Program Summary December 2002 3-27 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 12 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

T other: within major drainage basin 

Reference site criteria Least impacted by human influence. Size: ± one stream order or one

order of magnitude in drainage area with similar gradient. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: major drainage basin, gradient 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

"Fish and Wildlife Habitat" is the only ALU designation, but narrative

criteria are provided for "benthic invertebrates which inhabit lotic

waters" for classifications AA, A, and B while more general descriptive

narrative is provided for C and D. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in SOPs for 

ambient biological monitoring 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Bioassessment/biocriteria have been used in specific cases to

determine if formerly impaired waters are meeting ALU. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level;

multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad coverage for watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T other: phytoplankton and macrophytes (<100 sample/year; single season, multiple 

sites - not at watershed level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Rectangular kick net, 1.5 ft. wide, 800-900 micron mesh. Surber and multiple plate

samplers used prior to 1989. Rock baskets used for special projects. 

richest habitat, riffle/run (cobble) 

200 count 

benthic identification is primarily to species 

backpack electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge) 

multihabitat 

length measurement, anomalies 

none 

species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

riffle/run (cobble)

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin; biomass; taxonomic identification; semi-quantitative fieldbased rapid periphyton survey

all algae, species level if possible

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training

for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

Use scoring criteria table from 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) guidance

(Figure 6.3-4). CT DEP recognizes the need to refine scoring criteria and impairment 

thresholds. 

Use biological condition table from 1989 RBP guidance (Figure 6.3-4): >54% of

reference score = non-impaired for purposes of 305(b)/303(d) 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (duplicate samples at reference sites) 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Biological data 

Initial sample data is entered into an Excel spreadsheet then transferred to MS Access. 

Currently working on migration from MS Access to STORET. 

Spreadsheet used for metric calculation. Formerly used SAS. Currently shopping for 

less expensive statistical package. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

CONNECTICUT: Program Summary December 2002 3-28 
 DELAWARE 

Contact Information 

Ellen Dickey, Environmental Scientist 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) 

89 Kings Highway # Dover, DE 19901 

Phone 302/739-4771 

email: ellen.dickey@state.de.us 

DNREC Surface Water Quality Management homepage: 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/Divisions/Water/WaterQuality/WQM.htm 

Program Description 

Water quality and biological data for Delaware’s surface waters are collected under Delaware’s Ambient Surface 

Water Quality Monitoring Program and Biological Monitoring Program within the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Several active citizen monitoring programs have also been 

developed throughout Delaware that augment the data collected by DNREC. The purpose of the Ambient Surface 

Water Quality Monitoring Program is to collect data on the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

Delaware's surface waters. The information collected under this program is used to: 

• Describe general water quality conditions in the State; 

• Identify long-term trends in water quality; 

• Determine the suitability of Delaware’s waters for water supply, recreation, fish and aquatic life, and other 

uses; 

• Monitor achievement of water quality standards; 

• Identify and prioritize high quality and degraded waters; 

• Support Total Maximum Daily Load Program; and 

• Evaluate the overall success of Delaware's water quality management efforts. 

DNREC recognizes the need to use its personnel and financial resources efficiently and effectively. To that end, 

surface water quality monitoring is conducted in a manner that focuses available resources on the Whole Basin 

Management concept. This program calls for the Department, in partnership with other governmental entities, 

private interests, and all stakeholders, to focus its resources on specific watersheds and basins (groups of 

watersheds) within specific time frames. The Whole Basin Management Program in Delaware operates on a 5-

year rotating basis. In addition to the planning and preliminary assessment steps, Whole Basin Management will 

include intensive basin monitoring, comprehensive analyses, management option evaluations, and resource 

protection strategy development. Public participation and ongoing implementation activities will occur throughout 

the Whole Basin Management process. This new approach enables DNREC to comprehensively monitor and 

assess the condition of the State’s environment with due consideration to all facets of the ecosystem. 

Biological assessment monitoring is one of five major components of Delaware's Surface Water Quality Monitoring 

Program. The biological monitoring program is a major tool used by the Department to assess the conditions of 

surface waters. It includes the assessment of indigenous biological communities and physical habitats of streams, 

ponds, estuaries and wetlands. The goal of the program is to establish numeric biological criteria in State water 

quality standards to complement both existing chemical criteria and other assessments focused on fish tissue 

monitoring and bioassay testing. Standard methods have been developed and tested for assessing the biological 

community and habitat quality of nontidal streams, and draft numeric criteria are under development. Efforts over 

the next few years will focus on the development of methods for assessing estuaries and ponds and for assessing 

the quality and quantity of wetlands. 

Documentation and Further Information 

State of Delaware 2000 Watershed Assessment 305(b) Report and 1998 303(d) List:

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Sections/Watershed/TMDL/305and303.htm 

DE Surface Water Quality Standards: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water/wqs1999.pdf 

State of Delaware Fiscal Year 2000 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Plan: 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/Library/Water/swmonpro.pdf 

Division of Water Resources 2000 Annual Report: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Public/2000AnnualReport/index.htm 

DELAWARE: Program Summary December 2002 3-29
DELAWARE: Program Summary December 2002 3-30

 DELAWARE 

Contact Information 

Ellen Dickey, Environmental Scientist 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) 

89 Kings Highway # Dover, DE 19901 

Phone 302/739-4771 

email: ellen.dickey@state.de.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

riverbasins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: probabilistic by specific county (used comprehensively 

throughout state) 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 

2,506 

Total perennial miles 1,778 

Total miles assessed for biology* 2,506 

fully supporting for 305(b)* 741 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)* 1,765 

listed for 303(d)* 1,173 

number of sites sampled (1991 - 2001)** 195 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*All of DE’s streams were assessed for the 2000 305(b) Report. These numbers represent the miles assessed for aquatic life 

support using a combination of physical, chemical, and biological data. 

**These sampling stations were EMAP based. Of the 195 total sites sampled, 49 sites have not yet been assessed. Of the 146 

sites assessed, 27 are fully supporting and 119 are partially/non-supporting. 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T
DELAWARE: Program Summary December 2002 3-31 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 13 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Least impacted, land use, habitat score >110 out of 140, no point

source discharge, no known direct discharge from animal feedlots or

urban runoff, professional judgment. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use and Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: 1) Fish, Aquatic Life, and Wildlife; 2) Cold Water

Fish 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - Procedures used to support general aquatic life statements in

WQS are those developed by the Mid Atlantic Coastal Streams

(MACS) Workgroup. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS Draft numeric criteria are under development. 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Some streams have been placed on the State's 303(d) list for poor

biology/habitat. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame and kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) in Piedmont ecoregion, and multihabitat in Coastal Plain

ecoregion 

200 count 

genus 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings and training for biologists,

sorting proficiency checks, specimen archival, and a QAPP for biological work is

under development 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds 

95th percentile of all sites 

< 67% of reference is impaired to some degree 

transforming metrics into

unitless scores 

defining impairment in a

multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (replicate samples are collected at every 10

sites by the same team, at the same reach or an adjacent

reach) 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

Biological data 

MS Access and Excel 

Excel 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

DELAWARE: Program Summary December 2002 3-32 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Contact Information 

Nicoline Shulterbrandt, Water Quality Division 

Department of Health (DC DOH) 

51 N Street, NE, 5th Floor# Washington, DC 20002 

Phone 202/535-2194 # Fax 202/535-1363 

email: nicoline.shulterbrandt@dc.gov 

DOH Water Quality Division homepage: 

http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/administration_offices/environmental/services2/water_division/index.shtm 

Program Description 

The mission of DC’s Department of Health (DC DOH), Environmental Health Administration, Water Quality Division 

is to restore and protect the surface and ground waters of the District of Columbia. The program, established under 

the authorities of the DC Water Pollution Control Act and the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), has three principal 

components: 

Water Quality Control 

The Water Quality Control component fulfills the function of policy planning as well as regulatory control. In 

addition, it conducts special studies on pollutant fate and transport to identify probable sources and impacts, 

river/stream sediment and water column quality not covered by ambient monitoring, wet weather nonpoint 

source runoff quantity and quality, and discharge-related facility inspections. It also tracks permit violations. 

Water Quality Monitoring 

Water Quality Monitoring functions encompass waterbody assessment; collection of ambient water quality 

data; periodic fish tissue analysis for parameters of concern such as PCB, chlordane, and DDT; periodic 

submerged aquatic vegetation survey; and bioassessment of wetlands and river fringes. 

Environmental Laboratory 

The Environmental Laboratory is charged with the analysis of samples for a variety of chemical parameters. 

Documentation and Further Information 

District of Columbia 2000 305(b) Report, Executive Summary: 

http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/administration_offices/environmental/services2/water_division/pdf/00-305bexsumm. 

shtm 

District of Columbia Water Quality Standards: 

http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/administration_offices/environmental/services2/water_division/pdf/WaterQualitySta 

ndards.shtm 

District of Columbia Water Quality Monitoring Regulations (Chapter 19 of DC Municipal Regulations): 

http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/administration_offices/environmental/services2/water_division/pdf/WaterQualityMon 

itoring.shtm 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-33 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-34 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Contact Information 

Nicoline Shulterbrandt, Water Quality Division 

Department of Health (DC DOH) 

51 N Street, NE, 5th Floor# Washington, DC 20002 

Phone 202/535-2194 # Fax 202/535-1363 

email: nicoline.shulterbrandt@dc.gov 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using state based GIS coverage) 

39 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology 39 

fully supporting for 305(b) 0 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 39 

listed for 303(d) unknown 

number of sites sampled unknown 

number of miles assessed per site unknown 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-35 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 2 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watershed 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria DC DOH does not have reference site criteria. All streams in DC are 

contaminated. DC DOH compares streams to reference streams in

Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties in Maryland. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Information not provided 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

T jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

One designation: Protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and

wildlife 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Formal/informal numeric procedures are used to support narrative

biocriteria 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

unknown 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

periphyton 

T other: phytoplankton and zooplankton (<100 samples/year; single 

observation, limited sampling) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame, kick net (1 meter); mesh size information not provided 

riffle/run (cobble) 

100 count 

family 

backpack electrofisher 

pool/glide, riffle/run (cobble) 

length measurement, biomass – individual 

none 

species 

hydrogeomorphology; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

Information not provided 

Information not provided 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in Information not provided 

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Information not provided 

Biological data 

paper files only 

data retrieved from paper files 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-36 
FLORIDA 

Contact Information 

Russel Frydenborg, Environmental Administrator 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 

2600 Blair Stone Road # Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 

Phone 850/921-9821 # Fax 850/922-4614 

email: russel.frydenborg@dep.state.fl.us 

FDEP Bioassessment homepage: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/bioassess/index.htm 

Program Description 

Biological sampling has been one component of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

overall monitoring strategy since the early 1970s. The Bioassessment Program, in its current manifestation, has 

been in existence since 1992, in response to the need for tools that would detect and characterize the nature and 

extent of nonpoint source pollution (sensu the 319 program). The primary goal of FDEP’s bioassessment activities 

are to determine the biological health, or degree of impairment, in the State’s surface waters. The biological 

assessment results are heavily utilized by a number of FDEP programs for making informed environmental 

decisions: 

• Total Maximum Daily Load (303(d)) program – determining the impairment status of waterbodies for potential 

inclusion on the 303(d) list 

• The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program – determining effectiveness of 

discharge permit limits 

• Nonpoint Source Program – targeting areas with nonpoint source problems and determining the effectiveness 

of Best Management Practices 

• Rotating Basin Assessment program – overall assessment of all human activities in a watershed 

• Mine Reclamation program – determining the success of mitigation efforts 

• FDEP’s Division of Waste Management – ensuring that clean up efforts are sufficient to protect aquatic life 

adjacent to waste clean up sites (e.g., RCRA). 

Biological data are used in Florida’s 305(b) report as one of the key pieces of Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS) 

information for determining if a waterbody meets its designated use. Bioassessment data are also used for 

establishing the impairment status of a waterbody for 303(d) listing purposes. 

After recalibration of bioassessment metrics and indices (currently underway), it is anticipated that Florida’s water 

quality standards (Rule 62.302 Florida Administrative Code) will be revised accordingly. Although the primary 

target community for the bioassessment program is currently benthic macroinvertebrates, Florida is also working 

on potential assessment methods that use algal and vascular plant assemblages. While multimetric biological 

indices are currently complete for streams, rivers, and lakes, it is anticipated that ongoing index development for 

wetlands and estuaries will be finalized over the next several years. 

The most important recent accomplishment of the Bioassessment Program has been the inclusion of the Stream 

Condition Index, the BioRecon, and Lake Condition Index as impairment indicator tools in Florida’s Impaired 

Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, FAC. The IWR is a new administrative code that provides detailed specifications 

for how surface waters are determined to be impaired for Section 303(d) listing. Future challenges include 

incorporating the bioassessment tools into a Statewide probabilistic survey design, as well as continuing to meet 

the increasing demands for biological tools and data. 

Documentation and Further Information 

2000 Florida Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/305b/index.htm 

Numerous technical reports are available online at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/reports/index.htm 

and http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/bioassess/pubs.htm 

For an online collection of FDEP standard operating procedures, go to: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/qa/sops.htm 

Surface Water Quality Classifications: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/surfacewater/index.htm 

FLORIDA: Program Summary December 2002 3-37 
Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: biocriteria development 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (5-year rotation, comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

other: 

FLORIDA 

Contact Information 

Russel Frydenborg, Environmental Administrator

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

2600 Blair Stone Road # Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Phone 850/921-9821 # Fax 850/922-4614

email: russel.frydenborg@dep.state.fl.us

Programmatic Elements 

Stream Miles

Total miles 51,858

(determined using waterbody identification- segment of stream,

generally 5 mile increments)

Total perennial miles 22,993 

Total miles assessed for biology 4,795 

fully supporting for 305(b) 4,365 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 430 

listed for 303(d) 430 

number of sites sampled (over 2 years) 959 

number of miles assessed per site 5 

FLORIDA: Program Summary December 2002 3-38 
FLORIDA: Program Summary December 2002 3-39 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*Florida has made substantial progress in developing new multimetric indices for streams (Stream Condition Index and BioRecon),

lakes (Lake Condition Index), and wetlands for eventual inclusion in the Florida Administrative Code. When the new indices are 

adopted as water quality standards, the role of Shannon-Weaver diversity as a numeric standard will be re-evaluated. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 150 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria least impaired by human activities in a region, optimal habitat, benign

land use in watershed, uncontaminated water quality, undisturbed

hydrology 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

T gradient response (for recalibration of existing indexes) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Single aquatic life use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

One designation: propagation of a healthy, well balanced fish and

wildlife community 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in FDEP’s

Standard Operating Procedures 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS Numeric biocriteria located in Rule 62-302 Florida Administrative 

Code – “Shannon-Weaver diversity shall not be reduced more than

25% of background conditions” * 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

TMDLs, restoration/mitigation studies, BMP effectiveness studies,

discharge permit renewal 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed 

level) 

fish 

T periphyton (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at

watershed level) 

T other: phytoplankton, macrophytes (100-500 samples/year; single 

observation, limited sampling) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

d-frame, dipnet (500-600 micron mesh), multiplate (Hester-Dendys)

multihabitat (snags, roots, leaf packs, aquatic vegetation)

100-count target

species level (where possible)

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.), collect by

hand artificial substrate: periphytometer, microslides or other suitable substratum 

multihabitat 

chlorophyll a/phaeophytin, taxonomic identification 

all algae, species level (diatoms to variety level) 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen

archival, habitat assessment tests, sampling field audits, sampling variability

studies, performance testing program for bioassessment 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population 

quadrasection of best score 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (same team, same reach; different teams in 

same reach) 

precision (coefficient of variation) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy (species accumulation) 

T

T

Biological data 

custom Oracle-based program, “S-BIO” 

custom Oracle-based program, “S-BIO” 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

FLORIDA: Program Summary December 2002 3-40 
GEORGIA 

Contact Information 

Kathy Methier, Ambient Monitoring Unit Manager 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) 

4220 International Parkway, Suite 101 # Atlanta, GA 30354 

Phone 404/675-6236 # Fax 404/675-6244 

email: kathy_methier@dnr.state.ga.us 

GA DNR Environmental Protection Division: http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/ 

Program Description 

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) Environmental Protection Division (EPD) monitoring 

program integrates physical, chemical, and biological monitoring to provide information for water quality, use 

attainment assessments, and basin planning. EPD monitors the surface waters of the state to collect baseline and 

trend data, document existing conditions, study impacts of specific discharges, determine improvements resulting 

from upgraded water pollution control plants, support enforcement actions, establish wasteload allocations for new 

and existing facilities, verify water pollution control plant compliance, document water use impairment and reasons 

for problems causing less than full support of designated water uses, and develop TMDLs. Intensive surveys; 

lake, coastal, biological, fish tissue, toxic substance, and trend monitoring; and facility compliance sampling are the 

major monitoring tools used by EPD. 

Long-term, trend, and ambient monitoring of streams at strategic locations throughout Georgia, was initiated by 

EPD during the late 1960s. This work was and continues to be accomplished to a large extent through cooperative 

agreements with federal, state, and local agencies who collect samples from groups of stations at specific, fixed 

locations throughout the year. 

In 1995, EPD adopted and implemented significant changes to the strategy for trend monitoring in Georgia. The 

changes were implemented to support the River Basin Management Planning program. The number of fixed 

stations statewide was reduced in order to focus resources for sampling and analysis in a particular group of 

basins in any one year in accordance with the basin planning schedule. This approach provides the framework for 

identifying, assessing, and prioritizing water resource issues, developing implementation strategies, and providing 

opportunities for targeted, cooperative actions to reduce pollution, enhance aquatic habitat, and provide a 

dependable water supply. 

The Watershed Planning and Monitoring Section of the EPD Water Protection Branch performs the following tasks: 

• Conducts monitoring of Georgia streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries for use with wasteload allocations and to 

determine compliance with water quality standards; 

• Develops River Basin Management Plans for river basins in Georgia; 

• Conducts water quality modeling for wasteload allocations, water use classifications, and water quality 

standards in Georgia; and 

• Collects samples of facility discharges for laboratory testing of samples. 

Currently, reference site selection and biocriteria development are being carried out under contract with Columbus 

State University. The project is in Phase III with projected completion in 2003. The final phase, Phase IV, is 

projected to be completed in 2004. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Georgia’s 2000 305(b) Report, Water Quality in Georgia, 1998-1999; the Final Georgia 2000 305(b)/303(d) List 

Documents, including Summary of Changes from the 2000 to 2002 305(b)/303(d) List, can be found under 

Georgia’s Environment, Water Quality in the Table of Contents at the following site: 

http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/ 

2000. DRAFT Standard Operating Procedures for Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment. Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Branch, Atlanta, GA. 

GEORGIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-41 
GEORGIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-42

 GEORGIA 

Contact Information 

Kathy Methier, Ambient Monitoring Unit Manager 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) 

4220 International Parkway, Suite 101 # Atlanta, GA 30354 

Phone 404/675-6236 # Fax 404/675-6244 

email: kathy_methier@dnr.state.ga.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds, and comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using state based coverage) 

70,150 

Total perennial miles 44,056 

Total miles assessed for biology* 1,416 

fully supporting for 305(b) 477 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 939 

listed for 303(d) – 

number of sites sampled (in 2000) 153 

number of miles assessed per site varies 

*In 2000, 72 stations were sampled and a total of 477 miles were assessed as fully supporting for 305(b) (6.6 miles 

assessed/station); 75 stations were sampled and a total of 799 miles were assessed as partially supporting (10.7 miles 

assessed/station); 6 stations were sampled and 140 miles were assessed as not supporting (23.3 miles assessed/station). This 

results in a total of 153 stations and 1,416 stream miles assessed in 2000 (9.25 miles assessed/station). The stream miles listed 

above are not divided into those monitored for biology versus chemistry because 305(b) reporting requirements use both types of 

data. The sampling length per site varies and the length of stream represented by each sample is determined by the surrounding 

hydrography. 
GEORGIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-43 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites Reference site selection is under development. 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Columbus State University is using several criteria for selecting 

reference sites, including minimum overall habitat score, managed 

land, urban land, minimum forested riparian zone width, forested 

riparian zone in catchment, silviculture activity, and point source 

discharges. Reference sites would be defined as least-disturbed 

according to these criteria. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations: Coastal fishing; fishing, propagation of fish,

shellfish, game, and other aquatic life; primary and secondary trout 

waters 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria are located in the

Environmental Protection Division’s SOPs for macroinvertebrates 

and DNR/Wildlife Resources Division's IBI protocols for fish 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Fish IBI and macroinvertebrate assessments were conducted to 

evaluate approximately 80 previously 303(d)-listed sites in the last 

two years. While some sites were removed from the list others, 

found to be impaired due to (clean) sediment deposition, remained

on the list. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites -

watershed level) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - 

watershed level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand and D-frame; 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

200 count 

genus 

seine, backpack electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge); 3/16" and 1/4" mesh 

Sample all habitats within a sample reach that is 35X the mean stream width. 

Habitat assessments are broken out between riffle/run and glide/pool based

on the ecoregion in which the sample is located. 

biomass – batch, anomalies 

none 

species 

visual based and zig-zag pebble count; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings

and training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

UD 

T

Multimetric thresholds

under development 

under development 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in under development

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

EDAS and Excel 

EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

GEORGIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-44 
HAWAI`I 

Contact Information 

Katina Henderson, Water Quality Management Planner 

Hawai`i State Department of Health (HIDOH) 

919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 312 # Honolulu, HI 96814 

Phone 808/587-4337 # Fax 808/587-4370 

email: khenderson@eha.health.state.hi.us 

HIDOH Environmental Planning Office homepage: http://www.hawaii.gov/health/eh/epo 

Program Description 

The primary objective of the Hawai`i State Department of Health (HIDOH) Bioassessment Program is to augment 

the commonly used physical and chemical water quality assessments performed (during ambient monitoring, use 

attainability studies, and other investigations) for classification, evaluation and regulation of water bodies. The 

program primarily utilizes the Hawai`i Stream Bioassessment Protocol (HSBP) 3.01 developed by Mike Kido and 

the Hawai`i Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Visual Assessment protocol for characterization of 

streams. HIDOH currently uses these protocols in conjunction with water quality data to establish TMDLs in the 

State of Hawai`i. In the future the HSBP and the Hawai`i NRCS protocol will be used in conjunction with physical 

and chemical water quality data to classify streams and determine exceedances of narrative criteria. 

The HSBP includes both habitat and biotic metrics. The general approach of the HSBP is to compare measures of 

community characteristics and habitat of a study stream to a minimally impacted ecoregional reference condition. 

An Index of Biotic Integrity, currently focused on fish, composes the biotic portion of the protocol. Much of the 

basis for evaluation is the presence or absence of native taxa and the introduction of non-native species. Low 

abundance or low diversity of native fauna suggests diminished biological integrity. The habitat portion of the 

HSBP includes standard habitat metrics, including bank stability, embeddedness, canopy cover and presence of 

fine and coarse organic material. The State of Hawai`i will soon be working with USGS to census the 

macroinvertebrate community in Hawai`i and develop metrics for the Hawai`i Bioassessment Program, which will 

add a component to measure pollution tolerance. The macroinvertebrate community in Hawai`i is quite different 

from that of the mainland United States; therefore, the metric may be quite unlike that of any other state. 

As a preliminary evaluation of sites and to compliment the HSBP habitat component, the Hawai`i NRCS Visual 

Assessment protocol is applied. This is a modified version of the national NRCS visual assessment protocol. 

The State Water Quality Management Planner, along with a Stream Bioassessment Intern, primarily perform these 

assessments. Additionally, other scientists from HIDOH, scientists from other local, state and federal agencies, 

local university students and professors, and skilled community members volunteer their time to help perform 

these protocols. The time demand of each task is dependent upon the number of aquatic organisms in the 

stream, the size of the stream, and other local conditions. HIDOH currently sponsors training courses in the 

protocols to those with a scientific background on a limited basis. 

Documentation and Further Information 

excerpts from Hawai`i 2000 305(b) Report: http://www.hawaii.gov/health/eh/cwb/2000-305b/index.html 

Proposed 2001 revisions to Hawai`i Water Quality Standards, January 2002 Indicators of Environmental Quality 

Report: http://www.hawaii.gov/health/eh/epo/wqrev.htm 

Hawai`i Stream Bioassessment Protocol, Michael Kido, Version 3.01, January 2001: 

http://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/epo/kawa.pdf 

HAWAI`I: Program Summary December 2002 3-45 
HAWAI`I: Program Summary December 2002 3-46 

HAWAI`I 

Contact Information 

Katina Henderson, Water Quality Management Planner 

Hawai`i State Department of Health (HIDOH) 

919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 312 # Honolulu, HI 96814 

Phone 808/587-4337 # Fax 808/587-4370 

email: khenderson@eha.health.state.hi.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

UD promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using state based coverage) 

249 

Total perennial miles 249 

Total miles assessed for biology 15 

fully supporting for 305(b) 5 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 10 

listed for 303(d) 10 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 17 

number of miles assessed per site* <1 

*Less than 1 mile assessed per site was determined by dividing the 15 total miles assessed for biology by the 17 sites sampled, 

which equals roughly .88 miles. 
HAWAI`I: Program Summary December 2002 3-47 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 3 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Minimally impacted and most pristine. Always scores near 100%

when using the Hawai`i Stream Bioassessment Protocol no matter

when and where sampled. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) (the entire State of Hawai`i is

one ecoregion) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: 1) Protection of native breeding stock, and 2)

Support and propagation of aquatic life 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development – Hawai`i is currently proposing to add numeric

biocriteria to WQS 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed UD benthos (Hawai`i will soon be working with USGS to census the

macroinvertebrate community in Hawai`i and develop metrics) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

backback electrofisher and snorkel 

multihabitat 

length measurement and biomass - individual 

selected species 

species 

visual based, habitat availability, substrate embeddedness, Fine and Coarse

Particulate Organic Matter (FPOM/CPOM) characterization, velocity-depth

combinations, channel flow status, channel alteration, bank stability, riparian

vegetative zone width, riparian understory coverage, and percent native riparian

plant coverage; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings and training for biologists, and

taxonomic proficiency checks 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

under development 

under development* 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

Excel 

Statistica 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*The following are the proposed impairment thresholds: 

Class 1a (mainly undeveloped, "unimpaired") Class 2a (mainly developed, “unimpaired”) 

Habitat greater than or equal to 75% of reference condition between 50% and 75% of reference condition 

Biotic integrity greater than or equal to 70% of reference condition between 30% and 70% of reference condition 

HAWAI`I: Program Summary December 2002 3-48 
IDAHO 

Contact Information 

Cynthia Grafe, Water Quality Assessment Program Coordinator 

State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

1410 North Hilton # Boise, ID 83706 

Phone 208/373-0163 # Fax 208/373-0576 

email: cgrafe@deq.state.id.us 

IDEQ Water Quality homepage: http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/water1.htm 

Program Description 

The Idaho surface water program uses biological information extensively to determine use support and impairment. In 1993, the 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) implemented a rapid bioassessment program aimed at integrating biological 

and chemical monitoring with physical habitat assessment as a way of characterizing water quality and stream integrity. This 

program, know as the Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP), closely follows concepts and methods described in the 

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (USEPA 1999). The main purpose of BURP is to provide 

consistency in monitoring, collecting data, and reporting. Specifically, biological along with physical, chemical, and landscape 

data are used to address the following objectives: 

• Determine the degree of beneficial use support of the water body 

• Determine the degree of biological integrity using biological information or other measures 

• Compile descriptive information about the water body and data used in the assessment. 

IDEQ has formal monitoring and assessment methods in place for large rivers and small streams. Methods for lakes and 

reservoirs are in development. For rivers and streams, there are a total of 8 multimetric indices for benthic macroinvertebrates, 

periphyton, fish, habitat, and physicochemical measures. Indices are integrated into attaining or non-attaining use support 

determinations. The integration uses a weight-of-evidence approach combined with individual minimum benchmarks for each 

assemblage and numeric criteria exceedances. 

IDEQ has several plans to improve the current monitoring and assessment program. A draft statewide monitoring strategy will be 

introduced in July 2002. Future plans include incorporating a probabilistic monitoring design for screening purposes as well as 

adding methods for other water body types (e.g., wetlands, intermittent streams, springs, etc.). Implementation of these plans is 

dependent on agency priorities and available resources. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Idaho’s 1998 303(d) List: http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/1998_303d/303dlist.pdf 

Grafe, C.S.et al. 2002. Water body assessment guidance, 2nd edition. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. 

113 pp. http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/wbag/WBAG2001.htm 

Grafe, C.S. (editor) April 2002. Idaho small stream ecological assessment framework: an integrated approach. Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. 304 pp. 

http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/wbag/WBAG_AssessmentFramework.htm 

Grafe, C.S. (editor). April 2002. Idaho river ecological assessment framework: an integrated approach. Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. 222 pp. 

http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/wbag/WBAG_AssessmentFramework.htm 

Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP) 2001 Annual Work Plan for Wadeable (Small) Streams, 2001: 

http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/2001_BURP_annual_work_plan_wadeable_streams.pdf 

BURP Quality Assurance Plan for Field Data Sheets on Wadeable (Small) Streams, 2001: 

http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/BURP_QualityAssurancePlan.pdf 

1999 BURP Workplan for Wadeable Streams (Methods Manual): 

http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/99_BURP_WORKPLAN.pdf 

Streams: 1999 Post-Field Evaluation Summary Report (BURP), 2001: 

http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/BURP_streams_Field_Report_99.pdf 

Public Involvement and Response to Comment Summary: 

http://www2.state.id.us/deq/water/surface_water/wbag/WBAG2001.htm 

IDAHO: Program Summary December 2002 3-49 
IDAHO: Program Summary December 2002 3-50 

IDAHO 

Contact Information 

Cynthia Grafe, Water Quality Assessment Program Coordinator 

State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

1410 North Hilton # Boise, ID 83706 

Phone 208/373-0163 # Fax 208/373-0576 

email: cgrafe@deq.state.id.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special 

projects only) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using the National Hydrography Database) 

96,200 

Total perennial miles 49,500 

Total miles assessed for biology 16,742 

fully supporting for 305(b) 8,434 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 8,312 

listed for 303(d) 8,312 

number of sites sampled 4,500 

number of miles assessed per site ~3.5 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T
IDAHO: Program Summary December 2002 3-51 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 200 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Reference site criteria based on nearby road condition, riparian vegetation

complexity, channel morphology and complexity, habitat structure

complexity, evidence of chemical stressors, substrate heterogeneity, and

evidence of point and nonpoint sources. Also, land satellite images are

reviewed for evidence of disturbance in the watershed (see IDAPA

58.01.02.003.85). 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

T other: mostly least disturbed sites, but also minimally disturbed sites in

some bioregions 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: bioregions based on groupings of ecoregions. Some of the

indices classify by elevation and stream type. 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

ALU designation basis Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Sub-categories are cold water, seasonal cold water, warm water, modified

(UAA required), and salmonid spawning. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS IDEQ’s “Waterbody Assessment Guidance" and supporting technical

reports are used to interpret and implement WQS, including ALU 

assessment. Although the term "biocriteria" is not used, functional

elements are included in the WQS and in implementing ALU designation

and support status guidance. Please see: 

http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/IDAPA58/58INDEX.HTM 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Used as restoration criteria in CERCLA cleanup monitoring effectiveness

plans/consent decrees; bioassessment is required prior to removing 303(d)

listed waters 

Most TMDLs have ALUS biomonitoring as part of implementation; one

recent example is the North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Surber, Hess, Slack (0.5 meter, in rivers only); 500-600 micron mesh 

richest habitat 

500 count 

species 

backpack electrofisher 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass - individual, biomass - batch and anomalies 

none; full sample work-up 

species (count and keep voucher specimens for species that are not identified in the field) 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.) 

selected near macroinvertebrate sample 

taxonomic identification 

species level 

visual based, canopy closure (densiometer), Wolman pebble count, pool complexity (width,

depth), stream width/depth, large woody debris; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for

biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation* 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

Varies by index - a combination of 95th percentile of reference and cumulative distribution

function used to scale metrics scores is most frequently used. 

25th percentile of reference population** 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision (variability study of reference conditions) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

T

T

T

Biological data 

MS Access, changing to Oracle/Visual Basic indexed to NHD 

Custom interface (Biological Assessment Tool) developed to calculate metrics, indices, and

physical and biological summary statistics. Systat is also used. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Formal methods have been developed for non-wadeable rivers and wadeable streams. Lentic methods are under development. A 

total of eight multimetric indices for bugs, diatoms, fish, habitat, and physicochemical measures have been developed or adapted for

rivers and streams. Indices are integrated into attaining or non-attaining use support determinations. 

**Idaho uses a measure of CONDITION, which aggregates 3 different indices - Habitat, Benthos and Fish. Each index is compared

to the median of reference condition and is given a score of 1, 2 or 3. All three scores are then combined (averaged). If > or = 2, 

then fully supporting; if <2, then not supporting. 

IDAHO: Program Summary December 2002 3-52 
ILLINOIS 

Contact Information 

Gregg Good, Manager - Surface Water Section 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) 

1021 North Grand Avenue East # Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Phone 217/782-3362 # Fax 217/785-1225 

email: gregg.good@epa.state.il.us 

IEPA Bureau of Water homepage: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ 

Program Description 

Illinois EPA (IEPA) conducts intensive river basin surveys on a five-year rotational basis in cooperation with the 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). These surveys are a major source of information for annual 

305(b) assessments. Illinois has 33 major river basins within its borders. Stations sampled by IEPA and IDNR are 

selected on the basis of where intensive data are currently lacking or historical data need updating. Water 

chemistry and biological (fish and macroinvertebrate) data along with qualitative and quantitative instream habitat 

information, including stream discharge, are collected to characterize stream segments within the basin, identify 

water quality conditions, and evaluate aquatic life use impairment. Fish tissue contaminant and sediment chemistry 

sampling are also conducted to screen for the accumulation of toxic substances. 

Illinois’ "biological expectations" are based on a regional reference site approach that enables within-region 

comparisons between the aquatic community at any stream site and the reference expectation. The regional 

reference site approach is a key component of biocriteria. The approach ensures reasonably attainable biological 

goals that recognize and account for the unique combination of regional land form, land use, and physical habitat 

characteristics, which influence the distribution of fish, macroinvertebrates and other aquatic organisms. Illinois is 

currently developing this framework, which includes refinement of existing biological assessment tools and, where 

needed, development of new state-of-the-art monitoring approaches. 

Illinois EPA is working with IDNR, USEPA, members of the agricultural, industrial, academic and regulated 

communities, as well as outside contractors, and other interested parties to develop biological criteria for streams 

and rivers. This approach to biocriteria will enable IEPA to better assess the ecological/environmental quality of 

Illinois rivers and streams and should allow the Agency to continue to update and refine the stream use 

designations contained in Illinois' water quality standards. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Illinois Water Quality Report 2002 (CWA Section 305(b) Report), July 2002, IEPA, Bureau of Water: 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/report-2002/305b-2002.pdf 

2001 305(b) Summary Report (1999 data), Rivers and Streams: 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/report-2001/report-2001.pdf 

Condition of Illinois Water Resources - menu of Illinois 305(b) Reports and Assessments, including maps and 

graphs: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/index.html 

Illinois Targeted Watershed Approach: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/targeted-watershed/index.html 

IEPA Bureau of Water, Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Programs homepage: 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/surface-water/index.html 

IEPA Bureau of Water, River and Stream Monitoring Program homepage, with links to biocriteria development and 

other relevant information: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/surface-water/river-stream-mon.html 

Hite, R.L. and B.A. Bertrand. 1989. Biological Stream Characterization (BSC): A Biological Assessment of Illinois 

Stream Quality, Special Report No. 13 of the Illinois State Water Plan Task Force. Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ILLINOIS: Program Summary December 2002 3-53 
ILLINOIS: Program Summary December 2002 3-54 

ILLINOIS 

Contact Information 

Gregg Good, Manager - Surface Water Section 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) 

1021 North Grand Avenue East # Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Phone 217/782-3362 # Fax 217/785-1225 

email: gregg.good@epa.state.il.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

UD promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3 and existing maps) 

86,021 

Total perennial miles 30,246 

Total miles assessed for biology 15,304 

fully supporting for 305(b) 9,498 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 5,806 

listed for 303(d)* – 

number of sites sampled 115 

number of miles assessed per site** site specific 

*Total miles listed for 303(d) is a subset of the miles partially/non-supporting for 305(b) and will be determined in the next update. 

**10 miles for wadeable sites and 25 miles for non-wadeable sites with some site-specific detailing following the 1997 305(b) 

guidance. 
ILLINOIS: Program Summary December 2002 3-55 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development* 

Number of reference sites 120 total 

Reference site 

determinations* 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

T other: watershed measures of physical and chemical disturbance 

Reference site criteria Illinois EPA is in the process of formally defining reference criteria.* 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

T multivariate grouping 

T jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*IEPA currently does not use "reference conditions" for making use-support decisions. Reference conditions were not explicitly 

defined or used for the present stream IBIs. A not-yet completed reevaluation of Illinois IBIs used reference conditions to develop 

the new indices. IEPA uses a general concept of least impacted reference condition where there are no data available; no further

quantitative development has been done. 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life use waters (IL Title 35,

Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 303.204) 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development - IEPA has written guidelines and thresholds for

fish and invertebrate indices that are not part of the WQS, but are in the

305(b) guidelines (see flowchart). These numeric biological measures

are used as decision criteria to determine attainment of ALU. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Data have been used to make permitting and nonpoint source BMP

decisions. Illinois DNR’s Biological Stream Characterization (BSC)

program is used to determine antidegradation tiers and to influence

IDNR natural heritage area designations. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites – not at

watershed level) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites – not at watershed

level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand, dipnet; 500-600 micron mesh 

richest habitat, rifle/run (cobble), multihabitat and woody debris 

300 count and entire sample 

combination - order, family, genus and species 

backpack and boat electrofishers, and seine; 1/4" and 3/8" mesh 

pool/glide, riffle/run (cobble) and multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass - individual and batch 

none 

species 

visual based and quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: nonparametric statistical tests 

methods T

T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

Metric values representing least-disturbed conditions statewide are

stratified by region; within-region regression of each metric vs.

environmental covariate, e.g., stream size and slope, defines

benchmark for defining metric-scoring ranges. 

Thresholds are based on the possible index scoring range divided

into discrete categories and are not driven by reference sites. 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

IEPA database and spreadsheets 

SAS, Systat, database, spreadsheet, statistical-analysis and

statistical-graphics applications, including MS Access, FoxPro,

Excel, QuattroPro, Minitab, and Sigma Plot 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

ILLINOIS: Program Summary December 2002 3-56 
INDIANA 

Contact Information 

C. Lee Bridges, Chief - Biological Studies Section

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)

P.O. Box 6015 # Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

Phone 317/308-3183 # Fax 317/308-3219

email: lbridges@dem.state.in.us

IDEM Office of Water Quality homepage: http://www.IN.gov/idem/water/

Program Description 

The Biological Studies Section (BSS) of IDEM’s Office of Water Quality conducts studies of fish and 

macroinvertebrate communities, as well as stream habitats. These data are used to help develop biological 

criteria to which all other streams can be compared in order to identify impaired streams or watersheds. BSS also 

conducts fish tissue and sediment sampling to monitor sources of toxic and bioconcentrating substances too low to 

be detected in other environmental media. Fish tissue data serve as the basis for fish consumption advisories 

issued to protect the health of people who consume fish caught in Indiana waters. Fish tissue data are also useful 

for wildlife health risk assessments for fish-eating birds and mammals, and for providing the information needed to 

develop models for assessing changes in the quality of Indiana ecosystems. 

The BSS is responsible for determining the biological integrity of aquatic communities of Indiana streams and 

lakes. This is accomplished through a variety of field and laboratory studies that involve several different forms of 

aquatic life. These data are used to determine compliance with the existing narrative biological criteria in Indiana’s 

current water quality standards, to determine the use attainability, and to make correlations to physical and/or 

chemical impairments which may exist. 

The BSS participates in the review of requests for site-specific water quality criteria for waters influenced by 

NPDES discharges. In the course of its various monitoring and assessment field activities, the staff finds point and 

nonpoint source-related problems, which are then referred to the appropriate IDEM programs. The Section also 

cooperates in the monitoring and assessment of the Ohio River in conjunction with the Ohio River Valley Water 

Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), and other state and federal agencies. 

Lake and reservoir assessments prior to 1989 were conducted by the State and have since been contracted to 

Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs. From 1990 through 1995, the State in conjunction 

with USEPA - Region 5, conducted a statewide ecoregion-based fish community study. Indiana has historically 

collected macroinvertebrate community samples at a network of fixed stations. In addition the State has been 

conducting macroinvertebrate community assessments at wadeable stream sites since 1990. Since 1996 the 

biological assessments for fish and invertebrate community assessments have been conducted using probabilistic 

sampling on a rotational watershed basis as per Indiana’s Surface Water Quality Monitoring Strategy. In 2000 the 

State participated in a study to determine if fish and macroinvertebrate indices could be developed for lakes and 

reservoirs. Conclusions are still pending. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Indiana 2001 - 2005 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Strategy: 

http://www.in.gov/idem/water/assessbr/016surfwaterqualmonstrat.pdf 

Indiana 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies, information and links: 

http://www.in.gov/idem/water/planbr/wqs/303d.html 

Indiana Water Quality 305(b) Report, general information: http://www.IN.gov/idem/water/planbr/wqs/quality.html 

Indiana Water Quality Standards: http://www.state.in.us/legislative/iac/title327.html 

IDEM Office of Water Quality’s Assessment Branch - Biological Studies Section homepage, with numerous links to 

relevant fact sheets and reports: http://www.in.gov/idem/water/assessbr/biostud/index.html 

INDIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-57 
INDIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-58 

INDIANA 

Contact Information 

C. Lee Bridges, Chief - Biological Studies Section 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 

P.O. Box 6015 # Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 

Phone 317/308-3183 # Fax 317/308-3219 

email: lbridges@dem.state.in.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds and comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds and comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (specific river 

basins or watersheds and comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (specific river basins or 

watersheds and comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3 and the National Hydrography Database) 

35,673 

Total perennial miles 21,094 

Total miles assessed for biology 35,430 

fully supporting for 305(b) 23,000 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 12,430 

listed for 303(d) unknown 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) < 200 

number of miles assessed per site site specific 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

UD 

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T

T
INDIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-59 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development* 

Number of reference sites unknown 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Deviation from central tendencies on multimetric indices and the qualitative

habitat evaluation index (QHEI) is also taken into consideration when evaluating

impairment. Field chemistry is measured and probabilistic sites are sampled for

broad chemical analysis. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions** 

T least disturbed sites 

T gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: IBI is calibrated on drainage area for headwater streams, wadeable

rivers, large rivers and great rivers 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

T multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: 8 digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU (in a statistical sense) 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

(it is understood that all sites have a human-induced condition) 

*IDEM uses a non-typical process for developing reference condition: reference condition is represented by a percentage of the total

population of the sites sampled. The number of reference sites in Indiana is not available at this time. 

**Reference condition is defined by a historical cross-section of sample sites representing the full gradient of ecological conditions

as they existed during statewide or ecoregion specific investigation. 

ALU designation basis Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: Well balanced warmwater aquatic community and Cold water

put-and-take trout waters 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development - The narrative biocriteria in Indiana have only been proposed

and are not formal. They are loosely defined by 327 IAC 2-1-3(a)(2), 327 IAC-2-

1-9 (49); and for the Great Lakes waters 327 IAC 2-1.5-5(a)(2) and (3), and 327

IAC 2-1.5-2 (92). IDEM uses informal numeric procedures to support narrative 

biocriteria (see http://www.in.gov/IDEM/water/planbr/wqs/quality.html). 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Biological assessment data are used for 305(b)/303(d) purposes and was used

for the FY 2000 Unified Watershed Assessment (updated 2001), which was used

for the Watershed Restoration Action Strategies. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; solely through a pilot contract with USGS) 

T other: phytoplankton and zooplankton (<100 samples/year; single 

observation, limited sampling) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

multiplate, dipnet, and kick net (1 meter); 243-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) and artificial substrate in the absence of riffle/run 

100 count and proportional/volume 

family 

backpack, boat, longline and pram unit (tote barge) electrofishers; and 1/8" mesh

seine 

multihabitat 

enumeration, length measurement, biomass - batch, and anomalies 

none 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

cumulative distribution function 

cumulative distribution function and use various break points for

impairments 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in significant departure from mean of reference population

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (watersheds are sampled on 5 yr rotational 

basis) 

precision (Standard Error, 95% Confidence Interval and

Relative Percent Difference) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy (10% field duplicates, 10% laboratory duplicates) 

T

T

Biological data 

Assessment Information Management System (AIMS), MS Access

based utility, and some historical data still in paper files 

Statistica and MINITAB for cluster analysis of large matrices 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

INDIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-60 
IOWA 

Contact Information 

Tom Wilton, Water Quality Specialist 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) 

502 East 9th Street # Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 

Phone 515/281-8867 # Fax 515/281-8895 

email: tom.wilton@dnr.state.ia.us 

IDNR Water Quality Bureau: http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtrq/wtrqbur.htm 

Program Description 

Since 1994, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the University Hygienic Laboratory (UHL) have 

conducted a biological assessment program for Iowa’s wadeable streams and rivers. So far, biological sampling 

has been conducted at 289 stream locations throughout the state. Biological data are collected for a variety of 

purposes including: ambient monitoring, problem investigation, evaluation of point source and nonpoint source 

pollution control measures, and TMDL development. The IDNR uses bioassessment information to assess the 

status of stream aquatic life designated uses for the Section 305(b) report and the Section 303(d) list of impaired 

waters. 

Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish serve as indicators of stream biological integrity. Standardized sampling 

procedures are used to collect species composition and proportional abundance data from which a suite of 

biological metrics is calculated. Individual metric values are aggregated to obtain scores for the Benthic 

Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (BMIBI) and the Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI). Biological 

impairment thresholds are based on the statistical distribution of biotic index scores obtained from stream 

reference site sampling. Currently, the IDNR has identified 96 reference sites that represent least disturbed 

stream conditions in Iowa’s ten ecological regions. 

Until 2002, a targeted approach was used to select sampling locations for Iowa’s stream biological assessment 

program. From 1994 through 1998, the program emphasized candidate reference site and test (impacted) site 

sampling, which provided data for evaluating and calibrating biological data metrics. From 1999-2001, the 

emphasis shifted toward site-specific problem investigation and follow-up. Beginning in 2002, IDNR and UHL are 

initiating a probabilistic survey that will provide an unbiased, statistically powerful assessment of Iowa’s perennial 

streams and rivers. The survey design calls for sampling 56 randomly-selected sites per year through 2005. 

During this period, IDNR and UHL also plan to resample the existing network of reference streams at a rate of 20-

25 sites per year. 

The IDNR is working toward incorporating narrative and numeric stream biocriteria in Iowa’s water quality 

standards. The bioassessment framework that is currently used for 305(b) assessments can potentially serve as a 

foundation for biocriteria. The 2002-2005 probabilistic survey will provide useful data from non-wadeable streams 

and rivers for biocriteria development. Biocriteria development for Iowa’s lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands has not 

been initiated. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Water Quality in Iowa During 1998 and 1999 (Iowa’s 2000 Section 305(b) report): 

http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtrq/305b00/index.htm 

Final Approved Iowa 1998 303(d) List: http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtresrce/files/303dlist.pdf 

Iowa’s STORET Database (ambient water quality program dataset): http://wqm.igsb.uiowa.edu/storet/ 

IOWA: Program Summary December 2002 3-61 
IOWA: Program Summary December 2002 3-62

 IOWA 

Contact Information 

Tom Wilton, Water Quality Specialist 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) 

502 East 9th Street # Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 

Phone 515/281-8867 # Fax 515/281-8895 

email: tom.wilton@dnr.state.ia.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds, comprehensive 

use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin 

other: 

*In 2002, IDNR will initiate a REMAP probabilistic survey of perennial streams and rivers. 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determination) 

71,665 

Total perennial miles 26,630 

Total miles assessed for biology* 2,018 

fully supporting for 305(b) 1,418 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 600 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled 149 

number of miles assessed per site 0.1 - 0.22 

*Stream miles reported are based on Iowa’s 2000 305(b) assessment. A 303(d) list was not prepared in 2000. 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

UD 

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs* 

T

T

T
IOWA: Program Summary December 2002 3-63 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 96 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Regionally representative and least disturbed by human activities,

consider impact of livestock waste, wastewater, channel alterations,

riparian land use, and quality of instream habitat 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A, B, C), Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Four designations: B(LR) - limited resource warmwater

streams/rivers; B(WW) - significant resource warmwater

streams/rivers; B(CW) - coldwater streams; B(LW) - lakes and

wetlands 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development (Iowa’s water quality standards include language

associated with ALUs but it was not intended to be formal narrative 

biocriteria. IA is moving toward incorporating narrative biocriteria

into the State’s water quality standards.) 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none (IA uses thresholds to report data in 305(b) report, but not

formal numeric biocriteria.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

303(d) listing, to address point source impacts, and to support TMDL

development 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 - 500 samples per year; single season, multiple

sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples per year; single season, multiple sites -

broad coverage) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Surber, Hess, multiplate, collect by hand; 500 - 600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble), multihabitat, artificial substrate 

100 count, entire sample 

combination - order, family, genus, species 

backpack electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge); 3/16" mesh 

multihabitat 

anomalies, species abundance 

none 

species 

visual based, quantitative measurements; performed with

bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings/training for

biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis (for data exploration only) 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

linear interpolation between optimum (95%) reference population

level and the minimum level 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

T

Biological data 

EDAS (benthic macroinvertebrate data) and MS Access (fish,

physical habitat, and water chemistry data) 

STATISTIX (Analytical Software) and Excel 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

IOWA: Program Summary December 2002 3-64 
KANSAS 

Contact Information 

Steve Cringan, Environmental Scientist III 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) 

1000 SW Jackson Street, Suite 430 # Topeka, KS 66612-1367 

Phone 785/296-5571 # Fax 785/291-3266 

email: scringan@kdhe.state.ks.us 

KDHE Bureau of Environmental Filed Services homepage: 

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/befs/index.html 

Kristen Hase, Stream Monitoring Program Coordinator 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) 

512 SE 25th Avenue # Pratt, KS 67124 

Phone 620/672-0710 # Fax 620/672-2972 

email: KristenM@wp.state.ks.us 

website: http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us 

Program Description 

Kansas has maintained a stream biological monitoring program since 1972. Since 1980, the program has remained primarily 

unchanged. Program data are evaluated and incorporated in five year increments into the 305(b) report and 303(d) list. Data is 

used to determine aquatic life use support status in combination with chemical water quality data. Further details may be found in 

the program Quality Management Plan (see documentation below). 

Contemporary Program Objectives

The stream biological monitoring program endeavors to provide scientifically defensible information on the quality of flowing 

waters in Kansas through the analysis of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. This information is intended for use in: 

(1) complying with the water quality monitoring and reporting requirements of 40 CFR 130.4 and sections 106(e)(1), 

303(d) and 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act; 

(2) evaluating waterbody compliance with the Kansas surface water quality standards (K.A.R. 28-16-28b et seq.); 

(3) identifying point and nonpoint sources of pollution contributing most significantly to water use impairments in streams; 

(4) documenting spatial and temporal trends in surface water quality resulting from changes in land use patterns, resource 

management practices, pollutant loadings, and climatological conditions; 

(5) developing scientifically defensible environmental standards, wastewater treatment plan permits, and

waterbody/watershed pollution control plans; and

(6) evaluating the efficacy of pollution control efforts and waterbody remediation/restoration initiatives implemented by the 

department and other agencies and organizations. 

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s (KDHE) Bureau of Environmental Field Services is responsible for 

macroinvertebrate data collection and analysis. The Bureau also analyzes fish community data that are collected by the Kansas 

Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). KDHE is currently working with the Central Plains Center for BioAssessment (CPCB) 

at the University of Kansas, to develop both a systematic approach to the identification of reference sites and a regionally 

standardized approach to habitat assessment. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Division of Environment Quality Management Plan Part III: Stream Biological Monitoring Program Quality Assurance 

Management Plan, December 2000: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/environment/qmp_2000/download/SBMP_QAMP.pdf 

2002 Kansas Water Quality Assessment (305(b) report), April 2002: 

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/befs/305b_2002/ks305b2002f.pdf 

Guidance Document for Use Attainability Analyses, December 2001: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/befs/uaas/UAAGuidance.pdf 

Draft 2002 303(d) Methodology and List: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/tmdl/303d.htm 

Kansas State Water Quality Standards: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/water/index.html 

KANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-65 
KANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-66 

KANSAS 

Contact Information 

Steve Cringan, Environmental Scientist III 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) 

1000 SW Jackson Street, Suite 430 # Topeka, KS 66612-1367 

Phone 785/296-5571 # Fax 785/291-3266 

email: scringan@kdhe.state.ks.us 

Kristen Hase, Stream Monitoring Program Coordinator 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) 

512 SE 25th Avenue # Pratt, KS 67124 

Phone 620/672-0710 # Fax 620/672-2972 

email: KristenM@wp.state.ks.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: trend analysis 

Applicable monitoring 

designs* 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T other: rotational sites, statewide (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

*KDWP uses a combination of probabilistic design, rotating basin, and fixed sites; KDHE relies primarily on a targeted design, 

including fixed and rotational sites statewide. 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 

134,338 

Total perennial miles 23,731 

Total miles assessed for biology* 23,731 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled 178 targeted over 22 years (KDHE);

several hundred probabalistic (KDWP) 

number of miles assessed per site site specific 

*Because KDWP uses a probabilistic sampling design, it can be said that all 23,731 perennial stream miles in Kansas are being 

assessed for biology. KDHE is working with KDWP to incorporate the latter agency’s findings into Kansas’ 305(b) reports and 

303(d) lists. Kansas’ 2002 305(b) report is based on four years of ambient stream chemistry data (1998-2001) and only acute 

aquatic life use support application. 
KANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-67 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 44 total 

Reference site 

determinations* 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria To date, sites have been selected on the basis of land cover and land use, known 

hydrological properties and channel characteristics, general absence of confined

animal feeding operations, point sources and urban areas, and favorable water

quality attributes (low levels of total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand,

fecal coliform bacteria, total phosphorus, inorganic nitrogen, herbicides, and other

contaminants). Rare taxa and historically occurring key species are mainly used for

validation purposes. 

Reference sites, by definition, should also be minimally impacted by anthropogenic

phenomena and approach the presettlement condition in terms of hydrology, water

quality, available biological habitat, surrounding landscape and watershed attributes,

and historically documented plant and animal communities. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: stream size 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

*Currently working with the Central Plains Center for BioAssessment (CPCB) at the University of Kansas to develop a more

systematic approach to the identification of reference sites. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations: special aquatic life use, expected aquatic life use, restricted

aquatic life use 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria are located in the most recent

305(b) reports 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none (Numeric biocriteria have not been adopted into the state standards, but are

nevertheless used for diagnostic purposes and in 305(b) assessments.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Various point source upgrades and TMDL-related applications 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 - 500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage;

multiple seasons, select sites) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage by KDWP only) 

T periphyton (100 - 500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad coverage

for watershed level)* 

T other: phytoplankton 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton* 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand, D-frame; 500 - 600 micron mesh 

richest habitat, riffle/run, multihabitat, woody debris, random sampling by KDWP only 

entire sample, 100 count minimum 

genus/species where practical 

seine, backpack electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge); 1/8" and 3/16" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass – batch 

batch (generally do not subsample) 

species 

natural substrate: suction device, bar clamp sample; artificial substrate: periphytometer 

wadeable area within stream segment that is designated based on other sampled biota 

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin, taxonomic identification (limited use) 

diatoms only 

visual based (KDHE), quantitative measurements (KDWP); performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings/training for

biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival, replicate sampling,

field audits, and staff certification program 

*Periphyton sampling is a new venture for the Kansas Biological Survey and the Central Plains Center for BioAssessment. Whole

stream respiration as well as net and gross production via the DO diel cycle method are also determined. Software has been built to

support these calculations using large continuous data sets of several weeks to months. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (return single metrics) 

disturbance gradients 

other: regressions, correlations, trends, and other statistical applications 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

cumulative distribution function 

Kansas returns single metrics but is exploring various indices. 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

Refer to Quality Management T

Plan for SOPs and further 

information. T

T

Biological data 

Lotus Notes, Excel 

Minitab, spreadsheet graphics, ArcView, ArcGIS, GARP (pending) 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

KANSAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-68 
KENTUCKY 

Contact Information 

Terry P. Anderson, Manager - Water Quality Branch 

Kentucky Division of Water 

14 Reilly Road # Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone 502/564-3410 # Fax 502-564-0111 

email: terryp.anderson@mail.state.ky.us 

KY Division of Water homepage: http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/dwhome.htm 

Program Description 

A 100 point scale multi-metric index is under development in order to give equal weight to the three assemblages 

collected (fish, macroinvertebrates and algae). KY Division of Water is also working in conjunction with 

USEPA/Cincinnati to develop boatable water collection methods for the larger rivers as a first phase of biocriteria 

and assessment methods for larger rivers. There is a long term goal of establishing response relationships 

between biological indicators and nutrients in wadeable and boatable waters in order to investigate the feasibility of 

establishing nutrient criteria in these waters. 

The Division of Water has shifted to a watershed approach in assessing stream miles. At this time about two fifths 

of the stream miles assessed have been entered in the data base, and data from another two fifths are being 

inputted. The first round of watershed sampling (the last fifth) will be completed in summer 2002. Somewhere 

between 30,000 to 40,000 actual miles will have been assessed by the time this project is completed. 

Probabilistic sampling is also being conducted in all major watersheds. When this is completed, KY Division of 

Water will be able to estimate the number of stream miles meeting and not meeting designated uses. KY Division 

of Water was able to carry out this expansion thanks to valuable partnerships with Universities and the Kentucky 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. These data are used to assess use support for Kentucky’s 305(b) 

Report and for listing streams on the 303(d) list. Biological data can override chemical data if they are 

contradictory. There is a strong belief that the biological data collected and the collection methods used paint a 

truer picture of use attainment than chemical data. 

Another important application of increased biological knowledge of waters in Kentucky has been the development 

of biological endpoints for successful stream restoration projects undertaken as a result of environmental damage 

incidents. 

Documentation and Further Information 

2000 Kentucky Report to Congress on Water Quality, 305(b) report: 

http://water.nr.state.ky.us/wq/305b/2000/2000_305b.htm 

1998 303(d) List of Waters for Kentucky, June 1998: http://water.nr.state.ky.us/303d/ 

1998-1999 Monitoring Strategy: Kentucky River Basin Management Unit, March 2000: 

http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/Watershed/KRB_AR/PDF_Files/Monitoring%20Report.PDF 

For a list and links to more references and documents, conduct a search on the Kentucky Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Cabinet (NREPC) publication site: 

http://www.kyenvironment.org/nrepc/publications/publications.asp 

Kentucky Watershed Management Framework 

Other documents include Reference Reach Reports on Algae, Fish and Macroinvertebrates; Division of Water 

SOP manuals; Consultant reports; USFWS surveys; Kentucky State Nature Preserve Commission surveys; 

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources surveys; Federal Register notices on Federal T&E listings. 

KENTUCKY: Program Summary December 2002 3-69 
KENTUCKY: Program Summary December 2002 3-70 

KENTUCKY 

Contact Information 

Terry P. Anderson, Manager - Water Quality Branch 

Kentucky Division of Water 

14 Reilly Road # Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone 502/564-3410 # Fax 502-564-0111 

email: terryp.anderson@mail.state.ky.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(special projects only, specific river basins or watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (specific river basins or 

watersheds) 

rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using the National Hydrography Database) 

89,431 

Total perennial miles 34,334 

Total miles assessed for biology* ~30,000 

fully supporting for 305(b) ~20,000 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) ~10,000 

listed for 303(d) 7,500 

number of sites sampled 1,750 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*Kentucky has shifted to a basin approach in assessing stream miles. At this time about 2/5ths of the stream miles assessed have 

been entered in the database, which translates to 10,200 actual miles assessed. There is also data from another 2/5ths that is 

presently being inputted into the database. The first round of watershed sampling (the last 1/5th) will be completed this summer. 

30,000 to 40,000 actual miles will have been assessed upon completion. Probabilistic sampling is also being conducted in all major 

watersheds. The number of stream miles meeting and not meeting designated uses can be estimated when this is completed. 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T
KENTUCKY: Program Summary December 2002 3-71 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 140 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Minimally impacted from point and nonpoint pollution, natural habitat

with high forest density relative to other land uses. Other criteria

listed in KY’s reference reach report on fish communities. Also 

depends on ecoregion: habitat score - conductivity (region specific) -

nutrients (in some cases).* 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: minimally impacted* 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

T multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards

(found in 401 KAR 5:030 Section 1(1)(b)4) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*KY tries to use minimally impacted reference sites whenever possible, but least disturbed sites are used to set targeted conditions

when there are no minimally impacted sites in a subecoregion. 

ALU designation basis Warm water vs. Cold water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations - Warm water and Cold water 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Numeric procedures used to support narrative biocriteria referenced

in KAR 5:030, and in Division publications and SOP manuals. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Bioassessments have been used to delist streams from the 303(d)

list. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad 

coverage) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame, dipnet, kick net (1 meter), collect by hand; >800 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

entire sample 

combination - family, genus, species 

seine, backback electrofisher, boat electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge), gill nets,

trammel nets; 3/16" mesh 

multihabitat 

none 

none 

species 

natural substrate: suction device, brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush,

etc.), collect by hand; artificial substrate: periphytometer (in non-wadeable 

waters) 

multihabitat 

taxonomic identification 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of all sites-standard based on a 100 unit scale 

25th percentile of reference population (100 point scale multi-metric

index is under development) 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (annual variability) 

precision (repeatability) 

sensitivity (Box-Whisker distributions) 

bias 

accuracy (% test sites - nonreference, impaired - validation) 

characteristics T

T

T

Biological data 

EDAS 

SAS, Systat, EDAS, Excel, MVSP (Multi-Variate Statistical Package),

Statigraphics 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

KENTUCKY: Program Summary December 2002 3-72 
LOUISIANA 

Contact Information 

Dugan Sabins, Senior Environmental Scientist - Office of Environmental Assessment 

Jennifer Lindquist, Environmental Scientist III 

Keith Sepulvado, Environmental Scientist III 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

P.O. Box 82178 # Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178 

Phone 225/765-0246 # Fax 225/765-0617 

email: dugan_s@deq.state.la.us 

LDEQ Planning homepage: http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/ 

Program Description 

In Louisiana, bioassessments have been used principally to characterize and delineate reference streams. 

Bioassessments have also been used for assessing the biological conditions of waterbodies being evaluated for 

site-specific standards development and use attainability analysis. Bacterial monitoring is conducted for swimming 

use assessment, Periodic toxicity testing is also conducted. In a very special case, biocriteria were developed for 

specific wetlands to receive treated disinfected wastewater for wetland restoration. 

Further development of bioassessment procedures is dependent on the legal responsibilities and outcome of a 

consent decree on the Louisiana TMDL program. Any additional development will have to be compatible with 

TMDL deadlines and deliverables. Since Louisiana does not have biocriteria, there is not a great need for LDEQ 

to conduct large scale bioassessments to determine criteria attainment. When the concept of biocriteria is 

adequately thought out and developed for use in state permitting and TMDL programs, then LDEQ will have a 

larger, more inclusive, bioassessment program. The use and revision of chemical/physical criteria, standards, and 

assessment procedures are considered the present priority. 

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) monitors fishery resources on large rivers and in 

coastal waters of the state for management purposes and for establishing commercial and recreational regulations 

on harvest. However, these assessments are not conducted to determine compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

Environmental agencies are increasing collaboration and coordination with LDWF and are hoping to begin 

combining monitoring efforts and sharing biological data at a future date. 

Documentation and Further Information 

State of Louisiana Water Quality Management Plan Water Quality Inventory Section 305(b) 2000: 

http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/305b/2000/index.htm 

Dewalt, R. E. 1997. Fish and macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness, habitat quality, and in-situ water chemistry of 

ecoregion reference streams in the Western Gulf Coastal Plains and Terrace Upland Ecoregions of Southern 

Louisiana. Prepared for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Baton Rouge, LA. 72 pages. 

Dewalt R. E. 1995. Biological communities of reference streams in the South Central Plains and Upper Mississippi 

Alluvial Plains ecoregions of Louisiana. Prepared for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Baton 

Rouge, LA. 85 pages. 

LOUISIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-73 
LOUISIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-74 

LOUISIANA 

Contact Information 

Dugan Sabins, Senior Environmental Scientist - Office of Environmental Assessment 

Jennifer Lindquist, Environmental Scientist III 

Keith Sepulvado, Environmental Scientist III 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

P.O. Box 82178 # Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178 

Phone 225/765-0246 # Fax 225/765-0617 

email: dugan_s@deq.state.la.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: ecoregion reference stream delineation, public education, 

bacteria assessment for swimming use, occasional toxicity 

testing, wetlands criteria 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based estimation) 

66,294 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology* – 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled – 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*Bioassessments are not used for 305(b)/303(d) reporting purposes or biocriteria development. Louisiana’s 2000 305(b) report 

listed 7,228 total river and stream miles assessed using chemical/physical criteria for fish and wildlife propagation and limited 

aquatic life/wildlife designated uses: 1,118 miles fully supporting and 6,110 miles partially/non-supporting for 305(b). 
LOUISIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-75 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making* 

*Aquatic life use is assessed using chemical/physical numerical and general criteria. Louisiana does have general (narrative)

criteria for biological and aquatic community integrity. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 16 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Least impacted wadeable streams, determined using best

professional judgment ("common sense criteria") 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions (when information is available) 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: wadeable streams 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards

(found in LAC 33 33:IX.1113.B.12) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: 1) Fish and wildlife propagation, 2) Limited 

aquatic/wildlife (a subcategory of fish and wildlife propagation) 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS A qualitative and/or narrative scale of condition that supports 

narrative biocriteria decisions is found in Louisiana’s water quality 

standards, LAC 33:IX.1111.C and 1113.B.12 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Bioassessments have been used to delineate reference streams, 

which in turn have been used in management decisions for setting

DO criteria across ecoregions. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad

coverage for watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad coverage for

watershed level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand, dipnet, kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat, woody debris, richest habitat 

300 count 

family and species 

backpack and boat electrofishers, Rotenone, seine; 1/8" and 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

none 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments (habitat reference conditions found

in WQS, LAC 33:IX.1113.B.12.) 

standard operating procedures and quality assurance plan 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: nonparametric analysis 

methods 

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

cumulative distribution function, North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI),

EPT, fish richness metrics (USEPA 1989) 

cumulative distribution function, NCBI, EPT, fish richness metrics 

(USEPA 1989)* 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

spreadsheets and paper files 

SAS and Excel 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*LDEQ has used biological indices and matrices for evaluating wadeable streams in several ecoregions and for determining

appropriate reference sites. These indices and matrices have not been adopted into the water quality standards and are not used to

assess impairment for 305(b) or regulatory purposes. 

LOUISIANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-76 
MAINE 

Contact Information 

Susan P. Davies, Program Manager, Biologist III 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) 

SHS 17 # Augusta, ME 04333 

Phone 207/287-7778 # Fax 207/287-7191 

email: susan.p.davies@state.me.us 

MDEP Biomonitoring Program website: http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/biohompg.htm 

For General Information, contact: BioME@state.me.us 

Program Description 

Biological monitoring is a primary method used by the State of Maine to assess water quality. The Biological Monitoring Program 

is one of five Sections within the Division of Environmental Assessment. All field, analytical and statistical methods, including the 

resultant numeric biocriteria have been designed, developed and tested by the MDEP Biomonitoring Program staff and a 

consulting biostatistician (Dr. Francis Drummond, University of Maine, Orono, Maine). Water quality standards in current use in 

Maine, including tiered aquatic life uses and statutory definitions of biological terms, were drafted by the Biomonitoring Program 

and other staff of the Division of Environmental Assessment. 

The State of Maine began the process of biological criteria development by incorporating explicit narrative standards for aquatic 

life uses in the state water quality classification law. Each of three classes, ranging from “natural” (Class A) to minimum state 

standards (Class C), contains specific language that defines the allowable biological response, taking into consideration other 

designated uses, and expectations of community response to human activities allowed in that class. The benthic 

macroinvertebrate community is assessed to determine attainment of standards. 

Maine’s numeric biological criteria rely on a three stage decision process. The first stage is a linear discriminant model, utilizing 

nine metrics to assign an initial classification probability for an unknown site. The second stage linear discriminant model uses 

17 additional metrics and indicator taxa, along with probabilities derived in the first stage model, to compute final probabilities of 

group membership. The output is expressed as a probability of group membership for each of the four water quality classes. The 

highest class attained, with at least 60% probability, is used as the final model outcome. The third stage uses expert biologist’s 

judgement to make a final decision about attainment, based on the outcome of the linear discriminant analysis, with adjustments 

for any known sampling errors, unexplained community structure anomalies or atypical conditions surrounding the sampling 

event. 

The regulatory authority for the Department's numeric biological criteria is derived from the tiered aquatic life use designations that 

are explicitly defined in the water quality standards law (MRSA Title 38 Article 4-A § 464-465). The Department has draft rules in 

support of the numeric biocriteria protocol and is expected to go to rule-making as soon as a needed electronic database upgrade 

is completed. The Biological Monitoring Program provides water quality information for a wide array of programs and initiatives 

including: 

• evaluation of water quality classification attainment and 303(d) listing; 

• evaluation of impacts downstream of discharges; 

• general, long-term ambient monitoring and trend assessment; 

• evaluation of the effects of management activities 

• evaluation of the effects of nonpoint source impacts; 

• evaluation of impacts from diffuse toxic contamination through the Surface Water Ambient Toxics Program (MDEP 1993) 

• evaluation of the impacts of hydropower activities in fulfillment of requirements for the Clean Water Act SEC. 401 water quality 

certification process. 

In addition, the Program is refining methods and criteria to better assess aquatic biological impacts of poor land use practices on 

stream and wetland systems. 

MDEP is funded to do a pilot project using the EPA Stressor Identification protocol applied to an intensively surveyed 303(d) 

listed urban watershed. To facilitate the development of TMDLs, findings from the SI procedure will be used to better target the 

assessment approach for a set of five other similarly impacted urban streams. 

Documentation and Further Information 

State of Maine 305(b) Report, Summer 2000 

Biomonitoring Retrospective: Fifteen Year Summary for Maine Rivers and Streams, December 1999: 

http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/biological/biorep2000.htm 

S.P. Davies & L. Tsomides, (1997) "Methods for Biological Sampling and Analysis of Maine's Inland Waters", MDEP, revised 

June 1997: http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/finlmeth.pdf 

Relevant biomonitoring materials can be accessed online: http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/ 

MAINE: Program Summary December 002 3-77 
MAINE 

Contact Information 

Susan P. Davies, Program Manager, Biologist III 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) 

SHS 17 # Augusta, ME 04333 

Phone 207/287-7778 # Fax 207/287-7191 

email: susan.p.davies@state.me.us 

For General Information, contact: BioME@state.me.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: hydropower dam licensing, uncontrolled hazardous waste 

site monitoring 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (5 yr rotation, specific river basins or watersheds) 

T other: hydropower dam licensing, uncontrolled hazardous waste 

site monitoring 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 31,672 

(determined using state based local GIS coverage) 

Total perennial miles 23,879 

Total miles assessed for biology 1,000* 

fully supporting for 305(b) 858.5 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 141.5 

listed for 303(d) 141.5 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 40 

number of miles assessed per site ~5 

*These miles are based on the last five years of monitoring. Stream and river miles are combined, with streams accounting for 

roughly 80% of the total miles assessed. For program-wide estimation purposes, miles are estimated assuming that each monitored 

station assesses about 5 miles of river or stream, though this number does vary. The last few years, up to 55 sites have been 

sampled, but 40 is the average number. 

MAINE: Program Summary December 002 3-78 
MAINE: Program Summary December 002 3-79 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*Tiered aquatic life uses in Maine Water Quality standards are consistent with the condition gradient describing other applicable WQ

standards (dissolved oxygen, bacteria, toxics) for each class. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 370 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Minimally disturbed reference site standards are defined by the following criteria

– Based on ArcView GIS coverages; by percent of watershed upstream of the

sampled station: >90% forested; <5% active logging; <1% cropland, residential

or urban. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

T gradient response 

T professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed** 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

T multivariate grouping (4 multivariate groups) 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards (State of

Maine. 1985. Maine Laws Ch. 698 §15 - in part. An Act to Amend the

Classification System for Maine Waters) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

**Minimally disturbed characterization is one component of established reference conditions; they are also divided into different

classes and groups with different biological attributes. Maine has a range of streams, from pristine to severely degraded. 

ALU designation basis Class system (AA, A, B, C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards* 

Four designations based on a gradient of biological condition: AA- “as naturally

occurs”, natural flow regime; A- “as naturally occurs”, hydro allowed; B- “no

detrimental change”; C- “maintain structure and function, support for salmonids” 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in MDEP WQS. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development – Draft numeric biocriteria rule in internal agency review,

due for promulgation in 2002. (A probabilistic model - linear discriminant

analysis - designed using expert judgment and statistical analysis is currently

used to determine attainment of conditions described in aquatic life standards. 

Numeric biocriteria have been used to implement agency policy since 1990.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management (pertains to “small” watersheds) 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Many examples of this have been documented in case studies provided in

"Biomonitoring Retrospective: Fifteen year summary for Maine rivers and

streams" available in .pdf on website: 

http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/biological/biorep2000.htm 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed

level and broad coverage) 

fish 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad 

coverage) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

rock baskets (500-600 micron mesh) 

riffle/run (cobble), artificial substrate 

entire sample (if >500 organisms, subsamples are taken proportionately at 25% of

sample, then adjusted back to whole sample counts)

genus, species (identified to lowest possible level; adjusted to genus in database)

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

artificial substrate: periphytometer 

open canopy in riffle/run 

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin; biomass; taxonomic identification 

all algae; genus level; species level 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings, training

for biologists, sorting proficiency checks, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen

archive 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (multiple computed metrics are used as input

variables in probabilistic model) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

T

T

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in Probabilistic model using a priori sites defined by expert judgement 

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (long-term annual monitoring sites) 

precision (percent accuracy compared to a priori class) 

sensitivity 

bias (in relation to stream size, latitude/longitude, velocity, ecoregion) 

accuracy (percent accuracy compared to a priori class; a priori

reference sites compared to land use - selected reference sites) 

characteristics T

T

T

Biological data 

STORET; Oracle/Visual Basic relational database (with linkage to

ARCINFO spatial database with point coverage for all monitoring

stations) 

Core linear discriminant models statistical routines are run and 

reported from within the Oracle database; spatial analysis in ArcView

and ARCINFO; routine queries run in MS Access, Systat or Excel 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

MAINE: Program Summary December 002 3-80 
MARYLAND 

Contact Information 

Paul Kazyak, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division Director 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) 

Tawes State Office Bldg., C-2 # Annapolis, MD 21401 

Phone 410/260-8607 # Fax 410/260-8620 

email: pkazyak@dnr.state.md.us 

MD DNR Maryland Streams homepage: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/index.html 

Richard Eskin, PhD, Deputy Director - Technical and Regulatory Services Administration 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) 

1800 Washington Blvd. # Baltimore, MD 21230 

Phone 410/537-3000 # Fax 410/631-3998 

email: reskin@mde.state.md.us 

website: http://www.mde.state.md.us/ 

Program Description 

The Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) is a program of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) and 

is intended to provide statistically unbiased estimates of the condition of first through third-order (wadeable) non-tidal streams 

and rivers of Maryland on a local (e.g., drainage basin or county) as well as a statewide scale. The survey is based on a 

probabilistic stream sampling approach where random selections are made from all streams in the state that can physically be 

sampled. The approach supports statistically valid population estimation of variables of interest (e.g., largemouth bass densities, 

miles of streams with degraded physical habitat, miles of streams with poor Index of Biotic Integrity scores, etc.). When 

repeated, the Survey will also provide a basis for assessing future changes in ecological condition of flowing waters of the state. 

At present, plans are to repeat the Survey at regular intervals and expand the approach to larger streams and tidal creeks. 

Benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality samples are collected during the spring index period from March through early 

May, while fish, herpetofauna, in situ stream chemistry, and physical habitat sampling are conducted during the low flow period in 

the summer, from June through September. 

Data collected from each sample site are used to develop statewide and basin-specific estimates of totals, means (or averages), 

proportions, and percentiles for the parameters of interest. The amount of variability (or margin of error) associated with any 

estimate of a total, mean, proportion, or percentile is determined by calculating a standard error, a statistic that measures the 

reliability of an estimate. A standard error also provides a statistical basis for deciding if the observed changes in any parameter 

of interest over time or space are significantly different or simply due to chance alone. 

Documentation and Further Information 

2000 Maryland Section 305(b) Water Quality Report, with Appendix E, Assessment Methodology: 

http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/download/bays/MD2000_305b.pdf 

DRAFT 2002 Integrated 303(d) List: http://www.mde.state.md.us/tmdl/2002_303dlist/index.html 

From the Mountains to the Sea: The State of Maryland’s Freshwater Streams, December 1999: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/md-streams.pdf 

Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) Sampling Manual, February 2000: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/2000samp_manual.pdf 

MBSS Laboratory Methods for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Processing and Taxonomy, November 2000: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/ea00-6_lab_man.pdf 

Refinement and Validation of a Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for Maryland Streams, October 2000: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/ea00-2_fibi.pdf 

Development of a Benthic Index of Biological Integrity for Maryland Streams, December 1998: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/1998_Benthic%20IBI.pdf 

For more documents and publications, go to: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/mbss/mbss_pubs.html or 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/pub_list.html 

MARYLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-81 
MARYLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-82 

MARYLAND 

Contact Information 

Paul Kazyak, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division Director 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) 

Tawes State Office Bldg., C-2 # Annapolis, MD 21401 

Phone 410/260-8607 # Fax 410/260-8620 

email: pkazyak@dnr.state.md.us 

Richard Eskin, PhD, Deputy Director - Technical and Regulatory Services Administration 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) 

1800 Washington Blvd. # Baltimore, MD 21230 

Phone 410/537-3000 # Fax 410/631-3998 

email: reskin@mde.state.md.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs (LIMITED) 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring (LIMITED) 

UD promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria (through MDE) 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions (LIMITED) 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring (MDE using MBSS data) 

T other: target restoration costs and locations; areas for preservation; track trends in 

stream conditions; identify relationships between stressors and biota; predict future 

conditions based on land use changes 

Applicable monitoring 

designs* 

T targeted (small portion - special projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (sentinel site network, best of the 

best streams in the state, comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

*The largest portion of sampling effort is for probabilistic sampling with watershed as primary strata. 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using National Hydrography Database) 

17,000 

Total perennial miles 12,343 

Total miles assessed for biology** 6,142 

fully supporting for 305(b) 3,429.0 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 2,713.4 

listed for 303(d)** 178 actual listings 

number of sites sampled (from 1995-1997) 1,000 

number of miles assessed per site – 

**The miles listed above were extracted from Maryland’s 2000 305(b)

Report, which stated, “The assessment of non-tidal rivers and streams is based on monitoring data, including ambient water quality

monitoring programs and other water quality data collected by [various agencies and programs].” The above miles are categorized 

as “monitored” in the 2000 305(b). However, the MBSS method only applies to wadeable nontidal streams, thus some portion of the

total assessed stream and river miles listed above were not assessed using this method. The 178 sites listed for 303(d) were pulled 

from the DRAFT 2002 303(d) Report. These miles do not include streams larger than 4th order or with tidal flow. 
MARYLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-83 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 152 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

T other: use combination of a priori physical and chemical criteria applied to randomly 

selected sites - these represent the best remaining sites in Maryland 

Reference site criteria Must meet a priori chemical and physical criteria (criteria found in MBSS IBI documents

for fish and benthos) 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: reference sites stratified by stream order 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use, Fishery Based Uses, Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Seven uses: I: support of fish & aquatic life and recreation; I-P: adds drinking water supply

to Use I; II: shellfish harvesting; III: natural trout; III-P: adds drinking water supply; IV:

recreational trout (put and take); IV-P: adds drinking water. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Narrative regulations and formal/informal numeric procedures specifically addressing

biocriteria applications are under development. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none - documented quantitative method applied 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges (RARELY) 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Threatened and Endangered species listings are being revised based on MBSS fish

population data; cost estimates for habitat restoration in MD streams are being finalized in

support of Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement action items; MBSS data integral to

developing restoration priority ranking for MD watersheds; also used by The Nature

Conservancy to develop highest priority watersheds for land acquisition and other

preservation activities 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

periphyton 

T other: macrophytes and amphibians/reptiles (presence/absence only) (100-500

samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame; 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat, focus on most productive habitat - riffles 

100 count 

genus (family level taxonomy for volunteer Stream Waders Program) 

backpack electrofisher, barge shocker sometimes used on larger streams, herpetile search

also conducted by hand; 1/4" mesh 

whatever is in the 75 meter segment 

length measurement and biomass – batch (gamefish only); anomalies (unusual types or

prevalence noted) 

none 

species 

visual based, quantitative measurements, buffer width and vegetation size category, linear

and areal extent of eroded banks; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures; quality assurance plan; periodic meetings/ training for

biologists; sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks; specimen archival; double entry of data;

range checks; peer review of reports; certification program for bioassessment 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: various, depending on needs 

methods T

T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds*

50th percentile of reference population 

10th percentile used as threshold between metric scores of 3 and 1; confidence intervals used

to evaluate sample results for attainment decisions 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in For development of IBI; not current analysis 

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (see IBI documents plus interim biocriteria document produced by 

MDE) 

precision (replicate sample/same team, same reach) 

sensitivity (classification efficiency) 

bias 

accuracy (classification efficiency) 

other: re-sort in laboratory 

T

T

T

T

Biological data 

MS Access, SAS primarily, but also use spreadsheets for some applications (data

dictionaries are produced for external users - see MBSS publications page) 

SAS, Excel, Quattro pro, ARC View 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Fish and Benthic IBIs are also combined into a "Combined Biological Index." 

MARYLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-84 
MASSACHUSETTS 

Contact Information 

Arthur S. Johnson, Environmental Monitoring Coordinator 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

627 Main Street # Worcester, MA 01608 

Phone 508/767-2873 # Fax 508/791-4131 

email: arthur.johnson@state.ma.us 

website: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/ 

Program Description 

Biological monitoring techniques are an important component of the watershed-based surface water quality monitoring and 

assessment program administered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). The goals of this 

program are to assess whether the surface waters of Massachusetts are of sufficient quality and quantity to support their multiple 

uses, and to report those findings in watershed assessment reports, the 305(b) Summary of Water Quality Report and the 303(d) 

List of Impaired Waters. Monitoring is also used to identify causes and sources of water use impairments as the first step toward 

developing water quality and quantity management strategies. 

MADEP biologists assess the condition of resident macroinvertebrate, fish and algal communities in streams to provide a direct 

measure of the ecological response to the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings and habitat degradation. These 

bioassessments, coupled with water quality data and other relevant information, form the basis for determining the aquatic life 

use-support status, as defined in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. 

Rapid bioassessment protocols (RBPs), based on those developed by the USEPA, are used to monitor the integrity of the benthic 

macroinvertebrate community. A targeted sampling design is employed whereby sites are selected for upstream/downstream 

comparisons, comparisons against a regional or surrogate reference, or for long-term trend monitoring. Based on scoring of several 

metrics, four categories of impairment are discerned by the RBP analysis (non-impaired, slightly impaired, moderately impaired, 

and severely impaired). Approximately 50-75 sites are assessed each year in accordance with a rotating watershed monitoring 

scheme. 

The analysis of the structure of the finfish community as a measure of biological integrity is another component of the water quality 

monitoring program. MADEP utilizes a standardized method based on RBP V (USEPA 1989) to improve data comparability among 

wadeable sampling sites. The fish collection procedures involve sampling habitats in relative proportion to their local availability. A 

representative 100-meter stream reach is selected to include the primary physical habitat characteristics of the stream (i.e., riffle, run, 

and pool habitats). Electrofishing is the preferred method for obtaining a representative sample of the fish community at each 

sampling site. Fish (except young-of-the-year) collected within the study reach are identified to species, counted, and examined for 

external anomalies, (i.e., deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors). Aquatic life use-support status is derived from a knowledge of 

the environmental requirements (e.g., water temperature and clarity, dissolved oxygen content) and relative tolerance to water 

pollution of the species collected. 

Algae represent a third community that may be assessed. The analysis of the attached algae or periphyton community in shallow 

streams, or the phytoplankton in deeper rivers and lakes employs an indicator species approach whereby inferences on water quality 

conditions are drawn from an understanding of the environmental preferences and tolerances of the species present. Because the 

algal community typically exhibits dramatic temporal shifts in species composition throughout a single growing season, results from a 

single sampling event are generally not indicative of historical conditions. For this reason the information gained from the algal 

community assessment is more useful as a supplement to the assessments of other communities that serve to integrate conditions 

over a longer time period. 

In addition to the community analyses described above, MADEP also collects some fish to be assayed for the presence of toxic 

contaminants in their tissues. The goal of this monitoring element is primarily to provide data for the assessment of the risk to human 

consumers associated with the consumption of freshwater finfish. In the past fish collection efforts were generally restricted to 

waterbodies where wastewater discharge data or previous water quality studies indicated potential toxic contamination problems. 

More recently, concerns about mercury contamination from both local and far-field sources have led to a broader survey of 

waterbodies throughout Massachusetts. In both cases, nonetheless, the analyses have been restricted to edible fish fillets. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of Water Quality 2000 

Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, May 1997: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/314004.pdf 

For a list of online resources, go to: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm#other 

Jessup, B.K., J. Gerritsen, M.T. Barbour, and R. Haynes. 2001. Analysis and Interpretation of Pilot Study Data as an Initial Step 

in the Development of Biological Criteria for Streams and Small Rivers in Massachusetts. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., for 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Worcester, MA. 

MASSACHUSETTS: Program Summary December 2002 3-85 
MASSACHUSETTS: Program Summary December 2002 3-86 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Contact Information 

Arthur S. Johnson, Environmental Monitoring Coordinator 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

627 Main Street # Worcester, MA 01608 

Phone 508/767-2873 # Fax 508/791-4131 

email: arthur.johnson@state.ma.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations, ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: development of numeric biocriteria 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using a state based program) 

8,229 

Total perennial miles 7,133 

Total miles assessed for biology 1,344 

fully supporting for 305(b) 649 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 695 

listed for 303(d) 695 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis)* ~100 

number of miles assessed per site* site specific 

*The number of sites sampled varies annually, as does the number of miles assessed per site. 
MASSACHUSETTS: Program Summary December 2002 3-87 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 5 - 10 total (on an annual basis)* 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

T paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Least impacted by known point discharges; least impacted by riparian

zone land uses; habitat qualities comparable to test sites. For regional

reference sites MADEP attempts to locate the least-disturbed sites by

conducting extensive reconnaissance throughout the watershed and

selecting sites that do not appear to have point or nonpoint sources of

pollution upstream from them. Reference sites that represent the

various sub-ecoregions that exist in Massachusetts are gradually being

identified. This process is not yet complete, however. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: MADEP is working on identifying reference sites to

represent various sub-ecoregions 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*MADEP does not have a fixed set of reference stations situated throughout the state. Rather, during the rotating basin schedule

MADEP reconnaissances new reference sites depending upon where the sampling will take place. Therefore the number of 

reference sites may vary from year to year. 

ALU designation basis Warm water vs. Cold water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations:

1. General Aquatic Life Support 2. Cold Water/Warm Water Fishery

3. Shellfish Harvesting 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - General aquatic life statement found in WQS; informal process

in place to translate RBP metrics to level of use support. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Information discussed in water quality assessment reports along with

recommendations for management, restoration and further monitoring. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - some at watershed level) 

T other: macrophytes (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at watershed 

level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

multi-plate, rock baskets, collect by hand, single-pole kick-net (45 cm, rectangular, 500-600

micron mesh) 

riffle/run (cobble) 

100 count 

combination--genus, species 

backpack electrofisher, boat electrofisher, seine; 1/8", 3/16" and 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass - individual, anomalies 

all species, 25 individuals of each 

sub-species 

natural substrate: suction device, brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.), collect 

by hand; artificial substrate: microslides or other suitable substratum 

richest habitat, riffle/run (cobble), multihabitat, artificial substrate 

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin, biomass, taxonomic identification 

genus level for soft-bodied algae when possible; diatoms are not cleared 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures; quality assurance plan; periodic meetings, training for

biologists; limited taxonomic proficiency checks; specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds*

Follow 1989 EPA RBP guidelines (Figure 6.3-4) 

Follow 1989 EPA RBP guidelines: anything <83% of reference is

impaired/impacted 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

repeat sampling 

precision (duplicate sampling) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

T

Biological data 

MS Access 2000 

MS Access 2000 - benthos database customized from EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Everything is determined relative to the reference sites; however some parts of this have been refined, including the similarity index

thresholds, and MADEP hopes to use biocriteria data to further modify thresholds. MADEP has also evaluated a model community 

at order level as a substitute for similarity indices (see Novak & Bode, 1992). 

MASSACHUSETTS: Program Summary December 2002 3-88 
MICHIGAN 

Contact Information 

William Creal, Environmental Manager

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

P.O. Box 30273 # Lansing, MI 48909 

Phone 517/335-4181 # Fax 517/241-8133 

email: crealw@michigan.gov 

MDEQ Water homepage: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/1,1607,7-135-3313---,00.html 

Program Description 

In 1997, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) completed a report entitled, A Strategic Environmental 

Quality Monitoring Program for Michigan’s Surface Waters (Strategy). This Strategy describes the monitoring activities necessary 

for a comprehensive assessment of water quality in Michigan’s surface waters. One component of the Strategy is expanded and 

improved monitoring of biological integrity and physical habitat. 

This program element includes all monitoring conducted for fish and benthic invertebrate community structure, nuisance aquatic 

plants, algae, and slimes, and assessment of physical habitat. The MDEQ’s goal in conducting watershed surveys is to assess 

80 percent of the stream and river miles in Michigan over a five-year period. 

Enhanced biological integrity and physical habitat monitoring is consistent with existing MDEQ programs and activities. MDEQ 

uses the existing five-year basin units defined by the NPDES permitting program, which includes 45 watershed units based on 

drainage to the four Great Lakes. Monitoring activities in each watershed include not only biological integrity, but also fish and 

wildlife contaminant studies, water chemistry, and sediment chemistry. Integrating the enhanced biological monitoring with the 

other activities, within the framework of the five-year permitting cycle, will ensure that the monitoring is closely linked with other 

MDEQ programs and contributes to resource management decisions. Specific objectives of biological integrity and physical 

habitat monitoring are to: 

1. Determine whether waters of the state are attaining standards for aquatic life. 

2. Assess the biological integrity of the waters of the state. 

3. Determine the extent to which sedimentation in surface waters is impacting indigenous aquatic life. 

4. Determine whether the biological integrity of surface waters is changing with time. 

5. Assess the effectiveness of BMPs and other restoration efforts in protecting and/or restoring biological integrity and 

physical habitat. 

6. Evaluate the overall effectiveness of MDEQ programs in protecting the biological integrity of surface waters. 

7. Identify waters that are high quality, as well as those that are not meeting standards. 

8. Identify the waters of the state that are impacted by nuisance aquatic plants, algae, and bacterial slimes. 

Rapid, qualitative biological assessments of wadeable streams and rivers are conducted using the Great Lakes and 

Environmental Assessment Section Procedure 51, which compares fish and benthic invertebrate communities at a site to the 

communities that are expected at an un-impacted, or reference, site. This is a key tool used by MDEQ to determine whether 

waterbodies are attaining Michigan WQS. Because Procedure 51 is meant to be a qualitative, rapid assessment tool, the MDEQ 

established a contract with the Great Lakes Environmental Center to develop a statistically valid sample design and procedure 

for detection of trends using benthic macroinvertebrates. This project is scheduled for completion in January 2003. 

All biological community data are entered into MDEQ’s MS Access database. Biological and habitat data collected as part of the 

five-year watershed surveys are summarized in watershed reports. The list of these reports is stored in a database that will be 

accessible to the public via the MDEQ Surface Water Quality Division’s website. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Michigan Water Quality Report (Year 2000 305(b) Report): 

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/1,1607,7-135-3313_3686_3728-12711--,00.html 

CWA Section 303(d) List: Michigan Submittal for Year 2002: 

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-gleas-303_d_Rpt2002b.pdf 

Michigan’s WQS, revised April 1999: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-gleas-305b2002AppI.doc 

MDEQ Biosurveys website: 

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3686_3728-32369--,00.html 

MICHIGAN: Program Summary December 2002 3-89 
MICHIGAN: Program Summary December 2002 3-90 

MICHIGAN 

Contact Information 

William Creal, Environmental Manager 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

P.O. Box 30273 # Lansing, MI 48909 

Phone 517/335-4181 # Fax 517/241-8133 

email: crealw@michigan.gov 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(special projects only) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 

49,141 

Total perennial miles 27,873 

Total miles assessed for biology 21,469 

fully supporting for 305(b) 15,469 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 6,000 

listed for 303(d) 2,600 

number of sites sampled 3,500 

number of miles assessed per site – 
MICHIGAN: Program Summary December 2002 3-91 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*Michigan does not have narrative biocriteria, per se. However, MI does have tiered ALU designations and numeric procedures (the

Gleas Procedure #51) to implement WQS, evaluate nonpoint source impacts, and assess designated uses. According to MDEQ’s

Qualitative and Biological Biological Survey Protocols for Wadeable Streams and Rivers (Procedure #51), “The development of

these biological and habitat survey protocols was a result of the increasing demand for a more vigorous and standardized evaluation

of nonpoint source impacts. The nature and diversity of the causes of nonpoint pollution created a need for greater refinement and

sophistication of the Surface Water Quality Division's standard biological survey procedures in order to assess the degree and

causes of these biological impacts.” 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 200 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria excellent biota present 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Not applicable 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations: coldwater fisheries, warmwater fisheries, and

other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife (per Rule 100 of Michigan’s

WQS). Coldwater fishery includes any of the following: trout,

salmon, whitefish, cisco. Warmwater fishery includes fish species

that thrive in relatively warmwater, including any of the following:

bass, pike, walleye, panfish. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none* 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

TMDL listing and delisting decisions 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (>500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame and dipnet; 800-900 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

100 count 

combination - family, genus 

backpack electrofisher and pram unit (tote barge) 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

none 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

Two standard deviations from excellent condition 

Two standard deviations from excellent condition 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision (repeat sampling by teams during round robins over

the years) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

Biological data 

MS Access database, spreadsheets 

SAS, Systat and Statistica 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

MICHIGAN: Program Summary December 2002 3-92 
MINNESOTA 

Contact Information 

Scott Niemela, Research Scientist 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

520 Lafayette Road # St. Paul, MN 55155 

Phone 651/296-8878 # Fax 651/297-8324 

email: scott.niemela@pca.state.mn.us 

MPCA Water homepage: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/index.html 

Program Description 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Biological Assessment Unit, located in the Environmental 

Standards and Analysis Section, performs many functions integral to water quality decision-making. Among these, 

the Unit: 

• Develops biological measures of ecological integrity for streams and wetlands. 

• Collects and analyzes biological monitoring data. 

• Builds a biological monitoring system that includes streams in the 10 major river basins. 

• Lays the groundwork for the development of biological indicators for lakes and large rivers. 

• Determines biological impairments of rivers and streams for use in TMDL studies 

• Coordinates creation of TMDL listing. 

Documentation and Further Information 

2000 Minnesota Water Quality: Surface Water Section, Years 1998 - 1999 305(b) Report: 

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/305bfinalreport-2000.pdf 

Stream Assessment Methods for Use Support: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/method98.pdf 

MPCA Water Quality Criteria - Aquatic Life Use Support in Rivers and Streams: 

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/rivkey98.pdf 

Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Data: 2000: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/pubs/lwqar.pdf 

MPCA Environmental Outcomes Division website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/about/eod.html 

MINNESOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-93 
MINNESOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-94 

MINNESOTA 

Contact Information 

Scott Niemela, Research Scientist 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

520 Lafayette Road # St. Paul, MN 55155 

Phone 651/296-8878 # Fax 651/297-8324 

email: scott.niemela@pca.state.mn.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (in specific 

river basins or watersheds for biocriteria development, problem 

investigation, and effectiveness monitoring) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (in specific river basins or watersheds for 

condition monitoring and biocriteria development) 

T other: probabilistic by major basin 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using National Hydrography Database) 

91,944 

Total perennial miles 32,985 

Total miles assessed for biology* 2,047 

fully supporting for 305(b) 1,575 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 472 

listed for 303(d) 785 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 100 

number of miles assessed per site depends on 

segment length 

*The discrepancy between 305(b) and 303(d) miles is due to a change in methods related to the threshold level of impairment. The 

numbers for 303(d) reflect the information from the latest proposed 303(d) list using the new threshold levels. The 305(b) miles will 

reflect the old threshold levels until the next 305(b) assessments occur. 
MINNESOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-95 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 35 total 

Reference site 

determinations* 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Reference sites are defined as minimally disturbed reaches/areas within a

specific geographic region, within a given aquatic classification framework.

The criteria used to define reference sites are based on biology, landuse, and

habitat and are adjusted by region (basin, ecoregion, etc). 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other:** 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: At this time MPCA is using major river basin as a framework. This 

could change once a statewide database is developed. 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

*Candidate reference sites are initially selected using GIS coverages including landuse, point source, ditching, and feedlot. After the 

biological sampling has occurred, reference sites are chosen using the biological, habitat, and GIS based information. 

**There are regions within Minnesota where minimally impacted reference sites will eventually be identified. MPCA has not had the 

opportunity to develop biological criteria for these areas yet, but is planning to do so within the next five to ten years. 

ALU designation basis Class System (1,2,3), Fishery Based Uses and Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Aquatic life and recreation, Class 2. 4 subclasses: 2A, cold water (salmonid)

fishery; 2B cool & warm water fishery; 2C, "indigenous" fishery; 2D, wetlands 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Numeric procedures to implement narrative biocriteria are in separate

Guidance documents, not part of the water quality standards. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Bioassessment information is being used in the TMDL process and to support

decisions regarding permitted discharges. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed 

level) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

periphyton 

T other: macrophytes (<100 samples/year; single season multiple sites – not at 

watershed level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame; 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

300 count 

genus 

backpack and boat electrofishers, and pram unit (tote barge) 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass - batch and anomalies 

none 

species 

quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings and training for biologists,

sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of all sites 

The percentile of the reference population will vary by major basin

because of wide variability between basins regarding the level of

human disturbance. 

T repeat sampling (10% of all sites are repeated during a season) 

T precision (A multiyear study, currently 5 years long, is being

conducted to evaluate the precision of IBI scores over a long

term period. This work is taking place at reference sites and

degraded sites - ten sites total.) 

T sensitivity (sensitivity has been examined by evaluating IBI

scores against gradients of disturbance) 

bias 

T accuracy (accuracy has been informally examined by

comparison of IBI scores to expected results from a

landuse/habitat rating score) 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

Biological data 

database (details not provided) 

Systat 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

MINNESOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-96 
MISSISSIPPI 

Contact Information 

Randy Reed, Chief, Water Quality Assessment Branch 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

P.O. Box 10385 # Jackson, MS 39289-0385 

Phone 601/961-5158 # Fax 601/961-5357 

email: randy_reed@deq.state.ms.us 

MDEQ homepage: 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us 

Program Description 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has a Surface Water Monitoring Program (SWMP), 

which: 

• Meets the requirements of Section 106 of CWA, 

• Monitors, assesses and reports overall status and trends of surface water quality state-wide, 

• Identifies impaired waterbodies and determines causes and sources of impairment, 

• Determines effectiveness and supports monitoring and assessment activities of other Surface Water Division 

(SWD) Programs, 

• Addresses surface water quality issues and economic development interests of public concern, and 

• Determines better ways of monitoring and assessing surface waters. 

Biological data collection, assessment and reporting are an integral component of MDEQ’s SWMP and have been 

for many years. In addition, biological data are a primary assessment component of MDEQ’s 305(b) and 303(d) 

reporting processes. Specifically, macroinvertebrate assessment results are used in the process of determining 

aquatic life use support and for identifying impaired waterbodies. Macroinvertebrate data are also used to 

complement other environmental data throughout the TMDL process, including stressor identification and TMDL 

implementation monitoring. A probabilistic survey design is planned for incorporation into MDEQ’s ongoing 

ambient monitoring network in the future. This approach is intended to produce a more accurate, scientifically 

defensible and comprehensive assessment of biological condition throughout the state. This will result in 

collection of biological data at a combination of fixed and random stations each year in conjunction with MS DEQ’s 

Basin Management Approach. 

In 2001, MDEQ redesigned its biological monitoring and assessment program to include more rigorous training; 

field sampling; laboratory sorting, subsampling, and taxonomy; analytical methods; and documentation. It included 

a comprehensive QA Project Plan with detailed standard operating procedures (SOPs), revision of data entry and 

database management procedures, and documentation of data quality characteristics throughout the entire 

assessment process. Approximately 450 wadeable stream sites were sampled statewide with the exception of the 

MS River Alluvial Plain during a winter index period for benthic macroinvertebrates, physical habitat quality, 

substrate particle size distribution, and selected field and analytical chemistry. Using GIS, the drainage area for 

the each site was delineated and land use characterized. For five bioregions, reference conditions were 

developed based on the concept of “best attainable” conditions, and a multimetric index of biological integrity 

calibrated, the Mississippi Benthic Index of Stream Quality (M-BISQ). 

Documentation and Further Information 

State of Mississippi Water Quality Assessment 2002 Section 305(b) Report, Big Black River Basin Supplement: 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us Click: OPC then Surface Water then 305(b) 

State of Mississippi 2002 List of Waterbodies, 303(d) Report: http://www.deq.state.ms.us Click: TMDLs 

State of Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate and Coastal Waters, October 2002: 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us Click: MDEQ Regulations then By Type then Water then WPC-1 

Quality Assurance Project Plan for 303(d) List Assessment and Calibration of the Index of Biological Integrity for 

Wadeable Streams in Mississippi. 

Development and Application of the Mississippi Benthic Index of Stream Quality (M-BISQ). 

MISSISSIPPI: Program Summary December 2002 3-97 
MISSISSIPPI 

Contact Information 

Randy Reed, Chief, Water Quality Assessment Branch 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

P.O. Box 10385 # Jackson, MS 39289-0385 

Phone 601/961-5158 # Fax 601/961-5357 

email: randy_reed@deq.state.ms.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide

rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction)

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 84,003 

Total perennial miles 26,454 

Total miles assessed for biology 5,458 

fully attaining ALUS for 305(b) 2,410 

not fully attaining ALUS for 305(b) 3,048 

listed for 303(d) 3,048 

number of sites sampled 455 

number of miles assessed per site ~12 

*MDEQ implemented a new biological assessment program (started in fall, 2001). Miles assessed for biology and 305(b)/303(d) 

numbers reflect this change and vary significantly from previous assessments. 

NOTE: All information contained in this summary refers to procedures adopted under the new bioassessment program. 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

MISSISSIPPI: Program Summary December 2002 3-98 
ALU designation basis 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Single Aquatic Life Use 

One designation: Fish and Wildlife (biological data are only

assessed for fish and wildlife classification) 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Presently, there are no written informal/formal numeric procedures to

support narrative biocriteria decisions. Available procedures support

a general aquatic life standard. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none

Uses of bioassessment data T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental T

data (e.g., toxicity testing and T

chemical specific criteria) T

T

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 83 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Surrounding landuse, physical habitat, substrate particle size, water

chemistry, biology, and historical information. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: bioregion 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

MISSISSIPPI: Program Summary December 2002 3-99 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad

coverage) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame net (800 x 900 micron mesh) for wadeable streams 

multihabitat 

200 count 

genus 

visual based habitat assessment and modified Wolman Pebble Count; performed

with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, field and laboratory performance audits, sorting and

taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis* 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of all sites 

25th percentile of reference condition 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics** 

T repeat sampling (different team, same reach; same team, 

adjacent reach) 

precision (repeat & duplicate field samples, repeat sorting,

taxonomic & data checks) 

sensitivity (disturbance gradient for reference & degraded

streams) 

bias (repeat, duplicate samples) 

accuracy (discrimination efficiency) 

T

T

T

T

Biological data 

EDAS 

Systat, Statistica and EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

* Multivariate analysis is being used to develop the new index, but the subsequent analysis of biological data will be multimetric.

**Additional evaluation procedures of performance characteristics include: field (biological, habitat and chemistry repeats), lab

(pickate rechecks, QC checks), taxonomy (two taxonomists and a third party for precision; reference collection), data entry QC, and

metric calculation QC checks. 

MISSISSIPPI: Program Summary December 2002 3-100 
MISSOURI 

Contact Information 

Randy Sarver, Aquatic Bioassessment Unit Supervisor 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 

P.O. Box 176 # Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Phone 573/526-3365 # Fax 573/526-3350 

email: nrsarvr@mail.dnr.state.mo.us 

website: http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/water.htm 

Steve Fischer, Fisheries Research Biologist 

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) 

1110 South College Avenue # Columbia, MO 65201 

Phone 573/882-9880 x3271 # Fax 573/882-4517 

email: fischsa@mail.conservation.state.mo.us 

website: http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/ 

Program Description 

The overall aquatic biological assessment program for Missouri streams and wadeable rivers is a multi-agency collaborative 

effort between the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), The 

University of Missouri-Columbia, and the USEPA. The overall program involves a Resource Assessment and Monitoring 

Program, biological criteria development, monitoring of targeted sites to determine compliance with the designated use of aquatic 

life protection in the standards, monitoring for 303(d) purposes, and the development of a stream classification system 

framework. 

The Resource Assessment and Monitoring Program is committed to sampling 120 sites per year beginning in 2002. These sites 

are a combination of targeted reference sites and randomly selected sites. The MDC is responsible for fish sampling, physical 

habitat assessment, and water quality contaminant sampling (to be analyzed by the USEPA). The MDNR is responsible for 

sampling macroinvertebrates at 30% of the sites. For the remainder of the sites, samples are collected by MDC and analyzed by 

the University of Missouri-Columbia. The Resource Assessment and Monitoring Program operates on a five year cycle with 

statewide random sites collected for one year and random sites in priority watersheds collected for four years. Data will be used 

to report on the status of Missouri’s streams and wadeable rivers. 

The MDNR initiated biological criteria development for wadeable, perennial streams in 1992. Numeric biocriteria for one trophic 

level (macroinvertebrate communities) were completed in February 2002. This effort also involved the cooperation of the 

University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources and the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership. Future 

biological criteria efforts will add an additional trophic level (fish communities) to wadeable, perennial streams and will initiate a 

low level effort to develop numeric criteria for other size ranges of streams and rivers. The numeric criteria and associated 

components have been used to evaluate compliance with the designated use of aquatic life protection as well as in the 

assessment of biological communities for 303(d) purposes. 

The Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership is an interagency partnership that provides expertise in geographic information 

systems, remote sensing, and natural resource management. Since 1997, the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership has 

been in the process of developing a hierarchical classification framework for Missouri’s stream resources. This framework is 

expected to provide the foundation for biological study designs in the Resource Assessment and Monitoring Program, biological 

criteria, and targeted studies concerning the designated use of aquatic life protection and 303(d) purposes. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Methodology for the 2002 303(d) list, 1998 303(d) list, and Missouri’s Water Quality Standards and criteria are all available on

the MDNR Water Pollution Control Program homepage: http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/homewpcp.htm 

Fischer, S.A. 2002. Resource Assessment and Monitoring Program: Standard Operating Procedures - fish sampling. Missouri 

Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO. 

Sarver, R., S. Harlan, C. Rabeni, and S. Sowa. 2001. Draft Report - Biological Criteria for Wadeable/Perennial Streams of 

Missouri. Prepared by Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Air and Land Protection Division, Environmental Services 

Program. 

Also available through MDNR: Semi-quantitative Macroinvertebrate Stream Bioassessment Project Procedure (2001); Stream 

Habitat Assessment Project Procedure (2000); Macroinvertebrate Levels of Taxonomy SOP/FSS/209 (1998); Biological Criteria

for Streams of Missouri - A Final Report to the MO Department of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Unit; Quality Control Procedures for Data Processing (2001) MDNR/WQMS/214. 

MISSOURI: Program Summary December 2002 3-101 
MISSOURI: Program Summary December 2002 3-102 

MISSOURI 

Contact Information 

Randy Sarver, Aquatic Bioassessment Unit Supervisor 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 

P.O. Box 176 # Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Phone 573/526-3365 # Fax 573/526-3350 

email: nrsarvr@mail.dnr.state.mo.us 

Steve Fischer, Fisheries Research Biologist 

Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) 

1110 South College Avenue # Columbia, MO 65201 

Phone 573/882-9880 x3271 # Fax 573/882-4517 

email: fischsa@mail.conservation.state.mo.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions (MDNR only) 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction by MDNR) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

T probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction and in specific river basins or watersheds by MDC) 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction and in specific river basins or watersheds by MDC) 

T rotating basin (used in specific rivers basins or watersheds by MDNR) 

T other: reference site monitoring 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(estimated using National Hydrography Database) 

52,194 

Total perennial miles 22,194 

Total miles assessed for biology* 21,996 

fully supporting for 305(b) 11,519 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 10,477 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 200 

number of miles assessed per site site specific (MDC) 

0.25 (MDNR) 

*Miles assessed for aquatic life as reported in Missouri’s draft 2002 305(b) Water 

Quality Report are based on biological, chemical, physical and toxicological data. The status and number of stream miles assessed 

exclusively for biology is not readily available. 
MISSOURI: Program Summary December 2002 3-103 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 62 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific (MDC) 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment (MDC) 

T other: Missouri Ecologic Drainage Units/VST layer (MDC) 

Reference site criteria Representative of ecoregion and stream size, and in natural condition with

respect to habitat, water quality, biological integrity and diversity, watershed

land use and riparian conditions

Disturbed habitat = <75% comparable to reference (MDNR) 

MDC uses R-EMAP terminology: perennial flow, relatively high

heterogeneity of substrate materials, natural channel morphology, natural

hydrograph, natural water color 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed in the Ozarks 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type (MDNR) 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: MDC is attempting to put reference sites into each of Missouri’s

17 Ecologic Drainage Units. 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards (Sarver 

et al. 2001) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

ALU designation basis Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Four designations: General Warm Water Aquatic Life, Limited Warm Water

Aquatic Life, Cool Water Fisheries, and Cold Water Fisheries 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in SOPs and draft

biocriteria document for wadeable/perennial streams housed at MDNR/Air

and Land Protection Division, Environmental Services Program 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development (Numeric biocriteria for macroinvertebrate communities

in wadeable, perennial streams will be completed sometime in 2002. 

These criteria are intended for inclusion in the water quality standards

during the next triennial WQS review.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 - 500 samples per year; single season, multiple sites - broad

coverage by MDC; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad coverage for

watershed level by MDNR) 

T fish (100 - 500 samples per year; single season, multiple sites - broad

coverage by MDC only) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

kick net, 500 micron mesh nitex bag 

multihabitat 

900 for glide/pool streams, 1200 for riffle/pool streams 

genus, species 

backpack electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge), and seines; 

3/16" mesh for 12' net and 1/4" mesh for 30' net 

multihabitat 

biomass - batch 

batch 

species 

visual based, quantitative measurements (MDC), stream width and discharge 

(MDNR); performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival,

MDNR data entry QC, certification program for bioassessment within MDC 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population (MDNR); some based on log

10 mean wetted width, mean proportion of reference sites, or specific

percentiles (MDC) 

cumulative score equivalent to 81% of reference condition (MDNR) 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

significant departure from mean of reference population (MDC), 

threshold not used by MDNR for criteria but as supporting

information only 

defining impairment in

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (multiple seasons and years by MDNR, annual 

revisits by MDC) 

precision (10% duplicates within reach by MDNR) 

sensitivity (evaluated in MDNR pilot project) 

bias (MDNR eliminated redundant metrics during pilot project,

multiple techniques used by MDC) 

accuracy 

T

T

T

Biological data 

STORET (MDC), MS Access 

SAS (MDC), Programming in Visual Basics for MS Access and

Sigmastat (MDNR) 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

MISSOURI: Program Summary December 2002 3-104 
MONTANA 

Contact Information 

Rosie Sada de Suplee, Aquatic Microbiologist 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

1520 East 6th Avenue # Helena, MT 59620 

Phone 406/444-6764 # Fax 406/444-6836 

email: rsada@state.mt.us 

DEQ Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment homepage: 

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/MDM/WQMonitoring_Assessment.asp 

Randy Apfelbeck, Water Quality Specialist 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

2209 Phoenix Avenue # Helena, MT 59601 

Phone 406/444-2709 # Fax 406/444-5275 

email: rapfelbeck@state.mt.us 

DEQ Water Quality Information homepage: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/Index.asp 

Program Description 

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) strongly encourages the use of biological data for 

making ALUS determinations (more than 90% of MT’s 303(d) assessments include biological data). It is very 

difficult to acquire sufficient credible data in Montana without having biological data; thus the incorporation of 

bioassessment in DEQ’s monitoring program is very important. 

DEQ is in the second year of collecting macroinvertebrate and periphyton data from fixed station sites that are 

located on major streams throughout Montana. The primary objective is to determine status and trends. In 2002, 

the Department initiated an effort to develop vegetation assessment tools for assessing the biological conditions of 

riparian areas and wetlands and is also looking at amphibians. In the past, wetland macroinvertebrate and diatom 

communities have been assessed. 

DEQ collaborates with a number of agencies and organizations. The Montana Bureau of Land Management has 

helped fund DEQ’s statewide biological monitoring efforts. USGS is collecting chemistry data at most fixed station 

sites. The Department is also working closely with the wetlands program, universities and the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program to assess riparian zones. For 303(d) purposes DEQ has collaborated with conservation 

districts, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, USFS, and USEPA, among others. 

In 2000 DEQ developed a new listing methodology that strongly encourages the use of biological data to assess 

waters for 303(d) purposes. The Department was required to use this methodology for all waters that were 

previously listed as impaired, but were unfortunately not required to use the new listing methodology for streams 

that were previously listed as fully supporting ALU. Montana DEQ is also currently forming workgroups to begin the 

process of developing a state-wide water quality database that can be accessed by federal and state agencies in 

Montana. 

Some challenges include achieving access to private lands and assessing prairie streams that are located in 

eastern Montana. In the future DEQ intends to develop and implement a random study design to assess the 

biological condition of smaller order streams. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Year 2001 305(b) Report Database and Year 2000 303(d) List Database: 

http://nris.state.mt.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=TMDL&Cmd=INST 

DRAFT 2002 Montana 303(d) List: http://nris.state.mt.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=TMDL2002&Cmd=INST 

Montana’s Water Quality Standards and Classifications: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/Standards/Index.asp 

Water Quality Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/ppa/mdm/SOP/sop.asp 

Montana Natural Heritage Program homepage: http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/ 

MONTANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-105 
MONTANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-106 

MONTANA 

Contact Information 

Rosie Sada de Suplee, Aquatic Microbiologist 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

1520 East 6th Avenue # Helena, MT 59620 

Phone 406/444-6764 # Fax 406/444-6836 

email: rsada@state.mt.us 

Randy Apfelbeck, Water Quality Specialist 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

2209 Phoenix Avenue # Helena, MT 59601 

Phone 406/444-2709 # Fax 406/444-5275 

email: rapfelbeck@state.mt.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

UD promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (comprehensive 

throughout jurisdiction) 

T probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (special projects only) 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (special projects only) 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 

176,750 

Total perennial miles 53,221 

Total miles assessed for biology* 9,076 

fully supporting for 305(b)** 1,340 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)** 7,736 

listed for 303(d) 7,736 

number of sites sampled (USGS sites) ~40 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*MT DEQ collects biological data as part of a joint project with USGS to assess 38 sites that are located near the mouth of major 

streams and rivers. Aside from this, Montana does not have a state biological monitoring program but it is currently under 

development. 

**71% of the waters that were assessed as fully supporting ALU used biological data; 94% of the waters where ALUS was 

determined to be impaired used biological data. 
MONTANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-107 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites ~50 total (potential reference sites)* 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria specific criteria under development; currently using best professional judgment to determine

“least impaired” considering geomorphology, habitat, landuse, biology, and chemistry 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

T other: some sites are minimally disturbed** 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

*In 2001, Montana DEQ began the process of locating reference sites using GIS and sampled ~30 potential reference sites using

EMAP methods. A similar effort was made in 1990 when ~38 sites were sampled. In total, Montana has assessed ~50 potential

reference sites. 

**Montana’s regional reference sites are characterized as least disturbed. These sites are used to describe the best potential for a 

stream given the historical land use. However, many least disturbed reference sites are actually minimally disturbed, especially

those sites that are located in the Rocky Mountain Ecoregion. In this case the best potential for a stream is near natural condition. 

These streams are often located in roadless areas, wilderness areas or National Parks. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C), Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Although there are 9 classifications (A, B, C and subdivided), Class A-Closed is suitable for

growth and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life (among other uses) and Classes

A-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1 AND C-2 must have water quality suitable for growth and propagation

of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers (among other uses). 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development (Brief biocriteria language without formal numeric translation mechanism

located in WQS. Informal numeric procedures located in guidance document for 303(d) listing

purposes complying with WQS.) 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

TMDL targets 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 - 500 samples per year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples per year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (100 - 500 samples per year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T other: macrophytes (<100 samples per year; single season, multiple sites - watershed 

level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Hess, D-frame, kick net (1m); 500 - 600 and >800 micron mesh sizes 

richest habitat, riffle/run (cobble), multihabitat, woody debris 

300-500 count 

combination - lowest feasible 

backpack and boat electrofishers, seine; 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, anomalies 

none 

species 

natural substrate: suction device, brushing/scraping device 

riffle/run (cobble), multihabitat 

chlorophyll a / phaeophytin, biomass, taxonomic identification 

diatoms (mainly species level), all algae (genus and species) 

visual based, quantitative measurements, hydrogeomorphology, pebble counts; performed

with and independent of bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for

biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index and return single metrics) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

cumulative distribution function 

75% of reference condition 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in significant departure from mean of reference population

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (duplicates) 

precision (splits with USGS and EMAP for bioassessments) 

sensitivity 

bias (comparison of different methods) 

accuracy 

characteristics T

T

Biological data 

developing use of MS Access and Excel 

Systat, Statmost 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

MONTANA: Program Summary December 2002 3-108 
NEBRASKA 

Contact Information 

Ken Bazata, Program Specialist - Surface Water Section 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) 

1200 “N” Street, Suite 400 # Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

Phone 402/471-2192# Fax 402/471-2909 

email: ken.bazata@ndeq.state.ne.us 

website: www.ndeq.state.ne.us 

Program Description 

Nebraska’s biological monitoring program was started in 1985 with semi-quantitative methods for collecting fish 

and macroinvertebrates. The original purpose was to determine naturally occurring biological delineations within 

the state and to classify streams based on biological characteristics. In 1997, collection methods were changed to 

the REMAP methodology because the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) felt that more 

quantitative approaches were needed to summarize the data. 

NDEQ’s program for adapting the metrics to the standards and fine tuning the metrics has been slowed by data 

management and computer programming problems. NDEQ has a small staff and time constraints have affected 

this program. NDEQ is experiencing problems with the reference site concept. Since many of the streams have a 

"sameness" throughout a large area of the state, Nebraska lacks solid reference sites for the ecoregions and 

stream classes. Except for a few places, it seems most streams are heavily affected by agricultural use. NDEQ 

has a lot of data, but is having trouble analyzing it. 

Due to concerns about the accuracy of the existing biological indices, NDEQ has chosen to reassess past 

biological data and redefine its indices. Five streams are currently listed on Nebraska's 303(d) list due to 

biodiversity impacts. Only about 20% of Nebraska’s total stream miles are currently assessed for biology in the 

305(b) report. These streams are known to be fully supporting (17%) or not supporting (3%). 

Nebraska agrees with the reference site concept but needs to determine if appropriate reference sites exist in 

Nebraska. NDEQ is currently evaluating macroinvertebrate and fish data to locate both excellent and severely 

impaired sites in order to determine the appropriate habitat conditions that correspond to both extremes. 

Reference site criteria have not yet been finalized. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Nebraska DRAFT 2000 305(b) report 

DRAFT 2002 303(d) report, 2001, Comprehensive Study of Water Quality Monitoring, and Title 117 - Nebraska’s 

Surface Water Quality Standards are available online at http://www.ndeq.state.ne.us 

NEBRASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-109 
Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T

NEBRASKA 

Contact Information 

Ken Bazata, Program Specialist - Surface Water Section 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) 

1200 “N” Street, Suite 400 # Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

Phone 402/471-2192 # Fax 402/471-2909 

email: ken.bazata@ndeq.state.ne.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations)

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction)

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use

throughout jurisdiction)

rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction)

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 81,573 

(determined using RF3) 

Total perennial miles 16,090 

Total miles assessed for biology* 16,314 

fully supporting for 305(b) 13,867 

non-supporting for 305(b) 2,447 

listed for 303(d) 0 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 40 

number of miles assessed per site site specific 

*The 16,314 stream miles assessed for biology are the streams known to be only very high fully supporting (13,867) and very low 

non-supporting (2,447). 

NEBRASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-110 
NEBRASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-111 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development* 

Number of reference sites 38 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference Site Criteria No waste water treatment plants, other point sources, or

concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); good instream

habitat, riparian habitat, land use and cover, physical and chemical

parameters, biological metrics, and faunal assemblages; no altered

hydrologic regimes; representativeness. 

At a minumum, sites need to be in the top 10 to 20 percent of all

sites sampled in the ecoregion, with little disturbance and no spills or

discharges within sites area. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: regionally representative, reasonably attainable 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) (there are three ecoregions

and six strata with roughly five reference sites in each) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*Reference site criteria have not been finalized. These responses are based on NDEQ’s current efforts to evaluate reference sites 

and condition. 

ALU designation basis Class system (A, B, C), Fishery Based Uses, Warm Water vs. Cold

Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Four designations: Warmwater A, Warmwater B, Coldwater A,

Coldwater B 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in various

reports, e.g., biological classification, 305(b), bioassessment

procedures 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year, single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples/year, single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

surber, multiplate, collect by hand, D-frame, dipnet; 200 - 400 micron mesh 

multihabitat, artificial substrate, woody debris 

300 count, entire sample 

genus, species 

backpack electrofisher, boat electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge), seine; 1/4" mesh 

pool/glide, riffle/run (cobble), multihabitat 

length measurement (gamefish only), anomalies 

batch 

species 

visual based, quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, taxonomic proficiency

checks and specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation* 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population, dependent upon approach 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (revisit sites) 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Biological data 

STORET, Excel and MS Access spreadsheets 

SAS, Minitab 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*NDEQ is testing different indices for validity and, as mentioned earlier, is still exploring reference criteria. Responses are based on

NDEQ’s current evaluation efforts, which include several changes in the way past biological data were evaluated. Data analysis 

procedures may change before metrics, indices, and reference sites are finalized. 

NEBRASKA: Program Summary December 2002 3-112 
 NEVADA 

Contact Information 

Karen Vargas, Bioassessment Coordinator/Environmental Scientist II 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) 

123 West Nye Lane, Suite 138 # Carson City, NV 89706-0851 

Phone 775/687-9444 # Fax 775/687-5856 

email: kvargas@ndep.state.nv.us 

NDEP Bureau of Water Quality Planning homepage: http://ndep.state.nv.us/bwqp/ 

Program Description 

Nevada began its Bioassessment Program in the year 2000 and has continued to collect biological information on 

an annual basis. Although the program is in its infancy, the State plans to continue collecting biological data for 

ambient monitoring and to assist in defining reference conditions and sites. There are seven primary water basins 

in Nevada and the State has collected biological data annually on four of these basins covering approximately 600 

river miles. It is expected the State will continue to collect at these river basins, in addition to new basins and 

several lakes, until a valid biological baseline has been established over the next four to five years. After such 

time, the State is expected to switch to an alternating site or basin ambient bioassessment monitoring program. 

The program primarily consists of macroinvertebrate collection, physical habitat evaluations, and physical 

measurements of slope, velocity, flow, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, pH, temperature, substrate 

composition, canopy cover, and width and depth of the sampling area. Periphyton, plankton, and/or chlorophyll 

sampling is conducted when necessary to assist in defining problem areas. Water chemistry data is collected at 

sites where the water chemistry is currently unknown. The data will eventually be used in 305(b) and 303(d) 

reports in addition to basin assessments of stream health. Some NPDES dischargers in the State are voluntarily 

collecting macroinvertebrates to assess impact to the aquatic environment. 

Reference site criteria are currently being defined based on available information. The State expects to use 

chemical data, habitat assessments, physical measurements, professional knowledge and degrees of human 

impact to define the conditions and sites. Where reference sites are unavailable, the State expects to use 

modeling and/or least disturbed sites to evaluate conditions. It is anticipated to take several years for reference 

sites to be selected. 

An independent biological laboratory conducts identification of macroinvertebrates. QA/QC of macroinvertebrate 

identification consists of approximately 15% of the samples being analyzed by two distinct biological laboratories. 

Data collected will be stored annually in the Ecological Data Application System (EDAS). Analysis and evaluation 

of the bioassessment data will be developed as the program progresses and based on the most accurate 

methods. Reference sites, where appropriate, will be used as a baseline for analysis. 

Nevada recently hosted its first bioassessment conference in the State. The conference resulted in the formation 

of a State Bioassessment Committee consisting of agencies, tribes, and industry. The primary goal of the 

committee is to evaluate and coordinate protocols, methodologies and sampling in the State. Nevada also 

participates in the National Aquatic Life Use (ALUS) work group based out of USEPA Headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. The State is also planning to host an Arid West Aquatic Life Use Workgroup in conjunction with 

other arid states, tribal entities and USEPA in the next year. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Nevada’s 305(b) report, September 2000: http://ndep.state.nv.us/bwqp/305b1998.pdf 

DRAFT Nevada’s 2002 303(d) Impaired Waters List, June 2002: http://ndep.state.nv.us/bwqp/303list.pdf 

Nevada’s 1998 303(d) List, April 1998: http://ndep.state.nv.us/bwqp/nv303d98.pdf 

Draft Continuing Planning Process, December 2001: http://ndep.state.nv.us/bwqp/cppdraft.pdf 

Water Quality Standards, narrative and numeric: http://ndep.state.nv.us/bwqp/stdsw.htm 

NEVADA: Program Summary December 2002 3-113
NEVADA: Program Summary December 2002 3-114 

NEVADA 

Contact Information 

Karen Vargas, Bioassessment Coordinator/Environmental Scientist II 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) 

123 West Nye Lane, Suite 138 # Carson City, NV 89706-0851 

Phone 775/687-9444 # Fax 775/687-5856 

email: kvargas@ndep.state.nv.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program* 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

*Bioassessment information will eventually be used in 303(d) and 305(b) reports. 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using River Reaches and calculated using GIS 

coverages.) 

143,578 

Total perennial miles 14,988 

Total miles assessed for biology** 602 

fully supporting for 305(b) 0 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 0 

listed for 303(d) 0 

number of sites sampled 50-60 

number of miles assessed per site – 

**602 miles were assessed per year for 2000 and 2001 by the state (NDEP) and 97 miles were also assessed by others 

(Dischargers). The state estimates 900 river miles to be assessed in 2002. Since mileage is estimated and Nevada’s 2001 data set 

has not been analyzed, the State has not used biology for 305(b)/303(d); therefore “0" is reported. However, it will be used in the 

future. 
NEVADA: Program Summary December 2002 3-115 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development* 

Number of reference sites 0 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

T paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria This is under development. NDEP expects to use chemical, habitat,

physical measurements and least human impact. Where reference 

sites are unavailable modeling and/or metrics will be used to

evaluate conditions. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation 

T stream type 

T multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions (for fishery based uses) 

*Nevada is in the process of developing reference sites. This section has been completed based on the criteria that will be considered 

during development. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C), Fishery Based Uses and Warm Water vs.

Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Propagation of aquatic life and the levels of warm water and cold

water fisheries. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Truckee River Restoration projects include the lahontan cutthroat 

trout. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year, single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

fish 

UD periphyton (<100 samples/year, single season, multiple sites - watershed 

level) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

kick net (1 m); 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) (when unavailable, use vegetation and sediment) 

500 count 

combination--family, genus, species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

Periphyton will be routinely collected and analyzed by a professional lab beginning in

2002. Chlorophyll analysis is performed at some stations.

n/a

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin and taxonomic identification

genus level for soft-bodied algae when possible; diatoms are not cleared 

quantitative measurements (some sites) and visual based; performed with

bioassessments; riffle slope, flow, average width and depth of flow, riffle velocity,

canopy cover, some vegetation (grass, scrubs, trees) coverage along riparian zone,

reach length, conductivity, temperature and dissolved oxygen 

Quality assurance program elements are currently being developed (i.e., standard

operating procedures, quality assurance plan, taxonomic proficiency checks,

specimen archival). 

Data Analysis and Interpretation* 

Data analysis tools and

methods 

T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

T multivariate analysis 

UD biological metrics (NDEP has not yet developed metrics but

analysis tools and methods will be developed based on the

most accurate method) 

T disturbance gradients 

other: 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (ideally, 5 years worth of data will be collected

at each site to determine the variability) 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

Biological data 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

EDAS (being developed)

EDAS (being developed)

*Analysis tools and methods will be developed more fully in the future. 

NEVADA: Program Summary December 2002 3-116 
NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Contact Information 

David Neils, Biomonitoring Program Coordinator 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) 

6 Hazen Drive # Concord, NH 03302-0095 

Phone 603/271-8865 # Fax 603/271-7894 

email: dneils@des.state.nh.us 

NHDES Watershed Management Bureau, Biomonitoring Program: 

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/biomonitoring/ 

Program Description 

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) has been gathering biological data in 

wadeable streams and rivers since 1995. The primary goal of this effort is the development of numeric biological 

criteria in support of the current narrative standard. Biological communities assessed for this purpose are fish and 

macroinvertebrates. Since the program’s inception, the protocols for collecting data have remained fairly 

consistent. The fish are collected with a backpack electro-shocker for 150 meters, with efforts to include all 

habitats typical of the stream type. Macroinvertebrate sampling is done by rock baskets deployed for 8 weeks and 

retrieved in the fall. A visual habitat assessment is also conducted at each station using USEPA’s Rapid 

Bioassessment Protocols for high or low gradient streams, whichever is appropriate. 

Since the program’s beginnings, over 200 stations have been assessed. These stations are captured in an 

ArcView coverage that includes watershed delineations specific to the biological sampling station. Efforts are 

currently underway to determine the degree of human activity in each of the watersheds by evaluating parameters 

such as land use, population, hazardous waste sites and road density. This type of scoring will help to determine 

reference quality/least impacted sites. 

The Biomonitoring Program is also investigating the need to classify the wadeable streams in New Hampshire. The 

state is small but very diverse, with low coastal systems and high mountainous regions. It is not yet clear whether it 

will be necessary to establish unique biological criteria for different regions of the state. 

In the past, biomonitoring information has been used for 305(b) reporting and also for 303(d) listing. The 

Watershed Management Bureau, which is responsible for producing these reports, is currently evaluating the 

assessment and listing methodologies, using USEPA’s CALM guidance. In 2002-2003 the Biomonitoring Program 

will be testing a probabilistic sampling design for site selection. This type of sampling will allow for greater 

confidence in statements of statewide water quality, and continue to provide useful data for biocriteria 

development. 

Information about New Hampshire’s Biomonitoring Program, including sampling protocols, can be found at 

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/biomonitoring/. 

Documentation and Further Information 

State of New Hampshire 2000 Section 305(b) Water Quality Report: 

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/2000-305b.pdf 

NHDES Biomonitoring Program Protocols, January 2002: 

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/biomonitoring/protocols.pdf 

New Hampshire Biomonitoring Program general information: http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/biomonitoring/sites 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Program Summary December 2002 3-117 
NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Contact Information 

David Neils, Biomonitoring Program Coordinator 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) 

6 Hazen Drive # Concord, NH 03302-0095 

Phone 603/271-8865 # Fax 603/271-7894 

email: dneils@des.state.nh.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Use of bioassessment T problem identification (screening)

within overall water quality T nonpoint source assessments program 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: Ecological Risk Assessments 

Applicable monitoring T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special

designs projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special 

projects only) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 10,881 

(State based determination) 

Total perennial miles 8,636 

Total miles assessed for biology 400 

fully supporting for 305(b) 389 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 11 

listed for 303(d) 0 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 130 

number of miles assessed per site* -3 

*NHDES will be doing random sampling in the future. For now, 150 meters are assessed and extrapolated to a broader area, 

roughly three miles per site, though this number does vary. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Program Summary December 2002 3-118 
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Program Summary December 2002 3-119 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 40 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Generally use best professional judgment. Least disturbed sites are 

determined following some stratification of characteristics (ArcView

coverage, hazardous waste sites, etc.) – it is very visual. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Not applicable* 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

Not applicable* 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*Regional reference sites not used. 

ALU designation basis Class system (A, B, C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

One designation: Fishable 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS There aren't any written formal/informal numeric procedures to

support narrative biocriteria decisions yet because they are very

subjective. Presently, data is being analyzed using New York’s 

metrics. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

periphyton 

T other: amphibians/reptiles (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites -

broad coverage) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame, kick net (1 meter), multiplate, rock baskets; 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat, artificial substrate 

100 count 

genus, lowest reasonable taxa 

backpack electrofisher 

multihabitat 

anomalies 

none 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures; quality assurance plan; periodic meetings, training

for biologists; sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks; specimen archival;

certification program for bioassessment (Biologists must have a certificate of

completion of USFWS Electrofishing Course) 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (return single metrics - use endpoint for each 

single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

under development - Presently, only the raw score is tracked – there

is no scale of comparison with the reference site yet. 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Information not provided 

Biological data 

EDAS 

EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Program Summary December 2002 3-120 
NEW MEXICO 

Contact Information 

Seva J. Joseph, Environmental Specialist 

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 

1190 Saint Francis Drive # Santa Fe, NM 87502-0110 

Phone 505/827-0573 # Fax 505/827-0160 

email: seva_joseph@nmenv.state.nm.us 

NMED Surface Water Quality Bureau: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/swqb.html 

Program Description 

Starting in 1998 the New Mexico Environment Department’s (NMED) Surface Water Quality Bureau (SWQB) had a 

goal of monitoring all watersheds in the state on a 5-year cycle. NMED has recently begun to survey fish 

populations to supplement the data from the NM Department of Game and Fish. NMED uses RBP collection 

methods and is currently working on assessment methods suitable for the depauperate fish population of New 

Mexico. The SWQB coordinates with the NM Department of Game and Fish to obtain the most current fishery 

assessments in the watersheds. 

The benefits of this approach are: 

• It provides a systematic, detailed review of water quality data and allows for a more efficient use of valuable 

monitoring resources; 

• It provides information at a scale where implementation of corrective activities is feasible; 

• With an established order of rotation and predictable sampling in each basin, it is easier to coordinate efforts 

with other programs and water quality entities, and program efficiency is enhanced and the basis for 

management decisions is improved. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Water Quality and Water Pollution Control in New Mexico, 2000 305(b): 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/305b_2000.html 

State of New Mexico Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters, December 16, 2001: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/NMED_regs/swqb/20_6_4_nmac.html 

Surface Water Quality Bureau Library: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/links.html#WPS_Library 

For a list of and links to Reports and Publications, go to: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/Technical%20resources/TSS.html#Reports 

For a Table of Contents containing ALL Technical Reports and other information, go to: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/Technical%20resources/TSS.html 

For a list of and links to Biological Databases, go to: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/Technical%20resources/TSS.html#Biological 

NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-125 
NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-126 

NEW MEXICO 

Contact Information 

Seva J. Joseph, Environmental Specialist 

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 

1190 Saint Francis Drive # Santa Fe, NM 87502-0110 

Phone 505/827-0573 # Fax 505/827-0160 

email: seva_joseph@nmenv.state.nm.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (special projects only) 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determination) 

110,741 

Total perennial miles 8,682 

Total miles assessed for biology 5,875 

fully supporting for 305(b) 3,200 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)* 2,675 

listed for 303(d)* – 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 30 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*A total of 3,080 miles are partially/non-supporting when miles with "impacts observed" are included. NMED is currently working on 

a 303(d) list. 
NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-127 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 200 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria The least disturbed sites are picked according to best professional

judgment (based on chemistry, quantitative habitat measurements,

visual indicators, etc). There are plans to shift to RIVPACS as

biocriteria are developed during the next few years. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Not applicable 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation (preliminary ecoregions are based on elevation and

other habitat parameters) 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses and Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Five designations: Coldwater Fishery, High Quality Coldwater

Fishery, Limited Warmwater Fishery, Marginal Coldwater Fishery,

and Warmwater Fishery 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (30 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish (30 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T periphyton* (9 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

T other: phytoplankton (9 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton* 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments** 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Hess, D-frame, kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh

riffle/run (cobble)

300 count

combination (it depends on the family--some to genus, some to species level)

backpack and bank electrofisher; 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

batch 

species 

natural substrate: collect by hand; artificial substrate: periphytometer 

richest habitat and multihabitat 

taxonomic identification 

diatoms only 

visual based, hydrogeomorphology; and the RBP assessment is conducted with the

bioassessment. NMDE may also conduct a Rosgen type hydrogeomorphological

assessment, including pebble counts, independently of the bioassessment. 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, sorting proficiency checks

and specimen archival 

*Periphyton is collected primarily from lakes. It is only collected from streams in response to a specific problem or when looking at a

certain impairment – sampling is very minimal (<10). 

**Up to this point bioassessments have been conducted as described in the EPA's RBP. These methods are just now starting to be 

refined for regional applicability. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population 

95th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

Just recently started using MS Access. All historic data (1977 - 1999) are in STORET 

In the process of moving from STORET to MS Access; some data are also in Excel 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-128 
NEW MEXICO 

Contact Information 

Seva J. Joseph, Environmental Specialist 

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 

1190 Saint Francis Drive # Santa Fe, NM 87502-0110 

Phone 505/827-0573 # Fax 505/827-0160 

email: seva_joseph@nmenv.state.nm.us 

NMED Surface Water Quality Bureau: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/swqb.html 

Program Description 

Starting in 1998 the New Mexico Environment Department’s (NMED) Surface Water Quality Bureau (SWQB) had a 

goal of monitoring all watersheds in the state on a 5-year cycle. NMED has recently begun to survey fish 

populations to supplement the data from the NM Department of Game and Fish. NMED uses RBP collection 

methods and is currently working on assessment methods suitable for the depauperate fish population of New 

Mexico. The SWQB coordinates with the NM Department of Game and Fish to obtain the most current fishery 

assessments in the watersheds. 

The benefits of this approach are: 

• It provides a systematic, detailed review of water quality data and allows for a more efficient use of valuable 

monitoring resources; 

• It provides information at a scale where implementation of corrective activities is feasible; 

• With an established order of rotation and predictable sampling in each basin, it is easier to coordinate efforts 

with other programs and water quality entities, and program efficiency is enhanced and the basis for 

management decisions is improved. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Water Quality and Water Pollution Control in New Mexico, 2000 305(b): 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/305b_2000.html 

State of New Mexico Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters, December 16, 2001: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/NMED_regs/swqb/20_6_4_nmac.html 

Surface Water Quality Bureau Library: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/links.html#WPS_Library 

For a list of and links to Reports and Publications, go to: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/Technical%20resources/TSS.html#Reports 

For a Table of Contents containing ALL Technical Reports and other information, go to: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/Technical%20resources/TSS.html 

For a list of and links to Biological Databases, go to: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/Technical%20resources/TSS.html#Biological 

NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-125 
NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-126 

NEW MEXICO 

Contact Information 

Seva J. Joseph, Environmental Specialist 

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 

1190 Saint Francis Drive # Santa Fe, NM 87502-0110 

Phone 505/827-0573 # Fax 505/827-0160 

email: seva_joseph@nmenv.state.nm.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (special projects only) 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determination) 

110,741 

Total perennial miles 8,682 

Total miles assessed for biology 5,875 

fully supporting for 305(b) 3,200 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)* 2,675 

listed for 303(d)* – 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 30 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*A total of 3,080 miles are partially/non-supporting when miles with "impacts observed" are included. NMED is currently working on 

a 303(d) list. 
NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-127 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 200 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria The least disturbed sites are picked according to best professional

judgment (based on chemistry, quantitative habitat measurements,

visual indicators, etc). There are plans to shift to RIVPACS as

biocriteria are developed during the next few years. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Not applicable 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation (preliminary ecoregions are based on elevation and

other habitat parameters) 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses and Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Five designations: Coldwater Fishery, High Quality Coldwater

Fishery, Limited Warmwater Fishery, Marginal Coldwater Fishery,

and Warmwater Fishery 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (30 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish (30 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T periphyton* (9 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

T other: phytoplankton (9 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton* 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments** 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Hess, D-frame, kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh

riffle/run (cobble)

300 count

combination (it depends on the family--some to genus, some to species level)

backpack and bank electrofisher; 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

batch 

species 

natural substrate: collect by hand; artificial substrate: periphytometer 

richest habitat and multihabitat 

taxonomic identification 

diatoms only 

visual based, hydrogeomorphology; and the RBP assessment is conducted with the

bioassessment. NMDE may also conduct a Rosgen type hydrogeomorphological

assessment, including pebble counts, independently of the bioassessment. 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, sorting proficiency checks

and specimen archival 

*Periphyton is collected primarily from lakes. It is only collected from streams in response to a specific problem or when looking at a

certain impairment – sampling is very minimal (<10). 

**Up to this point bioassessments have been conducted as described in the EPA's RBP. These methods are just now starting to be 

refined for regional applicability. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population 

95th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

Just recently started using MS Access. All historic data (1977 - 1999) are in STORET 

In the process of moving from STORET to MS Access; some data are also in Excel 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

NEW MEXICO: Program Summary December 2002 3-128 
NEW YORK 

Contact Information 

Robert W. Bode, Research Scientist III 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

625 Broadway # Albany, NY 12233-3502 

Phone 518/285-5682 # Fax 518/285-5601 

email: rwbode@gw.dec.state.ny.us 

NYSDEC homepage: www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/index.html 

Program Description 

The Stream Biomonitoring Unit of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was 

formed in 1972. The primary objective of the Unit is to assess the water quality of streams and rivers in New York 

State using aquatic invertebrate communities. Secondary objectives include taxonomic investigations, invertebrate 

tissue analysis, and public outreach. The unit presently consists of five biologists: Robert Bode, Margaret Novak, 

Lawrence Abele, Diana Heitzman, and Alexander Smith. 

The Stream Biomonitoring Unit is part of the ambient surface water monitoring team at NYSDEC. Water quality is 

assessed to determine the level of designated use support and the primary factors causing the impacts. In 

addition to community assessments, invertebrates are collected for tissue analysis to determine if elevated levels 

exist for metals, pesticides, PCBs, or PAHs. Biological monitoring using benthic invertebrate communities is the 

primary monitoring tool for the initial screening phase within the watersheds, providing a coverage of 150-200 

streams each year. Additionally, biomonitoring is used to conduct multi-site intensive surveys on approximately 10 

streams each year to provide baseline data and trend monitoring data or to trackdown sources of xenobiotic 

substances. 

Assessments based on macroinvertebrate sampling are used extensively in 305(b) reports and the Priority Water 

List, and to a lesser extent in 303(d) reports. Assessments generally do not directly address the designated uses 

of drinking, swimming, or fishing, contained in the State water quality standards, although they provide sound basis 

for determination of aquatic life support (reported in 305b) and relate secondarily to the designated use of fish 

propagation and survival. Biocriteria are addressed by the Biological Impairment Criteria, which are used to define 

impairment by exceedances of metrics measured upstream and downstream of a discharge. The primary 

assessment method using benthic macroinvertebrates is based on a multimetric scale divided into four levels of 

impairment, ranging from non-impacted to severely impacted. Although nearly all the collection of biological data 

remains within the Unit, many studies are conducted in cooperation with other New York State agencies (NYS 

Museum), federal agencies (USGS, USEPA), neighboring states (Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey), and nongovernmental organizations (Hudson Basin River Watch, Trout Unlimited, Nature Conservancy). 

Accomplishments 

• publication of a manual for the identification of larvae of Chironomidae (1980) 

• development of methods for the Rapid Biological Assessment of streams (1983) 

• establishment of biological impairment criteria (1990) 

• publication of Percent Model Affinity, a community analysis technique (1992) 

• documentation of 20-year trends in water quality in New York State (1993) 

• development of Impact Source Determination, a pollution identification method (1995) 

Future program directions and challenges 

• continuing long-term trend monitoring 

• providing maximum biomonitoring coverage of streams in New York State 

• integrating more assessments with diatom and fish data 

• developing invertebrate identification aids using digital photography and the NYSDEC website 

• capturing biodiversity information outside of the subsampling process 

Documentation and Further Information 

New York State Water Quality 2000, 305(b) Report, October 2000: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/305b00.pdf 

Draft 2002 Section 303(d) list: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/303dcalm.pdf 

Bode, R. W., M.A. Novak, and L.E. Abele, 1996. Quality assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York 

State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Report, 89 pages. 

NEW YORK: Program Summary December 2002 3-129 
Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T

NEW YORK 

Contact Information 

Robert W. Bode, Research Scientist III 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

625 Broadway # Albany, NY 12233-3502 

Phone 518/285-5682 # Fax 518/285-5601 

email: rwbode@gw.dec.state.ny.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (special projects 

only) 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 52,337 

(determined using a state based program)

Total perennial miles 46,266

Total miles assessed for biology* 16,000 

fully supporting for 305(b) 15,430 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 570 

listed for 303(d) 484 

number of sites sampled 800 

number of miles assessed per site 20 

*These numbers represent primarily stream miles (roughly 85-90%), but there are some river miles included due to program overlap 

in metrics, etc. It would be very difficult to separate the data for these two waterbody types. Also, there is a discrepancy between 

305(b) partially/non-supporting and 303(d) stream miles because the 1998 303(d) list did not include all impaired waters, just 

impaired waters suitable for TMDLs. Also, the 305(b) and 303(d) lists, up until now, have been developed independent of each 

other. 

NEW YORK: Program Summary December 2002 3-130 
NEW YORK: Program Summary December 2002 3-131 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites not applicable* 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria For application of biological impairment criteria, reference sites are

control sites located upstream of a suspected source of impairment. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Not applicable* 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

Not applicable* 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*Reference sites are used in the following manner only: NYSDEC’s reference sites are merely site-specific “control” sites, used

strictly used for rating the water quality near a suspected source of impairment. This is done by collecting water samples at the

source of impairment and upstream of the source, and then biological impairment criteria are applied for rating purposes. For 

example, if more than eight species are lost between the two samples, then the impairment criteria have been exceeded and the

stream section would be considered significantly impaired. Thus the biological impairment criteria define how much change is 

allowed from upstream to downstream. 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

One designation: Fish propagation and survival 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - New York does have biological impairment criteria (see

footnote), but these are not found in the water quality standards. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to their

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at watershed level) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at watershed level) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

multiplate, Ponar grab sampler, dipnet; >800 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

100 count 

genus, species, combination 

backpack electrofisher, 1/4" mesh 

pool/glide, riffle/run (cobble) 

counts only 

100 count 

species 

natural substrate: suction device, brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.), from

macrophyte surfaces; artificial substrate: collect by hand (multihabitat) using a knife blade 

and eyedropper 

multihabitat 

taxonomic identification 

diatoms only, species 

quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures; quality assurance plan; periodic meetings, training for

biologists; sorting proficiency checks; taxonomic proficiency checks; specimen archival 

*Water quality assessments using benthos are based on a multimetric scale divided into 4 levels of impairment ranging from

non-impacted to severely impacted (see below). NYSDEC’s bioassessment program had periphyton monitoring capabilities in 1999

and 2000, but this has since been dropped and it is not clear if the sampling will be continued. Fish sampling is conducted by

another Division within NYSDEC for a limited number of sites per year. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index and return single metrics) 

disturbance gradients 

other: Impact Source Determination using cluster analysis 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

transformed into 4 impact categories, using approximately 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of

database 

transformed into 4 impact categories using approximately 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles** 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (sampling same site in different flow regime years) 

precision (QA checks on subsampling) 

sensitivity (comparisons with diatom sampling, fish sampling) 

bias (replicate sampling to test for sampler differences) 

accuracy (comparisons with toxicity testing, chemical sampling) 

characteristics T

T

T

T

Biological data 

data are entered in Excel spreadsheets, then transferred to FoxPro 

In-house programs in FoxPro 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

**The impairment threshold is not defined using reference sites. Instead, NYSDEC creates impact categories using all of the data 

from the sites: everything >75th percentile is considered non-impacted/good. 

NEW YORK: Program Summary December 2002 3-132 
NORTH CAROLINA 

Contact Information 

Trish MacPherson, Environmental Biology Supervisor II 

North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 

1621 Mail Service Center # Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 

Phone 919/733-6946 # Fax 919/733-9959 

email: trish.macpherson@ncmail.net 

NC Environmental Sciences Branch homepage: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/ 

Program Description 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

The Biological Assessment Unit of NCDENR uses aquatic macroinvertebrates as one type of indicator of biological integrity in 

streams and rivers. A swamp-sampling method is under development with sampling occurring in winter/early spring. North 

Carolina biologists first began collecting data in the late 1970s, and began using consistent sampling in 1983. Collection 

methods include a standard qualitative method (applicable for most between-site and/or between-date comparisons and used for 

all evaluations of impaired streams - those on the state 303(d) list), and the EPT method (an abbreviated version of the regular 

qualitative technique used to quickly determine between-site differences in water quality). Benthic samples are processed on site 

at each location. Another collection method is used for swamp streams. The boat sampling technique for nonwadeable 

freshwater rivers is an adaptation of the standard qualitative method. 

Bioclassification criteria have been developed that are based on the number of intolerant EPT taxa present and the relative 

pollution tolerance of each taxa, as summarized in a Biotic Index for standard evaluation (EPT uses taxa richness only). Stream 

and river reaches are then given a final bioclassification of either Excellent, Good, Good/Fair, Fair or Poor. These 

bioclassifications, which have been developed for major ecoregions, are used to assess the various impacts of both point source 

discharges and nonpoint source runoff. 

Beginning in 1991, the benthos summer sampling effort was directed toward specific river basins in given years based on the 

NPDES permitting schedule. This basin-wide monitoring is generally conducted three years prior to the year of permit renewal 

for the basin. This allows biological data to be incorporated in basin assessment, and subsequently into the management plan 

for each basin. Benthos data, by sub-basin, is incorporated into an Environmental Sciences Branch assessment report that also 

includes a review of pertinent data and information from other sources. 

Between 110 and 130 wadeable sites are sampled for benthos each year during basinwide monitoring, and additional sites are 

sampled for special studies. The resulting information is used to document both spatial and temporal changes in water quality 

and to complement water chemistry analyses, fish community data, and habitat evaluations. In addition to assessing the effects 

of water pollution, biological information is also used to define High Quality or Outstanding Resource Waters, support 

enforcement of stream standards, and measure improvements associated with management actions. The results of biological 

investigations have been an integral part of North Carolina's basinwide monitoring program. Benthos data is the primary source 

for use support determinations. 

Fish Community 

To the public, the condition of the fishery is one of the most meaningful indicators of ecological integrity. Fish occupy the upper 

levels of the aquatic food web and are both directly and indirectly affected by chemical and physical changes in the environment. 

The Biological Assessment Unit employs a standard method for assessing streams' biological integrity by examining the 

structure and health of fish communities. This assessment incorporates information about species richness and composition, 

trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition. Criteria for the 12 metrics used in the North Carolina Index of Biological 

Integrity (NCIBI) are based on reference site data collected from groupings of river basins with similar fauna. The reference site 

sampling began in 1999, and fish community samples are now given a bioclassification similar to the benthos sites. 

Approximately 90 basinwide fish sites are sampled annually. Fish community data are used in the same ways as benthos data. 

Use Support 

North Carolina has moved toward assessing use support for each use class. Benthos and fish data are used for the evaluation 

of aquatic life standards. Biological data are typically given more weight than chemical data for use support. Sites with data 

from more than one trophic level are evaluated on a site specific basis for use support. 

Documentation and Further Information 

North Carolina 2000 305(b) Report: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bepu/download.html 

SOPs Biological Monitoring, Stream Fish Community Assessment & Fish Tissue: 

http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/IBI%20Methods%202001.pdf 

SOPs for Benthic Macroinvertebrates: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/benthossop.pdf 

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling and Narrative Criteria: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/benthosdata.pdf 

NORTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-133 
 NORTH CAROLINA 

Contact Information 

Trish MacPherson, Environmental Biology Supervisor II 

North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 

1621 Mail Service Center # Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 

Phone 919/733-6946 # Fax 919/733-9959 

email: trish.macpherson@ncmail.net 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment T problem identification (screening)

within overall water quality T nonpoint source assessments program 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: 303(d) listing 

Applicable monitoring T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose)

designs (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 37,672 

(State based determinations) 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology* 32,072 

fully supporting for 305(b) 29,929 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 2,143 

listed for 303(d) 2,143 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis)** 350 

number of miles assessed per site 91.6 

*Presently, biological sites are not separated from chemical for reporting purposes. However, Aquatic Life usages will be based 

primarily on biological assessment in the future. The 303(d) list is due before all assessments were completed (roughly 99% of 

partially/non supporting waters for 305(b) list). Thus, the number of miles assessed using biological data can’t be confirmed 

because so many sources of information are used to make use support assessments. It can be assumed that using the current 

methodology of breaking out use support ratings by category (i.e., aquatic life), all the waters assessed in this category could be 

added up into miles. However, this method has only been applied to 6 of the 17 basins in North Carolina. NCDENR may have 

these numbers in the next few years. 

**Best professional estimate of the number of sites sampled since the program’s inception is 5000 benthos, 600 fish and 4000 

phytoplankton samples (this is very good coverage of sites within river basins for mainstem and major tributaries). 

NORTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-134
NORTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-135 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 300 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Must achieve an excellent bioclassification or meet certain land use 

criteria (percent forest, no major dischargers, etc). Benthos 

reference sites: EPT criteria and biotic index criteria; fish reference 

sites: IBI criteria. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

“Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity...”

applies as a best usage for Class C and Class WS-I waters. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in SOPs for

biological assessment 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none (Located in SOPs for biological assessment but not in water

quality standards.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Biological data have been used to pinpoint degraded areas and to

validate improvement after management activities have been

completed. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad coverage for

watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad coverage for

watershed level) 

T periphyton, (<100 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

T other: phytoplankton (>500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad

coverage for watershed level) and macrophytes (<100 samples/year; single 

observation, limited sampling) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand, sandbag, fine-mesh samplers made with net between PVC pipe joins,

dipnet, kick net (1 meter); 200-400 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

entire sample, aimed at >10 organisms/taxon (from qualitative field picking) 

genus, species 

backpack electrofisher, boat electrofisher, seine; 1/8" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, anomalies 

none 

species, subspecies 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.), collect by hand;

artificial substrate: collect by hand, bring rock back to lab 

richest habitat 

taxonomic identification 

diatoms only, species level 

visual based, performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for

biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival, certification program for

bioassessment 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index and return single metrics - use

endpoint for each single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

reference data set used to set bounds for metrics - percent will vary with metric 

reference data set used to set bounds for metrics - percent will vary with metric 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (seasonal, multiyear data) 

precision (to look for subtle differences in water quality) 

sensitivity (different teams sample the same site) 

bias (overlap sites with different crews) 

accuracy (compare bioassessments with chemical & toxicity data) 

characteristics T

T

T

T

Biological data 

Fourth Dimension used for benthos data, MS Access used for fish and phytoplankton data 

In house database 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

NORTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-136 
NORTH DAKOTA 

Contact Information 

Michael J. Ell, Environmental Scientist 

North Dakota Department of Health (NDHD) 

1200 Missouri Avenue, P.O. Box 5520 # Bismarck, ND 58506 

Phone 701/328-5214 # Fax 701/328-5200 

email: mell@state.nd.us 

NDHD Division of Water Quality homepage: http://www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/ 

Program Description 

The primary goal of North Dakota’s biological monitoring and assessment program is to develop a set of 

scientifically defensible ecological indicators that can be used to assess the extent to which the state’s rivers and 

streams are meeting their designated aquatic life uses. Once developed, these indicators can also be used to set 

restoration goals when developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and/or Section 319 nonpoint source 

pollution project implementation plans. 

The North Dakota Department of Health (NDHD) initiated its biological monitoring and assessment program in 

1993 and 1994 as part of an interagency project to develop a multimetric index of biological integrity (IBI) for fish in 

the Lake Agassiz Plain ecoregion, Red River of the North Basin. In addition to the Department of Health, other 

agencies involved in the project were the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, EPA Region V, and the USGS – Red River National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) project 

team. The project resulted in a 12 metric IBI for fish which distinguished among headwater, moderate, and large 

sized rivers. 

Since 1995, NDHD has conducted biological monitoring in each of the state’s four major river basins. The 

Department’s biological monitoring and assessment efforts continued in the Red River of the North Basin in 1995 

and 1996. In addition to fish, the Department began sampling macroinvertebrates in 1995. In 1997 and 1998, 

monitoring and assessment efforts were expanded to the Souris River and James River basins, respectively, and 

in 1999 and 2000 the Department sampled the Missouri River Basin. In addition to fish and macroinvertebrate 

samples collected at each site, NDHD also conducted a habitat assessment following EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment 

Protocol. 

Preliminary multimetric IBIs have been developed for fish and macroinvertebrates in the Red River Basin and for 

fish in the Souris River Basin. These IBIs have been used to assess aquatic life use support for the 2000 Section 

305(b) report. As these IBIs are refined and as additional IBIs are developed for the remaining river basins, it is 

the Department’s intent to include these biological assessments in future Section 305(b) reports as well as in the 

development of Section 303(d) TMDL lists. 

NDHD is currently collaborating with North Dakota State University and EPA Region VIII in a two year pilot project 

to evaluate the response of the benthic periphyton community to varying summer growing season nutrient levels 

with the goal of developing regional nutrient criteria. Based on the results of this pilot project, NDHD may include 

periphyton in future biological monitoring and assessment activities, especially in relation to nutrient enrichment 

and eutrophication. 

The Department is also a collaborator with EPA in the EMAP Western Pilot Project. The EMAP Western Pilot is 

currently in the third year of a four year project. By collaborating in this 12 state project, the Department hopes to 

integrate EMAP sampling design as well as EMAP sampling protocols into future biological monitoring and 

assessment projects. When NDHD’s commitment to this project is completed in 2004, it’s the Department’s plan 

to begin its rotating basin monitoring program with the Red River Basin. 

Documentation and Further Information 

North Dakota Water Quality Assessment 1998 - 1999, 2000 305(b) Report: 

http://www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/2000_305b/2000_305b.pdf 

For links to numerous NDHD surface water quality/management publications, including Standards of Quality for 

Waters of the State, Chapter 33-16-02 and North Dakota Unified Watershed Assessment, FY1999, go to: 

http://www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/ 

NORTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-137 
NORTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-138 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Contact Information 

Michael J. Ell, Environmental Scientist 

North Dakota Department of Health (NDHD) 

1200 Missouri Avenue, P.O. Box 5520 # Bismarck, ND 58506 

Phone 701/328-5214 # Fax 701/328-5200 

email: mell@state.nd.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 

54,427 

Total perennial miles unknown 

Total miles assessed for biology* 14,426 

fully supporting for 305(b) 9,923 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 4,503 

listed for 303(d) – 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis)** 150 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*Both stream and river miles were assessed for biological, chemical and physical effects. As reported in ND’s 2000 305(b) report, 

approximately 68.8 percent (9,923 miles) of rivers and streams assessed for this report fully support the beneficial use designated 

as aquatic life. The remaining 31.2 percent of rivers and streams (4,503 miles) either partially supporting or did not support their 

aquatic life uses. 

**According to ND’s 2000 305(b) report, “In 1997, 1998, and 1999, the department focused its intensive basin survey efforts on the 

Souris River Basin, the James River Basin, and the Lake Sakakawea subbasin, respectively. In addition to chemical monitoring, 

biological monitoring was conducted at approximately 50 sites in each basin each year.” 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T
NORTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-139 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites ~75 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Reference sites are the best sites of the whole population sampled,

determined by habitat condition of sites and fish IBI. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: river basin 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

North Dakota has several classes described (Class l, la, ll, and lll)

but the ALU is basically the same for all classes. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS A narrative biological goal is contained in ND’s water quality

standards. There are no formal/informal numeric procedures used to

support narrative biocriteria. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental data 

(e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Nonpoint source project implementation plans 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 - 500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed 

level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad

coverage for watershed level) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame; 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

300 count 

lowest practical, usually genus 

boat and longline electrofishers, pram unit (tote barge) 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass - batch, anomalies 

none 

species 

natural substrate: suction device 

riffle/run (cobble) 

taxonomic identification 

diatoms only 

visual based and hydrogeomorphology; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan and specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (multimetric index under development) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of all sites 

“power analysis” 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (replicate sampling within and among years) 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Biological data 

Fish and habitat assessment data are in an MS Access 97 database 

maintained by the Department. Macroinvertebrate data are in EDAS. 

Macroinvertebrate data are analyzed by EDAS, and plots generated

by SAS. Fish data are analyzed with queries developed in-house. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

NORTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-140 
 

 

OHIO 

Contact Information 

Jeffrey E. DeShon, Acting Manager - Ecological Assessment Section 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OHEPA) 

4675 Homer Ohio Lane # Graveport, OH 43125 

Phone 614/836-8780 # Fax 614/836-8795 

email: jeff.deshon@epa.state.oh.us 

OHEPA Division of Surface Water,Statewide Biological and Water Quality Monitoring 

and Assessment homepage: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.html 

Program Description 

The Ohio EPA has been sampling biological communities in Ohio streams and rivers with standardized sampling protocols since 

the mid 1970s. Biological criteria was incorporated into the Ohio water quality standards (WQS; Ohio Administrative Code 3745-

1) regulations in February 1990 (effective May 1990). These criteria consist of numeric values for the Index of Biotic Integrity 

(IBI) and Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb), both of which are based on fish assemblage data, and the Invertebrate 

Community Index (ICI), which is based on macroinvertebrate assemblage data. Criteria for each index are specified for each of 

Ohio's five ecoregions (as described by Omernik 1987), and are further organized by organism group, index, site type, and 

aquatic life use designation. These criteria, along with the existing chemical and whole effluent toxicity evaluation methods and 

criteria, figure prominently in the monitoring and assessment of Ohio’s surface water resources. 

Ohio EPA employs biological, chemical, and physical monitoring and assessment techniques in biosurveys in order to meet three 

major objectives: 1) determine the extent to which use designations assigned in the Ohio WQS are either attained or not 

attained; 2) determine if use designations assigned to a given waterbody are appropriate and attainable; and 3) determine if any 

changes in key ambient biological, chemical, or physical indicators have taken place over time, particularly before and after the 

implementation of point source pollution controls or best management practices. Biosurvey data are processed, evaluated, and 

synthesized in a biological and water quality report. Each biological and water quality study contains a summary of major 

findings and recommendations for revisions to WQS, future monitoring needs, or other actions that may be needed to resolve 

existing impairment of designated uses. While the principal focus of a biosurvey is on the status of aquatic life uses, the status 

of other uses such as recreation and water supply, as well as human health concerns, are also addressed. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Year 2000 Ohio Water Resource Inventory, 305(b) Report: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/Ohio305B2000.pdf 

FWPCA Section 303(d) TMDL Priority List for FFY 1999-2000: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/303dnotc.html 

The State of the Aquatic Ecosystem: Ohio Rivers and Streams, 1998 Status: 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/fs8mas98.pdf 

The Role of Biological Criteria in Water Quality Monitoring, Assessment, and Regulation, 1995: 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/instbusl.pdf 

Using Biological Criteria to Validate Applications of Water Quality Criteria: Dissolved and Total Recoverable Metals, February 

1997: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/gli_bio.pdf 

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and application. Division of Water 

Quality Planning & Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio. 

Biological and Water Quality Reports, list of documents: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/document_index/psdindx.html 

Biocriteria manuals are currently only available as hard copies upon emailed or written request. Information on obtaining copies 

can be found at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/document_index/printdoc.html. The biocriteria manuals are titled as follows: 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume I. The role of 

biological data in water quality assessment. Division of Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment, Surface Water Section, 

Columbus, Ohio. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. Users manual 

for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Division of Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment, Surface Water 

Section, Columbus, Ohio. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Addendum to Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. 

Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Division of Water Quality Planning & Assessment, 

Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume III. 

Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. 

Division of Water Quality Planning & Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio. 

OHIO: Program Summary December 2002 3-141 
OHIO: Program Summary December 2002 3-142 

OHIO 

Contact Information 

Jeffrey E. DeShon, Acting Manager - Ecological Assessment Section 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OHEPA) 

4675 Homer Ohio Lane # Graveport, OH 43125 

Phone 614/836-8780 # Fax 614/836-8795 

email: jeff.deshon@epa.state.oh.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALUS determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin (special projects, specific river basins or 

watersheds, and comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: geometric design (specific river basins or watersheds and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(based on the USEPA RF3 map of perennial stream miles as 

determined for Ohio) 

29,113 

Total perennial miles 29,113 

Total miles assessed for biology 9,535 

fully supporting for 305(b) 5,204 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 4,331 

listed for 303(d)* 2,052 

number of sites sampled (1999-2000) 1,100 

number of miles assessed per site (1999-2000) 2.5 

*The 2,052 miles are from Ohio’s 1998 303(d) list, which is based on the 1996 305(b) statistics and includes data collected through 

1994. OHEPA has recently taken a different approach to assessment and listing that will be reflected in upcoming 303(d) listings. 

The Agency now discourages the use of attainment statistics based on monitored stream miles in favor of a watershed level 

approach that provides an indication of the attainment status of watersheds in total (in essence, a measure of square miles of 

watersheds fully, partially, or not supporting ALU). 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T
OHIO: Program Summary December 2002 3-143 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 500 total (including modified reference sites) 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria* Representative of best watershed conditions within an ecoregion

given the background activities prevalent in society. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards

(listed in Biocriteria Manuals, which are referenced in WQS) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*All reference sites were originally screened to eliminate sites with evidence of substantial human disturbance. This was 

accomplished by examining maps of human population density and current and past land uses, compiling a watershed disturbance

ranking, and noting the size and location of point source discharges. Additional site-specific factors considered in the selection of a

reference site included (1) the amount, if any, of stream channel modification, (2) the condition of the vegetative riparian buffer zone,

(3) water volume, (4) channel morphology characteristics, (5) substrate character and condition, (6) presence of obvious color/odor

problems, (7) amount of instream woody debris, and (8) the general representativeness of the site within the ecoregion. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) - Tiered 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Seven designations: Warmwater Habitat, Exceptional Warmwater

Habitat, Coldwater Habitat, Modified Warmwater Habitat, Seasonal 

Salmonid, Limited Warmwater Habitat (being phased out), Limited

Resource Water 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in Ohio

WQS, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/3745-1.html 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS Also found in Ohio WQS, see above link 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

There are many instances where bioassessments documented

before and after conditions based on POTW improvements. 

Biosurvey data and biocriteria thresholds are the primary arbiters in

the determination of aquatic life use attainment status; results are

used to determine 305(b) aquatic life use attainment statistics and to

drive the 303(d) listing/delisting and TMDL development process. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad

coverage) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand, multiplate: 200-400 micron mesh

multihabitat and artificial substrate

entire sample (presort with subsampling)

combination (lowest practical with current knowledge)

backpack electrofisher (in small streams only), boat electrofisher, pram unit (tote

barge), and longline method using electrofishing unit and 100 meter line 

multihabitat 

biomass - individual and batch, anomalies 

batch (for weight only) 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival, and a

certification program for bioassessment has been developed for the OHEPA

Voluntary Action Program (i.e., Brownfields Redevelopment) 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population 

25th percentile of reference population (ecoregion Warmwater Habitat

and Modified Warmwater Habitat);

75th percentile of reference population (statewide Exceptional

Warmwater Habitat); EPA RBP Guidelines 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (many sites - including reference sites - with

multiple-year collections to track temporal variability) 

precision (multiple samples occasionally collected from the same

site on the same date, especially at potential litigation sites) 

sensitivity (studies have been done to determine the possible

range of variation in index scores at a given sampling location on

a given sampling date) 

bias 

accuracy 

T

T

Biological data 

In initial stages of modernization and migration to MS Access 

Custom programs to calculate indices, other summarized data, 305(b)

statistics, etc. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

OHIO: Program Summary December 2002 3-144 
OKLAHOMA 

Contact Information 

Charles Potts, Senior Environmental Specialist 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) 

3800 North Classen # Oklahoma City, OK 73118 

Phone 405/530-8800 # Fax 405/530-8900 

email: capotts@owrb.state.ok.us 

OWRB homepage: http://www.owrb.state.ok.us/ 

Program Description 

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) has many monitoring programs. In 1998, the State Legislature 

directed the OWRB to oversee certain state water quality monitoring activities to determine compliance with 

Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards (OWQS). Specifically, the OWRB was charged with coordinating all 

monitoring under a standing cooperative agreement with the USGS, conducting a Comprehensive Beneficial Use 

Monitoring Program (BUMP), and developing Use Support Assessment Protocols (USAPS) to ensure the 

consistent data interpretation of beneficial use support. The overall goal of BUMP is to document beneficial use 

impairments, identify impairment sources (if possible), detect water quality trends, provide needed information for 

the OWQS and facilitate the prioritization of pollution control activities. River and stream monitoring is one of five 

key elements of BUMP. 

So far, OWRB’s biological monitoring is related only to special projects, such as biocriteria development or the 

occasional fish tissue study. However, BUMP is a developing program and there is intent to expand biological 

monitoring in the near future. Presently, there are fixed and rotating stations at which chemistry and flow 

information may be collected. The OWRB is currently monitoring almost 200 sites on a monthly basis. These sites 

are segregated into two discrete types of monitoring activities. The first monitoring activity is focuses on fixed 

station monitoring on rivers and streams. In general, at least one sample station is located in each of 67 

watersheds. Following consultation with other appropriate state environmental agencies, the OWRB originally 

identified 84 fixed sites; that number has now grown to 100. The second component of river and stream monitoring 

focuses on water quality sampling stations whose location will rotate on an annual basis. Stations and identified 

monitoring parameters were based upon Oklahoma's 303(d) list and the monitoring requirements of other state 

environmental agencies. Monitoring parameters are specific for each stream segment. 

Oklahoma DEQ’s fish monitoring program has been discontinued but provided a wealth of information concerning 

statewide fish distribution. Improvements in Oklahoma’s water quality monitoring programs are being developed 

and implemented in order to provide more consistent and reliable information related to the condition of aquatic 

resources (including quality habitat alteration, and impacts of polluted runoff and point source discharges). 

Unfortunately, much of the monitoring information in Oklahoma is fragmentary and incompatible because it is 

collected through programs that are designed and conducted for differing objectives. 

Documentation and Further Information 

The State of Oklahoma Water Quality Assessment Report, 2000 Edition, November 2000: 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/WQDnew/305b_303d/2000_305b_Report_Final.pdf 

Status of Water Quality Monitoring in Oklahoma, 2000 Final Report to the Oklahoma Legislature: 

www.owrb.state.ok.us/reports/OkWqStatus2000.pdf 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Chapter 46 of Implementation of Oklahoma’s WQS, effective August 2001: 

http://www.owrb.state.ok.us/rules/Chap46.pdf 

SOP for Field Sampling Efforts of the OK Water Resources Board Beneficial Use Monitoring Program, June 2001: 

http://www.owrb.state.ok.us/reports/BUMP_SOPFY-01.pdf 

Oklahoma’s Nonpoint Source Management Program and Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, FINAL DRAFT: 

http://www.okcc.state.ok.us/Divisions/Water_Quality/Reports/REPORT078.pdf 

Conduct your own “Biological Monitoring” search for additional documents using: http://www.soonersearch.odl.state.ok.us/ 

OKLAHOMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-145 
OKLAHOMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-146 

OKLAHOMA 

Contact Information 

Charles Potts, Senior Environmental Specialist 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) 

3800 North Classen # Oklahoma City, OK 73118 

Phone 405/530-8800 # Fax 405/530-8900 

email: capotts@owrb.state.ok.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program* 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin 

other: 

*Several possibilities exist, but currently only use-support decisions and use assignments are done with bioassessments. 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determination - waterbody identifications) 

78,778 

Total perennial miles 22,386 

Total miles assessed for biology 13,313 

fully supporting for 305(b)** – 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)** – 

listed for 303(d)** – 

number of sites sampled 3,391 

number of miles assessed per site ~4 (site specific) 

**Much of Oklahoma's efforts are still in the development stages. The new 305(b) and 303(d) are not complete and there have been 

significant changes in protocol since last completed; thus the data from past reports are no longer relevant. The new 305(b) and 

303(d) reports should be complete sometime in 2002. 
OKLAHOMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-147 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 66 - 132 total (will increase as number of ecoregions are completed) 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

T other: least impacted, no point sources 

Reference site criteria Reference sites are defined by the least impacted version of a

stream type in a particular ecoregion. Specific criteria is under

development. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis ALU subcategories 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Habitat Limited Aquatic Community (least restrictive), Warm Water

A.C., Cool Water A.C. (most restrictive), Trout Fishery

(anti-degradation limitation) 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Formal/informal numeric procedures used to support narrative

biocriteria exist for specific ecoregions only. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS Only for specific ecoregions; biological use-support thresholds found

in 785:46-15 (WQS implementation). 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

dipnet, kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) and woody debris 

100 count 

genus 

backpack electrofisher, seine; 1/4" mesh 

all habitats contained within the "representative" reach of 200 - 400 meters 

anomalies and taxonomic identification 

none 

species 

quantitative measurements; performed independent of bioassessments (see

Oklahoma Water Resource Board Technical Report 99-3 for more information) 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, taxonomic proficiency

checks and specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

cumulative distribution function (ecoregion dependent) 

cumulative distribution function (ecoregion dependent) 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (site validation collections and habitat assessments) 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Biological data 

MS Access and/or Excel formats 

application dependent, spreadsheet driven (no large statistical treatment

yet); in the process of pulling existing data from other agencies to help

develop a program 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

OKLAHOMA: Program Summary December 2002 3-148 
OREGON 

Contact Information 

Rick Hafele, Manager - Biomonitoring Section 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ) 

2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 # Portland, OR 97201 

Phone 503/229-5349 # Fax 503/229-6957 

email: hafele.rick@deq.state.or.us 

ORDEQ Water Quality Program homepage: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/ 

Program Description 

Oregon DEQ (ORDEQ) has a history of using biological data in water quality assessments. Since the early 1990’s 

the biomonitoring program has grown from two full time staff to nine current permanent staff, and over 15 during 

the summer field season. The principle objectives of the biomonitoring program are to: 

• Assess the status of stream conditions and fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages across the state, 

• Identify trends in stream conditions and biological assemblages, 

• Identify the primary chemical and physical parameters impairing biological assemblages, 

• Assess the effectiveness of restoration projects and management activities designed to improve stream 

conditions, and 

• Help standardize protocols for biological assessments throughout the state and region 

Increased concern over nonpoint sources of pollution and the listing of numerous salmon species as threatened or 

endangered has focused more attention on the importance of biological information in the State. In 1991 Oregon 

DEQ adopted narrative biocriteria into state water quality standards. ORDEQ is currently developing numeric 

biocriteria and expects to have numeric standards adopted by 2004. 

Most biological data are collected using a probabilistic sampling design. A reference site network is also being 

developed and sampled. ORDEQ has worked closely with EPA and other state agencies in developing its 

monitoring strategy. Over 400 sites have been sampled for biological, chemical and physical parameters 

(approximately 150 sites per year). Currently biological data are incorporated into the State’s 305(b) report and 

303(d) list. Other biological data are used in NPDES permit assessments, CWA Section 401 permit applications, 

and beneficial use assessments. 

Maintaining a commitment to long-term funding is one of the primary challenges of any state monitoring effort. 

Data management and data quality are also key issues that require ongoing efforts to maintain an effective 

program. Finally, integrating biological data into the overall water quality program (i.e. TMDLs) is an ongoing 

challenge and an area for improvement in the future. To view current ORDEQ biomonitoring technical reports, go 

to: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/Biomon/bio_rpt.htm 

Documentation and Further Information 

Oregon’s 2000 Water Quality Status Assessment Report, Section 305(b) Report: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/305bRpt/305bReport00a.pdf 

ORDEQ Water Quality Limited Streams 303(d) List information (including Listing Criteria, etc.): 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm 

Oregon Water Quality Standards homepage: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/wqstdshome.htm 

Quality Assurance Guidelines: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/qa/NPDES%20and%20WPCF%20Self-Monitoring%20Laboratories.pdf 

Mrazik, S. 1999. Reference site selection: a six step approach for selecting reference sites for biomonitoring and 

stream evaluation studies. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Biomonitoring Section. 

OREGON: Program Summary December 2002 3-149 
OREGON: Program Summary December 2002 3-150

 OREGON 

Contact Information 

Rick Hafele, Manager - Biomonitoring Section 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ) 

2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 # Portland, OR 97201 

Phone 503/229-5349 # Fax 503/229-6957 

email: hafele.rick@deq.state.or.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: 401 permits and restoration effectiveness monitoring 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

T probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3 and National Hydrography Database) 

114,823 

Total perennial miles 51,695 

Total miles assessed for biology* 40,188 

fully supporting for 305(b) 12,056.4 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 28,131.6 

listed for 303(d)** unknown 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis)*** 150+ 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*Most of the biological monitoring is based on a probabilistic sampling design in order to calculate the total stream miles represented 

by the data. 

**ORDEQ is in the process of drafting a new 303(d) list (as of March 2002). If ORDEQ were to provide data based on past 303(d) 

lists, the number of miles listed would be considerably smaller than the 28,131 miles that are “partially/non-supporting” for 305(b) 

because 303(d) lists are not based on a probabilistic sampling design. 

***Over 400 total sites have been sampled. 
OREGON: Program Summary December 2002 3-151 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 200 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

T other: see criteria below 

Reference site criteria Reference sites must fall into the lowest level of human disturbance 

based on a set of GIS information and field results including land

use, road density and habitat (GIS data and best professional

judgment are used to identify 5th field watersheds with minimal 

human disturbance). Once potential watersheds have been

identified, stream monitoring sites are randomly selected from within

those watersheds. Field reconnaissance confirms if they are suitable 

reference sites. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed* 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation 

T stream type 

T multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: gradient; latitude and longitude; conductivity; watershed 

area 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*Oregon has three classes of reference sites: A - Sites with no human disturbance. These sites represent "natural" conditions and 

are generally found in wilderness areas or very remote regions of the state, B - Sites with minimal human disturbance. These sites 

represent conditions expected to occur without or with very minimal human activity, and C - Sites with human disturbance that 

measurably alters stream conditions. These are the best available (least disturbed) sites. 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Four designations: Salmonid Passage; Salmonid rearing; Salmonid

spawning; Protection of resident fish and aquatic life 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS applied using a numeric approach found in 303(d) listing criteria,

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

The best example is a stream restoration project in Eastern Oregon

that is trying to restore habitat and water quality to support salmonid

spawning and rearing. Bioassessment data have been an ongoing

part of this project’s evaluation. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

NOTE: ORDEQ samples periphyton for some projects, but not at the majority of sites. 

T other: amphibians and reptiles (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites -

broad coverage) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish/Amphibians 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program 

elements 

D-frame; 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

500 count 

combination - typically genus/species. A regional (multistate) taxonomy workgroup meets to 

set taxonomic level standards. 

backpack electrofisher 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

none 

species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor/toothbrush, etc.)

riffle/run (cobble)

taxonomic identification

all algae

quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for 

biologists, and specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population 

Cumulative distribution function 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in 

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in Significant departure from mean of reference population 

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (a minimum of 10% of sites are sampled twice each field season) 

precision (Signal-to-noise analysis) 

sensitivity (Multivariate model sensitivity checked by rerunning model on subset of 

reference sites ) 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

T

Biological data 

Data are stored in an agency database using MS Access. Macroinvertebrate data are 

also being stored in a regional database (multi-agency and multi-state). 

SAS and Statistica 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

OREGON: Program Summary December 2002 3-152 
PENNSYLVANIA 

Contact Information 

Daniel Bogar, Water Pollution Biologist II

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)

P.O. Box 8467 # Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467 

Phone 717/787-9637 # Fax 717/772-3249 

email: dbogar@state.pa.us 

PA DEP Office of Water Management homepage: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/watermgt.htm 

Program Description 

The basics of Pennsylvania’s current water quality monitoring program began in the late 1960s and has included elements of 

bioassessment in some form since its inception. The primary objectives of the water quality monitoring program are to define 

surface water quality status and trends and to evaluate compliance with discharge permit limits. 

The State of Pennsylvania uses biological assessments in several program areas. The Statewide Surface Water Assessment 

Program (SSWAP), started in 1997, was developed to assess all 83,000 miles of streams in the state. The first comprehensive 

statewide assessment is scheduled for completion by 2007. After five seasons, approximately two thirds of Pennsylvania’s 

surface waters have been assessed. Assessments are based on an evaluation of the instream habitat and macroinvertebrate 

community composition. All assessed streams are determined to be either impaired or unimpaired and a source and cause is 

listed for the former. These data are compiled into an MS Access database and GIS stream layer that is updated yearly and 

submitted to USEPA as part of the 305(b) report. Impaired reaches are placed on the 303(d) list and scheduled for follow-up 

TMDLs. Due to increasing complexities in the TMDL program, the assessment field methodology will be refined and enhanced 

in order to satisfy data needs for TMDL development. 

Pennsylvania’s Antidegradation Program also uses biological assessments based on a modified version of USEPA’s Rapid 

Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) methodology to define aquatic life use designations of candidate streams. Biological samples 

are collected, subsampled, identified, and selected metrics are generated and analyzed. Candidate streams are compared to 

reference streams to determine if they qualify for designation as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters. To alleviate the 

problem of site-specific reference site variability, staff biologists are currently working to develop a set of regionalized Reference 

Condition scores that can be compared to candidate streams. 

Biological assessments are also an important component of the Surface Water Quality Monitoring Network (WQN). Biological 

samples are collected at 26 fixed stations three times per year (spring, summer, and fall) and once a year (summer) at 123 

additional stations using the same RBP methodology referenced above. These data, in conjunction with bimonthly water 

chemistry samples, are used to monitor long-term trends in water quality on the major streams in the Commonwealth. 

Fish are collected at approximately 35 WQN stations each year. Fillets from these fish are analyzed for contaminants such as 

heavy metals and pesticides. This tissue analysis is used to generate consumption advisories for fish living in any contaminated 

surface waters. 

In order to more effectively meet its water quality objectives, Pennsylvania has fostered several cooperative bioassessment 

partnerships. Through contracts with the PA DEP, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission (SRBC), and Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) assist with SSWAP assessments. 

The Department plans to contract with the USGS to collect WQN samples. There are also cooperative efforts with citizen 

monitoring groups for water quality monitoring data collection and 305(b) reporting purposes. 

While Pennsylvania’s bioassessment efforts have increased in recent years (Statewide Surface Waters Assessment program), 

additional bioassessment challenges are being tackled. Department biologists are currently working to develop fish-based 

bioassessment methodologies for larger streams, refine lake assessments for 303(d) reporting purposes, and bioassessments of 

specialized habitats; such as limestone, glide/pool dominated, and non-wadeable waters. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2000 Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/305_wq2000_narr.htm 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2001 305(b) UPDATE: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/305_wq2001_narr.htm 

DRAFT 2002 Section 303(d) Report, List of Impaired Waterbodies, June 2002: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/303d-Report.htm 

Pennsylvania’s Surface Water Quality Monitoring Network (WQN), revised 2001: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqstandards/Facts/BK0636-1.pdf 

Water Quality Assessment and Standards Fact Sheets: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqstandards/Facts/Pubs-c.htm 

PENNSYLVANIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-153 
PENNSYLVANIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-154 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Contact Information 

Daniel Bogar, Water Pollution Biologist II 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) 

P.O. Box 8467 # Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467 

Phone 717/787-9637 # Fax 717/772-3249 

email: dbogar@state.pa.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (special projects only) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using 1/24,000 scale streams GIS coverage) 

83,000 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology 45,000 

fully supporting for 305(b) 36,900 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 8,100 

listed for 303(d) 8,100 

number of sites sampled 7,435 

number of miles assessed per site* – 

*Stations are placed at the mouths of major tributaries and on mainstems; towns are bracketed (upstream/downstream) depending 

on landuse observed while in field. 
PENNSYLVANIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-155 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites ~100 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

T paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Based on stream classification in the antidegradation program, land

use, and habitat: primarily forested, no water quality criteria

violations, excellent habitat, and minimal siltation. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: drainage area, land use, use designations, gradient, size

and other regionalization other than ecoregion 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Four designations: Cold water fishes, Warm water fishes, Migratory

fishes, Trout stocking 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - Antidegradation protocols used to support general aquatic life

standard are under development, not statutory - found in Chapter 93

of Statutory Code. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad

coverage for watershed level) 

T fish* (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at watershed

level) 

periphyton 

T other: phytoplankton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not 

at watershed level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish* 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

multiplate, D-frame and kick net (1 meter); >800 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

100 count 

genus 

backpack and boat electrofishers 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

none 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

*Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission provides fish data to PA DEP. For more information, contact Rick Spear, PA Fish & Boat

Commission, 450 Robinson Lane, Bellefonte, PA 16823, Phone: 814/359-5233, e-mail: rspear@state.pa.us. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (return single metrics - use endpoint for each 

single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

Still in the process of evaluating the best approach (considering 75th 

and 95th percentile of reference population and cumulative

distribution function) 

Still in the process of evaluating the best approach (considering 75th 

and 95th percentile of reference population and cumulative

distribution function) 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in In the process of evaluating the best approach

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (two or three separate samples in the same 

riffle) 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

Biological data 

MS Access 

SAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

PENNSYLVANIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-156 
RHODE ISLAND 

Contact Information 

Robert Richardson, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) 

235 Promenade Street # Providence, RI 02908-5767 

Phone 401/222-4700 x7240 # Fax 401/222-3564 

email: rrichard@doa.state.ri.us 

RIDEM Office of Water Resources homepage: 

http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/water/index.htm 

Program Description 

The importance of biological assessments in the evaluation of water quality has long been recognized in Rhode

Island. Biological assessments are used to supplement physical and chemical water quality monitoring data. More

specifically, the biological data can be used to identify long-term trends in water quality which reflect water pollution

abatement efforts and/or needs. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), Office of

Water Resources (OWR) has two types of biological monitoring programs. Multiple plate artificial substrates have

been used to evaluate the biological community in deep rivers since 1974. In addition, EPA's Rapid

Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) (USEPA 1989) has been used since 1991 for the assessment of the biological

integrity of various shallow river sites in the state. 

Artificial Substrate Monitoring

The Fullner multiple-plate artificial substrate with 14 plates has been used by the Office of Water Resources for

over 20 years to assess instream biological communities. Stations selected for this biological monitoring include

those used for USGS trend chemical sampling to more closely relate chemical and biological data. This method

has the advantage of providing a uniform sampling habitat for each station, thus reducing the problem caused by

varying types of river bottom and depth. Macroinvertebrates collected on the artificial substrates are classified 

according to their tolerance of pollutants. 

Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Monitoring

RBP monitoring involves an integrated assessment, comparing habitat (physical structure, flow regime) and

biological measures with defined reference site conditions. Since 1992, a network of 45 stream riffle-area sites

have been surveyed by Roger Williams University in cooperation with and contracted by RIDEM. Each site is

visited during the spring-summer season and macroinvertebrates are sampled (minimum 100 organisms per site

visit where feasible). Data are analyzed using RBP I and II protocols, which include varying degrees of field and

laboratory organism identification. 

The streams sampled within the state range from first order to fifth order. Eight of the streams are considered to be

first order, eighteen second order, twelve third order, four fourth order and three are of the fifth order. Lower order

streams are quite dependent upon the immediate characteristics of the watershed. In other words, runoff is a

direct-affect component versus one of many components within a higher order stream. It is important to note that

the 1993, 1995 and 1997 sampling events took place during drought conditions, which may have resulted in fewer

riffles, lower dilution and lack of runoff. This probably affected the types of organisms collected and resulted in an

altered picture of the stations based from that seen in other years. This information was taken into account during

the evaluation of the biological assessments. 

Initial bioassessment work involved establishing and field testing the RBPs in Rhode Island streams and rivers. In

addition, refinement of the protocol over the past 4 years has established the presence of two sub-ecoregions

within the state: coastal areas and inland areas. Incorporation of the presence of these two sub-ecoregions into

selection of reference sites and application of the protocols will continue. The habitat/physical parameters and

biological metrics of each station were compared to those of the selected reference station and given an overall

bioassessment score. 

Documentation and Further Information 

The State of the State's Waters Rhode Island Section 305(b) Report, September 2000: 

http://www.state.ri.us/dem/pubs/305b/index.htm 

State of Rhode Island 2000 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, November 2000: http://www.state.ri.us/dem/pubs/303d/303d00.pdf 

Water Quality Regulations (including WQS), amended June 2000: 

http://www.state.ri.us/dem/pubs/regs/REGS/WATER/h20qlty.pdf 

RHODE ISLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-157 
RHODE ISLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-158

 RHODE ISLAND 

Contact Information 

Robert Richardson, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) 

235 Promenade Street # Providence, RI 02908-5767 

Phone 401/222-4700 x7240 # Fax 401/222-3564 

email: rrichard@doa.state.ri.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds and comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds and comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using state based GIS coverage) 

1,498 

Total perennial miles 979 

Total miles assessed for biology* 272.8 

fully supporting for 305(b)* 188.1 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)* 84.7 

listed for 303(d)* 78.5 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis)** ~62 

number of miles assessed per site site specific 

*These numbers represent the miles assessed for ALUS using biology or a combination of biological and chemical data. The miles 

listed for 303(d) were taken from the RI draft 2002 303(d) list for biodiversity impairments. 

**Roughly 62 sites are monitored on an annual basis, though this number does vary (10 = artificial substrate; 45 - 50 = RBP). 

Fifty-five additional sites were sampled in 2000 as part of a random sampling design for the EPA. 
Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

ALU designation basis 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Single Aquatic Life Use and Class System (A,B,C) 

One designation: fish and wildlife habitat 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS No formal/informal numeric procedures are used to support narrative

biocriteria; however, there is a qualitative and/or narrative scale of

condition. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none

Uses of bioassessment data T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental T

data (e.g., toxicity testing and T

chemical specific criteria) T

T

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Super-fund sites and Rhode Island Pollutant Elimination Discharge

System (RIPDES) permit toxic elimination 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 2 total 

Reference site T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

determinations 

T

Reference site criteria Minimally impaired/disturbed (best reference site in New England) – 

natural conditions, bank erosion, land use, etc. High Quality

unimpaired condition for RBP or site-specific for special site studies. 

Characterization of T historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: minimally disturbed* 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T

Stream stratification within T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

regional reference

conditions 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*Rhode Island’s reference sites are considered minimally disturbed. The Wood River reference site (most widely used) will likely

remain minimally disturbed because its watershed is largely contained within State Park boundaries. RI allows for about a 20%

variation from that target for compliance. However, special watershed projects may be asking an upstream or downstream question

and, therefore, may be required to find a least disturbed site within the unique segment for comparison. 

RHODE ISLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-159 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (sampled once in conjunction with USEPA: < 100 samples; single

observation) 

periphyton 

T other: macrophytes (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad 

coverage) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand, multiplate, D-frame; 200-400 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble), artificial substrate 

100 count 

combination 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings and training for biologists,

taxonomic proficiency checks, and specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population 

75th percentile of reference population - standard random sampling

design, EPT index, RBPs 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

T

Biological data 

databases, spreadsheets 

EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

RHODE ISLAND: Program Summary December 2002 3-160 
SOUTH CAROLINA 

Contact Information 

James Glover, PhD, Aquatic Biologist 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) 

2600 Bull Street # Columbia, SC 29201 

Phone 803/898-4081 # Fax 803/898-4200 

email: GloverJB@columb32.DHEC.state.sc.us 

SC DHEC Bureau of Water homepage: http://www.scdhec.net/water/ 

Program Description 

Biologists at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control use aquatic macroinvertebrates 

as bioindicators to make assessments of water quality. The program began in the early 1970s with the first 

technical report printed in 1972. Currently, flowing streams and rivers are the primary waterbodies that are 

assessed. South Carolina’s monitoring efforts can be divided into two categories: ambient monitoring and special 

studies. Both fixed sites and randomly selected sites are chosen each year for the ambient monitoring work. 

Fixed sites are sampled once every five years on a rotating basin schedule. Special studies usually involve a point 

source discharge or a nonpoint source perturbation such as a logging operation. Upstream and downstream sites 

are selected for sampling when conducting special studies. Agency staff may carry out the special studies or they 

may be required by the industry as part of a permit or consent order. In the latter case, state certified consultants 

conduct the studies with the resulting reports reviewed by agency scientists. 

South Carolina’s program is modeled after that of North Carolina’s, which was developed in the 1970s and 1980s. 

A timed qualitative multihabitat approach is taken for sampling macroinvertebrates. Organisms are picked in the 

field and returned to the laboratory for identification to the lowest practical taxonomic level – usually genus or 

species. Two metrics are calculated to produce an assessment: the EPT Index, and the NC Biotic Index. These 

two metrics are standardized on a scale of 1 to 5 and averaged to produce a final score. The Bioclassification of 

the stream is based on this score. The numeric criteria developed in SC are dependant on the ecoregion within 

which the stream is located. There are separate criteria for the mountains, piedmont, and coastal plain regions of 

the state. For special studies, impact is determined by the change in the bioclassification score from the upstream 

control site to the downstream test site. A rigorous quality control/quality assurance program has been developed 

and implemented for sampling, identification of organisms, and data entry. 

Documentation and Further Information 

The 2002 Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report for South Carolina, March 2000: 

http://www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/305b.pdf 

State of South Carolina 303(d) List for 2000, EPA approved in May 2000: 

http://www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/303d2000.pdf (for the DRAFT 2002 303(d) List and 1998 303(d) List, go to 

http://www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/html/tmdl.html#303d ) 

The Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. 2001. SC 

DHEC. 

State of South Carolina Monitoring Strategy for Calendar Year 2002, January 2002: 

http://www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/strategy.pdf 

Antidegradation Implementation for Water Quality in South Carolina, July 1998: 

http://www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/antideg.pdf 

Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy Program Description: http://www.scdhec.net/water/shed/prog.html 

For a list of and links to additional SC DHEC Bureau of Water water quality publications, go to 

http://www.scdhec.net/eqc/admin/html/eqcpubs.html#wqreports 

DRAFT July 1998. Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Control Procedures for Macroinvertebrate 

Sampling. Technical Report No. 004-98. Prepared by South Carolina Bureau of Water, Division of Water 

Monitoring, Assessment and Protection, Aquatic Biology Section. 

SOUTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-161 
SOUTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-162 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Contact Information 

James Glover, PhD, Aquatic Biologist 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) 

2600 Bull Street # Columbia, SC 29201 

Phone 803/898-4081 # Fax 803/898-4200 

email: GloverJB@columb32.DHEC.state.sc.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (comprehensive 

use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 

35,461 

Total perennial miles 25,729 

Total miles assessed for biology* 2,320 

fully supporting for 305(b) 1,820.8 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 499.25 

listed for 303(d) 499.25 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 80 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*These miles, listed in the 2000 205(b) report, were assessed based on a combination of physical/chemical and biological/habitat 

data. The following subset of the 2,320 total combined miles contains stream miles assessed based solely on biological/habitat: 

678.6 total miles assessed, 563.98 miles “fully supporting” for 305(b), and 114.6 miles “partially/non-supporting” for 305(b) and listed 

for 303(d). 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T

T
SOUTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-163 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 30 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria The best sites are selected from a habitat and organismal point of

view. Faunal characteristics and land use data from GIS are also 

considered (see newly-amended R.61-68.F.I.d. for more information). 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards

(found in R61-68.F.I.d.) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) and Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations: Freshwater, Trout - 3 types, Saltwater 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria are not included in

SC water quality standards, but are available in the monitoring

program SOP. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none (South Carolina has limited numeric biociteria/indices used to

evaluate ALU, which are not included in state water quality standards 

– see monitoring program SOP.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Biocriteria can affect permitting decisions if a watershed is listed on

the 303(d) list for biological impacts. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad

coverage for watershed level) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

collect by hand, brass sieve, D-frame, kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

entire sample 

combination and species when possible 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, taxonomic and sampling proficiency checks, specimen

archival, data entry checks, certification program for bioassessment 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

cumulative distribution function 

cumulative distribution function - follow guidelines outlined in

following document: Lenat. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern 

United States, derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for 

assigning water quality ratings. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society. 12:279-290 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision (replicate sampling of same stream, 10% each year) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy (compare faunal results with land use data and

discharge presence or absence) 

characteristics T

T

Biological data 

MS FoxPro for Windows and Excel 

FoxPro 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

SOUTH CAROLINA: Program Summary December 2002 3-164 
SOUTH DAKOTA 

Contact Information 

Gene Stueven, Environmental Senior Scientist 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) 

Joe Foss Buildings 523 East Capitol # Pierre, SD 57501 

Phone 605/773-4254 # Fax 605/773-4068 

email: gene.stueven@state.sd.us 

SD DENR Surface Water Quality website: 

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/DES/Surfacewater/surfwprg.htm 

Program Description 

Currently, the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) Water Resources 

Assistance Program (WRAP) collects biological data in addition to chemical and physical parameters for TMDL 

assessments. These bioassessments are useful in determining the impact of contaminants as well as detecting 

chronic water quality impairments that may not be discovered by ambient chemical and physical grab samples. Of 

the 9,937 total stream miles, approximately 4 miles have been biologically assessed (60 sites assessed; 150 

meters per site). SD DENR has not yet established biological criteria for use in water quality standards. 

The Water Resource Assistance Program evaluates benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in streams 

using both the EMAP protocol and USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) in conjunction with 

assessments of stream habitats. All biological samples are identified to the lowest possible level of taxonomic 

resolution. Biological data are entered into the STORET database and are summarized using multimetric indices 

and descriptive statistics. SD DENR intends to use the biological data to identify potential reference sites for 

determining the condition of water quality and the integrity of the biological community. WRAP is beginning to 

sample periphyton communities to determine if they are a better biological indicator of water quality. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Stueven, E., A. Wittmuss, and R.L. Smith. 2000. Standard Operating Procedures for Field Samplers. Revision 

4.0, January 2000. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Water Resource 

Assistance Program. Pierre, SD. 

Ecoregion Targeting of Impaired Lakes in South Dakota (May 2000) 

The 2000 South Dakota Report to Congress, 305(b) Water Quality Assessment, 

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/Documents/SD_2000_305b.pdf 

The 1998 South Dakota 303(d) Waterbody List and Supporting Documentation, 

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/303(d)/98sd303d.pdf 

South Dakota Surface Water Quality Standards, http://legis.state.sd.us/rules/rules/7451.htm 

SOUTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-165 
SOUTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-166 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Contact Information 

Gene Stueven, Environmental Senior Scientist 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) 

Joe Foss Buildings 523 East Capitol # Pierre, SD 57501 

Phone 605/773-4254 # Fax 605/773-4068 

email: gene.stueven@state.sd.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3, National Hydrography Database, 

and state based determination) 

9,937 

Total perennial miles 1,932 

Total miles assessed for biology* 3.73 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) ~60 

number of miles assessed per site ~.093 

(150 meters) 

*South Dakota reports only chemical data in 305(b) reports and 303(d) listings. Currently, biological data is only collected during 

TMDL assessments. South Dakota’s DENR plans to use the biological data to locate reference sites and conditions based on 

ecoregions as well as to establish biocriteria. 
SOUTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-167 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development* 

Number of reference sites ~31 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

Under development 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Under development. Criteria used for defining reference sites include:

EMAP protocol, habitat, chemical, and aquatic life. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Under development 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

Under development 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

Under development reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*The responses above characterize how reference sites will most likely be determined in the future. Twenty-seven sites have been 

assessed in South Dakota as reference for the EMAP data set. South Dakota’s DENR samples ~4 sites as reference and will be

working on establishing formal reference sites and criteria for streams and rivers. Lake reference sites and criteria have already 

been developed. 

ALU designation basis Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Five designations: Cold Water Permanent, Cold Water Marginal,

Warm Water Permanent, Warm Water Semi-Permanent, Warm 

Water Marginal 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS No formal/informal numeric procedures exist to support narrative

biocriteria 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100 - 500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at

watershed level) 

fish 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - not at

watershed level) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame, multiplate, rock baskets; 500 - 600 micron mesh 

multihabitat 

300 count 

combination 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

artificial substrate: microslides or other suitable substratum 

multihabitat 

chlorophyll a / phaeophytin, taxonomic identification 

species level 

visual based, quantitative measurements, hydrogeomorphology; performed with

bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (multimetric index under development) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population, natural breaks 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

STORET 

Statistica, EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

SOUTH DAKOTA: Program Summary December 2002 3-168 
TENNESSEE 

Contact Information 

Gregory M. Denton, Manager - Planning and Standards 

Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) 

7th Floor L&C Annex, 401 Church Street # Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

Phone 615/532-0699 # Fax 615/532-0046 

email: gregory.denton@state.tn.us 

TDEC Division of Water Pollution Control: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/index.html 

Program Description 

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation’s (TDEC) Division of Water Pollution Control (WPC), has an 

extensive bioassessment program. Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys are one of the primary tools used in assessing surface 

waters in the state. Biological data are instrumental in determining use-support and generating both the 305(b) and 303(d) 

reports. In-stream macroinvertebrate monitoring is included in many NPDES permits. Bioassessments are also used in the antidegradation evaluation process. Biological data are used to measure improvements in water quality resulting from clean-up and 

habitat restoration efforts. Over 2,100 macroinvertebrate surveys have been conducted by TDEC since 1996. 

TDEC has eight field offices each with at least two benthic biologist positions. In addition, there is a central laboratory facility in 

the Department of Health with seven aquatic biologists under contract to TDEC. These nine offices conduct the majority of 

macroinvertebrate stream surveys. Data from other agencies including the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), and USGS are also incorporated into the program. 

In 1995, TDEC initiated an ecoregion delineation project resulting in the identification of 25 ecological subregions. Ninety-eight 

reference streams were targeted for monitoring. The macroinvertebrate community in these streams was sampled seasonally for 

three years and on a five-year cycle by watershed starting in 1999. These data were used to develop regional numeric biocriteria 

that have been proposed for inclusion in the 2002 triennial review of water quality standards. The proposed numeric criteria are 

already being used to help interpret narrative criteria. In addition, reference stream data were used to develop guidelines for 

biological reconnaissance as a screening tool during watershed assessments. 

Future goals of the bioassessment program include: 

• Continue to monitor ecoregional reference streams and locate additional streams to further refine biocriteria and better 

identify reference condition. 

• Conduct additional bioassessments as means to increase TDEC’s percentage of assessed streams for national reporting 

purposes. 

• Develop a macroinvertebrate tolerance index specific to Tennessee. 

• Develop biocriteria for large rivers, wetlands and reservoirs. 

• Continue to use benthic data as a measure of improvement in water quality. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Arnwine, D.H. and G. M. Denton. 2001. Development of Regionally-Based Interpretations of Tennessee’s Existing Biological 

Integrity Criteria. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville. TN 

Arnwine D.H. and G. M. Denton. 2001. Habitat of Least Impacted Streams in Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville, TN 

Arnwine, D.H., J.I. Broach, L.K. Cartwright and G.M. Denton. 2000. Tennessee Ecoregion Project. Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. 

Denton, G.M., A.D. Vann, and S.H. Wang. 2000.The status of Water Quality in Tennessee: Year 2000 305(b) Report. Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. 

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik and S. Azevedo. 1997. Ecoregions of Tennessee. EPA/600/R-97/022. NHREEL, Western Ecological 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvalis, Oregon. 

Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys. 2002. Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville. TN. 

DRAFT Year 2002 303(d) List, July 2002: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/2002303ddraft.pdf 

TDEC General Water Quality Criteria, rev. October 1999: http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-04/1200-04-03.pdf 

TDEC Use Classifications for Surface Waters, rev. October 1999: http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-04/1200-04-04.pdf 

2001 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards, Staff Proposal: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/tr_wqs.pdf 

Other TDEC publications, including 305(b) reports, can be found online at: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/publicat.htm 

TENNESSEE: Program Summary December 2002 3-169 
TENNESSEE: Program Summary December 2002 3-170 

TENNESSEE 

Contact Information 

Gregory M. Denton, Manager - Planning and Standards 

Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) 

7th Floor L&C Annex, 401 Church Street # Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

Phone 615/532-0699 # Fax 615/532-0046 

email: gregory.denton@state.tn.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (special projects only) 

T rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(Determined using RF3) 

60,187 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology 24,233 

fully supporting for 305(b) 16,693 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)* 7,540 

listed for 303(d)* 14,333 

number of sites sampled 2,202 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*The stream miles “partially/non-supporting” for 305(b) are significantly less than the stream miles listed for 303(d) because the last 

303(d) list was revised in 1998 while the 305(b) reflects assessments through 2000. The 2002 draft 303(d) and 305(b) reports are in 

agreement. 
TENNESSEE: Program Summary December 2002 3-171 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*TR = total richness; EPT = Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies); OC = Orthocladiinae of

Chironomidae; NCBI = North Carolina Biotic Index; DOM = dominant taxa. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 98 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Reference database of chemical, habitat and biometrics based on monitoring of regional

reference sites since 1996. Reference sites must fall within 90th percentile for chemical,

biological and habitat parameters compared to existing reference database. Disturbed sites 

are those under 75% comparable to reference condition for biological and habitat, above the

90th percentile (reference) for nutrients (and show impaired biology), or exceed numeric criteria

for other specified parameters. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

UD reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards (WQS under revision) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

One designation: Fish and Aquatic Life 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Formal/informal numeric procedures used to support narrative biocriteria are found in the

Development of Regionally-Based Numeric Interpretations of Tennessee's Narrative Biological

Integrity Criterion (see documentation). 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development (Tennessee water quality standards will be changed in 2002 to reflect

proposed numeric criteria for 15 bioregions. Numeric biocriteria, proposed for inclusion in the

new WQS are as follows, “Multimetric index using 7 metrics - TR, EPT, %EPT, %OC, NCBI,

%DOM and % Clingers*. Scoring criteria is based on 25% of reference condition. Reference 

condition is based on ecoregion reference data at the 90th percentile. Ecoregions have been

grouped into 15 bioregions. Expected index score is calibrated to each bioregion and by 

season where appropriate.”) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Nonpoint source section, field offices - office by office use, not systematic/statewide use 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed 

level) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

dipnet and kick net (1 meter); 500 - 600 micron mesh 

riffle/run used for biocriteria in high gradient streams; rooted bank used for

biocriteria in low gradient streams (Note that four jab multihabitat

bioreconnaissances are used for general water quality assessments, not

comparable to biocriteria) 

200 count 

genus 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

90th or 10th percentile of reference population depending on direction

of metric 

25% of 90th (or 10th) percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

Used for development of initial criteria, not for current assessments 

T repeat sampling (replicate samples at 10% of reference sites by 

different teams) 

T precision (two samples collected at 10% of sites by two teams) 

T sensitivity (standard level of identification, compare metric

scores to known impacts) 

T bias (compared different sample/habitat types) 

T accuracy (10% of samples QC for taxonomy and sorting

efficiency) 

defining impairment in

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

Biological data 

MS Access; semi-quantitative samples (taxa lists and metric scores) 

are stored in EDAS database and bioreconnaissance results are 

stored in Water Quality Database (taxa lists are in paper files). The 

eventual goal is for data to be sent to STORET. Assessment results 

are stored in an Assessment Database. 

EDAS, Statview, and multivariate statistical package 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

TENNESSEE: Program Summary December 2002 3-172 
TEXAS 

Contact Information 

Charles Bayer, Aquatic Scientist

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)*

P.O. Box 13087 # Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Phone 512/239-4583 # Fax 512/239-4420 

email: cbayer@tnrcc.state.tx.us 

website: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/ 

Roy Kleinsasser, River Studies Program Leader 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 

505 Staples Road # San Marcos, TX 78666 

Phone 512/353-3480 

email: leroy.kleinsasser@tpwd.state.tx.us 

website: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us 

Program Description 

Since the late 1980s, biological assessments have been employed for use attainability analyses (UAAs) and the 

development of an index of biological integrity (IBI) for rivers and streams. A tidal streams IBI is in the preliminary 

stages of development. Recently, a new emphasis has been placed on bioassessments relative to 303(d) listed 

waterbodies. For the most part, the new data have not been fully evaluated and work is continuing to expand in 

this area. Also, for the first time, the draft 2002 Water Quality Inventory includes bioassessments to determine the 

support of aquatic life uses. 

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has been a major provider of fish community data for many of 

the UAAs and the development of the IBI. Other providers include various river authorities in the state. 

*NOTE: On September 1, 2002, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) formally 

changed its name and began doing business as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 

Documentation and Further Information 

Draft 2002 Texas Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Integrated 305(b) report and 303(d) list): 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/02_twqmar/index.html 

Texas Water Quality Inventory (SFR-050/00), includes Volume I: Surface Water, Groundwater and Finished 

Drinking Water Assessments and Water Quality Management Programs: 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/admin/topdoc/sfr/050_00/050_00.html#1 

Revisions to the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards and Implementation Procedures: 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperm/wqstand/revisions.html 

Surface Water Quality Monitoring Procedures Manual (Chapter 7: Biological Sampling Procedures and Chapter 8: 

Stream Habitat Assessment Procedures), August 1999, GI-252: 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/admin/topdoc/gi/252.html 

Monitoring and Receiving Water Assessment Procedures Manuals: 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/data/wqm/index.html#manuals 

Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program information: 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/data/wqm/index.html 

Leppo, E.W., M.T. Barbour, and J. Gerritsen. 2001. An evaluation of the stream habitat assessment approach 

used by TNRCC. Prepared for: Texas Natural Resource and Conservation Commission, Austin, Texas and 

USEPA Region 6, Dallas, Texas. 

TEXAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-173 
TEXAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-174 

TEXAS 

Contact Information 

Charles Bayer, Aquatic Scientist 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 

P.O. Box 13087 # Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Phone 512/239-4583 # Fax 512/239-4420 

email: cbayer@tnrcc.state.tx.us 

Roy Kleinsasser, River Studies Program Leader 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 

505 Staples Road # San Marcos, TX 78666 

Phone 512/353-3480 

email: leroy.kleinsasser@tpwd.state.tx.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds, and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds and comprehensive use throughout 

jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (special projects only) 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determination) 

191,228 

Total perennial miles 40,194 

Total miles assessed for biology* 266.9 

fully supporting for 305(b) 196.1 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 70.8 

listed for 303(d) – 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis)* 30 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*68,611.78 total miles were surveyed and 63,102.68 total miles were assessed. Of these, 266.9 miles were assessed using biology. 

30 sites were surveyed and 16 sites were assessed. 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T
TEXAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-175 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 72 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

T paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria no point source discharge, land use patterns, limited human impact,

least disturbed sites determined using best professional judgment 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Five designations: Exceptional, High, Intermediate, Limited, and

Oyster waters 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Procedures used to support narrative biocriteria located in the Water 

Quality Standards Implementation Procedures Receiving Water

Assessment Procedures Manual (see documentation) 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Trinity River Segment 0805 was elevated from a limited aquatic life

use to a high aquatic life use designation. EPA Region 6 considers

Texas' high and exceptional aquatic life use designations as meeting

the 101(a) goals of the Clean Water Act. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad

coverage for watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad coverage for

watershed level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

surber, multiplate, lopping shears for collecting woody debris, D-frame, kick net;

500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble), artificial substrate and woody debris 

100 count and entire sample 

combination 

backpack and boat electrofisher, trawl and gill net (particularly for tidal streams),

seine; 1/8", 3/16" and 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, batch, anomalies 

none 

species 

quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population 

50th percentile of reference population (follow EPA RBP guidelines) 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

TCEQ's TRACS database and hard copies; STORET is under

development 

At this time, the hard copies are primarily used for evaluation of

biological data. Spreadsheets are also used. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

TEXAS: Program Summary December 2002 3-176 
UTAH 

Contact Information 

Thomas W. Toole, Environmental Scientist 

Richard Denton, Manager 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) 

288 N. 1460 W., P.O. Box 144870 # Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 

Phone 801/538-6146 # Fax 801/538-6016 

email: ttoole@utah.gov and rdenton@utah.gov 

UDEQ Division of Water Quality homepage: http://waterquality.utah.gov/ 

Program Description 

Prior to 2001, The Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Biological Assessment program was limited to benthic 

macroinvertebrate data collected at 18 long-term monitoring sites. They have been sampled since 1978 with the exception of 

about five years in which the allocation of the 18 samples were used to supplement water chemistry and physical data collected 

in the five-year basin rotation monitoring plan. These samples were collected to ascertain long-term water quality and to be 

used in determining trends. In addition, benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 16 Nonpoint Source Project sites 

to assess the effects of BMP implementation. These data have been incorporated into several NPS reports to determine what 

improvements in water quality have occurred. Data collected from the 18 long-term monitoring sites and the NPS projects have 

been used in making beneficial use assessments (305(b)) and listing waters on the 303(d) list. 

In 2001, the DWQ reviewed its bio-monitoring program and decided that a major effort was needed to improve and develop new 

components of its water quality assessment program. During this review, an inventory of benthic macroinvertebrate data 

collected by DWQ, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) was completed. Upon 

completion of this review, the DWQ contacted the BLM and USFS and requested all of the benthic macroinvertebrate data that 

they had collected from 1990 through 1997 be sent to DWQ for entering into STORED. These data, along with DWQ’s, were 

entered into STORET. Data collected since 1997 have been stored electronically and a program to electronically transfer these 

data into STORET is being developed. These data will be evaluated as to their usefulness in establishing reference sites and 

the development of metrics to be used in assessing beneficial use support. 

In 2001, the DWQ negotiated an agreement to complete the E-MAP sampling for EPA within the State. Experience obtained 

from this work would allow environmental scientists (field and staff) to learn and evaluate the methods used in the E-MAP 

protocol. This experience could then be used to develop a bioassessment protocol for assessing waters within the State. 

Concurrent with doing the E-MAP work, the Division decided to commit additional resources to develop reference sites for 

bioassess-ment work. It was decided that the DWQ would select and try to sample up to 60 potential reference sites during the 

next 2-3 years. Water chemistry, fish, benthic macroinvertebrate, periphyton, and physical habitat data will be collected at these 

sites. The selection of sites were based upon the different ecoregions within the state and the need for low elevation, lowgradient stream reference sites. 

DWQ is also assisting the EPA Corvallis Lab in reviewing and selecting reference sites that were initially selected using GIS 

techniques. Approximately 100 sites were initially selected and the number has been reduced to 20 sites. The DWQ is assisting 

in sampling these sites. Information obtained from this program will be evaluated and possibly incorporated into the Division’s 

bio-assessment program. 

The DWQ has committed to developing a set of reference sites and metrics that can be used to ensure that the waters of the 

State are assessed in a scientifically sound and standard method. Work is also going on to evaluate other assessment methods 

such as RIVPACS in assessing beneficial use support. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Utah Water Quality Assessment Report to Congress, September 2000 and Year 2000 Water Quality Inventory, 305(b) 

Assessment: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/2000_305b_fact.pdf 

Utah Division of Water Quality’s 2000 Water Quality Monitoring Program:: 

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/monitoring/complete_monitor_plan_2000.pdf 

Utah’s 2000 303(d) List of Waters, October 2000: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/approved_2000_303d.pdf 

DRAFT, Utah’s 2002 303(d) List of Waters: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/2002303dinternet.pdf 

Quality Assurance and Standard Operating Procedures Manual. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water 

Quality. 1993. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, UT. 

UTAH: Program Summary December 2002 3-177 
UTAH: Program Summary December 2002 3-178 

UTAH 

Contact Information 

Thomas W. Toole, Environmental Scientist 

Richard Denton, Manager 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) 

288 N. 1460 W., P.O. Box 144870 # Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 

Phone 801/538-6859 or -6055 # Fax 801/538-6016 

email: ttoole@deq.state.ut.us and rdenton@deq.state.ut.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special 

projects, specific river basins or watersheds and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using the National Hydrography database and state 

based determination) 

85,916 

Total perennial miles 14,000+ 

Total miles assessed for biology* 705 

fully supporting for 305(b) 75 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 630 

listed for 303(d) 300 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) -56 

number of miles assessed per site 12.6 

*Biological data were used along with water chemistry data to assess the above listed miles. The biological assessment was done 

using benthic macroinvertebrates and used a weight-of-evidence assessment because reference sites were not used. Diversity 

indices, the Biotic Condition Index, and the number of sediment and nutrient tolerant taxa were used to determine beneficial use 

support when the pollution indicator value for total phosphorus was exceeded. 
UTAH: Program Summary December 2002 3-179 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*The designations are as follows: 3A - cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary

aquatic organisms in their food web. 3B - warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life, including the

necessary aquatic organisms in their food web. 3C - Nongame fish and other aquatic life including the necessary aquatic organisms

in their food chain. 3D - Waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not included in Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the

necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. 3E - Severely habitat-limited waters. 

Reference Site/Condition Development** 

Number of reference sites not applicable 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

**Utah is currently working with the EMAP to develop reference sites. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Five designations* 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - Procedures used to support general aquatic life statement in

WQS are not standardized, but are primarily based on best

professional judgment using some metrics. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Used primarily in assessing 319 nonpoint source projects including

assessment, implementation of BMPs, and evaluation of water

quality 
Field and Lab Methods

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad

coverage for watershed level) 

fish 

UD periphyton (A periphyton program is under development and will be used

primarily in nutrient-impacted streams. Dr. Sam Rushforth, at Utah Valley

State College, is assisting in the development of this program.) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

rock baskets and Hess; 200-400 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) and artificial substrate 

300 count 

combination 

quantitative measurements, and a few nonpoint source project sites have pebble

counts, channel profiles and riparian condition evaluated on a very limited basis;

performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures and quality assurance plan 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (return single metrics - use endpoint for each 

single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: some tolerance information is used in the evaluation 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds*

BCI Methods described by USFS are used to differentiate higher

quality waters, less discriminating in impaired waters. 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

Evaluation of performance* repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data** 

Data are currently being loaded into STORET 

SAS (metrics are calculated by the contracting laboratory using

spreadsheets or another computer program–language not known) 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*EPA is currently having a contractor review benthic macroinvertebrate data to determine what metrics might apply to various

regions of the State. Any metrics presently being used are those produced by the contracting laboratory and best professional

judgement is used in the interpretation. No metric sensitivity analyses, regional biases, or other evaluations have been done to this 

point. 

**EPA's Assessment Database is being used to store and retrieve assessment information for Utah’s 305(b) report. Some indexing

of waterbodies still needs to be done, but this should be completed during fiscal year 2002. 

UTAH: Program Summary December 2002 3-180 
VERMONT 

Contact Information 

Doug Burnham, Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section Chief 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) 

103 South Main Street-10N # Waterbury, VT 05671 

Phone 802/241-3784 # Fax 802/241-3008 

email: dougb@dec.anr.state.vt.us 

VTDEC Water Quality Division website: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/wqdhome.htm 

Program Description 

The Water Quality Division of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) has been conducting aquatic 

biological health assessments since the early 1970’s. In 1982, the Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section (BASS) was 

created with a focus on river and stream biological monitoring. BASS is currently staffed by five full-time aquatic biologists who 

participate in VTDEC water quality management programs at all levels. This “top to bottom” involvement by biologists has been 

critical to the extensive acceptance and use of biological assessment data within a wide variety of Departmental programs. The 

primary objectives of ambient monitoring activities are: 1) monitor long-term trends in water quality as revealed in changes over 

time to ambient aquatic biological communities; 2) evaluate potential impacts from point and nonpoint permitted direct and 

indirect discharges, development projects, nonpoint sources, and spills on aquatic biological communities; 3) establish a 

reference database that would facilitate the generation of Vermont-specific biological criteria for water quality classification and 

use attainment determinations; 4) support VTDEC permitting and water quality management programs requiring biological 

assessment data; 5) conduct special studies to assess emerging water quality and environmental management issues. Further 

information about VTDEC BASS is available at: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/bass.htm. 

Since 1985, the Department has used standardized methods for sampling fish and macroinvertebrate communities, evaluating 

physical habitat, processing samples, and analyzing and evaluating data. The program has led to the development of two 

Vermont-specific fish community Indexes of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and selected macroinvertebrate metrics. Guidelines have been 

developed for determining water quality classification attainment by using both macroinvertebrate community biological integrity 

metrics and the fish community IBI. Approximately 75-125 sites per year are assessed using fish and/or macroinvertebrate 

assemblages. Alkalinity, pH, conductivity, temperature and such measurements as substrate composition (pebble counts), 

embeddedness, canopy cover, percent and type of periphyton cover, and approximate velocity are routinely monitored. From 

1985 to 2001, approximately 1,500 stream assessments were completed using macroinvertebrate and/or fish from more than 

900 wadeable stream reaches. This monitoring effort is subject to a USEPA-approved quality assurance project plan. Data from 

the project are summarized and stored in an electronic database. 

Biological data are used extensively to determine aquatic life use support and impairment. A significant proportion of Vermont’s 

303(d) list is made up of reaches with impaired aquatic life use determined through bioassessment. The development of 

biological criteria supported by the Vermont Water Quality Standards has provided a vehicle for enforceable implementation of 

biocriteria. Biological assessment data are used extensively in virtually all VTDEC water quality management programs, 

including RCRA, NPDES, CERCLA, watershed planning, 401 certification, aquatic nuisance control permitting, and 305(b). In 

addition to wadeable stream monitoring, BASS conducts a variety of special studies and assessment in other aquatic habitats, 

and is in the process of evaluating biocriteria for vernal pools and ponded waters. 

VTDEC participates in collaborations with other agencies and organizations including: USEPA; USFWS; USFS; USGS; 

academic institutions; neighboring states; private consultants; special interest groups; and volunteer monitors. Staff also 

participate in public outreach activities as resources allow. 

Biological criteria are the current performance standards for a large number of 303(d) waterbodies throughout the state. Future 

demand for biological assessments from VTDEC management programs will increase as the 303(d)/TMDL process advances 

and watershed planning initiatives expand statewide. The greatest challenge facing the biomonitoring program will be 

maintaining adequate staff resources to continue assessing 303(d) restoration management actions, providing support to 

watershed plan development, and providing support to various management programs within VTDEC and the Agency of Natural 

Resources. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Vermont 2000 Water Quality and Assessment, 305(b) Report 

Vermont Water Quality Methodology, April 2001 

Wadeable Stream Biocriteria Development for Fish and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Vermont Streams and Rivers 

July 2, 2000 Vermont Water Quality Standards: http://www.state.vt.us/wtrboard/july2000wqs.htm 

Fish Sampling and Metrics homepage: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/bassfish.htm 

Macroinvertebrate Sampling, Processing and Metrics homepage: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/bassmacro.htm 

VERMONT: Program Summary December 2002 3-181 
VERMONT: Program Summary December 2002 3-182 

VERMONT 

Contact Information 

Doug Burnham, Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section Chief 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) 

103 South Main Street-10N # Waterbury, VT 05671 

Phone 802/241-3784 # Fax 802/241-3008 

email: dougb@dec.anr.state.vt.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: bioassessments used for all aquatic life use support 

evaluations 

Applicable monitoring 

designs* 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

T probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (special projects 

only) 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

*The majority of biological sampling conducted by VTDEC is targeted and in the context of rotating basin elements. Fixed station 

and special projects are also significant elements. Some monitoring required by discharge permits or basin plans related to TMDL's 

is done by consultants. Consultants generating biological monitoring data for aquatic life use support determinations consistent with 

Vermont Water Quality Standards or for compliance with discharge permit limitations are required to meet QA/QC requirements and 

submit to QA oversight by VTDEC biologists. 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determination) 

7,099 

Total perennial miles 7,099 

Total miles assessed for biology* ~800 

fully supporting for 305(b) ~650 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) ~150 

listed for 303(d) ~150 

number of sites sampled (total number with 

available biological monitoring data) 

1,193 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*The latest 305(b) report was used to estimate some of these numbers. 305(b) reports total stream miles assessed by "evaluation" 

and "monitoring". The majority of VTDEC sites that are "monitored" are monitored for biology. The total miles reported as assessed 

in the last “statewide” assessment report in 2000 was 5,261, with 4,411 miles "evaluated" and 850 miles "monitored". Roughly 800 

of the 850 miles "monitored" were monitored using biology (similarly with use support categories). 
VERMONT: Program Summary December 2002 3-183 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 150 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Reference sites are defined using the best professional judgment of

biologists based on the level of human activity and potential for that

activity to affect the aquatic resource. There are no quantitative

criteria, but general considerations may include: very good riparian

condition at site; predominantly forested watershed; outside the

influence of assessed activity; least disturbed condition. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed* 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

T multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*This language is included in the definition of reference condition in the Vermont Water Quality Standards, effective July 2, 2000. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations related to changes from reference condition:

minimal, minor, and moderate change from the reference condition. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS VTDEC procedures used to support narrative biocriteria are

independent of WQS. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none (Numeric biocriteria are currently found in VTDEC procedural

documents.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Used extensively throughout management programs including:

NPDES, 305(b), 303(d), basin planning, point and nonpoint source

management, aquatic nuisance control, RCRA, CERCLA. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (Periphyton and algae in rivers and streams are sampled qualitatively for

descriptive purposes only. Some indirect discharge permits require quantitative

periphyton and macroinvertebrate sampling with artificial substrates in order to determine

compliance with permit conditions. Compliance criteria are independent of WQS.) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

rock baskets, kick net (18x9 rectangular net, 500 micron mesh)

riffle/run (cobble) and woody debris (varies according to stream category)

must be minimum 300 animals AND 25% of sample.

lowest possible taxon - genus, species and combination (specified level in SOPs and C185)

backpack electrofisher 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

none 

species 

visual based and hydrogeomorphology - performed with and independent of bioassessments;

pebble counts currently implemented quite extensively in conjunction with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures; quality assurance plan; periodic meetings and training for

biologists; sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks; specimen archival; sending voucher

specimens to experts for identification confirmation 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index and return single metrics - use

endpoint for each single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds*

Combination of reference distribution, impaired site distribution, and best professional

judgement; do not use unitless scores. 

Cumulative distribution function 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds* 

defining impairment in Significant departure from mean of reference population 

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (long term fixed station sampling) 

precision (field replication) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy (sample processing and analysis QA) 

characteristics T

T

Biological data 

Data are stored and managed in MS Access data base. Various programs used to analyze 

sub-sets include: Excel, Sigma-Plot/Stat and PC-ORD 

MS Access database calculates metrics and generates event summary reports. Data can be

moved from Access to other programs for project-specific analyses. Commonly used programs

include: Excel, Sigma-Plot/Stat, PC-ORD 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Benthos data are used to generate individual metrics, which are considered individually. Fish assemblage data are used to

generate metrics for a multimetric Index of Biotic Integrity. Water Quality Standard thresholds (deviations from the reference

condition) are based on BPJ evaluations of metric distribution patterns in both reference and non-reference sites. 

VERMONT: Program Summary December 2002 3-184 
VIRGINIA 

Contact Information 

Alex M. Barron, Environmental Program Planner 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

P.O. Box 10009 # Richmond, VA 23240 

Phone 804/698-4119 # Fax 804/698-4116 

email: ambarron@deq.state.va.us 

DEQ Water Programs homepage: http://www.deq.state.va.us/water/ 

Program Description 

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Biological Monitoring Program (BMP) utilizes the study of 

bottom dwelling macroinvertebrate communities to determine overall water quality. Changes in water quality 

generally alter the kinds and numbers of these animals living in streams or other waterbodies. Like physical and 

chemical water quality monitoring data, biological monitoring data are used to assess water quality for support of 

aquatic life designated use and the Clean Water Act “fishable and swimmable” goals. 

The BMP is composed of 150 to 170 stations that are examined annually during the spring and fall. Qualitative and 

semiquantitative biological monitoring has been conducted by the agency since the early 1970s. The USEPA 

Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) II was employed beginning in the fall of 1990 to utilize standardized and 

repeatable methodology. The RBPs produce water quality ratings of nonimpaired, slightly impaired, moderately 

impaired and severely impaired instead of the former ratings of good, fair and poor. 

Currently, there are approximately 70 organizations throughout the Commonwealth with active citizen water quality 

monitoring programs. Biological parameters measured by citizen monitors often include benthic 

macroinvertebrates, fecal coliform bacteria, and/or chlorophyll a. A statewide organization, the Izaak Walton 

League of America Virginia Save Our Streams Program (IWLA VA SOS), took the lead in establishing relations 

with DEQ and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to develop a statewide citizen monitoring 

program. IWLA VA SOS has a benthic macroinvertebrate citizen monitoring protocol that is widely used by many 

affiliate organizations. In 2000, VA SOS completed a two-year study, funded by DEQ, evaluating this protocol and 

developing a new protocol to more closely correlate with professional methods developed by EPA and used by 

DEQ. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters Report (combined 2002 305b and 303d), July 2002: 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/water/305b.html 

2000 Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report: http://www.deq.state.va.us/water/00-305b.html 

Water Quality Assessment Guidance Manual for 2002, 305(b) and 303(d) reports, July 2002: 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/pdf/water/wqassessguide.pdf 

2001 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Plan: 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/water/my01rpt.html 

Watershed Maps of Virginia Impaired Water Segments, 303(d) TMDL Priority List: 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/watermaps/ 

VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-185 
Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

VIRGINIA 

Contact Information 

Alex M. Barron, Environmental Program Planner 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

P.O. Box 10009 # Richmond, VA 23240 

Phone 804/698-4119 # Fax 804/698-4116 

email: ambarron@deq.state.va.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin 

other: 

(determined using the National Hydrography Database ) 

Total perennial miles 

Total miles assessed for biology* 

fully supporting for 305(b)*

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)*

listed for 303(d)* 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis)*

number of miles assessed per site

50,329 

50,329 

15,540.4 

13,321.9 

2,218.5 

2,218.5 

150 -170 

– 

*The numbers listed above were extracted from Virginia’s 2002 combined 305(b)/303(d) report and represent stream and river miles 

assessed (evaluated and monitored) for aquatic life using chemical, physical and biological parameters. However, of the 2,218.5 

total miles partially/non-supporting for 305(b), 661.4 miles were determined to be impaired based solely on biological (benthic) data. 

VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-186
VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-187 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites information not provided 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

T paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria No reference site criteria. Reference sites are defined as best 

available, least impaired. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Information not provided 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

Information not provided 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Three designations (apply to all State waters): recreational uses,

e.g., swimming and boating; the propagation and growth of a

balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life, including game fish,

which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; and the

production of marketable resources, e.g. fish and shellfish. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - Virginia has no formal/informal numeric procedures to support

general aquatic life statement found in WQS 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

Information not provided 

assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Several TMDLs are addressing ALUS restoration because of poor

bioassessment scores. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (300-400 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad

coverage for watershed level) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame, kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh 

richest habitat and riffle/run (cobble) 

100 count 

family 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and

methods 

T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

Information not provided 

repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

Biological data 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

EDAS

EDAS

VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-188 
WASHINGTON 

Contact Information 

Robert W. Plotnikoff, Freshwater Monitoring Unit Supervisor 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

P.O. Box 47710, 300 Desmond Drive # Olympia, WA 98504-7710 

Phone 360/407-6687 # Fax 360/407-6884 

email: rplo461@ecy.wa.gov 

Stream Biological Monitoring website: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw_benth/fwb_intr.html 

Program Description 

Washington State's Biological Monitoring Program has been operated by the Washington Department of Ecology since 1993. 

The program has served as a focal point for technical assistance and as a reference for data comparison. Its primary objectives 

are: 1) to continually describe the spatial and temporal features of biotic communities in wadeable streams, 2) describe and then 

validate biological expectations for appropriate spatial classifications (e.g., ecoregions), 3) develop guidance and criteria that 

evaluate human-induced disturbance in biological communities, and 4) expand where biological information is used in water 

quality and resource management. Although field data collection methodology has remained consistent, data storage and 

analytical products have improved in their capacity and sophistication. 

The Freshwater Monitoring Unit within the Department of Ecology has engaged in biological monitoring activities for more than 

twelve years and has made its information available online for public use. The primary objectives in continuing to develop this 

program are to: 1) proceed with calibration of ten biometrics that will be based on reference conditions within each of eight 

ecoregions, 2) continue assistance in development of RIVPACS (River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System) 

models for western and eastern Washington streams with researchers at Utah State University (Dr. C. Hawkins), and 3) locate 

and visit additional reference sites outside of the ranges currently being monitored. 

Interpretive tools developed from these efforts are being placed into the ALUS framework under development by the USEPA 

(contact Susan Jackson). WA is able to use the knowledge and tools developed through former biological monitoring efforts to 

create a meaningful matrix of expectations as diagramed by ALUS so that incremental improvements in stream quality, based on 

biological signatures, can be tracked. The first step toward adoption of biocriteria will be the construction of a guidance that 

outlines analytical products and biological expectations for streams within each ecoregion of Washington State. Biological 

evaluation tools such as RIVPACS scores, biometric scores, index scores, and indicator taxa are currently being assembled for 

inclusion in the guidance. 

Biological information is currently being included in the 303(d) listing process to directly evaluate impairment. WA has amassed 

an adequate data bank for describing reference conditions that serves as an effective and defensible means for comparison. 

The Freshwater Monitoring Unit issued a report titled "Condition of Freshwaters in Washington State for the Year 2000" that 

evaluates data from water quality monitoring, biological monitoring, lakes monitoring, and nuisance aquatic plant monitoring. 

This report was intended as a template for future reviews of environmental information, like the 305(b) report, and will eventually 

satisfy reporting content of the current required data summaries as well as new guidance like CALM (Consolidated Assessment 

and Listing Methodology). 

Many of the water quality problems of interest to the Department of Ecology's Regional Offices are related to habitat destruction 

due to human influence. This is one of the areas in which collaborative work with volunteer monitoring groups, local 

governments, state agencies, tribes, and other federal agencies is promoted. 

One important partnership has been with the USEPA and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The 

Department of Ecology has engaged both EMAP and R-EMAP (Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program) 

since 1994. The acquisition of both knowledge and equipment in operating this program has provided impetus to implement the 

probabilistic monitoring design in the Ambient River and Stream Water Quality Monitoring Program. WA is working with the 

Colville Tribe in expanding the description of reference conditions for northeastern Washington and with the Yakima Tribe, 

county, and federal agencies in evaluating the effects of floodplain gravel mining along the Yakima River. WA is especially 

encouraged by several volunteer monitoring groups, like Streamkeepers of Clallam County, whose organizers have assembled 

teams of personnel that generate useful biological, chemical, and flow data. 

Documentation and Further Information 

2000 Washington State Water Quality Assessment - Section 305(b) Report: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0010058.pdf 

DRAFT 2002 303(d) List of Impaired and Threatened Waters, May 2002: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002-revised/listpolicydraftfinal7.pdf 

Condition of Freshwaters in Washington State for the Year 2000: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0103025.pdf 

Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/wac173201a.pdf 

For a comprehensive list of Stream Biological Monitoring Publications available online and/or by mail, go to: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw_benth/fwb_pubs.html 

WASHINGTON: Program Summary December 2002 3-189 
WASHINGTON: Program Summary December 2002 3-190

 WASHINGTON 

Contact Information 

Robert W. Plotnikoff, Freshwater Monitoring Unit Supervisor 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

P.O. Box 47710, 300 Desmond Drive # Olympia, WA 98504-7710 

Phone 360/407-6687 # Fax 360/407-6884 

email: rplo461@ecy.wa.gov 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area (stream order as 

subset of ecoregion sampling) 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (special projects and 

comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(State based determination) 

73,886 

Total perennial miles 39,483 

Total miles assessed for biology* 3,275 

fully supporting for 305(b)** 982.5 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)** 2,292.5 

listed for 303(d) 0 

number of sites sampled 655 

number of miles assessed per site 5 

*Approximately 10% of the State's perennial streams are assessed for biology. The 3,275 total miles assessed for biology is an 

estimate derived from multiplying 655 sites by the 5 miles assessed per site. 

**The “fully supporting” and “partially/non-supporting” for 305(b) stream mile estimates are based on an old assessment policy 

estimation process. WA most recently used EPA's National Hydrography Data Layer to create the stream segment breaks but the 

new data has not been generated yet. 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

UD 

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T

T
WASHINGTON: Program Summary December 2002 3-191 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*Water Classes AA, A, and B include a characteristic use designation called “Wildlife Habitat.” This characteristic use designates

waters of the state used by, or that directly or indirectly provide food support to fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife for any life history

stage or activity. The term “biological assessment” is defined in Washington’s water quality standards and is intended to be used to

evaluate the condition of “Wildlife Habitat.” 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 187 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria 1) Least-disturbed sites that show little or no signs of human impact,

2) Relatively-unimpacted sites that show some signs of historical

human influence but are at an advanced successional stage 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed (see “relatively-unimpacted”

reference site criteria) 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

The Water Class system currently in use contains four categories:

Class AA, Class A, Class B, and Class C. Class AA (extraordinary)

freshwaters shall markedly and uniformly exceed the requirements

for all or substantially all uses. Class A (excellent) freshwaters shall

meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses. 

Class B (good) freshwaters shall meet or exceed requirements for 

most uses. Class C (fair) freshwaters shall meet or exceed the

requirements of selected and essential uses. 

Narrative Biocriteria in 

WQS* 

under development 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level and

broad coverage) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level and broad

coverage) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - watershed level and broad 

coverage) 

T other: macrophytes and waterfowl (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites -

watershed level and broad coverage) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program 

elements 

Surber, D-frame; 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble); pool habitat may also be assessed if physical and/or chemical degradation

has occurred and can be detected through a biotic response 

500 count 

family, genus, and species 

backpack electrofisher; 7 millimeter mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, anomalies 

none - all specimens are examined and counted 

species, life stage 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.); artificial substrate: 

collect by hand 

multihabitat 

taxonomic identification 

genus 

visual based, quantitative measurements and hydrogeomorphology; performed with

bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for

biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

methods 

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in Significant departure from mean of reference population 

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (multi-year sampling at gradient of sites) 

precision (multi-year sampling at reference sites) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

Biological data 

All biological (including habitat and chemistry) information is stored in MS Access 

SAS, Systat, CANOCO, Primer, Cornell Ecology Programs, and Calibrate 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

WASHINGTON: Program Summary December 2002 3-192 
WEST VIRGINIA 

Contact Information 

John Wirts, Program Manager 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) 

1201 Greenbrier Street # Charleston, WV 25311 

Phone 304/558-2108 # Fax 304/558-2780 

email: jwirts@mail.dep.state.wv.us 

WV DEP Division of Water Resources homepage: http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11 

Dan Cincotta, Fisheries Biologist

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WV DNR)

P.O. Box 67 # Elkins, WV 26241 

Phone 304/637-0245 # Fax 304/637-0250 

email: dcincotta@dnr.state.wv.us 

WV DNR Wildlife Resources Section homepage: http://www.dnr.state.wv.us/wvwildlife/default.htm 

Program Description 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) implemented the Watershed Assessment Program in 

1996. This program was designed to systematically measure the water quality and biological health of the state’s rivers and 

streams. The program has four major components: 1) Random or Probabilistic Sampling; 2) Pre-TMDL sampling; 3) Ambient 

WQ Monitoring; and 4) “Regular Assessments.” 

Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected at the “random sites,” regular WAP (Watershed Assessment Program) sites, and 

selected Pre-TMDL sites. The program utilizes a rectangular dip net, compositing samples from two square meters and 

identifying a 200 organism sub-sample. WV DEP identified the “bugs” in-house to family level the first three years of the 

program. In 1999, WV DEP contracted out the identification work and switched to genus level identification. In 2000, a 

macroinvertebrate index was developed for West Virginia with support from EPA’s biocriteria development program. This index 

provides a means to establish an impairment threshold that is based on a set of minimally disturbed reference sites. 

The “Regular Assessments” were the majority of WV DEP’s workload in the program’s first year and continue to be a major 

portion of efforts. These consisted of sampling as many streams as possible (considering personnel limitations) in watersheds 

that were scheduled for assessment according to a 5 year cycle (5-7 watersheds per year). These assessments included the 

collection of water quality, habitat and macroinvertebrate data. All streams previously listed as impaired were targeted for 

assessment, as were a portion of all “unassessed” and “partially impaired” streams. 

In 1997, the Watershed Assessment Program added a probabilistic sampling component. The first 5-year cycle was completed 

in 2001. The first cycle consisted of sampling 30-35 sites in each of the major watersheds (8-digit HUCs) in the state, sampling 

all sites in a watershed in a single year. The next 5 year cycle begins in 2002 and will have a different sampling strategy. The 

same effort, 150 sites, will be spread across the state each year instead of just the 5-7 watersheds being assessed that year. 

This will allow a summary of the condition of the state’s streams to be completed every year instead of having to wait for the end 

of the 5-year cycle. This strategy also eliminates the problem of comparing watersheds sampled in different years that may have 

had drastically different climactic conditions (i.e. drought versus flood). 

Periphyton will be collected at all of the random sites starting in 2002. The results of these collections will hopefully aid in the 

development of nutrient criteria. Streams with known eutrification problems and some of WV DEP’s established reference sites 

may be sampled as well. 

The Division of Natural Resources (DNR) is the fish and game agency of West Virginia. As part of its duties, statewide fishery 

surveys are conducted annually to monitor game and nongame fish populations. These surveys are not probability based as 

they are usually performed on target streams with ongoing programs (e.g., stockings) or due to crisis management reasons. The 

WV DNR has no regulatory authority relative to the state's water quality standards, but we are sometimes involved in a fish 

advisory capacity. The WV DNR is developing a fish Index of Biotic Integrity via a cooperative agreement with the USEPA. The 

IBI is being developed somewhat independently from the WQS that are utilized by WV DEP. Someday it may be used in the 

305(b) program by a collaboration of agencies. 

Documentation and Further Information 

WV DEP Division of Water Resources list of publications, including direct links to West Virginia Water Quality Status 

Assessment 305(b) Report 2000 and other 305(b) reports, multiple 303(d) listings, West Virginia’s Monitoring Strategy, and A 

Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams, 2000: http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11&ss1id=192 

Smithson, J. 2001. Watershed assessment program. SOP. WV DEP Division of Water Resources. 

WEST VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-193 
WEST VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-194 

WEST VIRGINIA 

Contact Information 

John Wirts, Program Manager 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) 

1201 Greenbrier Street # Charleston, WV 25311 

Phone 304/558-2108 # Fax 304/558-2780 

email: jwirts@mail.dep.state.wv.us 

Dan Cincotta, Fisheries Biologist 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WV DNR) 

P.O. Box 67 # Elkins, WV 26241 

Phone 304/637-0245 # Fax 304/637-0250 

email: dcincotta@dnr.state.wv.us 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide (comprehensive use 

throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3 augmented with all named streams on 

1:24,000 topographic map) 

32,278 

Total perennial miles 21,114 

Total miles assessed for biology 5,745 

fully supporting for 305(b) 3,706 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 2,039 

listed for 303(d) 1,315 

number of sites sampled 60-90 

number of miles assessed per site – 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

T
 

 

 

WEST VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-195 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites -105 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria The following selection criteria are used to select reference sites:

(* Indicates criterion that can be determined in the field.) 

1. D.O. > 5.0mg/l* 2. pH between 6.0 and 9.0* 3. Conductivity < 500 :S /cm* 4. 

Fecal coliform < 800 colony/100ml 5. No violations of State WQ Standards 6. No 

obvious sources of nonpoint pollution* 7. Epifaunal substrate / available cover score 

>10* 8. Channel alteration score >10* 9. Sediment deposition score >10 * 10. Bank 

vegetative protection score >5* 11. Undisturbed vegetation zone width score >5* 12. 

Total habitat score > or = 130 points* 13. Evaluation of anthropogenic activities and 

disturbances* 14. No known point source discharges upstream and within view of

assessment site (completed after 1-13 are met) 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

T other: minimally disturbed** 

Stream stratification within a 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

T jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions (minimal) 

**WV reference sites are best described as minimally disturbed sites. They have to meet each of the 14 criteria mentioned above;

thus there are some areas with no sites that WV DEP is comfortable calling reference. 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: warmwater and coldwater 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none - Internal program procedures used to support general aquatic life standard 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Watershed restoration action strategies as part of the 319 grant program. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (>500 samples/year, single season, multiple sites - watershed level) 

T fish* (<100 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish* 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame, dipnet, collect by hand; 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

200 count 

family, genus 

seine, backpack and boat electrofishers, electric seine; 1/8" and 3/16" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass - individual 

none 

species 

visual based, quantitative measurements, riffle stability index; performed with

bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings, training

for biologists, sorting proficiency checks, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks,

specimen archival 

*West Virginia Division of Natural Resources is the fish and game agency of West Virginia. WV DNR duties include statewide 

annual fishery surveys to monitor game and nongame fish populations. These surveys are not probability based as they are

ususally performed on target streams due to ongoing programs (eg. stockings) or crisis management reasons. The WV DNR has no 

regulatory authority relative to the state's water quality standards, but are sometimes involved in a fish advisory capacity. The WV 

DNR is developing a fish Index of Biotic Integrity via a cooperative agreement with the USEPA. It is being developed somewhat

independently from the quality standards that are utilized by WV DEP, and may someday be used in the 305(b) program by a

collaboration of agencies. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of total population 

5th percentile of reference sites 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics* T

T

T

T

Biological data 

WAPBAS (similar to EDAS) 

WAPBAS (similar to EDAS) 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Described in A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams (see documentation and further information) 

WEST VIRGINIA: Program Summary December 2002 3-196 
WISCONSIN 

Contact Information 

Mike Talbot, Chief - Monitoring Section, Bureau of Fisheries and Habitat Protection 

Bob Masnado, Chief - Water Quality Standards Section, Bureau of Watershed Management 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 

P.O. Box 7921 # Madison, Wisconsin 53707 

Phone 608/266-0832 # Fax 608/266-2244 

Phone 608/267-7662 # Fax 608/267-2800 

email: talbom@dnr.state.wi.us and masnar@dnr.state.wi.us 

WI DNR Division of Water homepage: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/environmentprotect/water.html 

Program Description 

Historically, much of the water resource assessment work done by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has 

focused on the evaluation of degraded watersheds or water resources with high public profile. As a result, there is a lack of data 

on the overall quality of Wisconsin's water resources. In addition, monitoring techniques often varied among assessment sites 

and over time thus making it difficult to compare data across the state or from different time periods. To address these concerns, 

WDNR initiated a new program in 1999, called Baseline Monitoring. Standardized assessment techniques for aquatic habitat, 

macroinvertebrates and fish have been developed and are being applied throughout the state. The elements of this new program 

are contained in a draft report on Wisconsin's Surface Water Monitoring Strategy. 

The overall goals of the baseline monitoring strategy are to answer the following questions: 

1. What are the use expectations for Wisconsin's water resources? 

2. Are the state's waters meeting their use potential? 

3. What factors are preventing the state's water resources from meeting their potential? 

4. What are the statewide status and trends in the quality of Wisconsin's surface waters? 

To achieve the goals of the program, the following specific set of monitoring objectives were established: 

• Determine the designated attainable uses of each waterbody. Stream and lake habitat information and fisheries data 

collected during baseline assessments will be compared with biological criteria obtained from "least-impacted" regional 

reference waters to determine the water's use classification. 

• Determine the level of use attainment of each waterbody. Stream habitat and fisheries data collected during baseline 

assessment monitoring will allow the WDNR to determine if designated uses are being attained. More emphasis is being 

placed on biological monitoring to determine if designated uses are being met. 

• Determine why some waterbodies are not attaining their designated uses. Physical, chemical and biological data collected 

during baseline assessment monitoring will provide at least some of the information required to achieve this objective. 

For stream biological monitoring, WDNR collects information on riparian and in-stream habitat data, aquatic insects and fish 

species. The aquatic insects are identified and the numbers of fish are determined using standardized collection protocols. Lake 

monitoring involves collecting trophic state data and fish community data using the standardized protocols. 

WDNR will begin using a stratified-random sampling approach to achieve adequate coverage of the state’s 55,000 miles of 

streams. This sampling design allows the WDNR to sample a variety of streams and lakes across the state and also provides the 

Department with the ability to evaluate the quality of water resources that have not been sampled. The WDNR collects over 400 

aquatic invertebrate samples per year. However, under the baseline monitoring that was initiated last year, the WDNR is now 

annually assessing about 600 stream sites. In the future, maps showing the location of biological sampling sites will be available. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Wisconsin Water Quality Report to Congress, 2000 305(b): http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/watersummary/WQ.pdf 

Wisconsin’s Unified Watershed Assessment: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/watersummary/uwa/index.htm#intro 

Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters, revised February 1998: 

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr102.pdf 

Wisconsin DNR Fisheries and Habitat Biological Database: http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/wdnr_bio/ 

WISCONSIN: Program Summary December 2002 3-197 
WISCONSIN: Program Summary December 2002 3-198 

WISCONSIN 

Contact Information 

Mike Talbot, Chief - Monitoring Section, Bureau of Fisheries and Habitat Protection 

Bob Masnado, Chief - Water Quality Standards Section, Bureau of Watershed Management 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 

P.O. Box 7921 # Madison, Wisconsin 53707 

Phone 608/266-0832 # Fax 608/266-2244 

Phone 608/267-7662 # Fax 608/267-2800 

email: talbom@dnr.state.wi.us and masnar@dnr.state.wi.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: fishery assessments, FERC re-licensing, decisions, etc. 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(special projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(specific river basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

T probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles* 55,000 

Total perennial miles 32,000 

Total miles assessed for biology** 24,422 

fully supporting for 305(b) 7,989 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 12,028 

listed for 303(d) – 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 600 

number of miles assessed per site** 5 

*Surface water resources for Wisconsin have been quantified using GIS. A 1:24,000 scale hydrography GIS database was 

developed by digitizing surface waters shown on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. 

**The miles assessed for biology include fish consumption and aquatic life use. Of the 12,394 miles fully supporting for 305(b), 

4,405 miles are threatened. Each site sampled represents 5 miles of stream for baseline surveys, based on research conducted by 

WDNR. 
WISCONSIN: Program Summary December 2002 3-199 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

*Acute Narrative Criterion: NR 102.04(1)(d) (d) Substances in concentrations or combinations which are toxic or harmful to

humans shall not be present in amounts found to be of public health significance, nor shall substances be present in amounts which

are acutely harmful to animal, plant or aquatic life.

Chronic Narrative Criterion: NR 102.04(4)(d) (d) Other substances. Unauthorized concentrations of substances are not permitted

that alone or in combination with other materials present are toxic to fish or other aquatic life. Surface waters shall meet the acute

and chronic criteria as set forth in or developed pursuant to ss. NR 105.05 and 105.06. Surface waters shall meet the criteria which

correspond to the appropriate fish and aquatic life subcategory for the surface water, except as provided in s. NR 104.02(3). 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 100 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watershed 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Reference sites are defined by 1) BPJ using biota, 2) Upper quartile of biota

index scores within two years, and 3) will eventually be supplemented with a 

priori land use. Also, a fish IBI is currently used, and habitat, water chemistry

and macroinvertebrates will be incorporated within two years. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

T other: will eventually use a priori GIS land use data 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type (temperature, gradient, stream order) 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

T other: will assess strata with multivariate analysis 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses and Warm Water vs. Coldwater 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Five designations: 1) Coldwater – Salmonids & some sculpin species, 

2) Warm Water Fish & Aquatic Life – game fish and some important forage

species, 3) Warm Water Forage Fish – forage fish communities intolerant to

low dissolved oxygen, 4) Limited Forage Fish – forage fish communities

tolerant of low dissolved oxygen, 5) Limited Aquatic Life – communities with

non-fish species (invertebrates, etc.) that are tolerant of low dissolved oxygen. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Wisconsin does not have narrative biocriteria per se. It does have narrative 

criteria that are applied to protect against harm to human, wildlife and fish and

aquatic life communities. Please see below.* 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

T permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Wisconsin’s bioassessment program is still evolving, but has been used

regularly to make water quality management decisions that range from fishery

management issues (bag limits, habitat restoration projects) to FERC license

operating conditions to assessing potential vs. actual fish & aquatic life uses of

surface waters. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (>500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (>500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T periphyton (<100 samples/year; single observation, limited sampling) 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Surber, Hess, D-frame (all limited use); 500 - 600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

minimum of 125, but typically 200 - 300 organisms 

lowest taxa-level possible - usually genus, sometimes combination 

backpack and boat electrofisher, pram unit (tote barge); 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass- individual (gamefish), biomass- batch (non-game), anomalies 

selected species 

species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

artificial substrate: rock, rip-rap, bridge concrete 

richest habitat 

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin and taxonomic identification 

diatoms only 

quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings, training for

biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index)* 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision (repeat sampling of assessment sites is conducted) 

sensitivity (multiple streams along various stressor gradients have been assessed to

document metric sensitivity to the stressor of concern) 

bias (Stream habitat assessment crews assess the same site to document crew

experience bias. Least-impacted streams of differing size/stream order are sampled to

document macroinvertebrate metric bias among streams of varying order) 

accuracy (multiple least-impacted streams are sampled to document metric accuracy) 

characteristics T

T

T

T

Biological data 

A database has been developed in concert with USGS. It is not currently compatible with 

STORET. The database can be viewed at: http://www.infotrek.er.usgs.gov/wdnr_bio/ 

SAS, Systat, and Statistica. Also, an ORACLE-based data management system is being

developed to store data and provide routine report summaries and metric calculations. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*Multimetric indexes for habitat and fish have been developed, and a multimetric index for macroinvertebrates is being developed. 

WISCONSIN: Program Summary December 2002 3-200 
 WYOMING 

Contact Information 

Jeremy ZumBerge, Monitoring Program Supervisor 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) 

1043 Coffeen Avenue, Suite D # Sheridan, WY 82801 

Phone 307/672-6457 # Fax 307/674-6050 

email: jzumbe@state.wy.us 

WYDEQ Water Quality Division website: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/index.asp?pageid=5 

Program Description 

The primary objective of bioassessments conducted by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) is to assess

the support of aquatic life for 303(d) listing and 305(b) reporting, using macroinvertebrates as the primary indicator. The program

has been in existence since 1993, when it was initiated in the form of the Reference Stream Project (RSP). The primary goal of the

RSP was to collect baseline biological data at least-impacted (reference) streams in each ecoregion of Wyoming as a benchmark for

assessing biological and water quality conditions of other streams across the State. In 1998, the focus shifted from collecting

reference stream data to using RSP data as a benchmark to assess biological conditions of other Wyoming streams as part of the

Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP). BURP uses a comprehensive approach (chemical, physical, and biological

components) to assess water quality conditions of Wyoming streams. Today, the RSP is still ongoing, but at a much smaller scale. 

Several other organizations have been or will be important sources of bioassessment data in Wyoming. The Wyoming Association

of Conservation Districts (WACD) has been very involved in collecting biological data at streams across Wyoming. With proper

guidance, local Conservation Districts (CDs) can elect to assume some of WYDEQ’s bioassessment responsibilities, with the data

being used for 303(d) and 305(b). Many CDs have welcomed the opportunity to collect bioassessment data. 

The USGS also has been a very important source of biological data. Wyoming has contracted the USGS-Wyoming District to carry

out the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) monitoring in Wyoming. Approximately 50 randomly selected

sites will be assessed over the four year contract, with the end goal being an unbiased estimate of water quality conditions in the

State. The USGS also conducted an assessment of the Yellowstone River Basin of Wyoming and Montana as part of the National

Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). The considerable amount of biological data generated from these studies is being

evaluated for comparability with WYDEQ data to explore the usefulness of these data for 305(b) purposes. In addition, joint-funding

agreements are in place with the USGS that allow for enhanced biological monitoring of streams in areas affected by coal bed

methane development. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) is an important source of fish data. WYDEQ has chosen not to sample fish

communities as part of bioassessments, but uses WGFD data for determining support of fisheries uses, as well as in classifying

streams for assignment of uses and designating appropriate water quality standards associated with those uses. 

Wyoming has made significant strides in recent years in the development of multimetric biocriteria. Work will continue toward

refining the existing numeric criteria and narrative aquatic life standard, and toward the eventual implementation of numeric aquatic

life standards. Implementation of numeric standards is sure to be a challenging effort. The physical heterogeneity of Wyoming (e.g.,

climate, landscape, land use, and geology) poses significant scientific challenges. Political considerations are also likely to pose

challenges. 

Currently, WY is exploring the use of predictive models for assessing biological conditions of streams, as well as the addition of

periphyton as an additional biological indicator to supplement macroinvertebrate data and WGFD fish data used in bioassessments. 

Periphyton samples have been collected at a limited number of long-term reference stations in the past, and the use of periphyton

data will expand in coming years. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Wyoming’s 2000 305(b) State Water Quality Assessment Report and 2000 303(d) Report: 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/01452-doc.pdf 

Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/index.asp?pageid=52#Stand 

Manual of SOPs for Sample Collection and Analysis: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/10574-doc.pdf 

WYDEQ Water Quality Division Five-Year Comprehensive Monitoring Plan, 2001 Update, October 2001: 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/12806-doc.pdf 

Jessup, B.K. and J.B. Stribling. 2000. Testing the Wyoming stream integrity index. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, 

Maryland, for USEPA Region 8, Denver, CO. 

Gerritsen, J; Jessup, B.K.; King, K.; Smith, J. and Stribling, J.B. 2000. Development of Biological Criteria for Wyoming Streams 

and their Use in the TMDL Process. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, Maryland, for USEPA Region 8, Denver, CO. 

Data can be found online at http://wy.water.usgs.gov/ and http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/ 

WYOMING: Program Summary December 2002 3-201
Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: UAAs and site-specific standards 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (specific river basins or watersheds) 

other: 

WYOMING 

Contact Information 

Jeremy ZumBerge, Monitoring Program Supervisor 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) 

1043 Coffeen Avenue, Suite D # Sheridan, WY 82801 

Phone 307/672-6457 # Fax 307/674-6050 

email: jzumbe@state.wy.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3, 2000 and National Hydrography 

Datatbase, 2001) 

Total perennial miles 

Total miles assessed for biology* 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d) 

extent fully supporting, but threatened

number of sites sampled

number of miles assessed per site

113,422 

32,520 

2,639 

2,124 

177

177 

388 

700+ 

3.25 

*Since a Weight-of-Evidence approach is used in use support decisions, the numbers provided reflect waterbody reach extent where 

some type of biological data were used in the assessment. 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

WYOMING: Program Summary December 2002 3-202
WYOMING: Program Summary December 2002 3-203 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 140 based on field investigation checklist

90 based on quantitative physical and chemical filters 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment (Best Professional Judgment based on

landscape and field investigation coupled with select water

chemical and physical filters) 

other: 

Reference site criteria Site is identified by the field investigation to be "reference quality"

based on analysis of a 27 item checklist of reach and watershed

characteristics plus select ecoregion specific quantitative physical

and chemical filters. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C), Fishery Based Uses and Warm Water vs.

Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Game Fish (Warm Water and Cold Water Game Fish), Non-game

Fish and Aquatic Life Other than Fish 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Formal/informal numeric procedures exist to support ALU decisions. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development (Numeric biocriteria are in use but are still being

refined and are not yet incorporated in WY’s water quality

standards.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Trend analysis in watershed improvement projects and following

degradation resulting from construction projects and spills. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites – not at

watershed level) 

fish 

UD periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Surber, dipnet; 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

500 count 

combination--genus, species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

riffle/run (cobble)

WYDEQ’s periphyton program is under development. Samples have been collected,

but analysis protocols are yet to be developed.

under development

visual based, quantitative measurements, hydrogeomorphology, pebble counts

(Wolman), streambank stability (Bauer and Burton - EPA910/R-93-017), pool quality

(Bauer and Burton); performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

UD 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th percentile of reference population 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

T repeat sampling (select sites are sampled annually to

document annual variability) 

precision (side-by-side sampling at 10% of stations; Data

Quality Objectives for density and number of taxa) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

T

Biological data 

STORET, EDAS, and internal spreadsheets 

EDAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

WYOMING: Program Summary December 2002 3-204 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

Contact Information 

Edna Buchan, Water Program Manager 

American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) 

Executive Office Building # Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 

Phone 684/633-2304 # Fax 684/633-5801 

email: ednabuchan@hotmail.com 

website: http://www.asg-gov.com/agencies/epa.asg.htm 

Program Description 

American (Amerika) Samoa is a group of six Polynesian islands in the South Pacific. Located fourteen degrees 

below the equator, it is the United States' southern-most territory. 

The American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) develops and implements programs that protect 

environmental and public health from harmful impacts on air and water quality. USEPA works in partnership with 

ASEPA and provides funding and technical assistance to carry out environmental programs. ASEPA activities 

include water quality monitoring, inspecting facilities and new developments for compliance with environmental 

regulations, preparing responses to hazardous material releases, advocating practices that decrease and prevent 

pollution, and educating the public on environmental issues and practices. 

American Samoa does not have a biological assessment program in place, and has no immediate plans for 

implementing a bioassessment program. The American Samoa Water Quality Standards contain no numeric 

biocriteria. Wording in standards that states that Fresh Surface Water and Wetlands "shall be protected to support 

the propagation of indigenous aquatic and terrestrial life" may be considered narrative criteria. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Personal communication (email), Edna Buchan, 11/26/2001. 

AMERICAN SAMOA: Program Summary December 2002 3-205 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

AMERICAN SAMOA: Program Summary December 2002 3-206 
Commonwealth of Northern

 Mariana Islands (CNMI) 

Contact Information 

Peter C. Houk, Marine Biologist

CNMI Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

P.O. Box 501304 # Saipan, MP 96950 

Phone 670/664-8505 # Fax 670/664-8540 

email: peter.houk@saipan.com 

website: http://www.deq.gov.mp/ 

Program Description 

NOTE: Since few freshwater sources exist on the islands, all information in this program summary refers to CNMI’s 

marine environments (CNMI has only two or three, very small, perennial streams. CNMI’s dynamic tropical marine 

system requires different approaches and techniques than are used by the states to develop biocriteria.) 

The objective of CNMI’s Marine Monitoring Program is to monitor CNMI’s reefs, lagoon, and reef flats with regards to benthic 

communities, macroinvertebrate and fish abundances, and water quality. In addition, CNMI has a biodiversity list of all 

organisms encountered in CNMI and a reference collection. CNMI Water Quality Standards clearly state that benthic 

communities can not be altered due to a discharge (Section 7.12 (d)). Any significant changes would be changes from 1) 

previous conditions at the same site or 2) changes from a similar reference site. The goal is to gather as much baseline data in 

as many different areas as possible to use for comparisons. Last year, a "State of the Reef Report" was completed which 

comprises all of the results from monitoring efforts. 

In 2001, the focus was on assessments of nearshore coral reef systems surrounding Saipan and Rota. The 2000/2001 State of 

the Reef Reports were produced summarizing past and present coral reef data for Saipan and Rota. Though it would be 

impossible to survey the entire coral reef system around CNMI with current resources, there are approximately 20 sites 

established for intensive data collection on a yearly basis. The goal is to continue to enhance CNMI’s interagency marine 

monitoring group composed of Coastal Resources Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife, and Division of Environmental 

Quality. Assessments of existing and additional sites on Rota, Saipan, Tinian, and other Northern Islands will be conducted and 

included in the next Reef Report (2002). Data will be used for future assessments of natural disasters, potential anthropogenic 

disturbances/development, and overall biological health. 

In 2002, the entire Saipan Lagoon, covering several watersheds, will also be surveyed to assess and understand how upland 

runoff (nonpoint source pollution) may be affecting this valuable resource. The entire lagoon will be divided into habitats and 

quantitative and qualitative data from each habitat will be gathered. Once completed, existing aerial photographs will be 

scanned and remote sensing techniques will delineate the habitats found. The end result will be used to examine correlations 

between water quality, drainage areas, other areas of concern, and the lagoon habitat. This project is also required by the Army 

Corps of Engineers in order to proceed with a master drainage plan for areas associated with Saipan’s Lagoon. Lagoon survey 

work is currently a joint project between NOAA’s Coastal Resource Management Program and DEQ. Hopefully, the Division of 

Fish and Wildlife will be involved in this project in 2002 as well. 

CNMI’s reef monitoring program is based on site selection. Sites that have "concerns" or "disturbances" are selected, as well as 

several reference sites. There are many more habitats in the nearshore coral reef communities around CNMI than are found in 

the Saipan Lagoon, hence the difference in methods. Also, weather conditions prohibit surveys on windward sides of the islands 

most of the year. All of this data is very useful for understanding baseline water quality conditions, and these data are used for 

assessment when and if projects are proposed that involve a discharge. 

CNMI’s program can not follow the same type of biocriteria monitoring program implemented in any of the U.S. states. There is a 

very dynamic tropical marine system surrounding CNMI which warrants the use of techniques different than those used by our 

State counterparts. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Water Quality Assessment Report 305(b), April 2000 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Water Quality Assessment Report 305(b), 2002

 (Interested parties can contact Peter Houk, CNMI DEQ, or EPA Region 9 for a copy of either report) 

CNMI State of the Reef Report, 2000 

CNMI Nonpoint Source and Marine Monitoring Program information: http://www.deq.gov.mp/NPS/default.htm 

CNMI: Program Summary December 2002 3-207 
CNMI: Program Summary December 2002 3-208 

Commonwealth of Northern

 Mariana Islands 

Contact Information 

Peter C. Houk, Marine Biologist 

CNMI Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

P.O. Box 501304 # Saipan, MP 96950 

Phone 670/664-8505 # Fax 670/664-8540 

email: peter.houk@saipan.com 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

T evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

T other: public information and awareness 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

(special projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

(comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles* (pertains to coral reef monitoring) 

Total miles – 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology n/a 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled on the reef (on an annual basis) 20 

number of miles assessed per site site specific 

*The above section is not applicable to CNMI’s monitoring program since no stream monitoring is conducted. For lagoon surveys, 

CNMI plans to intensively survey and create habitat maps for the entire Saipan Lagoon system. This covers several watersheds. 

CNMI’s outer reef monitoring program is based on site selection - sites that have "concerns" or "disturbances," as well as several 

reference sites. There are many more habitats in the nearshore coral reef communities around CNMI than are found in the Saipan 

Lagoon, hence the difference in methods. Also, weather conditions prohibit surveys on windward sides of the islands most of the 

year. All of these data are very useful for understanding baseline water quality conditions, and these data are used for assessment 

when and if projects are proposed that involve a discharge. 
CNMI: Program Summary December 2002 3-209 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 5 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

T other: based on benthic community composition 

Reference site criteria Reference sites are chosen based on similar geological/physical

features (slope, substrate, etc.). They are sites similar in community

composition that are not subjected to the discharge in question. 

There are usually several on each island in CNMI. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

Not applicable* 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

Not applicable 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU (in some cases) 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions (in some cases) 

*Characterization of reference sites does not apply because CNMI uses a degree of community change based on reference versus

test sites. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

AA - top quality marine, A - marine non-recreational

1 - surface water (runoff mainly, no rivers) highest quality,

2 - surface water non-recreational 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Formal/informal numeric procedures used to support narrative

biocriteria are determined by the best available data. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none (Numeric biocriteria are located in yearly reports on monitoring

activities. Each site differs with respect to benthic communities and

CNMI’s WQS uses the term "shall not differ substantially from those

where similar conditions exist.") 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

A ponding basin was established on Rota Island in response to

CNMI DEQ’s monitoring results. There are also other small projects

similar to this. DEQ is collecting baseline data with the intention of

using it to assess BMPs and aid future decision-making. 
Field and Lab Methods* 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad coverage) 

periphyton 

T other: waterfowl (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad

coverage for watershed level) 

Benthos* 

sampling gear 

taxonomy 

Fish* 

sampling gear 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Transect lines, underwater photo equipment, hammer, measuring tapes, diving gear,

underwater slates/pencils 

genus and species 

speargun, reference books 

species 

quantitative measurements, benthic coverage estimates of major benthos, basic water quality

parameter measurements, abundances of fish and macroinvertebrates, and biodiversity of all

organisms present; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and training for

biologists, and specimen archival 

*Following is a summary of biological sampling methods used in the reef – see CNMI’s State of the Reef Report for details 

• Three 50 meter transect lines are secured parallel to the shoreline (laid end-to-end, 150m total length), and marked with a

sediment trap holder and re-bar driven securely into the reef. 

• For benthics, an underwater camera is used to take still photographs of .5-m quadrats placed at all even numbers along the

transect line. For each photo the bottom right corner of the quadrat is aligned with the corresponding transect line distance. 

• Coral communities are examined using the point-quarter method described by Randall et al., (1988). A dive knife is 

haphazardly tossed 16 times along the three transects. For each toss the distance to the nearest living coral colony is noted

for each of four quadrants, as well as the diameter and taxonomic name. 

• Fish abundance is determined by a single observer swimming along the transect lines recording data. Counts of all fishes 

within 5 meters of each side of the transect line are recorded. Fishes are identified to the family level. 

• All macroinvertebrates within 2 meters of each side of the transect line are counted. These data were presented as 

abundances per (100-m^2) of reef on each of three transects. Macroinvertebrates are either identified to genus or grouped by 

life form, depending on abundances. 

• Sediment traps provide sedimentation rate data from sites where sedimentation is a concern. 

• Water samples are taken for chemistry. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics 

disturbance gradients 

other: distribution analysis and cluster analysis 

methods T

T

T

Multivariate thresholds 

5th defining impairment in percentile of reference population (Pvalue of .05 is cut off)

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Biological data 

MS Access, Excel, Word, Arcview GIS and Photo documentation 

Excel 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

CNMI: Program Summary December 2002 3-210 
PUERTO RICO and the

 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Contact Information 

James Kurtenbach, Aquatic Biologist 

USEPA - Region II, Division of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Bldg. 209 # Edison, NJ 08837 

Phone 732/321-6695 # Fax 732/321-6616 

email: kurtenbach.james@epa.gov 

Program Description 

Puerto Rico is presently evaluating Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for mountain streams. According to 

the Water Monitoring Plan for fiscal year 2002, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB), in 

coordination with EPA Region II, will continue to work on the development of biological indicators for stream 

monitoring. PREQB is responsible for current monitoring activities which include ambient water quality monitoring, 

intensive water quality studies, and 305(b) reporting. The 2000 Cycle 305(b) Report doesn’t include any biological 

information (aside from limited wetland loss data). The EPA (ORD Coastal 2000 Program) conducted an EMAP 

study on the estuaries of Puerto Rico, which included benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. 

The U.S. Virgin Islands 2000 Water Quality Assessment reported that there are “no perennial streams on any of 

the islands; intermittent streams can only be seen after heavy rainfall. The absence of large freshwater resources 

and perennial streams means that guts (watercourses) form the basis for watershed management in the territory.” 

Also, the Virgin Islands primarily assess coastal waters and estuaries, but “no monitoring for biological effects is 

conducted for lack of baseline standards for Virgin Islands conditions. According to the Virgin Islands multi-year 

monitoring strategy, the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) will explore options for 

implementing a biological component of the Ambient Monitoring Program. This may include developing a 

partnership with NOAA or another agency with similar monitoring objectives.” 

Documentation and Further Information 

Goals and Progress of Statewide Water Quality Management Planning: Puerto Rico 1998-1999, 2000 Cycle 

305(b) Report. Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board. November 2000. 

2000 Water Quality Assessment for the United States Virgin Islands, 2000 305(b) Report. Department of Planning 

and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection (DPNR/DEP). April 2001. 

PUERTO RICO and the 

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Program Summary December 2002 3-211 
PUERTO RICO and the 

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Program Summary December 2002 3-212 

PUERTO RICO and the

 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Contact Information 

James Kurtenbach, Aquatic Biologist 

USEPA - Region II, Division of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Bldg. 209 # Edison, NJ 08837 

Phone 732/321-6695 # Fax 732/321-6616 

email: kurtenbach.james@epa.gov 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

Not currently used 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special 

projects only) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

NOTE: These stream and river miles apply only to Puerto Rico. 

The U.S. Virgin Islands reports no stream miles. 

Total miles 

(determined using RF3) 

5,394.2 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology* 0 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled n/a 

number of miles assessed per site n/a 

*Specific biological studies have been conducted, but there are no ongoing projects. However, Puerto Rico does conduct other 

regular chemical and physical monitoring. According to PR’s 2000 305(b) report, during the 1998 - 1999 monitoring cycle there were 

5,394 total assessed miles; 4,297 evaluated segments; and 1,096 monitored segments. Of the 1,096.7 river miles monitored for 

Aquatic Life Use, 222.4 miles were determined to be fully supporting, 16.8 miles were partially supporting, and 857.5 miles were 

non-supporting. 
PUERTO RICO and the 

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Program Summary December 2002 3-213 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development* 

Number of reference sites none 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*This section is not applicable – no biological monitoring is conducted in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, thus neither territory 

has reference sites. 

ALU designation basis Class System (A,B,C) 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Standards list definitions for the following: pelagic and planktonic

species, propagation and preservation of desirable species. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS none (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have no biocriteria. 

According to Puerto Rico's 2000 305(b) report, there were

expectations of achieving/developing some, but no monitoring

strategy has been submitted as of yet.) 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS none 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

Not currently used 

assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

none 
Field and Lab Methods* 

Assemblages assessed 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

benthos 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

not applicable 

not applicable 

Data Analysis and Interpretation* 

Data analysis tools and

methods 

summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

Biological data 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

not applicable 

not applicable 

*These sections are not applicable since no biological monitoring is conducted in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

PUERTO RICO and the 

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Program Summary December 2002 3-214 
CONFEDERATED TRIBES

 OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION 

Contact Information 

Gary Passmore, Office of Environmental Trust 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

P.O. Box 150 # Nespelem, WA 99155 

Phone 509/634-2200 # Fax 509/634-4116 

email: gary.passmore@colvilletribes.com 

website: http://www.colvilletribes.com/ 

Program Description 

The Colville Indian Reservation land base covers 1.4 million acres or 2,100 square acres located in North Central 

Washington, primarily in Okanogan and Ferry counties. The Reservation consists of tribally owned lands held in 

federal trust status for the Confederated Tribes, land owned by individual Colville tribal members (most of which is 

held in federal trust status), and land owned by others (described as fee property and taxable by counties). 

Colville Reservation lands are diverse with natural resources including standing timber, streams, rivers, lakes, 

minerals, varied terrain, native plants and wildlife. 

Although the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation do have federally approved water quality standards, 

the Tribes’ Office of Environmental Trust doesn't use biological assessment methods as a means to assess water 

quality. In 2001, the Tribes gave permission to the State of Washington Department of Ecology to conduct some 

biological assessments on the reservation, but the results of those surveys are not yet complete. The primary 

obstacle to conducting bioassessment has been cost. The water quality monitoring program is reevaluated every 

year, and it is possible the Tribes may implement biological monitoring in the future. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Personal Communication (email), Gary Passmore, 11/28/2001. 

COLVILLE RESERVATION: Program Summary December 2002 3-215 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

COLVILLE RESERVATION: Program Summary December 2002 3-216 
NEZ PERCE TRIBE 

Contact Information 

Ann Storrar, Water Planner 

Nez Perce Tribe Department of Natural Resources 

P.O. Box 365 # Lapwai, Idaho 83540 

Phone 208/843-7368 # Fax 208/843-7371 

email: anns@nezperce.org 

website: http://www.nezperce.org/ 

Program Description 

The Nez Perce Reservation is located in North Central Idaho. The Tribal Department of Natural Resources 

consists of the Land Services, Cultural Resources, Wildlife Resources, Forest Resources, Water Resources, and 

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs. These programs focus on delivering resource 

management services on the Reservation and participating in the planning and decisions of land management 

activities affecting the Nez Perce Treaty area. The programs provide protection of reserved treaty-rights in all 

areas to their best abilities. Department administration is structured to facilitate an interdisciplinary approach in 

meeting these needs. 

Currently the Tribe is collecting baseline chemical and physical habitat data on Reservation waterbodies and will, 

eventually, be establishing its own water quality standards for the reservation area. The Nez Perce Tribe may 

soon promulgate the standards USEPA is developing for Indian country, with the idea of refining them from 

narrative standards to both chemical and biological criteria. The Tribe has used the State of Idaho Beneficial Use 

Assessment Procedure (BURP) for reservation water bodies in 1997, 1998 and 1999 and would like to adopt its 

own protocols for beneficial use assessment. 

The Tribe recently obtained funds to begin the EMAP bioassessment procedure for the reservation. This will be 

accomplished through participation in the EMAP Western Pilot and methods will be developed based on EMAP 

protocols. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Personal Communication (email), Ann Storrar, 10/01/2001. 

NEZ PERCE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-217 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

NEZ PERCE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-218 
ONEIDA NATION OF WISCONSIN 

Contact Information 

James L. Snitgen, Water Resources Team Leader 

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Environmental, Health and Safety Department 

P.O. Box 365, 3759 W. Mason Street # Oneida, WI 54155 

Phone 920/497-5812 # Fax 920/496-7883 

email: jsnitgen@oneidanation.org 

website: http://www.oneidanation.org 

Program Description 

Objectives

The Oneida Tribe’s current and future uses of information gathered using bioassessment include protection, restoration,

assessing impacts, monitoring changes, as well as driving policy and promoting knowledge and appreciation of aquatic 

resources. 

Background

Although there had been some invertebrate and fish surveys performed on the Reservation over the last twenty years or so, the

development of a formal biological monitoring program was initiated in 2000. Tri-annual fishery surveys at established monitoring 

sites have been performed since 1997. In 1999, the Tribe began sampling invertebrate communities and immediately began 

using the findings as tools. An onsite aquatic invertebrate taxonomy laboratory was also established in 1999 and equipped with

scopes, literature, drying oven, hood, etc. In 2000, qualitative sampling of invertebrates was performed at five stream sites and a

quantitative study of one lake was initiated to determine the effectiveness of BMPs in the surrounding basin. In the meantime, 

SOPs were developed for qualitative and quantitative methods for lakes and wadeable streams and metrics were researched and

tested. Contracts were set up for the picking and sorting of invertebrate samples (UW-Superior) and for toxicity testing

(Environmental Consulting and Testing) of certain waterbodies. In 2001, quantitative samples were collected at three stream

sites and the lake, as well as three more sites being sampled qualitatively. Stream types have not been formalized, but four 

reference sites have been established: 

1. Thornberry Creek (at forest Drive), a first order cold water system, exhibiting “pristine” conditions during 1999 and 2000. 

2. Trout Creek (at County FF), a 3rd order cold water system, exhibiting “good” to “very good” conditions. 

3. Oneida Creek (at VanBoxtel Road), a 3rd order cool water system, exhibiting “good” conditions in 2000. A very rare fingernet 

caddisfly, Wormaldia moesta, known to occur only in “small, cold, rapid streams” has been collected at this site. 

4. Duck Creek (at Seminary Road), a 4th order warm water system, the largest stream on the Reservation. The water quality 

and invertebrate community represent “good” conditions. The same stream is in “poor” condition before entering the Reservation 

from the south near the Town of Freedom. 

The streams at these sites represent the reference conditions for all stream types on the Reservation. In 2002, qualitative or

quantitative sampling will be conducted at approximately 30 invertebrate sites and mid-summer fish IBIs will be conducted at

eleven sites. 

Setting/Land Use

The entire Reservation, covering approximately 64,500 acres, is in the Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains ecoregion (Omernick

1987). At this time, the main sources of impairment are sedimentation (construction and agriculture) and nutrients (agriculture,

suburban lawns, golf courses). The Reservation straddles the boundary of Brown and Outagamie Counties and includes all or

portions of the City of Green Bay, Villages of Ashwaubenon and Howard, and the Towns of Hobart, Oneida and Pittsfield. Eleven 

additional municipalities rest within the watersheds flowing through the Reservation. All surface waters within the Oneida 

Reservation drain to the Great Lakes Basin (Lake Michigan). There are four separate surface water drainages, bearing 

numerous tributaries: 

1) Duck Creek River – Fish Creek, Oneida Creek, Trout Creek, Lancaster Brook, Beaver Dam Creek, Silver Creek (Lower Green 

Bay Basin); 2) South Branch of the Suamico River (Upper Green Bay Basin); 3) Ashwaubenon Creek – North Branch, South 

Branch, Hemlock Creeks (Fox River Basin); and 4) Dutchman Creek (Fox River Basin) 

Land use percentages surrounding the sites will be mapped this summer (2002), and the first formal biomonitoring report is being

produced. 

Metrics and Biocriteria Development

While the Oneida Nation does not have federally approved water quality standards, the Tribe is implementing a water quality

program with bioassessment surveys under tribal law. The inclusion of biocriteria into the Tribe’s WQS has been delayed due to

urgent water resource issues that have come up, rather than lack of information. The appropriate metrics to accurately predict

responses in benthic invertebrate communities for the area are fairly well proven at this time. The metrics currently being used 

(for streams) are the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), Taxa Richness, dominance, percent clingers and in some cases

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) and E, P and T taken separately. The most common impacts are due to

sedimentation and organic loading. Because of the limited number and type of streams within the Reservation, it is believed that

the appropriate reference sites to represent all of the stream types have been selected. A final designation of these has not been

made, nor are biocriteria being submitted for inclusion in the WQS until there is a chance to conduct more sampling of test sites

to compare with the reference sites. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Personal communication (letter), James L. Snitgen, 1/2002. 

Hard copies of documents including the Oneida Nation’s WQS; SOPs for the Qualitative Sampling (#BI002) and Quantitative

Sampling (#BI003) of Streams for Benthic Invertebrates; Annual Water Resources Report (future reports will contain fish and

macroinvertebrate data) 

ONEIDA NATION: Program Summary December 2002 3-219 
ONEIDA NATION: Program Summary December 2002 3-220 

ONEIDA NATION OF WISCONSIN 

Contact Information 

James Snitgen, Water Resources Team Leader 

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Environmental, Health and Safety Department 

P.O. Box 365, 3759 W. Mason Street # Oneida, WI 54155 

Phone 920/497-5812 # Fax 920/496-7883 

email: jsnitgen@oneidanation.org 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 233 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology – 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled (in summer 2002) 41 

number of miles assessed per site ~0.02 miles 

(25 meters) 
ONEIDA NATION: Program Summary December 2002 3-221 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making* 

*Water quality standards were federally approved in 1996 and then rescinded following a lawsuit. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 4 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watershed 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment (Qualitative data gathered initially on

candidate reference sites. Most "pristine" of each stream type

used as reference--still in early stages of determining all

necessary reference sites) 

other: 

Reference site criteria water quality, benthic invertebrate community (Hilsenhoff Biotic Index),

land use, physical habitat, geomorphology, qualitative benthos

investigations 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

T stream type (all within Reservation/all in same ecoregion) 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information UD reference sites linked to ALU 

UD reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: cold water ecosystems, warm water ecosystems 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS Inclusion of narrative and numeric biocriteria into the Tribe’s WQS is 

under development, as is nutrient criteria. Tribal WQS include 

biological and water quality language but this does not constitute

formal biocriteria. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS see above 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Macroinvertebrate community data were used to designate one

stream as a cold water resource. RBPs were conducted following a 

stormwater spill. 
Field and Lab Methods* 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples per year; single season, multiple sites - broad

coverage) 

T fish (<100 samples per year; multiple seasons, multiple sites - broad

coverage for watershed level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Surber, D-frame, collect by hand; 500 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

300 count 

species 

backpack electrofisher; 1/4" mesh 

previously established monitoring sites and/or sites suitable for long term

monitoring 

biomass - individual (identify and count) 

none 

species 

visual based, quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings and training for biologists,

sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

*The Oneida Nation has sampled fish for four years and began a macroinvertebrate program in 2001 using the RBP habitat rating

score sheet. The Tribe’s first herpetile survey is planned for summer 2002 to collect baseline data on two riverways and three 

wetlands. Oneida also plans to begin using macrophytes as indicators in wetlands. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index and return 

single metrics) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

Multimetric thresholds 

information not provided 

information not provided 

transforming metrics into

unitless scores 

defining impairment in a

multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision (replicates) 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics T

Biological data 

Macroinvertebrate data in Corel Quattro Pro; fish data in MS Access 

information not provided 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

ONEIDA NATION: Program Summary December 2002 3-222 
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE,

 PLEASANT POINT RESERVATION 

Contact Information 

Deirdre Whitehead 

Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point 

P.O. Box 343 # Perry, Maine 04667 

Phone 207/853-2600 

email: deirdre@wabanaki.com 

website: http://www.wabanaki.com 

Program Description 

The Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point is located in coastal Maine, near the border of New Brunswick. The 

Tribe’s Environmental Department is responsible for the health of the natural resources under Tribal Management. 

This responsibility begins by assessing and mapping these resources and related risks, then developing programs 

to insure that these natural resources are protected. While the Passamaquoddy Tribe does not have federally 

approved water quality standards, it is implementing a water quality program with limited bioassessment surveys 

under tribal law. Current water quality work includes testing salt water for fecal coliform and phytoplankton in a 

cooperative arrangement with the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) and the Cobscook Bay 

Resource Center. This work provides the DMR with information to manage closure of clam flats. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Personal communication (email), Deirdre Whitehead, 11/30/2001. 

PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-223 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-224 
PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE 

Contact Information 

Dan Mosley, Environmental Specialist 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Environmental Department 

P.O. Box 256 # Nixon, NV 89424 

Phone 775/574-0101 # Fax 775/574-1025 

email: dmosley@powernet.net 

website: http://plpt.nsn.us/ 

Program Description 

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe’s Reservation is located thirty five miles northeast of Reno, Nevada in a remote 

desert area situated in the counties of Washoe, Lyon, and Storey. The area of the reservation contains 475,000 

acres or 742.2 square miles. 

The Environmental Department of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT) has been conducting bioassessments on 

waterbodies within the reservation border since 1975. An ecological study on Pyramid Lake was conducted from 

1975 through 1977. A comprehensive bioassessment study was conducted on the lower Truckee River during the 

summer of 1981. In 1989, a regular Rapid Bioassessment (RBA) program was established for the Truckee River, 

following the first EPA bioassessment training in Reno, Nevada. 

PLPT is in the process of establishing standardized protocols for assessing the biological and physical conditions 

of wadeable streams within the exterior boundaries of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Reservation. The Tribe will 

use protocols outlined in EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (USEPA 1989). There are plans to incorporate 

the bench sheets and protocols as outlined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CA DFG) Water 

Pollution Control Laboratory in their California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (May 1999). These technical 

documents describe RBA in more detail. Updating and developing aquatic/riparian RBA techniques is an ongoing 

process. 

The PLPT RBA program will ensure that the information generated can be compatible with the National or State 

EPA bioassessment program, to produce high quality and reliable assessments of stream habitat and water 

quality. A professional aquatic biologist/entomologist will act as the project team leader, backed by an 

interdisciplinary team of two to four biologists and/or technicians. 

Fish and benthic macroinvertebrates (BMIs) will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible 

(genus/species). The presence or absence of fish and BMIs are proven indicators of an impaired or healthy 

aquatic system. Bioassessments can be used to detect impairments to aquatic communities from point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution and for assessing ambient biological condition. The upper third of riffles will be 

targeted for collecting biological samples because they are the richest habitat for BMIs in wadeable streams. The 

Tribe’s goal is to protect an endangered lake sucker called a “Cui-ui” (Chasmistes cujus), and the threatened 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. 

In summer 2001, the Tribe initiated a RBA program for springs and wetlands. A wetland specialist will act as team 

leader, looking at amphibians, wildlife, BMIs, birds, plants, and water chemistry for each waterbody as indicators of 

an impaired or healthy aquatic system. 

In the future, PLPT plans to explore numeric biocriteria for BMIs on the Truckee River. The Tribe will also begin 

gathering baseline data on the five streams that surround Pyramid Lake. The Tribe’s water quality standards are 

currently undergoing review by EPA. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Personal communication (letter), Dan Mosely, 2001. 

The following PLPT department homepages are under development (July 2002): 

Environmental Department: http://plpt.nsn.us/modules.php?name=Sections&sop=listarticles&secid=21 

Water Resources Department: http://plpt.nsn.us/modules.php?name=Sections&sop=listarticles&secid=20 

PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-225 
PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-226 

PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE 

Contact Information 

Dan Mosley, Environmental Specialist 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Environmental Department 

P.O. Box 256 # Nixon, NV 89424 

Phone 775/574-0101 # Fax 775/574-1025 

email: dmosley@powernet.net 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

UD monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

UD ALU determinations/ambient monitoring (to be developed) 

UD promulgated into tribal water quality standards as narrative 

biocriteria 

UD support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

UD TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (specific river 

basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles – 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology 31+ 

fully supporting for 305(b) – 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) – 

listed for 303(d) – 

number of sites sampled* 13 to 15 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*Eight to ten sites are sampled on the Truckee River, covering 31 miles. Five sites on five streams surrounding Pyramid Lake are 

also sampled. 
PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-227 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

Reference Site/Condition Development* 

Number of reference sites under development 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Based on historical data, what the best conditions should be for that 

ALU designation basis Fishery Based Uses 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

under development 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS under development (Narrative biocriteria are incorporated into Pyramid

Lake’s water quality standards, but are currently awaiting approval by

EPA Region 9. No formal/informal numeric procedures are used to

support narrative biocriteria.) 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS under development (The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe will be developing

"scientifically defensible" numeric biocriteria for the Lower Truckee

River over the next several years.) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

UD cause and effect determinations 

UD permitted discharges 

UD monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

UD watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

presently none - to be developed 

site. On Truckee River, the Tribe has been using reference

“conditions” based on bioassessment data from 1981 to present. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

T elevation 

T stream type 

multivariate grouping 

T jurisdictional (within Tribe’s boundaries) 

other: 

Additional information UD reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

*Reference site use is currently under development. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed* T benthos (<100 samples/year [3 replicates per riffle site]; single season,

multiple sites - not at watershed level) 

T fish 

T periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

surber (used 1981 through 2000), kicknet (started in 2001) - 9" x 18" rectangle 500

micron mesh 

richest habitat - upper third of riffle 

entire sample 

genus and species 

seine (multiple gill nets), backpack and boat electrofisher 

pool/glide 

length measurement, biomass - individual, anomalies 

study specific 

species 

natural substrate: brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.)

artificial substrate: collect by hand 

multihabitat 

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin, biomass, taxonomic identification 

all algae; species level; genus level for soft-bodied algae when possible; diatoms

are not cleared 

visual based and quantitative measurements; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologist, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

*Tribal Fisheries conducts fish bioassessments and a Tribal Wetlands staff member conducts amphibian biostudies. Periphyton 

sampling is conducted on tribal land by the Desert Research Institute. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation** 

Data analysis tools and

methods 

summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

Biological data 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

Quattro Pro and paper files

EDAS (under development)

**Data have not yet been analyzed or evaluated. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is just beginning to sort/identify the 2001 benthic 

macroinvertebrate collections. 

PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-228 
SEMINOLE TRIBE of FLORIDA 

Contact Information 

Bill Dunson, Environmental Scientist 

The Seminole Tribe of Florida, Water Resource Management Department 

6300 Stirling Road # Hollywood, Florida 33024 

Phone 863/902-3200 

email: Bdunson@semtribe.com 

website: http://www.seminoletribe.com/ 

Program Description 

The reservations that comprise the Seminole Tribe of Florida begin around Tampa and extend into the southern tip 

of the state. The Tribe’s Water Resource Management Department is responsible for protecting the land and 

water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable economic and cultural future for the Tribe. 

USEPA has delegated to the Tribe the authority to implement the Clean Water Act within the Tribe's jurisdiction. 

As part of that program, the Tribe implemented a sophisticated monitoring program, adopted federally approved 

water quality standards for the Big Cypress reservation, and is developing standards for the other reservations. 

The Tribe has developed other programs, as well, including spill prevention plans for above ground storage tanks 

and removal programs for underground storage tank facilities. The Tribe actively participates in a number of task 

forces, working groups, and commissions regarding the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. The Tribe 

spends considerable resources supporting the overall design and implementation of South Florida's environmental 

restoration. 

Currently the Tribe does not use biocriteria in any of its water quality monitoring programs. However, the Tribe is 

involved in a research project conducted by Florida Atlantic University that includes development of biocriteria 

(primarily for variations in hydroperiod and the effects of restoration), using vegetation and fish as bioindicators. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Personal communication (email), Bill Dunson, 12/4/2001. 

Working Drafts – Bioindicators for wetland change; Presentation on use of data in conducting rapid wetland 

assessments 

SEMINOLE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-229 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

SEMINOLE TRIBE: Program Summary December 2002 3-230 
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)

Interstate compact: PA, NJ, NY, DE 

Contact Information 

Robert L. Limbeck, Watershed Scientist 

Edward Santoro, Monitoring Coordinator 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) 

P.O. Box 7360 # West Trenton, NJ 08628 

Phone 609/883-9500 # Fax 609/883-9522 

email: rlimbeck@drbc.state.nj.us 

website: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/ 

Program Description 

The objectives of the Commission’s biological monitoring program are presently focused upon the 200-mile long non-tidal 

Delaware River corridor: 

1. Protection of high quality aquatic life uses in Water Quality Zones 1A through 1E of the Delaware River, from Hancock, 

New York to Trenton, New Jersey 

2. Development of anti-degradation biological criteria based upon existing water quality 

3. Definition of longitudinal changes in benthic community structure along the Delaware River corridor, to support 

decisions to maintain or improve water quality where necessary 

DRBC and the National Park Service (NPS) have operated the Scenic Rivers Monitoring Program since the early 1980s. The 

Commission has never used biological criteria for 305(b) assessments or determinations of impairment, other than reports 

arising from fish-tissue toxics analysis and inference of aquatic life use attainment based upon water chemistry. 

Macroinvertebrate biocriteria were developed for DRBC’s Special Protection Waters rules issued in 1990, but the criteria were 

later found to be based upon inconsistent and non-representative methods, and have not been used as envisioned during 

development of the Commission’s anti-degradation policies. 

With the launch of DRBC’s Lower Delaware Monitoring Program in 1999, declaration of most of the non-tidal Delaware River as 

Wild and Scenic in 2000, and major efforts to update DRBC’s comprehensive plan and water quality standards (applicable to 

most of the Delaware River), interest in DRBC’s biomonitoring program was renewed. Meetings with state and local partners 

resulted in the decision that the Commission would bear the primary responsibility for biological monitoring of the Delaware 

River, while each state would regulate and monitor tributaries. With technical support and advice from NJDEP, PADEP, USGS, 

USEPA Region 3, NPS, and the Academy of Natural Sciences, DRBC set out to define goals, objectives, and methods for 

improving its biological assessment program for the river. 

DRBC investigated large-river bioassessment methods and decided to wait for issuance of EPA’s large-rivers guidance before 

launching large-scale monitoring in difficult habitats such as pools, rapids, and upper-estuarine reaches. In 2001, DRBC initiated 

an annual benthic survey in 2001 of wadeable riffle, run, and island margin habitats, to develop a benthic index of biological 

integrity for the non-tidal river. The annual August/September low-flow survey is narrowly defined to eliminate spatial and 

temporal variability, enabling site-to-site, reach-to-reach, and year-to-year comparison of results. By 2005, DRBC hopes to have 

enough data to create a low-flow benthic IBI (B-IBI) for wadeable portions of the Delaware River, and to apply the B-IBI to future 

305(b) assessments and protection of existing water quality. 

The Commission would like to monitor other assemblages in order to gain a more complete picture of the ecological integrity of 

the Delaware River, and to measure progress toward objectives defined by the Commission’s comprehensive plan. DRBC is 

investigating methods to assess submerged aquatic vegetation, periphyton, fish, mussels, plankton, invasive exotic species, and 

ecological characterization of over 50 unique microhabitats observed in the river. These investigations have been scheduled on 

a rotating basis as special studies, though they are not used in use support and/or impairment determinations. 

Within the next year, DRBC and the NPS will begin planning for tributary Boundary Control Point biomonitoring. DRBC will 

establish locations and methods to define existing water quality and create biological targets at each location for antidegradation 

purposes. With the river survey in progress, this is an appropriate next step in improving biomonitoring coverage and 

implementing antidegradation policies. DRBC is also moving away from doing taxonomy in-house due to a lack of both time and 

work space. The identification work from the annual river survey will likely be contracted out sometime in the near future. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Delaware River & Bay Water Quality Assessment, 2000 305(b) report: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/2K305b_text.PDF 

DRBC Annual Report 2000: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/ar2000.htm 

DRBC Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001 Update: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/QAplanLDEL01.PDF 

DRBC Publications homepage: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/public.htm 

2001 Biomonitoring Work Plan (contains numerous citations, including three reports on DRBC’s 3-year bioassessment study,

issued by the Academy of Natural Sciences, Patrick Environmental Research Center with recommendations on how best to

proceed with update of biocriteria and implementation of antidegradation as mandated in DRBC’s Water Quality Standards) 

DRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-231 
DRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-232 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)

Interstate compact: PA, NJ, NY, DE 

Contact Information 

Robert L. Limbeck, Watershed Scientist 

Edward Santoro, Monitoring Coordinator 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) 

PO Box 7360 # West Trenton, NJ 08628 

Phone 609/883-9500 # Fax 609/883-9522 

email: rlimbeck@drbc.state.nj.us 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

T promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

T support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

T fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles* 

(total miles of mainstem segment only, not including tributaries; determined using 

RF3 - Interstate river corridor is well-defined by river reaches, not watershed 

based) 

200 

Total perennial miles unknown 

Total miles assessed for biology 200 

fully supporting for 305(b)** n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)** n/a 

listed for 303(d)** n/a 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 23 

number of miles assessed per site*** ~8.7 

*DRBC is an Interstate Compact encompassing river miles in four states: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Delaware, and 

has not determined the number of total stream miles in the Basin. The Delaware River Basin watershed encompasses 13,539 

square miles. Bioassessment and biocriteria activities are concentrated on a 200-mile non-tidal segment of the Delaware River and 

tributary boundary control points. 

**Biocriteria are not currently used for the 305(b) report. Biocriteria were developed years ago, but the extent of their application is 

unknown. 

***The number of miles assessed per site (~8.7) is very rough. DRBC’s goal is to sample approximately 10 additional sites, thus 

reducing this number. 
DRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-233 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making* 

*Application of the existing system has been unsuccessful thus far due to the low priority given to biomonitoring. Program redesign 

recommendations were recently made to improve effectiveness and applicability of the criteria. Criteria for the entire non-tidal river 

are currently being updated, and a best-habitat based benthic IBI that might eventually be applied to future 305(b) assessments and

the protection of existing water quality is under development. Additional data will be required, as well as a clear definition of how the

criteria will be applied to the 305(b) process. Separate criteria will be required for the river, the tributaries, and for different levels of 

application and interpretation. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 23 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

T other: aggregate sites in each river reach were used to define existing water quality for

antidegradation purposes.** 

Reference site criteria In known high-quality waters numeric definition of Existing Water Quality provides a reference

for comparison. Measurable Change determines departure from the reference condition. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

T historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

UD - tributaries are assessed 

according to methods used by

states to facilitate 

comparability and data sharing 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU (not well linked) 

T reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards (found in water quality

standards) 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions (exceptional water

quality was defined under 1980's New York City reservoir operations & dischargers) 

**The program's purpose is to protect the high quality of the river; therefore all sites sampled could be theoretically considered

reference sites (the same sites are continually sampled each year and findings are compared to the original samples’ data to

determine if the quality has changed). 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use and Fishery Based Uses 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Two designations: The fishery-based designation is general, narrative, and defined by river 

zone. The single aquatic life use designation is macroinvertebrate criteria within DRBC's

Special Protection Waters areas, and is defined for antidegradation purposes. 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS See definition of Existing Water Quality in Special Protection Waters (found in the 2001

workplan) for procedures used to support narrative biocriteria.* 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS See DRBC’s Administraive Manual – Part III, Water Quality Regulations, Section 3.10.3 

Stream Quality Objectives, Section A. Antidegradation of Waters, Table 1.* 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

DRBC/NPS attempted to use existing criteria to define perceived problem areas. The existing

criteria, as defined, could not distinguish anthropogenic versus natural measurable change. 

Program redesign is necessary. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites) 

T fish* (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites) 

periphyton 

T other: macrophytes (<100 samples/year; single season, multiple sites) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Surber, Hess, D-frame (500 - 600 micron mesh), BFN = Big-River Frame Net

(custom rectangular net, bottom frame area .37 square meters, for Delaware River

to 3ft deep, 4 fps, 500 micron mesh) 

richest habitat, riffle/run (cobble), multihabitat 

tributaries - entire sample; river - 200 count 

tributaries - family; river - genus 

visual based, hydrogeomorphology, pebble counts, Pfankuch Flow

characterization, Simon Channel Evolution Status; mostly performed with

bioassessments, some performed independent of bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

*Some fish tissue data are collected as part of DRBC’s monitoring program, but the work is contracted out to NJDEP and the

Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. DRBC also makes use of PADEP, PA Fish and Boat Commission, and USGS 

NAWQA study data in water quality assessments. 

The Delaware Estuary Program recently assembled an interstate committee to standardize fish advisories in interstate waters. 

DRBC has had trouble in the past with making use attainment calls based upon state fish advisories. Each state sampled different 

areas, species, and used different criteria. Conflicts among the different states’ data arose when DRBC tried to pull everything

together for the Delaware River assessment. DRBC’s focus upon interstate coordination and cooperation to improve the process 

has subsequently increased. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (return single metrics - use endpoint for each 

single metric) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

95th transforming metrics percentile of all sites

 into unitless scores 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics** T

T

T

T

Biological data 

STORET, SAS, MS Access and Excel 

SAS 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

**See reports issued by the Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS) for an evaluation. ANS identified problems with performance 

characteristics depending on the level of data interpretation. A redesign of the program is necessary, including refinement of the 

biocriteria, and field and laboratory practices. 

DRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-234 
Interstate Commission on the

 Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)

Interstate compact: VA, WV, MD, PA, DC 

Contact Information 

James D. Cummins, Associate Director for the Living Resources Section 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) 

6110 Executive Boulevard, Suite 300 # Rockville, MD 20852 

Phone 301/984-1908 # Fax 301/984-5841 

email: jcummins@potomac-commission.org 

website: http://www.potomacriver.org/ 

Program Description 

ICPRB has no water/land ownership, management or regulatory authority, and therefore has set no water quality 

standards. However, since the Commission's creation in 1940, ICPRB often assists the basin states (Virginia, 

Maryland, West Virginia and Pennsylvania), the District of Columbia, and the federal government on such 

formulations. As part of this assistance, ICPRB conducts stream bioassessments, both fish and benthic, consults 

with the jurisdictions regarding current and proposed biocriteria and water quality standards, and works with the 

jurisdictions’ data to better understand and characterize the environmental conditions of the Potomac River 

watershed and associated land usages. 

ICPRB is currently working to integrate data from many sources (Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 

the District of Columbia, various federal and local governments, and nongovernmental sources) into a single 

reference watershed analysis. In addition to benthic and fish monitoring in streams and wadeable rivers, ICPRB is 

doing shad and herring restoration work in non-wadeable rivers. The stream data collected downstream of 

reservoirs, influences reservoir management decisions. The Commission also analyzes estuary data collected by 

other entities and works on Chesapeake Bay water quality issues. 

Documentation and Further Information 

Potomac Basin Water Quality Assessment home (with links to District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia and West Virginia 305(b) and 303(d) information): http://www.potomacriver.org/wqassess.htm 

Map of 303(d)-Listed Waters in the Potomac Basin: http://www.potomacriver.org/wq303d.htm 

Virginia DEQ Water Quality Assessment Guidance Manual for 2002, 305(b) Water Quality Report and 303(d) 

Impaired Waters List, amended July 2002: http://www.deq.state.va.us/pdf/water/wqassessguide.pdf 

2000 Maryland Section 305(b) Water Quality Report, with Appendix E, Assessment Methodology, August 2000: 

http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/download/bays/MD2000_305b.pdf 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2000 Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/305_wq2000_narr.htm 

For a link to West Virginia Water Quality Status Assessment 2000 305(b) Report for the period 1997-1999, go to: 

http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11&ss1id=192 

For a list of ICPRB publications and ordering information, go to: http://www.potomacriver.org/publications.htm 

ICPRB: Program Summary December 2002 3-235 
ICPRB: Program Summary December 2002 3-236 

Interstate Commission on the

 Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)

Interstate compact: VA, WV, MD, PA, DC 

Contact Information 

James D. Cummins, Associate Director for the Living Resources Section 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) 

6110 Executive Boulevard, Suite 300 # Rockville, MD 20852 

Phone 301/984-1908 # Fax 301/984-5841 

email: jcummins@potomac-commission.org 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T problem identification (screening) 

T nonpoint source assessments 

T monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

T ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

T TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects and specific river basins or watersheds) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

T rotating basin (special projects and specific river basins or 

watersheds) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles* 

(total miles of Potomac River mainstem, not including tributaries) 

383 

Total perennial miles – 

Total miles assessed for biology** n/a 

fully supporting for 305(b) n/a 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) n/a 

listed for 303(d) n/a 

number of sites sampled* ~1,300 

number of miles assessed per site – 

*The Potomac River drainage area includes 14,670 square miles in the following jurisdictions: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, 

Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. 

**ICPRB is not a regulatory authority, but assists the states in the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB doesn’t develop own criteria, etc.). 

The Commission looks at the basin as a whole, across state lines, and thus has no way of producing an accurate estimate of miles 

assessed. Although ICPRB works with the data from roughly 1,300 sampling stations, sampling is only conducted at several 

hundred of those stations – these include the samples collected and provided to Pennsylvania’s Potomac Watershed Program. The 

rest of the stations are sampled by various state agencies who supply ICPRB with data to analyze and use for management 

decisions. 
ICPRB: Program Summary December 2002 3-237 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making* 

*ICPRB does not define aquatic life uses, but uses those designated by member jurisdictions: Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia,

Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. 

Reference Site/Condition Development** 

Number of reference sites under development 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Under development. Each member jurisdiction has its own reference 

site criteria. ICPRB is working to establish regional reference sites

using the "common elements" of the various jurisdictions’ habitat

evaluations and water quality information. The criteria will be based 

on water quality data and habitat parameters, and possibly

macroinvertebrate data as well. The reference sites will be the least 

disturbed sites based on these parameters. 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

T gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

T jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information n/a reference sites linked to ALU 

n/a reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

**Reference sites are presently defined by statistical category (example: 95th percentile), but ICPRB would prefer to establish 

hypothetical reference conditions. 

ALU designation basis n/a 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

n/a 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS n/a 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS n/a 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

n/a cause and effect determinations 

n/a permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Not applicable for ICPRB, but member jurisdictions in the Potomac

basin use data in various ways. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad

coverage for watershed level) 

T fish (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad coverage

for watershed level) 

periphyton 

T other: phytoplankton and zooplankton (<100 samples/year; multiple seasons,

multiple sites – broad coverage for watershed level) 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

kick net (1 meter); 200-400 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

entire sample 

family 

backpack electrofisher, seine; 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement and anomalies 

selected species, batch 

species 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

ICPRB follows QA protocols according to each state’s requirements. Elements 

include periodic meetings and training for biologists, taxonomic proficiency checks,

and a certification program for bioassessment. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation* 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

Current emphasis is on the 95th percentile of all sites (reference and stressed) and

a quadrisection of the range. Presently testing various published methods of

establishing scoring thresholds in each jurisdiction. 

Consistent thresholds are currently being assembled from impairment criteria

applied by member states. 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

Raw data and documentation are obtained from state and federal agencies in

varying formats (hardcopy, disc, downloadable ftp files). Data are stored and 

analyzed using a custom-developed MS Access database similar to EDAS. 

Various statistical software applications are being evaluated; i.e. S-PLUS, Total

Access Statistics, et al. 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

*The objective of the Basinwide Assessments program is to integrate and analyze monitoring data from member states' nontidal 

rivers and streams. While states' data cannot be compared directly, most apply a similar data analysis approach. ICPRB is 

adapting this analysis framework by selecting and normalizing consistent criteria from the various approaches to define reference

and stressed conditions. Invertebrate communities at these sites will be measured and compared. Candidate metrics are also 

being screened for assessment accuracy and redundancy to select core metrics. 

ICPRB: Program Summary December 2002 3-238 
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation

Commission (ORSANCO)

Interstate compact: NY, VA, PA, WV, OH, KY, IN, IL 

Contact Information 

Erich Emery, Senior Biologist 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) 

5735 Kellogg Avenue # Cincinnati, OH 45228 

Phone 513/231-7719 # Fax 513/231-7761 

email: emery@orsanco.org 

website: http://www.orsanco.org/ 

Program Description 

The strategic objective of ORSANCO’s Biological Program is to conduct biological monitoring of the Ohio River in 

order to determine the extent to which the objective of Article 1 of the Compact “..that the Ohio River be capable of 

maintaining fish and other aquatic life” is met. Tasks conducted in support of this strategic objective include: 1) 

Developing techniques for biological monitoring of large rivers in general, and the Ohio River in particular, and 2) 

Utilizing biological monitoring, assessment, and criteria to characterize the condition of the river. ORSANCO is 

currently developing numeric biological criteria and plans to integrate biological methods into overall monitoring 

and assessment efforts. 

ORSANCO has been collecting biological data from the Ohio River since 1957 with the initiation of a lockchamber 

rotenone sampling program, which continues to this day. This method has provided the Commission with a 45-year 

look at fish community changes within the Ohio River. 

ORSANCO is collecting biological data from the Ohio River on behalf of the eight states of the Commission (NY, 

VA, PA, WV, OH, KY, IN, and IL). These states rely on the Commission to develop appropriate methods, conduct 

sampling, develop assessment indices and eventually incorporate biological information into all assessment 

strategies. The states are also relying on ORSANCO to assist them in conducting similar programs on the large 

Ohio River tributaries within each state. 

The Commission uses biological data in a report to each of the states which the states then use for their 305(b) 

report and 303(d) listings. The Commission is currently in the process of developing numeric biological criteria. 

Discussions are underway to determine whether the Commission should proceed with referencing biological 

criteria in Pollution Control Standards for the Ohio River, or incorporating said criteria as ‘hard numbers’ or codified 

criteria. ORSANCO will proceed at the recommendation of the states. 

ORSANCO is also expanding its programs, including biological efforts, into the tributaries and reaches of the 

basin. In the very near future, ORSANCO will be working with the states to conduct biological sampling on larger, 

navigable, tributaries to test methods, develop indices, and eventually expand the coverage of biocriteria. The 

tributary work will be important in determining how to transition from great rivers to large rivers, in terms of 

monitoring and assessment, and will enable researchers to make that transition seamlessly. 

Documentation and Further Information 

ORSANCO 1998 305(b) Fact Sheet for the Ohio River 

ORSANCO Water Quality Protection, Biological Program homepage: http://www.orsanco.org/watqual/aquatic/biological.htm 

2000 Kentucky Report to Congress on Water Quality, 305(b) report, November 2000: 

http://water.nr.state.ky.us/wq/305b/2000/2000_305b.htm 

1998 Kentucky Report to Congress on Water Quality, 305(b) report, January 1999 (sites sampled by ORSANCO found in Table 

2): http://water.nr.state.ky.us/305b/ 

For a list of publications (including QA/QC documents, monitoring and assessment strategies, data summaries, etc.), go to: 

http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/pubs/pubs.htm 

ORSANCO: Program Summary December 2002 3-239 
Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program* 

T

UD 

UD 

T

T

UD 

UD 

UD 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

UD 

UD 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation

Commission (ORSANCO)

Interstate compact: NY, VA, PA, WV, OH, KY, IN, IL 

Contact Information 

Erich Emery, Senior Biologist 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) 

5735 Kellogg Avenue # Cincinnati, OH 45228 

Phone 513/231-7719 # Fax 513/231-7761 

email: emery@orsanco.org 

Programmatic Elements 

problem identification (screening)

nonpoint source assessments

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria

support of antidegradation

evaluation of discharge permit conditions

TMDL assessment and monitoring

other:

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special

projects only)

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (special

projects only)

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(total miles of mainstem only, not including tributaries) 

Total perennial miles 

Total miles assessed for biology* 

fully supporting for 305(b)* 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)* 

listed for 303(d)* 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 

number of miles assessed per site 

981 

– 

981 

974 

7 

55 

>1,000 

0.5 

*The Ohio River flows through or borders six states: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. It 

encompasses 203,940 square miles, but ORSANCO only conducts biological monitoring on the mainstem of the Ohio River, which 

is 981 miles long. ORSANCO produces a 305(b) report exclusively for the Ohio River, and this document is referenced by different 

states for use in their own 305(b) reports. Fifty-five Ohio River miles are listed on Kentucky’s 303(d) list, but this number is based on 

a past report and the Kentucky Division of Water feels that there is not enough biological data to delist those miles quite yet. 

ORSANCO: Program Summary December 2002 3-240 
ORSANCO: Program Summary December 2002 3-241 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making* 

*ORSANCO’s water quality standards are the adopted standards that serve as recommendations to states for incorporation into their

own standards. ORSANCO is entering review this year (starting with a fish biocriteria proposal); ALU designations and numeric 

biocriteria are expected to be completed sometime before 2004. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 400 total 

Reference site 

determinations 

T site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Least impacted sites are sites out of the immediate influence of

human impact. Specifically, one kilometer below discharges or major

tributaries as well as free from other obvious disturbance. Least 

impacted sites are used as a surrogate for reference sites. 

Characterization of reference 

sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate)** 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information T reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

**Plans are underway to develop a tiered aquatic life use approach with expectations based on river reach (ecoregion surrogate)

and habitat type. 

ALU designation basis Single Aquatic Life Use 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

One designation: Warmwater Aquatic Life – other categories are

under development 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS* Formal/informal numeric procedures used to support narrative

biocriteria are under development. 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS* under development (to be included or referenced by standards) 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

T assessment of aquatic resources 

T cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

T monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

T watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

This is currently unknown because numeric biocriteria are just being

proposed for the water quality standards. 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad

coverage for watershed level) 

T fish (100-500 samples/year; multiple seasons, multiple sites – broad coverage

for watershed level) 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

multiplate; standard #30 sieve 

multihabitat 

entire sample 

lowest possible level 

boat electrofisher; 1/4" mesh 

multihabitat 

length measurement, biomass - individual, anomalies 

none 

species and subspecies 

ORSANCO has developed a habitat assessment approach and habitat index for

the Ohio River. The index is based on substrate composition (broad categories),

depth and cover estimates; these are performed with bioassessments. 

standard operating procedures, periodic meetings and training for biologists,

sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival. There are plans to

develop a certification program for bioassessment. 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods T

T

T

T

Multimetric thresholds

25th percentile of reference population 

25th percentile of reference population 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance T repeat sampling (look at site variability) 

precision 

sensitivity (look at metrics and index performance) 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

T

Biological data 

MS Access 

Statistica 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

ORSANCO: Program Summary December 2002 3-242 
Susquehanna River Basin

Commission (SRBC)

Interstate compact: NY, PA, MD 

Contact Information 

Jennifer L. R. Hoffman, Aquatic Ecologist 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) 

1721 North Front Street # Harrisburg, PA 17102 

Phone 717/238-0426 # Fax 717/238-2436 

email: jhoffman@srbc.net 

website: http://www.srbc.net/ 

Program Description 

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) is the governing agency established to protect and wisely manage the water 

resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. The Susquehanna River starts in Cooperstown, NY and flows 444 miles to Havre de 

Grace, MD, where the river meets the Chesapeake Bay. The watershed encompasses parts of New York, Pennsylvania, and 

Maryland. Currently, SRBC implements several programs assessing the biological condition of streams and rivers, including the 

Subbasin Survey and Interstate Water Quality Monitoring Network (ISWQN) Programs. 

Six subbasins exist in the Susquehanna River Basin: the Chemung, Upper Susquehanna, Middle Susquehanna, West Branch 

Susquehanna, Juniata, and Lower Susquehanna. SRBC samples each subbasin on a rotating schedule, assessing each 

approximately every ten years. The assessment evaluates the chemical, biological, and habitat conditions of streams, identifies 

major sources of pollution, documents changes in stream quality over time, and identifies areas for more intensive study. This 

program was initiated in 1982 and was refined in 1998 to include a more intensive second year of sampling to address specific 

local concerns, such as restoration and protection. Year 1 includes collection of macroinvertebrate samples and physical habitat 

information using Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) III, water quality collection, and flow measurement in a single-sampling 

event during baseflow conditions. Year 2 of the program can include a variety of projects, such as more intensive bimonthly 

water quality sampling to provide information to watershed groups for protection and restoration efforts. All data collected during 

SRBC's subbasin surveys are used in reporting to the USEPA under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. 

The ISWQN program, initiated in 1986, includes periodic collection of water quality and biological samples, as well as physical 

habitat assessments of interstate streams. Water quality data are collected quarterly and are used to assess compliance with 

water quality standards, characterize stream quality and seasonal variations, build a database for assessing water quality trends, 

and identify areas for restoration and protection. SRBC staff collect macroinvertebrate and physical habitat information annually 

from 51 sites on interstate streams along the New York-Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania-Maryland borders using RBP III 

methods. Water samples and flow information are collected at 19 sites quarterly and 30 sites yearly. Water quality data also are 

used to determine the existence and magnitude of trends for selected parameters. All data collected during SRBC's interstate 

streams surveys are used in 305(b) reporting to USEPA. 

Currently, SRBC is initiating a pilot project to determine proper methods of assessing the biological conditions, using benthic 

macroinvertebrate populations, of the large rivers in the Susquehanna River Basin. The pilot project will take place on the 

Susquehanna River between Windsor, NY and Sayre, PA, during late summer 2002. Three separate methodologies will be 

tested: RBP III, artificial substrate samplers, and a diver operated dome (suction) sampler. A habitat assessment will be 

performed and water quality samples will also be taken at each site. Data will be used to select and calculate metrics for a 

benthic Index of Biotic Integrity to assess the biological conditions of the large rivers in the Susquehanna River Basin and will be 

included in 305(b) reporting. 

Documentation and Further Information 

2000 Susquehanna River Basin Commission 305(b) Narrative 

The 1998 Susquehanna River Basin Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report: http://www.srbc.net/docs/305bReport_201.pdf 

Report Announcement - 2002 Susquehanna River Basin Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report, Publication No. 220: 

http://www.srbc.net/docs/summary_may02.PDF 

Report Announcement - Water Quality of Interstate Streams in the Susquehanna River Basin, Publication No. 211: 

http://www.srbc.net/pub211summary.pdf 

Assessment of Interstate Streams in the Susquehanna River Basin: 1997-1998, Monitoring Report #12, June 1999: 

http://www.srbc.net/docs/iswq97-98.pdf 

Upper Susquehanna Subbasin: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment, 1999: http://www.srbc.net/docs/pub203.pdf 

SRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-243 
Susquehanna River Basin

Commission (SRBC)

Interstate compact: NY, PA, MD 

Contact Information 

Jennifer L. R. Hoffman, Aquatic Ecologist 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) 

1721 North Front Street # Harrisburg, PA 17102 

Phone 717/238-0426 # Fax 717/238-2436 

email: jhoffman@srbc.net 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

T

T

T

T

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

T

T

T

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) (special 

projects only) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) (specific 

river basins or watersheds) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin (comprehensive use throughout jurisdiction) 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles* 

Total perennial miles 

Total miles assessed for biology 

fully supporting for 305(b)** 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)** 

listed for 303(d) 

number of sites sampled (on an annual basis) 

number of miles assessed per site 

31,193 

– 

3,520 

2,525 

995 

n/a 

317 

11 

*Stream mile estimate is based on the 1993 EPA document, Total Waters 

Estimates for United States Streams and Lakes: Total Waters Database and Reporting Program. Monitoring Branch Assessment 

and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

**305(b) reporting is for SRBC benefit, USEPA requirements (contracts), and to provide more samples for states to use in their 

official 305(b) and 303(d) listings. 

SRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-244 
SRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-245 

Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making* 

*This section is not applicable to SRBC’s biological monitoring program. SRBC does not define aquatic life uses, but utilizes those

designated by member jurisdictions: Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites total number varies according to project 

Reference site 

determinations 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

T regional (aggregate of sites) 

T professional judgment 

other: 

Reference site criteria Habitat disturbance, best available conditions of the biological and

chemical components 

Characterization of 

reference sites within a 

regional context 

historical conditions 

T least disturbed sites 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within 

regional reference

conditions 

T ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other: 

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

T some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced

conditions 

ALU designation basis 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS 

Uses of bioassessment data 

in integrated assessments

with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and

chemical specific criteria) 

assessment of aquatic resources 

cause and effect determinations 

permitted discharges 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 
Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed T benthos (100-500 samples/year; single season, multiple sites - broad

coverage) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

D-frame, kick net (1 meter); 500-600 micron mesh 

riffle/run (cobble) 

100 count 

genus 

visual based; performed with bioassessments 

standard operating procedures, quality assurance plan, periodic meetings and

training for biologists, sorting and taxonomic proficiency checks, specimen archival 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and T summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics (aggregate metrics into an index) 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

methods 

T

Multimetric thresholds

varies according to metric used: RBP 1989 methods. Always try to

use 6 metrics for each project, but the metrics chosen vary

depending on the project 

varies according to metric used: >81% non impaired, though this

could vary slightly depending on the project 

transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Evaluation of performance repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

characteristics 

Not currently evaluated 

Biological data 

Excel spreadsheets for internal projects; SRBC is currently working

on entering data into STORET. 

Excel spreadsheets for internal projects; working on finding a good

statistical package that fits needs 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 

SRBC: Program Summary December 2002 3-246 
4. RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

AND BIOCRITERIA LANGUAGE 

This section of the report contains excerpts from the approved water quality standards of states, tribes, 

territories, and interstate commissions. These excerpts may contain any or all of the following: designated 

uses as related to aquatic life uses, narrative and/or numeric biocriteria, and any other specific sections 

that are relevant to the entity's protection and propagation of aquatic life. It is important to note that this 

chapter is not intended to be a compendium of the entire water quality standard for each state, tribe and 

territory, but rather to highlight specific language within the standard that describes the use of biology and 

biological assessments to develop relevant criteria that assess water quality and protect aquatic life. 

STATES 

Alabama 

SOURCE: Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water Division - Water Quality Program, 

Chapter 335, Division 6, Volume 1, Chapter 10, Water Quality Criteria: September 7, 2000. 

http://www.adem.state.al.us/Regulations/Regulations/regulations.htm 

335-6-10-.03 Water Use Classifications. 

1. Outstanding Alabama Water 

3. Swimming and Other Whole Body Water-Contact Sports 

5. Fish and Wildlife 

6. Limited Warmwater Fishery 

7. Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply 

335-6-10-.04 Antidegradation Policy. 

(1) The purpose and intent of the water quality standards is to conserve the waters of the State of 

Alabama and to protect, maintain and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the 

propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational 

and other legitimate beneficial uses; and to provide for the prevention, abatement and control of 

new or existing water pollution. 

(4) Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of national 

and state parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological 

significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected. 

(5) Developments constituting a new or increased source of thermal pollution shall assure that such 

release will not impair the propagation of a balanced indigenous population of fish and aquatic life. 

335-6-10-.06 Minimum Conditions Applicable to All State Waters. The following minimum conditions 

are applicable to all State waters, at all places and at all times, regardless of their uses: 

(c) State waters shall be free from substances attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other 

wastes in concentrations or combinations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or 

aquatic life to the extent commensurate with the designated usage of such waters. 

335-6-10-.09 Specific Water Quality Criteria. 

(1) OUTSTANDING ALABAMA WATER 

(a) Best usage of waters: activities consistent with the natural characteristics of the waters. 

(b) Conditions related to best usage: 

1. High quality waters that constitute an outstanding Alabama resource, such as waters of 

state parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological 

significance, may be considered for classification as an Outstanding Alabama Water 

(OAW). 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-1 
(3) SWIMMING AND OTHER WHOLE BODY WATER-CONTACT SPORTS 

(b) Conditions related to best usage: ... The quality of waters will also be suitable for the 

propagation of fish, wildlife and aquatic life. The quality of salt waters and estuarine waters to 

which this classification is assigned will be suitable for the propagation and harvesting of 

shrimp and crabs. 

(5) FISH AND WILDLIFE 

(a) Best usage of waters: fishing, propagation of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife... 

(b) Conditions related to best usage: the waters will be suitable for fish, aquatic life and wildlife 

propagation. The quality of salt and estuarine waters to which this classification is assigned 

will also be suitable for the propagation of shrimp and crabs. 

(e) Specific criteria: 

3. Temperature: 

(ii) The maximum temperature in streams, lakes, and reservoirs in the Tennessee and 

Cahaba River Basins, and for that portion of the Tallapoosa River Basin from the tailrace of 

Thurlow Dam at Tallassee downstream to the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers 

which has been designated by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources as supporting smallmouth bass, sauger, or walleye, shall not exceed 86° F. 

(vi) In all waters the normal daily and seasonal temperature variations that were present 

before the addition of artificial heat shall be maintained, and there shall be no thermal block 

to the migration of aquatic organisms. 

(vii) Thermal permit limitations in NPDES permits may be less stringent than those required 

by subparagraphs (i)-(iv) hereof when a showing by the discharger has been made pursuant 

to Section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. 

or pursuant to a study of an equal or more stringent nature required by the State of Alabama 

authorized by Title 22, Section 22-22-9(c), Code of Alabama, 1975, that such limitations will 

assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish 

and wildlife, in and on the body of water to which the discharge is made. Any such 

demonstration shall take into account the interaction of the thermal discharge component with 

other pollutants discharged. 

4. Dissolved oxygen: 

(i) For a diversified warm water biota, including game fish, daily dissolved oxygen 

concentrations shall not be less than 5 mg/l at all times; except under extreme conditions due 

to natural causes, it may range between 5 mg/l and 4 mg/l, provided that the water quality is 

favorable in all other parameters. The normal seasonal and daily fluctuations shall be 

maintained above these levels. In no event shall the dissolved oxygen level be less than 4 

mg/l due to discharges from existing hydroelectric generation impoundments. All new 

hydroelectric generation impoundments, including addition of new hydroelectric generation 

units to existing impoundments, shall be designed so that the discharge will contain at least 

5 mg/l dissolved oxygen where practicable and technologically possible. The Environmental 

Protection Agency, in cooperation with the State of Alabama and parties responsible for 

impoundments, shall develop a program to improve the design of existing facilities. 

(iv) In the application of dissolved oxygen criteria referred to above, dissolved oxygen shall 

be measured at a depth of 5 feet in waters 10 feet or greater in depth; and for those waters 

less than 10 feet in depth, dissolved oxygen criteria will be applied at mid-depth. 

5. Toxic substances attributable to sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: only such 

amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances, as will not exhibit acute toxicity 

or chronic toxicity, as demonstrated by effluent toxicity testing or by application of numeric criteria 

given in Rule 335-6-10-.07, to fish and aquatic life, including shrimp and crabs in estuarine or salt 

waters or the propagation thereof. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-2 
6. Taste, odor, and color-producing substances attributable to sewage, industrial wastes, or 

other wastes: only such amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances, as will 

not exhibit acute toxicity or chronic toxicity, as demonstrated by effluent toxicity testing or by 

application of numeric criteria given in Rule 335-6-10-.07, to fish and aquatic life, including shrimp 

and crabs in estuarine and salt waters or adversely affect the propagation thereof; impair the 

palatability or marketability of fish and wildlife or shrimp and crabs in estuarine and salt waters; 

or unreasonably affect the aesthetic value of waters for any use under this classification. 

(6) LIMITED WARMWATER FISHERY 

(a) The (a) The provisions of the Fish and Wildlife water use classification at Rule 335-6-10-.09(5) 

shall apply to the Limited Warmwater Fishery water use classification, except as noted below. 

Unless alternative criteria for a given parameter are provided in paragraph (e) below, the 

applicable Fish and Wildlife criteria at paragraph 10-.09(5)(e) shall apply year-round. At the time 

the Department proposes to assign the Limited Warmwater Fishery classification to a specific 

waterbody, the Department may apply criteria from other classifications within this chapter if 

necessary to protect a documented, legitimate existing use. 

(7) AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY 

(b) Conditions related to best usage: 

(i) The waters, except for natural impurities which may be present therein, will be suitable for ... 

fish survival... 

335-6-10-.10 Special Designations. 

(1) OUTSTANDING NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER 

(a) Designation: 

1. High quality waters that constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of 

national and state parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or 

ecological significance, may be considered for designation as an Outstanding National 

Resource Water (ONRW). For waters designated as ONRW, existing water quality shall be 

maintained and protected. 

Alaska 

SOURCE: Alaska Administrative Code: Chapter 70, Title 18, amended as of May 27, 1999: 

http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/title18/70wqs.pdf 

18 AAC 70.020. PROTECTED WATER USE CLASSES AND SUBCLASSES; WATER QUALITY 

CRITERIA; WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TABLE. 

(a) Classes and subclasses of use of the state’s water protected by criteria set out under (b) of this 

section are: 

(1) fresh water 

(A) aquaculture 

(C) growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife; and 

(2) marine water 

(C) growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife; and 

(D) harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life. 

Arizona 

SOURCE: Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Environmental Quality, Chapter 11. Department of 

Environmental Quality, Article 1. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, amended effective March 8, 

2002: http://www.sosaz.com/public_services/Title_18/18-11.htm 

R18-11-101. Definitions 

The terms of this Article shall have the following meanings: 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-3 
7. “Aquatic and wildlife ( cold water )” means the use of a surface water by animals, plants, or other coldwater organisms, generally occurring at elevations greater than 5000 feet, for habitation, growth, or 

propagation. 

8. "Aquatic and wildlife (effluent dependent water)" means the use of an effluent dependent water by 

animals, plants, or other organisms for habitation, growth, or propagation. 

9. "Aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral)" means the use of an ephemeral water by animals, plants, or other 

organisms, excluding fish, for habitation, growth, or propagation. 

10. “Aquatic and wildlife ( warm water )” means the use of a surface water by animals, plants, or other 

warm-water organisms, generally occurring at elevations less than 5000 feet, for habitation, growth, 

or propagation. 

22. “Ephemeral water” means a surface water that has a channel that is at all times above the water table 

and that flows only in direct response to precipitation. 

26. "Fish consumption" means the use of a surface water by humans for harvesting aquatic organisms 

for consumption. Harvestable aquatic organisms include, but are not limited to, fish, clams, turtles, 

crayfish, and frogs. 

44. "Unique water" means a surface water which has been classified as an outstanding state resource 

water by the Director under R18-11-112. 

R18-11-108. Narrative Water Quality Standards

A. A surface water shall be free from pollutants in amounts or combinations that: 

1. Settle to form bottom deposits that inhibit or prohibit the habitation, growth, or propagation of 

aquatic life or that impair recreational uses; 

5. Are toxic to humans, animals, plants, or other organisms; 

6. Cause the growth of algae or aquatic plants that inhibit or prohibit the habitation, growth, or 

propagation of other aquatic life or that impair recreational uses; 

R18-11-112. Unique Waters

D. The Director may classify a surface water as a unique water upon finding that the surface water is an 

outstanding state resource water based upon the following criteria: 

a. The surface water is a perennial water; 

b. The surface water is in a free-flowing condition. For purposes of this subsection, “in a freeflowing condition” means that a surface water does not have an impoundment, diversion, 

channelization, rip-rapping or other bank armor, or another hydrological modification within 

the reach nominated for unique water classification; 

c. The surface water has good water quality. For purposes of this subsection, “good water 

quality” means that the surface water has water quality that meets or exceeds applicable 

surface water quality standards. A surface water that is listed as impaired under § 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act [ 33 U.S.C. § 1313 ] is ineligible for unique waters classification; and 

d. The surface water meets one or both of the following conditions: 

e. The surface water is of exceptional recreational or ecological significance because of its 

unique attributes, including but not limited to, attributes related to the geology, flora, 

fauna, water quality, aesthetic values, or the wilderness characteristics of the surface 

water. 

f. Threatened or endangered species are known to be associated with the surface water 

and the existing water quality is essential to the maintenance and propagation of a 

threatened or endangered species or the surface water provides critical habitat for a 

threatened or endangered species. Endangered or threatened species are identified in 

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,” 50 CFR § 17.11 and § 17.12 ( revised 

as of October 1, 2000) which is incorporated by reference and on file with the 

Department and the Office of the Secretary of State. This incorporation by reference 

contains no future editions or amendments. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-4 
Arkansas 

SOURCE: Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation 2, Regulation Establishing Water 

Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas, October 28, 2002, Chapter 3 Water Body 

Uses, http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_021028.pdf 

Section 2.302 Designated Uses

The designated uses are defined as follows: 

A. Extraordinary Resource Waters - This beneficial use is a combination of the chemical, physical and 

biological characteristics of a waterbody and its watershed which is characterized by scenic beauty, 

aesthetics, scientific values, broad scope recreation potential and intangible social values. 

B. Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody - This beneficial use identifies segments known to provide habitat 

within the existing range of threatened, endangered or endemic species of aquatic or semi-aquatic 

life forms. 

C. Natural and Scenic Waterways - This beneficial use identifies segments which have been 

legislatively adopted into a state or federal system. 

F. Fisheries - This beneficial use provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and other 

forms of aquatic life. It is further subdivided into the following subcategories: 

(1) Trout - water which is suitable for the growth and survival of trout (Family: Salmonidae). 

(2) Lakes and Reservoirs - water which is suitable for the protection and propagation of fish and 

other forms of aquatic life adapted to impounded waters. Generally characterized by a 

dominance of sunfishes such as bluegill or similar species, black basses and crappie. May 

include substantial populations of catfishes such as channel, blue and flathead catfish and 

commercial fishes including carp, buffalo and suckers. Forage fishes are normally shad or 

various species of minnows. Unique populations of walleye, striped bass and/or trout may 

also exist. 

(3) Streams - water which is suitable for the protection and propagation of fish and other forms 

of aquatic life adapted to flowing water systems whether or not the flow is perennial. 

(a) Ozark Highlands Ecoregion - Streams supporting diverse communities of indigenous or 

adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Fish communities are 

characterized by a preponderance of sensitive species and normally dominated by a 

diverse minnow community followed by sunfishes and darters. The community may be 

generally characterized by the following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Duskystripe shiner Banded sculpin 

Northern hogsucker Ozark madtom 

Slender madtom Southern redbelly dace 

"Rock" basses Whitetail shiner 

Rainbow and/or Orangethroat darters Ozark minnow 

Smallmouth bass 

(b) Boston Mountains Ecoregion - Streams supporting diverse communities of indigenous 

or adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Fish communities are 

characterized by a major proportion of sensitive species; a diverse, often darterdominated community exists but with nearly equal proportions of minnows and sunfishes. 

The community may be generally characterized by the following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Bigeye shiner Shadow bass 

Black redhorse Wedgespot shiner 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-5 
Key Species Indicator Species 

Slender madtom Longnose darter 

Longear sunfish Fantail darter 

Greenside darter 

Smallmouth bass 

(c) Arkansas River Valley Ecoregion - Streams supporting diverse communities of 

indigenous or adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Fish communities 

are characterized by a substantial proportion of sensitive species; a sunfish- and 

minnow-dominated community exists but with substantial proportions of darters and 

catfishes (particularly madtoms). The community may be generally characterized by the 

following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Bluntnose minnow Orangespotted sunfish 

Golden redhorse Blacksidedarter 

Yellow bullhead Madtoms 

Longear sunfish 

Redfin darter 

Spotted bass 

(d) Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion - Streams supporting diverse communities of indigenous 

or adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. The fish community is 

characterized by a major proportion of sensitive species; a minnow-sunfish-dominated 

community exists, followed by darters. The community may be generally characterized 

by the following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Bigeye shiner Shadow bass 

Northern hogsucker Gravel chub 

Freckled madtom Northern studfish 

Longear sunfish Striped shiner 

Orangebelly darter 

Smallmouth bass 

(e) Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion - Streams supporting diverse communities of indigenous or 

adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Fish communities are characterized 

by a limited proportion of sensitive species; sunfishes are distinctly dominant followed by 

darters and minnows. The community may be generally characterized by the following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Redfin shiner Pirate perch 

Spotted sucker Warmouth 

Yellow bullhead Spotted sunfish 

Flier Dusky darter 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-6 
Key Species Indicator Species 

Slough darter Creek chubsucker 

Grass pickerel Banded pygmy sunfish 

(f) Springwater-influenced Gulf Coastal Ecoregion -Streams supporting diverse communities of 

indigenous or adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Fish communities are 

characterized by a substantial proportion of sensitive species; sunfishes normally dominate 

the community and are followed by darters and minnows. The community may be generally 

characterized by the following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Redfin shiner Pirate perch 

Blacktail redhorse Golden redhorse 

Freckled madtom Spotted bass 

Longear sunfish Scaly sand darter 

Creole darter Striped shiner 

Grass pickerel Banded pygmy sunfish 

(g) Least-altered Delta Ecoregion - Streams supporting diverse communities of indigenous or 

adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Fish communities are characterized 

by an insignificant proportion of sensitive species; sunfishes are distinctly dominant followed 

by minnows. The community may be generally characterized by the following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Ribbon shiner Pugnose minnow 

Smallmouth buffalo Mosquitofish 

Yellow bullhead Pirate perch 

Bluegill Tadpole madtom 

Bluntnose darter Banded pygmy sunfish 

Largemouth bass 

(h) Channel-altered Delta Ecoregion- Streams supporting diverse communities of indigenous or 

adapted species of fish and other forms of aquatic life. Fish communities are characterized 

by an absence of sensitive species; sunfishes and minnows dominate the population followed 

by catfishes. The community may be generally characterized by the following fishes: 

Key Species Indicator Species 

Blacktail shiner Mosquitofish 

Drum Gizzard shad 

Carp Emerald shiner 

Channel catfish 

Green sunfish 

Spotted gar 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-7 
California* 

*This language has not been reviewed for accuracy by state/tribal agency. 

SOURCE: California Ocean Plan, Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, State Water 

Resources Control Resolution No. 90-27, Approval of the Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan For 

Ocean Waters of California, effective March 22, 1990. 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary 

Chapter II WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

E. Biological Characteristics 

1. Marine communities, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species, shall not be degraded. 

Chapter III GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF WASTE* DISCHARGE TO THE OCEAN*

A. Waste management systems that discharge to the ocean must be designed and operated in a manner 

that will maintain the indigenous marine life and a healthy and diverse marine community. 

B. Waste discharged to the ocean must be essentially free of: 

2. Settleable material or substances that may form sediments which will degrade benthic 

communities or other aquatic life. 

3. Substances which will accumulate to toxic levels in marine waters, sediments or biota. 

4. Substances that significantly decrease the natural light to benthic communities and other marine 

life. 

D. Location of waste discharges must be determined after a detailed assessment of the

oceanographic characteristics and current patterns to assure that: 

2. Natural water quality conditions are not altered in areas designated as being of special biological 

significance or areas that existing marine laboratories use as a source of seawater. 

Chapter V DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS

B. Areas of Special Biological Significance--Waste shall not be discharged to areas designated as being 

of special biological significance. Discharges shall be located a sufficient distance from such 

designated areas to assure maintenance or natural water quality conditions in these areas. 

Region I (North Coast)

Source: Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, Section 6 - Surveillance and Monitoring, Section 6-1.00, amended May 23, 1996. 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ca/ca_9_north_coast.pdf 

STATEWIDE MONITORING PROGRAMS 

State Mussel Watch Program

The California State Mussel Watch (SMW) Program is a long-term monitoring program administered by the 

State Water Board. Actual sampling and analysis are performed by the Department of Fish and Game. SMW 

provides the State Water Board and the six coastal regional water boards with an indication of geographical 

and temporal (year-to-year) trends in toxic pollutants along the California coast. Mussels (the common bay 

mussel, Myilus edulis, and the California mussel, M. californianus) have been shown to be efficient 

bioaccumulators of many toxic substances in their water environment. Further, the sedentary nature of 

mussels, whether native or transplanted, permits a time integrated sampling of toxic pollutants at one location. 

The merits of employing mussels as water quality indicators are well established in the scientific literature, 

previous SMW reports, and other scientific publications. The North Coast Region will continue to participate 

in existing SMW monitoring and the development of freshwater applications. The North Coast Region has 

been involved in developing freshwater applications of SMW methodology, using freshwater clams, Corbicula 

sp. The North Coast Region has required that some discharges be monitored using these techniques. There 

are current plans to expand the use of these organisms as indicators in sensitive areas. In the North Coast 

Region sampling under the SMW program has led to the detection and mitigation of controllable releases of 

toxic substances. Sampling priorities are directed toward areas of immediate concern. 

Region II (San Francisco Bay Basin)

Source: Chapter 2, Beneficial Uses, Water Quality Control Plan, Region 2, California Regional Water Quality

Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, June 21, 1995:

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-8 
http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ca/ca_9_san_francisco.pdf 

Definitions of Beneficial Uses 

(ASBS) Areas of Special Biological Significance 

Areas designated by the State Water Resources Control Board. 

These include marine life refuges, ecological reserves, and designated areas where the preservation and 

enhancement of natural resources requires special protection, in these areas, alteration of natural water 

quality is undesirable. The areas that have been designated as ASBS in this region are depicted in Figure 2-1. 

The State Ocean Plan (see Chapter 5) requires wastes to be discharged at a suffitionfor cient distance from 

these areas to assure maintenance of natural water quality conditions 

(COLD) COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT 

Uses of water that support cold water ecosysterns,including, but not limited to preservation or enhancement 

of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. 

Cold freshwater habitats generally support trout and may support the anadromous salmon and steelhead 

fisheries as well. Cold water habitats are commonly well-oxygenated. Life within these waters is relatively 

intolerant to environmental stresses. Often, soft waters feed cold water habitat These waters render fish more 

susceptible to toxic metals, such as copper, because of their lower buffering capacity. 

(EST) ESTUARINE HABITAT 

Uses of water that support estuarine ecosysterns, including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement 

of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., estuarine mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds), 

and the propagation, sustenance, and migration of estuarine organisms. 

Estuarine habitat provides an essential and unique habitat that serves to acclimate anadromous fishes 

(salmon, striped bass) migrating into fresh or marine water conditions. The protection of estuarine habitat is 

contingent upon (1) the maintenance of adequate Delta outflow to provide mixing and salinity control; and (2) 

provisions to protect wildlife habitat associated with marshlands and essential to the Bay periphery (i.e., 

prevention of fill activities). Estuarine habitat is generally associated with moderate seasonal fluctuations in 

dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature and with a wide range in turbidity. 

(MAR) MARINE HABITAT 

Uses of water that support marine ecosysterns, including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of 

marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., marine mammals, shorebirds). 

In many cases, the protection of marine habitat will be accomplished by measures that protect wildlife habitat 

generally, but more stringent criteria may be necessary for waterfowl marshes and other habitat, such as those 

for shellfish and marine fishes. Some marine habitats, such as important intertidal zones and kelp beds, may 

require special protection. 

(MIGR) FISH MIGRATION 

Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration, acclimatization between fresh water and salt 

water, and protection of aquatic organisms that are temporary inhabitants of waters within the region. 

The water quality provisions acceptable to cold water fish generally protect anadromous fish as well. 

However, particular attention must be paid to maintaining zones of passage. Any barrier to migration or free 

movement of migratory fish is harmful. Natural tidal movement in estuaries and unimpeded river flows are 

necessary to sustain migratory fish and their offspring. A water quality barrier, whether thermal, physical, or 

chemical, can destroy the integrity of the migration mute and lead to the rapid decline of dependent fisheries. 

Water quality may vary through a zone of passage as a result of natural or human-induced activities. Fresh 

water entering estuaries may float on the surface of the denser salt water or hug one shore as a result of 

density differences related to water temperature, salinity, or suspended matter. 

(RARE) PRESERVATION OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Uses of waters that support habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance

of plant or animal species established under state and/or federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered.

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-9 
The water quality criteria to be achieved that would encourage development and protection of rare and 

endangered species should be the same as those for protection of fish and wildlife habitats generally. 

However, where rare or endangered species exist, special control requirements may be necessary to assure 

attainment and maintenance of particular quality criteria, which may vary slightly with the environmental needs 

of each particular species. Criteria for species using areas of special biological significance should likewise 

be derived from the general criteria for the habitat types involved, with special management diligence given 

where required. 

(SPWN) FISH SPAWNING 

Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early deteiopment of fish. 

Dissolved oxygen levels in spawning areas should ideally approach saturation levels. Free movement of 

water is essential to maintain well-oxygenated conditions around eggs deposited in sediments. Water 

temperature, size distribution and organic content of sediments, water depth, and current velocity are also 

important determinants of spawning area adequacy. 

(WARM) WARM FRESHWATER HABITAT 

Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement 

of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. 

The warm freshwater habitats supporting bass, bluegill, perch, and other panfish are generally lakes and 

reservoirs, although some minor streams will serve this purpose where stream flow is sufficient to sustain the 

fishery. The habitat is also important to a variety of nonfish species, such as flogs, crayfish, and insects, which 

provide food for fish and small mammals. This habitat is less sensitive to environmental changes, but more 

diverse than the cold freshwater habitat and natural fluctuations in temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and 

turbidity are usually greater. 

WII.D) WILDLIFE HABITAT 

Uses of waters that support wildllife habitats, including, but not limited to, the preservation and enhancement 

of vegetation and prey species used by wildlife, such as waterfowl. 

The two most important types of wildlife habitat are riparian and wetland habitats. These habitats can be

threatened by development, erosion, and sedimentation, as well as by poor water quality. The water quality

requirements of wildlife pertain to the water directly ingested, the aquatic habitat itself, and the effect of water

quality on the production of food materials. Waterfowl habitat is particularly sensitive to changes in water

quality. Dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity, salinity, turbidity, settleable matter, oil, toxicants, and specific disease

organisms are water quality characteristics particularly important to waterfowl habitat. Dissolved oxygen is

needed in waterfowl habitats to suppress development of botulism organisms; botulism has killed millions of

waterfowl. It is particularly important to mainrain adequate circulation and aerobic conditions in shallow fringe

areas of ponds or reservoirs where botulism has caused problems.

Region III (Central Coast)

Source: Water Quality Control Plan -Regional Water Quality Control Board 3 (Central Coast), California

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Chapter 6: Surveillance And Monitoring, pg. VI-2, September 8, 1991:

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ca/ca_9_wqcp.pdf

III.A.1. TOXIC SUBSTANCE MONITORING 

The Toxic Substances Monitoring (TSM) portion of the Primary Network has been integrated with other 

Primary Network Monitoring. Streams and lakes were ranked according to various criteria established to 

indicate their importance to the State in terms of water quality. From this process, the water bodies ranked 

Priority 1, or highest priority, were included in the Primary Network; routine chemical and biological water 

monitoring is performed by DWR and/or the USGS; and toxic substances monitoring of resident organisms 

is performed by the Department of Fish and Game. The objectives of the Primary Network TSM program are: 

1. To develop statewide baseline data and to demonstrate trends in the occurrence of toxic elements 

and organic substances in the aquatic biota, 

Region IV (Los Angeles)

Source: Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles - Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-10 
Angeles and Ventura Counties, Chapter 6: Surveillance And Monitoring, approved February 23, 1995: 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ca/ca_9_los_angeles.pdf 

Biological Criteria

Biological criteria are narrative (and sometimes numeric) expressions that describe the biological integrity of 

aquatic communities (EPA, 1991). Biological criteria supplement other water quality objectives (physical, 

chemical, toxicity) by providing a direct measure of aquatic communities at risk from human activities. These 

criteria can also provide evidence of streams with exceptional water quality. Baseline data must be collected 

from both reference and impacted streams in the Region. Regular monitoring of these areas can then provide 

a continual assessment of instream impacts. Over 30 of the 50 states have developed, or are developing, 

biological criteria programs. Although there is not a current biological criteria program in the Region, Regional 

Board staff are planning to begin conducting baseline surveys in the coming years. Although there is not a 

current biological criteria program in the Region, Regional Board staff are planning to begin conducting 

baseline surveys in the coming years. 

Colorado 

SOURCE: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Department Regulations, Water Quality 

Control Commission, Surface Water Quality Classifications & Standards, Regulation 31- Basic Standards & 

Methodologies for Surface Water, amended effective October 30, 2001: 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/regs/100231.pdf and http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqhom.html 

31.5 DEFINITIONS 

(8) "COLD WATER BIOTA" means aquatic life, including trout, normally found in waters where the 

summer temperature does not often exceed 20° C. 

(32)"WARM WATER BIOTA" means aquatic life normally found in waters where the summer temperature 

frequently exceeds 20° C. 

31.11 BASIC STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE 

All surface waters of the state are subject to the following basic standards; however, discharge of substances 

regulated by permits which are within those permit limitations shall not be a basis for enforcement proceedings 

under these basic standards: 

(1) Except where authorized by permits, BMP's, 401 certifications, or plans of operation approved by the 

Division or other applicable agencies, state surface waters shall be free from substances attributable to 

human-caused point source or nonpoint source discharge in amounts, concentrations or combinations 

which: 

(a) for all surface waters of the state except wetlands; 

(v) are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life; or 

(vi) produce a predominance of undesirable aquatic life; 

(b) for surface waters in wetlands; 

(ii) are toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life of the wetland. 

31.13 STATE USE CLASSIFICATIONS 

(c) Aquatic Life 

These surface waters presently support aquatic life uses as described below, or such uses may 

reasonably be expected in the future due to the suitability of present conditions, or the waters are 

intended to become suitable for such uses as a goal: 

(i) Class l - Cold Water Aquatic Life 

These are waters that (1) currently are capable of sustaining a wide variety of cold water biota, 

including sensitive species, or (2) could sustain such biota but for correctable water quality 

conditions. Waters shall be considered capable of sustaining such biota where physical habitat, 

water flows or levels, and water quality conditions result in no substantial impairment of the 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-11 
abundance and diversity of species. 

(ii) Class 1 - Warm Water Aquatic Life 

These are waters that (1) currently are capable of sustaining a wide variety of warm water biota, 

including sensitive species, or (2) could sustain such biota but for correctable water quality 

conditions. Waters shall be considered capable of sustaining such biota where physical habitat, 

water flows or levels, and water quality conditions result in no substantial impairment of the 

abundance and diversity of species. 

(iii) Class 2- Cold and Warm Water Aquatic Life 

These are waters that are not capable of sustaining a wide variety of cold or warm water biota, 

including sensitive species, due to physical habitat, water flows or levels, or uncorrectable water 

quality conditions that result in substantial impairment of the abundance and diversity of species. 

(e) Wetlands 

(v) The Commission may adopt a "wetlands" classification based on the functions of the wetlands 

in question. Wetland functions that may warrant site-specific protection include ground water 

recharge or discharge, flood flow alteration, sediment stabilization, sediment or other pollutant 

retention, nutrient removal or transformation, biological diversity or uniqueness, wildlife diversity 

or abundance, aquatic life diversity or abundance, and recreation. 

Connecticut 

SOURCE: Connecticut Water Quality Standards Sections II and III, effective April 9, 1997: 

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wqsinfo.htm and http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/wqs.pdf 

NARRATIVE BIOCRITERIA 

Surface waters and sediments shall be free from chemical constituents in concentrations or combinations 

which will or can reasonably be expected to result in acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms or impair 

the biological integrity of aquatic or marine ecosystems outside of any allocated zone of influence or which 

will or can reasonably be expected to bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate in tissues of fish, shellfish and other 

aquatic organisms to levels which will impair the health of aquatic organisms or wildlife or result in 

unacceptable tastes, odors or health risks to human consumers of aquatic life. In determining consistency with 

this Standard, the Commissioner shall at a minimum consider the specific number criteria listed in Appendix 

D and any other information she or he deems relevant. 

Benthic invertebrate criteria may be utilized where appropriate for assessment of biological integrity of surface 

waters. The criteria apply to the fauna of erosional or riffle habitats in flowing waters which are not subject to 

tidal influences. 

III. SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS 

INLAND SURFACE WATERS 

CLASS AA 

Designated Use - Existing or proposed drinking water supply; fish and wildlife habitat; recreational use; 

agricultural, industrial supply and other purposes, (recreational uses may be restricted). 

CRITERIA 

Parameter Standard 

13. Benthic Invertebrates A wide variety of macroinvertebrate taxa should normally be present and all 

which inhabit lotic waters functional feeding groups should normally be well represented. Presence and 

productivity of aquatic species is not limited except by natural conditions, 

permitted flow regulation or irreversible cultural impacts. Water quality shall be 

sufficient to sustain a diverse macroinvertebrate community of indigenous 

species. Taxa within the Orders Plecoptera (stoneflies), Ephemeroptera 

(mayflies), Coleoptera (beetles) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) should be well 

represented. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-12 
INLAND SURFACE WATERS 

CLASS A 

Designated Uses - Potential drinking water supply; fish and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, 

industrial supply and other legitimate uses, including navigation. 

CRITERIA 

Parameter Standard 

13. Benthic Invertebrates A wide variety of macroinvertebrate taxa should normally be present and all 

which inhabit lotic waters functional feeding groups should normally be well represented. Presence and 

productivity of aquatic species is not limited except by natural conditions, 

permitted flow regulation or irreversible cultural impacts. Water quality shall be 

sufficient to sustain a diverse macroinvertebrate community of indigenous 

species. Taxa within the Orders Plecoptera (stoneflies), Ephemeroptera 

(mayflies), Coleoptera (beetles) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) should be well 

represented. 

INLAND SURFACE WATERS 

CLASS B 

Designated Use - Recreational use; fish and wildlife habitat; agricultural and industrial supply and other 

legitimate uses including navigation. 

CRITERIA 

Parameter Standard 

13. Benthic Invertebrates Water quality shall be sufficient to sustain a diverse macroinvertebrate 

which inhabit lotic waters community of indigenous species. All functional feeding groups and a wide 

variety of macroinvertebrate taxa shall be present, however one or more may 

be disproportionate in abundance. Waters which currently support a high 

quality aquatic community shall be maintained at that high quality. Presence 

and productivity of taxa within the Orders Plecoptera (stoneflies), 

Ephemeroptera (mayflies); and pollution intolerant Coleoptera (beetles) and 

Trichoptera (caddis-flies) may be limited due to cultural activities. 

Macroinvertebrate communities in waters impaired by cultural activities shall be 

restored to the extent practical through implementation of the department's 

procedures for control of pollutant discharges to surface waters and through 

Best Management Practices for non-point sources of pollution. 

INLAND SURFACE WATERS 

CLASS C 

Present water quality conditions preclude the full attainment of one or more designated uses for Class B 

waters some or all of the time. One or more Water Quality Criteria for Class B waters are not being 

consistently achieved. Class C waters may be suitable for certain fish and wildlife habitat, certain recreational 

activities, industrial use and other legitimate uses, including navigation. 

INLAND SURFACE WATERS 

CLASS D 

Present water quality conditions persistently preclude the attainment of one or more designated uses for Class 

B waters. One or more Water Quality Criteria for Class B waters are not being achieved most or all of the time. 

Class D waters may be suitable for bathing or other recreational purposes, certain fish and wildlife habitat, 

industrial or other legitimate uses, including navigation. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-13 
Delaware 

SOURCE: State of Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards as amended, August 11, 1999, Department 

of Natural Resources and Environmental Control: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water/wqs1999.pdf 

Section 1: Intent 

1.1. It is the policy of the Department to maintain within its jurisdiction surface waters of the State of 

satisfactory quality consistent with public health and public recreation purposes, the propagation and 

protection of fish and aquatic life, and other beneficial uses of the water. 

Section 2: Definitions 

Cold water fish use: Protection of fish species (such as from the family Salmonidae) and other flora and fauna 

indigenous to a cold water habitat. 

Fish, aquatic life and wildlife: All animal and plant life found in Delaware, either indigenous or migratory, 

regardless of life stage or economic importance. 

Section 3: Antidegradation Policy

3.1. Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall 

be maintained and protected. Degradation of water quality in such a manner that results in reduced 

number, quality, or river or stream mileage of existing uses shall be prohibited. Degradation shall be 

defined for the purposes of this section as a statistically significant reduction, accounting for natural 

variations, in biological, chemical, or habitat quality as measured or predicted using appropriate 

assessment protocols. 

3.2. Where the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected. In the case of 

waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, existing quality shall be maintained or 

enhanced... 

3.3. Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of National parks 

and wildlife refuges, existing quality shall be maintained and protected. 

Section 4: General Stream Criteria 

4.1. All surface waters of the State (except as detailed in Sections 8 and 12) shall meet the following minimum 

criteria: 

(a) Waters shall be free from substances that are attributable to wastes of industrial, municipal, 

agricultural or other human-induced origin. Examples include but are not limited to the following: 

(iii) Any pollutants, including those of a thermal, toxic, corrosive, bacteriological, radiological, or other 

nature, that may interfere with attainment and maintenance of designated uses of the water, may 

impart undesirable odors, tastes, or colors to the water or to aquatic life found therein, may 

endanger public health, or may result in dominance of nuisance species. 

District of Columbia* 

*This language has not been reviewed for accuracy by state/tribal agency. 

SOURCE: Chapter 11, Water Quality Standards of Title 21 of the District of Columbia Municipal 

Regulations (Notice of Final Rulemaking, January 21, 2000): 

http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/administration_offices/environmental/services2/water_division/pdf/WaterQu 

alityStandards.shtm 

1101.1 For the purposes of water quality standards, the surface waters of the District shall be classified on 

the basis of their (i) current uses, and (ii) future uses to which the waters will be restored. The 

categories of beneficial uses for the surface waters of the District shall be as follows: 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-14 
Categories of Uses Which Determine Water Quality Standards Classes of Water 

Protection & propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife ...C... 

1102.3 TIER III: Where High Quality Waters constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of 

the National and District parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or 

ecological significance, those waters shall be designated Outstanding National Resource Waters 

(ONRW) and the water quality in the ONRW shall be maintained, protected and designated as below: 

(a) New point and nonpoint source discharges, treated or otherwise, shall be prohibited in these 

segments; 

(b) Increases in loadings or new pollutants from existing point and nonpoint source discharges shall 

be prohibited in these segments; 

(c) Short-term degradation of the water quality shall be allowed after opportunity for public 

participation and addressing their comments, if any. However, all practical means of minimizing 

such degradation shall be implemented; and 

(d) Designation of ONRWs shall be adopted after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental 

coordination of the District's agencies and public participation. 

1102.4 SPECIAL WATERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (SWDC): Any segment or segments of the 

surface waters of the District which are of water quality better than needed for the current use or have 

scenic or aesthetic importance shall be designated as Special Waters of the District of Columbia 

(SWDC)... 

1103 WETLANDS 

1103.1 In a wetland, the numerical and the narrative criteria shall be applied to the column of water above 

the wetland in accordance with the designated use. 

1103.2 Wetlands with rooted vascular aquatic vegetation, except those specifically constructed or created 

as waste water treatment devices and except as provided in D. C. Code subsection 6-923(d) and 

subsection 6-926(a)(3), shall be protected from significant adverse hydrologic modifications, 

excessive sedimentation, deposition of toxic substances in toxic amounts, nutrient imbalances, and 

other adverse anthropogenic impacts. 

1104 STANDARDS 

1104.1 The surface waters of the District shall be free from substances in amounts or combinations that do 

any of one the following: 

(d) cause injury to, are toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral changes in humans, 

plants or animals 

(e) Produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life or result in the dominance of nuisance species; or 

(f) Impair the biological community that naturally occurs in the waters or depends on the waters for 

its survival and propagation 

1104.5 Class C streams shall be maintained to support aquatic life and shall not be placed in pipes. 

Florida 

SOURCE: Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-302 Surface Water Quality Standards, effective December 

26, 1996: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/surfacewater/rules.htm and 

http://www8.myflorida.com/environment/learn/science/laboratories/index.html 

62-302.200 Definitions. 

(10)"Exceptional Ecological Significance" shall mean that a water body is a part of an ecosystem of unusual 

value. The exceptional significance may be in unusual species, productivity, diversity, ecological 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-15 
relationships, ambient water quality, scientific or educational interest, or in other aspects of the 

ecosystem's setting or processes. 

(15)"Nuisance Species" shall mean species of flora or fauna whose noxious characteristics or presence in 

sufficient number, biomass, or areal extent may reasonably be expected to prevent, or unreasonably 

interfere with, a designated use of those waters. 

(16)"Nursery Area of Indigenous Aquatic Life" shall mean any bed of the following aquatic plants, either in 

monoculture or mixed: Halodule wrightii, Halophila spp., Potamogeton spp. (pondweed), Ruppia maritima 

(widgeon-grass), Sagittaria spp. (arrowhead), Syringodium filiforme (manatee-grass), Thalassia 

testudinum (turtle grass), or Vallisneria spp. (eel-grass), or any area used by the early-life stages, larvae 

and post-larvae, of aquatic life during the period of rapid growth and development into the juvenile states. 

(17)"Outstanding Florida Waters" shall mean waters designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission 

as worthy of special protection because of their natural attributes. 

(18)"Outstanding National Resource Waters" shall mean waters designated by the Environmental Regulation 

Commission that are of such exceptional recreational or ecological significance that water quality should 

be maintained and protected under all circumstances, other than temporary lowering and the lowering 

allowed under Section 316 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 

(22)"Propagation" shall mean reproduction sufficient to maintain the species' role in its respective ecological 

community. 

(24)"Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index" shall mean: negative summation (from i=1 to s) of (n i /N) log 2 (n i /N) 

where s is the number of species in a sample, N is the total number of individuals in a sample, and n i is 

the total number of individuals in species i. 

(25)"Special Waters" shall mean water bodies designated in accordance with Section 62-302.700, F.A.C., by 

the Environmental Regulation Commission for inclusion in the Special Waters Category of Outstanding 

Florida Waters, as contained in Section 62-302.700, F.A.C. A Special Water may include all or part of any 

water body. 

62-302.400 Classification of Surface Waters, Usage, Reclassification, Classified Waters.

(1) All surface waters of the State have been classified according to designated uses as follows: 

CLASS III Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish 

and Wildlife 

(4) Water quality classifications are arranged in order of the degree of protection required, with Class I water 

having generally the most stringent water quality criteria and Class V the least. However, Class I, II, and 

III surface waters share water quality criteria established to protect recreation and the propagation and 

maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-16 
Excerpt from 62-302.530, Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications 

Parameter Units Class I: 

Potable Water 

Supply 

Class II: 

Shellfish 

Propagation or 

Class III: Recreation, Propagation 

and Maintenance of a Health, Wellbalanced Population of Fish and 

Wildlife 

Class IV: 

Agricultural 

Water 

Supplies 

Class V: 

Navigation, 

Utility, and 

Industrial 

Use 

Harvesting 

Predominantly 

Fresh Waters 

Predominantly 

Marine Waters 

11) Biological 

Integrity 

Percent 

reduction of 

ShannonWeaver 

Diversity 

Index 

The Index for 

benthic macroinvertebrates 

shall not be 

reduced less 

than 75% of 

background 

levels measured 

using organisms 

retained by a 

U. S. Standard 

No. 30 sieve 

and collected 

and composited 

from a minimum 

of three HesterDendy type 

artificial 

substrate 

samplers of 

0.10 to 0.15 m2 

area each, 

incubated for a 

period of four 

weeks. 

The Index for 

benthic macroinvertebrates 

shall not be 

reduced to 

less than 75% 

of established 

background 

levels as 

measured using 

organisms 

retained by a 

U. S. Standard 

No. 30 sieve 

and collected 

and composited 

from a minimum 

of three natural 

substrate 

samples, taken 

with Ponar type 

samplers with 

minimum 

sampling area 

of 225 cm2. 

The Index for 

benthic macroinvertebrates 

shall not be 

reduced to 

less than 75% 

of established 

background 

levels as 

measured using 

organisms 

retained by a 

U. S. Standard 

No. 30 sieve 

and collected 

and composited 

from a minimum 

of three HesterDendy type 

artificial 

substrate 

samplers of 

0.10 to 0.15 m2 

area each, 

incubated for a 

period of four 

weeks. 

The Index for 

benthic macroinvertebrates 

shall not be 

reduced to less 

than 75% of 

established 

background 

levels as 

measured using 

organisms 

retained by a 

U. S. Standard 

No. 30 sieve and 

collected 

and composited 

from a minimum 

of three natural 

substrate 

samples, taken 

with Ponar type 

samplers with 

minimum 

sampling area of 

225 cm2. 

62-302.800 Site Specific Alternative Criteria.

(2) The affirmative demonstration required by this section shall mean a documented showing that the 

proposed alternative criteria would exist due to natural background conditions or man-induced conditions 

which cannot be controlled or abated. Such demonstration shall be based upon relevant factors which 

include: 

(c) A description of the historical and existing biology, including variations, which may be affected by the 

parameter of concern. Conditions in similar water bodies may be used for comparison. 

Georgia 

SOURCE: Rules of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Chapter 

391-3-6, Water Quality Control, revised October 2001: 

http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/rules_files/exist_files/391-3-6.pdf and 

http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ 

(2) Water Quality Enhancement: 

(a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide 

enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in 

accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other 

beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary 

uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. 

391-3-6.03 Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards

(3) Definitions: 

(b) "Biological integrity" is functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting least 

impaired waterbodies of a specified habitat measured by community structure and function. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-17 
(4) Water Use Classifications. Water use classifications for which the criteria of this Paragraph are applicable 

are as follows: 

(c) Fishing, Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Game and Other Aquatic Life 

(d) Wild River 

(e) Scenic River 

(f) Coastal Fishing 

(6) Specific Criteria for Classified Water Usage. In addition to the general criteria, the following criteria are 

deemed necessary and shall be required for the specific water usage as shown: 

(a) Drinking Water Supplies: Those waters approved as a source for public drinking water systems 

permitted or to be permitted by the Environmental Protection Division. Waters classified for drinking 

water supplies will also support the fishing use and any other use requiring water of a lower quality. 

(c) Fishing: Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Game and Other Aquatic Life; secondary contact recreation 

in and on the water; or for any other use requiring water of a lower quality. 

(d) Wild River: For all waters designated in 391-3-6-.03(13) as “Wild River,” there shall be no alteration 

of natural water quality from any source. 

(e) Scenic River: For all waters designated in 391-3-6-.03(13) as “Scenic River,” there shall be no 

alteration of natural water quality from any source. 

(f) Coastal Fishing: This classification will be applicable to specific sites when so designated by the 

Environmental Protection Division. For waters designated as “Coastal Fishing”, site specific criteria 

for dissolved oxygen will be assigned and detailed by footnote in Section 391-3-6.03(13), “Specific 

Water Use Classifications.” All other criteria and uses for the fishing use classification will apply for 

coastal fishing. 

(15)Trout Streams. Streams designated as Primary Trout Waters are waters supporting a self-sustaining 

population of Rainbow, Brown or Brook Trout. Streams designated as Secondary Trout Streams are 

those with no evidence of natural trout reproduction, but are capable of supporting trout throughout the 

year... 

Hawai`i 

SOURCE: Source: Hawai`i Administrative Rules Title 11, Department of Health Chapter 54, Water Quality 

Standards, April 17, 2000: 

http://www.hawaii.gov/health/rules/11-54.pdf and 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/hi/hawaii_9_wqs.pdf 

§11-54-01 Definitions. As used in this chapter: 

• "Amphidromous" means aquatic life that migrate to and from the sea, but not specifically for reproductive 

purposes. Amphidromous aquatic life in Hawai‘ian streams are confined to fresh waters as adults, but 

their larval stages are partially or entirely spent in the ocean as part of the zooplankton. 

• "Anchialine pools" means coastal bodies of standing waters that have no surface connections to the 

ocean but display both tidal fluctuations and salinity ranges characteristic of fresh and brackish waters, 

indicating the presence of subsurface connections to the watertable and ocean. Anchialine pools are 

located in porous substrata (recent lava or limestone) and often contain a distinctive assemblage of native 

aquatic life. Deeper anchialine pools may display salinity stratification, and some shallow pools may 

contain standing water only on the highest tides. 

• "Aquatic life" means "any type or species of mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, 

arthropod, invertebrate, coral, or other animal that inhabits the freshwater or marine environment and 

includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof; or freshwater or marine plants, including, seeds, 

roots, products, and other parts thereof". 

• "Estuaries" means characteristically brackish coastal waters in well-defined basins with a continuous or 

seasonal surface connection to the ocean that allows entry of marine fauna. Estuaries may be either 

natural or developed. 

• "Introduced aquatic life" means those species of aquatic organisms that are not native to a given area or 

water body and whose populations were established (deliberately or accidentally) by human activity. 

"Introduced" organisms are also referred to as "alien" or "exotic". 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-18 
• "Low wetlands" means freshwater wetlands located below 100 m (330 ft) elevation that may be natural 

or artificial in origin and are usually found near coasts or in valley termini. Low wetlands are maintained 

by either stream, well, or ditch influent water, or by exposure of the natural water table. Low wetlands 

include, but are not limited to, natural lowland marshes, riparian wetlands, littoral zones of standing waters 

(including lakes, reservoirs, ponds and fishponds) and agricultural wetlands such as taro lo'i. 

• "Native aquatic life" means those species or higher taxa of aquatic organisms that occur naturally in a 

given area or water body and whose populations were not established as a result of human activity. 

• "Natural estuaries" means volumes of brackish coastal waters in well-defined basins of natural origin, 

found mainly at the mouths of streams or rivers. Natural estuaries can be either stream-fed (drowned 

stream mouths fed by perennial stream runoff) or spring-fed (nearshore basins with subterranean fresh 

water sources). Stream-fed estuaries serve as important migratory pathways for larval and juvenile 

amphidromous stream fauna. 

• "Natural freshwater lakes" means standing water that is always fresh, in well-defined natural basins, with 

a surface area usually greater than 0.1 ha (0.25 acres), and in which rooted emergent hydrophytes, if 

present, occupy no more than 30% of the surface area. Natural freshwater lakes in Hawai‘i occur at high, 

intermediate, and low elevations. Lowland freshwater lakes characteristically lack a natural oceanic 

connection (surface or subsurface) of a magnitude sufficient to cause demonstrable tidal fluctuations. 

§11-54-03 Classification of water uses. 

(a) The following use categories classify inland and marine waters for purposes of applying the standards 

set forth in this chapter, and for the selection or definition of appropriate quality parameters and uses to 

be protected in these waters. Storm water discharge into State waters shall be allowed provided it meets 

the requirements specified in this section and the basic water quality criteria specified in section 11-54-04. 

(b) Inland waters. 

(1) Class 1. It is the objective of class 1 waters that these waters remain in their natural state as nearly 

as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution from any human-caused source. To the extent 

possible, the wilderness character of these areas shall be protected. Waste discharge into these 

waters is prohibited. Any conduct which results in a demonstrable increase in levels of point or 

nonpoint source contamination in class 1 waters is prohibited. 

(a) Class 1.a. The uses to be protected in class 1.a waters are scientific and educational purposes, 

protection of native breeding stock, baseline references from which human-caused changes can 

be measured, compatible recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, and other nondegrading uses which 

are compatible with the protection of the ecosystems associated with waters of this class; 

(b) Class 1.b. The uses to be protected in class 1.b waters are domestic water supplies, food 

processing, protection of native breeding stock, the support and propagation of aquatic life... 

(2) Class 2. The objective of class 2 waters is to protect their use for recreational purposes, the support 

and propagation of aquatic life, agricultural and industrial water supplies, shipping, and navigation. 

The uses to be protected in this class of waters are all uses compatible with the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in and on these waters. These waters 

shall not act as receiving waters for any discharge which has not received the best degree of 

treatment or control compatible with the criteria established for this class... 

(c) Marine waters. 

(1) Class AA. It is the objective of class AA waters that these waters remain in their natural pristine state 

as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from any 

human-caused source or actions. To the extent practicable, the wilderness character of these areas 

shall be protected. No zones of mixing shall be permitted in this class: 

(a) Within a defined reef area, in waters of a depth less than 18 meters (ten fathoms); or 

(b) In waters up to a distance of 300 meters (one thousand feet) off shore if there is no defined reef 

area and if the depth is greater than 18 meters (ten fathoms). The uses to be protected in this 

class of waters are oceanographic research, the support and propagation of shellfish and other 

marine life, conservation of coral reefs and wilderness areas, compatible recreation, and aesthetic 

enjoyment. The classification of any water area as Class AA shall not preclude other uses of the 

waters compatible with these objectives and in conformance with the criteria applicable to them; 

(2) Class A. It is the objective of class A waters that their use for recreational purposes and aesthetic 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-19 
enjoyment be protected. Any other use shall be permitted as long as it is compatible with the 

protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in and on these waters. 

These waters shall not act as receiving waters for any discharge which has not received the best 

degree of treatment or control compatible with the criteria established for this class. 

(d) Marine bottom ecosystems. 

(1) Class I. It is the objective of class I marine bottom ecosystems that they remain as nearly as possible 

in their natural pristine state with an absolute minimum of pollution from any human-induced source. 

Uses of marine bottom ecosystems in this class are passive human uses without intervention or 

alteration, allowing the perpetuation and preservation of the marine bottom in a most natural state, 

such as for nonconsumptive scientific research (demonstration, observation or monitoring only), 

nonconsumptive education, aesthetic enjoyment, passive activities, and preservation; 

(2) Class II. It is the objective of class II marine bottom ecosystems that their use for protection including 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreational purposes not be limited in any way. The 

uses to be protected in this class of marine bottom ecosystems are all uses compatible with the 

protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation. 

§11-54-05.2 Inland water criteria. 

(b) Specific criteria for streams. 

(2) Bottom criteria for streams: 

(e) The director shall prescribe the appropriate parameters, measures, and criteria for monitoring 

stream bottom biological communities including their habitat, which may be affected by proposed 

actions. Permanent benchmark stations may be required where necessary for monitoring 

purposes. The water quality criteria for this subsection shall be deemed to be met if time series 

surveys of benchmark stations indicate no relative changes in the relevant biological 

communities, as noted by biological community indicators or by indicator organisms which may 

be applicable to the specific site. 

Idaho 

SOURCE: Source: Rules of the Department of Environmental Quality, IDAPA 58.01.02, Water Quality 

Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements, amended April 5, 2000: 

http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/0102.pdf and 

http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/58index.htm 

3. Definitions 

04. Beneficial Use. Any of the various uses which may be made of the water of Idaho, including, but not 

limited to, domestic water supplies, industrial water supplies, agricultural water supplies, navigation, 

recreation in and on the water, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. The beneficial use is dependent upon 

actual use, the ability of the water to support a non-existing use either now or in the future, and its 

likelihood of being used in a given manner. The use of water for the purpose of wastewater dilution or as 

a receiving water for a waste treatment facility effluent is not a beneficial use. (8-24-94) 

05. Aquatic Species. Any plant or animal that lives at least part of its life in the water column or benthic 

portion of waters of the state. (8-24-94) 

11. Biological Monitoring or Biomonitoring. The use of a biological entity as a detector and its 

response as a measure to determine environmental conditions. Toxicity tests and biological surveys, 

including habitat monitoring, are common biomonitoring methods. 

23. Desirable Species. Species indigenous to the area or those introduced by the Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game. 

71. Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). A high quality water, such as water of national and state parks 

and wildlife refuges and water of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, which has been 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-20 
designated by the legislature and subsequently listed in this chapter. ORW constitutes an outstanding 

national or state resource that requires protection from point and nonpoint source activities that may lower 

water quality. (3-20-97) 

85. Reference Stream Or Condition. A water body which represents the minimum conditions necessary 

to fully support the applicable designated beneficial uses as further specified in these rules, or natural 

conditions with few impacts from human activities and which are representative of the highest level of 

support attainable in the basin. In highly mineralized areas or in the absence of such reference streams 

or water bodies, the Director, in consultation with the basin advisory group and the technical advisors to 

it, may define appropriate hypothetical reference conditions or may use monitoring data specific to the site 

in question to determine conditions in which the beneficial uses are fully supported. 

87. Resident Species. Those species that commonly occur in a site including those that occur only 

seasonally or intermittently. This includes the species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla that: 

(8-24-94) 

a. Are usually present at the site; (8-24-94) 

b. Are present only seasonally due to migration; (8-24-94) 

c. Are present intermittently because they periodically return or extend their ranges into the site; (8-24­

94) 

d. Were present at the site in the past but are not currently due to degraded conditions, and are 

expected to be present at the site when conditions improve; and (8-24-94) 

e. Are present in nearby bodies of water but are not currently present at the site due to degraded 

conditions, and are expected to be present at the site when conditions improve. (8-24-94) 

111. Unique Ecological Significance. The attribute of any stream or water body which is inhabited or 

supports an endangered or threatened species of plant or animal or a species of special concern identified 

by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, which provides anadromous fish passage, or which provides 

spawning or rearing habitat for anadromous or desirable species of lake dwelling fishes. 

53. BENEFICIAL USE SUPPORT STATUS. 

In determining whether a water body fully supports designated and existing beneficial uses, the Department 

shall determine whether all of the applicable water quality standards are being achieved, including any criteria 

developed pursuant to these rules, and whether a healthy, balanced biological community is present. The 

Department shall utilize biological and aquatic habitat parameters listed below and in the current version of 

the “Water Body Assessment Guidance”, as published by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, as 

a guide to assist in the assessment of beneficial use status. Revisions to this guidance will made after notice 

and an opportunity for public comment. These parameters are not to be considered or treated as individual 

water quality criteria or otherwise interpreted or applied as water quality standards. (4-5-00) 

01. Aquatic Habitat Parameters. These parameters may include, but are not limited to, stream width, 

stream depth, stream shade, measurements of sediment impacts, bank stability, water flows, and other 

physical characteristics of the stream that affect habitat for fish, macroinvertebrates or other aquatic life; 

and (3-20-97) 

02. Biological Parameters. These parameters may include, but are not limited to, evaluation of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates including Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT), Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, 

measures of functional feeding groups, and the variety and number of fish or other aquatic life to 

determine biologicalcommunity diversity and functionality. 

100. SURFACE WATER USE DESIGNATIONS. 

01. Aquatic Life. (7-1-93) 

a. Cold water (COLD): water quality appropriate for the protection and maintenance of a viable aquatic 

life community for cold water species. (4-5-00) 

b. Salmonid spawning: waters which provide or could provide a habitat for active self-propagating 

populations of salmonid fishes. (7-1-93) 

c. Seasonal cold water (SC): water quality appropriate for the protection and maintenance of a viable 

aquatic life community of cool and cold water species, where cold water aquatic life may be absent 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-21 
during, or tolerant of , seasonally warm temperatures. (4-5-00) 

d. Warm water (WARM): water quality appropriate for the protection and maintenance of a viable aquatic 

life community for warm water species. (4-5-00) 

e. Modified (MOD): water quality appropriate for an aquatic life community that is limited due to one (1) 

or more conditions set forth in 40 CFR 131.10(g) which preclude attainment of reference streams or 

conditions. 

04. Wildlife Habitats. Water quality appropriate for wildlife habitats. This use applies to all surface waters 

of the state. (4-5-00) 

Illinois 

SOURCE: Title 35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle C: Water Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution Control Board, 

Part 302 and 303 Water Quality Standards, amended August 26, 1999: 

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Title_35/Subtitles/C/302.pdf and 

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Title_35/Subtitles/C/303.pdf 

Section 302.102 Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and ZIDs

(b) The portion, volume and area of any receiving waters within which mixing is allowed pursuant to 

subsection (a) shall be limited by the following: 

2) Mixing is not allowed in waters which include a tributary stream entrance if such mixing occludes the 

tributary mouth or otherwise restricts the movement of aquatic life into or out of the tributary. 

3) Mixing is not allowed in waters containing mussel beds, endangered species habitat, fish spawning 

areas, areas of important aquatic life habitat, or any other natural features vital to the well being of 

aquatic life in such a manner that the maintenance of aquatic life in the body of water as a whole 

would be adversely affected. 

6) Mixing must allow for a zone of passage for aquatic life in which water quality standards are met. 

SUBPART E:

Section 302.501 Scope, Applicability, and Definitions

“Resident or indigenous species” means species that currently live a substantial portion of their life cycle, or 

reproduce, in a given body of water, or that are native species whose historical range includes a given body 

of water. 

“Target species” is a species to be protected by the criterion. 

“Target species value” is the criterion value for the target species. 

“Trophic level” means a functional classification of taxa within a community that is based on feeding 

relationships. For example, aquatic green plants and herbivores comprise the first and second trophic levels 

in a food chain. 

SUBPART B: Nonspecific Water Use Designations: 

Section 303.204 Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters

Waters which are required to meet the secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life standards of Subpart 

D, Part 302, are not required to meet the general use standards or the public and food processing water 

supply standards of Subparts B and C, Part 302. 

Indiana 

SOURCE: Indiana Administrative Code, Title 327 Water Pollution Control Board, Article 2: Water Quality 

Standards, Updated April 1, 2002: http://www.ai.org/legislative/iac/title327.html 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-22 
Indiana Water Quality Standards for the Non-Great Lakes Basin Portions of Indiana 

327 IAC 2-1-3 Surface water use designations; multiple uses

Sec. 3. (a) The following water uses are designated by the water pollution control board: 

(1) Surface waters of the state are designated for full-body contact recreation as provided in section 6(d) 

of this rule. 

(2) All waters, except as described in subdivision (5), will be capable of supporting a well-balanced, warm 

water aquatic community and, where natural temperatures will permit, will be capable of supporting 

put-and-take trout fishing. All waters capable of supporting the natural reproduction of trout as of 

February 17, 1977, shall be so maintained. 

(3) All waters which are used for public or industrial water supply must meet the standards for those uses 

at the points where the water is withdrawn. This use designation and its corresponding water quality 

standards are not to be construed as imposing a user restriction on those exercising or desiring to 

exercise the use. 

(4) All waters which are used for agricultural purposes must, as a minimum, meet the standards 

established in section 6(a) of this rule. 

(5) All waters in which naturally poor physical characteristics (including lack of sufficient flow), naturally 

poor chemical quality, or irreversible man-induced conditions, which came into existence prior to 

January 1, 1983, and having been established by use attainability analysis, public comment period, 

and hearing may qualify to be classified for limited use and must be evaluated for restoration and 

upgrading at teach triennial review of this rule. Specific waters of the state designated for limited use 

are listed in section 11(a) of this rule. 

(6) All waters which provide unusual aquatic habitat, which are an integral feature of an area of 

exceptional natural beauty or character, or which support unique assemblages of aquatic organisms 

may be classified for exceptional use. Specific waters of the state designated for exceptional use are 

listed in section 11(b) of this rule. 

(b) Where multiple uses have been designated for a body of water, the most protective of all 

simultaneously applicable standards will apply. (Water Pollution Control Board; 327 IAC 2-1-3; 

filed Sep 24, 1987, 3:00 p.m.: 11 IR 580; filed Feb 1, 1990, 4:30 p.m.: 13 IR 1019; filed Jan 14, 

1997, 12:00 p.m.: 20 IR 1348) 

327 IAC 2-1-6 Minimum surface water quality standards

Sec. 6. (a) The following are minimum water quality conditions: 

(1) All waters at all times and at all places, including the mixing zone, shall meet the minimum conditions 

of being free from substances, materials, floating debris, oil, or scum attributable to municipal, 

industrial, agricultural, and other land use practices, or other discharges: 

(A) that will settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable deposits; 

(B) that are in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious; 

(C) that produce color, visible oil sheen, odor, or other conditions in such degree as to create a 

nuisance; 

(D) which are in amounts sufficient to be acutely toxic to, or to otherwise severely injure or kill aquatic 

life, other animals, plants, or humans: 

(i) to assure protection of aquatic life, concentrations of toxic substances shall not exceed the 

final acute value (FAV = 2 (AAC)) in the undiluted discharge or the acute aquatic criterion 

(AAC) outside the zone of initial dilution or, if applicable, the zone of discharge-induced 

mixing: 

(AA) for certain substances, the AAC are established and set forth in Table 1 (which 

table4 incorporates Table 2); and (BB) for substances for which an AAC is not 

specified in Table 1, or if a different AAC can be scientifically justified based on new 

toxicological data or site-specific conditions concerning water quality characteristics 

or species present, an AAC can be calculated by the commissioner using the 

procedures in section 8.2 of this rule; and 

(ii) this clause shall not apply to the chemical control of plants and animals when that control is 

performed in compliance with approval conditions specified by the Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources as provided by IC 14-2-1; and 

(E) which are in concentrations or combinations that will cause or contribute to the growth of aquatic 

plants or algae to such degree as to create a nuisance, be unsightly, or otherwise impair the 

designated uses. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-23 
(2) At all times, all waters outside of mixing zones shall be free of substances in concentrations which 

on the basis of available scientific data are believed to be sufficient to injure, be chronically toxic to, 

or be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to humans, animals, aquatic life, or plants. To assure 

protection against the adverse effects identified in this subdivision, the following requirements are 

established: 

The Great Lakes Basin is covered by its own regulation which follows: 

327 IAC 2-1.5-5: GLI Water Use Designations 

327 IAC 2-1.5-5 Surface water use designations; multiple uses

Sec. 5. (a) The following water uses are designated by the board: 

(1) All surface waters of the state within the Great Lakes system are designated for full-body contact 

recreation. 

(2) All surface waters, except as described in subdivision (7), shall be capable of supporting a wellbalanced, warm water aquatic community. 

(3) Where natural temperatures will permit, surface waters shall be capable of supporting put-and-take 

trout fishing. All waters capable of supporting the natural reproduction of trout shall be so maintained. 

The following waters are designated as salmonid waters and shall be capable of supporting a 

salmonid fishery: 

(A) Trail Creek and its tributaries downstream to Lake Michigan. 

(B) East Branch of the Little Calumet River and its tributaries downstream to Lake Michigan via Burns 

Ditch. 

(C) Salt Creek above its confluence with the Little Calumet River. 

(D) Kintzele Ditch (Black Ditch) from Beverly Drive downstream to Lake Michigan. 

(E) The Galena River and its tributaries in LaPorte County. 

(F) The St. Joseph River and its tributaries in St. Joseph County from the Twin Branch Dam in 

Mishawaka downstream to the Indiana/Michigan state line. 

(G) The Indiana portion of the open waters of Lake Michigan. 

(H) Those waters designated by the Indiana department of natural resources for put-and-take trout 

fishing. 

(4) All surface waters used for public water supply are designated as a public water supply. This use 

designation and its corresponding water quality criteria are not to be construed as imposing a user 

restriction on those exercising or desiring to exercise the use. 

(5) All surface waters used for industrial water supply are designated as an industrial water supply. This 

use designation and its corresponding water quality criteria are not to be construed as imposing a 

user restriction on those exercising or desiring to exercise the use. 

(6) All surface waters used for agricultural purposes are designated as an agricultural use water. 

(7) Limited use waters are designated under section 19(a) of this rule pursuant to section 18 of this rule. 

All waters that are designated as a limited use water under section 19(a) of this rule must be 

evaluated for restoration and upgrading at each triennial review of this rule. 

(8) Outstanding state resource waters are designated under section 19(b) of this rule pursuant to section 

18 of this rule. 

(b) Where multiple uses have been designated for a body of water, the most protective of all 

simultaneously applicable standards will apply. (Water Pollution Control Board; 327 IAC 2-1.5-5; filed 

Jan 14, 1997, 12:00 p.m.: 20 IR 1369) 

327 IAC 2-1.5-8Minimum surface water quality criteria

Sec. 8. (a) All surface water quality criteria in this section, except those provided in subsection (b)(1), will 

cease to be applicable when the stream flows are less than the applicable stream design flow for the 

particular criterion as determined under 327 IAC 5-2-11.4. (b) The following are minimum water quality 

conditions: 

(1) All waters within the Great Lakes system at all times and at all places, including waters within the 

mixing zone, shall meet the minimum conditions of being free from substances, materials, floating 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-24 
debris, oil, or scum attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, and other land use practices, or 

other discharges that do any of the following: 

(A) Will settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable deposits. 

(B) Are in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious. 

(C) Produce color, visible oil sheen, odor, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance. 

(D) Are in concentrations or combinations that will cause or contribute to the growth of aquatic plants 

or algae to such degree as to create a nuisance, be unsightly, or otherwise impair the designated 

uses. 

(E) Are in amounts sufficient to be acutely toxic to, or to otherwise severely injure or kill aquatic life, 

other animals, plants, or humans. To assure protection of aquatic life, the waters shall meet the 

following requirements: 

(i) Concentrations of toxic substances shall not exceed the CMC outside the zone of initial 

dilution or the final acute value (FAV = 2 (CMC)) in the undiluted discharge unless, for a 

discharge to a receiving stream or Lake Michigan, an alternate mixing zone demonstration 

is conducted and approved in accordance with 327 IAC 5-2-11.4(b)(4), in which case, the 

CMC shall be met outside the discharge-induced mixing zone: 

(2) At all times, all waters outside of the applicable mixing zones determined in accordance with 327 IAC 

5-2-11.4(c) through 327 IAC 5-2-11.4(f) shall be free of substances in concentrations, that, on the 

basis of available scientific data, are believed to be sufficient to injure, be chronically toxic to, or be 

carcinogenic, mutagenic... 

Iowa 

SOURCE: Iowa Administrative Code, Environmental Protection Rule 567, Chapter 61, Water Quality 

Standards, October 18, 2000: 

http://www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/epd/prgrmdsc/wtrqual/spqual.htm 

http://www.state.ia.us/epd/prgrmdsc/wtrqual/sum.htm and 

http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtrq/wtrqbor.htm 

Class “B” Waters: Waters which are designated as Class “B” are to be protected for wildlife, fish, aquatic and 

semi-aquatic life and secondary contact water uses. Class “B” waters are divided into the following categories: 

• Class “B” (CW) (cold water aquatic life): streams or lakes that support trout and associated aquatic 

communities 

• Class “B” (WW) (significant resource warm water): lakes or rivers which support warm water game 

fish and associated aquatic communities, including sensitive species 

• Class “B” (LR) (limited resource warm water): streams which support limited aquatic life populations 

primarily composed of minnows and other nongame fish species 

• Class “B” (LW) (lakes and wetlands): artificial impoundments and natural lakes with lake-like 

conditions that support warm water game fish and associated aquatic communities 

High Quality (HQ) waters: Waters with exceptionally better quality than specified by Iowa water quality 

criteria and with exceptional recreational and ecological importance. Special protection is warranted to 

maintain the unusual, unique or outstanding physical, chemical, or biological characteristics that these waters 

possess. 

High Quality Resource (HQR) waters: Waters of substantial recreational or ecological significance that 

possess unusual, outstanding or unique physical, chemical or biological characteristics that enhance the 

beneficial uses and warrant special protection. 

Kansas 

SOURCE: Kansas Register, Notice/Regulations, Administrative Regulations, Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, Water Pollution Control, Chapter 28-1, Volume 20, Number 33, August 16, 2001: 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-25 
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/water/index.html#Proposed%20Regulations%20and%20 and 

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/environment/qmp_2000/SBMP_QAMP.pdf 

Article 16. Surface Water Quality Standards 

28-16-28b. Definitions. 

(h) ‘‘Bioassessment methods and procedures’’ means the use of biological methods of assessing surface 

water quality including, but not limited to, field investigations of aquatic organisms and laboratory or 

field aquatic toxicity tests. 

(k) ‘‘Biota’’ means the animal and plant life of a given geographical region. 

(v) ‘‘Ecological integrity’’ means the natural or unimpaired structure and functioning of an aquatic or 

terrestrial ecosystem. 

(oo) ‘‘Outstanding natural resource water’’ means any of the surface waters or surface water segments 

of exceptional recreational or ecological significance identified in the surface water register, as defined 

in K.A.R. 28-16-28b(uu), and afforded the highest level of water quality protection under the 

antidegradation provisions of K.A.R. 28-16-28c(a) and the mixing zone provisions of K.A.R. 28-16­

28c(b). 

(ddd) ‘‘Surface waters’’ means all of the following: 

(1) Streams, including rivers, creeks, brooks, sloughs, draws, arroyos, canals, springs, seeps, and 

cavern streams, and any alluvial aquifers associated with these surface waters; 

(2) lakes, including oxbow lakes and other natural lakes and man-made reservoirs, lakes, and ponds; 

and 

(3) wetlands, including water bodies meeting the technical definition for jurisdictional wetlands given 

in the corps of engineers wetlands delineation manual,’’ as published in January 1987, which is 

hereby adopted by reference. 

28-16-28d. Surface water use designation and classification. 

(a) Designated uses of surface waters are defined as follows. 

(2) ‘‘Aquatic life support use’’ means the use of surface water for the maintenance of the ecological 

integrity of streams, lakes and wetlands, including the sustained growth and propagation of native 

aquatic life, indigenous or migratory semi-aquatic life, or terrestrial wildlife directly or indirectly 

dependent on surface water for survival. 

(A) ‘‘Special aquatic life use waters’’ means either surface waters that contain combinations of habitat 

types and indigenous biota not found commonly in the state or surface waters that contain 

representative populations of threatened or endangered species. 

(B) ‘‘Expected aquatic life use waters’’ means surface waters containing habitat types and indigenous 

biota commonly found or expected in the state. 

(C) ‘‘Restricted aquatic life use waters’’ means surface waters containing indigenous biota limited in 

abundance diversity by the physical quality or availability of habitat, due to natural deficiencies 

or artificial modifications, compared to more suitable habitats in adjacent waters. 

28-16-28e. Surface water quality criteria.

(a) Criteria development guidance. The development of surface water quality criteria for substances not listed 

in these standards shall be guided by water quality criteria published by the United States environmental 

protection agency. If the department finds that the criteria listed in this regulation are underprotective or 

overprotective for given surface water segment, appropriate site-specific criteria may be developed and 

applied by the department, in accordance with K.A.R. 28-16-28f(f), using bioassessment methods or other 

related scientific procedures... 

(c) Criteria for designated uses of surface waters. The numeric criteria in tables 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e shall 

not apply if the critical low flow is less than 0.03 cubic meters per second for waters designated as 

expected aquatic life use waters and restricted aquatic life use waters, unless studies conducted or 

approved by the department show that water present during periods of no flow, or flow below critical low 

flow, provides important refuges for aquatic life and permits biological recolonization of intermittently 

flowing segments. The numeric criteria in tables 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e shall not apply if the critical low 

flow is less than 0.003 cubic meters per second for waters designated as special aquatic life use waters, 

unless studies conducted or approved by the department show that water present during periods of no 

flow, or flow below critical low flow, provides important refuges for aquatic life and permits biological 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-26 
recolonization of intermittently flowing segments. The following critieria shall apply to all classified surface 

waters for the indicated designated uses. 

Kentucky 

SOURCE: Title 401, Chapter 5, Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR), effective December 8, 1999: 

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/401/005/026.htm 

401 KAR 5:002. Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 5.

Section 1. Definitions. 

(8) "Adversely affect" or "adversely change" means, for purposes of 401 KAR 5:026 through 5:031, to 

alter or change the community structure or function, to reduce the number or proportion of sensitive 

species, or to increase the number or proportion of pollution tolerant aquatic species so that aquatic 

life use support or aquatic habitat is impaired. 

(54) "Cold water aquatic habitat" or "CAH" means surface waters and associated substrate that will 

support indigenous aquatic life or self-sustaining or reproducing trout populations on a year-round 

basis. 

(124) "Impairment" means, for the purpose of 401 KAR 5:026 through 5:031, a detrimental impact to a 

surface water that prevents attainment of a designated use. 

(127) "Indigenous aquatic life" means naturally occurring aquatic organisms including but not limited to 

bacteria, fungi, algae, aquatic insects, other aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. 

Under some natural conditions one (1) or more of the above groups may be absent from a surface 

water. 

(233) "Productive aquatic community" means an assemblage of indigenous aquatic life capable of 

reproduction and growth. 

(236) "Propagation" means the continuance of a species by successful spawning, hatching, and 

development or natural generation in the natural environment, as opposed to the maintenance of the 

species by artificial culture and stocking. 

(250) "Representative important species" means species which are representative, in terms of their 

biological needs, of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in the body of 

water into which a discharge of heat is made. 

(317) "Warm water aquatic habitat" or "WAH" means any surface water and associated substrate capable 

of supporting indigenous warm water aquatic life. 

401 KAR 5:026.Designation of uses of surface waters.

Section 1. Scope of Designation. 

(2) Designated uses are: 

(a) Warm water aquatic habitat; 

(b) Cold water aquatic habitat; 

(f) Outstanding state resource water. 

(4) Outstanding state resource waters may have unique water quality characteristics that shall be 

protected by additional criteria established in 401 KAR 5:031, Section 7. 

401 KAR 5:029.General provisions. 

Section 3. Documentation for Redesignations. 

(3) Documentation to support the redesignation of a surface water of the Commonwealth shall be: 

(g) An assessment of the existing and potential aquatic life habitat in the surface waters under 

consideration and the adjacent upstream surface waters. The existing aquatic life shall be 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-27 
documented and livestock and natural wildlife dependence on the surface water shall be 

assessed. The occurrence of individuals or populations, indices of diversity and well-being, and 

abundance of species of any unique native biota shall be documented; 

401 KAR 5:030. Antidegradation policy implementation methodology.

Section 1. Implementation of Antidegradation Policy.. 

(1) Categorization. Surface waters shall be placed into one (1) of three (3) categories: 

(a) Outstanding national resource waters: 

(b) Exceptional waters: 

1. Surface water designated as a Kentucky Wild River, unless it is categorized as an 

outstanding national resource water; 

2. Outstanding state resource water that does not support a federally threatened or endangered 

aquatic species; 

3. Surface water that fully supports all applicable designated uses and contains: 

a. A fish community that is rated "excellent" by the use of the Index of Biotic Integrity 

included in "Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters", incorporated 

by reference in Section 4 of this administration regulation; or 

b. A macroinvertebrate community that is rated "excellent" by the Macroinvertebrate 

Bioassessment Index included in "A Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index for Streams 

of the Interior Plateau Ecoregion in Kentucky", incorporated by reference in Section 4 of 

this administrative regulation; and 

4. Water in the cabinet’s reference reach network. 

401 KAR 5:031.Surface water standards. 

Section 2. Minimum Criteria Applicable to All Surface Waters. 

(1) The following minimum water quality criteria are applicable to all surface waters including mixing 

zones, with the exception that toxicity to aquatic life in mixing zones shall be subject to the provisions 

of 401 KAR 5:029, Section 4. Surface waters shall not be aesthetically or otherwise degraded by 

substances that: 

(d) Injure, are chronically or acutely toxic to or produce adverse physiological or behavioral 

responses in humans, animals, fish and other aquatic life; 

(e) Produce undesirable aquatic life or result in the dominance of nuisance species; 

Section 4. Aquatic Life. 

(1) Warm water aquatic habitat. The following parameters and associated criteria shall apply for the 

protection of productive warm water aquatic communities, fowl, animal wildlife, arboreous growth, 

agricultural, and industrial uses: 

(a) Natural alkalinity as CaCO3 shall not be reduced by more than twenty-five (25) percent. If natural 

alkalinity is below twenty (20) mg/l CaCO3, there shall not be a reduction below the natural level. 

Alkalinity shall not be reduced or increased to a degree which may adversely affect the aquatic 

community. 

(c) Flow shall not be altered to a degree which will adversely affect the aquatic community. 

(d) Temperature shall not exceed thirty-one and seven-tenths (31.7) degrees Celsius (eighty-nine 

(89) degrees Fahrenheit). 

2. The cabinet may determine allowable surface water temperatures on a site-specific basis 

utilizing available data which shall be based on the effects of temperature on the aquatic 

biota which utilize specific surface waters of the Commonwealth and which may be affected 

by person-induced temperature changes. Effects on downstream uses will also be considered 

in determining site-specific temperatures... 

3. A successful demonstration concerning thermal discharge limits carried out under Section 

316(a) of the Clean Water Act shall constitute compliance with the temperature requirements 

of this subsection. A successful demonstration assures the protection and propagation of a 

balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in or on the water into which the 

discharge is made. 

(f) Solids. 

1. Total dissolved solids. Total dissolved solids shall not be changed to the extent that the 

indigenous aquatic community is adversely affected. 

2. Total suspended solids. Total suspended solids shall not be changed to the extent that the 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-28 
indigenous aquatic community is adversely affected. 

3. Settleable solids. The addition of settleable solids that may alter the stream bottom so as to 

adversely affect productive aquatic communities is prohibited. 

Louisiana 

SOURCE: Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 33: Environmental Regulatory Code, Part IX, Water Quality, 

March 20, 2001: http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/title33/33v09.pdf 

Chapter 11. Surface Water Quality Standards 

§1101. Introduction

A. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish surface water quality standards which will: 

1. provide for the protection and preservation of the abundant natural resources of Louisiana's many and 

varied aquatic ecosystems; 

§1105. Definitions

Biological and Aquatic Community Integrity—the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting a specified 

habitat as measured by community structure and function. 

Biological Succession—the gradual and orderly process of ecosystem or community development brought 

about by changes in species populations that culminates in the production of a climax characteristic of a 

particular geographic region. 

Fresh Warmwater Biota—those aquatic life species whose populations typically inhabit waters with warm 

temperatures (seasonal averages above 20 o C, 68 o F) and low salinities (less 

than 2 parts per thousand,‰), including but not limited to, black basses and freshwater sunfish and catfish 

and characteristic freshwater aquatic invertebrates and wildlife. 

Marine Water Biota—those aquatic life species whose populations typically inhabit waters with salinities equal 

to or greater than 2 parts per thousand (‰) including but not limited to characteristic fishes, invertebrates and 

wildlife of coastal waters and the Gulf of Mexico. 

§1109. Policy

B. Water Use 

1. It is the policy of the state of Louisiana that all state waters should be protected for recreational uses 

and for the preservation and propagation of desirable species of aquatic biota and indigenous species 

of wildlife... 

2. In applying this policy, the terms "recreational uses" and "desirable species of aquatic biota" will be 

given common sense applications. Recreational uses will be classified as either "primary contact" or 

"secondary contact." "Desirable species of aquatic biota" refers to a diverse and naturally occurring 

range of aquatic biota and not to species that exist in the area in question in disproportionate numbers 

as a result of wastewater discharges. Desirable species of fish, shellfish and other invertebrates, 

wildlife, and other aquatic biota will be specified as "fresh warmwater" or "marine water" species. All 

future designations of water uses and their associated criteria must, at a minimum, adhere to these 

classifications, except as provided in LAC 33:IX.1109.B.3 and C. will be viewed as a problem to be 

solved, not as an impediment to categorizing water bodies or assigning designated uses... 

§1111. Water Use Designations

C. Fish and Wildlife Propagation. Fish and wildlife propagation includes the use of water for aquatic habitat, 

food, resting, reproduction, cover, and/or travel corridors for any indigenous wildlife and aquatic life 

species associated with the aquatic environment. This use also includes the maintenance of water quality 

at a level that prevents damage to indigenous wildlife and aquatic life species associated with the aquatic 

environment and contamination of aquatic biota consumed by humans. The subcategory of "limited 

aquatic life and wildlife use" recognizes the natural variability of aquatic habitats, community requirements, 

and local environmental conditions. Limited aquatic life and wildlife use may be designated for water 

bodies having habitat that is uniform in structure and morphology with most of the regionally expected 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-29 
aquatic species absent, low species diversity and richness, and/or a severely imbalanced trophic 

structure. Aquatic life able to survive and/or propagate in such water bodies include species tolerant of 

severe or variable environmental conditions. Water bodies that might qualify for the limited aquatic life and 

wildlife use subcategory include intermittent streams and man-made water bodies with characteristics 

including, but not limited to, irreversible hydrologic modification, anthropogenically and irreversibly 

degraded water quality, uniform channel morphology, lack of channel structure, uniform substrate, lack 

of riparian structure, and similar characteristics making the available habitat for aquatic life and wildlife 

suboptimal. Limited aquatic life and wildlife use will be denoted in Table 3 (LAC 33:IX.1123) as an “L.” 

E. Oyster Propagation. Oyster propagation is the use of water to maintain biological systems that support 

economically important species of oysters, clams, mussels, or other mollusks so that their productivity is 

preserved and the health of human consumers of these species is protected. 

This use shall apply only to those water bodies named in the Numerical Criteria and Designated Uses 

Table and not to their tributaries or distributaries unless so specified. 

G. Outstanding Natural Resource Waters. Outstanding natural resource waters include water bodies 

designated for preservation, protection, reclamation, or enhancement of wilderness, aesthetic qualities, 

and ecological regimes, such as those designated under the Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers System 

or those designated by the department as waters of ecological significance. Characteristics of outstanding 

natural resource waters include, but are not limited to, highly diverse or unique instream and/or riparian 

habitat, high species diversity, balanced trophic structure, unique species, or similar qualities. This use 

designation applies only to the water bodies specifically identified in Table 3 (LAC 33:IX.1123) and not 

to their tributaries or distributaries unless so specified. 

§1113. Criteria

B. General Criteria. 

12. Biological and Aquatic Community Integrity. The biological and community structure and function in 

state waters shall be maintained, protected, and restored except where not attainable and feasible 

as defined in LAC 33:IX.1109.B.3. This is the ideal condition of the aquatic community inhabiting the 

unimpaired water bodies of a specified habitat and region as measured by community structure and 

function. The biological integrity will be guided by the fish and wildlife propagation use designated for 

that particular water body. Fish and wildlife propagation uses are defined in LAC 33:IX.1111.C. The 

condition of these aquatic communities shall be determined from the measures of physical, chemical, 

and biological characteristics of each surface water body type, according to its designated use (LAC 

33:IX.1123). Reference site conditions will represent naturally attainable conditions. These sites 

should be the least impacted and most representative of water body types. Such reference sites or 

segments of water bodies shall be those observed to support the greatest variety and abundance of 

aquatic life in the region as is expected to be or has been recorded during past surveys in natural 

settings essentially undisturbed by human impacts, development, or discharges. This condition shall 

be determined by consistent sampling and reliable measures of selected, indicative communities of 

animals and/or invertebrates as established by the department and may be used in conjunction with 

acceptable chemical, physical, and microbial water quality measurements and records as deemed 

for this purpose. 

Maine 

SOURCE: Title 38, Section 464, Maine Revised Statutes, 1999: 

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/38/title38sec464.html and http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq 

38 MRSA Section 464. Classification of Maine waters: 

1. Findings; objectives; purpose....The Legislature declares that it is the State's objective to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the State's waters and to preserve certain 

pristine state waters. The Legislature further declares that in order to achieve this objective the State's 

goals are: 

C. That water quality be sufficient to provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and 

wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-30 
4. General provisions. The classification system for surface waters established by this article shall be 

subject to the following provisions. 

F. The antidegradation policy of the State is governed by the following provisions. 

(1) ...Determinations of what constitutes an existing in-stream water use on a particular water 

body must be made on a case-by-case basis by the department. In making its determination 

of uses to be protected and maintained, the department shall consider designated uses for 

that water body and: 

(a) Aquatic, estuarine and marine life present in the water body; 

(b) Wildlife that utilize the water body; 

(c) Habitat, including significant wetlands, within a water body supporting existing 

populations of wildlife or aquatic, estuarine or marine life, or plant life that is maintained 

by the water body; 

(d) Any other evidence that, for divisions (a), (b) and (c), demonstrates their ecological 

significance because of their role or importance in the functioning of the ecosystem or 

their rarity and, for division (d), demonstrates its historical or social significance. 

(1-A) The department may only issue a waste discharge license pursuant to section 414-A, or 

approve a water quality certification pursuant to the United States Clean Water Act, Section 

401, Public Law 92-500, as amended, when the department finds that: 

(a) The existing in-stream use involves use of the water body by a population of plant life, 

wildlife, or aquatic, estuarine or marine life, or as aquatic, estuarine, marine, wildlife, or 

plant habitat, and the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity would not 

have a significant impact on the existing use. For purpose of this division, significant 

impact means: 

(i) Impairing the viability of the existing population, including significant impairment to 

growth and reproduction or an alteration of the habitat which impairs viability of the 

existing population; or 

The department shall determine what constitutes a population of a particular species based 

upon the degree of geographic and reproductive isolation from other individuals of the same 

species. 

6. Implementation of biological water quality criteria. The implementation of water quality criteria 

pertaining to the protection of the resident biological community shall be governed by the provisions of 

this subsection. 

A. At any time during the term of a valid wastewater discharge license that was issued prior to the 

effective date of this article, the board may modify that license in accordance with section 341-D, 

subsection 3 if the discharger is not in compliance with the water quality criteria pertaining to the 

protection of the resident biological community. When a discharge license is modified under this 

subsection, the board shall establish a reasonable schedule to bring the discharge into compliance 

with the water quality criteria pertaining to the protection of the resident biological community. 

B. When a discharge license is issued after the effective date of this article and before the effective date 

of the rules adopted pursuant to subsection 5, the department shall establish a reasonable schedule 

to bring the discharge into compliance with the water quality criteria pertaining to the protection of the 

resident biological community. 

38 MRSA § 465. Standards for classification of fresh surface waters

The department shall have 4 standards for the classification of fresh surface waters which are not classified 

as great ponds. 

1. Class AA waters. Class AA shall be the highest classification and shall be applied to waters which are 

outstanding natural resources and which should be preserved because of their ecological, social, scenic 

or recreational importance. 

A. 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. 

B. The aquatic life, dissolved oxygen and bacteria content of Class AA waters shall be as naturally 

occurs. 

2. Class A waters. Class A shall be the 2nd highest classification. 

A. Class A waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable...as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-31 
The habitat shall be characterized as natural. 

B. ...The aquatic life and bacteria content of Class A waters shall be as naturally occurs. 

3. Class B waters. Class B shall be the 3rd highest classification. 

A. Class B waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable... as habitat for fish and other aquatic 

life. The habitat shall be characterized as unimpaired. 

B. The dissolved oxygen content of Class B waters shall be not less than 7 parts per million or 75% of 

saturation, whichever is higher, except that for the period from October 1st to May 14th, in order to 

ensure spawning and egg incubation of indigenous fish species... 

C. Discharges to Class B waters shall not cause adverse impact to aquatic life in that the receiving 

waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all aquatic species indigenous to the receiving water 

without detrimental changes in the resident biological community. 

4. Class C waters. Class C shall be the 4th highest classification. 

A. Class C waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable...as a habitat for fish and other aquatic 

life. 

B. The dissolved oxygen content of Class C water may be not less than 5 parts per million or 60% of 

saturation, whichever is higher, except that in identified salmonid spawning areas where water quality 

is sufficient to ensure spawning, egg incubation and survival of early life stages, that water quality 

sufficient for these purposes must be maintained... 

C. Discharges to Class C waters may cause some changes to aquatic life, provided that the receiving 

waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and 

maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community. 

38 MRSA § 466. Definitions: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/38/title38sec466.html 

1. Aquatic life. "Aquatic life" means any plants or animals which live at least part of their life cycle in fresh 

water. 

2. As naturally occurs. "As naturally occurs" means conditions with essentially the same physical, chemical 

and biological characteristics as found in situations with similar habitats free of measurable effects of 

human activity. 

3. Community function. "Community function" means mechanisms of uptake, storage and transfer of 

life-sustaining materials available to a biological community which determines the efficiency of use and 

the amount of export of the materials from the community. 

4. Community structure. "Community structure" means the organization of a biological community based 

on numbers of individuals within different taxonomic groups and the proportion each taxonomic group 

represents of the total community. 

10. Resident biological community. "Resident biological community" means aquatic life expected to exist 

in a habitat which is free from the influence of the discharge of any pollutant. This shall be established by 

accepted biomonitoring techniques. 

11. Unimpaired. "Unimpaired" means without a diminished capacity to support aquatic life. 

12. Without detrimental changes in the resident biological community. "Without detrimental changes in 

the resident biological community" means no significant loss of species or excessive dominance by any 

species or group of species attributable to human activity. 

Maryland 

SOURCE: Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 26, Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water 

Pollution, Subpart 26.0.02, November 6, 1995: COMAR 26.08.02.01, Surface Water Quality Protection and 

26.08.02.02, Designated Uses: https://constmail.gov.state.md.us/comar/26/26.08.02.01.htm and 

https://constmail.gov.state.md.us/comar/26/26.08.02.02.htm 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-32 
.01 Surface Water Quality Protection

A. Purpose. To protect surface water quality, this State shall adopt water quality standards to: 

(1) Protect public health or welfare; 

(2) Enhance the quality of water; 

(3) Protect aquatic resources; and 

(4) Serve the purposes of the Federal Act. 

B. Water Quality Standards. 

(2) Water quality standards shall, wherever attainable, provide water quality for the designated uses of: 

(b) Fishing; 

(c) Propagation of fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife... 

.02 Designated Uses

A. General. 

(1) Waters of this State shall, wherever attainable, be protected for the basic uses of water contact 

recreation, fishing, protection of aquatic life and wildlife, and agricultural and industrial water supply 

as identified in Use I. 

B. Specific Designated Uses. 

(1) Use I: Water Contact Recreation, and Protection of Aquatic Life. This use designation includes waters 

which are suitable for: 

(c) Fishing; 

(d) The growth and propagation of fish (other than trout), other aquatic life, and wildlife; 

(2) Use I-P: Water Contact Recreation, Protection of Aquatic Life, and Public Water Supply. This use 

designation includes: 

(a) All uses identified for Use I.... 

(3) Use II: Shellfish Harvesting Waters. This use designation includes waters where: 

(a) Shellfish are propagated, stored, or gathered for marketing purposes; and 

(b) There are actual or potential areas for the harvesting of oysters, softshell clams, hardshell clams, 

and brackish water clams. 

(4) Use III: Natural Trout Waters. This use designation includes waters which have the potential for or 

are: 

(a) Suitable for the growth and propagation of trout; and 

(b) Capable of supporting self-sustaining trout populations and their associated food organisms. 

(5) Use III-P: Natural Trout Waters and Public Water Supply. This use designation includes: 

(a) All uses identified for Use III waters; and... 

(6) Use IV: Recreational Trout Waters. This use designation includes cold or warm waters which have 

the potential for or are: 

(a) Capable of holding or supporting adult trout for put-and-take fishing; and 

(b) Managed as a special fishery by periodic stocking and seasonal catching. 

(7) Use IV-P: Recreational Trout Waters and Public Water Supply. This use designation includes: 

(a) All uses identified for Use IV waters; and... 

Massachusetts 

SOURCE: 314 CMR 4.00: Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, effective May 12, 2000: 

http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/314cmr4.htm 

4.02: Definitions 

Aquatic Life - A native, naturally diverse, community of aquatic flora and fauna. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-33 
Cold Water Fishery - Waters in which the maximum mean monthly temperature generally does not exceed 

68B

F (20BC) and, when other ecological factors are favorable (such as habitat), are capable of supporting a 

year-round population of cold water stenothermal aquatic life such as trout (salmonidae). 

Vernal Pool - A waterbody that has been certified by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife as 

a vernal pool. 

Warm Water Fishery - Waters in which the maximum mean monthly temperature generally exceeds 68B

F 

(20B

C) during the summer months and are not capable of sustaining a year-round population of cold water 

stenothermal aquatic life. 

4.05 Classes and Criteria 

(3) Inland Water Classes: 

(a) Class A - These waters are designated as a source of public water supply. To the extent compatible 

with this use they shall be an excellent habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, and suitable for 

primary secondary contact recreation. These waters shall have excellent aesthetic value. These 

waters are designated for protection as Outstanding Resource Waters under 314 CMR 4.04(3). 

1. Dissolved Oxygen -

a. Shall not be less than six mg/l unless background conditions are lower; 

b. natural seasonal and daily variations above this level shall be maintained; levels shall not be 

lowered below 75% of saturation due to a discharge; and 

c. site-specific criteria may apply where back-ground levels are lower than specified levels or 

to the hypolimnion of stratified lakes where the Department determines that designated uses 

are not impaired. 

2. Temperature -

a. Shall not exceed 68/F (20/C) in cold water fisheries, nor 83/F (28.3/C) in warm water 

fisheries, and the rise in temperature due to a discharge shall not exceed 1.5/F (0.8/C); and 

b. natural seasonal and daily variations shall be maintained. There shall be no changes from 

background conditions that would impair any use assigned to this Class, including 

site-specific limits necessary to protect normal species diversity, successful migration, 

reproductive functions or growth of aquatic organisms. 

5. Solids - These waters shall be free from floating, suspended and settleable solids in 

concentrations or combinations that would impair any use assigned to this class, that would 

cause aesthetically objectionable conditions, or that would impair the benthic biota or degrade 

the chemical composition of the bottom. 

(b) Class B - These waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife, and for 

primary and secondary contact recreation. Where designated they shall be suitable as a source of 

public water supply with appropriate treatment. They shall be suitable for irrigation and other 

agricultural uses and for compatible industrial cooling and process uses. These waters shall have 

consistently good aesthetic value. 

1. Dissolved Oxygen 

a. Shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l in cold water fisheries nor less than 5.0 mg/l in warm water 

fisheries unless background conditions are lower; 

b. natural seasonal and daily variations above these levels shall be maintained; levels shall not 

be lowered below 75% of saturation in cold water fisheries nor 60% of saturation in warm 

water fisheries due to a discharge; and 

c. site-specific criteria may apply where background levels are lower than specified levels, to 

the hypolimnion of stratified lakes or where the Department determines that designated uses 

are not impaired. 

2. Temperature - 

a. Shall not exceed 68/F (20/C) in cold water fisheries nor 83/F (28.3/C) in warm water fisheries, 

and the rise in temperature due to a discharge shall not exceed 3/F (1.7/C) in rivers and 

streams designated as cold water fisheries nor 5/F (2.8/C) in rivers and streams designated 

as warm water fisheries (based on the minimum expected flow for the month); in lakes and 

ponds the rise shall not exceed 3/F (1.7/C) in the epilimnion (based on the monthly average 

of maximum daily temperature); and 

b. natural seasonal and daily variations shall be maintained. There shall be no changes from 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-34 
background conditions that would impair any use assigned to this Class, including 

site-specific limits necessary to protect normal species diversity, successful migration, 

reproductive functions or growth of aquatic organisms. 

5. Solids - These waters shall be free from floating, suspended and settleable solids in 

concentrations and combinations that would impair any use assigned to this Class, that would 

cause aesthetically objectionable conditions, or that would impair the benthic biota or degrade 

the chemical composition of the bottom. 

(c) Class C - These waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, and for 

secondary contact recreation. These waters shall be suitable for the irrigation of crops used for 

consumption after cooking and for compatible industrial cooling and process uses. These waters shall 

have good aesthetic value. 

1. Dissolved Oxygen -

a. Shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l at least 16 hours of any 24-hour period and not less than 3.0 

mg/l at any time unless background conditions are lower; 

b. natural seasonal and daily variations above these levels shall be maintained; levels shall not 

be lowered below 50% of saturation due to a discharge; and (c) site-specific criteria may 

apply where background levels are lower than specified levels, or to the hypolimnion of 

stratified lakes where the Department determines that designated uses are not impaired. 

2. Temperature -

a. Shall not exceed 85/F (29.4/C) nor shall the rise due to a discharge exceed 5F (2.8/C); and 

b. Natural seasonal and daily variations shall be maintained. There shall be no changes from 

background conditions that would impair any use assigned to this Class, including the 

site-specific limits necessary to protect normal species diversity, successful migration, 

reproductive functions or growth of aquatic organisms. 

5. Solids - These waters shall be free from floating, suspended and settleable solids in 

concentrations and combinations that would impair any use assigned to this Class, that would 

cause aesthetically objectionable conditions, or that would impair the benthic biota or degrade 

the chemical composition of the bottom. 

Michigan* 

*This language has not been reviewed for accuracy by state/tribal agency. 

SOURCE: Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Response Division General Rules, Part 4. 

Water Quality Standards: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-gleas-305b2002AppI.doc 

R 323.1043 Definitions; A to L 

Rule 43 

(b) "Acceptable wildlife endpoints" means subchronic and chronic endpoints that affect reproductive or 

developmental success, organismal viability, or growth or any other endpoint that is, or is directly related 

to, a parameter that influences population dynamics. 

(d) "Adverse effect" means any deleterious effect to organisms due to exposure to a substance. The term 

includes effects that are or may become debilitating, harmful, or toxic to the normal functions of the 

organism. The term does not include nonharmful effects such as tissue discoloration alone or the 

induction of enzymes involved in the metabolism of the substance. 

(f) "Anadromous salmonids" means trout and salmon that ascend streams to spawn. 

(r) "Coldwater fishery" means waterbodies that contain fish species which thrive in relatively cold water, 

including any of the following: 

(i) Trout. 

(ii) Salmon. 

(iii) Whitefish. 

(iv) Cisco. 

(x) "Designated use" means a use of the surface waters of the state as established by these rules, including 

use for any of the following: 

(i) Industrial, agricultural, and public water supply. 

(ii) Recreation. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-35 
(iii) Warmwater and coldwater fisheries, other aquatic life, and wildlife. 

(iv) Navigation. 

(hh)"Fisheries, other aquatic life, and wildlife use" means the use of the surface waters of the state by fish, 

other aquatic life, and wildlife for any life history stage or activity and the protection of fish for human 

consumption. 

R 323.1044 Definitions; M to W. 

Rule 44. 

(c) "Natural water temperature" means the temperature of a body of water without an influence from an 

artificial source or a temperature as otherwise determined by the department. 

(dd)"Warmwater fishery" means a waterbody that contains fish species which thrive in relatively warm water, 

including any of the following: 

(i) Bass. 

(ii) Pike. 

(iii) Walleye. 

(iv) Panfish. 

Minnesota 

SOURCE: Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7050, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Waters of the State, October 

11, 2000: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/7050/ 

7050.0150 Determination of Water Quality Condition and Compliance,

The intent of the state is to protect and maintain surface waters in a condition which allows for the 

maintenance of all existing beneficial uses. The condition of a surface water body is determined by its 

physical, chemical, and biological qualities. 

The biological quality of any given surface water body shall be assessed by comparison to the biological 

integrity of a reference condition or conditions which best represents the most natural condition for that surface 

water body type within a geographic region. The biological quality shall be determined by reliable measures 

of indicative communities of fauna and flora. 

7050.0200 Water Use Classifications for Waters of the State: 

Subpart. 3. Class 2 waters, aquatic life and recreation. Aquatic life and recreation includes all waters of 

the state which do or may support fish, other aquatic life, bathing, boating, or other recreational purposes, and 

where quality control is or may be necessary to protect aquatic or terrestrial life or their habitats, or the public 

health, safety, or welfare. 

Subp. 5. Class 4 waters, agriculture and wildlife. Agriculture and wildlife includes all waters of the state 

which are or may be used for any agriculture purposes, including stock watering and irrigation, or by waterfowl 

or other wildlife, and for which quality control is or may be necessary to protect terrestrial life and its habitat 

or the public health, safety, or welfare. 

Subp. 8. Class 7 waters, limited resource value waters. Limited resource value waters include surface 

waters of the state which have been subject to a use attainability analysis and have been found to have limited 

value as a water resource... The agency, in cooperation and agreement with the Department of Natural 

Resources with respect to determination of fisheries values and potential, shall use this information to 

determine the extent to which the waters of the state demonstrate: 

A. the existing and potential faunal and floral communities are severely limited by natural conditions as 

exhibited by poor water quality characteristics, lack of habitat, or lack of water; or 

B. the quality of the resource has been significantly altered by human activity and the effect is essentially 

irreversible; and 

C. there are limited recreational opportunities (such as fishing, swimming, wading, or boating) in and on 

the water resource... 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-36 
7050.0222 SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF QUALITY AND PURITY FOR CLASS 2 WATERS OF THE STATE; 

AQUATIC LIFE AND RECREATION. 

Subp. 2. Class 2A waters; aquatic life and recreation. The quality of Class 2A surface waters shall be 

such as to permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cold water sport or commercial 

fish and associated aquatic life, and their habitats. These waters shall be suitable for aquatic recreation of 

all kinds, including bathing, for which the waters may be usable. This class of surface waters is also protected 

as a source of drinking water... 

Subp. 3. Class 2Bd waters. The quality of Class 2Bd surface waters shall be such as to permit the 

propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cool or warm water sport or commercial fish and 

associated aquatic life and their habitats. These waters shall be suitable for aquatic recreation of all kinds, 

including bathing, for which the waters may be usable. This class of surface waters are also protected as a 

source of drinking water... 

Subp. 4. Class 2B waters. The quality of Class 2B surface waters shall be such as to permit the 

propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cool or warm water sport or commercial fish and 

associated aquatic life, and their habitats. These waters shall be suitable for aquatic recreation of all kinds, 

including bathing, for which the waters may be usable. This class of surface water is not protected as a 

source of drinking water... 

Subp. 5. Class 2C waters. The quality of Class 2C surface waters shall be such as to permit the 

propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of indigenous fish and associated aquatic life, and their 

habitats. These waters shall be suitable for boating and other forms of aquatic recreation for which the 

waters may be usable... 

Subp. 6. Class 2D waters. The quality of Class 2D wetlands shall be such as to permit the propagation and 

maintenance of a healthy community of aquatic and terrestrial species indigenous to wetlands, and their 

habitats. Wetlands also add to the biological diversity of the landscape. These waters shall be suitable for 

boating and other forms of aquatic recreation for which the wetland may be usable... 

Mississippi 

SOURCE: State of Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate and Coastal Waters, Adopted 

November 16, 1995: http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/opchome.nsf/pages/SurfaceWaterfiles/$file/wqc.pdf 

SECTION III. SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 

4. FISH AND WILDLIFE: 

Waters in this classification are intended for fishing and for propagation of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife. Waters 

that meet the Fish and Wildlife Criteria shall also be suitable for secondary contact recreation. Secondary 

contact recreation is defined as incidental contact with the water, including wading and occasional swimming. 

5. EPHEMERAL STREAM: 

Waters in this classification do not support a fisheries resource and are not usable for human consumption 

or aquatic life. Ephemeral streams normally are natural watercourses, including natural watercourses that 

have been modified by channelization or manmade drainage ditches, that without the influent of point source 

discharges flow only in direct response to precipitation or irrigation return-water discharge in the immediate 

vicinity and whose channels are normally above the groundwater table. These streams may contain a transient 

population of aquatic life during the portion of the year when there is suitable habitat for fish survival. Normally, 

aquatic habitat in these streams is not adequate to support a reproductive cycle for fish and other aquatic life. 

Wetlands are excluded from this classification. 

Waters in this classification shall be protective of wildlife and humans which may come in contact with the 

waters. Waters contained in ephemeral streams shall also allow maintenance of the standards applicable to 

all downstream waters. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-37 
Missouri 

SOURCE: Missouri Rules of Department of Natural Resources Division 20—Clean Water Commission 

Chapter 7—Water Quality, August 31, 2000: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/mo/mo_7_wqs.pdf; 

http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/csr/10csr/10c20-7a.pdf and www.dnr.state.mo.us/water 

10 CSR 20-7.031 Water Quality Standards: 

(1) Definitions. 

(C) Beneficial water uses... 

2. Livestock and wildlife watering—Maintenance of conditions to support health in livestock and 

wildlife. 

3. Cold-water fishery—Waters in which naturally occurring water quality and habitat conditions allow 

the maintenance of a naturally reproducing or stocked trout fishery and other naturally 

reproducing populations of recreationally important fish species. 

4. Cool-water fishery—Waters in which naturally occurring water quality and habitat conditions 

allow the maintenance of a sensitive, high-quality sport fishery (including smallmouth bass and 

rock bass) and other naturally reproducing populations of recreationally important fish species. 

5. Protection of aquatic life (General warm-water fishery)—Waters in which naturally occurring water 

quality and habitat conditions allow the maintenance of a wide variety of warm-water biota, 

including naturally reproducing populations of recreationally important fish species... 

6. Protection of aquatic life (Limited warm-water fishery)—Waters in which natural water quality 

and/or habitat conditions prevent the maintenance of naturally reproducing populations of 

recreationally important fish species. 

13. Habitat for resident and migratory wildlife species, including rare and endangered 

species—Waters that provide essential breeding, nesting, feeding and predator escape habitats 

for wildlife including water-fowl, birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles. 

(D) Biocriteria—Numeric values or narrative expressions that describe the reference biological integrity 

of aquatic communities inhabiting waters that have been designated for aquatic-life protection. 

(G) Ecoregion—A major region within the logical, hydrological, chemical and biological 

characteristics. 

(O) Outstanding national resource waters—Waters which have outstanding national recreational and 

ecological significance. 

(R) Reference stream reaches—Stream reaches determined by the department to be the best available 

representatives of ecoregion waters in a natural condition, with respect to habitat, water quality, 

biological integrity and diversity, watershed land use and riparian conditions. 

(4) Specific Criteria 

(Q) Biocriteria. The biological integrity of waters, as measured by lists or numeric diversity indices of 

benthic invertebrates, fish, algae or other appropriate biological indicators, shall not be significantly 

different from reference waters. Waters shall be compared with reference waters of similar size within 

an ecoregion. 

Montana 

SOURCE: Administrative Rules of Montana, Rule 17, Chapter 30, Water Quality, Subchapter 6, Surface Water 

Quality Standards and Procedures, June 30, 1996: 

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/dir/Legal/Chapters/CH30-06.pdf and www.deq.state.mt.us 

17.30.601 POLICY 

(1) The following standards are adopted to conserve water by protecting, maintaining, and improving the 

quality and potability of water for public water supplies, wildlife, fish and aquatic life, agriculture, industry, 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-38 
recreation, and other beneficial uses. 

17.30.602 DEFINITIONS 

(10)"Ephemeral stream" means a stream or part of a stream which flows only in direct response to 

precipitation in the immediate watershed or in response to the melting of a cover of snow and ice and 

whose channel bottom is always above the local water table. 

(13)"Intermittent stream" means a stream or reach of a stream that is below the local water table for at least 

some part of the year, and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and groundwater discharge. 

(17)"Naturally occurring" means conditions or material present from runoff or percolation over which man has 

no control or from developed land where all reasonable land, soil and water conservation practices have 

been applied. Conditions resulting from the reasonable operation of dams in existence as of July 1, 1971 

are natural. 

17.30.621 A-CLOSED CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS 

(1) Waters classified A-Closed are suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after simple 

disinfection. Water quality is suitable for swimming, recreation, growth, and propagation of fishes and 

associated aquatic life... 

(3) No person may violate the following specific water quality standards for waters classified A-Closed: 

(f) No increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment, settleable solids, oils, 

or floating solids, which will or are likely to create a nuisance or render the waters harmful, 

detrimental, or injurious to public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, 

or other wildlife. 

17.30.622-17.30.627 CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS 

A-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, and C-2 classification standards state that water quality must be suitable for...growth 

and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers....[and other uses 

as assigned for each class]. [ The following condition applies to these classifications:] 

(3) No person may violate the following specific water quality standards for waters classified A-1: 

(f) No increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment, settleable solids, oils, 

or floating solids, which will or are likely to create a nuisance or render the waters harmful, 

detrimental, or injurious to public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, 

or other wildlife. 

17.30.628 I CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS 

(1) The goal of the state of Montana is to have these waters fully support the following uses: drinking, 

culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation; 

growth and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural 

and industrial water supply... 

17.30.629 C-3 CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS 

(1) Waters classified C-3 are suitable for bathing, swimming and recreation, growth and propagation of nonsalmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers... 

Nebraska 

SOURCE: Title 117 - Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards, Nebraska Department of Environmental 

Quality, Chapter 4: Standards for Water Quality, August 22, 2000: http://www.deq.state.ne.us/ 

001 It is the public policy of the State of Nebraska to protect and improve the quality of surface water for 

human consumption, wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, industry, recreation, and other productive, beneficial 

uses. 

The beneficial uses defined by these standards are: 

Aquatic Life 

Coldwater (Class A and B) 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-39 
Warmwater (Class A and B) 

003.01G Biological Criteria. Any human activity causing water pollution which would significantly 

degrade the biological integrity of a body of water or significantly impact or displace an identified “key 

species” shall not be allowed except as specified in Chapter 2. 

003.01G1 Key Species. Key species are identified endangered, threatened, sensitive, or 

recreationally-important aquatic species. Key species are designated by stream segment (Chapter 

5). The following list defines the aquatic species considered by the Department to be key species. 

COMMON NAME 

Endangered Species: 

Pallid sturgeon 

Topeka shiner 

Threatened Species: 

Lake sturgeon 

Northern redbelly dace 

Pearl dace 

Finescale dace 

Blacknose shiner 

Sensitive Species: 

Lake chub 

Brook stickleback 

Iowa darter 

Johnny darter 

Orangethroat darter 

Blacknose dace 

Grass pickerel 

Pumpkinseed 

Golden shiner 

Common shiner 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Scaphirhynchus albus 

Notropis topeka 

Acipenser fulvescens 

Phoxinus eos 

Semotilus margarita 

Phoxinus neogaeus 

Notropis heterolepis 

Couesius plumbeus 

Culea inconstans 

Etheostoma exile 

Etheostoma nigrum 

Etheostoma spectabile 

Rhinichthys atratulus 

Esox americanus 

Lepomis gibbosus 

Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Notropis cornutus 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-40 
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

Recreationally-Important Species:

Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Brown trout Salmo trutta

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Northern pike Esox lucius

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris

Striped bass Morone saxatilis

White bass Morone chrysops

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui

Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

White crappie Pomoxis annularis

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Sauger Stizostedion canadense

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum vitreum

1 Endangered, threatened, and recreationally-important aquatic species are not included. 

003.02 Site-Specific Criteria for Aquatic Life. 

003.02A1 The following are acceptable conditions for developing site-specific criteria. 

003.02A1a Resident species of a water body are more or less sensitive than those species used to 

develop a water quality criterion. 

003.02A1a(1) Natural adaptive processes have enabled a viable, balanced aquatic community 

to exist in waters where natural background levels of a chemical exceed the criterion (e.g., 

resident species have evolved a genetically-based greater resistance to high concentrations of 

a chemical). 

003.02A1a(2) The composition of aquatic species in a water body is different from those used 

in deriving a criterion (e.g., most of the species considered among the most sensitive, such as 

salmonids or the cladoceran, Daphnia magna, which were used in developing a criterion, are 

absent from a water body). 

003.02A3 Site-specific criteria shall protect all life stages of resident species year-round (or seasonally 

for seasonally dependent criteria) and prevent acute and chronic toxicity in all parts of a water body... 

Nevada 

SOURCE: Nevada Administrative Code, Chapter 445A, Standards for Water Quality, September 2000: 

http://www.ndep.state.nv.us/nac/445a119.pdf 

NAC 445A.119 Criteria for water quality for designated beneficial uses. The water quality criteria for 

designated beneficial uses for the various waters of the state are in the following table. 

[NOTE: In this section of NV’s standards, the table titled Water Quality Criteria for Designated Beneficial Uses 

includes Aquatic Life with the following levels: Warmwater: propagation and put and take and Coldwater: 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-41 
propagation and put and take.] 

NAC 445A.122 Standards applicable to beneficial uses.

1. The following standards are intended to protect both existing and designated beneficial uses and must 

not be used to prohibit the use of the water as authorized under Title 48 of NRS: 

(c) Aquatic life. The water must be suitable as a habitat for fish and other aquatic life existing in a body 

of water. This does not preclude the reestablishment of other fish or aquatic life. 

(h) Propagation of wildlife. The water must be suitable for the propagation of wildlife and waterfowl 

without treatment. 

(i) Waters of extraordinary ecological or aesthetic value. The unique ecological or aesthetic value of the 

water must be maintained. 

NAC 445A.124 Class A waters: Description; beneficial uses; quality standards.

1. Class A waters include waters or portions of waters located in areas of little human habitation, no 

industrial development or intensive agriculture and where the watershed is relatively undisturbed by man’s 

activity. 

2. The beneficial uses of class A waters are... aquatic life, propagation of wildlife, irrigation, watering of 

livestock, recreation including contact with the water and recreation not involving contact with the water.

 NAC 445A.125 Class B waters: Description; beneficial uses; quality standards.

1. Class B waters include waters or portions of waters which are located in areas of light or moderate human 

habitation, little industrial development, light-to-moderate agricultural development and where the 

watershed is only moderately influenced by man’s activity. 

2. The beneficial uses of class B water are ...aquatic life and propagation of wildlife, recreation involving 

contact with the water... 

NAC 445A.126 Class C waters: Description; beneficial uses; quality standards.

1. Class C waters include waters or portions of waters which are located in areas of moderate-to-urban 

human habitation, where industrial development is present in moderate amounts, agricultural practices 

are intensive and where the watershed is considerably altered by man’s activity. 

2. The beneficial uses of class C water are ... aquatic life, propagation of wildlife... 

NAC 445A.127 Class D waters: Description; beneficial uses; quality standards.

1. Class D waters include waters or portions of waters located in areas of urban development, highly 

industrialized or intensively used for agriculture or a combination of all the above and where effluent 

sources include a multiplicity of waste discharges from the highly altered watershed. 

2. The beneficial uses of class D waters are ... aquatic life, propagation of wildlife... 

New Hampshire 

SOURCE: New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Chapter Env-Ws 1700 Surface Water Quality 

Regulations, December 10, 1999: http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/Env-Ws1700.pdf 

PART Env-Ws 1702 DEFINITIONS 

Env-Ws 1702.04 "Benthic community" mean the community of plants and animals that live on, over, or in the 

substrate of the surface water. 

Env-Ws 1702.07 "Biological integrity" means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a 

balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional 

organization comparable to that of similar natural habitats of a region. 

Env-Ws 1702.08 "Biota" means species of plants or animals occurring in surface waters. 

PART Env-Ws 1703 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

Env-Ws 1703.01 Water Use Classifications. 

(b) All surface waters shall be restored to meet the water quality criteria for their designated classification 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-42 
including existing and designated uses, and to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of surface waters. 

(c) All surface waters shall provide, wherever attainable, for the protection and propagation of fish, 

shellfish and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the surface waters. 

Env-Ws 1703.19 Biological and Aquatic Community Integrity. 

(a) The surface waters shall support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community of 

organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that 

of similar natural habitats of a region. 

(b) Differences from naturally occurring conditions shall be limited to non-detrimental differences in 

community structure and function. 

PART Env-Ws 1707 MIXING ZONES 

Env-Ws 1707.02 Minimum Criteria. Mixing zones shall be subject to site specific criteria that, as a minimum: 

(b) Do not interfere with biological communities or populations of indigenous species; 

(f) Do not impinge upon spawning grounds and/or nursery areas of any indigenous aquatic species; 

(g) Do not result in the mortality of any plants, animals, humans, or aquatic life within the m i x i n g 

zone. 

New Jersey 

SOURCE: New Jersey Administrative Code 7:9-B (Chapter 9B. Surface Water Quality Standards), as 

amended May 18, 1998: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/swqs/98swqs_web.pdf 

7:9B-1.4 Definitions 

"Anadromous fish" means fish that spend most of their life in saline waters and migrate to fresh waters to 

spawn. 

"Aquatic substrata" means soil material and associated biota underlying the water. 

"Biota" means the animal and plant life of an ecosystem; flora and fauna collectively. 

"Diadromous fish" means fish that spend most of their life in one type of water, either fresh or saline, and 

migrate to the other type to spawn. 

"FW1" means those fresh waters, as designated in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(h) Table 6, that are to be maintained 

in their natural state of quality (set aside for posterity) and not subjected to any man-made wastewater 

discharges or increases in runoff from anthropogenic activities. These waters are set aside for posterity 

because of their clarity, color, scenic setting, other characteristic of aesthetic value, unique ecological 

significance, exceptional recreational significance, exceptional water supply significance, or exceptional 

fisheries resource(s). 

"FW2" means the general surface water classification applied to those fresh waters that are not designated 

as FW1 or Pinelands Waters. 

"Important species" means species that are commercially valuable (for example, within the top 10 species 

landed, by dollar value); recreationally valuable; threatened or endangered; critical to the organization and/or 

maintenance of the ecosystem; or other species necessary in the food web for the well-being of the species 

identified in this definition. 

"Measurable changes" means changes measured or determined by a biological, chemical, physical, or 

analytical method, conducted in accordance with USEPA approved methods as identified in 40 C.F.R. 136 

or other analytical methods (for example, mathematical models, ecological indices) approved by the 

Department, that might adversely impact a water use (including, but not limited to, aesthetics). 

"Natural water quality" means the water quality that would exist in a waterway or a waterbody without the 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-43 
addition of water or waterborne substances from artificial origin. 

"Outstanding National Resource Waters" means high quality waters that constitute an outstanding national 

resource (for example, waters of National/State Parks and Wildlife Refuges and waters of exceptional 

recreational or ecological significance) as designated in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(i). 

"SC” means the general surface water classification applied to coastal saline waters. 

“SE” means the general surface water classification applied to saline waters of estuaries. 

"Trout maintenance waters" means waters designated at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(b) through (g) for the support of 

trout throughout the year. 

"Trout production waters" means waters designated at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15(b) through (g) for use by trout for 

spawning or nursery purposes during their first summer. 

7:9B-1.5 Statements of policy

(a) General policies are as follows: 

2. Water is vital to life and comprises an invaluable natural resource which is not to be abused by any 

segment of the State's population or economy. It is the policy of the State to restore, maintain and 

enhance the chemical, physical and biological integrity of its waters, to protect the public health, to 

safeguard the aquatic biota, protect scenic and ecological values, and to enhance the domestic, 

municipal, recreational, industrial, agricultural and other reasonable uses of the State's waters. 

3. Toxic substances in waters of the State shall not be at levels that are toxic to humans or the aquatic 

biota, or that bioaccumulate in the aquatic biota so as to render them unfit for human consumption. 

(f) Bioassay and biomonitoring policies are as follows: 

1. Bioassay test species selection criteria follow: 

i. The objective of the Department is to use test species for toxicity testing bioassays that are 

representative of the more sensitive aquatic biota from the different trophic levels of the waters 

in question. 

ii. Test species need not be indigenous to, nor occur in the waters in question. 

iii. When the bioassay test protocol being utilized falls under the scope of N.J.A.C. 7:18 the 

Department shall designate the approved representative species considered to be the most 

sensitive to the discharge. 

2. Acute definitive bioassay tests, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:18, will normally be utilized in 

determining the toxicity of a discharge to the aquatic biota. 

3. The Department, in order to further characterize the toxicity of a discharge, may allow or require the 

use of other procedures including, but not limited to: 

iii. Measures of the structure and function of the aquatic community in the receiving waters. 

7:9B-1.12 Designated uses of FW1, PL, FW2, SE1, SE2, SE3, and SC waters

(a) In all FW1 waters the designated uses are: 

1. Set aside for posterity to represent the natural aquatic environment and its associated biota; 

3. Maintenance, migration and propagation of the natural and established aquatic biota... 

(b) In all PL waters the designated uses are: 

2. Maintenance, migration and propagation of the natural and established biota indigenous to this unique 

ecological system;... 

(c) In all FW2 waters the designated uses are: 

1. Maintenance, migration and propagation of the natural and established biota... 

(d) In all SE1 waters the designated uses are: 

2. Maintenance, migration and propagation of the natural and established biota.... 

(e) In all SE2 waters the designated uses are: 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-44 
1. Maintenance, migration and propagation of the natural and established biota; 

2. Migration of diadromous fish; 

3. Maintenance of wildlife;... 

(f) In all SE3 waters the designated uses are: 

2. Maintenance and migration of fish populations; 

3. Migration of diadromous fish; 

4. Maintenance of wildlife;... 

(g) In all SC waters the designated uses are: 

1. Maintenance, migration and propagation of the natural and established biota;... 

New Mexico 

SOURCE: State of New Mexico Standards For Interstate And Intrastate 

Surface Waters, Title 20 Environmental Protection, Chapter 6 Water Quality, Standards For Interstate And 

Intrastate Surface Waters (20.6.4.12 New Mexico Administrative Code), New Mexico Water Quality Control 

Commission, December 16, 2001: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/NMED_regs/swqb/20_6_4_nmac.html#12 

and http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us 

20.6.4.7 DEFINITIONS: 

I. "Coldwater fishery" means a surface water of the State where the water temperature and other 

characteristics are suitable for the support or propagation or both of coldwater fishes. 

U. "High quality coldwater fishery" means a perennial surface water of the State in a minimally disturbed 

condition which has considerable aesthetic value and is a superior coldwater fishery habitat. A surface 

water of the State to be so categorized must have water quality, stream bed characteristics, and other 

attributes of habitat sufficient to protect and maintain a propagating coldwater fishery. 

BB. "Limited warmwater fishery" means a surface water of the State where intermittent flow may severely 

limit the ability of the reach to sustain a natural fish population on a continuous annual basis; or a 

surface water of the State where historical data indicate that water temperature may routinely exceed 

32.2/C (90/F). 

DD. "Marginal coldwater fishery" means a surface water of the State known to support a coldwater fish 

population during at least some portion of the year, even though historical data indicate that the 

maximum temperature in the surface water of the State may exceed 20/C (68/F). 

XX. "Warmwater fishery" means a surface water of the State where the water temperature and other 

characteristics are suitable for the support or propagation or both of warmwater fishes. 

CCC. "Wetlands" means those areas which are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soft conditions in New Mexico. 

Constructed wetlands used for wastewater treatment purposes are not included in this definition. 

DDD. "Wildlife habitat" means a surface water of the State used by plants and animals not considered as 

pathogens, vectors for pathogens or intermediate hosts for pathogens for humans or domesticated 

livestock and plants. 

20.6.4.12. GENERAL STANDARDS. 

A. Bottom Deposits: Surface waters of the State shall be free of water contaminants from other than natural 

causes that will settle and damage or impair the normal growth, function, or reproduction of aquatic life 

or significantly alter the physical or chemical properties of the bottom. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-45 
20.6.4.14. USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS. 

D. Physical, chemical and biological evaluations of surface waters of the State other than lakes and 

reservoirs for purposes of use attainability analyses or equivalent studies shall be conducted according 

to the procedures outlined in the "Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for 

Conducting Use Attainability Analyses," ... 

E. Physical, chemical and biological evaluations of lakes and reservoirs for purposes of use attainability 

analyses or equivalent studies shall be conducted according to the procedures outlined in the "Technical 

Support Manual' Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, Volume 

III: Lake Systems,"... 

F. A use attainability analysis or equivalent study should include any applicable information concerning the 

following: 

5. A physical and biological evaluation of the surface water of the State to be reviewed to identify any 

factors unrelated to water quality which impair attainment of designated uses and to determine which 

designated uses are feasible to attain in such surface water of the State given existing physical 

limitations, 

7. An evaluation of the aquatic and terrestrial biota utilizing the surface water of the State to determine 

resident species and which species could potentially exist in such water if physical and chemical 

factors impairing a designated use are corrected. 

New York 

SOURCE: Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York, Title 6, 

Environmental Conservation Rules and Regulations, Chapter X, Division of Water Resources, Part 701, 

Classifications-Surface Waters and Groundwaters, amended March 1998: 

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/701.htm 

§ 701.2 Class N fresh surface waters.

(a) The best usages of Class N waters are the enjoyment of water in its natural condition and, where 

compatible, as a source of water for drinking or culinary purposes, bathing, fishing, fish propagation, and 

recreation. 

§ 701.3 Class AA-Special (AA-S) fresh surface waters.

(a) The best usages of Class AA-S waters are: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food 

processing purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. The waters shall be suitable 

for fish propagation and survival. 

§ 701.4 Class A-Special (A-S) fresh surface waters.

(a) The best usages of Class A-S waters are: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food 

processing purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. The waters shall be suitable 

for fish propagation and survival. 

§ 701.5 Class AA fresh surface waters.

(a) The best usages of Class AA waters are: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing 

purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. The waters shall be suitable for fish 

propagation and survival. 

§ 701.6 Class A fresh surface waters.

(a) The best usages of Class A waters are: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing 

purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. The waters shall be suitable for fish 

propagation and survival. 

§ 701.7 Class B fresh surface waters.

The best usages of Class B waters are primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters 

shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-46 
§ 701.8 Class C fresh surface waters.

The best usage of Class C waters is fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival. 

The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may 

limit the use for these purposes. 

§ 701.9 Class D fresh surface waters.

The best usage of Class D waters is fishing. Due to such natural conditions as intermittency of flow, water 

conditions not conducive to propagation of game fishery, or stream bed conditions, the waters will not support 

fish propagation. These waters shall be suitable for fish survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary 

and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes. 

North Carolina 

SOURCE: North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A Environment and Natural Resources, Subchapter 

2B Surface Water Standards: Monitoring, January 1, 2002: 

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/rb010102.pdf and www.esb.enr.state.nc.us 

15A NCAC 02B .0101 General Procedures 

(e) The following are supplemental classifications: 

(1) Trout waters (Tr): freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. 

(2) Swamp waters (Sw): waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are 

different from adjacent streams. 

(4) Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW): unique and special waters of exceptional state or national 

recreational or ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses. 

(5) High Quality Waters (HQW): waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and 

physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies, native and special 

native trout waters (and their tributaries) designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, primary 

nursery areas (PNA) designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission and other functional nursery 

areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, all water supply watersheds which are either 

classified as WS-I or WS-II or those for which a formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-II 

has been received from the appropriate local government and accepted by the Division of Water 

Quality and all Class SA waters. 

(7) Unique wetland (UWL): wetlands of exceptional state or national ecological significance which require 

special protection to maintain existing uses. These wetlands may include wetlands that have been 

documented to the satisfaction of the Commission as habitat essential for the conservation of state 

or federally listed threatened or endangered species. 

15A NCAC 02B.0202 Definitions 

(11)Biological integrity means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced and 

indigenous community of organisms having species composition, diversity, population densities and 

functional organization similar to that of reference conditions. 

15A NCAC 02B .0211 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters

(1) Best Usage of Waters. Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including 

fishing, and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary 

recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes; 

(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and 

maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture; sources of water 

pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be 

considered to be violating a water quality standard; 

15A NCAC 02B .0212, .0214-.0216, .0218-.0219 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-I 

-WS-V and Class B Waters 

...Water quality standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply 

to Class WS-I waters [and other uses as assigned for each class]. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-47 
15A NCAC 02B .0220 TIDAL SALT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS SC WATERS 

General. The water quality standards for all tidal salt waters are the basic standards applicable to Class SC 

waters. Additional and more stringent standards applicable to other specific tidal salt water classifications are 

specified in Rules .0221 and .0222 of this Section. 

(1) Best Usage of Waters. Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including 

fishing, fish and functioning PNAs [Primary Nursery Areas]), wildlife, secondary recreation, and any 

other usage except primary recreation or shellfishing for market purposes. 

(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and 

maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, and secondary recreation; Any source of water pollution 

which precludes any of these uses, including their functioning as PNAs, on either a short-term or a 

long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard. 

15A NCAC 02B .0221 Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SA Waters

The following water quality standards apply to surface waters that are used for shellfishing for market 

purposes and are classified SA. Water quality standards applicable to Class SC waters as described in Rule 

.0220 of this Section also apply to Class SA waters. 

(1) Best Usage of Waters. Shellfishing for market purposes and any other usage specified by the "SB" 

or "SC" classification... 

15A NCAC 02B .0222 Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SB Waters

The following water quality standards apply to surface waters that are used for primary recreation, including 

frequent or organized swimming, and are classified SB. Water quality standards applicable to Class SC waters 

[as] described in Rule .0220 of this Section also apply to SB waters... 

15A NCAC 02B .0225 Outstanding Resource Waters

(a) General In addition to the existing classifications, the Commission may classify unique and special surface 

waters of the state as outstanding resource waters (ORW) upon finding that such waters are of 

exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance and that the waters have exceptional 

water quality while meeting the following conditions: 

(1) that the water quality is rated as excellent based on physical, chemical or biological information... 

(b) Outstanding Resource Values. In order to be classified as ORW, a water body must exhibit one or more 

of the following values or uses to demonstrate it is of exceptional state or national recreational or 

ecological significance: 

(1) there are outstanding fish (or commercially important aquatic species) habitat and fisheries; 

(5) the waters are of special ecological or scientific significance such as habitat for rare or endangered 

species or as areas for research and education. 

North Dakota 

SOURCE: Standards of Water Quality for State of North Dakota, Rule 33-16-02, North Dakota State 

Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories, June 1, 2001: 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ 

33-16-02-08. General water quality standards. 

2. Narrative Biological Goal

a. Goal. The biological condition of surface waters shall be similar to that of sites or waterbodies 

determined by the department to be regional reference sites. 

b. Definitions: 

(1) “Assemblage” means an association of aquatic organisms of similar taxonomic classification living 

in the same area. Examples of assemblages include, but are not limited to, fish, 

macroinvertebrates, algae, and vascular plants. 

(2) “Aquatic organism”means any plant or animal which lives at least part of its life cycle in water. 

(3) “Biological condition” means the taxonomic composition, richness, and functional organization 

of an assemblage of aquatic organisms at a site or within a water body. 

(4) “Functional organization” means the number of species or abundance of organisms within an 

assemblage which perform the same or similar ecological functions. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-48 
(5) “Metric” means an expression of biological community composition, richness, or function which 

displays a predictable, measurable change in value along a gradient of pollution or other 

anthropogenic disturbance. 

(6) “Regional reference sites” are sites or water bodies which are determined by the department to 

be representative of sites or water bodies of similar type (e.g., hydrology and ecoregion) and are 

least impaired with respect to habitat, water quality, watershed land use, and riparian and 

biological condition. 

(7) “Richness” means the absolute number of taxa in an assemblage at a site or within a water body. 

(8) “Taxonomic composition” means the identity and abundance of species or taxonomic groupings 

within an assemblage at a site or within a water body. 

c. Implementation. The intent of the state in adopting a narrative biological goal is solely to provide an 

additional assessment method that can be used to identify impaired surface waters. Regulatory or 

enforcement actions based solely on a narrative biological goal, such as the development and 

enforcement of North Dakota pollutant discharge elimination system permit limits, are not authorized. 

However, adequate and representative biological assessment information may be used in 

combination with other information to assist in determining whether designated uses are attained and 

to assist in determining whether new or revised chemical-specific permit limitations may be needed. 

Implementation will be based on the comparison of current biological conditions at a particular site 

to the biological conditions deemed attainable based on regional reference sites. In implementing a 

narrative biological goal, biological condition may be expressed through an index composed of 

multiple metrics or through appropriate statistical procedures. 

33-20-02-09. Surface water classifications, mixing zones, and numeric standards. 

1. Classifications... 

a. Class I streams. The quality of the waters in this class shall be suitable for the propagation and/or 

protection of resident fish species and other aquatic biota and for swimming, boating, and other water 

recreation. The quality of the waters shall be for irrigation, stock watering, and wildlife without injurious 

effects. After treatment consisting of coagulation, settling, filtration, and chlorination, or equivalent 

treatment processes, the water quality shall meet the bacteriological, physical, and chemical 

requirements of the department for municipal or domestic use. 

b. Class IA streams. The quality of the waters in this class shall be the same as the quality of class I 

streams, except that treatment for municipal use may also require softening to meet the requirements 

of the department. 

c. Class II streams. The quality of the waters in this class shall be the same as the quality of class I 

streams, except that additional treatment may be required to meet the drinking water requirements 

of the department. Streams in this classification may be intermittent in nature which would make 

these waters of limited value for beneficial uses such as municipal water, fish life, or irrigation. 

d. Class III streams. The quality of the waters in this class shall be suitable for agricultural and industrial 

uses such as stock watering, irrigation, washing, and cooling. These streams have low average flows 

and, generally, prolonged periods of no flow. They are of limited seasonal value for immersion 

recreation, fish life, and aquatic biota. The quality of these waters must be maintained to protect 

recreation, fish, and aquatic biota. 

Ohio 

SOURCE: Ohio Administrative Code, Chapter 3745-1-07 Water use designations and statewide criteria, 

February 22, 2002: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/01-07.pdf 

(A) Water quality standards contain two distinct elements: designated uses; and numerical or narrative criteria 

designed to protect and measure attainment of the uses. 

(1) Each water body in the state is assigned one or more aquatic life habitat use designations. Each 

water body may be assigned one or more water supply use designations and/or one recreational use 

designation. These use designations are defined in paragraph (B) of this rule. Water bodies are 

assigned use designations in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code. In addition, 

a water body may be assigned designations as described in the antidegradation rule (rule 3745-1-05 

of the Administrative Code). 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-49 
(6) Biological criteria presented in table 7-14 of this rule provide a direct measure of attainment of the 

warmwater habitat, exceptional warmwater habitat and modified warmwater habitat aquatic life uses. 

Biological criteria and the exceptions to chemical-specific or whole-effluent criteria allowed by this 

paragraph do not apply to any other use designations. 

(a) Demonstrated attainment of the applicable biological criteria in a water body will take precedence 

over the application of selected chemical-specific aquatic life or whole-effluent criteria associated 

with these uses when the director, upon considering appropriately detailed chemical, physical and 

biological data, finds that one or more chemical-specific or whole-effluent criteria are 

inappropriate. In such cases the options which exist include: 

(i) The director may develop, or a discharger may provide for the director's approval, a 

justification for a site-specific water quality criterion according to methods described in "Water 

Quality Standards Handbook, 1983, U.S. EPA Office of Water"; 

(ii) The director may proceed with establishing water quality based effluent limits consistent with 

attainment of the designated use. 

(b) Demonstrated nonattainment of the applicable biological criteria in a water body with concomitant 

evidence that the associated chemical-specific aquatic life criteria and whole-effluent criteria are 

met will cause the director to seek and establish, if possible, the cause of the nonattainment of 

the designated use. The director shall evaluate the existing designated use and, where not 

attainable, propose to change the designated use. Where the designated use is attainable and 

the cause of the nonattainment has been established, the director shall, wherever necessary and 

appropriate, implement regulatory controls or make other recommendations regarding water 

resource management to restore the designated use... 

(B) Use designations are defined as follows: 

(1) Aquatic life habitat 

(a) "Warmwater" - these are waters capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, 

adaptive community of warmwater aquatic organisms having a species composition, diversity, 

and functional organization comparable to the twenty-fifth percentile of the identified reference 

sites within each of the following ecoregions: the interior plateau ecoregion, the Erie/Ontario lake 

plains ecoregion, the western Allegheny plateau ecoregion and the eastern corn belt plains 

ecoregion. For the Huron/Erie lake plains ecoregion, the comparable species composition, 

diversity and functional organization are based upon the ninetieth percentile of all sites within the 

ecoregion. For all ecoregions, the attributes of species composition, diversity and functional 

organization will be measured using the index of biotic integrity, the modified index of well-being 

and the invertebrate community index as defined in "Biological Criteria for the Protection of 

Aquatic Life: Volume II, Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters," 

as cited in paragraph (B) of rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code. In addition to those water 

body segments designated in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code, all 

upground storage reservoirs are designated warmwater habitats. Attainment of this use 

designation (except for upground storage reservoirs) is based on the criteria in table 7-14 of this 

rule. A temporary variance to the criteria associated with this use designation may be granted as 

described in paragraph (F) of rule 3745-1-01 of the Administrative Code. 

(b) "Limited warmwater" - these are waters that were temporarily designated in the 1978 water quality 

standards as not meeting specific warmwater habitat criteria. Criteria for the support of this use 

designation are the same as the criteria for the support of the use designation warmwater habitat. 

However, individual criteria are varied on a case-by-case basis and supersede the criteria for 

warmwater habitat where applicable. Any exceptions from warmwater habitat criteria apply only 

to specific criteria during specified time periods and/or flow conditions. The adjusted criteria and 

conditions for specified stream segments are denoted as comments in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1­

30 of the Administrative Code. Stream segments currently designated limited warmwater habitats 

will undergo use attainability analyses and will be redesignated other aquatic life habitats. No 

additional stream segments will be designated limited warmwater habitats. 

(c) "Exceptional warmwater" - these are waters capable of supporting and maintaining an exceptional 

or unusual community of warmwater aquatic organisms having a species composition, diversity, 

and functional organization comparable to the seventy-fifth percentile of the identified reference 

sites on a statewide basis. The attributes of species composition, diversity and functional 

organization will be measured using the index of biotic integrity, the modified index of well-being 

and the invertebrate community index as defined in "Biological Criteria for the Protection of 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-50 
Aquatic Life: Volume II, Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters," 

as cited in paragraph (B) of rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code. In addition to those water 

body segments designated in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code, all lakes 

and reservoirs, except upground storage reservoirs, are designated exceptional warmwater 

habitats. Attainment of this use designation (except for lakes and reservoirs) is based on the 

criteria in table 7-14 of this rule. A temporary variance to the criteria associated with this use 

designation may be granted as described in paragraph (F) of rule 3745-1-01 of the Administrative 

Code. 

(d) "Modified warmwater" - these are waters that have been the subject of a use attainability analysis 

and have been found to be incapable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, 

adaptive community of warmwater organisms due to irretrievable modifications of the physical 

habitat. Such modifications are of a long-lasting duration (i.e., twenty years or longer) and may

 include the following examples: extensive stream channel modification activities permitted 

under sections 401 and 404 of the act or Chapter 6131. of the Revised Code, extensive 

sedimentation resulting from abandoned mine land runoff, and extensive permanent 

impoundment of free-flowing water bodies. The attributes of species composition, diversity and 

functional organization will be measured using the index of biotic integrity, the modified index of 

well-being and the invertebrate community index as defined in "Biological Criteria for the 

Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II, Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio 

Surface Waters," as cited in paragraph (B) of rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code. 

Attainment of this use designation is based on the criteria in table 7-14 of this rule. Each water 

body designated modified warmwater habitat will be listed in the appropriate use designation rule 

(rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code) and will be identified by ecoregion and 

type of physical habitat modification as listed in table 7-14 of this rule. The modified warmwater 

habitat designation can be applied only to those waters that do not attain the warmwater habitat 

biological criteria in table 7-14 of this rule because of irretrievable modifications of the physical 

habitat. All water body segments designated modified warmwater habitat will be reviewed on a 

triennial basis (or sooner) to determine whether the use designation should be changed. A 

temporary variance to the criteria associated with this use designation may be granted as 

described in paragraph (F) of rule 3745-1-01 of the Administrative Code. 

(e) "Seasonal salmonid" - these are rivers, streams and embayments capable of supporting the 

passage of salmonids from October to May and are water bodies large enough to support 

recreational fishing. This use will be in effect the months of October to May. Another aquatic life 

habitat use designation will be enforced the remainder of the year (June to September). A 

temporary variance to the criteria associated with this use designation may be granted as 

described in paragraph (F) of rule 3745-1-01 of the Administrative Code. 

(f) "Coldwater" - these are waters that meet one or both of the characteristics described in 

paragraphs (B)(1)(f)(i) and (B)(1)(f)(ii) of this rule. A temporary variance to the criteria associated 

with this use designation may be granted as described in paragraph (F) of rule 3745-1-01 of the 

Administrative Code. 

(i) "Coldwater habitat, inland trout streams" -these are waters which support trout stocking and 

management under the auspices of the Ohio department of natural resources, division of 

wildlife, excluding waters in lake run stocking programs, lake or reservoir stocking programs, 

experimental or trial stocking programs, and put and take programs on waters without, or 

without the potential restoration of, natural coldwater attributes of temperature and flow. The 

director shall designate these waters in consultation with the director of the Ohio department 

of natural resources. 

(ii) "Coldwater habitat, native fauna" - these are waters capable of supporting populations of 

native coldwater fish and associated vertebrate and invertebrate organisms and plants on an 

annual basis. The director shall designate these waters based upon results of use attainability 

analyses. 

(g) "Limited resource water" - these are waters that have been the subject of a use attainability 

analysis and have been found to lack the potential for any resemblance of any other aquatic life 

habitat as determined by the biological criteria in table 7-14 of this rule. The use attainability 

analysis must demonstrate that the extant fauna is substantially degraded and that the potential 

for recovery of the fauna to the level characteristic of any other aquatic life habitat is realistically 

precluded due to natural background conditions or irretrievable human-induced conditions. All 

water body segments designated limited resource water will be reviewed on a triennial basis (or 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-51 
sooner) to determine whether the use designation should be changed. Limited resource waters 

are also termed nuisance prevention for some water bodies designated in rules 3745-1-08 to 

3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code. A temporary variance to the criteria associated with this 

use designation may be granted as described in paragraph (F) of rule 3745-1-01 of the 

Administrative Code. Waters designated limited resource water will be assigned one or more of 

the following causative factors. These causative factors will be listed as comments in rules 3745­

1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code. 

(i) "Acid mine drainage" - these are surface waters with sustained pH values below 4.1 s.u. or 

with intermittently acidic conditions combined with severe streambed siltation, and have a 

demonstrated biological performance below that of the modified warmwater habitat biological 

criteria. 

(ii) "Small drainageway maintenance" - these are highly modified surface water drainageways 

(usually less than three square miles in drainage area) that do not possess the stream 

morphology and habitat characteristics necessary to support any other aquatic life habitat 

use. The potential for habitat improvements must be precluded due to regular stream channel 

maintenance required for drainage purposes. 

(iii) Other specified conditions. 

(2) Nuisance prevention This use designation is being replaced by the limited resource water use 

designation described in paragraph (A)(1)(g) of this rule. All water body segments currently 

designated nuisance prevention in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code must 

meet the limited resource water criteria in this rule. All references to the nuisance prevention use 

designation in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code will be phased out over time 

and replaced with limited resource water. 

(3) Water supply 

(a) "Public" - these are waters that, with conventional treatment, will be suitable for human intake and 

meet federal regulations for drinking water. Criteria associated with this use designation apply 

within five hundred yards of surface water intakes. Although not necessarily included in rules 

3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code, the bodies of water with one or more of the 

following characteristics are designated public water supply: (i) All publicly owned lakes and 

reservoirs, with the exception of Piedmont reservoir; 

(ii) All privately owned lakes and reservoirs used as a source of public drinking water; (iii) All 

surface waters within five hundred yards of an existing public water supply surface water intake; 

(iv) All surface waters used as emergency water supplies. 

(b) "Agricultural" - these are waters suitable for irrigation and livestock watering without treatment. 

(c) "Industrial" - these are waters suitable for commercial and industrial uses, with or without 

treatment. Criteria for the support of the industrial water supply use designation will vary with the 

type of industry involved. 

(4) Recreation. These use designations are in effect only during the recreation season, which is the 

period from May first to October fifteenth, for all water bodies except those designated seasonal 

salmonid habitat. The recreation season for streams designated seasonal salmonid habitat is June 

first to September thirtieth. 

(a) "Bathing waters" - these are waters that, during the recreation season are suitable for swimming 

where a lifeguard and/or bathhouse facilities are present, and include any additional such areas 

where the water quality is approved by the director. Water bodies assigned the bathing waters 

use designation are not necessarily indicated in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the 

Administrative Code but include local areas of those water bodies meeting this definition. 

(b) "Primary contact" - these are waters that, during the recreation season, are suitable for full-body 

contact recreation such as, but not limited to, swimming, canoeing, and scuba diving with minimal 

threat to public health as a result of water quality. In addition to those water body segments 

designated in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code, all lakes and reservoirs, 

except upground storage reservoirs and those lakes and reservoirs meeting the definition of bathing 

waters, are designated primary contact recreation. 

(c) "Secondary contact" - these are waters that, during the recreation season, are suitable for partial body 

contact recreation such as, but not limited to, wading with minimal threat to public health as a result 

of water quality. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-52 
(C) Protection of aquatic life - whole-effluent approach. Whole-effluent toxicity levels shall be applied in 

accordance with rules 3745-2-09 and 3745-33-07 of the Administrative Code. 

Table 7-14 

Biological criteria for warmwater, exceptional warmwater and modified warmwater habitats. Description and 

derivation of indices and ecoregions are contained in “Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: 

Volume II, Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters” cited in paragraph (B) of 

rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code. These criteria do not apply to the Ohio river, lakes or Lake Erie 

river mouths 

Index Modified Warmwater Habitat 

Sampling Site 

Ecoregion1 

Channel 

Modif. 

Mine 

Affected 

Impounded Warmwater 

Habitat 

Exceptional 

Warmwater 

Habitat 

(A) Index of biotic integrity (fish) 

(1) Wading sites* 

HELP 22 – – 32 50 

IP 24 – – 40 50 

EOLP 24 – – 38 50 

WAP 24 24 – 44 50 

ECBP 24 – – 40 50 

(2) Boat sites2 

HELP 20 – 22 34 48 

IP 24 – 30 38 48 

EOLP 24 – 30 40 48 

WAP 24 24 30 40 48 

ECBP 24 – 30 42 48 

(3) Headwater sites** 

HELP 20 – – 28 50 

IP 24 – – 40 50 

EOLP 24 – – 40 50 

WAP 24 24 – 44 50 

ECBP 24 – – 40 50 

*

 Sampling methods descriptions are found in the “Manual of Ohio EPA Surveillance Methods and Quality 

Assurance Practices,” cited in paragraph (B) of rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code. 

** Modification of the IBI that applies to sites with drainage areas less than twenty square miles. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-53 
Index Modified Warmwater Habitat 

Sampling Site 

Ecoregion1 

Channel 

Modif. 

Mine 

Affected 

Impounded Warmwater 

Habitat 

Exceptional 

Warmwater 

Habitat 

(B) Modified index of well-being (fish)*** 

(1) Wading sites2 

HELP 5.6 — — 7.3 9.4 

IP 6.2 — — 8.1 9.4 

EOLP 6.2 — — 7.9 9.4 

WAP 6.2 5.5 — 8.4 9.4 

ECBP 6.2 — — 8.3 9.4 

(2) Boat sites2 

HELP 5.7 — 5.7 8.6 9.6 

IP 5.8 — 6.6 8.7 9.6 

EOLP 5.8 — 6.6 8.7 9.6 

WAP 5.8 5.4 6.6 8.6 9.6 

ECBP 5.8 — 6.6 8.5 9.6 

(C) Invertebrate community index (macroinvertebrates) 

(1) Artificial substrate samplers2 

HELP 22 – – 34 46 

IP 22 – – 30 46 

EOLP 22 – – 34 46 

WAP 22 30 – 36 46 

ECBP 22 – – 36 46 

Oklahoma 

SOURCE: Oklahoma Administrative Code, Title 785, Oklahoma Water Resources Board Rules, Chapter 45 

Oklahoma Water Quality Standards, August 13, 2001: 

http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/~owrb/rules/Chap45.pdf, 

http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/~owrb/rules/Chap46.pdf and www.state.ok.us/~owrb 

785:45-1-2. Definitions 

"Benthic macroinvertebrates" means invertebrate animals that are large enough to be seen by the unaided 

eye, can be retained by a U. S. Standard No. 30 sieve, and live at least part of their life cycles within or upon 

available substrate in a body of water or water transport system. 

*** Does not apply to sites with drainage areas less than twenty square miles. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-54 
"Intolerant climax fish community" means habitat and water quality adequate to support game fishes or 

other sensitive species introduced or native to the biotic province or ecological region, which require specific 

or narrow ranges of high quality environmental conditions. 

"Sensitive representative species" means Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna, Daphnia pulex, Pimphales 

promelas (Fathead minnow), Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish), or other sensitive organisms indigenous 

to a particular waterbody. 

“Warm Water Aquatic Community” means a subcategory of the beneficial use category “Fish and Wildlife 

Propagation” where the water quality and habitat are adequate to support intolerant climax fish communities 

and includes an environment suitable for the full range of warm water benthos. 

"Water quality" means physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water which 

determine diversity, stability, and productivity of the climax biotic community or affect human 

health. 

785:45-5-12. Fish and wildlife propagation

(b) Habitat Limited Aquatic Community subcategory. 

(1) Habitat limited aquatic community means a subcategory of the beneficial use "Fish and Wildlife 

Propagation" where the water chemistry and habitat are not adequate to support a "Warm Water 

Aquatic Community" because: 

(A) Naturally occurring water chemistry prevents the attainment of the use; or 

(B) Naturally occurring ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the 

attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of a 

sufficient volume of effluent to enable uses to be met; or 

(C) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot 

be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or 

(D) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use, 

and it is not feasible to restore the waterbody to its original condition or to operate such 

modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use; or 

(E) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the waterbody, such as the lack of a proper 

substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude 

attainment of the "Warm Water Aquatic Community" beneficial use. 

(2) Habitat Limited Aquatic Community may also be designated where controls more stringent than those 

required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the federal Clean Water Act as amended, which would be 

necessary to meet standards or criteria associated with the beneficial use subcategories of Cool 

Water Aquatic Community or Warm Water Aquatic Community, would result in substantial and 

widespread economic and social impact. 

(c) Warm Water Aquatic Community subcategory. Warm Water Aquatic Community means a subcategory 

of the beneficial use category "Fish and Wildlife Propagation" where the water quality and habitat are 

adequate to support climax fish communities. 

(d) Cool Water Aquatic Community subcategory. Cool Water Aquatic Community means a subcategory 

of the beneficial use category "Fish and Wildlife Propagation" where the water quality, water temperature 

and habitat are adequate to support cool water climax fish communities and includes an environment 

suitable for the full range of cool water benthos. Typical species may include smallmouth bass, certain 

darters and stoneflies. 

(e) Trout Fishery subcategory. Trout Fishery (Put and Take) means a subcategory of the beneficial use 

category "Fish and Wildlife Propagation" where the water quality, water temperature and habitat are 

adequate to support a seasonal put and take trout fishery. Typical species may include trout. 

(f) Criteria used in protection of fish and wildlife propagation. The narrative and numerical criteria to maintain 

and protect the use of "Fish and Wildlife Propagation" and its subcategories shall include... 

(5) Biological Criteria. 

(A) Aquatic life in all waterbodies designated Fish and Wildlife Propagation (excluding waters 

designated "Trout, put-and-take") shall not exhibit degraded conditions as indicated by one or 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-55 
both of the following: 

(i) comparative regional reference data from a station of reasonably similar watershed size or 

flow, habitat type and Fish and Wildlife beneficial use subcategory designation or 

(ii) by comparison with historical data from the waterbody being evaluated. 

(B) Compliance with the requirements of 785:45-5-12(f)(5) shall be based upon measures 

including, but not limited to, diversity, similarity, community structure, species tolerance, trophic 

structure, dominant species, indices of biotic integrity (IBI's), indices of well being (IWB's), or 

other measures. 

785:46-15-5. Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Propagation support 

(e) Biological criteria.

(1) If data demonstrate that an assemblage of fish or macro invertebrates from a waterbody is significantly 

degraded, according to 785:45-5-12(f)(5), from that expected for thesubcategory of Fish and Wildlife 

Propagation designated in OAC 785:45 for that waterbody, then that subcategory may be deemed by the 

appropriate state environmental agency to be not supported. 

(2) All physical assessments and biological collections shall be performed in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in OWRB Technical Report No. 99-3 entitled "Standard Operating Procedures for 

Stream Assessments and Biological Collections Related to Biological Criteria in Oklahoma". 

(3) Evaluation of the biological collections shall include identification of fish samples to species level. 

(4) The determination of whether the use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation is supported in wadeable 

streams in Oklahoma ecoregions shall be made according to all of the requirements of this subsection 

(e), the application of Appendix C of this Chapter, and the special provisions in subsections (g) through 

(i), where applicable, of this Section. Streams with undetermined use support status shall be subject to 

additional investigation that considers stream order, habitat factors and local reference streams before 

the use support determination is made. 

(f) Turbidity. The criteria for turbidity stated in 785:45-5-12(f)(7) shall constitute the screening levels for 

turbidity. The tests for use support shall follow the default protocol in 785:46-15-4(b). 

(g) Special provisions for Ouachita Mountains wadeable streams. The determination of whether the use 

of Fish and Wildlife Propagation is supported for wadeable streams located in the Ouachita Mountains 

ecoregion shall be made according to the application of Appendix C of this Chapter, together with this 

subsection, as follows: 

(1) Where designated, the subcategory of Warm Water Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 35 or more. Such subcategory shall be 

deemed not supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 24 or less. If a score is 25 to 

34 inclusive, the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

(2)Where designated, the subcategory of Habitat Limited Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 27 or more. Such subcategory shall be 

deemed not supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 18 or less. If a score is 19 to 

26 inclusive, the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

(h) Special provisions for Arkansas Valley wadeable streams. The determination of whether the use of 

Fish and Wildlife Propagation is supported for wadeable streams located in the Arkansas Valley ecoregion 

shall be made according to the application of Appendix C of this Chapter, together with this subsection, 

as follows: 

(1) Where designated, the subcategory of Warm Water Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 35 or more. Such subcategory shall be 

deemed not supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 24 or less. If a score is 25 to 

34 inclusive, the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

(2) Where designated, the subcategory of Habitat Limited Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 27 or more. Such subcategory shall be 

deemed not supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 18 or less. If a score is 19 to 

26 inclusive, the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

(i) Special provisions for Boston Mountains and Ozark Highlands wadeable streams. The 

determination of whether the use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation is supported for wadeable streams 

located in the Boston Mountains and Ozark Highlands ecoregions shall be made according to the 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-56 
application of Appendix C of this Chapter, together with this subsection, as follows: 

(1) Where designated, the subcategory of Cool Water Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully supported 

if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 37 or more. Such subcategory shall be deemed not 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 29 or less. If a score is 30 to 36 inclusive, 

the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

(2) Where designated, the subcategory of Warm Water Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 31 or more. Such subcategory shall be 

deemed not supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 22 or less. If a score is 23 to 

30 inclusive, the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

(j) Special provisions for Central Irregular Plains wadeable streams. The determination of whether the 

use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation is supported for wadeable streams located in the Central Irregular 

Plains ecoregion shall be made according to the application of Appendix C of this Chapter, together with 

this subsection, as follows: 

(1) Where designated, the subcategory of Cool Water Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully supported 

if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 35 or more. Such subcategory shall be deemed not 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 28 or less. If a score is 29 to 34 inclusive, 

the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

(2) Where designated, the subcategory of Warm Water Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 30 or more. Such subcategory shall be 

deemed not supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 22 or less. If a score is 23 to 

29 inclusive, the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

3) Where designated, the subcategory of Habitat Limited Aquatic Community shall be deemed fully 

supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 25 or more. Such subcategory shall be 

deemed not supported if the application of Appendix C produces a score of 16 or less. If a score is 17 to 

24 inclusive, the issue of whether this subcategory is supported shall be deemed undetermined. 

SOURCE: Added at 17 Ok Reg 1775, effective 7/1/2000; Amended at 18 Ok Reg 3379, effective 8/13/2001; 

Amended at 19 Ok Reg 2524-2526, eff 7/1/2002 

APPENDIX C. INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 

5 3 1 SCORE 

Sample 

Composition 

Total no. of species See figure 1* 2.49 -1.50 <1.50 

Shannon diversity** 

based upon numbers 

>2.50 2 - 3 <2 

No. of sunfish species >3 4 - 3 <3 

No. of species 

comprising 75% of 

sample 

>5 3 - 5 <3 

No. of intolerant species

 <100mi2 area

 >100mi2 area 

>5 

Percentage of tolerant 

species 

See figure 3* 

Fish Condition Percentage of lithophils >36 18 - 36 <18 

Percentage of DELT 

anomalies*** 

<0.1 0.1 -1.3 >1.3 

Fish numbers (total 

individuals) 

>200 200 - 75 <75 

*Figure 2. Number of Intolerant Species and Figure 3. Percent Tolerant Species, (Unofficial) Oklahoma 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-57 
Administrative Code, Title 785, Oklahoma Water Resources Board Rules, Chapter 46. Implementation of 

Oklahoma Water Quality Standards, p. 47, 48. 

**d = - ∑ ni In

ni

N N

***DELT = deformities, eroded fins, lesions, tumors 

Oregon 

SOURCE: Oregon Administrative Rules: Chapter 340 Department of Environmental Quality, Water Pollution, 

Division 41 State-Wide Water Quality Management Plan; Beneficial Uses, Policies, Standards, and Treatment 

Criteria for Oregon, amended February 15, 2001: 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_300/OAR_340/340_041.html and 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/biomon/bio-rpt.htm 

340-04l-0006 Definitions 

(32) "Aquatic Species" means any plants or animals which live at least part of their life cycle in waters of 

the State. 

(33) "Biological Criteria" means numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the biological 

integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use. 

(35) "Indigenous" means supported in a reach of water or known to have been supported according to 

historical records compiled by State and Federal agencies or published scientific literature. 

(36) "Resident Biological Community" means aquatic life expected to exist in a particular habitat when 

water quality standards for a specific ecoregion, basin, or water body are met. This shall be 

established by accepted biomonitoring techniques. 

(37) "Without Detrimental Changes in the Resident Biological Community" means no loss of ecological 

integrity when compared to natural conditions at an appropriate reference site or region. 

(38) "Ecological Integrity" means the summation of chemical, physical and biological integrity capable of 

supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a 

species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitat 

of the region. 

(39) "Appropriate Reference Site or Region" means a site on the same water body, or within the same 

basin or ecoregion that has similar habitat conditions, and represents the water quality and biological 

community attainable within the areas of concern. 

(40) "Critical Habitat" means those areas which support rare, threatened or endangered species, or serve 

as sensitive spawning and rearing areas for aquatic life. 

(41) "High Quality Waters" means those waters which meet or exceed those levels that are necessary to 

support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, and other 

designated beneficial uses. 

(42) "Outstanding Resource Waters" means those waters designated by the Environmental Quality 

Commission where existing high quality waters constitute an outstanding state or national resource 

based on their extraordinary water quality or ecological values, or where special water quality 

protection is needed to maintain critical habitat areas. 

(51) "Cold-Water Aquatic Life" -- The aquatic communities that are physiologically restricted to cold water, 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-58 
composed of one or more species sensitive to reduced oxygen levels. Including but not limited to 

Salmonidae and cold-water invertebrates. 

(52) "Cool-Water Aquatic Life" -- The aquatic communities that are physiologically restricted to cool waters, 

composed of one or more species having dissolved oxygen requirements believed similar to the 

cold-water communities. Including but not limited to Cottidae, Osmeridae, Acipenseridae, and 

sensitive Centrarchidae such as the small-mouth bass. 

(53) "Warm-Water Aquatic Life" -- The aquatic communities that are adapted to warm-water conditions and 

do not contain either cold- or cool-water species. 

(57) "Ecologically Significant Cold-Water Refuge" exists when all or a portion of a waterbody supports 

stenotypic cold-water species (flora or fauna) not otherwise widely supported within the subbasin, and 

either: 

(a) Maintains cold-water temperatures throughout the year relative to other segments in the 

subbasin, providing summertime cold-water holding or rearing habitat that is limited in supply, or; 

(b) Supplies cold water to a receiving stream or downstream reach that supports cold-water biota. 

340-041-0027 Biological Criteria

Waters of the state shall be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in the 

resident biological communities. 

Pennsylvania 

SOURCE: Pennsylvania Code Chapter 93, Title 25, § 93.3, 93.4, 93.6. General water quality criteria, amended 

November 17, 2000: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.3.html, 

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.4.html 

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.6.html 

www.dep.state.pa.us 

§ 93.3. Protected water uses. 

Water uses which shall be protected, and upon which the development of water quality criteria shall be based, 

are set forth, accompanied by their identifying symbols, in Table 1: 

Table 1 

Symbol Protected Use 

Aquatic Life 

CWF Cold Water Fishes—Maintenance or propagation, 

or both, of fish species including the family 

Salmonidae and additional flora and fauna which 

are indigenous to a cold water habitat. 

WWF Warm Water Fishes—Maintenance and

propagation of fish species and additional flora

and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water

habitat. 

MF Migratory Fishes—Passage, maintenance and

propagation of anadromous and catadromous

fishes and other fishes which ascend to flowing

waters to complete their life cycle. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-59 
Symbol Protected Use 

TSF Trout Stocking—Maintenance of stocked trout 

from February 15 to July 31 and maintenance and 

propagation of fish species and additional flora 

and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water 

habitat. 

Water Supply 

AWS Wildlife Water Supply—Use for waterfowl habitat 

and for drinking and cleansing by wildlife. 

Special Protection 

HQ High Quality Waters 

EV Exceptional Value Waters 

§ 93.4. Statewide water uses.

(a) Statewide water uses. Except when otherwise specified in law or regulation, the uses set forth in 

Table 2 apply to all surface waters. These uses shall be protected in accordance with this chapter, 

Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation) and other applicable State and 

(a) Water may not contain substances attributable to point or nonpoint source discharges in concentration 

Federal laws and regulations. 

Table 2 

Symbol 

Aquatic Life 

WWF 

Protected Use 

Warm Water Fishes 

AWS Wildlife Water Supply 

§ 93.6. General water quality criteria. 

or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, 

plant or aquatic life. 

Rhode Island 

SOURCE: State of Rhode Island And Providence Plantations Department of Environmental Management 

Water Resources, Water Quality Regulations, Regulation EVM 112-88.97-1, amended June 23, 2000: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/ri/ri_1_wqr.pdf, and 

http://www.state.ri.us/dem/pubs/regs/REGS/WATER/QUALREGS.PDF 

Rule 7. - DEFINITIONS 

"Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW)" means waters of National and State Parks, Wildlife 

Refuges, and other such waters designated as having special recreational or ecological value. 

"Special Resource Protection Waters (SRPW)" means surface waters identified by the Director as having 

significant recreational or ecological uses, and may include but are not limited to: wildlife refuge or 

management areas; public drinking water supplies; State and Federal parks; State and Federal designated 

Estuarine Sanctuary Areas; waterbodies containing critical habitats, including but not limited to waterbodies 

identified by the RIDEM Natural Heritage Program as critical habitat for rare or endangered species; wetland 

types or specific wetlands listed as rare, threatened, endangered, of special interest or of special concern by 

the Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program; waterbodies identified by the U. S. Department of the Interior on 

the Final List of Rivers for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-60 
"Undesirable or Nuisance Species" means any plant or animal aquatic species which becomes so 

numerous due to pollutants or physical or hydrological modifications that it interferes with, or indicates an 

impairment of, the designated use(s) of a waterbody. 

"Use Attainability Analyses" means a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment 

of a use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors. The physical, chemical and 

biological factors affecting the attainment of a use shall be evaluated through a waterbody survey and 

assessment. Waterbody surveys and assessments shall be sufficiently detailed to evaluate at a minimum: 

a. current aquatic uses achieved in the waterbody; 

b. causes of any impairment of the aquatic uses and why the impairment cannot be rectified; and 

c. aquatic uses(s) that can be attained based on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics 

of the water body. 

Rule 8. - SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

B. Water Use Classification 

(1) Freshwater: Class A, Class B, Class B1, and Class C waters are designated... for fish and wildlife 

habitat... 

(2) Seawater: Class SA, Class SB, Class SB1, and Class SC waters are designated for ... fish and 

wildlife habitat... 

D. Water Quality Criteria - The following physical, chemical and biological criteria are parameters of minimum 

water quality necessary to support the surface water use classifications of rule 8.B. and shall be applicable 

to all waters of the State. 

(1) General Criteria - The following minimum criteria are applicable to all waters of the State, unless 

criteria specified for individual classes are more stringent: 

(a) At a minimum, all waters shall be free of pollutants in concentrations or combinations or from 

anthropogenic activities subject to these regulations that: 

i. Adversely affect the composition of fish and wildlife; 

ii. Adversely affect the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the habitat; 

iii. Interfere with the propagation of fish and wildlife; 

iv. Adversely alter the life cycle functions, uses, processes and activities of fish and wildlife;... 

(b) Aesthetics - all waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that: 

iv. Result in the dominance of species of fish and wildlife to such a degree as to create a 

nuisance or interfere with the existing or designated uses. 

South Carolina 

SOURCE: South Carolina Regulation 61-68, Water Classification and Standards, September 28, 2001: 

http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/coderegs/chap61/61-69.htm, and 

http://www.scstatehouse.net/coderegs/c061c.htm#61-68 

61-68. Water Classifications and Standards 

B. DEFINITIONS. 

1. Biological assessment means an evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody using biological 

surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters and sediments. 

18. Biological criteria, also known as biocriteria, mean narrative expressions or numeric values of the 

biological characteristics of aquatic communities based on appropriate reference conditions. 

Biological criteria serve as an index of aquatic community health. 

F. NARRATIVE BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA. 

1. Narrative biological criteria are contained in this regulation and are described throughout the sections 

where applicable. The following are general statements regarding these narrative biological criteria. 

a. Narrative biological criteria in Section A.4. describe the goals of the Department to maintain and 

improve all surface waters to a level that provides for the survival and propagation of a balanced 

indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora. These narrative criteria are determined by the 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-61 
Department based on the condition of the waters of the State by measurements of physical, 

chemical, and biological characteristics of the waters according to their classified uses. 

b. Section C.10. describes narrative biological criteria relative to surface water mixing zones and 

specifies requirements necessary for the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous 

aquatic community. 

c. Narrative biological criteria shall be consistent with the objective of maintaining and improving all 

surface waters to a level that provides for the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous 

aquatic community of fauna and flora attainable in waters of the State; and in all cases shall 

protect against degradation of the highest existing or classified uses or biological conditions in 

compliance with the Antidegradation Rules contained in this regulation. Section D.1.a describes 

narrative biological criteria relative to activities in Outstanding National Resource Waters, 

Outstanding Resource Waters and Shellfish Harvesting Waters. 

d. In order to determine the biological quality of the waters of the State, it is necessary that the biological 

component be assessed by comparison to a reference condition(s) based upon similar hydrologic and 

watershed characteristics that represent the optimum natural condition for that system. Such 

reference condition(s) or reaches of waterbodies shall be those observed to support the greatest 

variety and abundance of aquatic life in the region as is expected to be or would be with a minimal 

amount of disturbance from anthropogenic sources. Impacts from urbanization and agriculture should 

be minimal and natural vegetation should dominate the land cover. There should also be an 

appropriate diversity of substrate. Reference condition(s) shall be determined by consistent sampling 

and reliable measures of selected indicative communities of flora and fauna as established by the 

Department and may be used in conjunction with acceptable physical, chemical, and microbial water 

quality measurements and records judged to be appropriate for this purpose. Narrative biological 

criteria relative to activities in all waters are described in Section E. 

e. In the Class Descriptions, Designations, and Specific Standards for Surface Waters Section, all water 

use classifications protect for a balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora. In 

addition, Trout Natural and Trout Put, Grow, and Take classifications protect for reproducing trout 

populations and stocked trout populations, respectively. 

Antidegradation Rules.

8. Trout Waters. The State recognizes three types of trout waters: Natural; Put, Grow, and Take; and 

Put and Take. 

a. Natural (TN) are freshwaters suitable for supporting reproducing trout populations and a cold 

water balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora. Also suitable for primary and 

secondary contact recreation and as a source for drinking water supply after conventional 

treatment in accordance with the requirements of the Department. Suitable for fishing and the 

survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora. Suitable 

also for industrial and agricultural uses. 

b. Put, Grow, and Take (TPGT) are freshwaters suitable for supporting growth of stocked trout 

populations and a balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora. Also suitable for 

primary and secondary contact recreation and as a source for drinking water supply after 

conventional treatment in accordance with the requirements of the Department. Suitable for 

fishing and the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna 

and flora. Suitable also for industrial and agricultural uses. 

c. Put and Take (TPT) are freshwaters suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation and 

as a source for drinking water supply after conventional treatment in accordance with the 

requirements of the Department. Suitable for fishing and the survival and propagation of a 

balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora. Suitable also for industrial and 

agricultural uses. The standards of Freshwaters classification protect these uses. 

South Dakota 

SOURCE: Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Article 74:51, Surface Water Quality Standards, effective 

January 27, 1999: http://legis.state.sd.us/rules/rules/7451.htm#74:51:01 and 

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-62 
74:51:01:01. Definitions. 

(4) "Aquatic life," an organism dependent on the water environment to either propagate or survive, or 

both; 

(5) "Aquatic community," an association of interacting populations and stages of aquatic life in a given 

water body or habitat; 

(10) "Biological integrity," the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community 

of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that 

of the natural habitat of the region; 

(13) "Coldwater aquatic life," aquatic life including fish of the family Salmonidae, for example, trout and 

salmon; 

(14) "Coldwater marginal fish life propagation," a beneficial use assigned to surface waters of the state 

which support aquatic life and are suitable for stocked catchable-size coldwater fish during portions 

of the year, but which, because of critical natural conditions including low flows, siltation, or warm 

temperatures, are not suitable for a permanent coldwater fish population. Warmwater fish may also 

be present; 

(15) "Coldwater permanent fish life propagation," a beneficial use assigned to surface waters of the state 

which are capable of supporting aquatic life and are suitable for supporting a permanent population 

of coldwater fish from natural reproduction or fingerling stocking. Warmwater fish may also be 

present; 

(27) "High-quality fishery waters," surface waters of the state designated for the beneficial use of coldwater 

permanent fish life propagation, coldwater marginal fish life propagation, or warmwater permanent 

fish life propagation; 

(30) "Impairment," a detrimental effect on the aquatic community caused by an impact that prevents 

attainment of the designated use; 

(57) "Warmwater aquatic life," aquatic life including the Ictaluridae, Centrarchidae, and Cyprinidae families 

of fish, for example, catfish, sunfish, and minnows, respectively; 

(58) "Warmwater marginal fish life propagation," a beneficial use assigned to surface waters of the state 

which will support aquatic life and more tolerant species of warmwater fish naturally or by frequent 

stocking and intensive management but which suffer frequent fish kills because of critical natural 

conditions; 

(59) "Warmwater permanent fish life propagation," a beneficial use assigned to surface waters of the state 

which support aquatic life and are suitable for the permanent propagation or maintenance, or both, 

of warmwater fish; 

(60) "Warmwater semipermanent fish life propagation waters," a beneficial use assigned to surface waters 

of the state which support aquatic life and are suitable for the propagation or maintenance, or both, 

of warmwater fish but which may suffer occasional fish kills because of critical natural conditions; 

62) "Wetlands," those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions including swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas; 

(63) "Fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering," a beneficial use classification assigned 

to all surface waters of the state which may support recreation in and on the water and fish and 

aquatic life, when sufficient quantities of water are present for sufficient duration to support those 

uses; provide habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic wild animals and fowl; provide natural food chain 

maintenance; and are of suitable quality for watering domestic and wild animals; 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-63 
74:51:01:12. Biological integrity of waters. 

All waters of the state must be free from substances, whether attributable to human-induced point source 

discharges or nonpoint source activities, in concentrations or combinations which will adversely impact the 

structure and function of indigenous or intentionally introduced aquatic communities. 

Tennessee 

SOURCE: Rules of the Tennessee Department of Health and Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Chapter 1200-4-3 General Water Quality Criteria, revised October 1999: 

http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-04/1200-04-03.pdf and www.state.tn.us/environment 

1200-4-3-.03 Criteria for Water Uses: 

(3) Fish and Aquatic Life. 

(j) Biological Integrity - The waters shall not be modified through the addition of pollutants or through 

physical alteration to the extent that the diversity and/or productivity of aquatic biota within the 

receiving waters are substantially decreased or adversely affected, except as allowed under 1200-4-3­

.06. The condition of biological communities will be measured by use of metrices suggested in 

guidance such as Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (EPA/444/4-89-001) 

or other scientifically defensible methods. Effects to biological populations will be measured by 

comparisons to upstream conditions or to appropriately selected reference sites in the same 

ecoregion. 

Texas 

SOURCE: Texas Administrative Code, Title 30 Environmental Quality, Part 1, Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission, Chapter 307, Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, amended effective August 

17, 2000: http://info.sos.state.tx.us:80/pub/plsql/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=4&ti=30&pt=1&ch=307&rl=Y 

Rule 307.3 Definitions and Abbreviations 

(a) Definitions 

(9) Biological integrity--The species composition, diversity, and functional organization of a 

community of organisms in an environment relatively unaffected by pollution. 

(27) Incidental fishery--A level of fishery which applies to water bodies that are not considered to have 

a sustainable fishery but which have an aquatic life use of limited, intermediate, high, or 

exceptional. 

(45) Seagrass propagation--A water-quality-related existing use which applies to saltwater with 

significant stands of submerged seagrass. 

(50) Significant aquatic life use--A broad characterization of aquatic life which indicates that a 

subcategory of aquatic life use (limited, intermediate, high, or exceptional) is applicable. Some 

aquatic life is expected to be present even in water bodies which are not designated for specific 

categories of aquatic life use. Some provisions to protect aquatic life applies to any water body 

in the state whether an aquatic life use is assigned or not. 

Rule 307.7 Site-specific Uses and Criteria

(a) Aquatic life. The establishment of numerical criteria for aquatic life is highly dependent on desired use, 

sensitivities of usual aquatic communities, and local physical and chemical characteristics. Five 

subcategories of aquatic life use are established. They include limited, intermediate, high, and 

exceptional aquatic life and oyster waters. Aquatic life use subcategories designated for segments listed 

in Appendix A of §307.10 of this title recognize the natural variability of aquatic community requirements 

and local environmental conditions. 

(b) Appropriate uses and criteria for site-specific standards are defined as follows. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-64 
(3) Aquatic life. The establishment of numerical criteria for aquatic life is highly dependent on desired use, 

sensitivities of usual aquatic communities, and local physical and chemical characteristics. Five 

subcategories of aquatic life use are established. They include limited, intermediate, high, and 

exceptional aquatic life and oyster waters. Aquatic life use subcategories designated for segments 

listed in Appendix A of §307.10 of this title recognize the natural variability of aquatic community 

requirements and local environmental conditions. 

(5) Additional uses. Other basic uses, such as navigation, agricultural water supply, industrial water 

supply, seagrass propagation, and wetland water quality functions will be maintained and protected 

for all water in the state in which these uses can be achieved 

Table 4: Aquatic Life Subcategories (Figure: 30 TAC §307.7(b)(3)(A)(i)) 

Aquatic Life 

Use Subcategory 

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L Aquatic Life Attributes 

Freshwater 

mean/ 

minimum 

Freshwater 

in Spring 

mean/ 

minimum 

Saltwater 

mean/ 

minimum 

Habitat 

Characteristics 

Species 

Assemblage 

Sensitive 

Species 

Diversity Species 

Richness 

Trophic 

Structure 

Exceptional 6.0/4.0 6.0/5.0 5.0/4.0 Outstanding 

natural 

variability 

Exceptional or 

unusual 

Abundant Exceptionally 

high 

Exceptionally 

high 

Balanced 

High 5.30/3.0 5.5/4.5 4.0/3.0 Highly diverse Usual 

association of 

regionally 

expected 

species 

Present High High Balanced to 

slightly 

imbalanced 

Intermediate 4.0/3.0 5.0/4.0 3.0/2.0 Moderately 

diverse 

Some expected 

species 

Very low in 

abundance 

Moderate Moderate Moderately 

imbalanced 

Limited 3.0/2.0 4.0/3.0 Uniform Most regionally 

expected 

species absent 

Absent Low Low Severely 

imbalanced 

Utah 

SOURCE: Title R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality, R317-1. Definitions and General Requirements 

and Rule R317.2 Standards of Quality for Waters of the State, as in effect January 1, 2002: 

http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/code/r317/r317-001.htm#T1 , and 

http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm#T7 

R317-1-1. Definitions 

1.20 "Pollution" means such contamination, or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological 

properties of any waters of the state, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous or solid substance into 

any waters of the state as will create a nuisance or render such waters harmful or detrimental or 

injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, 

recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other 

aquatic life. 

317-2-6. Use Designations

6.3 Class 3 -- Protected for use by aquatic wildlife. 

(a) Class 3A -- Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, 

including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. 

(b) Class 3B -- Protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life, 

including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. 

(c) Class 3C -- Protected for nongame fish and other aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic 

organisms in their food chain. 

(d) Class 3D -- Protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not included in 

Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-65 
(e) Class 3E -- Severely habitat-limited waters. Narrative standards will be applied to protect these 

waters for aquatic wildlife. 

6.5 Class 5 -- The Great Salt Lake. Protected for primary and secondary contact recreation, aquatic 

wildlife, and mineral extraction. 

Vermont 

SOURCE: Vermont Water Quality Standards, effective July 2, 2000: 

http://www.state.vt.us/wtrboard/docs/adoptedwqs.pdf 

Section 1-01B. Applicability and Definitions 

5. Aquatic biota means all organisms that, as part of their natural life cycle, live in or on waters. 

6. Aquatic habitat means the physical, chemical, and biological components of the water environment. 

10. Biological integrity means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain, when consistent 

with reference conditions, a community of organisms that is not dominated by any particular species or 

functions (balanced), is fully functional (integrated), and is resilient to change or impact (adaptive), and 

which has the expected species composition, diversity, and functional organization. 

20. Functional component of the aquatic ecosystem means a portion of the aquatic biological community 

identified by its role in the processing of energy within the aquatic ecosystem (e.g., primary producers, 

predators, detritivores, etc.). 

23. Intolerant aquatic organisms means those organisms which are particularly sensitive to, and likely to 

be adversely affected by, the stress of pollution, flow modification or habitat alteration (e.g., mayflies and 

stoneflies). 

29. Natural condition means the condition representing chemical, physical, and biological characteristics 

that occur naturally with only minimal effects from human influences. 

39. Reference condition means the range of chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of waters 

minimally affected by human influences. In the context of an evaluation of biological indices, or where 

necessary to perform other evaluations of water quality, the reference condition establishes attainable 

chemical, physical, and biological conditions for specific water body types against which the condition of 

waters of similar water body type is evaluated. 

44. Taxonomic component of the aquatic ecosystem means a portion of the biological community 

identified by a hierarchical classification system for identifying biological organisms that uses physical and 

biological characteristics (e.g., Insecta: Plecoptera: Perlidae: Agnetina capitata). 

45. Tolerant aquatic organisms means organisms (e.g., midges and annelids) that, although they may be 

affected by the stress of pollution, flow modification or habitat alteration, are less sensitive and less likely 

to be adversely affected than are intolerant aquatic organisms. 

Section 3-01C. Numeric Biological Criteria

C. Numeric Biological Indices 

1. In addition to other applicable provisions of these rules and other appropriate methods of evaluation, 

the Secretary may establish and apply numeric biological indices to determine whether there is full 

support of aquatic biota and aquatic habitat uses. These numeric biological indices shall be derived 

from measures of the biological integrity of the reference condition for different water body types. In 

establishing numeric biological indices, the Secretary shall establish procedures that employ standard 

sampling and analytical methods to characterize the biological integrity of the appropriate reference 

condition. Characteristic measures of biological integrity include but are not limited to community level 

measurement such as: species richness, diversity, relative abundance of tolerant and intolerant 

species, density, and functional composition. 

2. In addition, the Secretary may determine whether there is full support of aquatic biota and aquatic 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-66 
habitat uses through other appropriate methods of evaluation, including habitat assessments. 

Section 3-02 Class A(1) Ecological Waters

B. Water Quality Criteria for Class A(1) Ecological Waters 

3. Aquatic Biota, Wildlife, and Aquatic Habitat - Change from the natural condition limited to minimal 

impacts from human activity. Measures of biological integrity for aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish 

assemblages are within the range of the natural condition. Uses related to either the physical, 

chemical, or biological integrity of the aquatic habitat or the composition or life cycle functions of 

aquatic biota or wildlife are fully supported. All life cycle functions, including overwintering and 

reproductive requirements are maintained and protected. 

Section 3-03. Class A(2) Public Water Supplies

A. Management Objectives. Waters managed for public water supply purposes to achieve and maintain 

waters with a uniformly excellent character and a level of water quality that is compatible with the following 

designated uses: 

1. Aquatic Biota, Wildlife, and Aquatic Habitat - high quality aquatic biota and wildlife sustained by high 

quality aquatic habitat necessary to support their life-cycle and reproductive requirements. 

B. Water Quality Criteria for Class A(2) Public Water Supplies. The following water quality criteria shall be 

achieved in all Class A(2) public water supplies. 

3. Aquatic Biota, Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat - Biological integrity is maintained, no change from the 

reference condition that would prevent the full support of aquatic biota, wildlife or aquatic habitat uses. 

Change from the reference condition for aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages shall not 

exceed moderate changes in the relative proportions of taxonomic, functional, tolerant and intolerant 

components. All expected functional groups are present in a high quality habitat and none shall be 

eliminated. All life cycle functions, including overwintering and reproductive requirements are 

maintained and protected. Changes in the aquatic habitat shall not exceed moderate differences from 

the reference condition consistent with the full support of all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. 

Section 3-04. Class B Waters 

A. Management Objectives. Class B waters shall be managed to achieve and maintain a level of quality that 

fully supports the following designated uses: 

1. Aquatic Biota, Wildlife, and Aquatic Habitat - aquatic biota and wildlife sustained by high quality 

aquatic habitat with additional protection in those waters where these uses are sustainable at a higher 

level based on Water Management Type designation. 

B. Water Quality Criteria for Class B waters. In addition to the criteria specified in §3-01 of these rules, the 

following criteria shall be met in all Class B waters: 

4. Aquatic Biota, Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat - No change from the reference condition that would 

prevent the full support of aquatic biota, wildlife, or aquatic habitat uses. Biological integrity is 

maintained and all expected functional groups are present in a high quality habitat. All life-cycle 

functions, including overwintering and reproductive requirements are maintained and protected. In 

addition, the following criteria shall be achieved: 

a. In Water Management Type One waters - change from the reference condition for aquatic 

macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages shall be limited to minor changes in the relative 

proportions of taxonomic and functional components; relative proportions of tolerant and intolerant 

components are within the range of the reference condition. Changes in the aquatic habitat shall 

be limited to minimal differences from the reference condition consistent with the full support of 

all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. 

b. In Water Management Type Two waters - change from the reference condition for aquatic 

macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages shall be limited to moderate changes in the relative 

proportions of tolerant, intolerant, taxonomic, and functional components. Changes in the aquatic 

habitat shall be limited to minor differences from the reference condition consistent with the full 

support of all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. 

c. In Water Management Type Three waters - change from the reference condition for aquatic 

macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages shall be limited to moderate changes in the relative 

proportions of tolerant, intolerant, taxonomic, and functional components. Changes in the aquatic 

habitat shall be limited to moderate differences from the reference condition consistent with the 

full support of all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. When such habitat changes are a result of 

hydrological modification or water level fluctuation, compliance may be determined on the basis 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-67 
of aquatic habitat studies. 

d. In all other Class B waters - no change from reference conditions that would have an undue 

adverse effect on the composition of the aquatic biota, the physical or chemical nature of the 

substrate or the species composition or propagation of fishes. 

Section 3-05 Fish Habitat Designation

To provide for the protection and management of fisheries, the waters of the State are designated in Appendix 

A as being either a cold or a warm water fish habitat. Where appropriate, such designations may be seasonal. 

Virginia 

SOURCE: State Water Control Board, Virginia Administrative Code (9 VAC 25-260-5 et seq. Water Quality 

Standards). Statutory Authority: § 62.1-44.15(3a) of the Code of Virginia. Effective Date: December 10, 1997: 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/wqs/ 

PART I 

SURFACE WATER STANDARDS WITH GENERAL, STATEWIDE APPLICATION 

9 VAC 25-260-10. Designation of uses.

A. All state waters, including wetlands, are designated for the following uses: recreational uses, e.g., 

swimming and boating; the propagation and growth of a balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life, 

including game fish, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; wildlife; and the production of 

edible and marketable natural resources, e.g., fish and shellfish. 

9 VAC 25-260-20. General standard. 

A. All state waters, including wetlands, shall be free from substances attributable to sewage, industrial waste, 

or other waste in concentrations, amounts, or combinations which contravene established standards or 

interfere directly or indirectly with designated uses of such water or which are inimical or harmful to 

human, animal, plant, or aquatic life. 

9 VAC 25-260-370. Classification column. 

B. DGIF trout waters. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) has established a classification 

system for trout waters based on aesthetics, productivity, resident fish population and stream structure. 

Classes i through iv rate wild trout habitat; Classes v through vii rate cold water habitat not suitable for 

wild trout but adequate for year-round hold-over of stocked trout. The DGIF classification system is 

included in this publication with the board's trout water classes (Class V - Stockable trout waters and 

Class VI - Natural trout waters) in the class column of the River Basin Section Tables 9 VAC 25-260-390 

et seq. 

DGIF trout water classifications which are not consistent with board classifications for stockable trout 

waters or natural trout waters are shown with a double asterisk (**) in the class column of the River Basin 

Section Tables 9 VAC 25-260-390 et seq. These trout waters have been identified for reevaluation by 

the DGIF. Those trout waters which have no DGIF classification are shown with a triple asterisk (***). The 

DGIF classes are described below. Inclusion of these DGIF classes provides additional information about 

specific streams for permit writers and other interested persons. Trout waters classified as classes i or 

ii by the DGIF are also recognized in 9 VAC 25-260-110. 

DGIF STREAM CLASS DESCRIPTIONS. 

Wild natural trout streams. 

Class i. Stream of outstanding natural beauty possessing wilderness or at least remote characteristics, 

an abundance of large deep pools, and excellent fish cover. Substrate is variable with an 

abundance of coarse gravel and rubble. Stream contains a good population of wild trout or has 

the potential for such. Would be considered an exceptional wild trout stream. 

Class ii. Stream contains a good wild trout population or the potential for one but is lacking in aesthetic 

quality, productivity, and/or in some structural characteristic. Stream maintains good water quality 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-68 
and temperature, maintains at least a fair summer flow, and adjacent land is not extensively 

developed. Stream would be considered a good wild trout stream and would represent a major 

portion of Virginia's wild trout waters. 

Class iii. Stream which contains a fair population of wild trout with carrying capacity depressed by natural 

factors or more commonly man-related land use practices. Land use activities may result in heavy 

siltation of the stream, destruction of banks and fish cover, water quality degradation, increased 

water temperature, etc. Most streams would be considered to be in the active state of degradation 

or recovery from degradation. Alteration in land use practices would generally improve carrying 

capacity of the stream. 

Class iv. Stream which contains an adequately reproducing wild trout population but has severely reduced 

summer flow characteristics. Fish are trapped in isolated pools where they are highly susceptible 

to predators and fishermen. Such streams could quickly be over-exploited and, therefore, provide 

difficult management problems. 

Stockable trout streams. 

Class v. Stream does not contain an adequately reproducing wild trout population nor does it have the 

potential for such. However, water quality is adequate, water temperature is good, and 

invertebrate productivity is exceptional. Pools are abundant with good size and depth and fish 

cover is excellent. Stream would be good for stocked trout but may offer more potential for a 

fingerling stocking program. 

Class vi. Stream does not contain a significant number of trout nor a significant population of warmwater 

gamefish. Water quality is adequate and water temperature good for summer carryover of 

stocked trout. Summer flow remains fair and adjacent land is not extensively developed. All 

streams in this class would be considered good trout stocking water. 

Class vii. Stream does not contain a significant number of trout nor a significant population of warmwater 

gamefish. Water quality and temperature are adequate for trout survival but productivity is 

marginal as are structural characteristics. Streams in this class could be included in a stocking 

program but they would be considered marginal and generally would not be recommended for 

stocking. 

Class viii. Stream does not contain a significant number of trout nor a significant population of warmwater 

gamefish. Water quality and temperature are adequate for trout but summer flows are very poor 

(less than 30% of channel). Streams in this class can provide good trout fishing during spring and 

early summer but would not be recommended for summer or fall stocking. 

Other. Remaining streams would be considered unsuitable for any type of trout fishery. Streams would 

be considered unsuitable under any of the following conditions: 

(a) summer temperatures unsuitable for trout survival; 

(b) stream contains a significant population of warmwater gamefish; 

(c) insufficient flow; or 

(d) intolerable water quality. 

Washington 

SOURCE: Chapter 173-201A Washington Administrative Code. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters 

of the State of Washington, November 18, 1997: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/wac173201a.pdf 

WAC 173-201A-010 Introduction. 

(1) The purpose of this chapter is to establish water quality standards for surface waters of the state of 

Washington consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, and the propagation and 

protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW [Revised Code 

of Washington] and the policies and purposes thereof. 

WAC 173-201A-020 Definitions. 

"Biological assessment" is an evaluation of the biological condition of a water body using surveys of aquatic 

community structure and function and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters. 

"Damage to the ecosystem" means any demonstrated or predicted stress to aquatic or terrestrial organisms 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-69 
or communities of organisms which the department reasonably concludes may interfere in the health or 

survival success or natural structure of such populations. This stress may be due to, but is not limited to, 

alteration in habitat or changes in water temperature, chemistry, or turbidity, and shall consider the potential 

build up of discharge constituents or temporal increases in habitat alteration which may create such stress 

in the long term. 

"Ecoregions" are defined using EPA’s Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest Document No. 600/3-86/033 July 

1986 by Omernik and Gallant. 

"Wildlife habitat" means waters of the state used by, or that directly or indirectly provide food support to, fish, 

other aquatic life, and wildlife for any life history stage or activity. 

WAC 173-201A-030 General water use and criteria classes. 

The following criteria shall apply to the various classes of surface waters in the state of Washington: 

Class AA (extraordinary), Class A (excellent), and Class B (good). Characteristic uses shall include, but not 

be limited to, the following: 

(iii) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting. Other fish migration, 

rearing, spawning, and harvesting. Clam, oyster, and mussel rearing, spawning, and harvesting. 

Crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing, spawning, and 

harvesting. 

(iv) Wildlife habitat. 

Class C (fair). Characteristic uses shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

(ii) Fish (salmonid and other fish migration). 

Lake class. Characteristic uses shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

(iii) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting. Other fish migration, 

rearing, spawning, and harvesting. Clam and mussel rearing, spawning, and harvesting. Crayfish 

rearing, spawning, and harvesting. 

(iv) Wildlife habitat. 

West Virginia 

SOURCE: Title 46, West Virginia Secretary of State, Code of State Rules (CSR), Legislative Rule, 

Environmental Quality Board, Series 1, Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards, effective May 17, 

2001: http://www.state.wv.us/csr/verify.asp?TitleSeries=46-01 

§46-1-3. Conditions Not Allowable In State Waters. 

3.2.i. Any other condition, including radiological exposure, which adversely alters the integrity of the 

waters of the State including wetlands; no significant adverse impact to the chemical, physical, 

hydrologic, or biological components of aquatic ecosystems shall be allowed. 

§46-1-6. Water Use Categories. 

6.3. Category B – Propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life. -- This category includes: 

6.3.a. Category B1 -- Warm water fishery streams. -- Streams or stream segments which contain 

populations composed of all warm water aquatic life. 

6.3.b. Category B2 -- Trout Waters. -- As defined in Section 2.19 (See Appendix A for a 

representative list.) 

6.3.c. Category B4 -- Wetlands. -- As defined in section 2.22; certain numeric stream criteria may not 

be appropriate for application to wetlands (see Appendix E). 

6.5. Category D. -- Agriculture and wildlife uses. 

6.5.c. Category D3 -- Wildlife. -- This category includes all stream segments and wetlands used by 

wildlife. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-70 
Wisconsin 

Source: Wisconsin Administrative Code, Department of Natural Resources, Chapter NR 102, Water Quality 

Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters, February 1998: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr102.pdf 

NR 102.04 Categories of standards.

(3) FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC LIFE USES. The department shall classify all surface waters into one of 

the fish and other aquatic life subcategories described in this subsection. Only those use subcategories 

identified in pars. (a) to (c) shall be considered suitable for the protection and propagation of a balanced 

fish and other aquatic life community as provided in the federal water pollution control act amendments 

of 1972, P.L. 92–500; 33 USC 1251 et seq. 

(a) Cold water communities. This subcategory includes surface waters capable of supporting a 

community of cold water fish and other aquatic life, or serving as a spawning area for cold water fish 

species. This subcategory includes, but is not restricted to, surface waters identified as trout water 

by the department of natural resources (Wisconsin Trout Streams, publication 6–3600 (80)). 

(b) Warm water sport fish communities. This subcategory includes surface waters capable of supporting 

a community of warm water sport fish or serving as a spawning area for warm water sport fish. 

(c) Warm water forage fish communities. This subcategory includes surface waters capable of supporting 

an abundant diverse community of forage fish and other aquatic life. 

(d) Limited forage fish communities. (Intermediate surface waters). This subcategory includes surface 

waters of limited capacity and naturally poor water quality or habitat. These surface waters are 

capable of supporting only a limited community of forage fish and other aquatic life. 

(e) Limited aquatic life. (Marginal surface waters). This sub-category includes surface waters of severely 

limited capacity and naturally poor water quality or habitat. These surface waters are capable of 

supporting only a limited community of aquatic life. 

(7) STANDARDS FOR WILDLIFE. All surface waters shall be classified for wildlife uses and meet the wildlife 

criteria specified in or developed pursuant to NR 105.07. 

Wyoming 

SOURCE: Wyoming Rules and Regulations, Water Quality Rules and Regulations: Chapter 1, Quality 

Standards for Wyoming Surface Waters Sections 2, 3, and 4, March 7, 2000: 

http://soswy.state.wy.us/RULES/3925.pdf 

Section 2. Definitions. The following definitions supplement those definitions contained in section 35-11-103 

of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act. 

(e) “Cold Water Game Fish “ means Grayling (Thymallus arcticus), Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.), Sauger (Stizostedion canadense), Tiger muskie (Esox Masquinongy), Trout 

(Salmo, Oncorhynchus, and Salvelinus spp.), Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), and Whitefish 

(Prospium williamsoni). 

(p) “Game fish” means Bass (Micropterus spp.), Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Crappie (Pomoxis spp.), 

Grayling (Thymallus arcticus), Ling (Lota lota), Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Perch (Perca flavescens), 

Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Sauger (Stizostedion canadense), Sunfish (Lepomis spp.), Tiger 

Muskie (Esox Masquinongy), Trout (Salmo, Oncorhynchus, and Salvelinus spp.), Walleye 

(Stizostedion vitreum), White Bass (Morone chrysops), and Whitefish (Prospium williamsoni). 

(w) “Natural” means that condition which would exist without the measurable effects or measurable 

influence of man's activities. 

(x) “Natural biotic community” means the population structures which were historically or normally present 

under a given set of chemical and physical conditions or which would potentially exist had not the 

habitat been degraded. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-71 
(y) “Natural water quality” means that quality of water which would exist without the measurable effects 

or measurable influence of man's activities. 

(ll) “Undesirable aquatic life” means organisms generally associated with degraded or eutrophic 

conditions. These may include the following organisms where they have replaced members of the 

natural biotic community: nongame fish, bluegreen algae, certain diatoms, fungi, tubificid worms, and 

certain syrphid flies. 

(mm) “Warm water game fish” means Bass (Micropterus spp.), Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Crappie 

(Pomoxis spp.), Ling (Lota lota), Perch (Perca flavescens), Sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and White Bass 

(Morone Chrysops). 

Section 3. Water Uses. 

(b) Protection and propagation of fish and wildlife;...and to achieve the goal of the federal act, which is to 

achieve, wherever attainable, surface water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of 

fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. 

Section 4. Surface Water Classes and Uses. There are four classes of surface water in Wyoming: 

(a) Class 1 - Those surface waters in which no further water quality degradation by point source discharges 

other than from dams will be allowed. Nonpoint sources of pollution shall be controlled through 

implementation of appropriate best management practices. In designating Class 1 waters, the 

Environmental Quality Council shall consider water quality, aesthetic, scenic, recreational, ecological, 

agricultural, botanical, zoological, municipal, industrial, historical, geological, cultural, archaeological, fish 

and wildlife, the presence of significant quantities of developable water and other values of present and 

future benefit to the people. 

(b) Class 2 - Those surface waters, other than those classified as Class 1, which are determined to: 

(i) Be presently supporting game fish; or 

(ii) Have the hydrologic and natural water quality potential to support game fish; or 

(iii) Include nursery areas or food sources for game fish. 

(c) Class 3 - Those surface waters, other than those classified as Class 1, which are determined to: 

(i) Be presently supporting nongame fish only; or 

(ii) Have the hydrologic and natural water quality potential to support nongame fish only; or 

(iii) Include nursery areas or food sources for nongame fish only. 

(d) Class 4 - Those surface waters, other than those classified as Class 1, which are determined to not have 

the hydrologic or natural water quality potential to support fish and include all intermittent and ephemeral 

streams. Class 4 waters shall receive protection for agriculture uses and wildlife watering. 

TERRITORIES 

American Samoa 

SOURCE: American Samoa Water Quality Standards (1999 Revision provided by ASEPA), Sections 24.0205 

and 24.0206: 

§24.0205 Water Classifications-Protected and Prohibited Uses

(1) Class 1 Fresh Surface Waters 

(A) Class 1 waters are to remain in as near their natural state as possible with a minimum of pollution 

from any human activity. Protected uses of these waters are: potable water supplies, support and 

propagation indigenous aquatic and terrestrial life and compatible recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. 

(B) Prohibited uses and activities include, but are not limited to: 

(i) Point source discharges of pollutants 

(ii) Dredging and filling activities 

(iii) Bathing, including washing clothes and dishes 

(iv) Animal pens over or within 100 feet of the water body 

(v) Siting of septic tanks or cesspools within 200 feet of the water body 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-72 
(vi) Land disturbing (e.g., grading, tillage) activities within 100 feet of the water body 

(vii) Wood cutting or clearing within 100 feet of the water body 

(2) Class 2 Fresh Surface Waters 

(A) Class 2 waters shall be protected for the support and propagation of indigenous aquatic life, 

recreation in and on the water, and aesthetic enjoyment. 

(B) Prohibited uses and activities include, but are not limited to: 

(i) No zones of mixing will be granted 

(ii) Dredging or filling activities, except as approved by EQC 

(iii) Animal pens over or immediately adjacent to the water body 

§24.0206 Standards of Water Quality

(i) There shall be no changes in basin geometry or freshwater inflow that will alter current patterns 

in such a way as to adversely affect existing biological populations or sediment distribution. To 

protect estuarine organisms, no change in channels, basin geometry, or freshwater influx shall 

be made which would cause permanent changes in existing isohaline patterns of more than 10 

percent. 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands 

Source: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ and http://www.deq.gov.mp/ 

PART 5 CLASSIFICATION OF WATER USES 

5.1 Marine Waters 

(a) CLASS AA - It is the objective of this class that these waters remain in their natural pristine state as nearly 

as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from any human-related 

source or actions. To the extent practicable, the wilderness character of such areas shall be protected. 

No zones of mixing shall be permitted. The uses to be protected in this class of waters are the support 

and propagation of shellfish and other marine life, conservation of coral reefs and wilderness areas, 

oceanographic research, and aesthetic enjoyment and compatible recreation inclusive of whole body 

contact and related activities. / The classification of any water area as Class AA shall not preclude other 

uses of such waters compatible with these objectives and in conformance with the criteria applicable to 

them. 

(b) CLASS A - It is the objective of this class of waters that their use for recreational purposes and aesthetic 

enjoyment be protected. Any other use shall be allowed as long as it is compatible with the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in and on these waters of a limited body 

contact nature. Such waters shall be kept clean of solid waste, oil and grease, and shall not act as 

receiving waters for any effluent which has not received the best degree of treatment of control practicable 

under existing technology and economic conditions and compatible with standards established for this 

class. A zone of mixing is [approvable] in such waters. 

5.2 Fresh Surface Waters 

(a) Class 1 - It is the objective of this class that these waters remain in their natural state as nearly as 

possible with an absolute minimum Of pollution from any human-caused source. To the extent possible, 

the wilderness character of such areas shall be protected. Wastewater discharges and zone of mixing into 

these waters are prohibited. The uses to be protected in this class of water are for domestic water 

supplies, food processing, the support and propagation of aquatic life, compatible recreation and aesthetic 

enjoyment including water contact recreation. 

(b) Class 2 - It is the objective of this class of waters that their use for recreational purposes, propagation of 

fish and other aquatic life, and agricultural and industrial water supply not be limited in any way. The uses 

to be protected in this class of waters are all uses compatible with the protection and propagation of fish 

and other aquatic life, and with recreation in and on these waters. Compatible recreation may include 

limited body contact activities. Such waters shall not act as receiving waters for any discharge which has 

not received the best degree of treatment or control practical under technological and economic conditions 

and compatible with the standards established for this class. A zone of mixing is permissible in these 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-73 
waters. 

5.3 Protection of wetlands 

Wetlands are waters of the State and are subject to the provisions of this rule. Point or nonpoint sources of 

pollution shall not cause destruction or impairment of wetlands. The general application of the Water Quality 

Standards shall apply to all wetlands unless replaced by site specific standards for wetlands based on their 

function are adopted by the Commonwealth and approved by EPA. 

7.6 Salinity

Marine Waters (applicable to Class A, Class AA): No alterations of the marine environment shall occur that 

would: (1) alter the salinity of marine or estuarine waters more than 10% of the ambient conditions, or (2) 

which would otherwise adversely affect the sedimentary patterns and indigenous biota, except when due to 

natural causes. 

7.10 Oil and Petroleum Products 

The concentration of oil or petroleum products shall not: 

(b) Cause tainting of fish or other aquatic life, be injurious to the indigenous biota or cause objectionable taste 

in drinking water. 

7.12 General Considerations 

(d) The health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water 

quality factors shall not differ substantially from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by 

controllable water quality factors. Also, controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental 

increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. 

Guam* 

*This language has not been reviewed for accuracy by state/tribal agency. 

SOURCE: Section II, Guam STATEMENT OF POLICY, amended 1986: 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ 

It shall be the public policy of the Territory of Guam to:

1. conserve, protect, maintain, and improve the quality of the Guam's waters for (drinking and food 

processing) human consumption, for the growth and propagation of aquatic life, for marine research and 

for the preservation of coral reefs and wilderness areas, and for domestic, agricultural, commercial, 

industrial, recreational and other legitimate uses; 

4. maintain and improve the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of wetlands water quality as 

necessary to meet the Clean Water Act Section 101(a), and to protect wetlands... 

SECTION I: CATEGORIES OF WATERS 

A. MARINE WATERS. This category includes all coastal waters off-shore from the mean high water mark, 

including estuarine waters, lagoons and bays, brackish areas, wetlands and other special aquatic sites, 

and other inland Waters that are subject to ebb and flow of the tides. Refer to Water Classification Map. 

CATEGORY M-1 EXCELLENT: Waters in this category must be of high enough quality to ensure 

preservation and protection of marine life, including corals and reef dwelling organisms, fish and related 

fisheries resources, and enable the pursuit of marine scientific research as well as aesthetic enjoyment. 

This category of water shall remain substantially free from pollution attributed to domestic, commercial 

and industrial discharges, shipping and boating, or agriculture, construction and other activities which can 

reduce the waters' quality. Furthermore, there shall be no zones of mixing within this category water. 

CATEGORY M-2 GOOD: Water in this category must be of sufficient quality to allow for the propagation 

and survival of marine organisms, particularly shellfish, corals and other reef related resources. Other 

important and intended uses include mariculture activities, aesthetic enjoyment and compatible recreation 

inclusive of whole body contact and related activities. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-74 
CATEGORY M-3 FAIR: Water in this category is intended for general, commercial and industrial use. 

Specific intended uses include the following: shipping, boating and berthing, industrial cooling water, 

marinas, while allowing for protection of aquatic life, aesthetic enjoyment and compatible recreation with 

limited body contact. 

B. MIXING ZONES IN RECEIVING WATERS. ...The following criteria apply to all mixing zones: 

3. Biologically important areas, including spawning and nursery areas, shall be protected. 

CHAPTER IV DEFINITIONS 

BIOTA: The animal, plant and microbial life of a region. 

COMMUNITY: An association of living organisms in a given area or region in which the various species are 

more or less interdependent upon each other. 

HABITAT: The environment occupied by individuals of a particular species, population or community. 

SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES: Sites possessing special ecological characteristics and values including wetlands, 

wildlife sanctuaries and refuges, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffle and pool complexes. 

WETLANDS: Means areas of land where the water table is at, near or above the land surface long enough 

each year to result in the formation of characteristically wet (hydric) soil types, and support the growth of water 

dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation. Wetlands include, but are not limited to, marshes, swamps, mangroves, 

natural ponds, surface springs, estuaries, bogs, and 

other such low-lying or similar areas. Inland wetlands will include all wetlands meeting the following conditions. 

1) Wetlands greater than one hectare in size with less than 0.5% (ocean derived) salinity; and 

2) Palustrine, Riverine and Lacustrine wetlands with greater than 30% wetland vegetation cover. 

WETLAND FUNCTIONS: The beneficial uses of wetlands which are protected by these Water Quality

Standards including but not limited to groundwater recharge/discharge, flood water retention, sediment

stabilization, nutrient removal/transformation, wildlife diversity/ abundance,

aquatic diversity/abundance, and recreation.

Puerto Rico 

SOURCE: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Office of the Governor, Environmental Quality Board, Puerto Rico 

Water Quality Standards, amended November 1987: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/ 

Article I. Definitions 

Benthic Species. Organisms that inhabit on, over, or in the bottom of the water body.;live adhered to the 

bottom or crawl over the bottom. 

Biota. All living organisms. 

Desirable Species. Species indigenous to the area or introduced to the area because of ecological or 

commercial value. 

Ecological Community. Group of organisms dominated by one species or a specific group of species. The 

ecological community derives its name from that of the dominant species, such as coral reefs and mangroves. 

Ecological Value. Refers to the existing interrelations between water body, fauna and flora that result in the 

continuity, stability and permanence of the ecological community. 

Pelagic Species. Organisms that have the ability of self locomotion and can overcome the currents. These 

organisms can be found anywhere in the water column, near the surface, the bottom or at any point between 

the surface and the bottom. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-75 
Planktonic Species. Marine organisms that mainly inhabit the surface of the receiving body of water. Their 

main characteristic is that they cannot overcome the currents even if they have self locomotion. 

Propagation and Preservation of Desirable Species. This refers to the reproduction and continuance of flora 

and fauna associated with water bodies and which have ecologic importance and/or commercial value, 

whether individually or as part of an ecological community. 

Wetlands. Areas inundated or saturated by coastal, surface cr ground water at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted 

for life in saturated soil conditions. 

ARTICLE 2. CLASSIFICATION OF THE WATERS OF PUERTO RICO ACCORDING TO THE 

DESIGNATED USES TO BE PROTECTED 

3.2 Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards for Specific Classifications: 

3.2.1 Class SA: 

(A) Usages and Description: Coastal waters and estuarine waters of high quality and/or 

exceptional ecological or recreational value whose existing characteristics shall not be 

altered, except by natural causes, in order to preserve the existing natural phenomena. 

3.2.2 Class SB: 

(A) Usages and Description. Coastal waters and estuarine waters for use in primary and 

secondary contact recreation, and for propagation and preservation of desirable species. 

3.2.3 Class SC: 

(A) Usages and Description: Coastal waters intended ...for use in propagation and preservation 

of desirable species. 

3.2.4 Class SD: 

(A) Usages and Description: Surface waters intended for ... propagation and preservation of 

desirable species as well as primary and secondary contact recreation... 

3.2.5 Class SE: 

(A) Usages and Description: Surface waters and wetlands of exceptional ecological value, whose 

existing characteristics should not be altered in order to preserve the existing natural 

phenomena. 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

SOURCE: T.12 Subchapter 186. Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters of the Virgin Islands Ch. 7 

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL §186-2 - 186.4: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary 

§ 186-2. Class A

(a) Best usage of waters: Preservation of natural phenomena requiring special conditions, such as the Natural 

Barrier Reef at Buck Island, St. Croix and the Under Water Trail at Trunk Bay, St. John. 

(b) Quality criteria: Existing natural conditions shall not be changed. 

§ 186-3. Class B

(a) Best usage of waters: For propagation of desirable species of marine life... 

§ 186-4. Class C

(a) Best usage of waters: For the propagation of desirable species of marine life... 

TRIBES 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

SOURCE: Source: 40 CFR 131.35, July 1, 2000 edition: 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/wqslibrary/tribes/131.35.pdf 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-76 
§ 131.35

(f) General water use and criteria classes. The following criteria shall apply to the various classes of surface 

waters on the Colville Indian Reservation: 

(1) Class I (Extraordinary)—(i) Designated uses. The designated uses include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting; other fish migration, 

rearing, spawning, and harvesting. 

(D) Wildlife habitat. 

(2) Class II (Excellent)—(i) Designated uses. The designated uses include but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting; other fish migration, 

rearing, spawning, and harvesting; crayfish rearing, spawning, and harvesting. 

(D) Wildlife habitat. 

(3) Class III (Good)—(i) Designated uses. The designated uses include but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting; other fish migration, 

rearing, spawning, and harvesting; crayfish rearing, spawning, and harvesting. 

(D) Wildlife habitat. 

(4) Class IV (Fair)—(i) Designated uses. The designated uses include but are not limited to, the following: 

(C) Fish (salmonid and other fish migration). 

Nez Perce Tribe 

WQS under development. Currently collecting chemical and physical habitat data to eventually establish WQS 

for the reservation area. No website available. 

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin 

(WQS were federally approved in 1996 and then rescinded after a lawsuit.) 

SOURCE: Oneida Nation Water Quality Standards, hard copy provided by contact 

Article VII. Narrative Criteria 

7-1. Narrative criteria shall be used to guide water management decisions and activities that affect the 

Waters of the Reservation, and to protect and enhance water quality. The following narrative criteria 

shall apply to all Waters of the Reservations provided, however, where more stringent criteria exist, 

the stricter standards shall supersede. 

7-2. All Waters of the Reservation shall be free from: 

a. pollutants in quantities that, either alone or as a result of interaction with other pollutants, cause 

any designated use to become impaired. 

b. pollutants in quantities that produce or contribute to the production of nuisance aquatic life. 

c. pollutants in quantities that produce objectionable color, odor, taste or turbidity. 

d. hazardous substances, toxic corrosive, nonconventional materials concentrations, or other 

deleterious substances, chemicals, and materials, which alone or in combination with other 

substances or in combination with other components of discharges, or their breakdown products, 

are acutely or chronically toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and injure, or bioaccumulate, 

biomagnify, bioconcentrate, or produce adverse physiological responses in human beings and/or 

fish and aquatic life, or which interfere directly or indirectly with designated, existing, or other 

uses. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-77 
e. exotic nuisance species, e.g. purple loosestrife, zebra mussels, etc. 

f. toxic pollutants in quantities that result bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms leading to toxicity 

to consumers of the aquatic organisms. 

g. excess nutrients that may cause a condition harmful to human health, decrease fish habitat, 

cause nuisance aquatic growths, or that in any way impair designated uses. Nitrogen and 

phosphorous concentrations shall not exceed the levels stated in Article XIII of this document. 

h. microorganisms at levels that make recreation in and on Reservation waters unsafe. 

i. floating debris, oil, scum and other floating materials as a result of human activity in amounts 

sufficient to be unsightly, cause degradation or impair designated uses. 

j. materials entering the waters as a result of human activity producing color, odor, taste or other 

conditions in amounts sufficient to be unsightly, cause degradation or in any way impair 

designated uses. 

k. substances other than from natural causes that may settle to form objectionable deposits or 

adversely impact designated uses. 

l. contaminants, from other than natural causes, that may settle or remain suspended that have a 

deleterious effect on the aquatic life or that will significantly alter the physical or chemical 

properties of the water body or that in any way impairs designated uses. 

7-3. All wetlands shall be protected to maintain and restore their natural physical, biological, and chemical 

characteristics, including substrate, vegetative and hydrological conditions necessary to support 

natural amounts of native vegetation, maintain natural hydrodynamics and maintain natural water 

temperature variations that are necessary to protect and support all existing and designated uses. 

7-4. All naturally occuring biological communities and the habitat needed to support them shall be 

maintained and protected in all waters and wetlands of the Reservation at all times. 

7-5. Concentrations of radioactive materials shall not exceed concentrations caused by local naturally 

occuring materials. 

7-6. All Waters of the Reservation shall be free from unauthorized discharges at all places at all times. 

7-7. Any activity that allows storm discharges or base flow conditions to significantly degrade stream 

morphology or result in a waterway’s inability to maintain existing aquatic life shall be prohibited. 

Cumulative impacts of any such activity shall be considered. 

7-8. Waters contained in intermittent and ephemeral streams shall meet all water quality criteria applicable 

to any perennial streams to which they are tributaries. 

7-9. All criteria should be met at all times and all locations, including low flow rates. However, allowance 

may be made for mixing, on a case by case basis, where compliance with the chronic criteria is not 

technically feasible. In such cases mixing zones shall be established consistent with 40 C. F. R. Pt. 

132, Appendix F, Procedure 3. In no case will mixing be permitted in biologically or recreationally 

sensitive areas. In no case may the acute criteria be exceeded. 

7-10. Natural native biological/ecological communities associated with Waters of the Reservation and their 

biotic and abiotic components and relationships shall be protected. 

7-11. Waters of the Reservation shall not be degraded below their present water quality nor shall new or 

increased discharges be permitted unless it is determined by the Environmental Department that the 

accompanying water quality degradation from such discharges will provide unique benefits in 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-78 
accordance with Section 6-7 and Section 6-8. All existing and designated uses shall be protected at 

all times. 

7-12. Any activities that degrade the aesthetic quality, stability and/or ecological integrity of the Waters of 

the Reservation shall be prohibited unless authorized in a manner consistent with the water quality 

standards contained herein. 

7-13. The discharge of toxicants into the Waters of Reservations that are known or found to be synergistic 

with other pollutants shall be addresses on a case by case basis. 

7-14. For substances where numeric criteria have not yet been adopted by the Oneida Nation, the numeric 

criteria and methodologies in 40 C. F. R. Pt. 132, Appendices A-D shall be used and are incorporated 

into these standards by reference. 

Article IX. Designated Uses

9-1. All of the following categories of designated uses shall apply to all Waters of the reservation except 

where noted. 

9-2. Public Water Supply. Waters specifically designated as suitable or intended to become suitable for 

providing an adequate supply of drinking water for the continuation of the health, safety and welfare 

of the Nation’s members and residents of the Oneida Reservation. 

9-3. Wildlife. All surface waters capable of providing a water supply and vegetative habitat for the support 

and propagation of all wildlife located within the exterior boundaries of the Oneida Nation Reservation. 

9-4. Aquatic Life. Waters of the Reservation shall be categorized as one the following: 

1. Cold Water Ecosystems: Waters of the Reservation where water temperature, habitat and other 

characteristics are suitable or intended to be suitable for the support and propagation of cold 

water fish and other aquatic life, or serving as a spawning or nursery area for cold water fish 

species. Examples of cold water fish include brook trout and rainbow trout. Trout Creek, 

Lancaster Brook and associated tributaries are hereby designated as cold water ecosystems. 

2. Warm Water Ecosystems: Waters of the Reservation where water temperature, habitat and 

other characteristics are suitable or intended to be suitable for support and propagation of warm 

water fish and other aquatic life, or serving as a spawning or nursery area for warm water fish 

species. Examples of warm water fish species include large mouth bass and bluegills. All 

Waters of the Reservation are hereby designated as warm water ecosystems except those 

mentioned in Section 9-4(a). 

9-5. Subsistence Fishing. Water of the Reservation where spearing, netting or bow fishing is allowed as 

stated in the Oneida Conservation Hunting and Fishing Law. 

9-6. Cultural. Waters that are suitable or intended to be suitable for traditional, cultural, historic and 

modern ceremonial uses which uses which may include, but are not limited to the harvest and use 

of medical plants and wildlife associated with aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats; cultural 

educational uses including but not limited to ethnohydrological learning experiences that are passed 

from one generation to the next regarding the harvest of plants, fish, and animals; subsistence fishing; 

and activities that may require the protection of sensitive and valuable aquatic plant and wildlife, and 

aquatic, wetland and riparian habitat. 

9-7. Recreation. 

1. Primary Contact Recreational: Waters that are suitable for activities involving prolonged human 

contact where the risk of ingesting small quantities of water is likely; examples of this type of 

activity include, but are not limited to, swimming, tubing, rafting, skin diving, etc. The Norbert Hill 

Pond is hereby designated as a primary contact recreational area. 

2. Secondary Contact Recreational: Waters that are suitable for activities in which human contact 

with the water may, but need not occur and in which the probability of ingesting raw water is 

unlikely. Examples of this type of activity include, but are not limited to, fishing, wading, boating, 

etc. All Waters of the Reservation are hereby designated as secondary contact recreational 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-79 
areas except for those mentioned in Section 9-5(a). 

9-8. Agricultural. Waters that are suitable for crop irrigation and livestock ingestion. 

9-9. Navigational. Waters that are suitable for navigation in and on the water. 

9-10. Industrial. Waters that are suitable for manufacturing and/or production enterprises. 

Passamaquoddy Tribe, Pleasant Point Reservation 

[WQS currently awaiting approval by EPA Region 9] 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

[WQS currently awaiting approval by EPA Region 9] 

INTERSTATE COMMISSIONS 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

SOURCE: Delaware River Basin Commission West Trenton, New Jersey. Administrative Manual — Part III, 

Water Quality Regulations, Revised to Include Amendments Through October 23, 1996, Article 3 Water 

Quality Standards for the Delaware River Basin [Comprehensive Plan, Section X]: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/wq-regs.pdf 

3.10 BASINWIDE SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

3.10.2 Water Uses 

B. Uses to be Protected. The quality of Basin waters, except intermittent streams, shall be maintained 

in a safe and satisfactory condition of the following uses: 

2. wildlife, fish and other aquatic life; 

3.10.3 Stream Quality Objectives 

A. Antidegradation of Waters 

2. Special Protection Waters. It is the policy of the Commission that there be no measurable 

change in existing water quality except towards natural conditions in waters considered by the 

Commission to have exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply 

values. Waters with exceptional values could be classified by the Commission as Outstanding 

Basin Waters or Significant Resource Waters. 

In determining waters suitable for classification as Special Protection Waters, the Commission 

will consider nomination petitions from local, state and federal agencies and governing bodies, 

and the public for waters potentially meeting the definition of Outstanding Basin Waters and 

Significant Resource Waters as described in 3.10.3A.2.a. 

The following policies shall apply to waters classified by the Commission as Outstanding Basin 

Waters or Significant Resource Waters and their drainage areas: 

a. Definitions 

1) "Outstanding Basin Waters" are interstate and contiguous intrastate waters that are 

contained within the established boundaries of national parks; national wild, scenic and 

recreational rivers systems; and/or national wildlife refuges that are classified by the 

Commission under Subsection 2.g.1). hereof as having exceptionally high scenic, 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-80 
recreational, and ecological values that require special protection. 

2) "Significant Resource Waters" are interstate waters classified by the Commission under 

Subsection 2.g.2). hereof as having exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, 

and/or water supply uses that require special protection. 

3) "Existing Water Quality" is defined as the actual concentration of a water constituent at 

an in-stream site or sites, as determined through field measurements and laboratory 

analysis of data collected over a time period determined by the Commission to 

adequately reflect the natural range of the hydraulic and climatologic factors which affect 

water quality. Existing water quality shall be described in terms of (a) an annual or 

seasonal mean of the available water quality data, (b) two-tailed upper and lower 95 

percent confidence limits around the mean, and (c) the 10th and 90th percentiles of the 

data set from which the mean was calculated. Where available data are insufficient to 

determine existing water quality, existing water quality may be estimated from data 

obtained from sites within the same ecoregion or from best scientific judgment. 

4) "Measurable Change" is defined as an actual or estimated change in a mean (annual or 

seasonal) in-stream pollutant concentration that is outside the range of the two-tailed 

upper and lower 95 percent confidence limits that define existing water quality. In the 

absence of adequate available data, background concentrations will be assumed to be 

zero and "measurable change" will be based on in-stream concentrations greater than 

the detection limit for each parameter, based on the lowest limit of the most sensitive 

technique specified in 40 CFR Part 136. 

Excerpted from Table 1: Definition of Existing Water Quality in the Delaware River Between Hancock, NY and 

the Delaware Water Gap: 

Part A: Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River 

Parameter Mean 95 Percent 

Confidence Limits of 

Mean 

10th and 90th 

Percentiles 

Additional 

.... .... .... ... .... 

Biocriteria: 

Shannon-Weiner 

3.6 3.4 to 3.8 2.7 and 4.3 May - Sept; 

reachwide 

Biocriteria: 

Equitability 

0.8 0.7 to 0.9 0.5 and 1.1 May - Sept; 

reachwide 

Biocriteria:: EPT 15.5 13.8 to 17.2 8.0 and 24.0 May - Sept; 

reachwide 

Part B: Delaware River from Millrift through the Delaware Water Gap Including the Middle Delaware 

Scenic and Recreational River 

Parameter Mean 95 Percent 

Confidence Limits of 

Mean 

10th and 90th 

Percentiles 

Additional 

.... .... .... ... .... 

Biocriteria: 

Shannon-Weiner 

3.6 3.4 to 3.7 3.2 and4.1 May - Sept; 

reachwide 

Biocriteria: 

Equitability 

0.8 0.7 to 0.9 0.5 and 1.1 May - Sept; 

reachwide 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-81 
Biocriteria: EPT 13.9 12.8 to 15.1 8.0 and 20.0 May - Sept; 

reachwide 

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

SOURCE: Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Pollution Control Standards for discharges to the 

Ohio River, 2000 Revision: http://www.orsanco.org/watqual/standards/PollutionControl.pdf and 

http://www.orsanco.org/ 

II. Definitions 

B. “Biological integrity” means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, 

integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional 

organization comparable to those best attainable given ecoregional attributes and the modified habitat 

types of the river. 

H. “Early Life Stages” of fish means the pre-hatch embryonic period, the post-hatch free embryo or yolksac fry, and the larval period, during which the organism feeds. Juvenile fish, which are anatomically 

rather similar to adults, are not considered an early life stage. 

R. “Representative Aquatic Species” means those species of aquatic life whose protection and 

propagation will assure the sustained presence of a balanced indigenous community. Such species 

are representative in the sense that maintenance of suitable water quality conditions will assure the 

overall protection and sustain propagation of the balanced, indigenous community. 

IV. Water Quality Criteria

B. Aquatic Life Protection. To provide protection of warm water aquatic life habitats, the following criteria 

shall be met outside the mixing zone: 

1. BIOLOGICAL: The biological integrity of the Ohio River shall be protected and preserved. 

Water Quality Standards December 2002 4-82 
5. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS

5.1 Acronyms 

AL Aquatic Life 

ALU Aquatic Life Use 

ALUS Aquatic Life Use Support 

ANOVA Analysis of Variance 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CALM Consolidated Assessment Listing Methodology 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DQO Data Quality Objectives 

EDAS Ecological Data Application System 

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera 

FTE Full Time Employees 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 

IBI Index of Biological/Biotic Integrity 

MACS Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams 

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment Program 

NCBI North Carolina Biotic Index 

NHD National Hydrography Database 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS Nonpoint Source 

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

QA Quality Assurance 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-1 
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

QC Quality Control 

QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index 

QMP Quality Management Plan 

RBP Rapid Bioassessment Protocols 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

RIVPACS River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System 

RF3 River Reach File 3 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures 

STORET Data Storage and Retrieval System 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

UAA Use Attainability Analyses 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WQ Water Quality 

WQS Water Quality Standards 

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant 

5.2 Definition of Terms 

Accuracy the degree of agreement between an observed value and an 

accepted reference value. 

Ambient Monitoring sampling and evaluation of receiving waters not necessarily 

associated with episodic perturbations. 

Analysis of Variance a general statistical method for comparing the mean 

response to different treatments using the ratio of amonggroup to between-group variance. The method has also 

been applied to estimating precision and quantifying sources 

of variance. 

Antidegradation Statement statement that protects existing designated uses and 

prevents high-quality waterbodies from deteriorating below 

the water quality necessary to maintain existing or anticipated 

designated beneficial uses. 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-2 
Aquatic Assemblage an association of interacting populations of organisms in a 

given waterbody, for example, fish assemblage or a benthic 

macroinvertebrate assemblage. 

Aquatic Community an association of interacting assemblages in a given 

waterbody, the biotic component of an ecosystem. 

Aquatic Life Use a beneficial use designation in which the waterbody provides 

suitable habitat for survival and reproduction of desirable fish, 

shellfish, and other aquatic organisms; classifications 

specified in state water quality standards relating to the level 

of protection afforded to the resident biological community by 

the state agency. 

Beneficial Uses desirable uses that water quality should support. Examples 

are drinking water supply, primary contact recreation (such as 

swimming), and aquatic life support. 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates animals without backbones, living in or on the sediments, of a 

size large enough to be seen by the unaided eye and which 

can be retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve (28 meshes 

per inch, 0.595 mm openings). Also referred to as benthos, 

infauna, or macrobenthos. 

Benthos see Benthic Macroinvertebrates. 

Best Management Practice an engineered structure or management activity, or 

combination of these, that eliminates or reduces an adverse 

environmental effect of a pollutant. 

Bias the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement 

process which deprives the result of representativeness (i.e., 

the expected sample measurement is different than the 

sample’s true value). 

Biological Assessment or an evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody using 

Bioassessment surveys of the structure and function of the community of 

resident biota. 

Biological Criteria or Biocriteria narrative expressions or numerical values that describe the 

reference biological condition (structure and function) of 

aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given designated 

aquatic life use. Biocriteria are based on the numbers and 

kinds of organisms present and are regulatory-based 

biological measurements. 

Biological Diversity or Biodiversity refers to the variety and variability among living organisms 

and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity 

can be defined as the number of different items and their 

relative frequencies. For biological diversity, these items are 

organized at many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems 

to the biochemical structures that are the molecular basis of 

heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, 

species, and genes. 

Biological Indicator or Bioindicator an organism, species, assemblage, or community 

characteristic of a particular habitat, or indicative of a 

particular set of environmental conditions. 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-3 
Biological Integrity the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a 

balanced, adaptive community of organisms having a species 

composition, diversity, and functional organization 

comparable to that of natural habitats within a region. 

Biological Monitoring or Biomonitoring use of a biological entity as a detector and its response as a 

measure to determine environmental conditions. Ambient 

biological surveys and toxicity tests are common biological 

monitoring methods. 

Biological Survey or Biosurvey collecting, processing, and analyzing a representative portion 

of the resident aquatic community to determine its structural 

and/or functional characteristics. 

Bioregion any geographical region characterized by a distinctive flora 

and/or fauna. 

Clean Water Act an act passed by the U.S. Congress to control water pollution 

(formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act of 1972). Public Law 92-500, as amended. 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq. 

Clean Water Act 303(d) This section of the Act requires States, territories, and 

authorized tribes to develop lists of impaired waters for which 

water quality standards are not being met, even after point 

sources of pollution have installed the minimum required 

levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that 

these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the 

lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. States, territories, 

and authorized tribes are to submit their list of waters on April 

1 in every even-numbered year. 

Clean Water Act 305(b) biennial reporting requires description of the quality of the 

Nation’s surface waters, evaluation of progress made in 

maintaining and restoring water quality, and description of the 

extent of remaining problems. 

Criteria limits on a particular pollutant or condition of a waterbody 

presumed to support or protect the designated use or uses of 

a waterbody. Criteria may be narrative or numeric. 

Data Quality Objectives qualitative and quantitative statements developed by data 

users to specify the quality of data needed to support specific 

decisions; statements about the level of uncertainty that a 

decision maker is willing to accept in data used to support a 

particular decision. 

Data Storage and Retrieval System EPA’s largest computerized environmental data system; 

(STORET) repository for biological, chemical, and physical data used by 

state environmental agencies, EPA and other federal 

agencies, universities, private citizens, and many others. 

Designated Use classification specified in water quality standards for each 

waterbody or segment describing the level of protection from 

perturbation afforded by the regulatory programs. The 

designated aquatic life uses established by the state or 

authorized tribes set forth the goals for the restoration and/or 

baseline conditions for maintenance and prevention from 

further degradation of the aquatic life in specific waterbodies. 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-4 
Ecological Data Application System relational database system that allows the user to input, 

(EDAS) compile, and analyze complex ecological data to make 

assessments of ecosystem condition. 

Ecological Integrity the condition of an unimpaired ecosystem as measured by 

combined chemical, physical (including habitat), and 

biological attributes. 

Ecoregion a relatively homogeneous ecological area defined by 

similarity of climate, landform, soil, potential natural 

vegetation, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant 

variables. 

Environmental Monitoring and a US EPA research program to develop the tools necessary 

Assessment Program to monitor and assess the status and trends of national 

ecological resources. EMAP’s goal is to develop the 

scientific understanding for translating environmental 

monitoring data from multiple spatial and temporal scales into 

assessments of ecological condition and forecasts of the 

future risks to the sustainability of our natural resources. 

Eutrophication enrichment of a waterbody with nutrients, resulting in high 

levels of primary production, often leading to depletion of 

dissolved oxygen. 

Habitat a place where the physical and biological elements of 

ecosystems provide a suitable environment including the 

food, cover, and space resources needed for plant and 

animal livelihood. 

Historical Data data sets from previous studies, which can range from 

handwritten field notes to published journal articles. 

Index of Biological/Biotic Integrity an integrative expression of site condition across multiple 

metrics. An index of biological integrity is often composed of 

at least seven metrics. 

Least Disturbed/Impaired the physical, chemical and biological conditions of a site, 

reach, segment, or water body that has the least amount of 

human disturbance in comparison to others within the water 

body, class, region, or basin. Least disturbed conditions 

change over time as land use and management practices 

change and, therefore, are not a "target" or upper bound of 

water quality potential (Best available current condition). 

Macroinvertebrates see Benthic Macroinvertebrates. 

Macrophytes large aquatic plants that may be rooted, unrooted, vascular, 

or algiform (such as kelp); includes submerged aquatic 

vegetation, emergent aquatic vegetation, and floating aquatic 

vegetation. 

Metric a calculated term or enumeration representing some aspect 

of biological assemblage, function, or other measurable 

aspect and is a characteristic of the biota that changes in 

some predictable way with increased human influence. 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-5 
Minimally Disturbed/Impaired 

Multimetric Index 

Multivariate Analysis 

Narrative Biocriteria 

Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Numeric Biocriteria 

Perennial Streams 

Periphyton 

Point Source 

Precision 

Quality Assurance 

the physical, chemical and biological conditions of a site, 

reach, segment, or water body in the absence of significant, 

or with minimal, human disturbance. Historical information or 

models may be used to help describe the minimally disturbed 

condition. Minimally disturbed conditions change little over 

time mostly due to natural processes and, therefore, provide 

a "target" or upper bound of water quality potential (Best 

potential condition). 

an index that combines indicators, or metrics, into a single 

index value. Each metric is tested and calibrated to a scale 

and transformed into a unitless score prior to being 

aggregated into a multimetric index. Both the index, and 

metrics, are useful in assessing and diagnosing ecological 

condition. See Index of Biotic Integrity. 

statistical methods (e.g. ordination or discriminant analysis) 

for analyzing physical and biological community data using 

multiple variables. 

general statements of attainable or attained conditions of 

biological integrity and water quality for a given designated 

aquatic life use. 

pollution that occurs when rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation 

water runs over land or through the ground, picks up 

pollutants, and deposits them into rivers, lakes, and coastal 

waters or introduces them into ground water. 

specific quantitative measures (metrics) of desired level of 

biological condition. 

permanently inundated surface stream courses. Surface 

water flows throughout the year except in years of drought. 

a broad organismal assemblage composed of attached 

algae, bacteria, their secretions, associated detritus, and 

various species of microinvertebrates. 

an origin of pollutant discharge that is known and specific, 

usually thought of as effluent from the end of a pipe. 

the degree of variation among individual measurements of 

the same property, usually obtained under similar conditions. 

includes quality control functions and involves a totally 

integrated program for ensuring the reliability of monitoring 

and measurement data; the process of management review 

and oversight at the planning, implementation, and 

completion stages of environmental data collection activities. 

Its goal is to assure that the data provided are of the quality 

needed and claimed. 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-6 
Quality Assurance Plan a written document that describes the quality assurance 

procedures, quality control requirements, and other technical 

activities that must be implemented to ensure that the results 

of the project or task to be performed will meet project 

requirements; contains several important guidelines for a 

program to follow such as objectives and milestones for 

achieving those objectives, lines of responsibility, 

accountability of staff for meeting data quality objectives, and 

accountability for ensuring precision, accuracy, completeness 

of the data collection activities, and documentation of the 

sample custody process. 

Quality Control refers to the routine application of procedures for obtaining 

prescribed standards of performance in the monitoring and 

measurements process; focuses on the detailed technical 

activities needed to achieve data of the quality specified by 

data quality objectives. Quality control is implemented at the 

bench or field level. 

Quality Management Plan a document that describes an organization’s quality system. 

It identifies the organizational structure, policy and 

procedures, functional responsibilities of management and 

staff, lines of authority, and its processes for planning, 

implementing, documenting, and assessing all activities 

conducted under the organization’s quality system. 

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols cost-effective techniques used to survey and evaluate the 

aquatic community to detect aquatic life impairments and 

their relative severity. 

Reference Condition the set of selected measurements or conditions of unimpaired 

or minimally impaired waterbodies characteristic of a 

waterbody type in a region. 

Reference Site a specific locality on a waterbody which is unimpaired or 

minimally impaired and is representative of the expected 

ecological integrity of other localities on the same waterbody 

or nearby waterbodies. 

Regional Environmental Monitoring a US EPA program initiated to assess the applicability of the 

and Assessment Program EMAP approach to answer questions about ecological 

conditions at regional and local scales. REMAP conducts 

projects at smaller geographic scales and in shorter time 

frames than the national EMAP program. 

Regional Reference Condition a description of the chemical, physical, or biological condition 

based on an aggregation of data from minimally impaired 

sites that are representative of a waterbody type in an 

ecoregion, subecoregion, watershed, or political unit. 

River Invertebrate Prediction and a predictive method developed for use in the United Kingdom 

Classification System to assess water quality using a comparison of observed 

biological species distributions to those expected to occur 

based on a model derived from reference data. 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-7 
River Reach File 3 a national database of 1:100,000 scale Digital Line Graph 

(DLG) hydrography data in a processed, edgematched, 

hydrologically networked format. RF3 data are a "directed 

network" dataset meaning that all stream segments, or 

reaches, are ordered in a uniform direction. 

Sensitivity capability of a method or instrument to discriminate between 

measurement responses of a variable of interest. 

Standard Operating Procedures a set of written instructions that document a routine or 

repetitive activity. SOPs describe both technical and 

administrative operational elements of an organization that 

would be managed under a Quality Assurance Project Plan 

and under an organization’s Quality Management Plan. 

Stressors physical, chemical, and biological factors that adversely affect 

aquatic organisms. 

Taxa a grouping of organisms given a formal taxonomic name such 

as species, genus, family, etc. 

Total Maximum Daily Load calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant a 

waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards 

and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s source. 

Use Attainability Analysis structured scientific assessment of the physical, chemical, 

biological and economic factors affecting attainment of the 

uses of waterbodies. 

Water Quality Standards a law or regulation that consists of the beneficial designated 

use or uses of a waterbody, the narrative or numerical water 

quality criteria (including biocriteria) that are necessary to 

protect the use or uses of that particular waterbody, and an 

antidegradation statement. 

Water Resource Management decisions on management activities relevant to a water 

(Non-Regulatory) resource such as problem identification, need for and 

placement of best management practices, pollution 

abatement actions, and effectiveness of program activity. 

Zooplankton refers to animals which are unable to maintain their position 

or distribution independent of the movement of water or air. 

List of Acronyms & Definition of Terms December 2002 5-8 
6. LITERATURE CITED AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

6.1 Literature Cited 

Davis, W.S. and T.P. Simon (editors). 1995. Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource 

planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Frey, D.G. 1977. Biological integrity of water – an historical approach. Pages 127-140 in R.K. Ballentine 

and L.J. Guarraia (editors). The Integrity of Water. Proceedings of a Symposium, March 10-12, 1975. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental 

Management 5: 55-68. 

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological 

integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey. Special Publication 

5, Champaign, Illinois. 

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New 

York (many editions). 

USEPA. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates 

and fish. EPA 440-4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and 

Standards, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1990. Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface waters. EPA-440/5-90-004. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1992. Procedures for initiating narrative biological criteria. EPA 822-B-92-002. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1996a. Biological criteria: technical guidance for streams and small rivers. EPA 822-B-96-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1996b. Summary of state biological assessment programs for streams and rivers. EPA 230-R-96-

007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1998a. Lake and reservoir bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance document. EPA 

841-B-98-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1998b. Water quality criteria and standards plan – Priorities for the future. EPA 822-R-98-003. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, 

benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, Second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2000. Estuarine and coastal marine waters: Bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance. 

EPA 822-B-00-024. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Introduction to wetland biological 

assessment. EPA-822-R-02-014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, 

DC. 

Literature Cited December 2002 6-1 
USEPA. 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Developing metrics and indexes 

of biological integrity. EPA-822-R-02-016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Wetlands classification. EPA 822-R-02-017. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Developing an invertebrate index of biological 

integrity for wetlands. EPA 822-R-02-019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Using amphibians in bioassesments of wetlands. 

EPA 822-R-02-022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Biological assessment methods for birds. EPA 

822-R-02-023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

U.S. House of Representatives. 1972. House Report 92-911. Washington, Government Printing Office. 

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio. 

In Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, W.S. 

Davis and T.P. Simon (editors), pp. 109-144. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

6.2 Additional Resources 

More information and guidance on biological assessments and criteria can be found in the documents and 

websites listed below. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977: [Commonly Referred to 

as Clean Water Act] [Enacted by Public Law 92-500, October 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.; Amended by PL 93-207, December 28, 1973, and PL 93-243, January 2, 1974; PL 93-592, January 

2, 1975; PL 94-238, March 23, 1976; PL 94-273, April 21, 1976; PL 94-558, October 19, 1976; PL 95-217, 

December 28, 1977; PL 95-576, November 2, 1978; PL 96-148, December 16, 1979; PL 96-478, PL 96-

483, October 21, 1980; PL 96-510, December 11, 1980; PL 96-561, December 22, 1980; PL 97-35, 

August 13, 1981; PL 97-117, December 29, 1981; PL 97-164, April 2, 1982; PL 97-440, January 8, 1983; 

Amended by PL 100-4, February 4, 1987] 

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality [ITFM]. 1995. The strategy for improving 

water-quality monitoring in the United States: Final report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on 

Monitoring Water Quality. Technical Appendixes. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 

USEPA 1983. Technical support manual: Waterbody surveys and assessments for conducting use 

attainability analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 

Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1989. Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources. EPA/600/3-89/060. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 

USEPA. 1989. Standard operating procedures for the collection of and laboratory identification of 

freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, IL. 

USEPA. 1990. Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of 

surface waters. EPA/600/4-90/030. U.S. Environmental Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1991. Biological criteria: Guide to technical literature. EPA/5-91-004. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

Literature Cited December 2002 6-2 
USEPA. 1991. Biological criteria: Research and regulation – Proceedings of a symposium. EPA-440/5-

91-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1991. Biological criteria: State development and implementation efforts. EPA-440/5-91-003. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1991. Transmittal of Final Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria (Memorandum). From 

Tudor T. Davies, Director, Office of Science and Technology to Waste Management Division Directors, 

Regions I-X. June 19, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition. EPA 823-B-94-005. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1995. Generic quality assurance project plan guidance for programs using community level 

biological assessment in wadeable streams and rivers. EPA 841-B-95-004. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1996. Bioindicators for assessing ecological integrity of prairie wetlands. EPA/600/R-96/082. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 

USEPA. 1996. Biological assessment methods, biocriteria, and biological indicators. Bibliography of 

selected technical, policy, and regulatory literature. EPA 230-B-96-001. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1996. The volunteer monitor’s guide to quality assurance project plans. EPA 841-B-96-003. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1997. Volunteer stream monitoring: A methods manual. EPA 841-B-97-003. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1998. Development of biological criteria for coral reef ecosystem assessment. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria 

Division, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1998. Wetland bioassessment fact sheets. EPA 843-F-98-001. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2000. Stressor identification guidance document. EPA 822-B-00-025. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Offices of Water and Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Biological assessment and criteria: Crucial components of water quality programs. EPA 

822-F-02-006. U.S. Environmental Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA Office of Environmental Information, Biological Indicators of Watershed Health website: 

http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/index.html 

USEPA Office of Science and Technology, Bioassessment and Biocriteria website: 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/index.html 

USEPA Office of Water, Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality, Biological Assessment website: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/bioassess.html 

Literature Cited December 2002 6-3 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Literature Cited December 2002 6-4 
APPENDIX A.

BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAMS FOR STREAMS AND

WADEABLE RIVERS (2001)
Appendix A. Bioassessment programs for streams and wadeable rivers (2001)

Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Periphyton

Other

O = other

O = other

STATES Alabama 77,274 47,077 7,103.5 5,124.4 1,979.1 1,979.1 Y Y N Y VB R LD TG, BM MM - O 

Alaska >3 million unknown 150 watersheds 140 water- sheds 10 water- sheds 10 water- sheds Y N UD N VB, HY SS, PJ MD TG, BM MM - 1

from th

%tile 

Arizona 127,505 4,980 0 n/a n/a n/a Y N Y N VB, QM, HY R LD, PJ, MD BM MM - 2

of ref. 

Arkansas 87,617 28,408 245 stream 

segments 

n/a n/a n/a Y Y N N VB, QM, HY, 

O 

SS, PW, R, PJ, O 

HC, LD, PJ TG, MV, BM, 

DG 

MM - O 

California 211,513 64,438 unknown unknown unknown unknown Y N N N VB PJ, O LD PA, MV, BM MV - U

Colorado 107,403 31,415 n/a n/a n/a 85.1 Y Y UD N VB, HY, O SS, PJ HC, LD, PJ, 

O 

TG, BM MM - U

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other 

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

Periphyton

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

O = other

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

O = other

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Other

Connecticut 5,830 5,484 961 764 195 n/a Y Y Y Y VB SS, O LD TG, BM MM - O 

Delaware 2,506 1,778 2,506 741 1,765 1,173 Y N N N VB R, PJ LD BM MM - 6

of ref. 

District of Columbia 

39 – 39 0 39 unknown Y Y N Y HY PJ – BM – 

Florida 51,858 22,993 4,795 4,365 430 430 Y N Y Y VB R, PJ LD, GR TG, BM, DG MM - q

section score 

Georgia 70,150 44,056 1,416 477 939 – Y Y N N VB, O R LD TG, BM MM - U

MV - U

Hawai`i 249 249 15 5 10 10 UD Y N N VB, O R LD TG, BM MM - U

Idaho 96,200 49,500 16,742 8,434 8,312 8,312 Y Y Y N VB, O R, PJ LD, PJ, MD TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG 

MM - 2

of ref. 

Illinois 86,021 30,246 15,304 9,498 5,806 unknown Y Y N N VB, QM SS, O HC, LD, PJ TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG, O 

MM - O 

Indiana 35,673 21,094 35,430 23,000 12,430 unknown Y Y Y Y VB R, PJ HC, LD, GR, 

O 

TG, PA, MV, BM, DG 

MM - CMV - O 

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other 

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

Periphyton

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

O = other

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

O = other

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Other

Iowa 71,665 26,630 2,018 1,418 600 n/a Y Y N N VB, QM R, PJ LD TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG 

MM - 2

of ref. 

Kansas 134,338 23,731 23,731 n/a n/a n/a Y Y Y Y VB, QM PJ HC, LD TG, BM, O MM - U

Kentucky 89,431 34,334 ~30,000 ~20,000 ~10,000 7,500 Y Y Y N VB R LD, MD MV, BM MM - 2

of ref. 

Louisiana 66,294 – – n/a n/a n/a Y Y N N VB SS, PJ HC, LD, O TG, MV, BM, 

O 

MM - C

Maine 31,672 23,879 1,000 858.5 141.5 141.5 Y N Y N VB R, PJ LD, GR, PJ, 

MD 

TG, MV, BM, DG 

MV 

Maryland 17,000 12,343 6,142 3,429 2,713.4 178 actual 

listings 

Y Y N Y VB, QM, O O LD TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG, O 

MM - 1

Massachusetts 8,229 7,133 1,344 649 695 695 Y Y Y Y VB SS, PW, R, 

PJ 

LD TG, BM MM - 8

of ref. 

Michigan 49,141 27,873 21,469 15,469 6,000 2,600 Y Y N N VB SS n/a TG, BM MM - O 

Minnesota 91,944 32,985 2,047 1,575 472 785 Y Y N Y QM R, PJ LD, O TG, BM, DG MM - O 

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other 

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

Periphyton

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

O = other

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

O = other

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Other

Mississippi 84,003 26,454 1,365 505 860 860 Y N N N VB, O R LD TG, MV, BM, 

DG 

MM - U

Missouri 52,194 22,194 21,996 11,519 10,477 n/a Y Y N N VB, QM, O SS, R, PJ, O LD, MD TG, PA, MV, 

BM 

MM -cumulascore = ref. co

Montana 176,750 53,221 9,076 1,340 7,736 7,736 Y Y Y Y VB, QM, HY, 

O 

SS, R, PJ HC, LD, PJ, 

MD 

TG, PA, MV, BM, DG 

MM - 7ref. co

Nebraska 81,573 16,090 16,314 13,867 2,447 0 Y Y N N VB, QM SS, R, PJ LD, O TG, PA, BM MM - 2

of ref. 

Nevada 143,578 14,988 602 0 0 0 Y N UD N VB, QM, O SS, PW, R, 

PJ (all UD) 

HC, LD, PJ (all UD) 

TG, MV, BM (UD), DG 

– 

New Hampshire 10,881 8,636 400 389 11 0 Y Y N Y VB SS, PJ n/a TG, BM – 

New Jersey 6,500 – 330 121 209 – Y Y N N VB R, PJ LD BM MM - U

RBPs 

New Mexico 110,741 8,682 ~5,875 ~3,200 ~2,675 UD Y Y Y Y VB, HY, O PJ n/a TG, BM MM - 9

of ref. 

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other 

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

Periphyton

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

O = other

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

O = other

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Other

New York 52,337 46,266 16,000 15,430 570 484 Y Y Y N QM SS n/a TG, BM, O MM - 7

of all s

North Carolina 37,662 – 32,072 29,929 2,143 2,143 Y Y Y Y VB R LD TG, PA, BM, 

DG 

MM - O 

North Dakota 54,427 unknown 14,426 9,923 4,503 – Y Y Y N VB, HY R LD TG, BM, DG MM - O 

Ohio 29,113 29,113 9,535 5,204 4,331 2,052 Y Y N N VB R LD TG, BM MM - 2

%tile o

Oklahoma 78, 778 22,386 13,313 UD UD UD Y Y N N QM R, O LD TG, BM MM - C

Oregon 114,823 51,695 40,188 12,056 28,132 unknown Y Y Y Y QM R, PJ, O LD, MD TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG 

MM - CMV 

Pennsylvania 83,000 – 45,000 36,900 8,100 8,100 Y Y N Y VB PW, R MD TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG 

MM - U

Rhode Island 1,498 979 272.8 188.1 84.7 78.5 Y N N Y VB SS, PJ HC, MD TG, BM MM - 7

of ref. 

South Carolina 35,461 25,729 678.6 563.98 114.6 114.6 Y N N N VB R LD TG, BM MM - C

South Dakota 9,937 1,932 3.73 n/a n/a n/a Y N Y N VB, QM, HY PJ (UD) LD (UD) TG, BM MM - 2

of ref. 

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other 

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

Periphyton

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

O = other

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

O = other

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Other

Tennessee 60,187 – 24,233 16,693 7,540 14,333 Y N N N VB R LD TG,PA, MV, 

BM 

MM - 290th %t

pop. 

Texas 191,228 40,194 266.9 196.1 70.8 – Y Y N N QM SS, PW, R, 

PJ 

LD TG, PA, BM MM - 5

of ref. 

Utah 85,916 14,000+ 705 75 630 300 Y N UD N QM, O n/a n/a TG, BM, O – 

Vermont 7,099 7,099 ~800 ~650 ~150 ~150 Y Y Y N VB, HY, O SS, R, PJ HC, PJ, MD TG, PA, MV, 

BM 

MM - C

Virginia 50,329 50,329 15,540.4 13,321.9 2,218.5 2,218.5 Y N N N VB SS, PW, PJ – TG – 

Washington 73,886 39,483 3,275 982.5 2,292.5 0 Y Y Y Y VB, QM, HY R, PJ HC, LD, MD TG, MV, BM MM - 2

of ref. 

West Virginia 32,278 21,114 5,745 3,706 2,039 1,315 Y Y N N VB, QM, O R, PJ MD TG, BM MM - 5

ref. po

Wisconsin 55,000 32,000 24,422 7,989 12,028 – Y Y Y N QM SS, R LD, PJ, O TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG 

MM - 2

of ref. 

Wyoming 113,422 32,520 2,639 2,124 177 177 Y N UD N VB, QM, HY, R, PJ LD, PJ MV (UD), TG, MM - 2

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Periphyton

Other

O = other

O = other

TERRITORIES American Samoa – – – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 

– – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Puerto Rico 5,394.2 – 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a U.S. Virgin Islands – – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

TRIBES Confederated Tribes of the Colville Res. 

– – – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Nez Perce Tribe – – – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin 

233 – – n/a n/a n/a Y Y N N VB, QM PJ LD TG, PA, BM MM 

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
Entity Stream/river miles Number of miles assessed 

using biology 

Assemblages 

assessed 

Habitat 

assessment 

Reference 

site 

determination 

Characterization of 

regional 

reference 

sites 

Data 

analysis 

tools & 

methods 

Impa

thre

Total 

fully supporting for 305(b)

partially/non-supporting for 305(b)

listed for 303(d)

VB = visual based; QM = quantitative 

measurements; HY = hydrogeomorphology;

SS = site specific; PW = paired watersheds;

R =regional; PJ = professional judgment;

HC = historical conditions; LD = least disturbed sites;

GR = gradient response; PJ = professional

judgment; MD = minimally disturbed; O = other

TG = tables & graphs; PA = parametric ANOVAs;

MV = multivariate; BM = biological metrics;

DG = disturbance gradients; O = other

MM ltitiMV ltiit

Total Perennial miles Name miles miles assessed 

Benthos

Fish

Periphyton

Other

O = other

O = other

Passamaquoddy Tribe, Pleasant Point Res. 

– – – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

– – 31+ – – – Y Y Y N VB, QM PJ HC, PJ UD UD 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

– – – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

INTERSTATE COMMISSIONS DRBC 200 – 200 n/a n/a n/a Y Y N Y VB, HY, O R, O HC, LD TG, BM – 

ICPRB 383 – n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Y N Y VB R LD, GR TG, PA, MV, 

BM 

MM - U

ORSANCO 981 – 981 974 7 55 Y Y N N O SS, R, PJ LD TG, PA, MV, 

BM, DG 

MM - 2

of ref. 

SRBC 31,193 – 3,520 2,525 995 n/a Y N N N VB R, PJ LD TG, BM MM - O 

n/a = not applicable; pop. = population; ref. = reference; UD = under development; WQS = water quality standards; – = none or information not reported 

Appendix A December 2002 
APPENDIX B.

EPA CONTACTS
Appendix B. EPA CONTACTS 

Regional Biocriteria Coordinators 

REGION 1 

(CT, ME, MA, NH, Passamaquoddy Tribe - Pleasant 

Point Reservation, RI, VT) 

Peter Nolan, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA New England Regional Laboratory 

Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation 

11 Technology Drive 

North Chelmsford, MA 01863-2431 

Phone 617/918-8343, Fax 617/918-8397 

email: nolan.peter@epa.gov 

REGION 2 

(DRBC, NJ, NY, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands) 

James Kurtenbach, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 2 

Facilities - Mail Code MS220 

Raritan Depot, 2890 Woodbridge Avenue 

Edison, NJ 08837-3679 

Phone 732/321-6695, Fax 732/321-6616 

email: kurtenbach.james@epa.gov 

REGION 3 

(DE, DC, ICPRB, MD, PA, SRBC, VA, WV) 

Margaret Passmore, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 3 

Wheeling Operations Office - Mail Code 3ES31 

303 Methodist Building 

11th and Chapline Streets 

Wheeling, WV 26003 

Phone 304/234-0245, Fax 304/234-0259 

email: passmore.margaret@epa.gov 

REGION 4 

(AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, Seminole Tribe, SC, TN) 

Jim Harrison, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Phone 404/562-9271 

email: harrison.jim@epa.gov 

REGION 5 

(IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, ORSANCO, Oneida Nation of 

Wisconsin, WI) 

Ed Hammer, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 5 

Mail Code WT-15J 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 

Phone 312/886-3019 

email: hammer.edward@epa.gov 

REGION 6 

(AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) 

Philip Crocker, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 6 

Mail Code 6WQ-EW 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Phone 214/665-6644, Fax 214/665-7373 

email: crocker.philip@epa.gov 

Charlie Howell, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 6 

Mail Code 6WQ-EW 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Phone 214/665-8354, Fax 214/665-7373 

email: howell.charlie@epa.gov 

REGION 7 

(IA, KS, MO, NE) 

Gary Welker, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 7 

Mail Code ENSVEMWC 

901 North Fifth Street 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

Phone 913/551-7177, Fax 913/551-9177 

email: welker.gary@epa.gov 

REGION 8 

(CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) 

Tina Laidlaw, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 8 

Phone 303/312-6880, Fax 303/312-6071 

email: laidlaw.tina@epa.gov 

Jill Minter, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 8 

Phone 303/312-6084, Fax 303/312-6071 

email: minter.jill@epa.gov 

REGION 9 

(American Samoa, AZ, CA, CNMI, HI, NV, Pyramid 

Lake Paiute Tribe) 

Gary Wolinsky, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 9 

Mail Code WTR-5 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone 415/972-3498, Fax 415/947-3545 

email: wolinsky.gary@epa.gov 

Appendix B December 2002 B-2 
 

REGION 10 

(AK, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 

ID, Nez Perce Tribe, OR, WA) 

Gretchen Hayslip, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator 

USEPA - Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Phone 206/553-1685 

email: hayslip.gretchen@epa.gov 

EPA Headquarters 

Bill Swietlik, Program Manager 

USEPA Office of Water 

Office of Science and Technology 

Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304T) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Phone 202/566-1129, Fax 202/566-1140 or 1139 

email: swietlik.william@epa.gov 

Questions regarding a specific entity’s program should be directed to the contact(s) listed at the 

top of each entity’s program summary in Chapter 3. Questions regarding other sections of this 

document may be directed to any of the following USEPA Headquarters contacts: 

Wayne Davis 

USEPA Office of Environmental Information 

Environmental Science Center 

701 Mapes Road 

Ft. Meade, Maryland 20755-5350 

410-305-3030 410-305-3096 (fax) 

email: davis.wayne@epa.gov 

Beth Jackson 

USEPA Office of Environmental Information 

Environmental Analysis Division 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (2842T) 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Phone 202/566-0626, Fax 202/566-0706 

email: jackson.elizabeth@epa.gov 

Treda Smith 

USEPA Office of Water 

Office of Science and Technology 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (4304T) 

Washington, D.C. 20460-0001 

Phone 202/566-1128, Fax 202/566-1139 

email: smith.treda@epa.gov 

Appendix B December 2002 B-3 
APPENDIX C.

ORIGINAL CHECKLIST TEMPLATE
Appendix C. ORIGINAL CHECKLIST TEMPLATE

Form Approved 

OMB Control No. 2040-0049 

Approval Expiration: 7/31/02 

Survey of State/Tribal Water Quality Programs for Protecting Aquatic Life Through the Use of 

Bioassessments and Biocriteria 

Contact Information: 

state 

name 

position 

agency/organization 

mailing address 

phone 

fax 

email 

website 

Briefly describe your professional responsibilities as they relate to water quality standards, conducting 

bioassessments, and establishing biocriteria. 

For each waterbody type below with biological programs, please provide a contact (if different than 

yourself) 

name phone email 

non-wadeable rivers 

lakes 

reservoirs 

estuaries/near-coastal marine 

wetlands 

Please attach any ancillary materials that will provide further in insight or background about 

your program and/or agency. Examples might include an organizational chart, promotional 

materials, etc. THANK YOU! 

Appendix C December 2002 C-2 
Appendix C December 2002 C-3 
State/Tribal WaterQuality Supporting Aquatic Life Use 

Designations and Biocriteria Development 

1 With respect to your program, which waterbody type 2 For lotic systems, how are they defined? 

categories apply ("X"), and which is being described 

using this checklist ("XX)"? 

wadeable streams, creeks, rivers

non-wadeable rivers

lakes

reservoirs

estuaries and near-coastal marine

wetlands

drainage area 

other (please describe) 

stream order 

3 With respect to the resource type for this checklist, what is 4 Do you contract out any or all or your bioassessment 

the percentage of information in your state, tribal land, or work? 

basin, coming from the following entities? 

state fish & game agency 

USEPA 

other federal agency 

consultants 

volunteer monitoring programs 

local college or university 

regulated entities 

other (please describe) 

state/tribal water quality agency 

4a If you answered yes to #4, please specify the percentage contracted 

out to each type of entity for field and lab work. 

field lab 

5 What is the lead agency USING the bioassessment 

information? 

consultants 

other state agency 

volunteer monitoring groups 

federal agency 

college or university 

other (please describe) 

6 In which ways are bioassessments used within the water quality program in your state, tribe, or basin? Please check Yes (Y), No (N), or Unsure 

(?) for all that apply. 

Y N ? 

Yes 

No 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

aquatic life use determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state WQ standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment & monitoring 

other (please describe) 

7 Which of the following monitoring designs are used (please 7a For each monitoring design checked in #7, please indicate how it is 

check all that apply)? implemented (check all that apply for each design). 

special projects specific river basins or comprehensive use 

only watersheds throughout jurisdiction 

rotating basin 

other (please describe) 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for a specific purpose) 

fixed station (i.e., WQ monitoring stations) 

probabalistic by stream order/catchment area 

probalistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

Appendix C December 2002 C-4 
8 Indicate the extent of resources assessed using biology (e.g., 8a Please indicate which of the following units of measure you used to 

miles, acres, etc.) answer #8 

extent of resource assessed for biology (total) 

extent of resource fully supporting for 305b 

extent of resource partially supporting/non supporting for 305b 

extent of resource listed for 303d 

number of sites sampled 

extent of resource per site (if predetermined) 

9 What is the basis for determining the extent of the 

resource? 

watersheds 

acreage 

miles 

other (please describe) 

RF3 

National Hydrography Database 

state based 

other (please describe) 

10 Please use this space to add any additional information you'd like about programmatic elements. 

Appendix C December 2002 C-5 
11 What are your Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS) designations 

based on? 

Single Aquatic Life Use 

Class System (A,B,C) 

Fishery Based Uses 

Warm Water vs. Cold Water 

11b Does your state plan to further refine its AL designated uses 

in the next triennial WQS review? 

Yes 

No 

12 If you have narrative biocriteria in your WQS. Is the

attached description accurate?

Yes

No

13 For your narrative biocriteria, do you have formal/informal 

numeric procedures to support your decisions? 

Yes

No

*If you answered yes to #13, where are these procedures 

located (e.g., in the WQS)? 

14 Do you have numeric biocriteria? 

Yes 

No 

*If you answered yes to #14, where are they located? 

11a How many different aquatic life use designations are 

contained in your water quality standards (WQS)? Please 

describe. 

12a If you answered no to #12, please correct below 

13a 

14a 

If you answered no to #13, do you use a qualitative 

and/or narrative scale of condition? 

Yes

No

*Where are the scale(s) located? 

If you have numeric biocriteria, please describe or 

attach separate description. 

15 Are bioassessment data used in an integrated assessment 15a For each box you answered yes to in #15, do you use 

with other environmental data (e.g., toxicity testing and 

chemical specific criteria)? Please check Yes (Y), No (N), or 

Unsure (?) for all that apply. 

Y N ?

for assessment of aquatic resources

for cause and effect determinations

for permitted discharges

for monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation)

for watershed based management

independent application (IA) 

weight-of-evidence 

combination 

other (explain) 

Appendix C December 2002 C-6 
16 Do you know where bioassessments/biocriteria have been 16a If you answered yes to #16, please elaborate. 

used in making management decisions regarding restoration 

of the aquatic resources to its designated ALUS? 

Yes

No

17 How many full time employees were devoted to 

developing the bioassessment/biocriteria program 

maintaining the bioassessment/biocriteria program 

18 Please use this space to add any additional information you'd like about your ALUS descision making process 

Appendix C December 2002 C-7 
Field & Lab Methods for Determining Existing Uses, Designated 

Uses & Collecting Data for Biocriteria Development 

19 How are your reference sites determined? 19a How do you define a reference site? 

site-specific 

paired watersheds 

regional (aggregate of sites) 

professional judgement 

other (please describe) 20 If you use regional reference conditions, how do you 

characterize those sites? 

19b Do you have reference site criteria? 

No 

Yes (If so, please describe in space below.) 

historical conditions 

least-disturbed sites 

gradient response 

judgement prescription 

other (please describe) 

21 If you use regional reference sites, how do you characterize 

(stratify) your streams? 

ecoregions (or some aggregate) 

elevation 

stream type 

multivariate grouping 

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide) 

other (please describe) 

23a Are your reference sites linked to your aquatic life 

designated uses?

Yes

No

23c Do any of your reference sites represent acceptable maninduced conditions?

Yes

No

24 Which of the following assemblages are assessed by your 

program? Please check Yes (Y), No (N), or Unsure (?) for 

all that apply. 

Y N ? 

22 Please indicate how many reference sites you have 

23 

23b 

24a 

by strata

total

What are your criteria for defining reference sites and, if 

applicable, disturbed sites (e.g., D.O., sulfates, habitat)? 

Are your reference sites/conditions identified or 

referenced in your WQS? 

Yes (provide citation_______________________) 

No 

For each assemblaged assessed in #24, please indicate the 

range of samples processesed per year 

< 100 100-500 > 500 

phytoplankton

periphyton

macrophytes

zooplankton

benthos

fish

amphibians/reptiles

waterfowl

Appendix C December 2002 C-8 
24b For each assemblaged assessed in #24, please indicate the level of rigor by choosing A, B, C, D, or E 

phytoplankton A single observation (no discrete season), limited sampling (e.g., 1-2 sites)

periphyton B single season, multiple sites (not at watershed level)

macrophytes C single season, multiple sites (watershed level)

zooplankton D single season, multiple sites (broad coverage)

benthos E multiple seasons, multiple sites (broad coverage for watershed level)

fish

amphibians/reptiles

waterfowl

25 Do you perform habitat assessments at your sites? 25a If you answered yes to #25, how are they conducted?

Yes with bioassessments

No independent of bioassessments 

25b If you answered yes to #25, what type of habitat assessment is used? 

other quantitative parameters (e.g., pebble counts, sediment

quantitative measurements (e.g., EMAP) index, etc.) (please describe)

hydrogeomorphology (e.g., Rosgen)

visual based (e.g., QHEI, RBP, etc.)

25c Are these habitat reference conditions cited or mentioned in 

your WQS?

Yes (provide citation________________________)

No

26 Do you use biological information to facilitate 

public participation in setting WQS? 

Yes (please describe in space below) 

No 

Appendix C December 2002 C-9 
27 Which of the following are part of your quality 28 Do you have a certification program for bioassessment? 

assurance (QA) program? Please check Yes (Y), No 

(N), or Unsure (?) for all that apply. Yes If yes, briefly describe:

YN? No

standard operating procedures (SOPs) 

quality assurance plan (QAP) 

periodic meetings, training for biologists 

sorting proficiency checks 

taxonomic proficiency checks 

specimen archival 

other (please describe) 

Questions 29 -33 deal with field issues specific to BENTHOS. Please describe your program by checking all that apply. If 

your program does not assess this assemblage, please skip these questions. 

29 Sampling gear-- please check all that apply to your 29a Indicate the mesh size used by your program (in microns) 

program 

Surber 

Hess 

Slack (0.5 m) 

D-frame 

dipnet 

kick net (1 m) 

multiplate 

rock baskets 

collect by hand 

other (please describe) 

200 - 400 

500 - 600 

> 800 

other (please describe) 

29b Indicate the area sampled 

< 1 m2 

1 - 3 m2 

3 - 6 m 

other (please describe) 

30 Reach length 31 Habitat selection 

selected habitat 

habitat sequences or cycles 

fixed distance 

stream width formula 

time 

other (please describe) 

32 Where are samples processed? 32a What is the target subsample size? 

field 

lab 

33 What level of taxonomy do you use? 

richest habitat 

riffle/run (cobble) 

multihabitat 

artificial substrate 

woody debris 

other (please describe) 

order 

family 

genus 

species 

combination 

other (please describe) 

100 count 

200 count 

300 count 

500 count 

proportional/volume 

entire sample 

other (please describe) 

Appendix C December 2002 C-10 
Appendix C December 2002 C-11 
Questions 34 - 38 deal with field issues specific to FISH/AMPHIBIANS. Please describe your program by checking all that 

apply. If your program does not assess these assemblages, please skip these questions. 

34 Sampling gear-- please check all that apply to your 34a Seine and/or dipnet mesh size (in inches) 

program 

1/8" 

seine 3/16" 

backpack electrofisher 1/4" 

boat electrofisher 3/8" 

pram unit (tote barge) 1/2" 

other (please describe) 

35 Reach length 

selected habitat 

habitat sequences or cycles 

fixed distance 

stream width formula 

time 

other (please describe) 

37 Where are the samples processed? 

field 

lab 

37b How are samples subsampled? 

selected species 

batch 

selected size 

none 

other (please describe) 

36 Habitat selection 

pool/glide 

riffle/run (cobble) 

multihabitat 

other (please describe) 

37a How are the samples processed? 

length measurement 

biomass--individual 

biomass--batch 

anomalies 

38 What level of taxonomy do you use 

species 

subspecies 

life stage 

other (please describe) 

Questions 39 -43 deal with field issues specific to PERIPHYTON. Please describe your program by checking all that apply. 

If your program does not assess this assemblage, please skip these questions. 

39 Sampling gear-- natural substrate 39a Sampling gear-- artificial substrate 

suction device 

bar clamp sample 

brushing/scraping device (razor, toothbrush, etc.) 

collect by hand 

other (please describe) 

periphytometer 

microslides or other suitable substratum 

collect by hand 

other (please describe) 

Appendix C December 2002 C-12 
40 Reach length 41 Habitat selection 

selected habitat 

habitat sequences or cycles 

fixed distance 

stream width formula 

time 

other (please describe) 

richest habitat 

riffle/run (cobble) 

multihabitat 

artificial substrate 

other (please describe) 

42 How are samples processed? 43 What level of taxonomy do you use? 

chlorophyll a/ phaeophytin 

biomass 

taxonomic identification 

other (please describe) 

diatoms only 

all algae 

division level 

genus level 

species level 

other (please describe) 

44 Please use this space to add any additional information you'd like about your field and lab methods. 

Appendix C December 2002 C-13 
Data Analysis and Interpretation for Determining Biological Condition of Aquatic Life

Uses and Deriving Biocriteria

45 Which data analysis tools and methods do you use (check 46 If you use biological gradients, how are the metrics selected 

all that apply)? and tested? 

summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics 

disturbance gradients 

other (please describe) 

selected by consensus 

tested for sensitivity, ecological value 

calibrated for natural gradients (and covariates) 

46a Please describe your response to #46 

47 If you use biological metrics, how is the threshold 48 If you use biological metrics do you 

determined for transforming metrics into unitless scores? aggregate metrics into an index 

return single metrics (use endpoint for each single 

25th %tile of reference population 

50th %tile of reference population 

75th %tile of reference population 

95th %tile of reference population 

95th %tile of all sites 

cumulative distribution function 

other (please describe) 

metric) 

49 If you use a multimetric index, how do you define the 

impairment threshold? 

50 If you use a multivariate technique, how do you define the 

25th %tile of reference population 

50th %tile of reference population 

75th %tile of reference population 

95th %tile of reference population 

95th %tile of all sites 

cumulative distribution function 

other (please describe) 

impairment threshold? 

5th %tile of reference population 

10th %tile of reference population 

Significant departure from mean of reference popul

other (please describe) 

ation 

51 Have you evaluated the performance characteristics of your bioassessment results? 

Yes 

No 

51a If you answered yes to #51, please describe. Please check Yes (Y), No (N), or Unsure (?) for all that apply. 

Y N ?

repeat sampling (please describe)

precision (please describe)

sensitivity (please describe)

bias (please describe)

accuracy (please describe)

52 Please use this space to add any additional information you'd like about your data analysis and interpretation methods. 

Appendix C December 2002 C-14 
53 Identify where your biological data are stored. Please check Yes (Y), No (N), or Unsure (?) for all that apply. 

Y N ? 

STORET

other database (what program/application)

spreadsheets (what program/application)

paper files only

other (please describe)

54 Please describe how data are retrieved and analyzed. Please check Yes (Y), No (N), or Unsure (?) for all that apply. 

Y N ? 

SAS 

Systat 

Statistica 

EDAS 

other (please describe) 

55 Please list any website URLs for all relevant data. 

56 Please list all documents and references used to provide this information (e.g., SOPs, 305(b) reports, etc.)any 

website URLs for all relevant data. 

57 Please use this space to add any additional information you'd like about your information management. 

Appendix C December 2002 C-15 
APPENDIX D.

PROGRAM SUMMARY TEMPLATE
Appendix D. PROGRAM SUMMARY TEMPLATE 

The numbers of relevant checklist questions (see Appendix C) are colored black and found within each 

corresponding program summary section.

 ENTITY NAME 

Contact Information 

Contact name, title 

Agency 

Street # city/state/zip 

Phone # Fax 

email: 

Program Description 

Documentation and Further Information 

Appendix D December 2002 D-2 
Appendix D December 2002 D-3 

ENTITY NAME 

Contact Information 

Contact name, title 

Agency 

Street # city/state/zip 

Phone # Fax 

email: 

Programmatic Elements 

Uses of bioassessment 

within overall water quality 

program 

problem identification (screening) 

nonpoint source assessments 

monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs 

ALU determinations/ambient monitoring 

promulgated into state water quality standards as biocriteria 

support of antidegradation 

evaluation of discharge permit conditions 

TMDL assessment and monitoring 

other: 

Applicable monitoring 

designs 

targeted (i.e., sites selected for specific purpose) 

fixed station (i.e., water quality monitoring stations) 

probabilistic by stream order/catchment area 

probabilistic by ecoregion, or statewide 

rotating basin 

other: 

Stream Miles 

Total miles 

(determined using... ) 

Total perennial miles 

Total miles assessed for biology 

fully supporting for 305(b) 

partially/non-supporting for 305(b) 

listed for 303(d) 

number of sites sampled 

number of miles assessed per site 
Aquatic Life Use (ALU) Designations and Decision-Making 

ALU designation basis 

ALU designations in state

water quality standards 

Narrative Biocriteria in WQS 

Numeric Biocriteria in WQS 

Uses of bioassessment data assessment of aquatic resources

in integrated assessments cause and effect determinations with other environmental 

data (e.g., toxicity testing and permitted discharges chemical specific criteria) 

monitoring (e.g., improvements after mitigation) 

watershed based management 

Uses of bioassessment/

biocriteria in making

management decisions

regarding restoration of

aquatic resources to a

designated ALU 

Reference Site/Condition Development 

Number of reference sites 

Reference site site-specific 

determinations paired watershed

regional (aggregate of sites)

professional judgment

other: 

Reference site criteria 

Characterization of historical conditions

reference sites within a least disturbed sites regional context 

gradient response 

professional judgment 

other: 

Stream stratification within ecoregions (or some aggregate)

regional reference elevation conditions 

stream type

multivariate grouping

jurisdictional (i.e., statewide)

other:

Additional information reference sites linked to ALU 

reference sites/condition referenced in water quality standards 

some reference sites represent acceptable human-induced conditions 

Appendix D December 2002 D-4 
Appendix D December 2002 D-5 

Field and Lab Methods 

Assemblages assessed benthos (# samples/year; level of rigor) 

fish 

periphyton 

other: 

Benthos 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

subsample size 

taxonomy 

Fish 

sampling gear 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

subsample 

taxonomy 

Periphyton 

sampling gear natural substrate ; artificial substrate 

habitat selection 

sample processing 

taxonomy 

Habitat assessments 

Quality assurance program

elements 

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

Data analysis tools and

methods 

summary tables, illustrative graphs 

parametric ANOVAs 

multivariate analysis 

biological metrics 

disturbance gradients 

other: 

Multimetric thresholds

 transforming metrics

 into unitless scores 

defining impairment in

a multimetric index 

Multivariate thresholds 

defining impairment in

a multivariate index 

Evaluation of performance

characteristics 

repeat sampling 

precision 

sensitivity 

bias 

accuracy 

Biological data 

Storage 

Retrieval and analysis 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Appendix D December 2002 D-7 

Please make all necessary changes on the below label, PRESORTED STANDARD 

detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper POSTAGE & FEES PAID left-hand corner. EPA 

If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE ; PERMIT No. G-35 

detach, or copy the cover, and return to the address in 

the upper left-hand corner. 

Office of Environmental Information 

and Offi ce of Water 

Washington, DC 20460 

Offi cial Business 

Penalty for Private Use 

$300 

EPA-822-R-02-048 

December 2002