# APPENDIX R

PolicyontheUseof BiologicalAssessments

andCriteriain theWaterQualityProgram



# WATERQUALITYSTANDARDS HANDBOOK

SECONDEDITIONUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.

20460

MEMORANDUM OFFICEOF WATER

SUBJECT: Transmittal of Final Policy on Biological

Assessments and Criteria
PROM: Tudor T. Davies, Director

Office of Science and Technology (WH-551)
TO: Water Management Division Directors

Regions I-X

Attached is EPA's "Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program" Attachment A). This policy is a significant step toward addressing all pollution problems withina watershed. It isa natural outgrowth of our greater understanding of the range of problem affecting watersheds from toxic chemicals to physical habitat alteration, and reflects the need to consider the whole picture in developing watershed pollution control strategies.

This policy is the product of a broad-breed Workgroup chaired by Jim Flafkin and Chris Faulkner of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. The workgroup was compared of representatives from seven EPA Headquarters officer. four EPA Research Laboratories, all10 EPA Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the States of New York and North Carolina (see Attachment B). This policy also reflects review comments to the draft policy statement issued In March of 1990. Comments were received from three EPA Headquarters offices, three EPA Research Laboratories, five EPA Regions and two States. The following sections of this memorandum providea brief history of the policy development and additional Information on relevant guidance. Background

The Ecopolicy Workgroupwas formed in response to several converging initiatives in EPA's national water program. In September 1987, amajor management study entitled "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change" strongly emphasized the need to "accelerate development and application of promising biological monitoring techniques" in State and EPA monitoring programs. Soon thereafter, in December 1987,a National Workshop on Instream Biological Monitoring and Criteria reiterated this‘--~-rmcnsa~~~n ;ct a-so --*---a cu= :.:c

.-WC. L-*..-- .7.coftar.ce :I -.ZTE3rat:ng :.hc broioglca~ crl.tCrla 

### aria 3ssessment mcti;oas v1C.i: CraClitional 

### chcmical/phyaical methods (ace Final Proceedings, ETA-3C5/9- 09/003). tinrlly, at the June 1988 National Symposium or. Water 

### Quality Assessment, 

### aWorkgroup of State and Federal representatives unanimously recommended the development of a national bioaasessment policy that encouraged the expanded use of the newbiological tools and directed 

### their implementation acroan 

### the water quality program. 

### Guided by these recommendations, 

### the workgroup held three 

### workshop-sty18 meetings between July 

### andDecember 1988. Wo major guostiona emerged from the lengthy discussions as issues of general concern: ISSUE l- How

### hard ahould EPApush for formal adoption of



### biological criteria (biocriteria) 

### ln State 

### water quality 

### standards?
ISSUE2- 3espite 

### the many beneficial uses of

biomonitorinq information. howdo weguard against potentially inappropriate usea of such 

### data in 

### the permitting process?
Issue 1turns on the means and relative priority of having biological 

### criteria formally incorporated in State water quality 

### standards. Because biological criteria must berelated to local 

### conditions, the development of quantitstlve national bioloqicsl criteria 

### is not ecologically appropriate. Therefore, 

### the primary concern is howbiological criteria l

### hould bepromoted and integrated Into State water 

### quality standards.

Immua2 addremmem 

### the question of howto reconcile potential apparent conflicts in 

### the results 

### obtained from different assessment rothods (I..., chemical-spociflc lnslyses. 

### toxicity testing, and 

### blosurveys) in 

### apermitting situation. Should the relevance of 

### oath bejudged strictly onacase-by-case basis? Should oath method ba 

### applied lndopendently?
Theso issues were discussed at the policy workgroup's last meeting in November 1988, 

### andconsensus recommendations wore then presented to the Acting Assistant Administrator of Water on December 16, 1988. For Issue 1, it 

### wasdotormined that adapting biological crftorir to State atandardr 

### has rigniflcant 

### advantages, and adoption of 

### biological criteria should be strongly encouraged. Therefore, the current Agency Operating Cuidanco establishes the State 

### adaptation of 

### bamic narrative 

### biological criteria asaprogram priority.

With 

### respect to Issue 2. 

### the policy reflects sposition of 

### "indepondont application." Independent application moansthat anyone of 

### the three types of assessment information (l.c.. 

### chemistry, toxicity testing results, 

### andecological 

### lssessmsnt) provides conclusive evidence of nonattainment cf 

### water quality

### standards regardless of the 

### results from 

### other t*/pes of



### assessment information. Each type of 

### assessment 2s sensitive to 

### different types of water quality impact. Although rare. 

### apparent conflicts in the results from different approaches can occ*Jr. 

### Theseapparent conflicts occur 

### whenone assessment 

### approach detects a

### problem to which the other 

### approaches are not 

### sensitive. This 

### policy establishes 

### that a

### demonstration of water quality standards nonattainment using one assessment method does not require 

### confirmation with a

### second method and that the failure of a

### second method to confirm 

### impact does 

### not negate 

### the results of 

### the initlal assessment.

Rovfew of Draft 

### Policy

The draft 

### was circulated to 

### the Regions andStates on March23, 1990. The comments were mostly 

### supportive and most of the 

### suggested changes have been incorporated. Objections were raised by 

### oneState that using ecological measures would increaso the magnitude of the pollution control workload. Weexpect that this ~111 

### beone result of this policy but that our mandate under the Clean 

### Water Act to ensure physical, chemical. and biological integrity requires that weadopt 

### this policy. Another State objected to the independent application policy. 

### EPAhas carefully considered the merits 

### of various approaches to integrating data In 

### light 

### of the available data, andwehave 

### concluded that independent application is the most appropriate policy at this time. Where 

### there are concerns that the results from 

### oneapproach are inaccurate. there may be opportunities to 

### dovelop more 

### refined information that would provide amore accurate 

### conclusion (e.g., better monitoring or more sophisticated wasteload allocation 

### modelling).
Additional discussion onthis policy occurred at the Water 

### Quality Standards 

### for the 21st Century Symposium in December, 1990.

What Actions 

### Should 

### Statos Take
This policy does not require specific actions onthe part of the 

### States or the regulated community. Asindicated under the 

### Plscal Year 1991Aqency Operating Guidance, States are required to 

### adopt narrative blocriteria at 

### aminimum during the 1991 to 1993 triennial 

### roviow. Morespecific 

### program guidance on developing biological criteria is scheduled to beissued within the next fw 

### month. Technical guidance 

### documents on 

### developing narrative and 

### numerics1 biological criteria for different typos of 

### aquatic 

### systems are 

### also under development.
Relevant Guidance


### There are several existing 

### EPAdocuments which pertain to 

### biological assessments andseveral 

### others that are currently 

### under development. Selected references that are likely to be important in implementing this policy 

### are listed :n Attachment C.

### Please share this policy statmmt wxth your States and work



### with themto institute its 

### provisions. If youhave any questions, pleaso csll meat (FTS) 382-5400 or have your staff 

### contact Gooffray 

### Crubbs of the Office 

### of 

### Wetlands, Oceans 

### and Watersheds at (mS) 382-7040 or Bill Diamond of 

### the Office 

### of Science andTschnology at (FTS) 475-7301. 

### Attachments

cc: OWOffice 

### Directors Environmental SONICOS Division Directors, Regions I-XAttachment A



## PolicyontheUseofBiologicalAssessmentsandCriteria

intheWaterQuality Program

May 1991

### Contents

Statement ofPolicy Definitions Background Context ofPolicy Rationale forConducting Biological Assessments Conduct ofBiological Surveys Integration of MethodsandRegulatory Application Site-specific Considerations Independent Application Biological Criteria Statutory Basis Section303(c) Section304(a) State/EPA RolesinPolicy Implementation State Implementation EPA Guidance andTechnical Support

## Statement of Policy

To help restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation’s waters, it isthe policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that biological surveys shall befully integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment methods in State water quality programs. EPA recognizes that biological surveys should beused together with whole-cfflucnt and ambient toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analyses to assessattainmcnt/nonattainmcnt ofdesignated aquatic life usesin State water quality standards. EPA also 

### recognizesthateachofthesethree methods can provide avalid as..qment of designated aquatic life useimpairment. Thus, ifany one of the three assessment methods demonstrate that water quality standards arc not attained, it isEPA’s policy that appropriate action should bctaken toachicvc attainment, including
useof regulatory authority.

It isalso EPA’s policy that States should dcsignatc aquatic lift usesthat appropriately address biological integrity and adopt biological criteria necessary to protect those uses. Information concerning attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt ofstandards should bcused to establish priorities, evaluate the cffcctivcncss of controls, and 

### makeregulatory decisions.

Close coopcration among the States and EPA will hc nmdcd tocarry out this policy. EPA will provide national guidance and technical asqistancc tothe States; however, specific assezzsmentmethods and biological criteria should bc adopted on aState-by-State basis. EPA, in itsoversight role, will work with the States toensure that asscssmcnt proccdurcs and biological criteria rcflcct important ecological and geographical diffcrcnccs among the Nation’s waters yet retain national consistency with the Clean Water Act.Ambient Toxicity: Ismcasurcd by atoxicity teston acamplc coilcctcd from a

waterbody.

Aauatic Community: An association of interacting populations of aquatic organisms inagiven waterbody or habitat.
Aquatic Life Use: Isthe water quality objcctivc assigned to awatcrbody to
ensure the protection and propagation of

### abalanced, indigcnaus aquatic community.
Biological Assessment: An cvsluation of the biological condition of awaterbody using biological surveys and other direct mcasurcmcnts of rcsidcnt biota in surface waters.
Biological Criteria (or Biocritcria): Numerical values or narrative cxprcssions that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of agiven designated aquatic life USC.
Biological Integrity: Functionally dcfincd asthe condition of the aquatic community inhabiting unimpaired waterbodics of aspccificd habitat asmeasured by community structure and function.
Biological Monitoring: Use of abiological entity asadctcctor and its response asameasure todcterminc cnvironmcntal conditions. Toxicity testsand biosurveys arecommon biomonitoring methods.
Biological Survcv (or Biosurvcyl: Consists of collecting, processing, and analyzing
arepresentative portion of the r&dent aquatic community todctcrminc the community structure and function.
Community Comooncnt: Any portion of

### abiological community. The community component may pertain tothe taxonomic group (fish, invcrtcbratrs, algae), the taxonomic category (phylum, order, family, genus, spccics), thefeeding strategy (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), or organizational kvcl (individual, population, community association) of abiological entity within the aquatic community.

Habitat Assessment: An evaluation of the physical characteristics and condition of awaterbody (example parameters include the variety and quality ofsubstrate, hydrological regime, key environmental paramctcrs and surrounding land u.se.)
Toxicity Test: Isaprocedure todetcrmniw the toxicity of achemical or an effluent using living organisms. A toxicity test mcasurcs the dcgrcc of rcsponw of exposed testorganisms to aspecific chemical or ,:fflucnt.Whole-effluent Toxicity: Isthe total toxic cffcct of an cfflucnt mcaqurcd directly

with atoxicity test.


## Background

Policy context
Monitoring data areapplied toward water quality program needs such as identifying water quality problems, assessing their severity, and setting planning and management priorities for remediation. Monitoring data should also beused to help make regulatory decisions, develop appropriate controls, and evaluate the effectiveness of controls once they are impkmented. This policy focuses on the USCof aparticular type of monitoring information that isdcrivcd from ambient biosurveys, and its proper integration with chemical-specific analysts, toxicity testing methods, and biological criteria in State water quality programs.

The distinction between biological surveys, assessments and criteria isan important enc. Biological surveys, asstated in the section above. consist of the collection and analysis of the rcsidcnt aquatic community data and the subsequent determination of the aquatic community’s structure and function. A biological a.msmcnt isanevaluation of the biological condition of awaterbody using data gathcrcd from biological surveys or other direct mcasurcs of the biota. Finally, biological criteria arc the numerical values or narrative cxprcssions used todescribe the expcctcd structure and function of the aquatic community.

Rationale for Conducting Biological /&essmcn&

To more fully protect aquatic habitats and provide more camprchcnsivc assessments of aquatic life useattainment/nonattainmcnt, EPA cxpcctc States to fully integrate chemical-specific techniques, toxicity testing, biological surveys and biological criteria into their water quality programs. 1’0date, EPA’s activities have focused on the interim goal of the Ckan Water Act (the Act), stated in Section 101(a)(2): To achicvc; ‘...wherevcr attainable, an interim goal ofwater quality which provides for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water....’ However, the ultimate objective of the Act, stated in Section 101(a), goesfurther. Scctian 101(a) states: 7he objective of this Act isto rcstorc and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.’ Taken together, chemical, physical, and biological integrity dcfinc the overall ecological integrity of
an aquatic ecosystem. Because biological integrity isastrong indicator ofoverall ecological integrity, it can se~c asboth ameaningful goal and auseful measure of environmental status that relates directly to the comprchcnsivc objcctivc of the Act.Deviations from, and threats to, biological integrity can bcestimated

indirectly or directly. Traditional measures, such aschemical-specific analyses and toxicity tests, are indirect estimators of biological conditions. They asses.. the suitability of the waters tosupport ahealthy community, but they do not directly assessthe community itself. Biosurveys arc used todirectly evaluate the overall structural and/or functional characteristics ofthe aquatic community. Water quality programs should useboth direct and indirect methods toassess biological conditions and todetermine attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt of designated aquatic life uses. Adopting an integrated approach to assessing aquatic lift USC 

## lttainmcnt/nonattainment represents the next logical step in the evolution of the water quality program. Historically, water quality programs have focused on evaluating the impacts ofspecific chemicals discharged from discreet point
sources. In 1984, the program scope was significantly broadcncd to include a combination of chemical-specific and whole-cfl’lucnt toxicity testing methods to evaluate and predict the biological impacts of potentially toxic mixtures in wastewater and surface waters. Integration of these two indirect mcasurcs of biological impact into aunified assessment approach has hccn dkcusscd indetail in national policy (49 FR 9016) and guidance (EPA-440/4-85-032). This approach has proven to bean cffcctivc means ofa.wsing and controlling toxic pollutants and whole-ef’fluent toxicity originating from point sources. Additionally, direct measures of biological impacts, such asbiosurvcy and bioassessment techniques, can be useful for regulating point sources. However, where pollutants and pollutant sources are diflicult tocharactcrizc or aggregate impacts arediff’tcult to assess(c.g., whcrc discharges arc multiple, complex, and variab&; where point and nonpoint sources arc both p)tcntially important; whcrc physical habitat ispotentially limiting), direct mcasurcs of ambient biological conditions arealso needed.
Biosurvcys and biological criteria add this ncedcd dimension toas.sessmcnt programs because they focus on the resident community. The cffccts of multiple stresses and pollution sources on the numerous biological components of resident communities are integrated over arclativcly long period of time. The community thus provides auseful indicator of both aggregate ecological impact and overall. temporal trends in the condition of an aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, biosurveys can detect aquatic life impacts that other rvailablc acsessmcnt methods may miss. Biosurveys detect impacts cau.sedby: (1) pollutants that aredifficult to identify chemically or character& toxicologically (c.g., rare or unusual toxics [although biosurveys cannot themselves identify specific toxicants causing toxic impact], I’ckan’ sediment, or nutrients); (2) complex or unanticipated exposures (e.g.; combined point and non-point source loadings, storm events, spills): and perhaps most importantly, (3) habitat degradation (e.g., channclization, sedimentation, historical contamination), which disrupt the intcractivc balance among community components.Biosumeys and biological criteria provide important information for awide

variety ofwater quality program needs. This data could bc usedto:

0 Refine useclassifications among diffcrcnt types of aquatic ccosystcms (e.g., rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, estuaries, coastal and marine waters) and within agiven type of USCcategory such aswarmwater fisheries;

0 Define and protect existing aquatic life usesand classify Outstanding National Resource Waters under State antidcgradatian policies as required by the Water Quality Standards Rcgulatitrn (40 CFR 131.12);

0 Identify where site-specific criteria modifications may bcnccdcd to effectively protect awaterbody;

0 Improve use-attainability studies;

0 Fulfill requirements under Clean Water Act Sections 303(c), 31)3(d), 304(l), 305(b), 314, and 319;

0 Assess impacts of certain nonpoint sources rind, togcthcr with chemical-specific and toxicity methods, cvaluatc the cffcctivcncss of nonpoint source controls;

0 Dcvclop managcmcnt plans and conduct monitoring incstuarics of national significance under Section 320;

0 Monitor the overall ecological cffcctq of regulatory action< under Sections 401, 402, and 301(h);

0 Identify acccptablc sitesfor disposal of drcdpc and fill material under Section 404 and dctcrminc the cffccts of that disposal;

0 Conduct a-mcnts mandatcd by other statutes (c.g., CERCLA/RCRA) that pertain to the integrity of surface waters; and

0 Evaluate the effcctivcness and document the instrcam biological benefits of pollution controls.



# ConductofBiologicalSurveys

As isthe casewith all types ofwater quality monitoring programs, biosurveys should have clear data quality objcctivcs, UICKtandardizcd. validatedlaboratory and field methods, and include appropriate quality asvrancc and

quality control practices. Biosurvcys should bctailored tothe particular type of watcrbody being assessed(e.g., wetland, lake, stream, river. estuary, coastal or marine water) and should focus on community components and attributes that
are both representative of the larger community and arc practical to measure. Biosurveys should beroutinely coupled with basic physicochcmical measurements and anobjective assessment of habitat quality. Due tothe importance ofthe monitoring design and the intricate relationship between the biMurVcy and the habitat assessment, well-trained and cxperienccd biologists arc essential to conducting aneffective biosurvcy program.



## Integration ofAssessmentMethods andRegulatory Application
Site-specific Considerations
Although biosurveys provide direct information for assessing biological integrity, they may not always provide the most accurate or practical measure of water quality standards attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt. For cxamplc. biosurvcys and
measures of biological integrity do not directly assessnonaquatic lift uses,such
asagricultural, industrial, or drinking water uses,and may not predict potential impacts from pollutants that accumulate inscdimcnts or tissues. Thcsc pollutants may pose asignificant long-term threat to aquatic organisms or to humans and wildlife that consume these organisms, but may only minimally alter the structure and function ofthe ambient community. Furthcrmorc, biosurvcys
can only indicate the prcscnce of an impact; they cannot directly identify the stress agents causing that impact. Because chemical-specific and toxicity methods
aredesigned todetect specific strcssors, they arc particularly useful for diagnosing the causes of impact and for dcvcloping source controls. Whcrc aspecific chemical or toxicity islikely to impact standards attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt, a.ssessment methods that measure these stresses directly arc often ncedcd.

lndcoendent ADDlication

Because biosumcy, chemical-specific, and toxicity testing methods have unique aswell asoverlapping attributes, sensitivities, and program applications,
nosingle approach for detecting impact should bcconsidcrcd uniformly superior to any other approach. EPA recognizs that each method can provide valid and independently sufficient evidence of aquatic life useimpairment, irrespective of any evidence, or lack of it,derived from the other two approaches. The failure ofone method toconfirm an impact identiftcd by another method would not negate the results of the initial assessment. This policy, thcrcforc, states that appropriate action should betaken when any one of the three types of assessment determines that the standard isnot attained. States arc encouraged to implement and integrate all three approaches into their water quality programs and apply them incombination or indepcndcntly assite-specific conditions andassessment objcctivcs dictate.

In caseswhere an assessment result issuspcctcd to hc inaccurate, the assessment may berepcatcd using more intcnsivc and/or accurate methods. Examples of more intensive assessment methods arc dynamic modclling instead of steady state modclling, site specific criteria, dissolved metals analysis, and amore complete biosurvey protocol.


## Biological Criteria

To better protect the integrity of aquatic communities, it isEPA’s policy that States should develop and implement biological criteria in their water quality standards.
Biological criteria are numerical measures or narrative descriptions of biological integrity. Designated aquatic life useclassifications can alsofunction
asnarrative biological criteria. When formally adopted into State standards, biological criteria and aquatic lift usedesignations scrvc asdirect, legal endpoints for dctcrmining aquatic life USCattainmcnt/nonattainmcnt. Per Section I31.Il(h)(2) of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR part I3I), biological criteria can supplcmcnt existing chemical-specific criteria and provide an alternative tochemical-spccifk criteria whcrc such criteria cannot bcestablished.
Biological criteria can bcquantitatively dcvelopcd by identifying unimpaired
or least-impacted reference waters that operationally rcprcccnt best attainable conditions. EPA recommends States USCthe ccoregion concept when establishing
alist of reference waters. Once candidate rcfcrcnces arc identified, intcgratcd assessments areconducted to substantiate the unimpaired nature of the refcrcncc and to characterize the resident community. Biosurvcys cannot fully characterize the entire aquatic community and all itsattributes. Thcrcforc, State standards should contain biological criteria that consider various components (c.g., algae, invcrtehrates, fsh) and attributes (measures ofstructure and/or function) of the larger aquatic community. In order to provide maximum protection ofsurface water quality, States should continue todcvclop water quality standards integrating allthree assessment methods.



## Statutory Basis

Section 303&l

The primary statutory basis for this policy dcrivcs from Section 303ofthe Ckan Water Act. Section 303 requires that States adopt standards for their waters and review and revise these standards asappropriate, or at least once every three years. The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131)requires that such standards consist of the dcsignatcd 

### uccsof the

### waters

involved,criteria ba.sedupon such uses,and an antidcgradation policy.

Each State develops itsown useclassification system 

### ba.scdonthegcncric
usescited in the Act (e.g., protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife). States may alsosubcategorize types of useswithin theAct’s general
usecategories. For example, aquatic lift usesmay bcsuhcatcgorized onthe basisof attainable habitat (c.g., cold- versus warm-water habitat), innate differences incommunity structure and function (e.g., high versus low species richness or productivity), or fundamental differences in important community components (e.g., warm-water fish communities naturally dominated by bass Venus catfish). Special usesmay also bedesignated to protect particularly unique, sensitive or valuable aquatic species, communities, or habitats.

Each State isrequired to ‘specify appropriate water usesto IX achicvcd and protected’ (40 CFR I3I.IO). If an aquatic life USCisformally adopted for
awaterbody, that designation becomes aformal component of the water quality standards. Furthermore, nonattainment of the USC,asdctcrmincd with either biomonitoring or chemical-specific assessment methods, legally constitutes nonattainment of the standard. Thcreforc, the more rcfincd the USCdesignation, the more precise the biological criteria (i.e., the more dctailcd thedescription of desired biological attributes), and the more complctc the chemical-specific criteria for aquatic life, the more objcctivc the asscssmcnt of standards attainment/nonattainment.

Section 304(a)

Section 304(a) requires EPA todcvclop and publish criteria and other scientific information regarding anumber of water-quality-rclatcd matters. including:

0 Effects of pollutants on aquatic community components (“Plankton. fLsh,shellfish, wildlife, plant lift...? and community attrihutcs (.diversity, productivity, and stability...“);

0 Factors necessary ‘to restore and maintain the chemical. physical. biological integrity of all navigable waters...‘, and ‘for protection and propagation ofshellfish, fish, and wildlife for clas.. and categories of receiving waters...“;

0 Appropriate ‘methods for establishing and measuring water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on athcr ba.scsthan pollutant-by-pollutant criteria, including biological monitoring and asscssmcnt methods.’

This section of the Act has been historically cited asthe hasis forpublishing national guidance on chemical-specific criteria for aquatic life, but is

equally applicable to the development and USCof biological monitoring and assessment methods and biological criteria.



## State/EPA Rolesin Policy Implementation

State ImDlementation

Because there are important qualitative diffcrenccs among aquatic ecosystems (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, cstuarics, coastal and marine waters), and there issignificant geographical variation even among systems of agiven type, nosingle setof assessment methods or numeric biological criteria isfully applicable nationwide. Therefore, States must take the primary responsibility for adopting their own standard biosurvcy methods, integrating them with other techniques at the program level, and applying them inappropriate combinations
on acase-by-case basis. Similarly, States should dcvclop their own biologicalcriteria and implement them appropriately in their water quality standards.

EPA Guidance and Technical Support

EPA will provide the States with national guidance on performing technically sound biosurveys, and developing and integrating biological criteria into acomprehensive water quality program. EPA will also supply guidance to the States on how toapply ecorcgional concepts to refcrcncc site selection. In addition, EPA Regional Administrators will cnsurc that each Region hasthe capability to conduct fully integrated as.scssmcnts and tr,prnvidc technical assistance tothe States.MAME

Rick Ed Devid W. Horn Philip Wayno stwa Rolmnd Bruce stave Wetton aatg8rata Dal
John JLI Jacquaa Jir Petet Suzanne John Pet0 Bill Ronald Jmckle Matk stove Melmon A. Randell Bill LAS?

Albright Ban&t Chattotm Cri ap Ctockot Davim Drooaing Dubola Elliott Clod Harper Habar HlCk8 Haul ihan mm@ Bturtonbach U-Y Latotchak )kCk Marcy nextad Nolan Paintor Proeton ROWbOY Sptonget Teddot Thor88 Walto Uuorthalo 

## Workgroup Members

OF?lCE USWA ROO. 10MO UD-139 UsmA ousP/ED (EN-338) Bnv. ihap. foam US101 USBlA BSDRag. 7 USt?A 11.q. 6 (6W-QT) MQ) USB?A CSD Roq. 5 (S-SWQA) USErA CWRS/AUPD W-553 USEIA WC (U-132W) USlWARag. 6Mo USEPA OUCP (EN-336) USDA Foromt Serv. OPPE UStPA OUEP/PD (m-336) USEIA 11.0. 4 CSD USt?A MO Rag. 7 USEPA ERL-Corvalllm USCPA ESD/Rog. 2 USLlA )+ID #tog. 9 U-3-2 USEPA EM%-Clnn ADBranch MY State DEC Div. of Wmtet USIIA mS/CSD (MI-SBS) USE?A CWP (A-104) USE?A Req. I CSD USEIA OPA/ERED PM-221 USEPA Rag. 3 ESD USCPA OUEP/PD (a-336) USEPA Reg. 2 CSD MCDept. of Envir. mt. USIPA CRL-Duluth USCPA Rag. 3 (3 m 12) UStPA Rag. 8 MD (BUM-SP) ADDRESS 1200 6th Avenue 401 n. St. SW Woo&ridge Avenue 25 Punmton Reed 1445 Rome Avenue 536 S. Clark St 401 M. St. SW 401 n. St. SW 1445 Romm Avenue 401 n. st. SW P.O. Box 96090 Rm. 121 401 w. St. SW Colloga Station Road 726 Minnoeota Avenue 200 SW 35th Street Bldg. 209 Woo&ridge Ave 215 Ftenont Stteet 3411 Church Street 5bWolf Road 401 n. St. SW 401w. St. SW 60 Womtviw Street 401 n. St. SW 303 Reth. Bldg. 11th L Chap]. 401 n. St. SW Woo&ridge Avenue P.O. Box 27687 6201 Condgon ,BIvd 641 Chomtnut Blvd. 999 IBth Street. (1500 CITY Seattle. WA 98101 Washington, DC 204bo Edi eon. N1‘ 08837 ICmmam City, KS 66101 DalIam. ?I- 75202-2731 Chicago,

.I. 60605 Wamhington. DC 20460 Washington. DC 20460 Dallmm. TX 75202 WashIngton. DC 20460 Uamhinqton. DC 20090-6ow Wa*hinqton. DC 20460 Athenm. CA 30613-779?, Kanmam City, KS 66101 Cotv~lli~. OR 97333 Edison. NJ 07828 Sxn Francisco. CA 9410% Noutoun. 041 45244 Albeny. NY 12233 Warnhi nqton, DC 20460 Wamhlngton. DC 20460 Lexington. MA 02173 Washington. DC 20460 Uhoeling. WV 26003 Wamhlngtoti. DC 204br) Edimon. NJ 08637 Raleigh. NC: 27611 Duluth. MN 55804 Philadclphla. PA I’)10 I Denver, CO 80202

## Attachment c

0 

### Ch8mical-rp8cific l

## valuation8

Guidance 

## for briving National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

## ofAquatic Organi8ms andTheir U808 (45 ?R79342, 

## Novmb8r 28, 1990, 

## as amendedat 50FR30784,July 29, 1985) Quality Criteria for 

## Water1986(EPA440/S-86-001, Hay1, 1987)

0 

### Toxicity tarting

Short-Tan8 

## Hathods for E8timating the Chronic Toxicity 

## of Effluent8 

## andRocoiving Waters to 

## Froahwator Organisms, SecondEdition (EPA/600-4- 890OOl), 

## March1989)
Short-Term Wethod for 

### E8timating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent8 

## andRocaiving Wataro to 

## ?farinc,andE8tuarine Organisms (EPA/600-r-87/028, Hay1988) 

## Methodsfor Haasuring Acute 

## Toxicity of 

### Effluents to Pr88hwatar 

## andHarine Organi8ms (EPA/60004-850 013, 

## March1985)

0 

### Bio8urvey8 and 

### intagratad a8so88ment8



## Technical Support 

## Manual: WaterbodySurveys and A88888ment8 for 

### Conducting U8oAttainability 

## Analy888: Volumo8 I-111 (Office of 

### Wat8r Regulations 

## andStandards, November1983-1984)
T8chnical 

## Support Docuamt for 

### Water Quality-based Toxic8 

## Control (EPA/505/2-90/001, March1991)
Rapid 

## Bioa88o88mont Protocols for Streams 

## and Rivorr: Benthic Hacro-invertebrates andFish (EPA/4440I-89-001, May1989) Hughes, 

## Robert M.andDavid P. 

## Urren. 1988. Ecoragion8: AnApproachto Surface Water Protection. Journal ofthaWat8rPollution 

## Control Faderation 60, No.4: 486-93. Omerik, J.M. 

## 1987. Ecoregion8 of the Coterminous 

## United States. Anna18 

## of th8 A88ociation of &ariCan Geographer8 77, NO. 

### 1: 118-25.

### Rogionalization as 

### aTool for Managing Environmental 

## Ra8OUrco8(EPA/60003-89-060, July 1989)
EPABiological Criteria - National Program 

## Guidancefor Surfaco Watora 

## (EPA/440-5-90-004, April 1990)

Technical Guidance on 

### th8 Dw8lopm8nt of Biological Criteria Stat. 

## Dwoloprmt of 

### Biological Crit8ria (case studios of 

### Stat0 inplom8ntation) 

## bfonitaring Program 

### Guidance Sediment 

## Cla88ification M&hodsCompendium Macroinvmrtabrat* Fi8ld andLaboratory Manual for 

### Evaluating th8 Biological Integrity of 

## durfaca Watora
Fish Field and 

### -oratory Manual for Detwmining th8 Biological fnt8grity of 

### Surfac8 Wat8ra