APPENDIX R 

Policy on the Use of 

Biological Assessments and Criteria in 

the Water Quality Program 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK 

SECOND EDITION 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF 

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 within a watershed. It is a 

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, all 10 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 provide a 

brief history of the policy development and additional 

Information on relevant guidance. 

Background 

The Ecopolicy Workgroup was formed in response to several 

converging initiatives in EPA's national water program. In 

September 1987, a major 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 .-WC. ;ct a-so --*---a L-*..-- cu= :.:c .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, a Workgroup of State and Federal 

representatives unanimously recommended the development of a 

national bioaasessment policy that encouraged the expanded use of 

the new biological tools and directed their implementation acroan 

the water quality program. 

Guided by these recommendations, the workgroup held three 

workshop-sty18 meetings between July and December 1988. Wo 

major guostiona emerged from the lengthy discussions as issues of 

general concern: 

ISSUE l- How hard ahould EPA push for formal adoption of 

biological criteria (biocriteria) ln State 

water quality standards? 

ISSUE 2 - 3espite the many beneficial uses of 

biomonitorinq information. how do we guard 

against potentially inappropriate usea of such 

data in the permitting process? 

Issue 1 turns on the means and relative priority of having 

biological criteria formally incorporated in State water quality 

standards. Because biological criteria must be related to local 

conditions, the development of quantitstlve national bioloqicsl 

criteria is not ecologically appropriate. Therefore, the primary 

concern is how biological criteria l hould be promoted and 

integrated Into State water quality standards. 

Immua2 addremmem the question of how to reconcile potential 

apparent conflicts in the results obtained from different 

assessment rothods (I..., chemical-spociflc l nslyses. toxicity 

testing, and blosurveys) in a permitting situation. Should the 

relevance of oath be judged strictly on a case-by-case basis? 

Should oath method ba applied lndopendently? 

Theso issues were discussed at the policy workgroup's last 

meeting in November 1988, and consensus recommendations wore then 

presented to the Acting Assistant Administrator of Water on 

December 16, 1988. For Issue 1, it was dotormined 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 as a program priority. 

With respect to Issue 2. the policy reflects s position of 

"indepondont application." Independent application moans that 

any one of the three types of assessment information (l.c.. 

chemistry, toxicity testing results, and ecological l ssessmsnt) 

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. 

These apparent conflicts occur when one 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 and States on 

March 23, 1990. The comments were mostly supportive and most of 

the suggested changes have been incorporated. Objections were 

raised by one State that using ecological measures would increaso 

the magnitude of the pollution control workload. We expect that 

this ~111 be one result of this policy but that our mandate under 

the Clean Water Act to ensure physical, chemical. and biological 

integrity requires that we adopt this policy. Another State 

objected to the independent application policy. EPA has 

carefully considered the merits of various approaches to 

integrating data In light of the available data, and we have 

concluded that independent application is the most appropriate 

policy at this time. Where there are concerns that the results 

from one approach are inaccurate. there may be opportunities to 

dovelop more refined information that would provide a more 

accurate conclusion (e.g., better monitoring or more 

sophisticated wasteload allocation modelling). 

Additional discussion on this 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 on the part of 

the States or the regulated community. As indicated under the 

Plscal Year 1991 Aqency Operating Guidance, States are required 

to adopt narrative blocriteria at a minimum during the 1991 to 

1993 triennial roviow. More specific program guidance on 

developing biological criteria is scheduled to be issued 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 EPA documents which pertain to 

biological assessments and several 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 them to institute its provisions. If you have any 

questions, pleaso csll me at (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 and Tschnology at (FTS) 475-7301. 

Attachments 

cc: OW Office Directors 

Environmental SONICOS Division Directors, Regions I-X 
Attachment A 

Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria 

in the Water Quality Program 

May 1991 
Contents 

Statement of Policy 

Definitions 

Background 

Context of Policy 

Rationale for Conducting Biological Assessments 

Conduct of Biological Surveys 

Integration of Methods and Regulatory Application 

Site-specific Considerations 

Independent Application 

Biological Criteria 

Statutory Basis 

Section 303(c) 

Section 304(a) 

State/EPA Roles in Policy Implementation 

State Implementation 

EPA Guidance and Technical Support 
Statement of Policy 

To help restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters, it is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that 

biological surveys shall be fully integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific 

assessment methods in State water quality programs. EPA recognizes that 

biological surveys should be used together with whole-cfflucnt and ambient 

toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analyses to assess attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt 

of designated aquatic life uses in State water quality standards. EPA also 

recognizes that each of these three methods can provide a valid as..qment of 

designated aquatic life use impairment. Thus, if any one of the three assessment 

methods demonstrate that water quality standards arc not attained, it is EPA’s 

policy that appropriate action should bc taken to achicvc attainment, including 

use of regulatory authority. 

It is also EPA’s policy that States should dcsignatc aquatic lift uses that 

appropriately address biological integrity and adopt biological criteria necessary to 

protect those uses. Information concerning attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt of standards 

should bc used to establish priorities, evaluate the cffcctivcncss of controls, and 

make regulatory decisions. 

Close coopcration among the States and EPA will hc nmdcd to carry out 

this policy. EPA will provide national guidance and technical asqistancc to the 

States; however, specific assezzsment methods and biological criteria should bc 

adopted on a State-by-State basis. EPA, in its oversight role, will work with the 

States to ensure 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: Is mcasurcd by a toxicity test on a camplc coilcctcd from a 

waterbody. 

Aauatic Community: An association of interacting populations of aquatic 

organisms in a given waterbody or habitat. 

Aquatic Life Use: Is the water quality objcctivc assigned to a watcrbody to 

ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigcnaus aquatic 

community. 

Biological Assessment: An cvsluation of the biological condition of a waterbody 

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 a given designated aquatic life USC. 

Biological Integrity: Functionally dcfincd as the condition of the aquatic 

community inhabiting unimpaired waterbodics of a spccificd habitat as measured 

by community structure and function. 

Biological Monitoring: Use of a biological entity as a dctcctor and its response 

as a measure to dcterminc cnvironmcntal conditions. Toxicity tests and 

biosurveys are common biomonitoring methods. 

Biological Survcv (or Biosurvcyl: Consists of collecting, processing, and analyzing 

a representative portion of the r&dent aquatic community to dctcrminc the 

community structure and function. 

Community Comooncnt: Any portion of a biological community. The 

community component may pertain to the taxonomic group (fish, invcrtcbratrs, 

algae), the taxonomic category (phylum, order, family, genus, spccics), the feeding 

strategy (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), or organizational kvcl (individual, 

population, community association) of a biological entity within the aquatic 

community. 

Habitat Assessment: An evaluation of the physical characteristics and condition 

of a waterbody (example parameters include the variety and quality of substrate, 

hydrological regime, key environmental paramctcrs and surrounding land u.se.) 

Toxicity Test: Is a procedure to detcrmniw the toxicity of a chemical or an 

effluent using living organisms. A toxicity test mcasurcs the dcgrcc of rcsponw 

of exposed test organisms to a specific chemical or ,:fflucnt. 
Whole-effluent Toxicity: Is the total toxic cffcct of an cfflucnt mcaqurcd directly 

with a toxicity test. 

Background 

Policy context 

Monitoring data are applied 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 be used 

to help make regulatory decisions, develop appropriate controls, and evaluate the 

effectiveness of controls once they are impkmented. This policy focuses on the 

USC of a particular type of monitoring information that is dcrivcd 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 is an 

important enc. Biological surveys, as stated 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 is an evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody 

using data gathcrcd from biological surveys or other direct mcasurcs of the biota. 

Finally, biological criteria arc the numerical values or narrative cxprcssions used 

to describe 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 use attainment/nonattainmcnt, EPA cxpcctc States to 

fully integrate chemical-specific techniques, toxicity testing, biological surveys and 

biological criteria into their water quality programs. 1’0 date, 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 of water 

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), goes further. Scctian 

101(a) states: 7he objective of this Act is to 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 is a strong indicator of overall 

ecological integrity, it can se~c as both a meaningful goal and a useful measure 

of environmental status that relates directly to the comprchcnsivc objcctivc of the 

Act. 
Deviations from, and threats to, biological integrity can bc estimated 

indirectly or directly. Traditional measures, such as chemical-specific analyses 

and toxicity tests, are indirect estimators of biological conditions. They asses.. 

the suitability of the waters to support a healthy community, but they do not 

directly assess the community itself. Biosurveys arc used to directly evaluate the 

overall structural and/or functional characteristics of the aquatic community. 

Water quality programs should use both direct and indirect methods to assess 

biological conditions and to determine attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt of designated 

aquatic life uses. 

Adopting an integrated approach to assessing aquatic lift USC 

l ttainmcnt/nonattainment represents the next logical step in the evolution of the 

water quality program. Historically, water quality programs have focused on 

evaluating the impacts of specific 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 a unified assessment approach has hccn dkcusscd in detail 

in national policy (49 FR 9016) and guidance (EPA-440/4-85-032). This 

approach has proven to be an cffcctivc means of a.wsing and controlling toxic 

pollutants and whole-ef’fluent toxicity originating from point sources. 

Additionally, direct measures of biological impacts, such as biosurvcy and 

bioassessment techniques, can be useful for regulating point sources. However, 

where pollutants and pollutant sources are diflicult to charactcrizc or aggregate 

impacts are diff’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 is potentially limiting), direct mcasurcs of ambient biological 

conditions are also needed. 

Biosurvcys and biological criteria add this ncedcd dimension to as.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 a rclativcly long period of time. The community 

thus provides a useful 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.sed by: (1) pollutants that are difficult 

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 a wide 

variety of water quality program needs. This data could bc used to: 

0 Refine use classifications among diffcrcnt types of aquatic ccosystcms 

(e.g., rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, estuaries, coastal and marine 

waters) and within a given type of USC category such as warmwater 

fisheries; 

0 Define and protect existing aquatic life uses and 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 bc nccdcd to 

effectively protect a waterbody; 

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 in cstuarics 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 sites for 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. 

Conduct of Biological Surveys 

As is the case with all types of water quality monitoring programs, 

biosurveys should have clear data quality objcctivcs, UIC Ktandardizcd. validated 
laboratory and field methods, and include appropriate quality asvrancc and 

quality control practices. Biosurvcys should bc tailored to the 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 be routinely coupled with basic physicochcmical measurements 

and an objective assessment of habitat quality. Due to the importance of the 

monitoring design and the intricate relationship between the biMurVcy and the 

habitat assessment, well-trained and cxperienccd biologists arc essential to 

conducting an effective biosurvcy program. 

Integration of Assessment Methods and Regulatory 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 assess nonaquatic lift uses, such 

as agricultural, industrial, or drinking water uses, and may not predict potential 

impacts from pollutants that accumulate in scdimcnts or tissues. Thcsc 

pollutants may pose a significant long-term threat to aquatic organisms or to 

humans and wildlife that consume these organisms, but may only minimally alter 

the structure and function of the 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 

are designed to detect specific strcssors, they arc particularly useful for diagnosing 

the causes of impact and for dcvcloping source controls. Whcrc a specific 

chemical or toxicity is likely 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 as well as overlapping attributes, sensitivities, and program applications, 

no single approach for detecting impact should bc considcrcd uniformly superior 

to any other approach. EPA recognizs that each method can provide valid and 

independently sufficient evidence of aquatic life use impairment, irrespective of 

any evidence, or lack of it, derived from the other two approaches. The failure 

of one method to confirm an impact identiftcd by another method would not 

negate the results of the initial assessment. This policy, thcrcforc, states that 

appropriate action should be taken when any one of the three types of 

assessment determines that the standard is not attained. States arc encouraged 

to implement and integrate all three approaches into their water quality programs 

and apply them in combination or indepcndcntly as site-specific conditions and 
assessment objcctivcs dictate. 

In cases where an assessment result is suspcctcd to hc inaccurate, the 

assessment may be repcatcd 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 a more 

complete biosurvey protocol. 

Biological Criteria 

To better protect the integrity of aquatic communities, it is EPA’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 use classifications can also function 

as narrative biological criteria. When formally adopted into State standards, 

biological criteria and aquatic lift use designations scrvc as direct, legal endpoints 

for dctcrmining aquatic life USC attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt. Per Section 

I31 .I l(h)(2) of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR part I3 I), 

biological criteria can supplcmcnt existing chemical-specific criteria and provide an 

alternative to chemical-spccifk criteria whcrc such criteria cannot bc established. 

Biological criteria can bc quantitatively dcvelopcd by identifying unimpaired 

or least-impacted reference waters that operationally rcprcccnt best attainable 

conditions. EPA recommends States USC the ccoregion concept when establishing 

a list of reference waters. Once candidate rcfcrcnces arc identified, intcgratcd 

assessments are conducted to substantiate the unimpaired nature of the refcrcncc 

and to characterize the resident community. Biosurvcys cannot fully characterize 

the entire aquatic community and all its attributes. Thcrcforc, State standards 

should contain biological criteria that consider various components (c.g., algae, 

invcrtehrates, fsh) and attributes (measures of structure and/or function) of the 

larger aquatic community. In order to provide maximum protection of surface 

water quality, States should continue to dcvclop water quality standards 

integrating all three assessment methods. 

Statutory Basis 

Section 303&l 

The primary statutory basis for this policy dcrivcs from Section 303 of the 

Ckan Water Act. Section 303 requires that States adopt standards for their 

waters and review and revise these standards as appropriate, or at least once 

every three years. The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131) 
requires that such standards consist of the dcsignatcd uccs of the waters 

involved, criteria ba.sed upon such uses, and an antidcgradation policy. 

Each State develops its own use classification system ba.scd on the gcncric 

uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife). States may also subcategorize types of uses within the Act’s general 

use categories. For example, aquatic lift uses may bc suhcatcgorized on the 

basis of attainable habitat (c.g., cold- versus warm-water habitat), innate 

differences in community 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 uses may also be designated to protect particularly 

unique, sensitive or valuable aquatic species, communities, or habitats. 

Each State is required to ‘specify appropriate water uses to IX achicvcd 

and protected’ (40 CFR I3 I. IO). If an aquatic life USC is formally adopted for 

a waterbody, that designation becomes a formal component of the water quality 

standards. Furthermore, nonattainment of the USC, as dctcrmincd with either 

biomonitoring or chemical-specific assessment methods, legally constitutes 

nonattainment of the standard. Thcreforc, the more rcfincd the USC designation, 

the more precise the biological criteria (i.e., the more dctailcd the description 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 to dcvclop and publish criteria and other 

scientific information regarding a number 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 of shellfish, 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.scs than pollutant-by-pollutant 

criteria, including biological monitoring and asscssmcnt methods.’ 

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

equally applicable to the development and USC of biological monitoring and 

assessment methods and biological criteria. 

State/EPA Roles in Policy Implementation 

State ImDlementation 

Because there are important qualitative diffcrenccs among aquatic 

ecosystems (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, cstuarics, coastal and marine waters), 

and there is significant geographical variation even among systems of a given 

type, no single set of assessment methods or numeric biological criteria is fully 

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 in appropriate combinations 

on a case-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 a comprehensive water quality program. EPA will also supply guidance to 

the States on how to apply ecorcgional concepts to refcrcncc site selection. In 

addition, EPA Regional Administrators will cnsurc that each Region has the 

capability to conduct fully integrated as.scssmcnts and tr, prnvidc technical 

assistance to the 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 

Wal to 

Uuorthalo 

Workgroup Members 

OF?lCE 

USWA ROO. 10 MO UD-139 

UsmA ousP/ED (EN-338) 

Bnv. ihap. foam US 101 

USBlA BSD Rag. 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 

MC Dept. 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 

5b Wolf Road 

401 n. St. SW 

401 w. 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 ,BI vd 

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 of Aquatic Organi8ms 

and Their U808 (45 ?R 79342, Novmb8r 28, 1990, as 

amended at 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985) 

Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (EPA 440/S-86-001, 

Hay 1, 1987) 

0 Toxicity tarting 

Short-Tan8 Hathods for E8timating the Chronic 

Toxicity of Effluent8 and Rocoiving Waters to 

Froahwator Organisms, Second Edition (EPA/600-4- 

890OOl), March 1989) 

Short-Term Wethod for E8timating the Chronic 

Toxicity of Effluent8 and Rocaiving Wataro to 

?farinc, and E8tuarine Organisms (EPA/600-r-87/028, 

Hay 1988) 

Methods for Haasuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents 

to Pr88hwatar and Harine Organi8ms (EPA/60004-850 

013, March 1985) 

0 Bio8urvey8 and intagratad a8so88ment8 

Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and 

A88888ment8 for Conducting U8o Attainability 

Analy888: Volumo8 I-111 (Office of Wat8r 

Regulations and Standards, November 1983-1984) 

T8chnical Support Docuamt for Water Quality-based 

Toxic8 Control (EPA/505/2-90/001, March 1991) 

Rapid Bioa88o88mont Protocols for Streams and 

Rivorr: Benthic Hacro-invertebrates and Fish 

(EPA/4440I-89-001, May 1989) 

Hughes, Robert M. and David P. Urren. 1988. 

Ecoragion8: An Approach to Surface Water 

Protection. Journal of tha Wat8r Pollution 

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 a Tool for Managing 

Environmental Ra8OUrco8 (EPA/60003-89-060, July 

1989) 

EPA Biological Criteria - National Program 

Guidance for 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&hods Compendium 

Macroinvmrtabrat* Fi8ld and Laboratory Manual for 

Evaluating th8 Biological Integrity of durfaca 

Watora 

Fish Field and -oratory Manual for Detwmining 

th8 Biological fnt8grity of Surfac8 Wat8ra