|
The following FAQs were adapted from Biological
Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters
(1990) -- EPA/440/5-90-004
Q. How will implementing biological
criteria benefit State water quality programs?
A. State water quality programs will benefit from biological
criteria because they:
- directly assess impairments in ambient biota from adverse impacts
on the environment;
- are defensible and quantifiable;
- document improvements in water quality resulting from agency
action;
- reduce the likelihood of false positives (i.e., a conclusion
that attainment is achieved when it is not);
- provide information on the integrity of biological systems that
is compelling to the public.
Q. How will biological criteria be used
in a permit program?
A. When permits are renewed, records from chemical analyses
and biological assessments are used to determine if the permit has
effectively prevented degradation and led to improvement. The purpose
for this evaluation is to determine whether applicable water quality
standards were achieved under the expiring permit and to decide
if changes are needed. Biological surveys and criteria are particularly
effective for determining the quality of waters subject to permitted
discharges. Since biosurveys provide ongoing integrative evaluations
of the biological integrity of resident biota, permit writers can
make informed decisions on whether to maintain or restrict permit
limits.
back to top
Q. What expertise and staff will be
needed to implement a biological criteria program?
A. Staff with sound knowledge of State aquatic biology and
scientific protocol are needed to coordinate a biological criteria
program. Actual field monitoring could be accomplished by summer-hire
biologists led by permanent staff aquatic biologists. Most States
employ aquatic biologists for monitoring trends or issuing site-specific
permits.
Q. Which management personnel should
be involved in a biologically-based approach?
A. Management personnel from each area within the standards
and monitoring programs should be involved in this approach, including
permit engineers, resource managers, and field personnel.
Q. How much will this approach cost?
A. The cost of developing biological criteria is a State-specific
question depending upon many variables. However, States that have
implemented a biological criteria program have found it to be cost
effective (e.g., Ohio). Biological criteria provide an integrative
assessment over time. Biota reflect multiple impacts. Testing for
impairment of resident aquatic communities can actually require
less monitoring than would be required to detect many impacts using
more traditional methods (e.g., chemical testing for episodic events).
back to top
Q. What are some concerns of dischargers?
A. Dischargers are concerned that biological criteria will
identify impairments that may be erroneously attributed to a discharger
who is not responsible. This is a legitimate concern that the discharger
and State must address with careful evaluations and diagnosis of
cause of impairment. However, it is particularly important to ensure
that waters used for the reference condition are not already impaired
as may occur when conducting site-specific upstream-downstream evaluations.
Although a discharger may be contributing to surface water degradation,
it may be hard to detect using biosurvey methods if the waterbody
is also impaired from other sources. This can be evaluated by testing
the possible toxicity of effluent-free reference waters on sensitive
organisms. Dischargers are also concerned that current permit limits
may become more stringent if it is determined that meeting chemical
and whole-effluent permit limits are not sufficient to protect aquatic
life from discharger activities. Alternative forms of regulation
may be needed; these are not necessarily financially burdensome
but could involve additional expense. Burdensome monitoring requirements
are additional concerns. With new rapid bioassessment protocols
available for streams, and under development for other surface waters,
monitoring resident biota is becoming more straightforward. Since
resident biota provide an integrative measure of environmental impacts
over time, the need for continual biomonitoring is actually lower
than chemical analyses and generally less expensive. Guidance is
being developed to establish acceptable research protocols, quality
assurance/quality control programs and training opportunities to
ensure that adequate guidance is available.
back to top
Q. What are the concerns of environmentalists?
A. Environmentalists are concerned that biological criteria
could be used to alter restrictions on dischargers if biosurvey
data indicate attainment of a designated use even though chemical
criteria and/or whole-effluent toxicity evaluations predict impairment.
Evidence suggests that this occurs infrequently (e.g., in Ohio,
6 percent of 431 sites evaluated using chemical-specific criteria
and biosurveys resulted in this disagreement). In those cases where
evidence suggests more than one conclusion, independent application
applies. If biological criteria suggest impairment but chemical-
specific and/or whole-effluent toxicity implies attainment of the
use, the cause for impairment of the biota is to be evaluated and,
where appropriate, regulated. If whole effluent and/or chemical-specific
criteria imply impairment but no impairment is found in resident
biota, the whole-effluent and/or chemical-specific criteria provide
the basis for regulation.
back to top
Q. Do biological criteria have to be
codified in State regulations?
A. State water quality standards require three components:
(1) designated uses, (2) protective criteria, and (3) an antidegradation
clause. For criteria to be enforceable they must be codified in
regulations. Codification could involve general narrative statements
of biological criteria, numeric criteria, and/or criteria accompanied
by specific testing procedures. Codifying general narratives provides
the most flexibility-specific methods for data collection the least
flexibility-for incorporating new data and improving data gathering
methods as the biological criteria program develops. States should
carefully consider how to codify these criteria.
Q. How will biocriteria fit into the
agency's method of implementing standards?
A. Resident biota integrate multiple impacts over time and
can detect impairment from known and unknown causes. Biocriteria
can be used to verify improvement in water quality in response to
regulatory efforts and detect continuing degradation of waters.
They provide a framework for developing improved best management
practices for nonpoint source impacts. Numeric criteria can provide
effective monitoring criteria for inclusion in permits.
back to top
Q. Who determines the values for biological
criteria and decides whether a waterbody meets the criteria?
A. The process of developing biological criteria, including
refined use classes, narrative criteria, and numeric criteria, must
include agency managers, staff biologists, and the public through
public hearings and comment. Once criteria are established, determining
attainment\nonattainment of a use requires biological and statistical
evaluation based on established protocols. Changes in the criteria
would require the same steps as the initial criteria: technical
modifications by biologists, goal clarification by agency managers,
and public hearings. The key to criteria development and revision
is a clear statement of measurable objectives.
Q. What additional information is available
on developing and using biological criteria?
A. Information is available in several EPA documents.
Below is a list of some of the most useful EPA documents on biocriteria.
Others have also published useful information on the development
and implementation of biocriteria. Information from
many EPA documents has been summarized throughout this web site.
Links to other sources are provided as well.
back to top
Biological
Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters
(1990) -- EPA/440/5-90-004 Guidance for development and implementation
of narrative biological criteria by states, as directed by priorities
established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance. Biological
criteria are valuable because they directly measure the condition
of the resource at risk, detect problems that other methods may
miss or underestimate, and provide a systematic process for measuring
progress resulting from the implementation of water quality programs.
Macroinvertebrate
Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity
of Surface Waters (1990) -- EPA/600/4-90/030 (PB91-171363)
This manual describes guidelines and standardized procedures for
the use of macroinvertebrates in evaluating the biological integrity
of surface waters. It was developed to provide biomonitoring programs
with benthic invertebrate methods for measuring the status and trends
of environmental pollution on freshwater, estuarine, and marine
macroinvertebrates in field and laboratory studies. These studies
are carried out to assess biological criteria for the recognized
beneficial uses of water, to monitor surface water quality, and
to evaluate the health of the aquatic environment.
Fish Field
and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of
Surface Waters (1992) -- EPA/600/R-92/111 This
manual describes guidelines and standardized procedures for the
use of fish in evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters.
It was developed to provide biomonitoring programs with fisheries
methods for measuring the status and trends of environmental pollution
on freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats in field and laboratory
studies. These studies are carried out to assess biological criteria
for the recognized beneficial uses of water, to monitor surface
water quality, and to evaluate the health of the aquatic environment.
back to top
Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field Operations
and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams
(1998) -- EPA/620/R-94/004F. This manual describes guidelines
and standardized procedures for evaluating the biological integrity
of surface waters of streams. It was developed to provide the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) with bioassessment methods for determining the
status and monitoring trends of the environmental conditions of
freshwater streams.
Biological
Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers,
Revised Edition (1996) -- EPA/822/B-96/001 This document helps
states and tribes develop and and use biocriteria for streams and
small rivers. The document includes a general strategy for
biocriteria development, identifies steps in the process, and provides
technical guidance on how to complete each step, using the experience
and knowledge of existing states, regional, and national surface
water programs. The document is designed primarily for water
resource managers and biologists familiar with standard biological
survey techniques. It should be used in conjunction with Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers.
Summary
of State Biological Assessment Programs for Rivers and Streams
(1996) -- EPA 230-R-96-007. This document outlines the status
of state biological monitoring programs which: presents an aggregated
assessment of national water resource quality using biological monitoring
and assessment results from state monitoring programs; records state
program characteristics and capabilities; and contains the biocriteria
language appear in water quality standards from the states and territories,
and definitions related to those standards.
back to top
Lake
and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria, Technical Guidance
Document (1998) -- EPA 841-B-98-007 This document
is intended to provide managers and field biologists with functional
methods and approaches that will facilitate the implementation of
lake bioassessment and biocriteria programs. Procedures are provided
for program design, reference condition determination, field biosurveys,
biocriteria development and data analysis. The document also provides
information on the application and effectiveness of lake bioassessment
to existing EPA and state/tribal programs. This guidance was developed
through the experience of existing state, regional, and national
lake monitoring programs and several lake programs are used as case
studies and examples to illustrate specific concepts and methods.
Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers, Second
Edition (1999) -- EPA 841-B-99-002. This document provides
States and local water quality monitoring agencies with a practical
technical reference for conducting cost-effective biological assessments
of lotic systems. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) are essentially
a synthesis of existing methods that have been employed by various
state water resource agencies. Protocols for 3 aquatic assemblages
(i.e., periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish) and habitat
assessment are presented. All of these protocols have been tested
in streams in various parts of the country.
Development
of Biological Criteria for Coral Reef Ecosystem Assessment
(1998) This paper provides the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) with advice on the feasibility of establishing biological
criteria for assessing coral reef ecosystems.
Estuarine
& Coastal Marine Waters: Bioassessment & Biocriteria Guidance
(December 2000) (EPA-822-B-00-024)
This technical guidance will help better protect and restore estuarine
and coastal marine waters. It provides an extensive collection of
methods and protocols for conducting bioassessments, procedures
for deriving biocriteria, and case studies that illustrate the bioassessment
process and biocriteria derivation procedures.
Stressor
Identification Guidance
(December 2000) (EPA-822-B-00-025)
This guidance leads water resource managers through a rigorous process
to identify stressors that cause biological impairment in aquatic
ecosystems and to assemble cogent scientific evidence that supports
conclusions about potential causes.
back to top
|
