![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Chapter 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.
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.