Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the attainment of biological integrity in the USA: a critical element of ecological integrity

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of ecological integrity has become a worldwide phenomenon and is firmly entrenched into the regulatory structure of environmental law in the United States of America (USA). The attainment of ecological integrity requires the attainment of its three elements: physical, chemical, and biological integrity. In the USA, measures of chemical integrity were implemented first into monitoring programs and were effective in reducing pollutant loadings to the nation's surface waters. Because biological communities integrate the effects of different stressors such as reduced oxygen, excess nutrients, toxic chemicals, increased temperature, excessive sediment loading, and habitat degradation, the advent of bioassessment in regulatory programs has provided a more comprehensive and effective monitoring and assessment strategy. Measures of biological integrity clearly have become a priority in the USA. The development of biological criteria (biocriteria) within regulatory programs to serve as thresholds by which to judge the attainment of designated aquatic life conditions of surface waters is a major focus of states and Indian tribes within the USA. The derivation of reference conditions for the nation's surface waters (i.e., streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters) across different physiographic regions is a critical element in the design of biocriteria and is currently a primary initiative in the USA. Nearly all state water resource agencies have developed bioassessment approaches for streams; 1600 to 75 000 km of streams require assessment in each state. Bioassessment development for other water body types is not as advanced to date. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has produced technical guidance for developing effective bioassessment programs; they include crucial elements such as defining objectives, classifying water bodies according to expected biological attributes, deriving the reference condition of the site classes, developing standardized protocols for sampling and data analysis, and implementing a quality assurance plan. Approaches to bioassessment in the USA follow a basic design of incorporating various attributes of the elements and processes of the aquatic community, which is either an aggregation into a multimetric index or a series of multivariate analyses using the attributes as input variables. The Clean Water Act of 1972 and its subsequent amendments mandate maintaining, restoring, and protecting the ecological integrity of surface waters. Through use of robust bioassessments and other measures of ecological integrity, the USA has developed a strategic plan to establish priorities to meet this goal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, R.W., 1995. Filling the gaps in water quality standards: Legal perspectives on biocriteria. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 345–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier, P. L., 1997. Conceptual roles of biological integrity and diversity. In Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood & M. P. Dombeck (eds), Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society: 49–65.

  • Angermeier, P. L. & J. R. Karr, 1994. Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives: protecting biotic resources. BioScience 44: 690–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., 1997. The re-invention of biological assessment in the U.S. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 3: 933–940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T. & C. O. Yoder, in press. The multimetric approach to bioassessment, as used in the United States. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, London.

  • Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling & J. R. Karr, 1995. The multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological condition. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision making. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., J. Diamond & C. Yoder, 1996a. Biological Assessment Strategies: applications and limitations. In Grothe, D. R., K. L. Dickson & D. K. Reed (eds), Whole-Effluent Toxicity Testing: an Evaluation of Methods and Predictability of Receiving System Responses. SETAC Publications, Pensacola, FL: 245–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, G. E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. McCarron, J. S. White & M. O. Bastian, 1996b. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 185–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second Edition. EPA/841–B-98–010. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, 344 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, J., Jr., 1980. Beyond single species toxicity testing. Mar. envir. Res. 3: 157–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtemanch, D. L., 1995. Merging the science of biological monitoring with water resource management policy: Criteria development. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools forWater Resource Planning and Decision Making. Boca Raton, FL: 315–325.

  • Courtemanch, D. L., S. P. Davies & E. B. Laverty, 1989. Incorporation of biological information in water quality planning. Envir. Manage. 13(1): 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), 1995. Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 415 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. S., B. D. Snyder, J. B. Stribling & C. Stoughton, 1996. Summary of State biological assessment programs for streams and rivers. EPA 230–R-96–007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning, Policy, and Evaluation, Washington, DC, 159 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeShon, J. E., 1995. Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 217–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M. 1995, Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, G. R., M. T. Barbour, J. B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen & J. R. Karr, 1996. Biological criteria: Technical guidance for streams and small rivers (revised edition). EPA 822–B-96–001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, 162 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. & W. Davis, 1994. Meeting the goal of biological integrity in water-resource programs in the US Environmental Protection Agency. J. n. am. benthol. Soc. 13: 592–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorling, T., 1977. Incorporating ecological interpretation into basic statutes. In Ballentine, R. K. & L. J. Guarraia (eds), The Integrity of Water: A Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Applic. 1: 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1993. Defining and assessing ecological integrity beyond water quality. Envir. Tox. Chem. 12: 1521–1531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R. & E. W. Chu, 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC, 206 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant & I. J. Schlosser, 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. Special publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana, 28 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy, P. A., H. T. Lee & I. C. Wisheu, 1993. Choosing indicators of ecosystem integrity: Wetlands as a model system. In Woodley, S., J. Kay & G. Francis (eds), Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL: 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenat, D. R., 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. J. n. am. benthol. Soc. 7: 222–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenat, D. R., 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States derivation and list of tolerance values with criteria for assigning water quality rating. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 12: 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenat, D. R. & M. T. Barbour, 1994. Using benthic macroinvertebrate community structure for rapid, cost-effective, water quality monitoring: rapid bioassessment. In Loeb, S. L. & A. Spacie (eds), Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenthun, K. M., 1977. Legislative Requirements. In R. K. Ballentine & L. J. Guarraia (eds), The Integrity of Water: a Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarron, E. & R. Frydenborg, 1997. The Florida bioassessment program: an agent for change. Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 3: 967–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moog, O. & A. Chovanec, 2000. Assessing the ecological integrity of rivers: walking the line among ecological, political and administrative interests. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volumes I-III. Volume I: The role of biological data in water quality assessment. Volume II: Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Volume III: Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus (updated 1988, 1989), 287 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes, 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, 177 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckhow, K. H., 1994. A decision analytic framework for environmental analysis and simulation modeling. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 1901–1906.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA, 1988. Proceedings of the first national workshop on biological criteria, Lincolnwood, Illinois, December 2–4, 1987. EPA 905–9–89–003. Region V, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, 47 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA, 1990. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. EPA 440–5–90–004. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 87 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA, 1998a. Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan-Priorities for the Future. EPA 822–R-98–003. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 54 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA, 1998b. Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria: Technical Guidance Document. EPA 841–B-98–007. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 191 pp.

  • USGPO (U.S. Government Printing Office), 1972a. Report of the Committee on PublicWorks-United States House of Representatives with Additional and Supplemental Views on H.R. 11896 to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. House Report 92–911. 92nd Congress, 2nd session, March 11, 1972: P. 149.

  • USGPO (U.S. Government Printing Office), 1972b. Report of the Senate Public Works Committee-United States Senate. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. P.L. 92–500. Senate Report 92–414: P. 1468.

  • Yoder, C. O., 1995. Policy issues and management applications for biological criteria. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Asessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 327–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, C. O. & E. T. Rankin, 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 109–144.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tetra Tech, Inc., 10045 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 110, Owings Mills, MD, 21117, U.S.A.

    Michael T. Barbour

  2. Office of Science and Technology, US Environmental Protection Agency, MC# 4304, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC, 20460, U.S.A.

    William F. Swietlik & Susan K. Jackson

  3. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, State House #17, Augusta, ME, 04333, U.S.A.

    David L. Courtemanch & Susan P. Davies

  4. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1685 Westbelt Drive, Columbus, OH, 43228, U.S.A.

    Chris O. Yoder

Authors
  1. Michael T. Barbour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William F. Swietlik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan K. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David L. Courtemanch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susan P. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chris O. Yoder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barbour, M.T., Swietlik, W.F., Jackson, S.K. et al. Measuring the attainment of biological integrity in the USA: a critical element of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422, 453–464 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017095003609

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017095003609

Search

Navigation