United States Water Quality Programs that Use Algae as a Biological Assessment Tool By Steve Kroeger Elizabeth Fensin Karen Lynch1 Mark Vander Borgh North Carolina, Division of Water Quality Water Quality Section Water Quality Laboratory 4401 Reedy Creek Rd. Raleigh, NC 27607
September 1, 1999 Revised October 20, 1999
1
Present address: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch, PO Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Summary A review of published reports and a telephone survey of selected staff in state surface water quality management programs identified states that use information derived from communities of algae as a water quality management tool. Overall most states do not use algal community analysis in water quality management programs, even though some states recognized the potential of using algae as an indicator of water quality. The lack of trained taxonomists, costs, duplication with other existing programs (i.e. benthic) and difficulty correlating algal information with water quality were cited as reasons why monitoring programs using algae have not been developed. Six states use periphyton to assess water quality in wadeable streams, thirteen states collect phytoplankton from lakes, and six (primarily from the SE United States) monitor phytoplankton from coastal areas. A few states have collected algae for a limited period. Many states will identify species collected during algal blooms or associated with fish kills or special studies. During the mid-1990s the US EPA began encouraging the implementation of biological criteria for lakes which includes the use of phytoplankton. In addition, during the 1990's some estuarine or coastal fish kills were attributed to toxic dinoflagellates (Pfiesteria piscicida or Gymnodinium breve) which served as a stimulus for some southeastern US states to monitor phytoplankton in coastal waters.
Introduction Biological approaches to evaluating water quality involve assessing communities of organisms (species). The basis for this approach is that different species have varying tolerances to environmental stressors. By determining the relative abundance or other attributes of species comprising a community, and by knowing how particular environmental factors influence a species, one can judge how well a body of water supports aquatic life. During 1998-1999 a survey was conducted by the North Carolina Water Quality Section to determine state water quality management programs that use algal communities as part of their biological assessment programs. The survey was conducted by contacting an appropriate individual in each state by telephone or e-mail, using published information, and by placing a request for information on an Internet listserv (Algae-L). Specific information was requested on whether an agency uses periphyton in streams or phytoplankton in lakes and estuaries. Periphyton are sedentary algal species attached to a substrate and are useful biological indicators in wadeable streams. Phytoplankton are generally motile species found in the water column and may be used in lakes and estuaries. State programs that use algae as a biological assessment tool may use either periphyton or phytoplankton or both.
Results and Discussion Only a few states (Table 1) use algae in their water quality management programs and those that do vary in the degree to which algae are used. Many respondents acknowledged the merits of algae as a biological indicator, but some states have chosen not to use algae because of the lack of qualified staff or the costs associated in developing a new program that would only complement an existing one (benthic macroinvertebrates or fish). Rivers -- Periphyton Six states (Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana and Wyoming) use information from periphyton communities as a water quality management tool. Oklahoma once assessed periphyton communities, but now only determines how much algae may colonize an artificial substrate in two weeks. In general these states use information derived from a quantitative enumeration of species observed at a site. Information may include species diversity, a summary of pollution tolerant (or intolerant) species and a comparison of species composition with a control (unimpacted) site, if one was available. Florida provided specific information on how algae are used in a regulatory context. For example the biological assessment report of the Titusville North Wastewater Treatment Plant (Sept. 1993)1 stated: …The phytoplankton assemblage found in the Indian river was very sparse, with few taxa recovered at any site. Some algal community attributes indicated improved conditions at the test sites, with increases in taxa richness and diatom to blue-green algae ratio and large decreases in the percent contribution of dominant taxon. Algal biomass, however, reflected the elevated nutrient concentrations at the test sites. Chlorophyll a at the test sites was higher than 88-93% of typical estuary systems, a 900% increase from the reference site. This elevated Chlorophyll a may be an early symptom of floral community imbalances associated with the discharge.
Lakes -- Phytoplankton
States that sample phytoplankton from lakes and reservoirs include Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota Utah and Vermont. The degree to which phytoplankton are used among these states varies. Identification of organisms is usually to genus or species. Analyses of data vary from identification of the most numerous taxa to the use of multivariate analyses (ordination or cluster analysis). Most states have taken phytoplankton samples during an algal bloom or other episodic events. 1
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1994. Biological Assessment of Titusville North Wastewater Treatment Plant, Brevard County, NPDES # FL0020389; Biological Section, Division of Technical Services.
Recently the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) began encouraging the use of phytoplankton as a component in the biological assessment of lakes2. As a result Florida, Maine and Vermont began pilot programs that examined the use of biological assessment in lakes. Phytoplankton were one component of these biological assessment programs. Florida, Maine and Vermont have implemented pilot projects that examined the feasibility of using biological criteria in lakes (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1994, Bacon and Bouchard 1997, Gerritsen and White 1997, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 1998). Since phytoplankton respond to natural environmental gradients, and these gradients may vary geographically, these states first used ordination or cluster analysis to develop classes of lakes. Specific metrics were developed and tested after lake classification. Utah collects phytoplankton from lakes and uses community structure in determining use support. Samples are collected from a column of water three times the Secchi depth. Species identification and enumeration are contracted to a state university.
Coastal Areas and Estuaries – Phytoplankton and Harmful Algae The Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system in North Carolina is the second largest estuary in the United States and receives water from several major rivers. Since the estuary periodically shows signs of eutrophication a phytoplankton monitoring program was initiated in the mid-1980s. Both North Carolina and Maryland identify and enumerate phytoplankton to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Data are used to describe the phytoplankton community and relate proportions of major taxonomic groups to environmental conditions. North Carolina has collected phytoplankton from its estuaries in conjunction with ambient chemistry samples since the mid-1980's. The data have been used primarily to show relationships between phytoplankton community structure to nutrients. Reports of a toxic dinoflagellate (Pfiesteria piscida) in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland expanded monitoring efforts in these states. As a result of possible Pfiesteria related fish kills Delaware and Virginia began monitoring algae along their coasts; Maryland expanded their existing program in the Chesapeake Bay. Florida and Texas actively monitor coastal areas for harmful phytoplankton, primarily species (Gymnodinium breve) that cause red tides.
2
USEPA. 1998. Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria. Technical Guidance Document: EPA 841-B-98-007.
Table 1. States using algae in water quality management programs. (Note: + indicates an established program;
* indicates an occasional collection or an inchoate program. State
Streams
Lakes
Coastal
Notes
Alabama
.
.
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling.
Alaska
.
.
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling.
Arkansas
.
*
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling. Began sampling phytoplankton in 1999.
Arizona
.
.
.
Periphyton collected during 1992-1995 -- no good correlation between periphyton and water quality.
California
*
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling; Initiated limited periphyton sampling in 1999.
Colorado
.
*
.
Limited phytoplankton sampling from lakes; some species identification. Chlorophyll a used as a trophic status indicator.
Connecticut
.
.
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling.
Delaware
.
.
+
Florida
+
+
+
Georgia
*
*
.
Hawaii
.
.
.
Idaho
+
+
.
Illinois
.
+
.
Indiana
.
.
.
Iowa
.
.
.
Chlorophyll a is collected during special lake projects.
Kansas
.
+
.
Collect phytoplankton samples, ID to genera and use data to determine lake trophic state.
Limited phytoplankton sampling used to assess summer blue green algae populations. Phytoplankton program initiated due to Pfiesteria Phytoplankton used as a lakes biocriterion. Periphyton used for stream water quality assessment. Coastal monitoring for red tides, Ciguatera, special studies, Staff make qualitative observations on periphyton; samples collected infrequently. Phytoplankton collected and identified during blooms (no quantitative analyses) Chlorophyll a standards for particular areas. Phytoplankton collected from lakes and enumerated since 1997. Periphyton collected from wadeable streams since 1994. Phytoplankton collected from a few lakes yearly. Eutrophic phytoplankton indicators determined from samples. Phytoplankton collected from lakes and enumerated to genus level. Data used to determine representative algal groups (greens, blue-greens, diatoms, etc.). Chlorophyll a is measured.
Table 1 cont. States using algae in water quality management programs. (Note: + indicates an established program;
* indicates an occasional collection or an inchoate program. State
Streams
Lakes
Coastal
Notes
Kentucky
+
.
.
Well developed periphyton program
Louisiana
.
.
.
Very limited chlorophyll a sampling.
Maine
.
+
.
Phytoplankton collected as lake biocriteria
Maryland
.
.
+
Phytoplankton collected in the Chesapeake Bay; Monitor for Pfiesteria.
Massachusetts
+
+
.
Limited phytoplankton sampling from lakes . Rough estimates of cover for periphyton. ID species to genus for both phytoplankton and periphyton.
Michigan
.
.
.
Algae noted if present in nuisance conditions. Chlorophyll a is collected.
Minnesota
.
*
.
Routinely conduct a rapid assessment of algae as part of lakes program.
Mississippi
.
.
.
Chlorophyll a samples are collected from ambient marine or estuarine sites, and on lakes and reservoirs on a quarterly basis.
Missouri
.
*
.
Occasionally identify phytoplankton species; collect chlorophyll a from about 100 lakes per year.
Montana
+
.
.
Periphyton used for use support. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes.
Nebraska
.
.
.
Collect zooplankton and phytoplankton from lakes and have developed a lake classification based on these communities.
Nevada
.
.
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling.
New Hampshire
.
+
.
Have about 20 years of phytoplankton data. Percent dominance used for descriptive information. ID to genus.
New Jersey
.
.
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling.
New Mexico
.
+
.
New York
.
.
.
North Carolina
.
+
+
Collected phytoplankton from estuaries and lakes since 1984. Pfiesteria monitoring.
North Dakota
.
.
.
Limited chlorophyll a sampling.
Narrative standard exists for undesirable plant (algae) growth. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a samples are collected from lakes and reservoirs Chlorophyll a sampling. Have information on phytoplankton and zooplankton. Species presence and qualitative descriptions.
Table 1 cont. States using algae in water quality management programs. (Note: + indicates an established program;
* indicates an occasional collection or an inchoate program. State
Streams
Lakes
Coastal
Ohio
.
.
.
Chlorophyll a is collected.
Oklahoma
.
.
.
Periphyton was once collected, but present program excludes both phytoplankton and periphyton.
Oregon
.
.
*
Pilot project initiated in 1999 will examine usefulness of algae as a biological indicator.
Pennsylvania
.
.
.
Phytoplankton collected occasionally and identified to genera.
Rhode Island
.
.
.
Algae is not used as a biological indicator; limited chlorophyll a measurements.
South Carolina
.
+
.
Phytoplankton is collected from reservoirs and estuaries.
South Dakota
.
+
.
Phytoplankton samples collected sporadically since 1989; data used to determine community composition. Chlorophyll a is collected.
Tennessee
.
.
.
Algae are not used; chlorophyll a is collected.
Texas
.
.
+
Algae are not used for water quality assessment; coasts are monitored for red tides.
Utah
.
+
.
Phytoplankton are collected from lakes and community composition information is used for use support.
Vermont
.
+
.
Phytoplankton collected as an component for lake biocriteria
Virginia
.
.
+
Washington
.
.
.
West Virginia
.
.
.
Wisconsin
.
.
.
Wyoming
+
.
.
Notes
Estuaries monitored for Pfiesteria; Species identified from algal bloom samples and for special studies. Routine collections from the Chesapeake Bay enumerated since 1985 Algae are collected as part of special projects; chlorophyll a is collected and used as a parameter in a trophic state index. Limited chlorophyll a and phytoplankton sampling to about 1994. Currently no chlorophyll or phytoplankton sampling is being conducted. The use of periphyton as an indicator of nutrient enrichment is being examined. Phytoplankton have been collected on a long term basis from a small set of lakes. Periphyton has been collected since 1998. Currently reviewing techniques.
Table 2. State contacts for information. State
Contact
Telephone
Email Address
Alabama Alaska Arkansas Arizona Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Missouri, Univ Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Bob Cooner Kent Patrick-Riley William Keith Sam Rector Lin Lawson Jim Harrington Bob McConnell Ernest Pizzuto Robin Tyler Karen Steidinger Elizabeth Miller Bill Kennedy June Harrigan-Lum Brian Hoelscher Cyhthia Grafe Gregg Good Jim Stahl John Olson Ed Carney Lythia Metzmeier Dugan Sabins Lee Doggett Susan Davis Walter Butler Joan Beskenis Gary Kohlhepp Steve Heiskary Mike Beiser John Ford Jack Jones Randy Aphelbeck Paul Brackridge Jim Cooper Bob Estabrook Betty Boros-Russo Danny Davis Jay Bloomfield Larry Ausley Mike Ell Chris Yoder Bill Cauthron Daria Mochan Yangdong Pan Robert Frey Bob Richardson Jake Bickley Bill Stewart Greg Denton Charles Bayer Harry Judd Neil Kammen Rick Hoffman Kirk Smith Mike Arcuri Paul Garrison Mark Rogaczewski
334-260-2746 907-269-7554 501-682-0060 602-207-4536 520-628-6739 916-358-2858 303-692-3578 860-424-3715 302-739-4771 813-896-8626 850-487-2245 404-675-6236 808-586-4337 208-373-0117 208-373-0163 217-782-3362 317-308-3183 515-281-8905 785-296-5575 502-564-3410 225-765-0511 207-287-7666 207-287-3901 410-974-3238 508-767-2794 517-335-1189 651-296-7217 601-664-3900 573-751-7024 573-882-3543 406-444-2709 402-471-4224 775-678-4670 603-271-3357 609-633-3869 505-827-2819 518-457-0731 919-733-9960 701-328-5210 614-728-3383 405-530-8934 503-229-5983 503-725-4981 717-783-3638 401-222-3961 803-734-5397 605-773-4216 615-532-0699 512-239-4583 801-538-6146 802-241-3777 804-698-4334 360-407-6680 304-558-2108 608-221-6365 307-672-6457
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] None
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] None
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
State by State Summary Alabama Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Chlorophyll a is routinely as part of the states Reservoir Monitoring Program and phytoplankton samples are infrequently collected. Alaska Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Arkansas Phytoplankton are being evaluated as a water quality assessment tool. Phytoplankton sampling began in 1999. No use of periphyton. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Arizona Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Relationships between periphyton and water quality have been examined. California California is beginning to assess the feasibility of using periphyton. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Colorado Do not use periphyton. Phytoplankton have been identified in special cases, but are not identified routinely. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Connecticut Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Delaware Worked with periphyton in the early 1980's, but currently do not evaluate periphyton communities. Phytoplankton have been collected from some lakes and reservoirs, but these too are not routinely collected. Monitoring program for Pfiesteria began in 1998. Florida Periphyton are evaluated during biological assessments of point source dischargers. Phytoplankton have been used in the development of biological criteria for lakes. The Florida Marine Research Institute monitors phytoplankton for some coastal areas, and during special studies. Georgia Periphyton were assessed during the early 1980's. Currently, qualitative observations are noted during field assessments. Phytoplankton may be identified as part of an algal bloom investigation, but there is no routine sampling. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Hawaii Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Chlorophyll a is collected from estuaries and open coastal areas. The state has implemented chlorophyll a standards for particular estuaries and open coastal areas. Idaho Periphyton have been used in one region since 1994, and will be evaluated statewide beginning in 1999. An algal biological index has been developed for a portion of the
state. Phytoplankton have been collected and enumerated from lakes and reservoirs since 1997. Illinois Periphyton are not evaluated. Phytoplankton are collected from a few lakes and enumerated. Results used to qualify the trophic state for lakes and provide a description of the phytoplankton communities. No contiguous yearly sampling protocols exist for particular lakes, rather different lakes are sampled each year. A few lake volunteer programs collect phytoplankton. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Indiana Periphyton are not evaluated. Phytoplankton are collected (using a 63 micron mesh tow net) during routine lake assessments and taxa are identified to genus. Enumerations provide data on densities and representative groups (blue-greens, diatoms, etc.). Iowa Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Chlorophyll a has been collected from a few lakes and reservoirs. Kansas Periphyton are not evaluated. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a are collected and used in determining the trophic state of a lake or reservoir. Generally, the dominance of blue-green algae is evaluated. Kentucky Kentucky has a well developed periphyton program that is used in conjunction with data from fish and macroinvertebrate programs. Phytoplankton from lakes and reservoirs are not collected. Louisiana Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Chlorophyll a has been collected from some lakes and reservoirs. Maine Periphyton are not evaluated. Maine is developing lake biocriteria, and phytoplankton are collected and enumerated as part of this process. Maryland Periphyton are not used. Phytoplankton have been collected from a few lakes, and have been collected routinely from the Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries since 1978. Massachusetts Phytoplankton are collected from lakes, identified to genus and counted. Data are used to determine community composition in relation to trophic status. Chlorophyll a is collected and used as one component in a trophic state index. Periphyton are collected from scraps of natural substrates and identified to genus. An autotrophic index is developed from measurements of chlorophyll a and ash free dry weights of periphyton colonizing glass slides. Michigan Periphyton are not evaluated. Phytoplankton identification may be done for special studies. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes.
Minnesota Periphyton are not evaluated. Rapid assessments of algae are routinely conducted. Chlorophyll a is collected and used in determining a trophic state index. Mississippi Up until 1992 periphytometers were used as part of the states' (Section 314) ambient monitoring program. The periphytometers provided data on chlorophyll a, ash free dry weigh (AFDW), and community structure. The incorporation of rapid bioassessment (RBA) techniques and staff changes resulted in the de-emphasized use of periphytometers. Periphytometers are still used, especially along the coastal/estuarine areas where RBA did not lend itself. Chlorophyll a and AFDW's were measured until approximately 1996. Currently, phytoplankton is collected for chlorophyll a analysis from ambient marine or estuarine sites, and on lakes and reservoirs on a quarterly basis. It also may be collected during blooms, fish kills and complaints or in any waters, when deemed necessary. Whole basin studies, waste load allocations, and TMDL's sometimes rely heavily on this parameter. During blooms, fish kills or complaints chlorophyll a concentrations and phytoplankton identification may be used to verify that algae and not some toxic material is the source of concern. Missouri Periphyton are not evaluated. Chlorophyll a is collected from about 100 lakes per year, three or four times during the growing season. Montana Montana has a well developed periphyton program that is used in conjunction with data from fish and macroinvertebrate programs. Results are used in determining beneficial uses. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs, and periphyton may be collected from the littoral zone from natural substrates. Nebraska Periphyton are not evaluated. Phytoplankton and zooplankton are collected from lakes and reservoirs. Nevada Algae are not used as an assessment tool. Chlorophyll a has been collected from some reservoirs and lakes. New Hampshire The state has collected and enumerated phytoplankton for about 20 years; taxa are identified to genus. Data are used to determine the relative dominance of the most numerous species. New Jersey Neither periphyton or phytoplankton are used as assessment tools. Chlorophyll a is collected. New Mexico. The state uses algae as a general tool to assess trophic conditions in lakes and reservoirs. Generally one liter is obtained from a composited euphotic zone sample for phytoplankton determination. Taxa are identified to genus and relative proportions of algal classes help discern trophic state. Diversity according to Shannon is used (produced as output using the old BIOS portion of STORET), which aids in determination of dominant algal groupings. Chlorophyll a is collected and
used as one parameter in Carlson's trophic state index. In addition, the state has a narrative standard in its administrative code that may be used to address excessive plant (algal) nutrients. Title 20 - Environmental Protection; Chapter 6 - Water Quality; Part 1 - Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Streams; Section 1102 General Standards; paragraph E - Plant Nutrients: Plant nutrients from other than natural causes shall not be present in concentrations which will produce undesirable aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance species in receiving waters. New York Phytoplankton and zooplankton are collected routinely from lakes. Species identifications and enumeration are contracted out and results are used in providing qualitative descriptions of communities. Chlorophyll a is collected. North Carolina The state began a phytoplankton program in the mid-1980's. Samples are collected primarily from estuaries, and during fish kill episodes. Collections from lakes and reservoirs are sporadic. Taxa are identified to species, and enumerated. Data are used in conjunction with physical and chemical data. North Dakota Algae have not been incorporated into a biological monitoring program. Chlorophyll a is collected from lakes and reservoirs. Ohio Algae are not collected as part of a biological monitoring program; Chlorophyll a is collected. Oklahoma Neither phytoplankton nor periphyton are used as assessment tools. Occasionally phytoplankton may be identified. The state has submitted a grant proposal to the US EPA to develop lake biocriteria, in which phytoplankton may be considered. Oregon Algae are not collected as part of a biological monitoring program; chlorophyll a is collected. Dr. Yangdong Pan of Portland State University is providing some guidance to the state on the use of algae as an assessment tool. This year (1999) the state is collecting algae as part of its coastal work. Pennsylvania Phytoplankton and zooplankton are collected from Lake Erie and other lakes that are part of the routine ambient water quality monitoring network. Chlorophyll a is collected as one parameter to assess the trophic status of lakes. Periphyton are collected by the USGS in watersheds in Pennsylvania. Rhode Island Algae are not collected as part of a biological monitoring program; chlorophyll a is collected. Volunteer citizens monitoring groups collect chlorophyll a. South Carolina Approximately 30 to 50 phytoplankton samples per year are collected and enumerated as part of the state's lake monitoring program. Chlorophyll a is collected routinely. Data assist in determining the trophic status of a lake. There is no
Pfiesteria monitoring program, but phytoplankton samples are collected in conjunction with estuarine fish kills and examined for Pfiesteria-like organisms. South Dakota Phytoplankton have been collected from lakes sporadically since 1989. Data are used to determine species composition. Tennessee Algae are not collected as part of a biological monitoring program; Chlorophyll a is collected. Texas Algae are not collected as part of a biological monitoring program; Chlorophyll a is collected. The state monitors coastal waters for Gymnodinium breve, a species responsible for red tides. (Contact Cindy Contreras, 512-912-7095; regarding coastal monitoring for red tides).
Utah Phytoplankton are collected from lakes, enumerated and results used for use support and baseline information. Relative and absolute abundance of various taxonomic groups are determined, with a focus on the relative abundance of blue-green algae. Vermont Phytoplankton are one component of the states biological assessment program for lakes. Data are used for use support. Forty lakes (12 in New Hampshire) have been sampled during the development of lake biocriteria. Paleolimnological studies are being conducted to collaborate reference conditions. Both multimetric and multivariate techniques have been used for data analysis. Virginia Virginia has collected algae from the Chesapeake Bay and major tributaries of the bay since 1985. Species are enumerated and community information is used to help ascertain enrichment status and to determine if changes over time (trends) have occurred. Primary production is also measured. Algae are not collected as part of a biological monitoring program in other areas, except from the Chesapeake Bay. Pfiesteria is monitored from the state's estuaries. Virginia evaluates a variety of information that may be used to classify a body of water as nutrient enriched. Chlorophyll a is used in this evaluation for both fresh and estuarine waters. If concentrations of chlorophyll a exceed established thresholds, then regulatory actions may be taken.
Washington Algae are not collected as part of a biological monitoring program but may be collected during special projects. Chlorophyll a is collected and used in a trophic state index for lakes. West Virginia The state Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not routinely collect algae samples for water quality assessment. However algal populations have been characterized in a few lakes as part of special studies conducted under the federal Clean Lakes Program. West Virginia is not currently monitoring lake water quality, but for a period of about eight years (1989-1996) routinely monitored chlorophyll a from a subset of the state's public lakes. Chlorophyll a was used to
determine trophic status. Also for a period of about 15 years, ending around 1994, the state monitored chlorophyll a on a quarterly basis from four stream sites in the Potomac River watershed. Currently, no algal or chlorophyll a monitoring is being conducted. Wisconsin The state does not collect phytoplankton routinely as part of its assessment program for lakes. However, the University of Wisconsin and the Department of Natural Resources have some long term phytoplankton data from a few lakes. Periphyton were collected from wadeable streams during 1998 as part of a pilot project. Wyoming The state has begun to collect periphyton and is currently (1999) reviewing techniques.
Status and potential for North Carolina. North Carolina has a very large set of phytoplankton data obtained from the Albemarle-Pamlico estuary and sporadic samples collected from reservoirs. Phytoplankton samples have been collected since the mid-1980s as part of the states ambient monitoring program conducted in estuaries and in conjunction with algal blooms. These data have been used primarily to measure the effects of nutrients delivered to the estuary from the rivers discharging into the estuaries. However, recently, the data have been used to help elucidate causes of fish kills. Overall, the data have been used to provide snapshots of phytoplankton communities and how the composition of the communities compares with the physical and chemical data. The relationship between phytoplankton communities and environmental data has been mostly on a sample by sample basis, or derived for selected periods of time, such as basin management cycles. The biological and environmental sets of data have never been analyzed for the period of record, nor analyzed simultaneously. The long term biological and environmental data collected from the state's estuaries offers an excellent opportunity to provide quantitative relationships between the biological and environmental data. The measured relationships can be compared to those observed in the scientific literature. Compositional data from frequently collected sites could be incorporated into use support.
Bibliography Identification of useful reports, documents and papers
Aloi, Jane E. 1990. A critical review of recent freshwater periphyton field methods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 656-670 Bacon, L. and R. Bouchard. 1997. Geographic analysis and categorization of Maine lakes: a trial of the draft lake bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance document. Bahls, Loren L. 1993. Periphyton bioassessment methods for Montana streams. Water Quality Bureau, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena Montana. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Lake bioassessments for the determination of non-point source impairment in Florida. Biology Section, Division of Administrative and Technical Services. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Biological assessment of Titusville North Wastewater Treatment Plant, Brevard County, NPDES # FL0020389. Biology Section, Division of Administrative and Technical Services. Gerritsen, J. and M. L. Bowman. 1994. Periphytic diatom assemblages of high elevation Rocky mountain lakes: characterization of reference conditions. Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DS Gerrtisen, J. and J. White. 1997. Development of a biological index for Florida lakes. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills MD 21117. Gurtz, M.E. and T.A. Muir. 1994. Report on the interagency biological methods workshop. USGS Open File Report 94-490, U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC. 85 pp. Jongman, R.H.G., C.J.F. ter Braak, and O.F.R. van Tongeren eds. 1987. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen. Oklahoma Conservation Commission. [no date]. Development of rapid bioassessment protocols for Oklahoma utilizing characteristics of the diatom community. Porter, S.D., T.F. Cuffney, M.E. Gurtz and M.R. Meador. 1993. Methods for collecting algal samples as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC. 39 pp. Stevenson, R. J. and L. L. Bahls. (in press). Periphyton protocols in Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers.
US EPA. 1996a. Summary of state biological assessment programs for streams and rivers EPA 230-R-96-007. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. US EPA. 1996b. Biological assessment, methods, biocriteria, and biological indicators: bibliography of selected technical. policy and regulatory literature. EPA 230-B-96001. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. US EPA. 1998. Lake and reservoir bioassessment and biocriteria: technical guidance document. EPA 841-B-98-007. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998. Biocriteria development for Vermont lakes-pilot and field phases.
Appendix: Web sites that provide management information on algae. Web Site or State
URL
The Harmful Algae Page (Woods Hole)
http://www.redtide.whoi.edu/hab/
Fish Health in the Chesapeake Bay (Maryland Sea Grant)
http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/fish-health/index.html
Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/Pfiesteria/
USDA National Agricultural Laboratory
http://www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/pfiest.html
Maryland
http://www.dnr.state.md.us//bay/monitoring/phyto/data/Algae.html
Florida – Biology
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/biol/BiologySection
Florida – SOPs
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/biol/algSOP.html
Texas - Harmful Algal Bloom Strategy
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/recreat/algal.htm
