Skip to main content

A new program for biomonitoring status and trends in the environment


Environmental contaminants threaten the biological integrity of aquatic and semi-aquatic communities both inside and outside of U.S. National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. National Biological Survey are developing a new biomonitoring program, the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program. The BEST Program is being designed to respond to the effects of contemporary environmental contaminant problems associated with fish and wildlife and their habitats. When fully operational, BEST will evaluate the effects of contaminants on fish and wildlife resources; identify and prioritize national, regional, and local contaminant issues for decision makers; monitor national trends of the presence and effects of contaminants; and provide baseline information to support various contaminant investigation activities. The BEST Program will use an integrated network to evaluate contaminant impacts at the tissue, organism, population, community, and ecosystem levels. The sampling approach will be designed around two major components, trust resources on FWS lands (primarily Refuges) and trust species and their habitats outside of FWS lands. The BEST Program is adopting bioassessment techniques from four broad categories including ecological surveys, biomarkers, bioassays and toxicity tests, and residue analysis. Pilot and demonstration projects will be conducted through fiscal year 1997.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  • Albers, P. H., 1991. Oil spills and the environment: a review of chemical fate and biological effects of petroleum. In: J. White (ed.), The Effects of Oil on Wildlife, Sheridan Press, Hanover, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen, J. K., 1990. Environmental contaminants: who's protecting wildlife. In: D. R. Ludwig (ed.), Wildlife Rehabilitation, Vol. 8, Proc. 8th Symp., Nat. Wildl. Rehab. Assoc., Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, J. R., 1991. Coastal degradation and fish population losses. In: Proc. Nat. Symp. Fish Habitat Conserv., Baltimore, Maryland, March 1991.

  • Eisler, R., 1985. Selenium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrtes: a synoptic review. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep. 85(1.5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacknow, J., J. L. Ludke & N. C. Coon, 1986. Monitoring fish and wildlife for environmental contaminants: the national contaminant biomonitoring program. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish Wildl. Leaflet 4.

  • Moore, S. B., J. Winkel, S. J. Detwiler, S. A. Klasing, P. A. Gaul, N. R. Kanim, B. E. Kesser, A. B. DeBevec, K. Beardsley & L. Puckett, 1990. Fish and wildlife resources and agricultural drainage in the San Joaquin Valley, California, Volume 1. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, Sacramento, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiki, M. K., M. R. Jennings & S. J. Hamilton, 1991. Preliminary assessment of the effects of selenium in agricultural drainage on fish in the San Joaquin Valley. In: A. Dinar & D. Zilberman (eds), The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture. pp. 369–386. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1986. Contaminant issues of concern-National Wildlife Refuges. Division of Refuges, Arlington, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • USFWS, 1993. Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program Detailed Plant, April 1993 Draft. Div. Environ. Contaminants.

  • Zylstra, S. J. & S. B. Smith, 1993. Managing impacts to fish and wildlife resources from irrigation drainwater. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep. (In review).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zylstra, S.J. A new program for biomonitoring status and trends in the environment. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recov 3, 81–85 (1994).

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Key words

  • biomonitoring
  • refuges
  • contaminant impacts
  • fish
  • wildlife