Available August 2005Available August 2005Available August 2005Available August 2005

Natural Minimal Moderate Radical

BiologicalCondition

BiologicalIntegrity

Poor

Very Good

Good

Non-attainment

Fair

Excellent

Human Disturbance

Protection &Propagation

Very Poor

High SeriousNatural Minimal Moderate Radical

BiologicalCondition

BiologicalIntegrity

Poor

Very Good

Good

Non-attainment

Fair

Excellent

Human Disturbance

Protection &Propagation

Very Poor

High SeriousLEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream

pollutant levels; toxics in sedimentLEVEL 6: Biological recovery incomplete 6-8

yrs. post AWT; toxic response signatures

ADMINISTRATIVE INDICATORS

RESPONSE

STRESSORS

LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP

LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990

WWTP

$$$$NPDES

LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD,were reduced; other sources present

EXPOSURE

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Amm

onia

Loa

ding

(kg/

day)

N=153 153 153 137 153152 152 153 153 153150 152150153151 153 153 153 153151

YEAR

Note: No Ammonia Permit Limit Before 1977

Weekly Average Permit Limit30 Days Average Permit Limit

Lima WWTP

Amm

onia

-N, S

umm

er (m

g/l)

No

Dat

a

N =

No

Dat

a

No

Dat

a

MaximumCriteria*

30-DayAverageCriteria*

21 22 19 201920322323269141518 19

Ottawa River at Shawnee (RM 32.6)

Summer: Data CollectedJune through October

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1971

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

20

30

40

50

60

19851987198919911996

20253035404550

WWH CriterionIBI=40/42

(ECBP Ecoregion)

I B I

RIVER MILE

Lost Cr.

CSOs

Allentown Dam

Impounded

Ottawa River

Shawnee #2

12

Lima WWTP, Landfill,BP Refinery/Arcadian LP

Ottawa River: Lima to Elida

LEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream pollutant levels; toxics in sediment

LEVEL 6: Biological recovery incomplete 6-8 yrs. post AWT; toxic response signatures

ADMINISTRATIVE INDICATORS

RESPONSE

STRESSORS

LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP

LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990

WWTP

$$$$NPDES

LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP

LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP

LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990

LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990

WWTP

$$$$NPDES

LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD,were reduced; other sources present

EXPOSURE

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Amm

onia

Loa

ding

(kg/

day)

N=153 153 153 137 153152 152 153 153 153150 152150153151 153 153 153 153151

YEAR

Note: No Ammonia Permit Limit Before 1977

Weekly Average Permit Limit30 Days Average Permit Limit

Lima WWTP

Amm

onia

-N, S

umm

er (m

g/l)

No

Dat

a

N =

No

Dat

a

No

Dat

a

MaximumCriteria*

30-DayAverageCriteria*

21 22 19 201920322323269141518 19

Ottawa River at Shawnee (RM 32.6)

Summer: Data CollectedJune through October

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1971

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

20

30

40

50

60

19851987198919911996

20253035404550

WWH CriterionIBI=40/42

(ECBP Ecoregion)

I B I

RIVER MILE

Lost Cr.

CSOs

Allentown Dam

Impounded

Ottawa River

Shawnee #2

12

Lima WWTP, Landfill,BP Refinery/Arcadian LP

Ottawa River: Lima to Elida

Chris O. YoderCenter for Applied Bioassessment &

BiocriteriaMidwest Biodiversity Institute

http://www.midwestbiodiversity.org

Critical Elements of State Bioassessment Programs: A

Process to Evaluate Program Rigor and Comparability

2012 SWPBA ConferenceLake Guntersville S.P.

Guntersville, ALNovember 14, 2012

EPA “Primer” Released in 2011•A very general guide for state programs - not a technical manual.

•Examples of varying “levels” of state program uses of bioassessment info.

•Critical technical elements are highlighted.

Key Concepts

Accuracy: Biological assessments should produce sufficiently accurate delineations to minimize Type I and II assessment errors.Comparability: technically different approaches should produce comparable assessments in terms of condition ratings, impairment thresholds, & diagnostic properties.Comprehensiveness: biological response is evaluated in conjunction with other stressor/exposure information to understand the key limiting factors & spur mgmt. actions.Cost-Effectiveness: having reliable biological data to support management decisions outweighs the intrinsic costs of development and implementation (NRC 2001).

Aquatic Life UseDefinition:A designation (classification) assigned to a waterbody based on the aquatic assemblage that can realistically be sustained given the regional reference condition and the level of protection afforded by the applicable criteria.

potential

ALUs inherently “drive” the determination of status & management responses, thus they are a critical determinant of overall program effectiveness.How will (do) we assure accuracy in the process of setting and measuring attainment & attainability of ALUs?

Inde

x S

core

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference Stressed

Single “Biocriterion”

Is a single statewide threshold an effective restoration or protection goal for all rivers and streams?

x

?

We have some questions about “one-size-fits-all” bioassessment

thresholds

Non-reference

y

?

“Tiered” ApproachIn

dex

Sco

re

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference Stressed

Exceptional

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

CWA “Minimum”- the principal restoration goal

“Exceptional” uses assure protection of existing high quality & preserve actual improvements

Non-reference

“Modified” uses where “legacy” modifications preclude CWA goal attainment (UAA required).

Level 4

BIO

LOG

ICA

L C

ON

DIT

ION

GR

AD

IEN

T (B

CG

)

(RESOLUTION OF ASSESSMENT) LOWEST

1

2

3

4

5

6

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Pass

Fail

Level 3 Level 2

100

0

Natural Condition

+

-

Level 1

Minimal Changes

Evident Changes

ModerateChanges

Major Changes

Severe Changes

Level 4

BIO

LOG

ICA

L C

ON

DIT

ION

GR

AD

IEN

T (B

CG

)

CAPACITY TO EXPRESS INCREMENTALCONDITION HIGHEST

1

2

3

4

5

6

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Pass

Fail

Level 3 Level 2

100

0

Natural Condition

+

-

Level 1

Minimal Changes

Evident Changes

ModerateChanges

Major Changes

Severe Changes

?

?

The capacity to measure incremental condition along the y-axis is a critical need for this process.Desirable for biological assessment tools to express 5-6 increments of condition – a critical need for refined ALUs and to spur management beyond pass/fail responses.

Process initiated in 2002; developed via regional pilot in

2003-4; applied as formal program evaluation since 2004.

State/Tribal Program Evaluation: Key Steps

• On-site evaluation of state and tribal bioassessment program, facilities, and capacities (2-3 days each).

• Interactive interview with state/tribal program managers and staff – includes bioassessment and WQS programs at minimum.

• Systematic compilation and analysis of all technical & programmatic aspects (methods, indicators, WQS (ALUs).

• Assess capacity to support all water quality management programs.

• Documents program strengths and fosters a continuous improvement process.

The Critical Elements process is one part of the overall program

evaluation.

22 States Evaluated Since 2004:Region I: CT,ME,RI,MA,NH,VT

Region IV: AL,FLRegion V: IL,IN,MI,MN,WI,OH

Region VI: NM,TX,OK*Region VII: MO,IARegion VIII: CO,MTRegion IX: AZ,CA

plus one Tribe & 3 Federal Labs***- scheduled in 2013

**- U.S. ACE-LTRMP; U.S. EPA-GRE; U.S ACE-ERDC

Reviews are conducted at the request of the State and/or EPA

Region

New CE document revision employs modified element

terminology – process & content are essentially unchanged.

Critical (Key) Technical Elements

1. Index Period 2. Spatial Resolution 3. Natural Classification 4. Reference Site Selection 5. Reference Condition

Des

ign

6. Taxonomic Resolution 7. Sample collection 8. Sample processing 9. Data Management M

etho

ds

10. Ecological Attributes 11. Discriminatory Capacity 12. Stressor Association 13. Professional review

Inte

rpre

tati

on

Foundation

Elements

Building Blocks

Dependent on Other

Elements

Elements having the most direct relationship to BCG concepts &

attributes

States consistently score highest for methods elements

FOUNDA-TION

BUILDING BLOCKS

DEPEN-DENT

4 -1 -1 -1 49 94%

3 -3 -3 -3 43 83%

2 -6 -6 -6 34 65%

1 - - - <34<65%

Thresholds for Determining Levels of Rigor: Max. Loss of Points Allowed

LEVEL OF RIGOR

MIN. SCORE

%CE Score

What Do the Levels Mean?

Level 1 produces general assessments - not amenable to supporting most tasks i.e., status, severity/magnitude, causal associations.Level 2 includes pass/fail to multiple condition assessments (3-4 categories); capable of general causal determinations.Level 3 is capable of incremental condition assessment along the BCG and for most causal associations; single assemblage limitations.Level 4 provides full program support & reasonably robust, accurate, & complete assessments including scientific certainty, accuracy, relevancy of condition, severity & extent, and causal associations.

Checklist is completed with state staff – consensus based

process

Recommendations acknowledge in progress improvements and

can be used to develop a plan for making specific program

improvements aimed at elevating the overall level of rigor.

The principal product of the review process is a technical memorandum

that communicates program strengths and documents specific

areas for improvement. These have evolved since 2004 from “a

few” pages to 40-50 pp.

State CE & ALU Status

CE Level Refined ALU1In DevelopmentNoneLevel 4 [2] 2 - -Level 3+ [3] 1 2 -Level 3 [5] - 3 2Level 2 [11] - - 12Level 1 [1] - - -Totals [22] 3 5 14

1 – Biologically based ALUs in WQS.

L4

L2What really matters – how states

use M&A and Refined ALUs to support WQ management decisions

and set program direction.