Chris O. Yoder Center for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute

1. Critical Elements of State Bioassessment Programs: A Process to Evaluate Program Rigor and Comparability 2012 SWPBA Conference Lake Guntersville S.P. Guntersville, AL November 14, 2012 Chris O. Yoder Center for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute http://www.midwestbiodiversity.org

2. 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.

4. 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).

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

6. We have some questions about “one-size-fits-all” bioassessment thresholds ? Single “Biocriterion” ? Is a single statewide threshold an effective restoration or protection goal for all rivers and streams? x y Non-reference

7. “Exceptional” uses assure protection of existing high quality & preserve actual improvements “Modified” uses where “legacy” modifications preclude CWA goal attainment (UAA required). CWA “Minimum”- the principal restoration goal “Tiered” Approach Exceptional Good Fair Poor Very poor Non-reference

8. Level 4 Level 4 Level 3 Level 3 Level 2 Level 2 Level 1 Level 1 100 100 1 1 Natural Natural Condition Condition Excellent Excellent Pass Pass + + Minimal Minimal 2 2 Changes Changes ? Good Good 3 3 Evident Evident Changes Changes BIOLOGICAL CONDITION GRADIENT (BCG) BIOLOGICAL CONDITION GRADIENT (BCG) 4 4 Moderate Moderate Changes Changes Fair Fair ? 5 5 Major Major Changes Changes Fail Fail - - 6 6 Severe Severe 0 0 Changes Changes Poor Poor CAPACITY TO EXPRESS INCREMENTALCONDITION (RESOLUTION OF ASSESSMENT) HIGHEST LOWEST 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.

9. Process initiated in 2002; developed via regional pilot in 2003-4; applied as formal program evaluation since 2004.

10. 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.

11. The Critical Elements process is one part of the overall program evaluation.

13. 22 States Evaluated Since 2004: Region I: CT,ME,RI,MA,NH,VT Region IV: AL,FL Region V: IL,IN,MI,MN,WI,OH Region VI: NM,TX,OK* Region VII: MO,IA Region VIII: CO,MT Region 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

14. New CE document revision employs modified element terminology – process & content are essentially unchanged.

15. Index Period • Spatial Resolution • Natural Classification  • Reference Site Selection • Reference Condition States consistently score highest for methods elements Design • Taxonomic Resolution  • Sample collection  • Sample processing  • Data Management  Elements having the most direct relationship to BCG concepts & attributes Methods 10. Ecological Attributes 11. Discriminatory Capacity 12. Stressor Association 13. Professional review  Interpretation Critical (Key) Technical Elements Dependent on Other Elements Foundation Elements Building Blocks

16. Thresholds for Determining Levels of Rigor: Max. Loss of Points Allowed LEVEL OF RIGOR FOUNDA-TION BUILDING BLOCKS DEPEN-DENT MIN. SCORE %CE Score 4 -1 -1 -1 49 94% 3 -3 -3 -3 43 83% 2 -6 -6 -6 34 65% 1 - - - <34 <65%

17. What Do the Levels Mean? Level 1produces 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.

18. Checklist is completed with state staff – consensus based process

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. State CE & ALU Status CE Level Refined ALU1 In Development None Level 4 [2] 2 - - Level 3+ [3] 1 2 - Level 3 [5] - 3 2 Level 2 [11] - - 12 Level 1 [1] - - - Totals [22] 3 5 14 1 – Biologically based ALUs in WQS.

22. L2 L4 What really matters – how states use M&A and Refined ALUs to support WQ management decisions and set program direction.