chris o. yoder center for applied bioassessment & biocriteria midwest biodiversity institute ...
Post on 29-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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 Serious
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
$$$$NPDES
LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD,were reduced; other sources present
EXPOSURE
0
200
400
600
800
1000
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
Am
mo
nia
Lo
ad
ing
(kg
/da
y)
N=153 153 153 137 153152 152 153 153 153150 152150153151 153 153 153 153151
YEAR
Note: No Ammonia Permit Limit Before 1977
Weekly Average Permit Limit30 Days Average Permit Limit
Lima WWTP
Am
mon
ia-N
, Sum
mer
(m
g/l)
No
Dat
a
N =
No
Dat
a
No
Dat
a
MaximumCriteria*
30-DayAverageCriteria*
21 22 19 201920322323269141518 19
Ottawa River at Shawnee (RM 32.6)
Summer: Data CollectedJune through October
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1971
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
20
30
40
50
60
19851987198919911996
20253035404550
WWH CriterionIBI=40/42
(ECBP Ecoregion)
I B
I
RIVER MILE
Lost Cr.
CSOs
Allentown Dam
Impounded
Ottawa River
Shawnee #2
12
Lima WWTP, Landfill,BP Refinery/Arcadian LP
Ottawa River: Lima to Elida
LEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream pollutant levels; toxics in sediment
LEVEL 6: Biological recovery incomplete 6-8 yrs. post AWT; toxic response signatures
ADMINISTRATIVE INDICATORS
RESPONSE
STRESSORS
LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP
LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990
WWTP
$$$$NPDES
LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP
LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP
LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990
LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990
WWTP
$$$$NPDES
LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD,were reduced; other sources present
EXPOSURE
0
200
400
600
800
1000
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
Am
mo
nia
Lo
ad
ing
(kg
/da
y)
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
Am
mon
ia-N
, Sum
mer
(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 Use
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
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
LO
GIC
AL
CO
ND
ITIO
N G
RA
DIE
NT
(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
LO
GIC
AL
CO
ND
ITIO
N G
RA
DIE
NT
(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.
22 States Evaluated Since 2004:
Region I: CT,ME,RI,MA,NH,VTRegion IV: AL,FL
Region V: IL,IN,MI,MN,WI,OHRegion 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
Desig
n
6. Taxonomic Resolution 7. Sample collection 8. Sample processing 9. Data Management
Meth
od
s
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.
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 2
Level 2 [11] - - 12
Level 1 [1] - - -
Totals [22] 3 5 14
1 – Biologically based ALUs in WQS.
top related