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

EPA “Primer” Released in 2011 A very general guide for state programs - not a technical manual.A very general guide for state programs - not a technical manual. Examples of varying “levels” of state program uses of bioassessment info.Examples of varying “levels” of state program uses of bioassessment info. Critical technical elements are highlighted.Critical technical elements are highlighted.

Key Concepts Biological assessments should produce sufficiently accurate delineations to minimize Type I and II assessment errors Accuracy: Biological assessments should produce sufficiently accurate delineations to minimize Type I and II assessment errors. technically different approaches should produce comparable assessments in terms of condition ratings, impairment thresholds, & diagnostic properties 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. having reliable biological data to support management decisions outweighs the intrinsic costs of development and implementation (NRC 2001). Cost-Effectiveness: having reliable biological data to support management decisions outweighs the intrinsic costs of development and implementation (NRC 2001).

Aquatic Life Use Definition 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?

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” Approach 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).

? ? 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 ; 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,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

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  Design 6.Taxonomic Resolution  7.Sample collection  8.Sample processing  9.Data Management  Methods 10.Ecological Attributes  11.Discriminatory Capacity  12.Stressor Association  13.Professional review  Interpretation 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 % % % 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 pp.

State CE & ALU Status CE LevelRefined ALU 1 In DevelopmentNone Level 4 [2]2-- Level 3+ [3]12- Level 3 [5]-32 Level 2 [11]--12 Level 1 [1]--- Totals [22] – Biologically based ALUs in WQS.

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