CALIFORNIA’S BIOLOGICALASSESSMENT PROGRAM

April 5, 2005Jim HarringtonWPCL Bioassessment Laboratory

P hysi calI ntegr i ty

B iologicalI ntegr i ty

C hem icalI ntegr i ty

P hysical I ntegr i ty

B iologicalI ntegri ty

ChemicalI ntegri ty

l

N u t r ie n t s D is s o lv e d O x y g e n O r g a n ic M a t t e r I n p u t s

G r o u n d w a t e r Q u a l it y S e d im e n tQ u a l it y H a rd n e s s A lk a l in it y

T u r b id it y M e t a ls p H

S u n l ig h t F lo w H a b it a t G r a d ie n t T e m p e r a t u r e

C h a n n e l M o rp h o lo g y L o c a l G e o lo g y

G r o u n d w a t e r I n p u t I n s t r e a m C o v e r

S o i lsP r e c ip it a t io n /R u n o ff

B a n k S t a b i l i t y

F u n c t io n a n d s t r u c t u r e o f b io lo g ic a l c o m m u n it ie s

Integrates the effects of water quality over time

Advantages of Bioassessment

Sensitive to multiple aspects of water and habitat quality

Provides the public with a more familiarexpressions of ecological health

Adds a more direct assessment of ecological health since it measures the biological communities that live in aquatic systems

Advantages of Bioassessment

Better defines the effects of point source discharges and provides more relevant measures to evaluate discharges of non-chemical substances (e.g. sediment, flow augmentation and habitat alteration)

Statutory AuthorityStatutory Authority

• Clean Water Act Section 101(a) Purpose:– “To restore and maintain the

chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”

Use of Bioassessment in Water Quality Monitoring

Bioassessment

Data

Water Quality Standards and

Criteria(CWA §303c)

Aquatic Life Use Assessments(CWA §305b)

Comprehensive Watershed

Assessments

Evaluation and Permitting of Habitat

Modifications(CWA §404)

Hazardous Waste Site

Assessments(CWA §104e)

Comprehensive Risk

Assessment

Nonpoint Source Assessment(CWA §319)

Listing of Impaired Waters

(CWA §303d)

Wet Weather Discharge (CSOs,

Stormwater)

Point Source

Discharge Permitting(CWA §402)

Marine Protection

and Sanctuaries Act– Ocean Dumping (MPRSA)

Sewage Treatment

Plant Discharges in Marine Waters(CWA

§301h)

Marine Point

Source Discharge Permitting

(CWA §403c)

Stressor Identification

Identifying Unknown causes of biological impairment

How Do We Do Bioassessments

Florida’s BioassessmentProgram

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

12

Bioassessment Program Steps

1. Classify environments (e.g., regionalization)2. Standardize sampling methods3. Develop assessment approach (IBI)4. Perform biological surveys5. Select metrics (positive biological signals)6. Incorporate Quality Assurance activities7. Incorporate training and testing

(certification)8. Integrate into programs9. Report results (Ecosummaries)10. Revise biocriteria

Streams and Wadeable Rivers

=developing basic bioassessment program

=basic bioassessment program in place

=developing quantitative biocriteria

=quantitative biocriteria adopted in or implemented through water quality standards

May be next

May be next

How Do We Do BioassessmentsIn California

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Ubiquitous

Relatively stationary

Their large species diversity providesa spectrum of responses to environmental stresses

CaddisfliesCaddisflies

MayfliesMayflies

StonefliesStoneflies

Dragonflies and DamselfliesDragonflies and Damselflies

Sensitive Organisms in StreamsSensitive Organisms in Streams

Expected Response to Stress: abundance & proportionExpected Response to Stress: abundance & proportion

MidgesMidgesLeechesLeeches

SnailsSnailsScudsScuds

Tolerant Organisms in StreamsTolerant Organisms in Streams

Expected Response to Stress: abundance & proportionExpected Response to Stress: abundance & proportion

Rapid Biological AssessmentCalifornia Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP)

for High and Low Gradient Streams

Benthic Macroinvertebraes

Riffle Habitat for High Gradient Streams

Multi-habitat for LowGradient Streams

Other Protocols for Historic Projects

Cost effective

U.S. EPA RBPQuantify: Canopy Cover Stream Size Substrate Flow

Rapid Biological Assessment

Rapid Physical/Habitat

>2500 DFG sites

Many More UsingCSBP

Application of a benthic invertebrate

IBI to regional 305(b) reporting in southern California

Peter R. Ode, Andrew C. Rehn and Jason T. MayPeter R. Ode, Andrew C. Rehn and Jason T. May

Aquatic Bioassessment LaboratoryAquatic Bioassessment LaboratoryWater Pollution Control Laboratory Water Pollution Control Laboratory

California Department of Fish and GameCalifornia Department of Fish and GameCalifornia State University, ChicoCalifornia State University, Chico

Existing Data: EPA’s EMAP (2000-2002; multiple methods):

CSBP- targeted riffle EMAP- multihabitatUSFS/Hawkins- targeted riffle

USFS (2000, 2001, Hawkins method) CSBP (2000-2002, multiple programs)

Regions 3, 4, 7, 8, 9

Development set (75% of sites) to create IBI

Validation set (25% of sites) to test IBI

66 sites

140 sites

47 sites

22 sites

Index Development ApproachIndex Development Approach(SoCal IBI)(SoCal IBI)

62 Candidate Metrics

Range Test(range at least 0 – 2)

Signal:Noise Test(S:N variance ratio > 3)

13 Metrics Eliminated 22 Metrics Eliminated

Redundancy Test(Pearson Coefficient

< 0.75)

10 Metrics Eliminated

Correction for Natural Variability

0 Metrics Corrected

ResponsivenessTest

7 Final Metrics

10 Metrics Eliminated

SoCal IBI ScoresN_Coleop_T N_EPT_T N_Pred_T P_CFCG_I P_Int_I P_NonIns_T P_Tol_T Metric

Score All Sites 6 8 All Sites 6 8 6 8 All Sites All Sites

10 >5 >17 >18 >12 0-59 0-39 25-100 42-100 0-8 0-4

9 16-17 17-18 12 60-63 40-46 23-24 37-41 9-12 5-8

8 5 15 16 11 64-67 47-52 21-22 32-36 13-17 9-12

7 4 13-14 14-15 10 68-71 53-58 19-20 27-31 18-21 13-16

6 11-12 13 9 72-75 59-64 16-18 23-26 22-25 17-19

5 3 9-10 11-12 8 76-80 65-70 13-15 19-22 26-29 20-22

4 2 7-8 10 7 81-84 71-76 10-12 14-18 30-34 23-25

3 5-6 8-9 6 85-88 77-82 7-9 10-13 35-38 26-29

2 1 4 7 5 89-92 83-88 4-6 6-9 39-42 30-33

1 2-3 5-6 4 93-96 89-94 1-3 2-5 43-46 34-37

0 0 0-1 0-4 0-3 97-100 95-100 0 0-1 47-100 38-100

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

0-14 15-28 29-42 43-56 57-70 Biological metrics for IBI Number of coleopteran taxa Number of EPT taxa Number of Predator taxa Percent collector filterers and collector gatherers Percent Intolerant Individuals Percent non-insect taxa Percent tolerant taxa

Very Good

Good

Fair to Poor

Very Poor

Definitions of Reference Condition

• Minimally Disturbed Condition - condition of streams in the absence of significant human disturbance (e.g., “natural,” “pristine” or “undisturbed”)

• Least Disturbed Condition – found in conjunction with the best available physical, chemical and biological habitat conditions given today’s state of the landscape – the “best of what’s left”

• Best Attainable Condition – equivalent to the ecological condition of (hypothetical) least disturbed sites where the best possible management practices are in use

Sierra Foothill EcoregionSierra Foothill Ecoregion

Reference SitesReference Sites

236 Watershed Planning Areas

BASIC APPROACH

• Use GIS landuse data to screen for potential target areas

• Use field reconnaissance to identify good sites within target areas

National Landcover Database (NLCD)

•Identifies different types of landuse at a resolution of 30 meter pixels •Based on Landsat 1992 imagery •USGS and EPA joint developed

Flow ConditionsHabitat ConditionsLocal Landscape AssessmentOwnershipAccess Issues

Rapid Reconnaissance:

154 sites reviewed

Final Reference Sites

1st Order Streams - 72nd Order Streams - 8 3rd Order Streams - 114th Order Streams - 4

California Regional WaterQuality Control Boards

1

2

3

4

5a

5b

5c 6

78

9

How Do We UseBioassessment Data

BIO

LO

GIC

AL

CO

ND

ITIO

N

STRESSOR GRADIENT (Dominant Land Use)

Historic

Pre-Colombian

Minimally Disturbed

Least Disturbed/Best Attainable

---------------------CWA Interim Goal Threshold -------------------------------------

Natural Pristine

Prairie

Forested

Grazed

Agricultural

Urban

Mining/ Industrial

“As Naturally Occurs”

Biological Integrity

Supports CWA Interim Goal*

Nonattainment of CWA Interim Goal

Curve Colors

*Protection & Propagation of Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife

Hypothetical Subcategorized Biologically-BasedAquatic Life Uses

Designated Uses

Bio

log

ical C

on

dit

ion

IBI = 60

IBI = 50

IBI = 40

IBI = 30

IBI = 20

IBI = 10

Cold water salmon fishery/natural spawning

Cold water salmon nursery/rookery

Cold water salmon passage

Seasonal cold water salmon passage

Habitat restoration

Limited aquatic life habitat

Bio

logi

cal C

ond

itio

n

Designated Aquatic Life Uses: Ohio Example

Increasing Effect of Human Activity

Warmwater Habitat:… comparable to the 25%ile of ecoregional reference sites

Limited Resource Waters: lack potential … substantially degraded….irretrievable habitat modifications

Modified Warm Water Habitat: …irretrievable, human modifications of physical habitat …

Exceptional Warmwater Habitat: an unusual, balanced integrated community of organisms having a species composition, diversity & functional composition comparable to 75% of statewide ref sites.

11

44

66

55

22

33

State of FloridaEffectiveness of Forestry

Best Management Practices

• Joint project between Florida DEP, Florida Department of Agriculture and the silviculture industry.

• Purpose: to determine if forestry BMPs, when properly applied, protect aquatic biota in adjacent streams

Examples of forestry BMPs

• Undisturbed buffer zone (SMZ)• Site preparation to prevent erosion• Control fertilizers and pesticides• Design roads/drainage easements

for minimum erosion/deposition

Experimental DesignExperimental Design

ReferenceSite

Test Site

A

B

C

A

B

CProposed SilvicultureArea

Flow

1996

ReferenceSite

Test Site

A

B

C

A

B

C

Silviculturewith BMPs

Flow

1997, 1998

BeforeBeforeSilvicultureSilvicultureActivitiesActivities

AfterAfterSilvicultureSilvicultureActivitiesActivities

San Julia SCI ResultsSan Julia SCI Results

R 96 T 96 R 97 T 97 R 98 T 98

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Clearcutting (3 & 4-96),Site Prep (9-96), Replanting (1-97)

Good

Excellent

No significant time or treatment differences

Bio

logi

cal

Con

dit

ion

The Biological Condition Gradient

Increasing Effect of Human Activity

Natural structure and function of biotic community maintained

Minimal changes in structure & function

Evident changes in structure and minimal changes in function

Moderate changes in structure & minimal changes in function

Major changes in structure & moderate changes in function

Severe changes in structure & function

1122

33

44

55

66

Get to Know Your Mayflies

AndyourBeetles

Thanks for Listening