![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Evaluation and Development of Large River Biological Assessment Methods and Standardized Protocols for Region 5
Evaluation and Development of Large River Biological Assessment
Methods and Standardized Protocols for Region 5
General Workplan under Section 104[b][3]
Submitted by:
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
5735 Kellogg Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45228
Contact: Erich Emery
emery@orsanco.org
- Background    Project Description
- Objectives, Approaches and Methods Budget   References
This workplan outlines the conceptual approach for an assessment of fish assemblage methods used by selected Region 5 states, ORSANCO, and U.S. EPA. The primary goal of this project is to determine the comparability of the different methods and protocols and if the resulting assessments of assemblage condition are similar. This is a critical first step towards the development and production of biological criteria and scientifically and statistically valid assessments of the large river resources of the Ohio and Upper Mississippi River basins within Region 5. This project will be designed to deliver a standardized methodology that can be used by the States, EPA, and other organizations in assessing and managing their large river resources. This project is also timely given the pending initiation of the Central Basin EMAP program, which will emphasize great and large river resources.
A systematic approach to assessing large, non-wadeable riverine resources
is presently an unmet need throughout much of the region (Yoder 2003).
The knowledge gained by this project will be particularly useful in determining
the ability of existing fish assemblage assessment protocols to address
water quality and aquatic resource management concerns including status
and trends, water quality standards (WQS), use attainability analyses
(UAAs), watershed planning, and NPDES permits. Collaborating organizations
include the states of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio,
all of which contain large rivers that are tributaries to the Ohio and/or
upper Mississippi Rivers. Possible collaboration with U.S. EPA ORD will
also take place as appropriate. Collaboration with the states and EPA
will occur with monitoring and studies already planned by each or as a
part of this project. It should also be noted that this is intended to
serve as the critical first step towards the eventual development of a
standardized biological assessment methodology and biological criteria,
each of which are necessary to a valid assessment of the large river resources
of the region. Funding for the biological criteria and assessment phases
will be pursued in subsequent years and/or via other funding sources (e.g.,
Regional EMAP). We expect that the products of this grant will be used
by the states for conducting long-term assessments of their riverine resources.
Project Background
Large, non-wadeable rivers are an important ecological resource and constitute
a significant water quality management challenge in Region 5. In addition
to their economic and natural resource value, they are the focus of numerous
environmental and natural resource management issues. In particular, most
of the major and significant NPDES permitted discharges occur to these
water bodies. Despite their importance and visibility, biological assessment
methodologies are not as formally developed nor as widely employed as
in smaller, wadeable streams. Sufficiently robust, refined, and documented
assessment approaches and coverages have been developed by two Region
5 states and ORSANCO (Yoder and Smith 1999; Lyons et al. 2001; Emery et
al. 2003). These were developed entirely within the jurisdiction of each
entity and are based on methods and data analyses that may or may not
be translatable across the region. The remaining states sample large rivers,
but have not done so as extensively nor have they developed numeric bioassessment
criteria. Large rivers also present challenges including shared and multiple
jurisdictions, thus a regionally consistent approach to sampling methods
and reference condition would constitute a major advancement in the management
of aquatic resources.
Employing biological assessments in large rivers is widely regarded as being more difficult and resource intensive than for smaller, wadeable streams, hence the emphasis on this latter waterbody type by most states and EPA guidance. This proposal intends to initiate a process by which a systematic and standardized approach to the biological assessment of large, non-wadeable rivers is made available to the states and EPA. This is an important and requisite first step to attaining the goal of having fully developed and calibrated biological assessment tools and biological criteria, which will in turn support specific water quality management programs within the States and Region 5. Of particular interest here is the assessment of the effectiveness of NPDES permits on an individual and collective basis. This will also have value to the region-wide assessment of large rivers being initiated under REMAP.
Geographic Area of Coverage
The geographic area of coverage of this proposal includes the large, non-wadeable
rivers that are tributary to the Upper Mississippi River (above the confluence
with the Ohio River) and the Ohio River that occur within Region 5 states
(Figure 1). For the purposes of this proposal, large rivers are defined
as the primary tributaries of the Ohio and upper Mississippi rivers, and
subsequent tributaries that drain land areas >500-1000 square miles.
The Ohio and Mississippi are considered to be great rivers for the purposes
of EMAP GRE; however, the ecological definition of great rivers also includes
portions of the larger Ohio and upper Mississippi tributaries (Simon and
Emery 1995). The reality of the ecological definition has functional implications
for both sampling methods and the development of biological assessment
tools such as multimetric indices (e.g., IBI) and eventually biocriteria.
Figure 1. Large river basins and candidate rivers for testing and comparing
biological assessment methods in Region 5.
Objectives, Approaches, and Methods
Two Region 5 states and ORSANCO have developed and used standardized methods for sampling and assessing large and great river fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages on a statewide or region wide basis. Ohio EPA has methods for both assemblages and has adopted numeric biocriteria based on multimetric indices; routine assessments have been conducted for more than 25 years (Ohio EPA 1987; Yoder and Smith 1999). ORSANCO recently developed a fish assemblage method and index (ORFin; Emery et al. 2003); a macroinvertebrate method is in development. Wisconsin developed a fish assemblage method and index (Lyons et al. 2001) and is interested in developing a macroinvertebrate assemblage method. Indiana has developed a working IBI for the Wabash River. The other states (Illinois, Minnesota) perform some biological monitoring in their non-wadeable rivers, but in a less systematic manner and without the benefit of regionally calibrated assessment tools.
If the goal of having a consistent, comparable, and standardized assessment method for the large rivers of Region 5 is to be reasonably achieved, critical methodological issues need to be addressed first. While there are some general similarities in the approaches presently employed by each state (i.e., all use boat-mounted electrofishing), there are important differences in the configuration and application of the equipment, differences in the make and design of the equipment, different protocols, and perhaps differences in the execution of the sampling. The cumulative result of these differences raises important questions about the comparability of the resulting data and eventual biological assessments. Besides the in-common issues of the adequacy and comprehensiveness of individual approaches, the comparability of the assessments produced by different protocols needs to be established. For example, the methods used by ORSANCO and the five states are generally similar, yet exhibit explicit differences that could potentially produce different assessments. For example, Sanders (1991) discovered the advantages of night electrofishing in the Ohio River, an approach that ORSANCO later formally adopted. Ohio EPA and ORSANCO sample fixed distances of 0.5 km, which was developed based on extensive methods testing (Yoder and Smith 1999; Emery et al. 2003). Wisconsin uses a fixed distance of 1 mile, which is based on methods testing as well. Other states employ a river width formula for determining the dimensions of a sampling site. Differences also exist in electrofishing gear, equipment, and electrode configurations. All of these need to be carefully examined in order to determine if methodological differences alone could alter the assignment of quality and condition (status), making comparability across the region much more difficult.
Scope of Work
The principal task of this project will be to collect and analyze biological
sampling data for the purpose of gaining a comparison of different methods
currently employed by each state and ORSANCO. Test sites will be established
and sampled in two disjunct periods within the overall mid-June to mid-October
seasonal index period in each state. The number of sites will be determined
in coordination with more detailed planning in the winter and spring of
2004. This will entail matching up with each state in a large river that
will be selected from the candidate rivers in Figure 1 and/or rivers in
which the state is already conducting biological sampling. We plan to
initiate what may be termed as “split samples” by sampling
the same or closely adjacent sites using ORSANCO and/or Ohio EPA equipment
and protocols as a comparison with the state’s protocols. In each
comparison, sites will be subdivided as needed to accomplish the protocols
of each organization. This will yield a side-by-side comparison of the
methods, which will provide the essential data and information needed
to evaluate the basic attributes and characteristics of each. The methods
and approaches described by Yoder and Smith (1999) and Emery et al. (2003)
will be used in each comparison to generate the basic data that will serve
as a comparison to the individual state methods. Of critical interest
will be determining the minimum sampling effort that is needed to produce
a reliable assessment of biological quality and condition, which is an
important prerequisite to producing assessments at the regional and river
reach scales. We expect to spend a minimum of two weeks sampling in each
of the five states, based on detailed sampling plans that will be developed
as part of the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). There are three
areas of testing and comparison;
1) Equipment and design specifications – differences in electrofishing units (power, output, efficiency), electrode configurations, boat size, etc.
2) Protocols – differences in site structure (best shoreline, both shoreline, runs/riffles or pools, fixed distance vs. variable distance), CPUE basis (time or distance), day vs. night, river flow or turbidity restrictions, net mesh size, number of netters, single or multiple passes, taxonomic procedures, data recording and custody, etc.
3) Execution – thoroughness of approach, intensity of sampling within a site, attention to detail, crew leader and crew member qualifications, skill and knowledge, quality of workmanship, QA/QC adherence and documentation, etc.
This sampling should allow us to reach the initial goal of identifying the key methodological and technological issues and then to determine if existing state methods are both adequate and comparable, or if a different or modified set of methods should be adopted uniformly across the region. Given the more advanced and broader application of fish assemblage methods, we will focus predominantly on this assemblage group.
Outreach/Communication/Education
We expect to make the results of this project available through several
venues including periodic updates and progress reports (required by the
cooperative agreement), a final report, and presentations at state and
regional conferences and meetings. This will also be discussed at the
periodic meetings and workshops of the Region 5 Biological Assessment
and Criteria working group.
Related Activities and Commitments
The successful implementation and conduct of this project depends on the
in-kind sampling provided by each state as a normal part of their overall
biological sampling program. This will be factored into the detailed sampling
design of the project and will be coordinated with each state before and
during the field sampling phase. In addition, this project fulfills an
important prerequisite to attaining the goal of developing a systematic
and standardized assessment of the large river resources of the region,
including work anticipated under Regional EMAP and that conducted by individual
states. Demonstrating the usefulness of biological assessments to determine
the effectiveness of NPDES permitting will be an important outcome of
these efforts. This will fill an important gap that presently exists in
determining the environmental effectiveness of the NPDES permit program
across the region, the success of which is presently determined by administrative
measures.
Project Organization and Participant Responsibilities
The grant applicant is ORSANCO who will partner with the Midwest Biodiversity
Institute to execute the study design, field sampling, and data analysis
portions of the project. Together, ORSANCO and MBI have the experience
to manage an interstate project and with the sampling and experimental
design that is envisioned. They will be responsible for the design, planning,
and execution of the experimental design. The participating states will
have input to the sampling design and will provide sampling data using
their present methods as part of their individual bioassessment programs.
It will be incumbent on ORSANCO and MBI to develop a sampling plan that
accommodates and cooperates with existing state sampling activities.
Results and Accomplishments
Work Products
This project will produce datasets consisting of comparisons with existing
state methods in selected riverine resources of each participating state.
From these datasets we will complete analyses that will yield information
about the comparability of different methods and the suitability of those
methods for state and EPA uses. A comprehensive report containing all
analyses and conclusions will be produced by MBI for ORSANCO and in cooperation
with the five participating states. Other products envisioned by this
project are a QAPP, periodic progress reports, standardized protocols
for biological sampling, and procedures for biological assessment and
biological criteria development.
Environmental Results
A major strength of biological assessment is to serve as a response indicator
for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of water quality management
activities such as NPDES permitting, WQS, TMDLs, nonpoint source management,
etc. These latter activities inherently rely on administrative activities
for implementation and administrative indicators as measures of output
and effectiveness. Relying solely on administrative measures as evidence
of environmental outcome has long been recognized as not only being inadequate,
but frequently misleading and inaccurate (Yoder and Rankin 1998). The
use of ambient monitoring and assessment data and information has long
been recognized as potentially providing the proof of environmental results,
but there are important technical and process issues that must be followed
to ensure accuracy in terms of judging the actual results of water quality
management programs. Biological data and information has long been the
missing piece in this process and methods and tools to accurately portray
biological response have lagged behind the implementation and use of administrative
processes and measures. Furthermore, environmental data anchored by biological
results promises to provide new and more reliable methods for prioritizing
and streamlining how water quality management programs are implemented.
Frequently, efforts to streamline administrative actions such as permitting,
funding, enforcement, and standards setting focus only within the administrative
program, without the benefit of experience from measuring environmental
quality and response as a result of the administrative actions, both from
an individual and collective standpoint. Again, this occurs because environmental
data are either lacking or provide insufficient coverage. This project
is an important first step towards delivering the type of environmental
feedback that is needed to better develop administrative streamlining.
Tasks Schedule and Interim Milestones
The anticipated sequence of events from initiation to completion of this
project are listed and explained in Table 1.
Project End Date
The project end date will be June 30, 2005.
Table 1. General project timelines, milestones, and outputs.
________________________________________________________________________
Time Period and Description of Activities/Products
________________________________________________________________________
October 2003 – March 2004 Initial planning, development of detailed design, acquisition of key personnel, coordination with states, initiate equipment acquisition.
March 2004 – June 2004 Complete equipment acquisition, prepare sampling equipment, finalize detailed field plans with the states.
July 2004 – October 2004 Conduct field sampling (at least 2 weeks in each state).
October 2004 – January 2005 Data management, initial data analysis, database and initial data summaries.
January 2005 – June 2005 Detailed data analysis, coordination of results with the states, draft and final report
________________________________________________________________
| Table 2. General Project Budget. | ||
| Category | Cost | |
| Personnel: |
$10,432 | |
Principal Investigator |
$3,200 |
|
Fringe (32%) |
$1,024 |
|
Indirect (194%) |
$6,208 |
|
| Travel: | $19,000 | |
| Supplies: | $17,000 | |
| Contractual: | $179,100 | |
| Personnel |
$90,280 |
|
Co-PI |
$11,000 |
|
Fringe (28%) |
$3,080 |
|
| Lead Scientist (Crew Leader) |
$40,000 |
|
| Fringe (28%) |
$11,200 |
|
| Interns (x 2 persons) |
$25,000 |
|
Equipment |
$53,000 |
|
Electrofishing Boat (trib design) |
$8,000 |
|
GPP EF Unit |
$10,000 |
|
| Field Vehicle |
$35,000 |
|
Total Direct Costs |
$143,280 |
|
Indirect Costs (25%) |
$35,820 |
|
Total Federal Share: |
$225,532 | |
| Funding Match (min. 5%) – {5%=$11,282} | $11,410 | |
Personnel |
$11,410 |
|
PI |
$3,500 |
|
Fringe (32%) |
$1,120 |
|
Indirect (194%) |
$6,790 |
|
| Project Total | $236,942 |
Emery, E.B., T.P. Simon, F.H. McCormick, P.L. Angermier, C.O. Yoder, J.E. DeShon, R.E. Sanders, W.D. Pearson, G.D. Hickman, R.J. Reash, M. Miller, and .J.D. Schullte. 2003. Development of the Ohio River Fish Index (ORFIn): an index of biotic integrity for a Great River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. (in press)
Lyons, John, R.R. Piette, and K.W. Niermeyer. 2001. Development, validation, and application of a fish-based index of biotic integrity for Wisconsin's large warmwater rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society: Vol. 130, No. 6, pp. 1077–1094.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: volume II. users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.
Sanders, R.S. 1991. Day versus night electrofishing catches from near-shore waters of the Ohio and Muskingum Rivers. Ohio J. Sci. 92: 51-59.
Simon, T.P. and J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems, pp. 245-262. in W.S Davis and T.P. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Yoder, C.O. 2003. Region V State Bioassessment and Ambient Monitoring Programs: Initial Evaluation and Review. Midwest Biodiversity Institute Tech. Rept. MBI/01-03-1. 50 pp. + app.
Yoder, C.O. and M.A Smith. 1999. Using fish assemblages in a state biological assessment and criteria program: essential concepts and considerations, pp. 17-56. in T.P. Simon (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.