# Presentation: 050853

## The Biological Condition Gradient and Tiered Aquatic Life Uses: With Applications in the State of Maine

**United States Environmental Protection Agency**
*Tiered Aquatic Life Uses Working Group*
- Susan P. Davies
*Maine Department of Environmental Protection*

## TALU: Tiered Aquatic Life Uses

***A Scientific Model***

## Ecological Condition

* *

**Ecological Condition**

*** ******Aquatic Life Use Workgroup: Conceptual Model    ******(******from Cairns 1993******)***

***--- Historical ---***

***recorded condition***

**Increasing human disturbance****               **

***- - No disturbance - -***

***existing condition (hypothetical)***

*** ******Natural***

***Degraded***

***- -  Severe disturbance - -***

**Notes:**
This model shows the domain of the CWA and the domain of assessment, monitoring and criteria.  CWA “restore and protect the physical, chemical and biological integrity of nation’s waters”.
The ovals are the “TIERS” in tiered aquatic life uses and they are the condition tiers in the Biological Condition Gradient
Purpose of assessment is to determine where a given waterbody is in relation to that goal.  Criteria are ways to quantify how close to the goal you are.

Tiered aquatic life uses partition the information into more refined bins- are some conditions still very close to natural? (Tier 1-2)  Is most of the state uniformly altered down to Tier 3-5?  Are some locations really terrible?

The BCG provides descriptive content to the 6 circles on the gradient.
It is a conceptual foundation “behind” or underneath all the approaches to quantify biological condition like IBI, RivPacs, RBP; multivariate analysis.  It provides a common yardstick- “ballpark” bin.   

## TALU: Tiered Aquatic Life Uses

***A Scientific Model***

**The Scientific Model-**
***Stressor:Response ***
***Concepts***

## Biological Responses Across the Stressor Gradient

**RESPONSE MEASURE**

**Stressor Gradient**
**[Effect of Human Activity****]**

**LOW**

**HIGH**

**Courtesy of Chris Yoder, CABB**

**HIGH**

**LOW**

**Notes:**
Information content of a sample of biological assemblage – even though the focus is primarily on presence/absence and relative abundance and to some extent, organism condition, there is a huge amount of info contained in the varying sensitivities

## Stressor Gradient

- Biological Condition

**Biointegrity Indicators**

- low

- high

- low

- high

**from Stevenson**

**Notes:**
TO SHOW HOW DATA CONCEPTUALLY FITS INTO THE BCG/GCG

A biological criterion can be set to maintain a defined biological condition

A stressor criterion can be set to maintain response indicator values that are indicative of the desired biological condition.

## TALU : A Scientific ModelConcept #1The Biological Condition Gradient

## 1

**Biological Condition **

**Increasing Effect of Disturbance**
- [Stressor gradient]

- Low

- High

**1**

**Native or natural condition**

**2**

**Minimal loss of species; some density changes may occur**

**3**

**Some replacement of sensitive-rare species; functions fully maintained**

**4**

**Some sensitive species maintained; altered distributions; functions largely maintained**

**5**

**6**

**Tolerant species show increasing dominance; sensitive species are rare; functions altered**

**Severe alteration of structure and function**

- Natural

- Degraded

**Notes:**

Tiers 1-2 very high quality- very near “natural” conditions

Tiers 3-4 differences from reference conditions more noticeable

Tiers 5-6  Real problems-

## Overview of 10 Attributes

**Taxonomic composition and tolerance**
- Attributes I-V
*Sensitive-Endemic* through *Tolerant*
**Non-native taxa**
- Attribute VI
**Organism condition**
- Attribute VII
**Ecosystem function**
- Attribute VIII
**Physical-biotic interactions**
- Attributes IX-X

## Slide 10

## TALU : A Scientific ModelConcept #2The Generalized Stressor Gradient

## Slide 12

## from Hughes et al

** ****Fitzpatrick et al. (Wisconsin)**

**and**

**(irrigated)**

**Mebane et al. (Idaho)**
**(irrigated)**

**from Hughes et al**

**Notes:**
EXAMPLE OF ACTUAL DATA TO BUILD CREDIBILITY AND MAKE IT MORE CONCRETE

HUGHES GRAPHIC SUMMARIZES A HUGE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH, PLACING IT IN THE X-Y AXIS CONTEXT

## Relationship Land Classes and Stream Macroinvertebrates in Maine

**Relationship Land Classes and ****Stream Macroinvertebrates in Maine**

**Number of **
**Mayfly,**
**Stonefly, **
**and**
**Caddisfly**
**Genera**

- preliminary results based on 424 samples

- n=57

- n=150

- n=119

- n=98

## Summary BCG-GSG Framework

**A conceptually simple framework for holding enormous, user-defined complexity**
**Organizes and prioritizes research needs**
**Enhances communication**

**Notes:**

Doesn’t mean that everything laid out in the BCG is TRUE as it stands-but

Because it seems to be a pretty accurate representation of our empirical observations to date it serves very well as that provisional thoery that can be used to leverage more established knowledge through deductive testing- it can have that catapult effect on the science.

## TALU: Tiered Aquatic Life Uses

**Stressor Gradient**

**Bio Condition Gradient**

***A Scientific Model***

## Ecological Condition

* *

**Ecological Condition**

***Pass-Fail Aquatic Life Use Scenarios  for a Hypothetical State***

***--- Historical ---***

**Increasing human disturbance****               **

***- - No disturbance - -***

*** ******Natural***

***Degraded***

***- -  Severe disturbance - -***

***--- ******Severely Altered****** ---***

**PASS**

**FAIL**

**Notes:**
Purpose of assessment is to determine where a given waterbody is in relation to  goals.  Criteria are ways to quantify how close to the goal you are.
But ALUs differ greatly from state to state- “no harm to aquatic life”- but how is “harm” defined?
Some states ALUs are set up as a pass:fail criterion with one 303d listing threshold.  In reference to the BCG tiers that threshold may set a goal near Tier 1-2 or conversely below Tier 3 or Tier 4.  
Tiered aquatic life uses partition the information into more refined bins- are some conditions still very close to natural? (Tier 1-2)  Is most of the state uniformly altered down to Tier 3-5?  Are some locations really terrible?

This example shows that stream reaches with conditions either much better or much worse than the one listing threshold are difficult to manage with much precision.  Very poor (Tier 6) streams that have improved up to Tier 4 may not be recognized; conversely very good conditions may slip down 2-3 tiers before any action is triggered

## 1

**Biological Condition **

**Increasing Effect of Disturbance**
- [Stressor gradient]

- Low

- High

**1**

**Native or natural condition**

**2**

**Minimal loss of species; some density changes may occur**

**3**

**Some replacement of sensitive-rare species; functions fully maintained**

**4**

**Some sensitive species maintained; altered distributions; functions largely maintained**

**5**

**6**

**Tolerant species show increasing dominance; sensitive species are rare; functions altered**

**Severe alteration of structure and function**

- Natural

- Degraded

**Notes:**
Only 2% of ME waters are designated (ie, managed as) Class C (large rivers and urban streams)
51% designated as Class AA or Class A

Maine- instrumental in development of USEPA BCG model of changes in biological condition

Tiers 1-2 very high quality- very near “natural” conditions

Tiers 3-4 differences from reference conditions more noticeable

Tiers 5-6  Real problems- below minimum state standards

## Data Analysis and Use Attainment 

- Biological data put into statistical model      (30 *variable linear discriminant model*)
- Model output is an estimation of strength of association of a sample to four water quality classes

- Class A	Class B	Class C	NA

## Class AA  = 6%

- <date/time>

**% OF LINEAR MILES**
**Class**** ****AA**** **** = 6%**
**Class A**** = 45%**
**Class B**** = 47%**
**Class C**** = 2%**

**Designated Aquatic Life Uses in Maine**

**Since 1990**
- Miles of upgrades= **1,440**
- Miles of downgrades= **5**

## Reducing Discharges from Lincoln Pulp and Paper Company into Penobscot River

**A**

**B**

**C**

**NA**

**Year**

**Notes:**
Station 129, 4 km below Lincoln Pulp and Paper

1974  N=2600  but 93% worms      Richness=6

1992 N=319                                      Richness=53 
lots of mayflies, some stoneflies

## Relationship Between Impervious Surfaces and Water Quality Attainment in Maine

**Impervious Surfaces**
**(Portion of Drainage)**

**Aquatic Life Use Attainment**

- preliminary results based on 424 samples

**Notes:**
We don’t get any sites attaining Class A or Class B biological numeric criteria when impervious surface is above 5% (or even less)
Don’t get any sites attaining Class C above 12% impervious
The Class C and NA at less than 5% impervious are locations where urbanization is not the cause of impairment ie you can have poor sites at low % impervious but you cannot have good (Class A or B ) sites at high % impervious
Tiers help to determine realistic management goals

## Maine TMDL Target Values for     % Impervious Cover

**Maine TMDL Target Values for     % Impervious Cover**

| Class | %IC-demonstrated attainment | TMDL | WLA | MOS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AA | 
<6% | 
Does | 
not | 
apply
 |
| A |  | <6% | <5% | 1% |
| B | <8% | 7-10% | 6-9% | 1% |
| C | <15% | 10-15% | 8-13% | 2% |

**Engineered reduction in effects of stormwater**

**Notes:**
Department policy for TMDL implementation for urban impaired streams.
Derived from empirical results of macroinvertebrate TALU attainment at differing levels of %IC

## Maine Classification Attainment

**Maine Classification Attainment**

## Maine Extensions of TALU: Other Waterbody and Criteria Types

- <date/time>

**Maine Extensions of TALU: *****Other Waterbody and Criteria Types***

**Wetland BCG**- **TALU**
- Targeted Stream/Wetland monitoring
**Marine-estuarine**
- tiered aquatic life standards applied in aquaculture permitting
**Tiered** **Nutrient Criteria**
- Conceptual model:
- tiered chemical limits PLUS tiered biological response limits – algae, macroinvertebrates

##    BCG Tiers Communicate Condition

**Susan P. Davies, MDEP**

**1**

**2**

**3**

**4**

**5**

**6**

**   ****BCG Tiers Communicate Condition**

- a

- b

- c

- d

- e

- f

**Natural**

**Degraded**

**Notes:**
The various state/tribal assessment and analytical approaches  illustrate OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT- constrains the development of precision, accuracy and knowledge if EPA were to attempt to standardize at level of ‘METHODS’--Thus BioAxis serves as a common backdrop illuminating the ecological basis for why the various methods work.

Standardization - common language of  biological conditions- so that a BioAxis  ‘B’ in Kansas can be related to a BioAxis ‘B’ in Oregon- regardless what methods are used to do the assessment and quantitative work-up.
Management context is state-specific-  the number of quantitatively distinguishable management tiers is a function of: 
1. the level of rigor of the methods and the overall size and quality of the state database.   States/tribes NOT obliged to quantitatively manage for all 6 tiers! But should be able to relate individual site or reach conditions to any one of the 6 tiers by expert judgement following BioAxis decision rules and to relate management categories to positions on the gradient.

## Acknowledgments

**Maine DEP Biological Monitoring Program  **
*** ******Leon Tsomides, Jeanne DiFranco ***
***Tom Danielson, David Courtemanch***
**National TALU Work Group and Steering Committee **(including 23 States and Tribes)
**Susan K. Jackson, **
**USEPA-HECD, Washington, DC**