puget sound epa benthos grant: comparison of sampling ... · puget sound epa benthos grant:...
TRANSCRIPT
Puget Sound EPA Benthos Grant:
Comparison of Sampling Methods and
Updated Taxa Attributes
Northwest Biological Assessment Workgroup, October 26, 2012
A Project Funded by US EPA Scientific Studies and
Technical Investigation Assistance Program Grant
Jo Wilhelm & Deb Lester, King County
Leska Fore, Statistical Design
Karen Adams, WA Department of Ecology
Gretchen Hayslip, EPA Region 10
Overview
Brief overview of the EPA grant
Side by side sampling results
Attribute updates
Next steps/Timeline
EPA Grant
EPA Scientific Studies and Technical Investigation
Assistance Program
Support technical studies to guide and evaluate
implementation of PSP’s Action Agenda
2011 to 2013
Address monitoring challenges
Advance B-IBI tools
Partner with others
Regional Benthic Monitoring Issues
Limitations Desired Outcomes Differing collection methods Standardization
Decentralized data mgmt Centralized data mgmt
Outdated taxa attributes Peer-reviewed or
Empirically derived attributes
Insufficient sensitivity Re-calibrated scoring
>20 cities, counties, tribes monitoring independently
Collaboration and communication
Goal: Improved decision making to restore and protect streams
Surface
Area
3, 8, and 9
___sq ft total
___surface area
55 sites
Sampling
Locations
9 partners
4-330 m
___elevation
0-93%
___urban
Sample Collection
Sample Processing
Lab Methods
WE A
RE H
ER
E
Overall BIBI Score: Landcover
R² = 0.31
R² = 0.36
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
BIB
I
% Urban (Watershed)
3
8
R² = 0.73 10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
8 s
q f
t
3 sq ft
Overall BIBI Score: 3 vs. 8 sq ft
Overall BIBI Score: Residuals
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Fre
qu
en
cy
Residual (8 minus 3)
Mean = 1.2
p<0.05
Biologically
meaningful?
Individual BIBI Metrics
Metric R2 Mean Residual
Total Taxa 0.54 2.33
Mayfly Taxa 0.72 -0.16
Stonefly Taxa 0.66 0.65
Caddisfly Taxa 0.57 0.27
Long-lived Taxa 0.58 0.27
Intolerant Taxa 0.50 0.05
% Tolerant 0.62 -0.01
% Predator 0.82 0.00
Clinger Taxa 0.74 1.13
% Dominance 0.54 0.00
R² = 0.50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8 s
q f
t
3 sq ft
Intolerant Richness
R² = 0.82 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
8 s
q f
t
3 sq ft
% Predator
Side by Side Conclusions
A little more analysis needed, but…
No additional 2012 sampling
No “cross-walk” required
Attribute Updates
Metric
Total Taxa
Mayfly Taxa
Stonefly Taxa
Caddisfly Taxa
Long-lived Taxa
Intolerant Taxa
% Tolerant individuals
% Predator individuals
Clinger Taxa
% Dominance
Updated from
published
literature Updated from
benthic data
Published Literature Updates
Attribute Taxa Group Primary resource
Long-lived stoneflies Stewart and Stark 2002
caddisflies Wiggins 1996
non-insects Pennak 1989, Thorp and Covich 2001
clams Mackie 2007
other mollusks Dillon 2000
other insect taxa Huryn et al. 2008, Poff et al. 2006
Predator insects Merritt et al. 2008
non-insects Pennak 1989, Thorp and Covich 2001
Clinger insects Merritt et al. 2008
non-insects not applicable
Attribute Changes: 1998 vs. 2012
212
34 91
75
68
89
27
27
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
CLINGER LONG-LIVED PREDATOR
# o
f Ta
xa
No change Added Removed
Metric Updated (2012)
Original (1998)
Long-lived Taxa -0.43 -0.39
% Predators -0.42 -0.43
Clinger Taxa -0.60 -0.61
% Urbanization in Watershed
Cu
mu
lati
ve %
of
Site
s
Tolerant & Intolerant Taxa Testing
N = 784 sites (most recent)
Genus level or higher
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
>= 25 occurrences
155 taxa tested
Epeorus
Example of an Intolerant Taxon C
um
ula
tive
% o
f Si
tes
% Urbanization in Watershed
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Epeorus
Example of a Tolerant Taxon C
um
ula
tive
% o
f Si
tes
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
% Urbanization in Watershed
0 20 40 60 80 100
Erpobdellidae
Attribute Changes: 1998 vs. 2012
7 14 19
32
76 47
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
TOLERANT INTOLERANT
# o
f Ta
xa
No change Added Removed
Metric Updated (2012)
Original (1998)
Tolerant 0.62 0.47
Intolerant -0.75 -0.52
BIBI Scores: Attributes Compared
R² = 0.93
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
20
12
Att
rib
ute
s
1998 Attributes
Overall BIBI
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Fr
eq
ue
ncy
Residual (2012 minus 1998)
BIBI Residuals
Mean = 2.98
BIBI Metrics: Influence of Attributes
Metric R2 Mean Residual*
Long-lived Taxa 0.41 3.2
Intolerant Taxa 0.49 1.35
Clinger Taxa 0.95 1.21
% Tolerant 0.07 -1.96 %
% Predator 0.96 0.46 %
* All mean residuals are significantly different than 0 (p<0.05)
0
100
200
300
400
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fre
qu
en
cy
Residuals (2012 minus 1998)
Clingers
0
50
100
150
200
250
-5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Fre
qu
en
cy
Residuals (2012 minus 1998)
Long-Lived
Taxa Attribute Conclusions
No change to structure of B-IBI – all metrics highly
correlated with % urbanization
Taxa attribute updates may require some
recalibration
Many rare taxa dropped from tolerant and
intolerant lists
Next Steps
Finalize attributes
Recalibrate BIBI and adjust scoring
Reanalyze 3 vs. 8
Incorporate changes into PSSB
BCG process/Indicator refinement
Ongoing collaboration
Acknowledgements
Federal City Academic
EPA Bellevue University of Washington
NOAA Bellingham
USFWS Bothell Non-profit
USGS Everett Pierce Stream Team
Issaquah Statistical Design
State Kirkland Lake Forest Park Streamkeepers
WA Ecology Redmond
Seattle Tribe
County Tukwila Port Gamble Skallam Tribe
Clallam Snoqualmie Nation
King Private Stillaguamish Tribe
Kitsap Aquatic Biology Associates Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Pierce Aquatic Entomology
Snohomish Rhithron Associates, Inc.
Thurston
Deb Lester (project manager): [email protected] Jo Wilhelm: [email protected]
www.pugetsoundstreambenthos.org