Stormy WeatherStormy Weather

SCI Results forSCI Results for 20042004--20052005

What is an SCI?What is an SCI?Index/metric

Total taxaEphemeroptera taxa

Trichoptera taxa% Filterer

Long-lived taxaClinger taxa

% Dominance % TanytarsiniSensitive taxa

% Very tolerant

SCI category SCI range

1 sample

Good [73–100]

Fair [46–73)

Poor [19–46)

Very poor [0–19)

2 samples

Excellent [81–100]

Good [62–81)

Fair [43–62)

Poor [24–43)

Very poor [0–24)

SCI ResultsSCI Results

Results so far show 65% Results so far show 65% of scores are of scores are ““PoorPoor”” or or ““Very PoorVery Poor”” (with 21% (with 21% ““Very PoorVery Poor””))Only 4% are Only 4% are ““GoodGood””Why?

0

20

40

60

80

SCI Scores

Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Why?

Hurricane TracksHurricane TracksCharley: August 13, Charley: August 13, 20042004Frances: September Frances: September 16, 200416, 2004Jeanne: September Jeanne: September 26, 200426, 2004Ivan: eye did directly Ivan: eye did directly cross a basin, but NW cross a basin, but NW received wind and received wind and rainrain

Canals and Streams in SFCanals and Streams in SF

Before addressing Before addressing hurricaneshurricanes……..Canals are very low Canals are very low scoringscoring……But so are streamsBut so are streamsQ #1: Are canals bad Q #1: Are canals bad because they are canals, because they are canals, or because everything in or because everything in SF scores low?SF scores low?Q #2: Are streams better Q #2: Are streams better than canals? Problem: than canals? Problem: very small sample size very small sample size (n=5)(n=5)

Natural vs. CanalNatural vs. Canal

Kruskal-Wallis Test: VALUE versus WATERBODY_TYPE

WATERBODY_TYPE N Median Ave Rank ZCANAL 11 12.00 42.0 -3.58STREAM 201 38.00 110.0 3.58Overall 212 106.5

H = 12.81 DF = 1 P < 0.0001H = 12.81 DF = 1 P < 0.0001 (adjusted for ties)

Conclusion: Streams, as a whole, are clearly better than canals

Canals vs. SF Canals vs. SF ““StreamsStreams””Kruskal-Wallis Test: VALUE versus WATERBODY_TYPE

WATERBODY_TYPE N Median Ave Rank ZCANAL 11 12.00 8.0 -0.62STREAM 5 20.00 9.6 0.62Overall 16 8.5

H = 0.39 DF = 1 P = 0.533H = 0.39 DF = 1 P = 0.532 (adjusted for ties)

Bootstrapped Population (n=1000)

Summary Statistics:Observed Bias Mean SE

Param 20.44 0.102 20.54 4.75

BCa Percentiles:2.5% 5% 95% 97.5%

Param 13.8125 14.625 31.75586 35.42755

Stream Min: 8.001st Qu.: 11.00Mean: 23.60Median: 20.003rd Qu.: 23.00Max: 56.00Total N: 5

Conclusion: it is difficult to separate these groups –both are very low scoring

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0.0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Value

Den

sity

Param

Stream mean of 23.6 does not exceed 95% range on simulation

By TMDL BasinBy TMDL BasinTMDL_BASIN N* Median Ave Rank ZAPALACHICOLA - CHIPOLA 2 40.50 108.0 0.17CALOOSAHATCHEE 1 23.00 56.0 -0.78CHOCTAWHATATCHEE –ST. ANDREWS 4 59.00 168.8 2.35FISHEATING CREEK 1 56.00 157.5 0.97LAKE OKEECHOBEE 3 11.00 21.7 -2.38OCHLOCKONEE - ST. MARKS 62 46.00 123.1 3.60OCKLAWAHA 56 37.00 96.8 -0.63PENSACOLA 4 58.50 157.6 1.97PERDIDO 1 34.00 84.5 -0.28SPRINGS COAST 1 38.00 98.5 -0.04SUWANNEE 45 37.00 93.0 -1.05TAMPA BAY 20 19.00 51.3 -4.03WITHLACOOCHEE 1 22.00 52.5 -0.84Overall 201 101.0

H = 41.90 DF = 12 P < 0.0001H = 41.92 DF = 12 P < 0.0001(adjusted for ties)

* N value includes both Trend and Status

Hurricanes vs. ResourceHurricanes vs. Resource

4 Main Basins Sampled:

Basin Name N Before Aug 13 After Aug 13

Ochlockonee-St. Marks 62 Small Streams (31) Large Rivers (31)

Ocklawaha 56 Large Rivers (30) Small Streams (26)

Suwannee 45 Small Streams (19) Large Rivers (26)

Tampa Bay 20 NA Small Streams (20)

Basins sampled before and after the hurricanes were sampled for different resources, making before and after comparisons difficult.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160HAB.TOTAL

30

70

30

70

SCI.S

CO

RE

NWSFSJSRSW

BeforeAfter: 1.00

BeforeAfter: 2.00

SCI Score vs. Habitat: Resource, Region, Before and After Hurricances

Large Rivers = Large Symbols

Small Streams = Small Symbols

Before

After

Dat

a

AfterBefore

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Individual Value Plot of Before, AfterD

ata

AfterBefore

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Boxplot of Before, After

Two-Sample T-Test: Before, After

N Mean StDev SE MeanBefore 82 44.8 20.9 2.3After 119 35.2 17.8 1.6

Difference = mu (Before) - mu (After)T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 3.38 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 155

Before and Before and AfterAfter

Point spread following August 2004 is denser than before

LARGE RIVER SMALL STREAMWATER.RESOURCE

40

90

40

90

SCI S

core

1.00

2.00

SCI Scores: Large and small streams before and after hurricanes

Before

After rank-sum normal statistic with correction Z = 1.114, p-value = 0.2653alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0

rank-sum normal statistic with correctionZ = -2.5665, p-value = 0.0103alternative hypothesis: true muis not equal to 0

How can we compare preHow can we compare pre-- and postand post--hurricane SCI results?hurricane SCI results?

4 Main Basins Sampled:

Basin Name N Before Aug 13 After Aug 13

Ochlockonee-St. Marks 62 Small Streams Large Rivers

Ocklawaha 56 Large Rivers Small Streams

Suwannee 45 Small Streams Large Rivers

Tampa Bay 20 NA Small Streams

Combine Ochlockonee and Suwannee into one population and resample…

40 45 50 55 60

0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

Value

Den

sity

Param

Number of Replications: 10000

Summary Statistics:Observed Bias Mean SE

Param 50.78 0.06269 50.84 2.729

Empirical Percentiles:2.5% 5% 95% 97.5%

Param 45.36735 46.22449 55.18367 56.04082

BCa Percentiles:2.5% 5% 95% 97.5%

Param 44.67094 45.63265 54.69388 55.46939

Oklawaha following hurricanes Min: 4.00000

1st Qu.: 28.00000Mean: 38.55556Median: 37.00000

3rd Qu.: 52.00000Max: 82.00000Total N: 96.00000Std Dev.: 19.21204

Oklawaha small streams SCI mean (post-hurricane) falls outside the 1% lower tail of the simulated distribution for the combined Ochlockonee and Suwannee pre-hurricane values

Additional SCI QuestionsAdditional SCI Questions

What was the role of habitat?What was the role of habitat?Do scores cluster by region?Do scores cluster by region?Do large rivers and small streams Do large rivers and small streams evidence equal variability in habitat and evidence equal variability in habitat and SCI scores?SCI scores?Do some parts of the state score better Do some parts of the state score better because they because they areare better, or because they better, or because they were collected by different sampling were collected by different sampling agencies?agencies?

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160HAB.TOTAL

30

70

30

70

SCI.S

CO

RE

LRSS

SCI vs. Habitat: Large and Small Rivers

BeforeAfter: 1.00

BeforeAfter: 2.00

Before

After

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160HAB.TOTAL

30

70

30

70

SCI.S

CO

RE

Resource: LR

Resource: SS

NWSFSJSRSW

Large Rivers

Small Streams

NW SJ SR SWDistrict.1

40

60

80

100

120

140

HAB

.TO

TAL

Habitat Score by District for Small Streams

Kruskal-Wallis chi-square = 37.2306, df = 3, p-value < 0.0001alternative hypothesis: two.sided

Habitat ScoresHabitat Scores

The The ““PrimaryPrimary”” score (maximum 80 points)score (maximum 80 points)substrate diversity substrate diversity substrate availability substrate availability water velocity water velocity habitat smothering habitat smothering

The The ““SecondarySecondary”” score (maximum 80 points)score (maximum 80 points)artificial artificial channelizationchannelizationbank stability bank stability riparian buffer zone width riparian buffer zone width riparian zone vegetation quality riparian zone vegetation quality

Total high score of 160Total high score of 160

SW

SF

Habitat ScoresHabitat Scores

ConclusionConclusion

SF streams and canals score very lowSF streams and canals score very lowBefore and after comparisons for Before and after comparisons for hurricanes were inconclusive due to hurricanes were inconclusive due to differences in sampling before and after differences in sampling before and after (but it is (but it is possiblepossible scores were lowered)scores were lowered)SCI and habitat results show differences SCI and habitat results show differences across the stateacross the state