Puget Sound EPA Benthos Grant: Comparison of Sampling Methods and Updated Taxa Attributes

King County Water and Land Resources Science Seminar November 1, 2012

Jo Wilhelm & Deb Lester, King County Leska Fore, Statistical Design

Karen Adams, WA Department of EcologyGretchen Hayslip, EPA Region 10

Overview Regional monitoring issues that

initiated this projectKey Project GoalsMethods and Preliminary Results • Reconcile differences in sampling methods• Update taxa attributesNext steps

EPA Scientific Studies and Technical Investigation Assistance ProgramSupport technical studies to guide and evaluate implementation of PSP’s Action Agenda

Regional Benthic Monitoring Issues

Limitations Desired OutcomesDiffering collection methods Standardization

Decentralized data mgmt Centralized data mgmt

Outdated taxa attributes Peer-reviewed orEmpirically derived attributes

Insufficient BIBI sensitivity Re-calibrated scoring

>20 cities, counties, tribes monitoring independently

Collaboration and communication

Goal: Improved decision making to restore and protect streams

Reconcile Differences in Sampling Methods

Ecology requires >=8ft2 samples for inclusion in State WQ Assessment Reluctance to shift to 8ft2 - concern for orphaned data Need for better understanding of data comparability or tool to allow data comparability

Sample Collection Methods – 3ft2 vs. 8ft2

Sampling Locations

55 Sites9 PartnersElevation 4-330 m0-93% Urban

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5010

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

R² = 0.727277036989969

3 sq ft

8 sq

ftResults: Overall BIBI Score - 3 vs. 8 sq ft

Overall BIBI Score: Residuals

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Residual (8 minus 3)

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 1.2

p<0.05

Biologically meaningful?

Individual BIBI MetricsMetric R2 Mean

ResidualTotal Taxa 0.54 2.33

Mayfly Taxa 0.72 -0.16Stonefly Taxa 0.66 0.65Caddisfly Taxa 0.57 0.27

Long-lived Taxa 0.58 0.27Intolerant Taxa 0.50 0.05

% Tolerant 0.62 -0.01% Predator 0.82 0.00Clinger Taxa 0.74 1.13

% Dominance 0.54 0.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

2

4

6

8

R² = 0.501872671832895

Intolerant Richness

3 sq ft

8 sq

ft

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

R² = 0.816366560935685

% Predator

3 sq ft

8 sq

ft

Paired Sample Analysis Conclusions

A little more analysis needed, but…No additional 2012 samplingNo “cross-walk” requiredData are comparable

Strengthen Sensitivity of Taxa Attributes

PL-BIBI MetricsTotal Taxa

Mayfly Taxa

Stonefly Taxa

Caddisfly Taxa

Long-lived Taxa

Intolerant Taxa

% Tolerant individuals

% Predator individuals

Clinger Taxa

% Dominance

Update Using Publish

ed Literatu

re

Update withExisting Data

Published Literature UpdatesAttribute 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

CLINGER LONG-LIVED PREDATOR0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

212

3491

75

68

89

27

27

11

No change Added Removed

# of

Tax

a

Metric Updated (2012)

Original (1998)

Long-lived Taxa -0.43 -0.39% Predators -0.42 -0.43Clinger Taxa -0.60 -0.61

% Urbanization in Watershed

Cum

ulati

ve %

of S

ites

Tolerant & Intolerant Taxa Testing N = 784 sites (most

recent) Genus level or higher

0 20 40 60 80 1000.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

>= 25 occurrences 155 taxa tested

Epeorus

Example of an Intolerant Taxon

Cum

ulati

ve %

of S

ites

% Urbanization in Watershed0 20 40 60 80 100

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Epeorus

Example of a Tolerant Taxon

Cum

ulati

ve %

of S

ites

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

TOLERANT INTOLERANT0

20

40

60

80

100

120

7 1419

32

7647

No change Added Removed

# of

Tax

a

Metric Updated (2012)

Original (1998)

Tolerant 0.62 0.47Intolerant -0.75 -0.52

BIBI Scores: Attributes Compared

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5010

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50R² = 0.926612293836033

Overall BIBI

1998 Attributes

2012

Att

ribut

es

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 120

50100150200250300350400

BIBI Residuals

Residual (2012 minus 1998)

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 2.98

BIBI Metrics: Influence of Attributes

Metric R2 Mean Residual*

Long-lived Taxa 0.41 3.2Intolerant 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)

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >90

100

200

300

400Clingers

Residuals (2012 minus 1998)

Freq

uenc

y

-5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 130

50100150200250

Long-Lived

Residuals (2012 minus 1998)

Freq

uenc

y

Taxa Attribute ConclusionsSignificant changes to attribute lists,

especially predator, long lived and tolerant/intolerant taxaMany rare taxa dropped from tolerant and

intolerant lists No change to structure of B-IBI – all

metrics highly correlated with % urbanizationTaxa attribute updates may require some

recalibration

Next StepsFinalize attributesRecalibrate BIBI and adjust scoringReanalyze 3 vs. 8 with updated attributesIncorporate changes into PSSBBiological Condition Gradient

process/Indicator refinementOngoing collaboration

AcknowledgementsFederal City Academic

EPA Bellevue University of WashingtonNOAA BellinghamUSFWS Bothell Non-profitUSGS Everett Pierce Stream Team

Issaquah Statistical DesignState Kirkland Lake Forest Park Streamkeepers

WA Ecology RedmondSeattle Tribe

County Tukwila Port Gamble Skallam TribeClallam Snoqualmie NationKing Private Stillaguamish TribeKitsap Aquatic Biology Associates Upper Skagit Indian TribePierce Aquatic EntomologySnohomish Rhithron Associates, Inc.Thurston

Deb Lester deborah.lester@kingcounty.govJo Wilhelmjo.wilhelm@kingcounty.gov

www.pugetsoundstreambenthos.org

Sample Processing

Overall BIBI Score: Landcover

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

R² = 0.361265935493061R² = 0.312725042375786 3Linear (3)8Linear (8)

% Urban (Watershed)

BIBI

Lab Methods

WE

ARE

HER

E