1. A Comparison of Biological Methods for Macroinvertebrate Collection in Missouri Streams Shane R. Dunnaway MO Dept. of Conservation 1110 S. College Ave. Columbia, MO 65201

2. WSA Purpose Produce a national report on the condition of the nations wadeable streams Enhance individual states capacity for monitoring and assessment Promote collaboration among states and other key partners

3. A Secondary Purpose Have some states participate in comparability studies  (PA, VA, TN, IA, OK, MO) –Compare aquatic macroinvertebrate collection and processing methods –Compare at data & assessment levels

4. In Missouri All sites selected by the EPA using a probability- based design MDC personnel performed all field & lab work 24 sites sampled (plus 1 site re-sampled) between 27 July and 9 November 2004 Missouri's RAM collection method used alongside the WSA collection method All samples processed at MDC’s aquatic macroinvertebrate ID/wet lab

5. + = reference sites = primary sites = reserve sites

6. Collection Method Details WSA 500 micron modified D- frame net In all streams –1 ft 2 at each of 11 equally spaced transects throughout the reach (alternating left, center & right and combined into one composite sample) Missouri 500 micron D-frame net In cobble streams –6 m 2 riffle –6 m 2 pool deposits –6 linear m root mat In sand streams –4800 cm 2 of large woody debris from 12 different pieces of debris –6 m 2 pool deposits –6 linear m root mat

7. Lab Method Details WSA Random subsample –500 organisms –Large and rare search –ID to genus (in some cases only to family) –Internal & External QA/QC Missouri Random subsample –600 organisms from riffle habitats –300 organisms from woody debris, depositional and rootmat samples –Large and rare search –ID to lowest possible level –Internal QA/QC

8. Temperate Plains

9. Southern Appalachian

10. IBI’s (metrics) WSA SAP (6 metrics) 1)%Ephemeroptera 2)Shannon Diversity 3)Scraper Richness 4)% Burrower 5)EPT Distinct taxa richness 6)% Tolerant Missouri 4 metrics 1)Total taxa 2)EPT taxa 3)Biotic Index 4)Shannon Diversity WSA TPL (6 metrics) 1) % EPT individuals 2) Shannon Diversity 3) Scraper Richness 4) Clinger Distinct taxa richness 5) Ephemeroptera Distinct taxa richness 6) PTV 8-10% Distinct taxa

11. IBI’s (scoring) WSA Metric scores are calculated and added together to give an IBI score for that site (scale of 0-100) Missouri Each metric receives a score of 1,3 or 5 Metric scores are added together for an IBI score for that site (scale of 4-20)

12. IBI’s (condition classes) WSA SAP region –On 0-100 scale Above 51 = Good 37-51 = Fair Below 37 = Poor Missouri Statewide –On 4-20 scale 16-20 = Fully Biologically Supporting 10-14 = Partially Biologically Supporting Below 10 = Non Biologically Supporting WSA TPL region – On 0-100 scale Above 45 = Good 31-45 = Fair Below 31 = Poor

13. Site #StreamWSA IBIMO IBI 200Youngs Creek42.5220 168Puzzle Creek45.4120 360Brush Creek33.0418 139Coon Creek32.5616 419Burnt Fork Creek26.1116 380Cub Creek70.6418 456Sandy Creek39.7316 267Sni A Bar Creek60.7216 296Howard Creek39.1812 M005E. Fork Crooked R.34.7418 M006Honey Creek57.720 M009Locust Creek17.3820 499Briar Creek41.68 M002Bryant Creek60.618 243L. Pomme de Terre20.618 8Sals Creek (visit 1)28.4512 M008L. Dry Wood Creek67.1220 M001Blair Creek48.9518 11Prairie Creek28.7516 8Sals Creek (visit 2)31.216 611Easter Creek51.2820 616Walnut Creek43.9120 651M. Fork Tebo Creek52.3418 587Brush Creek54.9318 680Sulphur Creek40.5816 WSAMO PBSFBS PBSFBS PBSFBS NBSFBS PBSFBS PBS FBS NBSFBS PBSNBS FBS NBSFBS NBSPBS FBS PBSFBS NBSFBS PBSFBS PBSFBS PBSFBS Good ~ FBS Fair ~ PBS Poor ~ NBS MO Fall 12 20 16 20 18 20 10 20 16 20 12 18 10 16 20 16 20 18 16 MO Fall PBS FBS PBS FBS PBS FBS PBS FBS

14. Comparability at the Data Level WSA ScaledMissouri IBIMO Fall 82012 1020 61820 616 6 141820 81618 121620 81210 61820 122016 420 8812 18 4 10 61216 1420 101820 616 6 1020 8 1018 1018 816 Student’s t-test results: WSA vs. MO p<.0001 WSA vs. MO Fall p<.0001 MO vs. MO Fall p=1.0000 Site # 200 168 360 139 419 380 456 267 296 M005 M006 M009 499 M002 243 8 M008 M001 11 8 611 616 651 587 680

15. Comparability at the Data Level WSA thru MOMissouri IBIMO Fall 122012 1420 141820 1216 1416 121820 101618 1620 141210 141820 122016 1020 10812 1418 8 10 1216 20 161820 1016 1216 1820 1420 18 1618 1216 Student’s t-test results: WSA vs. MO p<.0001 WSA vs. MO Fall p<.0001 MO vs. MO Fall p=1.0000 Site # 200 168 360 139 419 380 456 267 296 M005 M006 M009 499 M002 243 8 M008 M001 11 8 611 616 651 587 680

16. Courtesy of Versar’s “Interim Report on Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) Comparability Study”

17. Site #StreamWSA IBIMO IBI 200Youngs Creek42.5220 168Puzzle Creek45.4120 360Brush Creek33.0418 139Coon Creek32.5616 419Burnt Fork Creek26.1116 380Cub Creek70.6418 456Sandy Creek39.7316 267Sni A Bar Creek60.7216 296Howard Creek39.1812 M005E. Fork Crooked R.34.7418 M006Honey Creek57.720 M009Locust Creek17.3820 499Briar Creek41.68 M002Bryant Creek60.618 243L. Pomme de Terre20.618 8Sals Creek (visit 1)28.4512 M008L. Dry Wood Creek67.1220 M001Blair Creek48.9518 11Prairie Creek28.7516 8Sals Creek (visit 2)31.216 611Easter Creek51.2820 616Walnut Creek43.9120 651M. Fork Tebo Creek52.3418 587Brush Creek54.9318 680Sulphur Creek40.5816 WSAMO PBSFBS PBSFBS PBSFBS NBSFBS PBSFBS PBS FBS NBSFBS PBSNBS FBS NBSFBS NBSPBS FBS PBSFBS NBSFBS PBSFBS PBSFBS PBSFBS Good ~ FBS Fair ~ PBS Poor ~ NBS MO Fall 12 20 16 20 18 20 10 20 16 20 12 18 10 16 20 16 20 18 16 MO Fall PBS FBS PBS FBS PBS FBS PBS FBS

18. Comparability at the Assessment Level Chi-Square test results: WSA vs MO x 2 1 = 14.3490, p =.0008 WSA vs MO Fall x 2 1 = 13.0667, p =.0015 MO vs MO Fall x 2 1 = 1.6989, p =.4276

19. Comparability at the Assessment Level Thresholds of Degradation: WSA Pass = FBS, PBS Fail = NBS MO & MO Fall Pass = FBS Fail = PBS, NBS Chi-Square test results: WSA vs. MO x 2 1 =.5952, p=.4404 WSA vs. MO Fall x 2 1 =.1355, p =.7128 MO vs. MO Fall x 2 1 =.1661, p =.6756

20. Site WSAClassP/F VersarP/F MO WSA- RAMClassP/F RAM- WSAClassP/F Youngs Creek42.52PBSPassFail20FBSPass12PBSFail Puzzle Creek45.41FBSPass 20FBSPass20FBSPass Brush Creek33.04PBSPassFail18FBSPass20FBSPass Coon Creek32.56PBSPassFail16FBSPass16FBSPass Burnt Fork Creek26.11NBSFail 16FBSPass16FBSPass Cub Creek70.64FBSPass 18FBSPass20FBSPass Sandy Creek39.73PBSPassFail16FBSPass18FBSPass Sni A Bar Creek60.72FBSPass 16FBSPass20FBSPass Howard Creek39.18PBSPassFail12PBSFail10PBSFail E. Fork Crooked R.34.74PBSPassFail18FBSPass20FBSPass Honey Creek57.7FBSPass 20FBSPass16FBSPass Locust Creek17.38NBSFail 20FBSPass20FBSPass Briar Creek41.6PBSPassFail8NBSFail12PBSFail Bryant Creek60.6FBSPass 18FBSPass18FBSPass L. Pomme de Terre20.6NBSFail 18FBSPass10PBSFail Sals Creek (visit 1)28.45NBSFail 12PBSFail16FBSPass L. Dry Wood Creek67.12FBSPass 20FBSPass20FBSPass Blair Creek48.95PBSPassFail18FBSPass20FBSPass Prairie Creek28.75NBSFail 16FBSPass16FBSPass Sals Creek (visit 2)31.2PBSPassFail16FBSPass16FBSPass Easter Creek51.28FBSPass 20FBSPass20FBSPass Walnut Creek43.91PBSPassFail20FBSPass20FBSPass M. Fork Tebo Creek52.34FBSPass 18FBSPass18FBSPass Brush Creek54.93FBSPass 18FBSPass18FBSPass Sulphur Creek40.58PBSPassFail16FBSPass16FBSPass

21. Comparability at the Assessment Level Chi-Square test results: WSA vs. MO x 2 1 = 14.3463, p =.0002 WSA vs. MO Fall x 2 1 = 12.0000 p =.0005 MO vs. MO Fall x 2 1 = 0.1661, p =.6756 Thresholds of Degradation: WSA Pass = FBS Fail = PBS, NBS MO & MO Fall Pass = FBS Fail = PBS, NBS

22. Possible Reasons for Differences Lab procedures –Counts –ID’s Field methods –Random vs. targeted –Effort

23. Conclusions Not comparable at the data level Mostly not comparable at the assessment level –Not comparable at the condition class assessment level –Not comparable at the Pass/Fail level (depending on the criteria used)

24. Acknowledgements Matt Combes – PI for MO Bill Mabee – MDC Lab manager & fieldwork Mike McManus – statistics Doug Novinger – statistics Amy Jungclaus – invert ID Greg Wallace – invert ID & fieldwork Dan Joseph – lab & fieldwork Mike Garcia – lab & fieldwork Chad Backes – fieldwork Lyle Cowles (EPA) – field guidance EPA – funding & guidance MDC – facilities & general support Tetra Tech – guidance CPCB – periphyton processing Versar – data analysis