Grantee Research Project Results
2001 Progress Report: An Empirical Evaluation of the Performance of Different Approaches to Classifying Reference Conditions in Streams
EPA Grant Number: R828637Title: An Empirical Evaluation of the Performance of Different Approaches to Classifying Reference Conditions in Streams
Investigators: Hawkins, Charles P. , Stevenson, R. Jan , Roberts, David W.
Institution: Utah State University , Michigan State University
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003 (Extended to December 31, 2005)
Project Period Covered by this Report: January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002
Project Amount: $1,499,485
RFA: Development of National Aquatic Ecosystem Classifications and Reference Conditions (2000) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Water , Aquatic Ecosystems
Objective:
The goal of our research project is to establish a means of conducting more sensitive biological assessments of stream ecosystems by improving both accuracy and precision in classifying aquatic ecosystems and thus predicting the expected biological conditions of natural habitats. In our research, we focused on evaluating classification systems applicable to large, topographically heterogeneous regions such as the western United States. Our specific objectives are to determine: (1) how the sensitivity of assessments is affected by the approach used to classify ecosystems (a priori regionalization versus predictive statistical model), the autecological characteristics of organisms, and the spatial scale of classification; and (2) if approaches to site classification are transferable among regions.
To evaluate our objectives, we are using data collected from a spatially extensive set of streams in California, Oregon, and Washington to address Objective 1 (effects of classifications). We will evaluate Objective 2 (transferability) by determining how well methods identified in Objective 1 perform in different biogeographical regions, specifically, streams of the Intermountain West, Rocky Mountains, and Plains. To examine Objective 1, we are exploiting pre-existing data that we have collected in other projects. To explore Objective 2, we collected data from additional sites in the interior western United States.
Assessments of biological integrity are usually based on comparisons with "natural habitats of a region." In theory, measurements made at these natural habitats, or reference sites, serve as a type of control and allow us to specify the biological conditions that would be expected at sites being assessed (test sites) if human disturbance had not occurred. However, because biological attributes in natural aquatic habitats within a region can differ significantly, predicting the biological conditions that should occur at a test site can be difficult.
Progress Summary:
During the first year of the project, we selected and completed field sampling at 324 sites located in 10 different states (OR, ID, MT, ND, WY, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM). In this same time period, we collaborated with personnel from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to obtain data from approximately 200 additional sites in SD, ID, WY, OR, and MT. Together with data that we had collected previously from CA, OR, and WA, we have compiled data from more than 1,000 potential reference sites for use in testing our hypotheses.
Site selection was conducted in collaboration with personnel from state, tribal, and federal agencies involved with water quality monitoring and assessment. Sites were selected based on either best professional judgement or objective landscape criteria, followed by field screening once the site was visited. The degree to which each site approached "pristine" condition varied with the degree of land use in the region and local area. We are working with the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) in Corvallis, OR, and EPA Region 8 to examine if objective, landscape analyses can aid in producing a set of sites that more consistently represent the ecological potential of sites.
At each of our study sites, the following data were collected: (1) stream invertebrates (standard samples); (2) stream periphyton (standard samples for taxonomic composition and algal biomass); (3) stream habitat variables (widths, depths, discharge, substrate particle sizes, channel type, water temperature, and riparian condition); (4) geographic information systems (GIS) landscape coverages; and (5) water chemistry (field measures of alkalinity and conductivity, and preserved samples for standard analysis of cations and anions).
Approximately 80 percent of the invertebrate samples (excluding chironomid midges) have been processed and identified. We expect the remainder to be complete by the end of June 2002. Once these samples are complete, we will start initial analyses of the invertebrate data. The chironomid midge data will be available in about 6 months, once all individuals have been mounted and identified.
Approximately 50 percent of the diatom samples have been permanently mounted onto slides, and rapid counts (100 or 200 valves) have been completed for 115 slides. Because relatively little taxonomic work has been published for streams in the west, we have thus far emphasized photo-documentation and taxonomic synchronization to enhance quality assurance (QA). Close to 1,000 diatom photographs have been taken. Images from an exhaustive taxonomic survey from one site, along with names assigned to them, have been peer reviewed by colleagues at the National Academy of Sciences in Philadelphia, PA. Because algal taxonomy is in constant flux, we are synchronizing the taxonomy used in this project with that used in the EPA's western stream Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Preliminary predictive models of micro- and macro-algal biomass have been created using a subset of sites (225) and field-based data. Our novel rapid periphyton survey (RPS) technique and results have been presented at two different national meetings.
All field data have been entered into a computer data base and initial quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) has been conducted on the database. Derived variables such as means or indices that express different aspects of these data have also been calculated. We are in the process of checking the geographic coordinates of all study sites to ensure they are accurate and that appropriate landscape-level information will be extracted.
We also have started to compile landscape-level data from which we will extract additional information needed to characterize the environmental setting of each site. The following coverages will be produced within a GIS: digital elevation models (DEMs), bedrock geology, stream network, climate (temperature and precipitation), and land use. We have obtained DEM coverages for the entire western United States as well as climatic data. We are currently in the process of obtaining geologic coverages for each state. Once we have done so, we will start the process of creating standardized classifications of geology that are relevant to periphyton and invertebrates. During the next year, we will incorporate these coverages with stream network and land-use coverages into our GIS database. Data derived from these coverages will be output and linked to the field-level habitat data.
Approximately 340 samples have been analyzed to date for NO3, NH3, TN, SRP, CL, and Si. Analysis for cations is underway.
We have addressed several QA issues during the first year of the project. These issues include development of consistent criteria for defining reference sites (with EPA ORD Corvallis and EPA Region 8), development of a consistent taxonomy to be applied to periphyton, and work to quantify sources of error in the estimation of different biological indicators. We are working with both Forest Service personnel and EPA ORD scientists involved in similar large-scale monitoring and assessment projects to document and devise ways of controlling sources of error. We have submitted one manuscript summarizing these efforts and plan to submit additional ones during the next year.
Future Activities:
We plan to conduct the majority of data analyses during the upcoming project period. We have planned only a modest amount of field activity this year so we can fill in gaps in our database. Our main activity will be associated with building predictive models for both invertebrate and diatom assemblages. We will create a priori classifications based on landscape attributes that will be compared with the predictive modeling results.
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 14 publications | 3 publications in selected types | All 3 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Cao Y, Hawkins CP, Vinson MR. Measuring and controlling data quality in biological assemblage surveys with special reference to stream benthic macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biology 2003;48(10):1898-1911. |
R828637 (2001) |
Exit Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
EPA Region 8, EPA Region 9, EPA Region 10, California, CA, Oregon, OR, Washington, WA, Utah, UT, Nevada, NV, Idaho, ID, Wyoming, WY, Montana, MT, Colorado, CO, Arizona, AZ, New Mexico, NM, streams, rivers, classification, indicators, regionalization, bioassessment, EMAP, modeling., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Geographic Area, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Aquatic Ecosystems & Estuarine Research, Hydrology, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, Ecosystem Protection, State, Aquatic Ecosystem, Ecology and Ecosystems, Ecological Indicators, EMAP, ecological exposure, bioassessment, streams, classifying reference conditions, Oregon, ecology, classification, New Mexico (NM), stream ecosystems, anthropogenic impact, empirical evaluation, Washington (WA), modeling, environmental indicators, aquatic ecosystems, water quality, biological indicators, ecological classification, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, spatial data bases, California (CA), Montana , ORProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.