COMPARING BIOINDICATORS TO MEASURE THE EFFICACY OF RESTORATION IN MIDDLE FORK JOHN DAY RIVER, OR Robin M. Henderson & James R. Pratt

Introduction  Large amount of resources utilized each year to undertake stream restoration.  “If you build it, [they] will come.” Reference(Bernhardt, et al., 2005) # of projects 37,099 Results1.20% had no listed goals. 2.10% indicated assessment or monitoring occurred. 3.Most project records inadequate to extract project actions and outcomes.

Introduction  Variability in macroinvertebrate assemblage structure may overshadow anthropogenic changes (Resh & Jackson, 1993).  Objective: evaluate the efficacy of restoration in Middle Fork John Day River (MFJDR) using biotic indices.

Introduction  Watershed-scale restoration efforts initiated in Pacific Northwest to evaluate community-level biotic responses.  MFJDR Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW).

Introduction Acronyms Bank stabilizationBS Channel reconfigurationCR Fish passageFP Floodplain reconnectionFR Flow modificationFM ln-stream habitat improvementIHI Riparian managementRM

Methodology 1. Combined & standardized taxonomy of benthic macroinvertebrate data. SourceSeasonHabitatSample Area Lab Subsample Identifica- tion ODEQ 1 & MFJDR IMW Summer low flow Riffle4-8 kicks, 8 ft Genus/ species* Notes: 1) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

Methodology

2. Calculate bioindicators  Observed/Expected (OE) indices Random Forest (RF) Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA)  Index of biological integrity (IBI)  Hilsenhoff’s biotic index (HBI)  Simpson’s diversity index Final IBI Metrics Taxa Rich.% Predator E Rich.Dominant 3% P RichSimpson's D T Rich.LL 1 Taxa Rich. % Tol. Taxa % Shredder abund. Notes: 1) LL: long- lived (univoltine, merovoltine, & semivoltine).

Methodology Biological Condition Class Reference percentile Most disturbed ≤ 10th Moderately disturbed > 10th - 25th Least disturbed ≥ 25th - 95th Enriched≥ 95th

Results p = 0.03 p = 0.04 p = 0.01 p = 0.31 p = 0.02 p = 0.11

Results  CV of bioindicators differed by 2-4 factors between years. Bioindicator Ref. CV MFJDR CV Simpson’s D RF OE DFA OE Taxa Richness HBI IBI

Results  Significant differences (p<0.10) were detected between the variances by year Bio- indicator IBISimp- son’s D HBITaxa Rich. DFA OE RF OE P< < IBI < < Simpson’s D < < HBI 0.007< Taxa Rich

Results p = 0.62 p = 0.16 p = 0.48 p = 0.60 p = 0.86 p = 0.83 p = 0.37 p = 0.79 p < 0.00 p = 0.41

Results

Discussion  Differing biological condition classes across years.  Variability & mean must be considered to accurately attribute changes in ecological condition due to stream restoration.  Highlights importance in understanding watershed stressors & their effects when selecting bioindicator.  Next steps : c ompare to other restoration projects. Arkansas River, CO Eldorado Creek, AK Panther Creek, ID

Acknowledgements FundingMacroinvertebrate & restoration project data Support Maxwell Burner, Yessica Carnley, & Matt Engle

References 1. Bernhardt, E.S., et al. (2005). Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science 308(5722), Hubler, S., DEQ bug data, R.M. Henderson. 2013, Oregon Department Environmental Quality: Portland, OR. 2. Hubler, S. (2013). DEQ bug data. Henderson, R.M. (ed), Oregon Department Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. 3. Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W. (1999). Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. 4. Mazor, R.D., Purcell, A.H. and Resh, V.H. (2009). Long-Term Variability in Bioassessments: A Twenty-Year Study from Two Northern California Streams. Environmental Management 43(6), Palmer, M.A., et al. (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, Resh, V.H. and Jackson, J.K. (1993). Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Rosenburg, D.M. and Resh, V.H. (eds), Chapman & Hall, New York. 7. Rowell, J., Baggett, M. and Maxwell, A. (2014). Macroinvertebrate data, North Fork John Day Watershed Council.