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

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

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

6. 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. 2 500Genus/ species* Notes: 1) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

7. Methodology

8. 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).

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

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

11. Results  CV of bioindicators differed by 2-4 factors between years. Bioindicator Ref. CV 2000-2004 MFJDR CV 2010-2014 Simpson’s D2.5 - 10.61.4 - 5.4 RF OE6.8 - 16.65.7 - 13.3 DFA OE7.1 - 17.87.5 - 16.1 Taxa Richness11.9 - 17.59.3 - 12.8 HBI13.3 - 28.010.7 - 16.4 IBI13.7 - 34.09.6 - 14.2

12. Results  Significant differences (p<0.10) were detected between the variances by year. 2014 Bio- indicator IBISimp- son’s D HBITaxa Rich. DFA OE RF OE P< 0.0000.004< 0.0000.0020.794 IBI < 0.0000.0010.165< 0.000 Simpson’s D < 0.0000.002< 0.000 HBI 0.007< 0.000 Taxa Rich. 0.002

13. 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

14. Results

16. 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

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

18. References 1. Bernhardt, E.S., et al. (2005). Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science 308(5722), 636-637.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), 1269-1286. 5. Palmer, M.A., et al. (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208-217. 6. 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.