1. Draft Multimetric Indices for Colorado

2. Data Preparation Established reference and stressed criteria Identified reference and stressed sites Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric

3. Ecoregions 20 Colorado Plateaus 21 Southern Rockies 22 Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 25 Western High Plains 26 Southwestern Tablelands

4. Bioregions 1 Mountains 2 Plains 3 Xeric

5. Data Preparation Established reference and stressed criteria Established reference and stressed sites Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric Established consistent taxonomic rules (OTU) Assembled metrics Removed site duplicates and replicates

6. Metric Evaluation Looked at metric range and variability by region Considered metric ecological “sense” Investigated metrics discrimination efficiency (DE) Ability to discriminate a priori reference from stressed (percent stressed < 25 th % reference) Examined metric redundancy First principles (ie E taxa and EPT taxa) Pearson product-moment correlation

7. Metric Scoring Scored candidate metrics from 0-100 based on 5 th and 95 th percentiles Decreaser scores = 100*(value/95 th ) Increaser scores = 100*[(Max-value)/(95 th -5 th )]

8. Index Construction Constructed at least 10 potential indices using variable combinations of candidate metrics for each region Minimized redundancy Maximized categorical representation Composition, richness, tolerance, habit, and functional feeding Calculated index DE

9. Mountains

10. Mountains – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness Diptera Taxa EPT Taxa Tolerance Percent Tolerant Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae Index 2 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness Total Taxa Tolerance HBI Percent Tolerant Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae

11. Mountains – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness Diptera Taxa EPT Taxa Tolerance Percent Tolerant Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae DE = 85% CV = 8%

12. Mountains – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness Total Taxa Tolerance Percent Tolerant Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae DE = 90% CV = 8%

13. Mountains Richest dataset Reference and stressed sites variable Discrimination Efficiencies were good 3/5 categories represented

14. Plains

15. Plains – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Percent Diptera Percent Oligochaete Percent EPT Tolerance HBI Trophic Percent Predators Index 3 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Percent Diptera Percent Oligochaete Richness EPT Taxa Tolerance HBI Habit Percent Sprawlers Index 1 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Percent Diptera Percent Oligochaete Richness EPT Taxa Tolerance HBI Habit Clinger Taxa

16. Plains – Draft Indices DE = 100% CV = 20% Index 1 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Percent Diptera Percent Oligochaete Richness EPT Taxa Tolerance HBI Habit Clinger Taxa

17. Plains – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Percent Diptera Percent Oligochaete Percent EPT Tolerance HBI Trophic Percent Predators DE = 100% CV = 19%

18. Plains – Draft Indices Index 3 Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Percent Diptera Percent Oligochaete Richness EPT Taxa Tolerance HBI Habit Percent Sprawlers DE = 100% CV = 17%

19. Plains Fewer reference and stressed sites Discrimination Efficiencies 100% 3/5 to 4/5 categories represented

20. Xeric

21. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition Percent Coleoptera Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance Percent Dominant Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit Sprawler Taxa Trophic Percent Filterers Index 3 Composition Percent Coleoptera Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance HBI Percent Dominant Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit Percent Sprawler Trophic Percent Filterers Index 1 Composition Percent Coleoptera Percent Ephemeroptera Richness EPT Taxa Tolerance Percent Dominant Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit Sprawler Taxa Trophic Percent Filterers

22. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition Percent Coleoptera Percent Ephemeroptera Richness EPT Taxa Tolerance Percent Dominant Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit Sprawler Taxa Trophic Percent Filterers DE = 72% CV = 13%

23. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition Percent Coleoptera Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance Percent Dominant Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit Sprawler Taxa Trophic Percent Filterers DE = 94% CV = 8%

24. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 3 Composition Percent Coleoptera Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance HBI Percent Dominant Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit Percent Sprawler Trophic Percent Filterers DE= 94% CV = 7%

25. Xeric Fewer reference sites Discrimination Efficiencies were very good 4/5 to 5/5 categories represented

26. Review Mountains MMI Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness Diptera Taxa EPT Taxa Tolerance Percent Tolerant Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae Plains MMI Composition Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Percent Diptera Percent Oligochaete Richness EPT Taxa Tolerance HBI Habit Percent Sprawlers Xeric MMI Composition Percent Coleoptera Percent Ephemeroptera Tolerance HBI Percent Dominant Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit Percent Sprawler Trophic Percent Filterers DE = 85% CV = 8% Ref Mean = 82 Str Mean = 68 DE = 100% CV = 17% Ref Mean = 74 Str Mean = 43 DE = 94% CV = 7% Ref Mean = 67 Str Mean = 60