For the South Fork Trinity River Watershed
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY (B-IBI) FOR THE SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER WATERSHED By Julia Lynn Remmenga Everta A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Biological Sciences December, 2006 BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY (B-IBI) FOR THE SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER WATERSHED by Julia Lynn Remmenga Everta Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee: Michael A. Camann, Major Professor Date Sean F. Craig, Committee Member Date Frank J. Shaughnessy, Committee Member Date William L. Bigg, Committee Member Date Michael R. Mesler, Graduate Coordinator Date Chris Hopper, Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI) for the South Fork Trinity River Watershed Julia Lynn Remmenga Everta The South Fork Trinity River is an undammed river in Northern California that drains a watershed with a long history of varied anthropogenic uses including mining, logging, cattle grazing, and associated road construction. These activities modify riparian and aquatic habitats by contributing sediment to rivers and altering basic environmental processes on a watershed scale. Aquatic biota respond to and integrate the effects of anthropogenic habitat alterations, many of which are generally not detected by chemical toxicity tests. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged with fulfilling the mandates of the Clean Water Act of 1972, which are to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of surface waters. Indexes that use biotic indicators of stream health, such as the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B- IBI), meet these goals of the US EPA. This study evaluated metrics (biological characteristics) in small streams of the South Fork Trinity River for use in a B-IBI, and constructed the B-IBI using benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during the summer of 2000. The least- and most-impacted streams in the watershed were selected a posteriori using data from the preponderance of accepted metrics. Sixteen metrics were retained for the B-IBI, 14 of which were strong performers. B-IBI scores ranged from 22--74, out of a possible range of 16--80. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination of the benthic invertebrate taxa abundance data provided an alternative iii iv assessment of the relationships of streams relative to each other, and generated hypotheses about land management activities most strongly impacting biological integrity in streams surrounded by late seral forests. The two lowest-scoring late-seral reaches had high watershed temperatures and greater amounts of coarse woody debris (CWD). The other low-scoring late-seral reaches had relatively high watershed road densities. The most efficient way to increase biological integrity in these streams would be to address those activities most strongly correlated with the streams’ extreme positions on the NMDS axes. High-scoring late-seral streams were not correlated with extremes of the ordination axes, indicating the absence of high road densities, hotter watershed temperatures, and high amounts of CWD. PUBLICATION RIGHTS Copyright © 2006 Julia Lynn Remmenga Everta All rights reserved. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Solomon Everta has been instrumental in facilitating my completion of this work, for which I am profoundly thankful. He provided an enormous level of logistical support over several years, and provided moral support for my work even longer. I have especially appreciated his wise perspective and honesty, his kindness, and his friendship throughout this journey. I wish to extend my deep gratitude my graduate advisor, Michael Camann, for his efforts and guidance throughout my graduate journey. I also very much appreciate the many valuable contributions of the rest of my committee members: Bill Bigg, Frank Shaughnessy, and Sean Craig. Major funding for this work was provided by the USDA Forest Service, and I wish to thank Hartwell Welsh of the Forest Service, PSW Region, Redwood Sciences Lab, for his role in securing that funding and for separately funding my field research, and for his broad involvement in this research. Additional financial assistance was provided on multiple occasions by Redwood Yogurt, and on one occasion by Stars Hamburgers, both of Arcata, California, in the form of discounted gift certificates that rewarded my lab volunteers for their service. Garth Hodgson was an excellent crew leader during the field portion of my research in 2001, and I am very thankful for all he taught me about field work and herpetofauna. I am also grateful to the people who collected the macroinvertebrate vi vii samples in 2000: Garth Hodgson, Jamie Bettaso, Brad Norman, Liberty Heise, and Shayne Green, Nancy Karraker, and Lisa Ollivier. I am profoundly grateful to my many dedicated laboratory assistants, most of whom were volunteers. In addition to the students in the Spring 2004 Freshwater Invertebrates (ZOOL 316) course at Humboldt State University, my lab work was aided by (in alphabetical order): Lizzy Andrew Justin Fulkerson Matt Peterson Ruben Botello Nicole Gromme Chuck Roehr Emily Campbell Erika Guevara Eric Russell Florie Consolati Valerie Hershey Jayme Seehafer Richard Cromwell Derek Hornor John Short Bryana David Iman Horsey Tyler Smith Solomon Everta Daena Jordan Alison Stover Ashleigh Dyak Ruben Madriz Dave Topolewski Sara Dykman Jose Montoya Martha Walker Robert Fleming Chris Orsolini Karen Warburton Finally, Marty Reed and Lewis McCreigler provided invaluable assistance by constructing the plankton splitter I used for subsampling, and which greatly expedited my efforts. Anthony Baker always managed to procure the supplies I needed when I needed them, often on short notice, and for that I am very grateful. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. VI TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................... VIII LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ IX LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... X INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Multimetric Indexes........................................................................................................ 5 METHODS AND MATERIALS........................................................................................ 9 Field Protocol................................................................................................................ 10 Laboratory Protocol ...................................................................................................... 12 Analyses........................................................................................................................ 15 Metric Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 19 Community Structure Analyses.................................................................................... 20 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 23 Ordination Results ........................................................................................................ 37 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... 41 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX A................................................................................................................... 54 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................... 57 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1. Stream identification numbers, names, and forest stand conditions in the vicinity of streams used in the final B-IBI analyses. ......................................................... 13 Table 2. Hypothesized attributes (B-IBI metrics) of the invertebrate assemblage tested in the South Fork Trinity River watershed and their expected responses to human disturbance. ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 3. Hypothesized attributes (B-IBI metrics) of the invertebrate assemblage tested in the South Fork Trinity River watershed and their acceptability for inclusion in the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI). ..................................................... 27 Table 4. Influential ordination variable codes and corresponding variable names (r > 0.7 for Axis 1), indicating primary functional feeding groups (FFG) of taxa. ........... 39 Table 5. Variables used in nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination and corresponding variable codes, where the Pearson correlation coefficient threshold for vector inclusion was (r2 ≥ 0.3). ....................................................................... 57 Table 6. Habitat variables used in NMDS ordination, with small Pearson correlation