Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas in the Snoqualmie River Basin

November 2009

\

Alternate Formats Available 206-296-7380 TTY Relay: 711

This page left intentionally blank.

Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas in the Snoqualmie River Basin

Prepared for: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks

Submitted by: Jo Wilhelm and Deb Lester King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks

This page left intentionally blank.

Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Acknowledgements Thanks to the many dedicated King County employees who have participated in sampling design, data collection, and data analyses going back to the late 1980s for water quality and the mid 1990s for macroinvertebrates. Thanks to the various taxonomic laboratories for their technical skills and expertise in identifying the macroinvertebrates, the King County Environmental Lab (KCEL) personnel for collecting and analyzing the water quality samples, and the King County Wastewater Treatment personnel for collecting the macroinvertebrate samples and their detailed record keeping of the biosolids applications. We thank Tom Georgianna for his help with statistical analyses, Tom Ventur for his attention to detail during the final editing of this document, Dawn Duddleson for swiftly retrieving background literature materials and Karen Bergeron for her help with data analysis. Special thanks go to Karen DuBose for her patience, speed, and thoroughness in answering our never- ending questions and responding to various data requests. Thanks also go to Jim Devereaux at the KCEL for organizing the field. Finally, this document was greatly improved through internal review from Jim Simmonds and Kate O’Laughlin.

Citation King County. 2009. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas in the Snoqualmie River Basin. Prepared by Jo Wilhelm and Deb Lester, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington.

King County i November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County ii November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table of Contents 1 Introduction...... 1 1.1 Biosolids Overview...... 1 1.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates as a Monitoring Tool ...... 2 2 Study Location...... 3 3 Methods...... 5 3.1 Field Methods...... 5 3.1.1 Macroinvertebrate Sampling...... 5 3.1.2 Water Quality Sampling ...... 7 3.2 Analysis Methods...... 7 3.2.1 GIS Analysis of Physical Attributes ...... 7 3.2.2 Macroinvertebrate Laboratory Analysis ...... 8 3.2.3 Macroinvertebrate Data Analysis...... 9 3.2.4 Comparison to Other Forested Sites ...... 13 3.2.5 Water Quality Laboratory Analysis...... 14 3.3 Statistical Analyses ...... 14 4 Results & Discussion ...... 14 4.1 Overall Site Comparisons ...... 14 4.1.1 Summary of Physical and Land Use Characteristics ...... 14 4.1.2 B-IBI and HBI...... 17 4.1.3 Functional Feeding Group Analysis ...... 21 4.1.4 Taxa Count...... 24 4.1.5 Overall Year Comparison ...... 25 4.1.6 Macroinvertebrates and Water Quality...... 26 4.2 Individual Site Analysis...... 27 4.2.1 Beaver Creek...... 27 4.2.2 Griffin Creek (Downstream)...... 28 4.2.3 Griffin Creek (Upstream)...... 29 4.2.4 Lynch Creek (Downstream)...... 31 4.2.5 Lynch Creek (Upstream)...... 32 4.2.6 Stossel Creek...... 34 4.2.7 Tate Creek...... 35

King County iii November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

4.2.8 Ten Creek (Downstream)...... 36 4.2.9 Ten Creek (Upstream)...... 37 4.2.10 Tokul Creek...... 38 4.3 Comparison to Other Forested Sites ...... 39 5 Discussion...... 45 5.1 Land Use Activities and Stream Health...... 45 5.1.1 Water Quality...... 46 5.1.2 Habitat Quality...... 47 6 Conclusions...... 48 7 References...... 51 Figures Figure 1. Study area showing macroinvertebrate and water quality sampling locations...... 4 Figure 2...... Macroinvertebrate collection methods. The weed tool is used to agitate the substrate to a depth of approximately 10 cm for 60 seconds within the 0.3 m2 Surber sampler frame. 6 Figure 3. Basins upstream of each macroinvertebrate sample location (“macroinvertebrate subbasin”) were digitized using existing basin boundaries (“topo catchment”), watercourses, and 6-m contour lines. The application units were clipped to these new subbasins so that the area with biosolids applications or other land use data could be calculated...... 8 Figure 4. B-IBI versus HBI scores at ten sites from 1998-2006. B-IBI and HBI are significantly negatively correlated (p<0.01)...... 21 Figure 5. Percent functional feeding group classification for the ten macroinvertebrate sample locations. Percentages are averaged from the 1998-2006 macroinvertebrate data. 23 Figure 6. Mean number of individuals per replicate by location. Error bars represent + one standard deviation. Samples were sub-sampled until at least 500 species were identified. When fewer than 525 species were present, all individuals were identified...... 25 Figure 7. Mean B-IBI (left) and HBI (right) scores from all sampled sites each year. Error bars represent + one standard deviation. Means between years were not significantly different for either the B-IBI or the HBI (ANOVA, p<0.05)...... 26 Figure 8. Beaver Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 28 Figure 9. Griffin Creek (Downstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1999- 2006...... 29 Figure 10. Griffin Creek (Upstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 30 Figure 11. Lynch Creek (Downstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 32

King County iv November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Figure 12. Lynch Creek (Upstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 33 Figure 13. Stossel Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 35 Figure 14. Tate Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 36 Figure 15. Ten Creek (Downstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 37 Figure 16. Ten Creek (Upstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 38 Figure 17. Tokul Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006...... 39 Figure 18. Comparison of annual B-IBI scores at study sites (A) with forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds (B). Red dashed line represents median B-IBI...... 42 Figure 19. Mean and standard deviation of B-IBI scores at forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds (left) and study sites (right) sorted from highest to lowest scores...... 43 Figure 20. Comparison of annual HBI scores at study sites (A) with forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds (B). Red line represents mean HBI scores...... 44 Figure 21. Mean HBI scores (and standard deviation) for forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watershed (left) and sites from this study (right)...... 45 Figure C-1. Comparison of B-IBI scores from 1998 to 2006 as reported from the taxonomic labs and as recalculated using consistent attribute coding listed in Appendix C throughout...... 70 Figure C-2. Frequency distribution of the difference between recalculated B-IBI scores and lab reported B-IBI scores. Negative values mean the lab reported scores were higher than the recalculated scores...... 71 Figure E-3. (A). Ammonia (MDL - 0.010 mg/l; RDL - 0.020 mg/l) and (B). Nitrate-Nitrite (MDL 0.020 mg/l; RDL 0.040 mg/l) concentrations (mg/l) in Beaver Creek 1997- 2005...... 99 Fiure E-4. (A). Ammonia (MDL - 0.010 mg/l; RDL- 0.020 mg/l) and (B). Nitrate-Nitrite (MDL- 0.020 mg/l; RDL - 0.040 mg/l) concentrations (mg/l) in Lynch Creek (Downstream) 1997-2005...... 100 Figure E-5. Ammonia (A) and Nitrate-Nitrite (B) concentrations (mg/l) in Lynch Creek (Upstream) 1997-2005...... 101 Figure E-6. Ammonia (A) and Nitrate-Nitrite (B) concentrations (mg/l) in Ten Creek 1997-2005...... 102 Figure F-1. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Beaver Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 105

King County v November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Figure F-2. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Griffin Creek (Downstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 105 Figure F-3. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Griffin Creek (Upstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 106 Figure F-4. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Lynch Creek (Downstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 106 Figure F-5. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Lynch Creek (Upstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 107 Figure F-6. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores at Tokul Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 107 Figure F-7. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Tate Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 108 Figure F-8. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores at Ten Creek (Upstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 108 Figure F-9. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores at Ten Creek (Downstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 109 Figure F-10 Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Stossel Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 109 Figure F-11. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Tate Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector...... 110

Tables Table 1. Scoring thresholds and expected response to human disturbance for the ten B-IBI biological metrics. Criteria require identification of most insects to species level or lowest possible taxonomic resolution and chironomids (non-biting midges) to family level...... 10 Table 2. Ten individual metric scores are combined to give a total B-IBI score ranging from 10-50, which can be classified into five levels of biological condition. Modified from Karr at al. (1986) by Morley (2000)...... 11 Table 3. Ranking of HBI scores. Adapted from Hilsenhoff (1987)...... 12

King County vi November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 4. Physical characteristics, ownership distribution and biosolids application activity of the macroinvertebrate subbasins in the study area...... 15 Table 5. Hectares of biosolids applied to macroinvertebrate subbasins (1988 to 2006). D = downstream and U = upstream (Years based on water year –Oct 1st-Sept 30th) ...... 16 Table 6. Land use characteristics of the macroinvertebrate subbasins...... 17 Table 7. B-IBI scores from 1998 to 2006...... 18 Table 8. HBI scores from 1998 to 2006...... 19 Table 9. Median, range and ranking of B-IBI and HBI scores (1998-2006). Higher B-IBI scores and lower HBI scores represent better biological integrity and lower organic enrichment, respectively...... 20 Table 10. Mean and range for the number of individuals in each macroinvertebrate replicate (N). The far right column reports the number and percentage of replicates that contained fewer than 350 individuals...... 24 Table 11. B-IBI scores for forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds...... 40 Table 12. HBI scores and percentage forest cover for forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds...... 41 Table A-1. Ownership, basin size, road density, and elevation for the seven study basins...... 59 Table A-2. Geology, land cover, and biosolids application area for the seven study basins...... 59 Table B-1. Laboratories used for taxonomic identification of samples over the course of the study period...... 66 Table C-1. Taxa attribute classification of macroinvertebrate taxa used to calculate the B-IBI in this report. Clinger classifications are from Merritt and Cummins (1996). All other classifications are from Wisseman (1995) and the 1998 and 2002 updates of these tables (Portland General Electric 2002) with HBI tolerance values based on Hilsenhoff (1982; 1987). The 2002 classifications only used for taxa not listed in the 1998 tables. In such cases, taxa classified as predator for values of 100%, intolerant for 0-3 and tolerant for 7-10. Abbreviations: Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), functional feeding group (FFG), Ephemeroptera (Eph), Plecoptera (Plec), and Trichoptera (Tri)...... 72 Table D-1. B-IBI scores for the seven macroinvertebrate sites sampled in 1996 and 1997. The raw taxonomy data were not available and the method for calculating the B-IBI was not documented, therefore these data were not presented in this report...... 93

Appendices Appendix A Physical and Land Use Characteristics of Study Basins...... 57 Appendix B Macroinvertebrate Taxonomy Contract Labs...... 64

King County vii November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Appendix C. Taxa Attribute Classifications ...... 68 Appendix D. 1996 & 1997 B-IBI Scores...... 91 Appendix E. Water Quality Data...... 95 Appendix F. Functional Feeding Group Data Assessment Figures...... 103

Glossary Allochthonous – energy or organic matter that a stream receives from production occurring outside the stream channel (e.g., from an adjacent terrestrial system).

Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) – the nitrogen fraction of ammonia, which is 63.6% of the total weight of ammonia. Compared with nitrate, ammonia-nitrogen is usually a small fraction of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen. King County biosolids usually contain about 1.2% ammonia- nitrogen.

Ammonia – Nitrogen is an essential nutrient required by all plants and animals for the formation of amino acids. In its molecular form, nitrogen cannot be used by most aquatic plants, and must be converted to another form. Microbial action in soil or water decomposes organic nitrogen into ammonia (that can be used by plants), which is then oxidized to nitrite and nitrate. Ammonia levels in excess of the recommended limits can be highly toxic to aquatic life; toxicity increases with increasing temperature and pH. ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA) – a statistical method for determining whether significant differences exist between two or more sample means. Autochthonous – energy or organic matter synthesized within a system from photosynthesis by aquatic plants and algae. Autotroph – an organism that makes its own food from inorganic sources. Examples include plants, phytoplankton, some bacteria, and other primary producers.

Benthic zone – the ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water such as a lake or stream including the sediment surface and some sub-surface layers. Organisms living in this zone are called benthos. They generally live in close relationship with the substrate and many such organisms are permanently attached to the bottom.

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) – an index typically used as a “report card” for measuring the health of the benthic community and for stream ecosystems as a whole. As many benthic invertebrate life cycles are short (sometimes one season in length), their numbers are useful in detecting community composition fluctuations in a short period. The Puget Lowland B-IBI, is composed of ten metrics, encompassing pollution tolerance, taxonomic composition (e.g., number and abundance of taxa), and population attributes (e.g., proportion of predators) scored on a scale from 10-50. Scores closer to 50 represent conditions with little or no human impact.

King County viii November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Benthic macroinvertebrates – spineless animals that inhabit the bottom of streams and lakes. They are visible to the eye and can include aquatic worms, snails, clams, and immature stages of aquatic insects.

Biosolids – the nutrient-rich organic product of municipal wastewater treatment that can be beneficially recycled. Biosolids have been treated to reduce pathogens. Depending on their level of treatment, biosolids can be used in regulated applications for non-food agriculture, food agriculture, or distributed for unlimited use.

Biotic Integrity – the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region.

Bonferroni post-hoc tests – if an ANOVA test indicates that means are significantly different, then post-hoc tests are performed to indicate which groups are different from each other. The Bonferroni test is one of several types of post-hoc tests, but it is probably the most commonly used because it is highly flexible, very simple to compute, and can be used with a variety of statistical tests.

Boulders – rocks larger than 30 cm (12 inches) in diameter.

Canopy – upper layer in a forest formed by trees.

Clingers – organisms that have behavioral and morphological adaptations for attachment to surfaces in stream riffles.

Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) – leaf and fine woody debris >1 mm in diameter.

Cobble – rock from 7 to 30 cm (3 to 12 inches) in diameter.

Collectors – a functional feeding group including organisms that consume fine particulate organic matter (FPOM). Collectors are often divided into filterers and gatherers.

Collector-filterer (filtering collector) – a functional feeding group of aquatic macroinvertebrates that feed by filtering fine particulate organic material (FPOM) from the suspended in the water column.

Collector – gatherer (gathering collector) - aquatic macroinvertebrates that feed on particles on the bottom of a stream

Coniferous – cone-bearing trees with needles.

Deciduous – trees that shed their leaves in the fall.

Ephemeroptera – an order of insects with an aquatic larval stage (from the Greek ephemeros = “short-lived”, pteron = “wing”, referring to the short life span of adults). The immature larva, or

King County ix November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

nymph, stage usually lasts one year in freshwater. The adults are short-lived, from a few minutes to a few days depending on the species.

Evapotranspiration – the sum of evaporation and transpiration. Evaporation is the process by which water molecules spontaneously become water vapor; transpiration is the release of water from plant leaves.

Fine Particulate Organic Matter (FPOM) – includes all particles smaller than 1 mm to 0.50 µm. Although FPOM can enter streams form adjacent terrestrial areas it is primarily generated from the breakdown of larger CPOM by the activity of shredders microbial processes and physical abrasion.

Functional Feeding Group – a group of benthic organisms that obtain food in the same fundamental way (e.g., filtering organic particles from the water, scraping algae from rocks, predation).

Gravel – rock 0.5 to 7 cm (0.2 to 3 inches) in diameter.

Hectares (HA) – A metric unit of surface area equal to 2.471 acres or 10,000 square meters.

Herbivores – an animal that feeds only on plants.

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) – a biotic index used to evaluate the potential impact of organic enrichment on macroinvertebrates in streams.

Hyporheos – The saturated zone beneath a river or stream consisting of substrate, such as sand, gravel, and rock, with water-filled interstitial pore. The zone often extends beyond the width of the stream channel and is typically used by certain aquatic organisms during their normal life cycle and as a refuge.

Interception – the process by which precipitation is caught and held by foliage, twigs, and branches of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, and lost by evaporation, never reaching the surface of the ground.

Interstitial space – the space between substrate in the stream benthos. Benthic macroinvertebrates use this space to forage, hide, lay eggs, find refuge, etc., but sedimentation of sands and fine material tend to fill in these areas.

Invertebrate – an animal without a backbone.

Macroinvertebrate – organisms that lack a backbone and can be seen with the naked eye. For the purposes of this study, macroinvertebrates refer to invertebrates retained on a course sieve with mesh ≥ 2 mm. Most are insects, but crustaceans (e.g., crayfish), mollusks (e.g., clams and mussels), and worms are also macroinvertebrates.

King County x November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Macrophyte – a macroscopic photosynthetic organism growing submersed floating or emergent in water, most are angiosperms but also include some nonvascular plants and macroalgae.

Method Detection Limit (MDL) – The minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the true analyte concentration is greater than zero.

Nitrate- Nitrite Nitrogen – Nitrate (NO3-) and nitrite (NO2-) are naturally occurring inorganic ions that are part of the nitrogen cycle. Microbial action in soil or water decomposes wastes containing organic nitrogen into ammonia, which is then oxidized to nitrite and nitrate. Because nitrite is easily oxidized to nitrate, nitrate is the compound predominantly found in groundwater and surface waters. Contamination with nitrogen-containing fertilizers, or animal or human organic wastes, can increase concentrations of nitrate in water. Nitrate-containing compounds in the soil are generally soluble and readily migrate with groundwater. Nitrogen-containing compounds act as nutrients in surface waters. Excess nutrients can cause increased productivity and result in decreased levels of dissolved oxygen.

Normal distribution (normality, Gaussian distribution) – a continuous probability distribution that describes data that clusters around a mean. The graph of the associated probability density function is bell-shaped, with a peak at the mean. The normal distribution can be used to describe any variable that tends to cluster around the mean. Different statistical analyses are used depending on whether the data are normally distributed or not.

Omnivores – are organisms that consume food from more than one trophic level, e.g., crayfish eat live animals (carnivore) and plants (herbivore) and will also consume dead animals and plants (detritivore).

Outwash deposits – deposit of sand and gravel carried by running water from the melting ice of a glacier and laid down in stratified deposits. In contrast to till, outwash is generally bedded or laminated (stratified drift), and the individual layers are relatively well sorted according to grain size.

Parasites – an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host causing harm, but not causing death immediately.

Pearson correlations – In probability theory and statistics, correlation indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two random variables from independence. A number of different coefficients are used for different situations. The best known is the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, which is obtained by dividing the covariance of the two variables by the product of their standard deviations.

Piercers – are a functional feeding group that feeds on the fluids of animals or plants.

Piercing herbivores – Insects that use a tube-like mouthpart to pierce the tough tissue of a plant to suck out the internal juices of the plant.

King County xi November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Plecoptera – are an order of insects, commonly known as stoneflies. All species of Plecoptera are intolerant of water pollution and their presence in a stream or still water is usually an indicator of good or excellent water quality. Eggs and larva of all North American species are aquatic and with only one exception, adults are terrestrial.

Predators – are a functional feeding group that feed primarily on other animals.

Q-Q plots (“Q” stands for quantile) - a graphical method for diagnosing differences between the probability distribution of a statistical population from which a random sample has been taken and a comparison distribution. Q-Q plots can be used to test for non-normality of the population distribution.

Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) – A Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) is defined as the as the minimum concentration of an analyte that can be reliably quantified.

Scrapers– are a functional feeding group that feeds on algae and other organisms attached to the surfaces of under water objects such as leaves, sticks, or rocks. They ‘scrape’ the surface of rocks for algae.

Shredders– are a functional feeding group that consumes coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM), primarily live or dead plant materials.

Spearman rank correlations – used in statistics as a non-parametric measure to assess how well a function can describe the relationship between two variables without making any assumptions about the frequency distribution of the variables.

Species richness – species richness is simply the number of species present in a sample, community, or taxonomic group.

Substrate – inorganic material that forms the streambed.

Taxa Attribute – characteristics of the benthic macroinvertebrate organisms such as whether or not the invertebrate is a predator, long-lived, tolerant or intolerant of pollution, or a clinger. These characteristics are used in the B-IBI metric calculations.

Taxa richness – The number of different species or taxa that are found in an assemblage, community, or sample.

Taxonomy – the science of finding, describing, classifying, and naming organisms into a hierarchical classification system.

Till – a geologic term referring to unsorted glacial sediment.

Trace elements – the name for certain minor chemical elements, such as iron, manganese, and copper, which are essential for plant growth.

King County xii November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Trichoptera – an order of small moth-like insects having two pairs of hairy membranous wings (from Greek trich meaning “hair” and ptera meaning “wings”) commonly called caddisflies, sedge-flies or rail flies. Caddisflies have aquatic larvae and are found in a wide variety of habitats such as streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, spring seeps, and temporary waters (vernal pools). The larvae of many species make protective cases of silk decorated with gravel, sand, twigs, or other debris.

Vascular plants – are generally understood to mean plants with cells specialized for the conduction of fluids such as water and sap. This includes all existing plants except for mosses and liverworts.

Water Year – is the 12-month period, October 1 through September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 of the 12 months. Thus, the year ending September 30, 1992, is called the “1992 water year.”

Xylophages – organisms whose diet consists primarily (often solely) of wood.

King County xiii November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Biosolids, the nutrient-rich solid or semi-solid by-product of wastewater treatment, have been used as a soil amendment to promote tree growth in Hancock’s Snoqualmie Forest and the Marckworth Forest since 1987. A benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring program that included annual collection of macroinvertebrate samples was developed to evaluate biotic integrity of streams in these forest areas. This report presents the results of the macroinvertebrate biomonitoring program from 1998 to 2006. Benthic macroinvertebrates are key components of lotic ecosystems providing a functional link between organic matter and fish in aquatic food webs. Benthic macroinvertebrates are excellent indicators of general stream conditions and assessment of benthic communities can provide information reflective of habitat quality, overlying water quality, availability of potential food resources, and land use impacts. Some macroinvertebrates are capable of tolerating greater levels of change than others tolerate. Thus if change is severe, or moderate but sustained over time, the community structure may simplify in favor of tolerant species. Although the abundance of certain species may increase, the diversity and taxa richness (number of species in a given area) may decrease. By assessing macroinvertebrate community indicators (e.g., dominance, taxa richness, tolerance and functional groups), it is possible to gain a better understanding of water quality and habitat conditions. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis was conducted at ten sites on seven streams within the study area. Three analysis methods were chosen to evaluate changes in macroinvertebrate community structure and function: (1) the benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI), which integrates ten metrics sensitive to human impact into a single index; (2) the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), which uses a single-metric to assess organic enrichment; and (3) functional feeding group (FFG) analysis which focuses on function rather than structure and lends insight into nutrient availability and organic matter processing. The following outlines the key questions that this study addressed and the major findings: 1. What is the overall health of these streams, as measured by the B-IBI and HBI and to a lesser extent the FFG? B-IBI scores can range from a low of 10 (Very Poor) to a high of 50 (Excellent). Scores in the study area were variable between sites and years and ranged from a low of 12 (Very Poor) in Lynch Creek (Downstream) in 2004 to a high of 46 (Excellent) in Ten Creek (Downstream) in 2003. The lowest median B-IBI scores over the course of the monitoring period were observed in Stossel and Lynch Creek (Downstream) (18, Poor). The highest median B-IBI scores were observed in Ten (Downstream) and Tokul Creeks (42 and 41, respectively, Good). HBI scores can range from 10-0, with 10 indicating Very Poor conditions and 0 indicating Excellent conditions. HBI scores in the study area between sites and years were also variable and ranged from a Fair ranking of 6.49 to an Excellent ranking of 2.29, both at Lynch Creek (Downstream) in 2006 and 2005, respectively. The sites with the greatest potential to experience stress from organic enrichment (based on highest median HBI scores) included Stossel and Lynch (Downstream) Creeks (5.3 and 5.1); both Griffin Creek sites (Downstream

King County xiv November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

and Upstream) had the lowest potential to experience stress associated with organic enrichment (3.4 and 3.3). Stossel Creek and Lynch Creek (Downstream) exhibited the lowest biotic integrity across the study period as measured by both median HBI and B-IBI scores. Averaged across all years, filtering collectors were the most dominant functional feeding group at these locations indicating that decomposing fine particulate organic matter (FPOM) is the primary food source. The benthic invertebrate data suggests that there are varying levels of biotic integrity in the ten study basins. Functional feeding group analysis suggested fluctuation in primary productivity at some sites that may have influenced community structure. In general, however, the available data do not suggest that organic enrichment is a primary driver influencing the community structure at the study sites. 2. Has the biotic integrity of these streams changed over time as measured by changes in the B-IBI and HBI scores? In general, the biotic integrity of the study streams as measured by the B-IBI scores was variable (Very Poor – Excellent) over the course of the monitoring period. Ten Creek (Upstream) and to a lesser extent Tokul Creek were the only sites where a general decline in biotic integrity was observed over the course of the study period. B-IBI scores at Tate Creek were relatively low during the first 2 years of monitoring (26 and 22 [Poor] respectively) and increased to (36 [Fair] - 44 [Good]) during the remainder of the study period. None of the remaining study sites exhibited a consistent increase or decrease in B-IBI scores. While also variable, the HBI scores generally ranged from Fair to Excellent, suggesting that organic enrichment is not likely having a significant influence on biotic integrity. HBI scores at Griffin Creek (Upstream) tended to increase somewhat over the study period, suggesting a minor increase in organic enrichment. None of the other sites exhibited a consistent increase or decrease in HBI scores over the course of the study period. Some of the variability in biotic integrity is likely related to physical habitat factors at some sites; for example, flow at the Lynch Creek (Downstream) site appeared to be subsurface during some sampling events and may have been caused by upstream beaver activity. Upstream beaver activity may have also influenced the biotic integrity at Stossel Creek. Statistical analysis of the mean annual B-IBI and HBI scores at all locations was conducted to identify annual shifts in biotic integrity. There were no statistical differences across years for either the B-IBI or the HBI, suggesting that climatic variation was not a primary influence on community composition.

3. How does the overall health of these streams as measured by the B-IBI and the HBI compare to other forested watersheds (>75% forest cover)?

B-IBI and HBI scores from this effort were compared to data from ten streams in forested watersheds (>75% forested) that are routinely monitored as part of the King County ambient monitoring program. Based on a comparison of 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 data, B-IBI scores in other forested watersheds in King County were slightly higher than those measured by this study. B-IBI scores at other King County forested sites ranged from 32 (Fair) - 44

King County xv November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

(Good) (median B-IBI = 40 [Good]), while scores from this study ranged from 12 (Very Poor) - 44 (Good) (median B-IBI = 35 [Fair]). These differences may in part be associated with land use characteristics. While the other King County benthic macroinvertebrate sampling basins have a greater degree of development and likely experience more urban related stressors, forest management activities are limited. Based on a comparison of 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 data, HBI scores in the other forested watersheds in King County ranged from 5.5 (Good) – 2.34 (Excellent), while scores from this study ranged from 6.49 (Fair) – 2.29 (Excellent). The median HBI scores for the two sets of sampling locations were similar; 4.37 (Very Good) at the other King County forested sites and 3.97 (Very Good) for the sites described in this study. In general, HBI scores at the study sites were slightly lower (less organic enrichment) than those in other forested King County sites with the exception of Stossel Creek, which is likely influenced by an upstream wetland. Mean HBI scores at all sites were less than 5 (Good to Excellent). The macroinvertebrate community composition at a given location is formed and impacted by a variety of factors such as permanence and flashiness of stream flows, disturbance frequency, upstream land use, underlying geology, substrate type, stream gradient, riparian shading and primary energy sources (i.e. allochthonous vs. autochthonous). These confounding factors can make it difficult to link cause and effect to changes in community composition over time. However, the sampling locations for this study have relatively homogenous land use characteristics (i.e. commercial forestry of coniferous forests) and the relatively small geographic scope of the study basins helps to ensure that the sampling locations have similar underlying geology and are subject to comparable precipitation and weather patterns. The primary land use stressors in the study area are associated with forest management practices and include forest harvest, biosolids applications, road building and maintenance, and pesticide/herbicide use. Logging has been widespread throughout the study area, although a direct analysis of the timing, extent, frequency, and impacts of timber harvest was beyond the scope of this project. Some of the key stressors that influence biotic integrity include water quality (organic enrichment, temperature alterations, pesticide/herbicide runoff) and habitat degradation (shifts in energy input, riparian alterations, substrate composition, and hydrologic changes). To some extent, forest management activities can influence all of these variables; however, additional analysis would be necessary to assess potential impacts of forest management activities on biotic integrity in the study basins. One concern related to biosolids applications is the potential for excess nutrient input via surface runoff leading to increased primary productivity. In general, no obvious strong connection between biosolids application and stream health as defined by the B-IBI and HBI could be identified. However, the study was not designed to detect the impact of biosolids application or water quality on biotic integrity. The benthic invertebrate data indicates that there are varying levels of biotic integrity in the seven study streams. Evaluation of the community structure using the functional feeding group analysis suggested some fluctuation in productivity at some sites. In general, however, the available data does not suggest that organic enrichment is a primary driver in the variability observed in B-IBI scores over time.

King County xvi November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County xvii November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

1 INTRODUCTION Biosolids, the nutrient-rich semi-solid product of wastewater treatment, have been used as a soil amendment to promote tree growth in Hancock’s Snoqualmie Forest and the Marckworth Forest since 1987. To evaluate biotic integrity of streams in these forested areas, King County and the University of Washington (UW) developed a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring program (King County 2006b). Water quality sampling and analysis has also been conducted since 1986 and is focused on nitrogen and bacteria indicators to monitor any potential influence of biosolids application on water quality. These water quality samples are collected on a quarterly basis and during storm events. The purpose of this report is to present the results of the benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring program and to answer three related questions: 1. What is the overall health of these streams, as measured by the B-IBI and HBI and to a lesser extent the FFG? 2. Has the biotic integrity of these streams changed over time as measured by changes in the B-IBI and HBI scores? 3. How does the overall health of these streams as measured by the B-IBI and the HBI compare to other forested watersheds (>75% forest cover)? The report will focus on macroinvertebrate data collected from 1998 through 2006 as measured by the B-IBI, the HBI, and FFG. Benthic macroinvertebrate results for samples collected in 1996 and 1997 are not presented here because raw taxonomic composition data were unavailable. Macroinvertebrate data are also generally compared to nitrogen water quality parameters. A more detailed assessment of the water quality data can be found in the 1999 through 2006 King County Mountains to Sound Greenway Biosolids Forestry Program at Snoqualmie Forest annual reports (King County 2002b, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006b). The remainder of this section provides a brief overview of biosolids properties and background information on the use of benthic macroinvertebrates to evaluate biotic integrity. Section 2 provides a description of the study area and Section 3 describes the monitoring methods. The results and discussion are presented in Section 4 and a general discussion and conclusions are presented in Sections 5 and 6. References are listed in Section 7.

1.1 Biosolids Overview Biosolids are the residual materials following primary and secondary wastewater treatment. At the treatment plant, solids are removed from wastewater and digested, reducing the volume by about half. After treatment in digesters, a portion of the water is removed, leaving a semi-solid material ready for recycling. This material contains organic matter, inorganic matter including sand and ash, macronutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, and micronutrients such as iron and zinc. The combination of organic matter, ammonia-nitrogen, and phosphorous content make biosolids a nutrient-rich material that is commonly used as a fertilizer for agricultural and forest applications. The addition of nitrogen usually improves plant growth in the naturally nitrogen deficient glacial soils of the Pacific Northwest (Chappell at al. 1991).

King County 1 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Biosolids also contain low concentrations of trace elements. However, periodic laboratory testing is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that trace levels are within regulatory limits. Concentrations in King County biosolids are below EPA’s most stringent regulatory limits (EPA 1983a; King County 2006a), which were adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) (WAC Chapter 173-308 1998). King County biosolids contain approximately 6 to 7% total nitrogen and about 1.2% ammonia nitrogen (Grey & Henry 1998; King County 2006a, 2007). The nitrogen component in biosolids primarily consists of organic nitrogen and ammonia. The organic nitrogen component must decompose to a mineral form before it becomes bioavailable for plants, which takes ~ 2-6 months under cool conditions. Decomposition then slows as the more resistant complex carbon compounds such as lignins and cellulose degrade, which can take up to four years. Application rates are calculated by determining the predicted availability of the different forms of nitrogen in biosolids and the amount of nitrogen needed by each crop while also attempting to minimize loss of nitrogen to groundwater. Factors taken into account when calculating the application rate are the topography, soil type and depth, tree and under-story age and composition, depth to groundwater, climate, and proximity to streams (Cogger at al. 2000). Buffers of at least 15 meters are designated at all defined stream channels and applications are not made within this buffer (King County 2006b).

1.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates as a Monitoring Tool Benthic macroinvertebrates are key components of lotic ecosystems providing a functional link between organic matter and fish in aquatic food webs. Analyses of benthic communities can provide information reflective of habitat quality, overlying water quality, potential food resources, and land use impacts. As such, benthic macroinvertebrates are excellent indicators of general stream conditions. They are routinely used in biomonitoring programs due to their high abundance and diversity, limited migration patterns, response to environmental disturbances, and natural population structure unaltered by stocking or harvesting (Fore at al. 1996; Rosenberg & Resh 1993). Within the Pacific Northwest, the B-IBI has been used extensively since the mid 1990s to evaluate the biological condition of regional streams (Fore at al. 1996; Karr & Chu 1999; Kleindl 1995; Morley & Karr 2002). In this context “biological integrity” is defined as “the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region” (Karr & Dudley 1981). The B-IBI is a multi-metric index composed of 10 metrics representing taxa richness, tolerance, feeding habits and ecology, and population attributes. These metrics were selected for inclusion in the B-IBI due to their predictable response to anthropogenic disturbance (Fore at al. 1996; Karr & Chu 1999; Kerans & Karr 1994; Kleindl 1995; Patterson 1996). The power of the B-IBI is that it evaluates a variety of ecological levels of organization including ecosystems, communities, populations and individuals (Simon 2003). In addition to the B-IBI, the HBI (Hilsenhoff 1982), and FFG analyses were chosen because they can be used to measure the general effects of organic enrichment (Petts & Calow 1996). The HBI is an index based on a single metric. The FFG approach classifies aquatic insects according

King County 2 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas to their role in processing organic material and is based on nutrient dynamics. A more detailed description of these assessment tools is presented in Section 3.2.3.

2 STUDY LOCATION The study area is located in Hancock Timber Resources Group’s (Hancock) Snoqualmie Forest and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) Marckworth Forest in north central King County, approximately 30 kilometers east of Seattle (Figure 1). This area is located within the Puget lowland ecoregion (Omernik 1987, 1995). Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis was conducted at ten sites on seven streams between 1996 and 2006 (Figure 1). However, as mentioned previously, this report focuses on 1998-2006 because of the absence of raw taxonomic data for 1996 and 1997. The seven study watersheds include Beaver and Ten Creeks, which drain into Tokul Creek; Tokul, Griffin, and Tate Creeks, which drain into the Snoqualmie River, and Stossel and Lynch Creeks, which drain to the Tolt River. There are two macroinvertebrate sampling locations on Griffin, Lynch, and Ten Creeks. Streams with multiple macroinvertebrate sampling sites are referred to as “Downstream” and “Upstream”; for example, the two sites on Griffin Creek are referred to as Griffin Creek (Downstream) and Griffin Creek (Upstream). The macroinvertebrate sample locations were chosen in part to correspond with some of the water quality sites (King County 2006b). Water quality data for nitrogen collected from sampling sites located within 200 m of a benthic macroinvertebrate sampling location were included in the analysis presented in this report. More detailed descriptions of the sampling sites are presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

King County 3 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Figure 1. Study area showing macroinvertebrate sampling locations and water quality stations that are within 200 meters. The study basin elevations range from under 20 to nearly 1,250 m above sea level (Appendix A, Table A-1). The mainstem stream sections are generally low gradient ranging from approximately 0.33% (Ten Creek) to 2.67% (Tate Creek). Most of the study area is owned by Hancock1 with the exception of Stossel Creek basin where approximately 63% of the watershed

1 Hancock assumed ownership of the land in 2003 from Weyerhaeuser who had managed the land since the early 1900s (King County 2006b).

King County 4 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

is owned by WDNR and 21% by Hancock (Appendix A, Table A-1). Over 84% of the land in the remaining watersheds is owned by Hancock. Most of the area consists of second and third- growth forests (King County 2006b) that remain in commercial forestry with conifer-dominated vegetation. Additional details describing physical and land use characteristics can be found in Appendix A, Tables A-1 and A-2. The Puget lowland ecoregion has a Mediterranean-like climate with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters and a mean annual temperature of 9°C (Bailey 1995; Franklin & Dyrness 1973). Annual precipitation, dominated by rainfall with minimal snow, averages 1,125 to 3,553 mm in the study basins (PRISM 2006). The precipitation increases from west to east, however most of the study area receives between 1,500 and 2,000 mm of rain per year. The geology of the study area is predominantly glacial till and recessional outwash deposits (Appendix A, Table A-2) (Tabor at al. 1993; USGS 2002). Glacial till material is typically poorly-drained, with a low soil-water infiltration rate. As a result of this low infiltration capacity, water will often accumulate above glacial till during the wet periods, forming ephemeral or year-round wetlands. Recessional outwash deposits are composed of stratified sand and gravel deposited from the Vashon glacier as it receded northwards approximately 13,500 years ago. These deposits were not over-consolidated by glacial ice and are typically loose to medium dense. As a result, the outwash deposits are very permeable and precipitation readily infiltrates allowing for aquifer recharge (Bethel 2007). However, the depth of bedrock is relatively shallow in these areas and may act as a groundwater barrier (Herrera 1988). The Lynch Creek basin had the largest percentage of land converted from forest canopy to other cover classes between 1994 and 2001 at 12.7% (Appendix A, Table A-2 as determined by Landsat imagery analysis (King County 2002a)2. Observations of available aerial photos between 1998 and 2002 indicate that this forest change may represent even aged harvest of all merchantable trees rather than the clearing of land for urban or agricultural land uses. Biosolids applications ranged from 2.8% of the total basin area for Griffin Creek to just over 30% for Beaver Creek (Table 2-A, Appendix A, Table A-2).

3 METHODS The following sections provide a discussion outlining the field and laboratory methods used to collect and analyze macroinvertebrate and water quality samples. Overviews of GIS and data analysis methods are also presented in this section.

3.1 Field Methods

3.1.1 Macroinvertebrate Sampling To evaluate stream health in the study area, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis was conducted at ten sites on seven headwater streams between 1996 and 2006. The watersheds associated with these streams periodically received biosolids applications. The B-IBI was the

2 The 1994 to 2001 time period was selected because of an existing change detection GIS layer created by Marshall and Associates, Inc. (This shape file is referred to as “1994-2001 Landsat Forest Area loss”).

King County 5 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

primary assessment tool used in this monitoring effort to assess changes in biotic integrity from year to year at each macroinvertebrate sampling location but was supplemented with HBI and FFG analyses. A detailed description of these assessment tools are presented in Section 3.2.3. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted annually between the last week of August and the second week of October from 1996 to 2006. Macroinvertebrates were collected following the recommended sampling protocols outlined by Karr and Chu (1999) and summarized here. At each location, a Surber sampler (500 µm mesh, 0.3 m2 frame) was used to collect three replicate samples along the midline of a single riffle starting first with the downstream end, then the middle, and finally near the upstream end. All large material (e.g., large gravel and large wood) within the sampling area were scrubbed by hand and examined before being placed downstream. A “weed tool” was used to vigorously agitate the substrate within the perimeter of the frame to a depth of approximately 10 cm, for 60 seconds (Figure 2). Each sample was condensed and transferred to a sample container and preserved in the field with 95-100% ethanol (EtOH). Samples were then sent to a private lab for taxonomic identification. Each sample was processed and taxonomically identified separately without compositing.

Figure 2. Macroinvertebrate collection methods. The weed tool is used to agitate the substrate to a depth of approximately 10 cm for 60 seconds within the 0.3 m2 Surber sampler frame.

King County 6 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

3.1.2 Water Quality Sampling Surface water quality sampling was conducted for analysis of ammonia-nitrogen and nitrate- nitrite nitrogen at twelve locations within the study area. In general, sampling sites were located downstream of upland areas receiving biosolids applications. Only water quality data collected from sample locations within 200 meters of a macroinvertebrate sampling location with no tributaries entering the stream between the stations are evaluated here; Beaver, Lynch Creek (Downstream), Lynch Creek (Upstream) and Ten Creek (Downstream) met this criterion (Figure 1). A more detailed description of the water quality monitoring and associated data can be found in the annual reports for the Mountains to Sound Greenway Biosolids Forestry Program at Snoqualmie Tree Farm (King County 2002b, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006b). Grab samples were generally collected quarterly at all sample locations by staff from the Environmental Services Section (ESS) of the King County Environmental Laboratory (KCEL). In general, stormwater samples were collected at least twice annually, once in the fall and once in the spring, following biosolids application. Water quality samples were held at 4°C, and transported to the KCEL for further analysis (see section 3.2.5).

3.2 Analysis Methods

3.2.1 GIS Analysis of Physical Attributes In order to quantify land use and geology attributes potentially influencing macroinvertebrate community structure, basin boundaries upstream of each macroinvertebrate sampling location (hereafter referred to as “macroinvertebrate subbasin”) were estimated for each site using ArcMap. Catchment boundaries for most major basins and subbasins in King County have already been delineated from 1.8-m (6-ft) grid cell LIDAR ASCII ground model data3. The macroinvertebrate subbasin for each site was digitized based on these existing boundaries, the macroinvertebrate sample location, and 6-m (20-ft) contour lines (Figure 3). The area for each macroinvertebrate subbasin was then calculated using Hawth’s Analysis Tools. The biosolids application units were digitally clipped to the newly delineated macroinvertebrate subbasins (Figure 3) and the area receiving biosolids was totaled for each year4. This information combined with the total subbasin area, was used to determine the proportion of each basin receiving biosolids on an annual basis.

3 The GIS layer from the King County Spatial Data Catalog is called “topo_catchment”. These basin boundaries are more accurate than previous basin delineations digitized from early 1990s paper maps (King County 2006c). 4 A year was defined as the “water year” (October to September) to ensure that macroinvertebrate community metrics were compared to biosolids applications that occurred prior to sampling. For example, the year 2006 refers to biosolids applications from October 2005 through September 2006 and macroinvertebrate sampling that took place in August or September 2006.

King County 7 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Figure 3. Basins upstream of each macroinvertebrate sample location (“macroinvertebrate subbasin”) were digitized using existing basin boundaries (“topo catchment”), watercourses, and 6-m contour lines. The application units were clipped to these new subbasins so that the area with biosolids applications or other land use data could be calculated.

3.2.2 Macroinvertebrate Laboratory Analysis Following field collection, samples were sent to a contract lab for taxonomic identification. The specific laboratories have varied over the course of the study period (Appendix B, Table B-1). The taxonomy labs used appropriate sub-sampling approaches for samples with greater than 500 organisms. However, the entire sample was processed when fewer than 525 organisms were present. Insect taxa were identified to genus or species when possible except to sub-family for Ceratopogoniae (biting midges) and to family level for Chironomidae (midges). Non-insect invertebrates were identified to family, order, or class.

King County 8 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

3.2.3 Macroinvertebrate Data Analysis As previously indicated, three types of metrics and indices were used to evaluate the macroinvertebrate data, the B-IBI, the HBI and FFG analysis. The following sections provide an overview of how these data analysis methods were conducted and used to interpret the benthic macroinvertebrate data.

3.2.3.1 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) The B-IBI measures the community health of the stream benthos and compares it to what is expected at regional reference sites with little or no human impact. It is composed of ten individual metrics sensitive to changes caused by human activities (Table 1). The metric scores are totaled to produce a B-IBI score that is representative of the overall biological condition and level of impairment of a stream and its watershed. The B-IBI is relatively simple to calculate and the scoring criteria are straightforward to understand. It is widely used throughout the Pacific Northwest (EVS Environment Consultants 2005; Fore 2002; Fore at al. 1996; Fore at al. 2001; Morley & Karr 2002; Wachter 2003) and has been calibrated to conditions in the Puget Lowlands region of Western Washington (Fore at al. 1996; Karr & Chu 1999; Kleindl 1995). The B-IBI has sufficient statistical power to detect the effects of various human actions (Karr 1996) including logging (Fore at al. 1996), agriculture, recreation (Patterson 1996) and urbanization (Kleindl 1995; Morley 2000; Morley & Karr 2002; Rossano 1995). In addition, as a multimetric index the B-IBI incorporates information from individual, population, community, and ecosystem levels (Barbour at al. 1995; Gerritsen 1995; Karr 1991). However, the B-IBI has been criticized for not incorporating habitat characteristics and for assigning scoring criteria based on professional judgment that could skew the results when metrics consistently fall to one side (Adams at al. 2004). B-IBI scores were initially calculated by the taxonomic laboratories and reported to King County. However, differences in macroinvertebrate attribute classifications used by the different taxonomic laboratories were observed. Because these attribute classifications are used to calculate certain individual B-IBI metrics (e.g., number of clinger taxa or percent tolerant individuals), the overall B-IBI scores can be affected by small differences in attribute classifications making it difficult to reliably compare data from different taxonomic labs. Therefore, the B-IBI scores were recalculated for each site from 1998 through 2006 to ensure comparable results5. The attribute classification list developed by Wisseman in 1998 was used to classify pollution tolerance, predator, and long-lived attributes (Wisseman 1995, 1998). When taxa were not found on the 1998 list, attributes from the 2002 Wisseman list were used (Wisseman 2002). Clinger taxa were classified based on a list provided by Leska Fore compiled from Merritt and Cummins

5 The raw data (i.e., taxonomic classification to family, genus, or species) was not available for benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected in 1996 and 1997. Therefore, these data are not presented in this report for comparison to 1998-2006 data.

King County 9 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

(1996a). Comparison of B-IBI results calculated by the taxonomic labs and the compiled attribute lists are shown in Appendix C, Figures C-1 and C-2 and Table C-1. These attribute classifications and the macroinvertebrate taxonomic composition data were used to calculate ten biological metrics for each replicate sample at every location. The metric values for each replicate were averaged and assigned scores of one, three, or five based on the previously established scoring criteria for the B-IBI (Table 1). Relative to minimally disturbed reference streams, each metric is assigned a score of 5 (minimal deviation), 3 (moderate deviation), or 1 (strong deviation). The ten metric scores were summed to provide an overall B-IBI score ranging from 10 to 50 with corresponding categories for biological condition ranging from Very Poor to Excellent (Table 2).

Table 1. Scoring thresholds and expected response to human disturbance for the ten B-IBI biological metrics. Criteria require identification of most insects to species level or lowest possible taxonomic resolution and chironomids (non- biting midges) to family level.

Expected Score Measured Biological Metrics Response 1 3 5 Taxa Richness & Composition Total taxa Decrease < 15 15-28 > 28 Ephemeroptera taxa (mayflies) Decrease < 4 4-8 > 8 Plecoptera taxa (stoneflies) Decrease < 3 3-7 > 7 Trichoptera taxa (caddisflies) Decrease < 5 5-10 > 10 Long-lived taxa Decrease < 2 2-4 > 4 Tolerant & Intolerant Intolerant taxa Decrease < 2 2-3 > 3 % Tolerant Increase > 50 19-50 < 19 Feeding & Habits % Predators Decrease < 10 10-20 > 20 Clinger taxa Decrease < 8 8-18 > 18 Population % Dominance Increase > 80 60-80 < 60

King County 10 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 2. Ten individual metric scores are combined to give a total B-IBI score ranging from 10-50, which can be classified into five levels of biological condition. Modified from Karr at al. (1986) by Morley (2000).

B-IBI Biological Score Description Condition Range Overall taxa diversity very low and dominated by a few highly tolerant taxa; ephemeroptera (mayflies), plecoptera (stoneflies), trichoptera (caddis Very Poor 10-16 flies), clinger, long-lived, and intolerant taxa largely absent; relative abundance of predators very low.

Overall taxa diversity depressed; proportion of predators greatly reduced Poor 18-26 as is long-lived taxa richness; few plecoptera (stoneflies) or intolerant taxa present; dominance by three most abundant taxa often very high.

Total taxa richness reduced – particularly intolerant, long-lived, plecoptera Fair 28-36 (stoneflies), and clinger taxa; relative abundance of predators declines; proportion of tolerant taxa continues to increase.

Slightly divergent from least disturbed condition; absence of some long- lived and intolerant taxa; slight decline in richness of ephemeroptera Good 38-44 (mayflies), plecoptera (stoneflies), and trichoptera (caddis flies); proportion of tolerant taxa increases. Comparable to least disturbed reference condition; overall high taxa diversity, particularly of ephemeroptera (mayflies), plecoptera (stoneflies), Excellent 46-50 trichoptera (caddis flies), long-lived, clinger, and intolerant taxa. Relative abundance of predators high.

3.2.3.2 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) The HBI is a single-metric scoring system for assessing impacts of organic pollution. The HBI was originally developed in Wisconsin in the late 1970s and was further modified throughout the 1980s (Hilsenhoff 1977; Hilsenhoff 1982; Hilsenhoff 1987, 1988). Organisms are assigned tolerance values based on field and laboratory responses and these values are integrated with measures of relative abundance to calculate an index score that estimates overall organic pollution with high scores indicating high organic enrichment (Simon at al. 2003). Values for individual taxa range from zero for organisms that are extremely intolerant of low dissolved oxygen to 10 for those that can survive in organically enriched, low dissolved oxygen conditions (Table 3).

King County 11 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 3. Ranking of HBI scores. Adapted from Hilsenhoff (1987).

HBI Score Rank Degree of Organic Pollution

10.00 - 8.51 Very Poor Severe organic pollution

8.50 - 7.51 Poor Very significant organic pollution

7.50 - 6.51 Fair to Poor Significant organic pollution

6.50 - 5.51 Fair Fairly significant organic pollution

5.50 - 4.51 Good Some organic pollution

4.50 - 3.51 Very Good Slight organic pollution

3.50 - 0 Excellent No apparent organic pollution

The HBI score is calculated by multiplying the number of individuals of each taxon in the sample by the taxon’s assigned tolerance value. These products are totaled and divided by the total number of each individual of each taxon in the sample that has been assigned a tolerance value:

HBI = (niai)/N n is the number of individuals of the ith taxon; a is the tolerance index value of that taxon; (tolerance values are listed in Appendix C, Table C-1) N is the total number of individuals in the sample assigned an HBI value The HBI was included in this analysis to evaluate whether organic enrichment is a likely stressor associated with biosolids application. While the HBI is considered an appropriate tool to evaluate streams influenced by organic enrichment, it is not designed to detect changes from other human disturbances. Although the HBI was developed in Midwestern streams and has not been adjusted or calibrated for other areas of the country, it is commonly used as a tool to evaluate potential nutrient enrichment in other areas throughout the United States.

3.2.3.3 Functional Feeding Group (FFG) FFG assessment methods differ from the B-IBI and HBI in that it measures an aspect of ecosystem functioning rather than macroinvertebrate community structure (Merritt & Cummins 1996a). FFG analysis is typically based on simple calculations of ratios (Merritt & Cummins 1996b) indicative of the relative importance of stream ecosystem attributes6. Deviations from expected ratios could indicate perturbation of the community (Merritt & Cummins 1996a). In

6 Stream ecosystem attributes can include autotrophy or heterotrophy, the size and amount of organic matter transport and storage, channel stability, and predator-prey balance.

King County 12 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

addition to the ratio assessment, FFG information can also be used to provide a general assessment of the community in a particular habitat type (i.e., riffles). The samples collected by this monitoring program are not appropriate to determine specific FFG ratios because the collection methods required for the ratio analysis are different than the B-IBI or HBI field methods7. However, the collected FFG data can be used to make some generalizations regarding the functional feeding groups present in the riffle habitat evaluated by this effort. FFG analysis can be used to identify a general shift in relative functional group abundance, which may occur if a stressor is influencing nutritional resources. In addition, field collection methods were standardized throughout the project making general comparisons between locations and across years appropriate. Macroinvertebrates were classified into six functional-feeding group categories (collector- filterer, collector-gatherer, scraper, shredder, predator, or other) (Merritt and Cummins 1996a) which are based on an organism’s dominant food resources and mechanism of feeding. Shredders primarily consume course particulate organic matter (CPOM) from decomposing vascular plants. Filtering collectors are suspension feeders that filter fine particulate organic matter (FPOM) from the water column. Gathering collectors are deposit feeders that ingest FPOM in the sediment or gather particles in depositional areas. Scrapers graze surfaces consuming periphyton and associated detritus. Predators capture and engulf their prey. The FFG method is responsive to changes in food resources and therefore is sensitive to both watershed and site specific disturbances (Merritt & Cummins 1996b). It allows assessment of the dependency of the macroinvertebrate community on a particular nutritional resource. Under unperturbed conditions, headwater streams (such as those in this monitoring effort) are normally dominated by shredders and collectors due to the mainly allochthonous energy source; mid-sized streams are autotrophically driven and dominated by scrapers and collector-filterers and communities in large rivers are mainly composed of collector-gatherers due to the accumulation of fine sediment from upstream sources (Petts & Calow 1996).

3.2.4 Comparison to Other Forested Sites To provide additional context for the health of the study streams, the B-IBI and HBI scores from the study sites were compared to scores from other forested sites. The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks routinely collects macroinvertebrate samples from approximately 150 locations throughout the county. Eleven sampling locations draining basins that were >75% forested in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds were identified to compare B-IBI and HBI scores. Forest cover in these 11 basins ranged from 75.5%- 96.9%. Percent forest cover for the basins in this study ranged from 83% in the Tokul basin to 99% in the Stossel basin.

7 FFG ratio analysis requires sampling in a variety of habitats including cobbles in riffles or runs, litter accumulations, fine sediments in pools and edges, and large woody debris since each habitat naturally favors different functional feeding groups, while the B-IBI and HBI only requires that samples be collected from riffles (Merritt & Cummins 1996b). .

King County 13 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

3.2.5 Water Quality Laboratory Analysis All water quality samples were analyzed for ammonia-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen by the KCEL using approved methods as defined in “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater” (APHA 1989) and “Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste” (EPA 1983b).

3.3 Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses were limited due to data limitations and insufficient sample size. However, where appropriate, statistical tests were used to identify differences in B-IBI and HBI scores between years, assess possible relationships between B-IBI or HBI scores and water quality parameters and B-IBI scores and application of biosolids. Data were assessed for normality using Q-Q plots; B-IBI and HBI scores approached a normal distribution as they have in previous studies (Fore at al. 1994). Therefore, ANOVA tests were used to compare means and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used when significant differences were found. For correlations, Spearman rank correlations were calculated for data that were not normally distributed, such as the proportion of the basin to which biosolids were applied, Pearson correlations were calculated for data that were normally distributed using SPSS 10.1 statistical software. Differences were judged to be statistically significant if p<0.05, and insignificant if p>0.05. Qualitative graphical analyses were used for various parameters when statistical testing was not appropriate.

4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION Benthic macroinvertebrate results for samples collected in 1996 and 1997 are not presented here because raw taxonomic composition data were unavailable and specific methods used to calculate B-IBI scores reported in Bennett and Henry (1999) are unknown (1996 and 1997 B-IBI scores can be found in Appendix D, Table D-1). Between 1998 and 2006, macroinvertebrates were collected annually at five locations (9 sample events), three sites were sampled eight times, and two sites were sampled seven times. Griffin Creek (Downstream) was added as a sampling site in 1999 and Ten Creek (Upstream) was added in 2000. Lynch Creek (Downstream) had insufficient surface water in 1998 and 2001 to sample. A road block prevented sampling of Tokul Creek in 1999.

4.1 Overall Site Comparisons The following sections provide an overview of the results of the physical and land use characteristics, B-IBI, HBI and FFG analysis for all sites combined. A site-by-site evaluation of these metrics is presented in Section 4.2.

4.1.1 Summary of Physical and Land Use Characteristics Land use activities in the study area are primarily related to forest management activities and include forest harvest, biosolids application, herbicide use and road building and maintenance.

King County 14 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 4 outlines the land use characteristics of the macroinvertebrate subbasins within the study area8. With the exception of the Stossel basin, which is completely owned by WDNR, the remainder of the basins are primarily owned by Hancock (>93%). The size of the basins is variable and ranging from 151.7 hectares (HA) (Stossel Creek) to 4198.9 HA (Griffin Creek- Downstream). Elevation is variable, ranging from 37 m (Griffin Creek-Downstream) to 1140 m (both Lynch Creek sites). The percent of each basin receiving biosolids applications at least once ranged from 3.1% in the Griffin Creek (Up- and Downstream) locations to 49.2% of the Stossel Creek basin. Table 5 summarizes the annual biosolids application activity by site. Biosolids application frequency in each basin was variable ranging from two years with applications in Tokul Creek basin to more than 10 years with applications in Tate, Ten (Up- and Downstream), and Beaver Creeks between 1988 and 2006.

Table 4. Physical characteristics, ownership distribution and biosolids application activity of the macroinvertebrate subbasins in the study area.

Basin Ownership Biosolids Activity Basin Elevation Basin Area Biosolids % Basin Range (m) % % (HA) Application Receiving WDNR Hancock Area (HA) Biosolids

Beaver Creek 1435.0 280 - 640 0.0 99.0 447.8 31.2

Griffin Creek (Downstream) 4198.9 37 - 518 0.0 96.6 128.3 3.1

Griffin Creek (Upstream) 3339.1 140 - 518 0.0 99.1 102.5 3.1

Lynch Creek (Downstream) 853.3 366 - 1140 0.0 98.1 235.3 27.6

Lynch Creek (Upstream) 436.8 396 - 1140 0.0 98.0 57.1 13.1

Stossel Creek 151.7 177 - 293 100.0 0.0 74.7 49.2

Tate Creek 808.8 213 - 427 0.0 93.4 240.6 29.8

Ten Creek (Downstream) 1313.7 232 - 561 0.6 94.2 227.4 17.3

Ten Creek (Upstream) 962.0 287 - 561 0.0 98.3 177.3 18.4

Tokul Creek 665.5 347 - 756 0.0 100.0 67.2 10.1

8 Physical characteristics and land use data previously referred to and summarized in Appendix A represents characteristics of the entire basin, whereas information presented in this section only represents the portion of the basin upstream of the macroinvertebrate sampling location (“macroinvertebrate subbasin”). See section 3.2.1 for how these subbasins were delineated.

King County 15 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 5. Hectares of biosolids applied to macroinvertebrate subbasins (1988 to 2006). D = downstream and U = upstream (Years based on water year –Oct 1-Sept 30)

Basin ‘88 ‘89 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06

Beaver 84 10 0 10 0 38 10 117 60 26 0 166 52 0 0 66 39 18 1

Griffin D. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 17 0 0 56 0 0 0 10 21 40

Griffin U. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 10 0 36

Lynch D. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 23 30 47 0 23 55 67 0 17

Lynch U. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 1 0 9 16 31 0 0

Stossel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 31 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0

Tate 58 50 0 3 25 108 21 57 91 43 6 19 33 0 6 19 0 0 0

Ten D. 18 47 0 67 10 51 65 55 52 0 1 4 59 0 0 0 3 42 0

Ten U. 2 44 0 55 0 33 43 45 33 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 3 42 0

Tokul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0

The biosolids application rate is determined by scientists from the UW School of Forest Resources based on the amount of nitrogen they calculate may be applied without impacting surface and ground water. Prior to each biosolids application, each unit receives an individualized nitrogen application rate prescribed for optimum tree growth. The agronomic rate is based on the amount of nitrogen available in biosolids, the estimated nitrogen uptake by trees and understory vegetation, and the capacity of the soil to store nitrogen. Biosolids are not applied within 15 to 60 m of surface water. These buffer areas are designed to protect surface waters from potential runoff from application areas by allowing additional area for filtering nutrients. The width of these buffers varies depending on site conditions such as soil type, vegetative cover, and steepness of slopes. The Stossel Creek basin contains the greatest area classified as wetland (7.2%) while the Tokul Creek basin contains the least wetland area (3.0%). Area classified as wetland in the remaining basins is similar, ranging from 4.0% (Tate Creek) to 5.7% (Lynch Creek -Upstream). Road density is generally similar throughout the basins and ranges from 29.3 m/HA (Lynch Creek- Upstream) to 40.7 m/HA (Ten Creek-Downstream) (Table 6). The geology of the sites is variable with till dominating (>50%) at both the up- and Downstream Griffin Creek basins and the Stossel Creek basin, while outwash deposits dominate (>50%) at Tate Creek basin, both up- and Downstream Ten Creek basins, and Beaver Creek basin (Table 6).

King County 16 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 6. Land use characteristics of the macroinvertebrate subbasins.

Geology Forest Cover Road % Basin Density % % % Mixed/ % Forest Wetland % (m/HA) Outwash Conifer Deciduous Change Till Deposits Forest Forest (1994-2001)

Beaver Creek 4.5 39.9 61.6 27.9 61.0 33.7 3.6

Griffin Creek (Downstream) 4.5 34.1 12.9 67.7 55.0 42.4 0.9

Griffin Creek (Upstream) 5.1 34.2 16.3 68.1 52.5 44.5 1.1

Lynch Creek (Downstream) 4.7 34.6 47.1 7.0 51.8 31.4 17.1

Lynch Creek (Upstream) 5.7 29.3 36.2 0.4 63.3 25.4 10.4

Stossel Creek 7.2 43.6 17.9 76.6 64.5 34.6 1.2

Tate Creek 4.0 37.5 94.1 2.5 66.2 31.7 0.1

Ten Creek (Downstream) 5.0 40.7 76.0 6.3 57.1 39.3 2.9

Ten Creek (Upstream) 5.3 40.4 71.7 6.7 56.1 39.2 7.4

Tokul Creek 3.0 34.9 25.3 36.2 46.5 36.2 51.9

All of the basins are primarily dominated (>50%) by coniferous forest with the exception of the Tokul basin (46.5%) (Table 6). The percent change in forest cover between 1994 and 2001 as determined by a Landsat change detection analysis 9 is variable and ranges from <1% in the Griffin Creek (Downstream) basin to >50% in the Tokul Creek basin.

4.1.2 B-IBI and HBI This section provides a summary of the B-IBI and HBI scores at all sampling locations and addresses two of the key study questions regarding overall health of the study streams and

9 http://www5.kingcounty.gov/sdc/raster/landcover/ChgDetectionForest.html Created by Marshall and Associates, Inc, under contract to King County, contract number: T01393

King County 17 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

changes in biotic integrity over time. The B-IBI scores for all samples are summarized in Table 7 and range from a low of 12 (Very Poor) in Lynch Creek (Downstream) in 2004 to a high of 46 (Excellent) in Ten Creek (Downstream) in 2003.

Table 7. B-IBI scores from 1998 to 2006.

B-IBI Score by Year Site 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Beaver Creek 38 36 38 38 44 42 38 34 40

Griffin Creek N/D 34 36 32 38 34 20 32 34 (Downstream)

Griffin Creek N/D 32 36 34 40 34 30 26 34 (Upstream)

Lynch Creek N/D 28 18 N/D 32 16 12 24 16 (Downstream)

Lynch Creek 34 34 30 34 32 40 34 34 26 (Upstream)

Stossel Creek 22 24 22 24 16 18 18 18 16

Tate Creek 26 22 44 36 42 42 34 38 38

Ten Creek 44 42 42 42 44 46 44 36 42 (Downstream)

Ten Creek N/D N/D 40 38 38 36 36 32 32 (Upstream)

Tokul Creek 40 N/D 42 42 42 42 38 38 36

N/D – No data; macroinvertebrate samples not collected at this location

HBI scores ranged from a Fair ranking of 6.49, both at Lynch Creek (Downstream) in 2006 and 2005, respectively, to an Excellent ranking of 2.29 to (Table 8).

King County 18 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 8. HBI scores from 1998 to 2006.

HBI by Year Site 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Beaver Creek 3.84 4.00 3.64 4.52 3.02 3.12 3.61 3.88 4.18

Griffin Creek N/D 2.81 3.12 4.28 3.28 3.91 3.41 3.84 3.36 (Downstream)

Griffin Creek N/D 2.60 2.99 3.60 2.88 3.08 4.10 4.03 3.56 (Upstream)

Lynch Creek N/D 4.70 6.01 N/D 4.11 5.81 5.13 2.29 6.49 (Downstream)

Lynch Creek 3.52 4.18 4.61 3.93 3.72 4.35 4.02 4.02 4.18 (Upstream)

Stossel Creek 6.36 4.75 4.76 5.14 5.64 5.26 5.22 6.16 5.37

Tate Creek 4.53 5.15 4.28 4.92 4.54 4.63 4.45 5.09 4.70

Ten Creek 3.57 3.98 3.06 3.60 3.23 3.88 3.28 4.26 3.73 (Downstream)

Ten Creek N/D N/D 3.71 4.15 3.60 3.44 3.64 4.50 3.28 (Upstream)

Tokul Creek 4.57 N/D 3.75 4.20 3.70 3.33 4.68 4.40 4.37

N/D - No data, macroinvertebrate samples not collected at this location.

HBI scores tended to rank sites in better condition than equivalent B-IBI rankings (Table 9), however the two indices are significantly negatively correlated (Figure 4). This correlation is expected since both indices assess stream quality but measure somewhat different ecological attributes. B-IBI measures biotic integrity and the HBI measures biotic perturbation. The HBI primarily evaluates impacts associated with organic enrichment, while the B-IBI measures a more robust suite of stressors, which may account for the higher HBI condition compared to B-IBI rankings. In addition, the HBI has seven ranking categories (Table 3) compared to five for the B-IBI (Table 2) making it difficult to make a direct comparison. Benthic macroinvertebrate data from the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds have also demonstrated a negative correlation and higher ranking of condition with the HBI when compared to B-IBI scores (EVS 2005).

King County 19 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 9. Median, range and ranking of B-IBI and HBI scores (1998-2006). Higher B-IBI scores and lower HBI scores represent better biological integrity and lower organic enrichment, respectively.

B-IBI HBI Site n Median Range Ranking Range Median Range Ranking Range

Beaver Creek 9 38 34 - 44 Fair - Good 3.8 4.5 - 3.0 V. Good - Excellent

Griffin Creek 8 34 20 - 38 Poor - Good 3.4 4.2 -2.8 V. Good - Excellent (Downstream)

Griffin Creek 8 34 26 - 40 Poor - Good 3.3 4.1 - 2.6 V. Good - Excellent (Upstream)

Lynch Creek 7 18 12 - 32 V. Poor - Fair 5.1 6.4 - 2.2 Fair - Excellent (Downstream)

Lynch Creek 9 34 26 - 40 Poor - Good 4.0 4.6 - 3.5 Good - Excellent (Upstream)

Stossel Creek 9 18 16 - 24 V. Poor - Poor 5.3 6.3 – 4.7 Fair - Good

Tate Creek 9 38 22 - 44 Poor - Good 4.6 5.1 – 4.2 V. Good - Good

Ten Creek 9 42 36 - 46 Fair - Excellent 3.6 4.2 - 3.0 V. Good - Excellent (Downstream)

Ten Creek 7 36 32 - 40 Fair - Good 3.6 4.5 - 3.2 V. Good - Excellent (Upstream)

Tokul Creek 8 41 36 - 42 Fair - Good 4.3 4.6 - 3.3 Good - Excellent

V. = “Very” in Very Poor or Very Good ranking.

King County 20 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

7

6

5

4

HBI Score HBI 3

2

1 R2 = 0.3672

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 B-IBI Score

Figure 4. B-IBI versus HBI scores at ten sites from 1998-2006. B-IBI and HBI are significantly negatively correlated (p<0.01). The lowest ranking median HBI and B-IBI macroinvertebrate scores over the course of the monitoring effort were observed at Stossel Creek (18, 5.3) and Lynch Creek (Downstream) (18, 5.1) (Table 9). The two Griffin Creek (Upstream and Downstream) sites had the highest ranking median HBI scores (3.3, 3.4), however the median B-IBI scores for these sites (34) was lower than all sites except Stossel and both Lynch Creek sites. Tokul and Ten (Downstream) had the highest median B-IBI scores (41, 42). Some of the within site variability over the sampling period can be partially explained by a variety of site-specific conditions (e.g., landslide activity, subsurface flow, changed site location etc.). A site-by-site discussion of these variables will be discussed in detail below in 4.2.

4.1.3 Functional Feeding Group Analysis As previously discussed, the available data are not appropriate to conduct a detailed assessment of FFG ratios. However, the available information can be used to make some general observations that can add to the overall interpretation of the macroinvertebrate data and help describe the overall health of these streams. At all locations, gathering collectors were the most dominant FFG followed by either predators at Beaver and Tate Creeks, “other” at Ten Creek (Upstream), and scrapers at all other locations (Figure 5). “Other” includes parasites, macrophyte herbivores, piercing herbivores, xylophages, omnivores, and unknown. Shredders were not well represented at any of the sampling locations, likely because samples were only collected from riffles. This is not unexpected, as shredders are

King County 21 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

typically not well represented in riffle habitats; they are more prevalent in habitats where leaf litter can accumulate. Stossel appears to have the most limited FFG composition and is dominated (79%) by gathering collectors. Ten Creek, at both upstream and downstream locations appears to have the most evenly distributed community. The greatest percentage of filtering collectors was found at Ten Creek (Downstream), suggesting a source of fine particulate organic matter (FPOM) in this stream reach. The upstream locations on both Griffin and Lynch had the greatest percentage of scrapers suggesting the availability of periphyton and higher primary productivity. The HBI scores at these 2 locations are relatively low (median scores – 3.3, Griffin Upstream; 4.0, Lynch – Upstream) and suggest that organic enrichment is not likely associated with the percentage of scrapers present at these sites.

King County 22 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

3.0 3.1 6.8 9.5 7.1 11.7 15.2 8.5 10.9

4.9 8.5 4.1

13.6 Beaver Grif f in Up 40.7 60.2 17.2 Grif f in Dow n 49.6 25.5

2.1 4.0 4.9 4.4 3.1 2.8 1.8 13.9 8.6 1.7

6.5 4.4 8.6

45.7 19.9 Lynch Up Lynch Dow n 59.1 Stossel 29.5 79.0 3.5 1.4 6.4 13.1 11.7 14.7 9.9 17.0 7.7 3.0 7.6

13.8 12.6 Ten Up Tate Ten Dow n 63.6 20.2 38.9 7.0 47.9

6.3 7.5 9.8

5.7 Filtering Collectors Gathering Collectors Scraper Shredder 15.0 Predator Other Tokul 55.9

Figure 5. Percent functional feeding group classification for the ten macroinvertebrate sample locations. Percentages are averaged from the 1998-2006 macroinvertebrate data. When light is not a limiting factor, increased nutrient inputs can result in increased periphyton growth in streams. If land use activities were increasing available nutrients in the study streams an increase in the relative abundance of scrapers, which feed on periphyton, would be expected. Changes in the relative proportion of FFGs will be addressed on a site-by-site basis throughout Section 4.2 in order to address this hypothesis.

King County 23 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

4.1.4 Taxa Count Six of the ten B-IBI metrics are richness measures including total, ephemeroptera (mayfly), plecoptera (stonefly), trichoptera (caddisfly), long-lived, and clinger taxa. These richness metrics are strongly influenced by the taxa count because the more individuals identified, the higher the probability of detecting a new taxon (Larsen & Herlihy 1998). The taxonomic laboratories under contract from 2002–2006 (Appendix B, Table B-1) utilized 500-count subsamples, which is the recommended standard protocol for B-IBI analysis (Melchior at al. 2004). The laboratory under contract from 1998 to 2001 may have counted all individuals present rather than sub-sampling; as a result, the B-IBI taxa richness metrics may be inflated for these samples relative to 2002-2006 scores. Counts of individual taxa for all 248 macroinvertebrate replicate samples collected between 1998 and 2006 ranged from 24 at Lynch Creek (Downstream) (2006) to 721 at Griffin Creek (Downstream) (1999) with a mean of 378 + 173 (standard deviation) and a median of 418 (Table 10). 63.3% (157) of the samples contained fewer than 500 individuals. Inconsistent taxa counts can introduce noise into the B-IBI because of the large number of taxa richness metrics used to calculate the B-IBI (Melchior at al. 2004). Despite this, counts between 350–500 likely produce reliable results, whereas counts below 300 or 200 begin to compromise the quality of the B-IBI analyses (Fore 2007). 41.9% (104) of the samples had fewer than 350 individuals and 35.5% (88) had fewer than 300 individuals. Table 10. Mean and range for the number of individuals in each macroinvertebrate replicate (N). The far right column reports the number and percentage of replicates that contained fewer than 350 individuals.

Mean ± St. Samples < 350 Site Range N Dev. count

Beaver Creek 431.5 ± 122.0 145 - 601 27 6 (22.2%)

Griffin Creek 383.7 ± 173.9 86 - 721 24 11 (45.8%) (Downstream)

Griffin Creek (Upstream) 417.9 ± 143.6 161 - 621 24 7 (29.1%)

Lynch Creek 144.7 ± 152.7 24 - 588 21 19 (90.4%) (Downstream)

Lynch Creek (Upstream) 288.5 ± 115.1 110 - 556 27 19 (70.3%)

Stossel Creek 415.5 ± 175.1 66 - 691 26 7 (26.9%)

Tate Creek 312.2 ± 186.4 73 - 679 27 16 (59.2%)

Ten Creek (Downstream) 433.4 ± 144.3 176 - 625 27 8 (29.6%)

Ten Creek (Upstream) 476.6 ± 137.6 149 - 616 21 4 (19.0%)

King County 24 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Mean ± St. Samples < 350 Site Range N Dev. count

Tokul Creek 457.8 ± 126.6 234 - 617 24 7 (29.1%)

Total Summary 377.6 ± 173.0 24 - 721 248 104 (41.9%)

The two Lynch Creek locations (Up- and Downstream) averaged fewer than 300 individuals per sample (Figure 6) with the downstream location only averaging 144.7 individuals (Table 10). However, the maximum number of individuals exceeded 500 at every stream suggesting that it is possible to collect sufficient numbers at every site. Every location had occurrences when replicate taxa counts were less than 350 individuals. The frequency of these low taxa counts ranged from 4 (19.0%) at Ten Creek (Upstream) to 19 (90.4%) at Lynch Creek (Downstream). For the purposes of analyses, all B-IBI scores were reported regardless of individual count. However, B-IBI scores based on fewer than 350 individuals could be underestimating the biotic integrity based on the low number of individuals (Fore 2007).

600

500

400

300

200 Average Count Average

100

0 Tate Tokul Ten Up Beaver Stossel Lynch Up Griffin Up Griffin Ten Down Ten Lynch Down Griffin Down Griffin Figure 6. Mean number of individuals per replicate by location. Error bars represent + one standard deviation. Samples were sub-sampled until at least 500 species were identified. When fewer than 525 species were present, all individuals were identified.

4.1.5 Overall Year Comparison The mean annual B-IBI and HBI scores were averaged across all sample locations to determine if certain years had high or low biotic integrity compared to other years (Figure 7). There were no statistical differences (ANOVA, p<0.05) across years for either the HBI or the B-IBI. This

King County 25 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas finding suggests that climactic variation was not likely a primary influence on community composition. The relatively small geographic scope of the study basins helps to ensure that the sampling locations have generally similar underlying geology and are subject to comparable precipitation and weather patterns. If climate variables were a major shaping factor, we could expect B-IBI fluctuations across all sites in years of drought or heavy rainfall, such as in 2005 when there were numerous peak stormflow events. Although consistent responses were not observed across all sites, it is possible that climactic factors had localized effects due to variations in watershed, stream size, and stream gradient.

50 10 45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 2 15 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Figure 7. Mean B-IBI (left) and HBI (right) scores from all sampled sites each year. Error bars represent + one standard deviation. Means between years were not significantly different for either the B-IBI or the HBI (ANOVA, p<0.05).

4.1.6 Macroinvertebrates and Water Quality Water quality data collected as part of this effort were limited to nitrogen parameters and bacteria. Bacteria data were collected to assess the potential for human health concerns; therefore, these data are not presented here. To identify any significant general correlation between water quality and macroinvertebrate community integrity, nitrate-nitrite data were compared to B-IBI scores at the four relatively co-located sites (Beaver Creek, Lynch Creek (Downstream), Lynch Creek (Upstream), and Ten (Downstream). Annual and seasonal nitrate- nitrite concentrations were compared to annual B-IBI scores. Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen was significantly correlated (p<0.05) with B-IBI score for the annual average nitrate-nitrite concentration and for each season. A graphical description of this analysis is presented in Appendix E, Figure E-1. These findings suggest that nitrogen concentrations at the study site are not likely having adverse effects on the B-IBI scores. A similar analysis was not conducted for ammonia concentrations due to the limited number of analytical detections for this parameter. A similar statistical analysis was conducted with nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations and HBI scores. HBI scores tended to decrease with increasing nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, however, only winter, summer, and fall demonstrated a statistically significant correlation. A graphical description of this analysis is presented in Appendix E, Figure E-2. These findings suggest that nitrogen concentrations are not contributing significantly to organic enrichment at the study sites.

King County 26 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

In general, concentrations of nitrate-nitrite were similar to levels observed in other King County streams. Concentrations in Ten and Lynch (Upstream and Downstream) Creeks were typically equal to or less than 0.8 mg/l. Concentrations in Beaver Creek were slightly higher, but generally less than 1.2 mg/l. There were few detections of ammonia at any of the four sites. Levels were typically either below the MDL (0.010 mg/l), or between the MDL and the RDL (0.020 mg/l). A more detailed description of the water quality monitoring and associated data can be found in the annual reports for the Mountains to Sound Greenway Biosolids Forestry Program at Snoqualmie Forest (King County 2002b, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006b).

4.2 Individual Site Analysis The following sections provide a site-by-site discussion of the macroinvertebrate data analysis, in addition to an overview of the physical and land use characteristics that may have influenced the macroinvertebrate community. These sections address two of the key study questions regarding the overall health of these streams and changes in biotic integrity over time. A brief discussion of the water quality data collected between 1997 and 2005 for ammonia and nitrate- nitrite is also presented for the four sampling sites located within 200 m of a macroinvertebrate sampling site (Beaver, Ten and Lynch [Up- and Downstream] Creeks).

4.2.1 Beaver Creek The Beaver Creek macroinvertebrate subbasin (1435.0 HA) is dominated (>50%) by coniferous forests; 4.5% of the basin is classified as wetland (Table 6). The geology is dominated by outwash deposits (61.6%) (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied at least once to 31.2% of the basin (Tables 4 and 5). The percentage of forest cover change between 1994 and 2001 was relatively low at 3.6% (Table 6). Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. The Beaver Creek sampling location is characterized by a coarse gravel to small boulder substrate with a largely deciduous canopy (70-80% cover) that partially shades the stream. The riffle sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates is immediately downstream of a very large pool supporting aquatic macrophytes. Beaver Creek exhibited some of the highest B-IBI and lowest HBI scores within the study areas indicating a relatively healthy benthic community. B-IBI scores ranged from 34 (Fair) in 2005 to 44 (Good) in 2002 and HBI scores ranged from 4.5 (Very Good) in 2001 to 3.0 (Excellent) in 2002 (Figure 8, Tables 7, 8 and 9). The lower B-IBI score of 34 in 2005 was associated with a decrease in overall taxa and clinger richness compared to other years. The Beaver Creek B-IBI score increased to 40 (Good) in 2006 ending four consecutive years of declining B-IBI scores.

King County 27 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4 25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 2 B-IBI 15 1 HBI 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Figure 8. Beaver Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006.

In general, gathering collectors dominated (>50%) the macroinvertebrate community at Beaver Creek (Figure 5). On average, the benthic invertebrate community at this site exhibited one of the highest percentages of predators (15.2%, Figure 5); a more detailed description of the annual FFGs in Beaver Creek can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-1. The Beaver Creek macroinvertebrate site was one of the four sites located within 200 m of a water quality sampling location. With the exception of ammonia concentrations in 1997, when levels were between the method detection limit (MDL) (0.010 mg/l) and reporting detection limit (RDL) (0.020 mg/l), all concentrations were below MDLs. Nitrate-nitrite levels in Beaver Creek were the highest of the four sites (Ten [Downstream] and Lynch [Up- and Downstream] Creeks) evaluated here. Concentrations ranged from 0.492 mg/l in October 1998 and 1.21 mg/l in February 2001. Some of the highest concentrations (>1.0 mg/l) were consistently detected in 2000, 2001 and 2005. There are no water quality criteria for nutrients; however, nitrate-nitrite levels in Beaver Creek were similar to the range of concentrations detected in other King County streams. See Appendix E, Figure E-3 for a more detailed presentation of the water quality data.

4.2.2 Griffin Creek (Downstream) Griffin Creek (Downstream) has the largest drainage of all the study streams (4198.9 HA). The geology is dominated by till (67.7%) and 4.5% of the basin is classified as wetland (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied at least once to only 3.1% of the basin (Table 4 and 5). The basin is dominated by coniferous forest (61%) and percent forest cover change between 1994 and 2001 was low (0.9%) (Table 6). Additional details describing physical and land use characteristics at this site are presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6. The sampling location is characterized as having a coarse gravel to cobble substrate; large wood is common. Adult salmon are frequently observed during fall sampling events. The canopy cover is mixed, coniferous and deciduous, and estimated at 90-95% (red alder, big leaf maple, Douglas-fir, western red cedar and hemlock). The canopy does not quite fully shade the wetted

King County 28 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas channel. Cobble along the stream margins is typically covered with filamentous algae and the substrate is slightly embedded. Griffin Creek (Downstream) was added as a macroinvertebrate sampling location in 1999 for the first time. With the exception of 2004 when B-IBI scores dropped to 20, scores were generally consistent, ranging from 32 (Fair) in 2001 and 2005, to 38 (Good) in 2002, (Figure 9). In 2004, every richness category declined including ephemeroptera (mayfly), plecoptera (stonefly), trichoptera (caddisfly), long-lived, intolerant, and clinger richness. Total taxa richness in 2004 decreased to 16 on average, compared to 29-32 in other years, and percent dominance of the three most common taxa was up 18–35% in 2004 compared to other years. The total abundance of individuals found in the 2004 replicates was also very low (97, 146, and 202). B-IBI scores rebounded to more typical values previously observed at this site (Fair) in 2005 (32) and 2006 (34) . It is unclear why the B-IBI score declined so dramatically in 2004.

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 B-IBI 2 15 HBI 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Figure 9. Griffin Creek (Downstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1999- 2006. HBI scores in Griffin Creek (Downstream) ranged from 4.28 (Very Good) in 2001 to 2.81 (Excellent) in 1999. No corresponding increase in HBI score was observed in 2004, suggesting that organic enrichment was not a primary influence contributing to the unusually low B-IBI score (Figure 9). However, the FFG group composition was notably different in 2004 with a much larger proportion of shredders than other years (39.2%, no other year exceeded 8%) (Appendix F, Figure F-2) and a decrease in the percentage of collector filterers. The increase in shredders suggests an input of course particulate organic matter (CPOM) may have occurred, which in turn may have caused the decrease of collector filterers, which rely on the availability of fine particulate matter. Shredders are generally found more commonly in slow moving waters where leaf litter collects. On average, the macroinvertebrate community is dominated by gathering collectors (49.6%) and scrapers (17.2%). A more detailed description of the FFGs in Griffin Creek can be found in Appendix F, Table F-2.

4.2.3 Griffin Creek (Upstream) The characteristics of the Griffin Creek (Upstream) basin are similar to those of the Downstream Griffin Creek basin. The study basin is 3339.1 HA and is dominated by coniferous forest

King County 29 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

(52.5%) (Table 6). The basin only experienced a 1.1% change in forest cover between 1994 and 2001 (Table 6). The geology in the basin is dominated by till (68.1%) (Table 6). Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. The sampling location is characterized by cobble substrate with approximate 80% canopy cover (red alder, big leaf maple, Douglas-fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, and western red cedar). Log jams are present near the sampling site. Griffin Creek (Upstream) was initially established as a control site; however, biosolids were applied in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2006 to 0.3 (2004) to 1.7% (1996, 2000) of the basin (Tables 4 and 5). Because of these applications, this sampling location cannot be considered a control site. In 2006, due to property ownership changes and associated loss of site access, the sampling location was moved approximately 1 mile upstream. The new location shows signs of beaver activity. B-IBI scores in Griffin Creek (Upstream) ranged from 26 (Poor) in 2005 to 40 (Good) in 2002 (Figure 10). The low scores in 2005 were primarily related to a decrease in plecoptera (stonefly) and long-lived taxa richness and an increase in the proportion of tolerant taxa.

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 B-IBI 2 15 HBI 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Figure 10. Griffin Creek (Upstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006. HBI scores ranged from 4.1 (Very Good) in 2004 to 2.6 (Excellent) in 1999 and showed a similar trend of decreasing quality in 2004 and 2005 and a slight improvement in 2006 (Figure 10). The FFG composition also indicated a shift in 2005 when filtering collectors were a large component of the community (35.9% compared to less than 15%), which suggests an input of fine particulate organic matter (FPOM). This suggests that an input of FPOM may have influenced the drop in B-IBI score in 2005. On average, the macroinvertebrate community is typically dominated by gathering collectors (40.7%) and scrapers (25.5%) at Griffin Creek (Upstream) (Figure 5). A more detailed description of the FFGs in Griffin Creek can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-3.

King County 30 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

4.2.4 Lynch Creek (Downstream) The Lynch (Downstream) Creek basin is 853 HA and dominated by coniferous forest; 4.7% of the basin is classified as wetland (Table 6). The geology is 47.1% outwash and 7.0% till10 (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied at least once to 27.6% of the basin (Tables 4 and 5). With the exception of the Tokul basin, this area has experienced the greatest degree of forest change (17.1% from 1994-2001). Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. The sampling location is characterized by a boulder substrate with very low summer flows including subsurface flow observed in 1998, 2001, and 2005. No samples were collected in 1998 and 2001; in 2005 samples were collected upstream of the regular sampling location due to lack of sufficient water depth. The forest canopy is very open to non-existent where a bridge and pipeline cross the stream. Further downstream the canopy is dominated by red alder and Douglas-fir, with an understory of vine maple, Pacific ninebark, and Indian plum. The B-IBI and HBI scores have fluctuated considerably with frequent increases or decreases in the B-IBI score of eight to fourteen points between years. B-IBI scores ranged from 12 (Very Poor) in 2004 to 32 (Fair) in 2002 (samples were not collected in 1998 and 2001) (Figure 11). With only an average of 144.7 individuals per replicate, Lynch Creek (Downstream) has the lowest species count compared to other sampling locations (Figure 6 and Table 10), which may account for some variability of B-IBI scores from year-to-year. The low B-IBI score in 2004 was likely associated with low total abundance counts, which ranged from 40 to 80 organisms per replicate. In addition, Baetis tricaudatus (a mayfly, commonly known as blue winged olives) accounted for the high percentage of tolerant individuals. The 2004 Lynch Creek (Downstream) B-IBI score of 12 (Very Poor) is only 2 points above the lowest possible B-IBI score of 10. Although other factors may be involved, it is likely that the fluctuating flow conditions are contributing to the low and variable B-IBI scores at this location. Due to the very large boulder substrate and low summer flows, this sampling location may not be appropriate for comparison to other macroinvertebrate sites. The large boulder substrate makes finding a suitable place to position the Surber sampler challenging, and this factor is also likely to contribute to the high variability observed in the data.

10 The geology for Lynch Creek (Downstream) is also composed of 14.9% volcanic rocks of Mount Persis, 10.5% Argillite and graywacke, and 9.4% ice-contact deposits.

King County 31 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50 10 45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score B-IBI 3 20 B-IBI 2 15 HBI 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Figure 11. Lynch Creek (Downstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006. HBI scores were variable and ranged from 6.49 (Fair) in 2006 to 2.29 (Excellent) in 2005 (Figure 11). The Excellent classification in 2005 corresponds with a change in sampling location due to extremely low flows. These were the highest and lowest HBI scores reported for any of the sampling locations. There does not appear to be a relationship between the poor B-IBI and HBI scores; the lowest HBI scores were not necessarily associated with the highest B-IBI scores, especially in 2005. As was observed with the B-IBI and the HBI scores at this site, there was also fluctuation in the distribution of FFGs. On average, the benthic community in Lynch Creek (Downstream) was dominated by gathering collectors (Figure 5). In 2005, scrapers represented 49.1% of the macroinvertebrate community suggesting an increase in periphyton and primary productivity; there was also had a high proportion of shredders (16.3%). A more detailed description of the FFGs in Lynch Creek (Downstream) can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-4. The Lynch Creek (Downstream) macroinvertebrate site was one of the four sites located within 200 m of a water quality sampling location. Ammonia concentrations were typically below MDLs (0.010 mg/l) or between the MDL and the RDL (0.020 mg/l). Nitrate-nitrite levels in Lynch Creek (Downstream) were generally low (< 0.075 mg/l). There are no water quality criteria for nutrients; however, nitrate-nitrite levels in Lynch Creek (Downstream) were similar to the range of concentrations detected in other King County streams. See Appendix E, Figure E-4 for a more detailed presentation of the water quality data.

4.2.5 Lynch Creek (Upstream) The Lynch Creek (Upstream) basin is 436.8 HA and is dominated by coniferous forest (63.3%) with 5.7% of the basin classified as wetland (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied at least once to 13.1% of the basin. There was a 10.4% change in forest cover from 1994-2001. The geology

King County 32 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

is 36.2% outwash deposits11. Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. Samples collected prior to 2004 were collected downstream of a culvert; all subsequent samples were collected upstream of a large culvert (~2 m tall and 3 m wide). The upstream location is characterized by sand to fine gravel substrate. Sands and finer material dominate the margins of the wetted area with fine gravel in the middle of the riffles. The upstream location has coarser cobble substrate. The upstream canopy (~ 70% cover) consists of Douglas-fir, red alder, vine maple, hemlock, Sitka spruce, and western red cedar with Pacific ninebark and Indian plum in the understory. The area downstream has a younger canopy composed of Grand fir, western red cedar, red alder, and Pacific ninebark. There is an enhancement project located downstream of the culvert that includes three pool-forming log wiers and large wood along the banks. B-IBI scores were generally consistent from 1998 to 2002 with scores ranging between 30 and 34 (Fair) (Figure 12). However, between 2003 and 2006 the B-IBI scores consistently dropped from a peak of 40 (Good) in 2003 to a low of 26 (Poor) in 2006. The high 2003 scores reflected higher taxa richness and intolerant taxa richness compared to other years, while the 2006 macroinvertebrate community had lower richness in all categories except long-lived richness (i.e., overall, ephemeroptera [mayfly], plecoptera [stonefly], trichoptera [caddisfly], intolerant, and clinger richness all decreased). The decrease in scores may be related to the relocation of the sampling site in 2004.

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 B-IBI 2 15 HBI 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Figure 12. Lynch Creek (Upstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006. Lynch Creek (Upstream) HBI scores ranged from 3.52 (Very Good) in 2000 to 4.61 (Good) in 1998 (Figure 12). The lowest B-IBI score in 2006 was not associated with an increase in the HBI score. This suggests that the low B-IBI in 2006 was not likely influenced by organic enrichment within the stream.

11 The geology for Lynch Creek (Upstream) is also composed of 20.4% Argillite and graywacke, 17.8% volcanic rocks of Mount Persis, and 8.5% ice-contact deposits.

King County 33 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

The macroinvertebrate community was typically dominated by gathering collectors (45.7%) followed by scrapers (29.5%) (Figure 5). The high B-IBI score in 2003 corresponded with the lowest proportion of filtering collectors (0.9%) and the lowest B-IBI score in 2006 corresponded with the lowest proportion of shredders (0.8%). A more detailed description of the FFGs in Lynch Creek Downstream can be found in Appendix F, Figures F-5. The Lynch Creek (Upstream) macroinvertebrate site was one of the four sites located within 200 m of a water quality sampling location. With the exception of 3 samples collected in 1999 and 2000, all ammonia concentrations were typically below MDLs or between the MDL (0.010 mg/l) and the RDL (0.020 mg/l). Ammonia concentrations in 1999 and 2000 were low and ranged from 0.0213 and 0.0224 mg/l. Concentrations of nitrate-nitrite ranged from 0.0543 mg/l in 2004 and 0.779 in 2000. Nitrate-nitrite concentrations tended to be lower between 2002 and 2005 (<0.50 mg/l). Nitrate-nitrite concentrations tended to increase between 1997 and 2000 and decrease between 2001 and 2005. A somewhat similar pattern was observed for the HBI, possibly suggesting that nitrogen concentrations could have influenced the macroinvertebrate community. There are no water quality criteria for nutrients; however, nitrate-nitrite levels in Lynch Creek (Downstream) were similar to the range of concentrations detected in other King County Streams. See Appendix E, Figure E-5 for a more detailed presentation of the water quality data.

4.2.6 Stossel Creek The Stossel Creek basin is 151.7 HA; the smallest in the study area. The basin is dominated by coniferous forest (64.5%). Of the 10 study basins, Stossel Creek has the greatest percentage of area classified as wetland (7.2%) (Table 6). This basin also has the highest area to which biosolids have been applied at least once (49.2%). There was a 1.2% change in forest cover from 1994-2001. The geology of the basin is dominated by 76.6% till. Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. This is the only basin in the study area that is owned by Washington Department of Natural Resources. All other study basins are primarily owned by Hancock Timber. The sampling location is characterized by sand, cobble, and small boulder substrate; organic matter deposition is common at this site and the substrate is highly embedded. Mussel shells and live mussels are frequently observed. Canopy cover is estimated at 40% and consists of big leaf maple, hemlock, Douglas-fir, and western red cedar with an understory of cascara and ninebark extending over the creek. The sampling location is downstream of the road crossing; immediately upstream of the road is a beaver dam and large wetland. Suitable riffle habitat in this stream is often limited, though the stream is generally fast flowing and is not pooled. In 2003, only 2 samples could be collected due to high silt load in the stream and limited riffle size The B-IBI scores consistently fluctuated between 22 and 24 (Poor) from 1998 and 2001, dropped to 16 (Very Poor) in 2002, and remained between 16 and 18 (Poor to Very Poor) between 2002 and 2006 (Figure 13). This drop in B-IBI score was associated with a decrease in the number of long-lived and clinger taxa and in some cases a slight increase in the percent dominance of the three most common taxa. The low B-IBI scores at this site may be associated with the limited available habitat suitable for sampling.

King County 34 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 B-IBI 2 15 HBI 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Figure 13. Stossel Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006.

HBI scores in the Stossel Creek basin ranged from 6.36 (Fair) in 1998 to 4.75 (Good) in 1999 (Figure 13). In general, the Stossel Creek basin consistently experienced some of the highest HBI scores, suggesting this basin may receive a greater level of organic enrichment when compared to the other study basins. Deposition of organic matter in the stream is common and is likely influenced by the upstream wetland area. On average, the Stossel Creek was highly dominated by gathering collectors, which suggests an input of fine sediment. A more detailed description of the FFGs in Stossel Creek can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-6.

4.2.7 Tate Creek The Tate Creek basin is 808.8 HA and is dominated by coniferous forest (66.2%); 4.25% of the basin is characterized as wetland (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied to 29.8% of this basin at least once (Tables 4 and 5). Forest cover change from 1994-2001 was minimal (0.1%) (Table 6). The geology of the basin is dominated by outwash deposits (94.1%) (Table 6). Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this macroinvertebrate basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. The sampling location is characterized by large gravel to cobble substrate that is slightly embedded with a primarily deciduous canopy (cover ~ 75%) of big leaf maple and vine maple with some Douglas-fir. The narrow creek channel (~ 1 m wide) is downcut into the stream banks creating steep bank conditions; the left bank exhibits active erosion that contributes sediment to the stream. The site has one long, shallow riffle and the wetted channel is shaded by the canopy. B-IBI scores ranged from a low of 22 (Poor) in 1999 to 44 (Good) in 2000 (Figure 14). Scores were generally low in 1998 (26 - Poor) and 1999 (22 - Poor) and then increased in 2000 to 2006 when they ranged from 34 (Fair) to 44 (Good). The overall taxa richness in 1998 and 1999 was 18 and 15, respectively compared to a range of 28 to 38 in all other years and consequently all richness metrics were low in 1998 and 1999.

King County 35 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score B-IBI 3 20 B-IBI 2 15 HBI 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Figure 14. Tate Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006.

The HBI scores ranged from 5.15 (Good) in 1999 to 4.28 (Very Good) in 2000. The low B-IBI scores in 1998 and 1999 were not associated with elevated HBI scores. This suggests that an increase in organic enrichment did not have a significant influence on the B-IBI scores. On average, gathering collectors (63.6%) are the dominant taxa at this location. A more detailed description of the FFGs in Tate Creek can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-7.

4.2.8 Ten Creek (Downstream) The Ten Creek (Downstream) basin is 1313.7 HA and is dominated by coniferous forest (57.1%); 5.0% of the basin is characterized as wetland (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied to 17.3% of this basin at least once (Tables 4 and 5). Forest cover change from 1994-2001 was 2.9% (Table 6). The geology of the basin is dominated by outwash deposits (76.0%) (Table 6). Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6. In 2004-2006 samples were collected downstream of the bridge; in previous years all samples were collected upstream of the bridge. The sampling location downstream of the bridge is characterized by a long, wide (~ 10 m), and shallow riffle with cobble substrate. Within less than 15 m, the forest canopy (~80% cover) transitions from a young deciduous forest (big leaf maple, red alder, Indian plum and ninebark) immediately downstream of the bridge, to a mature, coniferous canopy of Douglas-fir, hemlock, and western red cedar. Large wood is present at the sampling location and evidence of logging is visible upstream. B-IBI scores were generally high in this basin and ranged from 42 (Good) in 1999-2001 and 2006 to 46 (Excellent) in 2003, with a low of 36 (Fair) in 2005 (Figure 15). The 2005 macroinvertebrate community had a drop of one to two species for both ephemeroptera (mayflies) and intolerant taxa richness and had a lower percentage of predators than other years. The 2006 B-IBI returned to42 (Good), within the more typical range of 42-46.

King County 36 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 B-IBI 2 15 HBI 1 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Figure 15. Ten Creek (Downstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006. The HBI in the Ten Creek (Downstream) basin ranged from 4.26 (Very Good) in 2005 to 3.06 (Excellent) in 2000 (Figure 15). These scores suggest that there is limited organic enrichment in this basin. The relative abundance of various FFGs was more balanced at Ten Creek (Downstream) than at many of the sampling locations (Figure 5). While dominated by the gathering collectors, there was a greater representation of filtering collectors, scrapers and shredders than typically observed at the other study sites. The abundance of collector filters suggests the consistent availability of FPOM at this site. A more detailed description of the FFGs in Ten Creek (Downstream) can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-8. The Ten Creek (Downstream) macroinvertebrate site was one of the four sites located within 200 m of a water quality sampling location. All ammonia concentrations were typically below MDLs or between the MDL (0.010 mg/l) and the RDL (0.020 mg/l). Concentrations of nitrate- nitrite ranged from 0.0149 mg/l in 1999 and 0.837 mg/l in 1997. In general, nitrate-nitrite concentrations were <0.75 mg/l. There are no water quality criteria for nutrients; however, nitrate-nitrite levels in Ten Creek were similar to the range of concentrations detected in other King County Streams. See Appendix E, Figure E-6 for a more detailed presentation of the water quality data.

4.2.9 Ten Creek (Upstream) The Ten Creek (Upstream) basin is 962.0 HA and is dominated by coniferous forest (56.1%); 5.3% of the basin is characterized as wetland (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied to 18.4% of this basin at least once (Tables 4 and 5). Forest cover change from 1994-2001 was 7.4%. The geology of the basin is dominated by outwash deposits (71.7%) (Table 6). Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6.

King County 37 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

The Ten Creek (Upstream) site was the final site added to the macroinvertebrate sampling program in 2000. The sampling location is characterized by cobble and gravel substrate with an estimated 80% canopy cover of Douglas-fir, big leaf maple and red alder. Large wood is present at the sampling location. In 2004-2006 samples were collected downstream of the bridge; in previous years all samples were collected upstream. B-IBI scores have declined steadily from a high of 40 (Good) in 2000 to a low of 32 (Fair) in 2005 and 2006 (Figure 6). Taxa richness decreased from a high of 33 in 2000 and 2001 to 21 in 2005 and 29 in 2006. Clinger richness also decreased from highs of 20 – 21 (2000 to 2003) to 13 in 2005 and 16 in 2006. Clingers require open areas between substrate and are sensitive to fine sediments that embed these spaces. The potential cause of declining B-IBI scores at this site is unknown.

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 2 B-IBI 15 1 HBI 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Figure 16. Ten Creek (Upstream) B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006.

HBI scores were generally low and ranged from 4.50 (Very Good) in 2005 to 3.28 (Excellent) in 2006 (Figure 16). The HBI scores do not reflect the general decline observed for the B-IBI, and suggest that the decline observed in the B-IBI scores is not likely due to organic enrichment within the stream. On average, collector gatherers were the dominant FFG at Ten Creek (Upstream) composing 47.9% of the benthic community (Figure 5). This site also consistently had the highest proportion of shredders (12.6%) compared to other sites. A more detailed description of the FFGs in Ten Creek (Upstream) can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-9.

4.2.10 Tokul Creek The Tokul Creek basin is 665.5 HA and is dominated by mixed forest (46.5% conifer, 36.3% mixed deciduous); 3.0% of the basin is characterized as wetland (Table 6). Biosolids have been applied to 10.1% of this basin at least once (Tables 4 and 5). This basin experienced a 51.9% change in forest cover from 1994-2001, the highest of all the study basins (7.4% is the next

King County 38 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

highest). This is likely attributed to extensive clear cuts within the basin. The geology of the basin is characterized by till (36.2%) and outwash deposits (25.3%)12 (Table 6). Additional details regarding the physical and land use characteristics of this basin are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6. The sampling location is characterized by small gravel to small cobble substrate that is fairly embedded with fine sediment. The canopy (~ 85% cover) is relatively open and is composed of Douglas-fir, cherry, western red cedar and willow with twinberry and serviceberry in the understory. Small diameter (~ 0.2 m) wood is present in the stream and significant vegetative growth is present in the channel including sedges and lady fern on the right bank. The sample location is downstream of a wooden bridge with wetlands upstream where the channel splits. The riparian areas surrounding the creek have been logged with vegetation ~ 10-15 years old downstream of the bridge and possibly less than 5 years old upstream of the bridge. There is no obvious riffle habitat; the best riffle habitat is located under the bridge extending upstream. Tokul Creek B-IBI scores have generally been high; however, they have declined somewhat from a sustained high of 42 (Good) between 2000 and 2003 to a low of 36 (Fair) in 2006 (Figure 17). Tokul Creek was not sampled in 1999 due to a road block preventing access.

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 4

25 Score HBI B-IBI Score 3 20 2 B-IBI 15 1 HBI 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Figure 17. Tokul Creek B-IBI and HBI Scores 1998- 2006. Tokul Creek HBI scores ranged from 4.68 (Good) in 2004 to 3.33 (Excellent) in 2003. On average, collecting gatherers were the dominant (55.9%) FFG. A more detailed description of the FFGs in Tokul Creek can be found in Appendix F, Figure F-10.

4.3 Comparison to Other Forested Sites To provide additional perspective on benthic macroinvertebrate community health in the study streams, HBI and B-IBI scores were compared to scores for forested sites in other parts of King County. As part of their routine ambient monitoring program the King County Department of

12 The geology for Tokul Creek is also composed of 14.2% Argillite and graywacke, 13.1% volcanic rocks of Mount Persis, and 8.4% mass wastage deposits.

King County 39 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Natural Resources annually collects benthic macroinvertebrates samples from streams in the Greater Lake Washington and Cedar River (WRIA 8) and Green Duwamish (WRIA 9) watersheds. Data from sites whose basins were at least 75%13 forested were identified and compared to B-IBI and HBI scores presented in this report. Data from these other forested sites were only available for years 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006; Tables 11 and 12 provide a summary of the forest cover, B-IBI and HBI scores for these sites.

Table 11. B-IBI scores for forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds.

Location % B-IBI Score Std. Forest Dev. 02 03 05 06 Mean B-IBI

Seidel Crk (Bear Crk basin) 75.7 36 36 32 34 34.5(Fair) 1.9

Walsh Lake Diversion (Cedar R basin) 84.7 44 36 40 42 40.5(Good) 3.4

Hotel Crk (Cedar R basin) 96.9 40 38 40 46 41.0(Good) 3.5

Rock Crk (Cedar R basin) 96.9 44 48 nd 38 43.3(Good) 5.0

Cabin Crk (Issaquah Crk basin) 88.4 46 36 38 36 39.0(Good) 4.8

Issaquah Crk Trib (Issaquah Crk basin) 93.9 26 32 nd 46 34.7(Fair) 10.3

High Point Crk (Issaquah Crk basin) 96.0 42 44 40 40 41.5(Good) 1.9

Issaquah Crk East Fork 88.9 46 48 46 38 44.5(Excellent) 4.4

Carey Crk (Issaquah Crk basin) 83.7 nd 44 nd 38 41.0(Good) 4.2

Trib to Mid Green R, E. Black Diamond 86.1 46 40 38 46 42.5(Good) 4.1

Newaukum Crk 77.9 45 43 42 46 44.0(Good) 1.8

13 Percent forest cover for the study basins ranged from 83% in the Tokul basin to 99% in the Stossel basin.

King County 40 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table 12. HBI scores and percentage forest cover for forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds.

HBI Score % Std. Location Forest Dev. 02 03 05 06 Mean HBI

3.62 Seidel Crk (Bear Crk basin) 75.7 4.23 3.02 3.87 3.36 0.54 Very Good

Walsh Lake Diversion (Cedar R 4.7 84.7 4.77 5.31 4.07 4.52 0.63 basin) Good

4.15 Hotel Crk (Cedar R basin) 96.9 5.49 2.53 4.07 4.52 1.23 Very Good

3.44 Rock Crk (Cedar R basin 96.9 2.34 3.44 nd 4.53 1.09 Very Good

4.55 Cabin Crk (Issaquah Crk basin) 88.4 4.88 4.64 4.96 3.73 0.56 Good

Issaquah Crk Trib (Issaquah Crk 4.79 93.9 5.55 5.02 nd 3.80 0.90 basin) Good

High Point Crk (Issaquah Crk 4.54 96.0 4.36 4.19 4.47 5.14 0.42 basin) Good

3.75 Issaquah Crk, East Fork 88.9 2.87 3.57 4.20 4.37 0.68 Very Good

4.05 Carey Crk (Issaquah Crk basin) 83.7 nd 3.71 nd 4.40 0.48 Very Good

Trib. to Middle Green R, E. of 4.37 86.1 4.09 4.97 5.25 3.19 0.93 Black Diamond Very Good

3.79 Newaukum Crk 77.9 4.09 2.79 4.46 3.85 0.71 Very Good

B-IBI scores in the other forested King County basins ranged from 26-48 (Good to Very Good) with a median score of 40 (Good) (Table 11; Figure 18b); scores in the study described here ranged from 16-46 (Very Poor to Very Good) with a median score of 35 (Fair) (Figure 18a, Table 9). On average, B-IBI scores for 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006 in the study area (33.6) were lower than scores from the other forested sites (40.7) (Figure 19). Variability of B-IBI scores in the forested King County sites (Std. Dev. 5.1) was greater than variability of the study site scores (Std. Dev. = 8.7). These data suggest that on average, benthic community health may be slightly better in the other forested King County sites than at the sites evaluated in this study.

King County 41 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50

40

30

B-IBI Score 20

2002 2003 2005 2006 10

0

Te Be Ta To Gr Te Gr Ly Ly St n av te ku iff n iff nc nc os (D e l in (U in h h se ow r (D p) (U (U (D l n) ow p) p) ow n) n) A.

50

40

30

B-IBI ScoreB-IBI 20

2002 2003 2005 2006 10

0

Is N R Tr Hi Ca Ho W Ca Is Se sa ew oc ib gh r t al b sa id q a k to P ey el sh in q e ., E uk G o L . T l . u r in k ri Fo m ee t D b rk n ive r. B. . Figure 18. Comparison of annual B-IBI scores at study sites (A) with forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds (B). Red dashed line represents median B-IBI.

King County 42 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00 Mean B-IBI (+/- STDV) (+/- Mean B-IBI

10.00 Greater Lake WA and Green-Duwamish Hancock and Marckworth Forest Sites Watershed Sites

0.00

k t . ) ) l in tel rib n er p een o o T sse Rock H iver . eidel ow Tate . For ukum Gr Carey Cabin S D Tokul a aq Beav en (U Sto to igh P s T ew s fin (Down) N H I Ten ( f Griffin Lynch(Up) (Up) Trib ri Issaq., E alsh Lk D G Lynch (Down) W

Figure 19. Mean and standard deviation of B-IBI scores at forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds (left) and study sites (right) sorted from highest to lowest scores. HBI scores in the other King County forested sites ranged from 5.5 (Good) – 2.34 (Excellent) (Table 12), while scores in the study sites ranged from 6.49 (Fair) – 2.29 (Excellent) (Table 9, Figure 20). The median HBI scores for the two sets of sampling locations were similar: 4.37 (Very Good) at the other King County forested sites and 3.97 (Very Good) for the sites described in this study. In general, HBI scores at the study sites were slightly lower than those in other forested King County sites with the exception of Stossel Creek, which is likely influenced by an upstream wetland, mean HBI scores at all sites were less than 5 (Fair to Excellent) (Figure 21). With the exception of Stossel Creek, the variability in HBI scores was less in the study sites than in the other forested King County sites (Figure 21).

King County 43 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

10.00

9.00

8.00 2002 2003 2005 2006

7.00

6.00

5.00 HBI Score 4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Te Be Ta To Gr Te Gr Ly Ly St n av te ku iff n iff nc nc os (D e l in (U in h h se ow r (D p) (U (U (D l n) ow p) p) ow n) n)

A.

10.00

9.00

8.00 2002 2003 2005 2006 7.00

6.00

5.00

HBI Score HBI 4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 Issa Newau Ro Tr Hi Carey Hotel Wal Cabin Issaq. Trib Seidel i gh c b to Green s q. k P h L , E k o . um int k For D iver. k

B. Figure 20. Comparison of annual HBI scores at study sites (A) with forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watersheds (B). Red line represents mean HBI scores.

King County 44 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00 Mean STDV) (+/- HBI 3.00

2.00 Greater Lake WA and Green-Duwamish Hancock and Marckworth Forest 1.00 Watershed Sites Sites

0.00

t l l n y e te p) re er. ide U Rock Ta own) Ca Hot Div Cabin Se Tokul h ( Beaver Stossel Lk Ten (Up) High Poi h Issaq. Trib Newaukum s Ten (Down) Griffin Lync(Up) Trib to Green Issaq., E. Fork al Griffin (D Lynch (Down) W

Figure 21. Mean HBI scores (and standard deviation) for forested (>75%) sites in the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish watershed (left) and sites from this study (right).

5 DISCUSSION The macroinvertebrate community composition at a given location is influenced by a variety of factors such as permanence and flashiness of stream flows, disturbance frequency, upstream land use, underlying geology, substrate type, stream gradient, riparian shading, and primary energy sources (i.e., allochthonous vs. autochthonous). These confounding factors can make it challenging to link cause and effect to changes in community composition over time. The following section will provide a more detailed discussion of how some of these factors may be influencing the biotic integrity of the study streams.

5.1 Land Use Activities and Stream Health Land use activities can have both a direct and indirect influence on biotic integrity. Human induced landscape transformations are likely some of the most significant contributors to stream and river degradation (Allan 1995). Wetland loss, loss of floodplains, timber harvest, road building, agricultural activities, and increasing urbanization are land use changes that have been linked with water quality, hydrology, or habitat impacts affecting stream ecosystems. All of these land use activities can influence stream biotic integrity. Overall, they can result in changes to stream habitat and water quality that are reflected in the aquatic biota; benthic macroinvertebrates in particular. In general, these stressors can result in a reduction in species richness attributed to habitat simplification and a decline in intolerant taxa.

King County 45 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Within the study area, urban and agricultural land uses are essentially non-existent. More than 94% of most subbasins are dominated by conifer and mixed deciduous forests (Table 6). In general, the relatively homogenous land use characteristics (i.e., commercial forestry of coniferous forests) and the relatively small geographic scope of the study basins helps to ensure that the sampling locations have similar underlying geology and are subject to comparable precipitation and weather patterns. These somewhat homogenous land use conditions may in part explain why, with the exception of the lower biotic integrity at Stossel, and to a lesser extent, Lynch (Downstream) Creeks, there were not dramatic differences between the biotic conditions of the 10 study sites. The primary land use stressors in the study area are associated with forest management practices and include forest harvest, biosolids applications, road building and maintenance, and pesticide/herbicide use. Logging has been widespread throughout the study area, although a direct analysis of the timing, extent, frequency, and impacts of timber harvest were beyond the scope of this project. When compared to the biotic integrity at other forested sites in King County, B-IBI scores at the study sites were somewhat lower. These differences may be associated with land use characteristics. While the other King County benthic macroinvertebrate sampling basins have a greater degree of development and likely experience more urban related stressors, forest management activities are limited. Some of the key stressors that influence biotic integrity include water quality (organic enrichment, temperature alterations, pesticide/herbicide runoff) and habitat degradation (shifts in energy input, riparian alterations, substrate composition, and hydrologic changes). To some extent, forest management activities can influence all of these variables. Although this study was not designed to determine the specific stressors influencing biotic integrity in these streams, some generalizations can be made. The following provides a general discussion of how land use activities in the study basins may influence biotic integrity in the study streams.

5.1.1 Water Quality One concern related to biosolids applications is the potential for excess nutrient input via surface runoff leading to increased primary productivity (Bisson at al. 1992; Correll 1998). Some studies have found no changes in nutrient levels between treated and untreated watersheds (University of Washington 1986) before and after biosolids applications (Kimmins at al. 1991). However, mobility of nitrates in Pacific Northwest forest soils has been documented (Henry at al. 2000); one study observed a lagged increase in nitrate concentrations following biosolids applications but concluded that biosolids phosphorus does not move with runoff (Grey & Henry 2002). Forest harvest activities can also temporarily result in increased nutrient inputs to adjacent streams, particularly nitrate (Naiman at al. 2001). Biosolids were applied to 2,202 hectares (127 units) in the study area between 1988 and 2006 (Appendix A, Figure A-2). The median time elapsed between applications was four years with a mean of 4.1 years between the first and second applications and a mean of 3.8 years between the second and third applications. The majority of units were treated on 3- to 5-year rotations with as few as two years and as many as eight years elapsing between the first and second applications. For the purpose of this report, it was hypothesized that biosolids applications in the study basins could cause increased nutrient transport to surface waters, resulting in increased periphyton

King County 46 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

growth and an increase in the relative abundance of scrapers. However, no direct correlation between biosolids applications and percentage of scrapers (Appendix A, Figure A-3.) was observed. Based on a graphical assessment, no relationship between the percentage of each basin receiving biosolids and B-IBI and HBI scores was detected. However, it is important to note that the study was not designed to detect the impact of biosolids application on biotic integrity, but rather to evaluate general stream health over time. In general, it does not appear that organic enrichment is having a significant influence on the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the study basins. HBI scores in all basins were Good to excellent with the exception of Stossel Creek, indicating limited stress due to organic enrichment (Table 8). This suggests that biosolids applications in the basin are not causing a significant influence on the nutrient loading in the study streams. This is further evidenced by the generally low to average nitrate-nitrite concentrations detected in the study streams (Appendix E, Figures E-3 and E-4). Phosphorus, which tends to be the limiting nutrient in most streams (Jeffries & Mills 1990) systems, was not routinely measured in this study. HBI scores from the other forested King County sampling locations indicated a somewhat greater degree of influence by organic enrichment. This finding may be associated with a variety of factors such as soil type (some local soils can be rich in phosphorus), the bioavailability of the phosphorus present, and the potential for increased use of phosphorous based fertilizers due to the greater degree of residential development in these basins. Road maintenance and forest management activities in the study area involve the periodic use of herbicides or pesticides. Site visits in 2008 indicated herbicide use along road right-of-ways. Water quality analysis for this study was limited, and did not include assessment of herbicides, pesticides, or other contaminants. Temperature can also have both a direct and indirect influence on benthic community structure. Elevated temperature can cause a decrease in dissolved oxygen levels and result in a corresponding decrease in the number of intolerant species. In relatively small 1st and 2nd order streams, canopy cover can have a significant impact on temperature. In general, with the exception of Lynch Creek (Downstream), which is located near a road crossing and pipe corridor, and Tokul Creek, where there has been relatively recent (5-10 year) harvest activity, all benthic macroinvertebrate sites have an intact canopy cover and it does not appear that recent forest management practices have directly influenced the immediate sampling locations. However, it is unknown if harvest activities upstream of the study sites may have influenced downstream temperatures. Shifts in energy input can also be influenced by forest management practices. Changes in forest cover and vegetation type and density can result in a shift from heterotrophy to autotrophy, reduced large wood inputs, and fewer contributions of leaf litter (Webster at al. 1990). A more detailed analysis of the functional feeding group distribution is necessary to understand the influence of energy input changes on the community structure and would require additional sampling.

5.1.2 Habitat Quality Changes in streambed characteristics (sedimentation, substrate composition, embeddedness) and hydrology can have long-term effects on channel and habitat features and significantly influence stream biotic integrity. A variety of factors can influence substrate suitability including runoff

King County 47 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

associated with road building, maintenance, and forest harvest activities. Temporary and permanent road infrastructure is required for both timber harvest and biosolids applications. Roads have been linked to declines in stream health through a variety of processes. Mass soil movements are much more frequent in areas with roads compared to roadless areas (Swanson at al. 1987) and marginally stable slopes are more likely to fail, thereby increasing erosion. Few roads in the study area are paved; gravel roads are a source of fine sediment that can impact fish, invertebrates, and water quality. Sediment production, and associated transport to streams, tends to increase with forest harvest activities (Beschta 1978) due to landslides on deforested slopes, surface scour from logging roads, loss of root structure (Franklin 1992) and steam bank erosion due to increased flooding potential. Increased sedimentation leads to habitat and channel structure simplification with pools becoming less frequent and smaller as they fill in with fine sediment and pool-forming large wood is lost. On a smaller scale, sedimentation fills the interstitial spaces between the substrate reducing or eliminating habitat for stoneflies, clingers, and other benthic macroinvertebrates that rely on these spaces to hide, forage, stalk their prey, lay eggs, or access the hyporheos. Most of the study sites had coarse gravel or cobble substrate. Beaver Creek, Stossel Creek, and Lynch Creek (Downstream) also had larger boulder-sized substrate, while Lynch (Upstream), Stossel, and Tokul Creeks had smaller sand or small-gravel sized substrate. Griffin (Downstream), Stossel, Tate, and Tokul Creeks all had some degree of embedded substrate during fall 2008 site visits, indicating some degree of sedimentation. Forest harvest is also associated with changes in streamflow and hydrology. Less standing vegetation reduces interception and evapotranspiration leading to higher soil moisture levels in logged areas and higher streamflows at times during the year, especially during small winter storms (Wright at al. 1990). Roads and trails can cause soil compaction increasing and channeling surface runoff. The magnitude of timber harvest effects depends on a number of factors including the precipitation regime, slope steepness, soils and geology, and overall timber management practices. Additional analysis of timber management records and quantification of harvest from aerial photos across time would be necessary to assess potential impacts of forest harvest activities on biotic integrity.

6 CONCLUSIONS Benthic macroinvertebrates are key components in stream ecosystems and serve as integrators of biological, physical and chemical conditions in streams. They are routinely used in biomonitoring programs due to their high abundance and diversity, limited migration patterns and their response to environmental perturbations. The primary purpose of this report was to present results from the biosolids macroinvertebrate monitoring program and address three key questions addressing the overall health of the study streams, changes in biotic integrity over time, and biotic condition of the study sites relative to other forested basins in King County. The monitoring program included annual collection of benthic macroinvertebrate samples; data collected from 1998 through 2006 were evaluated.

King County 48 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis was conducted at ten sites on seven streams within the study area. Three analysis methods were chosen to evaluate changes in macroinvertebrate community structure and function: (1) the benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI), which integrates ten metrics sensitive to human impact into a single index; (2) the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), which uses a single-metric to assess organic enrichment; and (3) functional feeding group (FFG) analysis which focuses on function rather than structure and lends insight into nutrient availability and organic matter processing. The HBI and FFG analysis are often used to assess organic enrichment and nutrient dynamics and were included to augment the B-IBI. A complete FFG analysis could not be conducted due to the different sampling requirements, however, generalization about the feeding groups present in the sampled riffle habitat were made to assist with interpretation of the B-IBI and HBI scores. The following outlines the key questions that this study addressed and the major findings: 1. What is the overall health of these streams, as measured by the B-IBI and HBI and to a lesser extent the FFG? B-IBI scores can range from a low of 10 (Very Poor) to a high of 50 (Excellent). Scores in the study area were variable between sites and years and ranged from a low of 12 (Very Poor) in Lynch Creek (Downstream) in 2004 to a high of 46 (Excellent) in Ten Creek (Downstream) in 2003. The lowest median B-IBI scores over the course of the monitoring period were observed in Stossel and Lynch Creek (Downstream) (18, Poor). The highest median B-IBI scores were observed in Ten (Downstream) and Tokul Creeks (42 and 41, respectively, Good). HBI scores can range from 10-0, with 10 indicating Very Poor conditions and 0 indicating Excellent conditions. HBI scores in the study area between sites and years were also variable but were generally high ranging from a Fair ranking of 6.49 to an Excellent ranking of 2.29, both at Lynch Creek (Downstream) in 2006 and 2005, respectively. The sites with the greatest potential to experience stress from organic enrichment (based on highest median HBI scores) included Stossel and Lynch (Downstream) Creeks (5.3 and 5.1); both Griffin Creek sites (Downstream and Upstream) had the lowest potential to experience stress associated with organic enrichment (3.4 and 3.3). The benthic macroinvertebrate data suggests that there are varying levels of biotic integrity in the ten study basins. Functional feeding group analysis suggested fluctuation in primary productivity at some sites that may have influenced community structure. In general, however, the available data do not suggest that organic enrichment is a primary driver influencing the community structure at the study sites. 2. Has the biotic integrity of these streams changed over time as measured by changes in the B-IBI and HBI scores? In general, the biotic integrity of the study streams as measured by the B-IBI scores was variable (Very Poor – Excellent) over the course of the monitoring period. Ten Creek (Upstream) and to a lesser extent Tokul Creek were the only sites where a general decline in biotic integrity was observed over the course of the study period. B-IBI scores at Stossel Creek dropped between 2001 and 2002. Between 1998 and 2001 scores ranged from 22-24 (Poor), then dropped to 16-18 (Very Poor/Poor) from 2002 to 2006. B-IBI scores at Tate Creek were relatively low during the first 2 years of monitoring (26 and 22 [Poor]

King County 49 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

respectively) and increased to (36 [Fair] - 44 [Good]) during the remainder of the study period. None of the remaining study sites exhibited a consistent increase or decrease in B-IBI scores. While also variable, the HBI scores generally ranged from Fair to Excellent, suggesting that organic enrichment is not likely having a significant influence on biotic integrity. HBI scores at Griffin Creek (Upstream) tended to increase somewhat over the study period, suggesting a minor increase in organic enrichment. None of the other sites exhibited a consistent increase or decrease in HBI scores over the course of the study period. Some of the variability in biotic integrity is likely related to physical habitat factors at some sites; for example, flow at the Lynch Creek (Downstream) site appeared to be subsurface during some sampling events and may have been caused by upstream beaver activity. Upstream beaver activity may have also influenced the biotic integrity at Stossel Creek. Statistical analysis of the mean annual B-IBI and HBI scores at all locations was conducted to identify annual shifts in biotic integrity. There were no statistical differences across years for either the B-IBI or the HBI, suggesting that climatic variation was not a primary influence on community composition.

3. How does the overall health of these streams as measured by the B-IBI and the HBI compare to other forested watersheds (>75% forest cover)?

B-IBI and HBI scores from this effort were compared to data from ten streams in forested watersheds (>75% forested) that are routinely monitored as part of the King County ambient monitoring program. Based on a comparison of 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 data, B-IBI scores in other forested watersheds in King County were slightly higher than those measured by this study. B-IBI scores at other King County forested sites ranged from 32 (Fair) - 44 (Good) (median B-IBI = 40 [Good]), while scores from this study ranged from 12 (Very Poor) - 44 (Good) (median B-IBI = 35 [Fair]). Based on a comparison of 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 data, HBI scores in the other forested watersheds in King County ranged from 5.5 (Good) – 2.34 (Excellent), while scores from this study ranged from 6.49 (Fair) – 2.29 (Excellent). The median HBI scores for the two sets of sampling locations were similar; 4.37 (Very Good) at the other King County forested sites and 3.97 (Very Good) for the sites described in this study. In general, HBI scores at the study sites were slightly lower (less organic enrichment) than those in other forested King County sites with the exception of Stossel Creek, which is likely influenced by an upstream wetland. Mean HBI scores at all sites were less than 5 (Good to Excellent). The macroinvertebrate community composition at a given location is formed and impacted by a variety of factors such as permanence and flashiness of stream flows, disturbance frequency, upstream land use, underlying geology, substrate type, stream gradient, riparian shading, and primary energy sources (i.e. allochthonous vs. autochthonous). These confounding factors can make it difficult to link cause and effect to changes in community composition over time. However, the sampling locations for this study have relatively homogenous land use characteristics (i.e. commercial forestry of coniferous forests) and the relatively small geographic scope of the study basins helps to ensure that the sampling locations have similar underlying geology and are subject to comparable precipitation and weather patterns.

King County 50 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

In general, no obvious strong connection between biosolids application and stream health as defined by the B-IBI and HBI could be identified. However, the study was not designed to detect the impact of forest management activities, biosolids application or water quality on biotic integrity. The benthic invertebrate data indicates that there are varying levels of biotic integrity in the seven study streams. Evaluation of the community structure using the functional feeding group analysis suggested some fluctuation in productivity at some sites. In general, however, the available data does not suggest that organic enrichment is a primary driver in the changes observed in B-IBI scores over time.

7 REFERENCES Adams, J. W., M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black. 2004. Stream bugs as biomonitors: a guide to Pacific Northwest macroinvertebrate monitoring and identification (CD ROM). Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon. Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. APHA 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 17th edition. American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington, DC. Bailey, R. G. 1995. Descriptions of Ecoregions of the United States (2nd Edition). Page 108. U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological condition. Pages 63-77 in W. S. Davis, and T. P. Simon, editors. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Bennett, D., and C. L. Henry. 1999. Biological integrity in streams draining biosolids-application sites. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Beschta, R. L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon coast range. Water Resources Research 14:1011-1016. Bethel, J. 2007. Personal communication between John Bethel, geomorphologist and Karen Bergeron, environmental scientist. King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. Bisson, P. A., G. G. Ice, C. J. Perrin, and R. E. Bilby. 1992. Effects of forest fertilization on water quality and aquatic resources in the Douglas-fir region in H. N. Chappell, G. F. Weetman, and R. E. Miller, editors. Forest fertilization: sustaining and improving nutrition and growth of western forests, Seattle, Washington. Chappell, H. N., D. W. Cole, S. P. Gessel, and R. B. Walker. 1991. Forest fertilization research and practice in the Pacific Northwest. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 27:129. Cogger, C. G., D. M. Sullivan, C. L. Henry, and K. P. Dorsey. 2000. Biosolids management guidelines for Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

King County 51 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Correll, D. L. 1998. The role of phosphorous in the eutrophication of receiving waters: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality:261-266. EPA. 1983a. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 1983b. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EVS. 2005. Benthic macroinvertebrate study of the Greater Lake Washington and Green- Duwamish River watersheds: Year 2003 data analysis. EVS Environment Consultants, North Vancouver, British Columbia. EVS Environment Consultants. 2005. Benthic macroinvertebrate study of the Greater Lake Washington and Green-Duwamish River watersheds: Year 2003 data analysis. EVS Environment Consultants, North Vancouver, British Columbia. Fore, L. S. 2002. Evaluating the biological condition of Bellevue streams using invertebrates and diatoms. Page 45. Statistical Design, Seattle, Washington. Fore, L. S. 2007. Personal communication. Pages Regional macroinvertebrate database development meeting with Leska Fore attended by Doug Henderson, Scott Tobiason, Heather Kibbey, Charlie Zeng, Dan Smith, Jo Wilhelm, James Develle, Laura Reed, and Kathy Thornburgh, Seattle, WA. Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr, and L. L. Conquest. 1994. Statistical properties of an index of biotic integrity used to evaluate water resources. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:1077-1087. Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr, and R. W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:212-231. Fore, L. S., K. Paulson, and K. O'Laughlin. 2001. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology 46:109-123. Franklin, J. F. 1992. Scientific basis for new perspectives in forests and streams. Pages 25-72 in e. R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed Management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York. Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep., PNW-8, Portland, Oregon. Gerritsen, J. 1995. Additive biological indices for resource management. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:451-457. Grey, M., and C. Henry. 1998. An examination of runoff water quality and nutrient export from a forested watershed fertilized with biosolids. Pages 649-662. Puget Sound Research '98: From Basic Science to Resource Management, Seattle, Washington. Grey, M., and C. Henry. 2002. Phosphorus and nitrogen runoff from a forested watershed fertilized with biosolids. Journal of Environmental Quality 31:926-936. Henry, C. L., D. W. Cole, and R. B. Harrison. 2000. Nitrate leaching from fertilization of three Douglas-fir stands with biosolids in C. L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Bastian, editors.

King County 52 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

The forest alternative: principles and practice of residuals use. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Herrera. 1988. Memo to Peggy Leonard, King County METRO from Herrera Environmental Consultants. Subject: Dilution analysis and water quality sampling program for section 10, 11 and 12 silvigrow projects. Seattle WA. February 9, 1998. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1977. Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams. Page 15. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1982. Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams. Page 22. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomology 20:31-39. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:65-68. Jeffries, M., and D. Mills 1990. Freshwater ecology, principles and applications. Belhaven Press, London. Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1:66-84. Karr, J. R. 1996. Rivers as sentinels: using the biology of rivers to guide landscape management. Pages 502-528 in R. J. Naiman, and R. E. Bilby, editors. The Ecology and Management of Streams and Rivers in the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York. Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC. Karr, J. R., and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55-68. Kerans, B. L., and J. R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications 4:768-785. Kimmins, J. P., C. E. Prescott, M. D. V. Ham, K. M. Tsze, T. A. Noon, C. C. Peddie, K. W. Lee, and J. R. Braman. 1991. Phase II, East Creek installation - surface water analysis, Appendix 6 in G. V. R. District, editor. Sewage sludge recycling in forest ecosystems: utilizing wastewater treatment residuals as a slow release organic forest fertilizer, Vancouver, BC, Canada. King County. 2002a. 1994-2001 Landsat Forest Area loss. King County 2001 Landsat TM Change Detection. prepared by Marshall and Associates, Inc. for King County, Olympia, WA. King County. 2002b. 1999-2001 project summary: Mountains to Sound Greenway biosolids forestry program at Weyerhaeuser Snoqualmie tree farm. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington.

King County 53 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

King County. 2003. 2002 project summary: Mountains to Sound Greenway biosolids forestry program at Weyerhaeuser Snoqualmie tree farm. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2004. 2003 project summary: Mountains to Sound Greenway biosolids forestry program at Hancock Snoqualmie Forest. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2005. 2004 project summary: Mountains to Sound Greenway biosolids forestry program at Hancock Snoqualmie Forest. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2006a. 2005 biosolids quality summary. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2006b. 2005 project summary: Mountains to Sound Greenway biosolids forestry program at Hancock Snoqualmie Forest. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2006c. Topo drainage for catchments, basins, watersheds, and WRIAs. GIS data layer of King County drainage catchments produced using 6 foot cell grids built from LIDAR ground model data. King County GIS Center, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2007. 2006 biosolids quality summary. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division, Seattle, Washington. Kleindl, W. J. 1995. A benthic index of biotic integrity for Puget Sound lowland streams, Washington, USA. Page 64. College of Forest Resources. University of Washington. Larsen, D. P., and A. T. Herlihy. 1998. The dilemma of sampling streams for macroinvertebrate richness. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:359-366. Melchior, M. J., L. S. Fore, and A. Selle. 2004. Evaluation of the B-IBI program for Pierce County, WA. Page 38. Inter-fluve, Inc. prepared for Brown and Caldwell, Seattle, Washington. Merritt, R. W., and K. W. Cummins, editors. 1996a. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Merritt, R. W., and K. W. Cummins. 1996b. Trophic relations of macroinvertebrates. Pages 453- 474 in F. R. Hauer, and G. A. Lamberti, editors. Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California. Morley, S. A. 2000. Effects of urbanization on the biological integrity of Puget Sound lowland streams: Restoration with a biological focus. Page 61. School of Fisheries. University of Washington, Seattle. Morley, S. A., and J. R. Karr. 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology 16:1498-1509. Naiman, R. J., R. Bilby, and S. Kantor 2001. River ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118-125.

King County 54 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Omernik, J. M. 1995. Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. Pages 49-62 in W. S. Davis, and T. P. Simon, editors. Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Patterson, A. J. 1996. The effect of recreation on biotic integrity of small streams in Grand Teton National Park. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Petts, G., and P. Calow, editors. 1996. River restoration. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Portland General Electric. 2002. Characterization of benthic invertebrate communities in the Clackamas River watershed, Oregon. Clackamas Hydroelectric Relicensing Project, Water Quality 3 (WQ3) Studies. PRISM. 2006. United States Average Monthly or Annual Precipitation, 1971-2000. The PRISM Group at Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Rosenberg, D. M., and V. H. Resh, editors. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York. Rossano, E. M. 1995. Development of an index of biological integrity for Japanese streams (IBI- J). University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Simon, T. P. 2003. Biological response signatures: Indicator patterns using aquatic communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Simon, T. P., E. T. Rankin, R. L. Dufour, and S. A. Newhouse. 2003. Using biological criteria for establishing restoration and ecological recovery endpoints. Pages 83-96 in T. P. Simon, editor. Biological response signatures: Indicator patterns using aquatic communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Swanson, F. J., L. E. Benda, S. H. Duncan, G. E. Grant, W. F. Megahan, L. M. Reid, and R. R. Ziemer. 1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest forest landscapes. Pages 9-38 in E. O. S. a. T. W. Cundy, editor. Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, Proceedings of a Symposium held at University of Washington. Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. Tabor, R. W., V. A. Frizzell, Jr., D. B. Booth, R. B. Waitt, J. T. Whetten, and R. E. Zartman. 1993. Geologic map of the Skykomish River, 30 x 60 minute quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington. University of Washington, C. o. F. R. 1986. Silvigrow operations, interim report: Pack Forest demonstration project, Seattle, Washington. USGS. 2002. King County surface geology. Page GIS layer named "ngs_surfgeol" maintained by the King County GIS Center for use by King County employees. United States Geological Survey. WAC Chapter 173-308. 1998. Biosolids management. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), Olympia, Washington. Wachter, H. M. 2003. Application of the benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) to headwater streams in the Puget Lowland. Page 89. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of Washington, Seattle.

King County 55 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Webster, J. R., S. W. Golladay, E. F. Benfield, D. J. D'Angelo, and G. T. Peters. 1990. Effects of forest disturbance on particulate organic matter budgets of small streams. Journal of North American Benthological Society 9:120-140. Wisseman, R. W. 1995. Ecological coding attributes for western North America, freshwater benthic invertebrates. Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon. Wisseman, R. W. 1998. NuWiss Master 98 benthic macroinvertebrate database (with an additional clinger database compiled by Leska Fore). SalmonWeb website. Wisseman, R. W. 2002. Appendix B. Characterization of benthic invertebrate communities in the Clackamas River Watershed, Oregon. Portland General Electric, Clackamas Hydroelectric Relicensing Project, Portland, Oregon. Wright, K. A., K. H. Sendek, R. M. Rice, and R. B. Thomas. 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: storm runoff at Caspar Creek in Northwestern California. Water Resources Research 26:1657-1667.

King County 56 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Appendix A Physical and Land Use Characteristics of Study Basins

King County 57 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 58 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table A-1. Ownership, basin size, road density, and elevation for the seven study basins.

Basin Area Road Density Elevation % WDNR % Hancock Basin (HA) (m/HA) Range (m) Owned Owned

Beaver 1489.3 17.8 237 - 640 0.0 99.0

Griffin 4654.4 12.5 18 - 518 0.0 90.2

Lynch 1427.7 21.1 323 - 1249 0.0 95.7

Stossel 1493.3 11.6 103 - 426 63.4 21.4

Tate 1427.4 13.2 128 - 426 0.0 84.4

Ten 1745.6 17.3 195 - 560 0.5 95.5

Tokul 8440.1 13.4 158 – 755 1.4 97.0

Table A-2. Geology, land cover, and biosolids application area for the seven study basins.

% Forest Biosolids % % % Mixed/ % Basin % % Change Applications Basin Outwash Conifer Deciduous Biosolids Wetlands Till (1994 – (1988 - 2006) Deposits Forest Forest Applications15 2001)14 (HA)

Beaver 4.5 59.7 28.5 59.7 34.5 3.6 448.6 30.1

Griffin 5.2 13.0 61.1 51.5 43.2 0.8 128.3 2.8

Lynch 2.8 36.3 6.9 58.3 28.1 12.7 301.4 21.1

Stossel 3.3 14.2 61.5 55.6 40.8 2.0 290.6 19.5

Tate 4.2 78.0 6.8 59.0 35.7 0.7 272.7 19.1

Ten 6.7 77.3 5.7 58.0 39.0 2.1 320.7 18.4

Tokul 4.7 47.5 35.0 56.1 38.5 3.1 1209.3 14.3

14 http://www5.kingcounty.gov/sdc/raster/landcover/ChgDetectionForest.html Created by Marshall and Associates, Inc, under contract to King County, contract number: T01393 15 Data represents the percent of the basin that has received at least one application of biosolids during the study period 1988-2006.

King County 59 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

A graphical approach was taken to determine if there is a correlation between the percentage of each basin receiving biosolids and B-IBI and HBI scores. Due to the nonparametric nature of the biosolids application data, Spearman’s correlation was used. There is substantial scatter and very low Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient values (0.012 and 0.029) comparing B-IBI or HBI scores to the percentage of the basin to which biosolids were applied (Figure A-1); no statistically significant (p<0.05) trend is detected. Similarly, no trend was observed by comparing the percent of the basin receiving biosolids to functional feeding group composition (Figure A-3). See section 5 of the main report for more discussion.

50 10

45 9 8 40 7 35 6 30 5 B-IBI 4 25 Score HBI 3 20 2 15 rho = 0.012 1 rho = 0.029 10 0 036912 036912 % of Basin w ith Biosolids Applied % of Basin w ith Biosolids Applied

Figure A-1. B-IBI (left) and HBI (right) scores versus the percentage of the subbasin to which biosolids were applied. Data from ten sampling locations, 1998-2006. Outlier data from Stossel Creek (2001) with more than 40% of the macroinvertebrate subbasin applied are not shown here. Those Stossel 2001 data points are B-IBI of 24 and HBI of 5.14.

King County 60 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Figure A-2. Biosolids application units and macroinvertebrate sampling locations.

King County 61 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

40 45 rho = -0.48 rho = 0.065 35 40 30 35 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 % Shredders 10 10 % FilteringCollectors 5 5 0 0 036912 036912 % of Basin w ith Biosolids Applied % of Basin w ith Biosolids Applied

100 rho = 0.071 35 90 rho = 0.095 30 80 70 25 60 20 50 40 15

30 % Predators 10 20 % Collector-Gatherers 5 10 0 0 036912 036912 % of Basin w ith Biosolids Applied % of Basin w ith Biosolids Applied

60 rho = -0.001 50

40

30

% Scrapers 20

10

0 036912 % of Basin w ith Biosolids Applied

Figure A-3. Functional Feeding Group percentages versus the percentage of the subbasin to which biosolids were applied. Data from ten sampling locations, 1998- 2006. (see discussion in Section 3.2.1.) Outlier data from Stossel Creek (2001) with more than 40% of the macroinvertebrate subbasin applied are not shown here. Those Stossel 2001 data points are B-IBI of 24 and HBI of 5.14.

King County 62 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 63 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Appendix B Macroinvertebrate Taxonomy Contract Labs

King County 64 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 65 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table B-1. Laboratories used for taxonomic identification of samples over the course of the study period.

Years Laboratory

1996 - 1997 Gregg Hood, University of Washington graduate student (School of Fisheries)

1998 - 2001 Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc.

2002 - 2003 Rhithron Associates, Inc.

2004 - present ABR, Inc. – Environmental Research and Services

King County 66 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 67 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Appendix C. Taxa Attribute Classifications

King County 68 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 69 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Comparison of B-IBI scores as reported from the taxonomic labs using their attribute coding and as re-calculated to have same attribute coding throughout (mostly from Wisseman 1998)  83 samples have been collected over the years for the King County biosolids program at 10 macroinvertebrate locations between 1998 and 2006.  The maximum difference in scores was between -4 and 4.  The best-fit line comparing lab reported and recalculated B-IBIs is almost a 1 to 1 relationship (Fig. C-1).  48 (57.8%) had no difference between lab reported and recalculated scores (Fig. C-2).  35 (42.2%) had some difference between lab reported and recalculated scores.  There are only 3 occurrences (3.6%) where the difference in B-IBI scores was greater than 2 or less than -2 (i.e. 4 and -4).

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15

B-IBI (Lab Reported) (Lab B-IBI 10 y = 0.9953x + 0.2549 5 R2 = 0.9701 0 01020304050 B-IBI (Recalculated)

Figure C-1. Comparison of B-IBI scores from 1998 to 2006 as reported from the taxonomic labs and as recalculated using consistent attribute coding listed in Appendix C throughout.

King County 70 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

60 48 50

40

30

Frequency 17 20 15

10 2 1 0 -4 -2 0 2 4 Difference in B-IBI Scores

Figure C-2. Frequency distribution of the difference between recalculated B-IBI scores and lab reported B-IBI scores. Negative values mean the lab reported scores were higher than the recalculated scores.

King County 71 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table C-1. Taxa attribute classification of macroinvertebrate taxa used to calculate the B-IBI in this report. Clinger classifications are from Merritt and Cummins (1996a). All other classifications are from Wisseman (1995) and the 1998 and 2002 updates of these tables (Portland General Electric 2002) with HBI tolerance values based on Hilsenhoff (1982; 1987). The 2002 classifications only used for taxa not listed in the 1998 tables. In such cases, taxa classified as predator for values of 100%, intolerant for 0-3 and tolerant for 7-10. Abbreviations: Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), functional feeding group (FFG), Ephemeroptera (Eph), Plecoptera (Plec), and Trichoptera (Tri). Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Acari 5 PA Acentrella 1 Acentrella turbida 4 CG 1 Acneus 4 SC 1 1 Aedes 8 CG 1 Aeshna 5 PR 1 1 Aeshnidae 3 PR 1 1 Agabus 5 PR 1 1 1 Agapetus 0 SC 1 1 Agathon 0 SC 1 1 Agathon arizonicus 3 SC 1 Agraylea 8 PH 1 Allocosmoecus partitus 0 SC 1 1 Allomyia 1 1 Alloperla 1 1 Alluaudomyia Alotanypus Ambrysus 11 PR 1 Ambrysus mormon Ameletus 0 CG 1 Ametor 5 PR 1 1 Ametropodidae 11 CG 1 Ametropus 11 CG 1 Amiocentrus aspilus 3 CG 1 1 Amphicosmoecus 1 Amphicosmoecus canax 1 SH 1 Amphinemura 2 SH 1 Amphipoda 4 CG 1 Amphizoa 1 PR 1 1 1 Amphizoidae 1 PR 1 1 Ampumixis dispar 4 CG 1 1 Anagapetus 0 SC 1 1 1 Anax 8 PR 1 1 Ancylidae 6 SC 1 Anisoptera 11 PR 1 1 Anodonta 6 CF 1 Anopheles 8 CG 1 Anthopotamus 1

King County 72 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Antocha 3 CG 1 Apatania 1 SC 1 1 1 Apedilum 11 CG Apsectrotanypus 6 PR 1 Archanara Archilestes 9 PR 1 Arctopsyche grandis 1 PR 1 1 1 1 Arctopsyche ladogensis 1 1 Arctopsychidae 2 PR 1 1 1 Argia 7 PR 1 Argia 1 Astacidae 6 OM 1 Asynarchus 4 SH 1 Athericidae 2 PR 1 1 Atherix 4 PR 1 1 Atopsyche 5 PR 1 1 Attenella 2 CG 1 1 Attenella delantala 2 CG 1 1 Attenella margarita 2 CG 1 1 Baetidae 4 CG 1 Baetis 5 CG 1 Baetis bicaudatus 4 CG 1 1 Baetis tricaudatus 6 CG 1 1 Baetisca 3 CG 1 Baetiscidae 3 CG 1 Baetodes 4 SC 1 Behningiidae 11 PR 1 1 1 Belonia 9 PR 1 1 Belostoma 8 PR 1 1 Belostomatidae 8 PR 1 1 Berosus 5 PR 1 1 1 Bezzia Bibiocephala 0 SC 1 1 Bibiocephala grandis 1 Bittacomorpha 11 CG Bledius 1 Blepharicera 0 SC 1 1 Blephariceridae 0 SC 1 1 Boreochlus 6 CG Boreoheptagyia 6 CG Brachycentridae 1 UN 1 1 Brachycentrus 1 OM 1 1 1 Brachycentrus americanus 1 OM 1 1 1 Brachycentrus occidentalis 1 OM 1 1 1 Brachycera 11 UN Branchiobdellida 11 PA Brechmorhoga mendax 9 PR 1 1 Brillia 5 SH

King County 73 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Brundiniella 6 PR 1 Brychius 5 MH 1 1 1 Bryophaenocladius 6 UN 1 Bryozoa 11 CF Buenoa 11 PR 1 Caecidotea 8 CG Caenidae 7 CG 1 1 Caenis 7 CG 1 1 Calamoceratidae 1 SH 1 1 Calineuria californica 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Callibaetis 9 CG 1 1 Callicorixa 8 PR 1 Calopterygidae 5 PR 1 Calopteryx 5 PR 1 Camptocladius 6 UN Capnia 1 SH 1 Capniidae 1 SH 1 Cardiocladius 5 PR 1 Cascadoperla 1 1 Caudatella 1 CG 1 1 1 Caudatella cascadia 1 CG 1 1 Caudatella edmundsi 1 CG 1 1 1 Caudatella heterocaudata 1 CG 1 1 Caudatella hystrix 1 CG 1 1 1 Cenocorixa 8 PH Centroptilum 2 CG 1 1 Ceraclea 3 OM 1 Ceraclea resurgens 1 Ceratopogon Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 6 PR 1 Chaetarthria Chaetocladius 6 CG Chaoborus 7 PR 1 Chelifera 6 PR 1 Chernokrilus 2 PR 1 1 1 Chernovskia 6 UN Cheumatopsyche 8 CF 1 1 1 Chimarra 4 CF 1 1 Chironomidae 6 CG Chironomidae-pupae 6 UN Chironominae 6 CG Chironomini 6 CG Chironomus 10 CG 1 Chloroperlidae 1 PR 1 1 1 Choroterpes 7 CG 1 1 Chrysops 8 PR 1 1 Chydoridae

King County 74 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Chyranda centralis 1 SH 1 1 Cinygma 2 SC 1 1 1 Cinygmula 4 SC 1 1 Claassenia sabulosa 3 PR 1 1 1 1 Cladocera 8 CF Cladopelma Cladopelma viridula 9 CG 1 Cladotanytarsus 7 CG Cleptelmis 4 CG 1 1 1 Cleptelmis ornata 1 Clinocera 6 PR 1 1 Clinotanypus 8 PR 1 Clistoronia 4 SH 1 Cloeon 4 CG 1 Clostoeca disjuncta 4 SH 1 Coenagrion 8 PR 1 Coenagrionidae 9 PR 1 Coleoptera 11 UN Collembola Conchapelopia 6 PR 1 Constempellina 4 CG Copelatus Copepoda 8 CG Corbicula 11 CF 1 Cordulegaster 3 PR 1 1 Cordulegatridae 3 PR 1 1 Corisella 8 PR 1 Corixidae 8 UN Corophium 7 CG 1 Corydalidae 0 PR 1 1 1 Corydalus cornutus 6 PR 1 1 Corynocera 6 CG Corynoneura 7 CG Cricotopus 7 CG 1 Cricotopus Bicinctus Gr. 7 CG 1 Cricotopus Festivellus Gr. 7 CG Cricotopus Fuscus Gr. 7 CG Cricotopus Isocladius 7 CG Cricotopus Magnus Gr. 7 CG Cricotopus Nostococladius 3 PH 1 1 Cricotopus Sylvestris Gr. 7 CG Cricotopus Tibialis Gr. 7 CG Cricotopus Tremulus Gr. 7 CG Cricotopus Trifascia Gr. 6 CG 1 Cricotopus/Orthocladius 1 Cryptochia 0 SH 1 1 1 Cryptochironomus 8 PR 1 1 Cryptolabis 4 UN

King County 75 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Cryptotendipes 6 UN 1 Culex 8 CG 1 Culicidae 8 CG 1 Culicoides Culoptila 2 SC 1 1 Cultus 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Curculioniidae Cylloepus 5 SC 1 Dasyhelea 7 CG 1 Decapoda 6 OM 1 Demicryptochironomus Deronectes 5 PR 1 1 1 Desmona bethula 1 SH 1 1 1 Desmona mono 1 SH 1 1 1 Despaxia 0 SH 1 1 Despaxia augusta 1 Deuterophlebia 0 SC 1 1 Deuterophlebia coloradensis 1 Deuterophlebiidae 0 SC 1 1 Diamesa 5 CG Diamesinae 2 CG Dicosmoecinae 1 UN 1 Dicosmoecus 1 OM 1 Dicosmoecus atripes 1 OM 1 1 1 Dicosmoecus gilvipes 2 SC 1 Dicranota 3 PR 1 Dicrotendipes 8 CG 1 Dioptopsis 0 SC 1 Diphetor 4 CG 1 Diphetor hageni 5 CG 1 Diplectrona 1 1 Diplocladius 8 CG 1 Diptera 11 UN Diura 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Diura knowltoni 1 1 Dixa 2 CG Dixella 2 CG 1 Dixidae 2 CG Doddsia 2 OM 1 Doddsia occidentalis 2 OM 1 Dolichopodidae 4 PR 1 1 Dolichopodidae 8 PR 1 1 Dolophilodes 2 CF 1 1 1 Doroneuria 1 PR 1 1 1 1 Drunella 0 CG 1 Drunella coloradensis 1 1 Drunella coloradensis/flavilinea 0 CG 1 1 Drunella doddsi 0 CG 1 1 1

King County 76 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Drunella grandis 2 CG 1 1 Drunella grandis/spinifera 0 CG 1 1 Drunella pelosa 0 CG 1 1 Drunella spinifera 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Dryopidae 5 SH 1 1 Dubiraphia 6 CG 1 1 1 Dymiscohermes 0 PR 1 1 Dytiscidae 5 PR 1 1 1 Dytiscus PR 1 1 1 Ecclisocosmoecus scylla 0 SH 1 1 Ecclisomyia 2 OM 1 1 1 Einfeldia Eiseniella tetraedra 8 CG Elmidae 4 CG 1 1 Elodes 11 OM 1 Empididae 6 PR 1 Enallagma/ischnura 9 PR 1 Enchytraeidae 10 CG Enchytraeus 10 CG Endochironomus 10 CG 1 1 Enochrus 5 PR 1 1 Entomobrya 11 CF Eocosmoecus frontalis 0 OM 1 1 1 Eocosmoecus schmidi 0 OM 1 1 1 Epeorus 0 SC 1 1 Epeorus albertae 1 SC 1 1 Epeorus deceptivus 0 SC 1 1 Epeorus grandis 0 SC 1 1 1 Epeorus longimanus 1 SC 1 1 Ephemera 4 CG 1 Ephemerella 1 CG 1 1 Ephemerella inermis/infrequens 1 CG 1 1 Ephemerella infrequens 1 SH 1 1 Ephemerellidae 1 CG 1 1 Ephemeridae 4 CG 1 Ephemeroptera 11 UN 1 Ephydridae 6 CG 1 Eretes Erioptera Eristalis Erpetogomphus 5 PR 1 1 Eubrianax edwardsi 4 SC 1 1 Eucapnopsis brevicauda 1 SH 1 Eucorethra 7 PR 1 Eukiefferiella 8 OM Eukiefferiella Brehmi Gr. 4 OM Eukiefferiella Brevicalcar Gr. 4 OM Eukiefferiella Claripennis Gr. 8 OM 1

King County 77 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Eukiefferiella Corulescens Gr. 4 OM Eukiefferiella Devonica Gr. 4 OM Eukiefferiella Gracei Gr. 4 OM Eukiefferiella Pseudomontana Gr. 8 OM 1 Euorthocladius Euparyphus 5 CG 1 Fallceon quilleri 4 CG 1 Farula 0 SC 1 1 1 1 Ferrissia 6 SC 1 Ferrissia rivularis 6 SC 1 Fluminicola 5 SC 1 1 Fluminicola new species 5 SC 1 1 Forcipomyiinae 6 PR 1 Fossaria 6 CG 1 Frisonia picticeps 2 PR 1 1 1 Gammaridae 6 CG 1 Gammarus 6 CG 1 Gastropoda 7 SC Gerridae 11 PR 1 Gerris 11 PR 1 Gerris remigis Glossiphoniidae 6 PR 1 Glossosoma 1 SC 1 1 Glossosomatidae 0 SC 1 1 Glutops 3 PR 1 1 Glyphopsyche irrorata 1 SH 1 Glyptotendipes 10 CG 1 Goera archaon 1 SC 1 1 Goeracea genota 0 SC 1 1 1 1 Goeridae 1 SC 1 Gomphidae 4 PR 1 1 Grammotaulius 4 SH 1 Graptocorixa 8 PR 1 Gumaga 3 SH 1 Gyraulus 8 SC 1 Gyraulus parvus 8 SC 1 Gyrinidae 5 PR 1 1 1 Gyrinus 8 PR 1 1 1 Halesochila taylori 1 OM 1 1 Haliplidae 5 MH 1 1 Haliplus 5 MH 1 1 Haploperla 0 PR 1 1 1 Haplotaxis gordiodes 11 CG Hebridae Heleniella 6 UN Helichus 5 SH 1 1 1 Helicopsyche 7 SC 1 1 1 Helicopsyche borealis 7 SC 1 1 1

King County 78 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Helicopsychidae 3 SC 1 1 Helisoma 6 SC 1 Helobdella stagnalis 6 PR 1 Helopelopia Helophorus Hemerodromia 6 PR 1 1 Hemiptera 8 UN Heptagenia 4 SC 1 1 Heptagenia/Nixe 2 SC 1 1 Heptageniidae 4 SC 1 1 Hesperoconopa 1 UN 1 Hesperocorixa 8 PH Hesperoperla pacifica 2 PR 1 1 1 Hesperophylax 3 OM 1 1 Hetaerina 6 PR 1 Heterelmis 4 SC 1 Heterlimnius 4 CG 1 1 Heterlimnius corpulentus 1 Heteroplectron 1 Heteroplectron californicum 1 SH 1 1 Heterotanytarsus Heterotrissocladius 0 CG 1 Hexagenia 6 CG 1 Hexatoma 2 PR 1 Himalopsyche phryganea 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Hirudinea 10 PR 1 Holorusia 5 SH Homophylax 0 SH 1 1 1 1 Homoplectra 1 1 Hyalella azteca 8 CG 1 Hydatophylax hesperus 1 SH 1 Hydra 5 PR 1 Hydraena 11 OM 1 1 Hydraenidae 1 Hydrobaenus 8 CG 1 Hydrobaenus (CF. Fustistylus) Hydrobiidae 8 SC Hydrobiosidae 5 PR 1 1 Hydrobius 5 PR 1 1 Hydrochus 5 PR 1 1 Hydrophilidae 5 PR 1 1 Hydrophilus 5 PR 1 1 Hydroporus Hydropsyche 4 CF 1 1 Hydropsychidae 4 CF 1 1 Hydroptila 6 PH 1 1 1 Hydroptilidae 4 PH 1 1 Hydrovatus

King County 79 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Hymenoptera Hypogastrura 11 CF Imania 0 SC 1 1 1 Imma. Tubificid w/o cap. setae 9 CG Imma. Tubificid with cap. setae 9 CG Ironodes 3 SC 1 1 Ironodes nitidus 1 1 Ironopsis grandis 1 1 Isogenoides 2 PR 1 1 1 Isogenoides elongatus 1 1 Isonychia 2 CF 1 Isoperla 2 PR 1 1 1 Isoperla pinta 1 1 Isopoda 8 CG Isotomurus 11 CF Ithytrichia 6 SC 1 1 Juga 7 SC 1 1 Kathroperla perdita 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Kogotus 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Krenopelopia Krenosmittia 1 CG 1 Labiobaetis Labrundinia 7 PR 1 1 Laccobius 5 PR 1 1 Lara avara 4 SH 1 1 Larsia 6 PR 1 Lauterborniella 6 CG Lednia 2 SH 1 Lenarchus 3 SH 1 Lepidoptera 5 UN Lepidostoma 1 SH 1 Lepidostoma-panel case larvae 1 SH 1 Lepidostoma-sand case larvae 1 SH 1 Lepidostomatidae 1 SH 1 Lepidostoma-turret case larvae 2 SH 1 Leptoceridae 4 OM 1 Leptohyphes 7 CG 1 1 Leptophlebia 4 CG 1 1 Leptophlebiidae 2 CG 1 1 Lestidae 9 PR 1 Lethocerus 8 PR 1 1 Leucotrichia 6 SC 1 1 1 Leucrocuta 1 1 Leuctra 0 SH 1 1 Leuctridae 0 SH 1 1 Libellulidae 9 PR 1 1 Limnephilidae 4 UN 1 Limnephilus 3 SH 1 1

King County 80 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Limnichidae 11 CG 1 Limnophila Limnophora 6 PR 1 1 Limnophyes 8 CG 1 Limonia 6 MH 1 Liodessus Lopescladius 6 CG Lumbricina 8 CG Lumbriculidae 8 CG Lymnaea 6 CG 1 Lymnaeidae 6 CG 1 Macrelmis 4 SC 1 Macromiidae 2 PR 1 1 Macropelopia 6 PR 1 Malenka 2 SH 1 Margaritifera 4 CF 1 Marilia 3 OM 1 Maruina 2 SC 1 Mayatrichia 6 SC 1 Megaleuctra 0 SH 1 1 Megaloptera 11 PR 1 1 Megarcys 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Menetus 6 SC 1 Meringodixa 2 CG Meropelopia Mesenchytraeus minutus 10 CG Mesovelia 11 PR 1 Mesoveliidae 11 PR 1 Metretopodidae 2 CG 1 Metriocnemus 8 CG 1 Metriocnemus hygropectricus Gr. Metrobates 11 PR 1 Micrasema 1 MH 1 1 Micrasema dimicki 2 MH 1 Microcylloepus 7 SC 1 1 1 Micropsectra 7 CG Microtendipes 6 CG 1 Microtendipes pedellus gr. 1 Microvelia 11 PR 1 Molannidae 6 CG 1 Molophilus Monodiamesa 7 CG Monopelopia 6 PR 1 Moselia infuscata 0 SH 1 1 Muscidae 6 PR 1 1 Mystacides 4 OM 1 Mystacides alafimbriata 4 OM 1 Naididae 8 CG

King County 81 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Nais elinguis 8 CG Nais simplex 8 CG Nais variabilis 8 CG Namamyia plutonis 1 Nanocladius 3 CG Narpus 4 CG 1 1 Narpus concolor 1 Natarsia 8 PR 1 1 Naucoridae 11 PR 1 Neaviperla forcipata 1 Nectopsyche 3 OM 1 1 Nematoda 5 PA Nematomorpha 11 PA Nemotaulius hostilis 3 SH 1 Nemoura 1 SH 1 Nemouridae 2 SH 1 Neocylloepus 4 SC 1 Neoelmis 4 SC 1 Neoephemeridae 11 CG 1 Neohermes filicornis 4 PR 1 1 Neophylax 3 SC 1 1 Neophylax occidentis 1 SC 1 1 1 Neophylax rickeri 2 SC 1 1 Neophylax splendens 2 SC 1 1 Neothremma 0 SC 1 1 1 Neothremma alicia 0 SC 1 1 1 Neotrichia 4 SC 1 1 1 Nepidae 11 PR 1 Nerophilus californicus 1 Neureclipsis 7 PR 1 1 1 Nilotanypus 6 PR 1 Nimbocera 6 UN Nixe 2 SC 1 1 Nixe criddlei 1 1 Nostococladius 1 Notonecta 11 PR 1 Notonectidae 11 PR 1 Nyctiophylax 5 PR 1 1 Ochrotrichia 4 PH 1 1 1 Octogomphus 4 PR 1 1 Odonata 11 PR 1 1 Odontoceridae 0 OM 1 1 Odontomesa 4 CG Odontomyia 8 CG 1 Oecetis 8 OM 1 1 1 Oligochaeta 8 CG Oligoneuriidae 2 CF 1 Oligophlebodes 0 SC 1 1 1

King County 82 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Oligoplectrum echo 2 OM 1 Oliveridea 6 UN Omisus Onocosmoecus unicolor 1 OM 1 Ophidonais serpentina 6 CG Ophiogomphus 4 PR 1 1 Oplonaeschna 5 PR 1 1 Optioservus 4 SC 1 1 1 Optioservus quadrimaculatus 1 Orconectes 6 OM 1 Ordobrevia nubifera 4 CG 1 1 Oreodytes 5 PR 1 1 1 Oreodytes congruus Oreogeton 6 PR 1 1 Ormosia 3 CG Orohermes 0 PR 1 1 1 Orthocladiinae 5 CG Orthocladini Orthocladius 6 CG Orthocladius (Pogonocladius) Orthocladius annectens Orthocladius Complex 6 CG Orthocladius Eudactylocladius 6 CG Orthocladius Euorthocladius 6 CG Orthocladius lignicola Orthocladius lignicola Orthocladius Orthocladius 6 CG Orthocladius Pogonocladius 6 CG Osobenus yakimae 2 PR 1 1 1 Ostracoda 8 CG Ostrocerca 2 SH 1 Oxycera Oxyethira 3 PH 1 1 Pacifastacus 6 OM 1 Pacifastacus leniusculus 6 OM 1 Pagastia 1 CG Pagastiella 6 UN Palaeagapetus 0 MH 1 1 Palingeniidae 11 CG 1 Palmacorixa 8 PH Palpomyia Paltothemis lineatipes 9 PR 1 1 Parachaetocladius 2 CG 1 Parachironomus 10 PR 1 1 Paracladius 6 CG Paracladopelma 7 UN Paracladopelma Camptolabis Gr. 7 UN Paracricotopus 6 CG

King County 83 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Parakiefferiella 4 CG Paralauterborniella 8 CG 1 Paraleptophlebia 4 CG 1 Paraleptophlebia bicornuta 4 CG 1 1 Paraleptophlebia debilis 4 CG 1 Paraleptophlebia gregalis 4 CG 1 Paraleptophlebia heteronea 1 Paraleptophlebia memorialis 4 CG 1 Paraleptophlebia temporalis 4 CG 1 Paraleuctra 0 SH 1 1 Paralimnophyes 11 CG Paramerina 6 PR 1 Parametriocnemus 5 CG Parapelopia 6 PR 1 Paraperla 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Paraphaenocladius 4 CG Parapsyche 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Parapsyche almota 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Parapsyche elsis 1 PR 1 1 1 1 1 Paratanytarsus 6 UN Paratanytarsus Tenellulus Gr. 6 UN Paratendipes 8 CG 1 Paratrichocladius 6 CG Paratrissocladius 11 CG Parochlus 6 UN Parorthocladius 6 CG Pedicia 6 PR 1 Pedomoecus 1 1 Pedomoecus sierra 0 SC 1 1 1 Pelecorhynchidae 3 PR 1 1 Pelecypoda 11 CF Peltodytes 5 MH 1 1 Peltoperlidae 1 SH 1 1 Pentaneura 6 CG Pentaneurini 6 UN Pericoma 4 CG Perlidae 1 PR 1 1 1 1 Perlinodes 1 1 Perlinodes aurea 2 PR 1 1 1 Perlodidae 2 PR 1 1 1 Perlomyia 0 SH 1 1 Petrophila 5 SC 1 Phaenopsectra 7 SC 1 Philocasca 0 SH 1 1 1 1 Philopotamidae 3 CF 1 1 Philorus 0 SC 1 1 Phryganeidae 4 OM 1 Phyllodromia

King County 84 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Phylloicus 3 SH 1 1 Physa 8 CG 1 Physella 8 CG 1 Physella integra 8 CG 1 Physidae 8 CG 1 Pictetiella expansa 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Pisidium 8 CG Piscicola salmositica Planariidae Planorbidae 6 SC 1 Plecoptera 11 UN 1 Plectrocnemia conspersa 6 PR 1 1 Pleidae 11 PR 1 Pleuroceridae 6 SC 1 Plumiperla 1 1 Podmosta 2 SH 1 Podmosta/Prostoia 1 Podonominae 6 UN Polycelis coronata Polycentropodidae 6 PR 1 1 1 Polycentropus 6 PR 1 1 1 Polymitarcyidae 2 CG 1 Polypedilum 6 OM 1 Polypedilum Pentapedilum 6 OM Postelichus 5 SH 1 1 Potamanthidae 4 CG 1 Potamopyrgus antipodarum 8 SC 1 Potthastia 2 CG Potthastia Gaedii Gr. 2 CG Potthastia longimana Gr. 2 CG 1 Pristina foreli 8 CG Pristina idrensis 8 CG Pristina jenkinae 8 CG Probezzia Procladius 9 CG 1 Procloeon Prodiamesa 3 CG Prodiamesinae 6 CG Progomphus 4 PR 1 1 Prosimulium 3 CF 1 Prostoia 2 SH 1 Prostoia Besametsa 1 Protanyderus 1 UN 1 Protanypus 6 CG Protoptila 1 SC 1 1 Psectrocladius 8 CG 1 Psectrotanypus 10 PR 1 1 Psephenidae 4 SC 1

King County 85 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Psephenus 4 SC 1 1 1 Pseudocentroptiloides 4 CG 1 Pseudochironomus 5 CG Pseudodiamesa 6 CG Pseudokiefferiella 1 CG 1 Pseudorthocladius 0 CG 1 Pseudosmittia 6 UN Pseudostenophylax edwardsi 1 SH 1 1 Psilometriocnemus 6 CG Psychoda 10 CG 1 Psychodidae 10 CG Psychoglypha 0 OM 1 Psychoglypha avigo 1 OM 1 Psychoglypha bella 2 OM 1 Psychoglypha subborealis 2 OM 1 Psychomyia 2 SC 1 1 Psychomyia flavida 1 1 Psychomyiidae 2 SC 1 Psychoronia 1 Pteronarcella 0 OM 1 1 1 Pteronarcella badia 0 OM 1 1 1 Pteronarcella regularis 0 OM 1 1 Pteronarcidae 0 OM 1 1 Pteronarcys 0 OM 1 1 1 Pteronarcys californica 1 OM 1 1 1 Pteronarcys dorsata 0 OM 1 1 Pteronarcys princeps 0 OM 1 1 1 1 Ptilodactylidae 11 UN 1 Ptychoptera 7 CG 1 Ptychopteridae 7 CG Pycnopsyche 1 Pyralidae 5 UN Radotanypus Raptoheptagenia 11 PR 1 Rhabdomastix 3 UN 1 Rhabdomastix setigera gr. Rhagovelia 11 PR 1 Rhantus 5 PR 1 1 1 Rheocricotopus 6 OM Rheopelopia 4 PR 1 Rheosmittia 6 UN Rheotanytarsus 6 CF 1 Rhithrogena 0 SC 1 1 Rhithrogena hageni 1 1 Rhizelmis 2 CG 1 1 Rhyacophila Iranda Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Rhyacophila 0 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Alberta Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 1

King County 86 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Rhyacophila Angelita Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila arnaudi 0 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Betteni Gr. 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila blarina 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Brunnea Gr. 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila brunnea/vao 1 1 Rhyacophila Coloradensis Gr. 2 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila grandis Gr. 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Hyalinata Gr. 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila lieftincki Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila malkini 2 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila narvae 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Nevadensis Gr. 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila oreta 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Rhyacophila pellisa 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Rotunda Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Sibirica Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Vagrita Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Rhyacophila valuma 1 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila velora 1 1 Rhyacophila verrula Gr. 0 MH 1 1 1 Rhyacophila viquaea Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 Rhyacophila Vofixa Gr. 0 PR 1 1 1 1 Rhyacophilidae 0 PR 1 1 1 Rickera sorpta 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Robackia 6 CG Robackia demeijerei Saetheria 4 CG Saldidae 11 PR 1 Salmoperla 0 PR 1 1 1 Sanfilippodytes 5 PR 1 1 1 Sciaridae Sciomyzidae Sciomyzidae Scirtidae 11 OM 1 Sepedon Sericostomatidae 3 SH 1 Sericostriata surdickae 0 SC 1 1 1 Serratella 2 CG 1 1 Serratella micheneri 2 CG 1 1 Serratella teresa 2 CG 1 1 Serratella tibialis 2 CG 1 1 Serratella velmae 2 CG 1 Setvena 2 PR 1 1 1 Shipsa 2 SH 1 Sialidae 4 PR 1 Sialis 4 PR 1 Sierraperla 1 SH 1 1 1

King County 87 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Sigara 8 PH Silvius 8 PR 1 1 Simuliidae 6 CF 1 Simulium 6 CF 1 Simulium aureum 1 Simulium piperi 1 Simulium tuberosum 1 Simulium venustum gr. 1 Simulium vittatum 1 Siphlonuridae 7 CG 1 Siphlonurus 7 CG 1 1 Skwala 2 PR 1 1 1 Smicridea 7 CF 1 1 Sminthurus 11 CF Smittia 6 CG Soliperla 1 SH 1 1 1 Soyedina 2 SH 1 Sphaeriidae 8 CG Sphaerium 8 CG Stactobiella 4 MH 1 Stagnicola 6 CG 1 Staphylinidae 1 Stempellina 2 CG 1 Stempellinella 4 UN Stenelmis 5 CG 1 1 Stenochironomus 5 CG Stenonema 5 SC 1 1 1 Stictochironomus 9 CG 1 Stilocladius 6 UN Stratiomyidae 8 CG 1 Stratiomys Sublettea 4 UN Suwallia 0 PR 1 1 1 Sweltsa 1 PR 1 1 1 Symbiocladius 6 PA Symposiocladius 5 SH Sympotthastia 2 CG 1 Syndiamesa 6 CG Synorthocladius 2 CG Syrphidae 10 CG 1 Tabanidae 8 PR 1 1 Tabanus 5 PR 1 1 Taenionema 2 OM 1 Taenionema nigripenne 1 Taeniopterygidae 2 OM 1 Taeniopteryx 2 OM 1 Tanyderidae 1 UN 1 Tanypodinae 7 PR 1

King County 88 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Tanypodini Tanypus 10 PR 1 1 Tanytarsini 6 UN Tanytarsus 6 CF 1 Tanytarsus/Micropsectra Thaumaleidae 11 UN 1 1 Thienemanniella 6 CG Thienemannimyia Gr. 6 PR 1 Thienemanniola 6 UN Thraulodes 6 CG 1 Timpanoga hecuba 7 CG 1 Tinodes 2 SC 1 Tipula 4 OM Tipulidae 3 UN Traverella 4 CF 1 Trepobates 11 PR 1 Triaenodes 6 OM 1 1 Tribelos Tribelos Trichocorixa 8 PR 1 Trichoptera 11 UN 1 Tricorythidae 4 CG 1 1 Tricorythodes 4 CG 1 1 Tricorythodes minutus 4 CG 1 1 Trissopelopia Triznaka 1 1 Triznaka signata 1 1 Tropisternus 5 PR 1 1 Turbellaria 4 CG Turbicifidae 9 CG Tvetenia 5 CG Tvetenia Bavarica Gr. 5 CG Tvetenia Discoloripes Gr. 5 CG Twinnia 6 CF Uenoidae 0 SC 1 Uncinais uncinata 8 CG Unionacea 11 CF 1 Utacapnia 1 SH 1 Utaperla 0 PR 1 1 Valvata 8 SC Valvatidae 8 SC Veliidae 11 PR 1 Visoka 1 Visoka cataractae 0 SH 1 1 Viviparidae 6 SC Vorticifex 6 SC Wiedemannia 6 PR 1 1 Wormaldia 3 CF 1 1

King County 89 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Long- Taxon HBI FFG Predator Tolerant Intolerant Clinger Eph Plec Tri lived Xenochironomus 0 PR 1 1 Xenopelopia 6 PR 1 Yoraperla 1 SH 1 1 1 Yoraperla brevis 1 SH 1 1 1 Yoraperla mariana 1 SH 1 1 Yphria californica 1 OM 1 1 Zaitzevia 4 CG 1 1 1 Zaitzevia parvula 1 Zapada 2 SH 1 Zapada cinctipes 2 SH 1 Zapada columbiana 2 SH 1 1 Zapada frigida 2 SH 1 1 Zapada Oregonensis Gr. 2 SH 1 Zavrelia 6 CG Zavrelimyia 8 PR 1 1 Zumatrichia 4 SC 1 Zygoptera 8 PR 1 Acentrella insignificans 4 CG 1 Arctopsychinae 2 PR 1 1 1 Baetis flavistriga 5 CG 1 Crangonyx 4 CG 1 Ecdyonurus criddlei 2 SC 1 1 Ephemerella 1 CG 1 1 Hydatophylax 1 SH 1 Kathroperla 1 PR 1 1 1 1 Kogotus nonus 2 PR 1 1 1 1 Lepidostoma cascadense 1 SH 1 Lepidostoma Pluviale Gr. 1 SH 1 Margaritifera falcata 4 CF 1 Mesocapnia 1 SH 1 Pilaria PR 1 Pisidiidae CG Thaumalea 11 UN 1 1

King County 90 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas Appendix D. 1996 & 1997 B-IBI Scores

King County 91 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 92 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Table D-1. B-IBI scores for the seven macroinvertebrate sites sampled in 1996 and 1997 (Bennett and Henry 1999). The raw taxonomy data were not available and the method for calculating the B-IBI was not documented, therefore these data were not presented in this report. Griffin Ten Lynch Lynch Beaver Stossel Tate Metrics/ Year Up Down Up Down ‘96 ‘97 ‘96 ‘97 ‘96 ‘97 ‘96 ‘97 ‘96 ‘97 ‘96 ‘97 ‘96 ‘97

Taxa Richness 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1

Ephemeroptera Richness 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3

Plecoptera Richness 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1

Trichoptera Richness 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 1

Long Lived Taxa (Cumulative) 3 1 3 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Intolerant Taxa (Cumulative) 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1

% Individuals Intolerant Taxa 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

% Predator Individuals 5 1 5 3 5 3 3 3 1 1 5 1 3 1

Number Clinger Taxa 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1

% Dominance of 3 Taxa 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 1 5 1 3 1

Total B-IBI Score 36 22 38 34 40 30 30 26 22 16 26 16 28 18

King County 93 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 94 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Appendix E. Water Quality Data

King County 95 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 96 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

50 50 45 45 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20 B-IBI Score 15 B-IBI Score 15 10 10 5 rho = 0.645 5 rho = 0.601 0 0 00.511.500.511.5

NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Winter NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Summer

50 50 45 45 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20 B-IBI Score B-IBI ScoreB-IBI 15 15 10 10 5 rho = 0.610 5 rho = 0.539 0 0 00.511.500.511.5

NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Spring NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Fall 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 B-IBI ScoreB-IBI 15 10 5 rho = 0..624 0 00.511.5 NO NO (mg/L) 2 3 Figure E-1. Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen correlated with B-IBI based on season (top two rows) and overall average (bottom left). All correlations were statistically significant (p<0.05, Spearman’s Correlation).

King County 97 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

7 7

6 6 5 5

4 4

HBI 3 HBI 3

2 2

1 rho = -0.498 1 rho = -0.421 0 0 00.511.5 00.511.5

NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Winter NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Summer 7 7

6 6 5 5

4 4

HBI 3 HBI 3

2 2

1 rho = -0.358 1 rho = -0.391 0 0 00.511.5 00.511.5

NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Spring NO2NO3 (mg/L) - Fall

7

6 5

4

HBI 3

2

1 rho = -0.335 0 00.511.5 NO NO (mg/L) 2 3 Figure E-2. Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen correlated with HBI based on season (top two rows) and overall average (bottom left). Only the winter, summer, and fall season had a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05, Spearman’s Correlation).

King County 98 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

0.025

Beaver Creek

0.020

0.015 NH3 mg/l 0.010

0.005

0.000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

A.

1.25

Beaver Creek

1.00

0.75

NO2-NO3 mg/l NO2-NO3 0.50

0.25

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

B. Figure E-3. (A). Ammonia (MDL - 0.010 mg/l; RDL - 0.020 mg/l) and (B). Nitrate-Nitrite (MDL 0.020 mg/l; RDL 0.040 mg/l) concentrations (mg/l) in Beaver Creek 1997-2005.

King County 99 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

0.025

Lynch - Downstream

0.020

0.015 NH3 mg/l 0.010

0.005

0.000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

A.

1.25

Lynch Creek - Downstream

1.00

0.75

NO2-NO3 mg/l NO2-NO3 0.50

0.25

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

B. Fiure E-4. (A). Ammonia (MDL - 0.010 mg/l; RDL- 0.020 mg/l) and (B). Nitrate-Nitrite (MDL- 0.020 mg/l; RDL - 0.040 mg/l) concentrations (mg/l) in Lynch Creek (Downstream) 1997-2005.

King County 100 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

0.025

Lynch Creek - Upstream

0.020

0.015 NH3 mg/l 0.010

0.005

0.000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

A.

1.25

Lynch Creek -Upstream

1.00

0.75

NO2-NO3 mg/l NO2-NO3 0.50

0.25

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

B. Figure E-5. Ammonia (A) and Nitrate-Nitrite (B) concentrations (mg/l) in Lynch Creek (Upstream) 1997-2005.

King County 101 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

0.025

Ten Creek

0.020

0.015 NH3 mg/l NH3 0.010

0.005

0.000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

A.

1.25

Ten Creek

1.00

0.75

NO2-NO3 mg/l NO2-NO3 0.50

0.25

0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

B. Figure E-6. Ammonia (A) and Nitrate-Nitrite (B) concentrations (mg/l) in Ten Creek 1997-2005.

King County 102 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

Appendix F. Functional Feeding Group Data Assessment Figures

King County 103 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

This page left intentionally blank.

King County 104 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 PR 70 35 SH 60 30 SC 50 25 CG 40 20

B-IBI Score CF Percent (%) Percent 30 15 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure F-1. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Beaver Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure F-2. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Griffin Creek (Downstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

King County 105 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Figure F-3. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Griffin Creek (Upstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Figure F-4. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Lynch Creek (Downstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

King County 106 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure F-5. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Lynch Creek (Upstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure F-6. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores at Tokul Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

King County 107 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure F-7. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Tate Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Figure F-8. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores at Ten Creek (Upstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

King County 108 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B -IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Figure F-9. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores at Ten Creek (Downstream). PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 PR 70 35 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure F-10. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Stossel Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

King County 109 November 2009 Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Results for Streams Near Biosolids Application Areas

100 50 90 45 Other 80 40 70 35 PR 60 30 SH 50 25 SC 40 20 CG B-IBI Score Percent (%) Percent 30 15 CF 20 10 B-IBI 10 5 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure F-11. Functional Feeding Groups and B-IBI scores for Tate Creek. PR = Predators, SH = Shredder, SC = Scraper, CG = Gathering Collector, CF = Filtering Collector.

King County 110 November 2009