Deschutes Macroinvertebrate Study Addendum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ADDENDUM TO FINAL REPORT Lower Deschutes River Macroinvertebrate & Periphyton Study Additional Analyses Prepared for: Portland General Electric Company DRAFT Prepared by: T. Nightengale, A. Shelly R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 15250 NE 95th Street Redmond, Washington 98052 October 17, 2017 Addendum to Final Report SUMMARY On April 1, 2016, the final report of the “Lower Deschutes River Macroinvertebrate and Periphyton Study Report” was filed with FERC by Portland General Electric (PGE) and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon for the Project. On May 23, 2016, the Oregon DEQ sent a letter to PGE regarding the results of the Lower Deschutes River Macroinvertebrate and Periphyton Study prepared for PGE by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2) (R2 2016). In the letter, Oregon DEQ acknowledged that the work reported “fills the basic expectations of the 401 Condition,” but also believed the work had “serious shortcomings in the analysis of the macroinvertebrate data at several levels.” Attached to the letter was a memo from Mr. Shannon Hubler of Oregon DEQ which outlined his concerns regarding the analysis and interpretation of the macroinvertebrate data collected for the study, and listed several recommendations. The main purpose of this addendum to the 2016 “Lower Deschutes River Macroinvertebrate and Periphyton Study” was to address the concerns and recommendations of Oregon DEQ. The efforts documented in this addendum were conducted specifically to address the recommendations proposed by Mr. Hubler: to format pre- and post-SWW data sets into a single, consistent, and compatible flat file for the required analyses; to conduct an independent review of the taxonomic consistency between pre- and post-SWW datasets; and, to conduct additional analyses that will first standardize all samples to a 500-count subsampling effort, recalculate all metrics accordingly, and then run comparative univariate and multivariate analyses between the standardized pre- vs. post-SWW data and results. The independent review by River Continuum Concepts (RCC) looked at baseline samples available from the first year of study (1999 and 2000). Unfortunately, a sample-by-sample review of the taxonomic efforts and accuracy was not possible. The unexpected presence of additional debris and specimens made it impossible to separate the original specimens from the additional ones that were unaccounted. Therefore, it was concluded that the samples found were not in the same condition as they were when originally analyzed. However, the exercise provided a broader assessment of the taxonomy employed on the baseline samples, which allowed RCC and R2 greater confidenceDRAFT when determining appropriate Optimal Taxonomic Units (OTUs) for comparison between the pre- and post-SWW data sets. With the OTU list finalized, the final flat file was created, and the recommended analyses to apply standard subsampling effort adjustments and ultimately run univariate and multivariate tests on the resulting data sets. To obtain representative and compatible 500-count subsamples from greater subsampling efforts, we examined three different approaches in order to achieve simulated 500-count subsamples, and evaluated the potential biases that may occur. The primary advantage to conducting these simulations was that it provided comparable samples with equal subsampling efforts that allowed for statistical comparisons of taxa richness metrics. Results were similar, regardless of the simulation method. Final results indicated a slight increase in overall taxa richness, possibly attributed to a combination of more Trichoptera taxa, Diptera taxa, and non-insect taxa in the post-SWW period. EPT taxa richness as a whole did not significantly change, but Plecoptera alone registered a small average decrease in taxa post- ii Lower Deschutes Macroinvertebrate & Periphyton Study SWW, as did counts of Sensitive taxa. These decreases were small, but significant, highlighting that the macroinvertebrate communities have changed over the 12 years between studies. It is important to note that these changes in taxa richness are not large, though. Univariate statistical comparisons between pre- and post-SWW metric results produced very similar outcomes, regardless of which simulation estimate method was used. The significant changes noted in the analyses of this addendum are also generally in agreement with those presented and discussed in the 2016 report. The exception is the tolerance-base metrics, which utilized the ATI scoring to assign “tolerant” and “sensitive” designations to taxa, and the FSBI, which became the measurement of sediment tolerance, each replacing the more subjective assignments previously used (Hafele and Mulvey 1998; OWEB 1999). LME results show that tolerances and the relative abundance of tolerant taxa increased in the post-SWW Spring periods, but remained unchanged in the Fall periods. These results are further supported by LME tests on community compositions, with a significant average 20-percent decrease in Chironomidae relative abundances, and a corresponding significant average 20-percent increase in the more tolerant non-insect taxa. Results generated by these additional analyses clearly indicate that number of changes in the macroinvertebrate community have occurred during the time from 2001 to 2013. Results also suggest that macroinvertebrate community in the Spring now favors more tolerant macroinvertebrate taxa. Finally, the addendum addresses the multivariate analysis proposed as part of the Final Study Plan. Each of the NMDS test runs completed, with and without reference sites or once- occurring taxa, produced the same basic trends and relationships that were shown and discussed in the 2016 report. NMDS biplots clearly show a distinct longitudinal community pattern, shifting from non-insect taxa predominating sample sites 1, 1S, and 3 immediately downstream of the Project, to aquatic insect taxa further downstream at sites 5 through 10. Each NMDS test run revealed an apparent shift from pre- to post-SWW period communities as well, with a larger shift apparent in the Spring, again highlighting the LME test results. This spatial separation is especially noticeable when reference sites are removed from analysis. However, it is also important to note that even within the reference sites, which are not affected by the SWW operations, there is a separation of pre- and post-SWW data points. This is even true of data at Site ME,DRAFT on the Metolius River, where a small, but noticeable temporal separation can be seen. Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the temporal shift in the benthic community could be due to changes unrelated to SWW over the 12 years between the two studies. These changes might include, for example, climate change and changes in land use practices in the upper basins of the Deschutes and Crooked rivers. iii Addendum to Final Report CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 STUDY GOALS & OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 2 SAMPLING SITES .................................................................................................................... 3 POST-SWW SAMPLING 2013-2015 ................................................................................................ 3 FIELD SAMPLING ............................................................................................................................ 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 6 FORMATTING DATA SETS ................................................................................................................. 6 INDEPENDENT TAXONOMIC REVIEW ................................................................................................... 6 OPERATIONAL TAXONOMIC UNITS ..................................................................................................... 9 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 9 Metrics ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Compositing and Equalizing Sampling Effort ................................................................................. 11 Univariate Statistical Comparisons ................................................................................................ 14 Multivariate Community Analysis .................................................................................................. 15 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 17 INDEPENDENT TAXONOMIC REVIEW ................................................................................................. 17 OPERATIONAL TAXONOMIC UNITS ................................................................................................... 21 RECALCULATED METRICS ............................................................................................................... 22 Taxa Richness ................................................................................................................................. 22 Tolerance Measures and Indices ...................................................................................................