# Presentation: 540487

## Methods Comparability in Oklahoma’s Low Gradient Streams

**Monty Porter - Streams/Rivers Monitoring Coordinator****Jason Childress – Biological Team Leader****Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) ****Water Quality Programs Division - Monitoring Section**

**Methods Comparability in Oklahoma’s Low Gradient Streams**

## Roadmap

**Roadmap**

**Oklahoma’s part in the National Wadeable Streams Assessment (NWSA) and Methods Comparability**
**What does an Oklahoma low gradient stream look like?**
**A look at the data and some answers—maybe??**
**How can we do it better?**

## Questions???

**Questions???**

**Do different sampling methods produce similar or different answers?**
**Can the results of different sampling methods be combined to produce a national assessment?**
**Is it realistic to expect states to change methods?**

## Oklahoma’s Part in the NWSA

**Oklahoma’s Part in the NWSA**

- Target Sites
- 20 sites visited with comparability on 18 (Red River site excluded and West Buffalo Creek had sample issues)
- 15 of these sites are low gradient
- Reference Site Selection
- 10 stations visited with comparability on 8 (Trader’s creek had sample issues)
- 4 of these sites are low gradient
- Station's were ecoregion-based
- Used OCC reference site work and best professional judgment

## NWSA Parametric Coverage

**NWSA Parametric Coverage**

**Typical *****in-situ *****parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, specific conductance**
**Nutrients**
**Major cations and anions**
**Variety of metals **
**Benthic Macroinvertebrates—single habitat**
**Periphyton**
**Physical Habitat**
**Stream Flow**

## Cimmaron River, Beaver County, Southwest Tablelands Ecoregion

## Trail Creek, Dewey County, Central Great Plains Ecoregion

## Red River, Tillman County, Central Great Plains Ecoregion

## Grey Horse Creek, Osage County, Flint Hills Ecoregion

## Hybarger Creek, McClain County, Central Great Plains Ecoregion

## Unknown Creek in the Arbuckle Uplift, Johnston County, Central Oklahoma/Texas Plains Ecoregion

## Methods Comparability Study (MCS)

**Methods Comparability Study (MCS)**

## MCS Design

**MCS Design**

- Spatially consists of Fourteen WSA Cooperators
- Incorporates both target and reference sites
- Side-by-side collections using multiple methods (Oklahoma compared W-EMAP to State RBP)

## Objectives of the MCS

**Objectives of the MCS**

**Compare state to federal methods to determine the extent of the difference between the methods.**
**Is needed in future studies to assess the condition of the Nation’s waters.**
**Allays the need for standardized protocols across states**
**Looked at both physical habitat and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methodologies**

## Oklahoma’s Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections

**Oklahoma’s Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections**

**Source of Method**
**Rapid Bioassessment Protocol adopted from Plafkin, et al (1999)**
**Method adopted by Oklahoma state agencies in OWRB Technical Document 99-3 (1999)**
**Use is codified into Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) through the Oklahoma Water Quality standards (OAC 785:45) and the Use Support Assessment Protocols (OAC 785:46)**
**Oklahoma RBP Method**
**Multi-habitat method targeting richest habitats in flowing water over a 400-800 meter reach**
**500 uM nets and sieves are used**
**Composite Riffle—3 kicks in a fast, medium, and slow riffle**
**Streamside Vegetation—reachwide 3-minute collection of composited jabs**
**Woody Debris—reachwide 5-minute collection of composited scrapes/picks**
**100-150 organism subsample with a large and rare scan**
**Identified to lowest practical taxonomic level**

## NWSA Methods—Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections

**NWSA Methods—Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections**

- Sample taken reach wide
- Kick sample with modified D-frame net at 11 equidistant transects
- Work  L, R, C
- Composite Sample
- Processed at any of a number of EPA contract labs
- 300-500 organism subsample
- Identified to lowest taxonomic level

## MCS Results

**MCS Results**

**Meetings**
**National meeting of cooperators in Baltimore, MD**
**Regional meeting of cooperators in Lawrence, KS**
**Have results to date on only 6 states**
**Focused comparability on macroinvertebrates**
_**Evaluate relationships of Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs)**_
_**Evaluate relationships of condition class assessment**_
_**Evaluate relationships of pass-fail assessment**_
**Investigate effects of natural slope gradient**
**Investigate effects of stressor gradient**
**Investigate relationships with biological condition gradient**

## Data Analysis

**Data Analysis**

**Data Sets**
**WSA_WSA IBI—is the WSA dataset processed through the WSA IBI (Courtesy of Versar, Inc. and USEPA, OWOW)**
**WSA_Ok IBI—is the WSA dataset processed through the Oklahoma IBI **
**OK_Ok IBI—is the OK dataset processed through the Oklahoma IBI**
**Oklahoma IBI**
**Metrics are Taxa Richness, EPT Taxa Richness, EPT Abundance, Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, EPT/Chironomidae Proportion, Percent Dominant Taxa, and Shannon-Weaver Diversity**
**5 condition classes including Reference (Good), Non-impaired (Good), Slightly Impaired (Fair), Moderately Impaired (Poor), and Severely Impaired (Poor)**

## Data Analysis (continued)

**Data Analysis (continued)**

**Data Analysis**
_**Evaluate relationships of Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs)**_
_**Evaluate relationships of condition class assessment**_
_**Evaluate relationships of pass-fail assessment**_
**Make comparisons of IBI scores to some habitat  and land use metrics**
**Look at some simple boxplots of data to see where some variation may exist**
**Data Issues**
**Subsample counts not standardized between datasets**
**Taxonomic resolution**
**Did not compare Oklahoma Data to NSA IBI**
**Sample size is small**
**Data collection issues including sample handling and weather**
**Oklahoma IBI is well used but application of reference was a first run**
**Do no look at biological condition gradient in this analysis**

- Draft Interim Comparability Study.  2006.  Versar, Inc. and USEPA OW

## Relationships of Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs)

**Relationships of Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs)**

**Value of r****2**** for Oklahoma Low Gradient Stream Data**
**WSA_Ok IBI vs. Ok_Ok IBI****	****	****0.20**
**WSA_WSA IBI vs. WSA_Ok IBI****	****0.68**
**WSA_WSA IBI vs. OK_Ok IBI****	****0.28**

- Draft Interim Comparability Study.  2006.  Versar, Inc. and USEPA OW

## Comparison of WSA_OK IBI and OK_OK IBI Scores to Various Habitat Metrics

## Comparison of WSA_OK IBI and OK_OK IBI Scores to Several Land Use Metrics

**RHUM0—% of human land use at the site**
**RAGT0—% of total agricultural land use at the site**
**POPDENS—population density**

## Relationship of Condition Class Assessment

**Relationship of Condition Class Assessment**

**WSA Method/WSA IBI vs. OK Method/OK IBI**
**Not well compared **
**8 of 18, or 44% have different class**
**WSA Method/WSA IBI vs. WSA Method/OK IBI**
**Not well compared **
**9 of 18, or 50% have different class**
**WSA Method/OK IBI vs. OK Method/OK IBI**
**Not well compared  **
**9 of 19, or 42% have different class**
**However, 50% of the divergence is at the Fair/Good classifications**

- Draft Interim Comparability Study.  2006.  Versar, Inc. and USEPA OW

## Comparison of WSA_OK IBI and OK_OK IBI Condition Classifications to Various Habitat Metrics

## Comparison of WSA_OK IBI and OK_OK IBI Condition Classifications to Several Land Use Metrics

**RHUM0—% of human land use at the site**
**RAGT0—% of total agricultural land use at the site**
**POPDENS—population density**

## Relationship of Pass/Fail Assessment

**Relationship of Pass/Fail Assessment**

**WSA Method/WSA IBI vs. OK Method/OK IBI**
**Not well compared**
**6 of 18, or 33% have different status**
**More sites impaired per the WSA IBI**
**WSA Method/WSA IBI vs. WSA Method/OK IBI**
**Not well compared**
**5 of 18, or 28% have different status**
**More sites impaired per the WSA IBI**
**WSA Method/OK IBI vs. OK Method/OK IBI**
**Well compared**
**3 of 19, or 16% have different status**

- Draft Interim Comparability Study.  2006.  Versar, Inc. and USEPA OW

## Slide 27

## Answers???

**Answers???**

**Do different sampling methods produce similar or different answers?**
**Can the results of different sampling methods be combined to produce a national assessment?**
**The r****2**** values between IBI scores show little to some relationship**
**When use different IBI’s see poor comparability between both condition classes and pass/fail designations**
**Using same IBI**
**See poor comparability at the condition class level but 50% comes at the fair/good classifications**
**However, when use same IBI see a little better comparability between pass/fail designations**
**Relationship of datasets to habitat and land use metrics is a mixed bag**

## Answer

**Answer**

**Is it realistic to expect states to change methods?**
**No**
**Not economically feasible**
**Not politically practical**
**Most states have developed, adopted and revised methods that fit that state**
**Are following RBP’s adopted and pushed long ago by the EPA **
**RBP’s have been used effectively by the states to both screen waterbodies and determine impairment status of streams**

## So where can we go from here?

**So where can we go from here?**

**Need to invest money in comparability work**
**Investigate comparability at all levels from sampling techniques to metric and index development**
**In the end need to decide if the same final answer can be obtained**
**Studies need to be more tightly designed and controlled**
**Need to continue developing the good working relationship that came out of the national study and continues into the National Lakes Study**

## Questions?

**Questions?**