Assessment of Aquatic Biological Communities Along a Gradient of Urbanization in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, Oregon and Washington

Ian Waite, Kurt Carpenter, Andrew Arnsberg, Frank Rinella, Steve Sobieszczyk, Ian Wigger,

Curt Hughes and Mike Sarantou

National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program

Urban Intensity IndexUrban Intensity IndexMultimetric index based on population density, infrastructure, socioeconomic factors, land-use, and land-cover variables (McMahon and Cuffney 2000)*. AFS Book “Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems” 2005Provides a consistent and objective indicator of urban intensity for site selection and data analysis.

*http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ecology/pubs/index.html

Seattle

Sacramento

Raleigh

Atlanta

Portland

Denver

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Milwaukee-Green BaySalt Lake City Boston

Birmingham

NAWQA Urban Gradient Studies

Oregon

WillametteRiverValley

Willamette River Valley, Oregon

Urban Intensity Index Urban Intensity Index -- variablesvariables

Population density (people/sq km: 2000 census block)Household density (occupied housing units per sq. km)Percent impervious surface in basin (NLCD 2001)Road density (km/sq km: TIGER 2000 roads)Percent urban in basin (NLCD92e)Road Traffic IndexSocioeconomic Index

Willamette Urban Intensity IndexU

rban

Inde

xU

rban

Inde

x

Popu

latio

n D

ensi

ty

Popu

latio

n D

ensi

ty

per s

q m

ilepe

r sq

mile

0102030405060708090

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27Sites Ordered by Urban Index

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Willamette Urban and AgWillamette Urban and Ag

Willamette Valley Willamette Valley EcoregionEcoregion

Tickle Creek near Boring, Oregon

Urban Index = 32Urban Index = 32

Urban Streams

Claggett CreekAmazon Creek

Pringle Creek

Urban Index = 77 Urban Index = 77 -- 100100

Water chemistry

Habitat

Algal

Invertebrate

Fish assemblages

% Fish MetricIncludes 4 Metrics

% Salmonids% Native (other species)% Reticulate Sculpin% Introduced or Exotic

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Urban Index

Fish

Met

ric (%

)

0

20

4060

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

% Dissolved Oxygen

Fish

Met

ric (%

)

poor

con

ditio

npo

or c

ondi

tion% Fish Metric

Includes 4 Metrics% Salmonids% Native (other species)% Reticulate Sculpin% Introduced or Exotic

“What do you mean cooties, no cooties on

me.”FZ

Exotic Species

nMDS Ordination of Fish Abundance (Log X+1)with overlay of Population Density

popden00

600

2.4E3

4.2E3

6E3

Battle

Beaverton

Chehalem

Chicken

Claggett

Curtin

Deep

EFDairyFanno

Iler

Johnson

Kellogg

Lost Milk NF Deep

Nate

Nyamhill

Oak

Pringle

RockOR

RockWA

Salmon

Silk

Sscappoose

Tickle

TryonWhipple

Stress: 0.16

600

2400

4200

6000

per sq mile

Overview of Abundance and Taxonomy

Order No. Unique Taxa Most Abundant Taxa and their Maximum Abundance (m2) Ephemeroptera 19 Heptageniidae 2943Plecoptera 14 Zapada cinctipes 4851Trichoptera 26 Cheumatopsyche sp. 4208Diptera 67 Simuliidae 10584

Chironomidae 45 Cricotopus bicinctus 3226Coleoptera 11 Optioservus sp. 1546Noninsects (17 orders) 30 Fluminicola sp. 14274

Total 172

Overview of Abundance and TaxonomyOrder Taxa Percent of Sites PNW Tolerant Value

Noninsect - Water Mite Acari 96 6

Diptera Simuliidae 93 6

Noninsect - Snail Juga sp. 89 7

Ephemeroptera Baetis tricaudatus 82 7

Noninsect - Worm Naididae 79 8

Diptera - Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 75 5

Noninsect - Worm Lumbriculidae 71 7.5

Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche sp. 68 8

Diptera - Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 68 6

Diptera - Chironomidae Paraleptophlebia sp. 64 5

Diptera - Chironomidae Chironominae 64 6

Diptera - Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group sp. 61 6

Diptera - Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus sp. 57 6

Diptera - Chironomidae Eukiefferiella sp. 57 8

Noninsect - Snail Ferrissia sp. 57 7

Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 57 9

Coleoptera Zapada cinctipes 54 4

Noninsect - Worm Tubificidae 54 10

Noninsect - Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus 54 7

Noninsect - Snail Fluminicola sp. 50 7

Trichoptera Ceratopsyche sp. 50 5

Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae 50 4

Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 50 6

Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae 50 2

Y-Axis % Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera Richness

Y-Axis Invertebrate Tolerance (Weighted Abundance)Y-Axis Invertebrate Tolerance (Weighted Abundance)

ρ = 0.79

4

5

6

7

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Urban Index

ρ = 0.79

4

5

6

7

8

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)

ρ = -0.72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Urban Index

ρ = -0.82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)

ρ = -0.72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Urban Index

ρ = -0.82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)

727Fluminicola sp.51291127Simulium canadense67322167Ferrissia sp.31391137Baetis tricaudatus34392468Cheumatopsyche sp.38452799Optioservus sp.16491038Cheumatopsyche sp.37511438Cheumatopsyche sp.51581238Cheumatopsyche sp.295936148Cheumatopsyche sp.16691767Baetis tricaudatus3072417Cricotopus bicinctus group35771757Simulium canadense49882178Cheumatopsyche sp.27881138Cheumatopsyche sp.57960010Tubificidae421001127Baetis tricaudatus27100

EPTRpEPTRTolerantDominant TaxaPercent DominantUrban Index

Dominance, Tolerance and EPT Richness along the Urban Gradient --Is Dominance all it’s cracked up to be?

441552515483747184Zapada cinctipes18037163Rhithrogena sp.26450163Rhithrogena sp.3063183Rhithrogena sp.20851185Ceratopsyche cockerelli36856188Cheumatopsyche sp.231250143Rhithrogena sp.301541147Baetis tricaudatus231754153Rhithrogena sp.272036156Paratanytarsus sp.142334127Simulium canadense2824

EPTRpEPTRTolerantDominant TaxaPercent DominantUrban Index

Ave. of sites > 25 Ur IndexAve. of sites < 25 Ur Index

nMDS Ordination of Invertebrate Density (Log X+1) w/ overlay of Population Density

Amazo

BattlBeave

Cheha

Chick

Clagg

Curti

Deep

EFDar

Fanno IlerJohns

Kello

LostMilk

Nate

NFDep

Nyamh

Oak

Pring

RocOR

RocWASalmo

Silk

Sscap

Tickl

Tryon

Whipp

2D Stress: 0.15

AXIS 1

AX

IS 2

Sites sorted by Urban Index (n = 28)

0102030405060708090

100

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29

URBAN INDEX

% AGRICULTURE

Plot of Population Density vs.% AG+Urban Land Use (% disturbance)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Population Density

% A

G+U

rban

Lan

duse

Transition

High Pop.DenMed/High AG+Urb

Low/Med Pop.DenHigh AG+Urb

Low AG+Urb

nMDS Ordination of Invertebrate Density Sites coded by %AG+Urban

%AG+UrCategories

< 15 %

15 – 39

40 – 69

> 69 %

Invertebrate RTH (Density-Log(X+1)2D Stress: 0.15

AXIS 1

AX

IS 2

Multivariate Regression Tree (MRT: Primer) Linking Inverts to Environmental Data (coded by %AG+Urban)

A: DO > 3.4 (< 2.5)TEQ < 1080 (>1120)A

B

CH

D

TEQ, DOand Sum_PEST

B: Sum_PEST< 0.075 (> 0.087)

% AG+UrCategories

< 15 %

15 – 39

40 – 69

> 69 %

Nonparametric Regression Tree Linking Inverts to Environmental Data (coded by %AG+Urban)

C: TEQD & E: DO

F & G: Sum_PEST B

G

F

E

C

I

H

J

K

L

D

A

H: TEQI: DO

J: Sum_PESTK: TEQ

L: Sum_PEST

Preliminary CONCLUSIONS

Fish showed a linear response as urban intensity increases based on individual metrics

% E

PTRi

chne

ss

Invertebrates showed a threshold for some metrics (EPT Richness and % Richness) at Urban Index values of ~25 or < 1-4 % Impervious

Invertebrate RTH (Density-Log(X+1)2D Stress: 0.15

ρ = -0.72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Urban Index

Preliminary CONCLUSIONSThough statistically

significant, flashiness of urban stream flows that is usually associated with % impervious, does not seem to be the dominate factor affecting the biological assemblages in the Willamette Valley

Biotic assemblages were strongly related to differences in WQ among sites (e.g., TEQ, Pesticides, DO, and Water Temp.) likely due to Urban and AG land use disturbances – either singularly or in combination.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Population Density

% A

G+U

rban

Lan

duse High Pop.Den &

High AG+Urb

High AG+Urb & Low/Med Pop.Den

Low Pop.Den & Low AG+Urb

Little difference found in fish and inverts between High AG+Urban (% disturbance) and High Population Density sites

Preliminary CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary CONCLUSIONS1) WQ and Contaminants: strongest variables related to

the macroinvertebrate similarity matrix along the Urban Index 2) then habitat variables, water temperature, and finally hydrologic metrics

SUMMARY of BEST Variables Related to Inverts

Top TWO Variables:

TEQ (SPMD) 0.577 PRIMER

Sum of Total Pesticides ANOSIM R

then add in these three VARS

Embeddedness add .48

Percent Riffle add .48

Summer DO add .30

minor improvement with

Seven Day Ave. Temperature add .18

Percent Urban+AG add .13

Urban Index add .13

NEW PROJECT Develop Watershed Disturbance Predictive Models

for WA, OR and CA

Lead Authors: Ian Waite, Larry BrownJason May, Chris Konrad, Jim Orlando, Kim Jones, Tom Cuffney, Jonathan Kennen and Ann Brasher

Collaborating with EPA Corvallis and StatesFocus on Macroinvertebrate Metrics

What variables are related to the Ordination Axis 1?

ρ = -0.83

0

1

2

3

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Urban Index

Axi

s 1

Scor

es

ρ = 0.93

0

1

2

3

4

0 4 8 12 16 20

EPT Richness

Axi

s 1

Scor

es

Population Density% Impervious 0.98

% Urban 0.98Road Den. 0.95

Urban Index 0.98

Mean Watershed Elev. -0.88

Watershed Slope -0.81

3 Flow Stats 0.73

DOC 0.70, SO4 0.71

TN 0.81, TP 0.73

Pest. Tox. Index_Summer 0.70

Sum_Insecticide 0.70

TEQ 0.79

Environmental Variables usually surrogates for many

processes

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 20 40 60 80 100

Urban Intensity

Res

pons

e Va

riab

le

Hypothetical response to increasing urban intensity…..threshold or linear or none?

Minimum threshold

Maximum threshold

Resistance