Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Participants’ Training

1. Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Participants’ Training Updated April 2006

2. Standard Report (OBBN Vision) Clear Lake Inflow, 22-May-2005 Longitude: -74.7° Latitude: 45.0° Sampled by: Jones & Dmytrow Stream reference sites with test-site like collection method, gear type, mesh size, collection season, and flow permanence were selected based on similarity (Euclidean distance) to the following test-site habitat features: dominant substrate, elevation, latitude, longitude, and catchment area. Euclidean distances for reference sites ranged from 5 to 72. Total Euclidean distance for 15 reference sites and 5 attributes was 494 Test Site Atypical

3. Instructors Chris Jones, Ministry of Environment, Benthic Biomonitoring Scientist and OBBN coordinator (Lead Instructor) Nicole Dmytrow, Saugeen Conservation, OBBN Assistant Coordinator (Sampling, Benthos Identification) Ron Reid, Ministry of Environment, Benthos Scientist (Sampling, Benthos Identification) Michelle Bowman, University of Toronto (RCA bioassessment calculations: Test Site Analysis)

4. Desired Outcome Participants understand the purpose and administration of the OBBN, and demonstrate competence with its methods. This course is part of OBBN’s quality assurance plan: certification is one way of protecting the credibility of the Network. The OBBN is part of the Canada-wide Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network (CABIN). We are working on standard training and certification requirements for CABIN.

5. Participants’ Certification • 2 types of certificates (Participant, Trainer) • To be certified, participants must: • Pass a general multiple-choice test • Correctly identify 40 of 44 benthos specimens to the coarse OBBN 27-group level • In addition to above, trainers must: • Assist with teaching the course • List at least 2 diagnostic characters for each specimen on the benthos identification test (without consulting references)

6. Student Instructors Rebecca Crockford, District of Muskoka Lynette Dawson, Quinte Conservation Gerry Sullivan, Otonabee Region Conservation Authority Angela Wallace, Gartner Lee

7. Biomonitoring Knowledge vs. Degree of OBBN Involvement Regression results (C = number of correct answers, DK = number of questions answered ‘Don’t Know’, ODI = ordinal degree of OBBN involvement; all listed comparisons are significant at the =0.05 level)

8. Agenda: Day 1

9. Agenda: Day 2

10. Agenda: Day 3

11. Biomonitoring Rationale • Legislation & policy stress protection of biota • Biological definitions of impairment and adverse impact in Ontario • “biological integrity” in U.S. Water Pollution Control Act • The EU Water Framework Directive requires both “good ecological status” and “good chemical status” of surface water • Management stresses protection/rehabilitation of biota: • Target setting • Performance evaluation (Roux et al. 1999, Jones et al. 2005b, Jones 2006)

12. Biomonitoring Rationale II “Biomonitoring is required … because the consequences of environmental stress can only be determined by an appraisal of the biota”. Wright (2000)

13. What are Benthos? • Bottom-dwelling aquatic invertebrates • Include animals like insects, worms, mollusks, crustaceans, and mites Caddisfly of the family Helicopsychidae Mayfly of the family Ephemerellidae.

14. Why Use Benthos As Bioindicators? Benthos are excellent indicators of aquatic ecosystem health. • Abundant and widespread • Nobody cares • Easily and inexpensively sampled • Sedentary (unlike fish) • Long lived (months to years) • Many species with different tolerances • Respond to both water and sediment chemistry • Readily archived for future reference • Provide early-warning Stream benthos collection in the Raisin River watershed (Rosenberg & Resh 1993, 1996; Mackie 2001)

15. Complementarity of Stressor- and Effect-based Monitoring Adapted from Roux et al. (1999)

16. Benthos data, Pretty River, October 1996; reference site data, 1997-2000 Biology Stressor and Effect-based Approaches are Complementary 95% confidence ellipse Chemistry = Ontario Water Quality Objective Pretty River, Highway 26,Collingwood, Ontario

17. Technical Issues The application of benthos biomonitoring has been limited by a number of technical issues. • Unlike water chemistry, no guidelines or “biocriteria”exist • Complex; many confounding factors: biota respond to things other than stressor of interest • No standard sampling protocol • Taxonomy requires special expertise • Experts disagree on hypothesis-testing procedures and interpretation • Cost

18. OBBN Background OBBN: a collaborative lake-, stream-, and wetland-bioassessment network Leads: Ontario Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada (EMAN), but part of national CABIN program Purposes • Evaluate aquatic ecosystem condition • Measure effectiveness of programs • Provide biological complement to Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Program • Support development of biocriteria for aquatic ecosystem condition Aquatic mite

19. Barriers to Biomonitoring in Ontario Data Sharing Standard Protocol Training

20. ImplementationStatus • Train-the-trainer • Integration with North American • Benthological Society Taxonomic • Certification Program (NABS • TCP) http://obbn.eman-rese.ca • On-line • Printed manual subject to Ministry approval • National integration • Launched 31 Oct. 2005 • ~30 organizations have accounts • Collaborative projects required to develop OBBN products • Current focus is on understanding sources of variance and evaluating methods • Query tool, data exporter, automated bioassessment-hypothesis test, reporting module • spring 2006 release date

21. OBBN Partners Certified Participants • All Sectors Technical Advisory Committee • Universities • Conservation Authorities • Ontario’s Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources • Environment Canada • Trout Unlimited • District of Muskoka OBBN Leads • Ontario Ministry of Environment • Environment Canada’s Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network

22. OBBN Partner Roles Partners • Sampling (for their own purposes and to collaborate on regional, provincial, and national reporting) • Data-sharing • Research Technical Advisory Committee • Technical guidance and review • Research • Program Priorities • Problem Solving OBBN Leads • Coordinate 5 program components • Provide technical advice and equipment • Research

23. Data-sharing Agreement I understand and accept that as a partner in the Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network, data entered into this system is freely shared among all Network participants.I further understand and accept that CABIN and its partners put no restrictions on, and do not regulate, how data is used by network members.Although I have made every attempt to ensure the quality of the data I enter into the database, I make no guarantee about the accuracy of that data, and assume no liability associated with its use.

24. OBBN Socio-economics and Demography • OBBN participants’ socio-economic status and demography(aCD = college diploma; UUG = university undergrad. degree; UGD = university grad.degree; bU = unemployed; R = retired; PT = part-time; FT = full-time; cPS = private sector; Gov = government; CA = conservation authority; Acad = academic; Ed = education; NGO = non-government or non-profit organization

25. Motives of Participation * Motives of OBBN participation (R = research; MO = meeting others with common interests; PE = performance evaluation (i.e., evaluating performance of water management programs; GRR = guiding rehabilitation or restoration; GE = Guiding enforcement; AMD = Assessing or managing biodiversity; AEC = Assessing/managing ecological condition; TE = Training/education)

26. Perspectives on Network Implementation (I) * • 88% categorized participant-government relationship type as partnership or collaboration * Participants’ perceived control or influence over components of the OBBN Types of government-participant relationships in monitoring programs (adapted from Savan et al. 2004).

27. Benthos: From Snot Globules to Jewelry Anterior view of water-boatman head (Corixidae) Caddisfly larva (Hydropsychidae)

28. Mayflies

29. True Flies

30. Black Flies

31. Caddisflies

32. Leeches

33. Dragonflies & Damselflies

35. Biocriteria and the Reference Condition Approach

36. Biocriteria “Healthy is Variable.” –Dr. Robert Bailey, University of Western Ontario • 2 equally healthy sites may have different biological assemblages • Need to determine what normal is • Biomonitoring conundrum: Is an observed difference greater than expected by chance? Is it biologically meaningful? • Biocriteria are critical values for hypothesis tests • The “normal range” is a pragmatic biocriterion (Kilgour et al. 1998, Bowman & Somers 2005)

37. Biocriteria “Healthy is Variable.” –Dr. Robert Bailey, University of Western Ontario • 2 equally healthy sites may have different biological assemblages • Need to determine what normal is • Biomonitoring conundrum: Is an observed difference greater than expected by chance? Is it biologically meaningful? • Biocriteria are critical values for hypothesis tests • The “normal range” is a pragmatic biocriterion (Kilgour et al. 1998, Bowman & Somers 2005)

38. Experimental Designs for Bioassessments (Adapted from Green 1979 [Bowman and Somers 2005]; see also Underwood 1997)

39. History of the RCA • A product of researchers working on the common challenge of studying an environment where an impact had (or was likely to have) occurred, but when and where the impact occurred were not known • UK: RivPACS, Australia: AusRivAS, Canada: BEAST • U.S.: Rapid-Bioassessment Procedures (Wright et al. 2000, Bailey et al. 2004, Barbour et al. 1999, Bowman and Somers 2005)

40. Reference Condition Approach (RCA) Multiple, minimally impacted control sites define the normal range of biological conditions to be expected at a test site Reference site Test site “Long-term monitoring programs…provide the measures of normal (reference data) against which the abnormal is judged. It is impossible to convince a court that something is wrong if ‘right’ is not defined.”– MOEE Biomonitoring Review Committee, 1994

41. RCA Steps • The RCA has the following 5 steps (Bailey et al. 2004): • Minimally impacted reference sites are randomly selected and their biological communities and habitats are characterized. • Reference sites are grouped according to the similarity of their biological assemblages and/or habitats (depending on the approach used, a model that predicts a test site’s reference-state assemblage type, hence its reference-site group membership, may be built using a set of natural-habitat or physiographic attributes that are known to distinguish assemblage types). • A test site is sampled to characterize its biological community and habitat. • Appropriate reference sites are selected to define the normal or expected test-site condition. • Statistically test the bioassessment null hypothesis (i.e., that the test site is in reference condition).

42. RCA Steps

43. RCA Messiness -Different definitions of minimal impact, reference site classification methods, summarization and hypothesis-testing procedures (e.g., Wright et al. 2000, Linke et al. 2005). -Different researchers have different approaches to each step (Bowman and Somers 2005)

44. RCA Step-1 Challenges : Reference Sites and Minimal Impact • Minimally impacted reference sites are randomly selected and their biological communities and habitats are characterized. • “Sites that are not disturbed by human activities are ideal reference sites; however, land-use practices and atmospheric pollution have so altered the landscape and quality of water resources … that truly undisturbed sites are rarely available (Barbour et al. 1996). ” • Standard criteria for minimal impact don’t exist • It is particularly difficult to find reference sites for large waterbodies and for any waterbodies in areas where climate and geography favour agriculture or urban development • randomly selecting reference sites may be difficult because of their restricted and aggregated spatial distribution, and because of their remote location and difficult access (Hughes 1995).

45. Reference Site Criteria: Wyoming Different weights for different attributes Different thresholds for different eco-regions (U.S. EPA 1996)

46. OBBN: Qualitative Definition of Minimal Impact (Jones et al. 2004)

47. RCA Step-1 Challenges: What is a reference site? X