A Comparison of the Performance and Compatibility of Protocols Used by Seven Monitoring Groups to Measure Stream Habitat in the Pacific Northwest

Abstract

To comply with legal mandates, meet local management objectives, or both, many federal, state, and tribal organizations have monitoring groups that assess stream habitat at different scales. This myriad of groups has difficulty sharing data and scaling up stream habitat assessments to regional or national levels because of differences in their goals and data collection methods. To assess the performance of and potential for data sharing among monitoring groups, we compared measurements made by seven monitoring groups in 12 stream reaches in northeastern Oregon. We evaluated (1) the consistency (repeatability) of the measurements within each group, (2) the ability of the measurements to reveal environmental heterogeneity, (3) the compatibility of the measurements among monitoring groups, and (4) the relationships of the measurements to values determined from more intensive sampling (detailed measurements used as a standard for accuracy and precision in this study). Overall, we found that some stream attributes were consistently measured both within and among groups. Furthermore, for all but one group there was a moderate correlation (0.50) between the group measurements and the intensive values for at least 50% of the channel attributes. However, none of the monitoring groups were able to achieve high consistency for all measured stream attributes, and few of the measured attributes had the potential for being shared among all groups. Given the high cost of stream habitat monitoring, we suggest directing more effort to developing approaches that will increase the consistency and compatibility of measured stream attributes so that they will have broader utility. Ultimately, local monitoring programs should consider incorporating regional and national objectives so that data can be scaled up and the returns to limited monitoring dollars can be maximized across spatial scales.

Deep‐Seated Landslides Drive Variability in Valley Width and Increase Connectivity of Salmon Habitat in the Oregon Coast Range

“…Performance of the AIP survey methodology compares similarly with respect to other habitat survey programs for repeatability and accuracy of measurements (Roper et al. ). Concern regarding inconsistency of field measurements in field habitat surveys has been presented in the literature generally, and regarding sediment (Olsen et al.…”

“…For the purposes of our research, the evidence that the AIP surveys are generally strong at identification of habitat types (Roper et al. ), and that pool depth was a measured attribute, made this dataset adequate to the main purpose of our effort (Table ). Development of stream habitat survey methods with high repeatability and consistency are being developed with remotely sensed tools (i.e., green lidar), but are not currently available.…”

Empirical evaluation of the conceptual model underpinning a regional aquatic long-term monitoring program using causal modelling

“…The more than 40% of variance unexplainable by any stressor-driver model highlights the need for improvements in the biological response model used to create the O/E metric and/or macroinvertebrate sampling and processing. Additionally, fine sediment, which is one of the most ubiquitous stressors and known to have deleterious effects on benthic organisms (Wood and Armitage, 1997), has a measurement error exceeding 20% among repeated field crew visits (Roper et al, 2010;Whitacre et al, 2007). Our measurement of fine sediments was within pool-tails and macroinvertebrate sampling was within riffle habitats in a reach.…”

“…Substantial effort was placed on developing biological indicators (in our case O/E) and refinement of protocols to minimize measurement errors of stressors (stream temperature and sediments) and riparian habitat conditions (Roper et al, 2010;Whitacre et al, 2007); however, little emphasis or resources were allocated toward quantifying drivers (e.g., grazing). For example, the grazing metric, the percent of a catchment contained within a grazing allotment, was likely quite crude, as it did not quantify the time since an allotment was last grazed nor frequency, timing, duration, or intensity of grazing.…”

Design considerations for community-based stream monitoring to detect changes in Pacific salmon habitats

“…The assessment program draws on local knowledge systems and experiences by allowing each coastal First Nation the flexibility to set local monitoring objectives and priorities, yet monitoring will be conducted using a standardized sampling framework. A standardized framework will allow information to be used for broad comparisons and trend detection (Roper et al 2010), while local adaptation can integrate local knowledge and understanding of watersheds into the detection of environmental change. This may improve monitoring effectiveness because local stewards and resource-users are more likely to be attuned to the complexity of their ecological systems (Moller et al 2004, Berkes et al 2007.…”