Condensed Responses re: Streamkeepers’ Physical Habitat Sampling Plan

(Bullets indicate “schools of thought” among respondents.)

 

1.      Should Streamkeepers do P-hab monitoring at all?  If so, why?

 

·         YES:  It’s important, because it relates to all of Streamkeepers’ monitoring goals—status, trends, red-flags, problem investigation, restoration planning/effectiveness monitoring

·         NOT SURE:  It’s first important to determine specific data users and uses—watershed planning groups?  Restoration project planners?  Political decision-makers?  The general public?  Until specific purposes are identified, there’s no basis for a plan.  Perhaps Streamkeepers’ best use in the absence of clear external requests is as an “early warning system,” identifying red-flags for more detailed investigation.

 

2.      If we monitor P-hab, where should we sample?

 

·         Both targeted and randomized approaches have merit, but most local data-users will want to target, whereas most non-local agencies will want to randomize.  If resources are available, do both.

 

3.      If we monitor P-hab, what system should we use?

 

·         Ideally, different methodologies would be developed for different purposes.  Most P-hab sampling gets done for a very particular purpose, and so varies greatly from project to project.  It’s hard to come up with a single system that will meet everyone’s needs.  For example, a two-tier system might be good, where the first tier is a very rapid assessment, and the second tier goes into more detail when problems are found.

·         However, the resources might not be available to implement multiple systems.

·         Most agreed it would be best to adopt someone else’s system rather than try to revise Streamkeepers’ current protocols.

·         EMAP seems promising because of its standardization, reproducibility, robustness, wide usage and acceptance, and strong analytical support.

·         Locally-developed protocols have proven their usefulness to local folks, but if EMAP data can serve local purposes, it will be accepted.

 

4.      Should we continue monitoring with our current set of P-hab protocols in summer 2005?

 

·         NO:  SK has already collected a body of data, and it’s not clear how useful it is.  SK should issue a report summarizing/interpreting the data, and then let it go.  Don’t resume monitoring P-hab until a new system is adopted.

·         YES:  The data may not be ideal, but it still has value.  Even the sites which have a 5-year data set would benefit by extending several more years, and ideally, the data from the old system should be cross-compared to the data from the new system by running parallel testing for several years.  Furthermore, it’s important to have volunteers learn about the importance of P-hab components and practice gathering data about it.

NOTE:  We ended up making P-hab optional last summer, except in certain specific cases.

 

5.      Should we explore alternative P-hab monitoring systems, and if so, which ones?

 

·         YES:  Explore several systems, including EMAP, TFW, & locally-developed.  The more tools, the better.  Locally-developed systems should be examined for data comparability with other systems; broadly-developed systems should be examined for their relevance to local needs.  Examine all systems for their statistical robustness.

·         NO:  The biggest problem with the current SK protocols is their scale—the 100’ reach—which can be changed.