Skip to Main Content
A comparison of the performance and compatibility of protocols used by seven monitoring groups to measure stream habitat in the Pacific NorthwestAuthor(s): Brett B. Roper; John M. Buffington; Stephen Bennett; Steven H. Lanigan; Eric Archer; Scott T. Downie; John Faustini; Tracy W. Hillman; Shannon Hubler; Kim Jones; Chris Jordan; Philip R. Kaufmann; Glenn Merritt; Chris Moyer; Allen Pleus
Source: North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 30: 565-587.
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
Station: Rocky Mountain Research Station
PDF: View PDF (595.71 KB)
DescriptionTo 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.
- You may send email to firstname.lastname@example.org to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationRoper, Brett B.; Buffington, John M.; Bennett, Stephen; Lanigan, Steven H.; Archer, Eric; Downie, Scott T.; Faustini, John; Hillman, Tracy W.; Hubler, Shannon; Jones, Kim; Jordan, Chris; Kaufmann, Philip R.; Merritt, Glenn; Moyer, Chris; Pleus, Allen. 2010. A comparison of the performance and compatibility of protocols used by seven monitoring groups to measure stream habitat in the Pacific Northwest. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 30: 565-587.
Keywordsprotocols, monitoring, stream habitat, data collection methods, Pacific Northwest
- Smoke exposure among firefighters at prescribed burns in the Pacific Northwest.
- Use of airborne near-infrared LiDAR for determining channel cross-section characteristics and monitoring aquatic habitat in Pacific Northwest rivers: A preliminary analysis [Chapter 6]
- Monitoring late-successional forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
XML: View XML