PNAMP Habitat Data Sharing Project – Leadership Team Teleconference
NOTES
June 25, 2012
1:30-3:00 PDT
In attendance: Brett Roper (USFS in Logan, UT), Jen Bayer (PNAMP), Kathryn Thomas (PNAMP), Jennifer O’Neal (Tetra Tech), Tom Iverson (CBFWA), Heidi McRoberts (Nez Perce), Louis Sweeny, Amy Puls (PNAMP), Russell Scranton (BPA), Bruce Crawford (NOAA), Peregrine[last name not clear] (Defenders of Wildlife with Conservation Registry), Jennifer Johnson (WA GSRO), Sarah Beldin (PNAMP)
AGENDA
Status report on Integrated Status & Trends (ISTM) Project habitat activities and their relationship with HDS projectStatus Update for HDS Activities
Activity A: Identification of a Short List of Priority Habitat Characteristics
- Completed
Activity B: Data Exchange Template (DET) Prototype for Selected Habitat Characteristics
- Update on GSRO pilot for habitat data sharing
Activity C:Habitat Data Exchange: Implementing prototype habitat exchange templates and tackling complex standardization issues
- On hold pending findings from data sharing pilots
Activity D: Needs Assessment for Habitat Data Sharing
- On Hold
Activity E: Macroinvertebrate Data as a Component of HDS
- Issue paper for fish - habitat–macroinvertebrate connection
- Standard taxonomic effort agreements
Activity F: Remote Sensing as a New/Improved Source of Habitat Characterization Data at Multiple Scales
- Update on activities
Activity G: Habitat Data Discovery
- Update on the Monitoring Site Manager: Explorer Feature
Target actions to be completed by next HDS Leadership Team call (August 2012)
Subject:Status report on Integrated Status & Trends (ISTM) Project habitat activities and their relationship with HDS project
Amy Puls gave an update on the status of the ISTM project and plans for future activities.
Discussion this meeting:
B. Roperpointed out that there is some correlation between different groups that talk about pool depth and that there is more evidence than just talk about how transferrable these attributes are.
Action items:
X B. Roper and A. Puls will confer on pool depth and PIBO/AREMP protocol similarities.
Subject: Activity B: Data Exchange Template (DET) Prototype for Selected Habitat Characteristics
L. Sweeny gave an update on the status of the GSRO exchange pilot (see powerpoint) and presented the 3 preliminary questions being considered in the prototype: 1) are temperatures in the region higher than 19 degrees Celsius?, 2) Is sediment greater than 20% fines?, and 3) Is the volume of wood meeting the amounts described in Fox and Bolton’s reference conditions for woody debris in WA?
Discussion this meeting:
B. Roper noted that AREMP and PIBO use the same protocols so maybe you could put those together. B. Roper asked why we are using the average wood volume and not median. He noted that average is driven by the high wood counts and mostanalysis is done in log scale so when you transform, you get the median.
In regards to the temperature attribute, B. Roper suggested onlyusing temperature data collected by continuous devices that record hourly (minimum standard) or you may miss the temperature maximum, for example. He referred the group to a user’s guide by Jason Dunham (USGS) (1) and others that highlights this point.
In regards to the pool tail fines attribute, B. Roper also referred the group to two papers by Kristin Bunte (2, 3) that deal with issues regarding measurement of pool tail fines. It was also noted that it will be important to account for covariance when comparing pool fines across a large region (e.g., when adding high and low gradient streams’ pool fines together to make inferences about salmon recovery).
BPA just sent out a survey for fish monitoring programs that may include some information about habitat monitoring programs that could eventually inform habitat data exchange.
Action items:
X HDS core team will incorporate comments from today’s meeting into GSRO pilot. Pilot results are expected by the next HDS Leadership Team meeting.
Subject: Activity E: Macroinvertebrate Data as a Component of HDS
K. Thomas gave an update on the status of the macroinvertebrate sub-group. Two efforts are currently underway: 1) an initial compilation of organizational and lab taxonomic resolution lists into a crosswalk to inform a discussion about standard taxonomic effort and 2) a draft issue paper that describes the framework by which macroinvertebrates, habitat, and fish productivity are related and the need for this understanding. The issue paper will be used to engage additional PNAMP participants in a wider discussion of the topic and to identify opportunities to expand on the topic, if appropriate.
Discussion this meeting:
J. O’Neal noted that macroinvertebrate (MI) data are useful in general to track trends in ecological health and they may provide a secondary indicator of fish health/use that would provide a sort of back up to capture relative change. She also clarified that collecting MI data using drift captures the invertebrates that are mobile (often the same that are intercepted by fish in the water column), where collecting MI using benthic samples will allow one to draw more long-term ecological health conclusions (benthic samples are more stable that drift and often more consistent). She recommends including both in the issue paper.
B. Roper noted that MI data has the potential to provide a sort of shield for restoration projects. For example, in simple correlative studies, if the MI metrics make it seem like fish should be in a restored location but there are no fish, we can say that maybe the problem is elsewhere, perhaps in the ocean.
B. Crawford mentioned that there is a question about how MI data tie directly to fish (CHaMP is currently determining how much MI data determine fish food sources). MI data hasn’t been included in a decision model for fish to categorize streams (such as the one AREMP developed) so the question regarding how much you can use it to typify a stream remains.
There is a lot of MI data out there collected by municipalities because it’s fairly easy and inexpensive, but the correlation between MI data and fish data is all over the board. There have been studies that show differences in MI data between pristine vs. heavily managed sites, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to identify specific taxa that give a better indication of fish productivity. That will require looking at enough correlated fish habitat status and trends data and MI data. One source of data with collection for both fish habitat and benthic MI data is with coastal coho in Oregon.
There was a suggestion to consider adding in alkalinity and riparian vegetation into the framework diagram.
Action items:
X Produce a draft of the MI issue paper by next meeting (depending on the MI planning group member’savailability over the summer)
Subject: Activity F: Remote Sensing as a New/Improved Source of Habitat Characterization Data at Multiple Scales
K. Thomas gave a short update on the series of workshops sponsored in-part by PNAMP on Airborne Hydrographic LiDAR. Presentations from the Portland workshop are available at (*). The next forum will be held July 16th with a presentation by Dr. Jim McKean entitled ‘Organizing and interpreting high resolution channel topographic data’.
Subject: Activity G: Habitat Data Discovery
J. Schei is preparing a summary of comments on the Explore feature of the Monitoring Site Locator tool, tool specifications and estimated costs; we expect the summary to be available at the end of June.
Papers referenced in discussion:
1)Dunham, J. et al. 2005. Measuring stream temperature with digital data loggers: A user’s guide. Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-150WWW. Available at:
2)Bunte, K. et al. 2009. Comparison of three pebble count protocols (EMAP, PIBO, and SFT) in two mountain gravel-bed streams. J. of the Am. Water Resources Assoc. Vol 45(5): 1209-1227.
3)Bunte, K. et al. 2012. Spatial variability of pool-tail fines in mountain gravel-bed stream affects grid-count results. J. of the Am. Water Resources Assoc. Vol 48(3): 530-545.
If you are new to the Leadership Team and would like additional background on this effort please contact Kathryn Thomas (PNAMP) at .