comparing professional and volunteer stream assessment ......p=0.1003 p=0.0638 watershed mbss-genus...

Comparing Professional and Volunteer Stream Assessment Data: Implications for Watershed Management

Dan Boward and Chris MillardMaryland Department of Natural Resources

Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment DivisionAnnapolis, Maryland

Rita BrucklerMaryland Department of the Environment

Technical and Regulatory Services AdministrationBaltimore, Maryland

Volunteer Branch of the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS)

• Encourage local action

• Support grassroots efforts (e.g, non-profit and watershed groups)

• Educate and involve the public

• Fill data gaps

The Maryland Stream Waders...

YoughioghenyNorth Branch Potomac

Upper Potomac

Middle Potomac

Susquehanna

Gunpowder BushElk

Chester

Choptank

Pocomoke

Lower Potomac

Patuxent

$

$

$

Baltimore

Washington D.C.

Cumberland

Potomac Washington Metro

Patapsco

West Chesapeake

Nanticoke/Wicomico

KM

40200

E

Cen

tral

1995 1996 1997BasinW

est

East

!

!

!

!

!

!

YoughioghenyNorth Branch PotomacUpper PotomacMiddle PotomacPotomac Washington Metro

!!

!

!

!

!

!

Lower PotomacPatuxentWest ChesapeakePatapscoGunpowderBush

!

!

! !

!

!

!

SusquehannaElkChesterChoptankNanticoke/WicomicoPocomoke

MBSS sampling at each site consists of…

•• FishFish

•• Benthic MacroinvertebratesBenthic Macroinvertebrates

•• Amphibians and ReptilesAmphibians and Reptiles

•• Physical HabitatPhysical Habitat

•• Water ChemistryWater Chemistry

•• Land UseLand Use

Maryland Biological Stream Survey Sites, Maryland Biological Stream Survey Sites, 1995 1995 –– 20042004

Liberty Watershed, 2000Liberty Watershed, 2000

21 MBSS sites



17 (12-digit) sub-watershed

21 MBSS sites


10 sub-watersheds have no sites

17 (12-digit) sub-watershed

21 MBSS sites

Add 40 Stream Waders sites

Only 3 sub-watersheds have no data

MBSS site

Stream Waders site


10 subwatersheds have no sites

17 (12-digit) subwatershed

21 MBSS sites

Design

ScaleFish

Water Chemistry

Physical Habitat

BenthicMacroinvertebrates

Taxonomy

Land Use/Land Cover

MBSSRandom

70 mi2 watershedYes

Yes

Yes

Spring; D net; multihabitat; 20 ft2; lab

subsample and ID

Genus

Delineate upstream

Stream WadersTargeted

8 mi2 sub-watershed

NoNo

Depth and Width

Spring; D net; multihabitat; 20 ft2; lab

subsample and ID

Family

1 km radius circle

How do they Compare?How do they Compare?

Stream Waders TrainingStream Waders Training

Includes lots of professionals and “repeat customers”

Field session practice

Classroom review of protocols

• How comparable are Stream Waders and MBSS data (IBIs) at different scales?

QuestionsQuestions

• How comparable are Stream Waders and MBSS data (IBIs) at different scales?

QuestionsQuestions

• How do family and genus IBIs computed from the same site/taxadataset compare?

• What are differences in the two sets of IBIs by sample year?

• How do the two programs rate stream sites?

StatewideStatewide

Stream Waders – 2755 sites

MBSS – 1336 sites

Mean difference in Genus IBI less Family IBI = 0.12

MBSS Genus and Family IBISame Samples

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 >2

Genus IBI less Family IBI (Abs. Val.)

% o

f Site

s

r=0.84

SW Family IBI RatingsAll Years

Poor60%

Fair26%

Good14%

MBSS Family IBI RatingsAll Years

Good17%

Fair29%

Poor54%

MBSS Genus IBI RatingsAll Years

Fair35%

Very Poor49%

Good16%

% of sites

% of sites

% of sites

Non-Outlier MaxNon-Outlier Min75%25%Median

Tota

l Num

ber o

f Fam

ilies

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SW MBSS

Stream Waders and MBSSStatewide – Number of Families per Sample


EP

T Fa

mili

es

-2

2

6

10

14

18

22

SW MBSS

Stream Waders and MBSSStatewide – Number of EPT Families per Sample


Num

ber o

f Grid

s

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SW MBSS

Mean = 36 Mean = 17

Number of Grids100 Organism Subsample

WatershedWatershed

Stream Waders - mean = 26.6; range = 1 - 116

MBSS - mean = 9.2; range = 1 - 41

**124/137 watershed sampled by both programs

MBSS Genus IBI less Stream Waders IBI

0.290.22

0.57 0.62

0.17

0

1

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Diffe

renc

e in

Mea

n

P=0.0638P=0.1003

WatershedMBSS-genus IBI less Stream Waders IBI

Watershed

Degraded

Not Degraded

Degraded

71%

22%

29%

78%

NotDegraded

Stream Waders mean IBI

MBSS-Genus mean IBI

124 Watersheds; all years combined

73% agreement on degraded/not degraded

SubSub--watershedwatershed

Stream Waders - mean = 4.1; range = 1 - 26

MBSS - mean = 2.2; range = 1 - 31

**380 sub-watersheds sampled by both programs

Sub-watershed

Degraded

Not Degraded

Degraded

70%

30%

Stream Waders mean IBI

14%

86%

MBSS-Family mean IBI

MBSS-Genus mean IBI

23%

77%

NotDegraded Degraded Not

Degraded

82%

18%

374 sub-watersheds; all years combined



Stream ReachStream Reach

452 sites with at least one site from each program

16 reaches with two sites from each program


Mea

n D

iffer

ence

in S

ite P

air I

BIs

(Abs

. Val

ue)

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

SW/SW MBSS gen/MBSS gen.

N = 172 pairsGrand Mean=0.74

N = 118 pairsGrand Mean=0.53

Stream ReachesWithin Program Site Pairs

Stream ReachesAgreement on Degraded/Not Degraded

MBSS/Stream Waders Reach Pairs

76 7971

77

0

20

40

60

80

100

M BS S Ge nus/ S W M BS S Fa mi l y / S W M BS S Ge nus/ M BS SGe nus

S W/ S W

% A

gree

men

t on

Deg

rade

d/N

ot

Deg

rade

d

MBSS genus/SW MBSS family/SW SW/SWMBSS genus/MBSS genus

Between Programs Within Program

Duplicate SamplesDuplicate Samples

Stream Waders – 109 pairs

MBSS – 71 pairs

N=109r=0.76

83% agree on impairment

84% agree on "Degraded"

83% agree on "Degraded"

Original – Dup = -0.03

Original – Dup = -0.16

MBSS and Stream Waders Duplicate Samples

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Original SW Family IBI

Dup

licat

e Fa

mily

IBI

N=71r = 0.82

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Original MBSS (genus) Sample IBI

Dup

licat

e M

BSS

(gen

us) S

ampl

e IB

I

Stream Waders and MBSS data are comparable, especially at smaller scales.

Family IBIs tend to rate sites as more degraded than genus IBIs.

Stream Waders data should be used to support those collected by MBSS in watershed assessments.

Next steps….• Examine causes for differences

• D.E.: MBSS - CP = 87%NCP = 88%SW - CP = 71%

- NCP = 88%

• Do this all over again with revised IBIs!

ConclusionsConclusions

comparing professional and volunteer stream assessment ......p=0.1003 p=0.0638 watershed mbss-genus...

Documents