The Question
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:48:11 -0500
From: Danielle Donkersloot <Danielle.Donkersloot@dep.state.nj.us>
Subject: [volmonitor] data reporting
Hi Everyone:
Another data question from NJ...
Who has a great example of a way to present and report visual or habitat assessment data? Specifically, looking for examples of graphs and other outputs. In the world of biological monitoring, it's easy, but visual/habitat data is difficult for us to get a handle on right now. PLEASE HELP.
Thanks in advance...
Danielle
"In order to achieve something, you must get started" Fortune Cookie wisdom
Danielle Donkersloot
609-633-9241 (direct line)
609-633-1458 (fax)
PO Box 418
Trenton, NJ 08625
http://www.nj.gov/dep/watershedmgt/volunteer_monitoring.htm
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:46:26 -0500
From: "Wills, Sherrill" <swills@state.pa.us>
Subject: RE: [volmonitor] data reporting
To: Volunteer water monitoring <volmonitor@lists.epa.gov>
Reply-to: Volunteer water monitoring <volmonitor@lists.epa.gov>
Thread-topic: [volmonitor] data reporting
Thread-index: AcXq19cxF1cSSGGfQIGSX0Ef2GUs8QAEy1wA
X-Spam-Score:
X-Spam-Report: IsSpam=no, Probability=7%, Hits=__C230066_P5 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0,
__CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0,
__SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_CRUFT 0
X-Spam-PmxInfo: Server=avs-3, Version=5.0.3.165339, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0,
Antispam-Data: 2005.11.16.24, SenderIP=128.104.248.52
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-volmonitor-481532D@lists.epa.gov>
Original-recipient: rfc822;kfstepenuck@facstaff.wisc.edu
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2005 20:46:26.0670 (UTC)
FILETIME=[D03CF8E0:01C5EAEE]
When the EPA began to promote the RBP sampling protocol to the state (PA), I was relatively new to the program. What I did notice was that: the substrate composition and surrounding land use was usually noted , as were field readings (temp, DO, pH, conductivity, sometimes alkalinity and/or hardness). Many of the 12 habitat parameters in the first RBP rendition (which most of us prefer to still use) were observed in one way or another and noted. The state biologists have met annually, and a final part of the meeting was a description of the assessment method, a look at the sheet, and a field trip. At the stream, the EPA biologist explained what he looked for when he assessed each parameter. We all then scored the site. The final part of the exercise was for each individual to state their score for each parameter. It was very interesting to see how the "bug" biologists and the "fish" biologists looked at the same parameter at the same site. I believe that another EPA biologist may have recorded each response by parameter or else our individual score sheets were kept. The most interesting result was that when the totals were added up, the end result was usually within the same category (Optimal, suboptimal, marginal, poor). This was repeated at the next two or three annual meetings as well as being a workshop at the annual Region 3 Biologists Workshop at Cacapon State Park, WV. The PA Central Office personnel now travel the state to the regional offices for occasional updates on collection techniques as well as to "recalibrate" the staff and to train new biologists. The regional biologists also train coworkers, interns, and occasionally county staff and private consultants involved in remedial follow-up reporting. Some local watershed groups, with their consultants and some of us from the state as well as EPA, have held habitat assessment workshops, with the result of a human "calibration" of sorts. I feel more comfortable with data submitted by people from these training classes. While we DO NOT use citizen information for regulatory purposes, we do use it as watchdog information. It is impossible to know where every problem is in 11 counties, or if there is chronic discharge problem that doesn't show up during plant inspections.
While this training is time consuming and gets to be kinda boring after a while, it is good to discuss scoring methods and thoughts among the people that use the information in order that everyone starts from a common point. It's important to calibrate your instruments; it's important to "calibrate" the humans, too.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:32:38 -0500
From: Geoff Dates <gdates@rivernetwork.org>
Subject: Re: [volmonitor] data reporting
Good point! I led a habitat assessment training once with about 30 people. I divided them into 10 groups of 3. The assessment was done in 3 shifts at 3 sites. So, each group got to do 3 sites. In other words, each site was done by all the groups.
At the end, we compared results and they were all within a very few points of each other at each site..
I think what happened in each group was a process of scoring each characteristic as a group. Sometimes the individuals in the group gave very different scores, say for bottom composition. In the process of discussing it, though, each person explained their rationale. Then a "negotiating" process happened where they attempted to agree on a number. Sometimes they averaged their 3 scores for each characteristic. Out of a possible of 120, all groups were within 10 points of each other. Most groups were within 5.
From this experience, I decided that no one should do these kinds of visual, subjective surveys alone. Two is better, three is ideal. The negotiating process got rid of the "outliers." In some cases, the "outliers" were people who just did not follow instructions.
I think that these are very important activities. They can provide useful information that helps interpret bio-assessments. They can be an "early warning" and screen for problems. Maybe most important, it changes the way they look at streams.
Geoff
--
Geoff Dates
River Watch Program Director
River Network
Home Office:
231 24D Heritage Condos
Woodstock, VT 05091
802-457-9808 w & h
email: gdates@rivernetwork.org
River Network Web Site: www.rivernetwork.org
================================================================================
Updated
Tuesday, 07-Oct-2008 17:10:48 CDT
|
