|
Colleagues,
I've been looking at the last 7 years
of data from the River Raisin. In that time we have had 161
unique stream site visits and have amassed quite a bit of data (we've
taken about 12,000 stream invertebrates through the years). I've
attached a pdf of an excerpt of my report for your amusement and/or
edification.
The MiCorps Index, though a reasonable tool, is far
from ideal for understanding stream health. Published values of the
relative tolerance of various insects are at the genus level, yet this Index at
best pulls out only a few families. Worse yet it lumps orders (not all
mayflies are equally sensitive!).
We should have our report up on our website
sometime next week if you want to see more. The report
does contain complete site histories for each of our 20
sites.
Sorry to clutter your mailbox if you are not
interested. Hopefully some of you will find this relevant.
cheers,
Jim Martin
River Raisin Adopt-A-Stream Director
Associate Professor & Chair,
Biology
Adrian College
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:08
PM
Subject: RE: Earth Day Discussion Topic:
What do you (want to) monitor?
Hi Tom and John and
everyone,
Interesting start of
a discussion! Here are my 2 cents on the MiCorps
score?
1)
It is
very difficult to compare the macro community in two stream sites without an
extensive analysis. This is because the biological community can differ
very much just due to the natural characteristics of the stream, like John was
saying. For example, two very healthy streams may have very different
macro communities and thus different score, simply because one stream is large
and the other is small. The small stream would probably have a lower
score because smaller streams have, in general, less biological diversity
because of less diversity in habitat. The difference in score doesn?t tell you
that one site is better than another.
2)
In the
Upper AuSable?s case, it is likely that all
of the streams they are monitoring are pretty similar (and pretty awesome), in
terms of size and temperature and habitat and therefore insect
community. Therefore it makes sense that the scores are very similar?
essentially equal statistically speaking. I would recommend that all
groups find some disturbed sites in their watershed and monitor those,
too. It can be a great educational experience to send your volunteers to
both a good and poor stream site. Even if the scores between the sites
aren?t really comparable due to the natural variation in stream
characteristics that I mention above, it is still useful to visit disturbed
streams and discuss what your group can do to make sure your good quality
sites don?t share a similar fate.
3)
Long
term monitoring!!!! As John mentions, these scores are useful for looking for
trends at a particular site, and less useful for comparing
sites.
--Paul
Steen
From:
owner-micorps@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-micorps@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of John Hayes
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:12
PM
To: Tom Dale; Ric
Lawson
Cc:
micorps@great-lakes.net
Subject: Re: Earth Day Discussion Topic:
What do you (want to) monitor?
You're numbers mean you have a
fantastic trout stream! On a more serious note, they won't mean
that much until you have a nice stockpile of data. Looking at the
data over time, you can appreciate changes that are happening (if there
are any). I.E, climate change, habitat destruction/improvement,
etc. Now, if the numbers change from 50+ to <20, I would
be really concerned. There could be some contamination that is severely
impacting the macros. Though, lots depends on when you
sample. January, on average, is when macros are at
their highest density. Additionally, the numbers you're
generating are really not hard data points. You're getting a qualitative
understanding. Quantifying a qualitative test is trouble.
My group samples a really small
creek (Hatlem Creek) that has no where near the biomass as the Au Sable.
Our scores range rom mid 30's to high teens. It's really inappropriate
to compare the two. That doesn't mean the Hatlem is in bad shape.
It's just different water. Hope this
helps.
We
recently had a discussion of the Stream Quality Scores for our September
sampling event. It was our first sampling event and thus the scores are our
first set of scores. For 6 sampling sites in the Upper AuSable River
Watershed, we had scores of 52.4, 56.9, 50.3, 50.4, 55.3, & 51.2. Our
discussion was lively, but basically boiled down to the question of what do
those numbers really mean. We had a couple very accomplished statisticians in
our midst and that made the discussion even more worrisome that casual
observers might misunderstand what our numbers really mean. It's like the
school district MEAP scores that get published in newspapers. What conclusions
can be drawn from MiCorps' brand of Stream Quality
Scores.
On Apr
22, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Ric Lawson wrote:
By
the way, if you are wondering how to comment to the list, simply "reply all"
or send an e-mail to micorps@great-lakes.net and it will go to the entire MiCorps discussion list.
If you keep the subject as above, then list members can track the discussion
string by topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ric
Lawson
Watershed
Planner
Huron River Watershed
Council
1100 N. Main St.,
Suite 210
Ann
Arbor, MI 48104
p: 734.769.5123
x13
f:
734.998.0163
www.hrwc.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Join
the Huron River Watershed Council, protecting the Huron River since 1965.
More
info: www.hrwc.org
Happy
Earth Day Volunteers and Coordinators!
In the
spirit of the Earth Day vision of grassroots activism to encourage positive
environmental change, I would like to start a discussion about how MiCorps can
change to better support volunteer monitoring groups across the state. The
April edition of The MiCorps Monitor
newsletter, released yesterday, included a discussion topic about
what you, the volunteer monitoring community in Michigan, really want
to monitor. As explained in the article, MiCorps has initially chosen to focus
on a small set of parameters and standardize the collection of data for those
parameters across the state. There are many other important environmental
variables that can be very informative about the quality of our state's
waterways. Many can be monitored by volunteers with proper training and
organization.
Let's
start this discussion by asking what you currently are monitoring and what you
would like to monitor and why. Feel free to comment on what you think you
would need to get such an effort going. How can MiCorps help? Don't be afraid
to be critical of MiCorps efforts to date. We have thick skin. We can take
it.
Please
send a comment to the list. It doesn't have to be long or even fully thought
out. We want to know what you are thinking about. It's you who MiCorps was
designed to support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ric
Lawson
Watershed
Planner
MiCorps
Staff
Huron River Watershed
Council
1100 N. Main St.,
Suite 210
Ann
Arbor, MI 48104
p: 734.769.5123
x13
f: 734.998.0163
www.hrwc.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Join
the Huron River Watershed Council, protecting the Huron River since 1965.
More
info: www.hrwc.org
**********************************************************
Electronic
Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be used for
urgent or sensitive issues
|