the concept of a master sample: lower columbia example phil larsen pacific states marine fisheries...
TRANSCRIPT
The concept of a Master Sample:Lower Columbia Example
Phil LarsenPacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
c/o USEPA200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330Email: [email protected]
Phone: 541 754 4362
Background
• Many agencies are interested in regional scale monitoring of stream networks and watersheds, using similar attributes and similar/same protocols
• Can’t afford to monitor everywhere (i.e., can’t census)
• Conducting a sample survey a sound way to characterize a region by monitoring a representative set of sites
LCFRB: Habitat Monitoring Key Entities
• Federal– 5 agencies
• State– 5 agencies
• Local– At least 12
From Stevens and Olsen, 2004Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources.
JASA 99: 262-278
• select a spatially balanced sample of finite, linear, and areal resources with patterned and possibly periodic responses
• use arbitrarily variable inclusion probability with imperfect frame information, in the presence of substantial nonresponse.
Sampling the gamut of natural resources requires a technique that can…
Spatially Balanced Sampling
• GRTS: Generalized Random-Tessellation Stratified design
– Incorporates randomization
– Is spatially balanced
– Creates an ordered list of sites
• See: www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm for details
Combining Data
• Data from different sample surveys can be combined if certain design principles are followed
– Similar target populations are well defined
– The same frame represents the target populations (i.e., use the same digital stream trace coverage)
– Randomization in site selection
– Common protocols are used to measure stream attributes
A Desirable Goal
• Create a design that allows and facilitates integration up front rather than after the fact.
• Current GRTS design allows selection of a “master” sample that can be subset to meet specific needs at a variety of spatial scales
Washington
• Frame: USGS 1:100,000 scale digital hydrography (perennial and intermittent)
• Selected a statewide sample of about 125,500 points on the network as an ordered list –Any subset drawn in order is a spatially
balanced sample• Distance between points is approximately
1 km.• Assigned a set of classification variables
for sorting the sample
The Master Sample(An ordered list of sites)
• Site ID
• Location (Lat/Long)
• County
• Quad 100
• Strahler order
• Perennial/intermittent
• Ecoregion– Level 2– Level 3– Level 4
• USGS Hydro units– By number– By name
• WRIA– Name– Area
• other geo-referenced variables
LCFRB: Stratification SchemeTable 6
• Ecoregion
• WRIA
• Subbasin (different from USGS subbasin?)
• Physiographic zone (different from ecoregion?)
• Stream order
siteIDWAW05541-000001
WAW05541-000002
WAW05541-000003
lon_ddnad27 -121.58 -118.09 -121.99
lat_ddnad27 48.97 47.26 46.78
lon_dmsnad27 -121 35 15.065846 -118 5 51.862175 -121 59 41.505539
lat_dmsnad27 48 58 39.934941 47 16 10.939991 46 47 11.904925
xalbersnad27US -1873590 -1666430 -1967970
yalbersnad27US 3139470 2892070 2914850
stratum 1 1 1
md_caty 1 1 1
nest1_wt 1 1 1
str_name SILESIA CR, W FK *A
strahler 2 1 1
PerenIntermit P I P
major1 50 50 50
minor1 412 412 412
minor2 0 610 0
minor3 0 0 0
sinuous 1.09 1.15 1.12
state WA WA WA
county WHATCOM LINCOLN PIERCE
quad100 MT BAKER RITZVILLE CENTRALIA
quad75 MT SEFRIT SPRAGUE LK ASHFORD
WA Master Sample File
Example
• Pick a statewide sample
– 50 sites in each of the 5 OR DEQ reporting regions
– Equal balance among
• headwater (1st order)
• wadeable (2nd, 3rd order)
• non-wadeable (4th+ order) streams
• About 17 sites per stratum
Example
Solution– Create stream groups: headwater, wadeable,
non-wadeable from stream order assignments
– Sort the list by DEQ region and stream group within DEQ region, maintaining the original order of sites
– Pick the first 17 sites on the list within each DEQ region and stream order group
Intensify in three sub-basins
Intensify in one National Forest and one BLM District
Combine stream network and watershed selection
Washington Master Sample
Example Designs
TEMPORAL DESIGN:AUGMENTED SERIALLY
ALTERNATING
TIME PERIOD ( ex: YEARS)PANEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 X X X X 2 X X X 3 X X X 4 X X X
Note: although not indicated here, within year revisits to sites are important to evaluate seasonal variation and field
crew performance. Figure courtesy of Scott Urquhart.
Example Design Characteristics
• Equal # of sites by Strahler order categories: 1st, 2nd, 3rd+
• State-Wide design– 1054 unique sites allocated to 6 panels– Panels 1 to 5 visit once every 5 years– Panel 6 visit annually– 1550 site-visits over 5 years– 310 sites per year
State-Wide 5 Year: 6 Panel Design
State-Wide: Panel 1
Example Design Characteristics• WRIA design
– 17 sites each WRIA for total 1054 sites– 1054 unique sites allocated to 6 panels– Panels 1 to 5 visit once every 5 years– Panel 6 visit annually– 1550 site-visits over 5 years– 310 sites per year
• Intensive design– 50 total sites in 3 WRIAs– 17 sites from WRIA 5 year design and 33
additional sites
WRIA 5 Year Design
WRIA Design: Panel 1
Intensive Studies + WRIA 5 Year Design
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
LC Master Sample
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cowlitz 106 2772 779 427 283 131 32
Lewis 96 1518 364 213 160 85 0
Salmon-Washougal 85 523 110 130 46 22 0
Willapa 5 48 12 2 0 0 0
Grays/Elochoman 80 563 184 101 32 6 0
Number of sites by WRIA and Stream Order
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
Panel 1: 54 status sites (from table 8)
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
Panel 2: 18 annual sites (from table 8)
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
Lewis: 30 special interest
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
Diagonstic: 30 Germany
LCFRB: Habitat Status Monitoring (p. 2)
• Landscape: Census/complete coverage– Watershed– Uplands/Hill slopes– Wetlands
• Stream Corridor: Sample survey– Channel Conditions– Riparian zone– Floodplain
• Water:– Quantity ?– Quality
LCFRB: Stratification SchemeTable 6
• Ecoregion
• WRIA
• Subbasin (different from USGS subbasin?)
• Physiographic zone (different from ecoregion?)
• Stream order
Salmon Recovery Priority Tiers (p. 24):
Some questions
• Four tiers– Are these mapped?– Can they be identified in the office or field?
• Tiers as strata?
• Tier 1 as an index stratum for trend sites?
LCFRB: Sample Type (p. 21; table 8)
• Survey: Status– Master sample
• Index: Trend– Master sample via an index stratum, e.g., Tier 1 sites
• Diagnostic– Master sample possible if diagnostic strata can be identified
• Focal: site specific project evaluation• Probability vs. judgmental (or hand selected) sites
Stream Habitat Sampling Levels:Table 7 (p. 26)
• Indicator– Remote/office
• Reconnaissance– On the ground rapid assessment
• Inventory– Reach/habitat
• Intensive– Site
• Concept of Nested samples
Landscape Scale
• Compile at 12 yr intervals• Metrics
– Road density– Mass wasting– Impervious surfaces– Land use/land cover– Channel migration– Wetland availability– Floodplain connectivity
• Key question: who will oversee the “collective” landscape data base and its updates?
• Need to improve the stream network frame– 1:100 K NHD+– 1:24 K DNR
Utility of a Master Sample
• An exploratory tool to examine different site allocations easily.
• A framework for an actual integrated, multi-agency state-wide or regional monitoring program.
SITE DEQ ODFW AREMP PIBO123456789
101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Flexibility/Potential• Add classification variables by assigning sites to new
classes– Requires georeferenced data
• Facilitates integration across programs– What sites already being monitored by another agency?
• Encourages:– Communication about monitoring designs among
agencies– Development of common databases to share data
easily– Agreement on common protocols
To Make This Work, We Need:
• A standard frame that everyone would use, even if imperfect
• A process for correcting the frame as errors arise (i.e., frame maintenance)
• Institutional Management– Database
• Frame and corrections• GIS coverages for classification/stratification• Monitoring programs: who is doing what where?• Monitoring results
Phil Larsen: [email protected]
Tony Olsen: [email protected]
Don Stevens: [email protected]
Oregon State University
www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm
Three Monitoring Scales
• Landscape
• Stream Corridor
• Water
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S
-2100000 -2050000 -2000000 -1950000
28
00
00
02
82
00
00
28
40
00
02
86
00
00
28
80
00
02
90
00
00
Lower.Col$xalbersnad27US
Lo
we
r.C
ol$
yalb
ers
na
d2
7U
S