WORKING DRAFT—2009_0421ver3.0
IntegratingAquatic Ecosystem and Fish Status and Trend Monitoring in the Lower Columbia River:
Using the Master Sample Concept
(Part 2)
Pacific NorthwestAquatic Monitoring Partnership
Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Workgroup
April 21, 2009
[this page is intentionally blank]
Executive Summary
The Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring (ISTM) project is intended to demonstrate the approach and utility of an integrated framework for the collection of information to address multi-scale questions about the status and trends of physical, chemical, biological, and fish attributes in stream networks. The overall intent is to inform the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership’s(PNAMP) interest in developing a strategic action plan (or roadmap) for implementation in the demonstration area and possibly beyond. This document pertains to a major goal of the ISTM project – to apply a region-wide “master sample” concept to the selection of sampling locations. The project involves the bi-state lower Columbia area using a collaborative approach involving PNAMP members and other local partners. In general, anticipated PNAMP products include: (1) development of design, analysis and implementation tools,(2) coordination to integrate actions into planning and implementation of efforts addressing salmon recovery and watershed health in the demonstration area, and (3)summary products characterizing the approaches, tools, guidance, and results from the demonstration project for possible use in other parts of the Pacific Northwest. The master sample concept has broad applicability to monitoring the status and trends of habitat and fish attributes along linear stream networks, as well as to address status and trends questions in the estuarine and near shore marine habitats (area based master sample).
Acknowledgements
Participants in the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring (ISTM) workgroupinclude Jen Bayer, Aaron Borisenko, Jeff Breckel, Catherine Corbett, Tim Counihan, Bruce Crawford, Bob Cusimano, Ken Dzinbal, Jim Gieselman, Gary Johnson, Krista Jones, Chris Jordan, Kirk Krueger, Steve Lanigan, Phil Larsen, Steve Leider, Ken MacDonald, Glenn Merritt, Dave Price, Sean Quigley, Dan Rawding, Jeff Rodgers, Jacque Schei, Russell Scranton, Jeannie Sifneos, Si Simenstad, and Don Stevens. Special thanks to Tim Counihan, Phil Larsen, Steve Leider, Jeff Rodgers, Russell Scranton,and Don Stevensfor their contributions to this document.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Survey Design and Master Sample Concepts
Strategic Approach
Lower ColumbiaDemonstration Area
Current Use of GRTS-based Survey Designs in the Lower Columbia River
Applying the Strategy
Initial Guidance
Integration with Existing Monitoring Programs
Integration at the Design Phase
Integration at the Analysis Phase
Documentation of Designs
New Development and Implementation Activities
Web-based Master Sample Management Tool
Statistical Design and Analytical Support
Other Considerations
Monitoring Fish Using GRTS-based Designs
Monitoring Non-wadeable Streams and Estuaries Using Area-based GRTS Designs
Next Steps
References
Appendices
Appendix A - Table of existing monitoring in the Lower Columbia that may be integrated with the master sample
Appendix B - Oregonexamplesof application of GRTS-based survey design to status and trend monitoring for fish, habitat, and water quality
Introduction
Each year millions of dollars are spent to monitor the status and trend of natural resources and determine the effectiveness of restoration programs in the Pacific Northwest. While there is increasing consensus among regional federal, private, state, tribal, and stakeholder organizations with respect to the need for integrated and standardized monitoring information, funding for these activities is stagnant or declining. As a result, there is an increasing need to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of monitoring programs.
There are many ways questions about the status and trends of fish and aquatic ecosystems are expressed by the public, decision-makers, and scientists. Some monitoring questions are unique to particular agencies and organizations, whereas others are more generic such as:
- What is the status of fish and physical conditions at identified scales (population, watershed, region-wide)?
- How is that status changing over time?
- Are freshwater and estuarine habitats and fish populations healthy and productive?
Common to entities involved in monitoring in the Pacific Northwest is the need for comprehensive and efficient collection of information on indicators and metrics on all or certain aspects of the status and trend of fish, habitat, and watershed health. By taking advantage of past monitoring work and applying well-coordinated monitoring approaches, technical and fiscal resources can be more effectively shared among interested parties, data can be shared, and resulting information can provide increased scientific credibility, cost-effectiveness in use of limited funds, and greater accountability to stakeholders (PNAMP 2005).
Logical steps towardimproving the cost-effectiveness of monitoring efforts include reducing duplication of effort and implementing programs that will allow data collected by multiple entities and programs to inform a larger regional monitoring network. To do this, individual agencies and organizations will need to develop processes that promote data sharing with partner organizations, agree on an overarching set of monitoring questions that can be addressed with common or compatible indicators, coordinate activities, and develop common protocols and methods or ways to “crosswalk” data derived from disparate protocols.
The goal of the Integrated Status and Trends Monitoring (ISTM) project is to develop processesand tools leading to the development and management of a regional strategic action plan or roadmap for monitoringthe status and trend of fish habitat,watershed health, and fish populations. A key component of the ISTM effort will be to develop and implement the “master sample” concept. The process and decisions necessary for implementingthat concept will be demonstrated in the area encompassing the Lower Columbia (LC) River. There are numerous fish populations in that area comprising multiple Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) that are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. In addition,the mainstem Columbia River is a common area through which these and all other upriver anadromous fish species pass and may rear as adults and juveniles while on their way to and from the Columbia Riverand the ocean.The demonstration will exemplify how the efforts of existing and plannedmonitoringin the states of Oregon and Washington (e.g., Cusimano et al. 2006;Suring et al. 2006;Crawford 2007), federal land managers like the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (Gallo et al. 2005), and recovery plan implementers including the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) (LCRFB 2004), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (ODFW 2009), NOAA Fisheries and others can be integrated and coordinated.
This effort is intended to supportmultiple monitoring objectives. These include broader (e.g., extensive, statewide, rolled-up, high level indicator) and finer-scale (e.g., intensive, densified, watershed) status and trend monitoring needs. At these multiple scales, information from such status and trend monitoring providescontext for interpretation of results from project effectiveness monitoring, and programs like intensively monitored watersheds (IMW)aimed at validation monitoring to evaluate recovery strategies. The objective of improving the ability to share information will be enhanced and ensuing analyses can be more statistically rigorous and robust. When combined in a web accessible system with documentation (metadata) of the indicators and protocols used to collect the data, local, state, federal, and regional entities will have a powerful resource for coordination and integration of monitoring information.
Anticipated products of the ISTM effort include:
- development of design, analysis, and implementation tools for incorporation into PNAMP recommendations to entities responsible for monitoring,
- coordination of efforts to develop integrated, multiagencyactions to implement monitoring plans addressing salmon recovery and watershed condition in the demonstration area, and
- recommendations for transferring the approaches, tools, guidance, and results from the demonstration project to other parts of the Pacific Northwest.
Additional technical products associated with this project includeexamples of how the LCFRB integrated the use of the master sample with existing monitoring efforts to facilitate the design of their ESA salmon recovery monitoring program; further development of metadata to describe how sub samples are selected; clarification of how existing monitoring designs can be integrated into other designs, and how to document indicators, methods and protocols that are used at a sample site.
Initially, the ISTM project focused on linear stream networks with an emphasis on habitat condition, watershed health (PNAMP 2008), and more recently, anadromous salmon and steelhead (PNAMP 2009). Probabilistic-based master sample design approaches also have merit for non-wadable/estuarine areas. Integrated status and trends monitoring designs for both fish and habitat have been developed in this and other areas in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Firman and Jacobs (undated);James et al. (2007); Nelle et al. (2006); Suring et al. (2006)). More work is needed to address potential application of master sample approaches to monitoring programs for estuaries, non-wadeable streams and rivers, and nearshore marine habitats. Sections outlining the developmentand use ofmaster samples for integrated programs aimed at fish and in estuarine areas are included later in this document.
Survey Design and Master Sample Concepts
The often prohibitive cost of conducting a complete census of the indicators of choice throughout the area of interest means that it is usually necessary to design a sample survey that identifies representative sampling locations. A properly designed sample survey will facilitate unbiased estimates with known precision of the status and trend of the monitored parameters. Currently, one of the best methods to identify a representative set of sample locations is the Generalized Randomized-Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) technique (Stevens and Olsen 2004; Dobbie et al. 2008).
By employing GRTS, a master sample can be developed that is essentially the full list of sites that would be sampled with a complete census while retaining the principle of randomization and spatial balance if a subset of sites is selected for sampling (see Larsen et al. 2008). A master sample file consists of a list of sites along with a set of attributes assigned to each site. Each site is identified by a unique site identifier, site latitude and longitude, and a set of design and classification attributes (e.g., temporal duration or frequency, initial selection weights, classification attributes like ecoregion, county or USGS accounting unit).
Master samples for linear stream networks covering Oregon, Washington, and Idaho have been developed. A linear-based master sample for Oregon and Washington was created based on a combination of WDNRs 1:24k and 1:12K stream digital stream networks, ODFWs 1:24kdigital stream networkand will be used in this project to facilitate the use of a common master sample to monitoring stream and riparian conditions across the Northwest.The design created a density of approximately one site per kilometer along Washington streams and one site per 0.6 kilometer along Oregon streams. While area-based master sample approaches have been employed for status and trend monitoring of terrestrial and estuarine habitat, none have been specifically developed for the Lower Columbia area. Additional work will be needed to demonstrate the application and integration of area-based master samples with the linear-based network.
Strategic Approach
Lower ColumbiaDemonstration Area
To demonstrate the utility of the master sample concept in developing regionally and locally integrated status and trend monitoring plans, the PNAMP ISTM workgroup selected the geographic area encompassed by the LC area (Figure 1). The reasons for selecting this area are that various entities have already or are in the process of applying GRTS based surveys in their monitoring plans. These entities includethe ODFW, USFS, LCFRB,Washington departments of Ecology (ECY) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), NOAA Fisheries, and other monitoring agencies to facilitate a more coordinated approach to monitoring natural resources.This area is within the jurisdiction of two states (Oregon and Washington) and numerous federal, tribal, watershed council, county, municipal entities. It is the focus of ongoing recovery efforts for four ESA listed anadromous salmonid species (coho, chum, Chinook, and steelhead), and bull trout, and has diverse land use and increasing human population pressures.
Current Use of GRTS-based Survey Designs in the Lower Columbia River
A number of entities currently use independent master samples in the LC area. These include Washington ECY (Cusimano et al. 2006; Crawford 2007), and WDFW (Ehinger et al. 2007),the federal Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) (Gallo et al. 2005), and ODFW (Suring et al. 2006) (Figure 2). Thus this demonstration area provides opportunities to show how existing and new monitoring from multiple efforts may be integrated into the designs from the regional master sample.Table 1 describes these and other monitoring programs that currently use a subset of these myriad sample points in monitoring status and trends. Appendix Aprovides a subset of additional existing monitoring programs that may be integrated into the master sample to some extent or could benefit from support of information from status and trend information from the master sample design approach.
Figure 2. An illustration showing how monitoring sites overseen by different agencies might be combined by the use of a master sample to provide information across the broader salmon recovery region. Points indicate master sample sites selected for different agencies and different domainsprograms (ODFW, US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA ECY (WRIA) and WDFW (IMW), and AREMP).
DRAFTPart 2
Table 1. Monitoring programs employing GRTS-based survey designs in the Lower Columbia area.
Entity & Program Name / Stream Network Base Layer / Area(s) of Inference / Total # of Candidate Survey Sites / Sample Point Weight / Purpose of SurveysODFW: Habitat, Water Quality and Salmonid Monitoring Program / 1:24,000 National Hydrography Data set / All non-tidal streams (excluding those in catchments < 0.6 Km2) in the Oregon portion of the LCR / 10,240 / 0.6 km / Status and trend in:
-Adult coho spawner abundance, productivity, and spatial structure
-Juvenile salmonid density and spatial structure
-Instream habitat and riparian conditions
-Macroinvertebrate IBI (in cooperation with ODEQ)
USFS: AREMP / NHD+ 1:100,000 hydrography / Region covered by the NW Forest Plan; 6th field HUCs selected via GRTS, then sites within each selected HUC / varies / -Instream habitat and riparian conditions
ECY/Forum: Statewide Habitat Monitoring Program / WA DNR 1:24k hydrography dataset / All non-tidal streams on state lands managed by WRIA and stream order / -Instream habitat and riparian conditions, and water quality
USFWS: Bull Trout Program / NHD+ 1:100,000 hydrography / Lewis prototype / 0.5 km / Bull Trout Abundance (Please Specify Adult or Juvenile)
ECY/WA SRFB/PCSRF: Mill, Abernathy, and Germany Creek IMW / WA DNR 1:24k hydroography dataset / Mill, Abernathy, and Germany Creek basins / Instream habitat and riparian conditions
Status and trend context as part of Intensively Monitored Watershed experimental design
1
DRAFTPart 2
Appling the Strategy
Due to the technical and non-technical complexities involved, implementation of the ISTM strategic action plan is being developed in the context of an adaptive management approach (Figure 3). The adaptive management cycle begins with identification of questions and objectives, then moves to application of tools available for monitoring designs, data collection, management, analysis, and reporting.Status and trends questions and objectives are available for mandates reflected in Table 2. The table shows the major biological, physical, and chemical monitoring components that would be informed by or use ISTM products. Figure 3. ISTM adaptive management framework
Table 2. Alignment of mandates, management questions, and performance measures for status and trend monitoring for key mandates
Initial Guidance
As the ISTM effort progresses a broad range of products will be developed, including tools, guidance, data, and implementation recommendations.Initial statistical and design documentation guidance is found below.
Integration with Existing Monitoring Programs
Several circumstances can be distinguished that require different approaches to integration of master samplesfor programswith an existing set of monitoring sites. Integration could occur at the design phase when potential sample sites are being selected, or it could occur at the analysis phase after data has been collected.
Integration at the Design Phase
In this scenario, there is a set of sites that has some history of being sampled. The sites may have come from a single prior sample or several independent samples.They may have been selected using probability sampling, or by convenience or directed sampling. The domain (statistical population) covered by the sample may be smaller than that to be covered by the master sample. In most cases, the sample intensity (the average number of samples in a unit length or area) will be less that the target master sample intensity.