CSU’s EPA-FUNDED
PROGRAM ON
“APPLYING SPATIAL AND TEMPORTAL
MODELING OF STATISTICAL SURVEYS
TO AQUATIC RESOURCES”
N. SCOTT URQUHART
RESEARCH SCIENTIST
DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
# 1
OVERVIEW OF THIS TALK
 WHO IS INVOLVED
EPA’s REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS
 RESPONSES FROM
 CSU - Major Participants
 Oregon State University
 POTENTIAL FOR COOPERATION HERE
 WHAT IS EMAP {MINIMZE THIS NOW}
# 2
WHO IS INVOLVED?
 Jay Breidt
 Richard Davis
 Jennifer Hoeting
 Hari Iyer
 Scott Urquhart
 Dave Theobald - Natural Resources Ecology Lab
 Robin Reich - Forest Science
 Jim Loftis - Bioresources Engineering
 Collaborators at OSU, SCCWRP, WQTI
# 3
EPA’s REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS
(RFA)
 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
 RESEARCH IN STATISTICS
 MANY OF US WOULD CALL THE REQUESTED
“RESEARCH” ADAPTATION or DEVELOPMENT
 TRAINING OF “FUTURE GENERATIONS” OF
ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICIANS
 OUTREACH TO THE STATES and TRIBES
 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
# 4
EPA’s REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS
(RFA) - continued
 MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT
 “… EACH OF THE TWO PROGRRAMS
ESTABLISHED WILL INVOLVE COLLABORATIVE
RESEARCH AT MULTIPLE, GEOGRAPHICALLY
DIVERSE SITES.”
 CLOSE COOPERATION BETWEEN TWO
PROGRAMS
 SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF EFFORT
 ===> JOINT ANNUAL MEETING ++
# 5
EPA’s REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS
(RFA) - continued III
 FUNDING LEVEL: $750K/YEAR/PROGRAM
 THE TWO PROGRAMS:
 DESIGN-BASED/MODEL ASSISTED SURVEY
METHODOLOGY - @ OSU
 SPATIAL AND TEMPORTAL MODELING,
INCORPORATING HIERARCHICAL SURVEY
DESIGN, DATA ANALYSIS, MODELING - @ CSU
 CHECK ON THE RFA @
 http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa/rfa/aquastat01.html
# 6
RESPONSE to RFA from CSU
 INSTITUTIONS:
 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
 STATISTICS
 NATURAL RESOURCES ECOLOGY LAB
 FOREST SCIENCE
 BIORESOURCE AND AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY (PROGRAM 1, too)
 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER
RESEARCH PROJECT
 WATER QUALITY TECHNOLOGY, INC
# 7
CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT
 1. COMBINING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
 2. LOCAL INFERENCE
 3. AQUATIC INDICATORS
 4. OUTREACH
 5. ADMINISTRATION/COORDINATION
# 8
CSU PROPOSAL - APPROACH
 TAKE EXISTING SETS OF
 PROBABILITY &
 NON-PROBABILITY DATA
 START WORKING WITH THE DATA WITH A
PERSPECTIVE OF DRAWING INFERENCES
 IDENTIFY ISSUES WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE
 HAVE POST-DOCS AND PRE-DOCTORAL STUDENTS
CONDUCT RESEARCH ON THESE TOPICS
# 9
CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT
CONTINUED
 1. COMBINING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
 FROM SURVEYS TO REMOTELY SENSED
 POSSIBLY INCLUDING INFORMATION FROM
“HAND-PICKED”SITES
 JENNIFER HOETING
 DAVIS, BREIDT, REICH,
STEVENS (OSU), WEISBERG (SCCWRP),
LEECASTER (INL)
# 10
CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT
CONTINUED
 2. LOCAL INFERENCE
 SMALL AREA EST’M + DECONVOLUTION
 JAY BREIDT
 DAVIS, HOETING, GITELMAN (OSU)
# 11
CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT
CONTINUED II
 3. AQUATIC INDICATORS
 DEVELOPING DATA TO USE IN SPATIAL
ANALYSES
 LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
 REGIONAL TAXONOMIC RICHNESS
 DAVE THEOBALD, NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOLOGY LAB
 URQUHART, RITTER (SCCWRP)
# 12
CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT
CONTINUED III
 OUTREACH
 “PROPOSALS SHOULD SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS
THE EXTENSION OF EXPERTISE ON DESIGN AND
ANALYSIS TO STATES AND TRIBES”
 HARI IYER & NSU PREPARED THIS PART OF THE
CSU RESPONSE
 DAVIS, REICH,
 JIM LOFTIS (BIORESOURCES ENGINEERING),
 STEPHEN JOHNSON (WATER QUALITY TECHNOLOGY)
# 13
CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT
CONTINUED III
 5. ADMINISTRATION
 INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION
 URQUHART & DAVIS
 STEVENS (OSU)
 AQUATIC SUPPORT: HERLIHY & HUGHES (OSU)
# 14
CSU PROPOSAL - FUNDED ACTIVITIES
APPROXIMATE ANNUAL LEVELS
 POST DOCTORAL FELLOWS
2.5
 DOCTORAL STUDENTS
2
 FACULTY TIME
~ 1 FTE (12M)
 OTHER
 SUBCONTRACT TO OSU
~ $120K
 COMPUTING EQUIPMENT - ONE TIME =$20K
 SUPPORT/TRAVEL
AMPLE
# 15
OSU COMPANION PROPOSAL
 SIMILARILY STRUCTURED
 MAJOR DIFFERENCE = FOCUS
 DESIGN-BASED/MODEL ASSISTED
 OSU SUBCONTRACT TO CSU THE SAME
SCALE AS CSU SUBCONTRACT TO OSU
 BOTH PROGRAMS HAVE OTHER
SUBCONTRACTORS THE FIRST YEAR
# 16
WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT’
“AQUATIC RESOURCES”?
 THEY ARE THINGS LIKE
 STREAMS
 RIVERS
 WETLANDS
 LAKES & PONDS
 ESTUARIES
 PRAIRIE POTHOLES
 NEAR COASTAL OCEANIC WATERS
# 17
WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT’
“AQUATIC RESOURCES”?
CONTINUED
 FOR MOST AQUATIC RESOURCES,
 THERE ARE MANY “SMALL” ONES
 PROGRESSIVELY FEWER AS THEY GET BIGGER
 INTEREST, BIOLOGICAL & SOCIETAL, TENDS TO
STAY CONSTANT OR EVEN INCREASE WITH SIZE
 SIMPLE RANDOM SAMPLING WOULD SELECT
MOSTLY “SMALL” ONES, FEW BIG ONES.
 IMPLICATION:
 UNEQUAL PROBABILITY SAMPLING
# 18
WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT’
“AQUATIC RESOURCES”?
CONTINUED II
 SPATIAL STATISTICS TENDS TO FOCUS ON
TWO-DIMENSIONAL SPACE
 STREAMS AND RIVERS ESSENTIALLY AMOUNT
TO ONE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS IN TWO-SPACE
 BUT MUCH LANDSCAPE INFORMATION IS
COMPLETE COVERAGE IN TWO-SPACE
 CHALLENGE:
 MERGE THESE PERSPECTIVES
# 19
DISTINCTIVE EMAP PERSPECTIVE
 DEFINE THE POPULATION OF INTEREST
 CONDUCT A PROBABILITY SURVEY OF IT
 CAREFULLY DEFINE THE SAMPLING FRAME
 VARIABLE PROBABILITY SELECTION OF SITES, BUT
WITH SPATIAL BALANCE
 CAREFULLY DEFINE RESPONSES TO BE EVALUATED
 TRAIN FIELD CREWS WELL
 MANAGE DATA WITH CARE AND AN “AUDIT TRAIL”
 LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES, THROUGHOUT
 SEE A FEW ILLUSTRATIONS
 DATA SETS TO BE USED
# 20
AN EMAP STUDY: NORTHEAST LAKES
SAMPLING MODEL - DISCRETE
 TWO STEP SELECTION PROCESS
 FIRST STEP = SPATIALLY SYSTEMATIC
 EMAP = 1/64 EACH YEAR
 FOUR YEARS ===> 1/16 AREA SAMPLE
 SECOND STEP = PROBABILITY
 INCLUSION PROB VARIED BY LAKE SIZE CLASS
 SPATIAL RESTRICTION - MILD
 CAN BE DESCRIBED FOR INTERESTED PEOPLE
 TIME ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, EXCEPT AN
ADDITIONAL 2/64 EXTRACTION WAS DONE
 ONLY IN ITS AREAS OF INTEREST
# 21
MAP OF
SITES VISITED
# 22
MAHA
Study
Design:
Probability
Survey
# 23
# 24
OREGON - WESTERN PILOT
# 25
OREGON WESTERN PILOT +
DESCHUTES/JOHN DAY
# 26
SELECTING SITES - ILLUSTRATION
# 27
DISTINCTIVE EMAP PERSPECTIVE
CONTINUED
 IF DISCIPLINES LACK TOOLS, SUPPORT
DEVELOPMENT OF THEM
 STATISTICS INCLUDED
 EXAMPLE: EXTEND CONCEPTS OF SAMPLING FROM
FINITE POPULATION TO SPATIALLY CONTINUOUS
POPULATIONS
 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND THE
ENVIRONMENT (~ $1M/YEAR)
 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PAST 5 YEARS
 NOW TO BE AT UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
 TWO PROGRAMS UNDER DISCUSSION HERE
# 28
FUTURE NEEDS - STATES & TRIBES
 STATES AND TRIBES MUST REPORT ON THE
CONDITION OF ALL “WATERS” UNDER
THEIR JURISTICTION
 A REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 305b OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT
 RESULTS IN BIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
 STARTING IN 2004 NEW RECOMMENDED
STANDARDS WILL REQUIRE THESE BE
BASED ON PROBABILITY SAMPLING
# 29
FUTURE NEEDS - STATES & TRIBES
CONTINUED
 PROJECT # 4 WILL HELP
 IDENTIFY NEEDED SKILLS IN THE STATES &
TRIBES
 DEVELOP THE NEEDED SKILLS
 IF POSSIBLE, WE HOPE TO TRANSMIT THE
LEARNING MATERIALS IN WEB-COMPATIBLE
DOCUMENTS
 RECORDED ON A CD ROM USABLE AT ANY
REMOTE SITE
# 30
PROGRAM NEEDS from THIS LAB
 INPUTS ON LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVES
 REAL “COOPERATION”
 ACCESS TO EXISTING RELEVANT GIS
COVERAGES
 SHORT TERM: MAHA/MAIA
 COVERAGES
 PRIMARY REMOTELY SENSED DATA
# 31