1. # 1 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

2. # 2 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}

3. # 3 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

4. # 4 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

5. # 5 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 ++

6. # 6 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

7. # 7 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

8. # 8 CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT  1. COMBINING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA  2. LOCAL INFERENCE  3. AQUATIC INDICATORS  4. OUTREACH  5. ADMINISTRATION/COORDINATION

9. # 9 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

10. # 10 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)

11. # 11 CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT CONTINUED  2. LOCAL INFERENCE  SMALL AREA EST’M + DECONVOLUTION  JAY BREIDT DAVIS, HOETING, GITELMAN (OSU)

12. # 12 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)

13. # 13 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)

14. # 14 CSU PROPOSAL - CONTENT CONTINUED III  5. ADMINISTRATION  INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION  URQUHART & DAVIS STEVENS (OSU) AQUATIC SUPPORT: HERLIHY & HUGHES (OSU)

15. # 15 CSU PROPOSAL - FUNDED ACTIVITIES APPROXIMATE ANNUAL LEVELS  POST DOCTORAL FELLOWS2.5  DOCTORAL STUDENTS2  FACULTY TIME~ 1 FTE (12M)  OTHER  SUBCONTRACT TO OSU~ $120K  COMPUTING EQUIPMENT - ONE TIME =$20K  SUPPORT/TRAVELAMPLE

16. # 16 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

17. # 17 WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT’ “AQUATIC RESOURCES”?  THEY ARE THINGS LIKE  STREAMS  RIVERS  WETLANDS  LAKES & PONDS  ESTUARIES  PRAIRIE POTHOLES  NEAR COASTAL OCEANIC WATERS

18. # 18 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

19. # 19 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

20. # 20 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

21. # 21 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

22. # 22 MAP OF SITES VISITED

23. # 23 MAHA Study Design: Probability Survey

24. # 24

25. # 25 OREGON - WESTERN PILOT

26. # 26 OREGON WESTERN PILOT + DESCHUTES/JOHN DAY

27. # 27 SELECTING SITES - ILLUSTRATION

28. # 28 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

29. # 29 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

30. # 30 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

31. # 31 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