The concept of a Master Sample:Lower Columbia ExampleAn UpdatePhil LarsenPacific States Marine Fisheries Commissionc/o USEPA200 SW 35th St.Corvallis, OR 97330Email: Larsen.Phil@epa.govPhone: 541 754 4362

Spatially Balanced SamplingGRTS: Generalized Random-Tessellation Stratified designIncorporates randomizationIs spatially balancedCreates an ordered list of sites

See: www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm for details

A Desirable GoalCreate 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

LCFRB: Habitat Monitoring Key EntitiesFederal5 agenciesState5 agenciesLocalAt least 12

LC Master Sample

Panel 1: 54 status sites (from table 8)

Panel 2: 18 annual sites (from table 8)

Lewis: 30 special interest

Diagonstic: 30 Germany

ODFW FRAMEBased on 1:24 K stream layer (origin?)Trimmed by eliminating traces with < 0.6 sq. km basin size.Spawning and rearing domain defined on 1:100 K (start and end of distribution)Habitat outside spawning and rearing used 1:100 K.

ODFW LC Master10240 sitesApproximately 1 site/600 metersCoded byPopulationType: spawning, rearing, habitatHUC (8-digit)General ownershipCountyS-level (panels, e.g., annual, 3 yr, 9 yr,)

IndicatorsCoho spawnersCoho juvenilesPhysical habitatSteelhead?

LCFRB FRAMEBased on 1:24 K stream layer (origin?)ca. 3700 sites; 1/ kmCoded by:SubbasinTierGradientEDT-Reach

LCFRB: Habitat Status Monitoring (p. 2)Landscape: Census/complete coverageWatershedUplands/Hill slopesWetlandsStream Corridor: Sample surveyChannel ConditionsRiparian zoneFloodplainWater:Quantity ?Quality

LCFRB: Stratification SchemeTable 6EcoregionWRIASubbasin (different from USGS subbasin?)Physiographic zone (different from ecoregion?)Stream order

LCFRB: Sample Type (p. 21; table 8)Survey: StatusMaster sampleIndex: TrendMaster sample via an index stratum, e.g., Tier 1 sitesDiagnosticMaster sample possible if diagnostic strata can be identifiedFocal: site specific project evaluationProbability vs. judgmental (or hand selected) sites

Stream Habitat Sampling Levels:Table 7 (p. 26)IndicatorRemote/officeReconnaissanceOn the ground rapid assessmentInventoryReach/habitatIntensiveSiteConcept of Nested samples

Utility of a Master SampleAn exploratory tool to examine different site allocations easily.

A framework for an actual integrated, multi-agency state-wide or regional monitoring program.

*Phil The previous slide lays out the principles needed to combine data, which most people seem to be agreeing with now. What is missing is why people should take the extra step of using a MSD to lay out samples. People are going to be asking, if I use MSD, then do I have to toss all my old data?, If I dont revisit sites established with GRTS, how will I detect trends? whats in it for me if I use MSD?Seems like you need an example/explanation that shows why MSD had big advantages over everyone just using GRTS and then combining data. Is there a time savings between the two approaches, less chance of error?

*Green-habitatBlue-RearingRed-Spawining*Red-Tier 0Turquoise-Tier 1Blue-Tier 2Purple-Tier 3Green-Tier 4*LC master sample superimposed on stream network