Spatial data Standards in Ecological Monitoring and Evaluation for Landscape level characterization/processes in the Columbia River Basin

Scott O’Daniel, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Within recent years, several large land management studies have created regional data sets. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Option 9  The President’s Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project have contributed to the institutional understanding of regional land management. However, for the Columbia River Basin, the maintenance and resolution of these data sets do not support project planning of a management activity that operates at a sub-regional scale. Analysis and maintenance of watershed and sub-watershed (respectively, (4^th field HUC ex. Grande Ronde Watershed, and 5^th field HUC, ex. Looking glass Creek) data sets are imperative for current and future land management decisions and all monitoring and evaluation studies.

Organizational Steps

As steps increase in number the breadth of each step is reduced. As a programmatic approach, each step is equal.

1. Construct a suite of course scale (1:24,000 base) ecological characterizations for each watershed (4^th field HUC, ex. Grande Ronde Watershed).
2. Identify the available data that is ecologically relevant to the pattern of the managed resources.
3. Develop functional thresholds, which characterize significant (measurable) changes in the watershed.
4. Review and publishing of case studies that link abstract and empirical models.
5. Target ecological functions and patterns at critical/ESA spatial scales.

1.0 Interagency and interwatershed cooperation on method and data development.

To realize comparable datasets, all data development and distribution would need to occur with region wide guidance. Cooperators would need to commit to interagency and interwatershed groups. These groups would help define the various landscape indices for individual species or suites of species under management consideration. A distributed network of datasets could support watershed and project level planning. This approach may help agencies get past “damage control” or attempting to reduce the negative effects of a site on the managed resource and orient strategies to optimize wildlife and fisheries projects between critical spatial scales. Repeatable measures that characterize watersheds and sub-watersheds are necessary to regionally compare species of concern.

1.2 Agreement on commonly available data sources which fulfill multiscale (landscape, 4^th field HUC, subwatershed, 5^th field HUC, and some site, areas or lengths of several miles) objectives.

At a minimum, 1:24,000 scale roads, hydrography, stream habitat surveys, water bodies, place names, political boundaries, vegetation types, wells, public land survey, soils, ecoregions and census data. While various agencies collect and maintain datasets at several scales, it important that minimum standards are set for the base themes and the initial minimum mapping unit. Rapid changes in sensor technology continue to changes the scale of assessment. Multispectral photography at fine resolution (~1 meter) is available from several sources. Because many ecological processes are significant relative to a certain scale, it is critical to maintain spatial information at the finest possible scale and possible set aggregation rules for resampling. At smaller scales.

NSDI, FGDC (National Spatial Data Infrastructure and Federal Geospatial Data Committee) exist to assure that basic metadata standards are met. It critical, that documentation of the decisions, made to create specific metrics, are widely available. Documentation within each watershed (4^th field HUC) would conform to a standard set of items/attributes, however, several additional items would be added to support specific sample designs.

1.3 Creation of terrestrial and aquatic indices that characterize watersheds (4^th field HUC).

A suite of several DEM (digital elevation model) and stream habitat surveys datasets have potential to contribute to a basic set of landscape metrics. These metrics include, for terrestrial areas, slope, aspect, elevation, slope position, exposure, heat, moisture, land use and landform: for stream areas, hydrologic responsiveness, connectivity, density, sink/source points and circuitry. Although most of the values derived from these datasets are relative, they may be compared within a watershed to define a unique range of variables that characterize that watershed.

2.0 Data Sources and Crosswalks

Various agencies should agree to support a core set of attributes in resource assessment activities. Through resampling and crosswalks data from several agencies may be combined for watershed wide use.

2.1 Gradients and Patches

Identification of continuous features (ex. streams) that exhibit linear characteristics and assign a quality rank to stream segments based on a suit of desirable values (ex. ODFW Stream Benchmarks). Several definitions of patch boundaries and edge measures exist at differing spatial scales within a landscape. For water related questions gradients describing physical and temporal properties may by more appropriate. If, for example, a question was related to the late summer flow on a subwatershed (5^th field watershed). A possible method may analyze datasets including, hydrologic responsiveness, moisture, landform, heat, and vegetation type.

3.0 Defining Relative Variability , Relative Thresholds

Following the example given above, one may incorporate flow data, channel geometry, minimum channel initiation area, storm path direction, land use and slope position to identify a range of low flow scenarios. One may compare these scenarios to the known requirements of the species or associated suite of species and determine a functional threshold for the subwatershed. If a reliable period of record exists for additional parameters, one may attempt to correlate trends between seasonal population fluxes and the environmental gradients. Comparing the trends in the subwatershed to the proposed prescriptions may show complementary restoration efforts.

4.0 Dissemination of Case Studies

Examples that address specific species interactions should understood in the geographical context and the methods applied where there is evidence that similar spatial and temporal dynamics occur. As studies are completed that link ecological condition to species use, the results should be reviewed at several organizational levels.

4.1 Target scales

Clearly anadramous fish are a key component to watershed and subwatershed interactions. Targeting appropriate experimental design strategies in combination with multiscale landscape characterizations may produce a more informed understanding of species/habitat interactions. Initially, the interactions between the watershed and subwatersheds (4^TH field and 5^th field) may be addressed. Most agencies have several years of data and local expertise relating to the managed resource.

The approach outlined here is put forth as a set of standards for spatial data and methods. Repeatable measures across the Columbia River Basin are essential for long term monitoring and evaluation. Creating a set of landscape metrics (Organizational Step 1) is immediately useful in characterization and holds the potential to link to relating ecological process, functions and patterns.

Jim Webster, hydrologist with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, provided meaningful insight into the development of the hydrologic response units.

Questions to be asked-

What constitutes biodiversity in a watershed?
-does it include artificial diversity?

What are the potential of exotic species given the structure of a landscape?
-Which landscapes are most susceptible?

Are certain important suites of species, at several spatial scales, have similar sensitivity thresholds?

What is outlined here is the general path of the Umatilla Tribes future work plan, to support fish and wildlife monitoring and evaluation.