Small Group Number: T2 Spatial Distribution of Monitoring Sites – Meeting Notes
Facilitator: Karen Murphy
Notetaker: Jessica Abbott
Participants: Scott Lindsey, Chris Arp, Trey Simmons, John Lane, Michael Knapp, Susan Flemburg, Sue
Mauger (spokesperson), Carol Anne Woody, Steve Frenzel, Ben James
Flip Chart Recorder: Karen Murphy
Background: Some aspects to consider in refining needs & developing recommendations for developing a
network of observation sites for supporting regional monitoring of water temperature:
a. Upon what basis should the region be partitioned when considering gaps in the current
monitoring efforts: ecoregions? HUCs? Some other watershed characterization? Should the
same partition be used when considering streams as when considering lakes? If not, provide an
approach for each.
b. Based on yesterday’s summaries of monitoring effort locations across the state, and your
knowledge of other existing efforts, are there obviously under-represented areas or watershed
categories?
c. What minimum sampling intensity should be required to represent adequately a HUC (or
ecoregion, etc.) in a regional analysis of water temperature?
d. What areas should receive priority attention in terms of expanding existing monitoring efforts?
(consider increasing intensity vs expanding to new areas)
e. Should a formal inventory of historic & current water temperature monitoring efforts be
conducted? If so, what minimum requirements should be used for identifying ‘relevant’ data
sets?
f. What strategies could be employed to spatially-leverage existing agency-specific efforts?
g. Other related topics.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Notes:
Brainstorm of needs, and why they are important:
Spatial Breakout – Assumption from the view of Climate Change
a.
1. Since there are dots beyond Alaska, it would need to incorporate Western Canada,
especially Yukon and BC
2. LCCs expand into Yukon and other parts of Canada
3. Eco-regional boundaries / Eco-region Stratification do go outside of Canada and
encompass the large watersheds
4. Yukon Territory has some of the same problems.
5. Sue M – doesn’t find the LCCs to be very compelling. Unified Eco-regions map has 6
sections.
6. Steve – recommend an eco-region stratification / approach
7. Trey – Eco-regions don’t really transcribe to hydrology. The regions should be based on
hydrologic systems (HUC ) not eco-regions. If we have limited resources, do you want to
understand how a particular river works or a particular area?
i. WWF – “hydro-regions”
8. Steve - Tim published report in 1994 – USGS Stream Flow Network Analysis
9. How far out do we want to extend beyond hydrologic and eco-region delineations?
10. We’ve focused on streams and have ignored the lakes. Lake Districts Do we break it up
this way?
11. Chris Arp – Land management boundaries is the way it is often done now because lands
are managed differently. Different questions that pertain to different areas and maybe
you want to monitor those differently.
12. Chris Arp – Climate regions or climate zones based on elevation?
13. Michael Knapp - What about the logistics of that idea and actually getting to those
areas?
14. Scott Lindsey – NE Alaska has nothing. So if you are looking at regional effort for that,
we’d have to add something.
15. Sue M – I’d be interested to see a map of the HUC overlay as a breakout across the state
versus the eco-regions.
16. Karen – if you are going to sell this to the management, they are going to lean more
towards eco-regions. Perhaps it should be a combination of HUC and eco-regions.
17. LAKES v STREAMS
i. Some lakes don’t have stream systems – does that change the stratification?
Separate Stratification.
ii. Carol Anne – all the huge lake systems have a huge impact on these
breakdowns.
iii. Chris Arp – streams should be stratified by size and position in network
(headwater tributary v low water tributary), and source order.
iv. Lakes – connectivity, if they have an outlet that flows out of them or flows
through them, elevation and drainage area, size and depth.
v. Should consider these things when considering HUC v. eco-regions v. political
regions.
vi. Trey - Since this is about climate change, climate ‘districts’ should include an
overlay of streams and lakes.
18. John Lane – there needs to be a hierarchical stratification / determination as we go
down the line (Climate region then characteristics for streams and lakes).
b. Network Gaps
a. Based on who is not represented here at the table/workshop?
b. What is and has been done?
c. Climates further away from the roads, those in higher elevation, remoteness, no
development are where gaps are likely present.
d. Where are the threats? Prioritizations?
e. Steve – on the other 180 degree view point, where are the regulated systems? Do we
include these areas or not?
f. Karen, should we be asking for discreet samples? Is there a minimum time duration? 2-3
years, 5 years?
i. Discrete samples – only include if
1. Repeated samples across multiple years
2. Linked to air temperature data.
ii. The group disagreed on this specific topic. John Lane argues for discrete data
samples and Carol Anne argues against its value. The group believes that there
are always certain situations when discreet samples would be valuable. Can be
useful for calibrating models, etc. Stratification for collecting full data sets but
include discrete as well (that’s great – why not?).
iii. Request discrete for opportunity
g. The amount of time necessary for recording data / duration minimum?
i. Again, depends on situation and the group discussed their different viewpoints.
ii. Karen - For climate data, 2 years is too short
iii. Carol Anne – most projects are only funded for 2 years.
iv. 2-3 years necessary. But take all samples, but eventually we will have these
models to create overall temp analog.
v. Trey – 1 year is going to give a lot of variability and can still be valuable – so
anything is good really.
h. Co-locate air sensors
i. Should there be reference sites or existing long term temperature sites?
i. Priority coming out of this group – if we don’t know what is there how do we
know where to go?
ii. Depends on intended use of data – directly correlated to cost
j. Duration may be linked to ‘threats’
c. Sampling Intensity
a. Try Simmons - Depends on the variability of the systems.
b. Chris Arp - Doing a data analysis first would really help to identify this issue. Cannot
answer this question without spatial assessment.
c. Sue M - Need to do a range of assessment of what has already been characterized.
d. Representative of landscape position.
e. Steve F - A spatial question that we are trying to answer with data that was not
collected for that purpose.
i. Network / “Landscape” regional climate
f. Chris Arp - Access influences sampling (ex - landing float planes).
g. Trey – Tiered sampling design. = Access
i. Intensive sites and sites with less intensity (discrete?)
ii. What I know I can do – used to direct trends
iii. Statistical design Places I don’t need to get to every year but to provide spatial
reference
h. Carol Anne Woody - Expand on existing reference sites (length of record)
i. John Lane – Land Management agency sampling based on funds. The sampling driver
anywhere is always funding. Who is funding and when and where is it going to be done.
j. Karen – should the forest service be asked to have sites that go on for 20+ years. That
way each agency would have some reference sites? Does that make sense from a Land
Management standpoint? John Lane – Sure, but again it depends on funding and would
take convincing.
k. Sue Mauger – I did all the fund raising and Forest Service just gave me access to the
land. This should not be a blocker to creating a design. There are larger ways we could
deal with this. Others can collect data too.
l. Bench mark sites – (could ask agencies to sponsor sites?) Scott Lindsey, two may be
enough. How do we represent all the things that require a long term record?
m. Use nested approach for the best bang for your buck. (NETWORK POSITION)
i. Bench mark/ reference sites
ii. Send out other sensors in other areas too (nested approach). Representative
sites
iii. Need a broad understanding of your area
iv. 1 per stream to characterize streams and then subset used on representative
streams
v. Isotherms useful to identify ‘mitigation’ - selling point
n. If we’re capturing regional change also important to capture headwaters.
Top 5 Priority Needs (selected from above by group):
1. Go through all available metadata to find long term sites (to be extended to base sites). Analysis of
existing data.
2. Determine Stratification
3. Network Design - Develop Criteria (where we need to extend sites and where we need to create new
sites)
4.
5. Garnering broad scale support
#1 TOP NEED
a. Need, and why it’s important: Analysis of existing metadata.
b. Recommendations: Include stratification in data call to capture duration, continuous/discrete,
historical and current positions in landscape, air and water data, GPS coordinates, ease of
access, calibrations of sensors used, future plans for the specific sites.
Karen – Should we include other data as well?
UAF – Doug in lead – did precipitation frequency update (took 15 years to get going) data call
for ADOT. We may be able to identify cost and effort here.
c. Reasons for recommendations: Can’t design network without this information.
d. Lead organization: LCC /ACSC (if statewide issue, should fall with the CSC)
Any likely or necessary collaborators?
_______________________________________________________________________________
#2 TOP NEED
a. Need, and why it’s important: Determine Stratification - Compare Eco-regions and HUCs
a. methodology in Tim’s USGS network analysis report and include with climate to
determine stratification.
b. Use Need 1’s results to inform in gap analysis.
c. Compare lake district approach
d. Determine model with climate metadata to ID weak ‘sites’
a. Recommendations: Can do parts of this in parallel with Need #1 – combined action
b. Reasons for recommendations:
c. Lead organization: USGS (has strict flow of reports and metadata), UAF, Parks Service, ACSC
Any likely or necessary collaborators?
_______________________________________________________________________________
#3 TOP NEED
a. Need, and why it’s important: Network Design using stratification points listed.
a. Stream: sizes, sources, network position, etc.
b. Lakes: connectivity, watershed position, etc.
a. Recommendations:
Refine stratification started in step #2
b. Reasons for recommendations:
c. Lead organization:
Any likely or necessary collaborators?
_______________________________________________________________________________
#4 TOP NEED
a. Need, and why it’s important: Identify bench mark sites across the state (20+ years of recording
data). High network priority.
a. Recommendations: not project linked, long term commitment, tie to USGS stream bench marks
b. Reasons for recommendations:
c. Lead organization: LCCs should recommend where the bench marks are because they would
have to decide how many and which ones they are interested in.
Temperature Working Group - But in cooperation with other agencies (temperature working group)
to help guide the LCCs on where these locations should be.  perhaps this need will need to
happen in the nested sites location? (Sue Mauger).
Partnerships? Universities? Municipalities?
An agency is much more likely to make a 20+ year commitment.
_______________________________________________________________________________
#5 TOP NEED
a. Need, and why it’s important: Garnering broad scale support
a. Recommendations:
i. Involve partners in all steps (not just agencies, more state involvement)
ii. Describe derived products relevant to different stakeholders (including
legislators)
1. why it’s important information
b. Reasons for recommendations:
c. Lead organization:
Any likely or necessary collaborators?