Spatially balanced sampling and ground‐level imagery for vegetation monitoring on reclaimed well pads

Land reclamation associated with natural gas development has become increasingly important to mitigate land surface disturbance in western North America. Since well pads occur on sites with multiple land use and ownership, the progress and outcomes of these efforts are of interest to multiple stakeholders including industry, practitioners and consultants, regulatory agents, private landowners, and the scientific community. Reclamation success criteria often vary within, and among, government agencies and across land ownership type. Typically, reclamation success of a well pad is judged by comparing vegetation cover from a single transect on the pad to a single transect in an adjacent reference site and data are collected by a large number of technicians with various field monitoring skills. We utilized “SamplePoint” image analysis software and a spatially balanced sampling design, called balanced acceptance sampling, to demonstrate how spatially explicit quantitative data can be used to determine if sites are meeting various reclamation success criteria and used chi‐square tests to show how sites in vegetation percent cover differ from a statistical standpoint. This method collects field data faster than traditional methods. We demonstrate how quantitative and spatially explicit data can be utilized by multiple stakeholders, how it can improve upon current reference site selection, how it can satisfy reclamation monitoring requirements for multiple regulatory agencies, how it may help improve future seed mix selection, and discuss how it may reduce costs for operations responsible for reclamation and how it may reduce observer bias.

[1]  Francisco Javier Ancin-Murguzur,et al.  Efficient sampling for ecosystem service supply assessment at a landscape scale , 2018, Ecosystems and People.

[2]  K. Hulvey,et al.  A Comparison of Two Herbaceous Cover Sampling Methods to Assess Ecosystem Services in High-Shrub Rangelands: Photography-Based Grid Point Intercept (GPI) Versus Quadrat Sampling , 2018, Rangelands.

[3]  Jennifer Brown,et al.  A modification of balanced acceptance sampling , 2017 .

[4]  Lloyd W. Morrison,et al.  Observer error in vegetation surveys: a review , 2016 .

[5]  Michael F. Curran,et al.  Forbs and Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Restoration Efforts: Suggestions for Improving Commercial Seed Availability and Restoration Practices , 2015 .

[6]  Christopher J. Chizinski,et al.  Accuracy or precision: Implications of sample design and methodology on abundance estimation , 2015 .

[7]  Michael F. Curran,et al.  Database Management for Large Scale Reclamation Projects in Wyoming: Developing Better Data Acquisition, Monitoring, and Models for Application to Future Projects , 2015 .

[8]  Michael F. Curran,et al.  DEMONSTRATION STUDY: Approaching oil and gas pad reclamation with data management: A framework for the future , 2013 .

[9]  B L Robertson,et al.  BAS: Balanced Acceptance Sampling of Natural Resources , 2013, Biometrics.

[10]  Michael James Howes,et al.  Evaluating Ecological Restoration Success: A Review of the Literature , 2013 .

[11]  S. Schrader,et al.  Rangeland and pasture monitoring: an approach to interpretation of high-resolution imagery focused on observer calibration for repeatability , 2012, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

[12]  M. Duniway,et al.  A Technique for Estimating Rangeland Canopy-Gap Size Distributions From High-Resolution Digital Imagery , 2012 .

[13]  D. T. Booth,et al.  Art to Science: Tools for Greater Objectivity in Resource Monitoring , 2011 .

[14]  Jeffrey E. Herrick,et al.  Consistent Indicators and Methods and a Scalable Sample Design to Meet Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Information Needs Across Scales , 2011 .

[15]  D. T. Booth,et al.  Comparison of Point Intercept and Image Analysis for Monitoring Rangeland Transects , 2011 .

[16]  D. T. Booth,et al.  Aerial Assessment of Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula L.): on Idaho’s Deep Fire Burn , 2010 .

[17]  Lars Westerberg,et al.  In the eye of the beholder: bias and stochastic variation in cover estimates , 2009, Plant Ecology.

[18]  Joy B. Zedler,et al.  Success: An Unclear, Subjective Descriptor of Restoration Outcomes , 2007, Ecological Restoration.

[19]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Who needs environmental monitoring , 2007 .

[20]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers , 2007 .

[21]  Robert D. Berryman,et al.  Point Sampling Digital Imagery with ‘Samplepoint’ , 2006, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[22]  T. Mitchell Aide,et al.  Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured? , 2005 .

[23]  A. Olsen,et al.  Spatially Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources , 2004 .

[24]  T. Stohlgren,et al.  Comparison of rangeland vegetation sampling techniques in the Central Grasslands , 1998 .

[25]  K. A. Kennedy,et al.  SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE USE OF VISUAL ESTIMATES OF PLANT COVER IN BIOMONITORING , 1987 .

[26]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .