{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022102161100196464, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010805500982318271, 'mean_word_length': 5.528846153846154, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Crew variability in topographic surveys for monitoring wadeable streams: a case study from the Columbia River Basin

Digital elevation models (DEMs) derived from ground‐based topographic surveys have become ubiquitous in the field of fluvial geomorphology. Their wide application in spatially explicit analysis includes hydraulic modeling, habitat modeling, and morphological sediment budgeting. However, there is a lack of understanding regarding the repeatability and precision of DEMs derived from ground‐based surveys conducted by different, and inherently subjective, observers. This is of particular concern when we consider the proportion of studies and monitoring programs that are implemented across multiple sites and over time by different observers. We used a case study from the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP), where seven field crews sampled the same six sites, to quantify the magnitude and effect of observer variability on DEMs interpolated from total station surveys. We quantified the degree to which DEM‐derived metrics and measured geomorphic change were repeatable. Across all six sites, we found an average elevation standard deviation of 0.05 m among surveys, and a mean total range of 0.16 m. A variance partition between site, crew, and unexplained errors for several topographically derived metrics showed that crew variability never accounted for > 1.5% of the total variability. We calculated minor geomorphic changes at one site following a relatively dry flow year between 2012 and 2011. Calculated changes were minimal (unthresholded net changes ±1–3 cm) with six crews detecting an indeterminate sediment budget and one crew detecting a minor net erosional sediment budget. While crew variability does influence the quality of topographic surveys, this study highlights that when consistent surveying methods are employed, the data sets are still sufficient to support derivation of topographic metrics and conduct basic geomorphic change detection. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.