Validation and Calibration of Riparian Shade Prediction Models

Report
Validation and Calibration of Riparian
Shade Prediction Models
Kevin Ceder
Mark Teply
Cramer Fish Sciences
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Background
• Alternative stream management zone (SMZ)
management can change stream shading
– Impact T&E species
– Exceed TMDL clean water standards
– Shade models used to assess shade loss
• Idaho Forest Practices Act Advisory Committee
(FPAAC) testing new riparian management
prescriptions
– Want to ensure shade prediction accuracy
– Independent studies used to validate and calibrate
models
– Resulting calibration models used in shade
assessments
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Shade Models
• Physics-based models
– “Chen” (Chen et al 1998)
– “ODEQ” (Boyd 1996)
– Included in Shade.xls
(WA Dept. of Ecology)
• Calculate shade to
stream based on light
extinction
– Input canopy cover and
mean height for each
zone
– Solar paths are known
– Assumes continuous
cover within zone
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Validation Data Studies
• Janisch et al. (2012)
– 6 sites in western WA
– 50-foot no-cut buffers to
WFPA rules
• Groom et al. (2011)
– 12 sites in western OR
– 50- and 75-foot to OAR
rules
• Cupp (pers. Comm. 2012)
– 8 sites in eastern WA
– 75-foot to WFPA rules
• Sugden & Steiner (2005)
– 9 sites on Plum Creek lands
– 50-foot
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Biases in Shade Reduction Predictions
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Correlations with Stand Variables
Chen
TPA > 3”
BA > 3”
QMD > 3”
Avg. HT > 3”
%HWD > 3”
Avg. LCR > 3”
TPA > 8”
BA > 8”
QMD > 8”
Avg. HT > 8”
%HWD > 8”
Avg. LCR > 8”
RDSUM
ODEQ
Combined
-0.11
50-foot
-0.02
75-foot
-0.45
Combined
-0.07
50-foot
0.04
75-foot
-0.43
0.41
0.57
-0.08
0.38
0.54
-0.11
0.46
0.49
0.58
0.39
0.43
0.51
0.59
0.45
0.64
0.55
0.46
0.39
0.50
0.43
0.57
0.54
0.34
0.30
-0.72
-0.77
-0.28
-0.63
-0.69
-0.14
0.38
0.62
-0.19
0.36
0.60
-0.26
0.49
0.30
0.60
0.30
0.09
0.50
0.44
0.26
0.56
0.26
0.04
0.51
0.39
0.43
0.25
0.32
0.36
0.21
0.46
0.56
0.38
0.43
0.55
0.29
-0.70
0.50
-0.75
0.63
-0.32
0.03
-0.60
0.45
-0.67
0.59
-0.18
-0.03
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Correlations with Stand Variables
Chen
TPA > 3”
BA > 3”
QMD > 3”
Avg. HT > 3”
%HWD > 3”
Avg. LCR > 3”
TPA > 8”
BA > 8”
QMD > 8”
Avg. HT > 8”
%HWD > 8”
Avg. LCR > 8”
RDSUM
ODEQ
Combined
-0.11
50-foot
-0.02
75-foot
-0.45
Combined
-0.07
50-foot
0.04
75-foot
-0.43
0.41
0.57
-0.08
0.38
0.54
-0.11
0.46
0.49
0.58
0.39
0.43
0.51
0.59
0.45
0.64
0.55
0.46
0.39
0.50
0.43
0.57
0.54
0.34
0.30
-0.72
-0.77
-0.28
-0.63
-0.69
-0.14
0.38
0.62
-0.19
0.36
0.60
-0.26
0.49
0.30
0.60
0.30
0.09
0.50
0.44
0.26
0.56
0.26
0.04
0.51
0.39
0.43
0.25
0.32
0.36
0.21
0.46
0.56
0.38
0.43
0.55
0.29
-0.70
0.50
-0.75
0.63
-0.32
0.03
-0.60
0.45
-0.67
0.59
-0.18
-0.03
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Shade Loss Calibration Model
• Shade reduction
error related to
average crown ratio
with 50’ buffers
• No relationships with
stand conditions
found for 75’ buffers
– 3.7% underprediction
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Reasons for Biases
• 50-foot buffers:
– Lower crown ratio stands have more crown
to intercept light than higher crown ratio
stands.
– Extinction coefficient calculation does not
take this into account.
• 75- foot buffers:
– Sufficient width for light extinction
regardless of canopy
– Calculation slightly off.
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Idaho FPAAC SMZ
management
alternatives
• We provided
support to the
FPAAC for several
iterations of SMZ
management
alternatives
• Learning at each
iteration resulted
in choosing an
alternative that
met all their needs
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Summary
• Shade models are important tools for
assessing SMZ management
alternatives but show consistent biases
• Biases can be partially corrected with
stream-adjacent stand information
• It may be time to revisit these models to
make them better fit forest conditions
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
Questions?
Comments?
Kevin Ceder:
[email protected]
Mark Teply:
[email protected]
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net
References
•
•
•
•
•
Boyd, M.S. 1996. Heat Source: stream temperature prediction.
Master’s Thesis. Departments of Civil and Bioresource Engineering,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Chen, Y.D., R.F. Carsel, S.C. McCutcheon, and W.L. Nutter. 1998.
Stream temperature simulation of forested riparian areas: I. watershedscale model development. Journal of Environmental Engineering. April
1998. pp 304-315.
Groom J. D., L. Dent, L. Madsen, J. Fleuret. 2011. Response of
western Oregon (USA) stream temperatures to contemporary forest
management. Forest Ecology and Management 262(8):1618-1629.
Janisch, J. E., S. M. Wondzell, and W. J. Ehinger. 2012. Headwater
stream temperature: Interpreting response after logging, with and
without riparian buffers, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and
Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.035.
Sugden, B. and R. Steiner. 2005. Effectiveness of native fish HCP
buffers for stream temperature control: 5-year review report to US Fish
and Wildlife Service. Plum Creek Timber Company, Columbia Falls,
MT.
®
Oregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting
Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.net

похожие документы