Upload
aizza
View
35
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Validation and Calibration of Riparian Shade Prediction Models. Kevin Ceder Mark Teply Cramer Fish Sciences. Background. Alternative stream management zone (SMZ) management can change stream shading Impact T&E species Exceed TMDL clean water standards - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
Validation and Calibration of Riparian Shade Prediction Models
Kevin CederMark Teply
Cramer Fish Sciences
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
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
2013 Western Mensurationists MeetingLeavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
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
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
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
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
Biases in Shade Reduction Predictions
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
Correlations with Stand Variables Chen ODEQ Combined 50-foot 75-foot Combined 50-foot 75-footTPA > 3” -0.11 -0.02 -0.45 -0.07 0.04 -0.43BA > 3” 0.41 0.57 -0.08 0.38 0.54 -0.11QMD > 3” 0.46 0.49 0.58 0.39 0.43 0.51Avg. HT > 3” 0.59 0.64 0.46 0.50 0.57 0.34%HWD > 3” 0.45 0.55 0.39 0.43 0.54 0.30Avg. LCR > 3” -0.72 -0.77 -0.28 -0.63 -0.69 -0.14TPA > 8” 0.38 0.62 -0.19 0.36 0.60 -0.26BA > 8” 0.49 0.60 0.09 0.44 0.56 0.04QMD > 8” 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.51Avg. HT > 8” 0.39 0.43 0.25 0.32 0.36 0.21%HWD > 8” 0.46 0.56 0.38 0.43 0.55 0.29Avg. LCR > 8” -0.70 -0.75 -0.32 -0.60 -0.67 -0.18RDSUM 0.50 0.63 0.03 0.45 0.59 -0.03
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
Correlations with Stand Variables Chen ODEQ Combined 50-foot 75-foot Combined 50-foot 75-footTPA > 3” -0.11 -0.02 -0.45 -0.07 0.04 -0.43BA > 3” 0.41 0.57 -0.08 0.38 0.54 -0.11QMD > 3” 0.46 0.49 0.58 0.39 0.43 0.51Avg. HT > 3” 0.59 0.64 0.46 0.50 0.57 0.34%HWD > 3” 0.45 0.55 0.39 0.43 0.54 0.30Avg. LCR > 3” -0.72 -0.77 -0.28 -0.63 -0.69 -0.14TPA > 8” 0.38 0.62 -0.19 0.36 0.60 -0.26BA > 8” 0.49 0.60 0.09 0.44 0.56 0.04QMD > 8” 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.51Avg. HT > 8” 0.39 0.43 0.25 0.32 0.36 0.21%HWD > 8” 0.46 0.56 0.38 0.43 0.55 0.29Avg. LCR > 8” -0.70 -0.75 -0.32 -0.60 -0.67 -0.18RDSUM 0.50 0.63 0.03 0.45 0.59 -0.03
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
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
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
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.
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
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
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
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
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA
Questions?Comments?
Kevin Ceder: [email protected]
Mark Teply: [email protected]
www.fishsciences.netOregon • California • Washington • Idaho • Alaska
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. watershed-scale 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.
2013 Western Mensurationists Meeting Leavenworth, WA