Dan Couch Olympia, WA DNR January, 2016
Outline Rogue Valley LiDAR Background Stand Metrics Comparison Results: LiDAR vs Timber Cruise BLM Forest Inventory Implications
Rogue Valley LiDAR Ref: OLC Rogue River – LiDAR Remote Sensing Data Final Report Flown in 2012
LiDAR BLM Sample Plot Development Ref: Rogue Valley BLM Stratified LIDAR Sample Plot Methodology
Steps to Derive Stand Metrics LiDAR Bins 75 foot pixels Correlation Plot Tree Data Harvest Unit Polygons Basis of comparison
Principle Components Analysis 80 th Percentile Height 80% of LiDAR height returns below this point above 10’ Six fixed height classes (~30 ft) Highly accurate height predictions Total Cover % Three equal width density classes Low, Moderate, High LiDAR
18 Bins (Strata) 6 Height Classes 3 Density Classes Low Med High
Correlation Plot Tree Data ~13 Plots per Bin (strata) ~42 foot radius 240 Plots, measured 2013 Trees counted & measured Trees less than 6.5” DBH not sampled Ref: Rogue Valley LIDAR Inventory Plot Establishment – Inventory Report
LiDAR Derived Stand Metrics Raster 75 foot pixel (8 th ac) data coverage by metric Height (BA-weighted) Basal area (BA) Density (TPA) Avg diameter at breast height (QMD) Volume (ft 3 per acre) Canopy cover (%) Ref: Rogue Valley LIDAR-assisted Inventory Final Report to BLM
Regression Model Predictions Description Forest variable (live trees >=6.5” DBH) LiDAR Raster Labels live hardwood & softwood (hs) trees >= 6.5” DBH (6in) R2R2 BA-weighted heightLLOR (ft) LLOR_hs_6in 0.91 Basal areaLBA (sqft/ac) LBA_hs_6in 0.70 DensityLDEN (TPA) LDEN_hs_6in 0.63 Quadratic mean diameterLQMD (in) LQMD_hs_6in 0.72 VolumeLVOL (cuft/ac) LVOL_hs_6in 0.79 Canopy CoverPC_1 st (% > 6.6’) PC_1st N/A Height related predictors best fit Stem density (TPA) worst fit
LiDAR Stand Metrics Compared to Timber Cruise
Comparing LiDAR & Timber Cruise White Castle 9 Units – Timber Cruised 2012 High degree of accuracy – BA, TPA, QMD, Vol Count included retention trees Good comparison of stand metrics Spatial unit GPS’d to high accuracy Canopy cover NOT compared
Comparing LiDAR & Timber Cruise In GIS, LiDAR pixelated metrics interesected and averaged for each White Castle unit BA, TPA, QMD, Vol summarized by unit. LiDAR Ft 3 volume converted to MBF by factor of 6.
LiDAR vs Timber Cruise Results Quadratic Mean Diameter (DBH) Unit #AcresCruise/Retain QMDLidar QMDQMD Difference% Diff % % 3 & % % % 7** % % % Avg %
LiDAR vs Timber Cruise Results Basal Area Unit #AcresCruise/Retain BA/AcLidar BA/AcBA Difference% Diff % % 3 & % % % 7** % % % Avg 2613%
LiDAR vs Timber Cruise Results Volume (MBF/Ac) Unit #Acres Cruise/Retain Short Log Vol/Ac (MBF) Lidar Converted* Vol/Ac (MBF) MBF Vol/Ac Difference % Diff % % 3 & % % % 7** % % % Avg %
LiDAR vs Timber Cruise Results Trees Per Acre Unit #AcresCruise/Retain TPA/AcLidar TPA/AcTPA Difference% Diff % % 3 & % % % 7** % % % Avg 82%
BLM Forest Inventory Implications
BLM Micro*Storms Application Western Oregon BLM’s corporate forest data repository and application for: Forest Vegetation (FOI-VEG) Forest Surveys Forest Treatments BURN REVEG - PLANT HARVEST
FOI-VEG vs Treatments/Surveys FOI-VEG Describes BLM Forest Vegetation Entire Western Oregon Coverage Polygon Overlap Not Allowed Treatments/Surveys Overlap
FOI-VEG – Forest Vegetation Data Structure
FOI-VEG Published Version ID, Geographic Ref, Acres (Unit # - Twnshp, Rg, Section) Forest Stand Description (Spp, size class, density, birth yr) Need stand exams for spp mix Forest Stand Metrics (Stand level regardless of spp) Independent from stand description Can use LiDAR for stand by stand metrics Attributes For Each Forest Stand
FOI-VEG Published Version ID ReferenceLayers AttributesStand Attributes OI_KEYCLASSIFIERGIS ACRESSTAND_DESC AGECLS BYR AGECLS 10 LYR_SRCLYR_SRC_DTCANOPYCOVTPA7QMD7BA7MBF_ACSTAND_SRCSTAND_SRC_DT Person Importing LiDAR Stand Metrics 32.6FCO D3H3-= Stand Exam-EcoSurvey8/25/ LiDAR12/31/ FCO D4-1780/D3H3= Stand Exam-EcoSurvey8/24/ LiDAR12/31/ FCO D4-1890/D3H2= Stand Exam-EcoSurvey9/1/ LiDAR12/31/ FCO D4-1780/D3D2-= Stand Exam-EcoSurvey9/2/ LiDAR12/31/ FCO D4-1780/D3D2-= Stand Exam-EcoSurvey8/25/ LiDAR12/31/ FCO D4-1780/D3D2-= Stand Exam-EcoSurvey8/25/ LiDAR12/31/ FCO D4-1780/D3D2-= Stand Exam-EcoSurvey8/18/ LiDAR12/31/ FCO D4H3-=1910/H2=1973/H Stand Exam-EcoSurvey8/9/ LiDAR12/31/2013 Resulting changes from importing LiDAR stand metrics.
QUESTIONS?