Decision support for watershed assessment, protection and restoration Four dimensions of integration Keith M. Reynolds Scott D. Peets USDA Forest Service PNW Research Station 1 1

Chewaucan integrated assessment Within scale Concurrent evaluation of upland, riparian, and in-channel attributes relative to stream reach and watershed condition. Across scale Linking evaluations over spatial scales. Comparing evaluations over time. Across phases of adaptive management Going from assessment to planning and implementation for protection and restoration.

Within scale: EMDS system EMDS = Ecosystem management decision support EMDS goals and objectives Improve the efficiency with which assessments are conducted Optimize use of information Improve the quality of assessment products More comprehensive analysis Better integration of diverse topics 2

EMDS in adaptive management Goals Knowledge Technology Inventory Plan Revised goals New knowledge Inventory New technology Adaptive management cycle Evaluate Act Monitor

Knowledge bases EMDS is an ArcView extension that integrates knowledge-based reasoning into GIS A KB is a meta database A formal logical representation of how to evaluate information Numerous, diverse topics can be analyzed within a single knowledge base Integrated analysis

Knowledge base of networks Concern Concern Ecostate Ecostate Etc. Ecostate Ecostate Link Link Link Link Link Data 10 6

Knowledge base processing Concern Ecostate Get data requirements Evaluate data Ecostate Ecostate Link Link Link 11 7

Forms of uncertainty Probabilistic Linguistic Truth values Uncertainty of events Linguistic Lofti Zadeh, 1966 Uncertainty about the definition of the event A proposition is the smallest unit of thought to which one can assign a measure of truth Truth values Indices that quantify the degree of support for a proposition provided by its premises

Fuzzy membership functions

Chewaucan basin: a multi-scale example Prototyping watershed assessment for the evaluation monitoring program of the NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy: dealing with multiple scales and making the process more consistent.

Sequence of steps in assessment and priority‑setting. Evaluate reaches Summarize reach condition to watershed scale Evaluate watersheds Set priorities for watershed protection & restoration Set priorities for reach protection & restoration

Analysis strategy Synthesis upward from reaches to watersheds Watershed assessment includes reach evaluations Length-weighted average of reach index scores Priority setting for protection and restoration is a step-down process Prioritize watersheds, considering feasibility and efficacy Prioritize reaches, given watershed priority, and additional feasibility and efficacy criteria

Watersheds and reaches evaluated

Reach level knowledge base The logic specification of a proposition: The proposition of suitable reach condition evaluates as true to the degree that its underlying premises are true.

Reach knowledge base design continued A computed datum evaluated against a fuzzy membership function that is dynamically defined. In-channel depends on several reach attributes …

Evaluating the in-channel network The in-channel topic is a premise of reach condition. KB structure is modular and well suited to evolutionary design of complex models.

Evaluation of reach condition Maps are the basic products of an EMDS assessment, but …

Interpreting map products … a knowledge base can also explain the derivation of its conclusions with graphic, intuitive logic diagrams that show the evaluated state of a knowledge base.

Navigating the logic The entire logic structure and all documentation is easily accessible to the user and others who may want to understand “the why.”

Frequency of missing reach data EMDS is logic-based, and can reason with incomplete information.

Influence of missing reach data The influence of data on the logical completeness of an assessment is highly dynamic.

Frequency of reach index scores A snapshot in time that can be compared across assessments with standard statistical tests such as K-S.

Summary of reach evaluations Watershed Aggregate reach index Bear Creek 0.10 Ben Young Creek 0.33 Chewaucan River -0.10 Coffeepot Creek 0.40 Dairy Creek 0.29 Elder Creek 0.39 Morgan Creek 0.06 South Creek -0.07 Swamp Creek 0.20 Reach condition indices are aggregated over watersheds for input to the watershed scale analysis. 1.0 = true -1.0 = false

Evaluating watershed condition The knowledge base operates at the watershed scale, but …

Linkage to the fine scale … integrates synthesized reach-level data from the reach scale analysis. The synthesis is a formal specification for cross-scale linkage of analyses.

Watershed condition The index expresses the degree to which data and logical antecedents (e.g., premises) support the proposition. Watershed condition depends on: upland condition passage barriers stream condition

Upland condition: premise 1 This, and next two slides show the state of primary premises underlying evaluation of watershed condition. Upland condition depends on: canopy density road density

Passage condition: premise 2 Passage condition was expressed as percent of main stem stream length accessible to fish.

Stream condition: premise 3 Stream condition depends on: reach condition riparian vegetation bank stability w/d ratio pool frequency large wood spawning fines water temperature

Summary of limiting factors by watershed Stream condition Upland condition Passage barriers Bear Ben Young  Chewaucan Coffeepot Dairy Elder Morgan South Swamp

Setting priorities for watershed protection and restoration An AHP model for WS restoration, based on results of the EMDS assessment. Some data re-evaluated with respect to their influence on feasibility and efficacy.

Results of watershed priority model Priority strategy: “Save the best and fix the rest.”

Explanation of watershed priorities How primary criteria in the AHP model contribute to the total priority score for a watershed.

Reach restoration priority models Common criteria Watershed priority and reach condition Forested reaches Feasibility: bank stability, large wood and pool frequency Efficacy: vegetation similarity Non-forested reaches Feasibility: bank stability Efficacy: pool frequency and veg similarity

Setting priorities – forested reaches An AHP model for reach restoration, based on results of the EMDS assessment. Some data re-evaluated with respect to their influence on feasibility and efficacy. (Efficacy)

Protection and restoration priorities, forested reaches Priority strategy: “Save the best and fix the rest.”

Contrib. of criteria, forested reaches

Analysis strategy (revisited) Synthesis upward from reaches to watersheds Watershed assessment includes reach evaluations Length weighted average of reach index scores Priority setting for protection and restoration is a step-down process Prioritize watersheds, considering feasibility and efficacy Prioritize reaches, given watershed priority, and additional feasibility and efficacy criteria

keith reynolds Contact EMDS website phone: 541-750-7434 email: kreynolds@fs.fed.us EMDS website http://www.fsl.orst.edu/emds