1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

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

5. 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

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

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

8. 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

9. Fuzzy membership functions

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. Watersheds and reaches evaluated

14. 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.

15. 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 …

16. 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.

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

18. 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.

19. 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.”

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

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

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

23. 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

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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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

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

29. 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

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

31. 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.

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

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

34. 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

35. 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)

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

37. Contrib. of criteria, forested reaches

38. 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

39. keith reynolds Contact EMDS website phone: 541-750-7434
EMDS website