D.H. Wardrop, J.A. Bishop, G.P. Patil, W. Myers, M. Easterling, and Use of Landscape and Land Use Parameters for Classification and Characterization of Watersheds in the Mid-Atlantic across Five Physiographic Provinces D.H. Wardrop, J.A. Bishop, G.P. Patil, W. Myers, M. Easterling, and R.P. Brooks

The EaGLe Projects Assessments in: Atlantic Coast (2) Gulf Coast Great Lakes Pacific Coast STAR Grants and Cooperative Agreements administered by Barbara Levinson

Atlantic Slope Project Penn State University Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Virginia Institute of Marine Science East Carolina University Environmental Law Institute FTN Associates

Land Use History Wholesale clearcutting of the mid-Atlantic in the latter 19th century Major conversion to agriculture continued into the 20th century Widespread urban growth beginning in the mid-20th century

14-digit HUC as the Project Unit The Hydrologic Unit Code Units are “nested”; 14-digits within 11-digits, within 8-digits Average size is approximately 100 square miles (260 square kilometers) Management activities can be effectively targeted and reported at this scale

Numbers of HUC 14 Watersheds

Vision Statement Using a universe of watersheds, covering a range of social choices, we ask two questions: How “good” can the environment be, given those social choices? What is the intellectual model of condition within those choices, i.e., what are the causes of condition and what are the steps for improvement?

Resulting Process Informative Define Watershed Types Representative Compile Frequency Distributions Consensus Designate Sampling Design Individual Judgement Distribute Candidate Watersheds

Informative Challenge: Approach: Represent the full range of ecologically relevant landscape types Approach: Define a range of ecologically relevant landscape characteristics and compile for the entire project area

Representative Challenge: Approach: Reflect distribution of types across each physiographic province in sampling design Approach: Allow flexibility in number of watersheds of each type

Consensus Challenge: Approach: Achieve buy-in of selection process Demonstrate consistency of selection with project vision statement, and stop at the right point in the process

Individual Judgement Challenge: Approach: Allow for individual knowledge to be taken advantage of in the selection process Approach: Over-select watersheds in order that individual choices can be made in the final step of the selection

Informative Stage Methods Representation of land use Definition of “disturbed” Definition of “stress-producing” At which spatial scale? Identification of watershed classes Factors in clustering Ordering of factors

Change must be measured from a known base line. Evan Shute

Representation of land use Land cover is assumed to be representative of land use Determination of “reference” How many ways do we depart from reference?

Ternary Plot Description Require a fuller description of departure from reference than “disturbed” Describes land use via the three main land cover types Can be used at any spatial extent (as can land cover %)

Allegheny Plateau

Ridge and Valley Watersheds

Piedmont Watersheds

Coastal Plain Watersheds

Still not adequately describing land use Primary objective of our research is the relationship between human activities and aquatic resource condition Manner in which we characterize the landscape must be compatible with the manner in which we measure condition Be attributable to a point

The Bounded Area Must: Adequately capture the stream network; Be conceptually defensible in relation to the functions being considered; Capture most of the riparian vegetation and an appropriate amount of surrounding land use to allow for associative analysis; and Be cost-efficient.

The Concept of Nodes A circle with landscape properties attributable to a point Where? At stream convergences Incorporates description of stream complexity More circles in areas of complex drainage

Land use within 1-km radius circle

. 2 4 6 8 P C T U R B 1 F O A G

Nodal Constellations and Variance Many ways to be a “moderately” disturbed watershed Addresses disparity of land covers within a watershed; effective distances may be different Scaling issues can be explored at a future date

How far out do we measure? Which scale of landscape description is applicable for correlation to various ecological properties? At what scale do we lose information?

Ternary Plots for Mixed Watersheds in Upper Juniata for Three Node Sizes .2 .4 .6 .8 % urban % forest % ag .2 .4 .6 .8 % urban % forest % ag .2 .4 .6 .8 % urban % forest % ag 4-km Nodes 1-km Nodes 2-km Nodes

Land Use Patterns %For=96 MFPS=302 SDI=0.2 RD=8 %For =25 MFPS=3

Median Slope Rough indicator of connection between land use and aquatic resources Surrogate for ability to produce stress; e.g., steep slopes have more rapid runoff, minimal contact time for remediation and/or impact Forested watersheds occur on both steep and low slopes, changing amount of stress produced, as well as susceptibility to regional stressors (e.g., atmospheric deposition)

Factors for Classifying Watersheds % Land use (forested, agricultural, urban) in HUC 14 watershed % Land use (forested, agricultural, urban) in 1-km radius node Nodal variance Median slope

Logic Vision statement says: Using a universe of watersheds, covering a range of social choices, we ask two questions: How “good” can the environment be, given those social choices? What is the intellectual model of condition within those choices, i.e., what are the causes of condition and what are the steps for improvement?

Clustering Analysis should follow vision statement Clustered first on land uses (social choices) and slope (susceptibility of resource to land use) “Binned” on research question (many ways to be a mixed watershed) Other “binning” possible

High Forest Low Forest, High Ag Moderate Forest Moderate Ag High Urban High Slope Low Slope Low Slope Moderate Ag High Urban Moderate Slope Low Slope High Nodal Var Low Nodal Var

Results Six watershed classes identified: Forested, high slope Forested, low slope Agricultural Urban Mixed, low nodal variance Mixed, high nodal variance

Distribution by State

Distribution by Physiographic Province

Does it agree with process? Informative: Six watershed categories were presented “representing a range of social choices” Representative: Frequency distributions were evaluated Consensus: Buy-in at meeting Individual Judgement: Watersheds were double and triple-picked

Lessons Learned Be true to the project vision statement! Future lines of investigation: How do we articulate historical paths on ternary plots? Are mixed land cover watersheds with high nodal variance indicative of a lack of planning efforts?

Change must be measured from a known base line. Evan Shute