A framework to develop useful landscape indicators for measuring aquatic responses David Theobald, John Norman, Erin Poston, Silvio Ferraz Natural Resource Ecology Lab Dept of Recreation & Tourism Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO USA 2 February 2005

Project context Challenges of STARMAP (EPA STAR): Challenges of STARMAP (EPA STAR): Addressing science needs Clean Water Act Addressing science needs Clean Water Act Integrate science with states/tribes needs Integrate science with states/tribes needs From correlation to causation From correlation to causation Tenable hypotheses generated using understanding of ecological processes Tenable hypotheses generated using understanding of ecological processes Goal: to find measures that more closely represent our understanding of how ecological processes are operating

Typology of Landscape Context for Aquatic Response Indicators 1. Sample/site a. covariate at x,y location (e.g., geology, elevation, population density) b. covariate nearby x,y location (e.g., housing density at multiple scales) 2. Watershed-based a. Summary or average of covariates within watershed defined from “pour- point on up”. “lumped”, overlapping, hierarchical, 3. Spatial relationships between locations a. Euclidean (as the crow flies) distance between points b. Euclidean (as the fish swims) hydrologic network distance between points 4. Functional connectivity between locations a. Direction of important ecological process (e.g., flow direction) b. Scale dependent c. Distances not symmetric, stationary  violate traditional geostatistical assumptions!? d. From watersheds to tessellation of Reach Contributing Areas (RCAs): local vs. Amount of contributing area, flow volume, etc.

From watersheds/catchments as hierarchical, overlapping regions… River continuum concept (Vannote et al. 1980)

“Lumped” or watershed-based analyses % agricultural, % urban (e.g., ATtILA) % agricultural, % urban (e.g., ATtILA) Average road density (Bolstad and Swank) Average road density (Bolstad and Swank) Dam density (Moyle and Randall 1998) Dam density (Moyle and Randall 1998) Road length w/in riparian zone (Arya 1999) Road length w/in riparian zone (Arya 1999) But ~45% of HUCs are not watersheds But ~45% of HUCs are not watersheds EPA An ecological assessment of the US Mid-Atlantic Region: A landscape atlas. Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project

Benda et al. BioScience 2004

Dominant downstream process Upper and lower Colorado Basin Flows to downstream HUCs

… to Tessellation of Reach Contributing Areas (RCAs) Automated delineation Inputs: Inputs: stream network (from USGS NHD 1:100K) stream network (from USGS NHD 1:100K) topography (USGS NED, 30 m or 90 m) topography (USGS NED, 30 m or 90 m) Process: Process: “Grow” contributing area away from reach segment until ridgeline “Grow” contributing area away from reach segment until ridgeline Uses WATERSHED command Uses WATERSHED command “true” catchments “adjoint” catchments Reaches (segments)

Reaches are linked to catchments 1 to 1 relationship 1 to 1 relationship Properties of the watershed can be linked to network for accumulation operation Properties of the watershed can be linked to network for accumulation operation

RCA example US ERF1.2 & 1 km DEM: 60,833 RCAs US ERF1.2 & 1 km DEM: 60,833 RCAs

Land (basins)   Stream Hydrologic distance: - Instream - Up vs. down? FLOWS Overlapping watersheds Accumulate downstream FLOWS (and SPARROW) Stand-alone watershed Watershed-based analyses (HUCs) Tesselation of true, adjoint catchments ? Watersheds HUCs/WBDReach Contributing Areas (RCAs) Grain (Resolution) Process/Functional Zonal Accumulate Up/down (network)

Challenges: conceptual & practical Definition of a watershed Definition of a watershed Overland surface process vs. in-stream flow process Overland surface process vs. in-stream flow process Scale/resolution issues Scale/resolution issues E.g., different answers at 1:500K vs. 1:100K vs. 1:24K E.g., different answers at 1:500K vs. 1:100K vs. 1:24K Artifacts in data Artifacts in data Attribute errors, flow direction, braided streams Attribute errors, flow direction, braided streams Linking locations/points/events to stream network Linking locations/points/events to stream network Reach-indexing gauges, dams? Reach-indexing gauges, dams? Very large databases Very large databases GIS technology innovations and changes GIS technology innovations and changes

Asymmetric Kriging for Stream Networks Developed by Jay Ver Hoef, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Ver Hoef, Peterson, and Theobald, In press) Developed by Jay Ver Hoef, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Ver Hoef, Peterson, and Theobald, In press) Spatial statistical models for stream networks Spatial statistical models for stream networks Moving average models Moving average models Incorporate flow and use hydrologic distance Incorporate flow and use hydrologic distance Represents discontinuity at confluences Represents discontinuity at confluences Important for pollution monitoring Important for pollution monitoring Flow

Need for network datastructure within GIS  Landscape Networks! Need to represent relationships between features Need to represent relationships between features Using graph theory, networks Using graph theory, networks Retain tie to geometry of features Retain tie to geometry of features Implementation in ArcGIS Implementation in ArcGIS Geometric Networks (ESRI – complicated, slow) Geometric Networks (ESRI – complicated, slow) Landscape Networks (GeoNetworks): Open, simple, fast Landscape Networks (GeoNetworks): Open, simple, fast

Feature to Feature Relationships via Relationship Table

UpDown

RCAs are linked together – but spatial configuration within an RCA? 1. Ignore variability2. Buffer streams3. Buffer outlet

2 major hydro. processes w/in RCA 1. Overland (hillslope): Distance (A to A’) 2. Instream flow: Distance (A’ to O)

Flow distance: overland + instream Hydro-conditioned DEM (e.g., EDNA) Hydro-conditioned DEM (e.g., EDNA) FLOWDIRECTION FLOWDIRECTION FLOWLENGTH FLOWLENGTH

Flow distance: overland Hydro-conditioned DEM (e.g., EDNA) Hydro-conditioned DEM (e.g., EDNA) Burn stream into FLOWDIRECTION Burn stream into FLOWDIRECTION FLOWLENGTH FLOWLENGTH

Flow distance: instream Hydro-conditioned DEM (e.g., EDNA) Hydro-conditioned DEM (e.g., EDNA) FLOWDIRECTION FLOWDIRECTION FLOWLENGTH from outline – overland FLOWLENGTH FLOWLENGTH from outline – overland FLOWLENGTH

Why are functional metrics important to understanding effects of land use change on freshwater systems? Clearer relationship between ecological (aquatic, terrestrial) process, potential effects (e.g., land use change) and response Clearer relationship between ecological (aquatic, terrestrial) process, potential effects (e.g., land use change) and response Huge (insurmountable?) challenge is that we cannot develop traditional experimental design (manipulated vs. controlled) because landscapes are so large and human activities so dominant Huge (insurmountable?) challenge is that we cannot develop traditional experimental design (manipulated vs. controlled) because landscapes are so large and human activities so dominant More direct relationship between process and measure, biologically meaningful More direct relationship between process and measure, biologically meaningful

Tools needed to enable “network thinking” FLOWS v0.1: ArcGIS v9 tools - FLOWS v0.1: ArcGIS v9 tools -Higher-level objects  faster coding! - Open source - Integrated development for documentation

Thanks! Comments? Questions? Comments? Questions? Funding/Disclaimer: The work reported here was developed under the STAR Research Assistance Agreement CR awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Colorado State University. This presentation has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed here are solely those of the presenter and STARMAP, the Program (s)he represents. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this presentation. Funding/Disclaimer: The work reported here was developed under the STAR Research Assistance Agreement CR awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Colorado State University. This presentation has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed here are solely those of the presenter and STARMAP, the Program (s)he represents. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this presentation. STARMAP: STARMAP: FLOWS: FLOWS: CR

Laramie Foothills Study Area and Sample Points

Accessibility: travel time along roads from urban areas

Planned future activities Papers Papers Completing draft manuscripts on: GIS-GRTS, RCAs, overland/instream flow, dam fragmentation, GeoNetworks Completing draft manuscripts on: GIS-GRTS, RCAs, overland/instream flow, dam fragmentation, GeoNetworks Presentations Presentations Theobald GRTS Sept. 23 Theobald GRTS Sept. 23 Poston Poston Products Products FLOWS tools FLOWS tools Datasets: RCAs (ERF1.2) Datasets: RCAs (ERF1.2) Education/outreach Education/outreach Training session for FLOWS tools Training session for FLOWS tools

Possible future activities Dataset development Dataset development RCA nationwide with involvement for USGS NHD program RCA nationwide with involvement for USGS NHD program Reach indexing dams (for EPA, Dewald) Reach indexing dams (for EPA, Dewald) Discharge volume Discharge volume Symposium: “At the interface of GIS and statistics for ecological applications” (~January 2005) Symposium: “At the interface of GIS and statistics for ecological applications” (~January 2005) What are the strengths and weaknesses of GIS-based and statistical- based tools? What are the strengths and weaknesses of GIS-based and statistical- based tools? How can/should statisticians respond, direct, and utilize GIS-based types of tools? How can/should statisticians respond, direct, and utilize GIS-based types of tools? How can/should statistical tools be best integrated with GIS? How can/should statistical tools be best integrated with GIS? What are the needs of agencies if statistical-based tools are to be used? When should GIS-based tools be used? What are the needs of agencies if statistical-based tools are to be used? When should GIS-based tools be used? How can these two approaches best complement one another? How can these two approaches best complement one another?

Landscape ecology and freshwater systems One consequence of this interplay [between pattern and process] is the form of functional connectivity found in a landscape. The landscape pattern-process linkage produces spatial dependencies in a variety of ecological phenomena, again mediated by organismal traits. All of the components of this framework change with changes in scale, often in different ways. It is through the integration of these features of landscapes and of organisms that landscape ecology can offer new insights to freshwater ecologists, fostering a closer linking of spatial patterns with ecological processes (Wiens 2002) Hierarchies Hierarchies Spatial heterogeneity Spatial heterogeneity Processes Processes Overland Overland Instream Instream Functional connectivity Functional connectivity Watershed to stream Watershed to stream Reach to reach (stream network) Reach to reach (stream network) Network Network Spatial & temporal scales, processes Spatial & temporal scales, processes Poff, N.L Constraints