1. 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

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

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

5. 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

9. 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

10. Numbers of HUC 14 Watersheds

11. 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?

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

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

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

19. 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?

22. 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 %)

23. Allegheny Plateau

24. Ridge and Valley Watersheds

25. Piedmont Watersheds

26. Coastal Plain Watersheds

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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

31. Land use within 1-km radius circle

33. . 2 4 6 8 P C T U R B 1 F O A G

34. 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

35. 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?

36. 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

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

39. 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)

41. 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

42. 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?

43. 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

44. 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

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

53. Distribution by State

54. Distribution by Physiographic Province

55. 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

56. 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?

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