TS-PIC-89301
June 1989
LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION FOR ECOLOGICAL MONITORING
Authors: Douglas J. Norton1, Douglas M. Muchoney2, E.
Terrence Slonecker2, John H. Montanari1
Contributors: Larry Mata2, Douglas Stiles2, Kristen Stout2,
Rose Sullivan2, Eric Warner2
1. - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
2. - The Bionetics Corporation
Warrenton, Virginia 22186
Contract No. 68-03-3532
Project Officer
Douglas J. Norton
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas
Warrenton, Virginia 22186, FTS 557-3110
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF MODELING, MONITORING SYSTEMS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVEIOFMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
NOTICE
This document has not been peer and administratively reviewed within EPA
and is for internal Agency use and distribution only.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
initiating an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) to monitor the status and trends of the nation's near
coastal waters, forests, freshwater wetlands, surface waters and
agroecosystems. This program is also intended to evaluate the
effectiveness of Agency policies at protecting ecological
resources occurring in these systems. Monitoring data collected
for all ecosystems will be integrated for national status and
trends evaluations.
EMAP's component ecosystems share a common need for up-to-
date, baseline information on landscape spatial characteristics,
particularly within the geographic areas that will represent EMAP
sample cells in a nationwide monitoring network. In the
following report, a methodology for landscape characterization is
demonstrated on a prototype EMAP sample cell of 40 square
kilometers, located near Broad Brook, Connecticut. The
characterization methods employ remote sensing technology to
compile vegetational, hydrologic, anthropogenic and
physiographic baseline data in Geographic Information System
(GIS) format. According to the requestors' specifications, the
characterization methodology used aerial photography as its
primary data source, in order to demonstrate the identification,
delineation and detailed classification of ecological features
through use of a very high resolution (1-2 meters ground-resolved
distance) sensor. Though the demonstration of satellite
technology and other potential characterization sources was
beyond the scope of this assignment, a brief discussion of these
additional options has been included in this report.
The concepts initially put forth in this study, as a
prototype design, have not been peer-reviewed or finalized. This
characterization methodology is expected to undergo review by the
EMAP project team. The GIS data base design elements and
standards essential to a fully operational characterization data
base were not developed within the scope of this study.
The U. S. EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center in Warrenton, Virginia, a Branch of the Advanced
Monitoring Systems Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada, performed this study at the
request of the Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality
Assurance and the EMAP program manager. Work was completed in
June 1989.
lii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Abstract. iii
Table of Contents iv
Introduction 1
The Purposes for Characterization 1
Objectives of This Study 2
Design Considerations 3
Methodology 5
Interpretation 5
Classification 5
Results 6
Ecological Characterization Data Set 6
Vegetation Cover 8
Hydrology 10
Land Use 12
Land Use - Modifications... 14
EMAP Ecosystem Data Subsets:
Inland Wetlands 16
Agroecosystems 18
Forests 20
Surface Haters..... 2 2
Physiographic Characterization Data Set 24
Landfonns 2 6
Soil Types... 28
Discussion 30
References 32
Appendices 33
Tables Page
1. Ecological Characterization Attributes 7
2. Land Use Characterization Attributes 7
3. Physiography Attributes 25
Figures Page
1. Broad Brook, CT Area, April 25, 1989 v
2. Location Map - Broad Brook, CT Quadrangle • 4
3. Vegetation Cover 9
4. Hydrology 11
5. Land Use 13
6. Man-Made Modifications 15
7. Wetlands 17
8. Agroecosystems 19
9. Forests 21
10. Surface Waters 23
11. Landforms 27
12. Soils 29
iv
-------
Figure 1 : Broad Brook, CT Area, April 25, 1989
-------
INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
initiating an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) to monitor the status and trends of the nation's near
coastal waters, forests, freshwater wetlands, surface waters and
agroecosystems. This program is also intended to evaluate the
effectiveness of Agency policies at protecting ecological
resources occurring in these systems. Monitoring data collected
for all ecosystems will be integrated for national status and
trends evaluations.
EMAP's component ecosystems share a common need for up-to-
date, baseline information on landscape spatial characteristics,
particularly within the geographic areas that will represent EMAP
sample cells in a nationwide monitoring network. In the
following report, a methodology for landscape characterization is
demonstrated on a prototype EMAP sample cell of 40 square
kilometers, located near Broad Brook, Connecticut. The
characterization methods employ remote sensing technology to
compile vegetational, hydrologic, anthropogenic and
physiographic baseline data in Geographic Information System
(GIS) format. According to the requestors' specifications, the
characterization methodology used aerial photography (see Figure
1) as its primary data source, in order to demonstrate the
identification, delineation and detailed classification of
ecological features through use of a very high resolution (1-2
meters ground-resolved distance) sensor. Though the
demonstration of satellite technology and other potential
characterization sources was beyond the scope of this assignment,
a brief discussion of these additional options has been included
in this report.
This study, as a conceptual design, has not been peer-
reviewed or finalized. The characterization methodology is
expected to undergo review by the EMAP project team. The GIS
data base design elements and standards essential to a fully
operational characterization data base were not developed within
the scope of this study.
The Purposes for Characterization
Several primary and ancillary purposes for landscape
characterization have been identified during EMAP planning and
design. These purposes are related to the basic ecological
monitoring process itself, and to future contributions of
characterization toward modeling and diagnosis of correlations
between stressors and ecosystems.
The characterization process is the primary source of
baseline status — in particular the extent, distribution and
classification — of EMAP's target ecosystems. As such,
characterization data can fulfill a major, nationwide
1
-------
informational need for each ecosystem monitoring team. From a
statistical perspective, characterization provides a quantitative
description of each ecosystem target population and potential
subpopulations (at regional and national scales), consequently
also identifying ecosystem units for sampling at each sample cell
of the EMAP network (at local scales). In addition, as a current
benchmark of ecosystem extent and distribution, a
characterization data base provides the initial measurements for
future monitoring of ecosystems' spatial and structural changes.
For ecosystems such as wetlands that are known to have serious
habitat loss and fragmentation problems, it is particularly
important to have the capability to monitor these spatial
changes because they may be of equal or greater concern than
trends in condition or health. Characterization, therefore, is
also a source for monitoring trends as well as status.
Other purposes for characterization center on the advantages
of developing an integrated landscape characterization data base
around a sampling network common to all ecosystems, as compared
to separate characterization projects for each major ecosystem.
In addition to the integrated approach's evident benefits of
cost-sharing, data-sharing, common format, and consistency, the
landscape characterization data comprise a "lowest common
denominator" of landscape attributes that are linked to each
ecosystem's condition. These attributes are broadly defined as
the physiography, vegetation, hydrology, land use and other
human-induced modifications of any area under study. These
fundamentals of landscape analysis are the basic building blocks
for a wide array of potential diagnostic approaches to analyzing
EMAP monitoring data, ranging from cumulative impact assessment
methodologies to predictive models.
In summary, the characterization process supplies the
initial foundation for EMAP by describing the nature of ecosystem
target populations, identifying units for sampling, and
documenting current baseline status for the major ecosystem types
and their immediate surroundings. Over time, characterization is
a source for measuring trends and changes in ecosystem
distribution, extent and structure, as well as a source of raw
data for GIS-based modeling, correlation of stressors with
impacts, and investigation of cause-effect relationships, all of
which are the logical sequels to the discovery of environmental
problems through monitoring.
Objectives of This Study
This study was undertaken to design and demonstrate the
central component of the characterization process, which is the
acquisition, interpretation, and archiving of landscape data. In
contrast, this study was not intended to review, identify or
evaluate all potential characterization methodologies or issues,
nor does the characterization prototype sample cell in this study
represent the GIS data base design that will be developed for
2
-------
characterization information.
Specific objectives of this study include the following:
* Develop a conceptual design for characterization that a)
consolidates standard, operational land classification methods
and concepts useful to all EMAP components; and b) can be applied
in a cost-effective and nationally consistent manner;
* Demonstrate the interpretation of aerial photographs as a
methodology for applying the characterization design at high
levels of classification detail and spatial resolution; and
* Compile photointerpreted characterization data in digital (GIS)
format.
Design Considerations
The requirements for a characterization design are numerous.
The overriding consideration for monitoring is date, as the
baseline characterization data must be representative of the
temporal period during which the monitoring program will begin.
Also of primary importance is the provision of spatial data
(extent, distribution and structure), amounting to "taking
stock" of the resource as the monitoring program begins.
Classification of subpopulations of each ecosystem is also very
important, though secondary to establishing ecosystems' spatial
extent for the baseline temporal period. In addition, the
methodology and tools of characterization need to be capable of
detection and measurement of potentially subtle spatial or
structural changes in these subpopulations.
Other considerations are logistical; the characterization
process, as a foundation for most subsequent EMAP activities,
requires operational rather than research-mode, incompletely
tested techniques. These methods would need to be immediately
available for implementation of the process, in order to support
the start of field monitoring activities dependent on a
characterization data base. Because EMAP is national in scope,
the characterization approach would also need to be consistently
applicable and accurate from region to region.
********
The U. S. EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center in Warrenton, Virginia, a Branch of the Advanced
Monitoring Systems Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada, performed this study at the
request of the Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality
Assurance and the EMAP program manager. Work was completed in
June 1989;
3
-------
Gravel
!*ph *
Gravel
'Pit it
Patp(cksll«j
Golf Course
WEYMOUTH
-J-SSS
/Melrose
%T**Qk
SuDstati
Thompson
| Pond
NortfUEnd Cer
INTERCHANGE,
County A
^¦Horrie fl
^pileyi
Mi^eurh
GravBl
'Pit
Skylark
Airpark
Warehouse ft.
-r- Point '
Gravel'
/*wt ¦
Broad Brook
tirocuTftrook
Red
ELTOWS PASTORK
BOARD OF FISHERIES
TROMLET
>IOLLOl
Scantic
¦St Catherines
Cem
MIDDLE
I Town Street
u • Cem
•faindsorviHe
Windsorcille
Figure 2 : Location Map, Broad Brook, CT Quadrangle
-------
Interpretation
METHODOLOGY
The study site (Figure 2) was flown on April 25, 1989 to
acquire current, normal-color aerial photographs of the study
area at a scale of 1:24,000. The 40-square kilometer, hexagonal
plot location was deliberately selected to cover a wide variety
of terrain characteristics, and is not an actual EMAP sample
cell. The analysis was performed by viewing backlit
transparencies through stereoscopes. Stereoscopic viewing
creates a perceived three-dimensional effect which, when combined
with viewing at high magnification, enables the analyst to
identify different landscape attributes or conditions.
Interpretation was performed in two phases. In the analysis
of site physiography, the landforms and surficial geologic
characteristics were classified and delineated. In analyzing the
landscape ecology of the site, multiple aspects of the
vegetation, hydrology, land use, and anthropogenic modifications
of the site were classified and delineated, without field
verification. The ecological components (particularly wetlands)
and the landform interpretations were performed by specialists in
ecological remote sensing and photogeology, respectively. Photo
interpretations were archived in a GIS to enable storage and
retrieval of data sets and subsets.
Classification
The characterization process is similar, but not identical
to, land classification. In characterization, the landscape in
the study area is classified in several different ways using
standard classifications and routine photo interpretation
techniques. Through streamlining the process, three iterations
of photo interpretation yielded eleven classification functions.
These are reproduced in full in Appendix 1. Through GIS
technology, multiple land classification systems can be
composited in a complex but functional data base.
The basic land-use attributes were characterized according
to the national standard, USGS Professional Paper 964 Land Use
Classification (Anderson et al., 1976). Wetlands and deepwater
habitats were categorized according to the national standard
classification system employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al., 1979).
Vegetational parameters, though not restricted to a single
classification system, were developed to ensure compatibility
with the Cowardin system's vegetation growth form, height and
cover concepts. Physiographic landforms were classified
according to a hybrid of two international landform
classification schemes, both designed for use with aerial .
photography (Way, 1973; Liang, 1951). Other characterization
attributes not already included in any of the above
classification schemes were derived from routine photo
interpretation conventions of terrain analysis.
5
-------
RESULTS
Ecological Characterization Data Set
The contents of this data set are vegetational, hydrologic
and anthropogenic features of the study area. A total of ten
characterization attributes were incorporated into this part of
the characterization design. Five of these are ecological and
five are land use-related, as listed in Tables 1 and 2. All ten
of these attributes share the common property of being subject to
change in spatial extent or physical structure over a moderately
short time period, such as a five- or ten-year monitoring cycle.
These attributes and their spatial changes, then, can
theoretically be the subject of a first-level monitoring effort.
Any specific point within the study area, through this
characterization method, is classified according to the ten
different listed attributes. The analysis is nonetheless not
complex and can be accomplished through a two-step photo
interpretation process (land use phase, ecological phase); less
complex terrain may be interpretable for all ten attributes in a
single step.
The storage, retrieval and manipulation of these several
landscape attributes is simplified by GIS technology; manually it
would be impossible to portray such an array of landscape
characteristics legibly on a single map. In the following
several pages, this characterization data set is broken out into
its main components for illustration and further discussion.
6
-------
Table 1: Ecological Characterization Attributes
(see Appendices 1 and 2 for complete listing)
VEGETATION GROWTH FORM
VEGETATION HEIGHT CLASS
PERCENT AREAL COVER OF VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY (WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER HABITATS)
SUBSTRATE
Table 2: Land Use Characterization Attributes
(see Appendix 1 for complete listing)
LAND USE TYPE
USE INTENSITY FACTOR
MAN-MADE SUBSTRATE MODIFICATION
MAN-MADE VEGETATION MODIFICATION
MAN-MADE HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION
7
-------
Vegetation Cover
Vegetation is characterized in three ways: vegetative growth
form or physiognomy, percent areal cover, and height class. The
following categories of each of these attributes are used:
Growth Form
Percent Areal Cover
Height Class
Unvegetated
Aquatic Vegetation
Herbaceous
Herb/Shrub
Shrub, Deciduous
Shrub, Evergreen
Shrub/Forest
Mixed Forest
Forest, Deciduous
Forest, Evergreen
0
10
30
50
70
90
10 %
30 %
50 %
70 %
90 %
100%
< 6 ft.
6-20 ft.
20 - 60 ft.
> 60 ft.
The classification of vegetated wetlands, discussed
separately in this text, is consistent with the vegetative
classification parameters listed above. Both approaches use a
30% areal cover threshold for assigning dominance of a vegetative
class and also use similar categories of growth form and height.
The vegetation characterization method presented here is not
equivalent to the "cover" component of land use/cover
classification. Characterizing vegetation includes assigning the
parameters above to land use areas as well as natural terrain;
the dominant vegetational characteristics of areas such as
cropland and residential areas are classified in addition to the
predominant land use category. Land use-dominated terrain can
vary considerably as to ecological characteristics within a
single land use classification category, hence the need to
characterize the landscape from a number of perspectives.
8
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
ECOLOGY
VEGETATION
LEGEND
| Unvegets led
~ Aquatic Vegetation
g Herbaceous
Q) Shrub/Herb
2] 5hrub - D ;eiduous
Q Shrub - Evergreen
Q| ForestJShr jb
Q Mixed Forest
^ Forest - Deciduous
~ Forest - Evergreen
9 Wetland & DW Habitat
Apprax. Scale 1:54.400
April 25, 1989
Source: EMSL/AMD/EPIC
-------
Hydrology
Characterization of hydrology is particularly significant to
the Inland Wetlands, Surface Waters, and Near Coastal ecosystem
monitoring programs of EMAP. The flexible, hierarchical
classification scheme of Cowardin, as is or with is capable of
accomodating most if not all the classification categories of
interest to these three programs. This system can be modified
within its own stated protocol as well, enabling customized data
of optimal value to EMAP. Both linear (stream reaches) and areal
(rivers, lakes and wetlands) patches of these ecosystems are
classifiable.
The Cowardin classification system's categories and
hierarchical levels, too numerous to list here in full, are
listed in Appendix 2.
10
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
ECOLOGY
WETLANDS &
DEEPWATER HABITATS &
STREAMS
LEGEND
Q PEM1 - Emergent, Persistent
~ P551 - Scrub-Shrub, Deciduous
[~] PF01 - Forested, Deciduous
§|] PAB - Aquatic Bed
H Deepwater Habitats
~ Streams
Approx, Scale 1:54.400
April 25, 1989
Source: EMSL/AMd/EPIC
-------
Land Use
Identification of land use patterns is the most familiar
and well-established element of the characterization process.
The USGS Professional Paper 964 system (Anderson et al., 1976)
was used for this step; land use intensity categories were also
adapted from this source. The following categories are standard
to the level II classification process:
1
Urban:
52
Lakes
11
Residential
53
Reservoirs
12
Commercial
54
Estuaries
13
Industrial
6
Wetlands:
14
Transportation
61
Forested
15
Indust/Comm Complexes
62
Nonforested
16
Mixed Urban
7
Barren Land:
17
Other Urban
71
Dry Salt Flats
2
Agricultural:
72
Beaches
21
Cropland and Pasture
73
Sandy Non-Beac]
22
Orchards, Vineyards, Nurseries
74
Bare Rock
23
Confined Feeding Operations
75
Extraction
24
Other Agricultural Land
76
Transitional
3
Rangeland:
77
Mixed Barren
31
Herbaceous Rangeland
8
Tundra:
32
Shrub/Brush Rangeland
81
Shrub/Brush
33
Mixed Rangeland
82
Herbaceous
4
Forest Land:
83
Bare
41
Deciduous
84
Wet Tundra
42
Evergreen
85
Mixed
43
Mixed
9
Snow and Ice:
5
Water:
91
Perennial snow
51
Streams
92
Glaciers
INTENSITY FACTOR (LAND USE-SPECIFIC CATEGORIES AS DESCRIBED):
Code
for use with:
0
No Intensity Factor
any land use
1
Low Density
Residential
2
Medium-High Density
Residential
3
Suburban
Commercial
4
Urban Central Business
,Commercial
5
Light
Industry
6
Heavy
Industry
7
Light Duty Road
Transportation
8
Highway
Transportation
9
Parking Lot
Transportation
10
Row Crop
Agriculture
11
Field Crop
Agriculture
12
Pasture
Agriculture
13
Idle
Agriculture
14
Managed - plantation
Forestry
15
Managed - logging
Forestry
16
Created
Water, Wetland
17
Other (special data entry)
any land use
12
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
LAND USE - LEVEL II
APRIL 25, 1989
Appro.v. Scale 1:54, 400
Source: EMSL/AMD/EPIC
LEGEND
¦ Residential
~ Commercial
H! Industrial
B Transportation/Communication
~ Utilities
I~1 Mixed ll'ban
~ Other U-ban
Q Institutional/Governmental
g Recreational
g Cropland & Pasture
§ Orchard;/Nurseries
H Farmsteads
^ Other Agriculture
g Shrub/Brush
3 Deciduoas Forest
P) Coniferous Forest
~ Mixed Forest
HI Streams
~ Reservoirs
Q] Forested Wetlands
CD Nonforested Wetlands
El Mining/Extraction
[Tl] Transitional Lands
-------
Land Use - Modifications of Substrate. Vegetation and Hydrology
Conventional land use/cover classification and mapping does
not consistently classify human-induced alterations of the
physical and biological environment, though many modifications
are detectable from conventional remote sensing sources. An
effort was made to develop a system to identify and classify a
number of detectable categories of terrain modification. The
following categories were developed:
SUBSTRATE MODIFICATION:
0 Unaltered
1 Paved or Surfaced
2 Fill or Spoil Deposition
3 Waste Deposition (Landfill or Dump)
4 Excavation or Extraction
5 Grading
6 Tilling
VEGETATION MODIFICATION:
0 Unaltered
1 Removal
2 Mowed or Hayed
3 Landscaped
4 Farmed
5 Grazed
6 Plantation
7 Selective Cutting
8 Clear Cut
9 Burned
10 Stressed/Damaged
11 Conversion
HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION:
0 Unaltered
1 Ditched
2 Irrigated
3 Excavated
4 Impounded, Diked or Dammed
1 4
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
LAND USE ^MODIFICATIONS of
^HYDROLOGY,
tt SUBSTRATUM,
?K*ife£fcs & VEGETATION
LEGEND
'"l- u rTj
\ - ii* 3
P^V ""¦Os ,5kJ|^.^^C> JufW^I
~ HYDROLCGIC MODIFICATIONS
¦ S UBS HATE MODIFICATIONS
~ VEGETATION MODIFICATIONS
~ NO MODIFICATIONS
J..•-•••••'St "9w ./•\
Approx. Scale 1:54,400
^~. x\ vOf ^"y'
, &HH 7
April 25, 1989
Source: EHSL/AMD/EPIC
-------
EMAP Ecosystem Data Subsets
In the following pages, data subsets representing four of
the five EMAP target ecosystems in the study area are portrayed
and briefly discussed; because of the study site's inland
setting, a near coastal data subset was not produced.
The portrayal of data subsets is one of the most simple
functions of a GIS that contains landscape data. Compositing of
multiple data layers and subsequent environmental analysis
through GIS are potentially large areas of data base design and
data management, beyond the scope of this initial
characterization study.
The figure on the opposite page represents the extent and
distribution of inland wetlands within the study area. This
local population of wetlands has been classified in one of many
potential classification approaches; optimal classification of
each ecosystem during characterization will be determined through
combined evaluation of EMAP needs and the capabilities of the
characterization data source or sensor.
In addition to classification, which can potentially include
the full detail of the.Cowardin classification system, the
following data relevant to wetlands are present in the
characterization data base:
Attribute Category
Substrate Modification Fill or Spoil Deposition
INLAND WETLANDS
Excavation or Extraction
Vegetation Modification
Removal
Mowed or Hayed
Farmed
Burned
Hydrologic Modification
Ditched
Impounded, Diked or
Dammed
Physiography - Landforms
Underlying Landform
Characteristics
Physiography - Soils
Hydric Soils, Other Soil
Characteristics
16
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
ECOLOGY
WETLANDS
i
3^
\
/
V-^
LEGEND
|_J PEM1 - Emergent, Persistent
~ PS51 - Scrub-Shrub, Deciduous
Q PF01 - Forested, Deciduous
| PAB - Aquatic Bed
Appro;(. Scale 1:54,400
April 25, 1989
Source; EMSL/AMD/EPIC
-------
EMAP Ecosystem Data Subsets:
AGROECOSYSTEMS
The figure on the opposite page represents the extent and
distribution of agroecosystems within the study area. This
local population of agroecosystems has been classified in one of
many potential classification approaches; optimal classification
of each ecosystem during characterization will be determined
through combined evaluation of EMAP needs and the capabilities of
the characterization data source or sensor.
In addition to classification, the following data relevant
to agroecosystems are present in the characterization data base:
Attribute
Land Use Intensity Factor
Substrate Modification
Vegetation Modification
Hydrologic Modification
Physiography - Landforms
Physiography - Soils
Category
Row Crop
Field Crop
Pasture
Idle
Excavation
Grading
Tilling
Removal
Mowed or Hayed
Farmed
Grazed
Conversion
Ditched
Irrigated
Impounded, Diked
or Dammed
Relevant Landform
Characteristics
Standard Soil Survey
Information
18
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
AGRICULTURE
^f. V I
LEGEND
~L ^ HI^kH O4" *""3-3"/
[$| Cropland & Pasture
|| Row Crops
£] Field Crops
0 Pasture
~ Idle
gj Orchards, Nuriuiies
NurseriesfHorli culture
~ Confined Feeding Operations
~ Farmsteads
~ Other Ag'itulture
¦i J ^ /y*^~~i (7 p^ liJ^C^'t. j i
iVj&; Kvv* ^:-:"iC'.,^:<:<-->:.fMM|^^^^^^^^^^jB^— & ^*f( J >4 yy J A Ai/TI "rH,
0 Fish Hatcheries
\\^KL ; 1 w s i^ii/
L4 i ->^t /V--" '/£^V(V "' 1
^\^w..r"~7 M7 -'»•;">'
Approx. Scale 1:54,400
April 25, 1989
Source: EMSL/AMD/EPIC
\Jj|
¦¦^j % ife.- ¦
-------
EMAP Ecosystem Data Subsets;
FORESTS
The figure on the opposite page represents the extent and
distribution of forests within the study area. This local
population of forests has been classified in one of many
potential classification approaches; optimal classification of
each ecosystem during characterization will be determined through
combined evaluation of EMAP needs and the capabilities of the
characterization data source or sensor.
In addition to classification, the following data relevant
to forests are present in the characterization data base:
Attribute Category
Vegetation Modification Removal
Plantation
Selective Cutting
Clear Cut
Burned
Stressed/Damaged
Physiography - Soils Standard Soil Survey
Information
20
-------
EMAP - LASDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
FORESTS
APRIL 25, 1989 LEGEND
Approx. Scale 1:54,400
Source: EMSL/AMD/IPIC
Forest/Shrub
~ 0 - 10 % areil cover
30 % areal cover
50 % areal cover
70 % areal cover
90 areal cover
100 "k areal cover
Mixed Forest
~ 0 - 13 % areal cover
30 % areal cover
50 % areal cover
70 % areal cover
90 %> areal cover
100 % Breal cover
Deciduous Forest
~ 0 ¦ 10 % areal cover
30 % areal cover
SO % areal cover
70 % areal cover
90 areal cover
100 % areal cover
Coniferous Forest
~ 0 - 10 % areal cover
'•¦0 ¦*> a real cover
J-0 <*> areal cover
70 % areal cover
tO % areal cover
100 % areal cover
El 11
O 31
in 51
0 71
¦ 91
Q 11
~ 31
~ 51
~ 71
U 91
~ 11
~ 31
~ 51
0 71
B 91
a 11
~ 31
~ 51
0 71
¦ 91
-------
EMAP Ecosystem Data Subsets:
SURFACE WATERS
The figure on the opposite page represents the extent and
distribution of surface waters within the study area. This
local population of surface waters has been classified in one of
many potential classification approaches; optimal classification
of each ecosystem during characterization will be determined
through combined evaluation of EMAP needs and the capabilities of
the characterization data source or sensor.
In addition to classification, the following data relevant
to surface waters are present in the characterization data base:
Attribute Category
Substrate Modification Excavation
Hydrologic Modification Ditched
Impounded, Diked or
Dammed
Physiography Underlying Landform,
Watershed Soils
22
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
ECOLOGY
SURFACE WATERS:
DEEPWATER HABITATS &
STREAMS
LEGEND
Deepwater Habitats
Streams
Approx. Scale 1:54,400
April 25. 1989
Souice: EUSL/AUD/EPIC
-------
Physiographic Characterization Data Set
The physiographic elements of the landscape were derived
from two sources: aerial photography and soil surveys. Unlike
the land use and ecological attributes previously discussed,
physiography in most cases does not change within the temporal
span implicit in the EMAP monitoring plan, and therefore is
produced one time without requiring periodic update in most
regions.
Landforms are interpretable from aerial photography (Liang,
1951; Way, 1973) and provide a general portrayal of surficial
geologic and morphological conditions. Soils, especially where a
completed soil survey is available, are useful ancillary data for
all ecosystem investigations. The following pages illustrate
these components of the physiographic characterization process.
-------
Table 3: Physiographic Characterization Attributes
(see Appendix 1 for complete listing)
LANDFORM
Sedimentary
Igneous
Metamorphic
Fluvial
Glacial
Aeolian
Other
SOIL TYPE
(after Soil Taxonomy)
25
-------
LANDFORMS
The study area is located in the glaciated Northeast, .
accounting for fairly complex terrain dominated by glacial and
fluvial landforms. Aeolian deposits, in this location, are the
windblown sands of a former glacial lake.
26
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
PHYSIOGRAPHY
LANDFORMS
LEGEND
¦ ORGANIC DEPOSITS
~ FLOOD PLAIN
B MORAINE
¦ AEOLIAN DEPOSITS
~ POND
~ GLACIAL LAKE BED
^ DRUMLIN
Approx. Scale 1: 54.400
April 25, 1989
Source: EUSL/AW/EPIC
-------
SOILS
Soil survey maps where available are a primary information
source for most natural resources inventory and monitoring
activities. The figure shown opposite this page depicts general
soil associations only; most modern soil surveys provide soil
series, and subcategorize these into types classified on the
basis of internal properties and external factors such as slope.
A primary feature of the soils characterization data is the
multiple interpretations of soil characteristics, capabilities
and use constraints, generally included in county soil surveys.
If the soils data layer is present in a GIS, virtually all such
interpretations are accessible individually or in combination
with ecosystem or other attributes; these interpretations of raw
soils data significantly increase the cost-effectiveness of
entering these data in a characterization data base. County soil
surveys are available for most of the conterminous U.S., and some
are already digitized into GIS format.
Some common interpretations of soil type are as follows:
erosion potential
percolation rate
prime cropland
slope
depth to water table
depth to bedrock
agricultural capability unit
seasonal high water table
forest capability unit
drainage class
sand and gravel resources
28
-------
EMAP - LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION DATABASE
Soil Associations
LEGEND
Ag awam-E rifiel d-Manchester
| Hinckley-Merrimac-fodunk
| Narragansett-Cheslre
[rj Charlton-Gloucester-Hollis
; ] Paxtor-C hs rltor»
~ Bri rr f ield-B rooltf ield
Approx. Scale 1:54,400
Source: Connecticut NRC
-------
DISCUSSION
In this study, methods for EMAP characterization were
designed and initially tested. Insofar as a trial application of
these concepts and methods can indicate, a feasible design option
for landscape characterization has been developed and this
study's objectives were met. The feasibility of this methodology
is supported also by the track record of its component
classifications and routine photo interpretation methods.
Advantages, disadvantages, and issues that came to light during
this project are Idiscussed below.
The advantages of this characterization approach appear to
be numerous. If |applied regionally or nationally, it is capable
of fulfilling the primary EMAP requirement of describing the
target ecosystems' population structure and regional nature in an
up-to-date manner. It generates units for sampling and baseline
measurements of ecological structure that can be repeated to
monitor change. The approach is GIS-based and compatible with
multiple levels of field and collateral data.
Remote sensing in general offers considerable cost savings
over field measurement of spatial characteristics, especially
when large amounts of acreage are involved. As the highest
resolution remote sensing option, aerial photography potentially
can meet or come close to the ecological classification
specifications for many of EMAP's program elements.. The
characterization design is compatible with aggregation or
disaggregation of data in a hierarchical manner, and can easily
incorporate greater classification detail from field activities.
Under average conditions, an aerial approach also enables
detection and. analyses of two significant types of ecological
structure not yet consistently accessible from other remote
technology or maps — vertical structure such as vegetation
height, and fine linear features such as stream reaches. Beyond
what has been interpreted, the photography will remain a valued
source, its uses ranging from reanalysis for a specialized data
need to simply carrying aerial photographs in the field.
The photo interpretation process used in this study
generates multiple data layers with each phase of analysis;
three interpretations create eleven data layers. Digitizing the
soil survey is another cost-effective step that adds several more
data layers to the characterization data base. Areas for
improvement in the interpretation process mainly consist of
removing redundancies between the land use/cover phase*and the
ecological phase, to eliminate possibly contradictory
interpretations and streamline production., Though this study's
results are in GIS format, the EMAP GIS data base design is not
complete and also deserves further development of its potential
for optimal data storage, access and analysis.
The variability in some parts of EMAP's target ecosystems
will present a challenge to characterization. One aerial
30
-------
photograph's date may capture some landscape data well and miss
other attributes that appear in a different season. For example,
early spring photography may be optimal for delineating deciduous
forested wetlands, but aquatic beds would be better detected in
late summer. No one season is optimal, though the majority of
characterization attributes can be interpreted in either the
spring or summer seasons. A related concern is the high temporal
and spatial within-system variability of some ecosystems in some
locales; as a snapshot in time, the remote sensing approach
sometimes would require significant variation to be addressed.
Multitemporal remote data and other sources can contribute to
addressing both these concerns.
Because it is sample-based, the approach demonstrated in
this study can yield high detail on sample sites without the
burden of providing 100%, nationwide coverage. The nationwide
approach to characterization would imply significant reduction in
classification detail and spatial resolution. Alone this is not
a favorable option. Nonetheless, there are benefits for having
nationwide, lower resolution satellite background data to
accompany and complement the sample site-specific, highly
detailed photographic characterization. Larger ecosystems (such
as major wetlands or lakes) could be more completely described,
and the basic characteristics of greater watersheds and airsheds
could be more accessible. Yet the photo-based characterization
will still provide the necessary detail at the sample cells,
where the greatest level of activity will occur. If different
seasons are represented by the different levels of sensor, such
as early spring aerial photography paired with summer satellite
coverage, seasonal information availability and variation might
be of less concern. However, by itself a less detailed and lower
resolution approach to characterizing the sample cells would fall
far short of the level of ecological detail required by the EMAP
ecosystem monitoring teams.
In summary, the approach designed in this study is
potentially operational and would benefit from pilot testing and
evaluation. Because of this methodology's adherence to fully
operational data sources and analysis methods and its use of
standard classification systems, many potential obstacles to
implementation are not present. This characterization option
needs review, refinement and streamlining, but it is not an
experimental approach in need of a significant research and
development investment before implementation. The issues noted
above should be explored and evaluated, with the intent to
implement a sound characterization design and process. The final
approach will benefit from looking beyond the immediate needs for
baseline characterization toward optimizing the data base's near-
and long-term potential for other uses, in order to maximize the
return on EMAP's characterization effort.
-------
REFERENCES
Aerial Photographs:
MISSION AGENCY ORIG. EPIC
DATE AGENCY CODE FRAME # SCALE FRAME #
April 25, 1989 EPA1 89/024 001-052 1:24,000 89/024:
001-052
Literature:
Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.S. Roach and R.D. Witmer.
.1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use
with Remote Sensor Data; U. S. Department of Interior, Geological
Survey Professional Paper 964. 28 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31. 130 pp.
Liang, T. 1951. Landform Reports: A Photo-Analysis Key for
the Determination of Ground Conditions; Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY. Vol. 1-6.
Way, D.S. 1973. Terrain Analysis; McGraw-Hill, NY. 438 pp.
Maps:
SOURCE NAME SCALE DATE
USGS2 Broad Brook, CT 1:24,000 1964, photorev.
1984
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency
2 U. S. Geological Survey, U. S. Department of Interior
3 2
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX 1: CHARACTERIZATION CATEGORIES LIST
ft******************
LAND USE ATTRIBUTES
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LAND USE TYPE:
(TWO-DIGIT CODES ADAPTED FROM USGS PAPER 964 LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION)
1
Urban
11
Residential
12
Commercial
13
Industrial
14
Transportation
15
Indust/Comm Complexes
16
Mixed Urban
17
Other Urban
2
Agricultural
21
Cropland and Pasture
22
Orchards, Vineyards, Nurseries
23
Confined Feeding Operations
24
Other Agricultural Land
3
Rangeland
31
Herbaceous Rangeland
32
Shrub/Brush Rangeland
33
Mixed Rangeland
4
Forest Land
41
Deciduous
42
Evergreen
43
Mixed
5
Water
51
Streams
52
Lakes
53
Reservoirs
54
Bays and Estuaries
6
Wetlands
61
Forested
•
62
Nonforested
7
Barren Land
71
Dry Salt Flats
72
Beaches
73
Sandy Non-beach Areas
74
Bare Exposed Rock
75
Mining/Extraction
76
Transitional Lands
77
Mixed Barren Land
8
Tundra
81
Shrub and Brush Tundra
82
Herbaceous Tundra
34
-------
83 Bare Ground Tundra
84 Wet Tundra
85 Mixed Tundra
Perennial" 91 Perennial Snowfields
Snow and Ice 92 Glaciers
INTENSITY FACTOR (LAND USE-SPECIFIC CATEGORIES AS DESCRIBED):
Code
for use with:
0
No Intensity Factor
any land use
1
Low Density
Residential
2
Medium-High Density
Residential
3
Suburban
Commercial
4
Urban Central Business
Commercial
5
Light
Industry
6
Heavy
Industry
7
Light Duty Road
Transportation
8
Highway
Transportation
9
Parking Lot
Transportation
10
Row Crop
Agriculture
11
Field Crop
Agriculture
12
Pasture
Agriculture
13
Idle
Agriculture
14
Managed - plantation
Forestry
15
Managed - logging
Forestry
16
Created
Water, Wetland
17
Other (special data entry)
any land use
SUBSTRATE MODIFICATION:
0 Unaltered
1 Paved or Surfaced
2 Fill or Spoil Deposition
3 Waste Deposition (Landfill or Dump)
4 Excavation or Extraction
5 Grading
6 Tilling
VEGETATION"MODIFICATION:
0 Unaltered
1 Removal
2 Mowed or Hayed
3 Landscaped
4 Farmed
5 Grazed
6 Plantation
7 Selective Cutting
8 Clear Cut
35
-------
9 Burned
10 Stressed/Damaged
11 Conversion
HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION:
0 Unaltered
1 Ditched
2 Irrigated
3 Excavated
4 Impounded, Diked or Dammed
*********************
ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
*********************
VEGETATION TYPE:
0 Unvegetated
1 Aquatic Vegetation
2 Herbaceous
3 Shrub/Herb
4 Shrub, Deciduous
5 Shrub, Evergreen
6 Forest/Shrub
7 Mixed Forest
8 Forest, Deciduous
9 Forest, Evergreen
SUBSTRATE:
0 Artificial Surface
1 Soil or Sand
2 Gravel/Cobble
3 Rock
HYDROLOGY: (Adapted from Cowardin et al., 1979; for detail beyond
system level shown here, see Appendix 2)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Upland
Wetland,
Wetland,
Wetland,
Wetland,
Wetland,
Palustrine
Lacustrine
Riverine
Estuarine
Marine
Deepwater Habitat,
Deepwater Habitat,
Deepwater Habitat,
Deepwater Habitat,
Deepwater Habitat,
Riverine
Lacustrine
Estuarine
Marine
Palustrine
VEGETATION DENSITY:
0 0 - 10% Areal Cover
36
-------
1 10-30% Areal Cover
2 30 - 50% Areal Cover
3 50 - 70% Areal Cover
4 70 - 90% Areal Cover
5 90 - 100% Areal Cover
VEGETATION HEIGHT:
0 Less Than 6 Feet
1 6-20 Feet
2 20-60 Feet
3 >60 Feet
*************
Physiography
•k-kJc-k'kicicickifk'&ic
LANDFORMS AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES
I. Sedimentary Rock Landforms
Flat-lying Sedimentary Rock Landforms
Sandstone Plain
Sandstone Plateau
Shale Plain
Shale Plateau
Limestone Plain
Limestone Plateau
Tilted Sedimentary Rock Landforms
Anticlinal Ridge
Anticlinal Valley
Synclinac Ridge
Synclinac Valley
Homoclinac Ridge
Homoclinac Valley
II. Igneous Rock Landforms
Intrusive Igneous Rock Landforms
Batholith
Sills and Dikes
Extrusive Igneous Rock Landforms
Lava Flows
Fragmental Rock Deposits
Volcanic Mountains
III. Motamorphic Rock Landform
IV. Fluvial Landforms
Alluvial Fan
Filled Valley
Flood Plain
Lacustrine Plain
Playa Plain
Coastal Plain
37
-------
Terrace
Beach
Beach Ridge
Tidal Flat
Delta
Organic Deposits
V. Glacial Landforms
Till Landforms
Moraine
Drumlin
Till Plain
Ice-contact Stratified Drift Landforms
Esker
Kame
Outwash Landforms
Outwash Plain
Valley Train .
Outwash Terrace
Kettle
Glacio-lacustrine Landform
Glacial Lake Bed
Glacial Beach Ridge
Glacial Delta
VI. Aeolian Landforms
Sand Dune
Loess Plain
Aeolian Deposits
VII. Water Bodies
River
Pond
Lake
Ocean
VIII.Miscellaneous Landforms
Periglacial Structures
Mass Wasting
-------
APPENDIX 2: WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER HABITATS CLASSIFICATION
(after Cowardin et al., 1979)
Introduction
The Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
(Cowardin et al., 1979) is a hierarchical, ecologically based
classification system. The complete system is too complex to
diagram on a single page. For summary purposes, the system is
broken into three parts represented in the following pages. The
first part is a tree diagram, reproduced from the Cowardin
publication, that details the classification process through the
more general levels of system, subsystem, and class. The second
part, also reproduced from Cowardin, is a list of subclasses
found in association with each class. The third part is a list
of modifiers, which are used in the most detailed application of
the system to add ancillary data about each wetland.
As a hierarchical system, the Cowardin scheme is adaptable
for use on any of its hierarchical levels, and amenable to
further refinement efforts by its users.
39
-------
SYSTEMS, SUBSYSTEMS AND CLASSES
(reproduced from Cowardin et al., 1979, p. 5)
System
— Marine ¦
— Estuarine .
CO
1
BQ
<
K
w
g
t
u
w
Q
Q
2
<
en
Q
55
<
J
H
W
is
Subsystem
Subtidal -
¦ Intertidal -
Subtidal -
Intertidal -
— Riverine •
Tidal
¦ Lower Perennial ¦
Upper Perennial ¦
Intermittent ¦
— Lacustrine ¦
Limnetic ¦
Littoral-
Palustrine ¦
Class
- Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
- Reef
- Aquatic Bed
- Reef
- Rocky Shore
¦ Unconsolidated Shore
¦ Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
— Aquatic Bed
- Reef
- Aquatic Bed
— Reef
- Streambed
- Rocky Shore
— Unconsolidated Shore
— Emergent Wetland
— Scrub-Shrub Wetland
- Forested Wetland
Rock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Aquatic Bed
Streambed
Rocky Shore
Unconsolidated Shore
Emergent Wetland
- Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
- Rocky Shore
¦ Unconsolidated Shore
- Emergent Wetland
- Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
¦ Rocky Shore
- Unconsolidated Shore
- Streambed
- Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
- Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
- Rocky Shore
- Unconsolidated Shore
¦ Emergent Wetland
- Rock Bottom
¦ Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
- Unconsolidated Shore
¦ Moss-Lichen Wetland
¦ Emergent Wetland
- Scrub-Shrub Wetland
¦ Forested Wetland
Fig. 1. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats, showing Systems, Subsystems, and Classes. The Palustrine
System does not include deepwater habitats.
40
-------
SUBCLASSES
(reproduced from Cowardin et al., 1979, p. 6-7)
Table 1. Distribution of Subclasses within the classification hierarchy.
System and Subsystem*
Marine
Estuarine
Riverine
Lacustrine
Palustrine
Class/Subclass
ST
IT
ST
IT
TI
LP
UP
IN
LM
LT
Rock Bottom
Bedrock
Rubble
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Unconsolidated Bottom
Cobble-Gravel X
Sand X
Mud X
Organic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aquatic Bed
Algal
Aquatic Moss
Rooted Vascular
Floating Vascular
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reef
Coral
Mollusk
Worm
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Streambed
Bedrock
Rubble
Cobble-Gravel
Sand
Mud
Organic
Vegetated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rocky Shore
Bedrock
Rubble
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Unconsolidated Shore
Cobble-Gravel
Sand
Mud
Organic
Vegetated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Moss-Lichen Wetland
Moss
Lichen
X
X
Emergent Wetland
Persistent
Nonpersistent
X
X
X
X
Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Broad-leaved Deciduous
Needle-leaved Deciduous
Broad-leaved Evergreen
Needle-leaved Evergreen
Dead
Forested Wetland
Broad-leaved Deciduous
Needle-leaved Deciduous
Broad-leaved Evergreen
Needle-leaved Evergreen
Dead
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'ST=Subtidal, IT-Interlidal, TI»Tidal, LP-Lower Perennial, UP = Upper Perennial, IN-Intermittent, LM-Limnetic,
LT = Littoral.
4 1
-------
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
MODIFIERS
(from Cowardin et al., 1979)
Water Regime Modifiers
Tidal:
Subtidal
Irregularly Exposed
Regularly Flooded
Irregularly Flooded
Nontidal:
Permanently Flooded
Intermittently Exposed
Semipermanently Flooded
Seasonally Flooded
Saturated
Temporarily Flooded
Intermittently Flooded
Artificially Flooded
Water Chemistry Modifiers
Inland:
Hypersaline
Eusaline
Mixosaline
Polysaline
Mesosaline
Oligosaline
Fresh
Soil Chemistry Modifiers
Acid
Circumneutral
Alkaline
Coastal:
Hyperhaline
Euhaline
Mixohaline
Polyhaline
Mesohaline
Oligohaline
Fresh
Special Modifiers
Excavated
Impounded
Diked
Partly Drained
Farmed
Artificial
------- |