Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T07:52:54.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Application of Rapid Environmental Assessment and Co-occurrence Analysis for Identifying, Managing, and Restoring Wetlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2005

Michael R. Thomas ,
Jon W. Allan ,
Jagannadha Rao Matta  and
Jeremiah D. Asher
Michael R. Thomas
Affiliation:
Decision Support Professionals, LLC, Okemos, Michigan
Jon W. Allan
Affiliation:
Consumers Energy Company, Jackson, Michigan
Jagannadha Rao Matta
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Jeremiah D. Asher
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Get access

Abstract

Rapid assessment of land use change at scales ranging from local to global can provide timely, accurate information about land suitability, supporting infrastructure, and regulatory compliance so that developers, resource managers, planners, and decision makers can make critical decisions in the face of uncertainty. One area of concern regarding land suitability is the presence, extent, and quality of wetlands. Federal and state wetland protection legislation and local ordinances have effectively sought to reduce the amount of wetlands converted to other uses or to mitigate for unavoidable removal of wetlands. Identification and delineation of existing or potential wetlands, as well as locations that could serve as mitigation areas, is an important process in environmental planning and development. A method of identifying and delineating wetlands using the technique of rapid assessment at regional scales is presented. This method combines high-resolution remote-sensed and secondary data, including thematic maps depicting vegetation, soils, and surface hydrology in a computer-aided geographical information system. The system provides a co-occurrence analysis in which the presence of existing and historic wetlands can be mapped. Areas identified as wetlands can then be compared with detailed, on-site wetland delineations conducted by professional wetland scientists to check the accuracy of the prediction. Using various combinations of data, prediction accuracy ranged between 75% to more than 80% when compared with on-site delineation. While it is conceded that automated rapid assessment will never replace an experienced professional making a site visit, the technique demonstrates a high degree of accuracy in locating and bounding wetland systems in a cost-effective manner. Further, regional screening tools with a high degree of accuracy can substantially limit more costly and time-intensive fieldwork.

Type
FEATURES & REVIEWS
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 186 - 197
Copyright
© 2005 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abate, F. R. 1992. Moving and Relocation Sourcebook. Omnigraphics, Detroit, MI.
Adamus, P. R., E. J. Clairain_Jr., R. D. Smith, and R. E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87. US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
Anderson, J. A., E. E. Hardy, and J. T. Roach. 1973. A Land Use Classification System for Use with Remote-Sensor Data. Geological Survey Circular 671. US Department of Interior, Geological Survey, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 16 pp.
Anderson, J. A., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote-Sensor Data. Geological Survey Circular 964. US Department of Interior, Geological Survey, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 28 pp.
Beattie, A. J. 1993. Rapid Biodiversity Assessment. In Proceedings of the Biodiversity Assessment Workshop. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, May 3–4.
Best, R. G. 1983. Handbook of Remote Sensing in Fish and Wildlife Management. SDSU-RSI-82-05. Remote Sensing Institute, South Dakota State University, Brookings.
Bryce, S. A., J. M. Omernik, and D. P. Larsen. 1999. Ecoregions: A Geographic Framework to Guide Risk Characterization and Ecosystem Management. Environmental Practice 1(3):141–155.Google Scholar
Caccetta, P. 1999. Some Methods for Deriving Variables from Digital Elevation Models for the Purpose of Analysis, Partitioning of Terrain and Providing Decision Support for What-If Scenarios. CSIRO Mathematical and Information Science (CMIS), http://www.cmis.csiro.au/index.htm. Accessed in 2003.
Clark, J. R. 1990. Regional Aspects of Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in the Urban Waterfront Environment. In Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 497–515.
The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda. Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washington, DC, 69 pp.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, 103 pp.
Cowardin, L. M., and V. I. Myers. 1974. Remote Sensing for Identification and Classification of Wetland Vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management 32(2):308–314.Google Scholar
D'Avanzo, C. 1990. Long-Term Evaluation of Wetland Creation Projects. In Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 487–496.
Davis, D. G. 1989. Second Annual Report, Office of Wetlands Protection. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Donigian, A. S., T. Y. Richard Yo, and E. W. Shanahan. 1984. Rapid Assessment of Potential Ground-Water Contamination under Emergency Response Conditions. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Driscoll, R. S., and M. M. Spencer. 1972. Multispectral Scanner Imagery for Plant Community Classification. In Proceedings: International Symposium on Remote Sensing Environment 8:1259–1278. Ann Arbor, MI, October.
Erwin, K. L. 1990. Wetland Evaluation for Wetland Restoration and Creation. In Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 429–458.
Galbraith, J. M., P. F. Donovan, K. M. Smith, and C. E. Zipper. 2003. Using Public Domain Data to Aid in Field Identification of Hydric Soils. Soil Science 168(8):563–575.Google Scholar
Gamba, P., and B. Houshmand. 2002. Joint Analysis of SAR, LIDAR and Aerial Imagery for Simultaneous Extraction of Land Cover, DTM and 3D Shape of Buildings. International Journal of Remote Sensing 23(20):4439–4450.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. N., G. A. Rasmussen, and J. P. Dobrowlski. 1999. Monitoring Anthropogenic Change at the Intermediate-Sized Watershed Scale. >Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, October 25–28.
Harvey, K. R. and G. J. E. Hill. 2001. Vegetation Mapping of a Tropical Freshwater Swamp in the Northern Territory, Australia: A Comparison of Aerial Photography, Landsat TM and SPOT Satellite Imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 22(15):2911–2925.Google Scholar
Hills, G. A. 1976. An Integrated, Iterative, Holistic Approach to Ecosystem Classification. In Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification in Canada, J. Thie and G. Ironside, eds. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada.
Hopkins, L. D. 1977. Methods of Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation. AIP Journal October:386–400.Google Scholar
Jensen, S. K., and J. O. Domingue. 1988. Extracting Topographic Structure from Digital Elevation Data for Geographic Information System Analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54(11):1593–1600.Google Scholar
Juracek, K. E. 2000. Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas. Open-File Report 00-253. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
Kudray, G. M., and M. R. Gale. 2000. Evaluation of National Wetland Inventory Maps in a Heavily Forested Region in the Upper Great Lakes. Wetlands 20(4):581–587.Google Scholar
Kusler, J. A. 1988. Wetland and Wetland Restoration/Creation: A Summary of Science Views and Perspectives. In Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, J. A. Kusler, M. L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, eds. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY, 440–446.
Kuzila, M. S., D. C. Rundquist, and J. A. Green. 1991. Methods for Estimating Wetland Loss: The Rainbasin Region of Nebraska, 1927–1981. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46(6):441–446.Google Scholar
Leitch, J. A. 1984. Tailoring Wetland Protection Policies. National Wetlands Newsletter 6(1):6–8. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Leitman, J. 1994. Rapid Urban Environmental Assessment: Lessons from Cities in the Developing World. Published for the Urban Management Programme by the World Bank, Washington, DC.
Levesque, R. C. 1993. Wetland Loss Mitigation: A Case Study under Section 404. The Environmental Professional 15(4):399–405.Google Scholar
Lo, C. P., and J. Choi. 2004. A Hybrid Approach to Urban Land Use/Cover Mapping using Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) Images. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25(14):2687–2700.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. D. 1996. GIS for Sustainable Development: South Carolina's Edisto River Basin Project. In Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone Symposium, F. J. Vernberg, W. B. Vernberg, and T. Siewicki, eds. University of South Carolina Press, 343–354.
McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, 197 pp.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1976. Michigan Land Cover/Use Classification System. Michigan Land Use Classification and Referencing Committee, State of Michigan, Lansing, MI, 60 pp.
Michigan Spatial Data Library. 2005. Michigan Center for Geographic Information, Lansing, MI, http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mgdl.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinbold, New York, 539 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074320/html.
National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan. 2002. Joint Publication of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation, Washington, DC, December 26.
Nelson, R. W., and W. J. Logan. 1984. Policy on Wetland Impact Mitigation. Environment International 10:9–19.Google Scholar
Noss, R. F. 1992. Issues of Scale in Conservation Biology. In Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and Management, P. L. Fiedler and S. K. Jain, eds. Chapman and Hall, New York, 239–250.
Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress. 1984. Wetlands, Their Use and Regulation. OTA-2-206. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 208 pp.
Parker, W. B. 1988. The Use of Hydric Soils to Assist in Worldwide Wetland Inventories. In The Ecology and Management of Wetlands, D. D. Hook et al., eds. Caribou Press, Portland, OR, 82–87.
Perry, J. 1993. The Mitigation Scam. Wild Earth 3(1):58–59.Google Scholar
Sadewasser, S. 1989. Personal communication. Land and Water Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, November.
Steinhart, P. 1987. Mitigation Isn't. Audubon 89(3):8–11.Google Scholar
Stolt, M. H., and J. C. Baker. 1995. Evaluation of National Wetland Inventory Maps to Inventory Wetlands in the Southern Blue Ridge of Virginia. Wetlands 15(4):346–353.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. R. 2002. A GIS-Based Decision Support System for Brownfield Redevelopment. Landscape and Urban Planning 58(1):3–23.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. R., and M. Scieska. 1991. The Use of Co-occurrence Analysis in the Identification and Restoration of Wetlands. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration. Orlando, FL, May.
Tiner, R. W. Jr. 1991. The Concept of a Hydrophyte for Wetland Identification. BioScience 41:236–247.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme. 1992. Annual Report. United Nations Environment Programme, New York.
United Nations Environment Programme. 2005. After the Tsunami: Rapid Environmental Assessment. http://www.unep.org/PDF/Tsunami_assessment_report. Accessed in March.
US Department of Agriculture. 1987a. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA, Soil Conservation Service (Natural Resources Conservation Service), in cooperation with the Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Washington, DC, 196 pp.
US Department of Agriculture. 1987b. Soil Survey, Oakland County, Michigan. USDA, Soil Conservation Service (Natural Resources Conservation Service), Washington, DC.
US Department of Interior. 1991. National Wetlands Inventory. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
US Geological Survey. 2003. 7.5-Minute Digital Elevation Model, Highland, Michigan Quadrangle. USGS On-Line Store, http://store.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/map_locator.pl?store_url=http://store.usgs.gov. Accessed in 2005.
Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Mellilo. 1997. Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems. Science 27:494–499.Google Scholar
White, T., and R. Lea. 1989. Mitigation Site Type Classification System Developed for Forested Wetlands (North Carolina). US Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Wetlands Planning Unit, Atlanta, GA.
Willard, D. E., and A. K. Hiller. 1990. Wetland Dynamics: Considerations for Restored and Created Wetlands. In Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 459–466.
Zimont, B. 1992. The National Wetland Inventory and the Michigan Resource Information System: A Review and Digital Comparison of Wetlands Using Geographic Information Systems. MS Research Paper. Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 112 pp.