Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 150, Issue 1–4, pp 53–64 | Cite as

A proposed methodology to determine accuracy of location and extent of geographically isolated wetlands

  • Breda MunozEmail author
  • Virginia M. Lesser
  • John R. Dorney
  • Rick Savage
Article

Abstract

Wetlands can provide significant environmental benefits such as assimilation of pollutants, flood water storage, groundwater recharge, and fish and wildlife habitat. Geographically isolated wetlands (IWs) can provide the same benefits as other wetlands, but are particularly vulnerable to losses from urbanization and agriculture since they are isolated, often smaller, and not equal to other wetlands in regulatory protection. There is a need for a reliable assessment of the total number and area of IWs. Access to this information can provide the foundation to monitor IW loss, and can assist in understanding the ecological effects of such loss as well as help to address regulatory shortcomings. A probability sampling survey methodology that balances statistical considerations, expert opinion, and operational considerations is discussed for assessing the accuracy of IW maps. A simulation exercise was used to illustrate how the proposed sampling methodology will produce reliable results in map accuracy assessment. A wetland map for the Lockwood Folly River watershed, in Brunswick County, NC, was created using historical and recent data and used as the sampling frame in the simulation exercise. An updated wetland map for the same watershed, showing exact locations of wetlands, was used to provide “ground-truth” observations based on wetland delineations approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Survey-based accuracy estimates were calculated by comparing site classification differences obtained by using both the original and updated wetland maps.

Keywords

Design-based estimates Geodatabases Isolated wetlands Map accuracy Probability sampling design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brunswick County (2007). Unified development ordinance and zoning map. Bolivia, NC: Brunswick County Planning.Google Scholar
  2. Cashin, G. E., Dorney, J. R., & Richardson, C. J. (1992). Wetland alteration trends on the North Carolina coastal plain. Wetlands, 12(2), 63–71.Google Scholar
  3. Cochran, W. G. (1987). Sampling techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Dahl, T. E. (2000). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 1986 to 1997. U.S. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  5. Dahl, T. E. (2006). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 1998 to 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  6. Foody, G. M. (2002). Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jenness, J. (2006). Repeating shapes for ArcGIS. Jenness Enterprises. Retrieved 12 August 2007, from http://www.jennessent.com/arcgis/repeat_shapes.htm.
  8. Kirkman, L. K., Golladay, S. W., Laclaire, L., & Sutter, R. (1999). Biodiversity in Southeastern, seasonally ponded, isolated wetlands: Management and policy perspectives for research and conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18, 553–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leibowitz, S. G. (2003). Isolated wetlands and their functions: An ecological perspective. Wetlands, 23, 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leibowitz, N. C., Squires L., & Baker, J. P. (1991). Research plan for monitoring wetland ecosystems. EPA/600/3-91/010. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  11. Leibowitz, N., Ernst, T. L., Urquhart, N. S., Stehmanm, S., & Roose, D. (1993). Evaluation of EMAP-wetlands sampling design using national wetlands inventory data. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  12. Levy, P., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications (pp. 192–220). Canada: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Moorhead, K. K., & Cook, A. E. (1992). A comparison of hydric soils, wetlands, and land use in coastal North Carolina. Wetlands, 12, 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (1996). A field guide to North Carolina wetlands. Raleigh, NC: NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  15. NC Division of Coastal Management (1999a). Strategic plan for improving coastal management in North Carolina. An accuracy assessment of GIS wetland mapping in the coastal counties of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: NC Division of Coastal Management.Google Scholar
  16. NC Division of Coastal Management (1999b). NC coastal region evaluation of wetland significance (NC CREWS) (p. 119). Raleigh, NC: NC Division of Coastal Management.Google Scholar
  17. NC Division of Water Quality (2003). Basinwide planning program. 2003 Lumber River basinwide water quality plan. Raleigh, NC: NC Division of Water Quality.Google Scholar
  18. NC Division of Water Quality (2007). Basinwide information management system data. Raleigh, NC: NC Division of Water Quality.Google Scholar
  19. NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team (2007). NC wetland assessment method (NC WAM) draft user manual. Raleigh, NC: NC Department of Transportation, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources and US Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  20. Nusser, S. M., & Klaas, E. E. (2003). Survey methods for assessing land cover map accuracy. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 10, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Richardson, C. (2003). Pocosins: Hydrologically isolated or integrated wetlands on the landscape? Wetlands, 23, 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell, K. R., Guynn, D. C., & Hanlin, H. G. (2002). Importance of small isolated wetlands for herpetofaunal diversity in managed, young growth forests in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Forest Ecology and Management, 163, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarndal, C. E., Swensson, B., & Wretman, J. (1992). Model assisted survey sampling (p. 694). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Schafale, M. P., & Weakley, A. S. (1990). Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina (p. 191). Third approximation. (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation. Department of Environment and Natural Resources).Google Scholar
  25. Sharitz, R. (2003). Carolina Bay wetlands: Unique habitats of the Southeastern United States. Wetlands, 23, 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stehman, S. V. (1999). Basic probability sampling designs for thematic map accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 20, 2347–2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stehman, S. V., & Czapewiski, R. L. (2003). Introduction to special issue on map accuracy. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 10, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory. Mississippi: Department of the Army. Technical Report Y-87-1 Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  29. Whigham, D. & Jordan, T. (2003). Isolated wetlands and water quality. Wetlands, 23, 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Breda Munoz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Virginia M. Lesser
    • 2
  • John R. Dorney
    • 3
  • Rick Savage
    • 3
  1. 1.RTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Wetland Program Development Unit, NC Division of Water QualityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations