Landscape group Anett Trebitz, Tom Hollenhorst, Roger Gauthier, Ric Lopez, Mary Moffett, Laura Bourg

1
Landscape groupAnett Trebitz, Tom Hollenhorst,
Roger Gauthier, Ric Lopez, Mary Moffett, Laura
Bourgeau-Chavez, George Host

• We are very good at monitoring the insides of
  wetlands
• We are not very good at monitoring expansion,
  contraction, or loss of coastal wetlands
• We know how to summarize landscape, but
  timeliness for landscape imagery is an issue
• We need both landscape data wetland inventory

2
Monitoring changes in coastal wetland extent and
composition requires imagery that is

• Multi-temporal _at_ 2 temporal scales
• Intra-annual (capture phenological change)
• Inter-annual
• Periodic (5 yr minimum), but need to pay
  attention to differences in water level and
  sample accordingly
• Multispectral (3-12) band
• High resolution (1-5 m)
• Amenable to automated analyses
• Platforms airborne or spaceborne?

3
Monitoring changes in watersheds of coastal
wetland requires

• Common watershed analytical framework
• Better to start at fine scale and aggregate
• A basin-wide ArcHydro analysis is within reach
• US side complete
• Lake Erie completed by April 07
• GLNPO proposal for Lake Superior is outstanding
• Stressor Data
• GLEI stressors are available (but need to add
  Canadian side)
• Maintaining up-to-date land use 30 m or better
  how?
• What is the fate of Landsat?
• MODIS with sharpening?
• Monitoring water levels in wetlands
• SAR data

4
Monitoring, continued

• Independent of data source, we have info on how
  to summarize landscape (e.g., percent watershed
  in agriculture)
• Is this a goal of this report?
• Wetland inventory
• States/tribes will want inventory
• GLCWC has huge piece of this done
• Butdesired improvements
• topographically defined,
• ability to update,
• additional attribute data (e.g., all wetland
  types in complex)
• SAR to identify forested wetlands
• Higher resolution DEMs (10 m lt1 m)
• Functional classification (not just geo. History)
• Detailed mapping of wetlands and surrounding
  buffer

5
Key Players

• 1. Who are the key players in the future?
  (certainly, this is NOT an exclusive listjust
  some immediate limited applications/thoughts
  all in the room are definitely the key players)
• A. State resource managers (the actual for
  coordination on useful endpoints to target, at
  fine-to-moderate scales
• B. GLNPO/SOLEC/GLC for coordination on useful
  endpoints to target, at moderate-to-coarse
  scales, satisfying the understood GLCWC goal
  basin-wide strategy
• C. USEPA Duluth wetland inventory work,
  additional applications
• D. GLEI Stressor/Landscape analysis group
  watershed delineation, stressor data development
  and analysis, data delivery
• E. USEPA, Las Vegas innovative
  remote-sensing/GIS/other data applications,
  statistical approached to indicator development
  in a data-poor (for broad-scale) research
  environment, field-validated landscape indicator
  development, landscape ecology metric
  production/interpretation
• 2. How will this be completed in the allotted
  timeframe?

6
Segmentsheds were great They proved to be most
useful Now we shall move on