574
Planning Team (MAWPT). It is an organisation
composed of six Arkansas state agencies: Arkansas
Natural Heritage, Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, Forestry Commission, Cooperative
Extension Service–University of Arkansas,
Department of Environmental Quality and the
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. The goal
of the strategy is to develop information on
Arkansas’ wetlands, defi ne state agency roles,
especially with regard for opportunities for coordination, and formulate specifi c steps to address
wetland needs and concerns within the State.
GIS Methods Set the Stage for Recovery
The methodology below, as outlined in the
Standard GIS Methodology for Wetland Analysis,
describes the various ecological criteria and basic
processes used to prioritise wetlands in Arkansas:
1. To assemble appropriate data on ecosystem
components needed for decision making with
emphasis on existing watershed-scale geographical data
2. To review maps of ecosystem components
(water, soil, vegetation) in order to explore
wetland patterns, problems and potentials in
the watershed
3. To prepare component overlay maps to investigate relationships between individual wetland components
Exercises Done by the Minnesota Board
of Water and Soil Resources
There had been attempts to assess the ability to
inventory potentially restorable wetlands in seven
counties, namely , Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Scott, Ramsey and Washington metropolitan area using readily available GIS data. The
overall aim was to evaluate the potential for using
GIS to facilitate a countywide assessment of drained
wetlands. By merging two geographical data sets,
namely , the County Digital Soil Survey (CSS) and
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), it was possible to generate maps representing potentially
restorable wetlands. This method relies on the initial assumption that areas indicated as wetlands by
NWI would largely coincide with hydric soils in the
digital soil survey. Where hydric soils do not coincide with wetlands, a drained wetland might exist.
The primary goal for this project was to
investigate the availability and quality of geographical data necessary for a drained wetlands
inventory. There were plans to complete a
countywide assessment of wetland status,
rather than a site- specifi c evaluation. If local
governmental units or others could express suffi cient interest in this project, further data collection would be needed to target specifi c sites
for wetland restoration.
This exercise involved various methodologies
like Data Acquisition Digital Soil Surveys (county
soils coverages were obtained in Arc export format through the Metro GIS Data); use of the Map
Unit Interpretations Database (MUID) in order to
determine which soils in the county survey should
be considered hydric (MUIR data is a collection
of soil and soil-related properties, interpretations
and performance data for a soil survey area and its
map units, map unit components and component
layers. For the purposes of this project, we needed
to determine for each mapping unit whether or not
it is hydric. A hydric soil is defi ned as ‘a soil that
formed under conditions of saturation, fl ooding,
or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper
part’); and use of two tables in the MUIR database, namely , COMP and HYDCOMP (The
HYDCOMP table lists all map units in a soil survey area that contain hydric components. The
COMP table gives the percentage of each component within a map unit.).
National Wetlands Inventory
In addition to above, the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) project was undertaken by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service to generate information about characteristics and extent of
wetland and deepwater habitats in the United
States. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources is said to provide these data free of
charge The USFWS used high altitude colourinfrared and black and white photography at
scales of 1:58,000 to 1:80,000 in stereo pairs for
photointerpretation of wetlands. Collecting all
the quadrangles within the county, merging and
clipping provided us with a seamless countywide
coverage ( http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us ).
26 Habitat Mapping of the Wetlands on GIS Platform
Planning Team (MAWPT). It is an organisation
composed of six Arkansas state agencies: Arkansas
Natural Heritage, Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, Forestry Commission, Cooperative
Extension Service–University of Arkansas,
Department of Environmental Quality and the
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. The goal
of the strategy is to develop information on
Arkansas’ wetlands, defi ne state agency roles,
especially with regard for opportunities for coordination, and formulate specifi c steps to address
wetland needs and concerns within the State.
GIS Methods Set the Stage for Recovery
The methodology below, as outlined in the
Standard GIS Methodology for Wetland Analysis,
describes the various ecological criteria and basic
processes used to prioritise wetlands in Arkansas:
1. To assemble appropriate data on ecosystem
components needed for decision making with
emphasis on existing watershed-scale geographical data
2. To review maps of ecosystem components
(water, soil, vegetation) in order to explore
wetland patterns, problems and potentials in
the watershed
3. To prepare component overlay maps to investigate relationships between individual wetland components
Exercises Done by the Minnesota Board
of Water and Soil Resources
There had been attempts to assess the ability to
inventory potentially restorable wetlands in seven
counties, namely , Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Scott, Ramsey and Washington metropolitan area using readily available GIS data. The
overall aim was to evaluate the potential for using
GIS to facilitate a countywide assessment of drained
wetlands. By merging two geographical data sets,
namely , the County Digital Soil Survey (CSS) and
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), it was possible to generate maps representing potentially
restorable wetlands. This method relies on the initial assumption that areas indicated as wetlands by
NWI would largely coincide with hydric soils in the
digital soil survey. Where hydric soils do not coincide with wetlands, a drained wetland might exist.
The primary goal for this project was to
investigate the availability and quality of geographical data necessary for a drained wetlands
inventory. There were plans to complete a
countywide assessment of wetland status,
rather than a site- specifi c evaluation. If local
governmental units or others could express suffi cient interest in this project, further data collection would be needed to target specifi c sites
for wetland restoration.
This exercise involved various methodologies
like Data Acquisition Digital Soil Surveys (county
soils coverages were obtained in Arc export format through the Metro GIS Data); use of the Map
Unit Interpretations Database (MUID) in order to
determine which soils in the county survey should
be considered hydric (MUIR data is a collection
of soil and soil-related properties, interpretations
and performance data for a soil survey area and its
map units, map unit components and component
layers. For the purposes of this project, we needed
to determine for each mapping unit whether or not
it is hydric. A hydric soil is defi ned as ‘a soil that
formed under conditions of saturation, fl ooding,
or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper
part’); and use of two tables in the MUIR database, namely , COMP and HYDCOMP (The
HYDCOMP table lists all map units in a soil survey area that contain hydric components. The
COMP table gives the percentage of each component within a map unit.).
National Wetlands Inventory
In addition to above, the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) project was undertaken by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service to generate information about characteristics and extent of
wetland and deepwater habitats in the United
States. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources is said to provide these data free of
charge The USFWS used high altitude colourinfrared and black and white photography at
scales of 1:58,000 to 1:80,000 in stereo pairs for
photointerpretation of wetlands. Collecting all
the quadrangles within the county, merging and
clipping provided us with a seamless countywide
coverage ( http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us ).
26 Habitat Mapping of the Wetlands on GIS Platform