Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Program Report

95-P001R

Geographic Information Systems

and Remote Sensing Applications

for Ecosystem Management

This PDF file may appear different from the printed report

because of slight variations incurred by electronic transmission.

The substance of the report remains unchanged.

Revised December 1995
Geographic Information Systems

and Remote Sensing Applications

for Ecosystem Management

by 

Frank D'Erchia 

National Biological Service

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

Revised December 1995
The Environmental Management Technical Center issues LTRMP Program Reports to provide

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program partners with programmatic documentation,

procedures manuals, and annual status reports.

National Biological Service

Environmental Management

Technical Center

CENTER DIRECTOR

Robert L. Delaney

SCIENCE ADVISOR

John W. Barko

GEOSPATIAL APPLICATIONS

DIRECTOR

Frank D'Erchia 

INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

SERVICES DIRECTOR

Norman W. Hildrum

INFORMATION TRANSFER AND

MEDIA SERVICES MANAGER

Terry D'Erchia 

Cover graphic by Mi Ae Lipe-Butterbrodt

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for

use by the National Biological Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

The National Biological Service . . . gathering, analyzing,

and sharing the biological information necessary to support the wise

stewardship of the Nation's natural resources.

 Printed on recycled paper 
iii

Preface

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) was authorized under the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) as an element of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Management Program. The LTRMP is being

implemented by the Environmental Management Technical Center, an office of the National

Biological Service, in cooperation with the five Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS)

States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, with guidance and Program

responsibility provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The UMRS encompasses the

commercially navigable reaches of the Upper Mississippi River, as well as the Illinois River

and navigable portions of the Kaskaskia, Black, St. Croix, and Minnesota Rivers.

The mission of the LTRMP is to provide decision makers with information to maintain

the UMRS as a sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character. The longterm goals of the Program are to understand the system, determine resource trends and

impacts, develop management alternatives, manage information, and develop useful

products.

This report will appear in the proceedings of the conference "Ecosystem Management:

Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources" which was held at the

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, March 3-4, 1994. The strategy to publish articles

and make presentations as part of the information sharing process is included in the LTRMP

Operating Plan (USFWS 1992) as Strategy 4.4.1, Develop Information Sharing Process.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or

703-487-4650).

This report should be cited as:

D'Erchia, F. 1995. Geographic information systems and remote sensing applications for

ecosystem management. National Biological Service, Environmental Management

Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, Revised December 1995. LTRMP 95-P001R.

 22 pp.
v

Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction .......................................................... 1

Case Study 1: Long Term Resource Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Background ....................................................... 2

Study Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods .......................................................... 2

Case Study 2: Migratory Bird Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Study Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Use of Satellite Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Case Study 3: Upper Midwest Gap Analysis Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Study Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
vi

Tables

Page

Table 1. Comparison of land cover changes between 1891 and 1989 for Pool 8,

Upper Mississippi River System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figures

Page

Figure 1. Long Term Resource Monitoring Program study area: The Upper

Mississippi River System floodplain ............................. 3

Figure 2. Land cover/use from the 1891 Mississippi River Commission Survey . . . 5

Figure 3. Comparison of land cover/use for Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System,

between 1891 and 1989 ....................................... 6

Figure 4. Change in open water for Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System, from

1891 to 1989 ................................................ 8

Figure 5. Geomorphology of lower Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System, between

1939 and 1989 .............................................. 9

Figure 6. Elevations of lower Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System, between 1939

and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 7. Migratory bird study area: Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System . . . . . 12

Figure 8. Pileated Woodpecker life cycle habitat preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 9. American Bittern nesting habitat preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 10. Cerulean Warbler habitat preferences derived from aerial photographs and

satellite imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 11. Species-rich map of nesting habitat for a combination of several migratory

bird species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 12. GIS-predicted Great Blue Heron preferred habitat and known rookery

locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Geographic Information Systems

and Remote Sensing Applications

for Ecosystem Management

By Frank D'Erchia 

Abstract

Ecosystem management requires a more holistic approach than the focused practices of the past. Wildlife

management traditionally concentrated on maintenance of specific habitat types used by a limited number of

wildlife species. An ecosystem approach demands that managers take a broader view of the landscape, beyond

political boundaries, and necessitates an understanding of the interrelationships among not only the wildlife and

habitat components but also the human component of the ecosystem. Geographic information systems and

remote sensing technologies provide tools for resource managers to use in analyzing ecosystems, allowing the

manager to visualize and quantify the available information. Three case studies using these computer

technologies are discussed: a landscape approach to resource management in the Upper Mississippi River

System; a proactive approach to habitat modeling for migratory birds in the Upper Mississippi River corridor;

and an overview of Gap Analysis, a national biodiversity effort, in the context of a tri-state project in the Upper

Midwest. 

Introduction

As resource managers recognize the importance

of adopting an ecosystem approach in managing

natural resources, the use of geographic

information systems (GIS) and remote sensing

technologies is increasing. These technologies

provide tools for resource managers to use in

analyzing and understanding an ecosystem,

allowing decision makers to better visualize,

integrate, and quantify available resource data.

The role of GIS in ecosystem studies is

expanding as researchers exploit the increasingly

sophisticated capabilities of GIS technology.

Recent advances include the ability to store and

manage large datasets and to perform spatial and

statistical analyses. GIS can also provide input to

both static and dynamic ecosystem models. For

example, a static model may be used to make

erosion estimates based on soil type and terrain

characteristics, whereas a dynamic GIS model

could be used to represent a spatial landscape at

different time periods (Stow 1993). I will present

three case studies demonstrating applications of

GIS and remote sensing technologies.

The first case study discusses GIS applications

in the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

for the Upper Mississippi River System. The longterm goals of the Monitoring Program are to

understand the ecosystem, determine resource

trends and impacts, develop management

alternatives, and provide information and

technology transfer (USFWS 1992). The

Monitoring Program is responsible for collection of

data on parameters including water quality,

fisheries, vegetation, and invertebrates. Land

cover/use spatial databases are developed, stored,

and managed in a GIS for analysis and

dissemination to river resource managers.

The second case study is a pilot project that uses

GIS to analyze migratory bird habitats within the

Upper Mississippi River corridor. This pilot

project evaluated GIS technology as a tool to assist

national wildlife refuge staff and other resource

managers in making management decisions.

Detailed land cover/use spatial data were used to

predict habitat ranges for migratory birds by

associating land cover classes with life cycle

habitat preferences (Lowenberg, in review).

The final case study discusses Gap Analysis, a

nationally instituted GIS effort to identify "gaps" in

biodiversity protection, in the context of a tri-state

effort in the Upper Midwest. Gap Analysis uses

GIS to combine the distribution of natural
2

vegetation, mapped from satellite imagery and

other data sources, with distributions of vertebrate

and other taxa as indicators of biodiversity (Scott

et al. 1993). Maps of species-rich areas, individual

species of concern, and overall vegetation types are

generated and compared with land ownership and

protection status.

Case Study 1: Long Term

Resource Monitoring

Program

Background

From 1930 to 1950, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers constructed 29 locks and dams on the

Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) to

maintain a 2.7-m channel for commercial

navigation during periods of low flow. The locks

and dams created a series of impounded pools,

resulting in an initial boom in biological

productivity. However, because natural alluvial

river ecosystems are characterized by a floodplain

and an annual flood pulse, this increase in aquatic

habitat consequently brought loss of riparian

habitat and reduced biological diversity, resulting

in a net reduction in resource productivity.

Floodplain encroachment and development,

wetlands drainage, and channelization of the river

have accelerated water velocities. Wave action

resuspends lake bottom sediment and erodes

islands and shorelines. Loss of islands creates

greater wind fetches, resulting in greater wave

action. The UMRS now experiences higher and

more erratic river stages which disrupt the natural

functions of the floodplain ecosystem (Sparks et al.

1990).

Congress recognized the importance and

uniqueness of the ecology of the area but also

acknowledged the national economic significance

of the navigation system. Therefore, the Water

Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law

99-662) authorized the Upper Mississippi River

System Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

to provide decision makers with the information

needed to maintain the UMRS as a viable multipleuse large river ecosystem.

The Monitoring Program is being implemented

by the Environmental Management Technical

Center, a National Biological Service facility, in

cooperation with field stations staffed by the five

UMRS states (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,

and Wisconsin). Guidance is provided by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, which has overall

responsibility for the Monitoring Program

(USFWS 1992).

The Environmental Management Technical

Center is responsible for inventory and monitoring,

research, analysis, and application of GIS and

remote sensing technologies. Spatial data

(including land cover/use, bathymetry,

transportation, wetlands, and other spatial features)

are processed and managed in a GIS at the Center.

Study Region

The study area for the Monitoring Program

encompasses the commercially navigable portions

of the Mississippi River north of Cairo, Illinois,

plus the entire Illinois River and Waterway and

four other Midwestern rivers (Fig. 1). Current

research efforts focus on the floodplain of the

UMRS.

Methods

Land cover/use databases are developed through

photointerpretation of aerial photography (Owens

and Hop 1995). These databases are stored in a

GIS at the Center. Color-infrared photographs

(1:15,000-scale) are taken annually of specific

pools or reaches of the UMRS (a pool is defined as

the impounded section of the river between locks

and dams; e.g., Pool 8 is the impounded reach

above Lock and Dam 8 to Lock and Dam 7).

Detailed land cover/use spatial data coverages have

been created for several pools within the study area

from 1989 color-infrared aerial photography
3

Figure 1. Long Term Resource Monitoring Program study area: The Upper Mississippi River System

floodplain
4

(D'Erchia 1993). The aerial photographs are

interpreted, transferred to base maps, and digitized

to create spatial databases in an ARC/INFO GIS

format (White and Owens 1991). ARC/INFO is a

widely used commercial GIS software package

developed by the Environmental Systems Research

Institute, Redlands, California (Moorehouse 1985).

An additional source of land cover/use data is

satellite imagery. The Center has produced a

classified coverage for the entire floodplain of the

UMRS from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)

satellite imagery (TM imagery has a pixel

resolution of 30 m). The floodplain outline was

extracted from the seven full scenes required to

cover the study area.

Finally, several historical databases were

available for land cover/use. One was developed

from aerial photography taken in 1975 under the

auspices of the Great River Environmental Action

Team (UMRBA 1982), and a preimpoundment

perspective was obtained from the mapping efforts

of the Mississippi River Commission Survey

undertaken in the 1890s. The Survey maps were 

found to be spatially and thematically accurate at a

scale of 1:20,000; therefore, land cover/use

features were digitized directly from the source

base maps (Fig. 2). These databases are used to

analyze changes in the floodplain ecosystem.

The following review of an analytical procedure

conducted on Pool 8 demonstrates the use and

applications of GIS and remote sensing

technologies at the Environmental Management

Technical Center.

A comparison of 1891 and 1989 land cover/use

for Pool 8 reveals the post-impoundment land and

water changes (Fig. 3). Table 1 provides a

summary of the spatial feature classes used,

grouped for comparative purposes. As can be seen,

there were increases in open water and marsh after

impoundment and, conversely, decreases in woody

terrestrial and grass and forb habitats. The area of

woody terrestrial coverage not only decreased

considerably by 1989, but the frequency increased

substantially, resulting in a highly fragmented

woody terrestrial ecosystem with many small

polygons in 1989 compared with large

homogeneous woody terrestrial areas in 1891.

Urban areas expanded with reduced use of

Table 1. Comparison of land cover changes between 1891 and 1989 for Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River

System

______________________________________________________________________________________

Classification

Frequency

(# of polygons)

Area

(hectares)

Frequency

(# of polygons)

Area

(hectares)

Open water 541 3,261 751 6,494

Marsh 52 343 3,092 2,995

Grasses/forbs 292 4,441 1,646 1,479

Woody terrestrial 581 5,834 2,326 2,614

Sand/mud 174 355 97 31

Agriculture 37 587 14 84

Urban/developed 10 238 85 1,362
5

Figure 2. Land cover/use from the 1891 Mississippi River Commission Survey
6

Figure 3. Comparison of land cover/use for Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System, between 1891 and

1989
7

the floodplain for agriculture in this section of the

UMRS. Using GIS, these coverages can be

combined to display changes in open water in the

floodplain of Pool 8 (Fig. 4). This analysis process

provides a methodology to both visualize and

quantify general pool-wide changes pre- and postimpoundment.

Through analyses of physical effects on the

system, GIS can be used to study how biological

resources respond to change. A time-series display

of interpreted aerial photography of the lower

portion of Pool 8 from 1939 to 1989 reveals a

dynamic island geomorphology (Fig. 5). Erosion

from wind and wave action has contributed

considerably to island degradation. In a recent

Environmental Management Technical Center

study of island loss in lower Pool 8, bathymetric

data were compared with historical water depth

data collected in the 1930s (Fig. 6). 

Backwaters provide migrating waterfowl with

critical habitat because of their highly productive

submersed vegetation, which is an important food

source for a number of species. However, in

recent years, backwater vegetation productivity has

been on the decline (Rogers 1994). GIS techniques

are used to analyze the relationships between

increased sedimentation and decreased vegetation

production. Areas that have experienced island

loss, resulting in higher flows and increased

sedimentation transport, have also displayed a

decrease in submersed vegetation over time. Wind

fetch models have been developed to assist in

locating and evaluating artificial island placement

to reduce sediment flow. 

The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (through the

Environmental Management Program) is

responsible for development of habitat

rehabilitation projects to improve and prolong the

longevity of the study area as a multiple-use

resource for fish, wildlife, and recreation. These

projects focus on island construction by strategic

placement of channel dredge material. A GIS 

application conducted at the Environmental

Management Technical Center used existing land

cover/use data in combination with terrain

elevation to analyze the effects of levee placement

(McConville, in review). An interface was

developed to allow the novice GIS user to locate

levees by on-screen digitizing. The model analyzes

effects on the habitat based on levee placement and

elevation and the rise of floodwaters. Information

provided through this research and analysis effort

will help guide construction projects to maximize

benefits to riverine habitat.

Once analytical models and interfaces are

developed for demonstration pools, they can be

extrapolated and applied to any pool where similar

databases exist. Efforts are under way to complete

automation of detailed land cover/use GIS

coverages for the entire study area from the aerial

photography collected in 1989. This coverage will

provide the database for a landscape analysis of the

entire system based on the pool-wide models

currently under development at the Center.

In addition to pool-specific studies, systemic

analyses at a lower resolution are being conducted

using satellite imagery. Landsat TM imagery has

been used to classify the entire study area, and

research on systemic change detection was

conducted in 1994 (Laustrup and Lowenberg

1994). While databases derived from satellite

imagery are not as detailed as those developed

from low-level aerial photography, they are

adequate for systemic landscape analysis (e.g.,

broad categories within the floodplain can be

quantified). Detailed land cover classes from the

interpreted aerial photography can be generalized

to match the satellite imagery-derived classes and

comparisons then can be made to evaluate change

over time. Satellite imagery provides a means to

discern broad-based ecosystem changes over time

in generalized landscape characteristics such as

wetlands and forested areas.
8

Figure 4. Change in open water for Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System, from 1891 to 1989
9

Figure 5. Geomorphology of lower Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System, between 1939 and 1989
10

Figure 6. Elevations of lower Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System, between 1939 and 1989
11

Case Study 2: Migratory

Bird Analysis

Background

Three National Wildlife Refuges are located

within the Upper Mississippi River basin: the

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and

Fish Refuge, Mark Twain National Wildlife

Refuge, and Trempealeau National Wildlife

Refuge. The Mississippi River corridor is a major

waterfowl flyway during spring and fall migration.

In addition, the river environment of backwaters,

wooded bottomlands, open water, and wooded

bluffs serves as a migration corridor to over 290

species of raptors, shorebirds, and songbirds (NBS

and USFWS 1995).

In an effort to take a proactive approach to

manage the habitats used by migratory bird

populations in the Upper Mississippi River basin,

a pilot study was undertaken to analyze migratory

bird habitats using GIS and remote sensing

technologies. Agency representatives of the states

of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and

Wisconsin, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the

National Biological Service, and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service have agreed to implement a

migratory bird management strategy for the River

corridor. The Environmental Management

Technical Center was selected to conduct the

spatial analysis for the pilot project (Lowenberg, in

review).

Study Region

The study area for the migratory bird project

includes the Upper Mississippi River corridor from

Wabasha, Minnesota, to St. Louis, Missouri. Pool

8 was selected for the pilot study. This River reach

includes the impounded water above Lock and

Dam 8 near Genoa, Wisconsin, to Lock and Dam 7

at Dresbach, Minnesota (Fig. 7).

Methods

The spatial analysis for this project used land

cover/use maps developed from 1:15,000-scale

aerial photography of the floodplain. Some models

included satellite imagery to extend the boundaries

into the bluffs above the floodplain and to evaluate

the possible substitution of satellite imagery for

modeling where detailed data are unavailable.

First, a literature search was conducted to

determine life cycle habitat requirements of a

selected sample of migratory birds. This search

identified parameters for habitat critical to the

selected migratory bird species (Jacobson 1993).

Next, matrices linking these habitat descriptions

with land cover/use spatial data coverages were

developed. Individual range maps could then be

generated for each migratory bird species.

Information from this search and other sources

provided the means to categorize habitat use based

on several life cycle variables (spring migration,

pre-breeding, nesting, brood rearing, post-breeding,

fall migration, and wintering). The habitats

identified were linked with the land cover/use

classes of the GIS database and were used to

generate GIS-predicted range maps. Some models

were derived directly from matrices that crossreferenced vegetation types with bird species.

Other models were more complex, requiring

distance and neighborhood analyses. 

A simple nesting habitat matrix association

model for the Pileated Woodpecker (Drocopus

pileatus) is displayed in Figure 8. The literature

search revealed that the Pileated Woodpecker

prefers mature dense forest stands with high snag

densities (Bull 1975). The land cover/use database

included tree height and percent vegetation cover.

By selecting for the tallest trees with the greatest

percent cover, it is assumed that mature dense

forest stands are selected and that they contain a

large quantity of snags. This prediction of snag

density is crucial, since snags provide
12

Figure 7. Migratory bird study area: Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System
13

Figure 8. Pileated Woodpecker life cycle habitat preferences
14

nest sites for the target species. Field verification

is necessary to confirm these assumptions.

Another migratory bird model in the pilot study

demonstrates the use of GIS to analyze habitat

using neighborhood analysis techniques. The

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) was

found to nest in thick marsh grass, sometimes

adjacent to stands of willow and tamarack, within

6.1 m of water (Bohlen 1989). Habitat analysis

was carried out using GIS procedures to create a

6.1-m buffer around all aquatic areas. Then,

terrestrial habitats that met nesting requirements

were selected from within this buffer (Fig. 9).

Although this type of buffer analysis is not

complex using GIS, an analysis of preferred habitat

with this requirement would be very difficult, if not

impossible, to perform manually. Identification of

critical habitat delineates areas to be considered for

protection to help maintain populations of target

species.

Use of Satellite Data

We have thus far discussed migratory bird

habitat within a reach of the floodplain of the

Mississippi River. Because an ecosystem approach

was desired, spatial data from Landsat TM satellite

imagery were combined with the floodplain data,

allowing comparison of the high-resolution

floodplain data and the coarser satellite imagery.

For this exercise, a 32-km swath of TM imagery

on either side of the floodplain was classified for

forested areas, grasslands, wetlands, urban, and

agricultural areas. The floodplain data cover bluff

to bluff, and the satellite imagery covers land cover

on the bluffs. Due to the coarser TM resolution,

small wetland areas could be misclassified;

therefore, digital wetlands data from the National

Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al. 1979) were

incorporated into the TM imagery. Digital

wetlands data were available for all but the

southwest portion of the study area.

Two migratory bird species were chosen for this

application, the Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica

cerulea) and the Canvasback (Aythya valisineria).

Cerulean Warbler habitat includes forested areas

>16.2 ha (Bond 1957), while Canvasback require

large open bodies of water (Korschgen 1989).

Cerulean Warbler habitat within the floodplain is

somewhat restricted, which could lead to the

conclusion that this species' habitat needs

protection, but when the search for the bird's

habitat requirements is extended above the bluffs,

we find that abundant habitat exists (Fig. 10).

Conversely, Canvasback habitat would be

restricted to the large body of open water at the

lower end of Pool 8, with no adequate habitat

available in the bluffs above the floodplain. In this

example, a resource manager could make a more

informed decision regarding habitat protection with

the extended knowledge of the conditions in the

area immediately surrounding the floodplain. By

studying the landscape, it becomes apparent that, in

this case, sufficient habitat for the Cerulean

Warbler exists in the adjacent blufflands.

Therefore, management objectives in the

floodplain may be better served by focusing on

Canvasback habitat.

The pilot study combined all subject species'

habitat ranges to develop a simulated map of

species richness. Selected species data on

preferred nesting habitat within the floodplain were

combined and polygons were ranked according to

number of species present (Fig. 11). By overlaying

the habitat requirements of multiple species,

critical areas can be identified. This information is

provided to resource managers and others

responsible for wildlife habitat management and

acquisition, who can then make decisions based on

the conglomerate map, taking into account the

status of individual species. Areas of importance

to large numbers of species of concern (e.g., listed

or declining) could be given a higher priority in

proactive management decisions and habitat

mitigation efforts.

The next step in the pilot study was to verify the

models, which was accomplished by comparing

migratory bird sightings during field studies with

GIS-predicted habitats. Great Blue Heron (Ardea

herodias) rookeries were located and plotted on a

base map that displays the GIS-
15

Figure 9. American Bittern nesting habitat preferences
16

Figure 10. Cerulean Warbler habitat preferences derived from aerial photographs and satellite imagery
17

Figure 11. Species-rich map of nesting habitat for a combination of several migratory bird species
18

base map that displays the GIS- predicted preferred

habitat for the species (Fig. 12). The association

between known sightings and GIS-predicted habitat

preferences is needed to refine the model and

verify the results of the analysis. Field sightings

and other field information helped fine-tune the

models for each migratory bird species in the pilot

study. The verification process provides the

information necessary to validate and/or update

models. 

Management of critical habitat for the benefit of

groups of wildlife species, particularly migratory

birds, was the focus of this analysis rather than

taking a single-species approach. If the

methodologies applied to a sample area prove

useful, the protocols could be applied over a larger

area. Once the models are verified, a GIS interface

will be developed to provide managers with an

easy-to-use tool for analyzing habitat.

Case Study 3: Upper

Midwest Gap Analysis

Program

Background

The Gap Analysis Program is a nationally

implemented National Biological Service effort

which seeks to identify the degree to which plant

and animal communities are or are not represented

in areas being managed for the long-term

protection of biological resources. Natural

communities not adequately represented in such

areas constitute "gaps" in biodiversity conservation

(Scott et al. 1993). Cooperating organizations

include private business corporations, non-profit

groups, and state and federal government agencies.

Gap Analysis projects typically are completed

on a state-by-state basis. However, because of the

contiguous biologically diverse habitat in the

Upper Midwest, the Environmental Management

Technical Center proposed initiation of a multistate approach in the region to ensure consistency

and continuity of land cover and other spatial

databases across political boundaries. In

cooperation with the state, federal, and nongovernment agencies in the region, the Center has

begun development of a land cover database for a

three-state area (D'Erchia et al. 1993).

Study Region

The study area covers the states of Michigan,

Minnesota, and Wisconsin. This area includes a

portion of the Upper Mississippi River ecosystem

and extends into the watershed beyond the

floodplain.

Methods

The Gap Analysis Program in the Upper

Midwest is currently in its initial stages. Land

cover will be mapped using Landsat TM satellite

imagery. To accomplish the goals of this threestate effort, Landsat TM scenes will be acquired

for full coverage of the study area. To assist in

classification discrimination, especially of tree

species, a second date for each scene will be

acquired to incorporate the temporal variations

between scene dates. Scene pairs, with dates that

coincide with peak biomass and leaf senescence,

will be selected from the available cloud-free

inventory of images not more than 3 years old.

Several methods are possible for integrating the

two-date scenes, including separate scene

classification, combining all bands from both

images, or some combination of principal

components. Ancillary information such as aerial

photography and existing digital land cover data

will be integrated with the satellite imagery where

it is available consistently for the three states

(Lillesand 1993).

The standard minimum mapping unit for the

Gap Analysis Program is 100 ha; however, the

Upper Midwest effort will maintain the 30-m pixel

resolution of the TM imagery for land cover

mapping. Uniquely classified individual pixels

will be grouped with surrounding pixels,

maintaining a minimum mapping unit <1 ha. This

system will result in a higher resolution, uniform
19

Figure 12. GIS-predicted Great Blue Heron preferred habitat and known rookery locations
20

classification across the three states. In addition,

mapping of presettlement vegetation will be

completed for the three states. Using a habitat

association approach, wildlife species range maps

will be generated to link potential habitat for a

variety of wildlife species with the habitat types in

the land cover maps. Land ownership maps will

also be developed for the three-state area.

Wildlife-habitat relationships are developed by

linking vegetation classes with preferred habitats of

individual wildlife species. A species-habitat

matrix has been developed for the forested areas of

the upper Great Lakes region, which includes

portions of the states of Michigan, Minnesota, and

Wisconsin (Benyus et al. 1992). This habitat

matrix displays 389 species of birds, mammals,

reptiles, and amphibians with their associated

habitats. Additional work will be required to

develop habitat associations with land cover types

for the lower portions of each state, as well as

additions and enhancements to the existing

information.

Maps of species-rich areas, individual species of

concern, and overall vegetation types will be

generated. Several species range maps will then be

combined to identify the species-rich areas for the

subject wildlife group. Using GIS, this

information can be overlaid on maps of land

stewardship to display those areas not adequately

protected, identifying where efforts need to be

focused to most efficiently achieve conservation of

biodiversity.

Conclusions

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

is an ongoing effort to evaluate and understand the

dynamics of a changing floodplain environment. It

is the goal of the Monitoring Program to conduct

research and analysis in an effort to link

environmental effects with the physical parameters

operating within the floodplain ecosystem. The

results of Monitoring Program studies are used by

state and federal agencies in implementing

management strategies.

Successful application of GIS technology in the

migratory bird pilot study has demonstrated how

this tool can provide valuable information to

resource managers. A methodology was needed to

assist resource managers in implementing a

landscape approach to proactive habitat

management of the migratory bird flyway in the

Upper Mississippi River corridor. By evaluating

habitat abundance for individual species and

combining all species to predict areas of critical

importance, GIS technology will provide resource

managers with the information needed to make

informed management decisions. Additional

information, such as identification of keystone or

indicator species' habitats and determination of

their role in the ecosystem, can also be displayed in

GIS maps.

The migratory bird pilot study utilizes a Gap

Analysis approach in identifying species-rich areas;

in addition to the migratory bird component, the

Gap Analysis Program analyzes habitats for native

birds, mammals, and other vertebrate species. The

Upper Midwest Gap Analysis effort represents a

broad landscape approach to the Upper Mississippi

River and Great Lakes Basin ecosystem and will

yield information critical to resource managers in

this region. 

Many federal land management agencies are

moving toward ecosystem management objectives.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reorganizing

its Divisions into Ecosystems based on watershed

boundaries (James Fisher, USFWS, Winona,

Minnesota, personal communication). The U.S.

Forest Service is also shifting toward an ecosystem

management approach, focusing on large-scale

ecological regions that go beyond National Forest

boundaries (Thomas 1995).

Successful migration from the historical systems

of monitoring and managing biological resources

within agency boundaries to implementing largescale, multi-temporal assessments will require

access to GIS and remote sensing technologies.

Data collected via satellite, aerial photography, or

videography will provide a historical record, and 
21

GIS can be used to automate, manage, and analyze

the information collected. The Global Positioning

System provides biologists and managers with the

ability to collect accurate locational information in

the field which can be related and integrated with

other spatial data using a GIS.

In an effort to define ecosystem management

through an in-depth literature review, Crumbine

(1993) found that one of the specific goals

frequently endorsed was the incorporation of data

on human use and occupancy within an ecosystem.

GIS provides ample opportunity to integrate social

and economic factors into the analysis of

ecosystems. The technology is recognized as a

viable and valid scientific tool and is being

increasingly used to enhance the broad landscapescale analysis required for ecosystem management.

References

Benyus, J. M., R. R. Buech, and M. D. Nelson.

1992. Wildlife in the Upper Great Lakes region:

A community profile. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, North Central Forest Experiment

Station. Research Paper NC-301. 27 pp.

Bohlen, H. D. 1989. The birds of Illinois. Indiana

University Press, Indianapolis, Indiana. 221 pp.

Bond, R. R. 1957. Ecological distribution of the

upland forests of southern Wisconsin. Ecological

Monographs 27:351-384.

Bull, E. L. 1975. Habitat utilization of the pileated

woodpecker. Blue Mountains, Oregon. M.S.

Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 58

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. 129 pp.

Crumbine, R. E. 1993. What is ecosystem

management? Conservation Biology. Volume 8.

Number 1. March 1994.

D'Erchia, F. 1993. Metadata catalog of spatial

data for the Upper Mississippi River System

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental

Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin, November 1993. EMTC 93-P009.

62 pp. (NTIS #PB94-130002)

D'Erchia, F., B. Drazkowski, and T. Owens

(editors). 1993. Proceedings of the Upper

Midwest Gap Analysis Workshop, January 12-

14, 1993. Hosted by the National Biological

Survey, Environmental Management Technical

Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, December 1993.

EMTC 93-P013. 37 pp. (NTIS #PB94-

 138880)

Jacobson, T. R. 1993. Annotated bibliography of

birds using the Upper Mississippi River. In 55th

Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. St.

Louis, Missouri, December 11-15, 1993.

Korschgen, C. E. 1989. Riverine and deepwater

habitats for diving ducks. Pages 157-180 in L. M.

Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski,

editors. Habitat management for migrating and

wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas

Technical University Press, Lubbock, Texas.

560 pp.

Laustrup, M. S., and C. D. Lowenberg. 1994.

Development of a systemic land cover/land use

database for the Upper Mississippi River System

derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite

data. National Biological Survey, Environmental

Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin, May 1994. LTRMP 94-T001.

103 pp. (NTIS #PB94-186889)

Lillesand, T. M. 1993. Suggested strategies for

satellite-assisted statewide land cover mapping in

Wisconsin. In Proceedings of the American
22

Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

annual meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, February

14-19, 1993. 11 pp.

Moorehouse, S. 1985. ARC/INFO: A georelational model for spatial information.

Environmental Systems Research Institute,

Redlands, California. Publication No. 640.

National Biological Service (NBS) and U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. The great

river flyway: The management strategy for

migratory birds on the Upper Mississippi River

System. T. D'Erchia and S. Dreiband, editors.

20 pp. (in press)

Owens, T. W., and Hop, K. 1995. Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program standard

operating procedures: Photointerpretation.

National Biological Service, Environmental

Management Technical Center, Onalaska,

Wisconsin, July 1995. LTRMP 95-P008-1. 7 pp

+ Appendixes A and B.

Rogers, S. J. 1994. Preliminary evaluation of

submersed macrophyte changes in the Upper

Mississippi River. Lake and Reservoir

Management 10(1):35-38.

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B.

Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco,

F. D'Erchia, T. C. Edwards Jr., J. Ulliman, and R.

G. Wright. 1993. Gap Analysis: A geographic

approach to protection of biological diversity.

Wildlife Monograph No. 123. Wildlife Society,

Inc. 41 pp. 

Sparks, R. E., P. B. Bayley, S. L. Kohler, and L. L.

Osborne. 1990. Disturbance and recovery of

large floodplain rivers. Environmental

Management 14(5):699-709.

Stow, D. A. 1993. The role of geographic

information systems for landscape ecological

studies. Chapter 2 in R. Haines-Young, D. R.

Green, and S. H. Cousins, editors. Landscape

ecology and GIS. Taylor and Francis, Bristol,

Pennsylvania.

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

(UMRBA). 1982. Comprehensive Master Plan

for the Upper Mississippi River System. Upper

Mississippi River Basin Commission,

Bloomington, Minnesota. 2 vols.

Thomas, J. W. 1995. Forest Service land

management planning process. Presentation

before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public

Land Management Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate. April 5, 1995.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992.

Operating Plan for the Upper Mississippi River

System Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program. Environmental Management Technical

Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, Revised September

1993. EMTC 91-P002. 179 pp. (NTIS

#PB94-160199)

White, B. M., and T. W. Owens. 1991. Geographic

information system pilot project for the Upper

Mississippi River System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, National Ecology Research Center, Fort

Collins, Colorado. 48 pp.
23

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and

Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188),

Washington, D.C. 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

Revised December 1995

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Geographic information systems and remote sensing applications for ecosystem management

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

Frank D'Erchia 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

National Biological Service 

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Biological Service 

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

95-P001R

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This report supersedes Program Report 95-P001 dated January 1995. Also appeared in the proceedings of the Ecosystem Management: Applications for sustainable forest

and wildlife resources, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, March 3-4, 1994

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Release unlimited. Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (1-

800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650)

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Ecosystem management requires a more holistic approach than the focused practices of the past. Wildlife management traditionally concentrated on maintenance of specific

habitat types used by a limited number of wildlife species. An ecosystem approach demands that managers take a broader view of the landscape, beyond political boundaries,

and necessitates an understanding of the interrelationships among not only the wildlife and habitat components but also the human component of the ecosystem. Geographic

information systems and remote sensing technologies provide tools for resource managers to use in analyzing ecosystems, allowing the manager to visualize and quantify the

available information. Three case studies using these computer technologies are discussed: a landscape approach to resource management in the Upper Mississippi River

System; a proactive approach to habitat modeling for migratory birds in the Upper Mississippi River corridor; and an overview of Gap Analysis, a national biodiversity effort,

in the context of a tri-state project in the Upper Midwest. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS

GIS, Gap Analysis, ecosystem management, migratory birds, LTRMP, spatial modeling

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

22 pp.

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) for the Upper

Mississippi River System was authorized under the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 as an element of the Environmental Management

Program. The mission of the LTRMP is to provide river managers with

information to maintain the Upper Mississippi River System as a sustainable

large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character. The LTRMP is a

cooperative effort by the National Biological Service, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.