Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program's (EMAP)-Wetlands sampling design and classification

  • Research
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) will monitor the nation's resources by evaluating the status and trends of selected indicators of condition using a probability-based sampling design. The EMAP-Wetlands program will monitor the condition of the nation's wetlands. The EMAP classification system is an aggregation of the many subclasses of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification system. This aggregation results in fewer wetland classes with more wetlands per class than the NWI system. Aggregation of the NWI classification was based primarily on dominant vegetation cover, flooding regimes, dominant water source, and adjacency to rivers and lakes. We evaluated the EMAP classification system and sampling design using NWI digital wetlands data for portions of Illinois, Washington, North Dakota, and South Dakata. Relative numbers of wetlands, total areas, average areas, and common versus rare classes were compared between the EMAP and NWI classification systems. As expected, the EMAP classification provided fewer wetland polygons, each with larger areas, without altering total wetland area. Summary statistics comparing sample estimates to true population parameters (represented by the NWI data) demonstrated the effectiveness of the EMAP sampling design with the exception of rare EMAP classes in the selected regions. Although simple random sampling is inadequate for both large and small wetlands, the EMAP sampling design is readily adapted to provide better estimates for these categories. Aggregating the NWI classification to the EMAP classification provides fewer wetland classes, with more wetlands per class, for EMAP's annual reports and statistical summaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 428 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31, 131 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frayer, W. E., T. J. Monahan, D. C. Bowden, and F. A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the conterminous United States, 1950's to 1970's. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 32 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz, N., L. Squires, and J. Baker, 1991. Research plan for monitoring wetland ecosystems. EPA/600/3-91/010. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon 157 pp plus appendices.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz, N. C., T. L. Ernst, N. S. Urquhart, S. Stehman and D. Roose. 1993. Evaluation of EMAP-Wetlands sampling design using National Wetlands Inventory data. EPA/620/R-93/773. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, G. E. 1974. The Prairie Pothole region: A zone of environmental opportunity.Naturalist 25(4):2 (map).

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the United States. Map at a scale of 1:7,500,000.Annals of the Association of American Geographers (1): supplement.

  • Overton, W. S., D. White, and D. L. Stevens, Jr. 1991. Design report for EMAP, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA 600/3-91/053. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roose, D. V., and K. K. Stout. 1992. GIS methods for reclassifying wetland maps for EMAP sampling and monitoring. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual ESRI User Conference, Palm Springs, California, 19 pp.

  • Snedecor G. W., W. G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 507 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. 1990a. Photointerpretation conventions of the National Wetlands Inventory. Internal document. US Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Peterburg, Florida, 45 pp plus appendices.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. 1990b. Cartographic conventions for the National Wetlands Inventory. Internal document. US Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Florida, 43 pp plus appendices.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilen, B. O. 1990. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory. Pages 9–20in S. J. Kiraly, R. A. Cross, and J. D. Buffington (eds.), Federal coastal wetlands mapping programs. FWS Biological Report 90(18). US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The research in this report has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under contracts 68-C8-0006 to ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc. and 68-03-3532 to The Bionetics Corporation. Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ernst, T.L., Leibowitz, N.C., Roose, D. et al. Evaluation of US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program's (EMAP)-Wetlands sampling design and classification. Environmental Management 19, 99–113 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472007

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472007

Key Words

Navigation