See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258740965

Using Remote Sensing to Select and Monitor Wetland Restoration Sites: An

Overview

Article in Journal of Coastal Research · July 2013

DOI: 10.2307/23486563

CITATIONS READS
51 3,329

1 author:

Victor Klemas
University of Delaware
256 PUBLICATIONS 7,670 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor Klemas on 05 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Coastal Research 29 4 958–970 Coconut Creek, Florida July 2013

Using Remote Sensing to Select and Monitor Wetland

Restoration Sites: An Overview
Victor Klemas

School of Marine Science and Policy

University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
Klemas, V., 2013. Using remote sensing to select and monitor wetland restoration sites: an overview. Journal of Coastal
Research, 29(4), 958–970. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

Coastal and estuarine wetlands represent highly productive and critical habitats for a wide variety of plants and animals
and provide protection from storms and wave damage. However, wetland acreage in the continental United States has
been steadily decreasing mainly as a result of human activities and sea level rise. Major efforts are being made by
federal, state, and local agencies to protect existing wetlands, restore lost wetlands, and improve those stressed by
human activities. The restoration process can involve removing exotic plants, removing bulkheads and fill, elevation
grading, creating flushing channels, and planting native vegetation. Having developed criteria for selecting wetland sites
to be restored or enhanced, wetland managers must prioritize the sites based on ecological and economic considerations.
Remote sensing techniques can provide a cost-effective means for selecting restoration sites and observing their progress
over time. The objective of this paper is to review airborne and satellite remote sensing techniques for identifying
suitable wetland restoration sites and monitoring their progress.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Wetland remote sensing, wetland restoration, restoration site selection, wetland
restoration monitoring.

INTRODUCTION enrichment and eutrophication, decreases in water clarity,

Coastal and estuarine wetlands represent highly productive
habitats for a wide variety of plants, fish, shellfish, reptiles,
mammals, birds, and other wildlife (Odum, 1993; Pinet, 2009).
Wetlands also provide protection from floods, storm surge, and
wave damage; water quality improvement through filtering of
agricultural and industrial waste; and recharge of aquifers.
Wetlands reduce shoreline erosion by absorbing wave action
and protecting shoreline soils with root networks.
Over the past 200 years, wetland acreage in the continental
United States has steadily decreased from about 200 million
acres to an estimated 95 million acres, mainly as a result of
human activities and, more recently, sea level rise (Bedford,
1999; Mayer and Hill, 1993). About one-third of the remaining
acres are located along the coasts. They include salt marshes,
tidal flats, seagrass beds, kelp forests, coral reefs, and other
coastal habitats. The losses of coastal and estuarine wetlands
are caused by conversion to agriculture, transportation,
construction and urbanization, industry, logging, aquaculture,
storm surge, and sea level rise (Klemas, 2009).The environ-
mental quality of wetland habitats is degraded by clearing,
draining, diking, filling, dredging, and shoreline stabilization
(Mayer and Hill, 1993). Furthermore, wetlands are affected by
water diversions and other hydrologic changes, nutrient
DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00170.1 received 30 August 2012;
accepted in revision 23 October 2012 corrected proofs received 25
January 2013.
Published Pre-print online 27 February 2013.
Ó Coastal Education & Research Foundation 2013
toxic spills, and pollutants.
Major efforts are being made by federal, state, and local
agencies to protect existing wetlands, restore some wetlands
that have been lost, and improve the ones stressed by human
activities (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). Large-scale, system-
atic wetland restoration programs were started only in the
early 1970s, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied
the feasibility of creating habitat on dredged material. At
present, there are hundreds of created, restored, or enhanced
tidal marshes and mangrove forests in the United States that
support a wide range of fish and wildlife populations. The
degree of success for many of these restoration sites is still
being debated, especially since there is no full agreement on
criteria used to measure success.
The creation, enhancement, or restoration of coastal habitats
requires much time and constant attention. Seagrass commu-
nities may become fully functional in 3 years, marsh systems
may take 15 or more years, and mangrove and coral reefs can
take decades to recover (Mayer and Hill, 1993; Mitsch and
Gosselink, 2007). Usually, the more complex and highly
developed the habitat, the greater the time and care required
to ensure a successful restoration (Odum, 1993).
The restoration process can involve removing exotic plants,
removing bulkheads and fill, specific elevation grading,
creating flushing channels, and planting native vegetation. In
addition, unconsolidated shorelines may need to be stabilized
and enhanced with vegetation and protective barriers. Many
states are improving recreational opportunities for wetlands by
 Remote Sensing in Monitoring Wetland Restoration 959

Table 1. High-resolution satellite parameters and spectral bands (Digital Globe, 2003; Orbimage, 2003; Parkinson, 2003; Space Imaging, 2003).

IKONOS QuickBird OrbView-3 WorldView-1 GeoEye-1 WorldView-2

Sponsor Space Imaging Digital Globe Orbimage Digital Globe GeoEye DigitalGlobe
Launched September 1999 October 2001 June 2003 September 2007 September 2008 October 2009
Spatial Resolution (m)
Panchromatic 1.0 0.61 1.0 0.5 0.41 0.5
Multispectral 4.0 2.44 4.0 n/a 1.65 2
Spectral Range (nm)
Panchromatic 525–928 450–900 450–900 400–900 450–800 450–800
Coastal blue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 400–450
Blue 450–520 450–520 450–520 n/a 450–510 450–510
Green 510–600 520–600 520–600 n/a 510–580 510–580
Yellow n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 585–625
Red 630–690 630–690 625–695 n/a 655–690 630–690
Red edge n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 705–745
Near-infrared 760–850 760–890 760–900 n/a 780–920 770–1040
Swath width (km) 11.3 16.5 8 17.6 15.2 16.4
Off nadir pointing 6268 6308 6458 6458 6308 6458
Revisit time (days) 2.3–3.4 1–3.5 1.5–3 1.7–3.8 2.1–8.3 1.1–2.7
Orbital altitude (km) 681 450 470 496 681 770

constructing nature trails and greenways, observation towers,
and canoe and boat ramps.
After developing criteria for selecting wetland sites to be
restored or enhanced, wetland managers must prioritize the
sites based on ecological and economic considerations. When
the actual restoration work is completed, they must produce a
well-designed monitoring plan that remains in place over the
life of the restoration, to track progress and take corrective
actions if they are necessary (Daiber, 1986; Milano, 1999;
Zedler, 2000).
Remote sensing offers cost-effective means for selecting sites
that are suitable for restoration and monitoring their progress
after the first phase of restoration is completed. Yet only in few
restoration projects are remote sensing techniques used
systematically and to their fullest potential. The objective of
this paper is to review cost-effective airborne and satellite
remote sensing techniques for identifying suitable wetland
restoration sites and monitoring their progress over time.
REMOTE SENSING OF COASTAL WETLANDS
Advances in technology and decreases in cost are making
remote sensing systems attractive for use in coastal ecosystem
research and management, including wetland restoration
(Kelly and Tuxen, 2009; Klemas, 2011a; Schmidt and Skid-
more, 2003; Yang, 2009). They are also allowing researchers to
take a broader view of ecological patterns and processes
(Malthus and Mumby, 2003; Ozesmi and Bauer, 2002).
Environmental indicators that can be detected by remote
sensors are available to provide quantitative estimates of
coastal and estuarine habitat conditions and trends. Such
indicators include percentage of impervious watershed area,
natural vegetation cover, buffer degradation, wetland loss and
fragmentation, wetland biomass change, invasive species,
water turbidity, chlorophyll concentration, and eutrophication
(Lathrop, Cole, and Showalter, 2000; Underwood et al., 2006;
Wang, 2010). Advances in the application of geographic
information systems (GIS) help to combine remotely sensed
images with other georeferenced data layers, such as digital
elevation models, providing a convenient means for modeling
ecosystem characteristics. A good example is the predictive
modeling of the impact of sea level rise on coastal wetlands
(Church and White, 2006; Dahl, 2006; McInnes et al., 2006; Noe
and Zedler, 2001).
Because wetlands are spatially complex and temporally quite
variable, mapping emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation
requires high-resolution satellite or aircraft imagery and, in
some cases, hyperspectral data (Belluco et al., 2006; Jensen et
al., 2007; Shan and Hussain, 2010; Thomson et al., 1998; Yang,
2009). Traditionally aerial color photography has been used to
map emergent and submerged wetlands. The recent availabil-
ity of high spatial and spectral resolution satellite data, shown
in Table 1, presents another option for mapping wetlands and
general coastal vegetation (Ozesmi and Bauer, 2002). The new
satellites, carrying sensors with fine spatial (1–4 m) or spectral
(200 narrow bands) resolution are also providing the means for
more accurately detecting changes in coastal wetland extent,
ecosystem health, biological productivity, and habitat quality
(Adam, Mutanga, and Rugege, 2010; Klemas, 2011a; Ozesmi
and Bauer, 2002; Wang, 2010; Wang, Christiano, and Traber,
2010; Weatherbee, 2000).
When studying small wetland sites one can use airborne or
high-resolution satellite systems (Jensen, 2007; Klemas,
2011a). Table 1 shows key features of high-resolution satellite
sensors. Accordingly, the high-resolution satellites can provide
0.5 to 1.0 m resolution in panchromatic bands and 2 to 4 m
resolution in multispectral bands, covering the visible and
near-infrared (IR) regions. Airborne georeferenced digital
cameras, providing color and color infrared digital imagery,
are particularly suitable for accurate mapping of wetlands or
interpreting satellite data. Figure 1 shows a wetland map
derived from an airborne digital camera image. At a spatial
resolution of 0.5 m, the ADS-40 digital camera was able to
identify three key species of marsh vegetation, i.e. Phragmites,
Typha, and Spartina.
Most digital cameras are capable of recording reflected
visible to near-infrared light. A filter is placed over the lens
that transmits only selected portions of the wavelength
spectrum. For a single camera operation, a filter is chosen

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013

960
Figure 1. The wetlands map shown on the left was derived from an airborne ADS-40 digital camera image on the right. Credits: NOAA National Ocean Service.
that generates natural color (blue–green–red wavelengths) or
color–infrared (green–red–near IR wavelengths) imagery. For
multiple camera operation, filters that transmit narrower
bands are chosen. For example, a four-camera system may be
configured so that each camera filter passes a band matching a
specific satellite imaging band, e.g. blue, green, red, and near-
infrared bands matching the bands of the IKONOS satellite
(Table 1) multispectral sensor (Ellis and Dodd, 2000).
Digital camera imagery can be integrated with global
positioning system (GPS) position information and used as
layers in a GIS for a wide range of modeling applications (Lyon
and McCarthy, 1995). Small aircraft flown at low altitudes (e.g.
200–500 m) can also be used to supplement field data (McCoy,
2005). However, as shown in Table 2, cost becomes excessive if
the site is larger than a few hundred square kilometers, and in
that case, medium-resolution sensors, such as Landsat
Thematic Mapper (TM) (30 m) and SPOT (20 m), become more
cost effective than the high-resolution systems (Klemas,
2011a).
New image analysis techniques using hyperspectral imagery
and narrow-band vegetation indices have been able to
discriminate some wetland species and estimate biochemical
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
Klemas
and biophysical parameters of wetland vegetation, such as
water content, biomass, and leaf area index (Adam, Mutanga,
and Rugege, 2010; Gilmore et al., 2010; Ozesmi and Bauer,
2002; Pengra, Johnston and Loveland, 2007; Schmidt et al.,
2004; Simard, Fatoyinbo, and Pinto, 2010; Wang, 2010). The
integration of hyperspectral imagery and light detection and
ranging (LIDAR)-derived elevation data has significantly
improved the accuracy of mapping salt marsh vegetation
(Yang and Artigas, 2009; Yang et al., 2009). Major plant
species within a complex, heterogeneous tidal marsh have been
classified using multitemporal high-resolution QuickBird
satellite images, field reflectance spectra, and LIDAR height
information (Hirano, Madden, and Welch, 2003; Ozesmi and
Bauer, 2002; Schmidt et al., 2004).
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology provides the
increased spatial resolution that is necessary in regional
wetland mapping, and SAR data have been used extensively
for this purpose (Bourgeau-Chavez et al., 2005; Lang and
McCarty, 2008; Novo et al., 2002). Furthermore, SAR micro-
wave energy is sensitive to variations in soil moisture and
inundation and is only partially attenuated by vegetation
canopies, especially in areas of lower biomass (Baghdadi,
 Remote Sensing in Monitoring Wetland Restoration 961

Table 2. Imagery acquisition costs (approximate).

Resolution Swathwidth Cost

(m) (km) ($/km2)
Digital camera imagery 0.3a 330
(ADS40)
Aerial hyperspectral (AISA)b 2.3 0.6 175
High resolution satellite 1–4 13 30
(IKONOS)
Medium resolution satellite 30 180 0.02c
(Landsat TM)
a
Cell area ¼ 2.3 3 2.3 km.
b
35 spectral channels (0.44–0.87 lm).
c
$600 per scene (now free of charge).

Gaultier, and King, 2001; Kasischke and Bourgeau-Chavez,

1997; Kasischke et al. 1997; Kasischke, Melack, and Dobson,
1997; Lang and Kasischke, 2008; Rosenqvist et al., 2007;
Townsend, 2000, 2002; Townsend and Walsh, 1998). The
sensitivity of microwave energy to water and its ability to
penetrate vegetative canopies make SAR ideal for the detection
of hydrologic features below the vegetation (Hall, 1996;
Kasischke, Melack, and Dobson, 1997; Kasischke and Bour-
geau-Chavez, 1997; Phinn, Stow, and Van Mouwerik, 1999;
Rao et al., 1999; Wilson and Rashid, 2005). For instance, high-
resolution SARs allow one to distinguish between forested
wetlands and upland forests.
Seagrass beds provide essential habitat for many aquatic
species, stabilize and enrich sediments, dissipate turbulence,
reduce current flow, cycle nutrients, and improve water quality
(Hughes et al., 2009; Macleod and Congalton, 1998; Wolter,
Johnston and Niemi, 2005). However, in many parts of the
world, the health and quantity of seagrass beds has been
declining (Green and Short, 2003; Hemminga and Duarte,
2000; Orth and Moore, 1983; Orth et al., 2006). The main
challenge for remote sensing of submerged aquatic plants is to
isolate the plant signal from the interference of the water
column, the bottom, and the atmosphere. In addition to
atmospheric effects and bottom reflectance, optically active
materials, such as plankton, suspended sediment, and dis-
solved organics, affect the scattering and absorption of
radiation. The green region of the spectrum is considered to
be the best for sensing submerged macrophytes, followed by the
red regions.
The mapping of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), coral
reefs, intertidal habitats, and general bottom characteristics
has benefited from the newly available high-resolution (0.6–4
m) satellite and aerial hyperspectral imagery (Mishra et al.,
2006; Mumby and Edwards, 2002; Philpot et al., 2004; Purkis,
2005; Purkis et al., 2002; Trembanis, Hiller, and Patterson,
2008). High-resolution multispectral data provided by satel-
lites, such as IKONOS and QuickBird, have been used to map
SAV with accuracies of about 75% for classes including high-
density seagrass, low-density seagrass, and unvegetated
bottom (Table 1). Airborne hyperspectral imagers have
improved the SAV and coral reef mapping results by being
able to identify more estuarine and intertidal habitat classes
(Fyfe, 2003; Han and Rundquist, 2003; Midwood and Chow-
Fraser, 2010; Pinnel, Heege, and Zimmermann, 2004; Thom-
son et al. 1998; Underwood et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2003).
Figure 2. Top panel is a true-color EO-1 satellite image of the Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge in the Chesapeake Bay. The inset is a detailed
USGS LIDAR topo-map. Credit: USGS-NASA.
LIDAR techniques, combined with GPS, can provide accu-
rate topographical and bathymetric maps, including shoreline
positions (Ackermann, 1999; Guenther et al., 1996; Krabill et
al., 2000; Lillycrop, Pope, and Wozencraft, 2002). LIDAR
surveys can produce a 10- to 15-cm vertical accuracy at a high
spatial resolution. The LIDAR data are used in many research
and management applications, including flood zone delinea-
tion, monitoring beach nourishment projects, and mapping
changes along sandy coasts and shallow benthic environments
due to storms or long-term sedimentary processes. Typically, a
LIDAR sensor may collect data down to depths of about three
times the Secchi depth. If the depth or the water turbidity is too
great, acoustic echo-sounding is used for bathymetry and
qualitatively characterizing seagrass beds (Hundley, Zablou-
dil, and Norall, 1994; Klemas, 2011b; Miner, 1993; Moreno,
Siljestrom, and Rey, 1998; Morton and Miller, 2005; Sabol et
al., 2002; Schmidt et al., 2011; Spratt, 1989).
Figure 2 shows a successful application of LIDAR in a
restoration project at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
The refuge has been featured prominently in studies of the
impact of sea level rise on coastal wetlands. The marsh is less
than 1 m above sea level, and most of it has been breached and
is being drowned. The severe loss of about 130 acres per year is
caused by sea level rise, damage by geese and nutria, severely
altered hydrology and salinity, and an increase in wave energy
due to greater stretches of open water (Larsen et al., 2004).

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013

962
Without intervention, by the next century the entire refuge will
be submerged. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
developed an inundation model centered on the refuge. LIDAR
mapping of land and shallow water surfaces has provided the
model with the detailed topographical maps upon which future
sea level positions can be superposed. Recent runs of the model
suggest that through a combination of public and private
conservation efforts, the wetland habitat could be sustained at
least for the next 50 years (Larsen et al., 2004).
Limited spatial resolution has been a problem in wetland
studies, resulting in too many mixed pixels. Another problem
has been the complexity of image-processing procedures that
are required before hyperspectral data can be used for
automated classification of wetland vegetation. Furthermore,
the tremendous volume of hyperspectral image data necessi-
tates the use of specific software packages, large data storage
capacity, and extended processing time (Hirano, Madden, and
Welch, 2003). A step-by-step guide for remotely sensing coastal
wetlands and adjacent land cover change is provided in reports
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Coastwatch Project (Dobson et al., 1995).
IDENTIFYING RESTORATION SITES
Wetland losses are mainly due to dredging, filling, impound-
ments, drainage, and other natural or man-made processes.
Wetlands may be degraded by pollution, hydrologic alteration,
and removal of vegetation buffers. Identifying potential
restoration sites and prioritizing them using ecological and
economic criteria is by no means a simple task (Russell,
Hawkins, and O’Neill, 2004; Thayer, 1992; White and Fen-
nessy, 2005). The specific objectives of every restoration project
can be different. The selection criteria for restoring a critical
animal habitat may differ significantly from a project to attract
more tourists to a site. However, broadly speaking, most of the
potential sites fall into one of these categories:
(1) Drained former wetlands (e.g. farmed wetlands, mosquito
ditching)
(2) Impoundments (former vegetated wetlands)
(3) Tidally restricted wetlands
(4) Impounded wetlands (former vegetated wetlands)
(5) Ditched palustrine wetlands
(6) Excavated wetlands
(7) Wetlands fragmented by roads and developments
The selection of sites and planning their restoration involves
the review of historical documents (aerial photos and litera-
ture), field investigations, and aerial or satellite remote sensing
data. Field investigations include topographic, biological,
geotechnical, hydrological, and archeological reviews of the
prospective sites (Milano, 1999). This information also helps to
protect existing natural and cultural resources and to identify
the limits and details of restoration activities. All potential
wetland restoration sites are prioritized by public ownership
(to ensure long-term protection), habitat benefit considerations
to the surrounding natural areas, site accessibility for heavy
equipment, and cost effectiveness (Llewellyn et al., 1996).
The biological assessment includes documenting existing on-
site and surrounding biological communities, including exotic
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
Klemas
species; identifying environmental concerns; and defining
biological goals and construction activities. The hydrographic
evaluation may include surveys of bathymetry, tidal regime,
current velocities, and wave energy (Milano, 1999; Parkinson,
2003). Nearshore restoration projects frequently lack the
required hydrodynamic information necessary for making
informed decisions on modifications to the topography and
hydrology.
The geotechnical evaluation may use a network of fixed
stations along transects to determine subsurface soil charac-
teristics by such techniques as excavation of test pits, soil
borings, ground penetrating radar, and electronic conductivity.
The detailed soil characteristics (type, grain size, distribution,
color, etc.) not only help define the wetland characteristics, but
are also useful in developing a soil disposal strategy, since the
reestablishment of altered historical wetlands typically in-
volves the excavation, removal, and disposal of large amounts
of fill.
A topographic survey involves transferring elevation infor-
mation from fixed benchmarks to a network of on-site stations,
or by aerial photogrammetric or LIDAR mapping. In a
photogrammetric survey an area is mapped by viewing
overlapping aerial photos through stereoscopes and digitizing
contours over the three-dimensional image. This technique is
particularly cost effective at large sites that have only sparse
vegetation. Sites that may contain historical archeological
artifacts must usually be inspected by an archeologist prior to
clearing activities. Federal, state, and local permits are
required for all restoration work (Milano, 1999).
Despite the growing use of remote sensing for wetland
inventory and monitoring, there has been limited use of this
technology for restoring wetlands (Phinn, Stow, and Van
Mouwerik, 1999; Hinkle and Mitsch, 2005). Furthermore,
there is a growing consensus about the need to examine
restoration projects at the landscape scale and to develop
landscape-based tools for monitoring restoration progress
(Simenstad, Reed, and Ford, 2006; Tuxen et al., 2008). Remote
sensing is ideal for monitoring restored wetlands because it can
provide high spatial and temporal resolution at landscape
scales. It also allows for measurements in inaccessible and
sensitive sites, without the potential invasiveness that tradi-
tional field methods present to delicate habitat conditions, bird
nesting areas, or endangered species habitat (Shuman and
Ambrose, 2003). Thus remote sensing allows for broad-scale
estimation of many parameters valuable to ecologists, includ-
ing land cover, vegetation structure, biophysical characteris-
tics, and habitat areas (Higinbotham, Alber, and Chalmers,
2004; Thomson et al., 2003; Wulder et al., 2004).
As described in the previous section, medium-resolution
satellite sensors, such as Landsat TM, can provide land cover
information for large coastal watersheds. At 20–30 m resolu-
tion they can map entire watersheds, including plant cover and
hydrology, and provide a broader view of ecological patterns
and processes (Ozesmi and Bauer, 2002; Ramsey, 1995;
Ramsey and Rangoonwala, 2010). Within this broad view one
can switch to high-resolution airborne or satellite imagery to
study specific, critical wetland sites and, with additional layers
of data (e.g. topography, hydrology, soil type) in a GIS, select
the sites most suitable for restoration or enhancement. High-
 Remote Sensing in Monitoring Wetland Restoration 963

Figure 3. Images showing vegetation, inundation, and hydrologic changes at the MNCA site between 1999 and 2001. On the left is an AISA hyperspectral image
of 1-m resolution obtained on 18 September 1999. On the right is an IKONOS satellite image of merged 1-m resolution captured on 24 August 2001. Modified and
reproduced with permission from Field and Philipp (2000a).

resolution multispectral or hyperspectral imagery can identify
plants and other land cover types. Airborne LIDAR can map
the topography/bathymetry, while SAR can help outline the
hydrologic network (Kelly and Tuxen, 2009; Klemas, 2011b;
Lillycrop, Pope, and Wozencraft, 2002).
An interesting example of using remotely sensed imagery to
identify a potential restoration site is the study of the Milford
Neck Conservation Area (MNCA), which is located along the
southwestern shore of Delaware Bay (Field and Philipp, 2011a,
2011b). Historical aircraft photographs and more recent aerial
and satellite images, some obtained at different seasons, were
used to examine environmental changes that have taken place
for over 60 years at this dynamic site. The complex, dynamic
landscape of this site is characterized by a transgressing
shoreline, extensive tidal wetlands, island hammocks, and
upland forests. A canal (Greco’s Canal) separates the site from
a narrow barrier beach along Delaware Bay. The barrier beach
of the Milford Neck Conservation Area was breached during
the winter of 1985–86, making a direct connection between
Delaware Bay and Greco’s Canal. The breach through the
barrier beach resulted in a much shorter and direct linkage of
the marsh to the tidal forcing of Delaware Bay. This has
changed the tide regimes experienced in the various sections of
the marsh and the resulting patterns of tide marsh vegetation.
These changes in the shoreline and tidal marsh have produced
a dramatic habitat conversion and loss that may have
significant immediate and long-term impacts on the biological
resources and ecological integrity of the MNCA (Field and
Philipp, 2000a).
In Figure 3, airborne hyperspectral (AISA) imagery and
IKONOS satellite imagery is used to illustrate that in just 2
years, from 1999 to 2001, the areas of open water plus scoured
mud banks increased by about 50% as a result of the increased
tidal flushing after the canal breach. Since the canal breach
allowed tidal waters to flow directly into the marshes, the
average width of some major creeks changed from 5.1 to 7.3 m,
and the bank widths affected by tidal scouring increased from
about 9.1 to 16.2 m (Field and Philipp, 2000a). The improved
understanding of the processes occurring at this rapidly
changing site is helping wetland managers decide whether to
intervene in the hydraulic regime by channel modification in
order to accelerate or delay marsh development in a particular
direction.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013

964
In 2004 NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve
System (NERRS) Program funded a team of remote sensing
experts to compare the cost, accuracy, reliability, and user-
friendliness of four remote sensing approaches for mapping
land cover, emergent wetlands, and submerged aquatic
vegetation (Porter et al., 2006). Four NERRS test sites were
selected for the project, including the Ashapoo, Combahee,
Edisto (ACE) basin, South Carolina; Grand Bay, Michigan; St.
Jones River and Blackbird Creek, Delaware; and Padilla Bay,
Washington. The four remote sensing systems evaluated
include the hyperspectral Airborne Imaging Spectrometer for
Applications (AISA), aerial multispectral (ADS-40) Digital
Modular Camera, IKONOS (or QuickBird) high-resolution
satellite, and Landsat TM. In the NERRS study, the highest
accuracy for mapping clusters of different plant species over
small critical areas was obtained by visually analyzing
orthophotos produced by airborne digital cameras. The visual
interpretation was performed after image segmentation and
with the help of field training sites visited before and after the
interpretation process. For larger sites, combining IKONOS
and Landsat TM proved cost effective and user friendly, when
the Landsat TM imagery was used to map land cover for the
large site or entire watershed and the IKONOS high-resolution
imagery was used for detailed mapping of critical NERRS areas
or those identified by Landsat TM as having changed. A
particularly effective technique developed by the team is based
on using biomass change as a habitat change indicator
(Klemas, 2011a; Porter et al., 2006).
Some practical recommendations based on the NOAA/
NERRS are as follows:
(1) The cost per square kilometer of imagery and its analysis
rises very rapidly as one goes from medium-resolution to
high-resolution imagery. Therefore, large wetland areas
or entire watersheds should be mapped using medium-
resolution sensors (e.g. Landsat TM at 30 m), and only
small, critical areas should be examined with high-
resolution sensors (e.g. IKONOS at 1–4 m or airborne
digital cameras).
(2) Multispectral imagery should be used for most applica-
tions, with hyperspectral imagery reserved for difficult
species identification cases, larger budgets, and highly
experienced image analysts.
(3) Airborne digital camera imagery is not only useful for
mapping wetlands, but is also helpful in interpreting
satellite images.
(4) The combined use of LIDAR, radar, and multispectral/
hyperspectral imagery can improve the accuracy of
emergent and submerged aquatic species discrimination
and provide a better understanding of the topography/
bathymetry and hydrologic conditions.
(5) High-resolution imagery is more sensitive to within-class
spectral variance, making separation of spectrally mixed
land cover types more difficult. Therefore, pixel-based
techniques are sometimes replaced by object-based
methods, which incorporate spatial neighborhood prop-
erties. In the object-based approach the image is
segmented/partitioned into a series of closed objects that
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
Klemas
coincide with the actual spatial pattern, and only then
classified (Wang, Sousa, and Gong, 2004).
MONITORING RESTORATION SUCCESS
It is critical to design and implement a monitoring approach
that remains in place over the entire restoration, not just the
early stages, to track progress and suggest corrective actions.
Constant feedback on restoration performance is very impor-
tant, if success is to be attained. In order to select the most cost-
efficient remote sensing and field techniques, scientists must be
familiar with the changes in plant cover, plant stress,
hydrology, etc. that need to be monitored as the restoration
progresses (Hinkle and Mitsch, 2005; Zedler, 1996).
Success criteria for restoration projects are often based on
ongoing planting survivability and habitat use by relevant
animal species. Animal assessments at restored sites can be
conducted by volunteer wildlife experts and even local school
groups (Delphey and Dinsmore, 1993; Fletcher and Koford,
2003; Ratti et al., 2001). Planting survivability is often
determined qualitatively using photo-stations and quantita-
tively using the fixed-quadrat and line-intercept methods
within the restored wetlands. Even though success criteria
differ for nearly every type of site, planting sites have been
considered successful if they have overall planting survival
rates in the range of 65% to 80%.
Wetland restoration is designed to restore the functions and
values of wetland ecosystems that have been altered or
impacted through removal of vegetation, cropping, construc-
tion, filling, grading, and changes in water levels and drainage
patterns. Processes occurring outside the wetland such as
influx of sediments, fragmentation, loss of recharge area, or
changes in local drainage patterns can also alter functions of
wetlands. Thus the main goal of a wetland restoration is to
attempt to restore the hydrology and vegetation back to their
original condition and to ensure ecological integrity (Melesse et
al., 2007; Zedler, 2000). However, in many cases original
conditions may not be achievable.
The actual restoration process may have involved removing
exotic plants, removing bulkheads and fill, specific elevation
grading, creating flushing channels, and planting native
vegetation. In addition, unconsolidated shorelines may have
been stabilized and enhanced with vegetation and protective
barriers. For instance, the Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program seeks to achieve the following goals:
to improve water quality, increase wildlife populations, control
nuisance plants, control mosquitoes, control flooding, reduce
shoreline erosion, and improve educational and recreational
opportunities (DNREC, 1994).
To improve water quality requires reestablishing marsh
hydrology, including daily tidal exchange between marsh and
river. Water control structures can be installed, permitting the
tides to flush nutrients and organisms into and out of the
marsh as well as increase the volume of water that can be
cleansed by the wetland (Artigas and Yang, 2004). Pollution
inputs to the wetland, conveyed during storms, must be
controlled by implementing non–point source control plans.
Wildlife populations can be increased by increasing the
diversity of shallow water habitats (e.g. ponds, ditches,
 Remote Sensing in Monitoring Wetland Restoration
islands), constructing duck and songbird boxes, establishing
preferred food and cover plants, and adjusting water levels to
accommodate the needs of aquatic mammals, water birds, and
endangered species.
Nuisance plants, such as Phragmites, can overtake a
wetland, forming dense stands of little value to wildlife.
However, since even Phragmites can provide suitable habitat
for some species, especially if it is interspersed among other
plants, the goal might be to control its spread rather than
totally eradicate it (DNREC, 1994; Pengra, Johnston, and
Loveland, 2007).
Historically wetlands were drained using ditches to control
mosquitoes. However, when the marsh was flooded by heavy
rains or unusual tides, the wetland surface created a prime egg-
laying site for floodwater mosquitoes, permitting eggs to hatch
and larvae to develop. Removal of ditches by filling or other
methods is being considered as a restoration alternative in
many wetlands. Since the average time for such ditches to
naturally fill can take centuries, active filling of ditches is being
attempted (Corman et al., 2012). To decrease the use of
insecticides, the abundance of mosquito-eating fish and insects
can be increased or their access to mosquito-breeding areas
improved (Lathrop, Cole, and Showalter, 2000).
Since wetlands soak up water during heavy rains, some of
Delaware’s wetland rehabilitation efforts have focused on
installing new water control structures to expedite floodwater
removal without flooding adjacent areas (DNREC, 1994).
Water levels were manipulated to facilitate vegetation changes
in coastal lagoons undergoing partial tidal restoration. One-
way tide gates were implemented that let high tides into the
lagoons, while blocking their escape. The resulting increased
flooding of the marsh raised porewater salinities and resulted
in decreases in the cover of freshwater and brackish-water
plants, helping establish and expand native halophytes
(Artigas and Young, 2004; DNREC, 1994; Smith and Medeiros,
2012).
Vegetation cover and groundwater changes over the period of
restoration are perhaps the two most important indicators of
the level of success in wetland eco-hydrological restoration
(Phinn, 1998; Tuxen et al., 2000). For more detailed monitor-
ing, Natural Habitat Integrity Indices have been developed,
including
(1) Natural Cover Index
(2) Stream Corridor Integrity Index
(3) Wetland and Other Water Body Buffer Index
(4) Wetland Extent Index
(5) Standing Water Body Extent Index
(6) Dammed Stream Flowage Index
(7) Channelized Stream Length Index
(8) Wetland Disturbance Index
(9) Index of Remotely Sensed Natural Habitat Integrity
Detailed definitions of these indices are provided in Tiner et
al. (2001) and Lopez and Fennessy (2002).The indices can
range from zero to one, with a pristine watershed having an
index of 1.0 for natural habitat integrity. Even though remote
sensing is mentioned only in some of these indices, it can
provide valuable information on most of them, as discussed in
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
965
an earlier section of this paper. For instance, planting sites,
plant survival rates, and spread of nuisance plants can be
monitored using high-resolution airborne or satellite imagers
(Pengra, Johnston and Loveland, 2007; Phinn, Stow, and
Zedler, 2006; Tiner et al., 2001).
Restoration success assessments often target the quantity
and quality of vegetation communities (Boyd and Davies,
2012). An Index of Ecosystem Integrity was used by Staszak
and Armitage (2012) to determine whether estuarine emergent
marsh restoration projects (Galveston, Texas) that had
successfully achieved permit-mandated plant coverage were
comparable to reference sites at an ecosystem level. They used
a Rapid Assessment Method developed specifically for this
habitat to compare restored (ages 5–15 years) and reference
marshes. Thirteen biotic and abiotic characteristics were used
to calculate an ecosystem index score, where a pristine habitat
would score 100%. Restored marshes scored 75% as compared
with 81% for reference marshes, which is typical for urbanized
estuaries. Reference sites also had more epifauna, while
restored sites had practically none. Furthermore, older
restored sites had higher plant diversity and belowground
plant biomass than younger restored sites (Staszak and
Armitage, 2012).
Some of the more common restoration assessment products
include wetland trend studies, landscape-level functional
assessments, and natural habitat indicators. For instance,
changes in functions may include surface water detention,
streamflow maintenance, nutrient transformation, sediment
retention, shoreline stabilization, storm surge detention, fish/
shellfish habitat, waterfowl/waterbird habitat, and other
wildlife habitat (Tiner, 2004).
A wide range of remote sensors is available for monitoring
restoration progress, including changes in wetlands extent and
quality, wetland function, wetland and water body buffers,
land use and land cover in watershed, extent of ditching, and
water quality, such as turbidity and eutrophication (Phinn,
Stow, and Van Mouwerik, 1999; Phinn, Stow, and Zedler, 2006;
Selvam et al., 2003; Shuman and Ambrose, 2003; Tiner, 1996).
To monitor long-term trends and short-term variations in
restored wetlands, one needs to analyze time-series of remotely
sensed imagery (Coppin et al., 2004; Klemas, 2011a; Morris et
al., 2002; Purkis and Klemas, 2011). A traditional way has been
to visually compare multidate images to identify improvements
or losses in the restored wetlands.
Nowadays computer-based change detection techniques are
often being used. Performing computer-based change analysis
between digital images is a difficult task, since the imagery
must be acquired under similar environmental conditions (e.g.
same time of year, sun angle, etc.) and in similar spectral
bands. In the preprocessing of multidate images the most
critical steps are the registration of the multidate images and
their radiometric rectification. Registration accuracies of a
fraction of a pixel must be attained. Detecting the actual
changes between two corrected images from different dates can
be accomplished by employing one of several techniques,
including postclassification comparison and spectral image
differencing (Houhoulis and Michener, 2000; Jensen, 1996).
More research is needed to compare and improve the various
change detection techniques, especially for complex coastal
966
landscapes containing wetlands and submerged aquatic vege-
tation (Baker et al., 2007; Lunetta and Elvidge, 1998; Shalabi
and Tateishi, 2007; Yuan, Elvidge, and Lunetta, 1998).
Vegetation indices have often been used to monitor the
extent and changes in wetland vegetation cover (Eastwood et
al., 1997; Lyon et al., 1998). A study illustrating practical
monitoring of a restored site by remote sensing has been
described by Tuxen et al. (2008). In that study a semiautomated
technique using color infrared aerial photography and the
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) were used to
document vegetation colonization in a restoring salt marsh.
Changes in vegetation over a period of 10 years was analyzed
using a postclassification comparison change detection tech-
nique where each image year was classified individually into
vegetated and nonvegetated areas using NDVI thresholds and
then differenced between years to identify areas of vegetation
change. Periods of vegetation change were also identified. A
comparison of the classified NDVI imagery determined that
90% of the study site was vegetated 10 years after restoration.
The study demonstrated that high-resolution remotely sensed
data can be analyzed with common geospatial software to
monitor change in a rapidly vegetating wetland and that long
time frames with yearly image acquisition are needed to
quantify plant colonization rates (Tuxen et al., 2008). This
method was effective even using imagery that had inconsistent
specifications and quality across years. Inconsistencies includ-
ed interannual climate variations, phenology, and presence of
algae. Differences in pixel size and image brightness had to be
corrected and adjusted. Nonetheless, the results clearly show
that even relatively simple remote sensing techniques can be
used for postrestoration monitoring of tidal marsh ecosystems.
NOAA has compiled a comprehensive manual on how to plan
and conduct the monitoring of coastal habitat restoration
projects. The manual provides means for detecting early
warnings that the restoration is not ‘‘on track,’’ to gauge how
well a restoration site is functioning, to evaluate ecological
status before and after project completion, and to coordinate
projects and efforts for consistent, successful restoration
(NOAA, 2010).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Coastal and estuarine wetlands represent highly produc-
tive and critical habitats for a wide variety of plants and
animals. Wetlands also provide protection from floods, storm
surge, and wave damage; water quality improvement
through filtering of agricultural and industrial waste; and
recharge of aquifers. However, over the past 200 years,
wetland acreage in the continental United States has
steadily decreased from about 200 million acres to an
estimated 95 million acres, mainly as a result of human
activities and, more recently, sea level rise.
Major efforts are being made by federal, state, and local
agencies to protect existing wetlands, restore lost wetlands,
and improve those stressed by human activities. Wetland
restoration is designed to restore the functions and values of
wetland ecosystems that have been altered or impacted
through removal of vegetation, cropping, construction,
filling, grading, and changes in water levels and drainage
patterns.
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
Klemas
Remote sensing offers cost-effective means for selecting sites
that are suitable for restoration and for monitoring their
progress after the first phase of restoration is completed. A
wide range of remote sensors is available for detecting changes
in wetland extent and quality, wetland function, wetland and
water body buffers, land use and land cover in watersheds,
extent of ditching, and water quality (turbidity, eutrophica-
tion).
Environmental indicators that can be detected by remote
sensors are available to provide quantitative estimates of
coastal and estuarine habitat conditions and trends. Such
indicators include percentage of impervious watershed area,
natural vegetation cover, buffer degradation, wetland loss and
fragmentation, wetland biomass change, invasive species,
water turbidity, chlorophyll concentration, and eutrophication.
Some of the changes that are difficult to detect by remote
sensing include hydrologic alteration from groundwater with-
drawal, diversions, and tile drainage. Furthermore, remote
sensors have difficulty detecting chemical contamination,
certain water pollutants, and some invasive species.
Some of the more common restoration assessment products
include wetland trend studies, landscape-level functional
assessments, and natural habitat indicators. For instance,
changes in wetland functions may include surface water
detention, stream-flow maintenance, nutrient transformation,
sediment retention, shoreline stabilization, storm surge deten-
tion, fish/shellfish habitat, waterfowl/water bird habitat, and
other wildlife habitat.
Limited spatial resolution has been a problem in wetland
studies, resulting in too many mixed pixels. Another problem
has been the complexity of image-processing procedures that
are required before hyperspectral data can be used for
automated classification of wetland vegetation. The tremen-
dous volume of hyperspectral image data necessitates the use
of specific software packages, large data storage capacity, and
extended processing time.
Future research priorities should include better understand-
ing and description of ecosystem characteristics, the functional
interpretation of wetland maps, and the radiative properties of
coastal environments. Additional knowledge is required about
the spatial and temporal variations of water column optical
properties and their constituents. Best approaches for process-
ing hyperspectral data need to be further investigated, and
hyperspectral sensors need to be tested for bottom type
discrimination using data obtained from satellites. Finally
there is a need to investigate improvements to be gained from
synergistic use of multiwavelength remote sensing approaches,
change detection techniques, multitemporal comparisons, and
knowledge-based approaches for improving classification ac-
curacy (Malthus and Mumby, 2003).
In sum, we can conclude that when remote sensing
techniques are used wisely, including complementary combi-
nations of different satellite and airborne sensors, they can
provide data that enhance the research, management, and
restoration of coastal ecosystems. Remote sensors used in
wetland restoration projects can monitor and assess long-term
trends and short-term changes of vegetation and hydrology
faster, more completely, and at lower cost per unit area than
field surveys alone.
 Remote Sensing in Monitoring Wetland Restoration
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by the NOAA Sea
Grant and by the NASA EPSCoR Programs at the University
of Delaware.
LITERATURE CITED
Ackermann, F., 1999. Airborne laser scanning—present status and
future expectations. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing, 54, 64–67.
Adam, E.; Mutanga, O., and Rugege, D., 2010. Multispectral and
hyperspectral remote sensing for identification and mapping of
wetland vegetation: a review. Wetlands Ecology and Management,
18, 281–296.
Artigas, F.J. and Yang, J., 2004. Hyperspectral remote sensing of
habitat heterogeneity between tide-restricted and tide-open areas
in the New Jersey Meadowlands. Urban Habitats, 2, 112–127.
Baghdadi, N.; Gaultier, S., and King, Ch., 2001. Retrieving surface
roughness and soil moisture from SAR data using neural networks.
In: Wilson, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Retrieval of Bio- and Geophysical Parameters from
SAR Data for Land Applications (11–14 September 2001; Sheffield,
UK). Noordwijk, the Netherlands: ESA.
Baker, C.; Lawrence, R.L.; Montage, C., and Patten, D., 2007. Change
detection of wetland ecosystems using Landsat imagery and
change vector analysis. Wetlands, 27, 610–619.
Bedford, B.L., 1999. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: Links
to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada.
Wetlands, 19, 775–788.
Belluco, E.; Camuffo, M.; Ferrari, S.; Modenese, L.; Silvestri, S.;
Marani, A., and Marani, M., 2006. Mapping salt-marsh vegetation
by multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 105, 54–67.
Bourgeau-Chavez, L.L.; Smith, K.B.; Brunzell, S.M.; Kasischke, E.S.;
Romanowicz, E.A., and Richardson, C.J., 2005. Remote monitoring
of regional inundation patterns and hydroperiod in the Greater
Everglades using Synthetic Aperture Radar. Wetlands, 25, 176–
191.
Boyd, C.S. and Davies, K.W., 2012. Spatial variability in cost and
success of revegetation in a Wyoming Big Sagebrush community.
Environmental Management, 50, 441–450.
Church, J.A. and White, N.J., 2006. A 20th century acceleration of
global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602.
Coppin, P.; Jonckhere, I.; Nackaerts, K.; Mays, B., and Lambin, E.,
2004. Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: a
review. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25, 1565–1596.
Corman, S.S.; Roman, C.T.; King, J.W., and Appleby, P.G., 2012. Salt
marsh mosquito- control ditches: sedimentation, landscape change,
and restoration implications. Journal of Coastal Research, 28, 874–
880.
Dahl, T.E., 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous
United States 1998 to 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Publication, 112p.
Daiber, F.C. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 368p.
Delphey, P.J. and Dinsmore, J.J., 1993. Breeding bird communities of
recently restored and natural prairie potholes. Wetlands, 13, 200–
206.
Digital Globe. 2003. Quickbird Imagery Products and Product Guide
(revision 4). Longmont, Colorado: Digital Globe, 2p.
DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control). 1994. Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation
Program. Dover, Delaware: DNREC. p. 1–6.
Dobson, J.E.; Bright, E.A.; Ferguson, R.L.; Field, D.W.; Wood, L.L.;
Haddad, K.D.; Iredale III, H.; Jensen, J.R.; Klemas, V.V.; Orth,
R.J., and Thomas, J.P., 1995. NOAA coastal change analysis
program (C-CAP): guidance for regional implementation. 92p.
[Prepared for CoastWatch Change Analysis Project, Coastal Ocean
Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce]. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
967
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Report NMFS
123.
Eastwood, J.A.; Yates, M.G.; Thomson, A.G., and Fuller, R.M., 1997.
The reliability of vegetation indices for monitoring saltmarsh
vegetation cover. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 18,
3901–3907.
Ellis, J.M. and Dodd, H.S., 2000. Applications and lessons learned
with airborne multispectral imaging. In: Fourteenth International
Conference on Applied Geologic Remote Sensing (Las Vegas,
Nevada).
Field, R.T. and Philipp, K.R., 2000a. Tidal inundation, vegetation
type, and elevation at Milford Neck Wildlife Conservation Area: an
exploratory analysis. Report prepared for Delaware Division of Fish
and Wildlife, under contract AGR 199990726 and the Nature
Conservancy under contract DEFO- 0215000-01.
Field, R.T. and Philipp, K.R., 2000b. Vegetation changes in the
freshwater tidal marsh of the Delaware estuary. Wetlands Ecology
and Management, 8, 79–88.
Fletcher, R.J. and Koford, R.R., 2003. Changes in breeding bird
populations with habitat restoration in northern Iowa. American
Midland Naturalist, 150, 83–94.
Fyfe, S.K., 2003. Are seagrasses spectrally distinct? Limnology and
Oceanography, 48, 464–479.
Gilmore, M.S.; Civco, D.L.; Wilson, E.H.; Barrett, N.; Prisloe, S.;
Hurd, J.D., and Chadwick, C., 2010. Remote sensing and in situ
measurements for delineation and assessment of coastal marshes
and their constituent species. In: Wang, J. (ed.), Remote Sensing of
Coastal Environment. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC, 423p.
Green, E.P. and Short, F.T., 2003. World Atlas of Seagrasses. San
Francisco: University of California Press, 310p.
Guenther, G.C.; Tomas, R.W.L., and Larocque, P.E., 1996. Design
considerations for achieving high accuracy with the SHOALS
bathymetric LiDAR system. SPIE: Laser Remote Sensing of
Natural Waters: From Theory to Practice, 15, 54–71.
Hall, D.K., 1996. Remote sensing applications to hydrology: imaging
radar. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 41, 609–624.
Han, L. and Rundquist, D., 2003. The spectral responses of
Cerathophyllum demersum at varying depths in an experimental
tank. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24, 859–864.
Hemminga, M.A. and Duarte, C.M., 2000. Seagrass Ecology. Cam-
bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 298p.
Higinbotham, C.B.; Alber, M., and Chalmers, A.G., 2004. Analysis of
tidal marsh vegetation patterns in two Georgia estuaries using
aerial photography and GIS. Estuaries, 27, 670–683.
Hinkle, R.L. and Mitsch, W.J., 2005. Salt marsh vegetation recovery
at salt hay farm wetland restoration sites on Delaware Bay.
Ecological Engineering, 25, 240–251.
Hirano, A.; Madden, M., and Welch, R., 2003. Hyperspectral image
data for mapping wetland vegetation. Wetlands, 23, 436–448.
Houhoulis, P. and Michener, W., 2000. Detecting wetland change: a
rule-based approach using NWI and SPOT-XS data. Photogram-
metric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66, 205–211.
Hughes, A.R.; Williams, S.L.; Duarte, C.M.; Heck, K.L., Jr., and
Waycott, M., 2009. Associations of concern: declining seagrasses
and threatened dependent species. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 7, 242–246.
Hundley, A.; Zabloudil, K., and Norall, T., 1994. A review of acoustic
applications for marine resource examination and monitoring. In:
Proceedings of the Sixth Pacific Congress on Marine Science and
Technology (Townsville, Queensland, James Cook University).
Jensen, J.R., 1996. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote
Sensing Perspective, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 316p.
Jensen, J.R., 2007. Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth
Resource Perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall. 592p.
Jensen, R.R.; Mausel, P.; Dias, N.; Gonser, R.; Yang, C.; Everitt, J.,
and Fletcher, R., 2007. Spectral analysis of coastal vegetation and
land cover using AISAþ hyperspectral data. Geocarto Internation-
al, 22, 17–28.
968
Kasischke, E. and Bourgeau-Chavez, L., 1997. Monitoring South
Florida wetlands using ERS-1 SAR imagery. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 63, 281–291.
Kasischke, E.; Bourgeau-Chavez, L.; Smith, K.; Romanowicz, E., and
Richardson, C., 1997. Monitoring hydropatterns in South Florida
ecosystems using ERS SAR data, In: 3rd ERS Symposium on Space
at the Service of our Environment, (Florence, Italy), Paris: ESA, pp.
71–76.
Kasischke, E.; Melack, J., and Dobson, M., 1997. The use of imaging
radars for ecological applications—a review. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 59, 141–156.
Kelly, M. and Tuxen, K., 2009. Remote sensing support for tidal
wetland vegetation research and management. In: Yang, X. (ed.),
Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technologies for Coastal Ecosystem
Assessment and Management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 561p.
Klemas, V., 2009. The role of remote sensing in predicting and
determining coastal storm impacts. Journal of Coastal Research,
25(6), 1264–1275.
Klemas, V., 2011a. Remote sensing of wetlands: case studies
comparing practical techniques. Journal of Coastal Research, 27,
418–427.
Klemas, V., 2011b. Beach profiling and LIDAR bathymetry: an
overview with case studies. Journal of Coastal Research, 27,
1019–1028.
Krabill, W.B.; Wright, C.W.; Swift, R.N.; Frederick, E.B.; Manizades,
S.S.; Yungel, J.K.; Martin, C.F.; Sonntag, J.G.; Duffy, M.; Huls-
lander, W., and Brock, J.C., 2000. Airborne laser mapping of
Assateague National Seashore Beach. Photogrammetric Engineer-
ing and Remote Sensing, 66, 65–71.
Lang, M.W. and Kasischke, E.S. 2008. Using C-band synthetic
aperture radar data to monitor forested wetland hydrology in
Maryland’s Coastal Plain. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, 4, 535–546.
Lang, M.W. and McCarty, G.W., 2008. Remote sensing data for
regional wetland mapping in the United States: trends and future
prospects. In: Russo, R.E. (ed.), Wetlands: Ecology, Conservation
and Restoration. Hauppauge, New York: Nova, pp. 1–40.
Larsen, C.; Clark, I.; Guntenspergen, G.; Cahoon, D.; Caruso, V.;
Hupp, C., and Yanosky, T., 2004. The Blackwater NWR Inundation
Model. USGS Open File Report 04–1302. 18 August 2004.
Lathrop, R.G.; Cole, M.B. and Showalter, R.D., 2000. Quantifying the
habitat structure and spatial pattern of New Jersey (U.S.A.) salt
marshes under different management regimes. Wetlands Ecology
and Management, 8, 163–172.
Lillycrop, W.J.; Pope, R.W., and Wozencraft, J.M., 2002. Airborne lidar
hydrography: a vision for tomorrow. Sea Technology, 43, 27–34.
Llewellyn, D.W.; Shaffer, G.P.; Craig, N.J.; Creasman, L.; Pashley,
D.; Swan, M., and Brown, C., 1996. A decision-support system for
prioritizing restoration sites on the Mississippi River alluvial plain.
Conservation Biology, 10, 1446–1455.
Lopez, R.D. and Fennessy, M.S., 2002. Testing the floristic quality
assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological
Applications, 12, 487–497.
Lunetta, R.S. and Elvidge, C.D., 1998. Remote Sensing Change
Detection: Environmental Monitoring Methods and Applications.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 318p.
Lyon, J.G.; Ding, Y.; Lunetta, R.S., and Elvidge, C.D., 1998. A change
detection experiment using vegetation indices. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 64, 143–150.
Lyon, J.G. and McCarthy, J., 1995. Wetland and Environmental
Applications of GIS. New York: Lewis.
Macleod, R.D. and Congalton, R.G., 1998. A quantitative comparison
of change detection algorithms for monitoring eelgrass from
remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, 64, 207–216.
Malthus, T.J. and Mumby, P.J., 2003. Remote sensing of the coastal
zone: an overview and priorities for future research. International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 24, 2805–2815.
Mayer, G.F. and Hill, P.C., 1993. Bringing back coastal wetlands: the
science of restoration. University of Maryland Sea Grant Publica-
tion. Marine Notes, February 1993. pp. 1–4.
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
Klemas
McCoy, R., 2005. Field Methods in Remote Sensing. New York:
Guilford. 159p.
McInnes, K.L.; Walsh, K.J.E.; Hubbert, G.D. and Beer, T., 2003.
Impact of sea-level rise and storm surge on a coastal community.
Natural Hazards, 30, 187–207
Melesse, A.M.; Nangia, V.; Wang, X., and McClain, M., 2007. Wetland
restoration response analysis using MODIS and groundwater data.
Sensors, 7, 1916–1933.
Midwood, J.D. and Chow-Fraser, P., 2010. Mapping floating and
emergent aquatic vegetation in coastal wetlands of Eastern
Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Canada. Wetlands, 30, 1141–1152.
Milano, G.R., 1999. Restoration of coastal wetlands in Southeastern
Florida. Wetland Journal, 11, 15–22.
Miner, S.P., 1993. Application of acoustic hydrosurvey technology to
the mapping of eelgrass (Zostera marina) distribution in Humboldt
Bay, California. In: Coastal Zone ‘93. Proceedings of the 8th
Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, (19–23 July 1993,
New Orleans, Louisiana).
Mishra, D.; Narumalani, S.; Rundquist, D., and Lawson, M., 2006.
Benthic habitat mapping in tropical marine environments using
QuickBird multispectral data. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, 72, 1037–1048.
Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G., 2007. Wetlands. New York: Wiley,
600p.
Moreno, A.; Siljestrom, P., and Rey, J., 1998. Benthic phanerogam
species recognition in side scan sonar images: Importance of the
sensor direction. In: Alippi, A. and Cannelli, G.B. (eds.), Proceed-
ings 4th European Conference on Underwater Acoustics (Rome,
Italy), Italian National Research Council, p. 173–178.
Morris, J.T.; Sundareshwar, P.V.; Nietch, C.T.; Kjerfve, B., and
Cahoon, D.R., 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea
level. Ecology, 83, 2869–287.
Morton, R.A. and Miller, T.L., 2005. National assessment of shoreline
change: Part 2. Historical shoreline change and associated coastal
land loss along the US southeast Atlantic coast. US Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2005-1401.
Mumby, P.J. and Edwards, A.J., 2002. Mapping marine environments
with IKONOS imagery: enhanced spatial resolution can deliver
greater thematic accuracy. Remote Sensing of Environment, 82,
248–257.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010.
Returning the Tide: A Tidal Hydrology Restoration guidance Manual
for the Southeastern U.S. NOAA Restoration Center and NOAA
Coastal Services Center. Silver Spring, Maryland: NOAA, 216p.
Noe, G.B. and Zedler, J.B., 2001. Variable rainfall limits the
germination of upper intertidal marsh plants in Southern Cal-
ifornia. Estuaries, 24, 30–40.
Novo, E.M.L.M.; Costa, M.P.F.; Mantovani, J.E. and Lima, I.B.T.,
2002. Relationship between macrophyte stand variables and radar
backscatter at L and C band, Tucurui reservoir, Brasil. Interna-
tional Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 1241–1260.
Odum, E.P., 1993. Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems.
2nd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 320p.
Orbimage. 2003. OrbView-3 Satellite and Ground Systems Specifica-
tions. Herndon, Virginia: Orbimage, 2p.
Orth, R.J.; Carruthers, T.J.B.; Dennison, W.C.; Duarte, C.M.; Four-
qurean, J.W.; Heck, K.L. Jr.; Hughes, A.R.; Kendrick, G.A.;
Kenworthy, W.J.; Olyarnik, S.; Short, F.T.; Waycott, M., and
Williams, S.L., 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems.
Bioscience, 56, 987–996.
Orth, R.J. and Moore, K.A., 1983. Chesapeake Bay: an unprecedented
decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science, 222, 51–53.
Ozesmi, S.L. and Bauer, M.E., 2002. Satellite remote sensing of
wetlands. Wetland Ecology and Management, 10, 381–402.
Parkinson, C.L., 2003. Aqua: an Earth-observing satellite mission to
examine water and other climate variables. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 41, 173–183.
Pengra, B.W.; Johnston, C.A., and Loveland, T.R., 2007. Mapping an
invasive plant, Phragmites australis, in coastal wetlands using the
EO-1 Hyperion hyperspectral sensor. Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment, 108, 74–81.
 Remote Sensing in Monitoring Wetland Restoration
Philpot, W.D.; Davis, C.O.; Bissett, P.; Mobley, C.D.; Kohler, D.D.;
Lee, Z.; Snyder, W.A.; Steward, R.G.; Agrawal, Y.; Trowbridge, J.;
Gould, R., and Arnone, R., 2004. Bottom characterization from
hyperspectral image data. Oceanography, 17, 76–85.
Phinn, S.R., 1998. A framework for selecting appropriate remotely
sensed data dimensions for environmental monitoring and man-
agement. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19, 3457–3463.
Phinn, S.R.; Stow, D.A., and Van Mouwerik, D., 1999. Remotely
sensed estimates of vegetation structural characteristics in
restored wetlands, Southern California. Photogrammetric Engi-
neering and Remote Sensing, 65, 485–493.
Phinn, S.R.; Stow, D.A., and Zedler, J.B., 2006. Monitoring wetland
habitat restoration in Southern California using airborne multi-
spectral video data. Restoration Ecology, 4, 412–422.
Pinet, P.R., 2009. Invitation to Oceanography, 5th Edition. Sudbury,
Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett, 626p.
Pinnel, N.; Heege, T., and Zimmermann, S., 2004. Spectral discrimina-
tion of submerged macrophytes in lakes using hyperspectral remote
sensing data. SPIE Proceedings on Ocean Optics XVII, 1, 1–16.
Porter, D.E.; Field, D.W.; Klemas, V.V.; Jensen, J.R.; Malhotra, A.;
Field, R.T., and Walker, S.P., 2006. RESAAP Final Report: NOAA/
NERRS Remote Sensing Applications Assessment Project. Colum-
bia: University of South Carolina, 37p.
Purkis, S.J., 2005. A ‘reef-up’ approach to classifying coral habitats
from IKONOS imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, 43, 1375–1390.
Purkis, S.J.; Kenter, J.A.M.; Oikonomou, E.K., and Robinson, I.S.,
2002. High-resolution ground verification, cluster analysis and
optical model of reef substrate coverage on Landsat TM imagery
(Red Sea, Egypt). International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23,
1677–1698.
Purkis, S. and Klemas, V., 2011. Remote Sensing and Global
Environmental Change. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ramsey, E., 1995. Monitoring flooding in coastal wetlands by using
radar imagery and ground-based measurements. International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 16, 2495–2502.
Ramsey, E. and Rangoonwala, A., 2010. Mapping the onset and
progression of marsh dieback. In: Wang, J. (ed.), Remote Sensing of
Coastal Environment. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC, 423p.
Rao, B.R.M.; Dwivedi, R.S.; Kushwaha, S.P.S.; Bhattacharya, S.N.;
Anand, J.B., and Dasgupta, S., 1999. Monitoring the spatial extent
of coastal wetlands using ERS-1 SAR data. International Journal
of Remote Sensing, 20, 2509–2517.
Ratti, J.T.; Rocklage, A.M.; Giudice, J.H.; Garton, E.O., and Golner,
D.P., 2001. Comparison of avian communities on restored and
natural wetlands in North and South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 65, 676–684.
Rosenqvist, A.; Finlayson, C.M.; Lowry, J., and Taylor, D., 2007. The
potential of long-wavelength satellite-borne radar to support
implementation of the Ramsar Wetland Convention. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 17, 229–244.
Russell, G.D.; Hawkins, C.P., and O’Neill, M.P., 2004. The role of GIS
in selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and
land use. Restoration Ecology, 5, 56–68.
Sabol, B.M.; Melton, R.E. Jr.; Chamberlain, R.; Doering, P., and
Haunert, K., 2002. Evaluation of a digital echo sounder system for
detection of submersed aquatic vegetation. Estuaries, 25, 133–141.
Schmidt, A.L.; Coll, M.; Romanuk, T.N., and Lotze, H.K., 2011.
Ecosystem structure and services in eelgrass Zostera marina and
rockweed Ascophyllum nodosum habitats. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 437, 51–68.
Schmidt, K.S. and Skidmore, A.K., 2003. Spectral discrimination of
vegetation types in a coastal wetland. Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment, 85, 92–108.
Schmidt, K.S.; Skidmore, A.K.; Kloosterman, E.H.; Van Oosten, H.;
Kumar, L., and Janssen, J.A.M., 2004. Mapping coastal vegetation
using an expert system and hyperspectral imagery. Photogram-
metric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 70, 703–716.
Selvam, V.; Ravichandran, K.K.; Gnanappazham, L., and Navamu-
niyammal, M., 2003. Assessment of community-based restoration
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
969
of Pichavaram mangrove wetland using remote sensing data.
Current Science, 85, 794–798.
Shalaby, A. and Tateishi, R., 2007. Remote sensing and GIS for
mapping and monitoring land cover and land-use changes in the
Northwestern coastal zone of Egypt. Applied Geography, 27, 28–41.
Shan, J. and Hussain, E., 2010. Object-based data integration and
classification for high-resolution coastal mapping. In: Wang, J.
(ed.), Remote Sensing of Coastal Environment. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC, 423p.
Shuman, C.S. and Ambrose, R.F., 2003. A comparison of remote
sensing and ground-based methods for monitoring wetland resto-
ration success. Restoration Ecology, 11, 325–333.
Simard, M.; Fatoyinbo, L.E., and Pinto, N., 2010. Mangrove canopy
3D structure and ecosystem productivity using active remote
sensing. In: Wang, J. (ed.), Remote Sensing of Coastal Environ-
ment. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC, 423p.
Simenstad, C.D.; Reed, D., and Ford, M., 2006. When is restoration
not? Incorporating landscape-scale processes to restore self-
sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecological
Engineering, 26, 27–39.
Smith, S. and Medeiros, K., 2012. Manipulation of water levels to
facilitate vegetation change in a coastal lagoon undergoing partial
tidal restoration (Cape Cod, Massachusetts). Journal of Coastal
Research, doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00035.1.
Space Imaging. 2003. IKONOS Imagery Products and Product Guide
(version 1.3). Thornton, Colorado: Space Imaging, 2p.
Spratt, J.D., 1989. The density and distribution of eelgrass in Tomales
Bay, California. California Fish and Game, 75, 204–212.
Staszak, L.A. and Armitage, A.R., 2012. Evaluating salt marsh
restoration success with an Index of Ecosystem Integrity. Journal
of Coastal Research. doi: 12.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00035.1.
Thayer, G.W. (ed.), 1992. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment.
Maryland Seagrant Program, 728p.
Thomson, A.G.; Fuller, R.M.; Sparks, T.H.; Yates, M.G., and East-
wood, J.A., 1998. Ground and airborne radiometry over intertidal
surfaces: waveband selection for cover classification. International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 19, 1189–1205.
Thomson, A.G.; Fuller, R.M.; Yates, M.G.; Brown, S.L.; Cox, R., and
Wadsworth, R.A., 2003. The use of airborne remote sensing for
extensive mapping of intertidal sediments and saltmarshes in
eastern England. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24,
2717–2737.
Tiner, R.W., 1996. Wetlands. In: Manual of Photographic Interpreta-
tion, 2nd ed. Falls Church, Virginia: American Society for
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2440p.
Tiner, R., 2004. Monitoring wetland conservation accomplishments
through remote sensing. Report of National Wetlands Inventory
Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tiner, R.W., Bergquist, H.C., Swords, J.Q., and McClain, B.J., 2001.
Watershed-based wetland characterization for Delaware’s Nanti-
coke River watershed: A preliminary assessment report. National
Wetlands Inventory Program. Hadley, Massachusetts: U.S Fish
and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region.
Townsend, P.A., 2000. A quantitative fuzzy approach to assess
mapped vegetation classifications for ecological applications.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 72, 253–267.
Townsend, P.A., 2002. Relationships between forest structure and the
detection of flood inundation in forested wetlands using C-band
SAR. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 443–460.
Townsend, P. and Walsh, S., 1998. Modeling floodplain inundation
using an integrated GIS with radar and optical remote sensing.
Geomorphology, 21, 295–312.
Trembanis, A.C.; Hiller, T., and Patterson, M., 2008. Exploring coral
reef sustainability. Hydro International, 12, 10–15.
Tuxen, K.A.; Schile, L.M.; Kelly, M., and Siegel, S.W., 2008.
Vegetation colonization in a restoring tidal marsh. Restoration
Ecology, 16, 313–323.
Tuxen, N.; Tüchsen, P.L.; Rügge, K.; Albrechtsen, H.-J., and Bjerg,
P.L. 2000. Fate of seven pesticides in an aerobic aquifer studied in
column experiments. Chemosphere, 41, 1485–1494.
970
Underwood, E.C.; Mulitsch, M.J.; Greenberg, J.A.; Whiting, M.L.;
Ustin, S.L., and Kefauver, S.C., 2006. Mapping invasive aquatic
vegetation in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta using hyper-
spectral imagery. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 121,
47–64.
Wang, L.; Sousa, W.P., and Gong, P., 2004. Integration of object-based
and pixel-based classification for mapping mangroves with IKO-
NOS imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25, 5655–
5668.
Wang, Y., 2010. Remote sensing of coastal environments: an
overview. In: Wang, J. (ed.), Remote Sensing of Coastal Environ-
ments. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC, 423p.
Wang, Y.; Christiano, M., and Traber, M., 2010. Mapping salt
marshes in Jamaica Bay and terrestrial vegetation in Fire Island
National Seashore using QuickBird satellite data. In: Wang, J.
(ed.), Remote Sensing of Coastal Environments. Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC, 423p.
Weatherbee, O.P., 2000. Application of satellite remote sensing for
monitoring and management of coastal wetland health. In:
Gutierrez, J. (ed.), Improving the Management of Coastal Ecosys-
tems through Management Analysis and Remote Sensing/GIS
Applications. Dover: University of Delaware Sea Grant Report, pp.
122–142.
White, D. and Fenessy, S., 2005. Modeling the suitability of wetland
restoration scale. Ecological Engineering, 24, 359–377.
Williams, D.J.; Rybicki, N.B.; Lombana, A.V.; O’Brien, T.M., and
Gomez, R.B., 2003. Preliminary investigation of submerged aquatic
vegetation mapping using hyperspectral remote sensing. Environ-
mental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 383–392.
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013
View publication stats
Klemas
Wilson, B.A. and Rashid, H., 2005. Monitoring the 1997 flood in the
Red River Valley using hydrologic regimes and RADARSAT
imagery. Canadian Geographer, 49, 100–109.
Wolter, P.T.; Johnston, C.A., and Niemi, G.J., 2005. Mapping
submerged aquatic vegetation in the US Great Lakes using
Quickbird satellite data. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
26, 5255–5274.
Wulder, M.A.; Hall, R.J.; Coops, N.C., and Franklin, S.E., 2004. High
spatial resolution remotely sensed data for ecosystem character-
ization. BioScience, 54, 511–521.
Yang, C.; Everitt, J.H.; Fletcher, R.S.; Jensen, J.R., and Mausel, P.W.,
2009. Mapping black mangrove along the south Texas gulf coast
using AISAþ hyperspectral imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing, 75, 425–436.
Yang, J. and Artigas, F.J., 2009. Mapping salt marsh vegetation by
integrating hyperspectral and LiDAR remote sensing. In: Wang, J.
(ed.), Remote Sensing of Coastal Environment. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC, 423p.
Yang, X., 2009. Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technologies for
Coastal Ecosystem Assessment and Management. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, 561p.
Yuan, D.; Elvidge, C.D. and Lunetta, R.S., 1998. Survey of
multispectral methods for land cover change analysis. In: Lunetta,
R.S. and Elvidge, C.D. (eds.), Remote Sensing Change Detection:
Environmental Monitoring Methods and Applications. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Zedler, J.B., 1996. Tidal Wetland Restoration: A Scientific perspective
and Southern California Focus. La Jolla: California Seagrant
College System. 129p.
Zedler, J.B., 2000. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC, 439p.