[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     @- IT,)RDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF WETLAND DA: K"
      6R STATUS AND TRENDS AND INVENTORY ESTIMAAW

      ,kgLy'vs,s Report






          4!


                                                          1V

                                                                                               A
                                          Techni           p
                                              oct6       19
                                                4A-







                                                                    x


                                         A




                                                                                                      -1 It


                             Federal Geographic Data Committee

                of AgriCUltUre * Department of Commerce * Department of Defense     Department of OW
                    I
                   of Housing and Urban Development -1 Department of the Interior  Department of State
                            4'
                        Department of Transportation  Environmental Protection Agency
                         Federal Emergency Management Agency      Library of Congress
   QH545                             L-         1@       r)                    L,
   .A1         ITI Aeronautics and Space Administration * National Archives and Records Administration
   C88                                    Tennessee Valley ALIthority
   1995

   C.










           COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF WETLAND
                       DATA FOR STATUS AND TRENDS
                          AND INVENTORY ESTIMATES





                                      Progress Report




                            Federal Geographic Data Committee
                                  Wetlands Subcommittee





                                     Technical Report 2
                                       October 1995





                               Property of CSC Library





                                            By
                                       Carl Shapiro
                                   U.S. Geological Survey

                                   With the Assistance of the
     j                      Wetland Data Coordination Working Group






                         US Department of commerce
       (2q               NOAA Coastal Services center Library
                         2234 South Hobson Avenue
                         Charleston, SC 29405-2413










                   Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

           Acknowledgments



           Wetland Data Coordination Working Group



           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service             Natural Resources Conservation Service
            Bill Wilen, Chairman                        Jeff Goebel
            Dave Dall                                   Mon Yee
            Ralph Tiner                                 Billy Teels
            Tom Dahl                                    Sandra Byrd

           National Oceanic and                       Environmental Protection Agency
           Atmospheric Administration                   Doreen Robb
            Jim Thomas                                  Doug Norton
            Jerry Dobson                                Hal Kibby
            Don Field
            Ed Bright
                                                      U.S. Geological Survey
           State of Maryland                            Dave Seyler
           Water Resources Administration               Carl Shapiro
            Bill Burgess                                Mike Chambers
            Greg Tilley                                 Russell Berry




           Geographic Information Systems             Russell Berry
                                                      Ron Keeler
                                                      Tera Paul
                                                      Dan Sechrist
                                                      Brigitta Mathieux
                                                        U.S. Geological Survey

           Graphics and Layout Design                 Sharon Cline
                                                      Silvia McCarney
                                                        U.S. Geological Survey

           Wicomico County, Maryland,                 Don Bradley
            Technical and Wetland Expertise           Steve Dawson
                                                        Water Resources Administration, Maryland




                                                                                                        iff









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                         Contents

                          Executive summary                      ................................                                   ix


                          I.         Introduction


                                     A.   Overview               .................................                                   1
                                     B.   Background             . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
                                          1 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
                                          2.  Natural Resources Conservation Service                . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
                                          3.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration                   . . . . . . . . . .  6
                                          4.  Environmental Protection Agency              . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
                                          5.  U.S. Geological Survey           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
                                          6.  State of Maryland Water Resources Administration                    . . . . . . . . .  9

                                     C. Working group coordination strategy                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   10

                          II.        Task 1-Integration of terminology, definitions,
                                     and classification systems

                                     A. Overview and background               ..........................                            11
                                     B. Results                  ................................                                   13


                          Ill.       Task 2-Coordination of data collection
                                     processes and reports


                                     A. Overview                 ................................                                   17
                                     B. Results                  ................................                                   17


                          IV.        Task 3A-Consistency of data


                                     A. Introduction             ................................                                   19
                                     B. Wicomico County, Maryland, pilot study                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20
                                          1.   Description of Wicomico County, Maryland                   . . . . . . . . . . . .   20
                                          2.   Methodology          ...............................                                 22
                                               a.     Data       ................................                                   22
                                               b.     Assembly of the data into a geographic information system. 27
                                               c.     Analysis      ...............................                                 28
                                               d.     Previous studies      ...........................                             30









                                                                                                                                             V









                                  Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status       and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                                 3.   Results           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    33
                                                      a.    Introduction      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    33
                                                      b.    Wetlands acreage        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    33
                                                      c.    Spatial consistency       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    37
                                                      d.    Field tests     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    59


                                  V.        Conclusions and future plans


                                           A. Conclusions               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    85
                                                 1. Data inconsistency          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    85
                                                 2. Data strengths and weaknesses               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  87
                                           B. Future plans              . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    88


                                  Selected References                   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    91


                                  Acronym list                          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    95

                                  Appendixes

                                  1. Wetland data set descriptions          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    97
                                  2. Wetland data set acreage           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      141
                                  3. Wetland data set consistency matrices by 7.5-minute quadrangle                       . . . . . . .   155
                                  4. Field test data                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     193


                                  Figures

                                  1 . Wicomico County, Maryland               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    21
                                  2.  Wicomico County, Maryland study area                  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    41
                                  3.  Wetland classifications - Hebron quadrangle                  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   42
                                  4.  Wetland classifications - Delmar quadrangle                  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   43
                                  5.  Wetland classifications       - Pittsville quadrangle          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   44
                                  6.  Wetland classifications - Eden quadrangle                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
                                  7.  Wetland classifications       - Salisbury quadrangle           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   46
                                  8.  Wetland classifications - Wango quadrangle                   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   47
                                  9.  First field test: spatial distribution of points          . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .   62
                                  10. Second field test: spatial distribution of transects             . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   65
                                  11. Transects A, A'                   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    66
                                  12. Wetland data set comparison - transects A,                A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     67
                                  13. Transects B, 13'                  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    68
                                  14. Wetland data set comparison -             transects B,    B  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   69
                                  15. Transects C, D                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    70
                                  16. Wetland data set comparison -             transects C,    D    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   71
                                  17. Transects E, F, G                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   72



                     Vi









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status       and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                            18. Wetland data set comparison - transects E, F, G                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   73
                            19. Transect H                       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     74
                            20. Wetland data set comparison - transect H                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   75
                            21. Transect I                       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     76
                            22. Wetland data set comparison - transect I                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   77


                            Tables


                            1. Wicomico County, Maryland, pilot study data sets                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   23
                            2. Distribution of wetlands and uplands               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    35
                            3. Wetland distribution                ................................                                  36
                            4. Data set agreement on wetland designation - four data sets                       . . . . . . . . . .  38
                            5. Data set agreement on wetland designation - three data sets                      . . . . . . . . . .  40
                            6. Wetland classification comparison - FWS-NWI/MD-WRA                               . . . . . . . . . .  49
                            7. Wetland classification comparison - NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI                                 . . . . . . .  50
                            8. Wetland classification comparison - NOAA-C-CAP/MD-WRA                                . . . . . . . .  51
                            9. Wetland classification comparison - NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI                                ........        52
                            10. Wetland classification comparison - FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI                             ..........           53
                            11. Wetland classification comparison - MD-WRA/NRCS-WI                              ..........           54
                            12. Wetland classification comparison - NRCS-WI/other data                         ...........           58
                            13. Wetland data comparison - first field test/wetland data sets                    ..........           60
                            14. Wetland data comparison - second field test/wetland data sets                        ........        83


























                                                                                                                                            vii









                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                    Executive Summary
                          Introduction
                             For the past 2 years, the Wetland Data Coordination Working Group
                    of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Wetlands Subcommittee
                    has been implementing a strategy to better coordinate government collection of
                    wetland data used for developing status and trends and inventory estimates.'
                             The working group's strategy was developed in response to two
                    recommendations contained in the December 1990 "Report of the Wetland
                    Inventory Subgroup of the Domestic Policy Council's Interagency Wetlands
                    Task Force. "' On August 24, 1993, in the Clinton Administration's policy
                    document on wetlands, the White House Office on Environmental Policy
                    announced that "the Administration will ... direct the Wetlands Subcommittee
                    of the Federal Geographic Data Committee to complete reconciliation and
                    integration of all Federal agency wetland inventory activities."
                             The working group includes representatives from the
                    U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
                    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural
                    Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)), the U.S. Department of Commerce
                    (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)), the
                    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of Maryland's Water
                    Resources Administration (MD-WRA).'




                        'The strategy is described in "Strategic Interagency Approach to Developing a
                    National Digital Wetlands Database (Second Approximation)," summer 1994, Wetlands
                    Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee.

                        'The two recommendations are (1) "Coordinate/integrate the Fish and Wildlife
                    Service's Statistical Wetlands Status and Trends Surveys with the Soil Conservation
                    Service's National Resource Inventory;" and (2) "Coordinate/integrate the Fish and
                    Wildlife Services's National Wetlands Inventory mapping program with the Soil
                    Conservation Service's wetland determinations made for the wetland conservation
                    (Swampbuster) provision of the Food Security Act."

                        'The MD-WRA joined the working group when a pilot evaluation began in Wicomico
                    County, Md. It is hoped that as the working group's efforts proceed, other State
                    organizations will participate in its activities.



                                                                                                        ix









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                  The strategy includes four sequentially ordered tasks designed to
                         improve the coordination of government wetland data collection and to evaluate
                         whether changes in data collection techniques and responsibilities can improve
                         the Government's ability to meet national needs.
                                  Tasks 1 and 2 were completed in September 1992 and were
                         documented in a report (unpublished) forwarded to the Chair, FGDC, on
                         September 24, 1992. Task I involves the integration of terminology,
                         definitions, and classification systems used by government organizations
                         collecting wetland data. Task 2 involves the coordination of government
                         wetland data collection processes and reports.
                                  At this time, the working group is implementing task 3A, which
                         relates to the consistency of wetland data collected by various government
                         organizations. Wetland data of different types and accuracy are collected by
                         many goverm-nent organizations, including the FWS, the NRCS, NOAA, EPA,
                         and the USGS, as well as by many State agencies. The purpose of task 3A is to
                         identify the level of consistency among wetland data collected by various
                         government organizations and to determine possible causes of inconsistencies.
                         The results of this evaluation should help government organizations reconcile
                         their data so that the Nation can better understand and use available wetland

                         data and information.
                                  The working group plans to evaluate wetland data from as many as 10
                         counties with varying wetland density and complexity. The following 10
                         counties tentatively chosen for study were selected to ensure diversity in
                         wetland, geographic, and other characteristics:
                               Wicomico, Md.                 Dade, Fla.
                               Logan, N. Dak.                Washington, N. C.
                               Terrebone, La.                Camden, N.C.
                               Meade, Kans.                  Penobscot, Maine
                               Yazoo, Miss.                  Tulare, Calif.


                         Wicomico County, Maryland, Pilot Study
                                  The working group began a pilot study to better understand the issues
                         and problems associated with the data comparison task. Wicomico County, Md.



                X









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                     was selected as the pilot because (1) wetland data and other spatial data in
                     digital form are available from the various government agencies, (2) the
                     county's proximity to the Washington, D.C., area facilitates field analysis
                     where necessary, and (3) the county has an abundance of forested wetlands,
                     which are generally recognized as the most difficult wetland type to map.
                              In the Wicomico County study area, wetland data were compared
                     from the FWS National Wetlands Inventory (FWS-NWI), the NRCS Wetlands
                     Inventory (NRCS-WI)I, the NRCS National Resources Inventory (NRCS-
                     NRI), the NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (NOAA-C-CAP), and the
                     MD-WRA. The USGS Mapping Applications Center helped the working group
                     implement the analysis using geographic information system (GIS) technology.
                     The analysis in the Wicomico County pilot study was designed to provide
                     information on two primary issues: (1) the level of consistency among the
                     various government wetland data sets; and (2) the relative strengths and
                     weaknesses among the data sets.
                              To determine the level of consistency among the various government
                     wetland data sets, the working group compared the total acreage in the
                     Wicomico County study area that each data set classifies as wetland and the
                     acreage within various systems or subcategories of wetlands. Although acreage
                     comparisons are important for evaluating national wetland acreage projections,
                     this type of comparison is an inadequate indicator of consistency. Even though
                     total acreage classified as wetlands may be similar amounts, the various data
                     sets may classify different areas within the study area as wetlands.
                              To resolve this problem, the working group developed and examined a
                     series of maps and the associated tabular data summaries showing areas of
                     agreement and disagreement in wetland delineation among the various data sets.
                              Tests to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of
                     government wetland data sets are difficult because there is no standard of
                     correct wetland classification with which to compare the various data sets. That



                         "During the latter part of 1994, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) became the
                     Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). For consistency in this report, the
                     organization is referred to as the NRCS, even for events that occurred prior to the change.
                     Publications, however, are cited by the original name.



                                                                                                            Xi









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                         is, if there is an inconsistency among the data sets in wetland classification,
                         data do not exist to resolve the inconsistency.
                                  To obtain independent information on whether a site was actually a
                         wetland or an upland, the working group collected field data in the Wicomico
                         County study area and compared them with the wetland delineations from the
                         various government data sets. Two tests were conducted to develop information
                         on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government data sets.
                                  The first test involved examining 130 points in the field in the
                         Wicomico County study area to determine whether wetlands or uplands existed
                         at the points. The working group selected the points because of inconsistencies
                         in wetland classification among the data sets at the points and to resolve
                         questions relating to wetland identification. An independent contractor with
                         expertise in wetlands identification collected the data at the 130 points in the
                         field in May and June 1993.
                                  Because many of the points selected in the first test were found to be
                         near wetland boundaries, a second test was designed to examine a series of
                         points along transects so that the impact of boundary changes could be
                         assessed. The working group selected the transects on the basis of
                         inconsistencies among the wetland data sets or to study other issues they had
                         identified. A field team from the working group collected data in July 1993 on
                         wetland delineation, as well as on soils, vegetation, and hydrology.


                         Conclusions
                                  The case study in Wicomico County, Md., provides evidence that
                         supports two principal hypotheses: (1) there is significant disagreement in
                         wetland delineation among the various goverm-nent wetland data sets; and (2)
                         there are substantial differences in the strengths and weaknesses of the wetland
                         data sets evaluated. These strengths and weaknesses relate to the effectiveness
                         of the data sets in identifying all wetland areas as wetlands, and (or) in
                         delineating only wetland areas as wetlands. The results reported in this paper
                         are derived from a case stidy in one county; additional data and analysis are
                         required to evaluate these hypotheses conclusively. That is, the issues raised in
                         this case study merit attention and analysis beyond Wicomico County.



               Xii









                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                        Data Inconsistency
                                 The four data sets with polygon data, FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-
                        C-CAP, and NRCS-WI, disagree in more than 90 percent of the area that at
                        least one of the four data sets delineates as wetland. This disagreement is not
                        just about wetland classes or systems, but rather about the fundamental question
                        of whether or not an area is a wetland.
                                 The NRCS-WI accounts for more than 70 percent of the area that only
                        one of the four data sets delineates as wetland. This is not surprising because
                        data for the NRCS-Wl are collected for regulatory purposes and collection
                        procedures are designed not to miss possible wetland areas. When the three
                        other data sets with polygon data are compared, they continue to disagree
                        among themselves in about 80 percent of the area that at least one of the three
                        data sets delineates as wetland. In fact, in comparisons between any two of the
                        data sets with polygon data, there is disagreement in more than 50 percent of
                        the area that at least one of the two data sets delineates as wetland. Again, this
                        disagreement is not about wetland classes or systems, but rather about whether
                        or not an area is a wetland.
                                 Comparisons between the NRCS-NRI, which has point data, and the
                        four data sets with polygon data produce similar results. In these comparisons,
                        there is disagreement in more than 99 percent (103 out of 104) of the points
                        that are classified by at least one data set as wetland.
                                 There are several possible explanations for this high level of
                        disagreement or inconsistency among the data sets. First, it is important to
                        emphasize that the results presented in this analysis represent data from just
                        one county. A distinguishing factor in Wicomico County, Md., is the fact that
                        a high proportion of the wetlands are palustrine forested.' Previous studies






                           'Three of the data sets with polygon data, FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP,
                        distinguished palustrine wetlands from other wetlands. All of the three data sets classified
                        as palustrine more than 80 percent of the wetlands that they had delineated. The FWS-
                        NWI and MD-WRA classified wetlands to the Cowardin and others (1979) class level and
                        delineated more than 80 percent of the palustrine wetlands as forested.



                                                                                                                    Xiii









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           have noted the difficulty in identifying wetlands when using remote sensing
                           techniques in forested areas.'
                                    The results from the analysis show that much of the disagreement
                           among the data sets occurs in areas that at least one data set classifies as
                           palustrine wetland. Significantly, this disagreement occurs even between data
                           from FWS-NWI and MD-WRA, which use identical classification systems and
                                                                                       7
                           similar aerial photography photointerpretation techniques.
                                    Although most of the disagreement occurs in areas that at least one
                           data set classifies as palustrine, the level of agreement among data sets is much
                           greater for wetland types other than palustrine. For instance, more than 90
                           percent of the area classified as lacustrine, riverine, or estuarine wetlands by
                           FWS-NWI are also classified as wetlands by MD-WRA.
                                    Much of the disagreement among the data sets may be related to the
                           spatial accuracy of the data. When 50-meter buffers are created around the
                           NRCS-NRI points that are delineated by at least one of the data sets as
                           wetlands, the level of agreement potentially rises from less than 1 percent to
                           approximately 41 percent. This implies that there may be problems associated
                           with the spatial registration of the data in some or all of the data sets. It should
                           be emphasized, however, that even with these 50-meter buffers, there is still
                           disagreement among the five data sets at almost 60 percent of the points that
                           have been delineated by at least one data set as wetland.
                                    The difficulties in identifying palustrine forested wetlands that were
                           demonstrated in this case study raise the question of whether a new category of
                           wetlands that encompasses mixed wetland and upland areas would be helpful in
                           understanding the characteristics and ambiguities in some of these areas. Such a
                           category of wetlands could reduce the level of inconsistency among wetland
                           data sets because larger parcels of land could be classified as mixed wetland



                              6See for instance, "Use of High-Altitude Aerial Photography for Inventorying Forested
                           Wetlands in the United States," by Ralph W. Tiner, Jr. "Forest Ecology and
                           Management," 33/34 (1990), p. 593-604. Also, see "Results of Field Reconnaissance of
                           Remotely Sensed Land Cover Data," 199 1.

                              'Subsequent to this analysis, FWS-NWI has updated data for four of the 7.5-minute
                           quadrangles within the study area.



                 Xiv









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                     and upland areas without the need to distinguish explicitly where small
                     interspersed wetland and upland areas begin and end.


                     Data Set Strengths and Weaknesses
                             Errors in the delineation of wetlands can be classified into two distinct
                     categories: Type I errors, or errors of omission, and type II errors, or errors of
                     commission. Type I errors occur when a wetland is delineated in a data set as
                     an upland. Type II errors occur when an upland is delineated as a wetland.
                             The results from the field tests provide evidence that in the study area,
                     FWS-NWI and MD-WRA are more conservative in the delineation of wetlands
                     than are NRCS-Wl and NOAA-C-CAP and are more likely to commit type I
                     errors, or errors of omission. The results also show that in the study area,
                     NRCS-WI and NOAA-C-CAP delineate more area as wetlands and are more
                     likely to commit type II errors, or errors of commission.
                             Information on the type of error that is likely to be associated with a
                     particular wedand data set is important both for interpreting wetland data and
                     for improving the effectiveness of data collection efforts. By knowing the type
                     of error associated with a particular data set, data users can choose the data set
                     that best suits their needs. That is, choices can be made on which data set is
                     best suited for a specific problem depending on whether it is more important to
                     identify every wetland area or if it is important that wetlands delineated are
                     actually wetlands.


                     Future Plans
                             The case study described in this analysis is part of an ongoing effort
                     by the FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee to improve the coordination of
                     government wetland data collection and to evaluate whether changes in data
                     collection techniques and responsibilities can improve the Government's ability
                     to meet national needs. The working group began a wetland data comparison in
                     Logan County, N.Dak., during the summer of 1994. This effort builds upon
                     the work begun in Wicomico County and deals with similar issues. An
                     additional data set comparison is scheduled to begin in Dade County, Fla.,
                     during 1995.



                                                                                                           XV










                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                   The implementation of task 3B and task 4 will also begin during 1995.
                          Task 3B concerns the consistency of wetland statistical results and includes the
                          development of a method to compare the results developed by the various
                          government organizations reporting on wetland status and trends. Task 4 builds
                          on the results of the first three tasks and includes an evaluation of the
                          feasibility and the public policy implications of wetland data integration. This
                          evaluation is expected to address the benefits and costs associated with various
                          levels of wetland data accuracy and timeliness so that these issues can be
                          incorporated into a comprehensive national strategy for wetland data collection.




































                Xvi









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates















                                                       Introduction









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                     1. Introduction

                          A. Overview
                             For the past 2 years, the Wetland Data Coordination Working Group
                     of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Wetlands Subcommittee
                     has been implementing a strategy to better coordinate government collection of
                     wetland data used for developing status and trends and inventory estimates
                     (FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee, 1994). This report documents the working
                     group's progress.
                              The working group's strategy was developed in response to two
                     recommendations contained in the December 1990 "Report of the Wetland
                     Inventory Subgroup of the Domestic Policy Council's Interagency Wetlands
                     Task Force."' Implementation of the strategy was assigned to the FGDC
                     Wetlands Subcommittee on July 10, 1992, by the Chair, FGDC. On
                     August 24, 1993, in the Clinton Administration's policy document on wetlands,
                     the White House Office on Environmental Policy announced that "the
                     Administration will ... direct the Wetlands Subcommittee of the Federal
                     Geographic Data Committee to complete reconciliation and integration of all
                     Federal agency wetland inventory activities" (White House Office on
                     Environmental Policy, 1993).
                              The working group includes representatives from the
                     U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
                     and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
                     (Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)), the U.S. Department of
                     Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)), the







                        'The two recommendations are (1) "Coordinate/integrate the Fish and Wildlife
                     Service's Statistical Wetlands Status and Trends Surveys with the Soil Conservation
                     Service's National Resource Inventory;" and (2) "Coordinate/integrate the Fish and
                     Wildlife Services's National Wetlands inventory mapping program with the Soil
                     Conservation Service's wetland determinations made for the wetland conservation
                     (Swampbuster) provision of the Food Security Act."









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of Maryland's Water
                           Resources Administration (MD-WRA).'
                                    The strategy includes implementing four sequentially ordered tasks
                           designed to improve the coordination of government wetland data collection
                           and to evaluate whether changes in data collection techniques and
                           responsibilities can improve the Government's ability to meet national needs.
                                    Tasks 1 and 2 were completed in September 1992 and were
                           documented in a report (unpublished) forwarded to the Chair, FGDC, on
                           September 24, 1992. Task 1 involves integrating terminology, definitions, and
                           classification systems used by government organizations collecting wetland
                           data. Task 2 involves coordinating government wetland data collection
                           processes and reports.
                                    At this time, the working group is implementing task 3A, which
                           relates to the consistency of wetland data collected by various government
                           organizations. The purpose of this task is to understand better the level of
                           consistency among wetland data sets. Where inconsistencies in data exist, the
                           working group's goal is to identify causes of the inconsistencies and to propose
                           improvements in government data collection efforts. The results of this
                           evaluation should help government organizations reconcile their data so that the
                           Nation can better understand and use available wetland data and information.
                                    Tasks 3B and 4 are scheduled to begin during 1995. Task 3B concerns
                           the consistency of wetland statistical results and includes the development of a
                           method to compare the results developed by the various government agencies
                           reporting on wetland status and trends. Task 4 builds on the results of the first
                           three tasks and includes an evaluation of the feasibility and the public policy
                           implications of ftirther wetland data coordination and integration. This
                           evaluation is expected to address the benefits and costs associated with various
                           levels of wetland data accuracy and timeliness so that these issues can be
                           incorporated into a comprehensive strategy for wetland data collection.




                              'The MD-WRA joined the working group when a pilot evaluation in Wicornico County,
                           Md. began. It is hoped that as the working group's efforts proceed, other State
                           organizations will participate in its activities.



                 2









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                          B. Background'
                              Wetland data of different types and accuracy are collected by many
                     government organizations, including the FWS, the NRCS, NOAA, EPA, and
                     the USGS, as well as by many State agencies. A summary description of the
                     w.etland data collection activities of the organizations participating in the
                     working group's activities follows. More detailed descriptions are included in
                     appendix 1.


                     1.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                              The FWS, through its National Wetlands Inventory Program (FWS-
                     NWI), collects wetland inventory information and estimates the status and
                     trends of the Nation's wetland resources.
                              Inventory information is needed to assess the effects of site-specific
                     projects, including resource management plans, environmental impact
                     assessments, facility and corridor siting, oil spill contingency plans, natural
                     resource inventories, and habitat surveys. The inventory identifies the location,
                     size, shape, and other characteristics of wetlands and deepwater habitats. The
                     FWS-NWI publishes the inventory information on 1:24,000-scale 7.5-minute
                     quadrangle USGS base maps (1:63,360 scale in Alaska).
                              The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 requires FWS-NWI
                     to complete wetland maps for the contiguous United States by the end of fiscal
                     year 1998. The act was amended in 1992 to require FWS-NWI to complete
                     wetlands maps for the approximately 3,000 15-minute quadrangles in Alaska
                     and other noncontiguous areas of the Nation by September 30, 2000. To date,
                     FWS-NWI has completed 84 percent of the wetland maps for the lower 48
                     States and 28 percent of the wetland maps for Alaska. The 1992 amendments
                     to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act require FWS-NWI to convert its
                     wetland map information into a digital data base by September 30, 2004.




                        3Muchofthe information contained in this section is derived from and is available in
                     more detail in "Federal Coastal Wetland Mapping Programs," edited by Sari J. Kiraly,
                     Ford A. Cross, and John D. Buffington, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and
                     Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240, Biological Report 90 (18), December 1990.



                                                                                                            3









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           Currently, data for 25 percent of the lower 48 States and 3 percent of Alaska
                                                       4
                           are available in digital form.
                                   Information on the status and trends of the Nation's wetland resources
                           are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing Federal programs and
                           policies and to identify national and regional trends. The FWS-NWI uses
                           statistical techniques to calculate, from a sample, the status of the Nation's
                           wetlands and estimates of gains and losses. Data for the FWS-NWI status and
                           trends report (FWS-SAT) are collected independently from the inventory
                           portion. Different conventions are used, but the data collection techniques are
                           similar.
                                   The FWS-NWI has provided Congress with three reports on wetland
                           status and trends. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 requires
                           FWS-NWI to update wetland status and trends reports every 10 years. The last
                           update, which was published in 1991, covered changes occurring from the mid-
                           1970's to the mid-1980's. The next report is due in 2000.


                           2.      Natural Resources Conservation Service'
                                   The NRCS also collects wetland inventory information and estimates
                           the status and trends of the Nation's wetland resources on non-Federal lands.
                                   The wetland conservation (Swampbuster) provision of the Food
                           Security Act (FSA) of 1985, amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
                           and Trade Act of 1990, requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
                           to deny program benefits to agricultural producers that drain and cultivate



                              'The 1992 amendments to the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act direct FWS-NWI to
                           archive wetland maps and to make the maps and digital data products available for
                           dissemination. Final NWI maps are stored in the National Archives. The FWS-NWI
                           wetland maps and digital data products are sold by the USGS through its "800" telephone
                           number (1-800-USA-MAPS) and at seven USGS Earth Science Information Centers.
                           Wetland maps are also sold at 31 State distribution centers. The FWS-NWI distributes
                           microfiche copies to Map Depository Libraries through the Federal Depository Library
                           Program.

                             'During the latter part of 1994, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) became the
                           Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). For consistency in this report, the
                           organization is referred to as the NRCS, even for events that occurred prior to the change.
                           Publications, however, are cited by the original name.



                4









                      Coordination' and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                      wetlands for agricultural production. The NRCS Wetland Inventory (NRCS-
                      WI), begun in 1988, is combined with other data sources to identify FSA
                      wetlands and converted wetlands so that the Agricultural Stabilization and
                      Conservation Service, the Farmers Home Administration, and the Federal Crop
                      Insurance Corporation can determine producer eligibility for their respective
                      programs. The NRCS-Wl "focuses on inland freshwater wetlands that have a
                      high potential for agricultural conversion". The NRCS estimates that "the
                      conversion of wetlands to agricultural land has accounted for more than 80
                      percent of the Nation's wetland loss".'
                              The August 24, 1993, Clinton administration policy on wetlands
                      designates NRCS-WI as "the final government position on the extent of
                      Swampbuster and Clean Water Act jurisdiction on agricultural lands" (White
                      House Office on Environmental Policy, 1993). On January 6, 1994, the NRCS
                      signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Army Corps of
                      Engineers, the FWS, and EPA to implement this policy. According to the
                      MOA, the NRCS will be certifying previous wetland determinations made for
                      the FSA to ensure that they are consistent with current wetland criteria. In the
                      future, the NRCS will take the lead in wetland delineation on agricultural lands
                      for both the Swampbuster and the Clean Water Act (Section 404) programs.
                              The Rural Development Act of 1972 directs the Secretary of
                      Agriculture to carry out a land inventory and monitoring program and to issue
                      a report that reflects soil, water, and related resource conditions at not less than
                      5-year intervals. The National Resources Inventory (NRCS-NRI) is a multi-
                      resource inventory based on soils and other resource data collected at 800,000
                      sample sites located throughout the Nation. Some of the 800,000 sample sites
                      are evaluated as part of each NRCS-NRI every 5 years. For instance, the 1987
                      NRCS-NRI involved the evaluation of nearly 300,000 sample points. The data
                      collected for the NRCS-NRI are not mapped; rather, they are used in a
                      statistical estimation process to develop information about the Nation's

                      resources.





                         "'Soil Conservation Service's Wetland Inventory," by Billy M. Teels, included in
                      "Federal Coastal Wetland Mapping Programs," p. 93.



                                                                                                               5









                           Coordination and Integration of Weiland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                    Information generated in the NRCS-NRI is used for land conservation,
                           use, and development; guidance of community development for balanced rural-
                           urban growth; identification of prime agricultural areas; and protection of the
                           quality of the environment. The Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 and
                           the FSA of 1985 also provide direction to NRCS-NRI. The NRCS-NRI assists
                           NRCS in ascertaining the effectiveness of its programs and policies by
                           monitoring the status of wetland use and conversion on non-Federal lands.
                                    As a part of the NRCS-NRI, NRCS estimates wetland acreage and
                           trends in wetland acreage. Wetland status and trends in non-Federal rural areas
                           throughout the United States, except for Alaska, were estimated in the 1977,
                           1982, and 1987 NRCS-NRI's. The wetland part of the NRCS-NRI was last
                           updated in a special 1991 study.' The latest NRI data base, expected to be
                           available during 1995, allows analysis of wetland changes between 1982 and
                           1992, relative to soils, land use, and many other factors. This analysis
                           evaluates wetland status and trends in non-Federal urban and rural areas.


                           3.   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                    In 1990, NOAA began the Coastal Change Analysis Program (NOAA-
                           C-CAP) to monitor coastal wetlands, including submerged aquatic vegetation
                           and adjacent upland cover and change. NOAA plans to collect wetland
                           inventory information and to estimate wetland status and trends in coastal areas
                           as C-CAP progresses. The first study completed by NOAA-C-CAP was in the
                           Chesapeake Bay area.
                                    The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976,
                           with amendments, requires NOAA to (1) identify and describe the habitat
                           requirements of fish stocks, (2) identify existing habitat conditions and sources
                           of pollution and degradation, (3) conduct habitat protection and enhancement
                           programs, and (4) recommend measures to protect and manage habitats. The
                           goal of NOAA-C-CAP is to determine how land cover and changes in land
                           cover and habitat affect living marine resources, including their abundance,


                              'The special 1991 wetlands update was based on data from 20,000 scientifically
                           selected sample sites that were also included in the 1982 and 1987 NRI's. The update
                           resulted in a revised estimate of wetland loss on non-Federal rural lands.



                 6









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                      distribution, and health. In addition to determining the quantity of wetlands in
                      coastal regions of the United States, NOAA-C-CAP plans to emphasize the
                      determination of wetland quality, including biomass, productivity, and
                      functional status.'
                               NOAA-C-CAP plans to develop a comprehensive, nationally
                      standardized information system for land and habitat cover and change in the
                      coastal region of the Nation. Since 1990, NOAA-C-CAP has worked primarily
                      on developing a standardized protocol through a series of regional workshops
                      and meetings with other Federal, State, and academic personnel. NOAA-C-
                      CAP intends to examine the Nation's coastal region at intervals ranging from 1
                      to 5 years. Areas disturbed by extreme events, such as oil spills or hurricanes,
                      will be monitored annually, and areas with intense development, every 2 or 3
                      years; other coastal areas will be monitored every 5 years.


                      4.    Environmental Protection Agency
                               The EPA uses wetland maps, statistics on wetland extent status and
                      trends, and information on status and trends in wetland function and condition.
                      The two main programs using wetlands information in EPA are the Office of
                      Water, which houses EPA's Wetlands Division, and the Office of Research and
                      Development, which sponsors the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
                      Program (EPA-EMAP).
                               The EPA uses wetland data produced by other agencies, usually FWS,
                      rather than generate its own wetland maps. However, EPA sometimes carries
                      out its own localized, project-specific wetland mapping when existing sources
                      are not sufficiently detailed or up to date. These data, as well as FWS-NWI
                      maps, are used to support wetlands advance identification and planning,
                      enforcement actions, individual research projects, and other actions.
                                The EPA-EMAP monitors the condition of freshwater and estuarine
                      wetlands, as well as surface waters in defined regions of the country. The
                      EPA-EMAP is coordinating with FWS-SAT for data on wetlands extent in and


                          'NOAA-C-CAP is coordinating its efforts on wetland quality with EPA's
                      Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program to determine the functional health of
                      wetlands.




                                                                                                                 7









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                          around salt marsh areas, along the eastern Gulf Coast. The EPA-EMAP also
                          monitors all the major upland ecosystem types, again in partnership with other
                          agencies. The EPA-EMAP was begun in response to a 1988 recommendation
                          by EPA's Science Advisory Board that EPA start a program to monitor
                          ecological status and trends and develop innovative methods for anticipating
                          emerging problems before they reach crisis proportions.


                          5.    U.S. Geological Survey
                                   The USGS collects and disseminates, in map and digital form,
                          cartographic, hydrologic, and geologic information about wetlands.
                                   The USGS produces and disseminates a variety of cartographic,
                          image, and digital maps and data that are useful to Federal and State agencies
                          involved in wetland research. The primary map series (for the most part, 7.5-
                          minute quadrangles) is most often used, in both graphic and digital form. For
                          project planning, intermediate-scale maps and data provide a regional
                          perspective. Some Federal agencies are now increasing their support for even
                          larger scale maps and data, primarily in an image format, including quarter-
                          quadrangle orthophoto products.
                                   The USGS also collects ground-water and surface-water information
                          about the Nation's tidal and nontidal wetlands. "This information includes
                          quantity, quality, and availability of ground water and surface water; ground-
                          water and surface-water interactions (recharge-discharge); ground-water flow;
                          and the basic surface-water characteristics of streams, rivers, lakes, and
                          wetlands". "The USGS wetland-related activities include collection of
                          information important for assessing and mitigating coastal wetland loss and
                          modification, hydrologic data collection and interpretation, geographic
                          information system (GIS) activities, identification of national trends in water
                          quality and quantity, and process-oriented wetland research."'
                                   The USGS also conducts research to provide the basic information
                          needed to better understand "the geologic processes causing coastal erosion and


                             'Tbe text in this paragraph was quoted from "Importance of Hydrologic Data for
                          Interpreting Wetland Maps and Assessing Wetland Loss and Mitigation," by Virginia
                          Carter, in "Federal Coastal Wetland Mapping Programs," p. 79.



                8









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                     deterioration of wetland environments". This research has been conducted in
                     Louisiana in cooperation with FWS, the Louisiana Geological Survey, and
                     other State agencies in Louisiana. (Williams and Salinger, 1989)


                     6.   State of Maryland Water Resources Administration
                             The MD-WRA maintains an inventory of wetlands in the State to
                     accomplish its regulatory and management functions. Since the enactment of
                     the Tidal Wetlands Protection Act in 1970, the MD-WRA has conducted four
                     distinct wetland mapping programs and has cooperated and shared costs with
                     the FWS-NWI in the State. In 1971, the MD-WRA produced 2,200
                     uncorrected mylar photograph "maps" at a scale of 1:2,400 and annotated them
                     with the tidal wetlands boundary as defined by State statute. These maps are
                     official regulatory documents filed with each county clerk's office.
                             In 1986, an effort was begun to develop a digital wetlands map series
                     to replace the 1971 Tidal Wetlands Boundary Maps. In 1987, this effort was
                     stopped upon the advice of the Maryland attorney general regarding a public
                     notice requirement for new maps, which State officials believed would have
                     cost much more than the mapping effort. In April 1989, the Maryland General
                     Assembly passed the Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act. This legislation
                     requires Maryland to produce guidance maps showing the location of nontidal
                     wetlands and wetlands of special state concern (WSSQ that have unique habitat
                     value or contain rare, threatened, or endangered species.
                             The MD-WRA first produced a set of nontidal wetland guidance maps
                     by compositing digital data from existing FWS-NWI maps to SPOT images.
                     The agency is now supplementing these maps by photointerpreting 1:40,000-
                     scale color infrared photographs and displaying the information on digital color
                     orthophoto quarter-quadrangle maps (DOQQ) for the entire State. The MD-
                     WRA expects to complete DOQQ's for the State by mid-1997. These maps are
                     designed to be a base layer for many GIS mapping efforts, including an
                     updated tidal and nontidal wetlands inventory.







                                                                                                          9









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                   C. Working Group Coordination Strategy
                                       The sequentially ordered coordination strategy being implemented by
                             the working group for the FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee addresses various
                             issues relating to the coordination of wetland data collected by the Federal and
                             State governments and other organizations. The strategy is sequential so that
                             information gained from the completion of earlier tasks can be assimilated by
                             later tasks. In addition, issues that are relatively simple and easy to resolve are
                             dealt with early so that the benefits from any improvements can be incorporated
                             into wetland data collection efforts as soon as possible.






































                  10









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates









                                                           Task I --


                    Integration of Terminology, Definitions,

                                      and Classification Systems









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                         11. Task I-Integration of Terminology,
                               Definitions, and Classification Systems"
                               A. Overview and Background
                                  Task I calls for government organizations to work together to ensure
                         that terminology, definitions, and classification systems in their reports are
                         consistent to the highest degree possible. Remaining differences in terminology
                         should be documented and explained to avoid misinterpretation.
                                  Since 1980, the FWS has used the Cowardin and others (1979)
                         classification system" for all NWI wetland mapping and wetland data base
                         development, including the collection and organization of data for wetland
                         status and trends." This classification system describes ecological units having
                         certain common natural attributes, arranges these units in a system that aids
                         resource management decisions, furnishes units for inventory and mapping, and
                         provides uniformity in wetlands concepts and terminology throughout the
                         United States.
                                   The Cowardin and others classification system defines the limits of
                         wetlands according to ecological characteristics and not according to
                         administrative or regulatory programs. In general terms, wetlands are defined
                         as lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the
                         nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities
                         living in the soil and on its surface.




                             "The information contained in this section on task I is derived from the original
                         unpublished report describing the working group's findings in September 1992.

                             "The Cowardin et al. classification system is documented in "Classification of
                         Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States," by Lewis M. Cowardin, Virginia
                         Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
                         Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., FWS/OBS-79/31, December 1979. Much
                         of the information contained in this section relating to the Cowardin et al. system is derived
                         from this publication.

                             12 NWI-SAT also describes upland land use categories. A modification of the Anderson
                         and others (1976) system is used to include urban areas, rural development, forested
                         plantations (silvaculture), agriculture, and other uplands.









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                    The Cowardin and others system presents a method for grouping
                           ecologically similar wetlands. The system is hierarchical, with wetlands divided
                           among five major ecological systems at the broadest level-Marine, Estuarine,
                           Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine. Each system is further subdivided by
                           subsystems that reflect hydrologic conditions, such as Subtidal versus Intertidal
                           in the Marine and Estuarine systems.
                                    Below subsystem is the class level, which describes the appearance of
                           the wetland in terms of vegetation (for example, Emergent, Aquatic Bed,
                           Forested) or substrate if vegetation is inconspicuous or absent (for example,
                           Unconsolidated Shore, Rocky Shore, Streambed). Each class is further divided
                           into subclasses. The classification system also includes modifiers to describe
                           hydrology (water regime) and water chemistry (pH, salinity, and halinity), and
                           special modifiers relating to human activities (for example, impounded, partly
                           drained, farmed, artificial).
                                    Below the class level, the classification system is open-ended. The
                           dominance type is the taxonomic category subordinate to subclass. Dominance
                           types are determined on the basis of dominant plant species, dominant
                           sedentary or sessile animal species, or dominant plant and animal species. The
                           system provides examples of many possible dominance types.
                                    The Cowardin and others classification system replaced the first
                           classification system developed by the FWS. This system, published in
                           "Wetlands of the United States" (1956) and known as FWS Circular 39, was
                           based on a 1954 FWS nationwide wetlands survey that focused on important
                           waterfowl wetlands. The survey covered approximately 40 percent of the lower
                           48 States. The FWS discontinued the use of Circular 39 because of
                           improvements in the newer Cowardin and others wetland classification system.
                                    The NRCS has used more than one wetland classification system.
                           The NRCS-Wl uses a system that was developed to be consistent with the
                           FSA's definition of a wetland: "Lands that have a predominance of hydric soils
                           that are inundated or saturated at a ftequency and duration to support, and
                           under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation






                 12









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                     typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. "" This definition
                     contains the three wetland parameters (soils, hydrology, and vegetation) that
                     have been used to identify wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
                     and by the FWS-NWI. (Teels, 1990).
                              The NRCS-W1 classifies areas with the following designations
                     intended primarily for the FSA: (1) prior conversion-converted before
                     December 23, 1985, but not abandoned;" (2) farmed wetland-still meets the
                     wetland criteria, including seasonally ponded wetlands, seasonally flooded
                     wetlands, potholes, and playas; (3) wetland-includes natural conditions and
                     abandoned wetlands; (4) commenced conversion; (5) third party-conversion by
                     third party; (6) converted wetland-converted after December 23, 1985; (7)
                     minimal effect; and (8) artificial wetland (any wetland existing due to human
                     activities)-including irrigation-induced wetland. 15
                              The NRCS used both the classification system documented in FWS
                     Circular 39 and the Cowardin and others system for the 1982 NRL The NRCS
                     used the Circular 39 classification system for the 1977 and the 1987 NRI's and
                     for the 1991 special NRI wetlands report.
                              NOAA-C-CAP uses a system that integrates the Cowardin and others
                     wetlands classification system and the Anderson and others (1976) land use and
                     land cover classification system. The integrated system was developed by
                     NOAA in concert with the FWS, EPA, and the USGS.


                           B. Results
                              The FWS, the NRCS, NOAA, EPA, and the USGS have agreed to
                     use the Cowardin and others wetland classification system or a system that is
                     compatible with the Cowardin and others system. Using the same classification




                        "The FWS-NWI also uses this definition, but does not restrict its efforts to only
                     vegetated wetlands.

                        "The NRCS defines abandoned areas to be areas that have not been cropped for at
                     least 2 out of the last 5 consecutive years.

                        "Designations 4, 5, 6, and 7 can be made only after a field investigation.


                                                                                                           13









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                            system, or a compatible system, should ensure that government organizations
                            classify areas with the same land condition consistently.
                                     The 1992 NRL released during 1994, also classifies land areas using
                            the NRCS-WI system that is based on FSA (Swampbuster) requirements. The
                            1992 NRI includes a review and update of the 1982 determinations using the
                            Cowardin and others classification. For the 1992 NRL the NRCS uses the
                            Cowardin and others wetland classification system to the system level.
                                     The class level describes the general appearance of the habitat in
                            terms of either the dominant life form of the vegetation or the composition of
                            the substrate. These are features that can be easily recognized without detailed
                            environmental measurements. The major life forms (trees, shrubs, emergents,
                            mosses/lichens, and aquatic vegetation), are used to define classes because (1)
                            they are relatively easy to distinguish and extensive biological knowledge is not
                            required to distinguish between various life forms; (2) these life forms are
                            easily recognizable on a great variety of remote sensing products; (3) they do
                            not change distribution rapidly; and (4) they have traditionally been used as
                            criteria for the classification of wetlands.
                                     The NRCS-WI information is documented on various maps,
                            photographs, and soil survey sheets. There is no national standard scale or map
                            on which the inventory is produced. The NRCS expects to eventually
                            incorporate the FSA wetland determinations into a standardized county map
                            system and a digital county data base that will be adopted by all USDA
                            agencies.
                                     Some jurisdictional wetlands under the Swampbuster provision of the
                            FSA (primarily farmed wetlands) are not identified in all regions of the Nation
                            on FWS-NWI maps. These wetlands, however, are included within the FWS-
                            NWI status and trends statistical estimates. 16




                               'The FWS-NWI does not map areas as wetlands on NWI maps if they are classified by
                            the NRCS as Prime Farmland. This policy was implemented in the 1970's to avoid
                            confusion between the NRCS and FWS classifications.
                                  The Coastal Wetlands Planning and Restoration Act of 1990 requires the FWS-NWI
                            to update and digitize wetland maps of Texas. The FWS-NWI is adding farmed wetlands to
                            these updated maps. The FWS plans to compare these maps with the NRCS-Wl.



                 14









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                 It should be noted that government organizations continue to disagree
                       on how best to incorporate wetlands into land classification systems. In an
                       ongoing FGDC investigation into developing national standards for wetland
                       classification, vegetation classification, and land cover classification, the FWS,
                       NOAA, EPA, the USGS, and the NRCS place different emphases on wetlands.
                       The FWS, NOAA, EPA, and the USGS believe wetlands should appear in land
                       cover classifications as a discrete category; the NRCS, on the other hand,
                       contends that wetlands are a condition of the land, rather than a land cover,
                       and should not appear in a land cover classification as a discrete category.
                                 In the procedures to be enacted for the 1992 NRI, the NRCS will
                       increase the emphasis on cover types and move away from the strictly land use
                       category. However, the NRCS will keep wetland, earth cover, and land use
                       classifications separate. The NRCS's rationale for separating these
                       classifications is that crop land or commercial forest can also be wetland.
                                 The FGDC is considering an approach for implementing a land
                       use/land cover classification effort. The FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee will
                       work with the FGDC Coordination Group on this land use versus land cover
                       issue. The outcome of this issue will not affect the delineation of wetlands,
                       because all agencies will be using the Cowardin and others classification (or
                       Cowardin compatible) in their inventories; however, it could result in
                       differences in classifying what caused a loss of wetland.11
                                 In the past, differences in interpretation of cover types have affected
                       the amount and type of wetlands identified. One area where the FWS and the
                       NRCS have disagreed concerns the conversion of wetland to open water. The
                       FWS-SAT considers the change of a vegetated wetland to an open-water area to
                       be a conversion of wetland type if the open-water area is less than 20 acres."
                       If the open-water area is greater than 20 acres, it is considered to be a loss of



                           "Comparisons of upland land use definitions are not being made at this time.

                           "The FWS selected a threshold of 20 acres for ecological reasons. The FWS-SAT also
                       reports that "This is in keeping with the Cowardin et al. classification system. FWS-SAT
                       makes every effort to record only actual type change by attempting to determine the
                       "average state" of the wetland. For example, consideration is given as to whether or not
                       available aerial photography was produced during an unusually dry year or season."



                                                                                                                      is









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           wetland and a gain of deepwater habitat. The NRCS-NRI and NRCS-WI
                           depend upon on site evaluations to determine whether the open-water area
                           continues to meet wetland criteria. If on site personnel determine that the area
                           retains wetland characteristics, no conversion is recorded; if, however, they
                           determine that the area no longer meets wetland criteria, then the area is
                           considered to have been converted to open water. With the NRCS using the
                           Cowardin and others system for the 1992 NRI, these differences should be
                           resolved.'9
                                    The working group decided that upland classification was beyond the
                           scope of this effort and did not consider upland classification similarities and
                           differences.































                              "The NRCS notes that NRCS-WI "does not consider changes in cover type to be a
                           conversion unless the manipulation results in an area that can be cropped. (If the action
                           makes possible the production of an agricultural commodity on a wetland site, that is
                           considered a wetland conversion. In most cases, covering a wetland with open water would
                           not make the area suitable for agricultural commodity production, hence no conversion
                           from the FSA/FACTA standpoint.)"



                 16










                         Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates










                                                           Task 2 --


                              Coordination of Data Collection


                                          Processes and Reports









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                     111. Task 2-Coordination of Data Collection
                              Processes and ReportS20
                              A. Overview
                              Task 2 calls for the coordination of government wetlands data
                     collection processes and reporting procedures. The presentation of data in
                     similar formats will facilitate comparisons among wetland reports of different
                     organizations. Coordination of reporting procedures and scheduling will ensure
                     that users of these data receive the most reliable and up-to-date information.
                     Coordination will also allow the efficient exchange of data and results among
                     organizations.


                              B. Results
                              The working group proposes two primary steps to improve the
                     coordination of data collection processes and reports. The first step involves
                     developing a method to compare the data sets included in various government
                     wetland publications. The second step involves developing a National Wetlands
                     Data System (NWDS), which will provide access to the various wetland map
                     data sets from different government agencies.
                              To facilitate comparisons among various government wetland reports,
                     the FWS, the NRCS, NOAA, and EPA will include a crosswalk in future
                     reports on wetlands. The crosswalk will explain the relationship among wetland
                     data sets used and described in their respective reports and the various other
                     wetland data sets produced by other government agencies. The structure for
                     this crosswalk will be developed during the completion of task 3.
                              The working group also recommends that the various wetland digital
                     data sets be made available through a single unified data system that also
                     includes maps. The specific characteristics and the design of the data system
                     will be developed during task 4. The intent of this spatial data system will be to




                         "The information contained in this section on task 2 is derived from the original
                     unpublished report describing the working group's findings in September 1992.



                                                                                                             17









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                          present to the Nation an integrated set of wetland data (produced by various
                          government organizations), with consistent protocols, that meets national needs.
                                   To further this coordination effort, the FWS-NWI and NOAA-C-CAP
                          have agreed "to coordinate their inventory and monitoring programs that utilize
                          remote sensing technology to examine the distribution and abundance of coastal
                          habitats and the rate of their loss or gain over time." The FWS-NWI and EPA-
                          EMAP have signed a similar coordination document. Since October 1992, EPA
                          has provided a full-time liaison to the FWS, collocated with FWS-NWI staff, to
                          assist in the integration of EMAP qualitative data with NWI quantitative data;
                          specifically, integrating the wetlands component of EPA-EMAP with the NWI-
                          SAT. This liaison from EPA joined the USGS liaison already working directly
                          with the FWS.











































                18









                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates









                                                        Task 3A --



                                             Consistency of Data









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                     IV. Task 3A-Consistency of Data
                           A. Introduction
                              Task 3 calls for government organizations that collect wetland data for
                     inventory and for status and trends to compare and reconcile their respective
                     data and results. This task also calls for the government organizations to
                     develop reports that include crosswalks and explanations concerning other
                     government wetland data and results.
                              The purpose of task 3A is to identify the level of consistency among
                     wetland data sets collected by various government organizations and to
                     determine possible causes of inconsistencies. This evaluation will help
                     government organizations collecting wetland data reconcile their data sets and
                     develop improved methods.
                              This report describes the results of a pilot data comparison study that
                     the working group has completed in Wicomico County, Md. The working
                     group eventually plans to evaluate wetland data from up to 10 counties with
                     varying wetland density and complexity. The 10 counties tentatively chosen for
                     study were selected to ensure diversity in wetland, geographic, and other
                     characteristics, as shown below:


                              o@ geographic distribution within the contiguous States;
                              o. variability in wetland types and density;
                              o- differences in land use;
                              P- conflicts in land use;
                              o@ variability in amounts of urban and rural areas;
                              o@ representation of coastal and inland areas;
                              o. large differences in Federal land ownership; and
                              m- large differences between wetland acreage estimates from
                                 the FWS-NWI and NRCS-NRL













                                                                                                            19









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                            The 10 counties tentatively chosen for analysis are:


                            Wicomico, Md.             Dade, Fla.
                            Logan, N. Dak.            Washington, N. C.
                            Terrebonne, La.           Camden, N.C.
                            Meade, Kans.              Penobscot, Maine
                            Yazoo, Miss.              Tulare, Calif.


                              The working group started a pilot study to better understand the issues
                       and problems associated with the data comparison task. Wicomico County,
                       Md., was selected as the pilot because (1) wetland data and other spatial data in
                       digital form are available from the various government organizations; (2) the
                       county's proximity to the Washington, D.C., area facilitates field analysis
                       where necessary; and (3) the county has an abundance of forested wetlands,
                       which are generally recognized as the most difficult wetland type to map.


                              B. Wicomico County, Maryland, Pilot Study


                              1. Description of Wicornico County, Maryland"
                              Wicomico County is located on Maryland's eastern shore (see fig. 1).
                       Wicomico County's population in 1990 was 74,339, a 17.9 percent increase
                       since 1980." Salisbury is the county seat and the focal point of the county.
                       The two major highways, U.S. Routes 50 and 13, intersect in Salisbury near
                       the Wicomico River. This makes Salisbury the hub of bulk transportation
                       within the county.
                              Wicomico County is situated on the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
                       Lithologically, this part of the Coastal Plain is composed of marine units of
                       varying thicknesses. Clay, sand, and shells are the major deposits.




                         "This description of Wicomico County, Md., is derived from an unpublished paper by
                       Tera Paul, U.S. Geological Survey.

                         "1990 Census of Population and Housing



              20










                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                                  Wicomico County, Maryland




                             Dorchester                                              DELAWARE
                               County




                                                                         Delmar

                                                      Hebron

                                   0                                                                          Pittsville
                                                                        S isb
                                      r


                                                             10o RNO


                                                                Fruitlan








                                                                                                 Worchester
                                                  Somerset
                                                   County                                          County


                                                                                                    OH          PA
                                                                                                                    M       NJ

                                                                                                      Vw


                                                                                                              VA






               Figure 1. Wicomico County, Maryland is the site
                             of the pilot wetland data comparison.                                        Scale 1:370,000
                     I









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           Characteristically, the surface is of low elevation, usually between 0 and 25
                           feet. The low elevation and the broad smoothness of the region cause the
                           streams to have a gentle gradient and the stream incision is minimal. The
                           amount of stream incision directly affects the level of the water table; thus, the
                           water table is high throughout the county. The low elevation and smoothness of
                           the land surface combined with a gentle stream gradient and high water table
                           result in a well-developed floodplain and extensive areas of wetlands. Small
                           changes in elevation, microtopography, or parent material will determine
                           whether a given site is wetland or upland.
                                    The soils strongly reflect the parent materials and drainage conditions
                           and have developed on sand deposits. Large areas of land are poorly drained,
                           and more than 80 percent of agricultural revenue is earned from poultry and
                           livestock."


                                 2. Methodology
                                    The comparison of diverse wetland data sets from government
                           organizations involves (1) collecting relevant data; (2) assembling the data into
                           a GIS, and (3) analyzing the data.


                                    a. Data
                                    Wetland data for the pilot study in Wicomico County, Md., were
                           assembled from the FWS-NWI, FWS-SAT, NRCS-Wl, NRCS-NRI, NOAA-C-
                           CAP, EPA-EMAP, USGS Land Use Data Analysis Program (USGS-LUDA),
                           and the MD-WRA. For reasons explained later in the report, the EPA and
                           USGS concluded that it was not appropriate to compare the wetland
                           identification from the EMAP and LUDA data sets with the other data. The

                           data sources and related information are summarized in table 1.
                                    The wetland data vary in several ways in addition to the different
                           classification systems described earlier in this report. Wetland delineations are
                           made from manual interpretation of high-altitude aerial photographs, from
                           computer-assisted analysis of satellite data at different scales and times, and



                              `1988 County and City Data Book


                 22









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Esthnates

                         Table 1. Wicomico County, Maryland, Pilot Study Data Sets
                         IThe source dates for NRCS-1W are soil survey (published in 1970), color infrared (March 1982), ASCS color
                         slides (1987-88), and ASCS panchromatic photographs (1988-89)]


                                               Source         Size (kilobytes)          Data              Coding           Date
                           Name                 Date                                    Type             Scheme          Received-
                     USGS-LUDA              1973                 467                 vector           Anderson           9/10/92


                     NRCS-NRI               1982                 611                 point-(two       wet/not wet        11/18/92
                                                                                     files)           and
                                                                                                      Cowardin-

                                                                                                      like


                     FWS-NWI                1981-82             5,547                vector           Cowardin           9/9/92


                     FWS-SAT                1988                 256                 vector           Cowardin           9/9/92

                                                                                                      and

                                                                                                      Anderson
                                                                                                      (modified)

                     NRCS-WI                 (see note)         9,495                vector           wet/not wet        10/19/92
                                                                                     (converted
                                                                                     from
                                                                                     paper)

                     NOAA-C-CAP              1988-89          21,076                 raster           Cowardin           10/14/92

                                                                                                      and

                                                                                                      Anderson
                                                                                                      (modified)

                     EPA-EMAP                                 11,992                 raster           TM                 11/19/92


                     NM-VVRA                1988-89             4,484                vector           Cowardin           9/15/92

                     Color DOQQ             4/88 &            85,000 per             raster           false-color        9/15/92
                     (NID-WRA)              4/89              quarter quad                            images




                                                                                                                              23









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                             from varying numbers of field visits. The data include both raster and vector
                             types and are both point and polygon in form.
                                       The FWS-NWI, FWS-SAT, and MD-WRA rely primarily on the
                             interpretation of color infrared (CIR), leaf-off aerial photographs to classify
                             wetlands. The FWS-NWI used 1:58,000-scale CIR aerial photographs collected
                             in 1981-1982, the FWS-SAT used 1:40,000-scale CIR aerial photographs
                             collected during 1988, and the MD-WRA used CIR aerial photographs
                             collected during 1988-1989     .24 Both the FWS and MD-WRA use stereoscopic
                                                                             21
                             techniques to interpret aerial photographs.



                                 211t takes approximately 3 aerial photographs at the scale of 1:58,000 or 10 aerial
                             photographs at the scale of 1:40,000 to provide stereoscopic coverage for the area included
                             within a 7.5-minute quadrangle. Generally, wetland delineations are more accurate at larger
                             scales.


                                 21'fbe FWS reported to the working group that it has updated four of the 1:24,000-scale
                             quadrangles in Wicomico County since this data comparison began. According to FWS:
                             " The FWS updated four 1:24, 000-scale quadrangles within Wicomico County in support of
                             Phase II of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Trend Analysis Project. Field work was
                             conducted from January 20 to 22, 1993 within the Pittsville, Wango , Delmar, and
                             Salisbury quadrangles. NWI maps covering these four quadrangles were originally produced
                             from 1:58, 000-scale Color Infrared (CIR) aerial photographs flown in March of 1982; the
                             updated maps are based upon photointerpretation of 1:40, 000-scale CIR aerial photography
                             taken in April of 1989. The updating of these NWI maps resulted in significantly improved
                             wetland delineation and classification.
                                    "During the Trend Analysis Project, it became evident that the original wetlands
                             mapping was too conservative. This was due primarily to a difference in resolution and a
                             bluish emulsion which masked drier wetland signatures on the 1982 photography. Subtle
                             signatures indicating saturated soil conditions and areas of temporary flooding (water
                             regimes on the drier end of the wetland hydrologic spectrum), particularly those hydric soils
                             under a dense canopy of evergreen and deciduous (or mixed) forest, were not apparent (or
                             were masked) on the 1982 photography. These areas were classified as upland instead of
                             the more correct designation of either evergreen forested wetland (PF04) or deciduous
                             forested wetland (PFOI) with water regimes being either saturated (B), temporarily flooded
                             (A), or even seasonally flooded (C or E). Comparison of the original NWI maps with the
                             Soil Conservation Service's Soil Surveys indicated extensive areas of hydric soil map units
                             whose polygons often extended well beyond the delineated boundaries on the NWI maps.
                             Updating also brought the NW( maps into close conformity with wetlands mapping
                             conducted by the State of Maryland's Water Resources Administration, which used the same
                             wetlands classification system as NWL The increased resolution of the newer photography
                             enabled interpreters to identify hydric soils in topographic depressions within cultivated
                             fields, thus the delineation offarmed wetlands, as defined by Cowardin et al., was added to
                             the maps.



                   24









                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                 The NRCS-WI data were developed using soil survey data published
                        in 1970 as the base (Hall, 1970). In addition to using the soils data, the NRCS-
                        WI made wetland delineations in Wicomico County using 1: 15,840-scale
                        National High Altitude Photography (NHAP) CIR aerial photographs (flight
                        date: March 28, 1982), 1:7,920-scale National Aerial Photography Program
                        (NAPP) black-and-white infrared photographs (flight year: 1989), and color
                        slides (flight years: 1987 and 1988). The NRCS-WI maps were created as a
                        guide for making wetland determinations for the FSA, and, as a result, were
                        designed to overstate rather than understate wetland acreage.
                                 The multidisciplinary teams that collected NRCS-NRI data in
                        Wicomico County in 1982 made delineations that were based on selected field
                        examinations. Unlike the other wetland data sets, the NRCS-NRI data are point
                        data rather than areal data. As was described earlier in this report, these point
                        data are not mapped but are instead used to develop statistical information. The
                        NOAA-C-CAP data were derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper 1988-1989
                        images with a spatial resolution of 30 meters. The NOAA-C-CAP's data are in
                        raster format, in contrast to the vector data associated with the FWS-NWI,
                        FWS-SAT, MD-WRA, and NRCS-WI.
                                 The EPA determined that it was not appropriate to compare the
                        EMAP data in Wicomico County with the other data because the EMAP data
                        f1were not generated to map wetlands specifically or to provide wetlands status
                        and trends information, but rather to provide a general characterization of land
                        cover and land use patterns. For this reason, these data are not being
                        compared to those of the other programs, which are specifically oriented
                        toward wetlands mapping... This project was designed to incorporate NWI
                        airphoto-derived wetlands information along with the Landsat TM [Thematic
                        Mapper] interpretations, but funding limitations have thus far prevented this
                        from being completed ... the project was able to digitize hundreds of NWI


                              "77ze majority of the areas changed were boundary extensions of existing polygons,
                        delineation of discrete units within existing wetland polygons, or addition of previously
                        undetected wetlands. Most classification changes and additions were in theforested wetland
                        (both deciduous and evergreen) and scrub-shrub classes. Seasonally flooded emergent areas
                        were added as inclusions within existing polygons and along water courses. Most changes
                        were associated with the Fallsington, Pocomoke, and Elkton soil series.



                                                                                                                       25









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                            quadrangles that were previously available only as hardcopy maps ... The EMAP
                            Wetlands program relies on the National Wetlands Inventory program in two
                            main areas: use of A7-WI maps as sources for choosing sampling sites for
                            monitoring wetlands condition, and reliance on NWI status and trends program
                            to provide information on wetland eXtent.,,26
                                     The USGS reported to the working group that "For several reasons,
                            the LUDA data are not appropriate for use in the wetlands comparison study.
                                     "First, the data collected are at a scale too gross for acreage
                            comparisons and for comparing conventions for identifying wetland areas. The
                            fact that there are only two categories of wetlands identified imply that the
                            classification system used was too general to identify wetlands to the degree
                            that NWI and NRI identify them.
                                     "Second, it was the intention of the LUDA data managers to provide a
                            foundation to State and local organizations and to other Federal agencies to
                            expand on the classification system and the land use and land cover
                            delineations. To use the wetland delineations from the L UDA Program would
                            be similar to comparing generalized data to site specific data.
                                     "Third, although the primary data source was the same as used by the
                            NWI, the age of the source materials is very different. The conversion of
                            wetlands to a higher order use would adversely affect the comparison of both
                            data sets.
                                     "Fourth, positional accuracy was not as important as relational
                            accuracy as borne out by the 1:250, 000-scale compilation base. Although the
                            data were recorded at the 1:125, 000-scale, the accuracy of the base was no
                            better than 1:250, 000. This is a major difference from the 1:24, 000-scale used
                            by ArWf. For these reasons, the comparison of LUDA wetland acreage and
                            delineations with the NWI data would not provide meaningful results.     ,21




                               "Communication from Doug Norton, Office of Water, Environmental Protection
                            Agency, Washington, D.C., April 21, 1993

                               21COmmunication from Michael Chambers, Requirements Officer, National Mapping
                            Division, USGS, Reston, Va., June 1993.



                  26










                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                             b. Assembly of the Data into a GIS
                             The comparison of the various wetland data sets involves the use of
                    geographically referenced digital data in a GIS environment. At the request of
                    the Chair, FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee, the USGS National Mapping
                    Division is assisting the working group in implementing the analysis through
                    the use of GIS technology.
                             The USGS Mapping Applications Center (USGS-MAC) has been
                    providing analytical and technical support to the working group in the pilot
                    study area by (1) developing a framework for analysis using GIS technology,
                    (2) assembling the digital data from the various government organizations, (3)
                    conducting comparisons to determine where the various wetland data sets are
                    consistent and inconsistent, and (4) providing plots, other viewing materials,
                    and tabular data so that the working group can examine the data and can
                    develop explanations for data patterns. In addition, USGS-MAC completely
                    digitized and tagged the NRCS-WI data from photocopied pages.
                             Some of the complexity of assembling the data in a GIS can be seen
                    from the varying sizes of the data bases. Table I indicates that the data bases
                    range in size from 611 kilobytes (NRCS-NRI) to 85,000 kilobytes per quarter
                    quadrangle (the color digital orthophotoquad from MD-WRA). The USGS-
                    MAC translated and placed the digital data together so that these data could be
                    interpreted and analyzed on a single computer workstation. All of the data were
                    scaled and projected so that cartographic differences could be normalized.
                    Positional differences that are observed in the analysis are therefore inherent in
                    the original files.
                             The USGS-MAC wrote computer programs to facilitate spatial
                    analysis of the digital data. For instance, as was described earlier in this report,
                    the data sets use different wetland classification systems. Programs were
                    developed to sort codes into individual fields so that comparisons by specific
                    attribute could be made automatically.
                             Programs also were written to allow the working group to make
                    graphic and tabular comparisons and evaluations of the data. The various
                    overlays can be viewed simultaneously and drawn on the screen using colors
                    and patterns according to specific wetland attributes. In addition, the distances



                                                                                                          27









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                             between features and the sizes of areas can be measured easily. Color
                             electrostatic plots of each data set were made at the 1: 100,000 and the
                             1:24,000 scales.


                                      c. Analysis
                                      The analysis in the Wicomico County pilot study was designed to
                             provide information on two primary issues: (1) the level of consistency among
                             the various government wetland data sets and (2) the relative strengths and
                             weaknesses among the data sets. The analysis was designed to provide general
                             comparative information and to identify possible patterns among the data sets;
                             its purpose is not to determine which data sets are more correct or to test
                             statistical hypotheses.
                                      To determine the level of consistency among the various data sets, the
                             working group compared the total acreage in the Wicomico County study area
                             that each data set classifies as wetland. This comparison was broadened to
                             evaluate the acreage that each data set classifies within various systems or
                             subcategories of wetlands. Although acreage comparisons are important for
                             evaluating national wetland acreage projections, this type of comparison by
                             itself is an inadequate indicator of consistency. Even though total acreage
                             classified as wetlands may be similar, different areas within the study area may
                             be classified as wetlands in the various data sets. Thus, although the acreage
                             estimates may be close, the actual locations of areas delineated as wetlands may
                             be inconsistent.
                                      To resolve this problem, the working group developed and examined a
                             series of maps showing areas of agreement and disagreement in wetland
                             designation among the various data sets. The maps were plotted at both the
                             1:24,000 scale and the 1: 100,000 scale. Although the maps are useful to
                             evaluate specific spatial issues and to identify general patterns, tabular acreage
                             data are required to make a more complete comparison among the data sets. To
                             obtain these data, a series of matrices was developed to compare areas of
                             agreement and disagreement. These matrices are divided by system or type of
                             wetland to facilitate comparisons in agreement between data sets.





                   28









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                 Tests to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of
                       government wetland data sets are difficult because there is no standard of
                       correct wetland classification with which to compare the various wetland data
                       sets. That is, if there is an inconsistency among the data sets in wetland
                       classification, data do not exist to resolve the inconsistency.
                                 To obtain independent information on whether a site was actually a
                       wetland or an upland, field data in the Wicomico County study area were
                       collected and compared with the wetland classifications from the various
                       government data sets. Two tests were conducted to develop information on the
                       relative strengths and weaknesses of the government wetland data sets. The
                       first test involved examining 130 points in the field in the Wicomico County
                       study area to determine whether wetlands or uplands existed at the points. The
                       working group selected the points because of inconsistencies in wetland
                       classification among the data sets at the points and to resolve questions relating
                       to wetland identification. An independent contractor with expertise in wetlands
                       identification collected the data at the 130 points in the field in May and June
                       1993. The contractor used the data form for Routine Wetland Determination
                       from the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and a
                       supplemental field data form used by the MD-WRA for an earlier Wetlands
                       Mapping Ground Truth project. In addition to making a wetland determination
                       at the point, the contractor reported on the vegetation, hydrology, and soils, as
                       well as on whether there was evidence of significant land use/land cover
                       change within the last 10 years and whether the site was within 50 meters of a
                       wetland boundary.
                                  Because many of the points selected in the first test were found to be
                       near wetland boundaries, a second test was designed to examine a series of
                       points along transects so that the impact of boundary changes could be
                       assessed  .28 The working group selected the transects on the basis of


                           "Wetlands are a transition between aquatic conditions and mesophytic (well-balanced
                       moisture) or xerophytic (dry) conditions. This transition occurs as a continuum or gradation
                       from one condition into another; wetlands are not always small isolated pockets. Transect
                       sampling enables the investigator to obtain data over a broad spectrum of conditions as
                       opposed to single, isolated data representing only a point on the ground. Within this
                       gradation may be found areas of mixed wetlands and nonwetlands, units so small that they



                                                                                                                           29









                               Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                               inconsistencies among the wetland data sets or to study other issues that they
                               had identified. In July 1993, a field team from the working group collected
                               data on whether points on the transects were wetlands, uplands, or transitional,
                               as well as data on soils, vegetation, and hydrology.


                                         d. Previous Studies
                                         In 1992, the FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee, at the request of the
                               President's Domestic Policy Council's Wetlands Task Force, wrote a report
                               evaluating the application of satellite data for mapping and monitoring wetlands
                               (Wetlands Subcommittee, 1992). The report was based on discussions with
                               technical experts representing various organizations from government,
                               academia, and environmental groups.
                                         The Wetlands Subcommittee concluded that "The detail and reliability
                               of information derived from satellite data have steadily improved." "For some
                               regions," the report states, "satellite remote sensing may be the most cost-
                               effective means for conducting reconnaissance wetland surveys." However, the
                               report states that "satellite data cannot match the accuracy of areal extent,
                               classification detail, or reliability that can be extracted from conventional aerial
                               photography using manual photo-interpretation techniques, such as those used
                               by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory
                               (NWI) Project."
                                         The report identified several limitations in using satellite data for
                               monitoring wetlands and uplands. These limitations range from an "inability to
                               classify more than a limited number of wetland classes" to an "inability to
                               reliably and routinely detect forested wetlands and scrub-shrub wetlands. " The
                               report concludes that using satellite data causes "underestimations of the




                               cannot be delineated individually.
                                      A transect enables the investigator to get a feet for the lay of the land and make a
                               determination of the area as a whole. Most wetlands are a heterogeneous area; they are a
                               mixture of several wetland types or wetlands and nonwetlands. The transect method of
                               delineation enables the investigator to locate the wetland boundaries more efficiently and
                               classify the area as a whole. Point sampling in heterogeneous areas may result in the
                               investigator inadvertently picking at random a site that is not characteristic of the entire
                               area or introducing a bias to the sampling procedure by focusing on the wetter sites.



                    30









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                      acreage of individual wetlands; the amount of underestimation is not
                      consistent. "
                               The conclusions from the report remain controversial within the
                      Wetland Data Coordination Working Group and the FGDC Wetlands
                      Subcommittee. They are described here because they are part of the publicly
                      available literature on this subject.
                               In July 1991, a workshop held in the area around Salisbury,
                      Maryland, evaluated data from NOAA-C-CAP and FWS-NWI (Salisbury State
                      University and others, 1991). Separate teams evaluated data in the field in
                      seven USGS 7.5- minute quadrangles. "Each group was asked to determine the
                      degree to which the land cover polygons had been correctly classified for each
                      of the two TM [Thematic Mapper] dates (1984, 1988) and by NWI for maps
                      based on photography taken during March, 1982 and April, 198 1. " Sites
                      visited were either classified as random sites (selected randomly) or selected
                      sites (sites that were of particular interest or curiosity).
                               The study team found that the "accuracy of polygon classification in
                      the preliminary C-CAP product is very high overall with many of the errors
                      subject to straightforward identification and correction. Accuracy ranged from
                      63 percent to 97 percent by quadrangle for randomly selected sites, with six of
                      the seven quadrangles having a classification accuracy of 87 percent or better.
                      On the other hand, selected sites generally were misclassified and the
                      classification accuracy for these polygons was 15 percent to 50 percent." The
                      workshop reported that the "NWI products generally appeared to be very
                      accurate in both spatial resolution and classification. " It also reported that
                      "problems were noted in differentiation of forested wetlands and forests.
                      Coastwatch tended to identify these sites as forest and NWI tended to correctly
                      identify these areas. "
                               The NOAA-C-CAP data used in the current FGDC analysis described
                      in this report were revised after the 1991 workshop. According to NOAA, the
                      C-CAP data evaluated in the 1991 workshop were part of a preliminary data
                      set. NOAA reports that the entire data set was reclassified "based on
                      observations during the workshop and C-CAP's own field verification
                      efforts...





                                                                                                               31









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                    In May 1992, the FWS-NWI published a paper on "Comparison of
                           Four Scales of Color Infrared Photography for Wetland Mapping in Maryland"
                           (National Wetlands Inventory, 1992). The objectives of the study were "(1) to
                           compare four scales of color infrared photographs for identifying wetlands and
                           (2) to determine differences in the effort required to interpret the photos and
                           produce wetland maps from each photo scale." The scales evaluated were
                           1: 12,000, 1:24,000, 1:36,000, and 1:58,000, and the test area was the
                           Millington Quadrangle on the eastern shore of Maryland. Because larger scales
                           provide more detail, it was expected that the 1: 12,000-scale photographs
                           "would allow for the detection and mapping of additional smaller individual
                           wetlands as well as more detail within larger wetlands than could be
                           accomplished at other scales. " In fact, photointerpretation from larger scale
                           photographs did result in more polygons and acreage being classified as
                           wetlands. The greatest difference between the different scale photographs was
                           for polygons between 0. 1 and 0. 5 acres, which "accounted for 96.8 percent of
                           the difference in number of wetlands and 75.8 percent of the differences in
                           wetland acreage of those wetlands between 1: 12K and 1: 24K photos."
                                    The study team concluded that "the 1: 12 K photos produced the
                           greatest acreage of wetlands compared to other [large] scales (1:36K and
                           [1:24K]), chiefly because of the ability to delineate small individual wetlands
                           (less than 0. 5 acres in size)." In addition, "forested wetlands accounted for the
                           main acreage differences in unique polygons (small individual wetlands) and in
                           refinements of wetland boundaries, with the temporarily flooded type having
                           the greatest impact." "The level of effort (and subsequent costs) increased
                           dramatically with increasing photo scale due to the number of photos and to the
                           level of detail that can be observed and delineated. It took 6.2 times as much
                           effort to produce a wetland map from the 1: 12K photos as it did from the
                           1:58K, 3.6 as long to produce a wetland map from the 1:36K versus the
                           1: 5 8K.












                 32









                           Coordination and Integration of Weiland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                   3. Results

                                       a. Introduction
                                       Among the four data sets with full-coverage mapping programs, FWS-
                           NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP, and NRCS-WI, there is agreement that the
                           majority of land in the Wicomico County study area is upland." However,
                           there is significant disagreement among the data sets both on the amount of
                           acreage classified as wetlands and on the location of the wetlands. Within this
                           disagreement among the data sets is a pattern in which NRCS-WI and NOAA-
                           C-CAP appear to exhibit a greater tendency to classify an area as wetland than
                           do the FWS-NWI and MD-WRA.
                                       Most wetlands in the Wicomico County study area are palustrine; in
                           turn, most palustrine wetlands in the study area are forested. Areas that are
                           classified by at least one data set as palustrine forested wetlands account for a
                           large proportion of the disagreement between the data sets. It appears that this
                           is true both because of the fact that most wetlands in the study area are
                           palustrine forested and because of the difficulties associated with identifying
                           wetlands in forested areas using remote sensing techniques."


                                       b. Wetlands Acreage
                                       The FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP, and NRCS-WI all agree
                           that more than 60 percent of the Wicomico County study area is upland. It can
                           be seen from table 2, however, that the data sets vary widely in their



                                2'The NRCS-WI does not use the term upland; rather, it classifies the area as "not
                           wetland. "


                                3OSee "Use of High-Altitude Aerial Photography for Inventorying Forested Wetlands in
                           the United States," by Ralph W. Tiner, Jr. in "Forest Ecology and Management," 33/34
                           (1990), p. 593-604. Also, see Salisbury State University (1991).
                                   Tiner (1990) concludes that "Evergreen forested wetlands, temporarily flooded
                           deciduous forested wetlands, forested wetlands in rainforest regions, and hydrologically
                           altered forested wetlands are among the most difficult wetlands to photo-interpret."
                           According to FWS-NWI and MD-WRA data, approximately 40 percent of the palustrine
                           forested wetlands are temporarily flooded deciduous wetlands and an additional
                           approximately 20 percent are evergreen forested wetlands. Thus, over half of the palustrine
                           wetlands in the study area are in the most difficult to photointerpret subclasses that Tiner
                           identifies.




                                                                                                                                               33









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                              assessment of the mix of wetlands and uplands in the study area." NRCS-WI,
                              for instance, classifies almost four times as much acreage as wetlands as does
                              FWS-NWI.
                                        This large apparent disagreement between NRCS-WI and FWS-NWI
                              is explained partly by the different mission responsibilities of the two data sets
                              and the techniques used to classify wetlands. The data collected for NRCS-WI
                              are required for regulatory purposes under the Food Security Act of 1985, and
                              as a result, it is NRCS's intent to identify potential forested wetlands during the
                              inventory. On site wetland determinations are made if a landowner wants to
                              convert a forested area that has been classified as wetland. In Wicomico
                              County, NRCS-WI classifies areas as wetlands if the area is forested and is
                                                                                                                   12
                              within a hydric soil mapping unit, according to the published soil survey.
                              The mission of FWS-NWI, on the other hand, is to map wetland areas on a
                              scientific basis rather than for direct regulatory purposes. As a result, FWS-





                                  "The FWS-SAT and NRCS-NRI collect data for only a sample of the study area;
                              FWS-SAT has data for less than 2 percent of the study area, and NRCS-NRI has data for
                              258 points within the study area. The FWS-SAT classifies approximately 74 percent of the
                              2,591 acres included within its sample in the study area as uplands and 26 percent as
                              wetlands. The NRCS-NRI classifies approximately 71 percent of its points in the study area
                              as uplands and 29 percent as wetlands.

                                  32 For more information on hydric soils, see "Hydric Soils of the United States," United
                              States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication
                              Number 1491, June 1991.
                                     The document defines a hydric soil as "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded
                              long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part."
                                     "Hydric soils are developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth
                              and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. This list includes phases of soils that may or
                              may not have been drained. Some series, designated as hydric, have phases that are not
                              hydric depending on water table, flooding, and ponding characteristics."
                                     The list of hydric soils includes "a number of agricultural and nonagricultural
                              applications. These include assistance in land-use planning, conservation planning, and
                              assessment of potential wildlife habitat. A combination of the hydric soil, hydrophytic
                              vegetation, and hydrology criteria defines wetlands as described in the Federal Manual for
                              Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for
                              Weiland Delineation, 1989). Therefore, an area that meets the hydric soil criteria must also
                              meet the hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology criteria in order for it to be
                              classified as a jurisdictional wetland.



                   34









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                          Table 2. Distribution of Wetlands and Uplands (Acres)
                          [The FWS-NW, FWS-SAT, and MD-WRA wetlands include palustrine, lacustrine, riverine, and
                          estuarine. These wetland systems are divided into 52 classes, which are in turn divided into many
                          subclasses. The NOAA-C-CAP wetlands include palustrine forest, mixed scrublshrub, estuarine
                          emergent wetland, water, palustrine emergent wetland, and tidalflats. 7he NRCS4W wetlands
                          include wet andfarmed wet. The NOAA-C-CAP uplands include grassland, forest (deciduous,
                          evergreen, mixed), cropland, developed land, and exposed land. 7he NRCS-VW uplands include
                          nonwet and prior converted. It should be noted that the number of systems or classes used to
                          determine wetland acreage for each data set does not imply the number of wetland types within
                          each data set, for FWS-NW, FWS-SAT, and MD-WRA, it only signifies the number of wetland
                          categories in the Wicomico County study area at the first level of division for the Cowardin and
                          others classification system.]

                                                       I          Wetlands                           Uplands

                          FWS-NWI                        12,985    ( 8.3%)                  144,208 (91.7%)

                          AM-V*rRA                       17,098 (10.9%)                     140,050 (89.1%)

                          NOAA-C-CAP                     30,611     (19.5%)                 126,581 (80.5%)

                          NRCS-WI                        51,435     (32.7%)                 100,007 (63.6%)


                          NWI classifies areas as wetlands        only after they have been explicitly identified as
                          wetlands through photointerpretation.
                                     It can be seen from table 2 that although NOAA-C-CAP classifies less
                          acreage within the study area as wetlands than does NRCS-WI, NOAA-C-CAP
                          classifies more than twice the acreage within the study area as wetlands as do
                          either FWS-NWI or MD-WRA.
                                     Although the MD-WRA data set is used for guidance purposes, MD-
                          WRA considers itself to be conservative in its classification of wetlands. That
                          is, MD-WRA, like FWS-NWI, classifies areas as wetlands only after they have
                          been explicitly identified through photointerpretation as wetlands. According to







                                                                                                                                    35









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                             MD-WRA: "Some marginal wetlands are missed using this approach; however,
                             we have more confidence that the delineated wetlands are jurisdictional.""
                                   The NOAA-C-CAP develops wetland data from satellite imagery as part
                             of its change analysis program; there is no regulatory function. The amount of
                             wetlands identified in NOAA-C-CAP depends partly on the threshold that
                             NOAA-C-CAP uses in classifying wetlands from the satellite data.
                             Adjustments to the threshold can affect the amount of area that NOAA-C-CAP
                             classifies as wetlands.
                                   The FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP agree that more than 80
                             percent of the wetland areas in the study area are palustrine. Table 3 shows
                             general agreement between FWS-NWI and MD-WRA in the distribution of

                                                                  34
                             wetland acreage in the study area.


                             Table 3. Wetland Distribution (Acres)


                                                  FWS-NWI               MD-WRA              NOAA-C-CAP


                             Palustrine         10,660 (82.1%)        14,581 (85.3)         27,629 (90.3%)

                             Lacustrine           546(4.2%)             548(3.2%)             N/A

                             Riverine             605 (4.7%)            853 (5.0%)            N/A

                             Estuarine           1,174 ( 9.0%)         1,116 ( 6.5%)         1,604 ( 5.2%)

                             Open Water           N/A                   N/A                  1,378 ( 4.5%)

                             Total              12,985                17,098                30,611







                                "Bill Burgess, Program Director, Enforcement Services, Water Resources
                             Administration, State of Maryland.

                                'The NRCS-Wl uses a classification system designed for compliance with the Food
                             Security Act of 1985 and distinguishes between wetlands and farmed wetlands. More than
                             99 percent of the wetland area classified by NRCS-Wl is classified as wetlands.



                  36









                      Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           The NOAA-C-CAP classifies a greater proportion of wetlands as
                      palustrine, but it does not explicitly classify lacustrine and riverine wetlands.
                      Instead, it has an additional category of open water, which includes waters that
                      may be palustrine, lacustrine, riverine, or estuarine. A more detailed summary
                      of the wetland data is contained in appendix 2.


                           c. Spatial Consistency
                           The wetland acreage comparisons described above are useful as a general
                      indicator of the tendency of the various data sets to classify areas as wetlands.
                      The acreage comparisons, however, do not provide information on the extent to
                      which the various data sets classify the same areas as wetlands and the same
                      areas as uplands.
                           Table 4 summarizes the amount of agreement among the data sets in
                      classifying the same areas as wetlands or as uplands. Each column shows the
                      wetlands acreage agreed upon by a specific number of data sets. For instance,
                      the I Data Set column represents acreage that only one data set classifies
                      as wetlands. The 2 Data Sets column represents acreage that only two data sets
                      agree are wetlands.
                           The 0 Data Sets column represents acreage that none of the four data sets
                      are classifying as wetlands. Conversely, this represents acreage that is being
                      classified as uplands by all four data sets. On the other hand, the 4 Data Sets
                      column represents acreage that is being classified as wetlands by all four data
                      sets. The sum of the 91,796 acres that are classified as uplands by all four data
                      sets and the 5,444 acres classified as wetlands by all four data sets represents
                      the acreage within the study area in which all four data sets agree. Thus, it can
                      be seen that there is agreement among the four data sets in 97,240 of the
                      157,193 acres within the study area, or in approximately 62 percent of the
                      study area.
                               The 1, 2, and 3 Data Set(s) columns represent areas that at least one
                      data set classifies as wetlands and at least one data set classifies as uplands.
                      These 59,953 acres, approximately 38 percent of the study area, represent the
                      areas of disagreement among the data sets.





                                                                                                             37









                                Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estijnates

                                           Table 4 shows greater agreement among the data sets in areas that are
                                classified as uplands by at least one data set than there is in areas classified as
                                wetlands by at least one data set. Of the 62 percent of the study area in which
                                the four data sets agree, 94 percent is classified by the four data sets as
                                uplands. Within areas classified by at least one data set as wetland, there is
                                agreement among the four data sets in only eight percent of the area. On the
                                other hand, within areas classified by at least one data set as uplands, there is


                                Table 4. Data Set Agreement on Wetland Designation (Acres)
                                - Four Data Sets

                                17he 0 Data Set column represents acreage that none of the four data sets classify as wetland,
                                conversely, this column represents the area that allfour data sets agree are uplands. Yhe I Data
                                Set column represents the area that only one data set classifies as wetland. The 2 Data Set column
                                represents the area that exactly two data sets classify as wetland. The 3 Data Set column represents
                                the area that exactly three data sets classify as wetland, and the 4 Data Set column represents the
                                area that allfour data sets classify as wetland. The acreage totals do not always represent the
                                acreage associated with the individual data sets. 7his is because when more than one data set
                                classifies an area as wetland, the acreage associated with that area is only counted once. For
                                instance, if exactly two data sets classify an area as a wetland, the acreage associated with that
                                area will be shown for each of the two data sets. Since the area is the same for the two data sets,
                                the acreage will only be counted once for the total. I



                                                              0 Data         1 Data           2 Data        3 Data          4 Dat

                                                              Sets           Set              Sets          Sets            Sets


                                  FWS-NWI                     91,796             653          2,099          4,789           5,444


                                  MD-V;RA                     91,796            1,531         3,838          6,292           5,444

                                  NOAA-C-CAP                  91,796           7,798          11,366         6,001           5,444

                                  NRCS-WI                     91,796         27,140           13,205         5,649           5,444

                                  Totals (Acres)              91,796         37,122           15,254         7,577           5,444

                                  Totals O?ercent)            58.4%          23.6%            9.7%           4.8%            3.5%




                     38









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                      agreement among the four sets in 60 percent. Thus, much of the apparent
                      inconsistency among the data sets occurs in areas that at least one data set
                      classifies as wetland.
                               In fact, of the area classified by one or more data sets as wetland,
                      57 percent is classified as wetland by only one data set. This implies that
                      much of the apparent inconsistency occurs in areas where one data set
                      disagrees with the others and classifies the area as wetland. It can be seen
                      from table 4 that NRCS-WI accounts for 73 percent of the areas classified
                      as wetland by only one data set. By comparison, FWS-NWI accounts for
                      only 2 percent of the acreage classified as wetland by only one data set,
                      MD-WRA accounts for 4 percent, and NOAA-C-CAP accounts for 21
                      percent of the acreage that is classified by only one data set as wetland.
                      This result is consistent with the fact that NRCS-WI classifies significantly
                      more acreage as wetlands in the Wicomico County study area than do the
                      other data sets. On the other hand, 95 percent of the wetlands classified by
                      FWS-NWI are also classified as wetlands by at least one other data set,
                      and 91 percent of the wetlands classified by MD-WRA are also classified
                      as wetlands by another data set.
                            Table 5 summarizes the amount of agreement among the remaining three
                      data sets with NRCS-WI data removed from the comparison. The three data
                      sets agree in 126,316 of the estimated 157,203 acres within the study area, or
                      in 80 percent of the study area  .31 Again, there is more agreement in areas that
                      at least one data set classifies as upland than in areas that are classified as
                      wetland by at least one data set. Of the 38,258 acres classified as wetland by at
                      least one data set, there is agreement in 7,371 acres or in 19 percent of the
                      area. On the other hand, of the 149,832 acres classified as upland by at least
                      one data set, there is agreement in 118,945 acres or 79 percent of the area.
                      Areas classified by NOAA-C-CAP as wetlands represent 77 percent of the area
                      classified as wetland by only one data set. This result is consistent with the fact
                      that NOAA-C-CAP also classifies significantly more area as wetland in the



                          31 The acreage totals reported in this analysis vary due to rounding when acreage
                      associated with various sets of polygons are surnmed.



                                                                                                                    39









                                 Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                 Table 5. Data Set Agreement on Wetland Designation (Acres)
                                 - Three Data Sets

                                 [The 0 Data Sets column represents acreage that none of the four data sets classify as wetland;
                                 conversely, this column represents the area that allfour data sets agree are uplands. The I Data
                                 Set column represents the area that only one data set classifies as wetland. The 2 Data Set column
                                 represents the area that exactly two data sets classify as wetland. The 3 Data Set column represents
                                 the area that all three data sets classify as wetland. The acreage totals do not always represent the
                                 acreage associated with the individual data sets. This is because when more than one data set
                                 classifies an area as wetland, the acreage associated with that area is only counted once. For
                                 instance, if exactly two data sets classify an area as a wetland, the acreage associated with that
                                 area will be shown for each of the two data sets. Since the area is the same for the two data sets,
                                 the acreage will only be counted oncefor the total.]

                                                           1 0 Data Se   ts 1 1 Data Set        IData Sets         3 Data Sets

                                    FWS-NWI                  118,945              1,683          3,930              7,371


                                    MD-VVPA                  118,945              3,717          6,019              7,371


                                    NOAA-C-CAP               118,945             17,787          5,451              7,371

                                    Totals (Acres)           118,945             23,187          7,700              7,371
                                    Totals (Percent)       1 75.7%               14.7%           4.9%               4.7%

                                 study area than do FWS-NWI and MD-WRA, as seen in table 2. On the other
                                 hand, 87 percent of the wetlands classified by FWS-NWI are also classified as
                                 wetlands by either MD-WRA or NOAA-C-CAP. Seventy-eight percent of the
                                 wetlands classified by MD-WRA are also classified as wetlands by either FWS-
                                 NWI or NOAA-C-CAP, and 42 percent of the wetlands classified by NOAA-
                                 C-CAP are also classified as wetlands by either FWS-NWl or MD-WRA.
                                            Figure 2 shows the location of the six quadrangles that encompass the
                                 Wicomico County study area. Figures 3-8 illustrate the level of spatial
                                 consistency among FWS-NWL MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP, and NRCS-Wl
                                 within each of the six quadrangles in the study area.




                      40










                           Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                                  Wicomico County, Maryland
                                                            Study Area


                             Dorchester                                               DELAWARE
                               County









                                                             <<-Cl



                                                                                                   Worchesfer
                                                  Somerset                                           County
                                                    County



                                                                                                       OH           PA
                                                                                                                       MD       NJ

                                                                                                         wV


                                                                                                                 VA
                                                        3eXO7

                                                                                c



















               Figure 2. Portions of six USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles in
                              Wicomico County, Maryland, encompassing the
                              study area for the pilot data comparison.                                      Scale 1:370,000










                                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates
                                  Wetland Classifications - Hebron Quadrangle

                                                                                                                   Acres
                                                                                                                   586            Watland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP

                                                                                                                   265            We land: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                                                                                                                                  Upitand: MD-WRA
                                                                                                                   571            Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA
                                                                                                                                  Upland:  NOAA-C-CAP
                                                                                                                   358            Wetland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                                                                                                                  Upland:  FWS-NWl
                                                                                                                                  We land: NOAA-C-CAP
                                                                                         Q,                       2,205           Upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA
                                                                                                                   329            Welland: FWS-NWl
                                                                                                                                  Upland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                                                                                                                  Welland: MD-WRA
                                                                                                                   836            Upland:  FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP

                                                                                                                 24,202           upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP


                                                                                                                  8,235           Wetland: NRCS-Wl







                                                                                                           4b
                                                                                                                                              N-




                                                                                                                                                                      V




















                                                                                                                                                A-





                                                                                                                                 40

                                                                                                                                        Z5

                                                                                                                                                                         C7








                             Figure 3.                                                                                                                        Scale 1:72,800










                                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                            Wetland Classifications - Delmar Quad















                                                          TO
                                                       jb@
                                                                                         I-4-jr,











                      Acres                                              Acres                                                Acres
                                    Wetland:                                             Wetland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                         Wetland: MD-WRA
                      439             FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP          375           Upland: FWS-NWl                       344           Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                      114           Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP 2,47,                   Wetland: NOAA-C-CAP      RA        19,648           Upland:
                                    Upland: MD-WRA                                       Upland:  FWS-NW], MD-W                                  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                    Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                             Wetland: FWS-NWl
                      222           Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                     117           Upland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP         4,430           Wetland: NRCS-Wl

                      Figure 4.                                                                                                                        Scale 1:76,000










                                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                    Wetland Classifications - Pittsville Quad




                                                                                                          V














                                                        b t












                                                                                       AD

                                                                                                                    4,




                                                                                                                                                                                   46

                                                                                                                                                      .40-

                                                     %




                                                                                                                                                                       4r


                                                                                                              13%                                                               q


                                                                                                                                             At




                            Acres                                                Acres                                                 Acres
                                           Wetland:                                             Wetland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                          Wetland: MD-WRA
                             462             FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAp 759                    Upland:   FWS-NW1                       673           Upland:  FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                             185           Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP 2,714                   Wetland:  NOAA-C-CAP        A         17,302          Upland:
                                           Upland: MD-WRA                                       Upland:   FWS-NWI, MD-WR                                  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                           Welland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                             Wetland:  FWS-NWl
                             170           Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                     296           Upland:   MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP 7,178                    Wetland: NRCS-W1

                           Figure 5.                                                                                                                            Scale 1:73,800










                                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                 Wetland Classifications - Eden Quad



                                                                                                      0









                                                                                                       0


                                                                                                                                          dk




                                                                                  0






































                      Acres                                               Acres                                                Acres
                                     Wetland:                                             Wetland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                          Wetland: MD-WRA
                     2,866            FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAp 628                     Upland:  FWS-NWl                      741            Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                                     Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP                         Wetland: NOAA-C-CAP                                  Upland:
                       440           Upland: MD-WRA                       2,293  EQ       Upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA           18,898 ED            FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                     Wetland: FWS-NWI MD-WRA                              Wetland: FWS-NWI
                       723           Upland: NOAA-C-6AP                     527  m        Upland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP         10,745 M         Wetland: NRCS.Wl

                     Figure 6.                                                                                                                           Scale 1:82,700










                                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                 Wetland Classifications - Salisbury Quad
                                IVI)






                                                                                                                   0* @P













                                                                                                                                                                           b











                                                                                                                Or


                                                                                                                                                        C>























                           Acres                                               Acres                                                 Acres
                                          Wetland                                              Wetland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                          Wetland: MD-WRA
                            726             FWS-@Wl, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAp 386                    Upland:  FWS-NWI                       457           Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                                          Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP         2,890           Welland: NOAA-C-CAP                                  Upland:
                            138           Upland: 'MD-WRA                                      Upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA            23,123              FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                          Welland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                             Wevand:  FWS-NWI                                     Welland: NRCS-Wl
                            310           Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                     153           Upland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAp           7,033  E23

                          Figure 7.                                                                                                                           Scale 1:71,400










                                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates
                           Wetland Classifications - Wango Quad












                                                                                                         4






















                   Acres                                               Acres                                                Acres
                                   Wetland:                                            Wetland: &D RA
                                                                                                       VVI NOAA-C-CAP                      Welland: MD-WRA
                  2,292             FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP1,264                   Upland:     4N                        661   M       Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                                   Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP                        Welland: NOAA-C-CAP                                 Upland:
                    539            Upland: MD-WRA                     5,206   ED       Upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA           15,681   =           FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-G-CAP
                                   Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                            Wetland: FWS-NWI
                    253            Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                   261   M        Upland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP 13,815 E@2              Welland: NRCS-Wl

                   Figure 8.                                                                                                                         Scale 1:71,400









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                       The ungridded white area within the plots represents areas classified
                             as upland by the four data sets. This represents approximately 58 percent of the
                             entire study area (the sum of the area shown in figures 3-8). Within the gridded
                             area, the dark blue area represents locations that the four data sets have all
                             classified as wetlands, or approximately 3 percent of the study area. All other
                             areas within the plots represent locations where there is disagreement among
                             the data sets (approximately 38 percent of the study area)." The acreage
                             associated with each color or gridded category is shown in figures 3-8 beside
                             the color code.
                                       The acreage totals and the plots show the relative tendency of NRCS-
                             WI and NOAA-C-CAP to classify more area as wetlands than FWS-NWI and
                             MD-WRA. Although each of the six quadrangles is distinct, these patterns exist
                             for each of the quadrangles.
                                       The matrices in tables 6-11 present information on the amount of
                             agreement and disagreement on wetland classification for various pairs of data
                             sets. The information contained in tables 6-11 is similar to the information
                             presented in tables 4 and 5, but it also allows comparisons of wetland
                             classification for specific pairs of data sets. In addition, tables 6-11 present
                             information on consistency between data sets broken down to the system level
                             instead of just comparing whether an area is a wetland or an upland.
                                       Perhaps most importantly, tables 6-11 also describe the level of
                             consistency between data sets in the classification of specific areas. As was
                             seen in figures 3-8, there is disagreement not only in the quantity of wetlands,
                             but on the location of wetlands. Thus, the potential for disagreement is much
                             greater than it is for a simple acreage comparison as was presented in tables 2
                             and 3.
                                       Tables 6-11 show significant disagreement in wetland classification for
                             all pairs of data sets. This result may not be surprising for a comparison



                                 "Areas classified by NRCS-Wl as wetlands are shown with gridded lines rather than
                             with a different color because areas classified as wetlands within the NRCS-WI data set
                             include all forested areas with hydric soils. The NRCS-WI is not claiming that these areas
                             are necessarily wetlands, but rather that these areas require further examination within
                             NRCS-Wl's regulatory responsibilities.



                   48









                        Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                      Table 6. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                      FWS-NWI/MD-VMA (Acres)
                      [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland,- shaded
                      areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data sets agree]



                                                                  FWS-NWI
                                                         Pal        Lac       Riv        Est        Upl_       Total
                                                            :...214     33         8        15       7,311       14,581
                                           Pal
                                                           ...............




                                           Lac                 32      4-5-:9      0          0          58          548



                        MID-WRA            Riv                178        5      56*7        41           61          852


                                           Est                 24        0                               48        1,117



                                           UPI             3,193        49       29         74    1 ... 140,050



                                          Total           10,641       545      605     1, 174     144,183     1-5. ... 7.















                                                                                                                           49









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table 7. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI (Acres)
                           [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv = Riverine; Est =Estuarine; Upl = Upland;
                           OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                           sets agree]



                                                                   NOAA-C-CAP


                                                               Pal        Est        OW           UPI



                                                Pal                          305          49         3,681         10,659
                                                                 .............
                                                                ..............
                                                                ..............




                                                Lac                27          74       352              86           539



                             FWS-NW1            Riv                  8         88       462              47           605



                                                Est                25        695.       347             116         1,173



                                                UPI                44        448        166                      144,056




                                                                                                                 ..................-
                                               Total          27,628       1,600       1,376       126,428      15'
                  50                                                                                   '498.
                                                                                                                      03.2









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                      Table 8. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                      NOAA-C-CAP/MD-WRA (Acres)
                      [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine,- Riv=Riverine,- Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland;
                      OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                      sets agree]



                                                               NOAA-C-CAP


                                                          Pal         Est         OW            UPI



                                          Pal               %.6-16      199             80         5,682        14,577
                                                           ...........
                                                           ...........




                                          Lac                  32         75          351             86            544



                        NM-V;RA           Riv                  36       257           470             88            851



                                          Est                  30       '65.2-        350             95          1,127
                                                                        ............




                                          UPI              18,899       438           126                      140,066
                                                                                                     ..........




                                                          27,613       1,621        1,377       126,554
                                          Total


















                                                                                                                          51









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table 9. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                            [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv =Riverine; Est =Estuarine; UpI = Upland,
                            OW= Open water; NW= Not wet,- Wet = Wetland,- PC = Prior converted, FW= Farmed
                            wetland,- NC=No classification]



                                                                     NOAA-C-CAP


                                                                Pal          Est         OW            UPI



                                                 NW               7,933         394          226        74,169         82,722



                                                 Wet            18,247          981          277        31,782         51,287



                              NRCS-WI            PC                  561         18             3       16,695         17,277



                                                 M                     0           0            0           147            147



                                                 NC                  876        208          872          3,794         5,750
                                                                         1                            -          L
                                               Total            27,628        1,600        1,376       126,428        157,032














                   52









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                     Table 10. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland; NW=Not
                     wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                FWS-NWI
                                                         Pal     @Lac@Riv@ Est                               Total
                                          NW               t,761    15t       37         63       80,716       82,728



                                          Wet             8,366     188      100        682      41,952        51,288



                       NRCS-W1            PC                 103       4       0         24       17,146       17,277



                                          fw                    1      0       0          0          147           148



                                          NC                 428    204      317        406        4,248        5,603
                                        Total        E,659          547      454      1,175     144,209       157,044



                                                                                                                          53









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table 11. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            MD-V-IRA/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                            [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv =Riverine; Est =Estuarine; Upl = Upland; NW=Not
                            wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                       NM-WRA
                                                                Pal--      Lac     Riv      Est                     Total
                                                 NW              3,003      134      66         46      79,445        82,694



                                                 Wet            10,841      200     292        646       39,279       51,258



                              NRCS-Wl            PC                 345       4        1        21       16,915       17,286



                                                 FW                    6      0        0          0          144          150



                                                 NC                 394     179     493        404        4,268         5,738



                                                Total          1 589        517     852      1,117      140,051     157,12
















                    54









                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Esthnates

                        between FWS-NWI data and NRCS-Wl data. After all, table 2 shows that
                        NRCS-WI classifies about four times as much area as wetlands as does FWS-
                        NWI. The result, however, is surprising for a comparison between FWS-NWI
                        and MD-WRA, which use similar techniques to classify wetlands and are both
                                                                                      37
                        considered to be conservative in wetland classification.
                                  Tables 6-11 also show that a large portion of the disagreement in
                        wetlands classification occurs in areas that are classified by one data set as
                        palustrine wetlands. This result is due partly to the fact that most wetlands
                        acreage in the Wicomico County study area is palustrine (see table 3). Because
                        most of the palustrine wetlands in the study area are forested, it is also difficult
                        to identify wetlands from aerial photographs and satellite images. In fact, it
                        appears that remotely sensed images in forested areas obtained at different
                        scales, with different techniques, at different times, and interpreted by different
                        people will produce different locations of wetlands. Appendix 3 contains two-
                        data set comparison matrices similar to those in tables 6-11 for each of the six
                        7.5-minute quadrangles in the study area.
                                  Table 6 shows the extent of the disagreement between FWS-NWI and
                        MD-WRA. It also shows that this disagreement is much more pronounced in
                        areas classified by one of the data sets as palustrine wetlands than for other
                        wetland systems. The MD-WRA classifies 14,581 acres as palustrine wetlands.
                        More than half of this area, or 7,311 acres, is classified by FWS-NWI as
                        uplands. Most of the disagreement between FWS-NWI and MD-WRA is not
                        among wetland systems, but rather, between the wetland and the upland
                        classification. Similarly, FWS-NWI classifies 10,641 acres as palustrine
                        wetlands. Although FWS-NWI classifies almost 4,000 less acres as palustrine
                        wetlands, MD-WRA classifies as uplands more than 3,000 of the acres
                        classified by FWS-NWI as palustrine wetlands.




                            3'The FWS-NWI used 1:58,000-scale color infrared aerial (CIR) photographs and MD-
                        WRA used 1:40,000-scale CIR photographs. It takes approximately 3 aerial photographs at
                        the 1:58,000 scale and 10 aerial photographs at the 1:40,000 scale to provide stereoscopic
                        coverage for a 7.5-minute quadrangle area. FWS comments: "Apparently a bluish cast on
                        the 1982 1:58,000-scale CIR photographs used by FWS-NWI masked the drier wetland
                        signature.



                                                                                                                            55









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                     The level of agreement between FWS-NWI and MD-WRA is much
                            greater for types of wetlands other than palustrine. More than 90 percent of
                            areas classified as lacustrine, riverine, or estuarine wetlands by FWS-NWI are
                            also classified as wetlands by MD-WRA. The percentages are similar for areas
                            classified as lacustrine, riverine, or estuarine by MD-WRA. Again, more than
                            90 percent of the area classified as riverine or estuarine by MD-WRA is
                            classified as wetlands by FWS-NWI. The percentage for lacustrine wetlands is
                            approximately 89 percent.
                                     As tables 4 and 5 show, there is significantly more disagreement in
                            areas that at least one data set classifies as wetlands than there is in areas that
                            at least one data set classifies as uplands. In table 6, of the 140,050 or 144,183
                            acres classified as uplands by MD-WRA or FWS-NWI respectively, the two
                            data sets agree in 136,705 acres. A similar pattern can be seen in tables 7 and
                            8, which compare NOAA-C-CAP data with FWS-NWI and MD-WRA. Again,
                            there is significant disagreement in the areas classified as palustrine wetlands.
                            For instance, of the 27,628 acres classified by NOAA-C-CAP as palustrine
                            wetlands, FWS-NWI agrees in only 6,624 of those acres. The FWS-NWI
                            classifies more than 20,000 of the remaining acres as uplands. Although FWS-
                            NWI classifies less than half the acreage as palustrine wetlands as does NOAA-
                            C-CAP, 3,681 of the 10,659 acres classified by FWS-NWI as palustrine
                            wetlands are classified by NOAA-C-CAP as uplands.
                                     For wetland types other than palustrine, there is again a significantly
                            greater amount of agreement on a wetland/upland basis between FWS-NWI and
                            NOAA-C-CAP and between MD-WRA and NOAA-C-CAP. For instance, more
                            than 80 percent of the area classified by FWS-NWI as lacustrine, riverine, or
                            estuarine is classified as wetlands by NOAA-C-CAP. More than 70 percent of
                            the area classified as estuarine or open water by NOAA-C-CAP is classified as
                            wetlands by FWS-NWI. This compares to the fact that less than one-quarter of
                            the area classified as palustrine by NOAA-C-CAP is classified as wetlands by
                            FWS-NWI. Again, the fact that the great majority of areas classified as
                            wetlands by FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP are classified as
                            palustrine wetlands drives the results in the general wetland/upland
                            classification comparison.



                  56









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                               Tables 7 and 8 show that the level of agreement between NOAA-C-
                      CAP and FWS-NWI and between NOAA-C-CAP and MD-WRA in upland
                      classification is much greater than it is in wetland classification. For instance,
                      FWS-NWI and NOAA-C-CAP agree in 122,498 of the 126,428 acres classified
                      as uplands by NOAA-C-CAP and of the 144,056 acres classified as uplands by
                      FWS-NWI.
                               Tables 9-11 compare data from NRCS-WI with data from FWS-NWI,
                      MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP. In these comparisons, more than 65 percent of
                      the area classified as palustrine wetlands by FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and
                      NOAA-C-CAP is also classified as wetlands by NRCS-WI. This is consistent
                      with the fact that NRCS-WI appears to have a greater tendency to classify an
                      area as a wetland than do the other data sets. On the other hand, more than 60
                      percent of the area classified as wetlands by NRCS-WI, is classified as uplands
                      by FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP. As was the case in tables 6-8,
                      there is agreement between pairs of sets in most of the areas that are classified
                      by either of the data sets as uplands.
                               Comparisons were also made between data from NRCS-NRI and
                      FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP, and NRCS-WI. These comparisons are
                      somewhat different than the comparisons summarized in tables 6-11 because the
                      NRCS-NRI consists of point data rather than areal data. For comparisons of the
                      NRCS-NRI data with the other data sets, it is necessary to compare the
                      classification from the two data sets at the NRCS-NRI points. To allow for
                      possible positional errors, two comparisons are made. The first comparison
                      occurs at the NRCS-NRI point itself. For the second comparison, a 50-meter
                      diameter buffer is drawn around the NRCS-NRI point. If the other data set is
                      consistent with the NRCS-NRI point anywhere within the 50-meter buffer, the
                      data are considered consistent for this comparison.
                               Table 12 summarizes the comparisons made between the NRCS-NRI
                      data and the other wetland data sets. The NRCS-NRI classifies 74 of its 243
                      data points as wetlands and the remaining 169 points as uplands. Only NRCS-
                      WI classifies more of these points as wetlands. In fact, NRCS-NRI classifies
                      more points as wetlands than do FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP
                      combined.





                                                                                                                  57









                                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                    Table 12. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                                    NRCS-NRI/Other Data (Points)
                                    [Shaded areas represent points of agreement between NRCS-NRI and other data
                                    sets. The numbers in the parentheses are based on the assumption that if there is
                                    agreement anywhere within the 50-meter buffer, the data from the two data sets
                                    agree.]


                                                                                        NRCS-NRI
                                                                                           Wetlands                Uplands                  Totai7s
                                                                                                  :2
                                                                   Wetlands             .8                         2         0)          10 ( 25)

                                          FWS-NWI                  Uplands              66        (49)         ::167                    233 (218)

                                                                   Totals               74        (74)         169      (169)           243 (243)




                                                                                        .. ... . .. ..... .
                                                                   Wetlands                                        2         0)          14 (30)
                                                                                        ......    ............

                                          NM-V,IRA                 Uplands              62        (44)         16-7-    (':1695'        229 (213)

                                                                   Totals               74        (74)         169      (169)           243 (243)



                                                                   Wetlands                                       10         2)          31         53)
                                                                                        ......    ............


                                                                                                                   9    "(4:67.....1.)
                                       NOAA-C-CAP Uplands                               53        (23)         I'w's                    212 (190)
                                                                                                                        .............
                                                                                                                        .............

                                                                   Totals               74        (74)         169      (169)           243 (243)



                                                                   Wetlands             -59         ....7         18         5)          77 (72)
                                                                                                  :6.9
                                                                                                  ............
                                                                                                  ............

                                          NRCS-WI                  Uplands              13           5)        145.                     158 (163)
                                                                                                               ......... .............

                                                                   No Data              2            2)            6    ( 6)               8 ( 8)

                                                                   Totals               74        (74)         169      (169)           243 (243)





                         58









                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                             The NRCS-NRI is relatively consistent with FWS-NWI, MD-WRA,
                    NOAA-C-CAP, and NRCS-WI for points classified by these data sets as
                    wetlands. For instance, NRCS-NRI agrees with FWS-NWI in 8 out of the 10
                    points classified as wetlands by FWS-NWI. In fact, with the 50-meter buffer,
                    NRCS-NRI agrees with all of the wetland points identified by FWS-NWI and
                    MD-WRA.
                             The NRCS-NRI is also relatively consistent with the other data sets
                    for points that it classifies as uplands. Of the 169 points classified by NRCS-
                    NRI as uplands, FWS-NWI and MD-WRA agree with the classification at 167
                    of the points. Again, with the 50-meter buffer, FWS-NWI and MD-WRA agree
                    at all 169 points classified by NRCS-NRI as uplands.
                             The results suggest that although NRCS-NRI may have a tendency to
                    identify more points as wetlands than FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-
                    CAP, NRCS-NRI does classify as wetlands most of the points classified as
                    wetlands by the other data sets. In addition, partly owing to NRCS-NRI's
                    tendency to classify more points as wetlands, the other data sets agree for the
                    most part with points classified by NRCS-NRI as uplands. Because NRCS-NRI
                    classifies relatively more points as wetlands, there is disagreement for many of
                    the points it classified as wetlands.


                          d. Field Tests
                             The results from the two field tests support the hypothesis that
                    although there are significant inconsistencies among the data sets both in total
                    acreage classified as wetlands and in the location of the wetlands, the
                    disagreements to some extent appear to be related to the tendency of some data
                    sets to classify areas (or points for the NRCS-NRI) as wetlands. A summary of
                    the results from the first field test is shown in table 13. More detailed data
                    from the field test are contained in appendix 4. As was discussed in the
                    Methodology section, in the first test, an independent contractor evaluated 130
                    points selected by the working group to determine whether or not the points







                                                                                                         59









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                         Table 13. Wetland Data Comparison -
                         First Field Test/Wetland Data Sets (Points)
                         [Shaded areas represent agreement between the data set and the field test results.
                         Numbers in parentheses represent data set potential agreement with field test
                         points if there is a wetland boundary within 50 meters of the point. If there is a
                         wetland boundary within 50 meters of the point, the field test point is assumed to
                         agree with the agency data set.]


                                                             Field Test
                                                               Wetlands       T   Uplands            Tot
                                               Wetlands         8        (11)      6          3)     14

                           FWS-NWI             Uplands         33        (9)              (107)      116
                                               Totals       1  41              1 89                  130
                                               Wetlands        1,4`      (14)      6          3)     17

                           MID-WRA             Uplands         30        (9)     83.      (104)      113

                                               Totals          41                89                  130


                                               Wetlands        11        (20)    23          14)     34

                           NOAA-C-CAP          Uplands         30          8)             (88)       96

                                               Totals          41                89                  130


                                               Wetlands        3.0       (48)    46       (28)       76

                           NRCS-WI             Uplands         10        (2)     41"      (49)       51
                                               Totals       1  40              1 87               1  127      1
                                               Wetlands                  (19)    26          18)     37

                           NRCS-NRI            Uplands          5           1)   :1`9     (23)       24

                                               Totals          16                45                  61





                 60









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                      were within wetlands." Figure 9 shows the spatial distribution of the points
                      examined in the first field test.

                                Table 13 shows that NRCS-Wl and NRCS-NRI classified as wetlands
                      well over half of the points that the contractor identified as wetlands." On the
                      other hand, FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP all classified as
                      wetlands less than a third of the points that the contractor identified as
                      wetlands. This result is consistent with a general pattern of NRCS-WI and
                      NRCS-NRI having a greater tendency to identify wetlands. Likewise, FWS-
                      NWL MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP all classified as uplands well over half of
                      the points that the contractor identified as not wet. On the other hand, NRCS-
                      WI and NRCS-NRI both classified as uplands (or not wet) less than half of the
                      points that the contractor identified as not wet.
                                A related issue in wetlands identification is the success of the data sets
                      in correctly identifying wetlands. That is, what percentage of the points
                      identified as wetlands by the various data sets are actually wetlands? More than
                      half of the points classified as wetlands by the more conservative data sets,
                      FWS-NWI and MD-WRA, were found by the contractor to actually be
                      wetlands. Of the points identified as wetlands by NOAA-C-CAP, NRCS-WI,
                      and NRCS-NRI, less than one-third of the points classified as wet by NOAA-
                      C-CAP and NRCS-NRI were identified as wet by the contractor and less than
                      one-half of the points classified by NRCS-WI as wet were found to be wet in
                      the field test.

                                Errors in the delineation of wetlands can be classified into two distinct
                      categories: Type I errors, or errors of omission, and type 11 errors, or errors of
                      commission. Type I errors, or errors of omission, occur when a wetland is
                      delineated in a data set as an upland. Type H errors, or errors of commission,
                      occur when an upland is delineated as a wetland.
                                The results from the first field test support the hypothesis that data
                      sets with a greater tendency to classify an area as a wetland make less errors of



                          "The independent contractor was EcoScience Professionals, Inc.

                          "Me NRCS-NRl has less total points than the other data sets because only 61 of the
                      130 test points coincided with NRCS-NRI points.



                                                                                                                  61











                                   Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                                                              FIRST FIELD TEST:
                                                Spatial Distribution of Points


                                     Dorchester                                                   DELAWARE
                                       County




                                                                                                      %
                                                                       KebTr

                                            0
                                           Q


                                                                  <
                                                        10M V  N.

                                                                                                                         %
                                                                                                                  Jr.








                                                                                                               Worchester
                                                           Somerset
                                                             County                                              County


                                                                                                                   OH           PA
                                                                                                                                             NJ
                                                  Fie/d Site inspection Areas                                        WV

                                                  Study Area
                                                                                                                              VA
                                                                                                                  !!VA jA

                     Figure 9. 130 points were evaluated in the study
                                      area to determine whether they were
                                       wetlands or uplands.                                                              Scale 1:370,000









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                     omission and more errors of commission. That is, these data sets identify more
                     of the wetland areas, but they also classify more uplands as wetlands. On the
                     other hand, the results also support the hypothesis that the data sets that are
                     more conservative in wetland delineation make less errors of commission and
                     more errors of omission. In this case, less of the wetland areas are identified,
                     but more of the areas classified as wetlands are actually wetlands. It should be
                     emphasized that these results depend on the assumption that the field test
                     results are correct. It should also be emphasized that these results do not
                     represent a statistically significant analysis; rather, the results provide
                     information that can be used to interpret and to design future tests of
                     hypotheses.
                             During the field test, the contractor evaluated whether or not a
                     boundary change in wetland/upland designation existed within 50 meters of the
                     point. Of the 130 points, 67 were found to be within 50 meters of a boundary
                     change. The numbers in parentheses in table 13 represent revised field test
                     point designations for points within the 50-meter boundary change where a
                     change would cause the field classification to be consistent with the data set
                     classification. Thus, the numbers in parentheses represent an assumption that
                     the inconsistency between the field test points and the data set points are caused
                     by potential errors in ground truth (either by the data set or by the contractor)
                     or by ambiguities in wetland classification caused by boundary problems. The
                     numbers in the parentheses represent the best possible interpretation of the
                     results-that the boundary change causes inconsistent results to be consistent.
                              As expected, in table 13 the numbers in parentheses show improved
                     consistency between the field test and the data sets. For instance, with the
                     boundary changes, the contractor agrees with FWS-NWI in 107 out of 116
                     points classified by FWS-NWI as uplands. Likewise, the boundary changes
                     cause the contractor results to agree with 49 out of 51 points classified as
                     uplands by NRCS-WI.
                              A comparison of the contractor results with the NRCS soil survey in
                     Wicomico County shows that the contractor disagreed with the survey in 25
                     percent of the points. This is'significant because NRCS-WI delineated forested





                                                                                                            63









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           areas in Wicomico County as wetland if the soils were hydric. In addition,
                           FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NRCS-NRI use the soil survey as ancillary data.
                                    Because many of the results in the first field test were sensitive to
                           boundary changes, the working group examined points at 100-foot intervals on
                           transects in the second field test. The working group conducted field
                           investigations on July 13-14, 1993, to gather field data to compare with the
                           agency data sets. The field team included representatives from the FWS,
                           NRCS, NOAA, MD-WRA, EPA, and USGS. The working group identified
                           nine sites and designed transects of between 100 feet and 2,200 feet. The
                           location of the transects is shown in figure 10. For each transect examined, a
                           field team from the working group used a compass and a tape measure to
                           measure 100-foot intervals perpendicular to the point of entry (usually a road).
                           In addition to wetlands and uplands, a third category, transitional, was used in
                           the field test to classify areas that are between wetland and upland areas and
                                                       40
                           have characteristics of both.
                                    The transects examined during the working group field trip are
                           illustrated in figures 11-22. For each test site, the first figure is part of a color-
                           enhanced digital orthophoto quarterquadrangle showing the land characteristics
                           of the area surrounding the test sites. The second figure shows whether or not
                           FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP, and NRCS-WI classified the area
                           surrounding the point as wetland or upland. This figure shows areas of
                           agreement and disagreement between the data sets' wetland classifications.
                                    Figure 12 shows the wetland classifications by the various agencies
                           for sites A and A'. The purpose of this investigation was to examine an area
                           that NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-WI identified as wetland, but that FWS-NWI
                           and MD-WRA identified as upland. Transect A' was designed to be near the
                           boundary separating areas classified as wetlands and as uplands by NOAA-C-
                           CAP.
                                    As seen from figure 11, the field team entered transect A from State
                           Route 350 at 210 degrees and walked 200 feet, with examinations at 100 and



                              'A single point in the test on transect G was classified during the field test as a drained
                           wetland.




                 64










                            Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                                                   SECOND FIELD TEST
                                     Spatial Distribution of Transects


                              Dorchester                                                    DELAWARE
                                 County


                                         4




                                                                          2


                                                                                                                            Hle














                                                                                                         Worchester
                                                     Somerset
                                                       County                                              County


                                                                                                            OH            PA
                                            Field Site Inspection Areas                                       WV              M
                                            Study Area
                                                                                                                       VA





                Figure 10. Points at nine transect sites were
                               evaluated to determine whether
                               they were wetlands or uplands.                                                      Scale 1:370,000










                                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                                             Transects A, A









                      y
                7 rmilec,                     t     3,50
                                                                                                  A


                                                                  A



                                                                                                                                             Roweliville
                                                                                                                                             2.5 miler,














                                                                                                                       W,








                                   Field Evaluation:              e Wetland                    Transitional              o    Upland




                     Figure 11.                                                                                              Scale 1:9,012











                                   Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                       Wetland Data Set Comparison
                                                                       Transects A, A







                                                                                                                                               114,














                                                                                         'M


















                                                                                                          jy@



                            Wetland:                                           Wetland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                        Wetland: MD-WRA
                              FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                      Upland: FWS-NW]                                     Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                            Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP                       Wetland:  NOAA-C-CAP                                Upland:
                            Upland: MD-WRA                                     Upland:   FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                               FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                            Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                           Wetland:  FWS-NWl                                   Wetland: NRCS-WI
                            Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                                 Upland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                             Field Evaluation:           0 Wetland                  Transitional           0 Upland
                  Figure 12.                                                                                                                        Scale 1:9,012











                               Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                                       Transects B, B




                                                                                 A





                                                                                                                   JKI

                                                                                                                                0
                                                                                                                              Z   E



                                                                                                                                (S)



















                            A

















                                                           5allobury
                                                            4 rmileo
                                Field Evaluation:             Wetland               Transitional          o    Upland




                   Figure 13.                                                                               Scale 1: 10,080










                                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                        Wetland Data Set Comparison
                                                                         Transects B, B'O
                                                                                       A?































































                            Wetland:                                            Wetland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                        Weiland: MD-WRA
                              FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                       Upland: FWS-NWl                            M Upland: FWS-NWI,NOAA-C-CAP
                            Welland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP                        Wetland: NOAA-C-CAP                                Upland:
                            Upland: MD-WRA                                      Upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                                FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                            Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                            Welland: FWS-NWl                                    Welland: NRCS-Wl
                            Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                                  Upland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                 En
                                             Field Evaluation:               Wetland            0 Transitional              0 Upland
                  Figure 14                                                                                                                        Scale 1: 10,080










                                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                                                         Transects C, D

                                                                                                                 5tate Line Road
                                                                                                                  5ugoex Co. Pe.
                                                                                                                    1/10 mile


























                      Sallc,bury
                       5 milec,





























                                           Field Evaluation:                  0 Wetland                    (9 Transitional                    o     Upland




                          Figure 15.                                                                                                            Scale 1:10,759










                                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                         Wetland Data Set Comparison
                                                                           Transects C, D






                                                                                                                                 V

                                                                                                                                                          Ti@













































                              Wetland:                                            Wetland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                         Wetland: MD-WRA
                               FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                        Upland: FWS-NWl                                     Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                              Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP                        Wetland: NOAA-G-CAP                                 Upland:
                              Upland: MD-WRA                                      Upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                                FWS-NW], MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                              Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                            Wetland: FWS-NWI                                    Wetland: NRCS-Wl
                              Upland:  NOAA-C-CAP                                 Upland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                               Field Evaluation:           0 Wetland              (9 Transitional             0 Upland
                   Figure 16                                                                                                                          Scale 1: 10,759










                                   Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                                           Transects E, F, G



                                                              MIN


                  4.5 rnilcc,


















                                                                                                     A@


















                               Field Evaluation:             Wetland              Transitional       o Upland            0* Drained



                      Figure 17.                                                                                           Scale 1:9,600










                                   Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                       Wetland Data Set Comparison
                                                                     Transects E, F5 G





                                                                                      o,



                                                                                                                                            Z@h






                                                                                                                                                 .-M






































                            Wetland:                                           Wetland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                         Wetland: MD-WRA
                              FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP              M       Upland: FWS-NWl                                      Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                            Wetland: FWS-NWl, NOAA-G-CAP                       Wetland:  NOAA-C-CAP                                 Upland:
                            Upland: MD-WRA                                     Upland:   FWS-NWl, MD-WRA                               FWS-NWl, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                            Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                           Wetland:  FWS-NW1                                    Wetland: NRCS-Wl
                            Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                                 Upland:   MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                E03
                                   Field Evaluation:           0 Wetland              0 Transitional              0 Upland               0 *    Drained
                  Figure 18                                                                                                                         Scale 1:9,600










                                 Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                                               Transect H

                                                           11 mileo - Vierina
                                                         27 mfleo - CamMdoc


















                                                                                                                                     LD




                                                                     H     01
                                                                                                                            4t









































                                 Field Evaluation:               Wetland                Transitional            o    Upland




                    Figure 19.                                                                                    Scale 1: 10,087











                                    Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                        Wetland Data Set Comparison
                                                                                 Transect H











                                                                                                  -MW
                                                                    Nad
































                              Welland:                                           Wetland:  MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                        Wetiand: MD-WRA
                               FWS-NW], MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                       Upland: FWS-NWl                                     Upland: FWS-NW1, NOAA-C-GAP
                              Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP                       Welland:  NOAA-G-CAP                                Upland:
                              Upland: MD-WRA                                     Upland:   FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                               FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                              Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                           Wetland:  FWS-NWl                                   Wetland: NRCS-Wl
                              Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                                 Upland:   MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                               Field Evaluation:           0 Wetland             0 Transitional              o Upland
                    Figure 20                                                                                                                       Scale 1: 10,087










                               Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                                            Transect I




                                                                                                      -001



                                                         r






























                                                                                                                            LQ
                                                                                                                            to









                               Field Evaluation:             Wetland               Transitional          o    Upland




                  Figure 21.                                                                                Scale 1:7,680










                                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                         Wetland Data Set Comparison
                                                                                   Transect I


































                              Wetland:                                            Wetland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                         Wetland: MD-WRA
                                FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP                       Upland: FWS-NWl                                     Upland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP
                              Wetland: FWS-NWI, NOAA-C-CAP                        Wetland: NOAA-C-CAP                                 Upland:
                              Upland: MD-WRA                                      Upland:  FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                               FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                              Wetland: FWS-NWI, MD-WRA                            Wetland: FWS-NWl                                    Wetland: NRCS-Wl
                              Upland: NOAA-C-CAP                                  Upland: MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP
                                               Field Evaluation:           0 Wetland              0 Transitional              0 Upland
                    Figure 22                                                                                                                          Scale 1:7,680









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                         200 feet. The field data were consistent with the NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-WI
                         classification of the area as wetlands. Figure I I and figure 12 allow a
                         comparison of the wetland classifications by the agencies and the physical
                         representation shown by the digital orthophotoquad. Note that the darker areas
                         on the digital orthophotoquad are classified as wetlands by more than one

                         agency.
                                  In figure 12, transect A' is delineated as wetland by NRCS-WI and as
                         upland by FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP. It is, however, on the
                         boundary of an area that NOAA-C-CAP classified as wetland. The field team
                         entered from the other side of the road approximately 2,000 feet east of
                         transect A and went into the area 200 feet, taking measurements at 100 and 200
                         feet. In this case, although the soils were hydric, the field team classified the
                         sites as transitional, meaning that the sites could be classified as either wetland
                         or upland. An accurate wetland determination at these sites can only be made
                         during the wet part of the year, either spring or fall.
                                  Transects B and B' were selected to evaluate several issues. Figure 14
                         shows the wetlands classifications by the various agencies for transects B and
                         B'. Figure 13 is the digital orthophotoquad for the area surrounding the
                         transects. The transects go through areas that NOAA-C-CAP identified as
                         wetlands alone and that NRCS-WI identified as wetlands alone. The transects
                         also go through an area that all four data sets classified as wetlands. In
                         addition, the transects go through an area that NRCS-WI identified as uplands
                         and some or all of the other agencies identify as wetlands.
                                  The field team entered transect B from Rum Ridge Road at 305
                         degrees and made measurements every 100 feet for 2,200 feet. The first eight
                         points were identified as wetlands with hydric soils. The FWS-NWI identified
                         all eight of these sites as uplands. The MD-WRA identified three of the eight
                         sites as wetlands. The NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-WI identified all eight sites as
                         wetlands. Site evaluations at 900 and 1,000 feet showed transitional sites and
                         soils. The FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NRCS-WI identified the sites as
                         uplands, and NOAA-C-CAP classified the sites as wetlands. The field team
                         classified the sites at 1,100 and 1,200 feet as upland, nonhydric, which is
                         consistent with identifications by FWS-NWI, MD-WRA,and NRCS-WI. Only



                78










                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                    NOAA-C-CAP identified the area as a wetland. Transitional sites were
                    identified by the field team at 1,300 and 1,400 feet, with hydric soils at 1,400
                    feet. Again, FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NRCS-WI classified the sites as
                    uplands, and NOAA-C-CAP classified them as wetlands. Wetlands with hydric
                    soils were identified by the field team at 1,500, 1,600, and 1,700 feet; NOAA-
                    C-CAP classified all of the sites as wetlands; and NRCS-W1 classified all of the
                    sites as uplands. The FWS-NWI and MD-WRA classified one and two of the
                    sites, respectively, as wetlands. The field team classified the site at 1,800 feet
                    as upland, nonhydric, with only NOAA-C-CAP disagreeing and identifying it
                    as wetlands. At 1,900 feet, the field team classified the site as wetland and
                    NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-W1 agreed. At the sites for 2,000, 2,100, and 2,200
                    feet, the NRCS-W1 classified the sites as wetlands, but the other agencies all
                    classified the sites as uplands. The field team identified one site as wetland,
                    one as upland, and one as transitional.
                             Transect B' was entered from the other side of Rum Ridge Road at
                    125 degrees and field evaluations were made every 100 feet for 800 feet. At
                    100 feet, the field evaluation was upland with nonhydric soils. The FWS-NWI
                    and MD-WRA data agreed with the evaluation, but NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-
                    WI data called the site wetland. At 200 feet, the field evaluation determined
                    that the site was a transitional area with hydric soils. The FWS-NWI, MD-
                    WRA, and NOAA-CAP all classified the site as upland, but NRCS-W1
                    classified the site as wetland. The field evaluations at 300 and 400 feet
                    identified the sites as uplands, with hydric soils at 300 feet and nonhydric soils
                    at 400 feet. The MD-WRA agreed with the field evaluation for both sites. The
                    FWS-NWI and NOAA-C-CAP agreed with the upland classification at 300
                    feet, but classified the site at 400 feet as wetland. The NRCS-W1 classified
                    both sites as wetlands. The field evaluations for 500, 600, and 700 feet were
                    all wetlands with hydric soils. This classification was consistent with data from
                    MD-WRA, NOAA-C-CAP, and NRCS-WI. The FWS-NWI agreed with the
                    classifications at 500 and 600 feet, but classified the site at 700 feet as upland.
                    The field team classified the site at 800 feet as upland with nonhydric soils,
                    agreeing with FWS-NWI and MD-WRA data. The NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-
                    W1 classified the site as wetland.




                                                                                                         79









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                    Transects C and C', shown in figures 15 and 16, are areas that
                           NOAA-C-CAP classified as wetlands, but that FWS-NWI and MD-WRA
                           classified as uplands. The NRCS-WI classified the sites in transect C' and one
                           of the sites in transect C as uplands. The purpose of the evaluation was to
                           examine sites that NOAA-C-CAP had classified as wetlands, but that FWS-
                           NWI and MD-WRA had not. In addition, the selection was based partly on an
                           interest in the effect that NRCS-WI had on the classification.
                                    The field team entered transect C at 200 degrees from Melson Road in
                           the northeast part of the Delmar quadrangle. The first evaluation site was at
                           100 feet. The field classification indicated that the site was upland with
                           nonhydric soils, which agrees with classifications by FWS-NWI and MD-
                           WRA. The NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-WI classify the site as wetland. A
                           second field evaluation confirmed the upland classification, but showed hydric
                           soils. Evaluations were also taken 100 feet west and east parallel to Melson
                           Road. The field classifications were upland with nonhydric soils, which agrees
                           with FWS-NWI and MD-WRA classifications. The NOAA-C-CAP classifies
                           both sites as wetlands, but NRCS-WI classifies the site 100 feet west as
                           wetland and the site 100 east as upland.
                                    Transect C' was entered from Melson Road, east of transect C. Three
                           site evaluations were taken and all were upland with nonhydric soils. The first
                           site was 100 feet east on Melson Road and 80 feet in on the south side of the

                           road. The second evaluation was 200 feet east on Melson Road and 80 feet in

                           on the south side of the road. The third site was 300 feet east and in 80 feet on
                           the north side of the road. The FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NRCS-WI agree
                           with the site evaluations. The NOAA-C-CAP classifies the sites as wetlands.
                                    Transects D and D' were entered from Rum Ridge Road, about 550
                           feet southeast from the intersection with Melson Road. Transect D is 100 feet
                           in from the east side of Rum Ridge Road, and transect D' is 100 feet in from
                           the west side of Rum Ridge Road. Both site evaluations were uplands with
                           nonhydric soils. The FWS-NWI and MD-WRA agree with these classifications,
                           NOAA-C-CAP classifies transect D as upland and D' as wetland, and NRCS-
                           FSA classifies both sites as wetlands.






                  80









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                              Transect E follows a path off of Fooks Road in the northeast part of
                     the Salisbury quadrangle. The purpose of this evaluation was again to examine
                     sites that NOAA-C-CAP classified as wetlands. The FWS-NWI and MD-WRA
                     each classified three out of four of the sites as uplands, NRCS-WI classified
                     three out of four of the sites as wetlands, and NOAA-C-CAP classified all four
                     sites as wetlands. In fact, the first two sites were classified in the field as
                     transitional with hydric soils, and the last two were identified as uplands with
                     nonhydric soils.
                              Transect F was also off of Fooks Road in the northeastern part of the
                     Salisbury quadrangle, about 550 feet west of transect E. Transect F was
                     selected because it is an example of a site that MD-WRA identified as a
                     wetland, but that FWS-NWI and NOAA-C-CAP identified as an upland.
                     NRCS-WI also classified the site as wedand. In fact, it was determined during
                     the field test that the site was a transitional site with hydric soils.
                              Transect G was 2,650 feet west of transect E on Fooks Road in the
                     northeast part of the Salisbury quadrangle. Transect G was selected as an
                     example of a site that NOAA-C-CAP classified as wetland, but that FWS-NWI
                     and MD-WRA classified as upland. NRCS-WI identified the site as wetland.
                     The field evaluation identified the site at 100 feet as a drained wetland with
                     hydric soils and at 200 feet as upland with nonhydric soils.
                              Transect H, in the southeast part of the Hebron quadrangle, provides
                     an example at 100 feet of a site that MD-WRA classified as wetland, and that
                     FWS-NWI and NOAA-C-CAP identified as upland. The NRCS-W1 identified
                     this site as wetland, as did the field evaluation. At 200 feet, all agencies except
                     for NOAA-C-CAP identified the site as wetland, as did the field evaluation.
                     The site at 300 feet is an example where FWS-NWI classifies the site as
                     wetland and MD-WRA and NOAA-C-CAP classify the site as upland. The
                     NRCS-WI and the field evaluation classified the site as wetland with hydric
                     soils. At 400 feet, only FWS-NWI classified the site as wetland. The field
                     evaluation identified the site as transitional with hydric soils. The final transect,
                     1, was entered from Brick Kiln Road in the southeastern part of Hebron
                     quadrangle. The first site, 100 feet off the road, was identified by NRCS-WI as
                     a wetland and by the other agencies as an upland. The field team identified the



                                                                                                           81









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                            site as wetland with hydric soils. All agencies classified the site 50 feet
                            northwest and parallel to the road as upland, as did the field team. The NRCS-
                            WI identified the site 150 feet northwest of the first site, parallel to the road, as
                            wetland, but the other organizations classified the site as upland. The field team
                            classified the site as upland with nonhydric soils.
                                     The results of the second field test, summarized in table 14, are
                            consistent with earlier results shown in this paper. The NOAA-C-CAP and
                            NRCS-WI exhibit a greater tendency to classify points as wetlands than do
                            MD-WRA and FWS-NWI. The NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-WI classify 40 and
                            39 points, respectively, as wetland in the test sites, and FWS-NWI and MD-
                            WRA classify only 8 and 12, respectively, as wetlands. More detailed data
                            from the second field test are contained in appendix 4.
                                     These results can be interpreted in two ways. Although FWS-NWI
                            and MD-WRA do not identify as many points as wetlands as do NOAA-C-CAP
                            and NRCS-WI, the great majority of the points classified by these data sets
                            were found during the field test to be either wetland or transitional. Seven of
                            the eight points classified as wetland by FWS-NWI were identified as a wetland
                            or as transitional during the field test; for MD-WRA, the ratio is 11 out of 12.
                            Although the proportion is smaller for NOAA-C-CAP and NRCS-WI, it is still
                            greater than half. For NOAA-C-CAP, 23 out of the 40 points classified as
                            wetland were found during the field exam to be wetland or transitional; for
                            NRCS-WI the proportion is 26 out of 39 points.
                                      The second way of interpreting the results is to evaluate the
                            proportion of the wetlands identified during the field test that were classified as
                            wetlands by the various data sets. As would be expected, the data sets with a
                            greater tendency to classify areas as wetlands did classify as wetlands a larger
                            proportion of the points identified during the field test as wetlands. During the
                            field test, 22 points were identified as wetlands. Of these 22 points, NOAA-C-
                            CAP classified 17 of them as wetlands, and NRCS-WI classified 19 of them as
                            wetlands. On the other hand, the data sets that have a smaller tendency to
                            classify areas as wetlands, classified as wetlands a smaller proportion of the
                            points identified during the field test as wetlands. Of the 22 points identified as





                  82









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                     Table 14. Wetland Data Comparison -
                     Second Field Test/Wetland Data Sets (Points)
                     [Shaded areas represent agreement between the data set and the field test results.
                     A single point in the field test (transect G) was found to have been drained. The
                     results from that point are not included in this table.]



                                                             Field Test


                                                             Wetlands       Uplands       Transi- Totals
                                                                                          tional


                                             Wetlands          5.               1            2            8

                       FWS-NWI               Uplands           17                            10         48

                                             Totals            22               22           12         56


                                             Wetlands          10               1            1          12

                       MD-W@                 Uplands           12                            11         44

                                             Totals            22               22           12         56


                                             Wetlands          1-7.             17           6          40

                       NOAA-C-CAP            Uplands           5                5-:          6          16

                                             Totals            22               22           12         56


                                             Wetlands          .1               13           7          39
                                                               .9

                       NRCS-WI               Uplands           3                             5          17

                                             Totals            22               22           12         56










                                                                                                                          83









                               Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                               wetlands during the field test, FWS-NWI classified only 5 as wetlands, and
                               MD-WRA classified 10 as wetlands.
                                        It should be pointed out that 12 of the 56 points evaluated on the
                               transects were found to be transitional; that is, the field team could not make a
                               positive determination of whether the point represented a wetland or an upland.
                               The fact that a positive determination could not be made on the ground in more
                               than 20 percent of the points evaluated underscores the fact that the study team
                               selected transects in areas where the data sets were inconsistent in wetland
                               delineation and where difficulties in interpretation were expected.





































                    84









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates









                               Conclusions and Future Plans









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                      V. Conclusions and Future Plans

                            A. Conclusions

                               The results of the case study in Wicomico County, Md., support two
                      principal hypotheses: (1) there is significant disagreement in wetland
                      delineation among the various government wetland data sets; and (2) there are
                      substantial differences in the strengths and weaknesses of the wetland data sets
                      evaluated. These strengths and weaknesses relate to the effectiveness of the
                      data sets in identifying all wetland areas as wetlands, and (or) in delineating
                      only wetland areas as wetlands. The results reported in this paper are derived
                      from a case study in one county; additional data and analysis are required to
                      evaluate these hypotheses conclusively. That is, the issues raised in this case
                      study merit attention and analysis beyond Wicomico County.


                      1.    Data Inconsistency
                               The four data sets with polygon data, FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, NOAA-
                      C-CAP, and NRCS-WI, disagree in wetland delineation in almost 40 percent of
                      the study area. In areas that at least one of the four data sets delineates as
                      wetland, there is disagreement among the data sets in more than 90 percent of
                      the area. This disagreement is not just among wetland classes or systems, but
                      rather on the fundamental question of whether or not an area is a wetland.
                               NRCS-WI accounts for more than 70 percent of the area that only one
                      of the four data sets delineates as wetland. This is not surprising because data
                      for the NRCS-WI are collected for regulatory purposes and are designed not to
                      miss possible wetland areas. When the three other data sets with polygon data
                      are compared, they continue to disagree among themselves in about 80 percent
                      of the area that at least one of the three data sets delineates as wetland. In fact,
                      in comparisons between any two of the data sets with polygon data, there is
                      disagreement in more than 50 percent of the area that at least one of the two
                      data sets delineates as wetland. Again, this disagreement is not among wetland
                      classes or systems, but rather on whether or not an area is a wetland.
                               Comparisons between NRCS-NRI, which has point data, and the four
                      data sets with polygon data produce similar results. In these comparisons, there




                                                                                                                   85









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           is disagreement in more than 99 percent (103 out of 104) of the points that are
                           classified by at least one data set as wetland.
                                    There are several possible explanations for this high level of
                           disagreement or inconsistency among the data sets. First, it should be
                           emphasized that the results presented in this analysis represent data from just
                           one county. A distinguishing factor in Wicomico County, Md., is that a high
                           proportion of the wetlands are palustrine forested." Previous studies have
                           noted the difficulty in using remote sensing techniques to identify wetlands in
                           forested areas. In fact, more than half of the palustrine wetlands delineated by
                           FWS-NWI and MD-WRA are further delineated in these data sets as evergreen
                           forested wetlands and temporarily flooded deciduous forested wetlands, two of
                           the subclasses identified by Tiner (1990) as among the most difficult to
                           photointerpret.
                                    The results of the analysis show that a large proportion of the
                           disagreement among the data sets occurs in areas that at least one data set
                           classifies as palustrine wetland. Significantly, this disagreement occurs even
                           between data from FWS-NWI and MD-WRA, which use identical classification
                           systems and similar aerial photography photointerpretation techniques."
                                    It is also significant that most of the disagreement occurs in areas that
                           at least one data set classifies as palustrine, and the level of agreement among
                           data sets is much greater for wetland types other than palustrine. For instance,
                           more than 90 percent of the areas classified as lacustrine, riverine, or estuarine
                           wetlands by FWS-NWI are also classified as wetlands by MD-WRA. The
                           percentage of the area classified as lacustrine, riverine, or estuarine by MD-
                           WRA that is also classified as wetland by FWS-NWI is almost as high.





                              "Three of the data sets with polygon data, FWS-NWI, MD-WRA, and NOAA-C-CAP,
                           distinguished palustrine wetlands from other wetlands. All of the three data sets classified
                           more than 80 percent of the wetlands that they had delineated, as palustrine. The FWS-
                           NWI and MD-WRA classified wetlands to the Cowardin and others (1979) class level and
                           delineated more than 80 percent of the palustrine wetlands as forested.

                              "Subsequent to this analysis, FWS-NWI has updated data for four of the 7.5-minute
                           quadrangles within the study area.



                 86









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                Much of the disagreement among the data sets may be related to
                      problems with the spatial accuracy of the data. When 50-meter buffers are
                      created around the NRCS-NRI points that are delineated by at least one of the
                      data sets as wetlands, the level of agreement potentially rises from less than 1
                      percent to approximately 41 percent. This implies that there may be problems
                      with the spatial registration of the data in some or all of the data sets. It should
                      be emphasized, however, that even with these 50-meter buffers, there is still
                      disagreement among the five data sets at almost 60 percent of the points that
                      had been delineated by at least one data set as wetland.
                                There was ambiguity in the wetland delineation in some forested areas
                      even during the field tests. This ambiguity was compounded by the fact that, in
                      many cases, clear changes that would affect the wetland delineation were noted
                      within relatively short distances from the site examined. In the first field test,
                      in more than half of the 130 points examined, boundary changes in wetland
                      delineation were noted within 50 meters of the test point.
                                The difficulties in identifying palustrine forested wetlands that were
                      demonstrated in this case study raise the question of whether a new category of
                      wetlands that encompasses mixed wetland and upland areas would be helpful in
                      understanding the characteristics and ambiguities in some of these areas. Such a
                      category of wetlands could reduce the level of inconsistency among wetland
                      data sets because larger parcels of land could be classified as mixed wetland
                      and upland areas without the need to distinguish explicitly where small
                      interspersed wetland and upland areas begin and end.


                      2.    Data Set Strengths and Weaknesses
                                Errors in the delineation of wetlands can be classified into two distinct
                      categories: Type I errors, or errors of omission, and type 11 errors, or errors of
                      commission. Type I errors occur when a wetland is delineated in a data set as
                      an upland. Type 11 errors occur when an upland is delineated as a wetland.
                                The results from the field tests provide evidence (but not statistically
                      significant evidence) that in the study area, FWS-NWI and MD-WRA are more
                      conservative in delineating wetlands than are NRCS-Wl and NOAA-C-CAP,
                      and are more likely to commit type I errors, or errors of omission. The results



                                                                                                                   87









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                          also show that in the field tests, NRCS-Wl and NOAA-C-CAP delineate more
                          area as wetlands and commit more type 11 errors, or errors of commission.
                                   Information on the type of error that is likely to be associated with a
                          particular wetland data set is important both for interpreting wetland data and
                          for improving the effectiveness of data collection efforts. By knowing the type
                          of error associated with a particular data set, users can choose the data set that
                          best suits their needs. Such choices can be based on whether it is more
                          important to identify every wetland area or to know that wetlands delineated
                          are actually wetlands.


                                B. Future Plans
                                   The case study described in this analysis is part of an ongoing effort
                          by the FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee to implement a strategy to improve the
                          coordination of government wetland data collection and to evaluate whether
                          changes in data collection techniques and responsibilities can improve the
                          government's ability to meet national needs. The strategy contains four
                          sequentially ordered tasks.
                                   Task 1 involves integrating terminology, definitions, and classification
                          systems used by government organizations collecting wetland data. Task 2
                          involves coordinating government wetland data collection processes and
                          reports. Both tasks I and 2 were completed in September 1992.
                                   The case study in Wicomico County, is the first of up to 10 case
                          studies to be studied in task 3A to evaluate the consistency of wetland data
                          collected by various government organizations. The working group began a
                          wetland data set comparison in Logan County, N. Dak., during the summer of
                          1994. This effort builds upon the work begun in Wicomico County and
                          attempts to deal with similar issues. An additional data set comparison is
                          scheduled to be started in Dade County, Fla., during 1995.
                                   The implementation of task 3B and task 4 will also begin during 1995.
                          Task 3B concerns the consistency of wetland statistical results and includes the
                          development of a crosswalk between the results developed by the various
                          government organizations reporting on wetland status and trends. Task 4 builds
                          on the results from the first three tasks and includes an evaluation of the




                 88









                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Esthnates

                        feasibility and the public policy implications of wetland data integration. This
                        evaluation is expected to study the benefits and costs associated with various
                        levels of wetland data accuracy and timeliness so that these factors can be
                        incorporated into a comprehensive national strategy for wetland data collection.












































                                                                                                                           89








                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates










                                             Selected References









                    Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                    Selected References


                    Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer (1976). A Land
                    Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data,
                    U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, Reston, Virginia, 1976.


                    Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe (1979).
                    Classification of Wetlands & Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Fish and
                    Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.


                    Dahl, T.E. (1990). Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's, Fish
                    and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.


                    Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson (1991). Status of Trends of Wetlands in the
                    Conterminous United States, Mid-1970's to mid-1980's, Fish and Wildlife
                    Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.


                    Hall, R.L. (1970). Soil Survey of Wicomico County, Maryland, Soil
                    Conservation Service.


                    Kiraly, S.J., F.A. Cross, and J.D. Buffington (1990). Federal Coastal Wetland
                    Mapping Programs - A Report by the National Ocean Pollution Policy Board's
                    Habitat Loss and Modification Working Group, Fish and Wildlife Service,
                    U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Biological Report 90 (18),
                    December 1990.


                    Klemas, V.V., J.E. Dobson, R.L. Ferguson, and K.D. Haddad (1993). A
                    Coastal Land Cover Classification System for the NOAA Coastwatch Change
                    Analysis Project, Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, Summer 1993,
                    p. 862-872.







                                                                                                          91









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                         MacConnell, W., J. Stone, D. Godwin, D. Swartwout, and C. Costello
                         (undated). Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University of
                         Massachusetts at Amherst.


                         Mapping Science Committee (1993). Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data
                         Infrastructure, Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council,
                         National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.


                         National Wetlands Inventory (1992). Comparison of Four Scales of Color
                         Infrared Photography for Wetland Mapping in Maryland, U.S. Department of
                         the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, May 1992.


                         PhotoScience Inc. (1993). Report on Passive Airborne Microwave Radiometer
                         Technology and Potential Applications for Wetlands Mapping, Gaithersburg,
                         Md.


                         Salisbury State University, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal
                         Ocean Program-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
                         Wetlands Inventory-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1991). Results of a Field
                         Reconnaissance of Remotely Sensed Land Cover Data, Salisbury, Md., July
                         16-18, 1991.


                         Soil Conservation Service (1991). Hydric Soils of the United States, in
                         cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S.
                         Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491, June
                         1991.


                         Tiner, R.W. (1990). Use of High-Altitude Aerial Photography for Inventorying
                         Forested Wetlands in the United States. Forest Ecology and Management,
                         33/34, p. 593-604.







                92









                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                     Tiner, R.W. (1993). The Primary Indicators Method - A Practical Approach to
                     Wetland Recognition and Delineation in the United States. Wetlands, Vol. 13,
                     No. 1, March 1993, p. 50-64.


                     Tiner, R.W. (In Press). Photointerpretation for Identifying Wetlands and
                     Monitoring Changes. In: W.R. Philipson (editor), Manual of Photographic
                     Interpretation, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.


                     Tiner, R.W., and G.S. Smith (1992). Comparisons of Four Scales of Color
                     Infrared Photography for Wetland Mapping in Maryland, National Wetlands
                     Inventory, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.


                     Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee (1992).
                     Application of Satellite Data for Mapping and Monitoring Wetlands, Fact
                     Finding Report, Technical Report 1, September 1992.


                     Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee (1994). Strategic
                     Interagency Approach to Developing a National Digital Wetlands Data Base
                     (Second Approximation), Summer 1994.


                     White House Office on Environmental Policy (1993). Protecting America's
                     Wetlands: A Fair Flexible Approach, The White House, Washington, D.C.,
                     August 24, 1993.


                     Wilen, B.O., and H.R. Pywell (1992). Remote Sensing of the Nation's
                     Wetlands, National Wetlands Inventory, Proceedings of Fourth Biennial Forest
                     Service Remote Sensing Applications Conference, April 6-10, 1992, Orlando,
                     Fla.


                     Williams, S.J., and A.H. Salinger, Jr. (1989). Loss of Coastal Wetlands in
                     Louisiana-A Cooperative Research Program to Fill in the Information Gaps,
                     U.S. Geological Survey Yearbook 1989, Reston, Va., 1989.





                                                                                                          93









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates













                                                   Acronym List









              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

              Acronym List


              C-CAP            Coastal Change Analysis Program
              CIR              color infrared
              DOQQ             digital color orthophoto quarter quadrangle
              EMAP             Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
              EPA              Environmental Protection Agency
              FACTA            Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
              FGDC             Federal Geographic Data Committee
              FSA              Food Security Act of 1985
              FWS              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
              GIS              geographic information system
              LUDA             Land Use Data Analysis Program
              MAC              Mapping Applications Center
              MD-WRA           State of Maryland's Water Resources Administration
              MOA              Memorandum of Agreement
              NAPP             National Aerial Photography Program
              NHAP             National High Altitude Photography
              NOAA             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
              NRCS             Natural Resource Conservation Service
              NRI              National Resources Inventory
              NWDS             National Wetlands Data System
              NWI              National Wetlands Inventory Program
              SAT              Status and Trends Report
              SCS              Soil Conservation Service
              USDA             U.S. Department of Agriculture
              USGS             U.S. Geological Survey
              W1               Wetland Inventory
              WSSC             Wetlands of Special State Concern








                                                                           95










                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates








                                                       Appendix 1



                               Wetland Data Set Descriptions









                    Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                       Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions


                            Appendix 1 contains descriptions of Federal and State Government
                    wetland data sets available in Wicomico County. The descriptions were
                    supplied by the organizations responsible for the data sets. The data sets and
                    agencies are:


                    National Wetlands Inventory - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


                    National Wetlands Inventory, Wetland Status and Trends - U.S. Fish and
                    Wildlife Service


                    Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle and Wetlands Mapping Programs -
                    Water Resources Administration, State of Maryland


                    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - U.S. Environmental
                    Protection Agency


                    National Resources Inventory - Natural Resources Conservation Service
                    (formerly Soil Conservation Service)


                    Wetland Inventory Maps -- Natural Resources Conservation Service


                    Coastal Ocean Program, Coastal Change Analysis Program - National
                    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                    Land Use Data Analysis Program - U.S. Geological Survey











                                                                                                      97









                                              Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                     A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -
                          The National Wetlands Inventory
                                         Remote Sensing the Nation's Wetlands


                     1. Authorization
                              The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (as amended), which
                     provides the strongest mandate among other authorizing legislation, requires the
                     Fish and Wildlife Service to produce wetland maps for Alaska by September
                     30, 1998, to produce maps for noncontiguous areas by 2000, to digitize the
                     wetland maps by 2004, to update the status and trends report at 10 year
                     intervals, to archive the wetland information, and to disseminate wetland
                     information as it becomes available.



                     2. Introduction
                              The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has a major responsibility for
                     the protection and proper management of fish and wildlife and their habitats.
                     The Service has always recognized the importance of wetlands to waterfowl
                     and other migratory birds. From 10 to 12 million ducks breed annually and
                     millions more over winter in the wetlands of the United States. In 1954, the
                     Service conducted a national survey of wetlands it deemed important to
                     waterfowl. Covering only 40 percent of the lower 48 States, it was not a
                     comprehensive resource inventory by today's standards, but the resulting
                     report, "Wetlands of the United States" (Shaw and Fredine, 1956) did begin to
                     focus attention on the importance of wetlands to waterfowl. Since this survey,
                     wetlands have undergone many changes, both natural and man-induced. These
                     changes, coupled with our increased understanding of wetland functions and
                     values, led to the establishment of the National Wetlands Inventory Project.
                              The goal of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is to develop and
                     disseminate biologically sound scientific information on the characteristics and
                     extent of the Nation's wetland resources. It is our purpose to supply data to
                     policy makers, planners, land managers, and the public so they can make
                     informed decisions that will result in the wise use and management of the




                                                                                                              99









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                          resources. We have found that two types of information are needed: (1)
                          detailed maps and (2) status and trends reports.
                                   Detailed wetland maps are needed to assess the impact of site-specific
                          projects and to provide baseline data against which the effects of future policies
                          and activities can be assessed. These maps serve a purpose similar to the
                          Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) soil survey maps and the
                          U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) topographic maps. Detailed wetland maps
                          are used by local, State, and Federal agencies, private industry, and other
                          organizations for many purposes, including comprehensive resource
                          management plans, environmental impact assessments, facility and corridor
                          siting, oil spill contingency plans, natural resource inventories, and habitat
                          surveys. National estimates of the current status and trends (that is, losses and
                          gains) of wetlands are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing Federal
                          programs and policies, to identify national or regional problems, and to
                          increase public awareness of wetland issues.


                          3. Preoperational Phase
                                   Before beginning wetlands mapping in 1979, the NWI reviewed
                          existing State and local wetland inventories and existing classification schemes
                          to determine the best approach to inventory wetlands. A remote sensing
                          technique was then selected.


                          Review of Existing Wetland Surveys
                                   The first step of the preoperational phase was to review existing
                          wetland inventories. The NWI consulted with Federal and State agencies to
                          learn (1) where and when wetland surveys were previously completed, (2) what
                          inventory techniques were used, (3) where to obtain copies of wetland maps
                          that may have been produced, and (4) the status of State wetland map
                          production. Only a handful of States had conducted a wetland inventory, and
                          most of these inventories were restricted to the coastal zone (U.S. Department
                          of the Interior, 1976).







                 100









                                              Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions


                     Developing a Classification System
                              Before beginning the inventory, the Service had to decide how to
                     classify wetlands. In 1975, the Service brought together 15 of the country's top
                     wetland scientists to evaluate the utility of using existing wetland classification
                     schemes for a national inventory. They determined that all existing schemes
                     were too regional in nature and that a new classification system needed to be
                     developed. It was also determined that the classification system should be
                     ecoloaically based rather than developed for application with a particular sensor
                     or method of inventory. Conventions would be developed to apply the
                     classification with particular methods of inventory.
                              The Service's wetland classification system (Cowardin and others,
                     1979) was developed by a team of wetland ecologists, assisted by local, State,
                     and Federal agencies, as well as many private groups and individuals. It went
                     through four major revisions and extensive field testing before its official
                     adoption by the Service on October 1, 1980. The classification system presents
                     a method for grouping ecologically similar wetlands. It is hierarchical, with
                     wetlands divided among five major systems at the broadest level: Marine,
                     Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine. Each System is further
                     subdivided by Subsystems that reflect hydrologic condition; for example,
                     subtidal versus intertidal in the Marine and Estuarine Systems. Below
                     Subsystem is the Class level, which describes the wetland vegetation or, in the
                     case of unvegetated wetlands, its substrate. Each Class is further divided into
                     Subclasses. The classification also includes modifiers to describe hydrology
                     (water regime), water chemistry (pH, salinity, and halinity) and special
                     modifiers relating to man's activity (for example, impounded, partially drained,
                     farmed, artificial).


                     Orizanizational Structure
                              The Service's NWI is staffed by a small group of biologists and
                     cartographers assembled into two groups: NWI Central Control Group and
                     Regional Wetland Coordinators. The NWI Central Control Group, in St.
                     Petersburg, Florida, is the focal point for all operational activities. It acquires
                     all materials necessary for performing the Inventory, provides technical



                                                                                                             101









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Esthnates

                           assistance and work materials to the Regional Coordinators, and produces the
                           wetland maps. A service support contractor carries out most of the
                           photointerpretation (some work is contracted out to Service-trained resource
                           agencies or universities) and map production activities with a contract staff of
                           approximately 150 professionals and technicians. All photointerpreters have
                           degrees in the biological or natural sciences and receive extensive training in
                           wetland ecology, classification, and delineation.
                                    Regional Wetland Coordinators, located in the Service's seven
                           regional offices, are responsible for inventorying wetlands within their region
                           and ensuring that all NWI products meet regional needs. They manage
                           contracts for photointerpretation, coordinate interagency review of draft maps,
                           secure cooperative funding from other agencies, and provide training in the use
                           of NWI products.


                           4. Selecting a Remote Sensing Tool
                                    Remote sensing, combined with the necessary field work, is the
                           obvious method of choice for conducting any nationwide resource inventory. In
                           1979, when the NWI began operational mapping, the tools most frequently
                           used for resource inventory were Landsat Multi-Spectral Scanner data and
                           aerial photography. After comparing the wetland information needs of the
                           Service and other agencies to the capabilities of both aerial photography and
                           satellite imagery, we found that Landsat would not provide the needed data for
                           classification detail and wetland determinations within the required level of
                           accuracy. We also found that the delineation and classification of wetlands,
                           from any remotely sensed data source, requires more than the measurement or
                           observation of spectral reflectance or signature. In the case of wetlands, the
                           important properties or image characteristics that permit the accurate location,
                           delineation, and classification of wetlands are parallax, tone or color, landscape
                           position, pattern, texture, association, shape, and size.
                                    Using all these image properties and integrating them through the eyes
                           and minds of trained wetland biologists/photointerpreters, who can relate what
                           is seen on the photograph to what they have experienced on the ground, has
                           proved a successful method for the NWI.



                 102









                                            Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions


                             In selecting aerial photography for use in the inventory, NWI found it
                    necessary to strike a balance between cost and detail. Our first and most
                    obvious decision was to use only existing metric aerial photographs. Our
                    budget simply would not permit us the luxury of acquiring new photographs.
                    Second, a decision was made to use fairly small-scale metric aerial
                    photographs. The cost of acquiring, managing, handling, and storing large-
                    scale photographs was prohibitive. For example, the number of photographs
                    required to provide stereo coverage of a 1: 1 00,000-scale map area (0. 5 degree
                    of latitude by 1 degree of longitude) at a scale of 1:24,000 is 630, but at a
                    scale of 1:80,000 the number is reduced to 84 frames.
                             When the inventory began mapping, the best high-altitude metric
                    aerial photographs available for large parts of the country were 1:80,000-scale
                    black-and-white panchromatic photographs acquired by the USGS for
                    topographic mapping and producing orthophotoquads.
                             This was the principal data source for the NWI from 1975 through the
                    early 1980's. In 1980, the USGS began the National High-Altitude
                    Photography Program (NHAP), which acquired 1:58,000-scale color infrared
                    photographs for the country. Although NHAP is no longer in operation,
                    photographs acquired under this program were and are being used for almost
                    all NWI mapping work. In addition, the NWI, through an agreement with the
                    National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), has acquired
                    1:60,000-scale color infrared photographs of the Prairie Pothole Region of the
                    northern Great Plains. Our experience has shown that the larger scale and color
                    infrared emulsion have allowed more accurate delineation of wetland
                    boundaries, identification of smaller wetland areas, and improved classification
                    of wetland types. The minimum mapping unit for most wetland types is now in
                    the range of 0.5-1.2 hectares (1-3 acres), although for ponds and pothole
                    marshes it is considerably less than 0.5 hectares (Tiner, 1990).
                             In 1987 NHAP was replaced with the National Aerial Photography
                    Program (NAPP), which is acquiring 1:40,000-scale aerial photographs. This
                    scale has increased the cost of acquiring, managing, handling, and storing
                    photographs. It requires 10 photographs to provide stereo coverage of a





                                                                                                         103









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                      1:24,000-scale map with 1:40,000-scale photography in comparison to NHAP
                      photography, which only requires 3 1:58,000-scale photographs.
                             Leaf-off, color infrared, 1:40,000-scale NAPP photographs allow the
                      identification of smaller wetlands. Under the best conditions, wetlands as small
                      as 0. 1 hectare (0. 25 acres) can be identified. This type of photography allows
                      the photointerpreters to make more internal cover type breaks within polygons.
                      The problem is that many of these internal breaks cannot be displayed at a map
                      scale of 1:24,000. Some of the NAPP photographs are leaf-on, making them
                      nearly useless for wetland photointerpretation. Many of the NAPP photographs
                      are black-and-white panchromatic, which increases the difficulty of wetland
                      interpretation.
                             The NWI has found 1:56,000-scale to 1:60,000-scale color infrared,
                      leaves-off, aerial photographs, taken in the spring or fall, to be the best images
                      for producing wetland maps at a scale of 1:24,000. We use positive
                      transparencies because they provide a sharper image and have a better color
                      balance than prints. Color infrared film can record thousands of separable
                      colors, shades, and hues. Film is a remarkably efficient, effective, and durable
                      medium on which to store data.


                      5. Mapping Process
                             The following section presents a brief overview of the NWI's mapping
                      procedures, followed by more detailed discussions of matters relating to the
                      photointerpretation of wetlands and quality control procedures.


                      Overview
                             The NWI undertakes the following steps in producing wetland maps
                      (Tiner, 1990):


                      (1) Reviews aerial photographs to identify obvious wetland types and
                      problematic areas (that is, wetland versus upland, and classification questions -
                      cover types, water regimes, and so on).






              104









                                            Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                    (2) Selects sites for possible field-checking and layout of a route for a field
                    trip. Identifies specific sites representative of problematic photograph signatures
                    and obvious wetland types, emphasizing the former.


                    (3) Conducts field work in the study area (usually one or two 1: 100,000-scale
                    work areas per week of field work, depending on wetland density and
                    complexity). Collects site-specific data to resolve photointerpretation questions.


                    (4) Following a field-trip, reviews field sites on aerial photographs in stereo to
                    become familiar with the photograph signatures associated with the diversity of
                    wetlands in the work area.


                    (5) Performs stereoscopic photointerpretation using at least four-power
                    magnification. Delineates wetland boundaries on photo overlays, classifies each
                    wetland polygon according to the Service's wetland classification system and
                    photointerpretation conventions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990) and
                    consults existing collateral information, such as, soil survey maps, USGS
                    quadrangle sheets, NOAA charts, and previous wetland maps, as needed.


                    (6) Conducts follow-up field trip, if necessary, to resolve new problems that
                    arose during photointerpretation and then makes necessary revisions to
                    photographic overlays.


                    (7) Ensures photointerpretation quality control by the Service Support
                    Contractor's Team Leaders and the Regional Wetland Coordinators and
                    national consistency quality control by the Central Control Group in St.
                    Petersburg, Fla.


                    (8) Prepares draft large-scale wetland maps (1:24,000 scale for most of the
                    United States, and 1:63,360 scale for Alaska).


                    (9) Coordinates interagency (Federal and State) review of draft maps and
                    conducts field checking.



                                                                                                          105









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                          (10) Prepares an edited draft map for final map production.


                          (11) Produces final map.


                          Photointe!pretation of Wetlands
                                   The first infrared films were developed during World War 11 to allow
                          photointerpreters to discriminate between camouflage and natural foliage. The
                          military called this new film "camouflage detection film." The most important
                          properties of stereoscopic color infrared images for distinguishing wetlands are
                          parallax, color, texture, and pattern. The characteristics of color, texture,
                          pattern, and height are all functions of vegetative life forms. A combination of
                          factors, including leaf size, leaf shape, leaf structure, leaf arrangement,
                          branching pattern, height, growth habit, and color produce a specific response
                          or signature on the image.
                                   The identification of upland vegetation can help determine the extent
                          of wetland vegetation. The upland boundary of a wetland is distinguished by a
                          transition from predominantly hydrophytic vegetation to predominantly
                          mesophytic or xerophytic vegetation, a transition from hydric to nonhydric
                          soils, and a transition from areas subject to flooding or saturation during years
                          of normal precipitation to land that is not flooded. Transition is the primary
                          indicator used in differentiating a wetland from the surrounding upland on
                          aerial photographs. On color infrared photographs, the lack of reflectance by
                          water generally results in black and blue-black tones that are very distinctive.
                          Wetlands with canopy openings that contain standing water will exhibit this
                          signature in combination with assorted wetland vegetation signatures. Saturated
                          soils will show on the photograph in darker tones because of the nonreflectance
                          of the soil-water component. Even when wetland basins are dry, the silt, clay,
                          and other fine materials at the bottom of these wetland basins hold more water
                          than upland soils; this results in a distinctive dark color caused by lack of
                          infrared reflectance. The growth pattern typical of upland vegetation will
                          generally contrast with that of the wetland. The growth pattern of vegetation in
                          a wetland is generally denser, more crowded, or more concentrated than of that
                          in the drier upland; it exhibits a higher degree of lushness, vigor, or intensity



                 106









                                              Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                     compared to vegetation in the surrounding upland; and it may undergo a
                     noticeable shift in physiognomy from that which commonly occurs in the
                     upland. Healthy green vegetation absorbs visible light, but reflects infrared
                     radiation and shows up as reddish to magenta hues on color infrared film.
                     Even wheat grown in a dry wetland basin has a distinctive signature, because it
                     is more vigorous, owing to the extra moisture in the basin. Dead and drying
                     crops in flooded wetland basins also have distinctive signatures.
                              When physiographic position, as viewed in a magnified stereoscopic
                     image, is associated with the above characteristics, wetland location on an
                     aerial photograph becomes more obvious. The outside boundary of a wetland is
                     delineated on the photograph by determining from the signature where the
                     transition takes place between upland and wetland. Some transition zones are
                     abrupt and self-evident, but others are gradual and subtle. These subtle
                     transitions may require ground-truth determinations and correlations back to the
                     photograph to establish at which point on the apparent continuum a subtle
                     change is occurring. This subtle change can then be used as a clue to typify the
                     boundary.
                              Patterns or repetitions of spatial arrangement of vegetative types
                     provide important clues in identifying wetlands and their water regime. For
                     example, basins that have a sernipermanently flooded center often have a
                     seasonally flooded band around the center and a temporarily flooded outer
                     band. Patterns are not restricted to vegetation; they can include drainage
                     patterns, land use patterns, and so on. Patterns of land use can be helpful in
                     wetland photointerpretation. At times, the boundaries of fields are formed by
                     wetlands. Unplanted basins in farm fields often indicate wetlands, as do basins
                     planted to a different crop. Land cover patterns such as ridges and swales also
                     help separate uplands and wetlands.
                              All NWI photointerpreters have a degree in the biological or natural
                     sciences that gives them the background needed to understand wetland ecology
                     and identify wetland vegetation and soils. They must have the ability to see
                     stereoscopic images. Before beginning work, they are given extensive training
                     in wetland identification, the Service's wetland classification system, and the
                     identification of wetland plants and soils. Most importantly, these



                                                                                                              107









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                          photointerpreters work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, developing and
                          maintaining their wetland photointerpretation skills.
                                   Before beginning work in a given area, the photointerpreters conduct
                          ground-referencing field investigations to gain familiarity with the area and
                          resolve problem signatures on the photographs. These initial ground-referencing
                          field investigations are essential because the colors, shades, and hues for the
                          same classes of wetlands are different with each set of color infrared
                          photographs. These differences are due to film types 'different flying heights
                          with the same film, seasonal differences in the vegetation, recent precipitation,
                          varying water levels, and so on. The Regional Wetland Coordinators play a
                          critical role in the initial field investigations. These seven people represent
                          nearly 100 years of field experience in identifying wetlands and applying the
                          Fish and Wildlife Service's wetland classification system. They are
                          knowledgeable about local wetland vegetation, local and regional climate, local
                          and regional precipitation patterns, the effect of rain on photographic images in
                          their region, the local growing season, and regional wetland (hydric) soils.


                          Wetland Annotation
                                   All wetlands are delineated, following detailed written mapping
                          conventions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990), on clear stabalene mylar
                          fastened to the photograph with the fiducials marked for registration purposes.
                          Wetland delineations are made on the overlays using 4xO or 6xO penpoints in
                          waterproof black ink. Four-power mirror stereoscopes are used for viewing the
                          photographs. The magnification and stereoimage allow the interpreter to
                          separate trees from shrubs from ernergents. The interpreter can see the lay of
                          the land. Because wetlands occupy topographic lows in the landscape,
                          photointerpreters search drainage patterns, topographic lows, and floodplains
                          along the margins of lakes, rivers, and estuaries for wetlands. They look in the
                          shadows of valleys and ravines. They separate shadows from wetlands.
                          Shadows cast by trees onto agricultural fields often look like wetlands.
                                   The aerial photographs prevails as the data source for mapping except
                          where reliable collateral data, such as soil surveys, National Oceanic and
                          Atmospheric Administration nautical charts, or field check information are



                 108









                                             Appendix I - Data Set Descriptions


                     available. Changes that have taken place since the date of photography are not
                     included. Wetlands are classified and mapped according to their state at
                     maximum vegetational development in an average year and at the average low
                     water level. This means that, where possible, maximum vegetative summer
                     growth should be classified rather than spring high-water conditions.
                             Photointerpretation of water regimes is a difficult task. The interpreter
                     observes the amount of standing water, if any, visible on the photograph and
                     relates it to the date of photography, type of wetland vegetation, local or
                     regional precipitation patterns, length of growing season, soil types,
                     physiographic position, and knowledge of the area gained from supplemental
                     sources. These variables are synthesized by the photointerpreter during the
                     assignment of a water regime. This collateral information is necessary because
                     the aerial photographs are only able to reflect the wetland condition at one
                     instant in time. However, the photointerpreter must use this photographic
                     signature to assign a water regime that represents how long water will remain
                     in the wetland relative to the length of the growing season. The wetland plant
                     community often is used to identify the correct water regime.
                              All wetlands indicated on USGS topographic maps are closely checked
                     on the photographs to ensure their possible inclusion as a wetland. Areas
                     indicated as wetland by swamp symbols on these maps are considered wetland
                     unless strong evidence indicates otherwise. Close attention is paid to
                     topographic contour. Many interpretation errors can be avoided if the degree of
                     slope is taken into consideration in areas where upland tones and textures
                     resemble those of a wetland. This is not to say that in some cases wetlands are
                     not found on slopes. Photointerpreters must also consider the ecological aspects
                     of the area in question.
                              A typical annotation is PEMlAd: "P" for palustrine, "EM" for
                     emergent, " I " for persistent, " A " for temporarily flooded, and " d " for partially
                     drained/ditched. If a wetland is completely drained, it is considered historic and
                     is not mapped. If a wetland is partially drained and still maintains growth of
                     wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation, it is mapped using the special modifier "d"
                     for partially drained/ditched.





                                                                                                           109









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           Quality Control
                                   We have found that quality control depends on the selection and
                           adequate training of the photointerpreters. They need to work as
                           photointerpreters full time to develop and maintain their skills.
                           Photointerpretation quality control starts with a complete review of all work by
                           the service support contractor's quality control staff. Once the work is released
                           by the contractor, it is sent to the appropriate Regional Wetland Coordinator,
                           who reviews every photograph for possible additions, deletions, or
                           misclassifications. Unless extensive corrections are required, the region makes
                           any necessary changes. The photographs are then sent to the NWI Central
                           Control Group for national consistency quality control. Here, a spot-check of
                           photographs is done to insure compliance with national standards for
                           classification and delineation; that consistency is maintained from region to
                           region. It is important to have a sufficient volume of work so that separate
                           quality control staffs can be maintained at the contractor, regional, and national
                           levels. Following these procedures, the NWI has been able to maintain a high
                           degree of accuracy.
                                   An evaluation of NWI maps in Massachusetts has shown that the maps
                           had an accuracy of 95 percent at differentiating wetlands from uplands
                           (Swartwout and others, 1981). This high rate of accuracy has been possible
                           because NWI procedures involve a combination of field work,
                           photointerpretation, use of collateral data, quality control procedures, and good
                           quality aerial photographs.


                           6. Data Liinitations
                                   Because map products have limitations, the following "Special Note"
                           has appeared on all 1.6 million copies of the National Wetlands Inventory
                           Maps.


                           Special Note
                                   This document was prepared primarily by stereoscopic analysis of
                           high altitude aerial photographs. Wetlands were identified on the photographs
                           based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography in accordance with



                 110










                                              Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                     "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States"
                     (FWS/OBS - 79/31 December 1979). The aerial photographs typically reflect
                     conditions during the specific year and season when they were taken. In
                     addition, there is a margin of error inherent in the use of the aerial
                     photographs. Thus, a detailed on the ground and historical analysis of a single
                     site may result in a revision of the wetland boundaries established through
                     photographic interpretation. In addition, some small wetlands and those
                     obscured by dense forest cover may not be included on this document.
                              Federal, State and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over
                     wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used
                     in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
                     inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, State
                     or local goverm-nent or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory
                     programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
                     involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the
                     advice of appropriate Federal, State or local agencies concerning specified
                     agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect
                     such activities.



                     7. Conclusions
                              The NWI feels that it is meeting its goal of producing high quality,
                     biologically sound information on the Nation's wetland resources. We feel that
                     a large part of our success is due to the dedication and knowledge of the
                     photointerpreters and cartographic technicians doing the work, and to the
                     voluntary contributions of the many Federal, State, local, and private sector
                     agencies and organizations who participate in the draft map review process.
                     The NWI continues to evaluate ways of improving and updating our map
                     products and will continue to cooperate with other groups and agencies in
                     evaluating new sensors, techniques, and technologies.









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                                          P,EFERENCES


                            Anonymous, 1985. An Evaluation of Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS)
                          Digital Data for Updating Habitat Maps of the Louisiana Coastal Zone: USDI
                          Fish and Wildlife Service Res., Info. Bull., 85-86.


                            Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C. and LaRoe, E.T. 1979.
                          Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States: USDI
                          Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31, pp. 103.


                            Jacobson, J.E., Ritter, R.A. and Koeln, G.T. 1987. Accuracy of Thematic
                          Mapper Derived Wetlands as Based on National Wetlands Inventory Data. In:
                          ASPRS/ACSM/WFPLS. 1987 Fall Convention, 4-9 October 1987 at Reno,
                          Nev. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Falls Church,
                          Va., pp. 109-118.


                            Shaw, S.P. and Fredine, C.G. 1956. Wetlands of the United States: USDI
                          Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. pp. 67.


                            Swartwout, D.J., MacConnell, W.P. and Finn, J.T. 1981. An Evaluation of
                          the National Wetlands Inventory in Massachusetts. In: Proc. In-Place Resource
                          Inventories Workshop, 9-14 August 1981, University of Maine, Orono, Maine,
                          pp. 685-691.


                            Tiner, R.T., Jr. 1990. Use of High-Altitude Aerial Photography for
                          Inventorying Forested Wetlands in the United States. For. Ecol. and
                          Management, Vol. 33/34, pp. 593-604.


                            U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976. Existing
                          State and Local Wetlands Surveys 1965-75. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                          Washington, D.C. 453 pp.






                 112









                                                   Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions


                         U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service, 1990. Photointerpretation Conventions for the
                       National Wetlands Inventory. National Wetlands Inventory Project, St.
                       Petersburg, Fla. Unpublished. pp. 45.














































                                                                                                                        113









                                               Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions


                     B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -
                          The National Wetlands Inventory
                          Wetland Status and Trends
                              The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) of the Fish and Wildlife
                     Service (Service) plans, directs, coordinates, and monitors the gathering,
                     analysis, dissemination, and evaluation of information relating to the location,
                     quantity, condition, and ecological importance of the Nation's wetlands. The
                     status and trends part of the NWI is collocated with the wetland mapping
                     operations in St. Petersburg, Fla.
                              The Wetland Status and Trends Study develops and maintains
                     national-level statistics on the status and trends of wetlands in the Nation. This
                     information is needed to provide information to the Congress and the Federal
                     Government for developing or modifying Federal programs and policies
                     regarding wetlands. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986
                     reaffirmed the importance of this information and provided mandates for
                     completing periodic status and trends reports. In recent years, the use of
                     wetland trends information has been institutionalized in discussions or
                     initiatives dealing with wetlands and other resource issues. National legislation
                     and Congressional reports make direct reference to the status and trends data,
                     and both the scientific and governmental communities have intense interest in
                     updated information. More recently, serious discussion of a national "no net
                     loss" wetland policy goal would seem to hinge on obtaining accurate and
                     current status and trends data. This information is used by Federal, State, and
                     local governments and the scientific community, making the status and trends
                     study a highly visible and technically challenging area.
                               The objective of the Status and Trends Study is to produce
                     comprehensive, statistically valid acreage estimates of the Nation's wetlands.
                     To accomplish this, there are four components to status and trends operations:


                     A) Continuous monitoring of the Nation's wetland acreage: This involves
                     updating at least 10 percent of the 3,650 national sample plots each year so that
                     estimates of current rates of wetland change can be made at periodic intervals.




                                                                                                                115









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                             This continuous monitoring enables better response to the requirements of the
                             Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986.


                             B) Intensification studies in high priority areas: The Service has determined
                             that additional information is needed to assess the wetland acreage trends in key
                             regions of the country. Intensification studies involve adding additional sample
                             plots to specified geographic units to yield more accurate, regionalized trend
                             data. So far the Service has identified the coastal zone of the Atlantic and the
                             Gulf, the Great Lakes Watershed, the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, and the
                             Prairie Pothole Region as areas where intensification numbers are needed.


                             Q Specialized studies in select areas ("hot spots"): This involves intensified
                             examination and analysis to determine wetland changes in discrete geographic
                             areas (usually countywide). These special studies are usually not statistical
                             samples but specific geographic units where wetland changes can be detected
                             and analyzed for the entire study area.


                             D) Interagency coordination: Determining the status and trends of the Nation's
                             wetlands is a multifaceted, multidisciplined, and sensitive issue. Cooperation
                             with a variety of other Federal and State agencies is necessary and ongoing.
                             Long-term interagency cooperation between the Service and Environmental
                             Protection Agency to monitor wetland changes in quantity (acreage) and quality
                             is underway. Preliminary efforts to coordinate with the Natural Resources
                             Conservation Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                             have also begun.


                                     A number of crosscutting subtasks are related to these component
                             parts of status and trends, including the following: developing acreage
                             projection methods and modeling, ensuring the integrity of statistical design,
                             developing and maintaining data bases, developing GIS's, acquiring and
                             analyzing remotely sensed images, coordinating efforts with the Service's
                             regions and headquarters initiatives, reporting results, and disseminating
                             information.





                  116









                                            Appendix I - Data Set Descriptions

                   C. Maryland Water Resources Administration - Digital
                   Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle and Wetlands Mapping
                   Programs
                   1. Purpose of Data Collection
                            The Water Resources Administration (WRA) is an agency of the
                   Maryland Department of Natural Resources that depends on large-scale map
                   products to accomplish its regulatory and management functions. Although they
                   use a variety of map products, WRA personnel generally prefer using
                   image-based maps because they are more useful for locating positions
                   accurately in the field. The digital orthophoto quarter quadrangle (DOQQ)
                   maps will provide one of three base layers for all geographic information
                   system development by Maryland State Government agencies. The WRA is
                   responsible for development and custody of the wetlands and 100-year
                   floodplain thematic data. Other State and local agencies use the data produced
                   by WRA for planning and management purposes.


                   2. History of Agency Mapping
                            Maryland has had four distinct wetland mapping programs since the
                   passage of the Tidal Wetlands Protection Act in 1970. The WRA's first effort
                   was in 1971, when it produced approximately 2,200 uncorrected mylar
                   photograph "maps" at a scale of 1:2,400 and annotated them with the tidal
                   wetlands boundary as defined in State statute. These maps are official
                   regulatory documents filed with each county clerk's office. They were subject
                   to a public hearing and promulgation process that required certified mailings to
                   more than 14,000 private property owners. The WRA still processes orders for
                   copies of the blueline maps.
                             In 1986, an effort was started to develop a digital wetlands map series
                   to replace the 1971 Tidal Wetlands Boundary Maps. Natural color, 1: 12,000-
                   scale photographs were taken in 1985 as a cooperative effort between the State,
                   the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
                   WRA contracted with the Image Processing and Remote Sensing Center at
                   Salisbury State University to scan the photographs into a computer mapping
                   system, provide new delineations of wetlands, and develop a method to



                                                                                                           117









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                          produce hardcopy maps for public use. This program stopped when the
                          Attorney General's Office determined that the public hearing and notification
                          process would cost the State nearly $2 million for property title searches and
                          certified mailings. The projected cost of mapping was only $165,000. The
                          contract was changed to add a research component that would provide future
                          capabilities to the WRA.
                                   A third mapping effort was begun in April 1989 when the Maryland
                          General Assembly passed the Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act. This
                          legislation required the State to produce guidance maps showing the location of
                          nontidal wetlands and Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) that have
                          unique habitat value or contain rare, threatened, or endangered species. The
                          legislature instructed the WRA to make a new series of maps that had an image
                          base and required their delivery in January 1990, a period of nine months. The
                          WRA again contracted with Salisbury State University and developed a plan to
                          produce the maps. In the mid-1980's, the WRA had contracted with the
                          National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to digitize the NWI data for Maryland.
                          The WRA used the NWI data over SPOT 10-meter panchromatic satellite
                          images to produce the required map series. Maryland's Natural Heritage
                          Program identified the WSSC areas on these maps.
                                   The fourth project involves statewide production of color DOQQ
                          maps. These maps were designed to be a base layer for many GIS mapping
                          efforts in Maryland by the various Federal, State, and local agencies. The
                          immediate purpose of the maps is production of an updated tidal and nontidal
                          wetlands inventory.


                          3. Data Collection Area
                                   As noted, production of the DOQQ map series and the wetlands
                          thematic data will provide coverage for the entire State. As of August 1993,
                          approximately 30 percent of the State is funded and being completed. An
                          additional 20 percent is not funded, but photographs were obtained and the
                          WRA is collecting adequate control for this area. The WRA expects to
                          complete the base maps for the entire State (950 maps) by the end of 1995.





                 118









                                            Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                    4. Data Collection Methods and Technical Specifications
                            Production of the DOQQ base maps is being completed through
                    contract services with Photo Science, Inc., of Gaithersburg, Md. The base
                    maps are generally identical to the federal specifications for DOQQ map
                    production.
                            The WRA's contractor provides a qualified photointerpreter (PI) to do
                    wetland delineations using conventional stereoscopic analysis of the 1:40,000-
                    scale color infrared (CIR) aerial photographs. The PI follows the conventions
                    of the NWI and augments the delineation with field checks whenever possible.
                    The WRA's contractor does photo-interpretation on a Sokkisha MS-27 mirror
                    stereoscope. This instrument allows the PI to view the aerial photographs in
                    three dimensions by aligning the overlap of consecutive photographs. The PI
                    distinguishes change in elevation and locates depressions and break-lines along
                    stream channels and floodplains. In addition, the PI can distinguish the
                    difference in elevation between trees and shrubs. The PI first looks for low-
                    lying areas in the landscape where wetlands generally occur. He "trains" his
                    eye on "wetland signatures" in the photographs by using advance knowledge of
                    the wetlands obtained from site visits. The "signatures" are complex groupings
                    of texture and color that respectively indicate plant communities and soil
                    moisture. The PI also uses collateral data such as existing wetland maps, soil
                    surveys, topo maps, and other photographs to help in delineations. The final
                    product is a mylar overlay on which the PI has drafted the locations of
                    photoidentifiable wetlands using a precision technical pen (width 6xO or .13
                    mm).
                             The WRA PI is instructed to classify wetlands according to the
                    Cowardin, and others (1979) Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
                    Habitats of the United States. The WRA has required a conservative approach
                    that relies on an unambiguous signature in the photographs. Some marginal
                    wetlands are missed by using this approach; however, we have more
                    confidence that the delineated wetlands are jurisdictional. The PI field verifies
                    "problematic signatures" and detects the existence of a wetland on the basis of
                    the vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Several sites that have the same signature
                    are visited for consistency. After field investigations have been completed,



                                                                                                         119









                           Coordination and Integration of Wettand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                           decisions are made about whether this photo signature indicates a wet
                           condition. These decisions determine the classification of the signature.
                           Periodically throughout the photointerpretation process, this signature is
                           revisited to gain further confidence before final quality control. The minimal
                           mapping unit is one-half acre, although obvious smaller features are mapped.
                                    Linear features such as small stream channels and ditch lines are
                           generally recognized in Maryland as regulated features under two separate
                           statutes. The definition of these regulated areas is being examined and may
                           soon change. In addition, small stream channels or ditches require excessive
                           field verification to determine the presence or absence of jurisdictional
                           wetlands. Therefore, the WRA instructed the PI to concentrate on mapping
                           polygon features instead of minor linear features.
                                    Farmed wetlands were conservatively mapped for the express purpose
                           of locating potential mitigation sites and providing data to the U.S. Fish and
                           Wildlife Service on mapping these features. No effort was made to
                           comprehensively map farmed wetlands or to provide locations of farmed or
                           prior converted wetlands from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
                           (NRCS) Swampbuster data.
                                    The use of soil survey data is limited to an ancillary data set. Some
                           wetland mapping programs allow mapping of all hydric soil areas as potential
                           wetlands. The WRA takes a more conservative approach by using all three
                           parameters of hydrophytic, vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils in an attempt
                           to accurately delineate wetlands according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers
                           manual.
                                    The WRA issues a separate contract to conduct field verification of
                           the PI's work. Approximately five point locations are visited on each map to
                           verify that a wetland exists, to classify it, and to determine if a boundary
                           condition exists nearby.
                                    The contractor collects and records the information required to
                           complete the field data sheet at each site selecting an observation area within
                           the wetland that best represents characteristics of the entire community.
                           Vegetative communities are evaluated by using the percent of areal coverage
                           within a 30-yard radius. The contractor visually estimates dominant species for



                 120









                                             Appendix I - Data Set Descriptions

                    each stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) that exceeds 50 percent of the total
                    dominance measure (areal coverage), and any additional species making up 20
                    percent or more of the total dominant measure for that stratum. These species
                    are identified and recorded on the data sheet. The field indicator status for all
                    species is recorded and totaled for an overall vegetative indicator status
                    representing the community.
                             Inspection of soil characteristics is also necessary at most sites. Within
                    the observation area a hole is dug at least 18 inches deep, or to a depth
                    sufficient to verify the presence of hydric conditions and confirm the soil type
                    as designated by the County Soil Survey of the NRCS. A description of the soil
                    profile is written on the data sheet showing the depth and color of the horizons
                    and mottles. Any unusual conditions or circumstances that may qualify the
                    contractor's findings are added to the notes section of the data sheet. Visible
                    surface signs of hydric conditions (for example, multiple trunks, water-stained
                    leaves, stream channels) are also recorded on the data sheet.
                             The potential for bias and errors by the contractor is reduced by using
                    blind controls. The photograph provided by the department has the areal extent
                    of the wetland delineated. However, the PI will sometimes change polygons so
                    that they do not exactly mimic the features in the photographs. The Cowardin
                    classification given by the interpreter is omitted from the data supplied to the
                    contractor. Also, one or more sites selected for observation may have been
                    previously field checked by the department. Finally, an area known to have no
                    wetlands may be included in the sites selected for field verification.
                             The WRA developed unique procedures for vectorizing the
                    photointerpreted wetlands data. The WRA provides NWI with the source
                    photographs, the wetland interpretations drafted on a mylar overlay, and a
                    digital color orthophoto image of the quarter quadrangle. The NWI's contractor
                    converts the interpreted wetlands into a vector file using procedures developed
                    by the WRA that allow the vectors to be fitted to the image at large scale.
                             The quality assurance of the vector sets is the single most labor-
                    intensive step performed by the WRA in the creation of the DOQQ wetlands
                    maps. A skilled operator spends approximately 1 day working interactively
                    with the computer to do the required quality assurance.



                                                                                                           121









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                 The WRA staff perform the final hardcopy wetland map production.
                         This process is entirely digital and requires no hand drafting or scribing. After
                         map construction is complete, the computer operator instructs the system to
                         create a print file used to print 1:7,200-scale copies of the map on demand.
                         The print file cannot be altered and will provide a consistent product. Maps are
                         printed on a Versatec 44" electrostatic plotter that has a resolution of 400 dots
                         per inch. The production maps are black and white and take approximately 12
                         minutes to print. If created in color, they take 48 minutes to print, making it
                         difficult to meet production demands.
                                 Distribution of the digital files is accomplished using one format and
                         media type. Currently, the file structure is MIPS.RVF, and the media is Relax
                         ISO standard format erasable optical cartridges formatted on a T130 controller
                         card.


                              Specifications for Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle Maps


                         Source Photography         NAPP or NAPP specification, 1:40,000 scale,
                                                    CIR, leaf-off


                         Control                    Targeted monuments approximately every 3.75
                                                    feet


                         Digital Elevation Model    Collected every 300 feet, interpreted to 100 feet,
                                                    ASCII format


                         Scan Resolution            32 microns (I pixel = 4 feet on the ground)


                         Datum                      1983 NAD horizontal, 1929 vertical


                         Projection                 Maryland State Plane Coordinate System 1983


                         Digital Files              3 separate bands, a composite color image, and
                                                    cartographic overlays in the MIPS.RVF file format



               122









                                                Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                      Digital File Size              Each band and the composite image are
                                                     approximately 28 megabytes


                      Projected Total Storage        Approximately 130 gigabytes for all data


                      Production Scale               NMAS at 1: 12,000 scale


                      Hardcopy                       1: 12,000-scale Mylar for blueline production
                                                     1:7,200-scale electrostatic prints of wetland maps


                                         Specifications for Wetland Interpretation


                      Method                         Standard stereoscopic aerial photographic
                                                     interpretation using NWI classification methods.


                      Classification System          Cowardin and others, 1979


                      Vectorization Process          Scan interpreted Mylar overlay; convert to vector;
                                                     rough fit vector to image; photointerpreter edits
                                                     every vector in-place; quality assurance and quality
                                                     control checks; edgernatch vectors; create a
                                                     continuous-coverage file.


                      Proposed Changes               One-step interpretation and vectorization process
                                                     using a softcopy system.


                      5. Limitations of Data
                                The WRA DOQQ maps are intended to provide guidance on the
                      relative locations of tidal and nontidal wetlands. Precise boundaries of tidal
                      wetlands shall be determined using the official 1971 State Tidal Wetlands
                      Boundary Maps. Precise boundaries of nontidal wetlands shall be determined in
                      the field using methods established in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
                      Wetlands Delineation Manual.




                                                                                                                  123









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                   The data provided for comparison in this study were a first-generation
                          data set. Because of the work accomplished during this project, and other field
                          work in this region, the WRA has revised its data sets on two occasions. The
                          current data set shows an approximate 20 percent increase in the areal extent of
                          wetlands.
                                  Maryland provided the USGS with DOQQ maps for the study area by
                          using an ERDAS export routine in WRA's MIPS system. The WRA used a
                          two-step process to convert the wetland vector data from the MIPS file
                          structure into ARCANFO format. Those data were imported by the USGS and
                          reattributed using a custom routine written by the USGS. The data used for the
                          comparison contained some polygons that were incorrectly attributed as upland.
                          They account for some of the discrepancies between data sets, but are
                          insignificant in terms of areal extent when compared to the total acreage.































                124










                                            Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                    D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -
                          Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
                             The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Wetlands
                    Subcommittee obtained draft digital land cover map data for the Salisbury study
                    area from the Environmental Protectio n Agency's (EPA) Environmental
                    Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). These data were not generated
                    to map wetlands specifically or to provide wetlands status and trends
                    information, but rather to provide a general characterization of land cover and
                    land use patterns. For this reason, these data are not being compared to those
                    of the other programs, which are specifically oriented toward wetlands
                    mapping. Below is a brief summary of this EMAP project's objectives and
                    methods and a discussion of the EMAP-Wetlands program's planned use of
                    wetlands maps and status and trends information.


                    1. The EMAP Chesapeake Bay Watershed Characterization Project
                             The EMAP Landscape Characterization Program (EMCP-LC) began
                    the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Characterization Project in 1991 as its primary
                    landscape characterization pilot study. The purpose of the project was to map
                    general land cover patterns in the 65,000-square-mile Chesapeake watershed.
                    Using these data, EMAP resource groups would look for associations between
                    land use and land cover patterns and degraded conditions that their field
                    monitoring had detected in the terrestrial and aquatic ecological resources of
                    the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office and the State of
                    Pennsylvania shared the cost of the project, and project staff coordinated their
                    efforts with NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program, the Global Change
                    Research Program, and others active in the same study area. The EPA's Las
                    Vegas Laboratory managed and carried out the project.
                             The primary data source was Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)
                    imagery, which was analyzed through digital image processing, The draft
                    digital data provided to the FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee in January 1993
                    were not assessed for accuracy, but are now undergoing assessment.
                             This project was designed to incorporate digitized National Wetlands
                    Inventory (NWI) wetland maps derived from aerial photographs with the



                                                                                                       125









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           Landsat TM interpretations, but downsizing of EMAP prevented this from
                           being completed. As originally designed, the Landsat TM analysis planned to
                           use growing-season imagery to improve discrimination of upland cover and of
                           differences in categories of woody (forest and scrub-shrub) cover. The project
                           staff then would overlay NWI digital data coverages on the TM imagery to
                           mask out the wetland areas. In a second step, the staff planned to manually
                           update any apparent changes visible on the satellite imagery (for example,
                           conversion to agriculture). The choice of satellite imagery from the leaves-on
                           season reduced the ability of the TM image analysis to detect and discriminate
                           wetlands; this was a conscious trade-off because NWI data would be
                           incorporated in a later step. For this reason, wetland area statistics based only
                           on this draft TM product are artificially low.
                                    Although the wetlands masking step was not funded, the project was
                           able to digitize hundreds of NWI quadrangles that were previously available
                           only as hardcopy maps. The digitized NWI coverage, which involves a
                           substantial part of the Chesapeake watershed, is being maintained as a separate
                           data layer.


                           2. EMAP-Wetlands Program Use of Wetlands Maps and Status and
                               Trends Data
                                    The EMAP-Wetlands program is one of EMAP's several component
                           resource groups. Basically, each EMAP resource group is responsible for
                           monitoring and assessing status, changes, and trends in indicators of the
                           condition of their resources across broad regions of the country. Information on
                           status and trends in wetland condition (for example, functional integrity of
                           "health") and status and trends in wetland extent (acreage) are of interest to the
                           EMAP-Wetlands program.
                                    The EMAP-Wetlands program relies on the NWI program in two
                           main areas: NWI maps and sources for choosing sampling sites for monitoring
                           wetlands condition, and the NWI status and trends program to provide
                           information on wetland extent. EMAP-Wetlands will not use EMAP
                           characterization data such as the Chesapeake watershed data to estimate status
                           and trends in wetland extent. Characterization data will be used to analyze



                  126









                                                 Appendix I - Data Set Descriptions

                      possible impacts on wetland condition from activities in the surrounding
                      landscape.















































                                                                                                                      127









                                               Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                      E. Natural Resources Conservation Service -
                          National Resources Inventory
                               The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
                      Conservation Service (NRCS), as part of its mission, conducts periodic
                      multiresource inventories of the Nation's non-Federal lands. These inventories
                      serve as the Federal Government's principal source of information on the
                      status, condition, and trend of soil, water, and related resources. This work is
                      done as part of the National Resources Inventory (NRI) program.
                               The NRI is a multiresource inventory based on soils and other
                      resource data collected at 800,000 sample sites located throughout the Nation.
                      NRI's are based on a stratified two-stage area-sampling scheme that permits
                      extrapolation of point samples to totals for various geographic regions. NRI
                      results are used to formulate policy and assist in planning conservation and
                      environmental programs at the national, regional, and local levels.
                               The NRCS has been involved with inventories of natural resources for
                      nearly 60 years. The earliest efforts were reconnaissance studies--the Soil
                      Erosion Inventory of 1934 and the 1945 Soil and Water Conservation Needs
                      Inventory. The Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventories of 1958 and
                      1967 were the agency's first efforts to collect data nationally for scientifically
                      selected sample sites. These and subsequent inventories have been prepared in
                      cooperation with the Statistical Laboratory at Iowa State University and other
                      USDA agencies, and with guidance from several Federal and State agencies.
                               The present NRCS resources inventory program is a result of the
                      Rural Development Act of 1972, the Soil and Water Resources Conservation
                      Act of 1977, the Food Security Act of 1985, and the Food and Agricultural
                      Trade Act of 1990. The Rural Development Act directed the Secretary of
                      Agriculture to set up an inventory and monitoring program in recognition of
                      the increasing need for soil, water, and related resource data for the following

                      purposes:


                               land conservation, use, and development; guidance of community
                               development for balanced rural-urban growth; identification of prime
                               agricultural areas that should be protected; and



                                                                                                              129









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                     use in protecting the quality of the environment.


                                     The first NRI was developed in 1977, with subsequent NRI's in 1982,
                            1987, and 1992. A potential cropland study was done in 1975.
                                     Many types of data are collected for the NRI, including soil
                            characteristics and interpretations (such as slope, depth, land capability class,
                            prime farmland, salinity or acidity, and flooding frequency); earth cover (such
                            as trees, shrubs, and grass); land cover and use (such as crop type, grazing,
                            and recreation); erosion (such as sheet, rill, and wind); land treatment (such as
                            conservation tillage, irrigation, and windbreaks); vegetative and other
                            conditions (such as range condition and species, wetlands, and pasture
                            management); conservation treatment needs (such as erosion control, drainage,
                            and brush management); potential for cropland conversion; extent of urban
                            land; habitat diversity; and cover maintained under the Conservation Reserve
                            Program, where applicable. In addition, the NRI is linked to the NRCS's
                            extensive Soil Interpretation Records data base. Data from other sources can be
                            integrated with the NRI, through spatial links, in a geographic information
                            system.
                                     The 1992 NRI is a temporal as well as a spatial record of the Nation's
                            resources. At each sample point, information is available for 3 years--1982,
                            1987, and 1992. From this time series, changes in land use and resource
                            characteristics can be estimated and analyzed.
                                     Data collection for the 1992 NRI was handled by multidisciplinary
                            data collection teams headed by State resources inventory specialists; they used
                            various remote sensing techniques, particularly photointerpretation. Most 1992
                            NRI samples were also part of the 1982 inventory and were field visited at that
                            time, but only some were visited for 1992. Field visits were required when
                            suitable images were not available, when specialized (intensive) data had to be
                            collected for certain modules and samples, and when information was needed
                            for quality control and review purposes. State- and area-level data collection
                            teams used case files and other types of ancillary information. They also took
                            advantage of the local knowledge of field office staff. Other features included
                            state-of-the-art data entry software, increased emphasis on training, nationwide



                  130









                                            Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                    georeferencing of all sample-site locations, and a comprehensive quality
                    assurance program. The software contained sophisticated data checking that
                    helped ensure that 1982, 1987, and 1992 measurements were made consistently
                    so that proper trending analyses could be made using the final data base. Data
                    collection began in the fall of 1991 and concluded on June 1, 1993. Data were
                    monitored and reviewed to ensure that they would reflect 1992 growing season
                    conditions.
                            The purpose of the NRI is to support agricultural and environmental
                    policy development and program implementation. It provides the information
                    needed to accomplish the following tasks:


                          Describe the status and trends of natural resources.
                          Evaluate the condition of natural resources using environmental and
                          ecological indicators.
                    ï¿½     Assess environmental and economic implications of changes in
                          resource use (including expected changes associated with changes in
                          government policies).
                    ï¿½     Plan and manage the Nation's conservation programs, such as the
                          conservation reserve, swampbusting, and erosion abatement

                          programs.


                             The goals of the NRI program can be met only if numerous
                    characteristics and features are analyzed simultaneously to enable proper
                    interpretations and inferences. The NRI facilitates such analytical work by
                    collecting hundreds of data items for each sample site. Currently these sample
                    sites are specific points. As geographic information system and mapping
                    technologies continue to progress, there will be a shift to the collection and use
                    of mapped (polygonal) data items.
                             The NRI data base is constructed to allow simultaneous examination
                    of relationships among all the features and resources--these include natural
                    characteristics (such as soil) and human-induced characteristics (management of
                    the land), as well as temporal and spatial aspects. Many types of interpretive
                    and diagnostic maps can be produced using the NRI data base. And geographic



                                                                                                         131









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                            information systems facilitate spatial analysis by using the NRI in conjunction
                            with numerous other data bases.
                                     One of the conditions or features identified by the NRI is the presence
                            or absence of wetlands. This information is part of the NRI data base because
                            all natural resource and environmental issues must be included when analyzing
                            land and waste management issues. When policy is being developed, data must
                            exist to address those issues and the socioeconomic factors. The NRI has made
                            wetland determinations since 1977, using several classification systems. For the
                            1977 NRL it was determined if the sample point was located in an area
                            classified as a type 3 through 20 wetland, according to the Circular 39
                            classification system. For the 1982 NRI, there were three data items related to
                            wetlands:


                            (i)   Circular 39 classification, with types I and 2 also identified;
                            (ii)  Cowardin classification - kind of system; and
                            (iii) Cowardin classification - vegetative type.


                                     For the 1987 NRI, only the Circular 39 classification was used. A
                            special update in 1991 established trends from 1982 to 1987 to 1991. For the
                            1992 NRI, the Cowardin classification method has been used. Also, sample
                            sites have been classified according to wetland and exemption categories
                            developed for the 1985 Food Security Act (FSA). The 1992 NRI will allow
                            analysis of changes between 1982 and 1992, relative to the Cowardin
                            classification method. These analyses will be facilitated by the many additional
                            data items contained within the NRI data base (soils properties, land cover,
                            land use, and so on).















                   132









                                           Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                   F. Natural Resources Conservation Service -
                       Wetland Inventory
                           The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
                   Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) wetland
                   inventory maps were created to provide the field offices guidance for
                   identifying wetlands in accordance with the 1985 Farm Bill for participants in
                   USDA programs. In Maryland such maps were created for eight counties on
                   the eastern shore.
                            Delineations on these maps were made in the office using soil survey
                   data as the base. The hydric soils information for the area investigated at the
                   Salisbury workshop was extracted from the Wicomico County Soil Survey,
                   1970. In addition to soils data, photointerpretive data were also used. Color
                   infrared aerial photographs (flight date 3/28/82), black-and-white infrared
                   photographs (flight year 1989), and color slides (flight years 1987 and 1988)
                   were additional materials used for making the determinations.
                            The maps were constructed by outlining hydric soil areas on mylar
                   sheets. Mylar reproductions of the soil survey maps were overlaid on mylar
                   reproductions of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps (both at a scale of
                   1: 15,840 for all counties mapped except Caroline County, which is at a scale
                   of 1:20,000). Using the USGS maps created a more rectified base than the soil
                   survey provided and also designated reference points. The following are brief
                   descriptions of the wetland conventions used.


                   W     Wetland (hydric soils + permanent vegetation, usually wooded)


                   NW    Non-Wetland (no hydric soils present and no wet signature on aerial
                         photographs)


                   PC    Prior Converted Cropland (hydric soil cropped areas that were converted
                         for the purpose of or having the effect of making the production of an
                         agricultural commodity possible before December 23, 1985)






                                                                                                        133









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                           FW Farmed Wetland (hydric soil areas, or soils with hydric inclusions, in
                           cropfields that display a wet signature on the aerial photographs)


                                    As previously stated, these maps were created to serve as a guide for
                           field office staff when making wetland determinations. Because the maps are
                           conservative and may overestimate the acreage of wetlands, each office using
                           these maps was instructed to conduct a field investigation of any sites on which
                           a landowner intends to make any land changes. Because the determinations
                           were made in the office, the maps have limitations in reference to specific
                           delineations (where to draw the line). To find the true transitional lines
                           separating wetland from upland areas, one must conduct a field investigation.
                           The soil surveys also limit the accuracy of the maps because hydric soil
                           inclusions three acres or less in nonhydric map units are not included in the
                           soil surveys. Therefore, smaller wetland areas may not have been identified.





























                  134









                                            Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                    G. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -
                        Coastal Ocean Program
                        Coastal Change Analysis Program
                            In 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                    (NOAA), as part of its Coastal Ocean Program, began the Coastal Change
                    Analysis Program (C-CAP) to monitor coastal wetlands, including submerged
                    aquatic vegetation (SAV), and adjacent upland cover and change in the coastal
                    region of the United States (Ferguson and others, 1993; Ferguson and others,
                    1992; Thomas and others, 1991; Thomas and Ferguson, 1990). The long-term
                    goal of C-CAP is to determine how land cover and changes in land cover affect
                    living marine resources -- their abundance, distribution, and health. To do this,
                    NOAA plans to develop a comprehensive, nationally standardized information
                    system for land cover and change in the coastal region of the United States,
                    making use of satellite images, aerial photographs, surface level data, and other
                    collateral data within a geographical information system context.
                             The project is intended to be a cooperative effort with other Federal
                    and State agencies. The first three years of the project have been devoted
                    primarily to developing a standardized protocol that is based on a series of
                    regional workshops and smaller working group meetings held around the
                    country with other Federal, State, and academic personnel (Dobson and others,
                    unpub. data; Haddad, 1992; Dobson and Bright, 1991). Additional research
                    and development is continuing in areas such as accuracy assessment,
                    classification, tidal effects, and modeling. C-CAP is working with the States of
                    Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York,
                    New Jersey, Georgia, Louisiana, California, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington,
                    as well as with the Gulf of Maine Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
                    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), the U.S. Fish
                    and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, and academia on these
                    issues.
                             The coastal region to be covered by C-CAP includes those land and
                    water components of the various watersheds within the United States, its
                    possessions, and territories that most directly influence estuarine and coastal
                    marine habitats used by living marine resources. The land cover includes those



                                                                                                        135









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                         classes of vegetation and physical cover of ecological significance to living
                         marine resources and (or) their habitats. The major classes will include water
                         and submerged land, including SAV, wetlands and uplands (Klemas and others,
                         1993).
                                  Satellite imagery (that is, Landsat Thematic Mapper, SPOT, and
                         follow-on sensors) will be the primary data source for coastal wetlands and
                         adjacent uplands. Aerial photography will be the primary source for
                         determining the abundance and distribution of SAV. The planned time interval
                         for repeated looks at the coastal region of the United States is every 1 to 5
                         years. Regions with little change or interest will be monitored every 5 years;
                         areas of intense development, every 2 or 3 years; and areas disturbed by
                         extreme events (fore example, oil spills, hurricanes), annually. Data will be
                         collected as synaptically as possible to facilitate change analysis. Additionally,
                         a component of C-CAP is being developed so that not just areal coverage is
                         determined, but also functional health (Patience and Klemas, 1993), whereby a
                         decline in the functioning of a coastal habitat could be observed before its loss
                         in area. This component is being coordinated with the Environmental
                         Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
                                  The NOAA data used in the interagency comparison (Wicomico
                         County, Md.) were derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper images (spatial
                         resolution of 30 meters). These data were processed by the Geographic Data
                         Systems Section of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
                         Processing was in accordance with the C-CAP Regional Implementation
                         Manual (Dobson and others, 1995).

















                136









                                          Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions


                                                  References


                   Dobson, J.E. and E.A. Bright. 1991. CoastWatch--Detecting change in coastal
                   wetlands. Geo Info Systems. January/February 1991. pp.36-40.


                   Dobson, J.E., E.A. Bright, R.L. Ferguson, D.W. Field, L.L. Wood, K.D.
                   Haddad, H. Iredale 111, J.R. Jenson, V.V. Klemas, R.J. Orth, and J.P.
                   Thomas, 1995. NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP): Guidance
                   for Regional Implementation. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, 92pp.


                   Ferguson, R.L., L.L. Wood, and D.B. Graham. 1992. Detection of change in
                   submerged coastal habitat. Proceedings ASPRS/ACSM/RT '92, Washington,
                   D.C., August 1992. pp.70-79.


                   Ferguson, R.L., L.L. Wood, and D.B. Graham. 1993. Monitoring spatial
                   change in seagrass habitat with aerial photography. Photogram. Eng. and
                   Remote Sensing. Spec. Issue on Monitoring and Mapping Global Change.
                   59(6): 1033-1038.


                   Haddad, K.D. 1992. CoastWatch Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) remote
                   sensing and GIS protocols. Proceedings ASPRS/ACSM/RT '92, Washington,
                   D.C., 1992. pp. 58-69.


                   Klemas, V., J.E. Dobson, R.L. Ferguson, and K.D. Haddad. 1993. A coastal
                   land cover classification system for the NOAA CoastWatch Change Analysis
                   Project. J. Coastal Research. 9(3): 862-872.


                   Patience, N. and V. Klemas. 1993. Wetland functional health assessment using
                   remote sensing and other techniques: literature search. NOAA Technical
                   Memorandum NMFS SEFSC-319.


                   Thomas, J.P. and R.L. Ferguson. 1990. NOAA's habitat mapping under the
                   Coastal Ocean Program. Pages 44-54 in S.J. Kiraly, F.A. Cross and J.D.



                                                                                                   137









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                              Buffington, tech. coords. Federal coastal wetland mapping programs. U.S. Fish
                              and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 90(18).


                              Thomas, J.P., R.L. Ferguson, J.E. Dobson, and F.A. Cross. 1991. NOAA's
                              CoastWatch: Change Analysis Program. Coastal Wetlands Coastal Zone '91
                              Conference-ASCE, Long Beach, CA, July 1991. pp. 259-267.









































                   138









                                             Appendix 1 - Data Set Descriptions

                     H. U.S. Geological Survey -
                         Land Use Data Analysis Program
                              For comparison with wetland data sets developed by other Federal
                     agencies and by the State of Maryland, the Wetlands Subcommittee of the
                     Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) obtained digital land use and land
                     cover data over the Wicomico County, Md., area that had been collected in the
                     late 1970's. These data, prepared by the Geography Program of the Land
                     Information and Analysis Office, U.S. Geological Survey, were collected under
                     the Land Use Data Analysis (LUDA) Program using the Anderson Land Use
                     and Land Cover Classification System. The source materials were black-and-
                     white National High Altitude Aerial Photography, collected at the 1:80,000
                     scale. The compilation scale of the mapped data was 1: 125,000 and the
                     publication scale was 1:250,000.
                              Standards for the land use and land cover data were based on the
                     accuracies allowable at the publication scale. The accuracies refer to positional
                     accuracy as well as minimum size criteria for polygon identification.
                     Essentially, the classification system was a two-level hierarchical system. The
                     LUDA data were intended to cover the Nation at a consistent scale. This was

                     the first time a nationwide land use and land cover collection effort had been
                     attempted and completed.
                              Because the LUDA Program collected general land use and land cover
                     types, including forested and unforested wetlands, comparing the wetland
                     delineations and resulting statistics with those of the National Wetland
                     Inventory (NWI) and the National Resource Inventory (NRI) would not be
                     conclusive.


                     Land Use and Land Cover Mapping at the USGS
                              For several reasons the LUDA data are not appropriate for use in the
                     wetlands comparison study. First, the data collected are at too large a scale to
                     compare acreage and to compare conventions for identifying wetland areas.
                     The fact that only two categories of wetlands are identified implies that the
                     classification system used was too general to identify wetlands to the degree
                     that NWI and NRI identify them. Second, the LUDA data managers intended



                                                                                                         139









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                         to provide a foundation for State and local organizations and other Federal
                         agencies to expand on the classification system and the land use and land cover
                         delineations. To use the wetlands delineations from the LUDA Program would
                         be similar to comparing generalized data to site specific data. Third, although
                         the primary data source was the same as that used by the NWI, the age of the
                         source materials is very different. The conversion of wetlands to a higher order
                         use would adversely affect the comparison of both data sets. Fourth, positional
                         accuracy was not as important as relational accuracy as borne out by the
                         1:250,000-scale compilation base. Although the data were recorded at the
                         1: 125,000 scale, the accuracy of the base was no better than 1:250,000. This is
                         a major difference from the 1:24,000-scale base used by the NWI.
                                 For these reasons, comparing LUDA wetland acreage and delineations
                         with the NWI data would not provide meaningful results.































               140









                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates







                                                       Appendix 2


                                    Wetland Data Set Acreage









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                                            Appendix 2 - Wetland Data Set Acreage


                                 The tables in appendix 2 present the acreage delineated as wetlands
                       and uplands for each of the data sets studied in the analysis. The tables show
                       the wetland class, the number of polygons contained within a category, and the
                       area in both square meters and acres.









































                                                                                                                         141









                                        Appendix 2 - Wetland Data Set Acreage


                                    FWS National Wetlands Inventory Data


                                            NWI data - PALUSTRINE


                                Class          Polygons       Square         Acreage
                                            I            I    meters

                            Forested                  928    37,459,328           9,256

                            Emergent                  157     2,542,203            628

                            Scrub/Shrub                66     1,796,766            444

                            Open water                183     1,343,025            332

                            Rock bottom                 0              0              0


                            Unconsolidated              0              0              0
                            bottom

                            Aquatic bed                 0              0              0

                            Unconsolidated              0              0              0
                            shore


                            Moss-Lichen                 0              0              0


                            No class                    0              0              0


                 Total                              1,334    43,141,322          10,660



                                            NWI data - LACUSTRINE


                                Class          Polygons       Square         Acreage
                                                              meters


                            Open water                 19     2,119,463            524

                            Unconsolidated              1        89,794              22
                            bottom


                            Rock bottom                 0              0              0

                            Aquatic bed                 0              0              0

                            Rocky shore                 0              0              0

                            Unconsolidated              0              0              0
                            shore


                            Emergent                    0              0              0

                            No class                    0              0              0


                 Total                                 20     2,209,257            546





                                                                                           143









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Esthnates


                                                 NWI data    RIVERINE


                                     Class         Polygons       square         Acreage
                                                              I   meters

                                Open water                  2     1,411,757            349

                                Emergent                    21    1,035,098            256

                                Rock                        0             0               0


                                Unconsolidated              0             0               0
                                bottom


                                Streambed                   0             0               0

                                Aquatic bed                 0             0               0

                                Rocky shore                 0             0               0

                                Unconsolidated              0             0               0
                                shore


                                No class                    0             0               0


                      Total                                 23    2,446,854            605


                                                 NWI data - ESTUARINE


                                      Class          Polygons      square        Acreage
                                                 I             I   meters

                                 Emergent                   33     3,021,930             747

                                 Open water                  5     1,377,815             340

                                 Flats                      16       350,560              87

                                 Rock bottom                 0             0              0


                                 Unconsolidated              0             0              0
                                 bottom

                                 Aquatic bed                 0             0              0

                                 Reef                        0             0              0


                                 Streambed                   0             0              0

                                 Rocky shore                 0             0              0

                                 Unconsolidated              0             0              0
                                 shore

                                 Shrub/Scrub                 0             0              0

                                 No class                    0             0              0
                      Total                                 54T    4,750,305           1,174


               144









                                        Appendix 2 - Wetland Data Set Acreage



                                             NWI data - UPLAND


                                Class         Polygons        Square        Acreage
                                           I             I   meters
                           No class                   53 1 583,603,476         144,208

                                                                               144,208
                 Total                                53   583,603,476



                NWI total acreage = 157,193




















































                                                                                            145









                                       Appendix 2 - Wetland Data Set Acreage


                              Maryland Water Resources Administration Data


                                           WRA data - PALUSTRINE


                               Class          Polygons      Square         Acreage
                                           I             I  meters

                           Forested                1,317    49,420,875         12,212

                           Scrub/Shrub              258     3,465,409             856

                           Emergent                 290     2,443,162             604

                           Farmed                   372     1,342,067             332

                           Unconsolidated           394     1,872,112             463
                           bottom


                           No class                 151        463,627            115

                           Open water                  0             0              0

                           Rock bottom                 0             0              0

                           Aquatic bed                 0             0              0

                           Unconsolidated              0             0              0
                           shore


                           Moss-Lichen                 0             0              0


                 Total                             2,782    59,007,252         14,581


                                           WRA data - LACUSTRINE


                               Class          Polygons      Square         Acreage
                                                         I  meters

                           Unconsolidated             22    2,216,035             548
                           bottom


                           Open water                  0             0              0

                           Rock bottom                 0             0              0

                           Aquatic bed                 0             0              0

                           Rocky shore                 0             0              0

                           Unconsolidated              0             0              0
                           shore

                           Emergent                    0             0              0

                           No class                    0             0              0


                 Total                                22    2,216,035             548






                                                                                          147









                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                                 WRA data - RIVERINE


                                     Class         Polygons      Square         Acreage
                                                              I  meters

                                Unconsolidated             19    2,792,135            690
                                bottom


                                Emergent                   32       660,597           163

                                Open water                  0            0               0

                                Rock                        0            0               0


                                Streambed                   0            0               0

                                Aquatic bed                 0            0               0

                                Rocky shore                 0            0               0

                                Unconsolidated              0            0               0
                                shore


                                No class                    0            0               0
                      Total                                51    3,452,732T--         853

                                                WRA data - ESTUARINE


                                     Class         Polygons      Square         Acreage
                                                              I  meters

                                Emergent                   49    2,815,131            696

                                Unconsolidated             14    1,647,985            407
                                bottom

                                Scrub/Shrub                 7        53,235             13

                                Open water                  0            0               0

                                Rock bottom                 0            0               0

                                Aquatic bed                 0            0               0

                                Reef                        0            0               0


                                Streambed                   0            0               0

                                Rocky shore                 0            0               0

                                Unconsolidated              0            0               0
                                shore


                                No class                    0            0               0
                      Total                                70    4,516,351-F         1,116



               148









                                       Appendix 2 - Wetland Data Set Acreage


                                            WRA data - UPLAND


                               Class         Polygons      Square        Acreage
                                          I            I   meters    I

                          No class                 142   566,775,080       140,050
                 Total   1                         142   566,775,080       140,050

                WRA total acreage = 157,148


                WRA data contained several polygons that had no labels. There were 11
                such polygons that covered 181,294 square meters or 45 acres. if these
                polygons are taken into account, the WRA total acreage equals 157,193.













































                                                                                        149









                                       Appendix 2 - Wetland Data Set Acreage



                       FWS National Wetlands Inventory -- Status and Trends Data*

                                        NWI-SAT data - PALUSTRINE


                                Class        Polygons       Square         Acreage
                                                        I   meters

                           Forested                  20     1,112,796            275

                           Emergent                   9       443,214            110

                           Shrub                      7         64,282             16

                           Unconsolidated             2          2,661              1
                           bottom


                           Unconsolidated             0              0              0
                           shore

                           Aquatic bed                0              0              0

                 Total                               38     1,622,953            402





                                        NWI-SAT data -  LACUSTRINE


                                Class        Polygons       Square         Acreage
                                           I            I   meters

                           No class                   2       338,83.5             84

                 Total                                2       338,835              84




                                          NWI-SAT data   RIVERINE

                                Class        Polygons       Square         Acreage
                                           I            I   meters

                           No class                   1       795,098            196
                 Total                     F          1 T     795,098            196

                *Status and Trends Data are  available for only a subset of the study
                area.

















                                                                                         151









                      Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                                             NWI-SAT data - ESTUARINE


                                    Class          Polygons     Square         Acreage
                                               I             I  meters

                               Subtidal                    0             0              0


                               Intertidal                  0             0              0
                               emergents

                               Intertidal                  0             0              0
                               forested/shrub

                               Intertidal                  0             0              0
                               unconsolidated
                               shore


                               Intertidal                  0             0              0
                               aquatic bed

                     Total                                 0             0              0





                                               NWI-SAT data   UPLAND**


                                    Class          Polygons     Square         Acreage
                                               I                meters

                               Other                      is    2,063,471            510

                               Urban                       7    3,707,621            916

                               Agriculture                13    1,473,676            364

                               Forested                    4       481,422           119
                               plantations

                               Rural                       0             0              0
                               development                   I

                     Total                                39    7,726,190           1,909


                    **Upland classes are differentiated from wetland classes
















              152










                                           Appendix 2 - Wetland Data Set Acreage


                                            NRCS Wetland Inventory Data

                                 Category          Polygons       Square          Acreage
                                                              I   meters     I

                              Not wet                  1,025    334,798,983          82,729_
                              Wet*                        548   207,553,310          51,286

                              Prior                    1,026     69,921,959          17,278
                              converted


                              None                        283    23,266,930            5,749

                              Farmed wet                   99        602,813             149
                   Total                               2,981  1 636,151,168          157,191

                  *Areas classified as 'wet' meet certain criteria but         require further
                  study to determine their true condition.

                                    NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program      Data

                                    Class          Polygons       Square          Acreage
                                               I              I   meters
                              Grassland                2,201 183,193,838             45,267_

                              Forest -                11,480 179,353,312             44,318
                              deciduous,
                              evergreen,
                              mixed

                              Palustrine               3,771 111,813,480             27,629
                              forest

                              Cropland                 2,139    101,061,776          24,972_
                              Developed land           2,961     37,344,538            9,228

                              Mixed                    2,377     10,773,695            2,662
                              shrub/scrub

                              Estuarine                    550    6,454,855            1,595
                              emergent
                              wetland

                              Water                        96     5,575,784            1,378_
                              Exposed land                 48        541,800             134

                              Palustrine                     1           900                0
                              emergent
                              wetland

                              Tidal flats                  13         35,100                9
                   Total                               25,635 1635,216,363           157,192


                                                                                                  153










                        Coordination and Integration of Wedand Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates








                                                       Appendix 3



                    Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices

                                    by 7.5-Minute Quadrangle









                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates

                                    Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices
                                                     by 7.5-Minute Quadrangle


                                  The matrices in appendix 3 present information on the amount of
                        agreement and disagreement on wetland classification for various pairs of data
                        sets. These matrices are similar to the matrices in tables 6-11; however, the
                        matrices in appendix 3 present data for each of the individual quadrangles,
                        while tables 6-11 present data for the entire study area.







































                                                                                                                          155









                           Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table AM. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Hebron Quadrangle
                    FWS-NWI/MD-V;RA (Acres)
                    [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine,- Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland,- shaded
                    areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data sets agree]



                                                               FWS-NW1


                                                      Pal         Lac      Riv      Est        UPI         Total



                                         Pal              4-40       1         1        0        1,191        2,333
                                                         ............
                                                        ...............




                                         Lac                3        3.        0        0           3
                                                                                                                  19



                       NM-V;RA           Riv                0        0         0.       0           0              0



                                         Est                0        0         0                    0              0



                                         UPI              594        0         0        0           .6      27,000
                                                                                               .................





                                                                                                            .................
                                        Total           1,737        14        1        0 _.:@,6]00         29`352
                                                                                                            .................
                                                                                                            ..................
























                                                                                                                    157









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-2. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            Hebron Quadrangle
                            NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI (Acres)
                            [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine,- Est=Estuarine; bp1=bp1and,-
                            OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                            sets agree]



                                                                   NOAA-C-CAP


                                                               Pal         Est        Ow           up,



                                                 Pal               8210          9          9           898          1,736



                                                 Lac                  0          2         10              1            13



                              FWS-NWI            Riv                  0          1          0              0              1



                                                 Est                  0                     0              0             0



                                                 UPI             2,541          15          7      -.25*1          27,600
                                                                                                     ..... .......
                                                                                                   ................




                                                Total            3,361         27          26      25,936
                                                                                                                      ..........
                                                                                                                   ..................






















                   158









                           Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-3. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Hebron Quadrangle
                    NOAA-C-CAP/MD-WRA (Acres)
                    [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland,-
                    OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                    sets agree]



                                                           NOAA-C-CAP


                                                       Pal          Est        OW



                                        Pal                .906        10          12         1,403        2,331



                                        Lac                   0         4          11              2            17



                      MD-WRA            Riv                   0         0            0             0             0



                                        Est                   0         .0.          0             0             0



                                                                                             ................
                                        UPI              2456          12            3                     27,001



                                                         3,362         26          26        25,935
                                        Total                                                              2
                                                                                                           .....  .......
                                                                                                          ........  ......






















                                                                                                                    159









                               Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-4. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            Hebron Quadrangle
                            NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                            [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland;
                            OW= Open water; ATW=Not wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed
                            wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                     NOAA-C-CAP


                                                                Pal           Est         OW           Upl           Total



                                                 NW                1,084         12           12        18,286         19,394



                                                 Wet              .2,251         14           13          5,948         8,226



                              NRCS-W1            PC                   23           1            0         1,619          1,643



                                                 FW                     0          0            0              8             8




                                                 NC                     4          0            0            75             79



                                               Total               3,362         27           25        25,936         29,350













                    160









                           Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-5. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Hebron Quadrangle
                    FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                    [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland; NW=Not
                    wet; Wet= Wetland, PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                             FWS-NWI


                                                      Pal       Lac Riv          Est                    Total



                                        NW                343      0        0         0      19,053       19,396



                                        Wet             1,383      14       1         0        6,829        8,227



                      NRCS-WI           PC                  8      0        0         0        1,634        1,642



                                        FW                  0      0        0         0             9            9



                                        NC                  2      0        0         0           75           77
                                                              1       1       1         1             1          -1
                                        otal            1,736      14       1         0      27,600       29,351














                                                                                                                    161
                                                                                                  75]









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-6. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            Hebron Quadrangle
                            MD-WIRA/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                            [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland,- NW=Not
                            wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                       MD-WRA


                                                                Pal        Lac     Riv      Est                     Total




                                                 NW                 661       0        0         0       18,735       19,396



                                                 Wet              1,648      18        0         0        6,560         8,226



                              NRCS-WI            PC                  20       0        0         0        1,621         1,641



                                                 FW                    0      0        0         0             9             9




                                                 NC                    2      0        0         0                         77




                                               Total              2,331       18       0         0       27,000       29,349















                    162










                           Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-7. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Delmar Quadrangle
                     FWS-NWI/MD-"A (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland; shaded
                     areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data sets agree]
                     F                                         FWS-NWI

                                                      Pal        Lac       Riv      Est                    Total



                                        Pal               40.7       1       0          0          698         1,196


                                        Lac                  2     .00       0          0           16           178


                      MD-WRA            Riv                  1       0       0          0            5             6


                                        Est                  0       0       0          :0           0             0



                                                                                                 ..............
                                        UPI                1        15       0          0                    22,352
                                                                                               .................
                                                                                               ..................



                                        Total             716      176       0          0      22,840       - Z- 3'i ". - 7 3. - .2
                                                                                                            .. ...........
                                                                                                                ..........
























                                                                                                                    163









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-8. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            Delmar Quadrangle
                            NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI (Acres)
                            [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv = Riverine; Est =Estuarine; UpI = Upland;
                            OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                            sets agree]

                            F-                                    NOAA-C-CAP

                                                               Pal         Est        OW          UPI



                                                Pal               3-7-8       25          0            313            716



                                                Lac                 18        27         105             26           176



                             FWS-NWI            Riv                  0          0         0               0              0



                                                Est                  0                    0               0              0



                                                                              66          27           9-9.0.     22,844
                                                                                                      ...........




                                               Total            3,157         118        132        20,329













                   164









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-9. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Delmar Quadrangle
                     NOAA-C-CAP/MD-VVRA (Acres)
                     [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv =Riverine; Est = Estuarine; Upl = Upland;
                     OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                     sets agree]



                                                            NOAA-C-CAP


                                                       Pal           Est       OW           UPI            otal



                                         Pal               62-5-       31            0           540         1,196



                                         Lac                 16        29            0            23            68



                       MD-WRA            Riv                  4          0           0              2             6



                                         Est                   0                     0              0             0




                                                                                             .. . ... . ...
                                                          2509         59            0        19-7-46       22,314



                                       Total                154        119           0        20,311
                                                  E L,                                                . . .....


                                                                                                                     165









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-10. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Delmar Quadrangle
                           NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                           [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland,-
                           OW=Open water; NW=Not wet; Wet=Wetland,- PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed
                           wetland; NC=No classification]

                                                                    NOAA-C-CAP                                             J
                                                               Pal           Est         OW



                                                NW                1,478         65           48         16,497        18,088



                                                Wet               1,639         39           23          2,708         4,409



                             NRCS-WI            PC                    18          0            0         1,028          1,046



                                                FW                     0          0            0            21             21
                                                NC                   21         14           61             77  L         173
                                              Total               3,156        118          132        20,331         23,737













                   166









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-11. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Delmar Quadrangle
                     FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland; NW=Not
                     wet; Wet=Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                              FWS-NWI
                                                       Pal     @Lac@Riv@ Est                             Total
                                         NW               205      35       0         0       17,850       18,090



                                         Wet               504      54      0         0        3,849        4,407



                       NRCS-WI           PC                 4        0      0         0        1,042        1,046



                                         FW                 0        0      0         0            22           22




                                         NC                 3       87      0         0                       1 1




                                                           716     176      0         0       22,844       23,736














                                                                                                                    167









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-12. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Delmar Quadrangle
                           MD-V;RA/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                           [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland; NW=Not
                           wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland, NC=No classification]
                                                                      MD-WRA                          T;@ Total            ---
                                                               Pal     @Lac@Riv@ Est @
                                                NW                 405      42       2          0       17,638       18,087



                                                Wet                771      51       2          0        3,579        4,403



                             NRCS-WI            PC                  15       0       1          0        1,030         1,046



                                                FW                   2       0       0          0            21           23




                                                NC                   3      84       0          0            84          171



                                              Total              1,196     177       5          0       22,352      23,73














                   168










                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-13. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Pittsville Quadrangle
                     FWS-NWI/MD-WRA (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland,- shaded
                     areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data sets agree]



                                                               FWS-NWI
                                                       Pal        Lac   @ Riv @ Est                        Total
                                         Pal              5.93.@     0        0          0       1,429         2024
                                                          ..........




                                         Lac                 0       377      0          0           3            40



                       MD-WRA            Riv                 0       0        0.         0           0              0



                                         Est                 0       0        0                      0              0



                                           P                                                    ... . ..  12
                                                           467       2        0          0     .20 0.-        20,481
                                                                                                   ...........
                                       L          I            I -I-             I         I                          I
                                                                                                              .................
                                       Total             1,062       39       0          0 _!j,444           2-
                                                                                                                 ...........
























                                                                                                                     169









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-14. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Pittsville Quadrangle
                           NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI (Acres)
                           [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland,-
                           OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                           sets agree]



                                                                  NOAA-C-CAP
                                                               Pal._@ Est @OW@                     UPI          Total
                                                Pal               606            1         2            465         11074



                                                Lac                  0          4         34               1            39



                             FWS-NW1            Riv                  0          0          0              0              0



                                                Est                  0                     0              0              0



                                                UPI            3               13          5                       21,446
                                                                   456




                                                Total           4062           18         41        18438
                                                                                                                   ..... ........
                                                                                                                    ..............
                                                                                                                    ..............






















                   170









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-15. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Pittsville Quadrangle
                    NOAA-C-CAP/MD-WRA (Acres)
                    [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland;
                    OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                    sets agree]



                                                            NOAA-C-CAP


                                                                     st        OW           UPI
                                                       Pal      L  E
                                         Pal                             2           5           839         2,023
                                                           ...........
                                                          ..............
                                                          ..............




                                         Lac                  0          4          33              2           39



                       MD-WRA            Riv                  0          0           0              0             0



                                         Est                  0                      0              0             0



                                         UPI              2,879         11           3                     20,479
                                                                                                ...........
                                        Total      [@:,056              17          41        18,427       22..........
                                                                                                           ......  ......
                                                                                                           .................






















                                                                                                                     171









                              Coordination and integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-16. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            Pittsville Quadrangle
                            NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                            [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine,- Riv=Riverine,- Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland;
                            OW=Open water; NW=Not wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed
                            wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                     NOAA-C-CAP


                                                                 Pal         Est         OW            UPI          Total



                                                 NW                 980          5           14         4,193          5,192



                                                 Wet              2,155          12          27         4,925          7,119



                              NRCS-WI            PC                 197          0             0        6,353          6,550



                                                 FW                    0         0             0             59             59
                                                 NC                 730          0              1       2,908   L      3,639
                                                Total             4,062          17          42         18,438        22,559














                   172










                           Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-17. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Pittsville Quadrangle
                    FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                    [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv =Riverine; Est =Estuarine; Upl = Upland; NW=Not
                    wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland,- NC=No classification]



                                                             FWS-NWI
                                                       Pal    @Lac@Riv@ Est                             Total
                                        NW                147      11      0          0       5,035        5,193



                                        Wet               614      28      0          0       6,477        7,119



                      NRCS-WI           PC                 36       0      0          0       6,514        6,550



                                        FW                   0      0      0          0           59           59



                                        NC                277        0     0          0       3,3          3,639
                                                              1       1       1         1             1          j
                                       Total            1,074      39      0          0       21,447       22,560














                                                                                                                    173









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-18. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            Pittsville Quadrangle
                            MD-V,IRA/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                            [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland; NW=Not
                            wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]
                                                                       MD-WRA                        -i;;@ Total
                                                                Pal     @Lac@Riv@ Est @
                                                 NW                317       11      0          0        4,865        5,193



                                                 Wet             1,353       29      0          0        5,737        7,119



                              NRCS-WI            PC                110        0      0          0        6,441        6,551



                                                 FW                    1      0      0          0            58            59



                                                 NC                244        0      0          0        3,3 0        3,624



                                               Total             2,025       40      0          0       20,481       22,5















                    174









                           Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-19. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Eden Quadrangle
                    FWS-NWI/MD-WRA (Acres)
                    [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland; shaded
                    areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data sets agree]



                                                               FWS-NWI


                                                      Pal       Lac       Riv       Est       UPI




                                                      ..............
                                        Pal           .1,370       31        7         15       1,270         3,093



                                        Lac                 0      .39.      0           0           4           43



                      NW-WRA            Riv               173        5    439.         41           39          697
                                                                          ..........
                                                                          ..........



                                        Est                24        0       1      ::-1::..044     48        1,117




                                                                                              .................
                                        UPI              869       15        9         74     2-1.i'29--t    22,248



                                       Total          2,836        90     456       1,174     22, 42
                                                                                                            ..................
























                                                                                                                    175









                               Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                             Table A3-20. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                             Eden Quadrangle
                             NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI (Acres)
                             [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine,- Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland;
                             OW= Open water, shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                             sets agree]



                                                                   NOAA-C-CAP
                                                                Pal        Est @ OW                 UPI
                                                 Pal            4::ii'486     247          15         1,086          2,834



                                                 Lac                  4         15         43             28            90



                              FWS-NW1            Riv                  4         68        366             19           457



                                                 Est                 25         85.       347           116          1,173
                                                                              ..........



                                                 UPI            2,625         270          66        -119",:       22,649



                                                Total           4,103       1,285         837        20,978













                    176









                          Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrkes by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                   Table A3-21. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                   Eden Quadrangle
                   NOAA-C-CAP/MD-WRA (Acres)
                   [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv = Riverine; Est = Estuarine; Upl = Upland;
                   OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                   sets agree]



                                                          NOAA-C-CAP


                                                      Pal         Est         OW          up,




                                                       ..............
                                        Pal                         140           45         1,296         3,092
                                                       ..............




                                        Lac                  2         4          26            11            43



                      MID-WRA           Riv                 28      239          378            53           698



                                        Est                 20      .6.5.2       350            95         1,117



                                        UPI            21444        249           39              4
                                                                                            .................




                                       Total           4,105       19284         838        20,969
                                                                                                          .................






















                                                                                                                   177









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-22. Wetland Classirication Comparison -
                            Eden Quadrangle
                            NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                            [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv = Riverine; Est = Estuarine; Upl = Upland;
                            OW=Open water; NW=Not wet,- Wet=Wetland,- PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed
                            wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                     NOAA-C-CAP


                                                                Pal          Est         OW            Upl



                                                 NW                  735        227           40       12,005          13,007



                                                 Wet               3,306        875          155         6,371         10,707



                              NRCS-WI            PC                   34          17            2        2,412          2,465



                                                 FW                     0          0            0            37             37




                                                 NC                   28        166          641            152           987




                                               Total               4,103      1,285          838       20,977          27,203













                    178









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-23. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Eden Quadrangle
                     FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland; NW=Not
                     wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                              FWS-NWI


                                                       Pal        Lac     Riv     Est                     Total




                                         NW                351     14       19        63       12,561       13,008



                                         Wet             2,410     50       78       682        7,490       10,710



                       NRCS-WI           PC                  14      2       0        24        2,425        2,465



                                         FW                   0      0       0          0          36           36



                                                             60    26,     358       406                       988



                                         Total           2,835     92      455     1,175       22,650       27,207














                                                                                                                     179








                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-24. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Eden Quadrangle
                           MD-VVRA/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                           [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland; NW=Not
                           wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                      MD-WRA


                                                              Pal         Lac    Riv      Est                      Total



                                                NW                451       7      47          46      12,456        13,007



                                                Wet             2,565      29    262         646         7,200       10,702



                             NRCS-WI            PC                  22      2        0         21       2,420         2,465



                                                fw                   1      0        0          0           36            37




                                                NC                  53      5    389         404           136          987
                                              Total       E3,092            43   698       1,117                     27,198



                  180









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-25. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Salisbury Quadrangle
                    FWS-NWI/MD-VMA (Acres)
                    [Pal=Palustrine,- Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland; shaded
                    areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data sets agree]
                                                               FWS-NWI              Est        UPI
                                                      Pal         Lac      Riv                             Total



                                         Pal              60         0        0          0         793        1,462
                                                          ..........




                                         Lac               27                 0          0          32          268



                       NM-V;RA           Riv                 2       0      4,129        0           17         147



                                         Est                 0       0        0          .0           0            0



                                         UPI              255        17       20         0     2-..6. 0      26,302
                                        Total             953      226       148         0       @,852       2.--.



                                                                                                                     181









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-26. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Salisbury Quadrangle
                           NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI (Acres)
                           [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine,- Riv = Riverine; Est = Estuarine; Upl = Upland;
                           OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                           sets agree]



                                                                  NOAA-C-CAP


                                                               Pal         Est       OW            UPI



                                                Pal                 2-        22          15           405           954



                                                Lac                 5         30         160             30          225



                             FWS-NWI            Riv                 4         19          96             28          147



                                                Est                 0                      0              0              0



                                                UPI             3,134         83          60       -2.3-'.55.778 26,855
                                                                                                   .......  @*: ..........
                                                                                                   ..... .........
                                                                                                   .................




                                               Total            3,655         154        331       24,041        2.8"
                                                                                                                 .................
                                                                                                                 .. ..............





















                   182









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-27. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Salisbury Quadrangle
                     NOAA-C-CAP/MD-WRA (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland;
                     OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                     sets agree]
                                                            NOAA-C-CAP                       UPI
                                                        Pal          Est        OW




                                         Pal                            15          10            686         1,463



                                         Lac                  14        34          172           48            268



                       NW-ViRA           Riv                   4        18          92            33            147



                                         Est                   0          -0          0             0             0



                                         UPI              2,884         86          58       42---*3:-'.'1--!---'5  26,301
                                                                                             ...........
                                                                                             ...........




                                         Total            3,654        153          332      24,040        2*.8*: '479













                                                                                                                     183









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-28. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Salisbury Quadrangle
                           NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                           [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv =Riverine; Est =Estuarine; Upl = Upland;
                           OW=Open water; ATW=Not wet; Wet=Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed
                           wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                   NOAA-C-CAP


                                                               Pal          Est        OW             Upl



                                                NW               1,286         85           106       17,813         19,290



                                                Wet              2,278         40            55         4,649          7,022



                             NRCS-W1            PC                   68          0             1        1,429          1,498



                                                FW                    0          0            0             11             11




                                                NC                   12        28           169           14             350




                                              Total              3,644         146          331       24,043         281171













                  184










                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-29. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Salisbury Quadrangle
                     FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland; NW=Not
                     wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                              FWS-NWI
                                                       Pal     @Lac@Riv@ Est                              Total
                                         NW                235      91      18         0       18,948       19,292



                                         Wet               693      42      21         0        6,266        7,022



                       NRCS-WI           PC                   5      2       0         0        1,491        1,498



                                         FW                   1      0       0         0            10           11



                                         NC                  19     91     109                    139          358



                                        Total              953     226     148         0       26,854      28,1














                                                                                                                     185









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                       Table A3-30. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                       Salisbury Quadrangle
                       MD-V;RA/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                       [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv =Riverine; Est =Estuarine; Upl = Upland; NW=Not
                       wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                           MID-WRA
                                                     Pal    @Lac@Riv@ Est                         Total
                                         NW             417    104     17        0      18,754      19,292



                                         Wet             995    73     26        0       5,928       7,022



                         NRCS-W1         PC               22      2     0        0       1,474       1,498



                                         FW                1      0     0        0           10         11



                                         NC               28     90   104        0         137         359



                                       Total           1,463   269    147        0      26,303     28,18















                186









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-31. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Wango Quadrangle
                    FWS-NWI/MD-WRA (Acres)
                    [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine; Riv =Riverine; Est = Estuarine; Upl = Upland; shaded
                    areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data sets agree]



                                                               FWS-NW1
                                                       Pal        Lac      Riv      Est         UPI_       Total
                                         Pal           27'.`543-@    0       0          0        1,930        4,473
                                                       .............
                                                       ...............




                                         Lac                 0       0,      0          0           0              0



                       NW-WRA            Riv                 2       0       .0,        0           0              2



                                         Est                 0       0       0          0.          0              0



                                         UPI             7 2         0       0          0     20.": 5.       21,667



                                                                                                                ...........
                                        Total      [],117            0       0          0      22,805
                                                                                                             .................
                                                                                                             ..................
























                                                                                                                    187









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                            Table A3-32. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                            Wango Quadrangle
                            NOAA-C-CAP/FWS-NWI (Acres)
                            [Pal=Palustrine, Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine,- Est=Estuarine; Upl=bpland;
                            OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                            sets agree]



                                                                   NOAA-C-CAP
                                                                Pal        Est @ OW                UPI
                                                 Pal                            1          8
                                                                ... . ...                               514          3,345
                                                                ...........
                                                                .............




                                                 Lac                 0          0          0               0             0



                              FWS-NWI            Riv                 0          0          0               0             0



                                                 Est                 0          9.         0               0             0


                                                 UPI            6468            1          1                       22,813



                                                Total           9,290           2          9         16,857














                   188










                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                    Table A3-33. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                    Wango Quadrangle
                    NOAA-C-CAP/MD-VVRA (Acres)
                    [Pal = Palustrine; Lac =Lacustrine,- Riv =Riverine; Est =Estuarine; Upl = Upland;
                    OW= Open water; shaded areas represent acreage for each system upon which both data
                    sets agree]



                                                            NOAA-C-CAP
                                                       Pal          E@-                     UPI            otal
                                                                               OW



                                         Pal             . 3"' 5 .3 4   1            8           918         4,461
                                                         ..............
                                                         ..............




                                         Lac                  0         0            0              0             0



                                         Riv                  0         0            0              0             0



                                         Est                   0                     0              0             0



                                                         5 737                       1        1-5@@939      21,678



                                       Total             9,271          2            9        16,857       ........
                                                                                                           . . ...........





















                                                                                                                     189









                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-34. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Wango Quadrangle
                           NOAA-C-CAP/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                           [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine,- Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland;
                           OW=Open water; NW=Not wet; Wet=Wetland,- PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed
                           wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                    NOAA-C-CAP


                                                                Pal         Est         OW                            otal.




                                                NW                2,370          0            6          5,375          7,751



                                                Wet               6,618          1            4          7,181         13,804



                             NRCS-WI            PC                  221          0            0          3,854          4,075



                                                FW                     0         0            0              11             11




                                                NC                    81         0            0            442            523



                                                Total             9,290          1            10        16,863        26,164













                   190
                                                                                                                rota









                            Appendix 3 - Wetland Data Set Consistency Matrices by 7.5-Minute Quandrangle



                     Table A3-35. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                     Wango Quadrangle
                     FWS-NWI/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                     [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl= Upland; NW=Not
                     wet; Wet=Wetland,- PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                               FWS-NWI


                                                       Pal        Lac     Riv     Est                     Total




                                          NW               480       0        0        0        7,269        7,749



                                          Wet            2,762       0        0        0       11,041       13,803



                        NRCS-WI           PC                 36      0        0        0        4,040        4,076



                                          FW                  0      0        0        0            11           11



                                          NC                 67      0        0        0           5           520



                                        Total             3,345      0        0        0       22,814














                                                                                                                      191









                             Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                           Table A3-36. Wetland Classification Comparison -
                           Wango Quadrangle
                           MD-WRA/NRCS-WI (Acres)
                           [Pal=Palustrine; Lac=Lacustrine; Riv=Riverine; Est=Estuarine; Upl=Upland; NW=Not
                           wet; Wet= Wetland; PC=Prior converted; FW=Farmed wetland; NC=No classification]



                                                                      MD-VvTA


                                                              Pal         Lac     Riv     Est                      Total



                                                NW                752       0        0         0         6,997        7,749



                                                Wet             3,509       0        2         0        10,275       13,786



                             NRCS-W1            PC                 146      0        0         0         3,929        4,075



                                                FW                   1      0        0         0             10           11



                                                NC                  64      0        0         0           456           520
                                                          1            1       1       1          1             1 --                           I
                                              Total        E4,47:2          0        2         0       21,667        26,141



                  192








                       Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates







                                                       Appendix 4



                                                  Field Test Data






 I









                 Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                       Appendix 4 - Field Test Data


                               Appendix 4 presents data associated with the two field
                 tests. Tables 1 contains data collected during the first field test,
                 while Table 2 presents a comparison of the results from the first
                 field test with delineations from the various wetland data sets.
                 Table 3 contains data from the second field test.


                 Explanation   of Variables in Table A4-1:


                 Site -- The   numbers representing sites in Tables 1 and 2 are
                 consistent;   the same number in both tables represents the same site.


                 Map     USGS  7.5 minute quadrangle, by quarter quadrangle.
                         DeNE  -Delmar, NE
                         DeNW  -Delmar, NW
                         DeSE  -Delmar, SE
                         DeSW  -Delmar, SW
                         EdNE  -Eden, NE
                         EdNW  -Eden, NW
                         EdSE  -Eden, SE
                         EdSW  -Eden, SW
                         HeNE  -Hebron, NE
                         HeNW  -Hebron, NW
                         HeSE  -Hebron, SE
                         HeSW  -Hebron, SW
                         SaNE  -Salisbury,  NE
                         SaNW  -Salisbury,  NW
                         SaSE  -Salisbury,  SE
                         SaSW  -Salisbury,  SW
                         PiNE  -Pittsville, NE
                         PiNW  -Pittsville,   NW
                         PiSE  -Pittsville,   SE
                         PiSW  -Pittsville,   SW
                         WaNE  -Wango, NE
                         WaNW  -Wango, NW
                         WaSE  -Wango, SE
                         WaSW  -Wango, SW


                 Veg     Field identification of vegetation associated with wetlands


                 Hyd     Field identification of hydrology associated with wetlands


                 Soil     Field identification of soil associated with wetlands





                                                                                          193









                        Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estixnates


                    wet -- Field identification of wetlands


                    Wet Class -- Wetland classification using Cowardin system


                    Surv     Soil type from SCS soil survey


                    Agree    Agreement with SCS soil survey


                    Near     Site within 50 yards of wetland boundary


                    Change -- Evidence of land use / land cover change in last 10 years



                    Explanation of Variables in Table A4-2:


                    W    Wetland



                    NW     Not Wetland


                    U    Upland


                    P    Palustrine wetland


                    E    Estuarine emergent wetland


                    R    Riverine wetland


                    L    Lacustrine wetland


                    PC     Prior converted



                    FW     Farmed wetland



                    WA     Water

























             194









                                           Appendix 4 - Field Test Data


                                                Field Test 1

                                                 Table A4-1


                  Site  Map Veg Hyd Soil Wet Wet Class         Surv Agree Near Change


                   1    DeSW   F    F      F    F              Ek       T      F       F
                   2    EdSW   T    T      T    T  PSS1/4A     Fa       T      F       F
                   4    EdNE   T    T      T    T  PF01A       KsA      F      T       T
                   5    EdSW   F    F      T    F              Fs       T      T       F
                   6    EdNE   F    F      T    F              Fs       T      F       T
                   7    EdNE   F    T      F    F              Fs       F      T       F
                   9    SaSW   F    F      T    F              Ek       T      F       F
                   10   SaNW   F    F      F    F              EPB      T      T       F
                   11   SaNE   F    F      F    F              Ek       T      F       F
                   12   SaNE   F    F      F    F              Ek       F      F       F
                   13   SaNE   F    F      T    F              Em       T      F       F
                   15   SaSE   F    T      T    T  PEMA        No       F      T       T
                   16   SaSE   F    F      T    F              Ek       T      F       F
                   17   SaSW   F    F      T    F              Ek       T      F       F
                   18   SaSE   T    T      T    T  PEM1E       Ek       T      T       F
                   19   SaNE   F    F      F    F              Ek       F      F       F
                   20   SaNE   F    F      T    F              Ek       T      T       F
                   21   SaNE   F    F      F    F              Ek       F      T       F

                   22   WaSW   F    F      F    F              Pr       F      T       T
                   23   WaSW   T    F      F    F              Pr       T      F       F
                   24   WaSW   T    T      T    T  PF01C       Ek       T      T       F

                   25   SaSE   T    T      T    T  PEM1C       Ba       T      F       T

                   36   WaNW   T    T      T    T  PF01C       Po       T      T       F

                   37   WaNW   F    F      F    F              KsB      T      T       T

                   39   WaNW   F    F      T    F              Fs       T      F       F

                   44   HeSE   F    F      T    F              MnA      F      T       F

                   45   HeSW   F    F      F    F              WSB      T      F       F

                   46   HeSW   T    T      T    T  PF01E       WsA      F      T       F
                   48   EdNW   F    F      T    F              Fa       T      T       F
                   49   SaNW   T    T      T    T  PF01A/C     EpB      F      T       F
                   50   DeSE   F    F      F    F              Mm       F      F       F
                   51   DeSE   T    F      F    F              Ek       T      F       T
                   52   SaNE   T    T      T    T  PF01A       Ek       T      F       F

                   S3   WaNW   F    F      T    F              Ba       T      T       T

                   54   SaNE   F    F      F    F              Mm       T      F       F
                   55   PiSE   F    F      T    F              Fs       T      F       T

                   58   WaNE   F    F      F    F              EsB      T      T       F
                   59   WaNE   T    T      T    T  PEM1E       Pk       T      F       T

                   61   WaNE   T    T      T    T  PEMic       Le       T      T       T






                                                                                         195









                         Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                                 Table A4-1 (cont.)


                     Site   Map Veg Hyd Soil Wet Wet Class         Sur.v Agree Near Change


                      62    WaNE  F    F      T    F               Po      T       F      F
                      63    WaNE  T    F      F    F               EsB     T       T      T
                      64    WaNE  F    F      F    F               Po      F       T      F

                      65    HeNW  F    F      F    F               Mv      F       T      F
                      66    HeNW  T    T      T    T   PF01C       EpB     F       T      F
                      67    HeNW  T    T      T    T   PF04C       GcB     T       T      F
                      68    HeSW  T    F      T    F               Fg      T       F      T
                      69    HeNE  F    F      T    F               Ea      T       F      F
                      70    HeNE  F    F      T    F               KsA     F       F      F
                      71    HeSE  F    T      T    F               Fs      T       T      F
                      73    DeNW  F    F      T    T   PEMlAf      NoA     F       F      F

                      74    DeNW  F    F      F    F               NoB     T       T      F
                      75    DeNW  F    F      F    F               No      T       F      F
                      77    DeSE  F    F      F    F               MfA     T       F      F
                      78    DeSE  F    F      F    F               Mf      T       F      F
                      79    PiNW  F    F      F    F               EpB     T       F      F
                      85    DeSE  F    F      F    F               Mn      T       F      F
                      92    PiSE  F    F      F    F               Fs      F       T      F
                      93    PiNE  F    F      F    F               Pk      T       T      F
                      96    HeNW  F    F      F    F               Fs      F       T      F
                      97    HeSW  T    T      T    T   PF01A       Ot      T       F      F
                      98    EdNE  F    F      F    F               EsB     T       F      F
                     101    EdNE  F    F      F    F               NoC     T       T      F
                     102    EdNE  F    F      F    F               NoC     T       T      F
                     103    EdNE  F    F      F    F               Fs      F       T      F
                     106    EdNW  F    T      T    F               Fs      T       F      F
                     107    EdNW  T    T      T    T   PF01E       Mv      T       T      F
                     ill    EdSE  F    T      T    T   PUB2Hx      Fs      T       T      F
                     112    EdSE  F    T      T    T   PUB2Hx      Fs      T       T      F
                     113    EdSW  T    T      T    T   PF01A       Pk      T       F      F
                     114    EdSW  T    T      T    T   PF01A       Fs      T       T      F
                     115    EdSW  T    T      T    T   PF01C       Pt      T       F      F
                     116    EdSW  F    F      F    F               Fs      F       F      F
                     117    EdNE  F    T      F    F               DoB     T       F      F
                     118    EdNE  T    T      T    T   PFOlc       Fs      T       T      F
                     119    EdNE  F    T      T    F               Pe      T       F      F
                     120    EdNE  F    F      T    F               Fs      T       T      F
                     121    EdNE  T    T      T    T   PEMlAf      Ru      T       T      F
                     122    EdSE  F    T      T    F               Fs      T       F      F

                     123    EdNW  F    T      T    F               Fa      T       F      F

                     124    EdNW  F    F      F    F               Fs      F       F      F




             @196









                                           Appendix 4 - Field Test Data


                                            Table A4-1 (cont.)


                 Site  Map Veg Hyd Soil Wet Wet Class          Surv Agree Near Change


                 125   EdNW   F     F     T    F               Fa      T      F      F
                 126   EdNW   F     F     F    F               Fa      T      T      T
                 127   SaNW   F     F     F    F               EpB     T      T      F
                 128   SaNW   T     T     T    T   R2UB2/3H            T      T      F
                 129   SaSE   F     F     F    F               Ek      T      F      F
                 130   SaSE   F     T     T    F               Ek      T      F      F

                 131   WaNW   F     F     F    F               Fs      F      F      F
                 132   WaNW   T     T     T    T   PF01/2E     Mu      T      F      F
                 133   WaNW   F     F     F    F               Po      F      F      F
                 134   WaNE   F     F     F    F               Pk      F      T      F
                 135   WaNE   T     T     T    T   PF01C       Ek      T      T      F

                 136   DeSE   F     F     T    F               Pr      T      F      T

                 137   DeSE   T     T     T    T   PF01C       Ks      F      T      F
                 138   DeNE   T     T     T    T   PF01A/C     Em      T      T      F
                 201   DeNE   T     T     T    T   PF01A       KeB     F      T      F

                 202   PiNW   F     F     F    F               KsA     T      F      F

                 204   WaNW   T     F     F    F               KsA     T      F      F
                 205   WaNE   F     F     F    F               MfA     T      F      F

                 211   WaNE   F     F     T    F               EsB     F      F      F

                 212   EdSE   T     T     T    T   PF01A       Fs      T      F      F
                 301   EdNW   F     F     F    F               Fa      T      T      T
                 302   EdNW   F     F     T    F               Fa      T      F      F

                 303   EdNW   F     F     F    F               WfA     T      T      F

                 304   EdNW   F     F     T    F               Fs      T      T      F
                 305   EdNW   P     T     T    T   PEMlAf,d    Fa      T      T      F
                 306   EdNE   F     T     T    T   PEMlAf      KsA     F      T      F
                 307   EdNE   T     T     T    T   POW         Fs      T      T      F
                 308   EdNW   F     F     F    F               Po      F      F      F
                 310   EdNE   F     T     T    T   PEMlAf,d    Fs      T      T      F
                 311   EdNE   F     F     T    F               Ru      T      T      F
                 312   EdSE   F     F     T    F               Po      T      T      F
                 313   EdSE   F     F     T    F               Ru      T      F      F
                 314   DeSE   F     T     T    T   PEMIAf      Ek      T      T      F
                 315   DeSE   T     T     T    T   PEM1E       Ek      T      T      T
                 316   DeSE   F     T     T    T   PEMICf      Ek      T      T      F
                 317   DeSE   P     F     F    F               Ek      T      F      F
                 318   DeSE   T     T     T    T   PEMIEd,f    Ek      T      T      F
                 319   WaNW   P     F     T    F               Fs      T      F      F
                 320   WaSE   F     F     T    F               Pk      T      T      F
                 321   WaSE   F     T     T    T   PEMlAf      Po      T      T      F
                 322   WaNE   F     F     F    F               Po      F      T      F




                                                                                         197









                          Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Esthnates


                                                  Table A4-1 (cont.)


                      Site  Map Veg Hyd Soil Wet Wet Class         Surv Agree Near Change


                      323   SaSW   F    F     F     F              Ea       F      T       F
                      324   SaSE   F    T     T     T   PEMlAd,f   Ea       T      F       F
                      325   SaSE   F    F     T     F              Ek       T      T       T

                      326   SaSE   F    F     T     F              Ek       T      F       T
                      327   SaSE   F    F     F     F              Ek       T      F       F
                      328   SaNE   F    F     F     F              Ek       F      F       F

                      329   HeNW   F    F     T     F              Fs       T      T       F

                      330   HeSE   F    F     T     F              Pe       T      T       F
                      331   HeSE   F    F     F     F              Ek       T      F       F

























































              198








                                          Appendix 4 - Field Test Data


                                              Field Test 1

                                               Table A4-2


                Site NRCS-NRI NOAA-C-CAP FWS-NWI FWS-SAT MD-WRA NRCS-WI Field


                  1        w           u         u                  u       w      NW
                  2        w           u         u                  u       w      P
                  3        NW          P         u                  u       NW
                  4        NW          P         u                  u       NW     P
                  5        w           P         u                  u       w      NW
                  6        w           u         u       u          u       w      NN
                  7        w           u         u       p          u       w      NW
                  8        w           u         u       P          u       w
                  9        w           u         u                  u       w      NW
                  10       NW          u         u                  u       NW     NW
                  11       w           u         u                  u       w      NW
                  12       w           u         u                  u       w      NW
                  13       w           u         u                  u       NW     NW
                  14       w           u         u                  u       w
                  15       NW          u         u                  u       NW     P
                  16       w           P         u                  u       w      NW
                  17       NW          u         u                  u       w      NW
                  18       w           u         u                  u       w      P
                  19       w           u         u                  u       w      NW
                  20       NW          u         u                  u       w      NW
                  21       w           u         u                  u       w      NW
                  22       w           P         u                  u       w      NW

                  23       w           u         u                  u       w      NW

                  24       NW          p         u                  u       PC     P
                  25       w           u         u                  u       w      P
                  26       NW          u         u                  u       NW

                  27       w           u         u                  u       NW
                  28       w           P         u                  u       w

                  29       w           P         P                  u       w

                  30       w           P         u                  u       w

                  31       w           P         u                  u       w

                  32       w           u         u                  u       w

                  33       w           P         P                  u       w

                  34       w           u         u                  u       w

                  35       NW          u         u                  u       NW

                  36       w           P         u                  u       w      P

                  37       NW          P         u                  u       NW     NW

                  38       NW          P         P                  P       NW

                  39       NW          u         u                  u       NW     NW






                                                                                       199








                            Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                                      Table A4-2 (cont.)


                        Site NRCS-NRI NOAA-C-CAP FWS-NWI FWS-SAT MD-WRA NRCS-WI Field



                         40       w             U           U                   U         w

                         41       w             P           P                   P         w

                         42       w             U           U                   U         w

                         43       w             U           U                   U         w
                         44       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW
                         4S       w             U           U                   U         NW      NW
                         46       w             U           U                   P         NW      P

                         47       w             U           U                   U         w

                         48       w             U           U                   U         NW      NW
                         49       w             U           U                   U         w       p

                         50       w             U           U                   @U        NW      NW

                         51       w             P           U                   U         w       NW
                         52       w             U           U                   U         NW      P
                         53       NW            U           U                   U         PC      NW
                         54       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW
                         55       NW            U           U                   U         w       NW
                         56       w             U           U                   U         NW

                         57       w             U           U                   U         w
                         58       NW            U           U                   U         w       NW
                         59       w             U           U                   U         w       P
                         60       w             P           U                   U         w
                         61       w             U           U                   U         w       P
                         62       NW            U           U                   U                 NW
                         63       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW
                         64       w             P           U                   U         w       NW
                         65       NW            E           R                   P         NW      NW
                         66       w             U           U                   p         w       P
                         67       NW            U           U                   U         NW      P
                         68       w             U           U                   U         w       NW
                         69       w             U           U                   U         w       NW
                         70       w             U           U                   U         NW      NW

                         71       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW

                         72       w             U           U                   U         w
                         73       NW            U           U                   U         NW      P
                         74       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW

                         75       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW

                         76       NW            P           U                   P         NW
                         77       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW
                         78       NW            U           U                   U         NW      NW

                         79       w             p           U                   U         w       NW
                         80       w             U           U                   U         w




                200








                                      Appendix 4 - Field Test Data


                                      Table A4-2 (cont.)


              Site NRCS-NRI NOAA-C-CAP FWS-NWI FWS-SAT MD-WRA NRCS-WI Field


                81     NW          u        u                u       NW
                82     w           P        u                p       w
                83     w           u        u                u       w
                84     w           P        u                P       w
                85     w           u        u                u       NW   NW
                86     NW          P        u                u       NW
                87     w           P        u                p       w
                88     w           u        u                u       w
                89     w           u        u                u
                90     w           p        u                u       NW
                91     w           p        u                u       NW
                92     w           u        u                u            NW
                93     NW          P        u                u       PC   NW
                94     NW          P        u                u
                95     w           u        u                u       w
                96     w           u        u                u       w    NW
                97     w           u        u                u       w    P
                98                 u        P     p          u       NW   NW
                99                 P        u                u       NW
                100                u        u                P       NW
                101                p        u                u       NW   NW
                102                p        u                u       NW   NW
                103                u        p     u          u       w    NW
                104                P        u                u       w
                105                u        p                p       NW
                106                u        P                u       w    NW
                107                u        P                p       w    P
                108                u        P                u       w
                109                P        p                u       w
                110                P        u                u       w
                ill     --         u        L                L       Nw   P

                112                WA       L                L       w    p

                113                u        p                u       w    p

                114                u        p                u       w    P

                115                P        u                p       w    P

                116                P        u                u       w    NW

                117                u        P                u       NW   NW

                118                u        p                p       NW   p

                119                u        P                u       w    NW

                120                u        u                u       w    NW

                121                u        u                P       w    p





                                                                             201








                     Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                                          Table A4-2 (cont.)


                  Site NRCS-NRI NOAA-C-CAP FWS-NWI FWS-SAT MD-WRA NRCS-WI Field


                  122                P        U                U      w      NW
                  123                U        U                U      w      NW
                  124                U        U                U      w      NW

                  125                U        U                U      PC     NW

                  126                P        U                U      NW     NW

                  127                E        U                U      NW     NW
                  128                U        R                R             R
                  129                P        U                U      w      NW
                  130                P        U                U      w      NW
                  131                U        U                U      w      NW
                  132                p        P                P      w      p
                  133                P        U                U      w      NW
                  134                P        U                P      w      NW
                  135                p        U                U      w      p
                  136                U        U                U      w      NW
                  137                P        U                U      w      p
                  138                P        U                U      w      P
                  201                P        U                U      w      P
                  202                p        U                U      NW     NW
                  203                P        U                U      NW
                  204                P        U                P      NW     NW
                  205                p        U                U      NW     NW

                  206                P        U                U      NW
                  207                p        U                U      w
                  208                P        U                U      w

                  209                P        U                U      w
                  210                P        U                U      w

                  211                p        U                P      NW     NW
                  212                P        U                U      w      P
                  301                U        U                U      FW     NW
                  302                U        U                U      FW     NW

                  303                U        U                U      FW     NW
                  304                U        U                U      FW     NW
                  305                U        U                U      FW     P

                  306                U        U                U      FW     P

                  307                U        U                P      w      P
                  306                U        U                U      FW     NW

                  309                U        U                U      FW
                  310                U        U                U      FW     P
                  311                U        U                U      NW     NW
                  312                U        U                p      PC     NW




           202








                                            Appendix 4 - Field Test Data


                                             Table A4-2 (cont.)


                 Site NRCS-NRI NOAA-C-CAP FWS-NWI FWS-SAT MD-WRA NRCS-WI Field


                 313                   u          u                  u        NW     NW

                 314                   u          u                  u        FW     P

                 315                   u          u                  u        PC     P

                 316                   u          u                  u        FW     P

                 317                   u          u                  u        FW     NW

                 318                   u          u                  u        FW     p

                 319                   u          u                  P        FW     NW

                 320                   u          u                  u        FW     NW

                 321                   u          u                  u        FW     P

                 322                   u          u                  u        PC     NW

                 323                   u          u                  u        PC     NW

                 324                   u          u                  u        FW     P

                 325                   u          u                  u        w      NW

                 326                   u          u                  u        PC     NN

                 327                   u          u                  u        PC     NW

                 328                   u          u                  u        PC     NW

                 329                   u          u                  u        PC     NW

                 330                   u          u                  u        FW     NW

                 331                   u          u                  u        PC     NW











































                                                                                          203









                                                 Appendix 4 - Field Test Data


                                        Summary of Site Visits, Field Test 2
                                               Wicomico County, Maryland
                                                    July 13-14, 1993
                                                       Table A4-3






                    Site A
                    Wango NE
                    July 14, 1993
                    Entered from State Route 350 at 210 degrees



                               Field      Field      FWS-       MD-WRA     NOAA-C-     NRCS-
                               call       soils      NWI                   CAP         WI


                      100,     Wet        Hydric     Upland     Upland     Wet         Wet

                      2 00     Wet        Hydric     Upland     Upland     Wet         Wet




                    Site Al
                    Wango NE
                    July 14, 1993
                    Entered from State Route 350 at 40 degrees 2,000' E of Site A



                               Field      Field      FWS-       MD-WRA     NOAA-C-     NRCS-
                               call       soils      NWI                   CAP         WI


                      100,     Trans      Hydric     Upland     Upland     Upland      Wet
                      2001     Trans      Hydric     Upland    IUpland   I Upland      Wet









                                                                                                    205








                              Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Esthnates


                         Site B
                         Delmar NE
                         July 13, 1993
                         Entered from Rum Ridge Road at 305 degrees

                                      Field      Field        FWS-       MD-WRA    NOAA-C-        NRCS-
                                      call       soils        NWI                  CAP            WI

                           100,       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Wet

                           200'       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Wet

                           300'       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Wet       Wet       (9)  Wet
                                                                         PF01/4A

                           400'       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Wet       Wet       (9)  Wet
                                                                         PF01/4A

                           500'       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Wet       Wet       (9)  Wet
                                                                         PF01/4A

                           600'       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)

                           7001       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Wet

                           8001       Wet        Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Wet

                           900,       Trans      Trans        Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,000'     Trans      Trans        Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,100'     Upland     Not hyd.     Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,200'     Upland     Not hyd      Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,300'     Trans      Not hyd      Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,400'     Trans      Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,500'     Wet        Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,600'     Wet        Hydric       Wet        Wet       Wet       (9)  Upland
                                                              PF01A      PF01C

                           1,700'     Wet        Hydric       Upland     Wet       Wet       (9)  Upland
                                                                         PF01C

                           1,800'     Upland     Not hyd      Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Upland

                           1,900'     Wet        Hydric       Upland     Upland    Wet       (9)  Wet

                           2,0001     Trans      Hydric       Upland     Upland    Upland    (7)  Wet

                           2,1001     Upland     Hydric       Upland     Upland    Upland    (7)  Wet
                         [2@, 2 @O Wet           Hydric       Upland     Upland    Upland    (7)  Wet



                206









                                                            Appendix 4 - Field Test Data



                        Site B
                        Delmar NE
                        July 13, 1993
                        Entered from Rum Ridge Road at 125 degrees



                                      Field        Field         FWS-         MD-WRA       NOAA-C-         NRCS-
                                      call         soils         NWI                       CAP             WI

                          100,        Upland       Not hyd       Upland       Upland       Wet        (9)  Wet

                          2001        Trans        Hydric        Upland       Upland       Upland     (7)  Wet

                          3001        Upland       Hydric        Upland       Upland       Upland     (7)  Wet


                          4001        Upland       Not hyd       Wet          Upland       Wet        (9)  Wet
                                                                 PF01C

                          500,        Wet          Hydric        Wet          Wet          Wet        (9)  Wet
                                                                 PF01C        PF01C

                          6001        Wet          Hydric        Wet          Wet          Wet        (9)  Wet
                                                                 PF01C        PF01C

                          700'        Wet          Hydric        Upland       Wet          Wet        (9)  Wet
                                                                              PF01C


                        L
                          800,                     Not hyd           1
                          L           Upland                     Up'and       Upland       Wet        (9)  Wet

                        Site C
                        Delmar NE
                        July 13, 1993
                        Entered from Melson Road at 200 degrees



                                        Field        Field         PWS-         MD-WRA       NOAA-C-        NRCS-
                                        call         soils         NWI                       CAP            WI

                          100,          Upland       Not hyd       Upland       Upland       Wet      (9)   Wet

                          Second        Upland       Hydric        Upland       Upland       Wet      (9)   Wet

                          100,          Upland       Not hyd       Upland       Upland       Wet      (9)   Wet
                          West
                          Parr    to
                          Road

                          100,          Upland       Not hyd       Upland       Upland       Wet      (9)   Upland
                          East
                          Parr    to
                          Road










                                                                                                                        207









                           Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates



                       Site C
                       Delmar NE
                       July 13, 1993
                       Entered from Melson Road at 80 degrees



                                      Field     Field       FWS-      MD-WRA     NOAA-C-      NRCS-
                                      call      soils       NWI                  CAP          Wi

                         1001 E       Upland    Not hyd     Upland    Upland     Wet     (9)  Upland
                         down
                         road;
                         801 in   S

                         2001 E       Upland    Not hyd     Upland    Upland     Wet     (9)  Upland
                         down
                         road;
                         801 in   S

                         3001 E       Upland    Not hyd     Upland    Upland     Wet     (9)  Upland
                         down
                         road;
                         80' in N




                       Site D
                       Delmar NE
                       July 13, 1993
                       Entered from Rum Ridge Rd. 5501 SE from interesect with Melson Rd.
                       East Side of Road



                                   Field      Field       FWS-      MD-WRA     NOAA-C-CAP     NRCS-
                                   call       soils       NWI                                 Wi

                         100,      Upland     Not hyd     Upland    Upland     Upland (6)     Wet


                       Site D
                       Delmar NE
                       July 13, 1993
                       Entered from Rum Ridge Rd. 550, SE from intersect with Melson Rd.
                       West Side of Road



                                   Field      Field       FWS-      MD-WRA     NOAA-C-CAP     NRCS-
                                   call       soils       NWI                                 Wi

                         100,      Upland     Not hyd     Upland    Upland     Wet     (9)    Wet









              208









                                                Appendix 4 - Field Test Data



                   Site E
                   Salisbury NE
                   July 14, 1993
                   Entered at Fooks Road at 194 degrees



                                Field      Field      FWS-       MD-WRA     NOAA-C-      NRCS-
                                call       soil       NWI                   CAP          WI

                     400'       Trans      Hydric     Upland     Upland     Wet     (9)  Wet
                     from
                     road--
                     in at
                     285 deg
                     501 in

                     6001       Trans      Hydric     Wet        Upland     Wet     (9)  Wet
                     from                             PSS4A
                     road--
                     in at
                     83 deg
                     501 in


                     1,000'     Upland     Not hyd    Upland     Wet        Wet     (9)  Wet
                     from                                        PF01A
                     road--
                     in at
                     256 deg
                     100, in

                     1,2001     Upland     Not hyd    Upland     Upland     Wet     (9)  Upland
                     from
                     road--
                     in at
                     240 deg
                     2001 in




                   Site F
                   Salisbury NE
                   July 14, 1993
                   Entered at Fooks Road 5501 W of Site E           North



                               Field      Field      FWS-       MD-WRA    NOAA-C-       NRCS-
                               call       soils      NWI                  CAP           wi

                     3001      Trans      Hydric     Upland     Wet       Upland (8)    Wet
                                                                PF01A












                                                                                                  209









                               Coordination and Integration of Wetland Data for Status and Trends and Inventory Estimates


                          Site G
                          Salisbury NE
                          July 14, 1993
                          Entered at Fooks Road 2650' W of Site E at 185 degrees



                                       Field        Field        FWS-        MD-WRA     NOAA-C-         NRCS-
                                       call         soils        NWI                    CAP              Wi

                            100,       Drained      Hydric       Upland      Upland     Wet       (9)   Wet

                            2001       Upland       Not hyd      Upland      Upland     Wet       (9)      t



                          Site H
                          Hebron SE
                          July 14, 1993
                          Entered 300' W of Rockawalking Road at 198 degrees



                                       Field       Field        FWS-       MD-WRA      NOAA-C-        NRCS-
                                       call        soils        NWI                    CAP            Wi

                            100,       Wet         Hydric       Upland     Wet         Upland (7)     Wet
                                                                           PF01A

                            2001       Wet         Hydric       Wet        Wet         Upland (7)     Wet
                                                                PF01A      PF01A

                            3001       Wet         Hydric       Wet        Upland      Upland (7)     Wet
                                                                PF01A
                            4001       Trans       Hydric       Wet        Upland      Upland (5)     Up: :1a :nd
                                     I                          PF01A



                          Site I
                          Hebron    SE
                          July 14, 1993
                          Entered at Brick Kiln road at 240 degrees



                                         Field       Field        FWS-        MD-WRA      NOAA-C-        NRCS-
                                         call        soils        NWI                     CAP            Wi

                            100,         Wet         Hydric       Upland      Upland      Upland (7)     Wet
                                         (Borrow
                                         pit)

                                         Upland      Not hyd      Upland      Upland      Upland (5)     Upland

                                         Upland      Not hyd      Upland      Upland      Upland (7)     Wet







                210
                            501  NW


                            1501 NW
















































                                                                                                  I




















































                                                                               I






                                               3 6668 00004-2913