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















                 State of Delaware
Freshwater Wetlands Inventory
                         Pilot -Project




                                  Prepared for:.
         Department of Natural Resources &
                      Environmental Control

        September 1991








 QH
 87.3
 .S72
 1991
       Prepared by:
       Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
       9001 Edmonston Road                  Greenbelt, Maryland 20770






~~~~IT










    ~~~~~~~~~~~I  2        3"'NU
      -g~eaC~i~~B(1Stl~Ri~%K~t~(~NBI~~~ï¿½OB2      3
      N  **c~a~8laarP~amaas-:un~lasa~8~*qigi~A
-"ï¿½
 *     - 














                        U.S. DC:TVI':!' '!l r`OKMERCE NOAA
    I                   ~~~~~~COAST-<;.ï¿½       NC
                            223s~~  ~ï¿½il     AV;lr~ ENUE
                                        , i9405-2413










  1~~~~~.

  I~             I"     da~                                     ~~~~i






                 I~~~~~~I 












~~Tepeaaiono hsdcmn a iacdi attruhagatfo
~~thOficeo ca n osa eoreMngmnNtoa cai n







        Teprovsosoepartion 36of theiosta Zonuen Masfnagemednt pAct thofg 192 gastfo

3    ~~amended.












                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                DELAWARE FRESHWATER WETLAND PILOT PROJECT





1.0 INTRODUCTION                                                         PAGE

    1.1 Objectives ........1. 

        1.1.1  Effectiveness of Classification . . . . . . . . . . .1

        1.1.2  Production Times and Costs  . . . . . . . . . ...1

        1.1.3  Change Detection (Optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

        1.1.4  NWI Comparison (Optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

        1.1.5  Photo Basemap and Data Compilation  . . . . . . . . .2

        1.1.6  Simple Rectification Versus Ortho Rectification . . .2

        1.1.7  Expected Ground Displacements . . . . . . . . . . . .2

        1.1.8  Tidal Wetland Data Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

   1.2  Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2.0 METHODOLOGY

   2.1  Photo Basemap Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

   2.2  Wetland Delineation .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

        2.2.1  Vegetation .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

        2.2.2  Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

        2.2.3  Hydrologic Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

        2.2.4  Tidal Versus Nontidal Limits .  . . . . . . . . . . .18

   2.3  Photointerpretation .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

   2.4  Field Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

   2.5  Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26



                                   i










   2.6  Analysis Techniques                                         ....................27

        2.6.1 Effectiveness of Classification ..                    27

        2.6.2 Change Detection (Optional) ............28

        2.6.3 NWI Comparison (Optional) .............28

        2.6.4  Photo Basemap and Data Compilation .........28

        2.6.5 Simple Rectification Versus Ortho Rectification . .28

        2.6.6 Expected Ground Displacements ...........31

        2.6.7 Tidal Wetland Data Transfer ............31

3.0 RESULTS

   3.1 Effectiveness of Classification .............33

   3.2 Production Times and Costs ................35

   3.3  Adequacy of Photo Basemap for Data Compilation ......36

   3.4  Simple Rectification Versus Ortho Rectification ......38

   3.5 Expected Ground Displacements ..............38

   3.6 Tidal Wetland Data Transfer ................39

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

   4.1 Effectiveness of Classification ..............41

   4.2 Production Times and Costs ................41

   4.3 Photo Basemap and Data Production ............42

   4.4  Simple Rectification Versus Ortho Rectification ......42

   4.5 Tidal Wetland Data Transfer ................43

   4.6 Data Storage and Distribution ...............43

5.0 COST COMPARISON SUMMARY

6.0 REFERENCES



                               ii










7.0 APPENDICES

   Appendix A - Map Accuracy

   Appendix B - Field Data Forms

   Appendix C - NAPP Coverage of Delaware

   Appendix DI - Simple vs. Ortho Rectification

   Appendix D2 - Expected Ground Displacements

   Appendix E - Soils Maps





   LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

   Figure 1 - One-Sixteenth Quad Numbering System

   Figure 2 - Study Area Locations

   Figure 3 - Classification Key

   Table 1 - Data Sources by Study Area

   Table 2 - Relief Displacement Formula

   Table 3 - Relief Displacements on Photo Basemaps

   Table 4 - Data Distribution Matrix





   ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT

   Mylar Photo Basemaps with Cowardin Classifications
   Mylar Photo Basemaps with Category 1 and Category 2 Classifications
   Mylar Overlays used to determine photo basemap scale accuracy
   NWI Maps
   Cape Henlopen Original Tidal Wetland Boundary



I
                          0Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.

I
I
I


I
I
I
I 1.0 INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I









1.0 INTRODUCTION



    Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. has been retained by the Delaware Department

of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to conduct a pilot

project to determine the effectiveness and cost of several approaches to

the use of aerial photography and related basemaps for regional wetland

mapping.  The preparation of this document was financed in part through a

grant from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, under

the provisions of Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

as amended.



    1.1  Objectives

    The objectives of the pilot study are outlined below. Please note that

two of the objectives were optional and were not performed.



    1.1.1 Effectiveness of Classification

    G&O will determine the relative effectiveness and marginal costs of

using different source photography to differentiate wetland classes using

both  the modified Cowardin classifications  and the  Category  I and  II

wetlands classifications proposed in Delaware's Freshwater Wetlands Act.



    1.1.2 Production Times and Costs

   G&O will determine the production time and cost associated with using a

0.25-acre minimum mapping unit at 1:6,000 scale for regulatory maps, and

G&O will estimate,  using existing information, production time and cost

associated with using a 1.0-acre minimum mapping unit at 1:12,000 scale for

guidance maps.











    1.1.3  Change Detection (Optional)

    The optional task of determining the effectiveness of performing change

detection with multitemporal photography was not performed.



    1.1.4  NWI Comparison (Optional)

    The optional task of comparing the wetland acreages of the mapping

produced by the pilot project and the National Wetland Inventory was not

performed.



    1.1.5 Photo Basemap and Data Compilation

    G&0 will evaluate the suitability of using rectified photo basemaps

(1/16 quadrangle maps, 1:6,000 scale, produced from true color and color

infrared aerial photography registered to USGS quadrangle maps)  for data

compilation.



    1.1.6 Simple Rectification versus Ortho Rectification

    G&0 will measure the topographic relief for each 1/16th quad in the

state to determine the amount of relief displacement for each 1/16th quad

and to determine whether simple or ortho rectification are needed to

produce photo basemaps that meet National Map Accuracy Standards.



    1.1.7  Expected Ground Displacements

   G&0 will determine the average horizontal ground point displacement

expected  on  each  1/16th  quad  which  theoretically   requires   ortho




3                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2









I        ~~rectification to meet National Map Accuracy Standards,  but is rectified

3        ~~using simple rectification.



 3           ~~~1.1.8  Tidal Yetland Data Transfer

             G&0 will determine the feasibility and production time associated with

3        ~~transferring  existing  tidal  wetland  limits   from  delineated  aerial

3        ~~photography to 1:6,000 scale photo basemaps, for reconciling the regulatory

         boundaries between tidal and non-tidal wetland maps.



             1.2 Review

 3           ~~~The following introduction discusses the basic concepts which should be

         considered when determining methods and source imagery required to conduct

         a regional wetland inventory. It includes a discussion of delineation and
5        ~~cartographic accuracy, scale, delineation equipment, and data storage.



 5           ~~~When  reviewing  and  assessing  the  applicability  of wetland  mapping

         methodologies, five factors must be considered: accuracy, efficacy, scale,

I        ~~timeliness,  and  cost.    Related  to  these  factors  are  data  storage

3        ~~requirements,   which,   although  not  specifically  part  of  the  actual

         delineation process, are an important consideration in the determination of

5        ~~data formats and mapping mediums.



 I           ~~~When assessing the accuracy of wetland mapping methodologies, not only

3        ~~must  the  delineation accuracy be considered,  but also the cartographic

         accuracy. Delineation accuracy is a function of the type of source imagery

3        ~~used,  scale  of  the  imagery,  resolution  of  the  imagery,  stereoscopic



         1                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3









I        ~~coverage of the imagery and the medium on which the imagery is analyzed

3        ~~(film, paper, or computer).  The ability and experience of the interpreter,

         the equipment used for interpretation, the basemap scale, the basemap type

3        ~~(e.g., topographic versus orthophoto), and the amount of field verification

         performed are also important.



 g           ~~~The accuracy of a completed wetland delineation is influenced by the

         accuracy of the basemap it is being registered to and displayed on.  The

         cartographic accuracy of the basemap, the accuracy with which the wetland

         delineation data are compiled onto the basemap, and the accuracy with which

3        ~~the mapped data are converted into a digital format are also important.

         For a description of National Map Accuracy Standards, see Appendix A.



 3           ~~~Efficacy (the characteristics of the photographic film related to the

         film's ability to uniformly record conditions) must also be considered.

3        ~~Related to this is the time of year, time of day, and the conditions under

         which the remotely-sensed data are collected.



 3           ~~~Scale plays an important role in the mapping process.  Often, it is the

         required output scale which will determine the mapping methodology to be

3        ~~used.   However, it should be noted that when deciding on output scale, it

         is really information type and density which are being considered.   The

I        ~~scale  of  the  source  imagery  will  often  be  the  limiting  factor  that

         determines the amount of raw information per unit area available to the

         analyst.





         1                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4









 I           ~~~A complicating factor is the resolution of the imagery  (spatial and

         spectral), which contributes to the raw information content available at a

         particular scale for interpretation.   For example,  true color and black-

         and-white imagery will often have almost twice the resolution of CIR

         imagery at the same scale because of technical limitations during data

5        ~~capture.



 U           ~~~A thorough and accurate wetland delineation at a designated scale can

3 ~~be compromised by inaccurate data transfer, faulty conversion, and/or an

         inaccurate basemap.  Rarely will a wetland mapping program take all these

3 ~~accuracy factors into consideration before the actual mapping methodology

         is designed and work begins.



 *           ~~~Stereo viewing of imagery greatly facilitates discrimination of the

         topographic lows and depressions often associated with wetlands. It allows

3        ~~discrimination of micro-relief which often (especially in flat terrain such

         as coastal plain regions) is a strong indicator of a change in water

I        ~~regime.   Subtle  changes in slope help an interpreter  designate wetland

3        ~~boundaries in areas where facultative hydrophytic species are persistent in

         upland  terrain.    Also,  the  three-dimensional  spatial  relationships  in

3        ~~combination with distinctive spectral characteristics evident in stereo-

        viewing help identify false wetland spectral signatures, such as burn areas

I        ~~and  areas  where  seral  (transitory)  vegetation  such  as  black  cherry

3        ~~temporarily dominates the landscape.







         3                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5









    Interpretation equipment used for stereo viewing of imagery varies from

inexpensive field binocular lenses (2x and 4x models) ($30-$80), to mirror

stereoscopes ($1,000 - $6,000), to moderately expensive optically precise

stereo zoom transfer and stereo microscope equipment ($20,000 - $30,000),

to expensive stereo compilers ($150,000 - $250,000) which digitize the

delineated data as the data are interpreted.



    Field binocular lenses and mirror stereoscopes usually have some zoom

capabilities and, when used with film transparencies,  are limited by the

use of traditional light tables with one intensity setting.   The optical

resolution and accuracy afforded by this equipment vary from poor with the

field  binocular  lenses  to  fair  with  the  mirror  stereoscopes.    The

advantages of using this equipment are the ease of operation and low cost.

Using it requires physical delineation onto a mylar film registered to the

imagery.    This  process  increases  data  registration  error  and  limits

delineation accuracy by the "pen width" used by the interpreter (i.e., a

0.01-inch pen width on 1:40,000-scale imagery translates to approximately

33 feet on the ground), regardless of the intended scale of the basemap.



    This method of interpretation requires the transfer of delineated

information to a suitable basemap for data conversion.   The transfer is

achieved in a number of ways. The simplest and least accurate, is a direct

"eyeball"  transfer by hand to a photo basemap or topographic  basemap.

Another technique is to use mono or stereo zoom transfer scopes to complete

the transfer of the delineated data, a process which results in a more

accurate  cartographic product.   This equipment facilitates  the transfer

3                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6









process by superimposing the imagery onto the basemap optically, allowing a

direct  transfer  of  data.    Inaccuracies  associated with this  technique

include misregistration of photo with the basemap and inaccurate tracing of

the delineation from the photo onto the basemap.



    Stereo microscopes are optically very precise and, when combined with a

high-intensity variable light source, provide excellent image resolution

and clarity.   They often come with variable magnification  (up to 16x).

However,  they  are  subject  to the  same  data  transfer  and  "pen width"

delineation accuracy limitations as the field binocular and mirror

stereoscopes.



    Although stereo zoom transfer scopes, even when combined with a high-

intensity variable light source,  do not offer as clear an image as the

microscope, they are much superior in clarity, resolution, and optical

precision to field binocular and mirror stereoscopes.   The  stereo  zoom

transfer scope also has the advantage of allowing a direct transfer during

the interpretation of the wetland boundary data from the imagery to the

basemap.  Through optical registration of the photos with the basemap, the

interpreter is able to map features visible on the photography, directly

onto the basemap, at basemap scale, which greatly enhances the "pen width"

delineation accuracy, (i.e., using 1:40,000-scale imagery and a 1:6,000-

scale basemap, a 0.01-inch pen width represents 5 feet on the ground, not

33 feet as in the previous example using a mirror stereoscope).







1                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7









    A disadvantage of all the methods discussed so far is the need to

convert the delineated wetland boundaries, now registered to a basemap, to

a digital format.   Hand digitizing of complex delineations  (polygons and

linears) is very time consuming and is prone to operator-induced error.

Scan digitizing, although very accurate, requires exceedingly "clean"

cartographic products as input.   All polygons must close, lines may not

cross over each other, line density must be consistent, and, if ink on

mylar is used as the product to be scanned, labels must be on a separate

sheet or in pencil and thus transparent to the scanner.



    The only way to avoid the post-delineation/post-transfer digitizing

step is to digitize as you delineate. This is possible only on the stereo

zoom transfer scope and stereocompilation equipment.   On the stereo zoom

transfer scope, digitizing is accomplished by moving an interactive "mouse"

over the basemap as the delineation proceeds.   The disadvantage here is

that for interactive edit and quality control, only the digitized linework

(not  the  image  or  basemap)  is  shown  on  the  computer  screen.    The

stereocompilation equipment, however, allows for interactive delineation,

digitizing, and editing with digitized linework and imagery visible to the

analyst.   The disadvantages are that the equipment is very expensive and

extensive training is required for its proper use.  The advantages include

high-accuracy, one-step data analysis and conversion for use in a GIS.



   The sophisticated database engine in a GIS has the ability to associate

and manipulate diverse sets of spatially-referenced data which have been

coded to a common geographic  referencing system  (geocoded).   To permit









I        ~~this, it might be necessary, for example, to use software that transforms

3       ~~State plane coordinates and milepoint data to latitude/longitude.  A GIS is

         capable of topological operations, i.e., it recognizes how elements

3       ~~contained in the database are related to each other spatially, and it can

        perform spatial manipulations on these elements.   It provides efficiency

I       ~~and flexibility for data storage and revision over traditional hardcopy

3        ~~(mylar) systems.



 3           ~~~A GIS  contains  two  broad  classifications  of  information,  geocoded

         spatial data and attribute data. Geocoded spatial data define objects that

3       ~~have an orientation and relationship in 2- or 3-dimensional space.   Each

        object is classified as a point, a line, or an area and is tied to a

        geographic coordinate system.  These objects have precise definitions and
3       ~~are clearly related to each other according to the rules of mathematical

        topology.



                 Since a GIS permits the utilization of spatial relationships, it

I       ~~adds a degree of intelligence and sophistication to a resource management

3       ~~database that enhances analysis of the data.  For example, for a riverine

        wetland (a line) next to a road network, a GIS system knows what routes

3        ~~(other  lines)  cross  it  and  whether  there  is  an  actual  physical

        intersection.   It also knows the position of roadside features  (points)

I       ~~along the wetland segment.  It can also tell which wetlands (polygons) are

        to the right and the left of a feature or within any given distance of it.







         *                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9



I
                             Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
a
I

I



I
I
I
I
   g      ~2.0 METHODOLOGY

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I









2.0 ME THODOLOGY

    This section   describes the methodology used to complete the study.

The following subsections are organized into functional tasks and include

basemap   production,   wetland   delineation,   photointerpretation   and

conventions, field work, deliverables, and analysis procedures.



2.1  Photo BasemaD Production

    G&O produced a photo basemap for each of the selected 1/16th quad areas

using aerial photography supplied by DNREC.  "Mosaic" photo basemaps were

created from multiple single rectifications at 1:6,000 scale.  For simple

rectification,  aerial photograph negatives  were placed  in a rectifying

enlarger and the image was projected onto an enlarger easel.  A combined

process of enlarging, tipping, and tilting was used to match the photo

image with a network of control points.   When a satisfactory fit of the

control points was accomplished, a sensitized stable base mylar film was

placed on the enlarger easel along with a half-tone screen, and the imagery

was exposed on the film.  The exposed film was developed in an automatic

processor to produce half-tone positives.  The photo basemaps were produced

to National Map Accuracy Standards.



    For  ease  in  identification,  the  1/16th  basemaps  were  numbered

sequentially within each USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.   Figure 1 shows this

numbering system.



I   FIGURE 1

I                   DELAWARE
I               WETLANDS PILOT


         NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR 1/16th BASEMAPS
         WITHIN USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLES
I





                 1    2    3    4


1                 5    6    7    8


1                 9   10  11  12


                 13  14  15  16






I.
I









2.2 Wetland Delineation

    The purpose of this pilot mapping project was to identify the extent

and character of non-tidal freshwater wetlands in four different DNREC-

selected 1/16th quad areas.  Figure 2 shows the study area locations.  The

delineations were performed through stereoscopic analysis of true color and

color infrared aerial photography using Bausch & Lomb Stereo Zoom Transfer

Scopes (ZTS), review of existing soils, topography, NWI maps, selected

relevant publications, and the collection and analysis of field data from

field investigations.  Copies of the soil surveys and field data sheets are

included in the Appendix. Copies of the NWI maps are attached.



    The photointerpretation, delineation, and document review was followed

by a field investigation to verify and refine the wetland delineations and

classifications.   Wetlands found were not flagged or surveyed,  however,

their approximate locations were recorded on 1:6,000 scale photo basemaps

using photointerpretation and best field judgment.



    Wetlands  delineations  were  made  using  the  Federal  Manual  for

Identifvinz  and  Delineating  Jurisdictional  Wetlands  (January,  1989),

hereafter referred to as the Federal Manual. The Federal Manual generally

uses a three-parameter approach, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and

hydrologic  indicators,  to  delineating  wetlands.    Normally,  all three

parameters must be present for an area to be considered a wetland under

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well as Section 7603 of the proposed

Delaware Freshwater Wetlands Act.  Exceptions to this requirement include

open-water and riverine systems and disturbed areas.


                                     13



FIGURE 2

              I  --_-  -DELAWARE
                    '~ XWETLANDS PILOT
           Wilmington 
                  1-/  J   STUDY AREA LOCATIONS

     ! Newark 


              IA,                               N



      I
      Middletown


      !*~        VU. CLAYTONSCALE IN MILES
        !CLAYTON                             5 ,      5-

      I              \,


                *Dover             '          N
                   lI-Dovr |Delaware Bay     .


             HARRINGTON '                    /

                    . Milford



                             Lewes  CAPE
                                    HENLOPEN
                          Rehoboth Beach 
                       Georgetown
          3  . Seaford                ~ .

                              Iff'/'A '"~:    ATLANTIC OCEAN
                   WHALEYSVILLE    _
         m m          _    









    Although procedures for making field determinations are outlined in the

Federal Manual, judgments are sometimes required, depending on the strength

or weakness of any of the three parameters. In addition, transition areas

between wetlands and uplands often exist, also requiring judgments as to

the boundaries.



    For this mapping project, wetlands found on each 1/16th quad were

classified using two different classification  systems.   A first set of

wetland  maps  were  delineated  to  identify  Delaware's  more  unique  and

exceptional wetland types, including Delmarva Bays, dune swales, Atlantic

white cedar, bald cypress,  and wetlands with water regimes ranging from

permanently flooded to flooded for extended periods during the growing

season.   These wetland types are included in Category 1 and Category 2

wetlands as defined in Section 7604 of the proposed Delaware Freshwater

Wetlands Act.



    A second set of wetland maps were produced using a modified Cowardin

Classification,  (Classification of Wetlands and Deenwater Habitats of the

United States, 1979).  This hierarchial system is the nationally-recognized

standard for wetlands classification, and provides consistent terms and

concepts  to  define  wetlands  using  various  biological,   geological,

pedological, and hydrological factors.



    2.2.1  Vegetation

   Plant species observed at each wetland area were identified and the

wetland indicator status for each species was determined from the National


                                     15









List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:   Northeast (Region 1) (May

1988).   The  indicator  status  designates  the probability  of occurrence

(expressed as a percentage) of a given plant species in wetlands of the

northeast region of the United States. The following is an explanation of

the indicator status designations:



    OBL  =    Obligate Wetland (greater than 99% probability of occurrence)

    FACW =    Facultative  Wetland  (greater  than  66%  probability  of

              occurrence)

    FAC  =    Facultative (33Z - 66Z probability of occurrence)

    FACU =    Facultative  Upland  (lZ  -  less  than  33Z  probability  of

              occurrence)

    UPL  =    Obligate Upland (less than 1% probability of occurrence)

    NA   =    Has been reviewed, but no agreement has been reached by the

             Regional Interagency Review Panel as to its indicator status

    NI   =    No  indicator  status  recorded;   insufficient  information

             available

    NL   =    Not on list; therefore, presumed to be obligate upland plant.



    Generally, hydrophytic vegetation criteria for wetlands are met when

more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species from all strata in the

plant community has an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC (Federal

Manual).









                                     16









    2.2.2 Sails

    Hydric soils are soils that are saturated,  flooded, or ponded long

enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor

the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (Federal Manual).  A

hydric soil may either be drained or undrained, although a drained hydric

soil may not continue to support hydrophytic vegetation.  Hydric soils may

be referred to as "wetland" soils only when the hydric soils support

hydrophytic vegetation and the area has indicators of wetland hydrology

(Federal Manual).



   During field investigations,  soil borings were taken, generally to a

depth of 18 inches, to determine whether or not wetland soils were present.

Several soil characteristics were evaluated, including soil composition,

structure, texture; hue, chroma, value; odor, and moisture.   In addition,

the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service's County Hydric Soils List was

reviewed to determine if soils were classified as hydric.  The "Munsell

Soil Color Charts" were to verify hydric soil hue, chroma, and value.

Soils characteristics were evaluated using moistened soil samples in the

absence of direct sunlight for consistency.



   2.2.3  Hydrologic Indicators

   Wetland hydrology encompasses the hydrologic characteristics of an area

that is periodically inundated,  or is saturated to the surface at some

point in time during an average rainfall year as specified in the Federal

Manual. Wetland hydrology indicators are useful in establishing whether a

wetland is periodically inundated or has been saturated to the surface at


                                     17









some point in time during the year.  Hydrology indicators include, but are

not limited to, visual observations of surface water or soil saturation,

drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, blackened leaves, surface

scouring,  and numerous plant morphological adaptations.   For a detailed

discussion of the criteria used during this project, see the Federal

Manual.   Hydrological characteristics  observed at each site were noted

during the field investigations.



    2.2.4  Tidal versus Nontidal Limits

   As stated in Section 7603 of the proposed Delaware Freshwater Wetlands

Act, tidal wetlands mapped pursuant to 7 Del. C. Chapter 66 are exempt from

the proposed requirement of a freshwater wetlands permit and wetland

conservation buffer area. DNREC provided G&O with tidal wetland boundaries

delineated on mylar overlays registered to the CIR aerial photographs

(Frame Nos. 03-003, 03-005, 04-029, 04-031) for the Cape Henlopen study

area.



   A Bausch & Lomb Stereo Zoom Transfer Scope (ZTS) was used to transfer

tidal wetland boundaries  from the 1:14,000 scale CIR photography  (with

registered overlays) to the 1:6,000 scale photo basemaps.  Use of the ZTS

allowed  the  viewing  of  the  CIR  photography  and  photo  basemaps

simultaneously at the same scale, and allowed the direct, accurate transfer

of features  directly  onto the photo basemap.   Tidal  wetland boundary

inaccuracies identified during photointerpretation by the presence of non-

tidal vegetation and the absence of tidal vegetation, were corrected.




                                    18










2.3 Photointerpretation

    Photointerpretation was  performed  using  Bausch  & Lomb  Stereo  Zoom

Transfer  Scopes   (ZTS).      Aerial  photography  was  interpreted  while

simultaneously  reviewing  collateral  data including:  SCS soils  maps  and

data, USGS topographic maps, NWI maps, meteorological and hydrologic data

(taken  prior  to  the  photo  mission);  and  publications  on  climate,

vegetation, and land use.

    Analysts stereoscopically interpreted true color, and false color

infrared aerial photography for spatial, spectral, textural, and relational

characteristics.    Table  1 lists  the  photography  used  in  this  study.

Wetlands were delineated and assigned appropriate classification labels,

and sites for field checks were selected from areas with "classical"

wetland and problematic signatures.

   The ZTS was ideally suited for this project.  Operating on the "Camera

Lucida" principle, the ZTS allowed the photointerpretor to visually

superimpose the photographic image, seen in stereo, over the base map.  The

ZTS's adjustment mechanisms allowed the photointerpretors to manipulate

images  to coincide  with their position on the base map,  allowing very

accurate delineation of features onto the base map.

        The ZTS provides continuous zoom magnification of the stage image

    (photography) from 0.6x to 16.lx, while the base image (base map) may

   be viewed at magnifications of 0.7x, I.Ox, 2.0x, or 4.0x. This allows

   the accurate and precise matching of the photographic and base images.

   The  ZTS  also  has  an  anamorphic  correction  system,  which  allows

   photointerpretors to rectify distortions in the imagery, which may

   result from tilt, lens distortion, topographic relief, and the earth's














                                   TABLE 1



                         DATA SOURCES BY STUDY AREA




                   Photography                         Approximate
Study Area              Date               Type         Mean Scale



Clayton               4/23/89           True Color        1:15,000
                     3/28/82              CIR            1:58,000


Harrington            4/23/89           True Color        1:15,000
                     3/28/82              CIR            1:58,000


Whaleysville          4/17/89           True Color        1:15,000
                     3/28/82              CIR            1:58,000


Cape Henlopen         3/12/88         False Color IR      1:14,000
                     3/28/82              CIR            1:58,000






















                                       20









curvature.   The ZTS also allows rotation of the photographic image,  to
compensate for the effects of crabbing, without physically moving the
photographs.


    The ZTS's numerous optical and mechanical features allowed the
photointerpretors to rectify and superimpose the stereo images over
topographic maps, soils maps, NWI maps, and base manuscripts. Ultimately,
this increased the efficiency of the wetland delineations, and allowed for
accurate delineation directly onto the base map.


    The ZTS's magnification capabilities easily allowed for compliance with
the  0.25-acre minimum mapping unit.   The area covered by the minimum
mapping unit corresponds to approximately 0.1 square inches at the base map
scale of 1:6,000.  The ZTS allowed us to enlarge the image up 5x, readily
allowing accurate identification of small features.


    In general,  the  photointerpretation was  conducted  in three  steps.
First, the upland/wetland boundary was delineated for each watershed or
sub-watershed.  In all cases, the delineated line was shown entirely within
the wetland polygon so that the outside edge of the line corresponded to
the exact position of the upland/wetland boundary.   Second, the wetlands
were  subdivided by water regime  classifications.   Third,  the resultant
wetlands    were    further    subdivided   by   vegetation/landuse/habitat
classification.   Wetland polygons that were smaller than the 0.25-acre
minimum mapping unit were incorporated into adjacent wetlands if they were
not isolated by uplands and were not being included into a higher wetland
category as described by the State's proposed wetland legislation.
Isolated upland polygons,  less than 0.25 acres  in size,  within  larger
wetland polygons, were incorporated into the surrounding wetland polygon.


   Polygons less than 15 feet wide were mapped using a single line instead
of two lines. For instance, when the width of a polygon pinched down at a
particular location to less than 15 feet (but more than 5 feet), then the
polygon was depicted cartographically as a single line.  This was done to
avoid having parallel polygon boundary lines which are so close together

                                     21









that it is difficult to accurately digitize and display them.   When the
width of a linear feature or a polygon was less than 5 feet, then it was
not mapped.   This was done because the pen "line-width" on the map is
equivalent to 5 feet on the ground.


    The Modified Cowardin Classification Maps and the Delaware Category I
and II Wetland Classification Maps were produced separately. This allowed

the determination of the amount of time needed to delineate both types of
maps, which have different levels of complexity.


    The modified Cowardin classification system was developed from the
USFWS Cowardin Classification System (Cowardin, et al, 1979) with numerous
additions and deletions at different classification levels. The classifi-
cation key used is shown in Figure 3.  Additions were made to classify
"unique" and "special interest" habitats and ground covers, and to slightly
increase the level of detail in the classification system.


    The Marine and Estuarine systems were not used because this project was
limited  to  mapping  non-tidal,  freshwater  wetlands.        Tidal  wetland
boundaries were provided by DNREC, from a recent tidal wetland mapping
effort.   The Riverine Tidal subsystem was retained to incorporate areas
that were not mapped in the tidal mapping project.


    The  Lacustrine  Littoral  subsystem  (L2)  was  deleted  because  this
boundary can only be delineated by identifying the 2 meter depth contour
(depth  below  annual  low water).   To be  consistent  with  NWI mapping
conventions (USFWS, Draft II, 18 Dec. 1981,p.10), "all water bodies greater
than 8 hectares (20 acres) in size should be considered to be in the
Limnetic subsystem unless detailed depth information is available".


    Several Subclasses and Special Modifiers were added to identify areas
with Atlantic White Cedar (ChamaecvDaris thyoides) and/or Bald Cypress
(Taxodium distichum). If these species were found covering more than 10




                                     22







                                                                                                     CLASSIFICATION KEY                                                                                                 FIGURE 3

                                                                   MODIFIED COWARDIN CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

                                                            DELAWARE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PILOT PROJECT


  SYSTEM                                                                                          BR - RIVERINE

SUBSYSTEM    I - TIDAL                                              2- LOWER PERRENIAL                           3-- UPPER PERENNIAL  4 - INTERMITTENT                              5 - UNKNOWN PERENNIAL
    CLASS               RB - ROCK       UB - UNCONSOLIDATED            *SB - STREAMBED        AB - AQUATIC BED    RS - ROCKY SHORE            US - UNCONSOLIDATED           ^EM - EMERGENT    OW - OPEN WATER/                                                      1    2    3    4
                                            BOTTOM                                                                                               SHORE                                          Unknown BoSom
    Subclass                Bedrock             Cobble-Gravel             1 Bedrock            I Algal                1 Bedrock                  I Cobble-Gravel                2 Nonperlslsenl  6    7 
                       2 Rubble            2 Sand                      2 Rubble              2 Aquatic Moss        2 Rubble                   2 Sand
                                          3 Mud                       3 Cobble-Gravel      3 Rooted Vascular                                 3 Mud
                                          4 Organic                   4 Snd                4 Floaling Vascular                               4 Organic
                                                                    5 Mud                5 Unknown                                        5 Vegetaled
                                                                    8 Organic             submergent                                                                                                                                                          9   10   11  12
                                                                    7 Vegetated          a Unknown Surface
                       ^STREAMBED Is Ilmited to TIDAL and INTERMITTENT SUBSYSTEMS, and comprises the only CLASS In the INTERMITTENT SUBSYSTEM                                                                                                               /   13  14  15  16
                       ^EMERGENT Is limited to TIDAL and LOWER PERENNIAL SUBSYSTEMS. The remaining CLASSES are found In all SUBSYSTEMS

   SYSTEM                                                                             P - PALUSTRINE

              I               I                              I                   I                                    I                      I                        I          i
              CLASS 1                                        1                   1                                                                        1                                                                          DEL.  V
 CLASS        RB - ROCK        UB - UNCONSOLIDATED           AB - AQUATIC BED  US - UNCONSOLIDATED   EM - EMERGENT               SS - SCRUB-SHRUB          FO - FORESTED        OW - OPEN WATER/
                                   BOTTOM                                             SHORE                                                                                    Unknown Bodom
 Subclass      1 Bedrock             1 Cobble-Gravel         1 Algal                  1 Cobble-Gravel       1 Persislent      I Broad-Leaved Deciduous     1 Broad-Leaved Deciduous
              2 Rubble             2 Sand                  2 Aquatic Moss           2 Sand                2 Nonpersistent    2 Needle.Leaved Deciduous   2 Needle-Leaved Deciduous
                                  3 Mud                  3 Rooted Vascular        3 Mud                                    3 Broad-Leaved Evergreen     3 Broad-Leaved Evergreen                                                 QUADRAN             GLE    LOCATION
                                  4 Organic              4 Floating Vascular      4 Organic                                4 Needle-Leaved Evergreen    4 Needle-Leaved Evergreen
                                                       5 Unknown Submergsnt     5 Vegetated                             5 Dead                       5 Dead
                                                       6 Unknown Surface                                                6 Deciduous        a            Deckfuous
                                                                                                                   7 Evergreen                 7 Evergreen
                                                                                                                   8 AllantI While Cedar       8 AUtanti White Cedar                                                  MODIFIERS
                                                                                                                                                                           In order to more adequately describe wetland and deepwater habitats one or more
                                 SYSTEM                  L  -  LACUSTRINE (LIMNEof the water regime or special modifiers may be applied at the class or lower level
                                                                                                                                                                           in the hierarchy. The farmed modifier may also be applied to the ecological system.

                                               I                I                               I                    I                                                                       WATER REGIME                                         SPECIAL MODIFIERS
                                  CLASS        RB - ROCK        UB - UNCONSOLIDATED             AB - AQUATIC         OW - OPEN WATERI
                                                   BOTTOM            BOTTOM                        BED               Unknown Btom                                                               Non-Tidal
                                 Subclass      I Bedrocl             I Cobble-Gravel                Algal                                                                       A Temporarily Flooded    H  Permanently Flooded       b   Beaver                    h   Diked/Impounded
                                               |  Subelass  2 Rubble  I2 SandCobbleC-i          2 Arquatic Moss                                                                B Saturated              J  Inermlllentlly Flooded    ce  Aanc White Cedar          r   Artificlal Subslrala
                                                                                           3P~~ubblï¿½~~  MuPad  3 Rooled~ VascA~ u lar                                      C  Seasonally Flooded    K  ArdliclallyFlooded        cY  Bald Cyress               s   Spoil
                                                                  43 Mud                      3 Rooted Vascular                                                              D Seasonally Flooded/    W  IntermllenIly                 Partially Drained/Dltched    sp  Special
                                                                  54 Organic                  4 F       Sloti g Vascular                                                        Well Drained             Flooded/Temporary        f   Farmed                     x   Excavaled
                                                                                             Unknown Submrgenr                                                             E Seasonally Flooded/    Y  Saturaled/Seml-
                                                                                            6 Unknown Surface                                                                Saturated                 permanent/Seasonal
                                                                                                                                                                    F  Semlpermanlly Flooded Z  Inlermtlently
                         SYSTEM              HA -  WETLAND HABITAT UNITS                                                                                                         0  Intermillently Exposed    Exposed/Permanent
                                                                                                                                                                                           U  Unknown

                      SUBSYSTEM
                      '  SUBSYSTEM  B-DELMARVA BAY                                               S-DUNE SWALE

                                                                       MOD - MODIFIED SYSTEMS
               SYSTEM                                                               I                                                                                                                                            Prepared By:
                                                    I  I                                                                                            I I
            SUBSYSTEM  AG - AGRICU TURE    D - DISTURBED                             L - LAWNS a         R - RIGHT-O-WAY   HAB - ELMARVA                HAS - DUNE                                           GREENHORNE & O'MARA, INC.
                                                        (CONSTRUCTION, ETC.)         MAINTAINED                                   BAY                    SWALE
                                                                                   AREAS                                                                                                             9001 Edmonston Road, Greenbelt, Maryland


              NOTE: Italicized lltems are modificatllons of the Cowardin Classlflcatlon                                                                                                                                            July 1991








I       ~~percent,  but  less  than  30 percent  of an area,  then the corresponding
         special modifier was used to designate that polygon. If these species were
I       ~~found  covering more  than 30 percent  of an area,  then the appropriate
         subclass designation was used.


            The Modified (MOD) system and Wetland Habitats (HA) system were also
        added.   MOD System areas qualify as wetlands under either the "Disturbed

        Areas" or "Problem Area Wetlands" provisions of the Federal Manual.   The
        MOD subsystems identify the specific type of human activity, including

        Agriculture, Construction, Fill and Excavation, Right-of-Way maintenance,
        Lawns and other maintained areas, and modified Wetland Habitats.


            The Wetland Habitats include two unique ecosystems, identified with B-
        for Delmarva Bays, and 5- for Dune Swales (Fig 3). The Delmarva Bay/upland
        or Delmarva Bay/wetland boundary surrounding a Delmarva Bay (HAB)
        classification was determined by using a combination of topographic relief

        and wetland "signature' from the aerial photography.   For example, when a
        forested Delmarva Bay located within a larger forested wetland polygon was
I      ~ ~identified,  then the first criteria used in delineating the limit of the
        Bay was topographic breakpoint.  For example, as one moved away f rom the
        center of the Bay, and the topography increased, then the point at which
        the topography leveled off or started to decrease was identified as the
*       ~~boundary of the Bay.


            The second criteria used was the presence of a wetland spectral
I     ~     ~"signature"  in the area inside the break in topography.   If a spectral
        'signature" changed from wet to upland before the break in topography was

        reached, then the Bay/upland boundary was delineated at that point.

 j          ~~~A 'Special Species"  (sp) modifier was also added to designate those
        polygons in which subsequent field work confirmed the presence of special,
3       ~~threatened or endangered species.  This modifier was not intended for use
        during the photointerpretation step, but was created to allow flexibility
3       ~~in future resource management by the State.


         *                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~24









    Field   verification   was    conducted    interactively    with    the
photointerpretation.    This  allowed  the  photointerpretor  to  resolve
problematic  signatures  and significantly increases  the accuracy of the
wetland delineations.


2.4 Field Work
    Field sites were selected from areas with "classical" wetland and

problematic spectral signatures, and were then marked on USGS topographic
maps and the photo basemaps. Subsequently, site checks were made to verify
the photointerpretation and revise the wetland delineations.   Site check
locations are shown on the maps attached to this report.


    Detailed statistical sampling was not conducted to determine the
classification or delineation accuracy achieved during this pilot study.
During the field verification, numerous wetland boundaries were checked,
and often only rough measurements were made of the mapping accuracy.
Classification accuracy was determined at every site.


    Site  checks  were  performed  by evaluating  the  three  parameters  of
vegetation, soils, and hydrology, using the methods outlined in the Federal
Manual.    Vegetation  can  be  classified  as  (1)  obligate  wetland,  (2)
facultative wetland, (3) facultative,  or (4) facultative upland species.
Sites  meet  the  hydrophytic  vegetation  criterion  when,  under  normal
circumstances, more than 50 percent of the dominant species from all strata
are either obligate wetland, facultative wetland, or facultative species

(Federal Manual).


    Soils were evaluated by sampling and examination using soil borings
averaging 18 inches  in depth.   The U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation  Service
defines hydric soils as soils that are either "(1) saturated at or near the
soil surface with water that is virtually lacking free oxygen for
significant periods during the growing season or (2) flooded frequently
(i.e. more than 50 times in 100 years) for long periods (i.e. more than 7
consecutive days) during the growing season."  The soil matrix color and
the color of mottles, if present, were classified using the Munsell soil

                                     25









color charts.   Generally,  sites meet the hydric soils criterion when the
soil matrix has a chroma of 1, or a chroma of 2 or less with mottles within
18  inches  of  the  surface.    Several  exceptions  to  this  criterion  are
outlined in the Federal Manual and were used in the field when applicable.


    Finally,  the  hydrology  was  evaluated.    Sites  meet  the  hydrology
criterion by direct measurement of inundation and/or soil saturation or
tidal flooding (Federal Manual).   If inundation is not observed, wetland
hydrology indicators may be used.   These indicators include water marks,
blackened leaves,  surface scouring,  drift lines, water-borne deposits of
mineral or organic matter, and plant morphological features such as
buttressed trunks, multiple trunks, pneumatophores, and adventitious roots.


    The data obtained from the field sites are summarized in the attached
data sheets in Appendix B.


2.5  Deliverables


   The following final products were prepared for the State of Delaware
(DNREC) in conjunction with this report:
   o    Four mylar photo basemaps with wetland delineations mapped using a
        modified Cowardin Classification System (Attached).
   o    Four mylar photo basemaps with wetland delineations mapped using
        Delaware's   proposed   Category   1   and   Category   2  wetland
        classifications (Attached).
   o    Field data sheets documenting the ground verification of wetland
        delineations in the four study areas (Appendix B).
   o    Modified Cowardin Classification System key (Figure 2).
   o    Four registered mylar overlays depicting ground features that were
        measured to determine the resulting scale accuracy of the photo
        basemaps (Attached).








                                     26








1       ~~2.6  Analvsis Techniaues


 1          ~~~2.6.1  Effectiveness of Classification
             Several different types of aerial photography were used for this study.
        Low altitude true color photography and high altitude color infrared (CIR)
        photography were used for the Clayton, Harrington, and Whaleysville study
5       ~~areas.  Low altitude false color infrared and high altitude CIR photography
        were used  for the Cape Henlopen study area.  (True color photography was
        not available for this area.)   The different types of aerial photography
I      ~ ~used for each of these areas is list'ed in Table 1.  Although,  1:40,000
         scale CIR NAPP is available for the State of Delaware, the acquisition
3 ~~dates are almost all leaf-on (summer) or late April, which is not ideal for
        wetland delineation. An index to that photography is included in
3       ~~Appendix C.


            Different types of aerial photography were compared during the study.
I     ~     ~The different types (and dates) of photography facilitated the assessment
        of the characteristics of water, soil, vegetation, and other surface
U      ~ ~features.  The CIR, for example, enhanced the assessment of soil moisture
        because of water's relatively high absorption in the infrared. The CIR also
*       ~~helped with the identification of many evergreen tree and shrub species
        because  of their unique  spectral  signatures.   Although the true  color
*       ~~photography  used in this  study provided  fewer  spectral  indicators  for
        photointerpretation, it was a valuable collateral data source.   The leaf-
        of f photography also facilitated distinguishing between deciduous and

        evergreen vegetation.

 *          ~~~The draft delineations were initially made and refined by alternately
        reviewing and comparing the two different types of aerial photography, and
U       ~~using collateral data as needed.       There was a six to seven year gap
        between flight dates for the two types of aerial photography for each study
3       ~~area.   This  long period  of time  accentuated vegetation  and hydrology
        changes, which proved especially useful for analysis of transition areas.
            The true test of the accuracy of photointerpretation was the field

        verification.   Field verification was performed for sites with "classic"
         *                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~27









wetland and problematic  spectral signatures.   This helped verify and/or
refine   delineations,   particularly   areas   with  problematic   spectral
signatures.


    2.6.2  Change Detection (Optional)
    The task of determining the effectiveness of performing change
detection with multitemporal photography was optional and was not
performed.


    2.6.3 NVI Comparison (Optional)
    The task of comparing the wetland acreages of the pilot mapping project
and the National Wetlands Inventory was optional and was not performed.


    2.6.4  Photo Basemap and Data Compilation
    To determine the accuracy and adequacy of the photo basemap for data
compilation, the distance between distinct fixed ground points on the photo
basemap and the distance between the same points on the stable base mylar
USGS quad was compared.   If at least 90 percent of the measurements were
within 0.03 inches  (16 feet on the ground),  then the photo basemap met
National Map Accuracy Standards.


    The adequacy of the photo basemaps for data compilation is not only a
function of cartographic accuracy but also of photographic  clarity and
ground resolution. These photo basemap characteristics were qualitatively
assessed during the photointerpretation process and again during the field
investigations.    Most  importantly,  recognition  of  ground  features  at
1:6,000 scale was assessed with respect to the minimum mapping unit
requirements (0.25-acre polygons and 5-foot wide linears).


    2.6.5 Simple Rectification versus Ortho Rectification
    Two separate procedures, simple rectification and ortho rectification,
may be used to produce photo basemaps from unrectified aerial photography.
The difference between the two procedures are the methods used to rectify
the photography. The following discussion outlines those differences.



                                     28









 I          ~~~For simple rectification, aerial photograph negatives are placed in a
         rectifying enlarger and the image is projected onto an enlarger easel.  A

I       ~~combined process of enlarging, tipping, and tilting is used to match the
         photo image with either a map or a network of control points accurately
3       ~~plotted on stable base material.  Simple rectification is used whenever the
         ground elevation differences are so small that the resulting relief
         displacements do not exceed National Map Accuracy Standards1. This method

        has  two major advantages  over ortho rectification.   First,  it is less
         expensive, and second, the basemap resolution tends to be better since it

        has not been digitally scanned.

 3           ~~~For ortho rectification, two (or more) overlapping aerial negatives are
        placed in a stereoplotting instrument to form a spatial model, as is done
3       ~~for contour mapping.   Orthophoto scanning equipment exposes narrow strips
        of photography, throughout the stereo model, onto a film negative to
        produce a continuous photo image unaffected by relief displacement. Ortho

         rectification is used whenever the ground elevation differences and the
         resulting relief displacements are so large that the National Map Accuracy
I      ~ ~Standards cannot be met by simple rectification.   Ortho rectification has
        the advantage that a digital product is produced that can be directly input
*       ~~into a computer system.


 3          ~~~The Relief Displacement Formula shown in Table 2 was used to determine
        which rectification procedure should be used to produce 1:6,000 scale photo
3       ~~basemaps that meet National Map Accuracy Standards.













             IFor maps published at scales larger than 1:20,000 not more than 10
        percent of the test points shall be in error by more than one-thirtieth of
        an inch (0.03'1).
         3                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~29










                                    TABLE 2


                          RELIEF DISPLACEMENT FORMULA



                          d = rh
I                            ~~~~~~~H
                          d = horizontal displacement

                          r =  radial  distance  between principle  point  and
                               displaced image

                          h =  elevation difference between displaced point
                               and principal point

                          H=  flight altitude above principal point


           Therefore:           H = f      f =  camera focal length
                                   s
                                         s =  photo    scale    representative
                                              fraction


                               h = 0.0066 x MaD scale inverse
                                                     2

                               d = 0.4166 x h
                                      7000    = 0.833 (horizontal
                                                       displacement)



















                                        30









    Ground elevations (contours and spot elevations) were reviewed for each
1/16th quad area in the state to determine which rectification process is
required to meet National Map Accuracy Standards.   Based on the flight
altitude above the principle point, photo scale, camera focal length, and
the 90 percent requirement of the National Map Accuracy Standards,  the
maximum elevation difference allowable for each 1/16 quad was 20 feet. If
the elevation difference within any 1/16 quad was less than 20 feet, then
simple rectification can be used to produce a photo basemap that meets
National Map Accuracy Standards.


    2.6.6 Expected Ground Displacements
    On those maps which would theoretically require ortho rectification to
meet National Map Accuracy Standards, horizontal displacements expected
from using a simple rectification process were calculated using the Relief
Displacement Formula (Table 2). Once the horizontal displacement constant
(d) was determined, that figure (0.833) was multiplied by the maximum
ground elevation difference on the map to give the maximum expected ground
displacement on the photo basemap.


    2.6.7 Tidal Wetland Data Transfer

    Tidal wetland boundaries were obtained directly from DNREC compiled on

mylar overlays registered to 1:14,000-scale CIR aerial photographs.   The

tidal wetland boundaries were transferred from the 1:14,000-scale aerial

photographs  to the 1:6,000-scale photo basemaps using a ZTS, to ensure

accurate line transfer.   The ZTS allowed precise superimposition of the

registered tidal wetland data and photo basemap image at the same scale.












                                     31



I
                                    Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
lI
I
I                           3.0 RESULTS

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I









1       ~~3.0  RESULTS



         3.1 Effectiveness of Classification

 3           ~~~In general,  Color Infrared  (CIR) aerial photography is regarded as

         being very effective for delineating wetlands. Its effectiveness is due to

U       ~~the  absorptive  quality  of  water  in  the  near-infrared,  which  on  CIR

3       ~~photography, accentuates areas with wet or moist soils.   For example, on

         the Cape Henlopen study area, where low altitude CIR photography was

3       ~~available, areas of moist or wet soils were apparent as dark tones on the

        photography.



            The high altitude CIR aerial photography used for this study was

        1:58,000 scale NHAP photography.   This CIR aerial photography was of poor
3       ~~quality.   Although the timing of the mission was adequate, the processed

        photographs were overexposed within the cyan range, resulting in a strong

3       ~~bluish cast which effectively masked and muddied the red tones.  This made

        it extremely difficult to distinguish between evergreen species.   Also,

I       ~~marginally wet soils had signatures indicative of much wetter conditions.

3       ~~The ground resolution of the 1:58,000 scale CIR photography was much less

        than that of the other photography used in the study.   These factors,

3       ~~combined with the age of the coverage, made accurate photointerpretation

        difficult using the NHAP CIR for 1:6,000 scale compilation and especially

*       ~~difficult intransition areas undergoing hydrologic change.



            For this study, the true color photography was effective and was found

3       ~~to be of excellent photographic quality, exhibiting very good resolution,



         3                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~33









U        ~~tonal,  and textural  characteristics.    However,  all  of  the  true  color

         photography was flown in the middle to latter part of April. This resulted

         in some obstruction of the ground surface since many trees began to exhibit

         bud swelling and leaf formation in the beginning of April.   It was found

         that at the time this photography was collected, most Red Maple trees (Acer

I        ~~rubrum) were already forming leaves.   This obscured the signatures of the

         trees  associated with the maples.   In the 'Whaleysville study area,  for

         example,  it proved  very  difficult  to  identify  Bald  Cypress  (Taxodium

         distichum) when mixed with maple. Yet within the same area a small stand

         of pure Cypress was readily identifiable.



             In very complex wetland areas showing a large amount of leaves on the

U        ~~trees,  the  true  color  photography  did  not  provide  the  clarity  and

*        ~~resolution  necessary  to  accurately  map  the  different  wetland  classes

         present. This was evident on both the Cowardin and Category I and II maps.

3        ~~However, because of its scale, the true color photography gave an excellent

         feel for topographic relationships, and a reasonable indication of

I        ~~hydrology especially when the ground surface was not obscured.



 U           ~~~The  results  of  the  preliminary  field  measurements  of  delineation

3        ~~accuracy indicated line placement errors ranging from 5 to 100 feet.  The

         average placement error was found to be approximately 10 to 25 feet on the

3        ~~ground,  or  .02-.05  inches  on the 1:6,000 scale basemap.   National Map

*        ~~Accuracy Standards at this scale require that 90 percent of the points an a

         map be within 16 feet, or .03 inches, of its exact location on the ground.

3        ~~Therefore, a line placement error of 16 feet or less, when measured off of



         3                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~34









the  1:6,000  scale  basemap,  could  theoretically  be  correct,  with  the

measured error being a result of basemap accuracy, not a faulty

delineation.



3.2 Production Times and Costs

    Projected costs associated with using the 1:15,000 scale true color

photography for volume production of basemaps for the entire State are as

follows:

             Simple Rectification      $500 each (346)

             Ortho Rectification       $800 each (286)



    These figures result in a total projected cost of $401,800 to produce

photo basemaps at 1:6,000 scale for the entire State.  It should be noted

that these costs are high when compared to industry standards, due to the

fact that the source photography should have been flown at a higher

altitude and quarter quad-centered for efficient production of basemaps at

1:6,000 scale.   Because the true color photography used to produce the

basemaps was not quarter quad-centered, numerous splices were required to

"composite" the basemap image.   This resulted in an expensive and less

visually exact product than if higher altitude photography had been used.



   The projected costs associated with the wetland delineation are

outlined below.   These costs do not include the production of basemaps.

These costs are based on labor rates which are consistent with industry

standards.   The projected costs are based on producing maps similar in

complexity to those studied during this pilot, but under a mass-production


                                     35









scenario.  Estimates are also given for production of 1:12,000 scale maps

(quarter-quads),  using a one acre minimum mapping unit,  based on prior

experience producing similar products. The percentages listed below after

each quad name are an estimate of the portion of the State which is covered

by that specific (physiographic/ecological) quad type.



    These costs do not include the conversion of the data to digital

format. Conversion costs are discussed in Section 4.2.



Quad Type and               Projected Cost               Projected Cost
Percent Coverame             Per 1/16 Ouad                Per 1/4 Ouad

                      Cowardin   Category l&2    Cowardin   Cateaory 1&2


Whaleysville (20Z)      $2,400      $1,950           $3,400     $2,800

Clayton (1OZ)           $3,000      $2,500           $4,000     $3,300

Harrington (42Z)        $1,800      $1,400           $3,000     $2,400

Cape Benlopen (28Z)    $1,800       $1,400           $3,000     $2,400


Cost for Entire State  $1,288,800 $1,023,400         $502,800   $406,400


    The costs  shown above are slightly higher than expected due to the

delineation problems encountered with the aerial photography used during

this pilot.   Also, the cost for the Cape Henlopen type maps includes the

cost of transferring and updating the tidal wetlands data.



3.3 Adeauacv of Photo BasemaD for Data Compilation

    Three fixed ground points were selected and measured on each 1/16th

quad photo basemap produced, and the same points were found and measured on


                                      36












                                   TABLE 3

                    RELIEF DISPLACEMENTS ON PHOTO BASEMAPS

    The location of the points identified in this table are shown on the
overlays (registered to the photo basemaps) attached to this report.



                                         Map Feature           Actual
CaDe HenloDen                          DisDlacement (in.)  DisDlacement (ft.)

    Point A to Point B        -                .010                 5.0
    Point C to Point D        -                .006                 3.0
    Point E to Point F                         .013                 6.5

Clayton

    Point A to Point B        -                .003                 1.5
    Point C to Point D        -                .001                 0.5
    Point E to Point F        -                .006                 3.0

Harrington

    Point A to Point B        -                .000                 0.0
    Point C to Point D        -                .007                 3.5
    Point E to Point F        -                .011                 5.5

Vhalevsville

    Point A to Point B        -                .015                 7.5
    Point C to Point D        -                .010                 5.0
    Point E to Point F        -                .002                 1.0



















                                        37









the  USGS  7.5  minute  stable-base  mylar  quadrangle.    The  results  are
summarized in Table 3 and show that all four photo basemaps have a very

high degree of cartographic accuracy and are suitable for precise data
compilation. The highest displacement discrepancy found was 7.5 feet, and
all displacement figures were well under the 16-foot maximum allowance.


    The ground resolution of the photo basemaps was found to be very good,

with individual trees and houses easily identifiable. The photo basemap
scale (1:6,000, or 1 inch = 500 feet) was found to be suitable for use with

the 0.25-acre minimum mapping unit.


    The 0.01-inch pen width used for final delineation corresponded to a 5-
foot wide line on the ground at the 1:6,000 photo basemap scale.   This

lineweight  was  found  to  be  adequate  for  delineating  upland/wetland
boundaries using a 0.25-acre minimum mapping unit.


3.4  SimDle Rectification versus Ortho Rectification

    It was determined that 632 1/16th quadrangles will be required to cover

the entire State of Delaware.   By using the Relief Displacement Formula
(Table 1), it was calculated that at 1:6,000 scale, 20 feet is the maximum

ground elevation difference within a 1/16th quad allowable  for use of
simple rectification.   Whenever the elevation difference exceeds 20 feet,
ortho rectification will be needed to produce a photo basemap that meets
National Map Accuracy Standards.


    It was found that simple rectification will be sufficient for 346 of
the 1/16th quads (54.7 percent of the total number of 1/16th quads), and

that 286 quads (45.3 percent of the total) will require ortho rectification
to produce photo basemaps that meet National Accuracy Standards. Appendix
D1 shows the basemap name and type of rectification required for each
1/16th quad in Delaware.


3.5 Expected Ground DisDlacements

    The 1/16th quads that require ortho rectification to meet National Map

Accuracy Standards are shown in Appendix D1.  The estimated displacements

                                     38









that would result from simple rectification on those quads that normally
would require ortho rectification to meet National Standards are shown in
Appendix D2.


3.6 Tidal Wetland Data Transfer
    The transferred tidal wetland boundaries on the photo basemaps
correspond precisely to the original tidal wetland boundaries on the mylars
registered   to  the   low-altitude  CIR  aerial  photography.           During
photointerpretation of the nontidal wetlands, the tidal wetland boundaries
were  revised  wherever  boundary  discrepancies  were  apparent  from  the
presence  of identifiable,  nontidal plant  species.   In most  cases,  the
revisions to the boundaries were minor.


    The  width  of  the  original  delineated  boundaries  at 1:14,000-scale
corresponded to between 20 and 30 feet on the ground.   The width of the
transferred boundaries at 1:6,000 scale corresponded to 5 feet on the
ground.   As a result of the different line widths,  boundary revisions
exceeding 5 feet at 1:6,000-scale were common, but were often within the
width of the original boundaries (20 to 30 feet) at 1:14,000 scale.


   The field verification in the Cape Henlopen study area included
extensive surveys of tidal wetland boundaries. In all cases, the boundary
revisions were found to be accurate.





















                                     39



I
                               Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
1
                  4.0 DISCUSSION
I                             and
    I|            RECOMMENDATIONS

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I










4.0  DISCUSSION AND RECONMENDATIONS


4.1  Effectiveness of Classification
    The quality, age, and to a lesser extent, the scale of the 1:58,000

scale NHAP CIR resulted in it being a poor choice for a regional wetland
inventory  of  the  State  of  Delaware.    The  1:15,000  scale  true  color

photography was effective because of its quality and scale, however, it was

not ideal due to its lack of infra-red information and acquisition date.
The problems expected if the true color photography is used for delineation

include:
    1)   Higher delineation times and costs

    *  2)   Lower delineation accuracy (and indirect costs)

    3)   Increased field time and costs
    4)   Higher basemap production costs and lower quality


    If DNREC intends to conduct a statewide wetland inventory, a new photo

mission  would  reduce  basemap  production  costs  and  improve  delineation

accuracy.   Preferably, 1:40,000 scale CIR photography should be acquired.

The mission should be conducted during mid-March to avoid leaf cover and
minimize shadow effects due to low sun angles. The mission should also be

quarter-quad centered utilizing north-south flight lines.


4.2 Production Times and Costs

    The production costs outlined in Section 3.2 are higher than expected
due to problems encountered with the aerial photography.   If a new photo

mission was flown, as outlined above, those costs could be reduced by as

much as 10 percent due to the time saved during photointerpretation and

field work.   Accuracy would be increased, and as outlined below, basemap
production costs would also be reduced.


   Data conversion costs for use of the data in a GIS are projected to be

approximately $1,000 per map sheet. This would include delivery of digital

files in ARC/INFO compatible format and mylar composites of the delineation

data  (in  white line) on the photo basemaps.  The mylar composites could



                                      41









then be available for use with a blue-line machine for distribution to the
public.


4.3 Photo BasemaD Production
    The cost of basemap production could be reduced by approximately 10
percent if a new photo mission is flown.   The estimated cost of a CIR
mission at 1:40,000 scale would be around $50,000. In combination with the
projected saving expected during wetland delineation, a net resultant
savings ranging from $600 to $119,000 could be realized after paying for

the new mission.


4.4  Simple vs. Ortho Rectification
   Roughly 45 percent of the 1/16th quad basemaps will require ortho
rectification to meet National Map Accuracy Standards. Because during the
rectification process, 'Models" which include elevation and positional
control must be developed covering adjacent 1/16th quads, it is cost

effective to ortho rectify pairs of adjacent (east-west) 1/16th quads
(within quarter quads) at a time. Given this consideration, approximately
57 additional 1/16th quads can be produced at simple rectification costs
using ortho rectification.  On this basis, roughly 53 percent (343 of the
632), of the 1/16th quads should be produced using ortho rectification
production methods.


   If digital products are required, the whole State can be produced using
an ortho rectification process.   Although more expensive than using a
combination  of  simple  and  ortho  rectification  processes,  subsequent
scanning of the maps produced using simple rectification can ultimately be
more  expensive  and  result  in  a  second  generation  product  with  less
resolution.   The extra cost of producing the remaining 47 percent of the
basemaps using an ortho rectification procedure would be approximately
$80,000. However, this cost could be partially or totally offset if a new
photo mission is flown.






                                    42









4.5  Tidal Wetland Data Transfer
    The original tidal wetland boundaries were precisely transferred using
the ZTS, and the boundaries  were easily and accurately  revised during
photointerpretation.   These methods  are well-suited  for future wetland
mapping  projects,  and  if desired,  can be used  to compile  and  revise
Delaware's existing tidal wetland data.


4.6 Data Storage and Distribution

    To achieve maximum flexibility, data storage should be in a format

compatible with DNREC's ARC/INFO GIS.  This will allow for easy revision of
wetland data and access to a powerful array of analysis techniques resident
in the GIS.   An alternative  method  of data storage  is the  use  of a
traditional mylar/blueline system where maps are stored in flat files. The
disadvantage of this alternative includes the possibility of misplacing
individual maps, a high cost of map revision, and no data analysis. A data
distribution system for the public must be reliable, cost effective, fast

and provide an easy way to revise the data. If a mylar/blueline system is
used, all of these requirements are met except ease of revision and data
analysis capability.   If a computer system is used where map sheets are
plotted for the public on request, then speed, reliability, and cost-
effectiveness are compromised.


    Because both systems have positive and negative attributes, a hybrid
system which uses a GIS to store, revise and analyze the data, but relies
on a traditional mylar/blueline method of map distribution for the public
appears to be the best alternative.   It has the cost-effectiveness, speed
and reliability of a mylar/blueline system, and the versatility and
analysis capability of a computer system. The link between the two systems
occurs when a map is revised in the computer.  In that instance, a mylar
plot of the linework is produced and a white-line composite with the photo
basemap is assembled in the photolab.   The new mylar is then used to
replace the old mylar and blueline copies are prepared when requested by

the public.




                                    43



I
I                 The  following matrix  summarizes  the three  techniques  with respect  to
            their ability to distribute maps to the public and their corresponding
ï¿½             attributes.
I
I
I
I
I
S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I                                                         44
I



m-  - -  -  - - - m  -  - - W - m -





                                                        TABLE 4


                                                DATA DISTRIBUTION MATRIX





                      |I          |~ Cost           I            Ease of      Data      i Amount of    Overall
                    Reliability      Effectiveness  I Speed I Revision    Analysis I  Training      Score

                   IIII                                                                   I
                          I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                              I
   All Mylar         | High            High               High      Low          Low           Low           Med
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I                   III
   Hybrid System   I                                   I         I             I            I 
   Computer/Mylar    High    High                   High       High        High                Low High

       ~All Computer  |~Low          |~Low             |~Med  H|~ ig         HI            I    gh  Med
   All Computer      I Low           ILow              IMed    IHigh           IHigh        I High        IMed
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I                   IIiI



I
                            Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.

I,
I
I
I
I
I
1
1    5.0 COST COMPARISON SUMMARY
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I









5.0 COST COMPARISON SUMMARY


     The following matrix summarizes the projected costs outlined in the
previous sections.   These costs are estimates and are meant for use for

planning purposes only.








                        STATE-VIDE WETLANDS MAPPING

                    (Costs are in thousands of dollars)



                         Photo      Basemap    Wetland       Data
                      Acquisition Production Delineation Conversion Total


Existine PhotoeraDhv

1/16 Cowardin               -      $401.8      $1,288.8    $632.0      $2,322.6
1/16 Category 1&2           -      $401.8      $1,023.4    $632.0      $2,057.2
1/4 Cowardin                -      $100.5      $  502.8    $158.0      $  761.3
1/4 Category 1&2            -      $100.5      $  406.4    $158.0      $  664.9



New PhotograDhv

1/16 Cowardin          $50.0       $361.6      $1,159.9    $632.0      $2,203.5
1/16 Category 1&2      $50.0       $361.6      $  921.1    $632.0      $1,964.7
1/4 Cowardin           $50.0       $ 90.5      $  452.5    $158.0      $  751.0
1/4 Category 1&2       $50.0       $ 90.5      $  365.8    $158.0      $  664.3















                                       47



I
         ~~~~~I                        G ~~~Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.



I
I
I
I
I


I
1                       6.0 REFERENCES
I

I
I
A


I
I
I
I
I









6.0  REFERENCES


Cowardin, L.M., V Carter, F.C. Grolet and E.T. LaRoe. December 1979.
   Classification of Wetlands and DeeDwater Habitats of the United States.
   U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife SErvice.  Office of
   Biological Services.  Washington, D.C.  47pp.

Reed, P.B., Jr. March 1988.  National List of Plant SDecies that Occur in
   Wetlands:   Northeast (Region 1).  U.S. Fish and Wildlife SErvice Biol.
   Rept. 88(26.1).

Robinson, A.H., J. Morrison, and R. Sales. 1978. Elements of CartograDhv.
   Department of Geography University of Wisconsin - Madison.  pp 8-10.

Tiner,  Ralph  W.,  Jr.    September  1985.   Wetlands  of Delaware.    U.S.
   Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner MA
   and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
   Wetlands Section, Dover DE. Cooperative Publication. 77 pp.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual
   for  Identifvinm and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.   U.S.  Army
   Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
   Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington,
   D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. December 1987.
   Hvdric Soils of the United States.   National Technical Committee for
   Hydric Soils. Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Department of Agriculture,  Soil Conservation Service.   April 1971.
   Soil Survey of Kent County. Delaware.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.  October 1970.
   Soil Survey of New Castle County. Delaware.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. May 1974. Soil
   Survey of Sussex County Delaware.

State of Delaware.  Pronosed Freshwater Wetlands Act.  June 1991.  (Senate
  Bill 169, June 6, 1991, 136th General Assembly).













                                     49



I
                                 Greenhorne 6 O'Mara, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I





I                   7.0 APPENDICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I



I
                            Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.

I
I
I
I
                  APPENDIX A
I
I
I
                 MAP ACCURACY
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I




                                                           National Mapping Program                                     APPENDIX  A



                                                           Map Accuracy



I









                                                           U.S. Department of the Interior
                                                           Geological Survey
                                                           National Cartographic
                                                           Information Center


I       An inaccurate map is not a reliable map. "X"        National Map Accuracy Standards                       positions of 90 percent of all points tested will
       may mark the spot where the treasure is buried,                                                           be accurate within 1/50th of an inch (0.05
    b hut unless the seeker can locate "X" in relation    To find methods of insuring the accuracy of            centimeters) on the map. The vertical accuracy
       to known landmarks or positions, the map is not   both location (the latitude and longitude of a          standard says that the elevations of 90 percent
       very useful.                                        point) and elevation (the altitude above sea          of all points tested should be correct within hal
         The U.S. Geological Survey publishes maps,        level), the American Society of Photogrammetry    of the contour interval. On a map with a
       orthophotomaps, and other products of high          -  a scientific association of photogrammetrists      contour interval of 10 feet, therefore, the map
|I     levels of accuracy. Dependability is vital, for      who work with aerial photographs -  set up a         will correctly place 90 percent of all points
       example, to engineers, highway officials, and        committee in 1937 to draft accuracy specifica-       tested within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of the actual
       land-use planners who use the Survey's               tions. Sparked by this work, agencies of the         elevation.
       topographic maps as a basic planning tool.           Federal Government, including the Geological           Except for small-scale series, all maps
         As a result, the U.S. Geological Survey           Survey, began their own inquiries and studies of   produced by the U.S. Geological Survey carry
       makes every effort to achieve a high level of        map standards. In 1941 the U.S. Bureau of the    the statement, "This map complies with
       accuracy in all of its published products. An        Budget issued the "United States National Map    National Map Accuracy Standards." Other
       important aim of its accuracy control program is   Accuracy Standards," which applied to all              exceptions involve areas covered by dense
5      to meet the U.S. National Map Accuracy               Federal agencies that produced maps. The             woodland or always obscured by fog or clouds;
       Standards.                                           standards were revised several times, and the        in those areas, aerial photography is unable to
                                                           current version was issued in 1947. (This            provide the detail needed for precise mapping.
                                                           version is printed on the reverse side of the        The Geological Survey tests enough of its
                                                           handout.)                                           maps, as described below, to make sure that th
                                                             As applied to the U.S. Geological Survey          instruments and procedures the Survey uses are
                                                           7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map, the           producing maps that meet the U.S. National
                                                          horizontal accuracy standard requires that the       Map Accuracy Standards.



     Unavoidable Factual Errors                            How the Survey Maintains Map Accuracy                 Standards, it receives certification and is
                                                                                                              published with the statement that it complies
       There are certain kinds of errors in mapmaking    In 1958, the Survey began testing the accuracy         with those standards.
       that are almost unavoidable. These have to do       of its maps systematically. At the outset of this       By such rigorous testing of some of its maps
       with factual rather than mathematical matters.      program, the Survey tested at least 10 percent       the Survey is able to determine that its general
       The items most subject to errors are names and    of. the maps it produced. Today, because of            procedures for collecting map information are
       symbols of features, and the classifications of     technological advances in mapping techniques,        working well enough to assure a high level of
       roads or woodlands.                                 only a small sampling of maps are tested as a        map accuracy.
         Mapmakers cannot apply a numerical value to   method of controlling overall quality. It is rare
       this kind of information: they must rely on local   for a 7.5-minute map to fail the test, but this
       sources for their information. Sometimes the        happens on occasion.
       information is wrong. Sometimes names change           In testing a map chosen at random, U.S.
       or new names and features are added in an area.   Geological Survey experts select 20 well-
       U.S. Geological Survey cartographers and            defined points; a typical point would be a
       editors check all maps thoroughly and, as a         crossroads. Field teams then are dispatched to
       matter of professional pride, attempt to keep       the chosen sites to establish the positions of the
       factual errors to a practical minimum.              20 points, using the most sophisticated field
                                                          surveying techniques. Vertical tests are run
                                                          separately to determine precise elevations. The
                                                          findings are reported back to the Survey, and
                                                          the map is checked against the field survey
                                                          results. If the map is accurate within the
                                                          tolerances of the U.S. National Map Accuracy
                                                                               c_-1





    United States National Map Accuracy               elevations taken from the map, the apparent
    Standards                                         vertical error may be decreased by assuming
                                                    a horizontal displacement within the
    With a view to the utmost economy and             permissible horizontal error for a map of that
    expedition in producing maps which fulfill        scale.  -
    not only the broad needs for standard or            3. The accuracy of any map may be tested
    principal maps, but also the reasonable           by comparing the positions of points whose
    particular needs of individual agencies, locations or elevations are shown upon it
    standards of accuracy for published maps are    with corresponding positions as determined
    defined as follows:                               by surveys of a higher accuracy. Tests shall
       1. Horizontal accuracy. For maps on            be made by the producing agency, which
    publication scales larger than 1:20,000, not      shall also determine which of its maps are to
    more than 10 percent of the points tested         be tested, and the extent of such testing.
    shall be in error by more than 1/30 inch,            4. Published maps meeting these accuracy
    measured on the publication scale; for maps       requirements shall note this fact in their
    on publication scales of 1:20,000 or smaller, legends, as follows: "This map complies
    1/50 inch. These limits of accuracy shall         with National Map Accuracy Standards."
    apply in all cases to positions of well-            5. Published maps whose errors exceed
    defined points only. Well-defined points are      those aforestated shall omit from their
    those that are easily visible or recoverable on    legends all mention of standard accuracy.
    the ground, such as the following: 6. When a published map is a
    monuments or markers, such as bench               considerable enlargement of a map drawing
    marks, property boundary monuments;               (manuscript) or of a published map, that fact
    intersections of roads, railroads, etc.; corners    shall be stated in the legend. For example,
    of large buildings or structures (or center       "This map is an enlargement of a 1:20,000-            How To Obtain More Information
    points of small buildings); etc. In general       scale map drawing," or "This map is an
    what is well-defined will also be determined      enlargement of a 1:24,000-scale published
    by what is plottable on the scale of the map      map."                                                 more about m       p       sect  or
    within 1/100 inch. Thus while the                    7. To facilitate ready interchange and use
    intersection of two road or property lines        of basic information for map construction             your name, address, organizational affiliation.
                                                                                                         and telephone number to:
    meeting at right angles, would come within        among all Federal mapmaking agencies,
                                                                                                             National Cartographic Information Center
    a sensible interpretation, identification of the    manuscript maps and published maps,                                   al
    intersection of such lines meeting at an acute    wherever economically feasible and                        507 Natical S u r v e r
    angle would obviously not be practicable          consistent with the use to which the map is        N a       ton, Vnr
    within 1/100 inch. Similarly, features not        to be put, shall conform to latitude and
    identifiable upon the ground within close         longitude boundaries, being 15 minutes of                 Telephone: 703-860-6045
    limits are not to be considered as test points    latitude and longitude, or 7 ï¿½ minutes, or 3
    within the limits quoted, even though their       Y4 minutes in size.
    positions may be scaled closely upon the
    map. In this class would come timber lines,
    soil boundaries, etc.
      2. Vertical accuracy, as applied to contour
    maps on all publication scales, shall be such
    that not more than 10 percent of the
    elevations tested shall be in error more than
    one-half the contour interval. In checking

S


                                        .......           ..~.             .                        .    or contact the following office:
        '%~~~~~  . I                                            I     A 
                              ï¿½ f l; L I N  I I~ ~   ~ ~ ~            L 
                        5  A  N  TA        R  A       A






                        G   ['  /. F         O   F       ?4   E   N   I  C   v












   Accuracy Statement on U.S. Geological Survey maps                        C-2
                                                                                                                                                      1981



a
                              0Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
I
I


I
I

I                    APPENDIX B
I
I
I
g                FIELD DATA FORMS
I
I

I
I


I
I




                                                                                       APPENDIX B





           I                                              ~~~~~~~~~~DATA FORM
                                         ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
          Field lnvestigato~!. W.  ï¿½rw/C1e~s e-                                     Date:   ~       ~9
          Projectske:        (jAJC)V3                            State:              county:  A/EWt     '~2
          Appilcant~hwner:                                  Plant Community #/Name:
          N~ot.: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
I      ~      ~~Do norm~3 environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
          Yes    -        -     N  (If no. explain on back)
          Has the vegetatlon.sils, andlor hydrology been significantly disturbed?
I      ~      ~~Yes   - No     0~ I yes. explain on back)


        I  Dominant Plant ~~~~~               Indicator   VEEAINIndiaor
                    Dominnt Plnt SpciesStatus    Stratum  Dominant Plant Species                     Status    Stratum

            2.                                                    12.___
                          3 '   ON0\1                            ~~~~~~~~~~13.
                          4.             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~14.
                                                                 15.                                _ _ _

                          7.             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~17.


           10.                                                    20.                                ___
            Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW. and/or FAC
            Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes ___No___
5         ~~~Rationale:



            Series/ph&se:  FIftitD                  vt     (ï¿½OILS   Subgroup:2
            Is the soil onthe hydric sois list?  Yoes I    No          Undetermined
            Is the soil a Histosol? Yes       No ..L.Histic epipedon present? Yes J.    No
            Is the soil: Mottled?  Yes =Zi   No   - Gleyed?  Yes                N
            Matrix Color,                                  Mottle colors:
I      ~       ~~Other hydric soil Indicators:
            Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes   -  No
            Rationale:HDOL Y



            Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes      _ No ....ï¿½I Surface water depth:
            Is the soil saturate?  Yes .-Vy~    No
            Depth to free-statnding water in pit/soil probe hole:
            Uist other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

            Is the wetland hydrology criterion mot?  Yes        No
            Rationale:S   ( /AI    4lATI

                                       JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
            Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes ..Jï¿½   No___
           Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

 1         1 ~~This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
              Assessment Procedure.
 5~~~ 2Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'


 I   B-2










                                                     DATA FORM
                                    ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
     Field Intvoigatoï¿½ ):    a+ra WCies e                                      Date:           S  
     Project/Site:        , ï¿½ z    --w                      State:  Oe.         County:   / -APv   -A-CE6
     Applicant/Owner:                                  Plant Community #/Name:
     Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

     Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
     Yes   V/  No   _   (i no, explain on back)
     Has the vegetation,soids, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
     Yes        No    Z  (If yes, explain on back)

                                                     VEGETATION
                                         Indicator                                              Indicator
      Dominant Plant Species             Status   Stratum  Dominant Plant Species               Status    Stratum
       1.    eofb c   te'-   ,                               11.
       2.  C ,\-',oa,  r~"cc\                                12.
       3. c,. ., ï¿½, -, A                                     13.
       4.  '-T\      o c\C _DD C_                 _r         14.
       5.  \          .;   . '__ _'__._   15.
       6.                                                    16.
       7.                                                    17.
       8.                                                    18.
       9.                                                    19.
      10.                                                    20.
      Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
      Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes      No
      Rationale:



      Series/phase:      /,, /'                                    Subgroup:2
      Is the soil on the hydric soils list?  Yes  JI    No        Undetermined
      Is the soil a Histosol? Yes_      No         Histic epipedon present? Yes   '/  No
      Is the soil: Mottled?  Yes        No         Gleyed?  Yes           No
      Matrix Color:                                   Mottle Colors:
      Other hydric soil indicators:
      Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes  p/    No
      Rationale:

                                                     HYDROLOGY
      Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes          No  P/   Surface water depth:
      Is the soil saturated?  Yes P      No
      Depth to free-tanding water In pit/soil probe hole:
      List other field eviece of surface inundation or  soilaturation.

      Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes  ~     No
      Rationale:

                                 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
      Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes _ /   No
      Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

      1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
        Assessment Procedure.
      2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."


B-2










                                                     DATA FORM
                                    ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
      Field Invstigators):     -Tr-     | /  ts e                                 Date:             S
      Proled/Sits:   C\ t-         - )   y                    State:  .e\          County:  A/1E C_,_"
      Applicant/Owner:                                    Plant Community I/Name:
      Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

      Do norml environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
      Yes  /    No   _   (Hf no, explain on back)
      Has the vegetation soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
      Yes        No  V.  (ff yes, explain on back)

                                                     VEGETATION
                                         Indicator                                               Indicator
      Dominant Plant Species              Status    Stratum  Dominant Plant Species                Status    Stratum
       1.      ReQ_.                                         11.
    / 2.  trï¿½~ fu<.~  C\ueoccI                                12.
       3. 'e -      L                                         13.
       4. QPc  c              -a\                             14.
       5. ~c~,.c ce,--r__ _t_   15.
       6.  <;C~sc ichxcb16.
       7.                                                     17.
       8.                                                     18.                                         _
       9.                                                     19.
      10.                                                     20.
       Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
       Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes         No  1/
       Rationale:

                                                         SOILS
      Series/phas-e:  ,;                  .             (is         Subgroup:2
      Is the soil on the hydric soils list?   Yes _  :   No        Undetermined
      Is the soil a Histosol? Yes        No  Vt   Histic epipedon present? Yes            No     /
      Isthesoil: Mottled?  Yes =         No         Gleyed?  Yes            No   1/
      Matrix Color:                                    Mottle Colors:
      Other hydric soil indicators:
      Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes        No
      Rationale:   4- CNP/-)/A

                                                     HYDROLOGY
      Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes           No  V/j   Surface water depth:         V/4
      Is the soil saturated?  Yes.        No   v"
      Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:    /A
      List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

      Is the wetland hydroloy criterion met?  Yes           No  P'"
      Rationale:

                                 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
      Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes           No _
      Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

      1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
        Assessment Procedure.
      2 Classiication according to "Soil Taxonomy."


B-2









                                                       DATA FORM
                                     ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
      Field nvesttor()    S+r /. i.ese                                          Date:       L -) IDC
      Project/Site:   C                 -                    State: &.Z\-       County:  A/EV'  G4CAf1
      Appilcant/Owner:                                  Plant Community #/Name:
      Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

      Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
      Yes  y"   No         (H no, explain on back)
      Has the vgetationysoils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
      Yes       No  V    (If yes, explain on back)

                                                      VEGETATION
                                          Indicator                                              Indicator
       Dominant Plant Species             Status   Stratum  Dominant Plant Species               Status    Stratum
     X  1.     ~ \ ublAsh  R\ l  eorcr                        11.
        2.  -~tW    oD\C                                      12.
        3  oL-VAer     .ea Co>_- 13.

        5.   ke- ,Are6                                        156.
        6. %i{<4'   F_'^_sï¿½>- C::)c~                          16.
     (7.                                   _         _        19                                  _    _    _c~  17.

             '*c~ 10.                     ______ _(uc -_1 20.
       Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
       Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
       Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes      No
       Rationale:

                                                          SOILS
       Series/phase:  F//i         '/    /aO (F   ubgroupo:2
       Is the soil on the hydric soiti list?  Yes  "v'  No        Undetermined
       Is the soil a Histosol? Yes       No    Histicepipedon present? Yes J             No
       Is the soil: Mottled?  Yes        No        Gleyed?  Yes            No
       Matrix Color:                                  Mottle Colors:
      Other hydric soil indicators:
       Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes   1   No
       Rationale:

                                                      HYDROLOGY
      Is the ground surface Inundated?  Yes   P/   No          Surface water depth:        -  L jrV'-/t c
      Is the soil saturated?  Yes  4     No
      Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
      List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
       kg,)  MNYXIV1  BZ.< /'V             7TPjNAN&
      Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes  J.  No
      Rationale:

                                  JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
      Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes   1    No
      Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

      1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
        Assessment Procedure.
      2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'


B-2









                                                      DATA FORM
                                     ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
      Field Investigator(s):    b'rn /n ;ieï¿½e                                      Date:      H  )Lo  
      Project/Site:      C\c,-         -    15                 State:    -\        County: M/E/  c44A57
      ApplicantOwner:                                    Plant Community #/Name:
      Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

      Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
      Yes   K'  No            (If no, explain on back)
      Has the vegetation,poil, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
      Yes        No   /   (ff yes, explain on back)

                                                     VEGETATION
                                         Indicator          -                                    Indicator
       Dominant Plant Species              Status    Stratum  Dominant Plant Species                Status    Stratum
    1.    Qea   .        o          _d l__                     11.
        2.    t       -\V               \ b us_\_ _er -         12.
       3. LI1 .eS ela -                                        13.
        4. F\~be_, r-,c_    saCoC     d                        14.
        5.   rc~\'. \be       V-C  15.
        6. (' -,e-x' AS                              _ _e_-    16.
        7.                                                      17.
        a'.                                                     18.
        9.                                                      19.
       10.                                                      20.
       Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
       Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes        No
       Rationale:


                                                         SOILS,.,
      Series/phase:   F. ft/11'. 11'3'i , /      ,JI, /Cam  LTSubgrouo:2
      Is the soil on the hydric soils list?  Yes      No  Undetermined
      Is the soil a Histosol? Yes         No    7  Histic epipedon present? Yes           No  L
      Isthesoil: Mottled?  Yes  71   No            Gleyed?  Yes             No
      Matrix Color:                                    Mottle Colors:
      Other hydric soil indicators:
      Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes .      No
      Rationale:

                                                     HYDROLOGY
      Is the ground surface Inundated?  Yes           No   /   Surface water depth:    /I//
      Is the soil saturated?  Yes         No = /
      Depth to free-standing water In pit/soil probe hole:    Al/A
      List other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation.

      is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes          No   V1
      Rationale:

                                 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
      Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes  J        No
      Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

      1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
        Assessment Procedure.
      2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."


B-2









            ï¿½                                              ~~~~~~~~~~DATA FORM
                                          ROUTINE oNsrrE DETERMINATION METHOD1
           Field Investigatoros:   ~    re~4 W       c.e                             Date:      ~     V  .l
I'~~~Prjwk:                     Stt:O-                                               County: KN
           AppllcantiOwner:                                  Plant Community #/Name:
           Note., I a more detailed shte description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
I ~        - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Do normi environmental coniditions exist at the plant community?
           Yes  V     No    _(If no. explain on back)
           Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
           yes   -No .jj (If yes, explain an back)
5-------------------------- --
                                                          VEGETATION
                                              Indicator                                             Indicator
            Dominant Plant Species             Status   Stratum  Dominant Plant Species               Status    Stratum
          :hk .                                 _   _    _ _   _  II.      \   ~        e c \_             _ _    _   _
                        42.              ~~~~~12.                                                     ______
           32.     13     c                     ____      ____                                         ___
            4   CMO~N rnfs.                   ___         __    14.         ~rNf(.&)                   __        __

                          6.  ~~~              _____  _____  ~~~~~16.
            7   IC    LO-  V-                  ____      ___      17.
                 8e-v  p                            -4    I_ _    1S.
               9 ~~ocN                        _____  _____  19.
5~~~~~ ID.         ~             L \ N         ___    ___20.
            Percent of dominant species that are 061, FACW, and/or FAC
            Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes J<' No
5          ~~~Rationale:

                                                              SOILS
           Series/phase: ..,hï¿½oA s(. ID~'<    (~                        Subgroup:2
I          ~~~~Is the soil on thehydric soilsflist?   Yes _..Z'   No   Undetermined
           Is the soil a Histosol? Yes       No  ;V  Histic epipedon present? Yes           No 
           Is the soil: Mottled?  Yes-7-  No           Gleyed?  Yes            No
           Matrix Color:                                  Mottle Colors:
I      ~       ~~Other hydric soad Indicators:
           Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes  ï¿½1 No___
           Rationale:

                                                          HYDROLOGY
           Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes          No lo,"  Surface water depth:
           Is the soil saturated? Yes. W"ï¿½. No
           Depth to free-sanding water in pit/soil probe hole:
           List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

           Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes   W'~.ï¿½   No
           Rationale:

      3                              ~~~~~~~JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
           Is the plant community a wetland? Yes V, No
I         ~~~Rationale for jurisdiclional decision:

            This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
             Assessment Procedure.
ï¿½~~~ 2Classaffctio  accoding to 'Soil Taxonomy.'

I   B-2









                                                           DATA FORM
                                          ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
           FieldI Wstigator(s) qI-lJt   /   i se.                                      Date:        "/  }I' q 
           I  ProjecSlte: c s--d                                   State:  nei-         County:      N
           Applicant/Owner:                                    Plant Community #/Name:
           Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

           Do normal environmgntal conditions exist at the plant community?
           Yes        No   /   (If no, explain on back)
           Has the vrgetation, soils. and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
           Yes   K   No         (If yes, explain on back)

                                                           VEGETATION
                                               Indicator                                               Indicator
            Dominant Plant Species              Status   Stratum  Dominant Plant Species                Status    Stratum
             1.      ,\.    _-- ,___   11.
             2. C- Ac,  <'  C-, X                            _C   12.
             3.  c  tos<_ en_                                 _     13.
             4. ~--LCt:: uDP                                        14.
             5.  BC~S(  \\L5                                        15.
             6.              '   J'~                                16.
             7.                                                     17.
             8.                                                     18.
            9.                                                      19.
            10.                                                     20.
            Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
            Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes       No
5           Rationale:


           Seriealphase:   CsL4 Sa,            S~ci   /           , SOILS( 24 )
           Series/phase:   _~,~~-'r),~    -;,~ /  /~~,                   Subgroup:2
            Is the soil on the hydric soils list?   Yes  No  If    Undetermined
            Is the soil a Histosol? Yes        No   J/  Histic epipedon present? Yes            No   I
           Is thesoil: Mottled?   Yes i       No         Gleyed?  Yes            No / "
           Matrix Color:        h-                          Mottle Colors:
           Other hydric soil indicators:
           Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes    Vt  No
           Rationale:

                                                          HYDROLOGY
           Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes           No L        Surface water depth:
           Is the soil saturated?  Yes  L.   No
           Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 
           List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

           Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes .        No
           Rationale:

                                      JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
           Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes   1       No
           Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

           1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
             Assessment Procedure.
          2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."


    B-2









                                                      DATA FORM
                                     ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
      Field Investigato1(s):        raJ J/  iese.. Date:                                           -) -Ct 
      Project/Site:    C c-.:,         -  State:  X  i                            County:  jEA'r
      ApplicantOwner:                                     Plant Community #IName:
      Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

      Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
      Yes    '/  No         (H no, explain on back)
      Has the vgetatdion, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
      Yes  V    No         (if yes, explain on back)

                                                      VEGETATION
                                          Indicator                                               Indicator
       Dominant Plant Species              Status    Stratum  Dominant Plant Species                Status    Stratum
        1.  R\~      .  ~-',,"-,                               1 1.
        2.      A o                         _"'c_ _A           12.
        3.  Q~     DcL                      ___ ___13.
        4.                                                     14.
        5. niiuemvc uc  o\        D-cA                 15.
                     6 .rev   \v~~~iks sK  S                  16.
        7.                          /                           17.
        .                         I                             18.
        9.                                                      19.
       10.                                                     20.
       Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
       Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes       No
       Rationale:



       Series/phase: F.//..C;~;            /o'    /.0l  Subgroup:2
       Is the soil on the hydric soil list?  Yes  j    No           Undetermined
       Is the soil a Histosol? Yes        No   i    Histic epipedon present? Yes _         No  -
       Is the soil: Mottled?   Yes    ,   No         Gleyed?  Yes  YK    No_
       Matrix Color:  I/ UIok,      r-'                 Mottle Colors:
       Other hydric soil indicators:
       Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes  _ï¿½   No
       Rationale:

                                                      HYDROLOGY
      Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes           No   V    Surface water depth:
      Is the soil saturated?  Yes   Ij'  No
      Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
      List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

      Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes  .1      No
      Rationale:

                                 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
      Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes ."        No
      Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

      1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
        Assessment Procedure.
      2 Classification according to 'Soi Taxonomy."


B-2










            I                                             ~~~~~~~~~~DATA FORM
                                          ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION MAETHODI
           Field investigars)         rivJ        I                                  Date:           IR - CH 
           Project/Site:            cC'           -State:  f                       ~ R County:    :     v
           Applicantl~wner-                                  Plant Community #J/Narne:
           Note. If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

I      ~      ~~Do norm  environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
           Yes   V'   No ___ (if no, explain an back)
           Has the vegetation,3,oils , and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
U      ~      ~~yes   No   le  (if yes, explain on back)

                                                           VEGETATION
                                               Indicator                                              Indicator
            Dominant Plant Species             Status    Stratum  Dominant Plant Species              Status    Stratum

            2.      '"                         _____    12.                                           __
            3.                                                    13.
            4                 ~u~\e~M    ____                     14.

                          6.       )           ____      ____    ~~~~~~~~16.                                    _   _
             7.                                  ______   17.
                          8.                   _______    ________   ~~~~~18.
                          9.                   ______  ______  1~~~~~~~~~~~19.
            I10.                                 _____             20.
            Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
            Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes ___No___
3         ~~~Rationale:



                        Sedealhass:Capri   tj,"(                        Subgroup:2
            Is the soil on the hydric soils list?  Yes     No   #,-"    Undetermined
            Is the soil a Histosol? Yes   -   No   V Histic epipedon present? Yes            No  iL
            Is the soil: Mottled?  Yes- Y'j~.   No ___Glsyed?  Yes   -          No  X'
            Matrix Color:                                  Mottle Colors:
I      ~       ~~Other hydric soil Indicators:
            Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes N
            Rationale: M'-r- -P 4 f'-4-t- lnerr7t~


                                                            HYDROLOGY
           Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes ____    No --kf  Surface water depth:   "A/
           Is the soil saturated?  Yes        No 
           Depth to free-standing water In pit/soil probe hale: AI
           Uist other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

3         ~~Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes ___  No  J
           Rationale:  P'io   0"        D'AN

       3                              ~~~~~~~JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE

           Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes ___No  a~
           Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

            This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
              Assessment Procedure.
I~~~ 2Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.'


U   B-2









                                                      DATA FORM
                                     ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
      Field Investigator(s):       -'Ar J /  ,'  ?e                               Date:      H  )   q 
      Project/Ste:  a    .dz  %e.\  A -        State:    ,                         County:  A--L;s<
      Applicant/Owner:                                    Plant Community #lName:
      Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

      Do normajenvironmental conditions exist at the plant community?
      Yes   !/  No          (If no, explain on back)
      Has the vegatation>Aoils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
      Yes        No   1    (If yes, explain on back)

                                                     VEGETATION
                                         Indicator                                               Indicator
       Dominant Plant Species              Status    Stratum  Dominant Plant Species                Status    Stratum
        1.  Cte-\\     ,- e    (.--C       __                   11.
       2. C                                         :>' eJ'    12.
        3.   L O_ , x                                           13.
       4.    ~C .-\     '       -,                             14.
        5. a?ï¿½2'  Q,," \      :s   ~  -"  3r15.
        6.                                                      16.
        7.                                                      17.
        8.                                                      18.
        9.                                                      19.
       10.                                                      20.
       Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FAC
       Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes   _   No
       Rationale:



      Series/phase: 9  A;  !  bne  Subgroup:2
       Is the soil on the hydric soils list?   Yes     No   J/      Undetermined
       Is the soil a Histosol? Yes         No -' Histic epipedon present? Yes              No  K
       Isthe soil: Mottled?  Yes =         No        Gleyed?  Yes            No    '
       Matrix Color:                                    Mottle Colors:
      Other hydric soil indicators:
       Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes        No .
       Rationale:

                                                     HYDROLOGY
      Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes           No  l/   Surface water depth:
      Is the soil saturated?  Yes ."    No
      Depth to free-standing water In pit/soil probe hole:
      Llt other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

      Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?  Yes ./       No
      Rationale:

                                  JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
      Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes  V        No
      Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

      1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
        Assessment Procedure.
      2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy."


B-2









            U                                              ~~~~~~~~~~DATA FORM
                                         ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
           Field Investigtos)         r-  vJ  _'  -                                   Dae:       T   %  l
I      ~       ~~ProjectSite:                                      State: O-\-A--  County: 
           AppllcantlOwner:                                   Plant Community #/Name:
           Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
           ï¿½-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I       ~     ~~Do norm I enviromental conditions exist at the plant community?
             Yes'  No _ (If no, explain an back)
           Has the vegeation soils and/or hydrology boon significantly disturbed?
           yes        No E      (If yes, explain on back)

                                                          VEGETATION
                                              Indicator         -Indicator
            Dominant Plant Species             Status    Stratum  Dominant Plant Species               Status    Stratum
            1.                                                     11 ____   e_ _   "*'& ).  \0 X k_       __      _
            2.           ~~(N__    __12.
               3 'S-A-A (,KnA-- 00N -    _ __              ___13.
 ' ~ ~ f   ~     I~                             __   __   ___      14.
              5. u                    Po/                          15.
                          <~~~~~~~~_                       _  _   16.
                       7~~~~~~~~~~_                         _ _   17.
                          g   ~~T~\    .-~~    ______    ______ ~19.                                             _  _ _
3           io~~~1.  ~                            _ _ _    _  _  _ 20.                                            _ _ _
            Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC
            Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes      No___
3          ~~~Rationale:


           Series/phase:                                                Subgroup:2
           Is the soil on the hydnic soils list?   Yes ..j.ï¿½  No       Undetermined
           Is the soil a Histosol? Yes        No .&ï¿½j Histic epipedon present? Yes ___No -,'
           Is the soil: Mottled?  Yes  ii:No            Gleyed?  Yes            No
           Matrix Color:      *                            mottle Colors-:
I        ~    ~~Other hydric soil indicators:
           Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes       No   V
           Rationale:   1,4',A

                                                          HYDROLOGY
           Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes -          No J -1,Surface water depth:
           Ls the soil saturated?  Yes .-      No  :iiii?
           Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:t/
           List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
             N/C
U~~~~  h R         elanhyrlgciteionaletYsN
           Rstewtan    driyciteionaletYe

      5                              ~~~~~~~JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
           Is the plant community a wetland?  Yes _____  N

           Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
           ï¿½This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
             Assessment Procedure.
I~~~ 2Classiflcation according to *Soil Taxonomy.'

*   B-2









           I                                             ~~~~~~~~~~DATA FORM
                                         ROUTINE ONSI`TE DETERMINATION METHODI
          Field Investlgator~s:-'                  '-                              Date:       1'9. cit
                        Project/S~~te:   ~   '-  ~  -           Slate:-4-- county:  SyS-~E
          Appllcan~we:                                     Plant Community $/Name,
          Note: If a more detailled site description Is necessary. use the back of data form or a field notebook.

          Do normal envlronimental conditions exist at the plant community?
          Yes        No  V (If no, explain on back)
          Has the yegetatlon, sodls, andilor hydrology been significantly disturbed?
          yes _Z    No    _(if yes, explain on back)
                                                          VEGETATION
                                              Indicator                                             Indicator
           Dominant Plant Species            Status    Stratum  Dominant Pliant Species             Status    Stratum
          1.l    PsC,\  ~,  C, c -c           __    _   _ I   _  1.



                                                                 13.

            7.  '                               _ _  _  _ _  _   17.

            9.                                                   19.
           10.                                                   20.
           Percent of dominant species that are 061, FACW. and/or FAG
           Is the hydrophytlc vegetation critenion met?  Yes     No___
3         ~~~Rationale:



           Series/phase:           'ik          1    lo;3IC ()WII*'ï¿½ubgroup:2
I      ~      ~~Is the soil on the hydric soils list?  Yes  tV    No  Undetermined
           Is the soil a Histosol? Yes       No  VZ:7Histic epipedon present? Yes .4.No
           Is the soil: Mottled?  Yes=1      No       Gleyed?  Yes            No 
           Matrix Color:     L~ ir~                       Mottle Colors:
I      ~      ~~Other hydric soil Indicators:
           Is the hydric soil criterion met?  Yes  I/..ï¿½   No
           Rationale: CF4A&,1AA z~

                                                          HYDROLOGY
           Is the ground surface inundated?  Yes         No ...' Surface water depth:   I1
           Is the soillsaturated?  Yes ...zlï¿½   No
           Depth to free-standing water In pit/oil probe hole:            2)K/
           List other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation.

           Is the wetlanid ydroio~y criterion met? .-Yes  l/  No


      3                             ~~~~~~~JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
           Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ...k-I No
g         ~~~Rationale for jurisdictional decision:

            This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
             Assessment Procedure.
3~~~ 2Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.'


I   B-2









           I                                             ~~~~~~~~~~DATA FORM
                                         ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
          Field Investi      gY, ,I/,Igator e-                                     Date:      q   9 
                    Project/Site:   ~   ~    _ ~  -             State: L)         acounty:  -C,&-s-c
          AppllcantlOwner:                                  Plant Community #IName:
          Note., If a more detailed shte description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
I      ~      ~~Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
          Yes    _No    _(If no, explain on back)
          Has the vegetation, sodls, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
I      ~      ~Yes    No    _(It yes, explain an back)
          ï¿½-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                         VEGETATION
                                             Indicator                                             Indicator
           Dominant Plant Species             Status   Stratum  Dominant Plant Species              Status    Stratum
            I*                                ______W4           11.
            2.1                   c__             _ _   __ _  _   12.
            3.1 Si, )-'~e- 4j                 ____    ____    13.
                         t:                    ___   ___  ~~~~~~~~~~14._                                  _ _       _



                            \'~L~A~u\.  ci\2~  _____  _____  19.
             3   io.   ~ ~ \\-~   ~ \ ~ - o -   C ~ ~ -   _ _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _   20 .
           Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC
           Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?  Yes ___No___
3         ~~~Rationale:


           Series/phase: K(A"          E  34144   IOn~fl  (  *"    Subgroup:2
           Is the sail on the hydric sails list?  Yes'.iï¿½i  No        Undetermined
           Is the soil a Histosol? Yes       No   7 Histic epipedon present? Yes           No.Z..
           Is the soil: Matt~d     s         No -Gleyed?  Yes _    No--..Z17
           Matrix Color:                                  Mottle Colors:
           Other hydric soil indicators:
                 Is th~~e hdi alci   t?  Yte           No_ _
           Rationale:  CKtfAt~~J~T    

                                                         HYDROLOGY
           Is the ground surface lnundateodk  Yes        No ____  Surface water depth:  10A
I      ~      ~~Is the *oil saturated?  Yesj~    No
           Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:    /l  O    / /A7L
           List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

3         ~~~Is the wetland h drolody criterion mot?  Yes  V"    No __
           Rationale:  ï¿½7fl/ZW  piA

      3                              ~~~~~~~JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
           Is the plant community a wetland? Yes _____ No
           Rationale for jurisdictional decision:  L)ELqT>

             This date form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
             Assessment Procedure.
5~~~ 2Classlffcation acrding to 'Soil Taxonomy.'


I   B-2



I
                           Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
I
I
I
A
I
    I                ~~APPENDIX C
I
I
I
 HNAPP COVERAGE OF DELAWARE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I




















                 '1  ~ ~     ~        4/              ~~                                                        -~~                      $1                Leek Airir    oug 'tww1  W   ~.I  is eotweoA  o~




       - t - t~~    ~     U                                                                                                                                          3tStMV13U











                         InII~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~/  L-                       6i         IDI          L 9L1ORI0t  I.  I    O R! I 









                                      II2   t        I               4Iooi                       7 "-l          teli, 916 tiSE! 























                                                                               noL- .              ,.. It i




                                                                                                            ( ~~&~Ct-Si.. i9       as           ei~~s  RI







                                                                                ï¿½11(~~ ~~k  ~            5                    -'  IC

                                                                                zwr if   eI~~~~~r r.      L6~~
                                                                          SISS, ~      n







                                                         NO 091~~~






                                                                                        * ~  ~~~~~~~-a ire





                                                                            cit.,2 1150 04


                                                                              tol LI                                                                     TI4A23T

                                                                                                1400 j512320 102dd5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L
                                                                             ZS lg~lOLO iNil                                                                -










                                                                                                                                                a~~~~~~~rt.





                9  XIQNH~~~~~~~dV                                                                                       -ct> -~~Iw -ï¿½
                                                                                                     2~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e C s ~ 1

m  -  UK -  m  -  a  a  -  a  S  a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ddN 
                                                                                                           wavya                                                                      U        



a
                             G reenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I                       APPENDIX Di
I
I
I
 I SIMPLE VS. ORTHO RECTIFICATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I









                                 APPENDIX D1
                          Simple rs. Ortho Rectification

 Ouad Name 1    2    3                    4     5     6 7 8             9 10 11 12 13 14                          15   1ï¿½

Assawoman Bay, DE S    S S NA S                        S S NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Bennets Pier, DE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA S NA NA NA S S NA NA

Bethany Beach, DE S    S S NA S                        S    S NA S S S NA S S S NA

Bombay Hook, DE-NJ S NA NA NA S S NA NA S S S NA S S S S

Burrsville, MD-DE S S S                    S S S S S O S S S S S S S

Cape Henlopen, DE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA O 0 NA NA S 0 NA NA

Cecilton, DE NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clayton, DE 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 S 0 0 O. S 0 S 0

Delware CityDE-NJ 0 S NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0 S NA NA 0 A A NA

Delmar, DE S S S S S S S 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dover, DE 0 0 S S S 0 0 S O S 0 0 S 0 0 0

Elkton, DE NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0 S NA NA 0 0 NA NA NA 0


Key:

S - Simple rectification is sufficient
0 - Ortho rectification is required
NA - Not applicable, no part of the 1/16th quad is located in the State of Delaware









                                           APPENDIX D1
                                   Slmple vs. Ortho Rectification

  0uad Name 1 2 3                          4 5 6 7 8 9                          10 11 12 13                  14 15 16
Ellendale, DE S 0 0 0 S S 0 S                                             S     S       S 0 S S S S

Fairmount, DE 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S S

Frankford, DE 0 S S S 0 S                                     S     S 0 0 S S S 0 S S

Frederica, DE 0 S                     S S 0 S                 S     S 0 0 S S 0 0 0 S

Georgetown, DE           S     S      S S 0 S                 S     S S S S                    S S S S                     S

Greenwood, DE            S      S     S     S S S             S     S     S S S S S S S                                    S

Harbeson, DE S S S 0 S S S                                          S     S     S S S                 S 0 S                S

Harrington, DE S 0 O 0 S                                S 0 0 S S S S S                                      S S S

Hebron, DE               NA S         S     S    NA S         S S NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Hickman, DE              S      S     S     S     S 0 0 S                 S S 0 S O 0 S S

Kenneth Square, DE NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0

Kenton, DE-MD 0 S 0 0 S                                 S 0 S S S S 0 S S S S

Laurel, DE 0 S S S 0 0 0 S 0 0 O S S S S 0

Lewes, DE                S     NA NA NA S S NA NA S S S S 0 0 0 0

Little Creek, DE S S S S                          S     S     S     S     S S S S S S                                S NA

Marcus HookPA-DE-NJ NA NA NA NA 0 0 S NA 0 0 S NA 0 NA NA NA

Key:

 S - Simple rectification is sufficient
0 - Ortho rectification is required
NA - Not applicable, no part of the 1/16th quad is located in the State of Delaware









                           APPENDIX D1
                      Simple vs. Ortho Rectification

 Ouad Name i 2 3    4    5    6    7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
MarydelDE-MD 0 S S S 0 S    S    S 0 0 S S S S S S

Middletown, DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Milford, DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Millsboro, DE S 0 0 0 S 0 S S S S S S S S S S

Milton, DE 0 0 S    S 0 S S S S 0 0 S 0 0 0 0

Mispillion River, DE S S NA NA S S S NA O S S NA 0 S S S

Newark East, DE O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Newark West, DE         NA NA 0 O NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0 O

Pittsville, DE S S S S S S S S    NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Rehobeth Beach, DE   S    S    NA NA S S NA NA S S NA NA S S NA NA

Saint GeorgesDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0

Seaford East, DE S 0 0 S S 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Seaford West, DE NA S S S NA S S 0 NA S 0 S NA S 0 0

Selbyville, DE S    S    S S 0 0 S 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Sharptown, DE NA O 0 S NA 0 0 S NA 0 0 0 NA 0 S 0

Smyrna, DE 0 S S S 0 0 S S 0 0 S S 0 0 S S

Key:

S - Simple rectification is sufficient
0 - Ortho rectification is required
NA - Not applicable, no part of the 1/16th quad is located in the State of Delaware









                                                   APPENDIX D1
                                         Simple vs. Ortho Rectification

  Ouad Name           1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13    14    15   16
Taylor'sBridge,DE-NJ 0    S    NA   NA   S    S    NA   NA   O    S           S     NA    0      S      S    S

Trap Pond, DE         S    S    S    S    S    S    S    S    S    S          S     S      S     S      S    S

Whaleysville, DE       S    S    S    S    S    S    S    S    NA   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA    NA   NA

Wilmington N, DE-PA  O    0    0    0    0    0    0    O    NA   0           0     0      NA    0      0    0

Wilmington S, DE-NJ  0    0    0    0    0    0    O    S    O    0           0     NA    0      S      NA   NA

Wyoming, DE           0    0    0    0    S    0    0    0    S    S          0     0      S     S      0    0

Key:

 S - Simple rectification is sufficient
 0 - Ortho rectification is required
NA - Not applicable, no part of the 1/16th quad is located in the State of Delaware



I
                            Greenhorne & O'Miara, Inc.
I



I
I

I
I                         APPENDIX D2
I
I
I
I EXPECTED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS


I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I









                                      APPENDIX D2
                           Expected Ground Displacements (in feet)
                 When Simple Rectification is used /nstead of Ortho Rectification

 0uad Name 1 2    3    4    5    6    ?    8    9    10 11 12    13    14 15 16
Assawoman Bay, DE X X X X    X    X X X X X X X X X X X

Bennets Pier, DE X X X X    X    X    X    X    X    X X X X                                           X      X    X

Bethany Beach, DE X X X X X X    X    X    X X X X X X X    X

Bombay Hook, DE-NJ   X    X X X X    X    X    X    X X X                                X X X                X    X

Burrsville, MD-DE X X X    X X X    X X 25 X X X X X X X

Cape Henlopen, DE X X X X X X X    X 20 20 X X X 43    X    X

Cecilton, DE X X X 50 X    X    X    38   53  50 50 31 56    42 42   43

Clayton, DE 25   41 50 41 25   X 25   41 X 25                                     33    33 X 25    X    25

Delware CityDE-NJ 25 X X    X    25 25 X X 44 X X                                       X      41 X X    X

Delmar, DE X X    X X X X X 20 X X X X X X X    X

Dover, DE 36 33 X X X 25 25   X 25   X                                             36 20 X 25    25   25

Elkton, DE X X    173  33 X X 50 X X X 33    33    X X X    33

Ellendale, DE X 17   26   34   X    X    23   X X X X 18 X X X X

Fairmount, DE 20 24 X 20 20 32   20 24   20 20    24    24    20 X X X

Frankford, DE 20 X X X 20 X X    X 24   20 X X X 20 X    X

Frederica, DE 22 X X X 29 X X X 25 28 X X 28 17    17   X

Key:
X - 1/16th quad is either not within the state or is listed in Appendix D1 under simple rectification.









                                      APPENDIX D2
                           Expected Ground Displacements (in feet)

 Ouad Name 1 2    3    4 5 6    7 8 9 10 11 12    13 14    15 16
Georï¿½etown, DE X X X X 19   X    X X X X X X X X X X

Greenwood, DE X X X X X X    X    X X X X X X X X    X

Harbeson, DE X X X 25 X X    X X X X X X X 18 X    X

Harrington, DE X 25   36 38 X X 25   36 X X X X X                                                         X      X X

Hebron, DE X    X X X X X    X    X X X X X                                                       X X X X

Hickman, DE X X X X X 22   25 X X X 17 X 25    25    X    X

Kenneth Square, DE X X X X    X X 212 191 174  168 232   241 172 166 207  249

Kenton, DE-MD 25   X    33   36 X X 25   X X X X 25    X X X X

Laurel, DE 33 X X X 32   29 22 X 22 20 25    X                                                    X X X 17

Lewes, DE X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 20 20 20

Little Creek, DE X X X X X X X X X X X X                                                          X X X X

Marcus HookPA-DE-NJX X X X 224 158 X X 266 133 X X 166 X                                                        X X

MarydelDE-MD 23   X X X 25 X X X 35   25 X X                                                     X X X    X

Middletown, DE 25   50 40 41 27   46 50 41 33   50 50 50 51    50 41   41

Milford, DE 25 22 17 22 33 25   22 X 28 39 26 22    34    22 27 26

Key:
X - 1/16th quad is either not within the state or is listed in Appendix D1 under simple rectification.









                                            APPENDLX D2
                               Expected Ground Displacements (in feet)

 0uad Name 1 2 3                          4    5 6 7 8                  9    10 11 12 13                   14    15   16
Millsboro, DE X 24 20 23 X 19 X                                    X X X              X X X X X X

Milton, DE 25 18   X    X 21 X X X X 25 17 X 25                                                             29 25 17

Mispillion River, DE X X X X                     X     X X X 19 X X                           X      7 X X X

Newark East, DE 190 207 207  183 241 224 108 58 58 47    75                                   69 224   52 62 60

Newark West, DE X              X     2323 199 X X 149 199 X X 116 100 X X 116 183

Pittsville, DE X X X X                           X X X X X X X X                                     X X X X

Rehobeth Beach, DE X X X    X X X X X X X                                             X       X      X X X X

Saint GeorgesDE 33   41 52   51 33   42 59 58 58 58                                  41 41 36 44 51 38

Seaford East, DE X 17 19 X X 19 32   22 X 20 29 21 20 26 27 26

Seaford West, DE X             X     X X X X X 17 X X 17 X X X 27   21

Selbyville, DE X X X X 21 29 X 21 X X X X X X X X

Sharptown, DE X 18 27 X X 18 21 X X 20 22    25 X 25 X 17

Smyrna, DE 43 X X X                              33   19 X X 29   34    X X 27    33 X X

Taylor'sBridgeDE-NJ 7 X X X X X X X 25   X                                           X X 39 X X X

Key:
X - 1/16th quad is either not within the state or is listed in Appendix D1 under simple rectification.









                                                   APPENDIX D2
                                    Expected Ground Displacements (in feet)

  Ouad Name           1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13    14    15   16
Trap Pond, DE         X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X        X      X     X     X      X    X

Whaleysville, DE      X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X    X        X      X     X     X      X    X

Wilmington N, DE-PA  199  232  149  158  241  216  199  124  X    232   108   149   X           207   249  216

Wilmington S, DE-NJ  102  174  149  27   50   59   65   X    66   60    25    X          41    X      X    X

Wyoming, DE           25   26   25   25   X    26   27   27   X    X        33    25    X      X      25   33

Key:
X - 1/16th quad is either not within the state or is listed in Appendix D1 under simple rectification.



I
                          Greenhorne & O'M-ara, Inc.

I
I
I
I
I
I                       APPENDIX E
I
I
I
I SOILS MAPS

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I




                   I                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SUSSEX COUNTY, DELAWARE -SHEET NUMBER 21


               289 000    FEET    ~~~~~ (Joins inset, sheet 8)



































                                                       IN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(



                                           5,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~ 



                                                                                                                      A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


















j~~~~~U      SaA                       Se0

                                               TW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(osset2)                                2300FE


                  I                                                                                                                        CI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~?~~~




                     I)                                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SUSSEX COUNTY, DELAWARE  -SHEET NUMBER  22
                                                      (Joins inset)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              289 000 FEET


                                                                                                               0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~













                                                                                                                                                                                                      293 000 FEET






                                                  0 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c







    o. L..)                                                                                                                              289 000 FEET   (Joins above lef)





              i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c




     0








       Ld







                      273 000  FEET  ~~~(Joins sheet 30)
p        ~     ~CAPC U4CLJ LCIrJ



                                                                    EANEW  CASTLE  COUNTY, DELAWARE  -SHEET  NUMBER  52  (Joins sheet 48)


N                                                            a










                                                                                                                                                                           00:-~~~~~~~~





                      I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

              I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




                    I                                     Scale 1:15840              I    I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ZnS



                                                                                           NEW  CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE -SHEET NUMBER 53










































                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           mA (Joins sheet 49)
1  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~     LAM1-O~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                                       Scale  1:15840                                                   I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



                                                                        KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE -SHEET NUMBER 35                                       T(on he 0                    I




                                                                                                                                                                                        (Joins shetLAu. 30      0



                                   I\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sa8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~    ~    ~     ~ ~ ~ ~~S WZ                                   agW







                                                                                                                                            'fA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
                                                                       M,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' 
                                                                                                                                                                                   Vo ~ ~  EDA   -
                                                                                                                                                                                               Fa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 saA~~~~~

                                                                                                                                                    a W                                        RuB~~~~~~~







;~~~j. ~ S                                                                            a


                                     I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N
                                                                                                                                                              SaB~~~~~~~~~(on shet40
                    I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0Er~                                                                                  00   u




            I                                                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SUSSEX  COUNTY,  DELAWARE  -SHEET  NUMBER  75

                                                                 177 000  FEET                                                                                                                           (Joms sheet 67)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~n ~ee 7








Gumboro                                                          P                                                           v





























                                                                                                                                                                                                           0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             U0



                                                                                                                                             u-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i  ::~ 


              I                                                                                                                                                                                          161  000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FE


                       I  ~~~~~~~~~iJ~~~~~~~~~i-~~~~~~~~MS'JI L.Le~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~