Data is provided as raster GIS layer in .img format. The project final report is included in the full data download or can be downloaded separately. This map is the outcome of a multi-year project to produce a moderate resolution landcover base map for the North Slope of Alaska to serve as a primary base layer for long-term science and planning activities on the North Slope. New Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) 30 meter resolution landcover maps were produced for the far western arctic, and for the area between the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the NPRA, an existing land cover map from the 1990's was "crosswalked" to the NSSI land cover map classes, and a large portion of the map was updated using more recently acquired Landsat TM images. The remaining areas of the NSSI land cover map utilized an existing statewide land cover mosaic compiled by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) that consisted of land cover classes that already matched the NSSI land cover classes and originated primarily from National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) land cover maps. Twenty four classes are identified in the map, covering approximately 60 million acres (24.3 million hectares) stretching from the border of Canada to the western arctic coast and from the Arctic Ocean south to the Brooks Range. References Ducks Unlimited. 2013. North Slope Science Initiative Landcover Mapping Summary Report. 51 pp.

The National Conservation Easement Database (NCED) is the first national database of conservation easement information, compiling records from land trusts and public agencies throughout the United States. This public-private partnership brings together national conservation groups, local and regional land trusts, and local, state and federal agencies around a common objective. This effort helps agencies, land trusts, and other organizations plan more strategically, identify opportunities for collaboration, advance public accountability, and raise the profile of what’s happening on-the-ground in the name of conservation.For an introductory tour of the NCED and its benefits check out the story map.

This story maps highlights the work done by Ducks Unlimited across the nation.Ducks Unlimited Featured Projects StoryMap/Current Featured Projects (2021)DU Data Steward: Last Updated: January 31, 2022.Frequency: Yearly.

The purpose of the Canadian Wetland Inventory (CWI) Progress Map is to display CWI-compatible wetland inventory areas that are completed or in-progress across Canada. This map application also permits the visualization of detailed wetland polygons and attribute information for certain areas where wetland inventory data have been made available. [Ducks Unlimited Canada]

WARNING: This dataset is very large! You will have to zoom in to the map in order to visualize the features. Due to its size, downloading is much more efficient if you select "Download file previously generated". A downloadable shapefile is also available here: https://gis.ducks.org/datasets/minnesota-restorable-wetlands-shapefileHISTORY: In October 2000, a Restorable Wetlands Working Group formed to begin mapping all of the restorable wetlands in the glaciated tallgrass Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota and Iowa. Today, fewer than 10% of the original wetlands - once of unparalleled importance to continental waterbird populations - are left in existence. Fortunately, wetlands once drained for agriculture may be restored to many of their historic functions. Restoration of multiple wetland functions is of utmost effectiveness when focused at priority restoration landscapes, therefore data on the historic distribution of wetlands is an integral part of developing strategic regional habitat restoration plans.Opportunistic wetland restorations often fail to attain out expectations for wetland function. Nevertheless, between $70 - $100,000,000 are spent annually in Minnesota for wetland restoration. A strategic plan for wetland restoration can make these expenditures more effective; however, a strategic wetland restoration plan requires a priori information on the distribution and extent of restorable wetlands. The collective goal of the Restorable Wetlands Working Group is the eventual development of a set of multi-agency decision support tools that collectively comprise a comprehensive environmental management plan for wetlands - all based on the same base data layers and developed in joint consultation. An effort is underway to delineate restorable wetlands in all intensively farmed areas of MN and IA.A pilot project determined the best technique to map drained wetlands in agricultural landscapes was photointerpretation. This pilot project evaluated the accuracy of three potential delineation techniques: digital hydric soils databases, digital elevation models, and manual stereoscopic photointerpretation on high-altitude color infrared aerial photographs. The project covered nearly 4,000 square miles of different land forms and wetland characteristics. After mapping was completed, some 1,500 drained wetlands were observed in the field to assess the accuracy of each technique. Only photointerpretation provided reliable results.One area that fell into the pilot study was the Okabena quadrangle in east-central Jackson County in Minnesota. Okabena vividly illustrates the potential of humans to alter the natural landscape. While Okabena historically encompassed more than 8,940 acres of depressional wetland - 27% of the total area of Okabena - after nearly 100 years of agricultural drainage only 1,280 acres of those original wetlands remain, representing an 86% reduction. When empirical models used to estimate duck pairs on individual wetlands are applied to the change from historic to current wetland habitat within Okabena, they estimate a 92% reduction in the habitat potential for common dabbling duck species.The Okabena quadrangle's wetland density once exceeded that of most of the remaining U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Without strong incentives for wetland conservation and effective methods to delineate high-priority landscapes for restoration, the Okabena quadrangle foretells one possible future for much of the mixed-grass Prairie Pothole Region further west.The Final Status map was completed in 2012.Contact Information:Rex Johnson United States Fish and Wildlife Service 21932 State Highway 210 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 (218) 736-0606 rex_johnson@fws.govPhotointerpretationNational Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) (1:40,000 scale) color infrared (CIR) photographs acquired in April and May, 1991 and 1992, were viewed in stereo pairs at 5X magnification using a Cartographic Engineering stereoscope. A Mylar overlay was mounted on one photo of each stereo pair and a rectangular work area was delineated on the overlay comprising one-quarter of a USGS 7.5 min topographic quadrangle. A minimum of 4 fiduciary marks were placed on the overlay to enable geographic rectification of digital data covering the work area. One fiduciary mark was placed at the corner of the US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 min quadrangle and others at conspicuous road intersections near the other 3 corners of the work area. Drained depressional wetlands were delineated on the Mylar overlay within the work area using a 6X0 (.13 mm diameter) rapidograph pen and indelible ink. Collateral data was consulted during the delineation process. These data consisted of published county soil surveys and descriptions of hydric soils, USDA Farm Service Agency compliance slides (aerial 35 mm slides) acquired in 1993 (immediately after a period of intense precipitation), USGS 7.5 min topographic maps, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. Black and white NAPP photographs (1:40,000 scale) acquired primarily in August and September, 1996, were reviewed and rejected as collateral data because they were acquired under dry conditions.

Other specific photointerpretation protocols were:

1. All drained depressional wetlands, regardless of size, were delineated.

2. NWI-delineated wetlands with a Ad@ (partially drained) modifier in the classification code were not delineated unless the original delineation failed to encompass the complete historic wetland area.

3. NWI-delineated wetlands that did not contain a Ad@ modifier in the classification code were delineated if the original delineation did not include the entire historic wetland area.

4. Wetlands identified on NWI maps which did not exhibit wetland characteristics (i.e. hydrology, hydrophytes, etc) on new (1992) CIR photography were delineated even if no evidence of drainage was apparent.

5. Wetlands not delineated on NWI maps, and in cropland, were delineated.

6. Wetlands not delineated on NWI maps, and in grassland, were not delineated unless evidence of drainage was observed on the aerial photo.

7. Wetlands not delineated on NWI maps, and in trees, were not delineated. Tolerances:

Scanned line data were converted to a polygon using a 6 m fuzzy tolerance. Open polygons were manually closed and cleaned with a 1.2 m fuzzy tolerance which was used for all subsequent data processing.Datafile Description and Attribute Definitions[County_Name]_nwx - National Wetlands Inventory delineations (see https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper for NWI delineation standards). Note: Wetland classifications in these data often differ slightly from the original NWI classification. NWI wetland classifications were simplified for these data by removing mixed classes and multiple special modifiers, and by standardizing letter case. In each case of mixed classes and multiple special modifiers, the first class or special modifier was retained.

Attributes

Restorable - 0 = Islands and the Universal Polygon 100 = Restorable depressional wetland delineated using protocols described aboveCounty Name – The name of the county in which the center of the polygon is located.State Name – The name of the state.FIPS – The FIPS code.

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data for Minnesota provide information on the location, extent, and type of Minnesota wetlands. Natural resource managers use NWI data to improve the management, protection, and restoration of wetlands. Wetlands provide many ecological benefits including habitat for fish and wildlife, reducing floods, recharging, improving water quality, and supporting recreation.

These data were updated through a decade-long, multi-agency collaborative effort under leadership of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). Major funding was provided by the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund.

This is the first statewide update of the NWI for Minnesota since the original inventory in the mid-1980s. The work was completed in phases by dividing the state into five project areas. Those project areas have all been edgematched into a final seamless statewide dataset.

Ducks Unlimited (Ann Arbor, MI) and St. Mary’s University Geospatial Services (Winona, MN) conducted the wetland mapping and classification under contract to the MNDNR. The Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Minnesota provided support for methods development and field validation. The DNR Resource Assessment Office provided additional support for data processing, field checking, and quality control review.

The updated NWI data delineate and classify wetlands according to the system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979), which is consistent with the original NWI. The updated data also contain a simplified plant community classification (SPCC) and a simplified hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification. Quality assurance of the data included visual inspection, automated checks for attribute validity and topologic consistency, as well as a formal accuracy assessment based on an independent field verified data set. Further details on the methods employed can be found in the technical procedures document for this project located on the project website (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/nwi_proj.html ).

DOWNLOAD NOTE: NWI data are only provided in either ESRI File Geodatabase or OGC GeoPackage formats. A Shapefile is not available because the size of the NWI dataset exceeds the limit for that format. If you are unable to use the File Geodatabase or GeoPackage, you can view data through Wetland Finder, an interactive mapping application on the DNR’s website (https://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/ewr/wetlandfinder ).

SYMBOLOGY NOTE: The ESRI File Geodatabase download includes four layer files that symbolize the data using four different wetland classification systems. The symbology layer files for the Cowardin class and the simplified HGM class are grouped into a smaller number of classes than the full elaborated classifications. Detail is available in the Minnesota Wetland Inventory User Guide and Summary Statistics report (https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/nwi-user-guide.pdf ). The layer files for these data have been set up to restrict drawing of the data when zoomed out beyond 1:250,000 scale. This is, in part, to prevent problems with slow performance with this large dataset.

Each point has the following information:A picture of the project siteAcreage conservedPartners and Funding sources on the projectProject CostA brief description of the project site: what was done to improve the area, the local habitat, future directions for the site etc.Update Frequency:SporadicMaintenance Personnel:Kyle Keuchle (GPRO)kkuechle@ducks.org

Ducks Unlimited's regional conservation boundaries, including the full name and abbreviation for each region.Last Updated: UNKNOWNUpdate Frequency: Very InfrequentDU Data Manager: Nick Smith, nrsmith@ducks.org

The Canadian Wetland Inventory (CWI) was established in 2002 by Ducks Unlimited Canada, Environment Canada, the Canadian Space Agency and the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. As a resource, the CWI is valuable for a number of other purposes. It helps to:Focus conservation, restoration and wetland monitoring programsAssess changes in wetland abundance and classification in relation to climate change concernsAssist industry, governments and conservation groups to develop land-use policies and protocolsMeasure performance of those policies and protocols towards landscape sustainability objectivesCWI Data ModelThe CWI is a national approach to establish a consistent framework to map wetlands, in order to build Canada’s capacity to respond to local, regional, national and international drivers. The CWI encourages consistent interpretations by communities of interest through a common data structure and classification system. Based on The Canadian Wetland Classification System, the Canadian Wetland Inventory data model divides wetlands into shallow water, marsh, swamp, fen, and bogs.CWI Progress MapThe CWI Progress Map displays wetland areas across Canada. It’s used to assess future wetland loss, degradation and restoration.This interactive map displays CWI-compatible wetland inventory areas that have been completed or are in progress across Canada. This application also visualizes detailed wetland polygons and information for certain areas where wetland inventory data have been made available.The map has been compiled to make wetland information readily available for a broad range of users. Source and partnership information for the various wetland inventory datasets have been provided within the map application.

We used Point Blue Conservation Science's dynamic open-water dataset of water distribution and our telemetry data for duck locations to develop frequently updated habitat maps for the Central Valley and Suisun Marsh in California during October-March of 2014-15 through 2017-18. Telemetry data additionally was used to compare performance of each of three series of habitat maps produced. To create this tabular dataset, we intersected telemetry locations for ducks (vector point data) with habitat maps (raster mosaics) in a Geographic Information System (GIS) and attributed duck locations with map pixel values representing habitat, non-habitat, or unclassified (if data were missing). To develop maps of waterfowl habitat, we used open water data (version without cloud-filling) publicly available on Point Blue Conservation's California Water Tracker web site and which Point Blue Conservation Science derived at 16-18 day intervals from mosaics of Landsat 8 imagery for the region includin ...

This map shows the completeness of the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED) as of January 2017. Completeness is summarized as the percent of acres of easements in each state that are captured in the NCED.

NOTE: A more current version of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is available: PAD-US 3.0 https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B. The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme (https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-cadastre/). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g. 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The PAD-US geodatabase maps and describes areas using over twenty-five attributes and five feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network in separate feature classes: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. Five additional feature classes include various combinations of the primary layers (for example, Combined_Fee_Easement) to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. This PAD-US Version 2.1 dataset includes a variety of updates and new data from the previous Version 2.0 dataset (USGS, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE ), achieving the primary goal to "Complete the PAD-US Inventory by 2020" (https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-vision) by addressing known data gaps with newly available data. The following list summarizes the integration of "best available" spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented in PAD-US, along with continued improvements and regular maintenance of the federal theme. Completing the PAD-US Inventory: 1) Integration of over 75,000 city parks in all 50 States (and the District of Columbia) from The Trust for Public Land's (TPL) ParkServe data development initiative (https://parkserve.tpl.org/) added nearly 2.7 million acres of protected area and significantly reduced the primary known data gap in previous PAD-US versions (local government lands). 2) First-time integration of the Census American Indian/Alaskan Native Areas (AIA) dataset (https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2019/AIANNH) representing the boundaries for federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands across the nation (as of January 1, 2020, as reported by the federally recognized tribal governments through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey) addressed another major PAD-US data gap. 3) Aggregation of nearly 5,000 protected areas owned by local land trusts in 13 states, aggregated by Ducks Unlimited through data calls for easements to update the National Conservation Easement Database (https://www.conservationeasement.us/), increased PAD-US protected areas by over 350,000 acres. Maintaining regular Federal updates: 1) Major update of the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, and management designations), including authoritative data from 8 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/); 2) Complete National Marine Protected Areas (MPA) update: from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) MPA Inventory, including conservation measure ('GAP Status Code', 'IUCN Category') review by NOAA; Other changes: 1) PAD-US field name change - The "Public Access" field name changed from 'Access' to 'Pub_Access' to avoid unintended scripting errors associated with the script command 'access'. 2) Additional field - The "Feature Class" (FeatClass) field was added to all layers within PAD-US 2.1 (only included in the "Combined" layers of PAD-US 2.0 to describe which feature class data originated from). 3) Categorical GAP Status Code default changes - National Monuments are categorically assigned GAP Status Code = 2 (previously GAP 3), in the absence of other information, to better represent biodiversity protection restrictions associated with the designation. The Bureau of Land Management Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs) are categorically assigned GAP Status Code = 3 (previously GAP 2) as the areas are administratively protected, not permanent. More information is available upon request. 4) Agency Name (FWS) geodatabase domain description changed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (previously U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 5) Select areas in the provisional PAD-US 2.1 Proclamation feature class were removed following a consultation with the data-steward (Census Bureau). Tribal designated statistical areas are purely a geographic area for providing Census statistics with no land base. Most affected areas are relatively small; however, 4,341,120 acres and 37 records were removed in total. Contact Mason Croft (masoncroft@boisestate) for more information about how to identify these records. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://usgs.gov/gapanalysis/PAD-US/. For more information about data aggregation please review the Online PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-manual .

The original Hennepin County Wetland Inventory (HCWI) was developed from the remote sensing of multiple years of orthophotograpy in combination with the analysis of related GIS layers and 10 years of Natural Resources Conservation Service slide reviews to identify and include farmed wetlands. The HCWI does not classify wetlands but merely locates them, whereas the NWI classifies wetlands based on the Cowardin methodology utilizing remotely gathered data and photo signature. For more information concerning detail on procedures followed to develop the HCWI contact Hennepin County Dept. of Environmental Services.National Wetland Inventory Metadata:The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) for east-central Minnesota were updated through multi-agency collaborative effort under leadership from the Minnesota DNR. Operational support for wetland mapping and classification was provided by Ducks Unlimited and support for methods development and field validation were provided by the Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory at the University of Minnesota. Major funding was provided by the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The project area consists of 13 counties in east-central Minnesota including: Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Goodhue, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright Counties. The updated wetland inventory area included complete coverage for all USGS quarter quadrangles that intersect any of these counties (about 7,150 square mile). The NWI classification process for east-central Minnesota consisted of three basic steps: 1) creation of image segments (polygons), 2) RandomForest classification of the segments, and 3) photo-interpretation of the classified image segments. The updated NWI also contains a Simplified Plant Community Classification and a Simplified Hydrogemorphic Classification. Quality assurance of the data included a 100% visual inspection, automated checks for attribute validity and topologic consistency, as well as a formal accuracy assessment based on an independent field verified data set. Further details on the methods employed can be found in the technical procedures document for this project (provide URL). The updated NWI data are primarily based on aerial imagery acquired in 2010 and 2011 as well as other modern ancillary data. This data is intended to replace the original NWI data which was based on imagery acquired in the early 1980s. NWI data support effective wetland management, protection, and restoration. The data provide a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of wetland policies and management actions. These data are used at all levels of government, as well as by private industry and non-profit organizations for wetland regulation and management, land use and conservation planning, environmental impact assessment, and natural resource inventories.

Link to Attribute Table Information: http://gis.hennepin.us/OpenData/Metadata/Wetland%20Inventory.pdf

Use Limitations: This data (i) is furnished "AS IS" with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. General questions about this data set, including errors, omissions, corrections and/or updates should be directed to the Hennepin County Department of Environment & Energy (612-348-3777).

© Hennepin County Department of Environment & Energy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MN Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), US Fish & Wildlife Service, Board of Water and Soil Resources This layer is a component of Datasets for Hennepin County AGOL and Hennepin County Open Data..

Ducks Unlimited high school chapters referred to as Varsity chapters are playing an increasingly important role in Ducks Unlimited's conservation mission.

CryoGeographic Consulting, in association with Palmer Environmental Consulting Group Inc., provided Yukon Energy, Mines and Resources and Yukon Environment with the results of the mapping and classification of wetlands and adjacent upland habitat in the Indian River valley and its major tributaries. This report and its accompanying map set have been updated to reflect study area expansion and additional field reconnaissance completed in the summer of 2017. Interpretation of shallow water wetlands within disturbed landscapes was completed by Ducks Unlimited Canada and incorporated. Five classes of wetlands are distinguished - bogs, fens, swamps, marshes and shallow water - based on field investigations and interpretation of high-resolution aerial photography and satellite imagery. The accompanying report w it h full metadata can be downloaded from: https://yukon.ca/en/mapping-and-classifying-wetlands-indian-river-valley-yukon Distributed from GeoYukon by the Government of Yukon . Discover more digital map data and interactive maps from Yukon's digital map data collection. For more information: geomatics.help@yukon.ca

Vector datasets of CWHR range maps are one component of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR), a comprehensive information system and predictive model for California's wildlife. The CWHR System was developed to support habitat conservation and management, land use planning, impact assessment, education, and research involving terrestrial vertebrates in California. CWHR contains information on life history, management status, geographic distribution, and habitat relationships for wildlife species known to occur regularly in California. Range maps represent the maximum, current geographic extent of each species within California. They were originally delineated at a scale of 1:5,000,000 by species-level experts and have gradually been revised at a scale of 1:1,000,000. For more information about CWHR, visit the CWHR webpage (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR). The webpage provides links to download CWHR data and user documents such as a look up table of available range maps including species code, species name, and range map revision history; a full set of CWHR GIS data; .pdf files of each range map or species life history accounts; and a User Guide.

Ducks Unlimited collegiate chapters referred to as University chapters are playing an increasingly important role in Ducks Unlimited's conservation mission.

WARNING: This dataset is very large! You will have to zoom in to the map in order to visualize the features. This is a Restorable Wetland Inventory (RWI) of partially drained delineations. It provides a map of potential restoration sites based on historic wetlands that were partially drained. This layer is a selection from the Minnesota National Wetlands Inventory Modified (MN_NWI_Modified) layer with just the "d" (partially drained) modifier. To view a comprehensive map of restorable wetlands (drainage-modified and drained-eliminated) it is necessary to display the RWI data (https://gis.ducks.org/datasets/duinc::minnesota-restorable-wetlands/) with this layer.

HISTORY: In October 2000, a Restorable Wetlands Working Group formed to begin mapping all of the restorable wetlands in the glaciated tallgrass Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota and Iowa. Today, fewer than 10% of the original wetlands - once of unparalleled importance to continental waterbird populations - are left in existence. Fortunately, wetlands once drained for agriculture may be restored to many of their historic functions. Restoration of multiple wetland functions is of utmost effectiveness when focused at priority restoration landscapes, therefore data on the historic distribution of wetlands is an integral part of developing strategic regional habitat restoration plans.Opportunistic wetland restorations often fail to attain out expectations for wetland function. Nevertheless, between $70 - $100,000,000 are spent annually in Minnesota for wetland restoration. A strategic plan for wetland restoration can make these expenditures more effective; however, a strategic wetland restoration plan requires a priori information on the distribution and extent of restorable wetlands. The collective goal of the Restorable Wetlands Working Group is the eventual development of a set of multi-agency decision support tools that collectively comprise a comprehensive environmental management plan for wetlands - all based on the same base data layers and developed in joint consultation. An effort is underway to delineate restorable wetlands in all intensively farmed areas of MN and IA.A pilot project determined the best technique to map drained wetlands in agricultural landscapes was photointerpretation. This pilot project evaluated the accuracy of three potential delineation techniques: digital hydric soils databases, digital elevation models, and manual stereoscopic photointerpretation on high-altitude color infrared aerial photographs. The project covered nearly 4,000 square miles of different land forms and wetland characteristics. After mapping was completed, some 1,500 drained wetlands were observed in the field to assess the accuracy of each technique. Only photointerpretation provided reliable results.One area that fell into the pilot study was the Okabena quadrangle in east-central Jackson County in Minnesota. Okabena vividly illustrates the potential of humans to alter the natural landscape. While Okabena historically encompassed more than 8,940 acres of depressional wetland - 27% of the total area of Okabena - after nearly 100 years of agricultural drainage only 1,280 acres of those original wetlands remain, representing an 86% reduction. When empirical models used to estimate duck pairs on individual wetlands are applied to the change from historic to current wetland habitat within Okabena, they estimate a 92% reduction in the habitat potential for common dabbling duck species.The Okabena quadrangle's wetland density once exceeded that of most of the remaining U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Without strong incentives for wetland conservation and effective methods to delineate high-priority landscapes for restoration, the Okabena quadrangle foretells one possible future for much of the mixed-grass Prairie Pothole Region further west.The Final Status map was completed in 2012.CONTACT INFORMATION:Rex Johnson United States Fish and Wildlife Service 21932 State Highway 210 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 (218) 736-0606 rex_johnson@fws.govPHOTOINTERPRETATION: National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) (1:40,000 scale) color infrared (CIR) photographs acquired in April and May, 1991 and 1992, were viewed in stereo pairs at 5X magnification using a Cartographic Engineering stereoscope. A Mylar overlay was mounted on one photo of each stereo pair and a rectangular work area was delineated on the overlay comprising one-quarter of a USGS 7.5 min topographic quadrangle. A minimum of 4 fiduciary marks were placed on the overlay to enable geographic rectification of digital data covering the work area. One fiduciary mark was placed at the corner of the US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 min quadrangle and others at conspicuous road intersections near the other 3 corners of the work area. Drained depressional wetlands were delineated on the Mylar overlay within the work area using a 6X0 (.13 mm diameter) rapidograph pen and indelible ink. Collateral data was consulted during the delineation process. These data consisted of published county soil surveys and descriptions of hydric soils, USDA Farm Service Agency compliance slides (aerial 35 mm slides) acquired in 1993 (immediately after a period of intense precipitation), USGS 7.5 min topographic maps, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. Black and white NAPP photographs (1:40,000 scale) acquired primarily in August and September, 1996, were reviewed and rejected as collateral data because they were acquired under dry conditions. Other specific photointerpretation protocols were:All drained depressional wetlands, regardless of size, were delineated.NWI-delineated wetlands with a Ad@ (partially drained) modifier in the classification code were not delineated unless the original delineation failed to encompass the complete historic wetland area.NWI-delineated wetlands that did not contain a Ad@ modifier in the classification code were delineated if the original delineation did not include the entire historic wetland area.Wetlands identified on NWI maps which did not exhibit wetland characteristics (i.e. hydrology, hydrophytes, etc) on new (1992) CIR photography were delineated even if no evidence of drainage was apparent.Wetlands not delineated on NWI maps, and in cropland, were delineated.Wetlands not delineated on NWI maps, and in grassland, were not delineated unless evidence of drainage was observed on the aerial photo.Wetlands not delineated on NWI maps, and in trees, were not delineated. TOLERANCES: Scanned line data were converted to a polygon using a 6 m fuzzy tolerance. Open polygons were manually closed and cleaned with a 1.2 m fuzzy tolerance which was used for all subsequent data processing.Datafile Description and Attribute DefinitionsDATAFILE DESCRIPTION: National Wetlands Inventory delineations (see https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper for NWI delineation standards). Note: Wetland classifications in these data often differ slightly from the original NWI classification. NWI wetland classifications were simplified for these data by removing mixed classes and multiple special modifiers, and by standardizing letter case. In each case of mixed classes and multiple special modifiers, the first class or special modifier was retained.ATTRIBUTE DEFINITIONS: pl_attribute - simplified NWI classification

major - 2-digit watershed code assigned by MN Department of Natural Resources in their Minnesota Watersheds coverage, circa 1999 (file name -- mnwshpy3)

majname - major watershed name assigned by MN Department of Natural Resources in their Minnesota Watersheds coverage, circa 1999

province - 1-digit province number assigned by MN Department of Natural Resources in their Minnesota Watersheds coverage, circa 1999

provname - watershed province name assigned by MN Department of Natural Resources in their Minnesota Watersheds coverage, circa 1999County Name – The name of the county in which the center of the polygon is located. Restorable - 0 = Islands and the Universal Polygon 100 = Restorable depressional wetland delineated using protocols described aboveNote: A 'd' special modifier in pl_attribute of [County_Name]_nwx indicates a wetland effected by drainage. NWI-delineated wetlands were only re-delineated in the Restorable Wetland Inventory if one of the following conditions applied: 1. The historic basin footprint was significantly larger than the NWI delineation with the 'd' modifier; or 2. The NWI delineation did not include a 'd' modifier and evidence of drainage was visible during the Restorable Wetland Inventory.

This map allows users to view coastal wetland investments in protection, restoration, and enhancement projects across the Great Lakes basin. This is not a comprehensive inventory of coastal wetland investments and relevant data sets will continue to be incorporated as they are identified. Please click on the links below the map frame for more information on individual data sets. When using these data sets, please credit the original data provider.GLRI projects were downloaded 9/14/18 from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's web map, "Coastal Wetland Project Sites Fiscal Year 2010 Through 2017." Monitoring, Assessment, and Planning projects are not included in the coastal wetland database. Coastal wetland projects that lacked a hydrologic connection to the Great Lakes were removed. Overall, 51 projects that did not meet the Blue Accounting coastal wetland project criteria were removed from the original data set. 2018 and 2019 GLRI coastal wetland projects were then filtered out of the GLRI project map and added to the database. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's HabITS data from 2010-2019 within a 5mile buffer of the Great Lakes shoreline is included in the database through a data sharing agreement between The Great Lake Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Overall 14 projects were not included in the database from the 5 mile clip that did not meet BA's criteria as a protection, restoration or enhancement coastal wetland project. Investment projects that list USFWS as the data source have been spatially aggregated to the correlating county shoreline unit to protect private landowner information. Additional data sources include United States Environmental Protection Agency, Michigan Coastal Management Program, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Coldwater Consulting LLC and The City of Racine, Wisconsin. Location Accuracy: coastal wetland project locations may have errors or may reflect the recipient entities' physical location. The precision category definitions clarify confidence of location accuracy. Some project locations were reassigned from the original EPA database to more accurately reflect the coastal wetland project location based on the EPA’s project description, the recipient organization's website and ESRI satellite imagery. Fields: Project Title: title of coastal wetland project.Recipient: recipient entity that received funding for the stated coastal wetland project.Recipient Category: recipient data that is grouped into seven categories (Federal, State, County, Regional Commission, Municipal, Tribal and Non-Profit).Project Description: description of coastal wetland project.Funding Amount: funding amount for coastal wetland project.Latitude: coordinate of the coastal wetland project.Longitude: coordinate of the coastal wetland project.Project Start Date: the date the project began or is planned to begin.Project End Date: the date the project work ended or is planned to end.Project Award End Year: the year the project work ended or is planned to end.Project Acreage: Individual project acreage. Unknown is chosen for all projects that did not disclose individual project acreage.Lake: Great Lake in which the coastal wetland project takes place.County: county in which the coastal wetland project takes place.State: state in which the coastal wetland project takes place.Congressional District: congressional district in which the coastal wetland project takes place.County: the county in which the coastal wetland project takes place. Funder: the entity that funded the coastal wetland project.Funding Type: funding data that is grouped into five categories (Federal, State, County, Regional Commission, Municipal, Tribal and Non-Profit).Protection: project type that applies that is defined as any acquisition of land that protects coastal wetlands.Enhancement: project type that is defined as activities conducted within an existing coastal wetland that increase ecosystem function(s).Invasive Control: sub category for project type "Enhancement" where invasive species treatment and/or removal is conducted.Restoration: project type that applies to projects in which a non-wetland area (e.g., farm field) is restored to be a coastal wetland. Hydrologic Restoration: sub category for project type “restoration” in which a hydrologic connection is restored.Shoreline Softening: sub category for project type “restoration” in which hardened shoreline is converted to natural shoreline. Socio-Economic Benefit: additional project type category that generalizes projects with a socio-economic benefit. Such as, Recreation, Fisheries, Employment and Ecosystem Services. Project Type: combined category for Protection, Enhancement, Invasive Control, Restoration, Hydrologic Restoration and Shoreline Softening. Note: if project type is a sub-category only the sub-category is identified. Multiple Project Locations: a "Yes" or "No" value is assigned for multiple projects. "Yes" is assigned when there are multiple project locations listed in the project description.Location Precision: Values are assigned based on the precision scale defined as the following-High: project site is displayed and accurate based on EPA database project description, recipient organization’s website and Esri satellite imagery.Medium: Location is within the correct county and congressional district for at least one of the listed projects but may not represent the exact project location.Low: project is on the right lakeshore for at least one of the listed project locations, but county/congressional district could be incorrect.Site ID: All projects are assigned a Site ID that correlate to the Object ID of the original projects in the EPA’s “Coastal wetland project sites fiscal year 2010 through 2017” layer.Data Source: data source defines the data provider for the given coastal wetland project.The three data sources are the Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan Coastal Management Program, and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. More data sources will be identified as additional entities provide coastal wetlands investment data.Project Contact: Y/N category for if a project contact has been identified. Contact information will be stored in a related table and unavailable publicly. Verification Status: Verified/Unverified category describes if the coastal wetlands project has been verified by Blue Accounting. Unverified projects have been submitted by a public user and are pending verification by Blue Accounting (these are not shown on the map).

This is a Restorable Wetland Inventory (RWI) of partially drained delineations. It provides a map of potential restoration sites based on historic wetlands that were drained. This layer is a selection from the Minnesota National Wetlands Inventory Modified (MN_NWI_Modified) layer with just the "d" (partially drained) modifier. To see a comprehensive map of restorable wetlands (drainage-modified and drained-eliminated) it is necessary to display the RWI data and the NWX polygons with 'd' modifiers (MN_NWI_Part_Drain layer - this layer).Data Manager: Robb MacleodUpdate Frequency: NeverThis dataset is also available as an online feature class (map) here: https://gis.ducks.org/datasets/duinc::minnesota-partially-drained-nwi-wetlands-1/about. It is very large, so you may have to zoom in to see all the features within an extent.