Wetlands Wetlands provide a multitude of ecological, economic and social benefits. They provide habitat for fish, wildlife and plants - many of which have a commercial or recreational value - recharge groundwater, reduce flooding, provide clean drinking water, offer food and fiber, and support cultural and recreational activities. Unfortunately, over half of America’s wetlands have been lost since 1780, and wetland losses continue today. This highlights the urgent need for geospatial information on wetland extent, type, and change. The National Wetlands Inventory The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the principal US Federal agency tasked with providing information to the public on the status and trends of our Nation's wetlands. The US FWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is a publicly available resource that provides detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of US wetlands. NWI data are used by natural resource managers, within the US FWS and throughout the Nation, to promote the understanding, conservation and restoration of wetlands. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: National Wetlands Inventory. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory

Effective conservation and restoration of estuarine wetlands require accurate maps of their historical and current extent, as well as estimated losses of these valued habitats. Existing coast-wide tidal wetland mapping does not explicitly map historical tidal wetlands that are now disconnected from the tides, which represent restoration opportunities; nor does it use water level models or high-resolution elevation data (e.g. lidar) to accurately identify current tidal wetlands. To better inform estuarine conservation and restoration, we generated new maps of current and historical tidal wetlands for the entire contiguous U.S. West Coast (Washington, Oregon, and California). The new maps are based on an Elevation-Based Estuary Extent Model (EBEEM) that combines lidar digital elevation models (DEMs) and water level models to establish the maximum historical extent of tidal wetlands, representing a major step forward in mapping accuracy for restoration planning and analysis of wetland loss. Building from this new base, we also developed an indirect method for mapping tidal wetland losses, and created maps of these losses for 55 estuaries on the West Coast (representing about 97% of historical West Coast vegetated tidal wetland area). Based on these new maps, we estimated that total historical estuary area for the West Coast is approximately 735,000 hectares (including vegetated and nonvegetated areas), and that about 85% of vegetated tidal wetlands have been lost from West Coast estuaries. Losses were highest for major river deltas. The new maps will help interested groups improve action plans for estuarine wetland habitat restoration and conservation, and will also provide a better baseline for understanding and predicting future changes with projected sea level rise.

DescriptionThis spatial data layer provides an indirect estimate of emergent, scrub-shrub and forested tidal wetland losses for 55 non-lagoonal estuaries spanning the contiguous United States West Coast. Losses are defined as those areas that were tidal wetlands prior to European settlement, but are no longer tidal wetlands today. Losses were estimated by comparing the National Wetland Inventory's mapping of current tidal wetlands to the Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership (PMEP)’s West Coast Estuary Extent mapping. The estuary extent layer represents the likely historical extent of tidal wetlands, so areas not identified as current tidal wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) are considered "lost" in this analysis. This dataset has also removed from the "loss" calculation, those areas that are known to have been restored (see report entitled: "U.S. West Coast Mapping of Restored Tidal Areas: Methodology, Results & Recommendations."Results from this effort were published in the PLOS one article, "Insights into estuary habitat loss in the western Untied States using a new method for mapping maximum extent of tidal wetlands."A follow-on project resulted in the report "Comparing historical losses of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent tidal wetlands on the Oregon coast, USA: A paradigm shift for estuary restoration and conservation".Important limitations to be aware of when interpreting the results of this assessmentBecause PMEP’s estuary extent layer is an elevation-based map, areas lost due to fill that elevates the land surface above current tide range are not captured in the estuary extent layer or in this loss analysis.Restored areas incorporated into this analysis are based on a snapshot in time. Restored areas that were classified as "complete" were used in this analysis; restored areas in planning stages or in progress were not included. Certain restored areas are shown as current tidal wetlands only if they were mapped through an update to the NWI after they were restored. In addition, restoration site conditions and stages of recovery will vary by site, depending on date and success of the restoration effort.Lagoonal estuaries were excluded from this assessment, because PMEP’s estuary extent mapping may not adequately reflect the historical extent of these features.In many areas of the U.S. West Coast, the NWI data are outdated (some NWI maps are > 20 years old); or they do not identify current tidal conditions with great accuracy. This can result in an overestimate or underestimate of losses. Inaccuracies in NWI classification are most common in middle to upper estuaries.Initial stages of the analysis showed that the methods worked best in larger estuaries where the scale of the NWI mapping was better suited to the analysis, and where substantial human alteration is evident. For this reason, we focused the analysis on estuaries with >100 hectares of historical tidal wetland area, and with substantial human alterations (55 estuaries). This subset of PMEP estuaries captures the vast majority (97%) of historical West Coast tidal wetlands by area.Despite these limitations, this analysis provides a broad assessment of the magnitude and spatial distribution of tidal wetland losses across West Coast non-lagoonal estuaries, and provides decision support for conservation and restoration of West Coast estuarine resources. This West Coast-wide mapping of tidal wetland losses will help PMEP and other organizations understand the magnitude of tidal wetland losses coastwide, and how those losses vary among estuaries, regions, and ranges of fish species of concern. The results also provide an important starting point for future assessments such as analysis of climate change impacts.For more information about this project and data layer – view the presentation from project team leader, Laura Brophy (Estuary Technical Group, Institute for Applied Ecology). Metadata (PDF)Download (zipped file geodatabase, requires email registration for download ~ 139 MB)Version 2.0, Updated 1/7/2020 to include "restored areas."If you have any questions about these data, please e-mail us at info@pacificfishhabitat.org.

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..

DescriptionThis spatial data layer provides an indirect estimate of emergent, scrub-shrub and forested tidal wetland losses for 55 non-lagoonal estuaries spanning the contiguous United States West Coast. Losses are defined as those areas that were tidal wetlands prior to European settlement, but are no longer tidal wetlands today. Losses were estimated by comparing the National Wetland Inventory's mapping of current tidal wetlands to the Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership (PMEP)’s West Coast Estuary Extent mapping. The estuary extent layer represents the likely historical extent of tidal wetlands, so areas not identified as current tidal wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) are considered "lost" in this analysis. This dataset has also removed from the "loss" calculation, those areas that are known to have been restored (see report entitled: "U.S. West Coast Mapping of Restored Tidal Areas: Methodology, Results & Recommendations."Results from this effort were published in the PLOS one article, "Insights into estuary habitat loss in the western Untied States using a new method for mapping maximum extent of tidal wetlands."A follow-on project resulted in the report "Comparing historical losses of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent tidal wetlands on the Oregon coast, USA: A paradigm shift for estuary restoration and conservation".Important limitations to be aware of when interpreting the results of this assessmentBecause PMEP’s estuary extent layer is an elevation-based map, areas lost due to fill that elevates the land surface above current tide range are not captured in the estuary extent layer or in this loss analysis.Restored areas incorporated into this analysis are based on a snapshot in time. Restored areas that were classified as "complete" were used in this analysis; restored areas in planning stages or in progress were not included. Certain restored areas are shown as current tidal wetlands only if they were mapped through an update to the NWI after they were restored. In addition, restoration site conditions and stages of recovery will vary by site, depending on date and success of the restoration effort.Lagoonal estuaries were excluded from this assessment, because PMEP’s estuary extent mapping may not adequately reflect the historical extent of these features.In many areas of the U.S. West Coast, the NWI data are outdated (some NWI maps are > 20 years old); or they do not identify current tidal conditions with great accuracy. This can result in an overestimate or underestimate of losses. Inaccuracies in NWI classification are most common in middle to upper estuaries.Initial stages of the analysis showed that the methods worked best in larger estuaries where the scale of the NWI mapping was better suited to the analysis, and where substantial human alteration is evident. For this reason, we focused the analysis on estuaries with >100 hectares of historical tidal wetland area, and with substantial human alterations (55 estuaries). This subset of PMEP estuaries captures the vast majority (97%) of historical West Coast tidal wetlands by area.Despite these limitations, this analysis provides a broad assessment of the magnitude and spatial distribution of tidal wetland losses across West Coast non-lagoonal estuaries, and provides decision support for conservation and restoration of West Coast estuarine resources. This West Coast-wide mapping of tidal wetland losses will help PMEP and other organizations understand the magnitude of tidal wetland losses coastwide, and how those losses vary among estuaries, regions, and ranges of fish species of concern. The results also provide an important starting point for future assessments such as analysis of climate change impacts.For more information about this project and data layer – view the presentation from project team leader, Laura Brophy (Estuary Technical Group, Institute for Applied Ecology). Metadata (PDF)Download (zipped file geodatabase, requires email registration for download ~ 139 MB)Version 2.0, Updated 1/7/2020 to include "restored areas."If you have any questions about these data, please e-mail us at info@pacificfishhabitat.org.

The Louisiana State Legislature created the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in order to conserve, restore, create, and enhance Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The restoration plans developed persuant to these acts specifically require an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetland loss. This data set consists of digital data describing wetland land-water classification for the Naomi Outfall Management for the year 2009. The land-water data were derived from interpretation of color infrared photography flown at 1:12000. All areas characterized by emergent vegetation, wetland forest, scrub-shrub, or uplands are classified as land, while open water, aquatics, and mud flats were classified as water.

The Louisiana State Legislature created the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in order to conserve, restore, create, and enhance Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The restoration plans developed persuant to these acts specifically require an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetland loss. This data set consists of digital data describing wetland land-water classification for the Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration for the year 2010. The land-water data were derived from interpretation of color infrared photography flown at 1:12000. All areas characterized by emergent vegetation, wetland forest, scrub-shrub, or uplands are classified as land, while open water, aquatics, and mud flats were classified as water.

The NWI 2005 was an update to the original 1978 NWI Layer produced by US Fish and Wildlife Service, and utilized 1998 and 2005 imagery to map wetland loss/change over time. Classification of wetlands is based on the Cowardin Wetland Classification system with a minimum mapping unit of 1/10 acre. Wetland data produced by interpreting aerial imagery and digitizing boundaries in a heads up GIS environment. The most current up to date statewide wetland inventory for Michigan available as of 2020. NWI 2015 update is currently in progress in a partnership between EGLE and Ducks Unlimited, with expected statewide completion in 2025.

Field Name

Descriptions

NWICode

The wetland classification codes are a series of letter and number codes that have been developed to adapt the national wetland classification system to map form. These alpha-numeric codes correspond to the classification nomenclature that best describes a particular wetland habitat. For example, PFO1A = Palustrine (P), Forested (FO), Broad-leaved Deciduous (1), Temporarily Flooded (A).

Acres

Size of the wetland.

WETLAND_TYPE

Written description of the wetland type.

For questions about this content reach out to Jeremy Jones at jonesj28@michigan.gov.

The Louisiana State Legislature created the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in order to conserve, restore, create, and enhance Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The restoration plans developed persuant to these acts specifically require an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetland loss. This data set consists of digital data describing wetland land-water classification for the Four Mile Canal Terracing and Sediment Trapping for the year 2010. The land-water data were derived from interpretation of color infrared photography flown at 1:12000. All areas characterized by emergent vegetation, wetland forest, scrub-shrub, or uplands are classified as land, while open water, aquatics, and mud flats were classified as water.

The dataset presented here represents a circa 1932 land/water delineation of coastal Louisiana used in part of a larger study to quantify landscape changes from 1932 to 2016. The original dataset was created by Dunbar, and Britsch, and Kemp (2006). The original dataset is citable as: Dunbar, J. B. and Britsch, L. D., 2006. Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana 1932-2001. Map 1. Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report, ERDC/GSL TR-05-13, Land Loss Map 1 through 7. The USGS Wetland and Aquatic Research Center altered the original data by improving the geo-rectification in specific areas known to contain geo-rectification error, most notably in coastal wetland areas in the vicinity of Four League Bay in western Terrebonne Basin. The dataset contains two categories, land and water. For the purposes of this effort, land includes areas characterized by emergent vegetation, upland, wetland forest, or scrub-shrub were classified as land, while open water, a ...

NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps of habitats. Created by NOAA Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R), ESI maps provide a concise summary of coastal resources that are at risk if an oil spill occurs nearby to help responders reduce the environmental consquences of the spill and the cleanup efforts. Additionally, ESI maps can be used by planners--before a spill happens--to identify vulnerable locations, establish protection priorities, and identify cleanup strategies.Habitat rankings rate how sensitive an area would be to an oil spill. The ranking scale goes from 1 to 10. A rank of 1 represents habitats with the least susceptibility to damage by oiling. Examples include steep, exposed rocky cliffs and banks. The oil cannot penetrate into the rock and will be washed off quickly by the waves and tides. A rank of 10 represents habitats most likely to be damaged by oiling. Examples include protected, vegetated wetlands, such as mangrove swamps and saltwater marshes. Oil in these areas will remain for a long period of time, penetrate deeply into the substrate, and inflict damage to many kinds of plants and animals. For a list of all habitat rankings, see http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/shoreline-sensitivity-rankings-list.html.NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps of habitats. Created by NOAA Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R), ESI maps provide a concise summary of coastal resources that are at risk if an oil spill occurs nearby to help responders reduce the environmental consquences of the spill and the cleanup efforts. Additionally, ESI maps can be used by planners--before a spill happens--to identify vulnerable locations, establish protection priorities, and identify cleanup strategies.Habitat rankings rate how sensitive an area would be to an oil spill. The ranking scale goes from 1 to 10. A rank of 1 represents habitats with the least susceptibility to damage by oiling. Examples include steep, exposed rocky cliffs and banks. The oil cannot penetrate into the rock and will be washed off quickly by the waves and tides. A rank of 10 represents habitats most likely to be damaged by oiling. Examples include protected, vegetated wetlands, such as mangrove swamps and saltwater marshes. Oil in these areas will remain for a long period of time, penetrate deeply into the substrate, and inflict damage to many kinds of plants and animals. For a list of all habitat rankings, see http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/shoreline-sensitivity-rankings-list.html.NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps of habitats. Created by NOAA Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R), ESI maps provide a concise summary of coastal resources that are at risk if an oil spill occurs nearby to help responders reduce the environmental consquences of the spill and the cleanup efforts. Additionally, ESI maps can be used by planners--before a spill happens--to identify vulnerable locations, establish protection priorities, and identify cleanup strategies.Habitat rankings rate how sensitive an area would be to an oil spill. The ranking scale goes from 1 to 10. A rank of 1 represents habitats with the least susceptibility to damage by oiling. Examples include steep, exposed rocky cliffs and banks. The oil cannot penetrate into the rock and will be washed off quickly by the waves and tides. A rank of 10 represents habitats most likely to be damaged by oiling. Examples include protected, vegetated wetlands, such as mangrove swamps and saltwater marshes. Oil in these areas will remain for a long period of time, penetrate deeply into the substrate, and inflict damage to many kinds of plants and animals. For a list of all habitat rankings, see http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/shoreline-sensitivity-rankings-list.html.

The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) from 2005 was produced by Great Lakes/Atlantic Region Office (GLARO) of Ducks Unlimited with funding provided by EGLE. The NWI 2005 was an update to the original 1978 NWI Layer produced by US Fish and Wildlife Service, and utilized 1998 and 2005 imagery to map wetland loss/change over time. Classification of wetlands is based on the Cowardin Wetland Classification system with a minimum mapping unit of 1/10 acre. The NWI+ data includes hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands in addition to the normal Cowardin wetland classification, and includes functional assessment information of each wetland in the attribution. The full report on this dataset is available by request to the Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams Unit.

Field Name

Descriptions

NWICode

The wetland classification codes are a series of letter and number codes that have been developed to adapt the national wetland classification system to map form. These alpha-numeric codes correspond to the classification nomenclature that best describes a particular wetland habitat. For example, PFO1A = Palustrine (P), Forested (FO), Broad-leaved Deciduous (1), Temporarily Flooded (A).

HGMCode

Code for the Landscape Level Assessment. Combines each of the coded types. For example TEBAVR = Terrene Basin Vertical Flow

Acres

Size of the wetland polygon.

NWIKey

Unique Identifier Key used in the 2005 NWI update.

ImageDate

Date of the imagery in which the wetland polygon was mapped from.

VegOrNotVeg

Is the wetland vegetated or open water (non veg).

EGLEType

Type of wetland open water, emergent, forested, shrub scrub etc.

Modifier

Wetland modifier identifying excavated, ditched, impounded etc.

Landform

The type of geological feature in which the wetland resides. Slope (SL) Wetlands occurring on a slope of 5% or greater. Island (IS) A wetland completely surrounded by water. Fringe (FR) Wetland occurs in the shallow water zone of a permanent waterbody. *NWI water regime F, G, and H Floodplain (FP) Wetland occurs on an active alluvial plain along a river and some streams. *Modifiers FPba (Basin) and FPfl ( Flat) Basin (BA) Wetland occurs in a distinct depression. *NWI water regime C and E Flat (FL) Wetland occurs on a nearly level landform. *NWI water regime A and B

Landscape_Position

Landscape position values are determined by cross referencing NWI with hydrology and topography. NWI polygons that spatially intersect a stream/river in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) are classified as lotic. Lotic type wetlands can be further refined to indicate their adjacency to a stream or a river (lotic stream or lotic river). High resolution NHD data was used to differentiate rivers from streams in this analysis. A NHD classification completed by MDNR, Institute for Fisheries Research separated rivers by temperature gradient (cold, cool, warm) and size, based on average water flows (cubic feet per second or CFS). This dataset was used in the LLWFA analysis to mark this distinction. NWI Polygons that are determined to be within the basin of a lake are classified as lentic. Identifying the extent of a lake basin, and thus which wetlands fall within it, is done with the assistance of digital elevation models (DEM). NWI Polygons that don’t intersect surface water features or aren’t spatially located within a lake basin are classified as terrene

Waterbody_Type

Waterbody type classification is the simplest of the 4 LLWW descriptors. Ponds, lakes, and rivers are classified as such based explicitly on NWI Cowardin code. Lakes and ponds were separated at the 5-acre mark, all open-water polygons less than or equal to 5 acres were classified as ponds, while all open-water polygons larger than 5 acres were classified as lakes. The 5 acre cutoff was chosen to remain consistent with previously existing EGLE regulations. High resolution NHD data was used to differentiate rivers from streams in this analysis. A NHD classification completed by MDNR, Institute for Fisheries Research separated rivers by temperature gradient (cold, cool, warm) and size, based on average water flows (CFS) This dataset was used in the LLWFA analysis to mark this distinction.

Waterflow_Path

Water flow path, otherwise known as hydrodynamics, is classified by automated and manual interpretation of the intersection of NHD surface water features and NWI. Automated methods include intersecting NHD and NWI to capture throughflow wetlands (in-stream wetlands), both natural and artificial. A distinction is drawn in NHD between natural stream/river features and artificial canal/ditch features. Vegetated NWI wetlands that don’t intersect any surface water body are classified as isolated. Detailed coding was developed in an effort to differentiate intermittent, artificial, and perennial connections between wetlands and other surface waterbodies. Any wetland classified as lentic (Landscape Position) is automatically assigned a water flow path of bidirectional, accounting for the tidal effects of lakes on adjacent wetlands

Landform1

A secondary code used to determine type of floodplain and if a vegetated wetland is associated with a pond. Associated w/Pond (pd) Basin (ba) Flat (fl)

Landscape1

Field used to display if a wetland falls within a Headwater area Headwater (hw)

HMValues

All function Values combined to perform the count.

FunCount

Number of Functions each wetland could be performing.

FloodWaterStorage

Function field for Flood Water Storage H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

StreamflowMaintenance

Function field for Streamflow Maintenance H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

NutrientTransformation

Function field for Nutrient TransformationH (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

SedimentRetention

Function field for Sediment Retention H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

ShorelineStabilization

Function field for Shoreline Stabilization H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

FishHabitat

Function field for Fish Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

StreamShading

Function field for Stream Shading H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

WaterfowlWaterbirdHabitat

Function field for Waterfowl and Water Bird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

ShorebirdHabitat

Function field for Shorebird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

InteriorForestBirdHabitat

Function field for Interior Forest Bird Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

AmphibianHabitat

Function field for Amphibian Habitat. H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

CORIWetlandsSpecies

Function field for Conservation of Rare Imperiled Wetland Speices H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

GroundWaterInfluence

Function field for Ground Water Influence H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

CarbonSequestration

Function field for Carbon Sequestration H (2) = High M (1) = Moderate

PathogenRentention

Function field for Pathogen Retention 1 = Wetlands that intersect 303d listed streams, 2 = Wetlands within a 500 ft buffer of 303d streams, 3 Streams that intersect wetlands that filter Pathogens, 4 wetlands within a 500 ft buffer that filter pathogens. For historical wetlands this would be showing best areas to do potential restoration.

For more information about this content reach out to Jeremy Jones at jonesj28@michigan.gov.

A map showing the location of Champaign County, Illinois, USA.

The main purpose of the Conservation Atlas of Wetlands is to develop a portrait of the wetlands of the St. Lawrence Valley using innovative mapping methods in order to favor bird conservation by helping land managers to make decisions about land use and bird habitat conservation. Another objective was to develop methods needed to allow a monitoring of the St. Lawrence Valley wetlands and make a link to a potential national mapping project of that type as an indicator on environment quality in Canada.

The Atlas is considered a large-scale project because of the area covered, the great variability in the area’s characteristics and the various types of wetlands encountered. Using Canadian RADARSAT satellite images, along with other sources of information available (e.g., digital hydrological and hypsometric data) and data from Landsat-TM images, the mapping has required certain adjustments and the use of innovative methods. Achieving the objectives set at the start of the project in the spring of 1999 has resulted in the following products:

• A global mosaic of the distribution of wetlands in southern Québec
• A 1:50 000 scale map showing the location of wetlands in each of the area’s regional county municipalities (RCMs)
• Descriptive statistics on wetlands' characteristics (number, category, average area, etc.) to complement the maps,
• Information and links to to sites that promote wetland conservation.

In the last few years, the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada has been carrying out a project to map natural habitats using Landsat-TM imagery. This mapping has been used to apply methods for analysing landscape features in a large area of southern Québec in order to ensure adequate habitat protection and development. As a follow-up to the project, the CWS decided to produce an Atlas of wetlands in the St. Lawrence Valley. The CWS’s work has shown that multispectral imagery does not provide all the information needed to differentiate between some wetlands. For example, forested wetlands and flooded forests can be confused with other forested areas. To increase the accuracy of wetland identification, it was decided that radar imagery should be incorporated into the project. Research carried out in Canada and abroad is attempting to show that this imagery, when acquired at the right time, can help to differentiate wetlands and map agricultural land and grasslands.

Mapping and appropriate wetland monitoring require remote sensing tools that are independent of cloud cover and sensitive to soil humidity. Equipped with SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) captors capable of providing high-resolution images unaffected by daytime and nighttime weather conditions, the Canadian RADARSAT satellite is able to map the exact boundaries of wetlands.

Phase I: image acquisition

Image acquisition took place between April 27, 1999 and June 11, 1999. The Data Acquisition Division of the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing established an acquisition plan based on various criteria, i.e., image acquisition had to take place in the ascending mode to eliminate the dew effect, it had to be carried out in a short time period (after flooding but before the dry spells of summer) and it had to offer the possibility of producing a mosaic for a large portion of the territory. Thirty-four images were finally acquired, 28 in fine mode and 6 in standard mode.

Following this acquisition, a partnership agreement between Environment Canada, the Canadian Space Agency and the Geography Department of the University of Montréal was signed. In the project’s first phase, Landsat-TM images were used to mask certain soil types, which resulted in the production of a mosaic of RADARSAT images of southern Québec and preliminary image classification results. Although the product was generally satisfactory, it was felt that the mosaic image and the classified RADARSAT images could be improved.

Phase II: a classification method development

The CWS thus developed a new classification method that combines several formats of RADARSAT images (texture, homogeneity and contrast indices) with the decorrelated Landsat-TM image and a digital elevation model. Several hundreds ground control points were used as basic information to guide tree analysis. The preliminary results at test sites proved the method’s efficiency for these types of images. The wetlands of 68 RCMs in the St. Lawrence Valley could thus be classified.

Phase III: final validation of maps

Another phase of our work was the final validation of the Atlas maps. This was made possible through extensive consultation with Quebec wetlands experts (see the list of financial and technical partners in the Acknowledgements section). In all, over 60 hours of consultation took place with more than 30 experts in the various regions of Southern Québec. This final phase of the mapping project was dubbed “Operation Open House.”

A complete series of 1:50 000 scale maps, drawn up according to the boundaries of the topographical maps (UTM co-ordinates), was printed out so that the various experts could examine them and, if necessary, signal any errors and plot the required corrections. It should be noted that there are two possible sources of discrepancies. Errors may have occurred during the image classification process, or may be a result of changes to wetlands since the two series of satellite images used for this project were taken (1993-1994 and 1999). We have assigned a specific code in the map legend for areas where such changes have occurred so that, until a second map is produced in the coming years, the reader can get an idea of the dynamics of these habitats and the major areas of change (disappearance or degradation of wetlands) resulting from various human activities.

Phase IV: towards interactivity

A fourth phase now allows to produce a map for the sector of their choice through the interactive mapping procedure and improve the database by adding supplementary information.

Citation

Bélanger, L., M. Grenier, 2003. Atlas de conservation des terres humides. Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune, région du Québec

UNEP/GRID Documentation Summary for Data Set: Mean Annual Precipitation from GRID and UEA/CRU Background The World Atlas of Desertification was published by UNEP in 1992 as the result of a cooperative effort between UNEP's Desertification Control Programme Activity Centre (DC/PAC), the Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) and the Global Resource Information Database (GRID).GRID compiled and/or derived most of the global and regional databases, produced the maps and carried out the data analyses and tabulations for the Atlas, assisted by a Technical Advisory Group on Desertification Assessment and Mapping composed of various international experts. The Atlas includes information and many maps derived from the Global Assessment of Human-Induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD), as conducted in 1990 by the International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC) at Wageningen, The Netherlands, on behalf of UNEP. Aside from GLASOD's data on soil degradation, and in order to capture the multi-dimensional nature of global desertification processes, other data layers relating to global climate and vegetation were compiled by GRID for inclusion in the 1992 World Atlas of Desertification. Both the source climate data and advice on the production of all climate surfaces were obtained from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA/CRU), U.K. GRID Production of the Mean Annual Precipitation Surface For the purpose of Desertification Atlas map production, the GRID-Nairobi data analysts required data from a fairly dense network of global climate stations.

In the face of sea level rise and as climate change conditions increase the frequency and intensity of tropical storms along the north-Atlantic Coast, coastal areas will become increasingly vulnerable to storm damage, and the decline of already-threatened species could be exacerbated. Predictions about response of coastal birds to effects of hurricanes will be essential for anticipating and countering environmental impacts. This project will assess coastal bird populations, behavior, and nesting in Hurricane Sandy-impacted North Carolina barrier islands. The project comprises three components: 1) ground-based and airborne lidar analyses to examine site specific selection criteria of coastal birds; 2) NWI classification habitat mapping of DOI lands to examine habitat change associated with Hurricane Sandy, particularly in relation to coastal bird habitat; and 3) a GIS-based synthesis of how patterns of coastal bird distribution and abundance and their habitats have been shaped by storms such as Hurricane Sandy, coastal development, population density, and shoreline management over the past century. We will trace historic changes to shorebird populations and habitats in coastal North Carolina over the past century. Using historic maps and contemporary imagery, the study will quantify changes in shorebird populations and their habitats resulting from periodic storms such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012, to development projects such as the Intracoastal Waterway early in the last century, as well as more recent urban development. We will synthesize existing data on the distribution and abundance of shorebirds in North Carolina and changes in habitats related to storms, coastal development, inlet modifications, and shoreline erosion to give us a better understanding of historic trends for shorebirds and their coastal habitats. Historic data on the distribution and abundance of shorebirds are available from a variety of sources and include bird species identification, _location, activity, habitat, and band data. Habitat maps of federal lands in the study area will be created using National Wetlands Inventory mapping standards to assess storm impacts on available nesting habitat. Ground-based LIDAR and high-accuracy GPS data will be collected to develop methods to estimate shorebird nest elevation and microtopography to make predictions about nest site selection and success. Microtopography information collected from lidar data in the area immediately surrounding nest site locations will be used to analyze site specific nesting habitat selection criteria related to topography, substrate (coarseness of sand or cobble), and vegetation cover. The data will be used in future models to assess storm impacts on nest locations, predict long-term population impacts, and influence landscape-scale habitat management strategies that might lessen future impacts of hurricanes on coastal birds and lead to better restoration alternatives.

This map shows the relationship between Federal payments toward conservation and wetlands and payments toward producers not including conservation/wetlands. The data is produced by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA).Areas in yellow show where there are high amounts of Federal payments toward Conservation in comparison to other types, whereas areas in light blue have a higher amount of Federal payments toward all other agriculture in comparison to Conservation. Areas in black have an overall high amount of both types of payments. The map uses size to emphasize which counties received the overall largest receipts in US dollars.In 2017, the average farm received an average of $13,906, and conservation/wetland programs received and average of $6,980. These are the central colors of the map in order to anchor the map around the national figure. Areas with a pattern above or below the national average are highlighted by the colors along the edges of the legend (mentioned in the previous paragraph). For more information about Federal payments in 2017, visit this summary table from the USDA.For more information about the relationship mapping style used in this map, visit this blog. About the data and source:The Census of Agriculture, produced by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA), provides a complete count of America's farms, ranches and the people who grow our food. The census is conducted every five years, most recently in 2017, and provides a in-depth look at the agricultural industry.This layer summarizes payments made to producers by the Federal government from the 2017 Census of Agriculture at the county level.This layer was produced from data downloaded using the USDA's QuickStats Application. The data was transformed using the Pivot Table tool in ArcGIS Pro and joined to the county boundary file provided by the USDA. The layer was published as feature layer in ArcGIS Online.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Payments made to producers by the Federal governmentCoordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: United States including Hawaii and AlaskaVisible Scale: All ScalesSource: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service QuickStats ApplicationPublication Date: 2017AttributesThis layer provides values for the following attributes. Note that some values are not disclosed (coded as -1 in the layer) to protect the privacy of producers in areas with limited production.Federal Payments - Operations with ReceiptsFederal Payments - Receipts in US DollarsFederal Payments - Receipts in US Dollars per OperationFederal Payments not Including Conservation and Wetland Programs - Operations with ReceiptsFederal Payments not Including Conservation and Wetland Programs - Receipts in US DollarsFederal Payments not Including Conservation and Wetland Programs - Receipts in US Dollars per OperationFederal Payments for Conservation and Wetland Programs - Operations with ReceiptsFederal Payments for Conservation and Wetland Programs - Receipts in US DollarsFederal Payments for Conservation and Wetland Programs - Receipts in US Dollars per OperationConservation and wetland programs include:Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP)Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)Other programs with payments to producers include:2014 Agricultural Act (Farm Bill)Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)Price Loss Coverage (PLC)Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)Loan Deficiency PaymentsDisaster Assistance ProgramsState and local government agricultural program payments and Federal crop insurance payments are not included.Additionally, attributes of State Name, State Code, County Name and County Code are included to facilitate cartography and use with other layers.

The Louisiana State Legislature created the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in order to conserve, restore, create, and enhance Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The restoration plans developed persuant to these acts specifically require an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetland loss. This data set consists of digital data describing wetland land-water classification for the GIWW- Perry Ridge West Bank Stabilization for the year 2010. The land-water data were derived from interpretation of color infrared photography flown at 1:12000. All areas characterized by emergent vegetation, wetland forest, scrub-shrub, or uplands are classified as land, while open water, aquatics, and mud flats were classified as water.

In the face of sea level rise and as climate change conditions increase the frequency and intensity of tropical storms along the north-Atlantic Coast, coastal areas will become increasingly vulnerable to storm damage, and the decline of already-threatened species could be exacerbated. Predictions about response of coastal birds to effects of hurricanes will be essential for anticipating and countering environmental impacts. This project will assess coastal bird populations, behavior, and nesting in Hurricane Sandy-impacted North Carolina barrier islands. The project comprises three components: 1) ground-based and airborne lidar analyses to examine site specific selection criteria of coastal birds; 2) NWI classification habitat mapping of DOI lands to examine habitat change associated with Hurricane Sandy, particularly in relation to coastal bird habitat; and 3) a GIS-based synthesis of how patterns of coastal bird distribution and abundance and their habitats have been shaped by storms such as Hurricane Sandy, coastal development, population density, and shoreline management over the past century. We will trace historic changes to shorebird populations and habitats in coastal North Carolina over the past century. Using historic maps and contemporary imagery, the study will quantify changes in shorebird populations and their habitats resulting from periodic storms such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012, to development projects such as the Intracoastal Waterway early in the last century, as well as more recent urban development. We will synthesize existing data on the distribution and abundance of shorebirds in North Carolina and changes in habitats related to storms, coastal development, inlet modifications, and shoreline erosion to give us a better understanding of historic trends for shorebirds and their coastal habitats. Historic data on the distribution and abundance of shorebirds are available from a variety of sources and include bird species identification, location, activity, habitat, and band data. Habitat maps of federal lands in the study area will be created using National Wetlands Inventory mapping standards to assess storm impacts on available nesting habitat. Ground-based LIDAR and high-accuracy GPS data will be collected to develop methods to estimate shorebird nest elevation and microtopography to make predictions about nest site selection and success. Microtopography information collected from lidar data in the area immediately surrounding nest site locations will be used to analyze site specific nesting habitat selection criteria related to topography, substrate (coarseness of sand or cobble), and vegetation cover. The data will be used in future models to assess storm impacts on nest locations, predict long-term population impacts, and influence landscape-scale habitat management strategies that might lessen future impacts of hurricanes on coastal birds and lead to better restoration alternatives.

The Louisiana State Legislature created the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in order to conserve, restore, create, and enhance Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The restoration plans developed persuant to these acts specifically require an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetland restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetland loss. This data set consists of digital data describing the photomosaic data for the West Pointe a la Hache Outfall Management for the year 2009. Color-infrared aerial photography is acquired and scanned on a photogrammetric scanner that produces a high-resolution image in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF). Each frame is then orthorectified and mosaicked to produce a seamless image.