DOCSLIB.ORG

US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 Wetland Classification: a Review Lewis M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 Wetland Classification: a Review Lewis M University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Natural Resources Science Faculty Publications Natural Resources Science 1995 US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review Lewis M. Cowardin Francis C. Golet University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/nrs_facpubs Terms of Use All rights reserved under copyright. Citation/Publisher Attribution Cowardin, L.M. & Golet, F.C. Vegetatio (1995) 118: 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045196 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00045196 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources Science at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vegetatio 118: 139-152, 1995. 139 (~) 1995 Kluwer Academic ['ublishers. Printed in Belgium. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review* Lewis M. Cowardin I & Francis C. Golet 2 1us Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND 58401, USA; 2Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R102881, USA Key words: Classification, Definition, United States, Wetland Abstract In 1979 the US Fish and Wildlife Service published and adopted a classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. The system was designed for use in a national inventory of wetlands. It was intended to be ecologically based, to furnish the mapping units needed for the inventory, and to provide national consistency in terminology and definition. We review the performance of the classification after 13 years of use. The definition of wetland is based on national lists of hydric soils and plants that occur in wetlands. Our experience suggests that wetland classifications must facilitate mapping and inventory because these data gathering functions are essential to management and preservation of the wetland resource, but the definitions and taxa must have ecological basis. The most serious problem faced in construction of the classification was lack of data for many of the diverse wetland types. Review of the performance of the classification suggests that, for the most part, it was successful in accomplishing its objectives, but that problem areas should be corrected and modification could strengthen its utility. The classification, at least in concept, could be applied outside the United States. Experience gained in use of the classification can furnish guidance as to pitfalls to be avoided in the wetland classification process. Introduction The USFWS has a long history of involvement in wetland classification and inventory. Conservation and Development of US Classification management of migratory waterfowl are a responsibil- The wetland classification in use today by the US ity of the USFWS based on migratory bird treaties Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was developed with Canada and Mexico. Thus, conservation of wet- between 1975 and 1979 (Cowardin etal. 1979). It orig- land habitats is one of the agency's primary objectives. inated from a need by the USFWS to inventory the wet- The USFWS conducted the first quantitative national land resources of the United States. The stated purpos- inventory of wetlands in the mid-1950s; the results es of the classification were to: (1) describe ecological were summarized in US Fish and Wildlife Service units that have certain homogeneous natural attributes; Circular 39 (Shaw & Fredine 1956). That inventory (2) arrange those units in a system that would aid deci- was based on a classification, developed by Martin sions about resource management; (3) furnish units et al. (1953), which included 20 classes of wetlands. for inventory and mapping; and (4) provide uniformi- After close scrutiny, the authors found that the Martin ty in concepts and terminology throughout the United et al. classification was inconsistently applied among States. The history and development of the classifica- regions. The reason was primarily lack of detail in def- tion is closely related to the development of the Nation- initions. By the mid-1970s, when the current inventory al Wetland Inventory (NWI). This paper describes and was being planned, there had been an explosion of pub- evaluates the classification. The inventory is described lic and professional interest in wetlands that transcend- by Wilen and Bates (this volume). ed the habitat function for migratory birds. Numer- ous excellent regional classifications (e.g., Stewart & * The uS Government's right to retain a non-exclusive, royalty Kantrud 1971, Golet & Larson 1974; Jeglum et al. free licence in and to any copyright is acknowledged. 140 1974; Odum et al. 1974; Zoltai et al. 1975; Millar Overview of the classification 1976) also had been developed since the Martin et al. classification. Definition of wetland and deepwater habitat In January of 1975, the USFWS convened a small Under the USFWS classification (Cowardin et al. number of interested individuals from various agen- 1979:3), wetlands are defined as follows: cies and regions to formulate the skeleton of a new Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial classification that could serve as the basis for a new and aquatic systems where the water table is usu- national wetlands inventory. Three important points ally at or near the surface or the land is covered were agreed upon: (1) none of the existing classifi- by shallow water. For the purposes of this clas- cations met the requirement for national uniformity, sification wetlands must have one or more of the (2) regional classifications would not suffice because of following three attributes: (I) at least periodical- the confusion resulting at regional boundaries, and (3) a ly, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; new classification should be hierarchical in structure. (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric Following that meeting, Cowardin and Carter (1975) soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturat- prepared a tentative classification that was presented ed with water or covered by shallow water at some at a July 1975 national workshop, where 150 federal time during the growing season of each year. and state wetland management personnel were invit- ed to comment on the proposed classification (Sather In support of this definition, the USFWS has prepared 1976). Input from that workshop resulted in major a list of plants known to occur in U.S. wetlands. The modifications of the Cowardin and Carter paper and first draft, released in 1977, contained 4235 species; the led to the preparation of a revision, Interim Classifi- latest version includes more than 7000 species (Reed cation of Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats of the United 1988). Each of the species in this list is placed into States (Cowardin et al. 1976). The revised system was one of four categories according to its frequency of tested using both high- and low-altitude aerial pho- occurrence in wetlands: Obligate Wetland, Faculta- tographs and field-checks at 21 sites scattered across tive Wetland, Facultative, or Facultative Upland (see the country. The NWI staff worked with the authors Table 1 for definitions). of the 1976 classification to resolve practical prob- Also to supplement the USFWS wetland definition, lems encountered during testing. At the same time, the the US Soil Conservation Service has developed a defi- authors tested the evolving classification at numerous nition of hydric soil, taxonomic and hydrologic criteria locations throughout the United States. The final ver- for identifying hydric soils, and a list of the hydric soils sion was published in 1979 (Cowardin et al. 1979); it of the United States. The first draft, Hydric Soils of the was reprinted in 1985 and 1992. The classification has United Sates, was published in 1982 (Soil Conserva- been used by the NWI for 13 years. It has also been tion Service 1982) and subsequent editions (Soil Con- widely used by other federal and state regulatory and servation Service 1985, 1987, 1991) were released. In resource management agencies, as well as by wetland the latest edition (Soil Conservation Service 1991:1), researchers. hydric soil is defined as follows: A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or Objectives of paper ponded long enough during the growing season to This paper has four objectives: (1) to acquaint the read- develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. er with the structure of the USFWS classification sys- tem, (2) to explain the rationale for the approach to The aim of the NWI was to map not only those areas classification, (3) to review successes as well as prob- traditionally regarded as wetlands, but also those deep- lems encountered during its use, and (4) to evaluate er waters which frequently are associated with wet- the potential for use of the system on an international lands. For that reason, Cowardin et al. (1979) made scale. a clear distinction between wetlands and 'deepwa- ter habitats'. The latter were defined as permanently flooded lands lying below the deepwater boundary of wetlands. In nontidal areas, the boundary between wet- land and deepwater habitat was placed at a depth of 2 m below low water- the maximum depth to which rooted, emergent plants normally grow (Welch 1952; Zhadin 141 Table 1. Wetland indicator categories for plants that occur in US wetlands (fromReed 1988). Category
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
    Pfego-/6^7fV SDMS DocID 463450 ^7'7/ Biological Services Program \ ^ FWS/OBS-79/31 DECEMBER 1979 Superfund Records Center ClassificaHioFF^^^ V\Aetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States KPHODtKtD BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFOR/V^ATION SERVICE U.S. IKPARTMEN TOF COMMERCt SPRINGMflO, VA. 22161 Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) C # The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish . and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on key environmental issues which have an impact on fish and wildlife resources and their supporting ecosystems. The mission of the Program is as follows: 1. To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as a primary source of Information on natural fish and wildlife resources, par­ ticularly with respect to environmental impact assessment. 2. To gather, analyze, and present information that will aid decision­ makers in the identification and resolution of problems asso­ ciated with major land and water use changes. 3. To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Department of the Interior development programs, such as those relating to energy development. Information developed by the Biological Services Program is intended for use in the planning and decisionmaking process, to prevent or minimize the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Biological Services research activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues, the decisionmakers involved and their information neeids, and an evaluation of the state^f-the-art to Identify information gaps and determine priorities. This Is a strategy to assure that the products produced and disseminated will be timely and useful.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Classification As Per Cowardin Et Al. 1979
    Wetland Classification as per Cowardin et al. 1979 PSS01-e0tg Ω PEM01-f0tg PAB03-h0tg Matthew J. Gray University of Tennessee Why Classify Wetlands? 1) Delineate their edges •Boundary of development 2) Estimate their area •Management, Excavation, Mitigation 3) To Create maps Caribbean Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm FWS/OBS-79/31 December 1979 Lewis Cowardin (USFWS) Virginia Carter (USGS) Francis Golet (URI) Edward LaRoe (NOAA) Biological Classification System •Wetlands •Deepwater Habitats Jurisdictional USACE 1987 Manual 1 Boundary Between Wetland and Deepwater Systems Non-tidal: Emergent Plants! >2 m (6.6 ft) in Depth (low water level—fall) Permanently flooded rivers and lakes Tidal: Extreme low water level (spring tides) Permanently flooded brackish marshes or marine areas The Classification System Hierarchical Structure Systems (5), Subsystems (8), Classes (11), Subclasses (28), Dominance Type, Modifiers (3) Marine Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine Palustrine •Hydrologic •Geomorphic •Chemical •Biological Hierarchical Structure 2 Marine System Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and its coastline, where salinities are >30 ppt except at the mouths of estuaries. OR, 1) Extreme high water 3) Estuarine system OR, limit of spring tides If #2 not present 2) Wetland emergent 4) Continental shelf vegetation (ocean extent) “High-energy Systems” Subsystems: Subtidal: Substrate is continuously submerged (deepwater) Intertidal: Substrate is exposed and flooded by tides (wetland) Marine Subsystems Intertidal Subtidal Splash Zone Estuarine System Tidal deepwater systems and wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly- obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta Wetland Classification System – June 1, 2015
    Alberta Wetland Classification System June 1, 2015 ISBN 978-1-4601-2257-0 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-4601-2258-7 (PDF) Title: Alberta Wetland Classification System Guide Number: ESRD, Water Conservation, 2015, No. 3 Program Name: Water Policy Branch Effective Date: June 1, 2015 This document was updated on: April 13, 2015 Citation: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2015. Alberta Wetland Classification System. Water Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division, Edmonton, AB. Any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding the content of this document may be directed to: Water Policy Branch Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 7th Floor, Oxbridge Place 9820 – 106th Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 Phone: 780-644-4959 Email: [email protected] Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Information Centre Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920 108 Street Edmonton Alberta Canada T5K 2M4 Call Toll Free Alberta: 310-ESRD (3773) Toll Free: 1-877-944-0313 Fax: 780-427-4407 Email: [email protected] Website: http://esrd.alberta.ca Alberta Wetland Classification System Contributors: Matthew Wilson Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Thorsten Hebben Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Danielle Cobbaert Alberta Energy Regulator Linda Halsey Stantec Linda Kershaw Arctic and Alpine Environmental Consulting Nick Decarlo Stantec Environment and Sustainable Resource Development would also
    [Show full text]
  • The Representation of Wetland Types and Species in RAMSAR Sites in The
    The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 1 2 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area White waterlily, Nymphaea alba The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area In order to get a better reference the future and long-term planning of activities aimed for the protection of wetlands and their ecological functions, WWF Sweden initiated an evaluation of the representation of wetland types and species in the RAMSAR network of protected sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area. The study was contracted to Dr Mats Eriksson (MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Sweden), who has been assisted by Mrs Alda Nikodemusa, based in Riga, for the compilation of information from the countries in Eastern Europe. Mats O.G. Eriksson MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Tommered 6483, S-437 92 Lindome, Sweden With assistance by Alda Nikodemusa, Kirsu iela 6, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 3 Contents Foreword 5 Summary 6 Sammanfattning på svenska 8 Purpose of the study 10 Background and introduction 10 Study area 12 Methods 14 Land-use in the catchment area 14 Definitions and classification of wetland types 14 Country-wise analyses of the representation of wetland types 15 Accuracy of the analysis 16 Overall analysis of the
    [Show full text]
  • Part 1: Wetland Wildlife Values
    Amy Marrella, Acting Commissioner www.ct.gov/dep P a r t 1 : Wetland Wildlife V a l u e s Presentation Objectives Introduce wetland wildlife concepts Identify different types of freshwater wetlands using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USF&W) Wetland Classification System Identify wetland wildlife values 2 Introduction to Wetland Wildlife Concepts 3 Introduction Wetlands are highly productive ecosystems with diverse habitats and vegetative structure. The various types of wetlands provide food and cover for a variety of wildlife. 4 Introduction For example, a vernal pool, which is temporarily flooded, provides critical spring breeding habitat for salamanders but is not suitable for beavers which require permanently flooded areas. 5 Biogeography of Wetland Wildlife Wildlife Distribution Factors Open water to vegetation ratio Adjacent land-use Topography 6 Biogeography Generally speaking the larger the wetland, and the more diverse the habitat, the greater the wildlife diversity. This concept is called biogeography. The park area in the photograph, while aesthetically pleasing, provides little cover and food for wildlife because of minimal habitat diversity. 7 1. The size and shape of the wetland 2. The adjacent topography, landscape, water depth and water quality 3. Type and structure of vegetation present in the wetland 4. The amount of open water and Wetland Wildlife Distribution time of year it is Factors present 8 The distribution of vegetation in comparison to the amount of open water, is also important. Muskrats, for example, prefer 20% open water versus 80% vegetation. Waterfowl, on the other hand, prefer a one to one ratio between open Open Water to Vegetation Ratio water and vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Vegetation to Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands
    United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-02-020 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Methods for evaluating wetland condition #10 Using Vegetation To Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-02-020 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Methods for evaluating wetland condition #10 Using Vegetation To Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands Major Contributors Department of Biology, Kenyon College Siobhan Fennessy Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mark Gernes Ohio Environmental Protection Agency John Mack Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center Denice Heller Wardrop Prepared jointly by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Office of Science and Technology) and Wetlands Division (Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds) United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-02-020 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Notice The material in this document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) technical review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The information contained herein is offered to the reader as a review of the “state of the science” concerning wetland bioassessment and nutrient enrichment and is not intended to be prescriptive guidance or firm advice. Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. Appropriate Citation U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Using Vegetation To Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-020. This entire document can be downloaded from the following U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
    FGDC–STD-004-2013 Second Edition Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States Adapted from Cowardin, Carter, Golet and LaRoe (1979) Wetlands Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee August 2013 Federal Geographic Data Committee Established by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) promotes the coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geographic data. The FGDC is composed of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, State, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); the Library of Congress; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the National Archives and Records Administration; and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Additional Federal agencies participate on FGDC subcommittees and working groups. The Department of the Interior chairs the committee. FGDC subcommittees work on issues related to data categories coordinated under the circular. Subcommittees establish and implement standards for data content, quality, and transfer; encourage the exchange of information and the transfer of data; and organize the collection of geographic data to reduce duplication of effort. Working groups are established for issues that transcend data categories. For more information about the committee, or to be added to the committee’s newsletter mailing list, please contact: Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat c/o U.S. Geological Survey 590 National Center Reston, Virginia 22092 Telephone: (703) 648-5514 Facsimile: (703) 648-5755 Internet (electronic mail): [email protected] Anonymous FTP: ftp://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/pub/gdc/ World Wide Web: http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/fgdc.html This standard should be cited as: Federal Geographic Data Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Classification As Per Cowardin Et Al. 1979
    Wetland Classification as per Cowardin et al. 1979 PSS01-e0tg Ω PEM01-f0tg PAB03-h0tg Matthew J. Gray University of Tennessee Why Classify Wetlands? 1) Delineate their edges 2) Estimate their area •Boundary of development 3) To create maps •Management, Excavation, Mitigation Caribbean Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm FWS/OBS-79/31 December 1979 Lewis Cowardin (USFWS) Virginia Carter (USGS) Francis Golet (URI) Edward LaRoe (NOAA) Biological Classification System •Wetlands •Deepwater Habitats Jurisdictional USACE 1987 Manual 1 Boundary Between Wetland and Deepwater Systems Non-tidal: Emergent Plants! >2 m (6.6 ft) in Depth (low water level—fall) Permanently flooded rivers and lakes Tidal: Extreme low water level (spring tides) Permanently flooded brackish marshes or marine areas The Classification System Hierarchical Structure Systems (5), Subsystems (8), Classes (11), Subclasses (28), Dominance Type, Modifiers (3) Marine Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine Palustrine •Hydrologic •Geomorphic •Chemical •Biological Hierarchical Structure 2 Palustrine System All freshwater wetlands dominated (>30% coverage) by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens •Non-tidal or tidal Also, all wetlands lacking above vegetation (or dominated by non-persistent emergents) having all these 4 characteristics: 1) <8 ha in size 3) Depth <2 m 2) No active wave formed 4) Salinity <0.5ppt shoreline No subsystem!! No Palustrine System subsystems!!
    [Show full text]
  • Ponds and Wetlands to Maintain Healthy Native Plant Communities That Foster the Moist Microclimates Preferred by Amphibians and Forage Plants Needed by Other Wildlife
    Strategic Plan for Assessing Restoration Needs In and Near Depressional Wetlands and Wet Meadows in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed Watershed Management Division Seattle Public Utilities February 2007 Heidy Barnett, Fish and Wildlife Melissa Borsting, Forest Ecology Wendy Sammarco, Forest Ecology Updated by Sally Nickelson, Fish and Wildlife, October 2015 1.0 Introduction Ponds, wet meadows, and other wetlands in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed (CRMW) provide unique habitat for a wide range of plant and animal species. Wetlands distributed throughout the watershed range in character from large open water systems to small wet depressions in meadows. Depressional wetlands provide the primary breeding habitat for amphibians in the watershed as they typically hold water pockets during the early spring when eggs are laid and maintain pools of water for developing larvae. Also important at higher elevations are small wet meadows scattered across the landscape between forest patches. Historically wetlands were not protected during timber harvest in the watershed and most often wetlands and meadows were completely cut over. These practices altered the canopy cover as well as the condition of surrounding forest and riparian areas at wetlands of all types. In addition, some wetlands were near human settlements and thus now have heavy infestations of non-native invasive plants. Sediment input from roads is the other primary threat to wetlands. Despite this history, most depressional wetlands in the CRMW are considered to have few lingering threats to key ecological processes. This document describes methods for assessing the conditions at depressional wetlands and wet meadows in the CRMW, outlines linkages with other restoration activities, and provides suggestions for restoration/enhancement activities near depressional wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System
    United States Technical Note No. 190–8–76 Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service February 2008 Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System: An Overview and Modification to Better Meet the Needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Issued February 2008 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System: An Overview and Modification to Better Meet the Needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Purpose WC provisions was provided if the proposed impacts to the wetland were determined to be minimal. In The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland classification 1990, Congress added the Good Faith exemption if the system was first introduced by Brinson in 1993. To person restores the converted wetland. In 1996, the many wetland scientists, HGM is synonymous with a FSA was amended to allow for an additional exemp- wetland functional assessment approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat and Land Cover Classification Scheme for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
    Habitat and Land Cover Classification Scheme for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Habitat and Land Cover Classification Scheme for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System This document was prepared for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System by: Thomas E. Kutcher Contractor to the Wells Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve [email protected] Technical Contributors: Nina H. Garfield1 Samuel P. Walker2 Kenneth B. Raposa3 Charles Nieder4 Eric Van Dyke5 Tim Reed6 1 Estuarine Reserves Division/OCRM/NOAA 2 University of South Carolina Department of Environmental Health Sciences 3 Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 4 Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve 5 Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve 6 San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve April 2008 The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was established by Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended. Additional information about the system can be obtained from the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, 1305 East West Highway - N/ORM5, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 2 Preface The NERRS Classification Scheme was developed to standardize the way high-resolution land cover data are classified within the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Progressive iterations of the classification were developed through a transparent and revolving process of debate, compromise, review, and revision; the final product is presented here. Justifications for various elements of the classification are detailed in a previous report (Kutcher et al. 2005). Minor revisions have since been made to address peer reviewer comments; these include removing the Artificial Subclass from the Reef Class, removing the Vegetated Subclass from the Unconsolidated Shore Class, changing the name of the category Dominance Type to Dominant Species, and designating Descriptors and Dominant Species as a Nominal categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Wetland Outlook | 2018 1 PREFACE
    GLOBAL WETLAND cover pic to show humannatural OUTLOOKflourishingwetland with State of the world’s wetlands and their services to people 2018 Convention on Wetlands © Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2018 Project coordination, support and production assistance provided by the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Citation: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. (2018). Wetlands under the leadership of the Secretary General, Global Wetland Outlook: State of the World’s Wetlands Martha Rojas Urrego. and their Services to People. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this information product are those of the authors or contributors and do not necessarily Coordinating Lead Authors: Royal C. Gardner and reflect the views or policies of the Ramsar Convention and do C. Max Finlayson not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the Section 1: Lead Authors: Royal C. Gardner and C. Max part of the Convention on Wetlands (the Ramsar Convention) Finlayson concerning the legal or development status of any country, Section 2: Lead Authors: C. Max Finlayson, Nick territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the Davidson, Siobhan Fennessy, David Coates, and Royal C. delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Gardner. Contributing Authors: Will Darwall, Michael Acknowledgements: The authors would like to express Dema, Mark Everard, Louise McRae, Christian Perennou sincere thanks to the many wetland experts who contributed and David Stroud to the Global Wetland Outlook, including the participants
    [Show full text]