Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of USACE Three-Factor Wetland Delineations to National Wetland Inventory Maps

  • General Wetland Science
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wetlands are mapped across the USA for compliance with §404 of the Clean Water Act using field-collected data and protocols in the 1987 Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual (3-factor method). The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps wetlands and deepwater habitats for management and policy-making using aerial image analysis with limited field verification. There have been few comparisons of maps other than for limited geographic areas or wetland types. We compared 3-factor wetland delineations to NWI maps for 1751 assessment areas (AA) in different regions. We did not assess the accuracy of either product, but instead compared mapped area and polygon count for existing data at sites, then aggregated results to broader scales and compared with ancillary data to identify factors correlated with map differences. In a subset of NWI polygons eliminating non-wetland Cowardin types, 74% of NWI polygons were mapped in common with 3-factor polygons. NWI identified greater area in 33% of AA and greater total area across all sites. Approximately 27% of AA had 3-factor but no NWI polygons, while 6.7% of AA had features mapped only by NWI. Multiple factors likely contributed to differences including polygon size and temporal mismatches between maps, suggesting caution be used when comparing products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey, R. G. 1980. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States, Misc. Publication No. 1391. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

  • Baldwin RF, deMaynadier PG (2009) Assessing threats to pool-breeding amphibian habitat in an urbanizing landscape. Biol Conserv 142:1628–1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.039

  • Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Bishop JA (2004) Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land-cover maps. Environ Monit Assess 94:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMAS.0000016876.63062.3d

  • Brostoff W, Lichvar R, Sprecher S (2001) Delineating playas in the arid Southwest: a literature review. ERDC TR-01-4. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH

  • Calhoun AJK, Walls TE, Stockwell SS, McCollough M (2003) Evaluating vernal pools as a basis for conservation strategies: a Maine case study. Wetlands 23:70–81. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0070:evpaab]2.0.co;2

  • Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC

  • Dahl TE (2000) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl T (2006) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl T, Stedman S (2013) Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington DC

  • Dahl TE, Dick J, Swords J, Wilen BO (2015) Data collection requirements and procedures for mapping wetland, deepwater, and related habitats of the United States (version 2). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service National Standards and Support Team, Madison

  • Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, Gibson WP, Doggett MK, Taylor GH, Curtis J, Pasteris PP (2008) Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. International Journal of Climatology 28:2031–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1688

  • DeLancey ER, Kariyeva J, Bried JT, Hird JN (2019) Large-scale probabilistic identification of boreal peatlands using Google earth engine, open-access satellite data, and machine learning. PLoS One 14:e0218165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218165

  • Environmental Laboratory (1987) Corps of engineers wetlands delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg

  • Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats, 2nd edn. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC

  • Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2007) An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:543–560. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2007)27[543:AEORMF]2.0.CO;2

  • FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee (2009) Wetland mapping standard. FGDC-STD-015-2009. US Geological Survey, Reston

  • Johnston CA, Meysembourg P (2002) Comparison of the Wisconsin and National Wetlands Inventories. Wetlands 22:386–405. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022[0386:cotwan]2.0.co;2

  • Kloiber S, Macleod R, Smith A, Knight J, Huberty B (2015) A semi-automated, multi-source data fusion update of a wetland inventory for East-Central Minnesota. USA Wetlands 35:335–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-014-0621-3

  • Korfel CA, Mitsch WJ, Hetherington TE, Mack JJ (2010) Hydrology, physiochemistry, and amphibians in natural and created vernal pool wetlands. Restor Ecol 18:843–854. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00510.x

  • Kudray GM, Gale MR (2000) Evaluation of National Wetland Inventory maps in a heavily forested region in the upper Great Lakes. Wetlands 20:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2000)020[0581:EONWIM]2.0.CO;2

  • Kusler J (2006) Common questions: local government wetland protection programs. association of state wetland managers and the international institute for wetland science and public policy. Berne

  • Lang M, McCarty G (2009) LIDAR intensity for improved detection of inundation below the forest canopy. Wetlands 29:1166-1178. https://doi.org/10.1672/08-197.1

  • Lang M, McCarty G, Oesterling R, Yeo I-Y (2013) Topographic metrics for improved mapping of forested wetlands. Wetlands 33:141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0359-8

  • Lichvar R, Gustina G, Bolus R (2004) Ponding duration, ponding frequency, and field indicators: a case study on three California, USA, playas. Wetlands 24:406-413. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0406:PDPFAF]2.0.CO;2

  • Lichvar RW, Ochs WR, Gaines SM (2008) Evaluation of surface features for delineating the ordinary high water boundary on playas in the arid western United States. Wetlands 28:68–80. https://doi.org/10.1672/06-107.1

  • Martin S, Brumbaugh R (2011) Entering a new era: What will RIBITS tell us about mitigation banking? National Wetlands Newsletter 33:16–26

  • Martin GI, Kirkman LK, Hepinstall-Cymerman J (2012) Mapping geographically isolated wetlands in the Dougherty Plain, Georgia, USA. Wetlands 32:149-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0263-7

  • Matthews JW, Skultety D, Zercher B, Ward MP, Benson TJ (2016) Field verification of original and updated National Wetlands Inventory maps in three metropolitan areas in Illinois, USA. Wetlands 36:1155–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-016-0836-6

  • Maxa M, Bolstad P (2009) Mapping northern wetlands with high resolution satellite images and LiDAR Wetlands 29:248–260. https://doi.org/10.1672/08-91.1

  • McMullen J, Meacham P (1996) A comparison of wetland boundaries delineated in the field to those boundaries on existing state and federal wetland maps in central New York State. In: Wetlands: Environmental Gradients, Boundaries, and Buffers. CRC Press, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton

  • Metzger MJ, Bunce RG, Jongman RH, Sayre R, Trabucco A, Zomer R (2013) A high‐resolution bioclimate map of the world: a unifying framework for global biodiversity research and monitoring. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:630–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12022

  • Morrissey LA, Sweeney WR (2006) Assessment of the National Wetlands Inventory: implications for wetland protection. Paper presented at the Geographic Information Systems And Water Resources IV - AWRA Spring Specialty Conference, Houston

  • Nichols C (1994) Map accuracy of National Wetlands Inventory Maps for areas subject to Maine land use regulation commission jurisdiction. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley

  • Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00149.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil GL, Saby L, Band LE, Goodall JL (2019) Effects of LiDAR DEM smoothing and conditioning techniques on a topography-based wetland identification model. Water Resour Res 55:4343-4363. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024784

  • Ozesmi SL, Bauer ME (2002) Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manag 10:381–402. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020908432489

  • PRISM Climate Group. 2014. Data extracts of 30-year annual temperature and precipitation normals (1981–2010). Oregon State University PRISM Climate Group. http://prism.oregonstate.edu

  • R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (v3.4.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  • Rampi LP, Knight JF, Pelletier KC (2014) Wetland mapping in the upper Midwest United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 80:439–448. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.80.5.439

  • Sharpe PJ, Kneipp G, Forget A (2016) Comparison of alternative approaches for wetlands mapping: a case study from three US National Parks. Wetlands 36:547–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-016-0764-5

  • Stolt MH, Baker JC (1995) Evaluation of National Wetland Inventory maps to inventory wetlands in the southern Blue Ridge of Virginia. Wetlands 15:346–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160889

  • Tiner RW (1990) Use of high-altitude aerial photography for inventorying forested wetlands in the United States. Forest Ecology and Management 33-34:593–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(90)90221-v

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiner RW (1997a) NWI maps - basic information on the nation’s wetlands. Bioscience 47:269. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313186

  • Tiner RW (1997b) NWI maps: what they tell us. National Wetlands Newsletter 19:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiner RW (2016) Wetland indicators: a guide to wetland formation, identification, delineation, classification, and mapping, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

  • USACE (2007) Regional supplement to the corps of engineers wetland delineation manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Vicksburg

  • USACE (2008) Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Vicksburg

  • USACE (2010) Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg

  • Wardlow BD, Egbert SL (2003) A state-level comparative analysis of the GAP and NLCD land-cover data sets. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 69:1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.69.12.1387

  • Wardrop DH, Kentula ME, Jensen SF, Stevens DL, Hychka KC (2007a) Assessment of wetlands in the Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, USA using the Hydrogeomorphic Approach. Wetlands 27:432-445. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2007)27[432:AOWITU]2.0.CO;2

  • Wardrop DH, Kentula ME, Stevens DL, Jensen SF, Brooks RP (2007b) Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27:416–431. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2007)27[416:AOWCAE]2.0.CO;2

  • Wilen BO, Bates MK (1995) The US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory project. Vegetatio 118:153–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0427-2_13

  • Wright C, Gallant A (2007) Improved wetland remote sensing in Yellowstone National Park using classification trees to combine TM imagery and ancillary environmental data. Remote Sensing of Environment 107:582–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.10.019

  • Wu M, Kalma D, Treadwell-Steitz C (2014) Differential assessment of designations of wetland status using two delineation methods. Environ Manag 54:23–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0273-3

  • Xie Y, Zhang A, Welsh W (2015) Mapping wetlands and Phragmites using publically available remotely sensed images. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81:69–78. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.81.1.69

Download references

Acknowledgments

Numerous individuals and organizations contributed to this study by providing ideas, data, or other resources. Katherine Trott, Forrest Vanderbilt, and Steve Martin of the USACE were especially helpful throughout the project. Special thanks to Kenneth Jaynes from the USACE Galveston District for data and advice early in the study, and to Jeffrey Collins from the Jacksonville District and Steven Currie from the Charleston District for generously sharing their time, local knowledge, and delineation data. Hao Lu, Jennifer Mehren, and Brandon Bryce provided support for georeferencing and digitizing maps. Thanks to Julie Nieset and Dennis Skultety of the Illinois Natural History Survey Wetland Science Program and to Andy Herb of AlpineEco for providing digital wetland delineation data. Thanks also to multiple USFWS NWI reviewers for their comments on drafts of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Edward Gage & David J. Cooper

  2. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Hanover, NH, USA

    Robert Lichvar

Authors
  1. Edward Gage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Lichvar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Gage.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 926 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gage, E., Cooper, D.J. & Lichvar, R. Comparison of USACE Three-Factor Wetland Delineations to National Wetland Inventory Maps. Wetlands 40, 1097–1105 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-019-01234-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-019-01234-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation