National Academies Press: OpenBook

Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation (1993)

Chapter: Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands

« Previous: 9 Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

APPENDIX A
SPACIAL DATA AND WETLANDS

INTRODUCTION

What, typically, could be done better or more efficiently if the content, accuracy, organization, and control of spatial data were different? As spatial data concerning wetlands are collected in several federal agencies, state and local governments, and private institutions, the MSC believed that a study focused on wetlands would provide an example of the needs and challenges facing the development and implementation of a robust NSDI. With respect to wetland data, a number of questions arise. For example, should a digital version of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) be used to replace the wetland symbols on the 1:24,000 USGS series? Is it to be a distributed layer to be used as a graphic or digital overlay to the 1:24,000 NWI series or integrated within the new federally proposed 1:12,000 orthophoto program (SCS, ASCS, and USGS), or is it to be a distributed responsibility where each federal, state, and local agency provides its part in a coordinated and integrated form? An example of the latter is the joint effort between Maryland's digital orthophoto quarter quad (1:12,000) mapping and wetland inventory program and the FWS's NWI program. These are important questions in need of answers.

To assist in clarifying these questions, this appendix focuses on the current roles of various institutional entities in the use and sharing of geographic information pertaining to the nation's wetlands. It comments on the impediments that exist that prevent these groups from acquiring knowledge, sharing data, making decisions, or performing the duties expected of them that depend on the timely availability and easy access to an organized body of geographic information about wetlands.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Initially the MSC wanted to study the technical problems associated with an uncoordinated NSDI relating to wetland data. However, when we began to study the problem, an even larger set of problems emerged. Therefore this case study has the following three goals:

  • to determine the feasibility of establishing a national system that delineates and records the conditions of all regulated and nonregulated U.S. wetlands;

  • to describe the impediments (if any) that limit this nation from delineating and recording the condition of its regulated and nonregulated wetlands; and

  • to consider the extent to which these impediments are indicative of other natural phenomena of national consequence requiring delineation, monitoring, and eventual regulation.

Wetlands were chosen as an example because they reflect environmental and physical phenomena that need to be measured, depicted, and analyzed differently than discrete objects, such as building footprints or street centerlines and associated street addresses. Wetlands were also chosen because they are of national concern and interest. They are indicative of how our nation goes about administering and managing natural resources. Wetlands also illustrate how the scientific community goes about the identification, classification, and delineation process in contrast to how a society goes about the difficult process of deciding on the subset it is willing to regulate. Similar examples of national interest could be the geographic distribution and condition of endangered species habitat or species ranges or a national assessment and monitoring of biodiverse land areas. If these two examples were to become issues of national interest what could be learned from this nation's attempts to map, monitor, and regulate its wetlands?

This appendix introduces the issues regarding wetlands that make them possible to measure scientifically but difficult to regulate as a natural resource. Wetlands are excellent examples of informational needs about other natural phenomena. Next are described the technical, legislative, institutional, and economic impediments that limit the ability to assess and monitor the state and condition of its wetlands. This appendix also provides a conceptual information diffusion model that attempts to explain the issues that restrict the diffusion of wetland information. It concludes with a summary with recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

THE NATURE OF WETLANDS

What Are Wetlands?

The term wetlands applies to a variety of low-lying areas where the water table is at or near the surface of the land, soils are saturated or covered by water during parts of the year, and there is a predominance of hydrophytic plants (CEQ, 1999). In a more practical sense, the term wetland is a misnomer: many are dry at times; some are dry twice a day, for example, coastal wetlands that are flooded, inundated, and influenced by daily tides. Wetlands include many different types of environments: tidal marshes, swamp forests, peat bogs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, and similar transitional areas between aquatic and terrestrial environments.

Wetlands were long considered insect-ridden, unattractive, and dangerous areas. Recently this outlook has changed dramatically because the vital ecological roles that wetlands serve have been documented and thus have in this century begun to be recognized as important places with a rich and exciting variety of plant and animal life (Niering, 1986).

What is the Value of Wetlands?

Wetlands are among the most biologically productive ecosystems in the world. Net primary production of plants in salt marshes and freshwater wetlands (Figure A. 1) rivals that of tropical rain forests and the most productive agricultural land (CEQ, 1989). For example, many types of animals depend on wetlands for at least part of their life cycle (e.g., it has been estimated that more than 50 percent of the saltwater fish and shellfish are dependent on wetlands). Of the 10 to 20 million waterfowl that nest in the conterminous 48 states, 50 percent or more reproduce in the prairie pothole wetlands of the Midwest (CEQ, 1989).

The wetlands of the United States are also important for other reasons. They produce oxygen and play a significant role in converting atmospheric nitrogen, for they naturally trap and remove nutrients and sediments and help maintain or improve water quality (Ducks Unlimited, 1992). Wetlands associated with estuaries, rivers, and streams, as well as some isolated wetlands and lakes, provide flood protection by slowing and storing floodwaters and reducing flood peaks. Wetlands anchor shorelines and provide erosion control (CEQ, 1989).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Figure A. 1.

Net Primary Productivity of Selected Ecosystems (g/m2/yr) (from Tiner 1984).

Wetlands also provide many economic and social benefits to the nation. Fishing, waterfowl hunting, and traditional gathering of food, such as wild rice, are among the contemporary uses, Wetlands occur in every state in the nation (Figure A.2) but exist in a variety of sizes, shapes, and types as a result of regional differences in climate, vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Also, and very important to many, is that wetlands are some of the last remaining wilderness areas in the nation (CEQ, 1989).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Figure A.2

(a) Wetland distribution circa 1780s; (b) wetland distribution circa 1980s (from Dahl, 1990).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.1. Examples of Wetland Losses in Various States (after Dahl, 1990).

State or Region

Wetlands 1780s (acres)

Wetlands 1980s (acres)

Percentage of Wetlands Lost

Iowa's natural marshes

4,000,000

421,900

89

California

5,000,000

450,000

91

Nebraska's Rainwater Basin

94,000

8,460

91

Mississippi alluvial plain

24,000,000

5,200,000

78

Michigan

11,200,000

5,583,400

50

North Dakota

4,927,500

2,490,000

51

Minnesota

15,070,000

8,700,000

42

Louisiana's forested wetlands

11,300,000

5,635,000

50

Connecticut's coastal marshes

30,000

15,000

50

North Carolina's pocosins

2,500,000

1,503,000*

40

* Only 695,000 acres of Pocosins remain undisturbed; the rest are partially drained, developed, or planned for development.

STATE AND CONDITION OF WETLANDS

Wetlands are generally classified as estuarine or freshwater systems (CEQ, 1989). In the mid-1980s, there were an estimated 103.3 million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States, most of which (about 75 percent) were private (Dahl and Johnson, 1991).

Wetlands account for roughly 5 percent of the total land surface cover in the conterminous 48 states. The amount of wetlands in the conterminous United States when settlement occurred in the early seventeenth century is estimated to have been 215 million acres (Dahl, 1990). On the basis of this

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.2. Examples of Wetland Loss Rates (after Tiner, 1984).

State or Region

Loss Rate (acres/year)

Lower Mississippi alluvial plain

165,000

Louisiana's forested wetlands

87,000

North Carolina's pocosins

43,500

Prairie pothole region

33,000

Louisiana's coastal marshes

25,000

Great Lakes basin

20,000

Wisconsin

20,000

Michigan

6,500

Kentucky

3,600

New Jersey's coastal marshes

3,084

 

50*

Palm Beach County, Florida

3,055

Maryland's coastal wetlands

1,000

 

20*

New York's estuarine marshes

740

Delaware's coastal marshes

444

 

20*

* Loss rate after passage of state coastal wetland protection laws.

figure (which is considered a reliable estimate of the original wetland area), 53 percent of the original wetlands was lost by the mid-1980s (Dahl, 1990). Table A.1 shows a selected state and regional view of wetland losses.

The reasons for these wetland losses are many and varied and both natural and human. However, most of the wetland losses are attributable to human activities. Agricultural activities were responsible for 54 percent

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

and urban development accounted for 5 percent of the total wetland loss (Dahl, 1990).

Wetland losses have affected certain wetland types more than others (Table A.2). By the mid-1950s it was estimated that more than 50 percent of the wetlands in the prairie pothole region had been lost since settlement. Most of this reduction was caused by agricultural conversion (CEQ, 1989). Between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s net acreage of freshwater marsh loss had stabilized (Dahl, 1991).

Wetland losses also occurred in estuarine vegetated wetlands (estuarine intertidal vegetated). Of the net loss of 372,000 acres between the mid-1950s and 1970, most occurred in estuary marshes along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. Urban development and conversion to open water habitat were responsible for most of these losses (CEQ, 1989).

PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

State interest in protection of wetlands began in the east. For example, Massachusetts' regulation of wetlands includes coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, swamps, wet meadows, marshes and bogs, and a 100-foot buffer protection zone. In Massachusetts judicial interest began in 1965 (Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Volpe and Co.); 27 states now have some type of wetland law (Want, 1991).

Federal interest in the protection of the nation's wetlands began in the mid-1970s. Various conservation groups and the scientific community began convincing federal agencies and Congress of their value in preventing floods, filtering waters, and providing critical wildlife habitat. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (often called the Clean Water Act) was amended in 1977 to prohibit the discharge of dredge or fill material into wetlands without a permit. Federal wetland law is still the backbone of wetland protection (Want, 1991). Expanding on this federal interest, President Bush in 1988 adopted a platform supporting the goal that there should be no net loss of the remaining wetlands (103.3 million acres) (Conservation Foundation, 1988; Seligmann and Hager, 1991).

This position, however, has raised the significant question of what subset of all wetlands should be included. This issue of whether all wetlands or subsets should be regulated is a major reason why it is so difficult to bring about a national system for wetland information. Wetlands occur in all 50 states and vary in type, size, and function.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Despite this variation, they all have two things in common: they have a soil that is at least periodically saturated or covered with water and they contain plants that can tolerate such conditions (Urban Land Institute, 1985). These wetland conditions are measurable by three criteria: the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Making these conditions into operational definitions for regulations, administration, and biological mapping is another matter. If FWS's national wetland maps (begun some 14 years ago) are an example, the mapping function has been relatively straightforward.

Table A.3 illustrates this problem for land owners affected by regulations including various federal and state definitions. Biologically or scientifically, they are very similar except that Connecticut's definition includes all poorly drained soils. Only in the legal process can any real difference between these definitions be found (Urban Land Institute, 1985). As part of the 1977 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the EPA and the COE became responsible for implementing the new wetland provisions in Section 404 of the Act. This legal complexity is represented by the treatise entitled Law of Wetland Regulation (Want, 1991). It includes 13 chapters, 152 pages on federal wetland law and procedures, and 196 pages devoted to state wetland law. Much of the book cites judicial opinions, associated procedural permitting, and mapping requirements. The presenting of cases before the Supreme Court further confuses this issue (Want, 1991). However, because the Clean Water Act did not include an explicit definition or procedure for field identification of wetlands, a team of wetland biologists from the FWS, COE, EPA, and SCS in 1989 established common field procedures. The collaborative group combined the best procedures from existing manuals and developed some new procedures to assist in identifying the upland edge of wetlands. These new procedures were designed to include (1) all wetlands regulated by COE and EPA under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; (2) all wetlands administered under the Food and Security Act of 1985 (Swampbuster); and (3) wetlands mapped by the FWS's NWI.

These criteria include a range of (a) permanently flooded to seldomly flooded, (b) aquatic systems to terrestrial systems, or (c) areas where water dominates to where upland dominates. Somewhere along that gradient, science and society say ''That's a wetland" (Seligmann and Hager, 1991). At the federal level, the issue remains: Where does one draw the line? What is or what is not a wetland?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.3. Seven Examples of Wetlands Definitions

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (PL. 99-645)

The term wetland means land that has a predominance of hydric soils and that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Swampbuster Provision, Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L.99-198)

The term wetland, except when such term is part of the term converted wetland, means land that has a predominance of hydric soils and that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

US. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al., 1979; adopted 1980)

Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil, and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR 230.3, Federal Register, 1980) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR 328.3, Federal Register, 1982)

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

State of Wisconsin (NR 115.03 WAC)

Those areas where water is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to be capable of supporting aquatic or hydrophytic vegetation and that have soils indicative of wet conditions.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

State of Connecticut (22a-38 Connecticut General Statutes)

Wetlands means land, including submerged land, which consists of any of the soil types designated as poorly drained, very poorly drained, alluvial or flood plain by the National Cooperative Soils Survey, as may be amended from time to time by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

State of California (California Coastal Act of 1976, Section 30121)

Lands within the coastal zone that may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens.

As noted earlier, before this federal interest some states assumed responsibility for the regulation of wetlands. By the mid-1970s additional states also became interested in the protection of wetlands. Even though federal law imposes national consistency, wetland protection has been increasingly augmented by state law (Want, 1991). At present, 27 states have some form of wetland law: explicit wetland regulations, regulationsincluded in coastal zone management, or regulations included in other natural resource management provisions, such as shoreline, beach, and sand protection (Want, 1991).

Regulation of wetlands and their associated definitional requirements has become a complex regulatory arena with numerous judicial decisions interpreting these regulations. This has occurred at all levels of government (Want, 1991). As part of this process of regulation and protection, attorneys, environmentalists, realtors, corporate professionals, scientists, and planners have become involved in the definition, regulation, management, alteration, and restoration of wetlands.

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

What are the Information Requirements?

Obviously the requirements for a wetland information system depend on how wetlands are defined. This definitional task is a scientific, social, legal, and political task. Definitions need to be agreed upon in both the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.4. Some Principal Wetland Data Sources

Type of Data Source

Information Displayed

Scale

Suggested Wetland Uses

National Wetlands Inventory Maps (FWS, USGS)

A wide variety of information pertaining to vegetation, water regime, and other variables

1:24,000

1:100,000

• Regulatory mapping

• Aid in processing permits

• Acquisition

• Siting

Topographic maps (7 1/2 ' and 15 ' ) (USGS)

Topographic contours, major roads, railroads, utility lines, contours, water bodies, houses, town names, county and town boundaries, and vegetated and non-vegetated wetlands

1:24,000

1:62,500

• Interim wetland map

• Watershed boundaries

• Source of topographic information

Soil survey (SCS)

Soil types

Range from 1:7,200 to 1:15,840

• Soil suitability for onsite waste disposal

• Determination of soil structural bearing capacity

State wetland maps (individual states)

Wetland vegetation boundaries. Varied (depending on state)

1:2,400 to 1:24,000

• Interim wetland regulation maps

• Permanent wetland maps (depends on scale)

Flood hazard boundary maps (USGS, HUD, FEMA)

Flood-prone areas

1:24,000

• Assess flood-hazard potential at wetland sites

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Type of Data Source

Information Displayed

Scale

Suggested Wetland Uses

Floodplain information reports (COE)

Standard project flood-plain, 100-year flood evaluation wetland boundaries (some maps)

Range from 1:500 to 1:12,000

• Assess flood hazard potential at wetland sites

Hydrologic investigations, atlas, hydrology, and water resources (USGS)

Maps differ and may contain: wells, test holes, bedrock, and groundwater quality information

1:24,000

• Determine groundwater flow systems

• Determine acquifer recharge areas

Subdivision Maps (local municipalities)

Dimensions of property, size, and location of house, width of ease-ments. Wetland and floodplain boundaries (some circumstances)

1:480

1:720

1:1,200

• Determine precise wetland boundaries (occasional)

• Evaluate individual developments

Air photos (USGS, USDA, ASCS, states, private)

Existing uses, vegetation, water resources, roads, etc.

Range from 1:7,200 to 1:58,000

• Define wetland boundaries based on vegetation

• Use as image maps

• Evaluate individual proposed uses

Aadapted from Burke et al. (1985).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

political and regulatory worlds. A consistent approach to wetlands is needed to scientifically define, classify, and delineate wetlands and to resolve the issue of what subset of wetlands are to be regulated. This subset does not necessarily represent all wetlands. Good wetland information policy needs to be aimed at ensuring that one definition of wetlands emerges with a clear statement of the subset to be regulated. Today's public policy maybe seen as limiting 10 years from now because of continued losses, new understanding, or further reductions in ground-water and surface-water quality.

Modern information systems and their content must be flexible enough to sustain new societal views and analyses, such as the concept of no net loss. Without a definitional context and long-term perspective, it is not possible to explicitly assess the role and usefulness of information and mapping technology. This array of potential sources, scales, and types of data to determine wetland boundaries is complex, diffuse, and disparate (Table A.4). In addition to the regulatory need for data and information for permits and boundary mapping, data and information are needed for trend analysis, compliance monitoring, and management. These have been defined by the Domestic Policy Council-Interagency Wetlands Task Force (Nelson et al., 1990) (Table A.5).

What Is the Status of Wetland Data and Information?

The status of wetland data remains an open question. The Domestic Policy Council-Wetland Inventory Workgroup was asked to address three related information questions:

  • What types of inventories are now being done?

  • What type of inventories are needed (i.e., national, regional, local) and why?

  • How should the federal government coordinate existing (or new) inventory programs?

The answers to these three questions were provided (Nelson et al., 1990) in the form of 11 recommendations, which were rank ordered (see Table A.6, column 1). These recommendations represent three types of information: large-scale boundary determinants for Section 404 permits; statistical samples for trend analysis; and entity imaging and mapping for inventories such as the NWI.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

IMPEDIMENTS TO A NATIONAL WETLAND INFORMATION SYSTEM

Wetlands have become a major issue in the environmental debate. Their state and condition have gained bipartisan congressional interest and federal agency attention. The debate over the Swampbuster provisions of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills (FSA and FACTA) are examples. The more recent debate over the provisions of the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetlands Delineation, 1989) is yet another example. Initially this manual attempted to identify the upland/wetland boundary of all wetlands of management interest to COE and EPA (jurisdictional), USDA (Swamp-buster), and FWS (NWI).

Through public hearings conducted by the federal agencies and by the President's Domestic Policy Council during the summer and fall of 1990, many expressed their belief that the text of the 1989 federal manual was too encompassing. The procedures incorporated into the 1989 effort did not resolve the definitional problem because public and private interests did not support the protection and regulation of all wetlands of federal interest. Instead of a consensus being arrived at concerning what subset should be regulated, the procedures were challenged. This challenge resulted in the definitions being changed. The issue becomes one of which wetlands are to be regulated. Technically the delineation procedures appeared to be acceptable to most scientists, but farmers and land developers were not comfortable. The real issue became one of the societal value of wetlands. At what point on the wetness gradient does a wetland fall below the public's interest?

This resulted in the proposed 1991 revisions to the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. The proposed revised document establishes policy for those jurisdictional wetlands that are proposed to be regulated under Section 404 and Swampbuster. If implemented as proposed, the revisions would move the line delineating the wetland upland boundary toward the wetter end of the moisture gradient, thereby removing drier-end wetlands from federal jurisdiction. This change in boundary would result largely from a revised quantitative standard for the duration and timing of the presence of water.

Even though explicit mandates exist for all wetland management categories, it is now not possible to assemble or assimilate a composite

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.5. Relevant Legislation and Authorities for Federal Agency Wetlands Mapping and Inventory Functions

Agency

Authority

Agency Function

DOI/FWS

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

1. Produce national wetlands inventory maps for the conterminous United States by Sept. 30, 1998

2. Produce ASAP after 1998 maps of the United States in non-conterminous areas

3. Produce by Sept. 30, 1990, and in ten year intervals after that, updated reports on "Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States"

4. In 1989 produce the report "Wetlands Losses in the United States."

USDA/SCS

Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA) and Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACTA)

Through the Swampbuster provision, convert wetlands to agricultural production

 

Section 302 of the Rural Development Act of 1972

Provide a National Resource Inventory (NRI) including data on the status, condition, and trends of soil, water, and related resources; data for the 1987 NRI were based on more than 300,000 randomly sampled sites; wetland presence is one element of the NRI

USDA/FS

National Forest Management Act of 1976 and Resources Planning Act of 1974

Inventory and manage National Forests

DOC/NOAA

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 with amendments of 1986

1. Identify and describe the habitat requirements of fish stocks

2. Identify existing habitat conditions and sources of pollution and degradation

3. Conduct habitat protection and enhancement programs

4. Recommend measures to protect and manage habitat (fishery habitat includes emergent wetlands, mangroves, and seagrass beds)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Agency

Authority

Agency Function

DOC/NOAA

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, reauthorized in 1985 and 1990

1. Plan comprehensively for and manage development of the nation's coastal land and water resources

2. Provide coastal zone enhancement grants to coastal states for protecting, restoring, or enhancing the existing coastal wetlands base or creating new coastal wetlands

DOI/FWS and DOC/NOAA

Clean Water Act, Sec. 404 and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958

NOAA and FWS review and comment on S.404 wetland permit applications regarding potential fishery habitat impacts and ways to avert them (fishery habitat inventories are critical to this review process)

EPA

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

1. Conduct mapping through site-specific enforcement actions and "advance identification, which is designed as an anticipatory regulatory approach conducted on regional or watershed scales

2. Requires states to report on the status of their wetland resources (S.305[b])

 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CER-CLA) and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)

Conduct mapping through site-specific mapping nearby or adjacent to National Priority List sites

DOI/FWS and other federal agencies

OMB Circular A-16 on "Coordination of Surveying, Mapping, and Related Spatial Data"

Coordinate national digital mapping of wetlands with the involvement of the federal, state, and local governments as well as the private sector (enable data transfer between producers and users, through data standards)

Adapted from Nelson et al. (1990, p. 9–10).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

national view. Let us explore in more detail what impedes the ability to develop a national view of wetlands.

As previously stated, our objective was to document the status of spatial data products and associated information technology that support decisions concerning the state and condition of the nation's wetlands. Specifically, the committee discovered a set of the major impediments to the creation of a national wetland information system:

  • Technical impediments: What are the nature and type of technical and scientific impediments that inhibit the ability to identify, collect, classify, automate, and integrate wetland data on a national basis?

  • Legislative impediments: What are the legislative mandates that limit or inhibit the development of information systems and the ability for public agencies and private groups to exchange information? What are the legal stipulations that limit authority to implement a national wetland information system of sufficient reliability and specificity for assessment, management, and regulation?

  • Institutional impediments: What are the existing institutional impediments that inhibit the ability of local, state, and federal agencies and private interests to collect and integrate wetland formation to formulate a national perspective? How do various disciplinary approaches affect the definition and classification of wetland and regulatory issues?

  • Economic impediments: What are the funding constraints that inhibit the ability to maximize public and private information investments for the purpose of understanding the nature and condition of U.S. wetlands?

This study was conducted under the assumption that these impediments exist in various forms and intensities. Effective use of the public's investment in wetland information is limited by these impediments.

We also assumed that these impediments can be related to other spatial data layers as well. These impediments transcend both political boundaries and institutional structures. The MSC's aim was to improve its understanding of the major issues involved in the creation and population of a wetland data layer as part of the National Geographic Data System (NGDS) (FGDC, 1991). This includes institutions and organizations collecting data and information that would be used to develop such a data base. It also includes institutions and organizations using the data and information for assessing the extent, condition, and regulation of wetlands. The results are

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

intended as an example of the more generic problems associated with the creation and use of other data layers in the NGDS.

To assess the viability of the 11 recommendations of the Domestic Policy Council-Interagency Wetlands Task Force, each recommendation was analyzed with respect to each impediment. The results suggest that various impediments must be overcome for successful implementation of each recommendation (Table A.6).

The ability to create and share a digital version of the NWI (recommendation 7, Table A.6) is constrained by four technical impediments. Integrated and across agency nationwide analyses to determine the status of wetlands, such as acreage per wetland type, are restricted because of duplicative and nonintegrated efforts (legislative and institutional impediments; recommendation 2, Table A.6). Until recently, comprehensive development of a digital wetland layer was limited to the availability of funds directly from users (an economic impediment). No funds were available from the FWS. However, in the view of the DOI's Office of the Inspector General (1992) the most constraining impediment was that the FWS did not have authority to automate the NWI. The accounting process required by the DOI Office of the Inspector General relegated digital conversion to special project status. No such mandate was provided under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (EWRA) of 1986 (P.L.99–645). Recent congressional action (P.L. 102–440, Section 305) provided that ''by September 30, 2004, a digital wetland data base for the United States based on the final wetland maps produced under this section" and "archive and make available for dissemination wetland data and maps digitized under this section as such data and maps become available."

Another major impediment is the ongoing debate and differences of opinion over the reliability and validity of various wetland mapping techniques and procedures. Those responsible for the NWI have concluded that satellite image sources in themselves are not sufficiently accurate to detect all the categories within the NWI system (FGDC, 1992; Wilen and Pywell, 1992). Those responsible for FSA determinations have found problems with aerial photographic techniques due to interpreter differences.

Other professional interagency debate exists when NWI and FSA wetlands are compared. Because the NWI and FSA definitions are operationally the same, statistical and spatial concurrence should be attainable. Recent comparisons in Indiana (SCS, 1992) and the pothole region of North Dakota suggest otherwise (Margaret Maizel, personal communication, 1992). Because the FWS chose not to map wetlands in

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.6 Impediments to a National Wetlands Spatial Data Infrastructure

Recommendations (Wetlands Inventory Report)

Technical Impediments

Legislative Impediments

Institutional Impediments

Economic Impediments

1. Complete NWI maps (FWS)

• Nonautomated product

• No image backdrop (not essential but would enhance product usefulness)

• Existing satellite resolution limits usefulness

• No authority to use FWS resources to automate (does not impede 1986 emergency mandate but restricts pace of automation and robustness)

• Other federal, state, and local agencies are duplicating wetland products

• Increased funding required

2. Integrate statistical analyses (FWS, SCS)

 

• Duplicative and nonintegrated efforts limit full value of wetland quantity and quality data collected

• EPA's EMAP is not includeda

 

3. Implement wetland change program for coastal wetlands (NOAA)

• Limited automated and compatible data sets restricts implementation

• Authority limited to wetlands associated with coastal areas

• Absence of other agency interests (e.g., FWS, SCS, and EPA) results in duplication

 

4. Coordinate and integrate national wetland permit tracking system (COE-RAMS)

• relationship to GRASS is not operational

 

• Long-term relationship with state permitting is unclear

• Increased funding required

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Recommendations (Wetlands Inventory Report)

Technical Impediments

Legislative Impediments

Institutional Impediments

Economic Impediments

5. Develop automation standards for wetland information (FWS)

• Usefulness of SDTS is unclear

• No standard setting authority exists for automated wetland data

• Success of FGDC not assured

 

6. Coordinate and integrate wetland mapping programs (FWS, SCS)

• Lack of compatibility between wetland data bases (1:24,000, NWI) in cartographic form with SCS (1:7,920) photographic baseb

• Interface with NWI maps and the SCS orthophoto program are not clear

• No legislative requirement to reconcile and integrate collection platforms, classification systems, and data sets

 

 

7. Establish a National Wetlands Digital Data Base (FWS)

• Lack of automated data sets limits analysis

• Inclusion of grade B data

• Mixing data sources quickly

• Maintaining attribute integrity

• Until recently, no authority to use FWS resources to automate

 

• Until recently, only available resources for automation were 100% user-pay dollars

8. Expand mapping and inventory systems to include functional value of wetlands (EPA, NOAA)

• Absence of reliable predictive models limits usefulness

• Absence of low-cost high-resolution satellite imaging limits applicability

 

• Relationship with other mapping and statistical interests is duplicative (e.g., SCS, NWI)

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Recommendations (Wetlands Inventory Report)

Technical Impediments

Legislative Impediments

Institutional Impediments

Economic Impediments

9. Establish a national orthophoto program (1:12,000) (SCS/ASCS/USGS)

• Access policy to all image base products (hard and soft) by other federal, state, and local agencies not formulated

• No explicit authority exists to implement such a program

• Limited institutional interest

• Increased funding required

10. Coordinate large-scale digital wetland information (USGS)

• Actual mechanisms for assimilating large-scale data sets into small-scale data sets not yet developed

• No authority exists for agency responsibility

• Limited experience in assimilating data from non-federal sources

• No incentives for data sharing

11. Establish a national digital land cover program (USGS)

• Information technology has not been adapted to implement such a program

• Classification system remains confused between land cover (reflective) and land use (activity)

• Unit of resolution unresolved

• No explicit authority exists for such a program

• Relationship with proposed national orthophoto program is duplicative

• Limited experience in assimilating data from non-federal sources

Increased funding required

a For example, others have concluded that . . . "For maximal usefulness (EPA's design) must be adopted by as many federal agencies as possible" (BEST/WSTB, 1992).

b Proposed orthophoto program offers a solution (see item 9). Also SCS is investigating satellite imaging systems for FSA wetland determinations.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

farmed areas in Indiana, the difference may be explainable. Some differences may be also attributable to the sensor employed. In North Dakota satellite imagery was used to detect FSA wetlands and compared with NWI aerial photographic interpreted sources. This variance in results between NWI and FSA interpretations needs concerted interagency attention. Without its resolution, any real progress towards a national wetland information system will be impeded.

The potential for a national view of wetlands as represented by the 11 recommendations is also constrained by the apparent lack of an overall strategic interagency plan. Such a strategic approach could be as follows:

  • Integrate and coordinate NWI (FWS) and FSA (SCS) wetland mapping programs and nest COE jurisdictional wetlands within NWI and FSA (recommendation 6, Table A.6).

  • Integrate statistical analyses of the status and trends of the nation's wetlands (recommendation 3, Table A.6).

  • Expand FWS's mapping mandate to include automation (recommendation 7, Table A.6) (estimated cost to complete and automate the NWI is about $55 million).

  • Develop digital standards for wetland information (recommendation 5, Table A.6).

  • Implement the National Orthophoto Program (both digital and hard copy products) (recommendation 9, Table A.6).

Such a strategic approach could be the full implementation of the proposed (SCS/ASCS/USGS) National Orthophoto Program (NOP). An excellent example of how this could be accomplished is Maryland's Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quad Mapping and Wetlands Inventory Program. Maryland's digital quarter quads (1:12,000) incorporate the accuracy and image detail of orthophotography so that land owners and regulators can compare wetland boundaries with recognizable ground features (see Figure A.3). The product meets USGS orthophoto production specifications and the NWI's wetland mapping interpretation and classification standards. See insert for a more detailed description.

This joint effort between Maryland and the FWS is an excellent example of spatial data sharing. It is also an excellent example of a multipurpose and contemporaneous digital information product that is useful for both regulation and planning.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

FIGURE A.3

Digital orthophoto (1:7200) inventory for wetlands through a cooperative project by Maryland and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

MARYLAND'S DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTO QUARTER QUAD MAPPING AND WETLANDS INVENTORY PROGRAM

The Maryland Water Resources Administration (WRA) is producing a statewide map series based on digital orthophoto quarter quadrangles (USGS 3.75' Series). The purpose of the project is to provide a map accurate base image for a new wetland inventory. Orthophotos were selected for the map base because they combine accuracy and image detail so that property owners and permit reviewers are able to see the wetland boundaries in relation to recognizable features on the ground. In order to take advantage of new computer mapping technology, WRA is producing the orthophotos digitally and in color.

There was no precedent for this type of mapping when the project was conceived in 1989. A pilot was conducted with assistance from Salisbury State University, Photo Science, Inc., and Micro Images, Inc. The pilot, performed on the Millington Quad in Kent County, proved sufficiently successful for the state to proceed with the project. With the help of many state and local agencies, federal agencies, universities, and the private sector, the first maps were produced in December 1991. At this writing, 107 quarter quads are completed out of approximately 950 required for statewide coverage.

The orthophotos produced by Maryland are intended to be compatible with the standards of the U.S. Geological Survey for digital orthophoto quarter quadrangles (3.75' Series). The photography used is color infrared flown to the specifications of the National Aerial Photography Program. Geodetic control is acquired and elevation data are collected to produce orthophotos that meet National Map Accuracy Standards at the scale of 1:12,000. The digital image files have a ground resolution of 4 feet and each file occupies approximately 28 megabytes of disk space.

A new statewide wetland inventory is being performed using conventional stereo interpretation techniques with the same color infrared photography that is used to produce the orthophotos. The wetlands are delineated and classified according to the Cowardin et al. (1979) classification scheme. Field verification is performed at approximately five sites in each quarter quad, and quality control is provided by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The interpretation is transferred to the orthophoto by NWI and WRA using an on-screen digitizing technique developed in Maryland that results in a more accurate representation than conventional transfer methods. The final wetland map is produced showing the wetland vectors overlaid on the orthophoto image at a scale of 1:7,200.

There are many potential uses of the orthophoto images beyond wetland mapping. Applications in forest inventory, agricultural practices, watershed management, soils mapping, and contour mapping (using the elevation model) are

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

(being investigated. Other state agencies, as well as federal and county agencies, are also looking at using the orthophotos for a variety of purposes.

The orthophotos will be integrated into a statewide geographic information system for natural resource management. A prototype GIS has already been implemented by the Water Resources Administration using SPOT Satellite images in 7.5 minute quad format as the base layer. A number of natural resource feature overlays are linked to the base images, and can be accessed in a user friendly atlas format. Regulatory permit data bases can also be displayed geographically in the atlas, and information can be queried and viewed on screen for any individual permit. Eventually, all regulatory boundaries and protected features, such as wetlands, floodplains, critical areas, historic buildings, or endangered species habitat will be able to be viewed and analyzed geographically in one place. This system will save time for permit reviewers who now have to compile mapped information form many sources for a single project, and increase their effectiveness by providing the tools for a more thorough evaluation of impacts, including cumulative effects of other projects. The system will also be useful for studies of regional or statewide scope, such as watershed management plans, wetland mitigation site inventories or regulatory trend analysis. (From Burgess, 1992).

Much of the potential for multiple uses of a national georeferenced and automated wetland data base (see Table A.7) cannot be realized with-out a national perspective. It is the view of the MSC that the creation and implementation of a national wetland information structure is being impeded by more than a lack of funding. For example, the integration and reconciliation of statistical analyses proposed by the FWS and SCS (NRI) need to include the EPA's EMAP, the NOAA, and the USFS. Integration and reconciliation require leadership and may also require legislative action if institutional barriers cannot be surmounted. This analysis also suggests that the Interagency Task Force must adopt a more strategic approach in which various recommendations are coupled rather than simply rank ordered. The FGDC may wish to provide the leadership for this strategic process.

Besides the technical and political impediments, there are institutional issues. Congressional and legislative interest in wetland protection and management has evolved into a complex web of potentially overlapping mandates and authority. Analytical procedures to assess the location, status, and condition of U.S. wetlands and their regulation varies by scale and technique ranging from case-by-case analysis for regulatory assessment functions to trend analyses for determining the status of wetlands, to

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.7. Uses of a National Georeferenced Wetland Data Base

Determine status/baseline information

• Determine areal extent of vegetated wetlands by type, size, and geographic location

• Determine length in miles of coastal wetlands by type and political subunits

• Determine frequency of occurrence of wetlands by type, size, and location (relative abundance and scarcity)

• Quantify interface between wetland types

• Determine proximity (what is next to what)

• Describe shoreline characteristics (rock versus marsh)

• Establish baseline from which to measure changes

Monitoring change

• Quantify wetland losses and gains by type, size, geographic location

• Quantify wetland modification

• Determine effectiveness of regulatory programs

• Quantify cumulative extent of wetland loss, gain, and modification over time

Provide a tool for wetland management

• Advanced identification or unsuitability determinations

• Flood insurance (FEMA) determinations

• Swampbuster determinations

• Special area designations such as State Heritage Programs

• Risk analysis (oil spill sensitivity)

• Impacts of sea level/climate change

• Mitigation

• Hurricane/storm assessment

• Landscape factors

• Evaluate permitted activity on quality and quantity

• Identify areas subject to development pressure

Determine biotic factors (in conjunction with other data)

• Wildlife habitat potential

• Fisheries habitat potential

• Rare/threatened communities

• Sensitive communities

• Commercial uses such as shellfish/fishing

• Sport uses such as hunting, fishing, bird watching, etc.

• In with other data, quantify gains and losses in functional value (i.e. fisheries production as a function of interface between wetlands and open water

After Nelson et al. (1990).

comprehensive entity mapping to determine both locational and distributional characteristics and acreage assessments and status by wetland types. Compounding the overall analytical process, a variety of public and private

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

geographical information technologies are being used to assist and meet the mapping and analysis requirements (Table A.8).

There are also economic impediments. The creation and management of a national wetland information system is not without cost. Reconciling different technologies and approaches should result in some savings. Assimilation of state and local data within the system might, in the long term, provide savings. When we consider what is already being invested to collect wetland information nationwide, the amount is not trivial. For example, in 1991 the COE issued 15,990 wetland permits. Just the private costs to meet the permitting requirements for Section 404 by the COE has been estimated to be more than $100 million annually (Niemann, 1992). This estimate does not include associated costs of litigation that sometimes are also incurred by land owners. A more spatially robust and reliable information system such as that being implemented in Maryland would be helpful in reducing the uncertainty about jurisdictional wetlands and thereby reducing the costs associated with the permit process. Reconciling and integrating NWI and FSA mapping and automation efforts also seem likely candidates for more efficient and effective use of tax dollars.

Wetlands as a potential data layer in the NGDS exemplify spatial and trend information that are dynamic and of major consequence to many in our society. The information and the resultant analysis are of consequence to those in agriculture who farm or develop land and resources, such as real estate developers and oil and mining companies; to those who are concerned with the inherent and functional value of wetlands, such as Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and the Conservation Foundation; and to those who have mandated management and regulatory responsibility for wetlands, such as the FWS, the EPA, the SCS, and the COE.

If we add the annual cost of COE permitting expenditure, the NWI expenditures, the activities of other federal agencies, and state and local mapping efforts, it appears that a more robust solution is economically and technically possible. If this is correct, the question becomes one of leadership. Who is going to seek the authority to create the more robust product? Who is going to establish the various institutional agreements?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

INFORMATION DIFFUSION AND EVOLUTION

To address our goal of understanding the current status of spatial data products that support decisions concerning the nation's wetlands, it is important to understand the evolutionary context of wetland information. The specific wetland model arrived at by the MSC is similar to other general information diffusion models. The description of an evolutionary model could serve those who will become responsible for other natural phenomena of national attention. Figure A.4 portrays an information diffusion model that explains and predicts the state and condition of wetland information. This information model is different from a data base because the data eventually serve as a basis for decision making. An example of this evolutionary model is the development of county soil maps prepared by the SCS during the 1930s. Their need became apparent in the dust bowl days when Congress decided that it was in the national interest to combat soil erosion and increase farm productivity. Soil maps became an explicit component of this overall strategy. Soil classification and definition and their attendant functional attributes are now used for a variety of purposes well beyond soil erosion and farm planning.

An example is the use of the hydric soil attribute as an input into the determination of the Swampbuster provisions of the 1985 FSA. States have also mandated the use of soil maps. Wisconsin explicitly requires the use of soil maps for a variety of land planning and management mandates, including state wetland determinations. This evolution from a data base for individual use by farmers for farm crop planning and voluntary soil erosion mitigation planning to regulating use of land based on the prior natural condition (i.e., hydric soils that are evidence of prior wetland condition) is an example of how a data base evolves from a data stage to an information or decision-support stage. This evolution begins with awareness of the problem and ends with regulation. Conceptually this evolution consists of five stages (see Figure A.4).

Awareness Stage

The awareness stage is an ongoing process and includes building a constituency in support of public interests. The case for protection of wetlands has been long and arduous. In this process of debate, considerable amounts

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Figure A.4.

Evolution of wetland information technology diffusion.

of data have been assimilated and converted into descriptive information by ecologists, lawyers, and public interest groups (Kusler, 1983; Office of Technology and Assessment, 1984; Conservation Foundation, 1988). This information tends to be nominal or descriptive and has limited analytical and regulatory value (Table A.9). The basis for this concerted effort was the passage of the 1977 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972 (P.L.92–500). In Section 404 of this act, wetlands associated with navigable waters were protected from discharge and dredge materials (Maxted, 1990).

Policy Formulation Stage

The policy formulation stage establishes legislative intent. Congress expanded its interest and authority in wetlands by the 1977 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972 that established EPA's and COE's authority to include all wetlands as part of the waters of the United States. Waters of the United States are defined in the National Pollution Discharge

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Table A.8 Analytical Process to Meet Wetland Mandates

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

 

Elimination System (40 CFR Part 122.2) and Section 404 program (40 CFR Parts 230.3 and 232.2) (Maxted, 1990).

As mentioned earlier, states have also taken responsibility for wetland protection associated with their public trust responsibilities. For example, in 1980 Wisconsin as part of its Wisconsin Shoreland Management Program (N.R. 115) extended its land-use zoning authority to include wetlands associated with its streams, rivers, and lakes. The information associated with this stage is initially ordinal in that wetlands are now legislatively different from other lands (e.g., uplands). To assist in the policy formulation phase, status and trends of the nation's wetlands are now being tracked by the FWS and reported to Congress on a 10-year cycle. This initiation of a systematic sample of wetland environments established the ability to conduct statistical manipulations of the data base.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

TABLE A.9 Evaluation of Information Technology Diffusion

 

Awareness Building Stage

Policy Formulation Stage

Definitional Formulation Stage

Planning Management and Analysis Stage

Private Land Regulation Stage

Types of information

Data

Trends

(legislation)

Rules

(administrative)

Entities

(small scale)

Entities

(large Scale)

Types of measurement and analysis

Descriptive

Classification

Statistical

Case by case entity mapping prediction

Case by case entity mapping prediction

Level of analysis

Nominal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Interval

Ordinal

Interval

Ordinal

Interval

Ratio

Type of information technology used

Maps

Photography

Computer aided drafting functionality

Relatinal functionality

Relational functionality

GIS functinality

Land information system (LIS) functionality

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Definitional Formulation Stage

The regulatory definitional stage requires the establishment of administrative rules and the formulation of reliably measurable definitions. The results of this process have a major impact on the data and information content required to implement the states' public policy. Examples of this definitional process includes Classification of Wetlands & Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979); Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Wetlands Research Program, 1987); Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Environmental Protection Agency, 1987), and the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Trend analysis continues to help refine the information available on the status and trends of the nation's wetlands and to continue policy debate.

Planning, Management, and Analysis Stage

The implementation of legislative and Congressional intent and the associated data requirements is the focus of the planning, management, and analysis stage. Mapping of wetland entities becomes a useful means by which to communicate the location and distribution of these regulated and nonregulated wetlands. Examples include entity mapping such as the NWI and continued authority for trend analysis as part of the EWRA of 1986 (P.L.99–645, Title IV, Wetlands Inventory and Trend Analysis, Sec. 401 National Wetlands Inventory Project).

Also in this stage, land-holding agencies are assessing and managing wetlands according to their individual mandates. These include state departments of natural resources, local government interests, and federal agencies such as the USFS, the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and National Park Service. Use of GIS technology becomes a major analytical and management tool during this stage.

From the viewpoint of planning, management, and analysis, these trend and entity data collected by the FWS as part of the EWRA are used to establish the base line for determining the actual abundance or scarcity and the rate of conversion of wetlands (Tiner, 1984). Consequently, this analysis of trends forms the basis for much of the public debate over wetlands. For example, the trends data were the predominant source used by the Council of Environmental Quality in its Environmental Trends Report on wetlands and wildlife (CEQ, 1989). Because of the value of the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

data, the monitoring cycle and the reporting cycle to Congress as mandated by the EWRA needs to be reduced (e.g., 5 years versus 10 years) through reconciliation with the agencies involved in statistical trend and status analysis. It would also be valuable to intensify the national sampling and to produce statistically significant regional estimates on the status and trends of wetlands.

Private Land Regulation Stage

This final stage, private land regulation, is that of imposing stated public policy on privately held lands. Information requirements become more specific and more demanding. Entity mapping becomes integrated with other data such as property. GIS technology and automated land records integration become important factors. Increased analytical capability is expected. This evolution of wetland information diffusion is in a state of flux (Figure A.5). As the definitional process affects the land development rights on privately held land, the public debate accelerates. This interaction, even though troublesome to the information community, in reality constitutes the implementation process, that process being the difference between the policy of no net loss and the political process of what society and private land owners are willing to endure. It is important that the information diffusion process be understood so that consistent and durable policy leading to an enhanced NSDI be formulated.

Although there have been extensive efforts to define the critical properties associated with wetlands, a politically agreeable decision on the subset to be regulated remains at the center of the wetland controversy. This issue of what is a wetland has become a major public debate because it concerns private land. This controversy is further fueled by the administration's stated goal of no net loss. Where the line from wet to dry is drawn has a major impact on how much wetland exists, how much needs protection, and what constitutes no net loss. This issue is further compounded by those who assert that wetlands serve different functions and that only the most important functions need attention. This is even further compounded by the issue of inherent wetland biological and botanical quality. For example, some wetlands have been invaded by exotic wetland plants, such as Purple Loosestrife. Examples of the debate are represented by the following quotes from a selection of newspapers and magazines.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

FIGURE A.5

Proposed model for diffusion of wetland information. 'The changes being proposed are political changes not based on good science.' said South Carolina Wildlife Federation executive director . . . (C. Pope,  The State, August 27, 1991)

A draft of the new document given to the Associated Press by a member of the administration says the previous definition (Interagency Wetlands Manual, Maron, 1990) 'grossly exaggerated' the country's real wetlands mostly by not requiring that they be very wet. The current definition (March, 1990) says water must come within 18 inches of the surface for at least 7 days of the growing season (this is when chemically soils become hydric in composition and can support hydric vegetation). . . The draft (EPA's) would be stricter, requiring that land be inundated or saturated all the way to the surface for at least 14 consecutive days in the growing season (The State, [Columbia, S.C.] May 15, 1991).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

William Reilly (EPA Chief) thought he had a deal—the Council on Competitiveness (CC)—had agreed that any piece of land that was flooded or saturated for 15 consecutive days a year would constitute a 'wetland' and deserved protection from private development. Within days the council (CC) hatched a new plan, narrowing the definition of 'wetness' by six extra days, satisfying a powerful coalition of farmers and builders and reducing America's wetlands by as much as 30 million acres. (M. Duffy, Time, November 4, 1991).

Once the definitional process deviated from agreed-upon measures in the federal manual, the status and condition of wetlands changed, if the national view is limited to those described as jurisdictional. If this limits the national view, then the usefulness of the NWI trends data base as a measure of wetland status becomes questionable. If the perceived national definition remains substantially different from the NWI sample definitions, a new sample design and scheme would be required beginning with the more limited definition. Reconciliation of these issues requires use of a different process to diffuse wetland information. Such a process would need to be responsive to wetland policy and regulatory functions (see Figure A.5). Until we as a nation can agree on the subset of federal wetlands to be regulated, we cannot inventory them or determine whether they are increasing or decreasing.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the need for a common federal view on the location, status, and trends of wetlands and the subset of those of national interest remains as the primary impediment to broad public and private support. This need also impedes the defining of criteria for spatial data about wetlands. For example, the owners of wetlands say ''that protection efforts have gone too far" (Zinn and Copeland, 1992). A similar concern was reported in USA Today when President Bush was quoted as saying: "We ought to stay with our objective of 'no net loss' ... but we don't want to overdefine what a wetland is." The debate over wetlands has now moved from a question of whether wetlands should be protected to a question of how much protection should be afforded the remaining wetland resource (Zinn and Copeland, 1992).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

A major debate is under way between wetland protection advocates and private land owners. The environmental and wetland advocates have concluded that "a major impediment in maintaining, enhancing, and restoring wetland resources is the lack of a coordinated, consistent approach among federal, state and local governments" (Zinn and Copeland, 1992). This lack of a coordinated and consistent inventory mapping and analysis capability is at the crux of public debate. As pointed out by the Executive Director of the Association of Wetland Managers:

. . . in contrast (to the COE) virtually all state and local governments map wetlands as part of the regulatory process, . . . this lack of a consistent map base results in a federal program subject to varying interpretation by individual regulators. As a result, . . . the regulatory process is difficult and time consuming.... Moreover, both delineating a wetland and applying for a permit are costly" (Kusler, 1992, pp. 29–30). (Niemann, 1992, estimated an annual cost of about $100 million.)

Without the reconciliation and interaction of the NWI, the FSA, and jurisdictional wetlands, and Congressional and public support for a composite federal view, the incorporation of spatial data and information about the nation's wetlands into an NSDI remains problematical.

The FGDC, through its Subcommittee on Wetlands, needs to reconcile the definitional and technical issues that impede our nation's ability to efficiently and effectively map, assess, monitor, and automate wetland information. To accomplish this reconciliation, the FGDC needs to exercise its coordination authority (given in OMB revised Circular A-16) and to develop and implement a wetland information-diffusion model that is responsive to both policy and regulatory requirements.

In pursuing this conclusion, the following reconciliation tasks require immediate attention:

  • Reconcile what information gathering technologies and combinations are most efficient and effective for completing a national and automated view of the NWI, the FSA, and, eventually, jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., the integration of on-site determinations, aerial photographic interpretation, and satellite imagery detection).

  • Reconcile classification and interpretation differences between NWI and FSA wetland delineations (i.e., require that all discernable wetlands are

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

included in both farmed and nonfarmed regions to ensure the implementation of a composite and scientifically based national wetland data base).

  • Reconcile the classification and mapping procedure by which jurisdictional wetland definitions can be nested within the integrated NWI and FSA system (e.g., a separate graphic entity, an attribute to a NWI/FSA wetlands, etc.).

  • Reconcile different digital mapping and attribute standards between the NWI, the FSA, and jurisdictional wetlands.

  • Reconcile classification and sampling differences between the various statistical status and trends effects being conducted and planned by FWS, SCS, and EPA.

  • Reconcile and more precisely define the nature and products of what would constitute a robust national wetland data and information resource (e.g., will it be a traditional NWI cartographic product of 1:24,000? What will be the cartographic representation of wetland entities, polygons, points, or symbols? What will be the cartographic and digital products of the 1:12,000 National Orthophoto Program (e.g., digital or paper products)? Will it be (1) a central automated data base, (2) a distributed digital layer for use by FSA, SCS, EPA, etc., other state and local agencies, private interests such as Ducks Unlimited, or (3) a distributed within-layer data base where every entity provides its part?

  • Reconcile how state, local, and federal agencies can provide and gain access to wetland data.

REFERENCES

BEST/WSTB (1992). Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): Interim Report, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST) and Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB), National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 25 pp.

Burgess, W. S. (1992). Maryland's Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quad Mapping and Wetlands Inventory Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration.


Conservation Foundation (1988). Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The Conservation Foundation, Washington D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1989). Environmental Trends , Co-sponsored by the Interagency Committee on Environmental Trends, Washington D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Cowardin, L. M. (1982). Wetlands and deepwater habitats: A new classification, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe (1979). Classification of Wetlands & Deepwater Habitats of the United States , Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Dahl, T. E. (1990). Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Dahl, T. E. (1992). Wetland Status and Trends—The Link to Remote Sensing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson (1991). Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970's to mid-1980's, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

DOI Office of Inspector General (1992). Audit Report: National Wetlands Inventory Mapping Activities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Report No. 92-I-790, Washington, D.C., 54 pp.

Ducks Unlimited (1992). Wetland Bacteria Removes Nitrates, Improve Water Quality, Ducks Unlimited 1992 (January/February).

Duffy, M. (1991). Need friends in high places? Time, November 4, 1991.


Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual-Volume I Rationale, Wetland Parameters, and Overview of Jurisdictional Approach, Washington D.C.


FGDC (1991). A National Geographic Information Resource: The Spatial Foundation of the Information-Based Society, FGDC First Annual Report to the Director of OMB.

FGDC (1992). Subcommittee on Wetlands working document—Application of satellite data for mapping and monitoring wetlands, Washington, D.C.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (1989). Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.


Kusler, J. A. (1983). Our National Wetland Heritage Handbook: A Protection Guidebook, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

Kusler, J., (1992). Wetland delineation: An issue of science or politics, Environment 34 (2).


Maxted, J. R. (1990). Wetland mapping supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Coastal Wetland Mapping Programs, Biological Report 90 (18), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.


Nelson, E. H., K. H. Hughes, and R. O. Morgenweek (1990). Memorandum to E.S. Goldstein-Report on the Wetlands Inventory Workshop, dated December 11, 1990), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service National Oceanographic Data Center, Washington D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×

Niemann, B. J., Jr. (1992). Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Technology: Modernizing the Wetland Permitting Process, CRSS Architects, Inc. , Houston Texas.

Niering, W. A. (1986). Wetlands, The Audubon Society, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.

Office of Technology Assessment (1984). Wetlands: Their Use & Regulation , U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.


Pope, C. (1991). Wetlands definition blasted, The State (Columbia, S.C.), Aug. 27, 1991.


SCS (1992). Remote Sensing Wetland Recertification Project: Interim Report, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 6 pp.

Seligmann, J., and M. Hager (1991). What on Earth is a Wetland? The White House Seeks a New Definition, Newsweek, Aug. 26, 1991.


The State (1991). Proposed "Wetlands" definition draws fire, The State (Columbia, S.C.) May 15, 1991.

Tiner, R. W. (1984). Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Trends, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Survey, Washington D.C.


Urban Land Institute (1985). Wetlands: Mitigating and Regulating Development Impacts, Urban Land Institute.


Want, W. L. (1991). Law of Wetlands Regulation, Clark Boardman Co., Ltd., New York.

Wetlands Research Program (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y87-1, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Wilen, B. O., and H. R. Pywell (1992). Remote Sensing the Nation's Wetlands—The National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.


Zinn, J., and C. Copeland (1992). Wetland Issues in the 102nd Congress, CRS Issue Brief, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Spatial Data and Wetlands." National Research Council. 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2105.
×
Page 168
Next: Acronyms »
Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) is the means to assemble geographic information that describes the arrangement and attributes of features and phenomena on the Earth. This book advocates the need to make the NSDI more robust. The infrastructure includes the materials, technology, and people necessary to acquire, process, store, and distribute such information to meet a wide variety of needs. The NSDI is more than hardware, software, and data; it is the public foundation on which a marketplace for spatial products will evolve.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!