Shannon McCulloch

Georgaphy 431
Assignment 4.1
24 September 2017
Classifying Aquatic Ecosystems Using National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

Area: Hayden Run, St. Marys County, Maryland (Fig. 1)

Latitude-Longitude: N 38.377626, W -76.7813561 (Fig. 2) (labeled are other components of Fig.
2- latitude-longitude for those components are not listed, only that of Hayden Run)
Classification Systems Compared:
Cowardin et al. (1979)
Ramsar (2009)
I chose a portion of Hayden Run, a stream located in St. Marys County, Maryland, USA. St.
Marys County is a part of the Coastal Plain Province (Tiner and Burke 1995) Hayden Run is
part of a series of streams and rivers coming together to spill out into Chaptico Bay. As you can
see in the image (Fig. 2), the Hayden Run includes a variety of tributaries and a main stream,
Chaptico Creek, winding to the Chaptico Bay outlet. A series of freshwater ponds can be seen
within close proximity of Hayden Run, possibly due to the presence of farmlands.

Table 1. Comparing the Cowardin et al. (1979) and Ramsar (2009) aquatic classification systems
for five freshwater habitats.
Cowardin Code Cowardin Type Ramsar Code Ramsar Type
Freshwater, tree-
dominated wetlands:
including freshwater
swamp forest,
seasonally flooded
Palustrine Forested forest, wooded
Broad-Leaved (FO) swamps; on inorganic
1. PFO1R soils/
Deciduous (1) Xf or Ts Seasonal/intermittent
Seasonally Flooded- freshwater
marshes/pools on
Tidal (R)
inorganic soil;
includes sloughs,
potholes, seasonally
flooded meadows,
sedge marshes.
 2. Pf Ponds (human made
Palustrine Farmed (f) 2
wetlands)
Palustrine Emergent
(EM) Persistent (1) /
Palustrine (P) Scrub-
3. PEM1/SS1R Shrub-Dominated
Shrub (SS) Broad- W
Wetlands
Leveled Deciduous
(1) Seasonal-Tidal
(R)
Ponds (human made
wetlands)/ Permanent
freshwater
Palustrine marshes/pools; ponds
(below 8 ha), marshes
Unconsolidated
and swamps on
4. PUBHx Bottom Permanently 2 or Tp inorganic soils; with
Flooded (H) emergent vegetation
water-logged for at
Excavated (x) least most of the
growing season.

Riverine Unknown
Perennial (5) Permanent
5. R5UBH Unconsolidated M rivers/streams/creeks:
Bottom Permanently including waterfalls
Flooded (H)

Table 1 shows the Cowardin et al. (1979) in contrast to the Ramsar system. As determined by
Cowardin et al. (1979), the Palustrine system is the classification for a variety of both nontidal
and tidal wetlands. The next label for classification is the type of vegetation found in the area,
then a label determining hydrologic characteristics. The final classification label encompasses
any special modifiers, for example x= a wetland basin or channel that has been excavated by
humans. The Ramsar Wetland Type Classification System follows a few categories:
Marine/Costal Wetlands, Inland Wetlands & Human-Made Wetlands. After determining the
broad category of wetland, a variety of subcategories can be located within. For example, a few
subcategories under the Marine/Costal Wetlands category include: coral reefs, rocky marine
shores, sand, shingle or pebble shores, etc.
I found the Cowardin et al. system easier to navigate; however, the Ramsar system was much
more fun to use. Like a puzzle, the Ramsar system required a lot more thought in determining the
category of wetland. It is nice that the Cowardin et al. (1979) was clear and the hierarchical
structure made the classifications clear and easy to follow. I feel that the danger that could lie
within the Ramsar classification system is that if not used correctly, it could become very
subjective while the Cowardin et al. (1979) is fairly objective in style of classification. Cowardin
et al (1979) neglects to provide a category or subcategory for wetlands created by humans that
was later included in Ramsar classification system (Wetlands). Both classification systems take
components such as vegetation, water depth, water type (fresh or salt) and hydrologic
characteristics (how permanent each is) into account in each classification system, respectively.

Figure 1. Location map for aquatic features in the vicinity of Hayden Run in St. Marys County,
Maryland, USA (Google Maps)
Figure 2. Wetland Mapper image (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html) focused on
part of St. Marys County, MD, USA that includes all five of the selected wetlands. The labels in
black have automatically identified the wetlands that were selected. At this scale, red labels were
added to account for wetlands classifications that did not appear unless further zoomed in. All
are in accordance with the Cowardin et al. classification codes.

Figure 3. Google maps image (https://www.google.com/maps) of Hayden Run and surrounding

wetlands in St. Marys County, Maryland, USA. This view shows the researched area as satellite
view without wetlands classifications.
 References Cited

Department of the Environment and Energy. Ramsar Wetland Type Classification.Ramser

Wetland Type Classification , Department of the Environment and Energy, 28 Aug. 2009,

www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar/wetland-type-classification.

Google Maps, Google, www.google.com/maps.

Tiner, R.W. and Burke, D.G., 1995, Wetlands of Maryland: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Region 5, Hadley, Massachusetts and Maryland Department of

Natural Resources, Baltimore, Maryland, 408 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Wetlands Inventory; National Standards and Support

Team. Wetland Classification Codes, www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/wetland-codes.html.

Wetlands Types and Classifications,

www.personal.ceu.hu/students/03/nature_conservation/wwddetail/Types_classif.html.