The text of the characterization, or in this case 

 the text for the pilot study, is to start at the begin- 

 ning or at some point near the beginning in our un- 

 derstanding of a particular process or system. Dr. 

 Tim Joyner, a consultant on this project who is 

 writing the section concerning geologic processes, 

 located a discussion by William Maclure which 

 seems to establish a base for further analysis. Mac- 

 lure's observations (1817) seems to give us a starting 

 point for our discussion of the geologic processes 

 for the Coos Bay Pilot Study. Another starting 

 point that was selected for the discussion of Trophic 

 Structures was Lindeman's analysis of The Trophic- 

 Dynamic Aspect of Ecology (Lindeman 1942). 



Whether we like to admit it or not, most of the 

 information transferred within the FWS and from 

 the Service to other agencies is in black and white 

 and reproduced on copying machines. Therefore, 

 to obtain the greatest long-term use of the maps 

 and other graphic materials being produced for the 

 characterization, we are using black and white. The 

 pilot study contains several different approaches to 

 information presentation, and the reviewers are se- 

 lecting the ones that they consider the most useful. 

 Furthermore, we are attempting to avoid oversized 

 documents by fitting most of our information on 

 8'/2-by-l 1-inch pages. A few foldout pages have been 

 included, which are 11 by 17 inches. 



One of the most perplexing problems in com- 

 pleting the pUot study of Coos Bay has been to 

 match the depth or extent of information coverage 

 with manpower. Actual data collection and analy- 

 sis for the Coos Bay Watershed Unit (one of 10 

 units to be characterized) began on 1 June 1977, 

 and was completed 4 months later on 30 Septem- 

 ber 1977. If 4 months are required for each water- 

 shed, we will not complete the project by the 

 scheduled completion date of December 1978. 

 However, we think that future units will be com- 

 pleted more rapidly because the conceptual model 

 has been refined using actual data, the graphics and 

 format will stabilize, and the amount of information 

 required for each new unit will decrease as the proj- 

 ect nears completion. 



For example, the FWS is providing the wetland 

 maps for the Pilot Study area and also for the en- 

 tire characterization area. Our first efforts on the 

 Coos Bay Unit took approximately 1.5 man-months 

 to locate and delineate the wetlands found within 

 the five quadrangle maps that make up the unit. 

 The process of wetland mapping proceeds as fol- 

 lows: 



1. Aerial photographs obtained; 



2. Field reconnaissance of the study area com- 

 pleted; 



3. Classification and delineation of wetlands 

 completed according to the FWS Classifi- 

 cation System; and 



4. Field check sites as necessary. 



During our initial effort on Coos Bay the pho- 

 tographs were delineated and then 17 sites were 

 checked. One major problem was identified during 

 these checks; mapping conventions must be well 

 established. For example, originally the photointer- 

 preters were using tidegates as the head of high tide. 

 Ground checks indicated that about half of the 

 tidegates were inoperable and that head of tide was 

 actually further upstream. The mapping conven- 

 tion that was chosen to remedy this mapping prob- 

 lem was modified from a definition in Oregon Es- 

 tuaries (Oregon Division of State Lands 1973). The 

 head of tide, as we are defining it now, is a point of 

 continuous diking along the river edge where the 

 tideland narrows to a width of approximately 6 to 

 9 m (20 to 30 ft). 



Now that the first set of wetland maps has 

 been produced, we believe that the effort required 

 for future mapping can be greatly reduced. Ground 

 truth sites can probably be reduced from 17 to 10 

 or less and the final field checks eliminated entirely. 

 We believe that the mapping effort will be 0.5 man- 

 month per unit as opposed to 1.5 man-months re- 

 quired for the Coos Bay Unit. 



CONCLUSION 



What have we learned from the Pilot Study of 

 Coos Bay, Oregon? Although we have just com- 

 pleted the pilot study, it appears that: 



1. The conceptual model is a suitable frame- 

 work for data collection; 



2. The contractor has adequate manpower to 

 complete the characterization on schedule; 



3. The depth of coverage is sufficient for an 

 understanding of functional relationships 

 and dynamics of the processes described in 

 the characterization; and 



4. The amount of information collected is not 

 so extensive that it cannot be synthesized 

 into a comprehensible document. 



However, there are also some problems that 

 have been identified during the pilot study. One of 

 the most persistent problems is showing the rela- 

 tionship between natural resources and socioeco- 

 nomic processes. We are having difficulty showing 



17 



