## 3 Results  
Our 2017-2020 hydroperiod product for the study area captured wetlands down to a minimum area of 400 m\({}^{2}\) and a flood frequency ranging from 1-100% (Figure 3). Flooded areas covered 2600 km\({}^{2}\), with nearly 70% of that coverage constituting infrequent flooding (i.e., flood frequency of 1-20%). In comparison, moderate (21-80%) and high (81-100%) flood frequency classes covered 478 km\({}^{2}\) and 367 km\({}^{2}\), respectively. The quick assessment of the hydroperiod with the set of withheld labeled validation segments from a spring 2018 flooded/non-flooded classification showed 95% accuracy in classifying flooded and non-flooded segments.  
When converting the hydroperiod data to inventory data (Figure 4), it was observed that the landscape was primarily dominated by temporary and seasonal marshes. Swamps are present but usually in small numbers and are more commonly found in the western portions of the study area closer to the Rocky Mountains. Semi-permanent wetlands are typically larger depressions which only dry out in dry periods during fall, while temporary and seasonal wetlands are numerous and typically small. A detailed view of the results in a cultivated area that contained distinct potholes with varying permanence highlights the dynamic nature of these wetland features (Figure 5). Semi-permanent marsh is the largest and currently flooded in the ESRI baselayer imagery. Seasonal wetlands are moderate in size and show flooded or saturated wetland vegetation. Temporary wetlands are the smallest and, in some cases, appear to be normal agricultural fields in the ESRI imagery. These are the wetlands that likely exist for only a few weeks to a month in some seasons.  
Figure 3: The hydroperiod for 2017-2020 showing flood frequency (%) classes from 1–100%. Circled map insets (**A–E**) show select magnified regions. Background is a DEM-derived hillshade.  
Figure 4: The seven-class wetland inventory for the study area. Two insets show areas with different wetland classes and permanence. Background is the Esri Terrain with Labels baselayer [42]. (Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community).  
Figure 5: Close-up view of a section of the wetland inventory product with comparison to the Esri World Imagery baselayer [43] (ESRI Canada, HERE, Garmin, NOAA, USGS, EPA, NRCAN, Parks Canada, CGIAR, Vulcan County, Maxar). The three levels of marsh permanence can be seen in this one area.  
For a comparison of our wetland inventory product, the photo-interpreted DUC validation datasets revealed that non-wetland areas had a very high accuracy (98%) in assessments at both the class and the wetland/non-wetland level (Tables 3 and 4). The marsh class showed a 60% user and 72% producer accuracy compared to the DUC data with the most confusion occurring with upland. The open water class achieved close to 100% user accuracy but only 9% producer accuracy, with most of shallow/open water in the DUC data being classified as marsh. The small area of swamp in the DUC data did not match up with the wetland inventory product, suggesting these data are insufficient for assessing the accuracy of the swamp class. Overall, the wetland inventory product was assessed to be have 96% accuracy at the wetland/upland level, although most of this accuracy comes from the relative area of the upland class.