WESPAK-SE: Wetland Functional Assessment by Paul Adamus

WESPAK‐SE

Paul Adamus, Ph.D.Graduate Faculty,

Water Resources Graduate Program andMarine Resource Management Program

Oregon State Universityand

Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.phone: 541‐745‐7092

[email protected]

September 12‐14, 2012Haines, AK

Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for Southeast Alaska

mailto:[email protected]

Wetland Determination

Wetland Delineation

Wetland Classification

Wetland Categorization

Wetland Assessment

Ecosystem Services

Which Wetlands Are The Most Important?

1. What criteria should we use to tell?Health ? Threat/ Risk ? Rarity/ Loss Rate? Sensitivity? Ecosystem Services?

2. How much information should we require?

Does knowing just a wetland’s type tell us enough?Is GIS compilation of existing spatial data enough?Are one‐time field observations enough?Are advanced methods of imagery interpretation enough?Is analysis of water quality, soils, plants, etc. necessary?

Wetland Attributes That Are Important to Assess

• Risk to Wetland:• Stressors (Threats)• Sensitivity = Resistance & Resilience to stressors

• Functions: what a wetland does naturally

• Values (Benefits):Values of Functions (e.g., water storage flood protection)

Opportunity to perform function (upslope)Significance of function when performed (downslope)

Integrity (a.k.a. Ecological Condition, Health, Quality, Naturalness)Recreation, Education, AestheticsProduction of Commodities (timber, hay, fish, etc.)

Ecosystem Services = Functions + their Values

2009

2011

2012

Oregon

Alaska southeast

Alberta south

United States

1983, 1987

WESPAK‐SE Origins

1983. Federal Highway Wetland Evaluation Method (applied nationally)

1986. Juneau Wetlands Study Criteria Management Plan

1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)

2001‐05. Oregon Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) methods

2009. Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol (ORWAP)

2010. Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for the U.S. (WESPUS)

2011. WESPAK‐SE

Ongoing

2012. Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for Alberta (WESPAB)

2013. Nearshore Marine WESPUS for Puget Sound (Adamus, Houghton, Simenstad, et al.)

2013. Stream Functional Assessment & Mitigation Crediting Protocol for Oregon (ESA Inc., Skidmore, Adamus, et al.)

Example of Output from a Function Assessment Method

Function Time 1

Value Time 1

Function Time 2

Value Time 2

Water Storage & Delay 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.9

Sediment Stabilization & Phosphorus Retention

0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6

Nitrogen Removal 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.5

Thermoregulation 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5

Primary Production 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7

Resident Fish Habitat 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

Anadromous Fish Habitat 0 0.6 0.5 0.6

Invertebrate Habitat 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1

Amphibian & Turtle Habitat 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.2

Breeding Waterbird Habitat 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.4

Non‐breeding Waterbird Habitat 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1

Songbird Habitat 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7

Support of Characteristic Vegetation 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7

Functions and Values should be assessed independently of each other.

Level of FUNCTIONS Level of VALUES Action

HIGH HIGH Avoid/ Preserve

LOW HIGH Enhance/ Restore ?

HIGH LOW Maintain ?

LOW LOW Develop w. mitigation ?

Uses of OutputsPRIMARY:

• Compare ecosystem services of different wetlands ad hoc and use as a basis for avoidance or compensation.

• Identify wetland designs that may provide greatest levels of particular ecosystem services.

• Identify ways to minimise impacts to functions of a wetland.

SUPPORTING:

• Prioritise all wetland sites in a watershed or region.

• Monitor success of individual restoration projects.

• Provide inputs to wetland economic models.

assessment method: Data form + Guidance document + Models/criteria

models. Decision rules, criteria, or equations by which information on variables is summarized into a score, qualitative rating, rank, index, or other representation of an attribute.

Variables Indicators < Models > Attributes

Example of a Function Assessment Scoring Model

Fish Habitat Suitability = Access x (WaterQuality + Cover + Temperature)

WESPAK Basic Features

Intended to get away from simplistic assumptions, e.g., bogs better than forested wetlands.

Provides 0‐10 score for 16 wetland functions and their values.

Recommended by the IRT. Oregon version required by State of Oregon. Long history.

The only field method being calibrated specifically to Southeast Alaska. (tested on 40+ sites).

Tidal & Non‐tidal Wetlands. Office & Field components.

Uses ~120 indicators, but many “skip to’s.” Takes less than 3 hours per site.

Quick to learn. No specialized expertise required.

High repeatability is anticipated (in Oregon, only 5% variation in independent scores).

Strongly rooted in scientific literature and peer review.

Can be applied at multiple scales:Entire wetland: prioritization for purchase or enhanced regulatory protection.Part of a wetland: road widening residential development

Steps for Using WESPAK-SE

1. Go online and download the current version of: Excel spreadsheet PDF files for data forms OF, FieldF, and FieldS.

Print the PDF files, not the Excel spreadsheet.

2. Read and thoroughly understand the Manual.

3. Fill out the CovPg and Office Form (OF)• Obtain and view topo map and aerial image • Draw boundaries of assessment area (AA) and contributing area (CA)• Obtain specific info from web sites and local sources

4. Visit the wetland. Fill out 2 data forms -- FieldF and FieldS.Identify plants, texture the soils, observe hydrology indicators.

5. Enter the data in Excel spreadsheet.

6. Process and interpret the results.

Download the Latest Version of WESPAK‐SE from Here:

Web Portal for WESPAK‐SE

Examples of Indicator Questions

True‐False:

Choose the most applicable:

Choose all applicable:

Acidic Pools

Most pools within the AA are depressions in a peat layer of > 4 inch depth, or have darkly-stained waters (brownish tannins), and/or a pH < 5.5. Nearby vegetation is mostly moss and/or evergreen shrubs.

0

N Fixers

The cover of nitrogen-fixing plants (e.g., alder, sweetgale, legumes) in the AA or the percent of the AA's water edge occupied by those (whichever contains more) is:

<1% or none 01-25% 0>25% 0

Woody Diameter Classes

Mark all the types whose stems comprise >5% of the woody stems in the AA:

deciduous 1-4" diameter and >3 ft tall 0evergreen 1-4" diameter and >3 ft tall 0deciduous 4-9" diameter 0evergreen 4-9" diameter 0deciduous 9-21" diameter 0evergreen 9-21" diameter 0

[spreadsheet]

Delimiting a Wetland’s Contributing Area

Delimiting the Assessment Units:

View wetland maps at: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html

http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html

Delimiting the Assessment Area (AA)

Other Wetland Assessment Methods in Alaska (a few examples)

1. Models for Assessing Functions and Values of Juneau Wetlands (1987, 2007, 2010)

2. HGM (hydrogeomorphic) methods:• Riverine and Slope River Proximal Wetlands in Coastal Southeast & Southcentral Alaska• Flat Wetlands on Precipitation Driven and Discontinuous Permafrost in Interior Alaska• Flat/Slope Wetland Complexes in the Cook Inlet Basin Ecoregion

3. AKWAM Montana WET

4. NatureServe Method (Juneau)

5. Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA – Sitka airport project)

HGM (vs. WESPAK‐SE)HGM is an Approach (no national Method)

• must classify wetland first.• must first develop separate method for each HGM type and region – this requires intensive field measurements. • does not score the relative value of any function .• assumption: least‐altered wetlands are highest‐functioning.

WET/ Juneau methods

• categorical output only (High, Medium, Low, etc.)• outdated science • not calibrated outside of Juneau

Why Should the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Condition be Standardized?

• Few people are knowledgeable about all wetland functions.

• Few people can instantly recall all indicators potentially applicable to a given wetland function.

• Different people implicitly give more weight to some indicators than others.

• Any reduction in arbitrariness of assessments leads to increased public confidence in the objectivity of the results.

• “Paper trail” is helpful for legal reasons.

The Trade‐off: less flexibility to accomodate the quirks of a particular site

Validation. Test methods and models relative to a pre‐specified performance standard or objective.

• repeatability. The reproducibility or replicability of a method as demonstrated by the consistency (precision) of its results among independent users and across time.

• sensitivity. The ability to discriminate finely among alternative conditions or gradations of an attribute across a specified range of conditions, i.e., its responsiveness.

• accuracy. The degree to which something approaches reality. “Reality” may be represented simply by independent judgments of experts, or by extensive and intensive robust measurements of a function or other attribute.

Designing good methods isn’t just science … it’s architecture.… the art of designing a method that gets you the information you’re really seeking.

(1) BPJ approach (open‐ended questions):• Is the water regime optimal to support frog egg deposition?

(2) A more standardized approach:• Is most of the wetland 1‐3 m deep?

(3) A qualified standardized approach:• spatially‐qualified: Are depths of at least 1m present in >50% of the unshaded portion of the wetland?

• temporally‐qualified:Is the above present during most of the period, May‐July?

Basic Principles of Wetland Functioning

Focus: Ground Water

from: Smith et al. 1995

New Groundwater Formation

• Intensity/duration of precipitation.• Vegetation cover and evapotranspiration. • Topography and recharge zones. (Infiltration rate is called recharge.)• Extent of vadose (unsaturated) zone• Sheet flow (runoff) versus infiltration

‐ Soil texture & permeability (coarser = more infiltration)‐ Soil water content & holding capacity (high values may impede infiltration)

courtesy Pennsylvania State University

National HGM Classification (Brinson 1993)

HGM Class Water Sources That Define It Usual NWI Systems

Estuarine Fringe ocean> runoff> groundwater Estuarine> Riverine> Palustrine

Riverine runoff> groundwater> precip Riverine> Palustrine

Slope groundwater> runoff Palustrine> Riverine

Flats precip> groundwater> runoff Palustrine

Depressional runoff> groundwater> precip Palustrine

Lacustrine Fringe runoff> precip> groundwater Lacustrine> Palustrine

Water Quality Functions and Values

Functions Values of the Functions (examples)

Water Cooling salmonid summer habitat in lowlands

Water Warming marine productivity & wintering fish habitat

Sediment Retention & Stabilization

protect salmonid spawning areas; keep toxic metals from mobilizing

Phosphorus Retention maintain preferred food webs?

Nitrate Removal maintain preferred food webs? detoxification?

Nitrogen Removal ‐‐ wetlands VERY important

model for Nitrate Removal

Value of Nitrate RemovalAVERAGE(MAX(Aquifer,Drink),MAX(NSource,CAnatPct,Imperv,PopDist), average (Inflo,ShedPos,BuffSlope,Transport, Anad,Nsource,Nfix)

Organic Matter Cycling ‐‐ contrasting values?

Functions Values of the Functions (examples)

Carbon Sequestration maintain global climate; maintain wetland soil integrity (up to a point)

Organic Matter Export critically important nutrients for food webs (nearshore marine, streams, lakes);immobilize toxic metals;protect aquatic life from ultraviolet radiation

models for NestingWaterbird Habitat

Value of Nesting Waterbird Habitat =

IF((TooSteep=1),0,IF((DeepSpot + Lake + LakeProx + Fringe =0),0, ELSE: average [AqPlantCov, Size, Wettype,Waterscape, average (Hydro,Struc,Produc,Lscape)]

IF((MAX(Rare,_IBA)>UniqPatch),MAX(Rare,_IBA),UniqPatch

models for Pollinator Habitat

Value of Pollinator Habitat

= average (wetuniq,rareherb)

average (PollenOnsite, PollenOffsite,NestSites)

Too much:

• enrichment hypoxia

• contamination

• salt

• sediment

• shade

• water

• removal of water

• removal of vegetation

The results:

• invasion by exotic species

• fragmentation of habitat

• loss of function & value (usually)

Wetland Stressors (FieldS data form)

a). Risk of FailureType of Mitigation Wetland Type & Design (“appropriateness”)Location

StressorsSensitivity of the Geomorphic Setting

Long-term Financial Security

b). Acres

c). Wetland ImportanceFunctions, Values, Sensitivity

“No Net Loss” –Factors That Could Influence Ratios for Offsite Mitigation

Paul Adamus March 2010

Wetlands Credit Accounting

• Eligibility

• Calculation Method

• Verification

• Registration

• Tracking

Key Components

Sample Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation in Alaska –USACE Alaska District, 2009 (Appendix B)

Type of Compensatory Mitigation

Impacted Wetland or Other Waters of the U.S.

Preservation Restoration and /or

EnhancementLOWCategory III or IV 1.5:1 1:1

MODERATECategory II or III 2:1 1:1

HIGHCategory I or II 3:1 2:1

Grouped Service Functions and Aggregated Functions Assessed by WESPAK-SE

Grouped Service Functions

Aggregated Functions Within Each Grouped Service

Hydrologic Function (WS) Water storage & delay (WS)Stream Flow Support (SFS)

Water Quality Functions (WQ)

Streamwater cooling (WC)Streamwater warming (WW)Sediment & toxicant retention & stabilization (SR)Phosphorus retention (PR)Nitrate removal & retention (NR)

Fish Support (FISH) Anadromous fish habitat (FA)Resident and other fish habitat (FR)

Aquatic Support (AQ) Aquatic invertebrate habitat (INV)Amphibian habitat (AM)Waterbird feeding habitat (WBF)Waterbird nesting habitat (WBN)

Terrestrial Support (TERR) Songbird, raptor & mammal habitat (SBM)Native plant diversity (PD)Pollinator habitat (POL)

Carbon Sequestration (CS) Carbon Sequestration (CS) Organic matter export (OE)

Function Scores and Relative Performance –Blueberry Hill (10L, 4M, 4H)


Aggregated Functions Within Each Grouped Service Blueberry Hill


2.390

LL



4.358.4210.010.010.0

MHHHH


00

LL


4.795.26

00

MMLL


4.573.483.52

LML


4.630

LL

Function Scores and Relative Performance –Vanderbilt (6M, 12H)


Aggregated Functions Within Each Grouped Service Vanderbilt


3.804.65

MM



5.287.085.245.506.01

MHHHH


7.056.59

HH


6.025.844.705.31

HMHH


5.365.227.50

MHH


5.606.69

MH

Highest Score in Each Grouped Service Function

Grouped Service Functions Blueberry Hill Vanderbilt

Hydrologic Function (WS) 2.39 4.65

Water Quality Functions (WQ) 10 7.08

Fish Support (FISH) 0 6.69

Aquatic Support (AQ) 5.26 6.02

Terrestrial Support (TERR) 4.57 7.50

Average Overall Score 4.4 6.4

Scatter Plot to Estimate Performance Levels (Example from ORWAP data)

Compensating for STREAM impacts: example from Montana

Other Ecosystem Services(consensus of 12+ agencies, facilitated by Willamette Partnership)

“Currencies” With Tools• Wetlands• Upland Prairies• Salmon Habitat• Stream Temperature• Nutrients

http://willamettepartnership.org/

http://willamettepartnership.org/

WESPAK-SE: Wetland Functional Assessment by Paul Adamus

Technology

Transcript of WESPAK-SE: Wetland Functional Assessment by Paul Adamus