WESPAK‐SE

Paul Adamus, Ph.D.Graduate Faculty,

Water Resources Graduate Program andMarine Resource Management Program

Oregon State Universityand

Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.

adamus7@comcast.net

May 2012Juneau, AK

© all rights reserved

Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for Southeast Alaska

Monday8:30 Introductions. Course logistics.

Brief history of wetland assessmentDefinitions: wetland functions, values, and “health” (condition)How WESPAK‐SE works

10:15 BREAKDelimiting the assessment unitFill out Office Form (OF) for wetland #1 (Blueberry Hill non‐tidal)Future: Internet portal for wetlands of Southeast Alaska

11:45 LUNCH1:15 Visit wetland #1 and apply WESPAK‐SE4:30 end

Tuesday8:30 Review scores from wetland #1

Lecture: Principles of Hydrologic Functioning & ValueLecture: Principles of Water Quality Functioning & Value

10:15 BREAKLecture:  Habitat Support – Models for Functions & ValuesFill out Office Form (OF) for wetland #2 (Fish Creek tidal)

11:45 LUNCH1:15 Visit wetland #2 and apply WESPAK‐SE4:30 end

Wednesday8:30 Visit and assess wetland #3 (Vanderbilt non‐tidal) 11:45 LUNCH1:15 Go over Office Form (OF) for wetland #3 (Vanderbilt non‐tidal)

Review scores from wetlands #2 and #32:30 BREAK

Calculating ratios, debits, & credits – some optionsGeneral discussion and feedback

4:30 end

Wetland Determination

Wetland Delineation

Wetland Classification

Wetland Categorization

Wetland Assessment

Ecosystem Services

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.)

2009

2011

2012

Oregon

Alaska southeast

Alberta  south

United States

1983, 1987

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

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

The Finer (but essential!) Points• The function scores are relative, not absolute.

• No qualitative descriptors are associated with particular score intervals.

• Summing or otherwise combining the function or value scores has no basis in science.

• Expect no site to rank high for all functions.

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.

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

Delimiting the Assessment Area (AA)

Operating Principles for Delimiting Wetland Assessment Units

Delimit units based on surface flow similarity (consider culverts, natural constrictions, above‐grade roads, etc. to be delimitors)

In lakes, rivers, and estuaries, delimit units separated by a wide expanse of deepwater (>2m).  Don’t do this in shallow ponds (<20 acres)... assess the whole pond.

Delimit separate units based on HGM class only if one of the HGM classes occupies >20%of the wetland.

Don’t divide a wetland into assessment units based ONLY on:Property linesFencesLand cover or zoning designationsVegetation or Cowardin (NWI mapped polygon) types

F10.Onsite Surface WaterIsolation (Wet Season)

During most of the wettest time of a normal year, the percent of the surface water that is in or connected to ditches, swales, or flowing channels that exit the AA, compared to surface water that is in isolated pools that do not connect annually to channels or swales (if any), is:

all (100%) located in channels, swales, or in other areas with a wet-season surface connection to channels or to a contiguous lake or estuary

75-99% in or connected to channels, swales, or contiguous lake/ estuary, 1-25% in isolated pools

50-75% in or connected to channels, swales, or contiguous lake/ estuary, 25-50% in isolated pools

25-50% in or connected to channels, swales, or contiguous lake/ estuary, 50-75% in isolated pools

1-25% in or connected to channels, swales, or contiguous lake/ estuary, 75-99% in isolated pools

all located in isolated pools or a single isolated pond from which no surface water exits

F12.Predominant Depth Class

During most of the time surface water is present, its depth in most of the inundated part of the AA is:>6 ft deep2-6 ft deep1-2 ft deep0.5 - 1 ft deep<0.5 ft deep

F13.Depth Class Distribution

During most of the time when surface water is present (select one):

One depth class (use the classes in F12) comprises >90% of the AA’s inundated area

One depth class comprises >50% of the AA's inundated areaNeither of above

F21.Throughflow Complexity

During peak annual flow, the surface water that flows through the AA's channel or floodplain:

encounters little or no vegetation, boulders, or other sources of friction.

mostly encounters herbaceous vegetation that offers little resistance, and water follows a fairly straight path from entrance to exit (few internal channels, only slight meandering)

mostly encounters herbaceous vegetation that offers little resistance and follows a fairly indirectpath from entrance to exit (non-channelized flow or many internal channels, or very braided or tightly meandering)

encounters measurable resistance from fairly-rigid vegetation (e.g., cattail, bulrush, woody plants) or channel-clogging debris, and follows a fairly straight path from entrance to exit.

encounters measurable resistance from fairly-rigid vegetation (e.g., cattail, bulrush, woody species) or channel-clogging debris, and follows a fairly indirect path from entrance to exit.

Upland Edge Shape Complexity

Most of the edge between the wetland and upland is (select one):

Linear: a significant proportion of the wetland's upland edge is straight, as in wetlands bounded by partly or wholly by dikes or roads

Convoluted: Wetland perimeter is many times longer than maximum width of the wetland, with many alcoves and indentations ("fingers")

Intermediate: Wetland's perimeter either (a) is only mildly convoluted, or (b) mixed -- contains about lengths of linear and convoluted segments.

F79.Buffer Slope

Along the AA's wetland-upland boundary and extending 100 ft uphill, the average slope of the land is mostly:

<1% (flat -- almost no noticeable slope, or there is no upland boundary)

2-5%5-30%>30%

F80Edge Slope

Within 10 ft of ponded surface water (if any) in early summer, the percent of the vegetated area (wetland or upland) that has a gentle or moderate slope (less than 5% slope) is:

>75%50-75%25-50%1-25%<1%,(ponded surface water in early summer covers <1% of AA, or AA is tidal)

Indicators of HIGH water (= upper limit of Seasonally Inundated zone)Water marks on trees (moss); water‐stained leaves; algae amid grass stemsDrift lines of debris on ground or suspended in shrubs Scoured areas on the soil surfaceFresh deposits of water‐borne sedimentHeight of outlet or berm relative to current water levelAquatic bed plants without water beneathAirphoto sequence

Indicators of LOW water (= lower limit of Seasonally Inundated zone) (= upper limit of Permanently Inundated zone)Minimal vegetation (all Obligates).  No woody.TopographyAirphoto sequence

Size of Nearby “Natural Land Cover”

Important Fishery Subsistence Areas of Southeast Alaska

IN PROGRESS:  Southeast Alaska Online Wetlands Data Portal !

1. User enters the latitude‐longitude, e.g., permit application.2. The portal will overlay maps needed to answer form OF questions, plus more!3. Will be completed in fall 2012, but already very functional.4. Will allow user to specify circle of any radius, and measure distances and area.5. No GIS skills needed.

seakgis.alaska.edu//seakmap_WESPAK/

Suggestions encouraged! Let us know about other map data layers useful to predicting wetland functions and natural resource conditions! We will try to obtain and include them in the wetlands portal. Send suggestions to Paul Adamus: adamus7@comcast.net

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. ADOT&PF Wetland Assessment Method    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

“Highest Functioning” vs. “Least Altered” Standards

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

Structural Types of Rapid Assessment Methods

• Simple Checklists• Contrasting Condition Checklists• Determinative Procedures.  scoring based on:

Actual Reference WetlandsVirtual Reference Wetlands or Mechanistic Models

Example:  Indicators of  Nitrogen Removal 

• Duration and pattern of soil saturation

• Soil organic content

• Soil temperature

Option 1:  Simple list of indicators

Example:  Indicators of  Nitrogen Removal

Option 2: Minimize guidance, maximize user flexibility

This is the approach used in the Oregon HGM’s “Judgmental Method” and in its method for assessing Values of the functions. 

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

Types of Water Sources that Sustain Wetlands

from: Brinson 1993

Groundwater & Wetlands

Groundwater: Subsuface water below the water table, which is the depth where soil becomes water saturated (i.e. all pore spaces are water filled).

Wetland: Areas of the surface soil layer that receive groundwater (i.e. the water table is near or at the surface; or land covered with shallow water) with great enough frequency to establish characteristic soils and plant communities.  

courtesy Pennsylvania State University

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

WESPAK‐SE  model for Surface Water Storage 

IF((SurfWater=0), 0.5*(average (Freezing,Gradient, Subsurf)),

IF((NoOutlet=1), (average (LiveStore,Freezing,Gradient, Subsurf)),

ELSE: (3*OutDura + 2*LiveStore + 2*Gradient + Freezing + Subsurf + Friction)/10))

FloodBdg X AVERAGE:[ average (CAunveg,Glacier), average (ShedPos,CApct),Transport)]

Value of Surface Water Storage =

WESPAK‐SE  model for Stream Flow Support (SFS)

OutDur * { [(2*GroundwaterInput) + ClimateFactors)] / 3 }

average (InvScore,AnadScore,ResFishScore,Glacier,Elev)

Value of Stream Flow Support =

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?

model for Water Cooling (WC) model for Water Warming (WW)

If no surface water, then Groundwater factors only.  If surface water, then the average of Groundwater factors and Solar Heat factors. 

OutDur X average (AmphScore,Fringe,Glacier,TideProx,Elev,Aspect,Imperv))

Value of Water Cooling = OutDur  X [AVERAGE(ShadeIn, Fringe,Glacier,Elev,Aspect,Imperv) + AnadFish] /2

Value of Water Warming =

If no surface water in summer, then Groundwater factors only.  Else, the average of 2x Groundwater factors and Solar Heat factors. 

IF((NoOutlet2=1),IFNOOUT2,IF((AllDry2=1), IFDRY2,IFOUT2))

TidalIF((AreaTrend=1),1,average (AreaTrend,Vwidth,HighMarsh,Gcover, Complex, BlindChan,Mudflat,Fetch))

MAX (Eelgrass,(average:(average (BuffCovPct,BuffSlope,CAcover,Glacier),average (TidalRiver,TribDist,TribGrad,Transport))

Sediment Retention & Stabilization

Value of Sediment Retention AVERAGE(Inflo2,FlowIn2,Glacier2,ImpervPctSS,ErodibleSS,SedIn2,CAnatPct2, BuffSlope2,Elev,CApct2,TransportSS,MaxFluc2,NewWet2a,ToxData2)

Value of Sediment Retention 

Phosphorus Retention

model for Phosphorus Retention

Value of Phosphorus Retention: [MAX(Pload3,ImpervCA3,NatCApct3)+AVERAGE(Inflo3,BuffSlope3,ErodScore3,PosShed3, NewWet3,CApct3,Transport3,Anad3,Groundw3,Glacier3, StreamInGrad3)] /2)

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

model for Carbon Sequestration model for Organic Matter Export

Functions of Habitat:  

• Accessible and Timely Sheltering from Predators and the Elements (Corridors, Refugia, etc.)

• Accessible and Timely Provision of Food, Water, and Special Needs   

Habitat Functions of Wetlands

Aquatic Invertebrates

Anadromous Fish

Resident & Other Fish

Amphibians

Feeding Waterbirds

Nesting Waterbirds

Songbirds, Raptor,s &Mammals

Pollinators

Native Plants

model for Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat

Value of Aquatic Invertebrates AVERAGE(UniqPatch, average (AnadFish,ResFish,Amphib,WbirdF,WbirdNest,SongbMam))

average [Struc,Productivity,average (Hydropd,Connec,Stressors,LScape]

models for Anadromous Fish Habitat

Value of Anadromous Fish

IF((Access=0),0,IF((Water=0),0, ELSE (average (Access,OutDura)) X (average (HydroRegime,Structure,Productivity, LScape, Stress)

MAX [SalmoShed,average (WbirdFeed,SBMscore),average (Fishing, Subsist)]

MAX(Subsis,AVERAGE(PopCtr,BearShed), EstuLimited)

IF((Constric=0),0, ELSE:AVERAGE[Access, AVERAGE(Produc,Struc), Lscape)]

models for Resident & Other Fish Habitat

Value of Resident & Other Fish 

IF((Access=0),0,IF((Water=0),0, ELSE AVERAGE(HydroRegime,Structure, Productivity,AnoxiaRisk, Stress))

AVERAGE(feeding waterbird score, subsist, fIshing)

IF((Constric=0),0, ELSE:average [Access, average (Produc,Struc), Lscape)]

MAX(Subsis,average (PopCtr,BearShed),EstuLimited)

WESPAK‐SE model for Amphibian Habitat

Value of Amphibian Habitat

MAX [(AmPres,average (Hydro,AqStruc,TerrStruc,Produc,Climate,Lscape, Waterscape,Stress)]

MAX[(average (UniqPatch,Geog),(average (WBFscore,SBMscore)]

models for FeedingWaterbird Habitat

Value of Feeding Waterbird Habitat 

IF((Water=0),0,IF((Wettype=Slope),0,ELSE:average (Hydro, Struc, Produc, Climate, Lscape,Stressors)

(Lscape+average (Water, Produc, Refugia, Lscape)) /2

IF((MAX(Rare12,IBA)>average (UniqPatch,DuckHunt, Visib, PopCtr)),MAX(Rare12,IBA),average (UniqPatch,DuckHunt,Visib,PopCtr)))

MAX (average (Visib, PopCtr), EstuShed), IBA, RareSp]

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 Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat

Value of Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat

IF((AllWater=1),0, ELSE:  Mainland + average (StrucA,StrucB,Produc,Lscape,Wscape, Stress))/ 2

IF((MAX(Rare14, _IBA14)>UniqPatch14),MAX(Rare14, _IBA14),average (IslandSmall,UniqPatch14)]

IF((Dryland=0),0,  ELSE: average (Structure,Productiv,Lscape))

MAX(IBA,RareBird)

models for Pollinator Habitat

Value of Pollinator Habitat

= average (wetuniq,rareherb)

average (PollenOnsite, PollenOffsite,NestSites)

models for Native Plant Habitat

( 4*SpeciesArea + 2*AqFertil + 2*TerrFertil +2*Climate + Compet + Lscape + Stressors)/ 12

Value of Native Plant Habitat 

(2*Substrate + 2*Salinity + Struc + InvasPot + Lscape) / 7

MAX(RarePspp,(average (UniqPatchPD,ScoreSBM,ScorePOLf,ScoreSubsis))

MAX(RarePlant,EstuScape)

models for Public Use & Recognition models for Subsistence (Traditional Use)

IF((NonSubsisArea=1),0,MAX(Subsist,(average (PopCtrDisS,TidalProxS,ElevS)) + (average (ConsumpU,DeerShedPS,SalmonShedPS,FishAccess)) /2)

tidalIF((NonSubsist=1),0, ELSE: [average (ConsumpUse, Subsist,average (PopCtr,Ownershp,Access), average (Salmoshed,FishAccess,EstuShed)]

= average (Owner,average (Conven,Invest,RecPot)))

= average [Ownership,average (Convenience,Investment,RecPotenPU, OppRarity) ]

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)

Natural Disturbances to Wetlands

Drought: duration, frequency

Flooding: duration, frequency, extent, depth, seasonal timingnatural events or beaver‐related

Fire:  frequency, seasonal timing, extent, intensity (type) –effects of suppression policies or increased combustion sources

Wind: frequency, intensity, direction

Ice:  duration, frequency, extent

Herbivory: frequency, seasonal timing, intensity (type), extent

Disturbance is important to keeping wetlands functioning and healthy!• seeds of many wetland plants require periodic disturbance• scouring, wind, ice, fire clear away excessive plant litter that stymies seed generation• complete drying of wetland eliminates predatory fish and remobilizes nutrients• excessive water level stability causes stagnation and accelerates marsh succession to upland

model for Wetland Sensitivity 

Tidal:average (VwidthHi, Fetch, Nfix, BuffNatPct, BuffSlope, MarshDist, EstuShed, MAX(RareWaterBird, RareWildlife, RarePlant), Mtrend, MarshAge)

average (AbioSens,BioSens,Fertility,Climate,Colonizer,GrowthRate)

WESPAK‐SE model for Wetland Ecological Condition – non‐tidal only

[(average (RareAll,EmSens1_C,BareGpct) + average (HerbDom1,WoodySens2_C,ShrubDom1,GirregCQ,StrataDiv)) / 2

www.marcadamus.com

IF((Toxics Onsite=1),1, ELSE:((MAX(Wetter,Wetter Ex, Drier,DrierEx, AltTiming,Toxic,ToxicData, SedLoad,SoilDisturb,VegClear)) +(average (WeedSource,Core1,Core2,DistRd, VisibWet, PopCtrDist,RdBox,CAimperv,NatVegCA,AltLCtype,BuffDisturbTyp,Owner)))/ 2

tidalIF((Toxics Onsite=1),1, ELSE:MAX(WetterIn, WetterCA, DrierIn, DrierCA, AltTiming, ToxicsIn, SedCA, SoilAltIn, VegClear, ErodAlt))]average [ToxDoc, average (Core1alt, Core2alt, VisibAlt, PopCtrAlt, BarriersAlt, RoadsAlt), average (NatDistAlt, NatPctAlt, NatTypeAlt, SizeAlt, ImpervAlt, TransptAlt)

models for Wetland Stressors

But, these aren’t just Wetland issues ...

Economic AssessmentEducational Testing

Forest Health AssessmentRangeland AssessmentRiparian Assessment

Rapid Assessment ‐‐ Have We Created a Frankenstein?

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

Example 2. Enhancing a degraded wetland as compensation

Need for Caution:• A site that is poor habitat for (say) amphibians is poor habitat, regardless of whether it is 0.1 acre or 100 acres.   • Functions may be supported within only PART of a site.• Some functions are non‐linearly related with area.• Small wetlands in critical locations may be functionally outstanding.• Small wetlands of high social value are unusually important.

Multiply Scores by Acres?

Paul Adamus March 2010

Wetlands Credit Accounting

A. Average the service scores (mitigation site only) and multiply by acres

B. Apply standard mitigation ratios, calculated mainly for impact site.

C. Match debit site losses with mitigation site gains, with acreage multiplier.

D. Match debit site losses with mitigation site gains, without acreage multiplier.

• Eligibility

• Calculation Method

• Verification

• Registration

• Tracking

Key Components

Calculation Options (examples)

Strategy A.  Average the service scores (mitigation site only) and multiply by acres

Credit SiteEffectiveness Gain Value average

Function Group:Hydrologic Function 2 2 2.00Water Quality Functions  2 4 3.00Fish Support  6 4 5.00Aquatic Support  8 3 5.50Terrestrial Support  4 7 5.50

Average of Scores * 0.1= 0.42x acres 6

Credits= 2.52

AT DEBIT SITE: Very Low* Value Intermediate * Value Outstanding* ValueOutstanding* Effectiveness

(This strategy allowed)

use another strategy use another strategy

Intermediate Effectiveness

(This strategy allowed)

(This strategy allowed)

use another strategy

Very Low* Effectiveness (This strategy allowed)

(This strategy allowed)

(This strategy allowed)

Important Exceptions:

Strategy B.  Apply standard mitigation ratios, calculated mainly for impact site.

Debit Site Credit Site

Effectiveness  Value Avg

Effective. Gain Value Avg.

Function Group:Hydrologic Function  7 2 4.50 ‐‐ 8 8.00Water Quality Functions  9 8 8.50 ‐‐ 10 10.00Fish Support 6 6 6.00 ‐‐ 9 9.00Aquatic Support 8 9 8.50 ‐‐ 6 6.00Terrestrial Support 9 7 8.00 ‐‐ 7 7.00

Average of Scores= 7.10 8.00suggested ratio: 2.50 1.50

acres= 6.00 4.00credits 15.00 2.40

In this example, on the debit side, the services score (7.10) qualifies that wetland as a “high‐level” service site, so the applied ratio (2.5) is the highest of the choices for ratios.  If services were moderate, the ratio might be 2.0, if services were low, the ratio might be 1.5.

Debit Site Credit Site

Effective‐ness Value Acres

Effective‐nessGain (post‐pre) Value Acres Credits

Hydrologic 7 5

4

2 2

2

7>2, so go to another credit site

Water Quality 4 3 6 9 2*[1+(2/4)] = 3 credits

Fish Support  6 2 6 4 2*[1+(2/4)] = 3 credits

Aquatic Support  3 6 6 53*[1+(2/4)] = 4.5

credits

Terrestrial Support 5 5 3 75>3, so go to another

credit site

Strategy C.  Match debit site losses with mitigation site gains, with acreage multiplier.

• No multiplication or averaging of functions and values.  

• Acreage at the credit site (i.e., the enhanced or restored part of it) must be no less than that lost at debit site. 

• Function Effectiveness (post‐enhancement) and Value scores of all function groups at the credit site must be no less than their equivalents lost at the debit site, ± 1 point.  

• If either the Effectiveness (post‐enhancement) or Value score is greater at the credit site than debit site, consider reducing the required mitigation ratio, on a case‐by‐case basis.

Strategy D.  Match debit site losses with mitigation site gains, with acreage multiplier.

3. Function-based Crediting(a.k.a., Should I become a mitigation banker?)

CREDITS = Acres x Functional Lift

Example:  12 acre rehabilitation at a mitigation bank

CREDIT wetland (e.g., Mitigation Bank)PRE POST

Function Group:Hydrologic Function 2.38 2.92Water Quality Functions 4.10 5.17Fish Support Functions 5.33 6.72Aquatic Support Functions 7.01 7.28Terrestrial Support Functions 5.51 6.68

Average of Scores x 0.1= 0.49 0.58x acres 12.00 12.00

Function Acres= 5.88 6.96

6.96‐5.88= 1.08 credit

At Credit site: Discount 25% (1.08 x .75= 0.81 credit) if the Rehabilitation is not part of a “Wetland Priority Area”.Then, apply multipliers to the acreage of the Impact site:

IMPACT Site No Time LossSome Time 

LossNot part of a Wetland Priority Area: acres x 1.5 acres x 2Part of a Wetland Priority Area: acres x 2 acres x 2.5

So, if the Impact site is in a Wetland Priority Area AND buyer is getting credits from an incomplete rehabilitation, then the debit is:

0.54 acres x 2.5 = 1.35 acres (which must be replaced)

A mitigation bank that has finished rehabilitating 1.35 acres could meet this need of the buyer.

* Time Loss= no dirt moved or veg planted yet for rehabilitation

Also – in Oregon:

• Meet sequencing priorities: Avoidance> Minimization>

Compensation

• Replace Impact wetland with wetland of same HGM & Cowardin type (usually).

• Replace within the same Service Area (in Oregon= HUC4).

• Compensatory actions must qualify (meet definitions).

• Compensation actions must eventually meet performance criteria (as monitored).

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/