Wetland Functional Assessment Class, Haines AK. Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition

1. WESPAK‐SE
Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for Southeast Alaska
Paul Adamus, Ph.D.
Graduate Faculty,
Water Resources Graduate Program and
Marine Resource Management Program
Oregon State University
and
Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.
adamus7@comcast.net
May 2012
Juneau, AK
© all rights reserved

2. Monday
8:30 Introductions. Course logistics.
Brief history of wetland assessment
Definitions: wetland functions, values, and “health” (condition)
How WESPAK‐SE works
10:15 BREAK
Delimiting the assessment unit
Fill out Office Form (OF) for wetland #1 (Blueberry Hill non‐tidal)
Future: Internet portal for wetlands of Southeast Alaska
11:45 LUNCH
1:15 Visit wetland #1 and apply WESPAK‐SE
4:30 end
Tuesday
8:30 Review scores from wetland #1
Lecture: Principles of Hydrologic Functioning & Value
Lecture: Principles of Water Quality Functioning & Value
10:15 BREAK
Lecture: Habitat Support – Models for Functions & Values
Fill out Office Form (OF) for wetland #2 (Fish Creek tidal)
11:45 LUNCH
1:15 Visit wetland #2 and apply WESPAK‐SE
4:30 end

3. Wednesday
8:30 Visit and assess wetland #3 (Vanderbilt non‐tidal)
11:45 LUNCH
1:15 Go over Office Form (OF) for wetland #3 (Vanderbilt non‐tidal)
Review scores from wetlands #2 and #3
2:30 BREAK
Calculating ratios, debits, & credits – some options
General discussion and feedback
4:30 end

4. Wetland Determination
Wetland Delineation
Wetland Classification
Wetland Categorization
Wetland Assessment
Ecosystem Services

5. 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.)

6. United States
Oregon
Alaska southeast
Alberta south
1983, 1987
2009
2011
2012

7. 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?

8. 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, Aesthetics
Production of Commodities (timber, hay, fish, etc.)
Ecosystem Services = Functions + their Values

9. Example of Output from a Function Assessment Method
Function Value Function Value
Time 1 Time 1 Time 2 Time 2
Water Storage & Delay 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.9
Sediment Stabilization & 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
Phosphorus Retention
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

10. 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 ?

11. Uses of Outputs
PRIMARY:
• 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.

12. Variables Indicators < Models > Attributes
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.
Example of a Function Assessment Scoring Model
Fish Habitat Suitability = Access x (WaterQuality + Cover + Temperature)

13. 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

14. 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.

16. 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.

17. Examples of Indicator Questions
True‐False:
Acidic Most pools within the AA are depressions in a peat layer of > 4 inch depth, or have 0
Pools darkly-stained waters (brownish tannins), and/or a pH < 5.5. Nearby vegetation is mostly
moss and/or evergreen shrubs.
Choose the most applicable:
N The cover of nitrogen-fixing plants (e.g., alder, sweetgale, legumes) in the AA or the percent of the
Fixers AA's water edge occupied by those (whichever contains more) is:
<1% or none 0
1-25% 0
>25% 0
Choose all applicable:
Woody Diameter Mark all the types whose stems comprise >5% of the woody stems in the AA:
Classes
deciduous 1-4" diameter and >3 ft tall 0
evergreen 1-4" diameter and >3 ft tall 0
deciduous 4-9" diameter 0
evergreen 4-9" diameter 0
deciduous 9-21" diameter 0
evergreen 9-21" diameter 0

18. [spreadsheet]

19. Delimiting a Wetland’s Contributing Area

20. Delimiting the Assessment Units:
View wetland maps at: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html

21. Delimiting the Assessment Area (AA)

22. 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 lines
Fences
Land cover or zoning designations
Vegetation or Cowardin (NWI mapped polygon) types

23. F10. During most of the wettest time of a normal year, the percent of the surface water that is in or connected to
Onsite Surface Water ditches, swales, or flowing channels that exit the AA, compared to surface water that is in isolated pools that do
Isolation
not connect annually to channels or swales (if any), is:
(Wet Season)
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

24. F12. During most of the time surface water is present, its depth in most of the inundated part of
Predominant Depth the AA is:
Class >6 ft deep
2-6 ft deep
1-2 ft deep
0.5 - 1 ft deep
<0.5 ft deep
F13. During most of the time when surface water is present (select one):
Depth Class
Distribution 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 area
Neither of above

25. F21. During peak annual flow, the surface water that flows through the AA's channel or floodplain:
Throughflow
encounters little or no vegetation, boulders, or other sources of friction.
Complexity
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 indirect
path 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.

26. Upland Edge Most of the edge between the wetland and upland is (select one):
Shape
Complexity 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.

27. F79. Along the AA's wetland-upland boundary and extending 100 ft uphill, the average slope of the land is mostly:
Buffer Slope
<1% (flat -- almost no noticeable slope, or there is no upland boundary)
2-5%
5-30%
>30%
F80 Within 10 ft of ponded surface water (if any) in early summer, the percent of the vegetated area (wetland or upland) that
Edge Slope 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)

28. Indicators of HIGH water (= upper limit of Seasonally Inundated zone)
Water marks on trees (moss); water‐stained leaves; algae amid grass stems
Drift lines of debris on ground or suspended in shrubs
Scoured areas on the soil surface
Fresh deposits of water‐borne sediment
Height of outlet or berm relative to current water level
Aquatic bed plants without water beneath
Airphoto sequence
Indicators of LOW water
(= lower limit of Seasonally Inundated zone) (= upper limit of Permanently Inundated zone)
Minimal vegetation (all Obligates). No woody.
Topography
Airphoto sequence

29. Size of Nearby “Natural Land Cover”

31. Important Fishery Subsistence Areas of Southeast Alaska

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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)

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

36. “Highest Functioning” vs. “Least Altered” Standards

37. 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

38. Structural Types of Rapid Assessment Methods
• Simple Checklists
• Contrasting Condition Checklists
• Determinative Procedures. scoring based on:
Actual Reference Wetlands
Virtual Reference Wetlands or Mechanistic Models

39. Example: Indicators of Nitrogen Removal
Option 1: Simple list of indicators
• Duration and pattern of soil saturation
• Soil organic content
• Soil temperature

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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?

43. Basic Principles of Wetland Functioning

44. Types of Water Sources that Sustain Wetlands
from: Brinson 1993

45. 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

46. Focus: Ground Water
from: Smith et al. 1995

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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))
Value of Surface Water Storage =
FloodBdg X AVERAGE:
[ average (CAunveg,Glacier),
average (ShedPos,CApct),Transport)]

50. WESPAK‐SE model for Stream Flow Support (SFS)
OutDur * { [(2*GroundwaterInput) + ClimateFactors)] / 3 }
Value of Stream Flow Support =
average (InvScore,AnadScore,ResFishScore,Glacier,Elev)

51. 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 & protect salmonid spawning areas; keep toxic
Stabilization metals from mobilizing
Phosphorus Retention maintain preferred food webs?
Nitrate Removal maintain preferred food webs?
detoxification?

52. model for Water Cooling (WC) model for Water Warming (WW)
If no surface water in summer, then If no surface water, then
Groundwater factors only. Groundwater factors only.
Else, the average of 2x Groundwater If surface water, then the average of
factors and Solar Heat factors. Groundwater factors and Solar Heat
factors.
Value of Water Cooling = Value of Water Warming =
OutDur X [AVERAGE(ShadeIn, OutDur X average
Fringe,Glacier,Elev,Aspect,Im (AmphScore,Fringe,Glacier,TidePr
perv) + AnadFish] /2 ox,Elev,Aspect,Imperv))

53. Sediment Retention & Stabilization
Tidal
IF((AreaTrend=1),1,average
(AreaTrend,Vwidth,HighMarsh,Gcover,
Complex, BlindChan,Mudflat,Fetch))
IF((NoOutlet2=1),IFNOOUT2,IF((AllDry2=1),
IFDRY2,IFOUT2)) Value of Sediment Retention
Value of Sediment Retention MAX (Eelgrass,(average:
AVERAGE(Inflo2,FlowIn2,Glacier2,Imperv (average
PctSS,ErodibleSS,SedIn2,CAnatPct2, (BuffCovPct,BuffSlope,CAcover,Glacier),
BuffSlope2,Elev,CApct2,TransportSS,MaxF average
luc2,NewWet2a,ToxData2) (TidalRiver,TribDist,TribGrad,Transport))

54. Phosphorus Retention

55. 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)

56. Nitrogen Removal ‐‐ wetlands VERY important

57. model for Nitrate Removal
Value of Nitrate Removal
AVERAGE(MAX(Aquifer,Drink),MAX(NSource,CAnatPct,Imperv,PopDist),
average (Inflo,ShedPos,BuffSlope,Transport, Anad,Nsource,Nfix)

58. 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

59. model for Carbon Sequestration model for Organic Matter Export

60. Habitat Functions of Wetlands
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

61. Aquatic Invertebrates
Anadromous Fish
Resident & Other Fish
Amphibians
Feeding Waterbirds
Nesting Waterbirds
Songbirds, Raptor,s &
Mammals
Pollinators
Native Plants

62. model for Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
average [Struc,Productivity,average (Hydropd,Connec,Stressors,LScape]
Value of Aquatic Invertebrates
AVERAGE(UniqPatch, average
(AnadFish,ResFish,Amphib,WbirdF,WbirdNest,SongbMam))

63. models for Anadromous Fish Habitat
IF((Access=0),0, IF((Constric=0),0, ELSE:
IF((Water=0),0, ELSE
(average (Access,OutDura)) X (average
AVERAGE[Access, AVERAGE(Produc,Struc),
(HydroRegime,Structure,Productivity, LScape, Lscape)]
Stress)
Value of Anadromous Fish
MAX [SalmoShed, MAX(Subsis,AVERAGE(PopCtr,BearShed),
average (WbirdFeed,SBMscore),
average (Fishing, Subsist)]
EstuLimited)

64. models for Resident & Other Fish Habitat
IF((Access=0),0, IF((Constric=0),0, ELSE:
IF((Water=0),0, ELSE average [Access, average (Produc,Struc),
AVERAGE(HydroRegime,Structure, Lscape)]
Productivity,AnoxiaRisk, Stress))
Value of Resident & Other Fish
AVERAGE(feeding waterbird score, MAX(Subsis,average
subsist, fIshing) (PopCtr,BearShed),EstuLimited)

65. WESPAK‐SE model for Amphibian Habitat
MAX [(AmPres,average (Hydro,AqStruc,TerrStruc,Produc,Climate,Lscape,
Waterscape,Stress)]
Value of Amphibian Habitat
MAX[(average (UniqPatch,Geog),(average (WBFscore,SBMscore)]

66. models for Feeding Waterbird Habitat
IF((Water=0),0, (Lscape+average (Water, Produc,
IF((Wettype=Slope),0,ELSE:
average (Hydro, Struc, Produc, Climate,
Refugia, Lscape)) /2
Lscape,Stressors)
Value of Feeding Waterbird Habitat
IF((MAX(Rare12,IBA)>average MAX (average (Visib, PopCtr), EstuShed),
(UniqPatch,DuckHunt, Visib, IBA, RareSp]
PopCtr)),MAX(Rare12,IBA),average
(UniqPatch,DuckHunt,Visib,PopCtr)))

67. models for 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)]
Value of Nesting Waterbird Habitat =
IF((MAX(Rare,_IBA)>UniqPatch),MAX(Rare,_IBA),UniqPatch

68. models for Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat
IF((Dryland=0),0, ELSE: average
(Structure,Productiv,Lscape))
IF((AllWater=1),0, ELSE: Mainland +
average
(StrucA,StrucB,Produc,Lscape,Wscape,
Stress))/ 2
Value of Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat
IF((MAX(Rare14, MAX(IBA,RareBird)
_IBA14)>UniqPatch14),MAX(Rare14,
_IBA14),average
(IslandSmall,UniqPatch14)]

69. models for Pollinator Habitat
average (PollenOnsite, PollenOffsite,NestSites)
Value of Pollinator Habitat
= average (wetuniq,rareherb)

70. models for Native Plant Habitat
(2*Substrate + 2*Salinity + Struc
+ InvasPot + Lscape) / 7
( 4*SpeciesArea + 2*AqFertil + 2*TerrFertil
+2*Climate + Compet + Lscape + Stressors)/ 12
Value of Native Plant Habitat
MAX(RarePspp,(average
(UniqPatchPD,ScoreSBM,ScorePOLf,Score MAX(RarePlant,EstuScape)
Subsis))

71. 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)
= average (Owner,average
(Conven,Invest,RecPot)))
tidal
IF((NonSubsist=1),0, ELSE: [average
(ConsumpUse, Subsist,
average (PopCtr,Ownershp,Access),
average (Salmoshed,FishAccess,EstuShed)]
= average [Ownership,average
(Convenience,Investment,RecPotenPU, OppRarity) ]

72. Wetland Stressors (FieldS data form)
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)

73. Natural Disturbances to Wetlands
Drought: duration, frequency
Flooding: duration, frequency, extent, depth, seasonal timing
natural 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

74. model for Wetland Sensitivity
average (AbioSens,BioSens,Fertility,Climate,Colonizer,GrowthRate)
Tidal:
average (VwidthHi, Fetch, Nfix, BuffNatPct, BuffSlope, MarshDist, EstuShed,
MAX(RareWaterBird, RareWildlife, RarePlant), Mtrend, MarshAge)

75. 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

76. models for Wetland Stressors
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
tidal
IF((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)

77. Rapid Assessment ‐‐ Have We Created a Frankenstein?
But, these aren’t just Wetland issues ...
Economic Assessment
Educational Testing
Forest Health
Assessment
Rangeland Assessment
Riparian Assessment

78. “No Net Loss” –
Factors That Could Influence Ratios for Offsite Mitigation
a). Risk of Failure
Type of Mitigation
Wetland Type & Design (“appropriateness”)
Location
Stressors
Sensitivity of the Geomorphic Setting
Long-term Financial Security
b). Acres
c). Wetland Importance
Functions, Values, Sensitivity
Paul Adamus March 2010

79. Example 2. Enhancing a degraded wetland as compensation

80. Multiply Scores by Acres?
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.

81. Paul Adamus March 2010

82. Wetlands Credit Accounting
Key Components
• Eligibility
• Calculation Method
• Verification
• Registration
• Tracking
Calculation Options (examples)
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.

83. Strategy A. Average the service scores (mitigation site only) and multiply by acres
Credit Site
Effectiveness
Gain Value average
Function Group:
Hydrologic Function 2 2 2.00
Water Quality Functions 2 4 3.00
Fish Support 6 4 5.00
Aquatic Support 8 3 5.50
Terrestrial Support 4 7 5.50
Average of Scores * 0.1= 0.42
x acres 6
Credits= 2.52
Important Exceptions:
AT DEBIT SITE: Very Low* Value Intermediate * Value Outstanding* Value
Outstanding* (This strategy use another strategy use another
Effectiveness allowed) strategy
Intermediate (This strategy (This strategy use another
Effectiveness allowed) allowed) strategy
Very Low* Effectiveness (This strategy (This strategy (This strategy
allowed) allowed) allowed)

84. Strategy B. Apply standard mitigation ratios, calculated mainly for impact site.
Debit Site Credit Site
Effective Effective.
ness Value Avg Gain Value Avg.
Function Group:
Hydrologic Function 7 2 4.50 ‐‐ 8 8.00
Water Quality Functions 9 8 8.50 ‐‐ 10 10.00
Fish Support 6 6 6.00 ‐‐ 9 9.00
Aquatic Support 8 9 8.50 ‐‐ 6 6.00
Terrestrial Support 9 7 8.00 ‐‐ 7 7.00
Average of Scores= 7.10 8.00
suggested ratio: 2.50 1.50
acres= 6.00 4.00
credits 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.

85. Strategy C. Match debit site losses with mitigation site gains, with acreage multiplier.
Debit Site Credit Site
Effective‐
ness
Effective‐ Gain
ness Value Acres (post‐pre) Value Acres Credits
7>2, so go to another
Hydrologic 7 5 2 2 credit site
Water Quality 4 3 6 9 2*[1+(2/4)] = 3 credits
4 2
Fish Support 6 2 6 4 2*[1+(2/4)] = 3 credits
3*[1+(2/4)] = 4.5
Aquatic Support 3 6 6 5 credits
5>3, so go to another
Terrestrial Support 5 5 3 7 credit site

86. Strategy D. 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.

87. 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 2.92
Water Quality Functions 4.10 5.17
Fish Support Functions 5.33 6.72
Aquatic Support Functions 7.01 7.28
Terrestrial Support Functions 5.51 6.68
Average of Scores x 0.1= 0.49 0.58
x acres 12.00 12.00
Function Acres= 5.88 6.96
6.96‐5.88= 1.08 credit

88. 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:
Some Time
IMPACT Site No Time Loss Loss
Not part of a Wetland Priority Area: acres x 1.5 acres x 2
Part of a Wetland Priority Area: acres x 2 acres x 2.5
* Time Loss= no dirt moved or veg planted yet for rehabilitation
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.

89. 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).

90. Compensating for STREAM impacts: example from Montana

91. 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/