Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition; WESPAK-SE training, Haines AK. 9/14/2012

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.
phone: 541‐745‐7092
adamus7@comcast.net
September 12‐14, 2012
Haines, AK

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

3. 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?

4. 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

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

6. 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.)

7. 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

8. 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 ?

9. 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.

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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.

13. Download the Latest Version of WESPAK‐SE from Here:

14. Web Portal for WESPAK‐SE

15. 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

16. [spreadsheet]

17. Delimiting a Wetland’s Contributing Area

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

19. Delimiting the Assessment Area (AA)

22. 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)

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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?

27. Basic Principles of Wetland Functioning

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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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?

32. Nitrogen Removal ‐‐ wetlands VERY important

33. 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)

34. 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

35. 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

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

37. 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)

38. “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

39. Wetlands Credit Accounting
Key Components
• Eligibility
• Calculation Method
• Verification
• Registration
• Tracking

40. Sample Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation in Alaska –
USACE Alaska District, 2009 (Appendix B)
Type of Compensatory
Mitigation
Impacted Wetland or Preservation Restoration
Other Waters of the and /or
U.S. Enhancement
LOW
Category III or IV 1.5:1 1:1
MODERATE
Category II or III 2:1 1:1
HIGH
Category I or II 3:1 2:1

41. Grouped Service Functions and Aggregated
Functions Assessed by WESPAK-SE
Grouped Service Aggregated Functions Within Each Grouped
Functions Service
Hydrologic Function (WS) Water storage & delay (WS)
Stream Flow Support (SFS)
Water Quality Functions Streamwater cooling (WC)
(WQ) 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)

42. Function Scores and Relative Performance –
Blueberry Hill (10L, 4M, 4H)
Grouped Service Aggregated Functions Within Each Grouped Service Blueberry
Functions Hill
Hydrologic Function (WS) Water storage & delay (WS) 2.39 L
Stream Flow Support (SFS) 0 L
Water Quality Functions Streamwater cooling (WC) 4.35 M
(WQ) Streamwater warming (WW) 8.42 H
Sediment & toxicant retention & stabilization (SR) 10.0 H
Phosphorus retention (PR) 10.0 H
Nitrate removal & retention (NR) 10.0 H
Fish Support (FISH) Anadromous fish habitat (FA) 0 L
Resident and other fish habitat (FR) 0 L
Aquatic Support (AQ) Aquatic invertebrate habitat (INV) 4.79 M
Amphibian habitat (AM) 5.26 M
Waterbird feeding habitat (WBF) 0 L
Waterbird nesting habitat (WBN) 0 L
Terrestrial Support (TERR) Songbird, raptor & mammal habitat (SBM) 4.57 L
Native plant diversity (PD) 3.48 M
Pollinator habitat (POL) 3.52 L
Carbon Sequestration (CS) Carbon Sequestration (CS) 4.63 L
Organic matter export (OE) 0 L

43. Function Scores and Relative Performance –
Vanderbilt (6M, 12H)
Grouped Service Aggregated Functions Within Each Grouped Service Vanderbilt
Functions
Hydrologic Function (WS) Water storage & delay (WS) 3.80 M
Stream Flow Support (SFS) 4.65 M
Water Quality Functions Streamwater cooling (WC) 5.28 M
(WQ) Streamwater warming (WW) 7.08 H
Sediment & toxicant retention & stabilization (SR) 5.24 H
Phosphorus retention (PR) 5.50 H
Nitrate removal & retention (NR) 6.01 H
Fish Support (FISH) Anadromous fish habitat (FA) 7.05 H
Resident and other fish habitat (FR) 6.59 H
Aquatic Support (AQ) Aquatic invertebrate habitat (INV) 6.02 H
Amphibian habitat (AM) 5.84 M
Waterbird feeding habitat (WBF) 4.70 H
Waterbird nesting habitat (WBN) 5.31 H
Terrestrial Support (TERR) Songbird, raptor & mammal habitat (SBM) 5.36 M
Native plant diversity (PD) 5.22 H
Pollinator habitat (POL) 7.50 H
Carbon Sequestration (CS) Carbon Sequestration (CS) 5.60 M
Organic matter export (OE) 6.69 H

44. 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

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

47. Compensating for STREAM impacts: example from Montana

48. 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/