WESPAK‐SE 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 [email protected]September 12‐14, 2012 Haines, AK Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for Southeast Alaska
48
Embed
WESPAK-SE: Wetland Functional Assessment by Paul Adamus
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
WESPAK‐SE
Paul Adamus, Ph.D.Graduate Faculty,
Water Resources Graduate Program andMarine Resource Management Program
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)
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
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
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
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)]