1. Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol
(WESP)
-- A Short Course
Halifax, NS
August 13-15, 2013
Paul Adamus, Ph.D.
Graduate Faculty,
Water Resources Graduate Program
Oregon State University
and
Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.
in collaboration with:
Nova Scotia Environment – John Brazner

2. Tuesday
8:30 Introductions. Course logistics.
Brief history of wetland assessment
Definitions: wetland functions, values, and “health” (condition)
How WESP works
10:15 BREAK
Delimiting the assessment unit
Definitions of tricky indicators
12:00 LUNCH
1:15 Fill out Office form for wetland #1 (together)
2:00 Visit wetland #1 and apply WESP
4:30 end
Wednesday
8:30 Review scores from wetland #1
Lecture: Models for Hydrologic Functioning & Value
Lecture: Models for Water Quality Functioning & Value
1:15 Fill out Office forms for wetland #2 and #3
2:00 Visit wetland #2 and apply WESP

3. Thursday
8:30 Visit and assess wetland #3
11:45 LUNCH
1:15 Review scores from wetlands #2 and #3
Lecture: Models for Habitat Functions & Values
2:30 BREAK
Using WESP for estimating compensation – some options
General discussion and feedback
4:30 end

4. One component of the approvals process:
Which wetlands are the most important?
What criteria should we use to tell?
How much information should we require?

5. Why standardise the criteria & protocol?
Few people know all wetland functions.
Few people can instantly recall all function indicators.
Different people weight indicators differently for same function.
Reduce arbitrariness of assessments  increased public confidence in results.
“Paper trail” useful for legal.

6. Definitions:
Delineating
Classifying
Scoring
Rating (Categorizing)

7. Delineation: Where’s the wetland boundary?
Surface Water + Vegetation  YES
If No Surface Water, then:
soil indicators + plant indicators
(cannot determine only from aerials)
Which of these are wetlands ?

8. Wetland Soil Indicators

9. for full list see: WESPAB Biota file
Plants as Wetland Indicators – not just cattails, pondweeds, & willows!
Most widespread among Southern Alberta wetlands:
If Dominant = Wetland
Field Sow-thistle
Great Plantain
Curly Dock
Norwegian Cinquefoil
Nuttall's Poverty-weed
Oak-leaf Goosefoot
Field Horsetail
Crested Wheat Grass
Graceful Cinquefoil
Rough Bent Grass
Stinging Nettle
Short-beak Sedge
Eastern Cottonwood
Spiny-leaf Sow-thistle
Miner's Pepperwort
Kidney-leaf Buttercup
Blite Goosefoot
+ 175 others!
Wetland Dependents
Baltic or Arctic Rush
Foxtail Barley
Silverweed
Common Spikerush
Water Smartweed
American Wild Mint
Broadleaf Cattail
Woolly Sedge
Reed Canary Grass
Alkali Buttercup
Wheat Sedge
Fowl Blue Grass
+ 300 others!
for full list see: WESPAB Biota file

10. National HGM Classification (Brinson 1993)
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
Lacustrine Fringe
runoff> precip> groundwater
Lacustrine> Palustrine
national HGM (modify)
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

11. Simplified Relationships of Wetland Functions to HYDROGEOMORPHIC CLASS
Estuarine
Riverine
Slope
Flat
Depressional
Lacustrine
Water Storage & Delay
0-4
0-2
1-3
4-5
2-5
Sediment Stabilization &
Phosphorus Retention
 0-2
1-4 
 1-2
 1-3
4-5 
2-5 
Nitrogen Removal
 2-3
Thermoregulation
 0-1
1-5
 1-5  0 0 
Primary Production
 2-5
1-5 
Invertebrate Habitat
 3-5
2-4
1-3 
Fish Habitat
 0-5
3-5
0-1
 0-4
Amphibian & Turtle Habitat
3-5 
Nesting Habitat for Waterbirds
0-1 
Feeding Habitat for Waterbirds
  0-1
  2-5
  3-5
Habitat for Songbirds
  1-5
 1-5 
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

12. Scoring Wetlands – gives relative numeric estimates

13. Ecosystem Services = Functions + Benefits of those services
Functions: What wetlands do naturally.
Hydrologic functions
Water purification functions
Habitat functions
Benefits (“Values”): Does anybody care? (including non-humans)
examples:
Water Storage (function)  Flood Control (benefit)
Denitrification (function)  Water Purification (benefit)
Functions and Benefits should be assessed independently of each other.
Ecosystem Services = Functions + Benefits of those services

14. What Determines Benefits?
Landscape Context  Where do wetland functions prevent the most harm?
Opportunity (upslope)
Significance (downslope)
Commodity Potential (timber, hay, etc.)
Functional Interdependence
Laws, Policies, and Public Preferences, e.g.:
Endangered Species > Neotropical migrants > others ?
Native species > Weeds (e.g., “wetland integrity”) ?

15. Biodiversity (e.g., wetland “health” or “integrity”) cannot predict all important ecosystem services.
“Healthy” wetlands do not necessarily provide more ecosystem services, e.g., water storage.
The levels of wetland functions do not always predict biodiversity or wetland health.
High-functioning wetlands often have low biodiversity.
Biodiversity is better than ecosystem services for detecting wetland change, e.g., restoration progress.
But estimating ecosystem services is necessary to address the “so what” question.

16. “Highest Functioning” vs. “Least Altered” Standards
example of site ranking from HGM
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

17. function correlations
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

18. Rating (Categorizing) Wetlands
Level of FUNCTIONS
Level of BENEFITS
Action
HIGH
Avoid/ Preserve?
LOW
Enhance/ Restore?
Maintain?
Compensate?

19. WESP: A spreadsheet with a suite of models for assessing 14 wetland ecosystem services at a site scale.
Specific Wetland Functions:
Relative Effectiveness of the Function
Relative Benefits of the Function
Water Storage
7.89
4.21
Streamwater Cooling
2.14
6.23
Sediment Retention & Stabilization
6.62
6.95
Phosphorus Retention
5.73
6.49
Nitrate Removal
8.21
3.20
Carbon Sequestration
4.30
Organic Nutrient Export
8.29
Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat
9.44
3.69
Fish Habitat
5.26
7.81
Amphibian Habitat
6.67
3.15
Waterbird Habitat
0.00
4.20
Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat
8.77
6.14
Pollinator Habitat
5.54
5.16
Native Plant Diversity
6.42
8.19
Public Use & Recognition

20. Data Inputs  spreadsheet
Field observations (one-time visit, 135 indicators)
--Water regime
--Soils
--Vegetation (advanced ID skills not required)
--Potential human stressors
Landowner interview (when feasible)
Measurements of aerials (GoogleEarth)
Existing spatial data
Online maps & databases

21. Basic Procedure Obtain aerial image and locate wetland.
Draw the AA boundary approximately.
Answer “office” (form OF) questions by interpreting aerial and by getting information from specified web sites.
Visit the wetland.
Walk around for several minutes.
Look for flood marks, non-native plants, etc.
Examine surface soil at 3 points.
Talk with landowner for relevant information, if possible.
Fill out forms F and S.
Adjust answers to form OF if warranted.
Enter data in the Excel spreadsheet.
Review resulting Scores and diagnose any that seem counterintuitive.
Submit results to agencies or organisations.

22. Uses of Outputs PRIMARY:
Use scores as a partial basis for avoidance or compensation.
Identify ways to minimise impacts to functions of a wetland.
Identify wetland designs that may provide greatest levels of particular ecosystem services.
SUPPORTING:
Prioritise all wetlands in a rapidly developing watershed or region.
Monitor success of individual restoration projects.

23. Origins of WESPAB United States 1983, 1987 Oregon 2009, 2014
Alaska south
2011, 2013
Pending?
British Columbia (southwest)
Nova Scotia

24. Data needs for optimally determining wetland functions
Data needs for optimally determining wetland benefits

25. Validation. The process by which models or indicators are tested
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.
Increasing levels of “validation”: literature documentation  peer reviews  correlations  direct measurement of function (how?)
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

26. [Tour of the WESP Calculator Spreadsheet]

27. Delimiting the Assessment Area (AA)

28. If a lake or reservoir (or any ponded water body) that adjoins a vegetated wetland is longer than 1 km, and its open water part is much wider than the width of the vegetated wetland along the shoreline, then:
Delimit the AA to include the vegetated wetland plus only the portion of adjoining open water that is believed to be shallower than 2 m during annual low water.
If that cannot be estimated, extend the AA outward into the lake a distance equal to about the average width of the wetland that is along its shoreline (measured perpendicular to the shore).
If distinct units of vegetated wetland are located discontinuously along the shoreline:
any two adjoining units separated by non-we tland can be combined if the distance separating them, measured parallel to shore, is less than the length of the larger of the two vegetated wetlands, measured parallel to shore.

29. (e.g., for prioritisation, and assuming all have been mapped)
Assessing All Wetlands Along a Corridor or in a Town/Watershed
(e.g., for prioritisation, and assuming all have been mapped)
1. Use GIS to compile existing spatial data relevant to functional assessment, e.g., LLWW. Also interpret aerials for all wetlands and fill out form OF. Compile into one Excel table.
2. Perform Cluster Analysis using statistical software to identify semi-homogeneous groups of wetlands. (or if that’s not possible, then sort the columns in the table to identify groups). Assign every wetland to a group.
3. Visit and assess at least 1 wetland per cluster. Try to achieve spatial balance, too (e.g., at least 1 wetland per subwatershed).
4. Preferably, assess more wetlands per cluster if WESP scores show more variation among those within a cluster than among clusters.

30. “predominant” vs. “most”
Key Terms As Defined by WESP
Surface Water
Groundwater
Bordering Waters
Open Water
Ponded Water
Upland
Unmanaged Cover
Herbaceous (Herbs)
Forbs
Emergents
Sedges
Moss
meters “uphill from”
“predominant” vs. “most”

31. Delimiting a Wetland’s Catchment
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

32. Interspersion (open water distribution)

33. Indicators of LOW water
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 (stranded)
Airphoto sequence
Hydro indicators
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
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

34. Shoreline Edge Slope
Slope from Disturbed Lands

35. Bare Ground & Accumulated Plant Litter

36. Cliffs, Steep Banks, Beaver, Muskrat

37. Classifying Soil Texture

38. Size of Nearby Forest

39. [WESPAB Appendix A – other illustrations]

40. Summary of WESPAB Features:
Collect data in a single visit of <2 hours.
High consistency: independent testing (Oregon version) showed repeatability of function scores (not indicators) is better than +/- 1 point on 0-10 scale.
Peer reviewed models: experts from DUC, AESRD, others.
Metrics and models well-documented by citation of the newest technical literature.
Calculations are automatic and explained simply in Manual.
Automatically places scores in the context of scores from ~150 other southern Alberta wetlands.
Separates wetland benefits from functions. Distinguishes wetland functions from wetland integrity.
Available July 2013.

41. 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 turtles?
(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, March-July?
Most rapid assessment methods are stuck at (2), even though the science often has moved ahead.
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

42. Considerations for Scoring Models
Equation logic
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

43. [Marine Nearshore Assessment Calculator]

45. Basic Principles of Wetland Functioning
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

46. Valued Hydrologic Functions
Ground Water Discharge (up)
Ground Water Recharge (down)
Storage & Desynchronization
(Reduction of Downstream Flood Peaks)
Low Flow Maintenance (sponge)
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

47. Types of Water Sources that Sustain Wetlands
from: Brinson 1993
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

48. Focus: Ground Water
from: Smith et al. 1995
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

49. Aquifer Flow and Oasis/ Wetland Formation:
courtesy Pennsylvania State University
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

51. reference-based criteria for wetland design or performance
Another example of
reference-based criteria for
wetland design or performance
From:
Hood, W.G Application of landscape allometry to restoration of tidal channels. Restoration Ecology 10:
ditto (Hood 2002)
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

52. Valued Water Quality Functions
Filtering and Stabilization of Suspended Sediments
Phosphorus Detention
Nitrogen Removal
Detoxification
Thermal Maintenance
Processes that Affect Capacity to Perform the WQ Functions
Physical Interception
Bioturbation & Decomposition (vs. Root Growth & Peat Accumulation)
Chemical (adsorption, precipitation, photolysis, chelation, leaching, redox, etc.)
Biological Uptake (sediments vs. water) and Processing:
nitrogen fixation, nitrification, denitrification, ammonification, translocation, etc.
General Factors that Affect Capacity to Perform the WQ Functions
Hydrologic Detention Capacity
Pollutant Loading Rate & History
Hydrologic Energy Differential
Sediment Oxygen & pH (P-retention = oxidized sediment-water interface)
Climate/ Season (timing of autumn storms vs. plant senescence)
Age of wetland -- cycling within soil (older wetlands) vs. soil-water
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

53. Phosphorus Detention function
Sediment texture and composition (= iron, aluminum, clay), pattern (in-channel vs. upland)
Algae and floating macrophytes ( anoxia, uptake from water) are mostly absent
Forested wetlands
plus
all of the Water Storage indicators BUT:
water level fluctuation can be detrimental
VERY long detention times can be detrimental
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

54. Nitrogen Removal function -- wetlands VERY important
Hydrologic Detention Capacity ( score from function)
plant uptake (see Primary Production)
denitrification – a microbial process
temperature, organic matter, pH, soil texture,
oxygen (root translocation of)
gradual water level fluctuation
microtopography
interspersion of water & vegetation
wetland-upland edge complexity
loading rate
Detoxification function – probably similar to denitrification; sulfide & clay important
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

56. 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
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

57. Using measured reference data to inform an appropriate performance standard
Using reference data for performance standards (Umatilla)
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

59. CREDIT wetland (e.g., Mitigation Bank)
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
Function Acres=
5.88
6.96
= 1.08 credit

60. 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.
scores X ACRES ?
WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

61. 0.54 acres x 2.5 = 1.35 acres (which must be replaced)
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 Loss
Some Time Loss
Not part of a Wetland Priority Area:
acres x 1.5
acres x 2
Part of a Wetland Priority Area:
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 acres could meet this need of the buyer.

62. WTI, Inc.: Adamus 2007

63. Also: 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 watershed).
Compensatory actions must qualify (meet definitions).
Compensation actions must eventually meet performance criteria (as monitored).

64. How to Regionalise WESP for Nova Scotia (or some portion thereof)
1. Easy stuff: convert to metric, list rare or invasive plants & animals.
2. Review local literature and use it to document or change the indicators, weightings, and models.
3. Hold 5 half-day peer review workshops of local topic experts to discuss and modify weightings and model formulas.
4. Field-calibrate WESP function and value scores to Nova Scotia wetlands (or some portion thereof):
Obtain and compile existing spatial data using GIS.
Do k-means cluster analysis to select calibration sites.
Obtain property access for wetlands <100 m from roads.
Visit 1+ wetland per cluster and get WESP score.
Use scores to determine expected score range for the province.
Use Jenks Optimisation Method (or other) to categorize all wetlands as High, Mod, Low.
5. Prepare report (methods, results, etc.) and train likely WESP-NOVA users.
6. If possible, maintain web portal to expedite acquiring form OF data.