2. Outline of Today’s Topics
Introduction
Watershed Plans and Wetland Functions
Modeling Historic Wetlands
GIS Assessment of Wetland Functions
Enhancing the National Wetlands Inventory
Assigning and Mapping Wetland Functions
Results
Comparing historic and present conditions
Conclusions and Next Steps
Introduction
3. Background &
Purpose Today
Based on report
“Methods and
Results for a
Geographic
Information System
Landscape Model
of Wetland
Functions in the
Sandusky
Subbasin”
http://goo.gl/reEXoN
Introduction
7. Improving watershed plans
Using landscape-level
wetland functional
analysis to make
watershed plan more
specific
Percentage and type of
wetlands and functions
are part of complete
watershed plan
Watershed Plans
12. Validating
the model
Do we believe the
distribution of historic
wetlands is valid?
Let’s check it against
other data
Historic Wetlands
13. Historic Versus
Current Wetlands
Historic Wetlands
Pre-European
Settlement Wetlands
Current Wetlands Difference
Forested
Wetlands
159,485 acres 15,436 acres 90% loss
Emergent
Wetlands
1,578 acres 11,859 acres
6.5-fold
increase
Scrub-Shrub
Wetlands
16,084 acres 2,484 acres 85% loss
Open Water 14,676 acres 8,009 acres 55% loss
TOTAL 191,823 acres 37,788 acres 78% loss
Total vegetated
only
177,147 acres 29,779 acres 81% loss
16. Physiography
& wetlands
Distribution pattern of
historic wetlands in a
physiographic context
Reasonable
agreement
Appears to be a valid
interpretation
Historic Wetlands
17. Enhancing the FWS’ NWI
How to rapidly and
methodically assign
hydrogeomorphic
descriptors to the
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s
National Wetlands
Inventory
Enhancing the NWI
18. Origins &
previous work
R.W. Tiner, original
descriptor keys (1995)
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
Montana Natural Heritage
Program (MNHP)
Conservation
Management Institute
(CMI) Virginia Tech (Long
Island, Delaware)
Enhancing the NWI
19. The LLWW descriptors
Geomorphic
L andscape
position
L andform
Hydrologic
W aterbody type
W ater flow path
Enhancing the NWI
…hydrogeomorphic descriptors
20. Partial Automation for LLWW
Why automate?
Sorting, selecting, and coding wetlands in the
GIS, based on:
Whether within or outside of other layers (e.g.,
Hydrography, DEM analyses, and soils)
Possessing traits already assigned (e.g. NWI
water regimes or acreage of wetland)
Enhancing the NWI
21. L andform
Slope
(SL)
Wetlands occurring on a slope of
5% or greater, as indicated by a
slope raster generated from the
OSIP 2.5-foot DEM
35.66%
(3,566/10,000 records)
Island
(IL)
A wetland completely surrounded by
water, as indicated by the NHD
Waterbody layer.
Less than 1 percent
(36/10,000)
Fringe
(FR)
Wetland occurs in the shallow water
zone of a permanent waterbody. *NWI
water regimes F, G, and H
27.13%
(2,713/10,000)
Floodp
lain
(FP)
Wetland occurs on an active alluvial
plain along a river and some
streams, as defined through the use
of FEMA floodplain data.
8.02%
(802/10,000 FP; 436 FPba,
366 FPfl)
Basin
(BA)
Wetland occurs in a distinct
depression.
*NWI water regimes C and E
15.2%
(1,520/10,000)
Flat
(FL)
Wetland occurs on a nearly level
landform.
*NWI water regimes A, B, and K.
13.63%
(1,363/10,000)
Enhancing the NWI
24. L andscape Position
Enhancing the NWI
Lentic
(LE)
Wetland in or along lake (waterbody >= 5
acres) or within basin, defined as area
contiguous to lake affected by rising lake
levels. Contiguous area of effect found
through Arc Hydro GIS analysis. This
landscape position type should be analyzed
and assigned first.
5.54%
(554/10,000)
Lotic
River
(LR)
Wetland associated with (directly intersected
by) a river or its active floodplain.
7.89%
(789/10,000)
Lotic
Stream
(LS)
Wetland is associated with (directly intersected
by) a stream or its active floodplain.
13.97%
(1,397/10,000)
Terrene
(TE)
Wetland that is: 1. Located in or borders
pond, or wetland is a pond, (waterbody < 5
acres in size surrounded by upland); 2. Or,
adjacent to but is not affected by a stream
or river (located in or along, but NOT
periodically flooded stream); 3. Or,
completely surrounded by upland (non-
hydric soils).
72.60%
(7,260/10,000, of which
191, 1.91%, are
headwater wetlands)
29. W aterbody Type
Natural Pond
(PD1)
A natural pond that is less than 5 acres in
size.
6.4%
(640/10,000)
Diked and/or
Impounded Pond
(PD2)
A pond that is diked and/or impounded
and is less than 5 acres in size.
4.27%
(427/10,000)
Excavated Pond
(PD3)
A pond that excavated and is less than 5
acres in size.
26.17%
(2,617/10,000)
Natural Lake
(LK1)
A natural lake that is greater than 5 acres
in size.
Less than 1 percent
(62/10,000)
Dammed River
Valley
(LK2)
A lake (greater than 5 acres in size) and
created by damming a river valley.
Less than 1 percent
(40/10,000)
Excavated Lake
(LK3)
A lake that is excavated and greater than
5 acres in size.
1.06%
(106/10,000)
River
(RV)
A polygonal feature in the NHD (or Ohio
hydrography dataset) or NWI dataset.
Less than 1 percent
(28/10,000)
30. Cowardin codes
Explain Cowardin codes
Wetland code splitter
Examples/show how waterbody type
descriptor comes directly from Cowardin code
[illustration, show and highlight]
31. W ater Flow Path
Enhancing the NWI
Outflow
(OU)
Water flows out of the wetland naturally, but does not flow into this
wetland from another source.
Less than 1
percent
(75/10,000)
Outflow
Intermittent
(OI)
Water flows out of the wetland intermittently, but does not flow into this
wetland from another source.
Less than 1
percent
(63/10,000)
Outflow Artificial
(OA)
Water flows out of the wetland, in a channel that was manipulated or
artificially created.
Less than 1
percent
(53/10,000)
Bidirectional
(BI)
Wetland along a lake and not along a river or stream entering this type
of waterbody; its water levels are subjected to the rise and fall of the
lake levels. Lentic wetlands with no streams intersecting them.
3.48%
(348/10,000)
Throughflow
(TH)
Water flows through the wetland, often coming from upstream sources
(typically wetlands along rivers and streams). Lentic wetlands with
streams running through them are classified as throughflow (or
throughflow intermittent, if stream is classed as intermittent).
19.15%
(1,915/10,000)
Throughflow
Intermittent
(TI)
Water flows through the wetland intermittently, often coming from
upstream sources (typically wetlands along streams).
11.02%
(1,102/10,000)
Throughflow
Artificial
(TA)
Water flows through the wetland, in a channel that was manipulated or
artificially created.
1.16%
(116/10,000)
Isolated
(IS)
Wetland is typically surrounded by upland (nonhydric soil); receives
precipitation and runoff from adjacent areas with no apparent outflow.
63.85%
(6,385/10,000)
34. Assigning wetland functions
How to define your
functions of interest
and map the
wetlands that provide
them
Wetland Functions
35. Flood water storage
Streamflow
maintenance
Nutrient
transformation
Sediment retention
Shoreline
stabilization
Fish habitat
Stream shading
Bird habitat
Amphibian habitat
Natural, physical, or
biological process
occurring within a
wetland – as well as
within connected
waterways and
ecosystems.
Processes may
sustain and
maintain wetland, or
may be an
incidental function
that the wetland
provides.
Wetland Functions
36. Defining significance of a
wetland function
Significance is a relative measure - - comparison of
wetlands to each other
Meant to classify and rank wetlands for ability to
perform natural processes
“High” “Medium” and “Low” - - used without any
social/regulatory value or quantitative limits
“High” simply means “performing process at
better/higher rate than other wetlands in area”
Wetland Functions
37. How is it performed?
NWI Cowardin
wetland type
designation
LLWW
hydrogeomorphic
descriptors
Additional GIS data
(soils, NHD)
Functional
significance
selection
criteria
Wetland Functions
38. Floodwater Results
Functional
Significance
Selection Criteria
Results
NWI Historic
High
Wetlands along streams and rivers
Island wetlands
Ponds that are throughflow, throughflow
intermittent, bidirectional, and isolated and
that are = or > 0.59 acres
31.76%
(13,175
of 41,489
acres)
21.48%
(41,338 of 192,451
acres)
Moderate
All of the above in the High category that
are < 0.59 acres
Terrene basin isolated
Terrene & outflow or outflow intermittent
wetlands
Other ponds and terrene wetlands
associated with ponds connected to
hydrography network
Terrene wetlands that are associated with
ponds
All lake-side wetlands not already ranked
high
40.16%
(16,661
of 41,489
acres)
64.09%
(123,350
of 192,451 acres)
Low All remaining wetlands
28.09%
(11,653
of 41,489
acres)
14.43%
(27,763
of 192,451 acres)
48. Historic versus current wetlands
– the takeaway
Ideal targets for wetland management in the
Sandusky watershed –
Wetland types
Vegetated palustrine and lacustrine
Non-open water
Located
In lowlands
In geologic pre-history lake sediments
Flood occasionally or frequently
Historic Wetlands
49. Full
Circle
New questions to ask or
watershed plan strategies
to consider that may need
analysis?
Conclusion
51. Acknowledgements
Conversations with members of the Conservation
Management Institute (CMI) at Virginia Tech provided
insight, as well as the published NWIPlus and LLWFA
datasets from CMI’s work with the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) is also in
the process of developing a LLWFA methodology and
their publications and presentations were a useful
resource.
Current Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
(ORISE) fellowship-funded wetland function research was
also instrumental for methodology development.
58. Today’s
Topics
How to map historic
wetlands and compare
their functions to current
conditions
Introduction
59. Today’s
Topics
How to add new
descriptors to the National
Wetlands Inventory for use
in the wetland function
analysis
Introduction
60. Floodwater storage
Wetland Functions
Functional
Significance
Selection Criteria
High
Wetlands along streams and rivers, Island wetlands, Ponds
that are throughflow, throughflow intermittent, bidirectional,
and isolated, and, that are = or > 0.59 acres
Moderate
All of above in the High category < 0.59 acres
Terrene basin isolated (moved from High in MDEQ criteria to
Moderate here)
Terrene & outflow or outflow intermittent wetlands
Other ponds and terrene wetlands associated with ponds
connected to hydrography network
Terrene wetlands that are associated with ponds
All lake-side wetlands not already ranked high
Low
All remaining wetlands
61. Nutrient transformation
Wetland Functions
Functional
Significance
Selection Criteria
High
Vegetated wetlands from NWI P_ (AB, EM, SS, FO, and
mixes) with water regime C, E, F, H, G. No open water types –
with SSURGO Flood Frequency of “Frequent” or “Occasional”
Moderate
Vegetated wetlands from NWI P_ (AB, EM, SS, FO, and
mixes) with water regime C, E, F, H, G. No open water types –
with SSURGO Flood Frequency of “Rare” or “None” (“Very
Rare” not found in this data set)
Seasonally Saturated and Temporarily Flooded Vegetated
Wetlands from NWI P_ (AB, EM, SS, FO, and mixes) with A,
B water regime or lacustrine vegetated wetlands (no open
water) – with SSURGO Flood Frequency of “Frequent” or
“Occasional”
Low All remaining wetlands
Hinweis der Redaktion
Welcome and thank you
Today, take a look at
how to use a geographic information system
To methodically and quickly
Original task order from EPA, focus of larger project
Great Lakes Basin, starting with a small watershed
Sandusky watershed, northern Ohio
“Use landscape modeling techniques to identify opportunities to restore, create and enhance wetlands”
Examining wetland loss
Identifying potential restoration opportunities
Goal TODAY is to understand how, in general, the GIS-based landscape modeling method works and why it’s important
Framing and perspective
First, WHERE is the AREA that are we talking about today
Why
Why does this AREA matter,
(then, WHY talk about WETLAND FUNCTION for this area)
Great Lakes region
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC), 2004, protect, restore region
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) – 2010 to 2014, created by GLRC
“Restoring and enhancing wetlands to improve water quality and water quantity”
We need to test one area first, see if it offers benefit to the basin
Size
About 1800 square miles (1,827 square miles)
USGS HUC 8, the Sandusky subbasin
Term “watershed” used to broadly describe family of hydrologic unit boundary names
or to talk in general about a specific hydrologic unit (“the Sandusky watershed”)
Use subbasin or watershed interchangeably during talk
Drainages, major rivers
Located on Lake Erie
Most prominent drainage is Sandusky River
Drains to Sandusky Bay
Predominantly agricultural and urban
Cities
Sandusky, Fremont
2012 Population: around 258,000
Only counting five main counties that span watershed
(258,022: 60,150 Sandusky County, 76,398 Erie County, 56,018 Seneca County, 22,607 Wyandot County, 42,849 Crawford County)
If we want to quantify loss of wetland function in watershed
Need some way to compare CURRENT functional analysis to a PREVIOUS point
Ideal comparison is natural state of watershed, prior to:
wide-scale agricultural modifications,
deforestation,
roadway construction,
and hydromodification, such as canals, ditches, reservoirs,
as well as municipal storm sewer systems
That starting point needs to be interpretted…
That starting point in Ohio is generally taken to be around the late 1700s
Some call it “pre-European settlement” conditions, or historic is also used
Our starting point is the work of RB Gordon, 1966,
the “Original vegetation of Ohio at the earliest land surveys”
Digitized by ODNR for use in GIS, 2003
Overall goal is to create a GIS layer that is like the starting NWI, but is for pre-historic wetlands
Or, in other words, Cowardin codes like are found in the NWI
From the vegetation map,
design a correlation schema between NWI Cowardin code vegetative classes and the historic vegetation
assign those vegetative classes to the polygons in the GIS
What we are trying to do is represent the potential types of wetlands that COULD have been present in hydric soils
Second, we return to our National Resources Conservation Services SSURGO soils database
Find current-day hydric soils in the SSURGO
create correlation schema or crosswalk, as some call it between soil types and NWI water regimes
Assign those water regimes
Lastly, we need a dataset to represent historic hydrology
In the absence of digitized historic maps of rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds
Used the USGS’ National Hydrography Dataset - - take out manmade
With those elements combined in GIS
Can create a new historic wetland database, similar to the NWI
This is our starting point for the LLWW and then functional analysis
Use same steps are were applied for the NWI
Show you some results of that functional analysis, but first
let’s take a few more views of that historic wetland database
And, let’s see if we believe the patterns of wetlands we are seeing
Note wetlands clustering in the northern section of watershed
Flat lowlands
Rougher highlands
Note patches of interpreted wetlands in south
And, here it is compared to modern wetlands from the NWI, in orange
Observe the strong patterns of clustering
Not an even distribution of historic wetlands across the watershed
Do we believe this pattern?
Is it a good starting point for our comparison?
Note
the sharp line between historic wetlands in the north and sparse wetlands to south
What are these patches of wetlands in the south
I wanted to make sure, so I looked to compare it to other physiographic data
Specifically, I sought out information on the overarching physiographic regions of Ohio
Figure from Ohio Division of Geologic Survey, 1998
Don’t need to talk about physio definition, do it in one or two slides
Physiographic province:
characteristic geomorphology (shape of landforms)
Often has
specific subsurface rock type
OR a specific geologic structure
We are going to look in our study area, note three colors here
Blue
Teal-green
Pale blue patches within teal
And, the dividing line between the blue and teal-green, just south of Sandusky Bay
Specifically, I sought out information on the overarching physiographic regions of Ohio
Figure from Ohio Division of Geologic Survey, 1998
Physiographic province:
characteristic geomorphology (shape of landforms)
Often has
specific subsurface rock type
OR a specific geologic structure
We are going to look in our study area, note three colors here
Blue
Teal-green
Pale blue patches within teal
And, the dividing line between the blue and teal-green, just south of Sandusky Bay
In zoomed in view of our study area
Three data layers presented here
Pre-European settlement vegetation
Interpreted historic wetlands
Borders of physiographic provinces
The blue to north and west of this line
Ancient lake sediments
The teal to south of line
Glacial till
And, isolated ancient lake sediments within till
Line, Columbia Escarpment,
Join of western edge of Columbus and Delaware Limestones and ancient Maumee Lake sediments
Conclusion,
increased wetlands within the ancient lake sediments
Logical, hydric soils at bottom of lake in a lowland area would support wetlands
And, rocky till not as likely to support wetlands
With exception of isolated lake sediments, again
More framing
Original publications by R.W. Tiner in 1995,
northeast part of country
still updating descriptor keys today
Currently, nationwide, multiple groups are working on AUTOMATION of this in GIS
Landscape Position, Landform, Waterbody Type, and Water Flow Path (LLWW)
Why do we need these additional descriptors?
System of wetland classification
Characterizes hydrogeomorphic qualities wetlands
Enhancement to existing wetland classification systems
provides information about - -
where a wetland sits, such as along a river or stream or in a lake basin;
whether that wetland is isolated or is perhaps the source or headwater of a stream, or might instead be located in the middle of a stream network;
Identifies whether a waterbody associated with the wetland is natural or constructed; and provides an idea of the scale of that waterbody.
Landscape Position - wetland location with respect to topography and impact on the wetland’s water source(s)
Said another way, relationship between a wetland and nearby waterbodies
Landform - refers to physical shape of wetland OR the landscape where it is located (sloped, flat, or depression; Floodplain or near waterbody)
Waterbody type - applies only to permanent and deep, open water habitats; ponds, lakes, rivers; comes directly from NWI Cowardin codes as well as acreage of wetland (ponds and lakes, natural or constructed)
Waterflow path - type of water associated with a wetland and the direction that water moves
hand-screening methodology versus partially automated GIS screening
Hand-screening:
Loosely documented
Multiple analysts
Long time frame for a medium-to-large project
All lead to inconsistent decisions and irregularities
Partial automation with GIS:
Implemented by a basic GIS operator
Reduces time burden
Reduces requirement for extensive involvement of specially trained interpreters
Order of the definition is different from the order in which we perform in the analysis
Work on the most effort to least effort principle
We’re not going in depth about all the descriptors
Landform - refers to physical shape of wetland OR the landscape where it is located (sloped, flat, or depression; floodplain or near waterbody)
Will show examples of
SLOPE
FLOODPLAIN
Order of operations undertaken in the GIS for LANDFORM is important
high-resolution percent slope grid was created using the Ohio Statewide Imagery Program’s (OSIP) 2.5-meter resolution DEM data for the Sandusky subbasin.
slope raster used to determine and assign the average percent slope value across each wetland polygon,
allowed assignment of landform position class of slope (wetlands with slopes of 5% or greater).
The remaining landform classes were assigned primarily based on each wetland’s NWI water regime contained within its Cowardin code assignment.
The floodplain (FP) class was determined by coincidence of wetlands within the FEMA-designated floodplain areas.
the landform position classes are not mutually exclusive, order of operations is significant.
important to run landform analysis in exact order of slope-island-fringe-floodplain-basin-flat, as specified by Tiner (2011).
Reminding audience that we are
Landscape Position
Wetland location with respect to topography and impact on the wetland’s water source(s)
Said another way, relationship between a wetland and nearby waterbodies
Will show examples of TWO of descriptors:
Lentic
Terrene
Were selected for their
importance (Terrene headwater wetlands)
or
complexity of implementation (Lentic)
Illustration shows what these Landscape Positions are defined by
How they are used in the analysis
Lotic River and Lotic Stream, relatively straightforward
Lentic, more criteria needed
Terrene, more isolated, with one exception
[Trim down for clarity and speed]
Lentic
(LE)
Wetland in or along lake (waterbody >= 5 acres) or within basin, defined as area contiguous to lake affected by rising lake levels. Contiguous area of effect found through Arc Hydro GIS analysis. This landscape position type should be analyzed and assigned first.
Lotic River
(LR)
Wetland associated with (directly intersected by) a river or its active floodplain.
Lotic Stream
(LS)
Wetland is associated with (directly intersected by) a stream or its active floodplain.
Terrene
(TE)
Wetland that is: 1. Located in or borders pond, or wetland is a pond, (waterbody < 5 acres in size surrounded by upland); 2. Or, adjacent to but is not affected by a stream or river (located in or along, but NOT periodically flooded stream); 3. Or, completely surrounded by upland (non-hydric soils).
LENTIC – “wetlands within topographic basin containing lake and influenced by it”
Finding limit of a lake’s influence
Lake defined as 5 acres or greater
Tiner stated, assign limits to lake’s influence based on the physiography and climate of the landscape under analysis
Specifically, wetlands near shoreline periodically flooded by lake
Used DEM and ArcHydro GIS tools to find drainage basin
Then, select wetlands that
Are within drainage area of lake
AND
Are within 500’ buffer of lake itself
If short on time or budget, reasonable proxy is to just select wetlands within buffer distance of lake
Terrene
Intro on why are headwaters important, how do they fit in
Discussing the illustration of finding headwaters on right
Two things in this slide,
one is headwaters,
other is lotic river and lotic stream and not missing that classification by using the SSURGO soil data
Tiner, important classification criteria for Landscape position lotic river and lotic stream:
wetlands periodically flooded by rivers or streams that they are associated with
To find this, used data from
National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic database
And in GIS used:
Polygons with soil attribute “Flooding Frequency - Dominant Condition” (flodfreqdcd)
Indicates expected frequency of flooding at each wetland
Dominant Condition = “Frequent or Occasional”
Differentiate between the terrene (TE) and the lotic river and lotic stream classes.
Putting it all together
Visual explanation
Lotic river, within river buffer AND “flodfreq” soil
Lotic stream, intersected by a stream OR within the “flodfreq” soil
Waterbody type - applies only to permanent and deep, open water habitats; ponds, lakes, rivers; comes directly from NWI Cowardin codes as well as acreage of wetland (ponds and lakes, natural or constructed)
Relatively straightforward
Cowardin codes, descriptors inherent to NWI
“Wetland code splitter” program
short, simple Python language program that splits the merged codes into individual columns for easy sorting in GIS
The “Wetland Verification Toolset,” an important pre-processing step for the NWI wetlands data prior to analysis, creates a GIS attribute class called “WETLAND_TY,” short for “wetland type,” and fills in a generalized classification name for each wetland. For the waterbody type classification step, the “Freshwater Pond” and “Lake” wetland types were selected and then further sorted for the 5 acres or greater division of lakes versus ponds. With respect to Cowardin codes, those selected wetlands translate to ones classed as PUBG, PUBF, or PUBK – Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Intermittently Exposed (G) or Semipermanently Flooded (F) or Artificially Flooded (K), with special modifiers “x” (Excavated), or “h” (Diked/Impounded), or “d” (Partially Drained/Ditched).
Note that the NWI Cowardin code special modifier “h – Diked/Impounded” appeared to have been assigned appropriately in most cases, but was absent from a small percentage of wetlands that could be seen in aerial imagery as the result of impoundment. Therefore it is possible that the dammed river valley (LK2) and diked and/or impounded pond (PD2) values are not always correctly assigned for a small percentage of wetlands.
Waterflow path –
type of water associated with a wetland
AND
the flow direction
Looks like a lot of criteria, but…
Help you to see,
Only 4 main classes, each with some modifiers
Outflow
Bidirectional
Throughflow
Isolated
Intermittent and Artificial modifiers
Sometimes called “hydrodynamics”
General approach to this method - -
- - Find intersections between flowlines and wetlands
Primary dataset for Water flow path
Database has coding within it for types of waterways
“Stream/River – Perennial, Intermittent”
“Pipes/Canals/Ditches”
Not as simple as just intersections, though
Groundwater influence
Throughflow water flow path wetlands defined by - -
- - Receive surface or ground water from a stream, other waterbody, or another wetland at a higher elevation;
- - And, that surface or ground water passes through that wetland an on to another stream or waterbody.
To account for groundwater, used 200-foot buffer around perennial and intermittent NHD flowlines
Simulates groundwater influence, draws in wetlands near waterway that are likely influenced
No buffer selected for pipes, canals, ditches
Dealing with linear features in the NHD:
Straightened stream reaches
Irrigation conveyances
Coded in the NHD as “streams” and so would be just Throughflow rather than TH Artificial
Now that we understand the process by which LLWW descriptors are added to the wetlands
Discuss how to map wetland functions using those newly assigned descriptors as well as other GIS data
We will talk about how the wetland functions are defined
First, lets briefly review what a wetland function is
As well, let’s take a look at the functions that were used in this analysis
Here on the left are the specific wetland functions that were used for this analysis
And, on the left is a simple, succinct definition of what we mean by a “function”
Many of you are already familiar with this concept, but just to ensure we are all on the same page
We are talking about processes - - natural, physical, or biological - - that a wetland provides
Sometimes these are referred to as “ecosystems services”
These functions can be a core feature of the wetland that sustain it, or might be incidental
We talk and use the term function as, for instance, a wetland having a “high, medium, or low functional significance”
Some examples of that in conversation would be :
High functional significance for nutrient transformation
High functional significance for floodwater storage
Low functional significance for sediment retention
Medium functional significance for fish habitat
And just to wrap up our definition of the significance of wetland functions, let’s talk about that term “significance”
The significance of a function
refers to ability and level of that natural process to occur
in comparison to other wetlands
It’s that “in comparison” part that we need to emphasize
Relative measure
Terms “high,” “moderate,” and “low” are used to describe level of function that one group of wetlands has in comparison to another.
Terms used without regard to the perceived human value of any wetland function or its benefit to a watershed.
Wetlands with high functional significance for nutrient transformation do not meet any particular regulatory standard or limit - -
- - Rather are performing that process at a better and higher rate than other wetlands within the area of analysis.
The functional value of the ecological services provided by wetlands is a separate step that is determined by the needs and requirements of regulators and watershed planners.
Functional significance is only meant as a method to classify and rank wetlands for their ability to perform natural processes.
high functional significance for nutrient transformation
high functional significance for floodwater storage
With LANDSCAPE and WATER data added…
…Combined with NWI’s original VEGETATION and WETLAND TYPE data…
…Plus, adding in additional data layers in the GIS, such as
Hydrology, specifically information on man-made versus natural
Elevation data and drainages
You, as the analyst, working from previous examples, decides what combinations of traits and features represent what functions
We will discuss examples of functions used in this method and report
After assigning levels of functional significance using the methodology presented here, each wetland received an overall composite score that ranged from 11 (“Low” functional significance in all categories) to 33 (“High” functional significance in all categories). The scoring was determined by simply assigning a value of 1 to a “Low” significance, 2 to a “Moderate,” and 3 to a “High.”
Limitation of composite scores, opposing criteria
Focusing on Muddy Creek and Sandusky River HUC 10 boundaries
These darker wetlands compared to the lighter shaded ones - -
- - are performing at a higher level of functional significance
- - for a greater number of criteria
Some criteria are mutually exclusive
…this comparison of pre-European settlement wetlands to current-day wetlands shows that a greater percentage of the Sandusky River watershed’s acreage was wetland prior to European settlement. This is unsurprising and was expected due to increases in agriculture and development. The primary loss of acreage was observed in forested wetlands, followed by scrub-shrub wetlands. Those wetlands were replaced by emergent wetlands, consequently the percentage of emergent wetlands increased overall when comparing pre-European settlement to current wetlands. This change impacted the functional significance for all of the criteria used in this analysis. A much lower percentage of current wetlands rated high in functional significance as compared to the pre-European settlement wetlands.
Now we have
current functions,
historic functions, verified
Both had the same analysis performed on them
First, I will give you the takeaway from comparison of their functions
Then show you some results
Analysis indicates…
Ideal targets for management are:
vegetated palustrine and lacustrine,
non-open-water wetlands
in the lowlands and
ancient lake sediments
flood occasionally or frequently
Appear to be the wetlands with the highest functional significance
As well as highest density
Ideal candidates for preservation, restoration, and creation
Water quality, quantity, and thus potential for reducing nutrients, as well
Meets goals of the GLRI Action Plan
…And then taking that comparative historic assessment
…and bringing it back into the watershed plan
Are there more questions to ask, and can you go around the circle again?
Rapidly Screening for Wetland Functions Using a Geographic Information System (GIS)
What is a wetland function and why do we screen for it?
Difference between rapid assessment methods and hydrogeomorphic
How can GIS assist?
How can we use physical characteristics of wetlands to infer their functions?
How can we understand functional loss over time in a watershed?
What is a wetland function
What is a watershed plan
How do wetlands and wetland functions fit into watershed plans
Nutrient reduction
How have wetlands been accounted for previously in watershed plans, and how is this different
GIS-based landscape model
Starting data for analysis, FWS’ National Wetlands Inventory
Great resource, contains in a GIS-compatible format wetland
Location
Size
Shape
Type (coarse vegetation classes, wetland type)
Missing information that is easily added by - -
Sorting the wetlands into groups based on the data they already have from the NWI
And by OVERLAYING additional layers in GIS, such as hydrology, we can assign additional attributes
This is spatial analysis - - what overlaps what, what is within or outside of what
(Hydrogeomorphic) – geomorphology – hydrologic – LANDSCAPE and WATER
With LANDSCAPE and WATER data added…
…Combined with NWI’s original VEGETATION and WETLAND TYPE data…
…Plus, adding in additional data layers in the GIS, such as
Hydrology, specifically information on man-made versus natural
Elevation data and drainages
You, as the analyst, working from previous examples, decides what combinations of traits and features represent what functions
We will discuss examples of functions used in this method and report
Loss and gain, what changes has a watershed experienced
Identifying the management opportunities
Places where wetlands should be preserved…
…and where they should be restored
How to create a model of where historic wetlands were and what functions they might have possessed
Comparing that historic model to the current functional assessment…
…And then taking that comparative historic assessment
…and bringing it back into the watershed plan
Are there more questions to ask, and can you go around the circle again?
Loss and gain, what changes has a watershed experienced
Identifying the management opportunities
Places where wetlands should be preserved…
…and where they should be restored
How to create a model of where historic wetlands were and what functions they might have possessed
Comparing that historic model to the current functional assessment…
GIS-based landscape model
Starting data for analysis, FWS’ National Wetlands Inventory
Great resource, contains in a GIS-compatible format wetland
Location
Size
Shape
Type (coarse vegetation classes, wetland type)
Missing information that is easily added by - -
Sorting the wetlands into groups based on the data they already have from the NWI
And by OVERLAYING additional layers in GIS, such as hydrology, we can assign additional attributes
This is spatial analysis - - what overlaps what, what is within or outside of what
(Hydrogeomorphic) – geomorphology – hydrologic – LANDSCAPE and WATER