Foundation Formulation

Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment (ORWAP) V.3.2.
* Cover Page: Basic Description of

Assessment
Site Name:
Investigator Name:
Date of Field Assessment:
County:
Nearest Town:
Latitude (decimal degrees):
Longitude (decimal degrees):
TRS, quarter/quarter section and tax lot(s):
Approximate size of the Assessment Area (AA, in acres):
AA as percent of entire wetland (approx.). Attach sketch map if AA is
smaller than the entire contiguous wetland.
If delineated, DSL file number (WD #) if known:
Cowardin Systems & Classes (indicate all present, based on field visit
and/or aerial imagery):
Systems: Palustrine =P, Riverine =R, Lacustrine =L, Estuarine =E
Classes: Emergent =EM, Scrub-Shrub =SS, Forested =FO, Aquatic Bed (incl. SAV) =AB, Open
Water =OW, Unconsolidated Bottom =UB, Unconsolidated Shore =US
Predominant HGM Class: Estuarine=E, Lacustrine=L, Riverine=R, S= Slope, F= Flats,

D= Depressional
Soil Unit Mapped in Most of the AA:
If tidal, the tidal phase during most of visit:
What percent (approximate) of the wetland were you able to visit?
What percent (approximate) of the AA were you able to visit?

Have you attended an ORWAP training session? If so, indicate
approximate month & year.
How many wetlands have you assessed previously using ORWAP
(approximate)?
Comments about the site or this ORWAP assessment (attach extra page
if desired):
Date: Name: Site:
Form OF Conduct an assessment only after reading the accompanying Manual and explanations in column E For a list of functions to which each question pertains, see bracketed codes in column E. Codes for functions and their
benefits are: WS= Water Storage, WC= Water Cooling, SR= Sediment Retention, PR= Phosphorus Retention, NR= Nitrate
For guidance and detailed descriptions of how Excel
calculates the numbers in the Scores worksheet, see
below. Answering many of the following questions requires viewing aerial imagery and maps, covering
Office Data an area up to within 2 miles of the AA. For each affirmative answer, change the 0 in the "Data" column
Removal, CS= Carbon Sequestration, OE= Organic Nutrient Export, INV= Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat, FA= Anadromous the Technical Supplement and Appendix C of the
Fish Habitat, FR= Resident Fish Habitat, AM= Amphibians & Reptile Habitat, WBF= Feeding Waterbird Habitat, WBN= Manual. For a documented rationale for each
ORWAP V. 3.2 to a "1". Answer all items except where directed to skip to others. Questions whose cells in "Data" Nesting Waterbird Habitat, SBM= Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat, POL= Pollinator Habitat, PD= Native Plant indicator, open each of the worksheet tabs at the
column have a "W" MUST be answered for the ENTIRE wetland and bordering waters. Diversity, PU= Public Use & Recognition, EC= Ecological Condition, Sens= Sensitivity, STR= Stressors. bottom (one for each function or value) and see
column H.
# Indicators Condition Choices Data Explanations, Definitions (Column E) Cell Name Comments
OF1 Distance to Extensive The distance from the AA edge to the edge of the closest patch or corridor of perennial cover (see definition in column E) Corridor - is simply an elongated patch of perennial cover that is not narrower than 150 ft at any
Perennial Cover larger than 100 acres is: point.
(DistPerCov)
<100 ft. 0 Perennial cover - is vegetation that includes wooded areas, native prairies, sagebrush, vegetated
100 to <300 ft. 0 wetlands, as well as relatively unmanaged commercial lands in which the ground is disturbed less
300 to <1000 ft. 0 than annually, such as hayfields, lightly grazed pastures, timber harvest areas, and rangeland. It
does not include water, row crops (e.g., vegetable, orchards, Christmas tree farms), lawns,
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile. 0 residential areas, golf courses, recreational fields, pavement, bare soil, rock, bare sand, or gravel
0.5 mile to 2 miles. 0 or dirt roads.
[AM, WBN, PD, PDv, POL, SBM, Sens, STR]
> 2 miles. 0
OF2 Distance to Tidal Waters The distance from the AA edge to the closest body of tidal water is: Tidal water - If unclear whether a water body is tidal, check the ORWAP Map Viewer's Headtide
(DistTidal) layer (expand Hydrology), or check with local sources.
Assume Columbia River is tidal east to Bonneville Dam and the Willamette River south to the
<1 mile. 0
Oregon City Falls.
1-5 miles. 0 [WBF]
>5 miles. 0
OF3 Distance to Ponded The distance from the AA edge to the closest (but separate) body of nontidal fresh water (wetland, pond, or lake) that is Use field observations, aerial imagery, and/or the ORWAP Map Viewer's Persistent Nontidal layer
Water (DistPond) ponded all or most of the year is: (expand Wetlands/National Wetlands Inventory).
<100 ft. 0 [AM,WBF,WBN,SBM,PD,Sens]
100 to <300 ft. 0
300 to <1000 ft. 0
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile. 0
0.5 mile to 2 miles. 0
>2 miles. 0
OF4 Distance to Lake The distance from the AA edge to the closest (but separate) body of nontidal fresh water (wetland, pond, or lake) that is Use field observations, aerial imagery, and/or the ORWAP Map Viewer's Persistent Nontidal
(DistLake) ponded during most of the year and is larger than 20 acres (about 1000 ft on a side) is: layer (expand Wetlands/National Wetlands Inventory).
<1 mile. 0
1-5 miles. 0 [WBF,WBN]
>5 miles. 0
OF5 Distance to Herbaceous The distance from the AA edge to the closest patch of herbaceous openland larger than 10 acres and in flat terrain is: Herbaceous openland - includes both perennial and non-perennial cover. For example, it can
Open Land (DistOpenL) include pasture, herbaceous wetland, meadow, prairie, ryegrass fields, row crops, herbaceous
<100 ft. 0 rangeland, golf courses, grassed airports, and hayfields.
100 to <300 ft. 0 Do not include open water of lakes, ponds, or rivers; or unvegetated surfaces; or areas with
300 to <1000 ft. 0 woody vegetation. In dry parts of the state, croplands in flat areas are often irrigated and are
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile. 0 distinctly greener in aerial images.
0.5 mile to 2 miles. 0 Flat terrain - means slope of less than 5%. [WBF,WBN,POL]
>2 miles. 0
Page 2 of 582
OF6 Distance to Nearest The distance from the AA center to the nearest road with an average daytime traffic rate of at least 1 vehicle/ minute is: Estimate this traffic rate threshold using your judgment and considering the road width, local
Busy Road (DistRd) population, distance to densely settled areas, alternate routes, and other factors.
<100 ft. 0
[AM,SBM,PD,PUv,STR]
100 to <300 ft. 0
300 to < 0.5 mile. 0
0.5 to <1 miles. 0
1 to 2 miles. 0
>2 miles. 0
OF7 Size of Largest Nearby Including the AA's vegetated area, the largest patch or corridor that is perennial cover and is contiguous with vegetation in Contiguous -Abutting, with no major physical separation that prohibits free exchange or flow of
Patch of Perennial Cover the AA (i.e., not separated by roads or channels that create gaps wider than 150 ft), occupies: surface water ( i.e., not separated by roads or channels that create gaps wider than 150 ft)
(SizePerenn)
<.01 acre. 0 Perennial cover - See OF1.
.01 to < 1 acre. 0
1 to <10 acres. 0 Disqualify any patch or corridor of perennial cover where it becomes separated from the AA by a
gap of >150 ft, if the gap is comprised of unvegetated land or if the corridor narrows to less than
10 to <100 acres. 0 150 ft.
100 to <1000 acres. 0
[AM,SBM,PD,POL,Sens,STR]
1000 to 10,000 acres. 0
>10,000 acres. 0
OF8 Wetland Type Local Select EACH of the vegetation types below that comprise more than 10% of the AA AND less than This is a 2-part question:
Uniqueness (UniqPatch) 10% of a 0.5 mile radius around the AA. (See Column E). (1) if no vegetation class comprises more than 10% of the AA, answer "none of the above."
Herbaceous vegetation (perennial grasses, sedges, forbs; not under a woody canopy; not crops). 0
(2) If a vegetation class does comprise more than 10%, determine if that vegetation class also
Unshaded shrubland (woody plants shorter than 20 ft). 0 comprises less than 10% of a 0.5 mile circle (~50 acres).
Trees (woody plants taller than 20 ft). 0 [INVv,AMv,WBFv,WBNv,SBMv,PDv,POLv,Sens]
None of above. 0
OF9 Perennial Cover Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center, the percentage of land that has perennial cover is: Perennial cover - is vegetation that includes wooded areas, native prairies, sagebrush, vegetated
Percentage (PerCovPct) wetlands, as well as relatively unmanaged commercial lands in which the ground is disturbed less
<5% of the land. 0 than annually, such as hayfields, lightly grazed pastures, timber harvest areas, and rangeland.
It does not include water, row crops (e.g., vegetable, orchards, Christmas tree farms), lawns,
5 to <20% of the land. 0 residential areas, golf courses, recreational fields, pavement, bare soil, rock, bare sand, or gravel
20 to <60% of the land. 0 or dirt roads.
60 to 90% of the land. 0 [FA,AM,SBM,POL,Sens,STR]
>90% of the land. 0 PerennAll

OF10 Forest Percentage Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center, the cumulative amount of forest (regardless of forest patch sizes, and including any Forested patch - is a land cover patch that currently has >70% cover of woody plants taller than
(ForestPct) in the AA) is: 20 ft. May be in a plantation.
<5% of the circle. 0
[FA,SBM,STR]
5 to <20%. 0
20 to <50%. 0
50 to 80%. 0
>80%. 0
OF11 Herbaceous Open Land Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center, the amount of herbaceous openland in flat terrain is: Herbaceous openland - can include both perennial and non-perennial cover. For example, it can
Percentage (OpenLpct) include pasture, herbaceous wetland, meadow, prairie, ryegrass fields, row crops, herbaceous
<5% of the land. 0 rangeland, golf courses, grassed airports, and hayfields.
5 to <20%. 0 Do not include open water of lakes, ponds, or rivers; or unvegetated surfaces; or areas with
woody vegetation.
20 to <50%. 0
50 to 80%. 0
Flat terrain - means slope of less than 5%.
>80%. 0
[WBF,WBN,POL]
Page 3 of 582
OF12 Landscape Wetland Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center: Corridor - is simply an elongated patch of perennial cover that is not narrower than 150 ft at any
Connectivity point.
(ConnScapeW) There are NO other wetlands. 0
Regular traffic - is at least 1 vehicle per hour during the daytime throughout most of the growing
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), but NONE are connected to the AA by a corridor of perennial vegetation. The 0 season. Assess this based on local knowledge, type of road, and proximity to developed areas.
corridor must be at least 150 ft wide along its entire length and not interrupted by roads with regular traffic.
Perennial - see OF9 for definition.
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), and ALL are connected to the AA by the type of corridor described. 0 [WBN,SBM,Sens,STR]
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), and ONE or MORE (but not all) are connected to the AA by the type of corridor 0
described.
OF13 Local Wetland Within a 0.5 mile radius of the AA center: Regular traffic - is at least 1 vehicle per hour during the daytime throughout most of the growing
Connectivity season. Assess this based on local knowledge, type of road, and proximity to developed areas.
(ConnLocalW) There are NO other wetlands. 0
Perennial - see OF9 for definition.
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), but NONE are connected to the AA by a corridor of perennial vegetation. The 0
corridor must be at least 150 ft wide along its entire length and not interrupted by roads with regular traffic. IF possible, field verify
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), and ALL are connected to the AA by the type of corridor described. 0 [AM,WBN,SBM,PD,Sens,STR]
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), and ONE or MORE (but not all) are connected to the AA by the type of corridor 0
described.
OF14 Wetland Number & According to the ORWAP Report, this AA is located in one of the HUCs that are listed as having a large diversity, area, or In the ORWAP Report, under the Watershed Information section and the HUC Best table, look at
Diversity Uniqueness number of wetlands relative to the area of the HUC. Select All of the following that are true: the columns "Is HUC Best?" and "Greatest Criteria Met."
(HUCbest)
Yes, for the HUC8 watershed 0 [AM,WBF,WBN,SBM,Sens]
Yes, for the HUC10 watershed 0

Yes, for the HUC12 watershed 0
None of above. 0
Data are inadequate (NWI mapping not completed in HUC). 0
OF15 Landscape Functional In the ORWAP Report, find the HUC 12 Functional Deficit table. Select All functions below that have a notation for that In the ORWAP Report, under the Watershed Information section, look at the Functional Deficit
Deficit (GISscore) HUC. table. Enter 1 for each of the listed functions that are noted.
Water storage (WS) 0
These are HUCs in which a relatively small number, or proportional area, of the wetlands are
Sediment retention (SR) 0
likely to be performing the named function, thus adding value to those that are.
Nutrient transformation (NT) 0
Thermoregulation (WC) 0 See ORWAP's Technical Supplement for explanation of how the FuncDeficit was calculated.
Aquatic invertebrate habitat (INV) 0 [WSv,WCv,SRv,PRv,INVv,FAv,AMv,WBNv]

Amphibian habitat (AM) 0
Fish habitat (FH) 0
Waterbird habitat (WB) 0
None of above. 0
No data. 0
OF16 Conservation On the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the layers indicated below to answer. Select All of the following that are true: In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the applicable layers.
Designations of the AA
or Local Area (a)The AA is within or connected to a stream or other water body and this stream or water body has been designated as 0 Include areas not shown as ESH, if ODFW has confirmed they qualify as ESH.
(ConDesig) ESH within 0.5 miles of the AA, according to the Essential Salmonid Habitat (ESH) layer. [WCv, FA, FAv]
(b)The AA is within or contiguous to a designated Oregon's Greatest Wetlands, according to the map layer of that name. 0 Oregon's Greatest Wetlands identifies the most biologically and ecologically significant wetlands
in the State of Oregon. [PU]
(c)The AA is within an Important Bird Area (IBA), as officially designated, according to the map layer of that name. 0
[WBFv, WBNv]
None of above. 0
Page 4 of 582
OF17 Non-anadromous Fish According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare non-anadromous fish species in the vicinity of this AA is: Use ORWAP Report 's Rare Species Scores max and sum scores. See Supp_Info file for a list of
Species of Conservation species.
Concern (RareFR) High (≥ 0.75 for maximum score, or ≥ 0.90 for this group's sum score), or there is a recent (within 5 years) onsite 0 Species include Miller Lake lamprey, Goose Lake lamprey, Pit sculpin, Lahontan cutthroat trout,
observation of any of these species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur. Inland Columbia Basin redband trout, Steelhead (Snake River Basin ESU), Alvord chub, Goose
Lake tui chub, Borax Lake chub, Lahontan redside, Oregon chub, Goose Lake sucker, Tahoe
Intermediate (i.e., not as described above or below). 0
sucker, Warner sucker, Shortnose sucker, Lost River sucker. Note that for some of these
Low (≤ 0.33 for both the maximum score this group's sum score, but not 0 for both). 0 species, only specific geographic populations are designated. [FRv]
Zero for both this group's maximum and its sum score, and no recent onsite observation of these species by a qualified 0 This question may need to revised after the field visit.
observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
OF18 Amphibian or Reptile of According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare amphibian or reptile species in the vicinity of this AA is:
Conservation Concern Use ORWAP Report 's Rare Species Scores max and sum scores. See Supp_Info file for a list of
(AmphRare) 0 species.
High (≥ 0.60 for maximum score, or >0.90 for sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of any of these species by
Species include: Black salamander, California slender salamander, Cope's giant salamander,
a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
Rocky Mountain tailed frog, Woodhouse's toad, Foothill yellow-legged frog, Northern leopard frog,
Intermediate (i.e., not as described above or below). 0 Oregon spotted frog, Columbia spotted frog.
Low (≤ 0.21 for maximum score AND <0.15 for sum score, but not 0 for both). 0
[AMv]
OF19 Feeding (Non-breeding) According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare non-breeding (feeding) waterbird species in the vicinity Use ORWAP Report 's Rare Species Scores max and sum scores. See Supp_Info file for a list of
Waterbird Species of of this AA is: species.
Conservation Concern
(RareWBF) High (≥ 0.33 for maximum score, or there is a recent onsite observation of any of these species by a qualified observer 0 Non-breeding - mainly refers to waterbird feeding during migration and winter. California brown
under conditions similar to what now occur. pelican, Aleutian cackling goose, Dusky Canada goose
Low (< 0.33 for maximum score and for sum score, but not 0 for both). 0
[WBFv]
Zero for both this group's maximum and its sum score, and no recent onsite observation of these species by a qualified 0
observer under conditions similar to what now occur. This question may need to revised after the field visit.
OF20 Nesting Waterbird According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare nesting waterbird species in the vicinity of this AA is: Use ORWAP Report 's Rare Species Scores max and sum scores. See Supp_Info file for a list of
Species of Conservation species.
Concern (RareWBN) High (≥ 0.60 for maximum score, or ≥1.00 for this group's sum score), or there is a recent breeding-season observation of 0 Species include: Horned grebe, Red-necked grebe, Western grebe, Clark's grebe, American
any of these species onsite by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur. white pelican, Least bittern, Snowy egret, Trumpeter swan, White-faced ibis, Harlequin duck,
Bufflehead, Yellow rail, Western snowy plover, Upland sandpiper, Franklin's gull, Marbled
murrelet.
Low (≤ 0.09 for maximum score and for sum score, but not 0 for both). 0 [WBNv]
Zero for both this group's maximum and its sum score, and no recent onsite observation of these species during breeding 0 This question may need to revised after the field visit.
season by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
OF21 Songbird, Raptor, According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare songbird, raptor, or mammal species in the vicinity of Use ORWAP Report 's Rare Species Scores max and sum scores. See Supp_Info file for a list of
Mammal Species of this AA is: species.
Conservation Concern High (≥ 0.60 for maximum score, or >1.13 for sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of any of these species by 0 Species include: Bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, Arctic peregrine falcon, Greater sage-
(RareSBM) a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur. grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Yellow-billed cuckoo, Northern spotted owl, Short-eared
owl, Black swift, Lewis's woodpecker, Purple martin, Northern waterthrush, Bobolink, Tricolored
blackbird, Fringed myotis, Spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, Pallid bat, Northern sea lion,
Low (≤ 0.09 for maximum score AND <0.13 for sum score, but not 0 for both). 0 Fisher, Sea otter, Canada lynx, Columbian white-tailed deer. [SBMv]
OF22 Invertebrate Species of According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare invertebrate species in the vicinity of this AA is: Use ORWAP Report 's Rare Species Scores max and sum scores. See Supp_Info file for a list of
Conservation Concern species.
(RareInvert) High (≥ 0.75 for maximum score, or for this group's sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of any of these 0 See the Supp_Info file's RareAnimals worksheet for list of species addressed by this question.
species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
[INVv]
Low (< 0.75 for maximum score AND for this group's sum score, but not 0 for both). 0 This question may need to revised after the field visit.
Page 5 of 582
OF23 Plant Species of According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare wetland-indicator plant species in the vicinity of this AA Use ORWAP Report 's Rare Species Scores max and sum scores.
Conservation Concern is:
(RarePspp) High (≥ 0.75 for maximum score, or > 4.00 for sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of any of these species by 0 See the Supp_Info's RareWetPlants worksheet for list of species addressed by this question.
a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
Intermediate (i.e., not as described above or below). 0 [PDv,POLv]
This question may need to revised after the field visit.
Low (≤ 0.12 for maximum score AND < 0.20 for sum score, but not 0 for both). 0
OF24 River Proximity There is a nontidal river within 1 mile and it is adjacent to, OR downslope from, the AA (connected or not). 0 River - as used here is a channel wider than 50 ft between its banks. NearRiver
(RiverProx) Enter 1, if true. If not, SKIP to OF27. In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the National Hydrography Dataset - Flowline layer (expand
Hydrology).[WSv]
OF25 Floodable Property Select ONE of the below: Row crops - do not include pasture or other perennial cover.
(FloodProp)
Floodplain boundaries within 1 mile downslope or downriver from the AA have not been mapped. 0 In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the Floodplain layers. Also, the Seasonal Nontidal Wetland
Enter 1 and SKIP TO OF27. layer (expand Wetlands/National Wetlands Inventory) may indicate some floodplain areas.
Floodplain boundaries within 1 mile downslope from the AA have been mapped BUT there is neither infrastructure nor row 0
[WSv]
crops vulnerable to river flooding located within the floodplain and within that distance.
Supplement with field observations at multiple seasons, if possible.
Enter 1 and SKIP TO OF27.
Floodplain boundaries have been mapped AND infrastructure or row crops are present within 1 mile downslope or 0
downriver and those are not protected from 100-year floods, but actual damage has not been documented.
Damage to infrastructure or row crops from river flooding has been documented within that distance. 0
OF26 Type of Flood Damage The greatest financial damage in the floodplain is (or would be) to: Row crops - do not include pasture or other perennial cover.
(DamageType) On the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the Floodplain layers
Buildings, roads, bridges. 0 [WSv]
Row crops (during some years). 0
OF27 Hydrologic Landscape According to the ORWAP Report, the wetland is in a hydrologic landscape unit classified as: In the ORWAP Report, under the Location Information table, find the Hydrologic Landscape
(Arid) Class.
Arid. 0
[AM, AMv, WBNv, SBMv, OE, Sens]
Semi-arid. 0
Dry. 0
Moist. 0
Wet. 0
Very Wet. 0
OF28 Input Water - According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Water Quality Streams layer and Water Quality Lakes layers, ALL of the following are Use the ORWAP Map Viewer's Water Quality Streams layer and the Water Quality Lakes layer
Recognized Quality true: (a) within 1 mile upstream from the AA edge, a water body or stream reach is labeled as being 303d, Water Quality (expand Water Quality and Quanity) and the Distance tool. Use the Identy tool to determine the
Issues (WQin) Limited (categories 3B-5); Potential Concer; or TMDL Approved AND (b) the problem concerns one or more of the reason for the listings.
parameters listed below. Select All that apply.
Total suspended solids (TSS), sedimentation, or turbidity. 0 If the AA receives both inflow and outflow from river flooding, consider the polluted water to be
Phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, or algae. 0 both "upstream" and "downstream".
Nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, or algae. 0
[SRv,PRv,INV,FA,FR,AM,WBF,WBN,STR]
Petrochemicals, heavy metals (iron, manganese, lead, zinc, etc.), other toxins. 0 This may need to be verified in the field.
Temperature or dissolved oxygen. 0
None of above, or no data. If true, enter 1 and SKIP to OF30. 0 NoDataWQup
OF29 Duration of Connection The upstream problem area mentioned above (OF28) has a surface water connection to the AA: In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the National Hydography Dataset (expand Hydrology) and the
Beween Problem Area & Persistent, Seasonal, or Saturated nontidal layers (expand Wetlands/National Wetlands
the AA (ConnecUp) For 9 or more continuous months annually. 0 Inventory) to determine duration of surface water connection.
[SRv,PRv,INV,FA,FR,AM,WBF,WBN,STR]
Intermittently (at least once annually, but for less than 9 months continually). 0 This may need to be determined or verified in the field.
Never (or less than annually). 0
Page 6 of 582
OF30 Downslope Water According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Water Quality Streams layer and Water Quality Lakes layer, ALL of the following are Use the ORWAP Map Viewer's Water Quality Streams layer and the Water Quality Lakes layer
Quality Issues true: (a) within 1 mile downhill or downstream from the AA's edge, a water body is labeled as being 303d, Water Quality (expand Water Quality and Quanity) and the Distance tool. Use the Identy tool to determine the
(ContamDown) Limited (categories 3B-5); Potential Concern; or TMDL Approved AND (b) the problem concerns one or more of the reason for the listings.
parameters listed below. Select All that apply.
[WCv,SRv,PRv,FA]
Total suspended solids (TSS), sedimentation, or turbidity. 0
Phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, or algae. 0
Nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, or algae. 0
Petrochemicals, heavy metals (iron, manganese, lead, zinc, etc.), other toxins. 0
Temperature or dissolved oxygen. 0
None of above, or no data. Enter 1 and SKIP to OF32. 0 NoDataWQdo
OF31 Duration of Connection The connection between the downstream problem area mentioned above (OF30) and the AA: In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the National Hydography Dataset (expand Hydrology) and the wn
Beween AA & Water Persistent, Seasonal, or Saturated nontidal layers (expand Wetlands/National Wetlands
Quality Problem Area Is a stream or water body that connects these areas for 9 or more continuous months annually. 0 Inventory) to determine duration of surface water connection.
(ConnDown)
Is a stream or water body that connects these areas intermittently (at least once annually, but for less than 9 months 0 [WCv,SRv,PRv,FA]
continually). This may need to be determined or verified in the field.
Is a probable groundwater connection, or connection via direct runoff only (no channel connection). 0
Never exists (a topographic ridge probably prevents all the AA's runoff and groundwater from reaching the problem area). 0
OF32 Drinking Water Source According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Surface Water Drinking Water Source Areas layer and the Ground Water Drinking In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the water source layers (expand Water Quality and Quantity).
(DEQ) (DWsource) Water Source Areas layer, the AA is within:
[NRv]
The source area for a surface-water drinking water (DW) source. 0
The source area for a groundwater drinking water source. 0
Neither of above. 0
OF33 Groundwater Risk According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Groundwater Management Areas layer and the Sole Source Aquifer layer, the AA is: In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use the DEQ Groundwater Management Areas layer and the Sole
Designations (GWrisk) Select All that apply source Aquifer layer (expand Water Quality and Quantity).
Within a designated Groundwater Management Area (ODEQ). 0 [NRv]
Within a designated Sole Source Aquifer area (EPA): the North Florence Dunal Aquifer. 0
Neither of above. 0
OF34 Relative Elevation in In the ORWAP Map Viewer, based on the Hydrologic Boundaries 4th Level (HUC 8) layer (expand Hydrology), determine if 1) Consider which end of the HUC is the bottom. Where streams join, the “V” that they form on
Watershed (Elev) the AA is: (See Column E) the map points towards the bottom of the HUC.
2) If the AA is closer to the HUC's outlet than to its upper end, and is closer to the river or large
In the upper one-third of its watershed. 0
stream that exits at the bottom of the HUC than it is to the boundary (margin) of the HUC, then
check "lower 1/3” If not near that river, check "middle 1/3".
In the middle one-third of its watershed. 0 3) If the AA is not in a 100-yr floodplain, is closer to the HUC upper end than to its outlet, and is
closer to the boundary (margin) of the HUC than to the river or large stream that exits at the
bottom of the HUC, then check "upper 1/3”
In the lower one-third of its watershed. 0 4) For all other conditions, check "middle 1/3". LowerShed
[WSv, PRv, FA, FR, WCv, OE, Sens, SRv]
OF35 Runoff Contributing Area Delimit the wetland's Runoff Contributing Area (RCA) using a topographic base map. The area of the AA's wetland is: W See the ORWAP Manual for specific protocol for delimiting the RCA (Section 4.1 Step 5). The
(RCA) - Wetland as % of RCA includes only the areas that potentially drain directly to the AA's wetland rather than to
(WetPctRCA) <1% of its RCA. 0 channels that flow or flood into that wetland. Exact precision in drawing the boundary is not
required.
1 to <10% of its RCA. 0
10 to 100% of its RCA. 0 [WS, WSv, SR, SRv, PR, PRv, WCv]
Larger than the area of its RCA. Enter 1 and SKIP TO OF39. 0 NoRCA
Page 7 of 582
OF36 Unvegetated % in the The proportion of the RCA comprised of buildings, roads, parking lots, exposed bedrock, and other surface that is usually W In the ORWAP Map Viewer, use an Aerial layer to determine the proportion of the RCA
RCA (ImpervRCA) unvegetated at the time of peak annual runoff is about: comprised of buildings, roads, parking lots, exposed bedrock, and other surfaces that are usually
unvegetated at the time of peak annual runoff.
<10%. 0
10 to 25%. 0 [WSv,WCv,SRv,PRv,INV,FA,Sens,STR]
>25%. 0
OF37 Transport From Upslope A relatively large proportion of the precipitation that falls farther upslope in the RCA reaches this wetland quickly as W Refer to aerial imagery and/or consult local sources.
(TransRCA) indicated by the following: (a) RCA slopes are steep, and/or (b) upslope wetlands historically present have been filled or See the ORWAP Manual for instructions.
drained extensively, and/or (c) land cover is mostly non-forest, and/or (d) most RCA soils are shallow. This statement is: [WSv,SRv,PRv,STR]
Mostly true. 0
Somewhat true. 0
Mostly untrue. 0
OF38 Upslope Soil Erodibility Use the ORWAP Report or the Map Viewer to determine if the erosion hazard rating of the soil within 200 ft away and If the soil unit is the same as the AA, the Erosion Hazard can be obtained from the ORWAP
Risk (ErodeUp) upslope of the AA is: Report's Soil Information section.
Slight. 0
If the soil unit is different than the AA, use ORWAP Map Viewer's Oregon Soil layer and see the
Moderate. 0 ORWAP Manual for instructions on how to determine the erosion hazard rating.
Severe. 0
[SRv,PRv,STR]
Very severe. 0
Could not determine. 0
OF39 Streamflow Contributing Delimit (or visualize, for large river basins) the wetland's Streamflow Contributing Area (SCA) using a topographic base W See the ORWP Manual for specific protocol for delimiting the SCA (section 4.1, Step 6). The
Area (SCA) - Wetland as map. The area of the AA's wetland is: SCA is all upland areas that drain into streams, rivers, and lakes that feed the AA's wetland either
% of (WetPctSCA) directly or during semi-annual floods.
<1% of its SCA, or wetland is in the floodplain of a major river. 0
1 to <10% of its SCA. 0 In addition, for wetlands intercepted by a mapped stream, the SCA can be delineated
automatically and its area reported at this USGS web site: https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/.
10 to 100% of its SCA. 0
Enter the coordinates, select Oregon, select Delineate, zoom to level 15 or finer, and click on a
Larger than the area of its SCA. Enter 1 and SKIP TO OF41. 0 stream. NoSCA1
Wetland lacks tributaries and receives no overbank water. Enter 1 and SKIP to OF41. 0 [WS, SR, SRv, PR, PRv, WCv] NoSCA
OF40 Unvegetated % in the The proportion of the SCA comprised of buildings, roads, parking lots, exposed bedrock, and other surface that is usually W See the ORWAP Manual for instructions.
SCA (ImpervSCA) unvegetated at the time of peak annual runoff is about :
[WCv,SRv,PRv,FA,STR]
<10%. 0
10 to 25%. 0
>25%. 0
OF41 Upland Edge Shape Most of the edge between the AA's wetland and upland is (select one): W See ORWAP Manual for instructions and illustrations.
Complexity (EdgeShape)
Linear: a significant proportion of the wetland's upland edge is straight, as in wetlands bounded partly or wholly by dikes or 0 [NR, SBM, Sens]
roads, or the AA is entirely surrounded by water or other wetlands.
Intermediate: Wetland's shape is (a) ovoid, or (b) mildly ragged edge, and/or (c) contains a lesser amount of artificially 0
straight edge.
Convoluted: Wetland perimeter is many times longer than maximum width of the wetland, with many alcoves and 0
indentations ("fingers").
OF42 Zoning (Zoning) According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Zoning layer, the dominant zoned land use designation for currently undeveloped See the ORWAP Manual for instructions on how to determine the zoning designation. If
parcels upslope from the AA and within 300 ft. of its upland edge is: information is not provided, check local zoning maps.
Development (Commercial, Industrial, Urban Residential, etc.), or no undeveloped parcels exist upslope from the AA. 0
Agriculture or Rural Residential. 0 [WSv,WCv,SRv,PRv,INVv,FAv,FRv,AMv,WBFv,WBNv,SBMv,PDv,POLv,PUv]
Forest or Open Space, or entirely public lands. 0

Not zoned, or no information. 0
Page 8 of 582
OF43 Growing Degree Days According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Growing Degree Days layer, the long term normal Growing Degree Days category at See the ORWAP Manual for instructions on how to determine the growing degree days category.
(GDD) the approximate location of the AA is:
<256. 0 [NR, FR, AM, WBN, SBM, WCv, OE, CS, Sens]
256 - 1020. 0
1021-1785. 0
1786 - 2550. 0
2551 - 3315. 0
3316 - 4079. 0
> 4079. 0
Page 9 of 582
Date: Name: Site:
Form F Conduct an assessment only after reading the accompanying Manual and explanations in column E For a list of functions to which each question pertains, see bracketed codes in column E. Codes for functions and their For guidance and detailed descriptions of how Excel
benefits are: WS= Water Storage, WC= Water Cooling, SR= Sediment Retention, PR= Phosphorus Retention, NR= Nitrate calculates the numbers in the Scores worksheet, see
below. For each affirmative answer, change the 0 in the "Data" column to a "1". Answer all items
Field Data except where directed to skip to others. Questions whose cells in "Data" column have a "W" MUST be
Removal, CS= Carbon Sequestration, OE= Organic Export, INV= Invertebrates, FA= Anadromous Fish, FR= Resident Fish, the Technical Supplement and Appendix C of the
AM= Amphibians, WBF= Feeding Waterbirds, WBN= Nesting Waterbirds, SBM= Songbirds, Mammals, & Raptors, POL= accompanying Manual. For a documented rationale
(nontidal Wetlands) answered for the ENTIRE wetland and bordering waters. Pollinators, PH= Plant Habitat, PU= Public Use & Recognition, EC= Ecological Condition, Sens= Sensitivity, STR= for each indicator, open each of the worksheet tabs at
ORWAP V 3.2 Stressors. the bottom (one for each function or value) and see
column H.
F1 Tidal Wetland (Tidal) This is a tidal wetland (either freshwater or saltwater). If yes, GO TO worksheet " T ". Tidal wetland - a wetland that receives tidal water at least once during a normal year, regardless
Do not enter any data here. of salinity, and dominated by emergent or woody vegetation. Tidal flooding occurs on a 6-hour
If nontidal, continue with F2. cycle DURING THE TIME it is flooded by tide, which may be as infreuent as once per year. If
NWI map shows the wetland with a code beginning with E (for estuarine), assume the wetland to
be tidal. However, some wetlands lacking that code are also tidal.
F2 Ponded Condition At least once every 2 years, some part of the AA contains a cumulative total of >900 sq.ft. of surface water that is ponded. 0 Ponded - Most surface water is not visibly flowing. Flow, if any, is not sufficient to suspend fine Lentic
(Lentic) The water persists for >6 days and may be hidden beneath emergent vegetation or scattered in small pools. sediment. These include pools in floodplains and may be either large (e.g., an off-channel pond)
Enter 1, if true. or small (size of a puddle). [AM,WBF,WBN]
Reminder: For all questions, the AA should include all persistent waters in ponds smaller than 20 acres that are adjacent to the AA. The AA Adjacent - is used synonymously with abutting, adjoining, bordering, contiguous -- and means no
should also include part of the water area of adjacent lakes or rivers larger than 20 acres -- specifically, the open water part adjacent to wetland upland (manmade or natural) completely separates the described features along their directly
vegetation and equal in width to the average width of that vegetated zone. shared edge. Features joined only by a channel are not necessarily considered to be adjacent --
a large portion of their edges must match. The features do not have to be hydrologically
connected in order to be considered adjacent.
F3 Water Regime (Hydropd) The water regime (hydroperiod) of the most permanent (usually deepest) part of the AA is: Select only ONE. In the NRCS county soil survey, the Water Features table provides information about periods of
[To meet any of the definitions other than Ephemeral, there must be >100 sq ft of surface water for the duration described, flooding, ponding, and highwater table depths. Descriptions of the soil units may include
otherwise mark the type listed above it.] information on saturation persistence. Also consider the hydroperiod label on NWI wetland
polygons.
Ephemeral. Surface water in the wettest part of the AA is present for fewer than 7 consecutive days during an average 0 NeverWater
growing season. Includes some of the areas mapped as Saturated Nontidal in the ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not [WS, FA, FR, WBN, WBF, WC]
comprehensive). Enter 1 and SKIP to F25.
Temporary. Surface water present for 1-4 weeks consecutively during an average growing season, OR if persists for longer, 0 TempWet
it is almost entirely in scattered pools, each smaller than 1 sq.m. Dries up completely during part of most average years.
Includes some of the areas mapped as Saturated Nontidal in the ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive). Enter 1
and SKIP to F25.
Seasonal. Surface water present for 5-17 weeks (1-4 months) consecutively during an average growing season, but dries 0 ShallowType
up completely during part of most average years. Includes some of the areas mapped as Seasonal Nontidal in the ORWAP
Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive). Enter 1 and SKIP to F5.
Semi-Persistent. Surface water present for more than 17 weeks (4 months) consecutively during an average growing 0 DeepType
season, but dries up completely during part of most average years. Includes some of the areas mapped as Seasonal
Nontidal in the ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive). Enter 1 and SKIP to F5.
Permanent. Does not dry up completely during most average years. Includes some of the areas mapped as Persistent 0 Permanent - usually has significant groundwater input, higher conductivity, less annual water PermType
Nontidal in the ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive). Enter 1 and continue. level fluctuation. No woody vegetation in most persistently flooded parts. Often with extensive
open water and subsurface aquatic plants.
Page 10 of 582
F4 Flooded Persistently - % Identify the parts of the AA that still contain surface water even during the driest times of a normal year . At that time, the driest times of a normal year - i.e., when the AA’s surface water is at its lowest annual level.
of AA (PermW) percentage of the AA that still contains surface water is:
Sites fed by unregulated streams that descend on north-facing slopes, tend to remain wet longer
1 to <25% of the AA. 0 into the summer. Indicators of persistence may include fish, some dragonflies, beaver, and
25 to <50% of the AA. 0 muskrat.
[WS,PR,NR,CS,INV,FR,AM,WBF,WBN]
50 to 95% of the AA. 0
>95% of the AA. 0 AllPermWater
F5 Depth Class When water is present in the AA, the depth most of the time in most of inundated area is: This question is asking about the spatial median depth that occurs during most of that time, even
(Predominant) [Note: NOT necessarily the maximum spatial or annual depth] if inundation is only seasonal or temporary. If inundation in most but not all of the AA is brief, the
(DepthDom) answer will be based on the depth of the most persistently inundated part of the AA. Include
>0 to <0.5 ft. 0 surface water in channels and ditches as well as ponded areas.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep. 0
In the ORWAP Manual, se the diagram in Appendix B.
1 to <3 ft deep. 0
3 to 6 ft deep. 0 [WC,SR,PR,CS,OE,INV,FA,FR,WBF,WBN,PD,Sens]
>6 ft deep. 0
F6 Depth Class Distribution Within the area described above, and during most of the time when surface water is present, the water area has: Estimate these proportions by considering the gradient and microtopography of the site.
(DepthEven) Select only one.
In the ORWAP Manual, see the diagram in Appendix B.
One depth class covering >90% of the AA’s inundated area (use the classes in the question above). 0
One depth class covering 51-90% of the AA’s inundated area (use the classes in the question above). 0 [INV,FR,WBF,WBN,PD]
Neither of above. There are 3 or more depth classes and none occupy >50%. 0
F7 Emergent Plants -- Area Consider just the area that has surface water for >1 week during the growing season. Herbaceous plants (not moss, not W If multiple small patches are separated by less than 150 ft, they may be combined when
(EmArea) woody) whose foliage extends above a water surface in this area (i.e., emergents) cumulatively occupy an annual maximum evaluating this question.
of:
<0.01 acre (< 400 sq.ft). Enter 1 and SKIP TO F10, unless only part of a wetland is being assessed. [SR,PR,OE,INV,FR,WBF,WBN,SBM,PD]
0 NoEm
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft). 0
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft). 0
0.50 to <5 acres. 0
5 to 50 acres. 0
>50 acres. 0
F8 % Emergent Plants Emergent plants occupy an annual maximum of: [WC,SR,PR,NR,CS,OE,INV,PD,FA,FR,AM,WBF,WBN,SBM]
(EmPct)
<5% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year. 0
5 to <30% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year. 0
30 to <60% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year. 0
60 to 95% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year. 0
>95% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year. 0
F9 Cattail or Tall Bulrush The percentage of the emergent vegetation cover in the AA that is cattail (Typha spp.) or tall bulrush is: [WBN, SBM]
Cover (Cttail)
<1% of the emergent vegetation, or cattail and bulrush are absent. 0
1 to <25% of the emergent vegetation. 0
25 to 75% of the emergent vegetation. 0
>75%, of the emergent vegetation. 0
Page 11 of 582
F10 Water Shading by AA's During an average growing season, when water levels are lowest (but surface water still occupies >400 sq ft or >1% of the [WC,FA,WBN,SBM]
Woody Vegetation - AA), the percentage of the remaining surface water within the AA that is shaded by trees and/or shrubs located within the AA
Driest is:
(WoodyDryShade)
<5% of the water, and fewer than 10 woody plants taller than 3 ft shade it, or all surface water is flowing. 0
<5% of the water, but more than 10 woody plants taller than 3 ft shade it. 0
5 to <25% of the water. 0
25 to <50% of the water. 0
50 to 95% of the water. 0
>95% of the water. 0
F11 Open Water - Extent During most of the growing season, the largest patch of open water that is in or adjacent to the AA is >1 acre and mostly 0 Open Water - is surface water of any depth that contains no emergent herbaceous or woody OpenW
deeper than 1 ft. Enter 1, if true. vegetation (may contain floating-leaved or completely submersed plants). It may be partially
shaded by a tree canopy.
F12 All Ponded Water as When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the surface water that is ponded continually for >6 days occupies: Ponded - Most surface water is not visibly flowing. Flow, if any, is not sufficient to suspend fine
Percentage - Wettest sediment. These include pools in floodplains and may be either large (e.g., an off-channel pond)
(PondWpctWet) <1% or none of the AA. Surface water is completely or nearly absent then, or is entirely flowing. 0 or small (size of a puddle). NoPond
Enter 1 and SKIP TO F22.
[WS,WC,CS,OE,INV,AM,WBF,WBN]
1 to <5% of the AA. 0
30 to <70% of the AA. 0
>95% of the AA. 0
F13 Ponded Open Water When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the AA's ponded open water occupies a cumulative area of: W Ponded - Most surface water is not visibly flowing. Flow, if any, is not sufficient to suspend fine
Area - Wettest sediment. These include pools in floodplains and may be either large (e.g., an off-channel pond)
(OWareaWet) <0.10 acre (< 4356 sq. ft) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. Enter 1 and SKIP TO F16. 0 or small (size of a puddle). NoPondOW
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. 0 Open water - is surface water of any depth that contains no emergent herbaceous or wood
0.50 to <1 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. 0 vegetation (may contain floating-leaved or completely submersed species). It may be partially
1 to <5 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. shaded by a tree canopy.
0
5 to <50 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. 0 [WS,WBF]
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. 0
640 to <1000 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. 0
1000 to <2500 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. 0
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. 0
F14 Ponded Open Water When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the distribution (in aerial view) of ponded open water patches larger [NR,AM,WBF,WBN,PD,SBM]
Distribution - Wettest than 0.01 acre (400 sq. ft) within the AA is (must meet both a and b criteria):
(WaterMixWet)
(a) Vegetation and open water EACH comprise 30-70% of the AA (including its bordering waters if any) AND (b) There are 0
many small patches of open water scattered widely within vegetation or many small vegetation clump "islands" scattered
widely within open water. Typical (for example) of some extensive bulrush and cattail marshes.
only a few (or no) small patches of open water scattered widely within vegetation or a few small vegetation clump "islands"
scattered widely within open water.
(a) Vegetation or open water comprise >70% of the AA (and its bordering waters) AND (b) There are several small patches 0
of open water scattered within vegetation or several small vegetation clump "islands" scattered within open water.
Page 12 of 582
(a) Vegetation or open water comprise >70% of the AA (and its bordering waters) AND (b) Open water is mostly in a single 0
area (e.g., center of the wetland) and vegetation is in the rest (e.g., periphery), with almost no intermixing. (Typical of many
ponds excavated for livestock watering, stormwater treatment, mineral extraction as well as many wetlands that are
inundated only temporarily each year).
F15 Width of Vegetated Zone When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the width of the vegetated wetland that separates the largest patch of Vegetated wetland - in this case does not include underwater or floating-leaved plants, i.e.,
- Wettest (WidthWet) open water within or bordering the AA from the closest adjacent uplands, is predominantly: aquatic bed. In farmed wetlands that have different crops from year to year, consider vegetation
[Note: This is not asking for the maximum width.] condition as it probably existed during most of the past 5 years.
<5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and open water. 0 If open water exists as many patches, use the distance between the majority of those patches
5 to <30 ft. 0 and uplands.
30 to <50 ft. 0 [WC,SR,PR,NR,CS,OE,AM,WBF,WBN,SBM,PD,Sens,EC]
50 to <100 ft. 0
100 to 300 ft. 0
> 300 ft. 0
F16 All Ponded Water as a When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, but surface water still occupies >1,076 sq feet (100 sq meter) OR >1% Ponded - Most surface water is not visibly flowing. Flow, if any, is not sufficient to suspend fine
Percentage (Driest) of the AA (whichever is more), the water that is ponded (either visible or concealed by vegetation) in the AA occupies: sediment. These include pools in floodplains and may be either large (e.g., an off-channel pond)
(PondWpctDry) or small (size of a puddle).
<1% or none. Surface water is completely or nearly absent then, or is entirely flowing. Enter 1 and SKIP TO F22. 0 NoPond2
1 to <5% of the AA. [WC,FA,FR,AM,WBN,Sens]
0
30 to <70% of the AA. 0
>95% of the AA. 0
F17 Ponded Open Water When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, the AA's ponded open water occupies a cumulative area, including W Ponded - Most surface water is not visibly flowing. Flow, if any, is not sufficient to suspend fine
Area (Driest) adjacent ponded waters, of: sediment. These include pools in floodplains and may be either large (e.g., an off-channel pond)
(OWareaDry) or small (size of a puddle).
<0.10 acre (< 4356 sq. ft). Enter 1 and SKIP TO F24. 0 NoPondOW2
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft). 0 Open water - is surface water of any depth that contains no emergent herbaceous or wood
0.50 to <1 acres. vegetation (may contain floating-leaved or completely submersed species). It may be partially
0 shaded by a tree canopy.
1- 4 acres. 0
5 to <50 acres. 0 [WBN,PUv]
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi). 0
640 to <1000 acres. 0
1000 to 2500 acres. 0
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi). 0
F18 Ponded Open Water When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, the distribution of ponded open water patches larger than [NR,INV,AM,WBN]
Distribution - (Driest) 0.01 acre (400 sq. ft) within the AA is:
(WaterMixDry)
many small patches of open water scattered widely within vegetation or many small vegetation clump "islands" scattered
widely within open water. Typical (for example) of some extensive bulrush and cattail marshes.
only a few (or no) small patches of open water scattered widely within vegetation or a few small vegetation clump "islands"
scattered widely within open water.
(a) Vegetation or open water comprise >70% of the AA (and its bordering waters) AND (b) There are several small patches 0
of open water scattered within vegetation or several small vegetation clump "islands" scattered within open water.
Page 13 of 582
(a) Vegetation or open water comprise >70% of the AA (and its bordering waters) AND (b) Open water is mostly in a single 0
area (e.g., center of the wetland) and vegetation is in the rest (e.g., periphery), with almost no intermixing. Typical of many
ponds excavated for livestock watering, stormwater treatment, mineral extraction as well as many wetlands that are
inundated only temporarily each year.
F19 Floating Algae & At some time of the year, most of the AA's otherwise-unshaded water surface is covered by floating mats of algae, or small 0 This includes most nontidal wetlands labeled as Aquatic Bed (AB) on NWI maps. If wetland can
Duckweed (Algae) (<1 inch) floating plants such as duckweed, Azolla, Wolffia, or Riccia. Enter 1, if true. be visited only during winter, it may not be possible to answer this question with much certainty
unless local sources are contacted or indicators (e.g., dried remains of algae) are found.
[PRFA,WBF,WBN,EC]
F20 Floating-leaved & SAV (submerged & floating-leaved aquatic vegetation, excluding the species listed above) occupies an annual maximum of: SAV - are herbaceous plants that characteristically grow at or below the water surface, i.e.,
Submerged Aquatic whose leaves are primarily and characteristically under or on the water surface during most of the
Vegetation (SAV) none, or <5% of the water area. 0 part of the growing season when surface water is present. Some species are rooted in the NoSAV
sediment whereas others are not. If pond lily (Nuphar) is the predominant species, consider its
5 to <25% of the water area. 0 maximum extent only during the period when surface water is present beneath the leaves.
25 to <50% of the water area. 0
50 to 95% of the water area. [PR,OE,INV,FR,AM,WBF,WBN]
0
>95% of the water area. 0
many SAV plants present, but impossible to select from the above categories. 0
F21 Width of Vegetated Zone When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, but surface water still occupies >400 sq feet or >1% of the AA (which Measure the width perpendicular to the open water part.
(Driest) (WidthDry) ever is more), the width of the vegetated wetland that separates the largest patch of open water within or bordering the AA
from the closest adjacent uplands, is predominantly: Vegetated wetland - in this case does not include underwater or floating-leaved plants, i.e.,
aquatic bed. In farmed wetlands that have different crops from year to year, consider vegetation
<5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and open water. 0 condition as it probably existed during most of the past 5 years.
5 to <30 ft. 0
Note: For most sites larger than 1 acre and with persistent water, measure the width using aerial
30 to <50 ft. 0 imagery rather than estimating in the field.
50 to <100 ft. 0
[WBN]
100 to 300 ft. 0
> 300 ft. 0
F22 Beaver (Beaver) Use of the AA by beaver during the past 5 years is: Select most applicable ONE. Valley width - is delimited by an abrupt increase in slope on both sides of the channel.
Evident from direct observation or presence of gnawed limbs, dams, tracks, dens, or lodges. 0 [AM,WBN,SBM,PD,Sens]
Very likely based on known occurrence in this part of the region and proximity to ALL of the following (a) a persistent 0
freshwater wetland, pond, or lake, or a perennial low-gradient (<5%) channel, and (b) average valley width is > 150 ft and (c)
>20% cumulative cover of aspen, cottonwood, alder, and willow in vegetated areas within 150 ft of the AA's edge. Or there
is evidence of beaver just outside the AA.
Somewhat likely based on known occurrence in this part of the region and proximity to ALL of the following (a) a persistent 0
freshwater wetland, pond, or lake, or a perennial low or mid-gradient (<10%) channel, and (b) average valley width is >50 ft,
and (c) >20% cumulative cover of hardwood trees and shrubs in vegetated areas within 150 ft of the AA's edge.
Unlikely because site characteristics above are deficient, and/or this is an area where beaver are routinely removed. But 0
beaver occur within 2 miles.
None. Beaver are absent from this part of the region. 0
F23 Isolated Island (Island) During June, the wetland contains (or is part of) an island that is isolated from the shore by water depths >3 ft. The island 0 [WBF,WBN]
may be solid, or it may be a floating vegetation mat suitable for nesting waterbirds. The island must be larger than 400 sq.ft
and without inhabited buildings. Enter 1, if true.
F24 Ice-free (IceDura) During most years, most of the AA's surface water (if any) does not freeze, or freezes for fewer than 4 continuous weeks. 0 [PR,FR,WBF]
Enter 1, if true.
Page 14 of 582
F25 Water Fluctuation Range The maximum vertical fluctuation in surface water within the AA, during a normal year is: maximum vertical fluctuation - is the difference between the highest annual and lowest annual
- Maximum (Fluctu) water level during an average year.
<0.5 ft or stable. 0
Use field indicators to assess this indicator.
0.5 to < 1 ft. 0
1 to <3 ft. 0 [WS,SR,PR,NR,CS,OE,INV,AM,WBN,PD]
3 to 6 ft. 0
>6 ft. 0
F26 % Only Saturated or Identify the parts (if any) of the AA that never contain surface water (only saturated soil) or where the water (either ponded or If you can identify plants, use their wetland indicator status to infer the possible extent of
Seasonally Flooded flowing) usually remains on the land surface for less than the entire growing season. The percentage of the AA containing seasonal-only inundation within a wetland. Vegetation may be patterned in concentric or parallel
(SeasPct) such areas is: zones, as one moves outward & away from the deepest part of the wetland or channel. Flood
marks (algal mats, adventitious roots, debris lines, ice scour, etc.) may be evident when not fully
<5% of the AA, or none (i.e., all water persists for >4 months). 0 inundated. In riverine systems, the extent of this zone can be estimated by multiplying by 2 the
NoSeasonal
5 to <25% of the AA. 0 bankful height and visualizing where that would intercept the land along the river. Also, such
areas often have a larger proportion of upland and annual (vs. perennial) plant species. Although
25 to <50% of the AA. 0 useful only as a general guide, the NRCS county soil survey descriptions of the soil units and
water feature table usually includes information on flooding frequency and saturation persistence.
50 to 75% of the AA. 0 [SR,NR,CS,OE,INV,FA,WBF,WBN,POL,SBM,PD,Sens,EC]
>75% of the AA. 0
F27 Salinity, Alkalinity, The AA's surface water is mostly: Saline or brackish conditions are commonly indicated by a prevalence of particular plant species.
Conductance (Salin) Consult the ORWAP SuppInfo file's P_Salt worksheetfor a list of these.
Brackish or saline. Plants that indicate saline conditions dominate the vegetation. Salt crust may be obvious around the 0
perimeter and on flats. Brackish or saline - conductance of >5000 µS/cm, or >3200 ppm TDS
Slightly brackish - conductance of 500- 5000 µS/cm, or 320 - 3200 ppm TDS
Slightly brackish. Plants that indicate saline conditions are common. Salt crust may or may not be present along perimeter. 0 Fresh - conductance of < 500 µS/cm, or <320 ppm TDS
Fresh. [Note: Assume this to be the condition unless wetland is known to be a playa or there is other contradicting 0 FreshW
evidence]. [PR,CS,AM]
Unknown. 0
F28 Fish & Waterborne Pests Select All that apply: [INV,FA,FR,AM,WBF]
(FishAcc)
A regularly-used boat dock is present within or contiguous to the AA. 0
A regularly-used boat dock is not within the AA, but there is one within 300 ft. of the AA and there is a persistent surface 0
connection between the dock and the AA.
Fish (native or stocked) are known to be present in the AA, or can access it during at least one day annually. 0
None of the above, and could not estimate fish presence/absence. 0
F29 Non-native Aquatic The following are known or likely to have reproducing populations in this AA, its wetland, or in water bodies within 300 ft that Assume non-native fish to be present if wetland is associated with a nearby reservoir, fish pond,
Animals (PestAnim) connect to the AA at least seasonally. Select All that apply: or perennial stream flowing through an agricultural or residential area. Assume bullfrog, nutria,
and/or carp to be present if (a) the AA contains persistent water or is flooded seasonally by an
Non-native amphibians (e.g., bullfrog) or reptiles (e.g., red-ear slider). 0 adjoining body of permanent water, and (b) not a forested wetland, and (c) in western Oregon,
Carp. 0 elevation is lower than about 3000 ft. In the ORWAP_SuppInfo file, see Inverts_Exo worksheet
Non-native fish that prey on tadpoles or turtles (e.g., bass, walleye, crappie, brook trout). for more complete list of non-native invertebratesf or Oregon, and WetVerts worksheet for more
0 complete list of fish that are not native to Oregon.
Non-native invertebrates (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail, mitten crab, rusty crayfish). 0 You may also consult: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/default.aspx
Nutria. 0 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/invasive_species.asp
[FA,FR,AM,EC]
None of above. 0
Page 15 of 582
F30 Shorebird Feeding The extent of mudflats, very shallow waters, or shortgrass meadows, within the AA, that meet the definition of shorebird Shorebird habitat - areas must have (a) grasses shorter than 6", or a mudflat, during any part of
Habitats (Shorebd) habitat for at least 3 months during the period of late summer through the following May is: this period, AND (b) soils that either are saturated or covered with <2 inches of water during any
part of this period, AND (c) no detectable surrounding slope (e.g., not the bottom of an incised dry
None, or <100 sq. ft. 0 channel), AND (d) not shaded by shrubs or trees. See photograph in Appendix A of manual. This
100 to <1000 sq. ft. within AA. 0 addresses needs of most migratory sandpipers, plovers, curlews, and godwits.
1000 to 10,000 sq. ft. within AA. [WBF]
0
>10,000 sq. ft. within AA. 0
F31 Outflow Duration The most persistent surface water connection (outlet channel, pipe, ditch, or overbank water exchange) between the AA and W The emphasis is on the connection to a mapped stream network. A larger difference in elevation
(OutDura) the closest stream or lake located downslope is: [Note: If the AA represents only part of a wetland, answer this according to between the wetland-upland boundary and the bottom of the wetland outlet (if any) indicates
whichever is the least permanent surface connection: the one between the AA and the rest of its wetland, OR the surface shorter outflow duration.
connection between the AA's wetland and a mapped stream or lake located within 300 ft downslope from this wetland].
Do not rely only on topographic maps or NWI maps to show this; inspect while in field if possible,
Persistent (>9 months/year). 0 and ask landowner. The durations given are only approximate and are for a "normal" year.
Seasonal (14 days to 9 months/year, not necessarily consecutive). 0 The connection need not occur during the growing season. Assume that depressions with
effective nearby ditches or tile drains will connect for shorter periods.
Temporary (<14 days, not necessarily consecutive). 0 [WS,WCv,SR,PR,NR,CS,OE,FA,FR,Sens]
None -- no surface water flows out of the wetland except possibly during extreme events (<once per 10 years). Or, water 0 NoOutlet
flows only into a wetland, ditch, or lake that lacks an outlet. Enter 1 and SKIP TO F33.
F32 Outflow Confinement During major runoff events, in the places described above where surface water exits the AA, it: W Major runoff events - would include biennial high water caused by storms and/or rapid snowmelt.
(Constric)
Is impeded as it mostly passes through a pipe, culvert, tidegate, narrowly breached dike, berm, beaver dam, or other partial 0 Impeded - means causing a delay or reduction in water velocity or volume.
obstruction (other than natural topography).
[WS,SR,PR,NR,CS,OE,Sens,STR]
Leaves mainly through natural surface exits, not largely through artificial or temporary features which impede or accelerate 0
outflow.
Is exported more quickly than usual as it mostly passes through ditches or pipes intended to accelerate drainage. They may 0
be within the AA or connected to its outlet or within 30 ft of the AA's edge.
F33 Tributary or Overbank At least once annually, surface water from upstream or another water body moves into the AA. It may enter directly, or as 0 [SRv,PRv, PD] Inflow
Inflow (Inflow) unconfined overflow from a contiguous river or lake. If it enters only via a pipe, that pipe must be fed by a mapped stream or
lake further upslope. Enter 1, if true. If false, SKIP to F36.
F34 Input Channel Gradient The gradient of the tributary with the largest inflow, averaged over the 150 ft. before it enters the AA (but excluding any [SRv, PRv]
(SlopeInChan) portion of the distance where water travels through a pipe) is:
<1%. 0
1 to <3%. 0
3 to 6%. 0
>6%. 0
F35 Throughflow Complexity [Skip this question if the AA lacks both an inlet and outlet.] During peak annual flow, water entering the AA in channels This mainly refers to surface water that moves between the inlet and outlet. Some judgment is
(ThruFlo) encounters which of the following conditions as it travels through the AA: Select the ONE encountered most. required in assessing straight vs. indirect flow path.
Does not bump into many plant stems as it travels through the AA. Nearly all the water continues to travel within 0 See ORWAP Manual Appendix B diagram.
unvegetated (often incised) channels and has minimal contact with wetland vegetation, or through a zone of open water
such as an instream pond or lake. [WS,SR,PR,NR,OE,INV,FA,FR,WBF,WBN,PD]
Bumps into herbaceous vegetation but mostly remains in fairly straight channels. 0
Bumps into herbaceous vegetation and mostly spreads throughout, or follows a fairly indirect path (in widely meandering, 0
multi-branched, or braided channels).
Bumps into tree trunks and/or shrub stems but mostly remains in fairly straight channels. 0
Bumps into tree trunks and/or shrub stems and follows a fairly indirect path (meandering, multi-branched, or braided) from 0
entrance to exit.
Page 16 of 582
F36 Internal Gradient The gradient from the lowest to highest point of land within the AA (or from outlet to inlet) is: Wetlands with no outlet, and wetlands where most surface water is impounded on site, should be
(Gradient) considered flat (<2%).
<2% (internal flow is absent or barely detectable; basically flat). 0 For other wetlands, estimate gradient as the elevation difference between the inlet and outlet (if
any) divided by the distance between them, or the difference between the highest and lowest
2 to <6%. 0 points in the wetland divided by the distance between them.
6 to 10%. 0 [WS,SR,PR,NR,CS,OE,AM,WBF,WBN] TooSteep1
>10%. 0 TooSteep2
F37 Groundwater Strength of Select first one that applies: [WS,WC,NR,CS,OE,INV,FA,FR,PD]
Evidence (Groundw)
In the AA or its wetland: 0
(a) Springs are observed, OR
(b) Water is markedly cooler in summer and warmer in winter (e.g., later ice formation) than in other local wetlands, OR
(c) Measurements from shallow wells indicate groundwater is discharging to the wetland, OR
(d) Water visibly seeps into pits dug within the AA during the driest time of the year and located >30 ft from the closest
surface water.
The AA's wetland: 0

(a) Is very close to the base of a natural slope steeper than 15% and longer than 300 ft or is located at a geologic fault, OR
(b) Has no persistently flowing tributary AND one or more is true:
(b1) Is on a natural slope of >5%, OR
(b2) Has rust deposits ("iron floc"), colored precipitates, or dispersible natural oil sheen, OR
(b3) Is in an Arid or Semi-arid hydrologic unit. Arid or Semi-arid hydrologic unit - See the ORWAP Report's Hydrologic Landscape Class (under
Location Information).
The AA is not in an Arid or Semi-arid hydrologic unit, but has persistent ponded water, no tributary, and is not fed by 0
wastewater, concentrated stormwater, or irrigation water, or by an adjacent river or lake.
None of above is true, OR AA contains a hot spring. Some groundwater may nonetheless discharge to or flow through the 0
wetland.
F38 Unshaded Herbaceous The annual maximum areal cover of herbaceous vegetation (excluding SAV, ferns, and mosses, but including forbs & Do not include submersed and floating-leaved aquatics (SAV) in the category of "herbaceous
Vegetation (Extent) graminoids) that is not beneath a woody canopy reaches: vegetation", or when defining the "vegetated part" of the site.
(HerbExpos)
<5% of the vegetated part of the AA. Enter 1 and SKIP to F42. 0 For sites larger than 10 acres, this should be determined from aerial imagery rather than NoHerb
5 to <25% of the vegetated part of the AA. 0 estimated in the field.
25 to <50% of the vegetated part of the AA. 0 [WBF,WBN]
50-95% of the vegetated part of the AA. 0
>95% of the vegetated part of the AA. 0
F39 Forb Cover (Forb) Within parts of the AA having herbaceous cover (excluding SAV), the areal cover of forbs reaches an annual maximum of: Forbs - are flowering non-woody vascular plants (excludes grasses, sedges, ferns, mosses).
<5% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0 [POL]

5 to <25% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0
50 to 95% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0
>95% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0
F40 Species Dominance - Determine which two native herbaceous (forb, fern, and graminoid) species comprise the greatest portion of the herbaceous [INV,WBF,SBM,PD,POL,Sens,EC]
Herbaceous (HerbDom) cover that is unshaded by a woody canopy. Then select one:
Those species together comprise more than half of the areal cover of native herbaceous plants at any time during the year, 0
i.e., one dominant species or two co-dominants. Also mark this if <20% of the vegetated cover is native species.
Those species together comprise less than half of the areal cover of native herbaceous plants at any time during the year. 0
Page 17 of 582
F41 Invasive or Non-native - Vegetative cover (annual maximum) is: In the ORWAP_SuppInfo, see P_Invas worksheet for list of invasives and P_Exo for non-native
% of Vegetative Cover species list. Examples of woody invasives are Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, scotch broom,
(Invas) Overwhelmingly (>80% cover) non-native species AND >10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive species. 0 and gorse. InvasDom
(See ORWAP SuppInfo file for species designations). For known distributions of invasive plants in your area see:
http://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic/invasive-species and http://www.weedmapper.org/maps.html but
Overwhelmingly (>80% cover) non-native species AND <10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive species; 0 do not limit your answer based only on that information. Consider most crops to be non-native.
OR 50-80% of cover is non-native species regardless of invasiveness.
[WBF,PD,POL,Sens,EC]
Mostly (50-80%) native species. 0
Overwhelmingly (>80%) native species. 0
F42 Mowing, Grazing, Fire There is evidence that grazing by domestic or wild animals -- or mowing (multiple times per year), plowing, herbicides, Repeatedly - means the condition occurred in at least half of the last 10 years.
(VegCut) harvesting, or fire -- has repeatedly reduced the AA's vegetation cover (plants that normally grows taller than 4") to less than [SR,AM,WBN,SBM,PD,EC]
4 inches, or has created an obvious browse line, over the following extent:
0% (No evidence of such activities). 0 NoMowGraze

Trace to 5% of the normally vegetated AA (grazing, mowing, or fire have occurred but vegetation height effects are mostly 0
unnoticeable).
5 to <50% of the normally vegetated AA. 0
50 to 95% of the normally vegetated AA. 0
>95% of the normally vegetated AA. 0
F43 Historically Lacking According to the ORWAP Report, the presettlement vegetation class in the vicinity of the AA was prairie, sagebrush, or other 0 In the ORWAP Report's Location Information table. This question is used as a classification HistOpenland
Trees (HistVeg) open lands not dominated by trees. In addition, the AA is not within the biennial floodplain of a river where trees and shrubs variable mainly to set appropriate expectations for the extent of forest cover.
typically dominate when conditions are unaltered. Enter 1, if true.
F44 Moss Wetland (Moss) The AA's ground cover is primarily a deep layer of moss, and/or soils are mainly peat or organic muck. Also, the soil remains 0 Includes most bogs and fens. May be a floating island.
water-saturated to within 3 inches of the surface during most of a normal year. Surface water within the AA often is absent
or confined to small scattered pools or ditches. Enter 1, if true. [NR,CS,OE,WBF,WBN,Sens]
F45 Woody Extent Within the vegetated part of the AA, woody vegetation (trees, shrubs, robust vines) taller than 3 ft occupies: Robust vines - include Himalayan blackberry and others that are generally erect and taller than 1
(WoodyPct) ft.
<5% of the vegetated AA, and fewer than 10 trees are present. Enter 1 and SKIP to F51. 0 NoWoody
Vegetated part - should not include floating-leaved or submersed aquatics.
<5% of the vegetated AA, but more than 10 trees are present. 0
5 to <25% of the vegetated AA. 0 For sites larger than 1 acre, this should be determined from aerial imagery rather than estimated
25 to <50% of the vegetated AA. only in the field.
0 [NR,WC,CS,SBM,PD,Sens]
50 to 95% of the vegetated AA. 0
>95% of the vegetated part of the AA. 0
F46 Woody Diameter Select All the types that comprise >5% of the woody canopy cover in the AA or >5% of its wooded upland edge if any: Wooded upland edge- includes woody plants located within one tree-height of the wetland-
Classes (TreeDiams) upland boundary.
Deciduous 1-4" diameter (DBH) and >3 ft tall. 0
DBH is the diameter of the tree measured at 4.5 ft above the ground.
Evergreen 1-4" diameter and >3 ft tall. 0
Deciduous 4-9" diameter. 0 [CS,SBM,POL,Sens]
Evergreen 4-9" diameter. 0
Deciduous 9-21" diameter. 0
Evergreen 9-21" diameter. 0
Deciduous >21" diameter. 0
Evergreen >21" diameter. 0
Page 18 of 582
F47 Snags (Snags) The number of large snags (diameter >12 inches) in the AA plus 100 ft uphill of its edge is: Snags - are standing trees at least 20 ft tall that are mainly without bark or foliage.
Few or none. 0 [SBM,POL]

Several. 0
F48 Abovewater Wood The number of horizontal wood pieces thicker than 4 inches that are partly submerged during most of the spring or early Only the wood that is at or above the water surface is assessed because of the impracticality of
(WoodOver) summer, thus potentially serving as basking sites for turtles, birds, or frogs and cover for fish is: assessing underwater wood accurately when using a rapid assessment method.
None. 0 [FA,FR,AM]
Few. 0
Several (e.g., >3 per 300 ft of channel or shoreline). 0
F49 Downed Wood The number of downed wood pieces longer than 6 ft and with diameter >4 inches that are not submerged during most of the Exclude temporary "burn piles."
(WoodDown) growing season, is:
[INV,AM,SBM,POL]
Few or none. 0
Several. 0
F50 Exposed Shrub Canopy Within the vegetated part of the AA, shrubs shorter than 20 ft that are not overtopped by trees occupy: Vegetated part - should not include floating-leaved or submersed aquatics.
(ShrExpos) Select first statement that is true.
[SBM,PD]
<5% of the vegetated AA and <0.01 acre (400 sq ft). 0
5 to <25% of the vegetated AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer). 0
25 to <50% of the vegetated AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer). 0
50 to 95% of the vegetated AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer). 0
>95% of the vegetated part of the AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer). 0
F51 N Fixers (Nfix) The percentage of the vegetated area in the AA or along its water edge (whichever has more) that contains nitrogen-fixing For a more complete list, see ORWAP_SuppInfo, worksheet NFIX (includes native and non-
plants (e.g., alder, baltic rush, scotch broom, lupine, clover, alfalfa, other legumes) is: native species). Do not include algae.
<1% or none. 0 [OE,INV,Sens]
1 to <25%. 0
25 to <50%. 0
50 to 75%. 0
>75%. 0
Note for the next four questions: If the AA lacks an upland edge, evaluate based on the AA's entire perimeter and outward into whatever areas are adjacent.
In many situations, these questions are best answered by measuring from aerial images.
F52 Upland Perennial Cover The percentage of the AA's edge (perimeter) that is comprised of a band of upland perennial cover wider than Perennial cover - vegetation that includes wooded areas, native prairies, sagebrush, as well as
- % of Perimeter 10 ft and taller than 6 inches, during most of the growing season is: relatively unmanaged commercial lands in which the ground is disturbed less frequently than
(PerimPctPer) annually such as perennial ryegrass fields, hayfields, lightly grazed pastures, timber harvest
<5%. 0 areas, and rangeland.
5 to <25%. 0
25 to <50%. It does not include water, row crops (vegetable, orchards, Christmas tree farms), residential
0 areas, golf courses, recreational fields, pavement, bare soil, rock, bare sand, or gravel or dirt
50 to <75%. 0 roads.
75 to 95%. 0 [WCv,SRv,PRv,INV,FA,AM,WBF,WBN,SBM,PD,POL,POLv,Sens,STR]
>95%. 0
Page 19 of 582
F53 Upland Perennial Cover Along the greatest extent of the AA's upland edge, the width of perennial cover taller than 6 inches that extends upslope Upland edge - is the land within 3 ft of the wetland's perimeter that is not wetland.
- Width (Buffer) from the AA until mostly shorter or non-perennial cover is reached is:
(BuffWidth) [NOTE: the width is not necessarily the maximum width. Base on vegetation that occurs most of the growing season.] [WCv,SRv,PRv,INV,FA,AM,WBN,SBM,PD,POL,Sens,STR]
< 5 ft, or none. 0 NoUpPerCov

5 to <30 ft. 0
30 to <50 ft. 0
50 to <100 ft. 0
100 to 300 ft. 0
> 300 ft. 0 AllUpPerren
F54 Upland Trees as % of All Within 100 f.t landward from the AA's edge (perimeter), the percentage of the upland perennial cover that is woody plants Base this on the cumulative canopy width of the trees.
Perennial Cover taller than 20 ft is:
(UpTreePctPer) [WSv,FA,WBF,WBN,SBM]
<5%, or there is no upland perennial cover along the upland edge. 0
5 to <25% of perennial cover. 0
75 to 95% of perennial cover. 0
>95% of perennial cover. 0
F55 Weeds - % of Upland Along the AA's edge (perimeter), the cover of invasive woody or herbaceous plants occupies: See ORWAP_SuppInfo file, worksheet P_Invas.
Edge (UpWeed) [If vegetation is so senesced that apparently-dominant edge species cannot be identified even to genus, answer "none"].
Some of the most common invaders along upland edges of Oregon wetlands are Himalayan
<5%, or none. 0 blackberry, knotweed, sweetbrier rose, Russian olive, English ivy, nightshade, pepperweed,
medusahead, white clover, ryegrass, quackgrass, false brome, bentgrass, dandelion, oxeye
5 to <25%. 0 daisy, pennyroyal, bull and creeping thistles, tansy ragwort, poison hemlock, and teasel. If a
25 to <50%. 0 plant cannot be identified to species (e.g., winter conditions) but its genus contains an invasive
50 to <75%. 0 species, assume the unidentified plant to also be invasive.
75 to 95%. 0 [PD,STR]
>95%. 0
F56 Bare Ground & Consider the parts of the AA that go dry during a normal year. Viewed from 6 inches above the soil surface, the condition in Bare ground- includes unvegetated soil, rock, sand, or mud between stems if any. Bare ground
Accumulated Plant Litter most of that area just before the year's longest inundation period begins is: under a tree or shrub canopy should be counted.
(Gcover)
Little or no (<5%) bare ground is visible between erect stems or under canopy and there is little or no dead detached plant 0 Wetlands that are dominated by annual plant species tend to have more extensive areas that are
tisuse (thatch) remaining on top of the ground surface and ground surface is extensively blanketed by moss, lichens, bare during the early growing season.
graminoids with great stem densities, or plants with ground-hugging foliage.
Some (5-20%) bare ground or remaining thatch is visible. Herbaceous plants have moderate stem densities and do not 0 [WS,WC,SR,PR,NR,CS,OE,INV,AM,SBM,POL,Sens,EC]
closely hug the ground.
Much (20-50%) bare ground or thatch is visible. Low stem density and/or tall plants with little living ground cover during 0
early growing season.
Mostly (>50%) bare ground or thatch. 0
Not applicable. All of the AA is inundated throughout most years. 0
F57 Ground Irregularity In parts of the AA that lack persistent water, the number of small pits, raised mounds, hummocks, boulders, upturned trees, Microtopography - refers mainly to vertical relief of <3 ft and is represented only by inorganic
(Girreg) animal burrows, islands, natural levees, wide soil cracks, and microdepressions is: features, except where plants have created depressions or mounds of soil.
Few or none, or the entire AA is always water-covered. Minimal microtopography; <1% of the AA, e.g., many flat sites 0 Consider the microtopography to be "few or none" if one could walk easily through most of the AA
having a single hydroperiod. once any slash and logs are removed. Consider it to be "several" if one has to constantly look
Intermediate. 0 down and check balance.
Several (extensive micro-topography). [WS,SR,PR,NR,INV,AM,SBM,PD,POL,EC]
0
Page 20 of 582
F58 Soil Composition Based on digging into the substrate and examining the surface layer of the soil (2 inch depth) that was mapped as being Do not base the texture on soil maps unless the AA is inaccessible. See ORWAP Manual's
(SoilTex) predominant, its composition (excluding duff and living roots) is mostly: protocol (Step 2 of section 5.3 and the soil chart in Appendix B).
Judge which soil type is predominant only in the part of the AA that is not inundated at the time of
Loamy: includes silt, silt loam, loam, sandy loam. 0 your visit.
Clayey: includes clay, clay loam, silty clay, silty clay loam, sandy clay, sandy clay loam. 0
Organic: includes muck, mucky peat, peat, and mucky mineral soils (blackish or grayish). Exclude live roots unless they are Duff - is loose organic surface material, e.g., dead plant leaves and stems).
0 Organic soils are much less common in floodplains.
moss.
[WS,PR,NR,CS,OE,PD,Sens]
Coarse: includes sand, loamy sand, gravel, cobble, stones, boulders, fluvents, fluvaquents, riverwash. 0
F59 Cliffs or Banks (Cliff) Within 300 ft of the AA, there are elevated terrestrial features such as cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, or unarmored stream banks 0 [SBM,POL]
that extend at least 6 ft nearly vertically, are unvegetated, and potentially contain crevices or other substrate suitable for
nesting or den areas.
Enter 1, if true.
F60 Restored or Created The AA is (or is within, or contains) a "new" wetland resulting from human actions (e.g., excavation, impoundment) or other Include wetlands whose area was likely expanded by road berms which impeded runoff, but do
Wetland (NewWet) factors affecting what was upland (non-hydric) soil. Or, some part of the AA was originally a wetland, was artificially drained not include wetlands created by beaver dams except for the part where flooding affected uplands
for many years, and has since had its water regime partly or wholly restored or rehabilitated (e.g., by ditch plugs, berms, tile (not just existing wetlands and streams). Determine this using historical aerial photography, old
breakage, non-maintenance). maps, soil maps, consultation with landowners, and/or permit files as available.
Yes, and constructed or restored mostly within last 3 years. 0 See ORWAP Map Viewer's Hydric Soil layer (expend Soils). Also, locations of some restoration
Yes, and constructed or restored mostly 3-7 years ago. 0 wetlands can be found in the ORWAP Map Viewer under Restoration.
Another potential source is the Conservation Registry:
Yes, and constructed or restored mostly >7 years ago. 0 https://oregonexplorer.info/content/conservation-registry?topic&ptopic.
Yes, but time of origin or restoration unknown. 0
No. [PR,NR,CS,OE,PD,Sens]
0 NotNewWet
Unknown if wetland is constructed, restored, or natural. 0
F61 Ownership (Ownership) Most of the AA is: An initial indication of ownership can be found on the ORWAP Map Viewer under the Land
Ownership layer (expand Land Classification). However, it is advisable to ask local sources or
Publicly owned (municipal, county, state, federal). 0 use local maps with higher precision.
[PUv]
Owned by non-profit conservation organization or easement holder who allows public access to this AA. 0
Other private ownership, including tribal. Enter 1 and SKIP to F63. 0 PrivateOwn
F62 Special Protected Area The AA is part of an area designated as a Special Protected Area according to the USGS Protected Areas Database of the 0 See the ORWAP Map Viewer Report under the Location Information section for "In Special
Designation (Desig) U.S. Protected Area?" [PUv]
Enter 1, if true.
F63 Conservation Investment The AA is not a mitigation wetland, but public funds or community volunteer efforts have been applied to preserve, create, 0 Locations of some restoration wetlands can be found in the ORWAP Map Viewer under
(ConsInvest) restore, or enhance the condition or functions of the wetland. (e.g. CRP or WRP wetlands, community projects). Restoration. Another potential source is the Conservation Registry:
Enter 1, if true. (If unknown, leave 0). https://oregonexplorer.info/content/conservation-registry?topic&ptopic [PUv]
F64 Compensation Wetland The AA is all or part of a compensation site used explicitly to offset impacts elsewhere. 0 Answer to the best of your knowledge. Sources for information include the property owner, DSL,
(MitWet) Enter 1, if true. ( If unknown, leave 0). and/or the ACOE. [PUv]
F65 Sustained Scientific Use Plants, animals, or water in the AA have been monitored for >2 years, unrelated to any regulatory requirements, and data 0 [PUv]
(SciUse) are available to the public. Or the AA is part of an area that has been designated by an agency or institution as a
benchmark, reference, or status-trends monitoring area. Enter 1, if true. ( If unknown, leave 0)
F66 Visibility (Visibil) The maximum percentage of the wetland that is visible from the best vantage point on public roads, public parking lots, [WBFv,WBNv,SBMv,PUv,STR]
public buildings, or public maintained trails that intersect, adjoin, or are within 300 ft of the AA is (Select ONE):
<25%. 0
25 - 50%. 0
>50%. 0
Page 21 of 582
F67 Non-consumptive Uses - Select All statements that are true of this AA as it currently exists: The question assumes access is allowed.
Actual or Potential
(RecPoten) Walking is physically possible in >5% of the AA during most of year (e.g., free of deep water and dense shrub thickets). 0 [PUv]
All or part of the AA (or an area within sight of the AA and within 100 ft) would be physically accessible to people in 0
wheelchairs (e.g., paved and flat).
Maintained roads, parking areas, or foot-trails are within 30 ft of the AA, or the AA can be accessed most of the year by boat. 0
Within or near the AA, there is an interpretive center, trails with interpretive signs or brochures, and/or regular guided 0
interpretive tours.
F68 Core Area 1 (VisitNo) The percentage of the AA almost never walked or driven by humans during an average growing season probably comprises: Judge this based on proximity to population centers, roads, trails, accessibility of the AA to the
[Note: If more than half the wetland is visible from areas within 100 ft of the AA, include visits by people to those areas that public, wetland size, usual water depth, and physical evidence of human visitation.
are actually walked or driven (not simply viewed from].
Exclude visits that are not likely to continue and/or that are not an annual occurrence (e.g., by
<5% and no inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0 construction, maintenance, or monitoring crews).
<5% and inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0
[AM,WBF,WBN,SBM,PD,PUv,STR]
5 to <50% and no inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0
5 to <50% and inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0
50 to 95% with or without inhabited building nearby. 0
>95% of the AA with or without inhabited building nearby. 0
F69 Core Area 2 (VisitOften) The part of the AA visited by humans almost daily for several weeks during an average growing season probably comprises: See note above.
[The Note in the preceding question applies here as well].
[AM,WBF,WBN,SBM,PD,PUv,STR]
<5%. 0
5 to <50%. 0
50 to 95%. 0
>95% of the AA. 0
F70 Consumptive Uses Recent evidence was found within the AA of the following potentially-sustainable consumptive uses. Evidence of these consumptive uses may consist of direct observation, or presence of physical
(Provisioning Services) Select All that apply. evidence (e.g., recently cut stumps, fishing lures, shell cases), or might be obtained from
(Hunt) communication with the land owner or manager.
Low-impact commercial timber harvest (e.g., selective thinning). 0
Commercial or traditional-use harvesting of native plants, their fruits, or mushrooms. 0 [FRv,WBFv,PUv]
Waterfowl hunting. 0
Fishing. 0
Trapping of furbearers. 0
None of the above. 0
F71 Domestic Wells (Wells) Wells or water bodies that currently provide drinking water are: If unknow, assume this is true if there is an inhabited structure within the specified distance and
the neighborhood is known to not be connected to a municipal drinking water system (e.g., is
<300 ft and downslope from the AA or at same elevation. 0 outside an urban growth boundary or other densely settled area).
300 to 1500 ft and downslope or at same elevation. 0 [NRv]
>1500 ft downslope, or none downslope, or no information. 0
Page 22 of 582
F72 Wetland Type of Does the AA contain, or is it part of, any of these wetland types? Select All that apply. W Consult the ORWAP Report under the Location Information table for "Rare Wetland Types." But
Conservation Concern be aware that it may not apply to the exact AA you have delimited.
(RareType) [PDv, Sens]
Mature forested wetland (anywhere): a wetland in which mean diameter of trees (d.b.h., FACW and FAC species only) 0 To qualify, the diameter of >18 inches must be the mean measured from at least 10 trees.
exceeds 18 inches, and/or the average age of trees exceeds 80 years, or there are >5 trees/acre with diameter >32 inches.
Bog or Fen: contains a sponge-like organic soil layer which covers most of the AA and often has extensive cover of sedges 0
and/or broad-leaved evergreen shrubs (e.g., Ledum). Often lacks tributaries, being fed mainly by groundwater and/or direct
precipitation.
Playa, Salt Flat, or Alkaline Lake: a nontidal ponded water body usually having saline (salinity >1 ppt or conductivity >1000 0 See ORWAP_SuppInfo file, worksheet P_Salt for species typically occurring in tidal or saline Playa
µS ) or alkaline (conductivity >2000 µS and pH >9) conditions and large seasonal water level fluctuations (if inputs-outputs conditions.
unregulated). If a playa or salt flat, vegetation cover is sparse and plants typical of saline or alkaline conditions (e.g.,
Distichlis, Atriplex) are common.
Hot spring (anywhere): a wetland where discharging groundwater in summer is >10 degrees (F) warmer than the expected 0
water temperature.
Native wet prairie (west of the Cascade crest): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or 0 Deschampsia caespitosa, Danthonia californica, Camassia quamash, Triteleia hyacinthina, Carex
outlet, and dominated primarily by native graminoids often including species in column E. densa, C. aperta, and/or C. unilateralis
Vernal pool (Willamette Valley): a seasonally inundated wetland, underlain by hardpan or claypan, with hummocky micro- 0 Downingia elegans, Isoetes nuttallii, Triteleia hyacinthina, Eleocharis spp., Eryngium petiolatum,
relief, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and with native plant species distinctly different from those in Plagiobothrys figuratus, Plagiobothrys scouleri, Grindelia nana, Veronica peregrina, Lasthenia
slightly higher areas, and often including species in column E. glaberrima , Cicendia quadrangularis, Kickxia elatine, Gnaphalium palustre, and/or Callitriche
spp.
Vernal pool (Medford area): a seasonally inundated acidic wetland, underlain by hardpan, with hummocky micro-relief, 0 Downingia vina, Isoetes nuttalli, Pilularia americana, Triteleia hyacinthina, Eleocharis spp.,
usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and having concentric rings of similar native vegetation, often including Eryngium petiolatum, Plagiobothrys brachteatus, Plagiobothrys scouleri, Grindelia nana, Veronica
species in column E. peregrina, Alopecurus saccatus, Lasthenia californica, Deschampsia danthonioides, and/or
Callitriche spp.
Vernal pool (Modoc basalt & Columbia Plateau): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet 0 Blennosperma nanum, Camassia quamash, Epilobium densiflorum, Callitriche marginata,
or outlet, located on shallow basalt bedrock and often having species in column E. Cicendia quadrangularis, Eryngium vaseyi, Psilocarphus brevissimus, and/or Sedella pumila.
Interdunal wetland (Coastal ecoregion): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, 0 Carex obnupta, Argentina egedii, Juncus lesueurii, J. nevadensis, J. falcatus, Sisyrinchium
located between sand dunes where wind has scoured the sand down to the water table (deflation plain, blowout pond), and californicum, and/or Salix hookeriana
often with significant cover of the native species in column E.
Ultramafic soil wetland (mainly southwestern Oregon): a low-elevation wetland, usually with a sponge-like organic soil layer, 0
occurring in an area with exposed serpentine or peridotite rock, and/or in soils with very low Ca:Mg ratios.
None of above. 0
Page 23 of 582
Date: Name: Site:
Form T Conduct an assessment only after reading the accompanying Manual and explanations in column E For a list of functions to which each question pertains, see bracketed codes in column E. Codes for functions and their For guidance and detailed descriptions of how Excel
below. For each affirmative answer, change the 0 in the "Data" column to a "1". Answer all items except benefits are: WS= Water Storage, WC= Water Cooling, SR= Sediment Retention, PR= Phosphorus Retention, NR= Nitrate calculates the numbers in the Scores worksheet, see
Tidal Data where directed to skip to others. Questions whose cells in "Data" column have a "W" MUST be
Removal, CS= Carbon Sequestration, OE= Organic Export, INV= Invertebrates, FA= Anadromous Fish, FR= Resident the Technical Supplement and Appendix B of the
Fish, AM= Amphibians, WBF= Feeding Waterbirds, WBN= Nesting Waterbirds, SBM= Songbirds, Mammals, & Raptors, Manual. For a documented rationale for each
ORWAP V 3.2 answered only for the ENTIRE wetland and bordering waters. POL= Pollinators, PH= Plant Habitat, PU= Public Use & Recognition, EC= Ecological Condition, Sens= Sensitivity, STR= indicator, open each of the worksheet tabs at the
Stressors. bottom (one for each function or value) and see
column H.
Tidal Wetland (TidalT) This is a tidal wetland (either freshwater or saltwater). Enter 1, if true and continue. 0 Tidal wetland - a wetland that receives tidal water at least once during a normal year, regardless Tidal
of salinity, and dominated by emergent or woody vegetation. Tidal flooding occurs on a 6-hour
cycle DURING THE TIME it is flooded by tide, which may be as infreuent as once per year. If
NWI map shows the wetland with a code beginning with E (for estuarine), assume the wetland to
be tidal. However, some wetlands lacking that code are also tidal.
T1 Estuarine Position The AA's relative position in the estuary is: For head-of-tide, review the ORWAP Map Viewer Heads of Tide (expand Hydrology) or check
(EstPosT) with local sources.
Lower 1/3 (often on a bay and distant from the head-of-tide of a major river; includes most saline tidal wetlands). 0
[PR, PRv, NR, NRv, AM, PD, OE, CS]
Mid 1/3. 0
Upper 1/3 (near the head-of-tide of a major river; includes most brackish and fresh tidal wetlands). 0
T2 Salinity (SalinT) At high tide during most of the year, the daily salinity in most of the inundated part of the AA is: Saline or brackish conditions are commonly indicated by a prevalence of particular plant species.
Consult the ORWAP Supplemental Information(Excel) file's P_Salt worksheet.
Saline (>25 ppt salinity, undiluted seawater). 0
Also refer to Estuary Salinity maps (see link in ORWAP Map Viewer report under the Location
Moderately saline (5 to 25 ppt salinity). 0
Information table), or DSLl's ORWAP web site, or obtain salinity data from the ODEQ LASAR web
Brackish (0.5 to <5 ppt salinity, "oligohaline"). 0 site or local sources. However, salinity in estuaries can vary tremendously depending on river
Fresh (<0.5 ppt salinity). 0 discharge and other factors.
[SR, PR, NR, AM, PD, SBM, OE, CS]
Unknown. 0
T3 Low Marsh (LowMarshT) The percent of the vegetated part of the AA that is "low marsh" (covered by tidal water for part of almost every day) is: Include any natural channels within the marsh that are inundated at least once daily by tide.
For plant indicator species, see file ORWAP Supplemental Information (Excel) file's worksheet
None, or <1%. 0 P_LowTidal.
1 to <10%. 0
[SR, PR, FA, AM, WBF, INV, PD, SBM, OE, CS,POL]
10 to <25%. 0
25 <50%. 0
50 to <75%. 0
75 to 90%. 0
>90%. 0
T4 Width of Vegetated Zone At average daily HIGH tide condition, the width of the vegetated wetland that separates adjoining uplands (if any) from Vegetated wetland in this case does not include underwater or floating-leaved plants ( i.e.,
at Daily High Tide subtidal water within or adjoining the AA, is predominantly: aquatic bed).
(WidthHiT)
<5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and subtidal water. 0 Measure the width perpendicular to the open water part.
5 to <30 ft. 0 For most sites larger than 5 hectares and with persistent water, measure the width using aerial
30 to <50 ft. 0 imagery rather than estimating in the field.
50 to <100 ft. 0 [SR, PR, NR, FA, AM, PD, POL, SBM, OE, CS]
100 to 300 ft. 0
> 300 ft. 0
24 of 582
T5 Width of Vegetated Zone At average daily LOW tide condition, the width of the vegetated wetland that separates adjoining uplands (if any) from [SR, PR, NR, FA, WBF, OE, CS, Sens]
at Daily Low Tide subtidal water within or adjoining the AA, is predominantly:
(WidthLoT)
<5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and subtidal water. 0
5 to <30 ft. 0
30 to <50 ft. 0
50 to <100 ft. 0
100 to 300 ft. 0
> 300 ft. 0
T6 Internal Gradient Within the AA, the gradient from the upland boundary (or part closest to it) and the lowest point in the AA is: Estimate as the elevation difference between the inlet and outlet (if any) divided by the distance
(GradientT) between them, or the difference between the highest and lowest points in the wetland divided by
<2% (internal flow is absent or barely detectable; basically flat). 0 the distance between them.
2 to <5%. 0
[OE]
5 to 10%. 0
>10%. 0
T7 Outflow Duration The most durable surface water connection (outlet channel, ditch, tidegate, pipe, overbank water exchange) between the AA W A larger difference in elevation between the wetland-upland boundary and the bottom of the
(OutDuraT) and marine waters, which allows fish passage, is: wetland outlet (if any) indicates shorter outflow duration.
Regular (nearly all of the daily high tides, >9 months/year). 0 Do not rely only on topographic maps or NWI maps to show this; inspect while in field if possible,
Seasonal (14 days to 9 months/year, not necessarily consecutive, at least monthly). 0 and ask landowner. The durations given are only approximate and are for a "normal" year.
Temporary (mainly during "king tide", "spring tide", or peak discharge flow in an associated river; <14 days per year, not 0
necessarily consecutive). The connection need not occur during the growing season.
[FA, AM, OE]
No tidal connection allows fish passage between marine waters and the AA. 0 NoTconnec
T8 Outflow Confinement In the places where tidal water exits the AA after an average daily high tide, the tidal water is: W Impeded means causing a delay or reduction in water velocity or volume.
(ConstricT)
Impeded partially by a pipe, culvert, narrowly breached dike, berm, beaver dam, or other obstruction (other than natural 0 [OE,STR]
topography).
Not impeded by anything other than (possibly) natural topography. 0
Exported more quickly than usual due to ditches or pipes within the AA or connected to its outlet. 0
T9 Blind Channels - total Within the intertidal part of the AA, the approximate density of tidal channels that remain wetted during low tide on most days MLLW - mean lower low water
length and branching of the year (i.e., MLLW) is:
(BlindChT) [FA, WBF, INV, PD, OE]
<100 linear ft per acre, or none, or all have been artificially straightened. 0
100-1000 linear ft per acre, and most tidal channels are unbranched. 0
100-1000 linear ft per acre, and most tidal channels are branched. 0
>1000 linear ft per acre and most tidal channels are unbranched. 0
>1000 linear ft per acre and most tidal channels are branched. 0
T10 Tidal-Nontidal Hydro- This tidal wetland is : Select first one that applies. Palustrine does not include a river or lake.
connectivity (TnonT)
Adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water at least seasonally. Anadromous fish can access both 0 [FA, AM, WBF, INV, SBM, OE]
wetlands during spring. Mostly not separated by a dike or other barrier.
Adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water at least seasonally. Anadromous fish can access both 0
wetlands during spring. Mostly separated by a dike, road, or other partial barrier.
Adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water at least seasonally. Anadromous fish cannot access 0
both wetlands during spring.
Not adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water. Has a freshwater tributary that allows fish passage 0
during the springtime to a nontidal wetland < 1 mile upstream.
Not adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water. Has a freshwater tributary that allows fish passage 0
during the springtime to a nontidal wetland > 1 mile upstream.
Not adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water. Lacks a freshwater tributary that provides fish 0
access to an upstream wetland that contains surface water at least seasonally.
25 of 582
T11 Gradient of nontidal The gradient of the largest nontidal freshwater input tributary or ditch, averaged 150 f. from where it enters the AA, is: [OE]
Input Channel
(SlopeInChanT) <1%. 0
1 to <3% 0
3 to 6% 0
>6% 0
T12 Waves (WavesT) Which of the following is MOST true: Erosive wave conditions often occur where adjoining open water has a fetch (uninterrupted
distance) of greater than approximately 1 mile in the direction of the strongest and most frequent
Wind or boats frequently generate waves of >1 ft. near the AA, those waves are intercepted by the wetland, and structures 0 wind.
behind the AA are protected from wave erosion.
Wind or boats frequently generate waves of >1 ft. near the AA, those waves are intercepted by the wetland, but there are no 0 [SR,SRv,PR,OE]
structures behind the wetland.
Neither wind nor boats frequently generate waves of >1 f.t near the AA. 0
T13 Shorebird Feeding Area The extent of mudflats or shortgrass meadows within the AA that meet the definition of shorebird habitat (column E) for at Shorebird habitat areas must have (a) grasses shorter than 6 inches or a mudflat, AND (b) soils
(ShorebdT) least 3 months during the period of late summer through the following May is: that either are saturated or covered with <2 inches of water, AND (c) no detectable surrounding
slope (e.g., not the bottom of an incised dry channel), AND (d) not shaded by shrubs or trees.
None, or <100 sq. ft. 0 This addresses needs of most migratory sandpipers, plovers, curlews, and godwits.
100 to <1000 sq. ft. within AA. 0
1000 to 10,000 sq. ft. within AA. 0 [WBF]
>10,000 sq. ft within AA. 0

T14 Waterborne Pests Select only the FIRST statement that is true: [INV]
(AqPestT)
Non-native invertebrates (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail, mitten crab, rusty crayfish, oyster drill) are known to be present in the 0
AA or in connected waters within 300 ft.
A regularly-used boat dock is present within or contiguous to the AA. 0
A regularly-used boat dock is not within the AA, but there is one within 300 ft of the AA and there is a persistent or tidal 0
surface connection between the dock and the AA.
Large ships that empty ballast water are regularly present in nearby contiguous waters. 0
T15 Overhanging Vegetation At average daily high tide, the percentage of the AA's water surface that is overhung by vegetation within the AA is: [OE,FA]
at High Tide (ShadeHiT)
<5%, or no water is present in the AA at average daily high tide. 0
5 to <25%. 0
25 to <50%. 0
50 to 95%. 0
>95%. 0
T16 Overhanging Vegetation At average daily low tide, the percentage of the AA's water surface that is overhung by vegetation within the AA is: [OE,INV,FA]
at Low Tide (ShadeLoT)
<5%, or no water remains in the AA at low tide. 0
5 to <25%. 0
25 to <50%. 0
50 to 95%. 0
>95%. 0
T17 Vegetation Forms The living vegetation forms that comprise >5% of the AA's vegetative cover in late summer is: Select ALL that appy. [WBF, SBM, OE, CS, Sens]
Significantly Present
(VegformsT) Macroalgae (seaweed). 0
Eelgrass. 0
Graminoids (other than eelgrass). 0
Forbs. 0
Shrubs and/or trees. 0
26 of 582
T18 Vegetation Form- The living vegetation form that occupies the largest part of the AA's vegetative cover in late summer is: [CS,OE]
Predominant
(VegFormDomT) Macroalgae (seaweed). 0
Eelgrass. 0
Graminoids (other than eelgrass). 0
Forbs. 0
Shrubs and/or trees. 0 WoodyDomT
T19 Vegetation Form From the above list, the number of macrophyte groups that comprise >5% of the vegetated area in the specified zone during [INV,PD]
Diversity (VegFormDivT) late summer is:
one. 0
2 or 3. 0
>3. 0
T20 Species Dominance Within the form identified as the predominant macrophyte, the 2 most common native species together comprise: [INV, PD, POL, SBM, Sens]
(VegSpDomT)
<20% of the AA's vegetated area (most species-rich, no dominants or co-dominants). 0
20 to <40% of the AA's vegetated area. 0
40 to <60% of the AA's vegetated area. 0
60 to 80% of the AA's vegetated area. 0
>80% of the AA's vegetated area (monotypic or nearly so). 0
T21 Emergent Plants -- Area For the wetland as a whole, emergent plants cumulatively occupy an annual maximum of: W Emergent - erect herbaceous or woody plants whose roots and/or foliage are inundated by tide at
(EmAreaT) least once daily, on the average. If in multiple small patches are separated by less than 150 ft,
<0.01 acre (< 400 sq.ft) or none. 0 they may be combined when evaluating this question.
0.01 to <0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft). 0 [WBF,SBM,PD]
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft). 0
0.50 to <1 acres. 0
1 to <5 acres. 0
5 to <50 acres. 0
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi). 0
640 to <1000 acres . 0
1000 to 2500 acres. 0
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi). 0
T22 Forb Cover (ForbT) Within parts of the AA that have herbaceous cover (excluding SAV), the areal cover of forbs reaches an annual maximum of: Tidal wetland forbs include Salicornia spp., Grindelia spp., and other flowering plants.
<5% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0 [POL]

50 to 95% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0
>95% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0
T24 Invasive or Non-native - The maximum annual areal cover of herbaceous plants is: Among the more common invaders in or near tidal wetlands of the Oregon Coast are creeping
% of Herbaceous Area bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), brass-buttons (Cotula
(InvasT) Mostly (>50% cover) non-native species AND >10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive species. 0 coronopifolia), and Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) (Adamus 2005, Weilhoefer et al. 2013). InvasDomT
In the ORWAP Supplemental Information (Excel) file, see P_Invas worksheet for full list of
Mostly (>50% cover) non-native species AND <10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive species. 0
Oregon invasives and see P_Exo for non-native species list.
Mostly (50-80% cover) native species. 0 [PD,Sens,EC]
Overwhelmingly (>80% cover) native species. 0
27 of 582
T25 Driftwood (DriftwoodT) The extent of driftwood on the land surface is: [INV,SBM]
None or little. 0
Intermediate (~ 1 piece/200 ft. of shoreline, or >1,000 square feet). 0
High (>1 piece/100 ft. of shoreline, or >1,000 square feet ). 0
T26 Large Woody Debris Within the part of the AA and its internal channels that remain underwater during daily low tide, the extent of fish cover [INV,FA]
(LwdT) provided at that time by partly submerged vegetation, inchannel pools, incised banks, and pieces of wood (thicker than 6
inches and longer than 4 feet, or smaller pieces in dense accumulations) is:
None or few. 0
Intermediate. 0
Many (>1 piece per 5 acres or per 10 channel widths). 0
NOTE for the next four questions: If the AA lacks an upland edge, evaluate based on the AA's entire perimeter, and moving outward into whatever areas are
adjacent. In many situations, these questions are best answered by measuring from aerial images and/or topographic maps.
T27 Upland Perennial Cover The percentage of the AA's edge (perimeter) that is comprised of a band of upland perennial cover wider than 10 ft and taller Perennial cover is vegetation that includes wooded areas, native prairies, sagebrush, vegetated
- % of AA's Edge than 6 inches during most of the growing season is: wetlands, as well as relatively unmanaged commercial lands in which the ground is disturbed less
(PerimPctPerT) frequently than annually such as perennial ryegrass fields, hayfields, lightly grazed pastures,
<5%. 0 timber harvest areas, and rangeland.
5 to <25%. 0
25 to <50%. 0 It does not include water, row crops (vegetable, orchards, Christmas tree farms), residential
areas, golf courses, recreational fields, pavement, bare soil, rock, bare sand, or gravel or dirt
50 to <75%. 0 roads.
75 to 95%. 0
[FA, AM, PD, SBM, STR]
>95%. 0
T28 Upland Perennial Cover Along the greatest portion of the AA's upland edge, the width (not necessarily the maximum width) of perennial cover taller [FA, AM, PD, SBM, STR]
- Width (Buffer) than 6 inches during most of the growing season and extending upslope from the AA until mostly shorter or non-perennial
(BuffWidthT) cover is reached is:
< 5 ft, or none. 0
5 to <30 ft. 0
30 to <50 ft. 0
50 to <100 ft. 0
100 to 300 ft. IF #T27 also was answered >95%, enter 1 and SKIP to T30. 0
> 300 ft. IF #T27 also was answered >95%, enter 1 and SKIP to T30. 0
T29 Type of Non-Perennial Within 300 ft. upslope of the AA's upland edge, the area that is NOT perennial cover is mostly: Select only ONE. [FA]
Cover in Buffer
(ImpervBuffT) Impervious surface ( e.g., paved road, parking lot, building, exposed rock). 0
Bare pervious surface (e.g., recent clearcut, landslide, unpaved road, dike, dunes). 0
Artificially landscaped or heavily grazed areas, lawn, annual crops. 0
Other type of non-perennial cover. 0
T30 Slope from Disturbed The percent slope of the land between the AA and the most extensive disturbed upslope area (i.e., unvegetated or non- [SRv, PRv, NRv, SEN]
Lands (SlopeBuffT) perennial cover) is mostly:
<1% (flat -- almost no noticeable slope). 0
2-6%. 0
7-10%. 0
11-30%. 0
>30%. 0
28 of 582
T31 Mowing or Grazing There is evidence that grazing by domestic or wild animals -- or mowing (multiple times per year), plowing, herbicides, or Repeatedly means the condition occurred in at least half of the last 10 years.
(VegCutT) harvesting -- has repeatedly reduced the AA's vegetation cover (plants that normally grows taller than 4 inches) to less than
4" over the following extent: [PD,EC]
0% (such activities are absent). 0
1 to <5% of the AA (grazing or the other activities occur but vegetation height effects are mostly unnoticeable). 0
5 to <50%. 0
50 to 95%. 0
>95%. 0
T32 Bare Ground & Viewed from 6 inches above the soil surface, the condition in most of the tidal wetland is: Bare ground includes unvegetated soil, rock, sand, or mud between stems if any. Bare ground
Accumulated Plant Litter that is present under a tree or shrub canopy should be counted.
(GcoverT) Little or no (<5%) bare ground is visible between erect stems or under canopy and there is little or no dead detached plant 0
tissue (thatch) remaining on top of the ground surface and ground surface is extensively blanketed by graminoids with great Wetlands that are dominated by annual plant species tend to have more extensive areas that are
stem densities or by plants with ground-hugging foliage. bare during the early growing season.
Some (5-20%) bare ground or remaining thatch is visible. Herbaceous plants have moderate stem densities and do not 0 [SR, PR, NR, INV, SBM, OE, CS, Sens]
closely hug the ground.
Much (20-50%) bare ground or thatch is visible. Low stem density and/or tall plants with little living ground cover during early 0
growing season.
Mostly (>50%) bare ground or thatch. 0
Not applicable. Nearly all of the AA remains inundated even at daily low tide. 0
T33 Ground Irregularity In the high marsh (flooded less than daily), the number of small pits, raised mounds, hummocks, boulders, upturned trees, Microtopography refers mainly to vertical relief of <3 ft and is represented only by inorganic
(GirregT) islands, natural levees, wide soil cracks, and microdepressions is: features, except where plants have created depressions or mounds of soil. Consider the
microtopography to be "few or none" if one could walk easily through most of the AA once any
Few or none (minimal microtopography; <1% of the area that isn't persistently inundated); e.g., many flat sites having a 0 slash and logs are removed.
single hydroperiod. Consider it to be "several" if one has to constantly look down and check balance.
Intermediate. 0
Several (extensive micro-topography). 0 [PD]
T34 Soil Composition Based on at least three pits you dig at points about equidistant across the AA, the composition of the surface layer of the soil Do not base the texture on soil maps unless the AA is inaccessible. In the ORWAP Manual, see
(SoilTexT) (2" depth) (but excluding the duff layer) is mostly: protocol (Step 2 of of section 5.3 and the soil chart in Appendix B).
Loamy: includes silt, silt loam, loam, sandy loam. 0 Duff is loose organic surface material, e.g., dead plant leaves and stems.
Clayey: includes clay, clay loam, silty clay, silty clay loam, sandy clay, sandy clay loam. 0 Organic soils are much less common in floodplains.
Organic: includes muck, mucky peat, peat, and mucky mineral soils (blackish or grayish). Exclude live roots unless they are 0
moss. [PR, INV, PD, CS, Sens]
Coarse: includes sand, loamy sand, gravel, cobble, stones, boulders, fluvents, fluvaquents, riverwash. 0
T35 Restored Wetland The AA was originally a wetland (tidal or nontidal), was artificially drained for many years (and was not a nontidal wetland Consult historical aerial photography, old maps, soil maps, landowners, and/or permit files as
(RestoredT) during that time), and has since had its water regime partly or wholly restored or rehabilitated (e.g., by ditch plugs, berms, tile available.
breakage, non-maintenance).
Also, locations of some restoration wetlands can be found in the ORWAP Map Viewer under the
Yes, and time of restoration unknown. 0 Restoration heading. Another potential source is the Conservation Registry:
Yes, and restored within last 3 years. 0 https://oregonexplorer.info/content/conservation-registry?topic&ptopic.
[CS]
Yes, and restored 3-7 years ago. 0
Yes, and restored more than 7 years ago. 0
No. 0
Unknown if wetland is restored, created, or naturally occurring. 0
T36 Cliffs or Banks (Clifft) Within 300 ft. of the AA, there are elevated terrestrial features such as cliffs, talus slopes, or unarmored banks along nontidal 0 [SBM, POL]
channels that extend at least 6 ft nearly vertically, are unvegetated, and potentially contain crevices or other substrate
suitable for nesting or den areas. Enter 1, if true.
29 of 582
T37 Flight Hazards In the AA or within 300 ft, there is an unsheltered fence, powerline, or public road with traffic at least hourly that is located: Unsheltered fence means open to flying waterfowl on both sides, i.e., not entirely within an area
(FlightHazT) of tall dense vegetation.
Within 15 ft of the AA's low marsh. 0
[WBF]
Within 15 ft of the AA's high marsh. 0
Neither. 0
T38 Non-consumptive Uses - Select ALL statements that are true of this AA as it currently exists: The question assumes access is allowed.
Actual or Potential
(RecPotenT) Walking is physically possible in >5% of the AA during most of year (e.g., free of deep water and dense shrub thickets). 0 [PUv]
All or part of the AA (or an area within sight of the AA and within 30 m) would be physically accessible to people in 0
wheelchairs (e.g., paved and flat).
Maintained roads, parking areas, or foot-trails are within 30 ft of the AA, or the AA can be accessed most of the year by boat. 0
Within or near the AA, there is an interpretive center, trails with interpretive signs or brochures, and/or regular guided 0
interpretive tours.
T39 Core Area 1 (VisitNoT) The percentage of the AA almost never visited by humans during an average growing season probably comprises: [Note: Judge this based on proximity to population centers, roads, trails, accessibility of the AA to the
Only include the part actually walked or driven (not simply viewed from) with a vehicle or boat. If more than half the wetland public, wetland size, usual water depth, and physical evidence of human visitation. Exclude visits
is visible from areas within 100 ft of the AA, include visits by people to those areas but only count the part actually walked or that are not likely to continue and/or that are not an annual occurrence (e.g., by construction or
driven (not simply viewed from).] monitoring crews).
<5% and no inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0 [WBF, PD,PUv]
<5% and inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0
5 to <50% and no inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0
5 to <50% and inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA. 0
50 to 95% with or without inhabited building nearby. 0
>95% of the AA with or without inhabited building nearby. 0
T40 Core Area 2 The part of the AA visited by humans almost daily for several weeks during an average growing season probably comprises: See note above.
(VisitOftenT) [The Note in the preceding question applies here as well].
[WBF, PD,Puv]
<5%. 0
5 to <50%. 0
50 to 95%. 0
>95% of the AA. 0
T41 Consumptive Uses Recent evidence was found within the AA of the following potentially-sustainable consumptive uses. Select ALL that apply. Evidence of these consumptive uses may consist of direct observation, or presence of physical
(Provisioning Services) evidence (e.g., recently cut stumps, fishing lures, shell cases), or might be obtained from
(UsesT) Commercial or traditional-use harvesting of native plants, their fruits, or mushrooms. 0 communication with the land owner or manager.
[Puv]
Waterfowl hunting or furbearer trapping. 0
Fishing. 0
T42 Ownership (OwnershipT) Most of the AA is: An initial indication of ownership can be found in the ORWAP Map Viewer's Ownership layer
(expand Land Classification). However, it is advisable to ask local sources or use local maps with
Publicly owned (municipal, county, state, federal). 0 higher precision.
[PUv]
Non-profit conservation organization that allows public access to this AA. 0
Other private ownership, including tribal. Enter 1, if true and SKIP to T44. 0 PrivateOwnT
T43 Special Protected Area The AA is part of an area designated as a Special Protected Area according to the USGS Protected Areas Database of the 0 See the ORWAP Map Viewer Report under the Location Information section for "In Special
Designation (DesigT) U.S. Protected Area?" [PUv]
Enter 1, if true.
T44 Conservation Investment The AA is on private lands and is not a mitigation wetland, but public funds have been spent to preserve, create, restore, or 0 Locations of some restoration wetlands can be found in the ORWAP Map Viewer under the
(ConsInvestT) enhance functions of the wetland. Enter 1, if true. (If unknown, leave 0) Restoration heading. Another potential source is the Conservation Registry:
https://oregonexplorer.info/content/conservation-registry?topic&ptopic. [PUv]
T45 Compensation Wetland The AA is all or part of a compensation site used explicitly to offset impacts elsewhere. 0 Answer to the best of your knowledge. Sources for information include the property owner, DSL, MitSiteT
(MitWetT) Enter 1, if true. (If unknown, leave 0) and/or the ACOE. [PUv]
30 of 582
T46 Sustained Scientific Use Plants, animals, or water in the AA have been monitored for >2 years, unrelated to any regulatory requirements, and data are 0 [PUv]
(SciUseT) available to the public. Or the AA is part of an area that has been designated by an agency or institution as a benchmark,
reference, or status-trends monitoring area. Enter 1, if true. ( If unknown, leave 0)
T47 Wetland Type of The AA comprises all or part of (a) a wooded tidal wetland (>30% cover of trees and/or shrubs), OR (b) an undiked tidal 0 [PDvSBM,Sens]
Conservation Concern freshwater wetland (surface salinity <0.5 ppt during most of spring and summer). Enter 1, if true.
(RareTypeT)
31 of 582
Site: Name: Date:
Form S
Stresser Data Data Comments
ORWAP V 3.2
S1 Aberrant Timing of Water Inputs (AltTiming)
In the "Data" column, place an X next to any item that is likely to have caused the timing of water inputs (but not necessarily their volume) to shift by hours, days, or weeks, becoming either more muted (smaller or less frequent peaks spread over longer times,
more temporal homogeneity of flow or water levels) or more flashy (larger or more frequent spikes but over shorter times).
Control structure that regulates inflow to the AA (including tide gates), or flow regulation in tributaries, or water level in adjoining water body is regulated.
Irrigation runoff or seepage.
Snow storage areas that drain directly to the wetland.
Increased pavement and other impervious surface in the CA.
Straightening, ditching, dredging, and/or lining of tributary channels in the CA.
If any items were checked above, then for each row of the table below, you may assign points (3, 2, or 1). However, if you believe the checked items had no measurable effect on the timing of water conditions in any part of the AA, then leave the "0's" for the
scores in the following rows. To estimate effects, contrast the current condition with the condition, if the checked items never occurred or were no longer present.
Severe (3 pts) Medium (2 pts) Mild (1 pt)
Spatial extent within the AA of timing shift. >95% of AA. 5-95% of AA. <5% of AA. 0
When most of the timing shift began. <3 yrs ago. 3-9 yrs ago. 10-100 yrs ago. 0
Score the following 2 rows only if the altered inputs began within past 10 years, and only for the part
of the AA that experiences those.
Input timing now vs. previously. Shift of weeks. Shift of days. Shift of hours or minutes. 0
Flashiness or muting. Became very flashy or controlled. Intermediate. Became mildly flashy or controlled. 0
Sum= 0
Final score= 0.00
S2 Accelerated Inputs of Nutrients (NutrLoad)

In the "Data" column, place an X next to any item -- occurring in either the AA or its RCA -- that is likely to have accelerated the inputs of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) to the AA.
Stormwater or wastewater effluent (including failing septic systems), landfills.
Fertilizers applied to lawns, ag lands, or other areas in the RCA.
Livestock, dogs.
Artificial drainage of upslope lands.
Other waterborne human-related nutrient sources within the RCA.
If any items were checked above, then for each row of the table below, you may assign points. However, if you believe the checked items did not cumulatively expose the AA to significantly more nutrients, then leave the "0's" for the scores in the following rows.
To estimate effects, contrast the current condition with the condition if the checked items never occurred or were no longer present.
Usual load of nutrients. Large (e.g., feedlots, extensive residential on septic) Moderate (e.g., grazing, light residential on septic, Limited (e.g., a few animals, lawns, sewered 0
or or 303d* for nutrients. light agriculture). residential).
Frequency & duration of input. Frequent and year-round. Frequent but mostly seasonal. Infrequent & during high runoff events mainly. 0
AA proximity to main sources (actual or potential). 0 - <50 ft. 50-300 ft. or in groundwater. In other part of contributing area. 0
Sum= 0
Final score= 0.00
S3 Accelerated Inputs of Contaminants and/or Salts (ContamIn).

In the "Data" column, place an X next to any item -- occurring in either the AA or its RCA -- that is likely to have accelerated the inputs of contaminants or salts to the AA.
Stormwater or wastewater effluent (including failing septic systems), landfills, snow storage areas.
Metals & chemical wastes from mining, shooting ranges, oil/ gas extraction, other sources.
Irrigation of lands, especially those with saline soils.
Oil or chemical spills (not just chronic inputs) from nearby roads.
Road salt.
Pesticides applied to lawns, ag lands, roadsides, or other areas in the RCA, but excluding spot applications for controlling non-natives in the AA.
Artificial drainage of contaminated or saline soils.
Erosion of contaminated soils.
Other contaminant sources within the RCA.
If any items were checked above, then for each row of the table below, you may assign points. However, if you believe the checked items did not cumulatively expose the AA to significantly higher levels of contaminants and/or salts, then leave the "0's" for the
scores in the following rows. To estimate effects, contrast the current condition with the condition if the checked items never occurred or were no longer present.
Usual toxicity of most toxic contaminants. Industrial effluent or 303d* for toxics. Wastewater treatment plant, cropland, fossil fuel Low density residential or commercial. 0
extraction, pipeline, power station, managed landfill.
Frequency & duration of input. Frequent and year-round. Frequent but mostly seasonal. Infrequent & during high runoff events mainly. 0
AA proximity to main sources (actual or potential). 0 - <50 ft. 50-300 ft. or in groundwater. In other part of contributing area. 0
* See ORWAP Map Viewer for waters designated as 303d; see Oregon DEQ web site for reasons. Sum= 0
Final score= 0.00
32of 582
S4 Excessive Sediment Loading from Runoff Contributing Area (SedRCA).
In the "Data" column, place an X next to any item present in the RCA that is likely to have elevated the load of waterborne or windborne sediment reaching the AA from its RCA.
Erosion from plowed fields, fill, timber harvest, dirt roads, vegetation clearing, fires.
Erosion from construction, in-channel machinery in the RCA.
Erosion from off-road vehicles in the RCA.
Erosion from livestock or foot traffic in the RCA.
Stormwater or wastewater effluent.
Sediment from road sanding, gravel mining, other mining, oil/ gas extraction.
Accelerated channel downcutting or headcutting of tributaries due to altered land use.
Other human-related disturbances within the RCA.
If any items were checked above, then for each row of the table below you may assign points (3, 2, or 1) in the last column that describe the combined maximum effect of those items in increasing the amount or transport of sediment into the AA. To estimate that,
contrast it with the condition if checked items never occurred or were no longer present.
Erosion in RCA. Extensive evidence, high intensity*. Potentially (based on high-intensity* land use) or Potentially (based on low-intensity* land use) with 0
scattered evidence. little or no direct evidence.
Recentness of significant soil disturbance in the RCA. Current & ongoing. 1-12 months ago. >1 yr ago. 0
Duration of sediment inputs to the AA. Frequent and year-round. Frequent but mostly seasonal. Infrequent & mainly during high runoff or severe 0
wind events.
AA proximity to actual or potential sources. 0 - <50 ft., or farther but on steep erodible slopes. 50-300 ft. In other part of contributing area. 0
* High-intensity= plowing, grading, excavation, erosion with or without veg removal; low-intensity= veg removal only with little or no apparent erosion or disturbance of soil or sediment. Sum= 0
Final score= 0.00
S5 Soil or Sediment Alteration Within the Assessment Area (SoilDisturb).

In the "Data" column, place an X next to any item present in the AA that is likely to have compacted, eroded, or otherwise altered the AA's soil.
Compaction from livestock, machinery, off-road vehicles, or mountain bikes, especially during wetter periods.
Leveling or other grading not to the natural contour.
Tillage, plowing (but excluding disking for enhancement of native plants).
Fill, riprap, other armoring, excluding small amounts of upland soils containing organic amendments (compost, etc.) or small amounts of topsoil stockpiled or imported from another wetland.
Excavation.
Dredging in or adjacent to the AA.
Boat traffic in or adjacent to the AA and sufficient to cause shore erosion or stir bottom sediments.
Artificial water level or flow manipulations sufficient to cause erosion or stir bottom sediments.
If any items were checked above, then for each row of the table below you may assign points (3, 2, or 1) in the last column that describe the combined maximum effect of those items in altering the AA's soils. To estimate that, contrast it with the soil condition if
checked items never occurred or were no longer present.
Spatial extent of altered soil. >95% of AA or >95% of its upland edge (if any). 5-95% of AA or 5-95% of its upland edge (if any). <5% of AA and <5% of its upland edge (if any). 0
Recentness of significant soil alteration in AA. Current & ongoing. 1-12 months ago. >1 yr ago. 0
Duration. Long-lasting, minimal veg recovery. Long-lasting but mostly revegetated. Short-term, revegetated, not intense. 0
Timing of soil alteration. Frequent and year-round. Frequent but mostly seasonal. Infrequent & mainly during scattered events. 0
Sum= 0
Final score= 0.00
33of 582
ORWAP V.3.2 Site Name:
Investigator Name:
Date of Field Assessment:
Scores will appear below after data are entered in worksheets OF, F, T, and S. See Manual for definitions and descriptions of how scores were computed
and ratings assigned.
Normalized Scores & Ratings for this Assessment Area (AA):
Function Rating Break Rating Break Function Score Values Score

Specific Functions or Values: Function Score Values Score Values Rating
Rating Proximity Proximity (raw) (raw)
Water Storage & Delay (WS)
Sediment Retention & Stabilization (SR)
Phosphorus Retention (PR)
Nitrate Removal & Retention (NR)
Anadromous Fish Habitat (FA)
Resident Fish Habitat (FR)
Amphibian & Reptile Habitat (AM)
Waterbird Nesting Habitat (WBN)
Waterbird Feeding Habitat (WBF)
Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat (INV)
Songbird, Raptor, Mammal Habitat (SBM)
Water Cooling (WC)
Native Plant Diversity (PD)
Pollinator Habitat (POL)
Organic Nutrient Export (OE)
Carbon Sequestration (CS)
Public Use & Recognition (PU)
Rating Break
Other Attributes: Score Rating
Proximity
Wetland Sensitivity (SEN)
Wetland Ecological Condition (EC)
Wetland Stressors (STR)
Rating Break Rating Break

GROUPS Selected Function Function Rating Values Rating
Proximity Proximity
Hydrologic Function (WS)
Water Quality Support (SR, PR, or NR)
Fish Habitat (FA or FR)
Aquatic Habitat (AM, WBF, or WBN)
Ecosystem Support (WC, INV, PD, POL, SBM, or
OE)
NOTE: A score of 0 does not always mean the function or value is absent from the wetland. It usually means that this wetland has equal or less capacity
than the lowest-scoring one, for that function or value, from among the 200 calibration wetlands that were assessed previously by Oregon Department of
State Lands.
Water Storage The effectiveness of a wetland for storing water or delaying the
downslope movement of surface water for long or short periods (but
& Delay for longer than a tidal cycle), and in doing so to potentially influence
the height, timing, duration, and frequency of inundation in
downstream or downslope areas.
Non-Tidal Function
# Categorical Choices
Indicators
OF35 Runoff Contributing Area Delimit the wetland's Runoff Contributing Area (RCA) using a topographic base map. The area of the
(RCA) - Wetland as % of AA's wetland is:
(WetPctRCA)
<1% of its RCA.

1 to <10% of its RCA.
10 to 100% of its RCA.
Larger than the area of its RCA. Enter 1 and SKIP TO OF39.
OF39 Streamflow Contributing Delimit (or visualize, for large river basins) the wetland's Streamflow Contributing Area (SCA) using a
Area (SCA) - Wetland as topographic base map. The area of the AA's wetland is:
% of (WetPctSCA)
<1% of its SCA, or wetland is in the floodplain of a major river.

1 to <10% of its SCA.
10 to 100% of its SCA.
Larger than the area of its SCA. Enter 1 and SKIP TO OF41.
Wetland lacks tributaries and receives no overbank water. Enter 1 and SKIP to OF41.
F3 Water Regime (Hydropd) The water regime (hydroperiod) of the most permanent (usually deepest) part of the AA is: Select only
ONE.
[To meet any of the definitions other than Ephemeral, there must be >100 sq ft of surface water for the
duration described, otherwise mark the type listed above it.]
Ephemeral. Surface water in the wettest part of the AA is present for fewer than 7 consecutive days
during an average growing season. Includes some of the areas mapped as Saturated Nontidal in the
ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive). Enter 1 and SKIP to F25.
Temporary. Surface water present for 1-4 weeks consecutively during an average growing season, OR
if persists for longer, it is almost entirely in scattered pools, each smaller than 1 sq.m. Dries up
completely during part of most average years. Includes some of the areas mapped as Saturated
Seasonal. Surface water present for 5-17 weeks (1-4 months) consecutively during an average
growing season, but dries up completely during part of most average years. Includes some of the
areas mapped as Seasonal Nontidal in the ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive). Enter 1
and SKIP to F5.
Semi-Persistent. Surface water present for more than 17 weeks (4 months) consecutively during an
average growing season, but dries up completely during part of most average years. Includes some of
the areas mapped as Seasonal Nontidal in the ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive).
Enter 1 and SKIP to F5.
Permanent. Does not dry up completely during most average years. Includes some of the areas
mapped as Persistent Nontidal in the ORWAP Map Viewer (which is not comprehensive). Enter 1 and
continue.
F4 Flooded Persistently - % Identify the parts of the AA that still contain surface water even during the driest times of a normal
of AA (PermW) year . At that time, the percentage of the AA that still contains surface water is:
1 to <25% of the AA.

50 to 95% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
F12 All Ponded Water as When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the surface water that is ponded continually for
Percentage - Wettest >6 days occupies:
(PondWpctWet)
<1% or none of the AA. Surface water is completely or nearly absent then, or is entirely flowing.
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
F13 Ponded Open Water When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the AA's ponded open water occupies a
Area - Wettest cumulative area of:
(OWareaWet) <0.10 acre (< 4356 sq. ft) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. Enter 1 and SKIP TO F16.
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
0.50 to <1 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
1 to <5 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
F25 Water Fluctuation Range The maximum vertical fluctuation in surface water within the AA, during a normal year is:
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
F31 Outflow Duration The most persistent surface water connection (outlet channel, pipe, ditch, or overbank water exchange)
(OutDura) between the AA and the closest stream or lake located downslope is: [Note: If the AA represents only
part of a wetland, answer this according to whichever is the least permanent surface connection: the
one between the AA and the rest of its wetland, OR the surface connection between the AA's wetland
and a mapped stream or lake located within 300 ft downslope from this wetland].
Persistent (>9 months/year).

Seasonal (14 days to 9 months/year, not necessarily consecutive).
Temporary (<14 days, not necessarily consecutive).
None -- no surface water flows out of the wetland except possibly during extreme events (<once per 10
years). Or, water flows only into a wetland, ditch, or lake that lacks an outlet. Enter 1 and SKIP TO
F33.
F32 Outflow Confinement During major runoff events, in the places described above where surface water exits the AA, it:
(Constric)
Is impeded as it mostly passes through a pipe, culvert, tidegate, narrowly breached dike, berm, beaver
dam, or other partial obstruction (other than natural topography).
Leaves mainly through natural surface exits, not largely through artificial or temporary features which
impede or accelerate outflow.
Is exported more quickly than usual as it mostly passes through ditches or pipes intended to accelerate
drainage. They may be within the AA or connected to its outlet or within 30 ft of the AA's edge.
F35 Throughflow Complexity [Skip this question if the AA lacks both an inlet and outlet.] During peak annual flow, water entering the
(ThruFlo) AA in channels encounters which of the following conditions as it travels through the AA: Select the
ONE encountered most.
Does not bump into many plant stems as it travels through the AA. Nearly all the water continues to
travel within unvegetated (often incised) channels and has minimal contact with wetland vegetation, or
through a zone of open water such as an instream pond or lake.
Bumps into herbaceous vegetation but mostly remains in fairly straight channels.
Bumps into herbaceous vegetation and mostly spreads throughout, or follows a fairly indirect path (in
widely meandering, multi-branched, or braided channels).
Bumps into tree trunks and/or shrub stems but mostly remains in fairly straight channels.
Bumps into tree trunks and/or shrub stems and follows a fairly indirect path (meandering, multi-
branched, or braided) from entrance to exit.
F36 Internal Gradient The gradient from the lowest to highest point of land within the AA (or from outlet to inlet) is:
(Gradient)
<2% (internal flow is absent or barely detectable; basically flat).
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
F37 Groundwater Strength of Select first one that applies:
Evidence (Groundw)
F37 Groundwater Strength of
Evidence (Groundw)
In the AA or its wetland:
(b) Water is markedly cooler in summer and warmer in winter (e.g., later ice formation) than in other
local wetlands, OR
(d) Water visibly seeps into pits dug within the AA during the driest time of the year and located >30 ft
from the closest surface water.
The AA's wetland:

(a) Is very close to the base of a natural slope steeper than 15% and longer than 300 ft or is located at
a geologic fault, OR
(b3) Is in an Arid or Semi-arid hydrologic unit.
The AA is not in an Arid or Semi-arid hydrologic unit, but has persistent ponded water, no tributary, and
is not fed by wastewater, concentrated stormwater, or irrigation water, or by an adjacent river or lake.
None of above is true, OR AA contains a hot spring. Some groundwater may nonetheless discharge to
or flow through the wetland.
F56 Bare Ground & Consider the parts of the AA that go dry during a normal year. Viewed from 6 inches above the soil
Accumulated Plant Litter surface, the condition in most of that area just before the year's longest inundation period begins is:
(Gcover)
Little or no (<5%) bare ground is visible between erect stems or under canopy and there is little or no
dead detached plant tisuse (thatch) remaining on top of the ground surface and ground surface is
extensively blanketed by moss, lichens, graminoids with great stem densities, or plants with ground-
hugging foliage.
Some (5-20%) bare ground or remaining thatch is visible. Herbaceous plants have moderate stem
densities and do not closely hug the ground.
Much (20-50%) bare ground or thatch is visible. Low stem density and/or tall plants with little living
ground cover during early growing season.
Mostly (>50%) bare ground or thatch.
Not applicable. All of the AA is inundated throughout most years.
F57 Ground Irregularity In parts of the AA that lack persistent water, the number of small pits, raised mounds, hummocks,
(Girreg) boulders, upturned trees, animal burrows, islands, natural levees, wide soil cracks, and
microdepressions is:
Few or none, or the entire AA is always water-covered. Minimal microtopography; <1% of the AA, e.g.,
many flat sites having a single hydroperiod.
Intermediate.
Several (extensive micro-topography).
F58 Soil Composition Based on digging into the substrate and examining the surface layer of the soil (2 inch depth) that was
(SoilTex) mapped as being predominant, its composition (excluding duff and living roots) is mostly:
Loamy: includes silt, silt loam, loam, sandy loam.
Clayey: includes clay, clay loam, silty clay, silty clay loam, sandy clay, sandy clay loam.
Organic: includes muck, mucky peat, peat, and mucky mineral soils (blackish or grayish). Exclude live
roots unless they are moss.
(SoilTex)
Value
Coarse: includes sand, loamy sand, gravel, cobble, stones, boulders, fluvents, fluvaquents, riverwash.
OF15 Landscape Functional In the ORWAP Report, find the HUC 12 Functional Deficit table. Select All functions below that have a
Deficit (GISscore) notation for that HUC.
Indicators Water storage (WS)

OF24 River Proximity There is a nontidal river within 1 mile and it is adjacent to, OR downslope from, the AA (connected or
(RiverProx) not).
Enter 1, if true. If not, SKIP to OF27.
OF25 Floodable Property Select ONE of the below:
(FloodProp)
Floodplain boundaries within 1 mile downslope or downriver from the AA have not been mapped.
Floodplain boundaries within 1 mile downslope from the AA have been mapped BUT there is neither
infrastructure nor row crops vulnerable to river flooding located within the floodplain and within that
distance.
Floodplain boundaries have been mapped AND infrastructure or row crops are present within 1 mile
downslope or downriver and those are not protected from 100-year floods, but actual damage has not
been documented.
Damage to infrastructure or row crops from river flooding has been documented within that distance.
OF26 Type of Flood Damage The greatest financial damage in the floodplain is (or would be) to:
(DamageType)
Buildings, roads, bridges.
Row crops (during some years).
OF34 Relative Elevation in In the ORWAP Map Viewer, based on the Hydrologic Boundaries 4th Level (HUC 8) layer (expand
Watershed (Elev) Hydrology), determine if the AA is: (See Column E)
In the upper one-third of its watershed.
In the middle one-third of its watershed.
In the lower one-third of its watershed.
(WetPctRCA)
<1% of its RCA.

OF36 Unvegetated % in the The proportion of the RCA comprised of buildings, roads, parking lots, exposed bedrock, and other
RCA (ImpervRCA) surface that is usually unvegetated at the time of peak annual runoff is about:
OF36 Unvegetated % in the
RCA (ImpervRCA)
<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
OF37 Transport From Upslope A relatively large proportion of the precipitation that falls farther upslope in the RCA reaches this
(TransRCA) wetland quickly as indicated by the following: (a) RCA slopes are steep, and/or (b) upslope wetlands
historically present have been filled or drained extensively, and/or (c) land cover is mostly non-forest,
and/or (d) most RCA soils are shallow. This statement is:
Mostly true.
Somewhat true.
Mostly untrue.
OF42 Zoning (Zoning) According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Zoning layer, the dominant zoned land use designation for
currently undeveloped parcels upslope from the AA and within 300 ft. of its upland edge is:
Development (Commercial, Industrial, Urban Residential, etc.), or no undeveloped parcels exist

upslope from the AA.
Agriculture or Rural Residential.
Forest or Open Space, or entirely public lands.
Not zoned, or no information.
F54 Upland Trees as % of All Within 100 f.t landward from the AA's edge (perimeter), the percentage of the upland perennial cover
Perennial Cover that is woody plants taller than 20 ft is:
(UpTreePctPer)
<5%, or there is no upland perennial cover along the upland edge.
5 to <25% of perennial cover.
75 to 95% of perennial cover.
>95% of perennial cover.
Function Subindices
Function Score for Water Stor
Value Subindices
Values Score for Water Stor
WS
Data X
Data Points Normalized
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
Data X
Data Points Normalize
Points
0.00
0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
Subsurface 0.00
LiveStore 0.00
Friction 0.00
ction Score for Water Storage F 0.00
Flood Damage (Fdam1) 0.00
Water Inputs (Yield1) 0.00

lues Score for Water Storage V 0.00
Rationales
Wetlands that comprise a large portion of their contributing area have a greater potential to control the
runoff arriving from that lmited area.
See above.
Ephemeral and temporary wetlands (or the ephemerally or temporarily inundated zones of permanent
wetlands) usually have periodically unsaturated soils over the greatest proportion of their area and for
the longest time, thus potentially detaining the most additional precipitation. However, in wetlands
where a persistently high water table sustains an ephemeral or temporary wetland, only limited
subsurface storage space may be available for new runoff. Wetlands that are inundated permanently or
semi-permanently often have less unsaturated space available for storing additional runoff.
Estimates the relative amount of horizontal space in which precipitation and runoff could be stored, at
least temporarily. The ability of wetland water storage to reduce stream peak flows is greatest in
summer and fall (Roulet & Woo 1988, Quinton & Roulet 1998). This indicator is used only if surface
water does not dry up completely during most years.
Ponded water is stored for longer periods than water in channels, so runoff response in a watershed
can be slower below extensively ponded areas (Quinton & Roulet 1998). This indicator is used only if
some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Large depressions not only have greater storage capacity, but on a per unit area basis may experience
greater evaporative loss of stored water than smaller more sheltered wetlands, due to greater wind
effects and solar exposure. However, the shallower depths and longer shoreline to area ratio of
smaller wetlands can result in greater water loss via evapotranspiration. This indicator is used only if
This directly estimates the relative amount of vertical space in which precipitation and runoff are being
stored, at least temporarily.
Wetlands that store water only temporarily or seasonally have longer periods during the year in which
soils are unsaturated and thus able to briefly store or delay additional water from precipitation and
runoff. Wetland connectivity is key to estimating wetland water storage: wetlands that lack an outlet
(never have any outflow) store or dissipate (via evaporation or seepage) nearly all the water they
receive (Novitzki 1981, Spence et al. 2011).
Narrow outlets limit water outflow from a wetland and its downstream or downslope movement, thus
increasing storage (Carter et al. 1979). The types of outlets described here are ones that typically are
more constricted than natural channels, which usually have adjusted over time to local runoff and thus
are wider relative to volume of flow received. This indicator is used only if water exits the AA or its
wetland for more than 14 days of the growing season.
When vegetation and other obstacles create a "roughness" within a wetland, that can slow the outflow
and downstream movement of water. This is much truer if the vegetation intercepts a large proportion
of the flow during high-flow periods (i.e., is not merely along an upland edge that never floods), and is
tall and stiff enough to provide some resistance. However, the vegetation itself occupies space
otherwise available for storing water (this effect is usually negligible except in densely wooded
floodplains). Water also takes longer to move through complex channel networks (e.g., braided or
sinuous) which themselves provide additional friction. Vegetational resistance rapidly diminishes as the
water depth becomes greater than the vegetation height (Camfield 1977). This indicator is used only if
an tributary channel is present and water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14 days of the
growing season.
Unless impounded, steeply sloping wetlands retain less surface runoff and precipitation, and for shorter
periods.
Wetlands fed constantly by groundwater are likely to have only limited subsurface storage space for
storing additional precipitation.
Wetlands fed constantly by groundwater are likely to have only limited subsurface storage space for
storing additional precipitation.
Emergent wetland plants trap drifting snow (thus retaining water onsite) and reduce water volume via
transpiration. Bare ground or sparse plant cover is less effective for capturing and retaining drifting
snow, and water losses due to evapotranspiration are less.
Large variation in elevations within a wetland suggest greater potential for trapping and retaining snow
and other precipitation, sufficiently long to allow infiltration or evaporation. Rough surfaces also allow
for more runoff interception and infiltration.
Both downward infiltration (increasing water storage) and upward discharge of groundwater
(decreasing water storage) are greater in coarse-textured soils. However, the groundwater influence is
accounted for separately in F37, so the weighting in F58 addresses the positive effect of coarse
substrate on water storage. Peat tends to be saturated much of the time but during prolonged dry
periods can absorb significant volumes of new runoff.
(decreasing water storage) are greater in coarse-textured soils. However, the groundwater influence is
accounted for separately in F37, so the weighting in F58 addresses the positive effect of coarse
substrate on water storage. Peat tends to be saturated much of the time but during prolonged dry
periods can absorb significant volumes of new runoff.
Rationales
Wetlands existing in landscapes whose other wetlands perform this function to only a limited extent
may be considered to be more valuable because scarcity typically increases value.
Most flooding of property occurs from rivers, so wetlands that retain floodwaters and are next to rivers
or part of their floodplain would be expected to be most valuable.
Storage by wetlands is obviously more valuable when properties located downslope might otherwise be
flooded. The need for (and value of) storage potentially provided by wetlands is greater when floodable
property downslope is not being adequately protected by other water storage or detention features. In
calculations, is ignored (cell goes blank) if not near a river or if floodplains have not been mapped.
On a per unit area, in most regions infrastructure is more expensive to replace than crops.
Other factors being equal, wetlands in a headwater position are more valuable for influencing waters
over a longer downstream area, where most flooding of property tends to occur. Watersheds can be
defined at many spatial scales, and all are important to assessing the significance of this function when
it is provided by a wetland or wetlands cumulatively.
Wetlands that are small relative to their runoff-contributing areas are provided with greater opportunity
to retain runoff, thus increasing their potential value.
The need for (and value of) storage potentially provided by wetlands is greater when upland runoff is
rapid, as occurs when much of the contributing area contains impervious surface (Laenen 1980, Waite
et al. 2006). In contributing areas with extensive impervious surface, the proportion of stream flow due
to surface runoff can be as much as five times that seen in forested contributing areas (Arnold &
Gibbons 1996). Surface (as opposed to subsurface) runoff is much less common in undeveloped
watersheds (Booth & Jackson 1997). Increased surface runoff causes a shortening of the lag time
between precipitation and stream flow response (Hirsch et al. 1990). The effect is higher peak flows but
of shorter duration than those in forested contributing areas receiving comparable rainfall (Leopold
1968).
The need for (and value of) storage potentially provided by wetlands is greater when upland runoff is
rapid, as occurs when much of the contributing area contains impervious surface (Laenen 1980, Waite
et al. 2006). In contributing areas with extensive impervious surface, the proportion of stream flow due
to surface runoff can be as much as five times that seen in forested contributing areas (Arnold &
Gibbons 1996). Surface (as opposed to subsurface) runoff is much less common in undeveloped
watersheds (Booth & Jackson 1997). Increased surface runoff causes a shortening of the lag time
between precipitation and stream flow response (Hirsch et al. 1990). The effect is higher peak flows but
of shorter duration than those in forested contributing areas receiving comparable rainfall (Leopold
1968).
See above.
In the future, the need for (and value of) water storage provided by wetlands may increase the most
where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development typically alters the
amount, rate, and/or timing of water delivered downslope.
Trees along the wetland-upland fringe often transpire large amounts of water, reducing the opportunity
for the wetland to perform this function.
AVERAGE(Groundw,SoilTex,WetPctRCA,WetPctSCA)
(2*AVERAGE(Hydropd,OWareaWet) +AVERAGE(Hydropd,PermWpct, Fluctu))/3
AVERAGE[(Gcover,Girreg,Constric,ThruFlo,PondWpctWet),Gradient)]
IF((Tidal=1),0, IF((NoOutlet=1),1, IF((NeverWater=1), (2*Gradient +

AVERAGE(Groundw,SoilTex,Gcover,Girreg))/3, ELSE: [3*AVERAGE(OutDura,LiveStore) +
AVERAGE(Friction,Subsurf)]/ 4
AVERAGE(DamageType,FloodProp, RiverProx)
[3*Elev + 2*AVERAGE(WetPctRCA,ImpervRCA,TransRCA) + UpTreePctPer)] /6
IF((Bldgs+Agric>0), Fdam, ELSE: AVERAGE(FDam,AVERAGE(Yield,Zoning,GISscoreWSv))
Literature Cited
Arnold, C. L. and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243-258.
Boelter, D. H. and E. S. Verry. 1977. Peatland and Water in the Northern Lake States. General
Technical Report NC-31. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research
Station, St. Paul, MN.
Booth, D. B. and C. R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds,
stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 33:1077-1090.
Bormann, F. H. and G. E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-
Verlag., New York City, NY.
Camfield, F. E. 1977. Wind-wave propagation over flooded, vegetated land. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers Technical Paper No. 77-12. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-77/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wahington,
DC.
Detenbeck, N., C. Elonen, D. Taylor, A. Cotter, F. Puglisi, and W. Sanville. 2002. Effects of agricultural
activities and best management practices on water quality of seasonal prairie pothole wetlands.
Wetlands Ecology and Management 10:335-354.
Hirsch, R. M., J. F. Walker, J. C. Day, and R. Kollio. 1990. The influence of man on hydrologic systems.
Pages 329–359 in M. G. Wolaman and H. C. Riggs, editors. Surface Water Hydrology. Geological
Society of America, Boulder, CO.
Laenen, A. 1980. Storm Runoff as Related to Urbanization in the Portland, Oregon-Vancouver,
Washington Area. Water Resources Investigations 80-689. U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR.
Leopold, L. B. 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning—A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of
Urban Land Use. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 554,
Washington,
Moore, I. andDC.
C. Larson. 1980. Hydrologic impact of draining small depressional watersheds. Journal of
the Irrigation and Drainage Division 196 (IR4):345-363.
Novitzki, R. P. 1981. Hydrology of Wisconsin Wetlands, Geological and Natural History Survey,
Information Circular 40. University of Wisconsin - Extension, Madison, WI.
Peterjohn, W. T. and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations
on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466-1475.
Quinton, W. L. and N. T. Roulet. 1998. Spring and summer runoff hydrology of a subarctic patterned
wetland. Arctic and Alpine Research 30:285-294.
Roulet, N. T. and M. K. Woo. 1988. Run-off generation in a low arctic drainage-basin. Journal of
Hydrology 101:213-226.
Spence, C., X. J. Guan, and R. Phillips. 2011. The hydrological functions of a boreal wetland. Wetlands
31:75-85.
Waite, I. R., S. Sobieszczyk, K. D. Carpenter, A. J. Arnsberg, H. M. Johnson, C. A. Hughes, M. J.
Sarantou, and F. A. Rinella. 2008. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems in the Willamette
River Basin and Surrounding Area,Oregon and Washington: Scientific Investigations Report 2006–
5101–D., U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR.
Sediment The effectiveness for intercepting and filtering suspended inorganic
sediments, thus allowing their deposition, as well as reducing energy
Retention &
Non-Tidal Function of waves and currents, resisting excessive erosion, and stabilizing
Stabilization underlying sediments or soil.
(WetPctRCA)
Indicators
<1% of its RCA.

% of (WetPctSCA)

F5 Depth Class When water is present in the AA, the depth most of the time in most of inundated area is:
(Predominant) [Note: NOT necessarily the maximum spatial or annual depth]
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
F7 Emergent Plants -- Area Consider just the area that has surface water for >1 week during the growing season. Herbaceous
(EmArea) plants (not moss, not woody) whose foliage extends above a water surface in this area (i.e.,
emergents) cumulatively occupy an annual maximum of:
<0.01 acre (< 400 sq.ft). Enter 1 and SKIP TO F10, unless only part of a wetland is being assessed.
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
F8 % Emergent Plants Emergent plants occupy an annual maximum of:
(EmPct)
F8 % Emergent Plants
(EmPct)
<5% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year.
5 to <30% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year.
60 to 95% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year.
>95% of the parts of the AA that are inundated for >7 days at some time of the year.
F15 Width of Vegetated Zone When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the width of the vegetated wetland that
- Wettest (WidthWet) separates the largest patch of open water within or bordering the AA from the closest adjacent uplands,
is predominantly:
[Note: This is not asking for the maximum width.]
<5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and open water.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
F26 % Only Saturated or Identify the parts (if any) of the AA that never contain surface water (only saturated soil) or where the
Seasonally Flooded water (either ponded or flowing) usually remains on the land surface for less than the entire growing
(SeasPct) season. The percentage of the AA containing such areas is:
<5% of the AA, or none (i.e., all water persists for >4 months).
>75% of the AA.

F33.
(Constric)
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
F42 Mowing, Grazing, Fire There is evidence that grazing by domestic or wild animals -- or mowing (multiple times per year),
(VegCut) plowing, herbicides, harvesting, or fire -- has repeatedly reduced the AA's vegetation cover (plants that
normally grows taller than 4") to less than 4 inches, or has created an obvious browse line, over the
following extent:
0% (No evidence of such activities).

Trace to 5% of the normally vegetated AA (grazing, mowing, or fire have occurred but vegetation
height effects are mostly unnoticeable).
5 to <50% of the normally vegetated AA.
50 to 95% of the normally vegetated AA.
>95% of the normally vegetated AA.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.
S5 Soil or Sediment
Alteration Within the
Tidal Function
Assessment Area
(SoilDisturb).
T2 Salinity (SalinT) At high tide during most of the year, the daily salinity in most of the inundated part of the AA is:
Saline (>25 ppt salinity, undiluted seawater).

Indicators Moderately saline (5 to 25 ppt salinity).
Brackish (0.5 to <5 ppt salinity, "oligohaline").
Fresh (<0.5 ppt salinity).
Unknown.
T3 Low Marsh (LowMarshT) The percent of the vegetated part of the AA that is "low marsh" (covered by tidal water for part of
almost every day) is:
None, or <1%.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
T4 Width of Vegetated Zone At average daily HIGH tide condition, the width of the vegetated wetland that separates adjoining
at Daily High Tide uplands (if any) from subtidal water within or adjoining the AA, is predominantly:
(WidthHiT)
<5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and subtidal water.
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T5 Width of Vegetated Zone At average daily LOW tide condition, the width of the vegetated wetland that separates adjoining
at Daily Low Tide uplands (if any) from subtidal water within or adjoining the AA, is predominantly:
(WidthLoT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T12 Waves (WavesT) Which of the following is MOST true:
Wind or boats frequently generate waves of >1 ft. near the AA, those waves are intercepted by the
wetland, and structures behind the AA are protected from wave erosion.
wetland, but there are no structures behind the wetland.
Neither wind nor boats frequently generate waves of >1 f.t near the AA.
T32 Bare Ground & Viewed from 6 inches above the soil surface, the condition in most of the tidal wetland is:
Accumulated Plant Litter
(GcoverT) Little or no (<5%) bare ground is visible between erect stems or under canopy and there is little or no
dead detached plant tissue (thatch) remaining on top of the ground surface and ground surface is
extensively blanketed by graminoids with great stem densities or by plants with ground-hugging foliage.
Value Much (20-50%) bare ground or thatch is visible. Low stem density and/or tall plants with little living
Not applicable. Nearly all of the AA remains inundated even at daily low tide.
Indicators Sediment retention (SR)

OF28 Input Water - According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Water Quality Streams layer and Water Quality Lakes layers, ALL
Recognized Quality of the following are true: (a) within 1 mile upstream from the AA edge, a water body or stream reach is
Issues (WQin) labeled as being 303d, Water Quality Limited (categories 3B-5); Potential Concer; or TMDL Approved
AND (b) the problem concerns one or more of the parameters listed below. Select All that apply.
Total suspended solids (TSS), sedimentation, or turbidity.

Petrochemicals, heavy metals (iron, manganese, lead, zinc, etc.), other toxins.
OF29 Duration of Connection The upstream problem area mentioned above (OF28) has a surface water connection to the AA:
Beween Problem Area &
the AA (ConnecUp) For 9 or more continuous months annually.
Intermittently (at least once annually, but for less than 9 months continually).
OF29 Duration of Connection
the AA (ConnecUp)
Never (or less than annually).

OF30 Downslope Water According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Water Quality Streams layer and Water Quality Lakes layer, ALL
Quality Issues of the following are true: (a) within 1 mile downhill or downstream from the AA's edge, a water body is
(ContamDown) labeled as being 303d, Water Quality Limited (categories 3B-5); Potential Concern; or TMDL Approved

OF31 Duration of Connection The connection between the downstream problem area mentioned above (OF30) and the AA:
Beween AA & Water
Quality Problem Area Is a stream or water body that connects these areas for 9 or more continuous months annually.
(ConnDown) Is a stream or water body that connects these areas intermittently (at least once annually, but for less
than 9 months continually).
Is a probable groundwater connection, or connection via direct runoff only (no channel connection).
Never exists (a topographic ridge probably prevents all the AA's runoff and groundwater from reaching
the problem area).
(WetPctRCA)
<1% of its RCA.

<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
Mostly true.
Somewhat true.
Mostly untrue.
OF38 Upslope Soil Erodibility Use the ORWAP Report or the Map Viewer to determine if the erosion hazard rating of the soil within
Risk (ErodeUp) 200 ft away and upslope of the AA is:
Slight.
Moderate.
Severe.
Very severe.
Could not determine.
% of (WetPctSCA)

OF40 Unvegetated % in the The proportion of the SCA comprised of buildings, roads, parking lots, exposed bedrock, and other
SCA (ImpervSCA) surface that is usually unvegetated at the time of peak annual runoff is about :
<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.

F33 Tributary or Overbank At least once annually, surface water from upstream or another water body moves into the AA. It may
Inflow (Inflow) enter directly, or as unconfined overflow from a contiguous river or lake. If it enters only via a pipe, that
pipe must be fed by a mapped stream or lake further upslope. Enter 1, if true. If false, SKIP to F36.
F34 Input Channel Gradient The gradient of the tributary with the largest inflow, averaged over the 150 ft. before it enters the AA
(SlopeInChan) (but excluding any portion of the distance where water travels through a pipe) is:
<1%.
1 to <3%.
3 to 6%.
>6%.
F52 Upland Perennial Cover The percentage of the AA's edge (perimeter) that is comprised of a band of upland perennial cover
- % of Perimeter wider than
(PerimPctPer) 10 ft and taller than 6 inches, during most of the growing season is:
F52 Upland Perennial Cover
- % of Perimeter
(PerimPctPer)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
F53 Upland Perennial Cover Along the greatest extent of the AA's upland edge, the width of perennial cover taller than 6 inches that
- Width (Buffer) extends upslope from the AA until mostly shorter or non-perennial cover is reached is:
(BuffWidth) [NOTE: the width is not necessarily the maximum width. Base on vegetation that occurs most of the
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T11 Gradient of nontidal The greadient of the tributary with the largest inflow, averaged over the 150 ft. before it enters the AA
Input Channel (but excluding any portion of the distance where water travels through a pipe) is:
(SlopeInChanT)
<1%
1 to <3%
3 to 6%.
>6%
T27 Upland Perennial Cover The percentage of the AA's edge (perimeter) that is comprised of a band of upland perennial cover
- % of AA's Edge wider than 10 ft and taller than 6 inches during most of the growing season is:
(PerimPctPerT)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
T28 Upland Perennial Cover Along the greatest portion of the AA's upland edge, the width (not necessarily the maximum width) of
- Width (Buffer) perennial cover taller than 6 inches during most of the growing season and extending upslope from the
(BuffWidthT) AA until mostly shorter or non-perennial cover is reached is:
< 5 ft, or none.

T28 Upland Perennial Cover
- Width (Buffer)
(BuffWidthT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft. IF #T27 also was answered >95%, enter 1 and SKIP to T30.
> 300 ft. IF #T27 also was answered >95%, enter 1 and SKIP to T30.
T30 Slope from Disturbed The percent slope of the land between the AA and the most extensive disturbed upslope area (i.e.,
Lands (SlopeBuffT) unvegetated or non-perennial cover) is mostly:
<1% (flat -- almost no noticeable slope).
2-6%.
7-10%.
11-30%.
>30%.
S4 Excessive Sediment Stressor subscore=
Loading from Runoff
Contributing Area
(SedRCA).
Function Subindices
Function Score for Sediment Retention & Stabiliza
Values Score for Sediment Retention & Stabiliza

SR
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 8 0
0 6 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
Data X
Points
0 0.00
0
0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0
0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0 0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0.00 0.00
Live Storage 0.00
Hydrologic Entrainment 0.00
Interception and/or Erosion

Resistance in dry zone 0.13
(DryIntercept)
Interception and/or Friction in

0.00
wet zone (WetIntercept)
Hydrologic Connectivity 0.00
Tidal 0.00
ment Retention & Stabilization F 0.10
ment Retention & Stabilization V 0.00

Rationales
Sediment deposition efficiency can be predicted largely by the ratio of the volume of a storage basin to
the volume of runoff entering the basin (Heinemann 1981). This indicator addresses the latter, and thus
describes opportunity to perform the function. Wetland area is considered a surrogate for wetland
water storage volume.
See above. Individually, wetlands in large floodplains may have very little effect on flood volume and
thus little effect on the percent of river-borne sediment load they are able to retain, compared to
wetlands in headwaters that are intersected by small streams.
Deeper waters usually imply slower water velocity, longer water detention time, more space for storing
deposited sediments over time, and rless likelihood of deposited sediments being resuspended by wind
mixing or currents (Evans & Rigler 1983, Nolen et al. 1985). However, vegetation density is usually
greater in shallow wetlands, providing other opportunities to filter and stabilize (with roots systems)
suspended sediments. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more
than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Rate of sediment retention by a wetland is hypothesized be disproportionate to wetland area. As the

area of emergent plants increases, current velocity may be reduced nonlinearly, and a larger proportion
of the sediment may be intercepted, particularly if the wetland is not narrow. This indicator is used only
if some persistent surface water is present in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing
season.
Partly-submerged plants trap suspended sediment with their foliage and stabilize sediment with their
roots. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive
weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Partly-submerged plants trap suspended sediment with their foliage and stabilize sediment with their
roots. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive
weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Wider vegetated areas provide more area for sediment particles borne in runoff to be filtered and
deposited, and are more resistant to erosion of deposited sediment. This indicator is used only if some
open surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Suspended sediment is more likely to be filtered and stranded in vegetation if water levels fluctuate.
However, in some soil types, large water level fluctuations cause erosion that results in more sediment
being exported than retained.
As a wetland's surface water area expands seasonally, water velocity is often reduced due to
increased friction, and material suspended in the expanding water body is more likely to be deposited.
The model ignores this indicator if the wetland has no outlet (channel or overbank), because then all
water and sediment suspended in it is stored.
Wetlands that lack outlets retain all sediment that enters them. Wetlands that connect to downslope
water bodies for only part of the year may export less sediment annually than those with persistent
outflow.
causing water to back up into the wetland, which allows more time for suspended sediments to be
deposited. The types of outlets described here are ones that typically are more constricted than natural
channels. Natural channels usually have adjusted over time to local runoff and thus tend to be wider
relative to volume of flow received. A restricting outlet in wetlands can reduce export of sediment
(Amatya et al. 2003). This indicator is used only if water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14
days of the growing season.
Like a constricted outlet, vegetation and other obstacles create a "roughness" within a wetland that can
slow the water and allow sediment particles to be deposited. This is much truer if the vegetation
intercepts a large proportion of the flow during high-flow periods (i.e., is not merely along an upland
edge that never floods). Although tall and stiff vegetation provides the most resistance and thus
sedimentation, it often tends to have less ground cover, so the net effect is uncertain in some wetlands.
Water takes longer to move through complex channel networks (e.g., braided or sinuous) which
themselves provide additional friction, thus allowing more suspended sediment to be deposited. The
sinuosity is as much the result of sedimentation-erosion dynamics as it is the cause of them. Wetlands
with a sheet flow pattern often retain more suspended solids than channelized systems (Morris et al.
1981). This indicator is used only if an tributary channel is present and water exits the AA or its
wetland for more than 14 days of the growing season.
Runoff velocity is greater in steeper wetlands, thus inhibiting their capacity to retain suspended
sediment, and increasing erosion.
Given the same cover density, taller vegetation tends to trap runoff-borne sediment slightly more
effectively because it is less likely to be completely submerged during high runoff events. In addition it
may be more effective than shorter vegetation in protecting soils from erosion by wind. If wetland is
ungrazed, this indicator is ignored in the calculations, while if grazing is present, it decreases the score.
Dense vegetation offers frictional resistance to water flow, promoting sedimentation of suspended
particles, as well as reducing the resuspension of bottom sediments by waves and currents, and
anchoring soil with roots.
These features cumulatively decelerate runoff, thus allowing for more sedimentation to occur, although
usually only to a minor degree.
If soil has been disturbed, sediment loss rather than retention is more likely occurring. In calculations,
is set to 1 if wetland soil is currently intact, but is scored as a negative if disturbance is occurring.
Rationales
Clay particles flocculate and settle out disproportionately at the salt/fresh water interface, particularly in
the range 2 to 5 ppt (Rochford 1953, Peters and Wollast 1976, Correll 1978).
Tidal wetlands that are extensively flooded on nearly all high tides, i.e., are mostly at low marsh
elevation, tend to accrete waterborne sediment most rapidly.
Intertidal vegetation traps substantial amounts of suspended sediment (Hood 2010). Wider vegetated
areas provide more area for sediment particles to be filtered and deposited, especially if borne in
runoff. Knutson et al. (1981) found that emergent wetlands wider than 30 feet reduced wave energy by
88% while those less than 6 feet wide were relatively ineffective in wave buffering.
See above.
Waves tend to erode the outer edges of wetlands, thus removing their capacity to trap sediment
(Keddy 1983).
particles (Wolaver et al. 1988, Boorman et al. 1998), as well as reducing the resuspension of bottom
sediments by waves and currents.
Rationales
Wetlands that receive water that has violated turbidity, suspended sediment, or toxic substance
standards are potentially more valuable, if they also have the capacity to retain the sediment.
Wetlands connected for longer to upstream water bodies that are overloaded with suspended sediment
have greater potential to influence the sediment and/or toxic substance concentrations in the water
they receive from those water bodies.
Wetlands connected for longer to upstream water bodies that are overloaded with suspended sediment
have greater potential to influence the sediment and/or toxic substance concentrations in the water
they receive from those water bodies.
Wetlands that flow into water bodies that have violated turbidity or suspended sediment standards are
potentially more valuable for protecting those water bodies, if they also retain sediment and/or
associated toxic substances.
Presence of a longer duration connection can mean that sediment will be provided for longer during the
year, thus increasing wetland opportunity to perform the retention function.
Wetlands that are in the lower part of their watershed (including most that are small relative to the size
of their contributing area) are likely to receive proportionally more sediment and be subject to more
erosive floods, thus increasing the value of their capacity to intercept and stabilize suspended
sediment. Watersheds can be defined at multiple scalesl, and all are important to assessing the
significance of this function when it is provided by a wetland or by wetlands cumulatively.
Larger contributing areas, relative to size of a wetland, provide greater opportunity for delivery of more
sediment, and thus sediment-retaining wetlands in such settings may provide more benefits.
The need for (and value of) sediment-trapping capacity (which is potentially provided by wetlands) is
greater when upland runoff is rapid and erosive, as occurs when much of the contributing area contains
unvegetated surface. Other factors being equal, wetlands in developed watersheds (with little
remaining natural cover) tend to receive higher loads of sediment. Their sediment-trapping role could
thus be considered to be more essential and valuable for protecting waters further downstream.
Conditions that foster the transport of eroded sediment from uplands to wetlands increase the
opportunity for wetlands to retain that sediment.
Soils that are more erodible provide wetlands with more opportunity to retain that sediment and
associated toxic substances.
The total sediment load reaching wetlands is greater for wetlands comprising a small portion of a large
contributing area.
Unvegetated areas are frequently sources for suspended sediment and/or associated toxic
substances, thus providing wetlands for more opportunity to retain or process these. In calculations, is
ignored (cell goes blank) if wetland has no tributary or has no contributing area.
The need for (and value of) sediment retention provided by wetlands may be expected to increase the
most in the future where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development
typically increases sediment inputs to wetlands.
Tributaries provide a means for eroded soils to move into a wetland, thus providing more opportunity
for retention.
Although they are often stable, channels that are steeper are somewhat more likely to erode and
contribute sediment to connected downstream wetlands. Wetlands that receive suspended sediment
from those streams are more likely to retain it because of the large differential in current velocities,
which promotes deposition in the wetland.
Vegetated areas reduce erosion, so the greater the proportion of a wetland's perimeter they cover, the
less suspended sediment will reach a wetland, and the less opportunity the wetland will have to
perform this function.
Vegetated areas reduce erosion, so the greater the width of an upland vegetated buffer, the less
suspended sediment will reach a wetland, and the less opportunity the wetland will have to perform this
function. Many studies have shown that sediment retention is greatest in the first 5-20 ft of a buffer, that
is, the most uphill portion, which is closest to potential inputs of runoff-borne sediment (Polyakov et al.
2005, White et al. 2007, Zhang et al. 2010). However, this depends on steepness of the terrain,
erodibility and infiltration capacity of the soil, ground cover, antecedent soil saturation, sediment particle
size, and runoff intensity. Wider buffers are required when runoff carries finer-sized particles (e.g.,
clay).
Although they are often stable, channels that are steeper are somewhat more likely to erode and
contribute sediment to connected downstream wetlands. Wetlands that receive suspended sediment
from those streams are more likely to retain it because of the large differential in current velocities,
which promotes deposition in the wetland.
Waves and boat wakes erode shorelines. Wetlands that are in a position to intercept these have
greater opportunity to maintain stable shorelines, with potential benefits related to shoreline
infrastructure protection.
clay).
clay).
Because actual data on sediment loads are lacking for many wetland watersheds, this approximation
(which is based on a host of sediment-generating activities) is included as well.
AVERAGE(Fluctu,SeasPct)
AVERAGE(DepthDom,EmArea,WidthWet))
[AVERAGE(Gradient, WetPctRCA,WetPctSCA) + AVERAGE(Girreg, Gcover,VegCut,SoilDisturb)] /2
AVERAGE(ThruFlo,EmArea,EmPct,DepthDom,WidthWet)
AVERAGE(OutDura,Constric)))
(MAX(LowMarshT,WidthHiT,WidthLoT) + AVERAGE(WavesT,SalinT,GcoverT)) /2
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreSR, IF((NeverWater=1), DryIntercept, IF((NoOutlet=1),1, ELSE: (3*Connectiv +

2*AVERAGE(Entrain,LiveStorage) + AVERAGE(DryIntercept,WetIntercept)) /6
IF((Tidal=1),3*MAX(WavesT,SlopeBuffT3,ErodeUp,ImpervRCA)+
AVERAGE(SlopeInChanT,TransRCA,Zoning)+AVERAGE(BuffWidthT,PerimPctPerT,))/5, ELSE:
(3*MAX(WQin,ConnecUp,ContamDown,ConnDown,SedRCA,ErodeUp) +
AVERAGE(Inflow,Zoning,ImpervRCA,ImpervSCA,SlopeInChan,TransRCA) +
AVERAGE(BuffWidth,PerimPctPer) + AVERAGE(WetPctRCA,WetPctSCA,Elev) + GISscoreSRV))/7))
Literature Cited
Alberti, M., D. Booth, K. Hill, B. Coburn, C. Avolio, S. Coe, and D. Spirandelli. 2007. The impact of
urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landscape
and Urban Planning 80:345-361.
Amatya, D. M., R. W. Skaggs, J. W. Gilliam, and J. H. Hughes. 2003. Effects of orifice-weir outlet on
hydrology and water quality of a drained forested watershed. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry
27:130-142.
Boorman, L. A., A. Garbutt, and D. Barratt. 1998. The role of vegetation in determining patterns of the
accretion of salt marsh sediment. Geological Society of London, Special Publications 139:389-399.
Correll, D. L. 1978. Estuarine productivity. Bioscience 28:646-650.
Dillaha, T. A., J. H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mostaghimi, and V. O. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of

vegetative filter strips as a best management practice for feed lots. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation 60:1231-1238.
Dillaha, T. A., R. B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural
nonpoint source pollution-control. Transactions of the ASAE 32:513-519.
Evans, R. D. and F. H. Rigler. 1983. A test of lead-210 dating for the measurement of whole lake soft
sediment accumulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:506-515.
Heinemann, H. G. 1981. A new sediment trap efficency curve for small reservoirs. Water Resources
Bulletin 17:825-830.
Hogan, D. M. and M. R. Walbridge. 2007. Urbanization and nutrient retention in freshwater riparian
wetlands. Ecological Applications 17:1142-1155.
Hood, W. G. 2010. Tidal channel meander formation by depositional rather than erosional processes:
examples from the prograding Skagit River Delta (Washington, USA). Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 35:319-330.
Keddy, P. A. 1983. Shoreline vegetation in Axe Lake, Ontario: effects of exposure on zonation
patterns. Ecology 64:331-344.
Knutson, P., J. Ford, M. Inskeep, and J. Oyler. 1981. National survey of planted salt marshes
(vegetative stabilization and wave stress). Wetlands 1:129-157.
McBride, M. and D. B. Booth. 2005. Urban impacts on physical stream condition: Effects of spatial
scale, connectivity, and longitudinal trends. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
41:565-580.
Morris, A. W., A. J. Bale, and R. J. M. Howland. 1981. Nutrient distributions in an estuary - evidence of
chemical precipitation of dissolved silicate and phosphate. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science
12:205-216.
Nieswand, G. H., R. M. Hordon, T. B. Shelton, B. B. Chavooshian, and S. Blarr. 1990. Buffer strips to
protect water-supply reservoirs - A model and recommendations. Water Resources Bulletin 26:959-
966.
Nolan, K. M. and D. C. Marron. 1985. Contrast in stream-channel response to major storms in two
mountainous areas of California. Geology 13:135-138.
Peters, J. J. and R. Wollast. 1976. Role of sedimentation in the self-purification of the Scheldt Estuary.
Proceedings of the Third Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. U. S. Geological Survey,
Denver, CO.
Phillips, J. D. 1989. An evaluation of the factors determining the effectiveness of water quality buffer
zones. Journal of Hydrology 107:133-145.
Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M. H. Ryder. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint
source pollutant loading into surface water: A review. Environmental Reviews 13:129-144.
Rochford, D. J. and R. S. Spencer. 1953. Oceanographical Station List. CSIRO Australia, 15. CSIRO
Division of Fisheries, Australia.
Trimble, G. R., Jr. and R. S. Sartz. 1957. How far from a stream should a logging road be located?
Journal of Forestry 55:339-341.
White, W. J., L. A. Morris, D. B. Warnell, A. P. Pinho, C. R. Jackson, and L. T. West. 2007. Sediment
retention by forested filter strips in the Piedmont of Georgia. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
62:453-463.
Wigington, P. J., T. J. Moser, and D. R. Lindeman. 2005. Stream network expansion: a riparian water
quality factor. Hydrological Processes 19:1715-1721.
Wolaver, T. G., R. F. Dame, J. D. Spurrier, and A. B. Miller. 1988. Sediment exchange between a
euhaline salt marsh in South Carolina and the adjacent tidal creek. Journal of Coastal Research 4:17–
26.
Zhang, X., X. Liu, M. Zhang, R. A. Dahlgren, and M. Eitzel. 2010. A review of vegetated buffers and a
meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journal of
Environmental Quality 39:76-84.
Phosphorus The effectiveness for retaining phosphorus for long periods (>1
growing season) as a result of chemical adsorption, or from
Retention translocation by plants to belowground zones with less potential for
Non-Tidal Function physically or chemically remobilizing phosphorus into the water
column.
(WetPctRCA)
Indicators
<1% of its RCA.

% of (WetPctSCA)


>95% of the AA.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
F7 Emergent Plants -- Area
(EmArea)
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
F19 Floating Algae & At some time of the year, most of the AA's otherwise-unshaded water surface is covered by floating
Duckweed (Algae) mats of algae, or small (<1 inch) floating plants such as duckweed, Azolla, Wolffia, or Riccia. Enter 1, if
true.
F20 Floating-leaved & SAV (submerged & floating-leaved aquatic vegetation, excluding the species listed above) occupies an
Submerged Aquatic annual maximum of:
Vegetation (SAV)
none, or <5% of the water area.
5 to <25% of the water area.
50 to 95% of the water area.
>95% of the water area.
many SAV plants present, but impossible to select from the above categories.
F24 Ice-free (IceDura) During most years, most of the AA's surface water (if any) does not freeze, or freezes for fewer than 4
continuous weeks.
Enter 1, if true.
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
F27 Salinity, Alkalinity, The AA's surface water is mostly:
Conductance (Salin)
Brackish or saline. Plants that indicate saline conditions dominate the vegetation. Salt crust may be
obvious around the perimeter and on flats.
Slightly brackish. Plants that indicate saline conditions are common. Salt crust may or may not be
present along perimeter.
Fresh. [Note: Assume this to be the condition unless wetland is known to be a playa or there is other
contradicting evidence].
Unknown.

F33.
(Constric)
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.
(SoilTex)
F60 Restored or Created The AA is (or is within, or contains) a "new" wetland resulting from human actions (e.g., excavation,
Wetland (NewWet) impoundment) or other factors affecting what was upland (non-hydric) soil. Or, some part of the AA
was originally a wetland, was artificially drained for many years, and has since had its water regime
partly or wholly restored or rehabilitated (e.g., by ditch plugs, berms, tile breakage, non-maintenance).
Yes, and constructed or restored mostly within last 3 years.

Yes, and constructed or restored mostly 3-7 years ago.
Yes, and constructed or restored mostly >7 years ago.
Yes, but time of origin or restoration unknown.
No.
Unknown if wetland is constructed, restored, or natural.
S5 Soil or Sediment
Tidal Function
Assessment Area
(SoilDisturb).
T1 Estuarine Position The AA's relative position in the estuary is:

(EstPosT)
Lower 1/3 (often on a bay and distant from the head-of-tide of a major river; includes most saline tidal
Indicators wetlands).
Mid 1/3.
Upper 1/3 (near the head-of-tide of a major river; includes most brackish and fresh tidal wetlands).

Moderately saline (5 to 25 ppt salinity).
Unknown.
None, or <1%.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(WidthLoT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T34 Soil Composition Based on at least three pits you dig at points about equidistant across the AA, the composition of the
(SoilTexT) surface layer of the soil (2" depth) (but excluding the duff layer) is mostly:
Value
Indicators Nutrient transformation (NT)


Phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, or algae.

Beween AA & Water
the problem area).
(WetPctRCA)
<1% of its RCA.

OF35 Runoff Contributing Area
(RCA) - Wetland as % of
(WetPctRCA)

<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
Mostly true.
Somewhat true.
Mostly untrue.
Slight.
Moderate.
Severe.
Very severe.
% of (WetPctSCA)

<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.

OF42 Zoning (Zoning)

F34 Input Channel Gradient The gradient of the tributary with the largest inflow, averaged over the 150 ft. before it enters the AA
(SlopeInChan) (but excluding any portion of the distance where water travels through a pipe) is:
<1%.
1 to <3%.
3 to 6%.
>6%.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(EstPosT)
wetlands).
Mid 1/3.
T11 Gradient of nontidal The gradient of the largest nontidal freshwater input tributary or ditch, averaged 150 f. from where it
Input Channel enters the AA, is:
(SlopeInChanT)
<1%.
T11 Gradient of nontidal
Input Channel
(SlopeInChanT)
1 to <3%
3 to 6%
>6%
(PerimPctPerT) <5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
T30 Slope from Disturbed The percent slope of the land between the AA and the most extensive disturbed upslope area (i.e.,
Lands (SlopeBuffT) unvegetated or non-perennial cover) is mostly:
<1% (flat -- almost no noticeable slope).
2-6%.
7-10%.
11-30%.
>30%.
S2 Accelerated Inputs of Stressor Subscore=
Nutrients (NutrLoad)
Function Subindices
Function Subindices
Function Score for Phosphorus Retenti
Values Score for Phosphorus Retenti

PR
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 1.00
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0 0.00
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0
0.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
Data X
Points
0 0.00
0
0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0
0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0 0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 8 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 8 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0.00 0.00

Resistance in Dry Zone 0.10
(Intercept Dry)
Interception and/or Friction

0.00
in wet zone (Intercept Wet)
Connectivity 0.00
Adsorption 0.00
Desorption 0.17
Tidal 0.00
ore for Phosphorus Retention F 0.36
ore for Phosphorus Retention V 0.00

Rationales
Increased sediment deposition, and thus (by correlation in some cases) phosphorus retention, can be
predicted partly by an increased ratio of the volume of a storage basin to the volume of runoff entering
the basin (Heinemann 1981). This indicator is a rough correlate of that ratio.
See above.
In many cases, sediments that remain covered with water year-round (and longer) tend to become
anaerobic and release phosphorus, especially in deeper wetlands not exposed to much wind mixing.
However, P is sometimes retained more effectively In wetlands which are permanently flooded than in
wetlands where water level drawdown allows leaching of P from organic soils (White et al. 2004). In
dry prairie soils of the Willamette Valley, increases in moisture are associated with decreased P
availability, i.e., increased P retention (Pfeifer-Meister & Bridgham 2007). This indicator is used only if
Deeper wetlands are more likely to experience anoxic conditions that promote P mobility and export.
However, deeper waters also imply slower water velocity, longer water detention time, more time for
biological processing of phosphorus, and reduced likelihood of phosphorus associated with deposited
sediments being resuspended by wind mixing or currents. Deeper wetlands are less likely to
experience fluctuations between aerobic and anaerobic conditions, which otherwise promote
phosphorus release. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than
4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Plants take up phosphorus from sediments (and some, from the water directly) and can facilitate long-
term retention if transferred to roots that are not as subject as the foliage is to leaching the nutrients
back into the water column. Plants also facilitate sediment deposition by slowing the water, and much
phosphorus is adsorbed on that sediment so is also deposited and potentially retained. This indicator
is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing
season.
Plants take up phosphorus from sediments (and some, from the water directly) and can facilitate long-
term retention if transferred to roots that are not as subject as the foliage is to leaching the nutrients
back into the water column. Plants also facilitate sediment deposition by slowing the water, and much
phosphorus is adsorbed on that sediment so is also deposited and potentially retained. This indicator
season.
Although plants take up phosphorus (see above) their decaying foliage also frequently creates anoxic
conditions that promote P release from sediments, if iron concentrations are low and mixing by
currents and wind is poor (as it tends to be when emergent plants occupy most of a water body). This
indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of
the growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Wider vegetated areas provide more area for phosphorus adsorbed to sediment particles in runoff to
be filtered and deposited. Where phosphorus is mainly attached to sediment (as often it is), then buffer
widths sufficient for sediment retention (generally 10-30 ft) may be almost as effective for retaining
phosphorus (White et al. 2007). But if phosphorus is mostly in dissolved form (orthophosphate, or
soluble reactive phosphorus), then vegetated buffers may need to be very large or may not be
effective at all (Prepas et al. 2001, Hoffman et al. 2009). This indicator is used only if some open
surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
A proliferation of algae and floating aquatics can indicate that the wetland is receiving more nutrients
than it is capable of processing effectively. These non-rooted plants do not oxygenate the sediments,
they take up and store nutrients only briefly, and their die-offs create anoxic conditions that mobilize
phosphorus temporarily retained in sediments. In the calculations, abundant algae reduces the score
but absence of blooms does not increase it. This indicator is used only if some open ponded surface
water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Although aquatic plants take up phosphorus, their decaying foliage also frequently creates anoxic
conditions that promote P release from sediments, if iron concentrations are low and mixing by
currents and wind is poor (as it tends to be when SAV occupies most of a water body). This indicator is
used only if some open ponded surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of
the growing season.
Wetlands that are frozen for long periods are generally in regions with shorter growing seasons,
resulting in less opportunity for biological uptake of phosphorus. Freeze-thaw cycles in wetlands are
often characterized by change from aerobic to anaerobic conditions, which can mobilize phosphorus in
sediments. Also, less infiltration occurs when wetlands are frozen. However, over the long term freeze-
thaw cycles may rejuvenate the capacity of some sediments to adsorb additional phosphorus (Wang et
al. 2007). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Wetting and drying of sediments, as happens especially in wetlands with large water level fluctuations,
increases the leaching and desorption of phosphorus from sediment organic matter, thus resulting in
net export. However, stable water levels also can promote phosphorus export (not retention) because
they are often associated with anoxic conditions that result in increased mobility of phosphorus.
Sediment P release and subsequent export is particularly strong during periods of seasonal anoxia
(Burley et al. 2001).
In alkaline wetlands, which typically have high salinity, phosphorus often complexes with calcium and
is immobilized at least temporarily, thus leading to greater retention.
Wetlands that lack outlets retain all phosphorus that enters them. Wetlands that connect to downslope
water bodies for only part of the year may export less phosphorus annually than those with persistent
outflow.
causing water to back up into the wetland, which allows more time for sediments to be deposited and
phosphorus to be processed. The types of outlets described here are ones that typically are more
constricted than natural channels, which usually have adjusted over time to local runoff and thus are
wider relative to volume of flow received. A restricting outlet in wetlands can reduce export of
phosphorus (Amatya et al. 2003). This indicator is used only if water exits the AA or its wetland for
more than 14 days of the growing season.
slow the water and allow phosphorus adsorbed to sediment particles to be deposited. This is much
truer if the vegetation intercepts a large proportion of the flow during high-flow periods (i.e., is not
merely along an upland edge that never floods). Although tall and stiff vegetation provides the most
resistance and thus may be more effective at allowing sediment to be deposited, it often tends to have
less ground cover, so the net effect is uncertain in some wetlands. Water takes longer to move through
complex channel networks (e.g., braided or sinuous) which themselves provide additional friction, thus
allowing more suspended sediment and the phosphorus associated with it to be deposited. Wetlands
with a sheet flow pattern often retain more total phosphorus than channelized systems (Morris et al.
1981, Knox et al. 2008). This indicator is used only if an tributary channel is present and water exits
the AA or its wetland for more than 14 days of the growing season.
Flatter gradients result in more deposition of suspended sediments that are often phosphorus-rich,
thus increasing retention.
Dense vegetation offers frictional resistance to runoff, promoting sedimentation of suspended particles
and reducing erosion. This promotes phosphorus retention because phosphorus is typically adsorbed
to soil particles.
These features cumulatively decelerate runoff, thus allowing for more deposition of phosphorus-
containing suspended sediments to occur, although usually only to a minor degree.
Soil or sediment texture, and especially clay content of soil, is one of the most important predictors of
phosphorus retention. That is because clay is often high in aluminum and iron, which P adsorbs to
quickly and tightly thus favoring long term retention. However, per unit volume, clay soils have less
interpore space for adsorption and processing of P than do coarser soils. Chemical complexes formed
with soil organic matter can retain P, although excessive organic matter buildup in soils can acidify soil,
which restricts nutrient availability and thus plant capacity to take up and retain phosphorus (Prescott
et al. 2000).
phosphorus retention. That is because clay is often high in aluminum and iron, which P adsorbs to
quickly and tightly thus favoring long term retention. However, per unit volume, clay soils have less
interpore space for adsorption and processing of P than do coarser soils. Chemical complexes formed
with soil organic matter can retain P, although excessive organic matter buildup in soils can acidify soil,
which restricts nutrient availability and thus plant capacity to take up and retain phosphorus (Prescott
et al. 2000).
Reflooding of soils that have been dry for extended periods, as occurs during restoration, can mobilize
phosphorus, especially if flooding creates anoxic conditions (Burley et al. 2001, Duff et al. 2009) or if
large quantities of leaf litter and other organic matter are present and rapidly decompose or leach
phosphorus. Restoration of Oregon's Williamson River Delta wetlands, where P concentrations of up to
0.63 mg/L were much greater than in the adjoining Upper Klamath Lake, released 2 mg of P to the
lake during the 3 weeks post-restoration, but the release was not expected to be long-term (Wong et
al. 2011).
Phosphorus flux is often correlated with sediment flux. If soil has been disturbed, sediment loss (and
thus phosphorus loss) rather than retention is more likely occurring. In calculations, is set to 1 if
wetland soil is currently intact, but is scored as a negative if disturbance is occurring.
Rationales
At least 2 studies reported greater phosphorus adsorption in upper than lower parts of an estuary
(Sundareshwar & Morris 1999, Jordan et al. 2008).
At least 2 studies that spanned a salinity gradient reported greater phosphorus adsorption in less
saline wetlands (Sundareshwar & Morris 1999, Jordan et al. 2008). Another study found no difference
between tidal and non-tidal wetlands with regard to phosphorus cycling rates (Verhoeven et al. 2001).
Clay particles flocculate and settle out disproportionately at the salt/fresh water interface, particularly in
the range 2 to 5 ppt, and high levels of P are often associated with such particles (Rochford 1953).
Tidal wetlands that are extensively flooded on nearly all high tides, i.e., are mostly at low marsh
elevation, tend to accrete waterborne sediment and its associated P most rapidly.
Wider vegetated areas provide more area for sediment particles borne in runoff to be filtered and
deposited, and with them, considerable amounts of phosphorus.
See above.
Waves tend to erode the outer edges of wetlands, thus removing their capacity to trap sediment and
the associated phosphorus.
particles and associated P, as well as reducing the resuspension of bottom sediments and associated
P by waves and currents.
Soil or sediment texture, and especially clay content of soil, is one of the most important predictors of
phosphorus retention. Excessive organic matter buildup in soils can inhibit plant germination and
growth by acidifying the soil, which restricts nutrient availability and thus plant capacity to take up and
retain phosphorus (Prescott et al. 2000). However, phosphorus can also form complexes with soil
organic matter and thus be retained.
Rationales
Wetlands that receive water that is overenriched with P (or suspended sediments that typically have
high P concentrations) are potentially more valuable to downstream waters, if they also have the
capacity to retain the P. Concentrations of P within the range of 0.01–0.3 ppm are associated with
rapidly increased algal growth.
Wetlands connected for longer to upstream water bodies that are overloaded with P have greater
potential to influence the P concentrations in the water they receive from those water bodies.
Wetlands that contribute water to water bodies that are overenriched due to P are potentially more
valuable, if they also have the capacity to retain P.
Presence of a longer duration connection can mean that sediment will be provided for longer during
the year, thus increasing wetland opportunity to perform the retention function.
Wetlands that are in the lower part of their watershed (including most that are small relative to the size
of their contributing area) are likely to receive proportionally more phosphorus, thus increasing the
value of their capacity to process P. Watersheds can be defined at multiple scales, and all are
important to assessing the significance of this function when it is provided by a wetland or by wetlands
cumulatively.
Wetlands with relatively large contributing areas are likely to receive more sediment and nutrient
inputs, providing opportunity for processing and retention.
Impervious surfaces and bare soil retain less sediment and associated phosphorus, allowing it to be
exported instead to wetlands. In calculations, is ignored (cell goes blank) if wetland appears to have
no contributing area.
Conditions that foster the transport of eroded sediment and P from uplands to wetlands increase the
opportunity for wetlands to retain the P. In calculations, is ignored (cell goes blank) if wetland appears
to have no contributing area.
Proximity to a phosphorus source increases opportunity for retention, and eroding soil is often a major
source of P. In calculations, is ignored (cell goes blank) if wetland appears to have no contributing
area.
Impervious surfaces and bare soil retain less sediment and associated phosphorus, allowing it to be
exported instead to wetlands. In calculations, is ignored (cell goes blank) if wetland has no tributary or
has no contributing area.
In the future, the need for (and value of) phosphorus retention as provided by wetlands may increase
the most where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development often
increases nutrient runoff. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands should be
considered more valuable.
In the future, the need for (and value of) phosphorus retention as provided by wetlands may increase
the most where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development often
increases nutrient runoff. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands should be
Inflowing waters transport sediment and associated phosphorus into a wetland, thus improving
opportunity for processing and retention.
Steeper input channels are likely to transport more sediment and associated phosphorus into a
wetland.
When perennial cover is replaced by impervious surfaces or annual cover, exports of sediment and
associated phosphorus to wetlands typically increase. In Oregon, forested areas and some other
perennial covers are least likely to export phosphorus and nitrate (Nash et al. 2009).
Tidal incursions of ocean waters into many Oregon estuaries are a major source of phosphorus during
most of the year (Lee & Brown 2009). This increases the opportunity for N-removal by tidal marshes
and thus their value.
wetland.
wetland.
Steeper slopes are likely to transport more sediment and associated phosphorus into a wetland.
Because actual data on phosphorus loads are lacking for many wetland watersheds, this
approximation based on a host of phosphorus-generating activities is included as well.
AVERAGE (Gradient, AVERAGE(WetPctRCA,WetPctSCA,Girreg,Gcover,SoilDisturb))
AVERAGE(ThruFlo,EmPct,EmArea,WidthWet,IceDura)
AVERAGE(OutDura,Constric)
AVERAGE(SoilTex,Salin)
AVERAGE(Algae, SAV,PermW,DepthDom,Fluctu,NewWet)
AVERAGE(SoilTexT,MAX(EstPosT,SalinT), MAX(WidthHiT,WidthLoT,LowMarshT),
AVERAGE(WavesT,GcoverT))
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScorePR, IF((NoOutlet=1),1, IF((NeverWater=1),AVERAGE(IntercepDry,Adsorb),

ELSE: (3*Adsorb + 2*AVERAGE(Connec, Desorb) + AVERAGE(IntercepWet,IntercepDry)) /6)
IF((Tidal=1), (EstPosT + 3*AVERAGE(WQin,ConnecUp,NutrLoad) +

AVERAGE(ErodeUp,SlopeBuffT,ImpervRCA,SlopeInChanT,TransRCA) +
AVERAGE(BuffWidthT,PerimPctPerT, Zoning)) /6, ELSE:
(3*AVERAGE(WQin,ConnecUp,ContamDown, ConnDown,NutrLoad) +
AVERAGE(ErodeUp,ImpervRCA,ImpervSCA,Inflow,SlopeInChan,TransRCA) +
AVERAGE(BuffWidth,PerimPctPer,GISscorePR, Zoning) +
AVERAGE(WetPctRCA,WetPctSCA,Elev))/6)
Literature Cited
Aldous, A., P. McCormick, C. Ferguson, S. Graham, and C. Craft. 2005. Hydrologic regime controls
soil phosphorus fluxes in restoration and undisturbed wetlands. Restoration Ecology 13:341-347.
Aldous, A. R., C. B. Craft, C. J. Stevens, M. J. Barry, and L. B. Bach. 2007. Soil phosphorus release
from a restoration wetland, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Wetlands 27:1025-1035.
Amatya, D. M., R. W. Skaggs, J. W. Gilliam, and J. H. Hughes. 2003. Effects of orifice-weir outlet on
hydrology and water quality of a drained forested watershed. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry
27:130-142.
Burley, K. L., E. E. Prepas, and P. A. Chambers. 2001. Phosphorus release from sediments in
hardwater eutrophic lakes: the effects of redox-sensitive and -insensitive chemical treatments.
Freshwater Biology 46:1061-1074.
Duff, J. H., K. D. Carpenter, D. T. Snyder, K. K. Lee, R. J. Avanzino, and F. J. Triska. 2009.
Phosphorus and nitrogen legacy in a restoration wetland, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Wetlands
29:735-746.
Heinemann, H. G. 1981. A new sediment trap efficency curve for small reservoirs. Water Resources
Bulletin 17:825-830.
Hoffmann, C. C., C. Kjaergaard, J. Uusi-Kamppa, H. C. B. Hansen, and B. Kronvang. 2009.
Phosphorus retention in riparian buffers: Review of their efficiency. Journal of Environmental Quality
38:1942-1955.
Jordan, T. E., J. C. Cornwell, W. R. Boynton, and J. T. Anderson. 2008. Changes in phosphorus
biogeochemistry along an estuarine salinity gradient: The iron conveyer belt. Limnology and
Oceanography 53:172-184.
Knox, A. K., R. A. Dahgren, K. W. Tate, and E. R. Atwill. 2008. Efficacy of natural wetlands to retain
nutrient, sediment and microbial pollutants. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:1837-1846.
Lee II, H. and C. A. Brown. 2009. Classification of Regional Patterns of Environmental Drivers and
Benthic Habitats in Pacific Northwest Estuaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division, Newport, OR.
12:205-216.
Nash, M. S., D. T. Heggem, D. Ebert, T. G. Wade, and R. K. Hall. 2009. Multi-scale landscape factors
influencing stream water quality in the state of Oregon. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
156:343-360.
Pfeifer-Meister, L. and S. D. Bridgham. 2007. Seasonal and spatial controls over nutrient cycling in a
Pacific Northwest prairie. Ecosystems 10:1250-1260.
Prepas, E. E., B. Pinel-Alloul, D. Planas, G. Méthot, S. Paquet, and S. Reedyk. 2001. Forest harvest
impacts on water quality and aquatic biota on the Boreal Plain: Introduction to the TROLS lake
program. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:421-436.
Prescott, C. E., L. Vesterdal, J. Pratt, K. H. Venner, L. M. de Montigny, and J. A. Trofymow. 2000.
Nutrient concentrations and nitrogen mineralization in forest floors of single species conifer plantations
in coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1341-1352.
Snyder, D. T. and J. L. Morace. 1997. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading from Drained Wetlands
Adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon. US Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 97-4059. US Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO.
Sundareshwar, P. V. and J. T. Morris. 1999. Phosphorus sorption characteristics of intertidal marsh
sediments along an estuarine salinity gradient. Limnology and Oceanography 44:1693-1701.
Verhoeven, J. T. A., D. F. Whigham, R. van Logtestijn, and J. O'Neill. 2001. A comparative study of
nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in tidal and non-tidal riverine wetlands. Wetlands 21:210-222.
Wang, G. P., J. S. Liu, H. Y. Zhao, J. D. Wang, and J. B. Yu. 2007. Phosphorus sorption by freeze-
thaw treated wetland soils derived from a winter-cold zone (Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China).
Geoderma 138:153-161.
White, J. R., K. R. Reddy, and M. Z. Moustafa. 2004. Influence of hydrologic regime and vegetation on
phosphorus retention in Everglades stormwater treatment area wetlands. Hydrological Processes
18:343-355.
White, W. J., L. A. Morris, D. B. Warnell, A. P. Pinho, C. R. Jackson, and L. T. West. 2007. Sediment
retention by forested filter strips in the Piedmont of Georgia. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
62:453-463.
Wong, S. W., M. J. Barry, A. R. Aldous, N. T. Rudd, H. A. Hendrixson, and C. M. Doehring. 2011.
Nutrient release from a recently flooded delta wetland: comparison of field measurements to laboratory
results. Wetlands 31:433-443.
Nitrate The effectiveness for retaining particulate nitrate and converting
soluble nitrate and ammonium to nitrogen gas, primarily through the
Removal &
Non-Tidal Function microbial process of denitrification, while generating little or no nitrous
Retention oxide (a potent “greenhouse gas”).
OF41 Upland Edge Shape Most of the edge between the AA's wetland and upland is (select one):
Indicators Linear: a significant proportion of the wetland's upland edge is straight, as in wetlands bounded partly
or wholly by dikes or roads, or the AA is entirely surrounded by water or other wetlands.
Intermediate: Wetland's shape is (a) ovoid, or (b) mildly ragged edge, and/or (c) contains a lesser
amount of artificially straight edge.
Convoluted: Wetland perimeter is many times longer than maximum width of the wetland, with many
alcoves and indentations ("fingers").
OF43 Growing Degree Days According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Growing Degree Days layer, the long term normal Growing
(GDD) Degree Days category at the approximate location of the AA is:
<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.

>95% of the AA.
(EmPct)
F14 Ponded Open Water When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the distribution (in aerial view) of ponded open
Distribution - Wettest water patches larger than 0.01 acre (400 sq. ft) within the AA is (must meet both a and b criteria):
(WaterMixWet)
F14 Ponded Open Water
Distribution - Wettest
(WaterMixWet)
(a) Vegetation and open water EACH comprise 30-70% of the AA (including its bordering waters if any)
AND (b) There are many small patches of open water scattered widely within vegetation or many small
vegetation clump "islands" scattered widely within open water. Typical (for example) of some extensive
bulrush and cattail marshes.
AND (b) There are only a few (or no) small patches of open water scattered widely within vegetation or
a few small vegetation clump "islands" scattered widely within open water.
(a) Vegetation or open water comprise >70% of the AA (and its bordering waters) AND (b) There are
several small patches of open water scattered within vegetation or several small vegetation clump
"islands" scattered within open water.
(a) Vegetation or open water comprise >70% of the AA (and its bordering waters) AND (b) Open water
is mostly in a single area (e.g., center of the wetland) and vegetation is in the rest (e.g., periphery), with
almost no intermixing. (Typical of many ponds excavated for livestock watering, stormwater treatment,
mineral extraction as well as many wetlands that are inundated only temporarily each year).
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
F18 Ponded Open Water When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, the distribution of ponded open water patches
Distribution - (Driest) larger than
(WaterMixDry) 0.01 acre (400 sq. ft) within the AA is:
almost no intermixing. Typical of many ponds excavated for livestock watering, stormwater treatment,
mineral extraction as well as many wetlands that are inundated only temporarily each year.
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
>75% of the AA.

F33.
(Constric)
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:

F44 Moss Wetland (Moss) The AA's ground cover is primarily a deep layer of moss, and/or soils are mainly peat or organic muck.
Also, the soil remains water-saturated to within 3 inches of the surface during most of a normal year.
Surface water within the AA often is absent or confined to small scattered pools or ditches. Enter 1, if
true.
F45 Woody Extent Within the vegetated part of the AA, woody vegetation (trees, shrubs, robust vines) taller than 3 ft
(WoodyPct) occupies:
<5% of the vegetated AA, and fewer than 10 trees are present. Enter 1 and SKIP to F51.
5 to <25% of the vegetated AA.
50 to 95% of the vegetated AA.
>95% of the vegetated part of the AA.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.


No.
S5 Soil or Sediment Stressor subscore=
Assessment Area
(SoilDisturb).
Tidal Function

(EstPosT)
Mid 1/3.

Unknown.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(WidthLoT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
Value
OF32 Drinking Water Source According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Surface Water Drinking Water Source Areas layer and the Ground
(DEQ) (DWsource) Water Drinking Water Source Areas layer, the AA is within:
The source area for a surface-water drinking water (DW) source.

Indicators
The source area for a groundwater drinking water source.
Neither of above.
OF33 Groundwater Risk According to ORWAP Map Viewer's Groundwater Management Areas layer and the Sole Source
Designations (GWrisk) Aquifer layer, the AA is: Select All that apply
Within a designated Groundwater Management Area (ODEQ).

Within a designated Sole Source Aquifer area (EPA): the North Florence Dunal Aquifer.
Neither of above.
F71 Domestic Wells (Wells) Wells or water bodies that currently provide drinking water are:
<300 ft and downslope from the AA or at same elevation.

300 to 1500 ft and downslope or at same elevation.
>1500 ft downslope, or none downslope, or no information.
(EstPosT)
wetlands).
Mid 1/3.
Function Subindices
Function Score for Nitrate Remo
Values Score for Nitrate Remo

NR
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1.00
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 5 0
0
0.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Warmth 0.00
0.00
Resistance
Hydrologic Isolation 0.00
Organic Content 0.38
Redox 0.00
Tidal 0.00
on Score for Nitrate Removal F 0.47
ues Score for Nitrate Removal V 0.00

Rationales
Most N removal occurs at the interface of oxic and anoxic surfaces. Those conditions are most likely to
occur at the transition between wetland and upland. Thus, longer edge to area ratio suggests the
potential for more N removal per unit area.
Microbes responsible for most of the nitrate removal in wetlands thrive best at warmer soil or sediment
temperatures (e.g., Beutel et al. 2009). A large number of Growing Degree Days is one indicator of the
likelihood of this condition.
Exposing sediments to the air can cause them to release accumulated nitrate, potentially resulting in
less removal. In contrast, long-duration flooding usually makes sediments anaerobic, which is
necessary for the denitrification process. Denitrification processes occur when anaerobic conditions
occur, which are more likely when surface water is present and blocks gas exchange. Shallow
inundation tends to decrease emissions of nitrous oxide (Zaman et al. 2007, Song et al. 2008). This
indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the
growing season.
Plants take up nitrate from sediments and can facilitate retention if N is transferred to roots not as
subject to erosion as foliage. Plants also facilitate sediment deposition by slowing the water, and some
nitrate is associated with that sediment so is also deposited and potentially retained. Perhaps most
importantly, roots of some plants oxidize the anoxic sediments that surround them and this facilitates
denitrification, the major process for removing soluble nitrate from water. This indicator is used only if
some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season, and
only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Greater interspersion of open water and vegetation supports greater nitrate removal (Thullen et al.
2002). That is partly because open water areas tend to be more aerobic, whereas densely vegetated
areas often are anaerobic, except where plant roots oxidize a small part of the sediment. The
combination of anaerobic and aerobic areas in close proximity facilitates nitrate loss through
denitrification. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Wider vegetated areas provide more area for biological processing of nitrate, and for nitrate adsorbed
to sediment particles in runoff to be filtered and deposited. The most comprehensive and sophisticated
analysis that used statistical procedures (meta-analysis) to synthesize results from over 60 peer-
reviewed studies of nitrate removal by buffers in temperate climates found that widths of approximately
10 ft, 92 ft, and 367 ft are needed to achieve 50%, 75%, and 90% removal efficiencies for nitrate
(Mayer et al. 2005, Mayer et al. 2007). This assumed that most inputs are through subsurface flow.
When surface flow dominates (as often occurs during storms, and where subsurface storm drains have
been installed around homes), buffers of 109 ft, 387 ft, and 810 ft are needed to achieve the same
removal efficiencies (Mayer et al. 2005). This indicator is used only if some open surface water persists
in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Wetting and drying of sediments, as happens especially in wetlands with large and frequent water level
fluctuations (because a wider area is subject to wetting-drying and associated aerobic-anaerobic shift),
increases the loss of nitrate via denitrification. In Oregon, decreased total nitrogen in streams was
associated with increased stream flashiness that had resulted from urbanization (Waite et al. 2006).
Water table depth and duration of saturation affect redox and thus influence N cycling (D’Amore et al.
2009). Denitrification rates are highest at the interface between aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Such
conditions often develop where a ponded area expands seasonally into vegetated areas. In addition,
levels of soil organic matter are often higher in seasonal wetlands than in permanently inundated ones
(Shaffer & Ernst 1999), and organic matter is key to supporting denitrification.
Wetlands that lack outlets retain or remove all nitrate that enters them. Wetlands that connect to
downslope water bodies for only part of the year may export less nitrate annually than those with
persistent outflow.
causing water to back up into the wetland, which allows more time for nitrate to be processed. The
types of outlets described here are ones that typically are more constricted than natural channels,
which usually have adjusted over time to local runoff and thus are wider relative to volume of flow
received.This indicator is used only if water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14 days of the
growing season.
slow the water and allow more time for biological processing of nitrate. This is much truer if the
vegetation intercepts a large proportion of the flow during high-flow periods (i.e., is not merely along an
upland edge that never floods). Water takes longer to move through complex channel networks (e.g.,
braided or sinuous) which themselves provide additional friction, thus allowing more suspended
sediment and the nitrate associated with it to be deposited. Increased channel complexity also implies
greater interspersion of open water and vegetation (see above) and in some cases, more hyporheic
flow (Burkholder et al. 2008) -- both of which favor nitrate removal (Fernald et al. 2006). Wetlands with
a sheet flow pattern often retain more nitrate than channelized systems (Morris et al. 1981, Knox et al.
2008). This indicator is used only if an tributary channel is present and water exits the AA or its wetland
for more than 14 days of the growing season.
vegetation intercepts a large proportion of the flow during high-flow periods (i.e., is not merely along an
upland edge that never floods). Water takes longer to move through complex channel networks (e.g.,
braided or sinuous) which themselves provide additional friction, thus allowing more suspended
sediment and the nitrate associated with it to be deposited. Increased channel complexity also implies
greater interspersion of open water and vegetation (see above) and in some cases, more hyporheic
flow (Burkholder et al. 2008) -- both of which favor nitrate removal (Fernald et al. 2006). Wetlands with
a sheet flow pattern often retain more nitrate than channelized systems (Morris et al. 1981, Knox et al.
2008). This indicator is used only if an tributary channel is present and water exits the AA or its wetland
Flat gradients result in longer detention times, which enhance processing of nitrate and support
anaerobic conditions that increase the extent of denitrification.
Many studies have highlighted the importance of subsurface (hyporheic) flow, or groundwater
discharge, to denitrification rates in both riverine (Clilverd et al. 2008) and non-riverine (e.g., Kroeger &
Charette 2008) wetlands. Groundwater is often iron-rich, and addition or removal of nitrate can
significantly affect the ecological mobility of iron and perhaps some other metals in wetland soils
(Shrestha et al. 2011).
Dentirification rates are lower in many moss-dominated wetlands than in marshes and floodplain
riparian forests. Marshes tend to retain or remove nitrogen (Bedford et al. 1999).
Tree roots can extend the subsurface zone of denitrification by oxidizing deeper subsurface areas, as
well as retaining drifting snow which helps sustain soil moisture necessary for denitrification. Trees also
take up and temporarily retain nitrate, as well as adding carbon to the soil, which promotes
denitrification. However, less canopy cover increases soil warming in spring (Hennon et al. 2010)
which could accelerate denitrification.
Dense vegetation offers frictional resistance to runoff, promoting deposition of organic nitrogen and
resisting erosion. Vegetation takes up nitrate at least seasonally and plant roots can promote
denitrification by providing a carbon source and oxidizing otherwise anoxic subsurface soils. However,
shade from plants reduces soil temperature which slows the denitrification rate (Hogg & Lieffers 1991),
and emissions of harmful nitrous oxide can be greater in wetlands with denser vegetation.
These features cumulatively decelerate runoff, thus allowing for more biological processing and
deposition of nitrate-containing suspended sediments, although usually only to a minor degree. The
presence of soil cracks implies a potential downward extension of the aerobic zone, interspersing it
with anaerobic areas, which should lead to greater denitrification. Studies of wastewater treatment
wetlands have shown greater nitrate removal where pockets of deeper water are interspersed with
shallower areas (i.e., diverse microtopography).
Denitrification rates are often limited by the amount of available carbon. Organic soils have the most
carbon, and coarse soils usually have the least. Denitrification enzyme activity, on a per gram basis, is
typically greater in organic soils than mineral soils (Van Hoewyk et al. 2000). However, the acidic
nature of many organic soils can limit denitrification, the major process for nitrate removal. Soils having
less than 65% silt and clay have very limited capacity to remove nitrate via denitrification (Pinay et al.
2003). Clay soils retain moisture better, which enhances anaerobic processes and denitrification.
Emissions of nitrous oxide (a detrimental greenhouse gas) are most likely to occur in soils that are poor
in organic matter but rich in nitrogen (e.g., the carbon-nitrogen ratio is less than 25, Hunt et al. 2007).
Constructed (and some restored) wetlands typically have lower soil organic matter (Shaffer & Ernst
1999), and that deficit limits denitrification that otherwise removes nitrate. Thus, new wetlands would be
expected to release the most nitrate to downstream waters. However, the proportion of incoming nitrate
that is exported in some cases is greater in soils that are more fertile, i.e., nearing nitrate saturation,
with a C:N ratio lower than 25 (e.g., Gundersen et al. 2006).
Soil compaction seals up pores in the soil that serve as habitat space for denitrifying bacteria, as well
as causing a larger proportion of the precipitation to leave as runoff rather than infiltrate into subsurface
areas where denitrification is greatest. Soil erosion often results in loss of carbon-rich upper soil layers
that are important to denitrification.
Rationales
Generally correlated with salinity. See below.
Compared to freshwater marshes and forested swamps, saline wetlands tend to have lower potential
denitrification rates (Smith & DeLaune 1983, Seitzinger 1988). Also, greater exposure to tides and
wind may lead to export of a greater proportion of the nitrate. However, freshwater marshes may
generate more nitrous oxide (Dodla et al. 2008).
Wider vegetated areas provide more area and time for biological processing of nitrate.
See above.
particles and associated organic N, as well as reducing the resuspension of bottom sediments and
associated organically bound N by waves and currents.
Rationales
Nitrate is a potentially serious contaminant of drinking water due to health effects on infants. Thus,
when wetlands remove it before it contaminates surface water or groundwater, the wetlands are
performing an especially valued service.
See above.
See above.
Tidal incursions of ocean waters into Oregon estuaries are a major source of dissolved inorganic
nitrogen to most of these estuaries during most of the year (Lee & Brown 2009). This increases the
opportunity for N-removal by tidal marshes and thus their value.
AVERAGE(WoodyPct,GDD,Groundw)
AVERAGE(Gradient,WidthWet,Gcover,Thruflo)
AVERAGE(OutDura,Constric)
(3*AVERAGE(SoilTex,Moss,EmPct) + AVERAGE(SoilDisturb,NewWet)) /4
AVERAGE(SeasPct, AVERAGE(WaterMixDry,WaterMixWet,Girreg,Fluctu, PermW, EdgeShape))
AVERAGE(GcoverT, MAX(EstPosT,SalinT), AVERAGE(WidthHiT,WidthLoT))
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreNR, IF((NoOutlet=1),1, IF((NeverWater=1), AVERAGE(Warmth, Organic),

ELSE: (3*Redox +2*Connec + Warmth +Organic +Intercep)/ 8))
IF((Tidal=1),MAX(EstPosT,PRval), ELSE: MAX (PRval, Wells,GWrisk,DWsource)

Literature Cited
Bedford, B. L., M. R. Walbridge, and A. Aldous. 1999. Patterns in nutrient availability and plant diversity
of temperate North American wetlands. Ecology 80:2151-2169.
Burkholder, B. K., G. E. Grant, R. Haggerty, T. Khangaonkar, and P. J. Wampler. 2008. Influence of
hyporheic flow and geomorphology on temperature of a large, gravel ‐bed river, Clackamas River,
Oregon, USA. Hydrological Processes 22:941-953.
Clilverd, H. M., J. B. Jones, and K. Kielland. 2008. Nitrogen retention in the hyporheic zone of a glacial
river in interior Alaska. Biogeochemistry 88:31–46.
Compton, J. E., M. R. Church, S. T. Larned, and W. E. Hogsett. 2003. Nitrogen export from forested
watersheds in the Oregon Coast Range: the role of N2-fixing red alder. Ecosystems 6:773-785.
D’Amore, D. V., P. E. Hennon, P. G. Schaberg, and G. J. Hawley. 2009. Adaptation to exploit nitrate in
surface soils predisposes yellow-cedar to climate-induced decline while enhancing the survival of
western redcedar: A new hypothesis. Forest Ecology and Management 258:2261-2268.
Dodla, S. K., J. J. Wang, R. D. DeLaune, and R. L. Cook. 2008. Denitrification potential and its relation
to organic carbon quality in three coastal wetland soils. Science of the Total Environment 407:471-480.
Fernald, A. G., D. H. Landers, and P. J. Wigington. 2006. Water quality changes in hyporheic flow
paths between a large gravel bed river and off‐channel alcoves in Oregon, USA. River Research and
Applications 22:1111-1124.
Gunderson, L. H., S. R. Carpenter, C. Folke, P. Olsson, and G. D. Peterson. 2006. Water RATs
(resilience, adaptability, and transformability) in lake and wetland social-ecological systems. Ecology
and Society 11(1):16.
Hennon, P. E., D. V. D'Amore, D. T. Witter, and M. B. Lamb. 2010. Influence of forest canopy and
snow on microclimate in a declining yellow-cedar forest of Southeast Alaska. Northwest Science 84:73-
87.
Hogg, E. H. and V. J. Lieffers. 1991. The impact of Calamagrostis-Canadensis on soil thermal regimes
after logging in northern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De
Recherche Forestiere 21:387-394.
Hunt, P. G., T. A. Matheny, and K. S. Ro. 2007. Nitrous oxide accumulation in soils from riparian
buffers of a coastal plain watershed-carbon/nitrogen ratio control. Journal of Environmental Quality
36:1368-1376.
Knox, A. K., R. A. Dahgren, K. W. Tate, and E. R. Atwill. 2008. Efficacy of natural wetlands to retain
nutrient, sediment and microbial pollutants. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:1837-1846.
Kroeger, K. D. and M. A. Charette. 2008. Nitrogen biogeochemistry of submarine groundwater
discharge. Limnology and Oceanography 53:1025-1079.
Lee II, H. and C. A. Brown. 2009. Classification of Regional Patterns of Environmental Drivers and
Benthic Habitats in Pacific Northwest Estuaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western
Ecology Division, Newport, OR.
Mayer, P. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A
Review of Current Science and Regulations.in S. K. Reynolds Jr, T. J. Canfield, and M. D. McCutchen,
editors. EPA/600/R-05/118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Mayer, P. M., S. K. Reynolds, Jr., M. D. McCutchen, and T. J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen
removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1172-1180.
12:205-216.
Naymik, J., Y. Pan, and J. Ford. 2005. Diatom assemblages as indicators of timber harvest effects in
coastal Oregon streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:569-584.
Pinay, G., T. O'Keefe, R. Edwards, and R. J. Naiman. 2003. Potential denitrification activity in the
landscape of a western Alaska drainage basin. Ecosystems 6:336-343.
Seitzinger, S. P., L. P. Neilsen, J. Caffrey, and P. B. Christensen. 1993. Denitrification measurements
in aquatic sediments: a comparison of three methods. Biogeochemistry 23:147–167.
Shaffer, P. W. and T. L. Ernst. 1999. Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater emergent/open
water wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Wetlands 19:505-516.
Shrestha, R. R., A. J. Berland, M. A. Schnorbus, and A. T. Werner. 2011. Climate Change Impacts on
Hydro-Climatic Regimes in the Peace and Columbia Watersheds, British Columbia, Canada. Pacific
Climate Impacts Consortium. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
Smith, C. J. and R. D. De Laune. 1983. Nitrogen loss from freshwater and saline estuarine sediments.
Journal of Environmental Quality 12:514-518.
Song, C., Y. Wang, Y. Wang, and Z. Zhao. 2006. Emission of CO2, CH4 and N2O from freshwater
marsh during freeze–thaw period in Northeast of China. Atmospheric Environment 40:6879-6885.
Thullen, J. S., J. J. Sartoris, and W. E. Walton. 2002. Effects of vegetation management in constructed
wetland treatment cells on water quality and mosquito production. Ecological Engineering 18:441-457.
Van Hoewyk, D., P. M. Groffman, E. Kiviat, G. Mihocko, and G. Stevens. 2000. Soil nitrogen dynamics
in organic and mineral soil calcareous wetlands in eastern New York. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 64: 2168–2173.
Waite, T. A. and L. G. Campbell. 2006. Controlling the false discovery rate and increasing statistical
power in ecological studies. Ecoscience 13:439-442.
Zaman, M., M. L. Nguyen, F. Matheson, J. D. Blennerhassett, and B. F. Quin. 2007. Can soil
amendments (zeolite or lime) shift the balance between nitrous oxide and dinitrogen emissions from
pasture and wetland soils receiving urine or urea-N? Australian Journal of Soil Research 45:543-553.
Anadromous The capacity to support an abundance of native anadromous fish
Non-Tidal Function (chiefly salmonids) for functions other than spawning.
Fish Habitat
OF9 Perennial Cover Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center, the percentage of land that has perennial cover is:
Percentage (PerCovPct)
Indicators
<5% of the land.
5 to <20% of the land.
60 to 90% of the land.
>90% of the land.
OF10 Forest Percentage Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center, the cumulative amount of forest (regardless of forest patch
(ForestPct) sizes, and including any in the AA) is:
<5% of the circle.
5 to <20%.
20 to <50%.
50 to 80%.
>80%.
OF16 Conservation (a)The AA is within or connected to a stream or other water body and this stream or water body has
Designations of the AA been designated as ESH within 0.5 miles of the AA, according to the Essential Salmonid Habitat (ESH)
or Local Area layer.
(ConDesig)

Temperature or dissolved oxygen.
Beween AA & Water
the problem area).
<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
ONE.
Ephemeral. Surfaceotherwise
duration described, water in the
markwettest partlisted
the type of theabove
AA isit.]
present for fewer than 7 consecutive days
and SKIP to F5.
continue.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
(EmPct)
F10 Water Shading by AA's During an average growing season, when water levels are lowest (but surface water still occupies >400
Woody Vegetation - sq ft or >1% of the AA), the percentage of the remaining surface water within the AA that is shaded by
Driest trees and/or shrubs located within the AA is:
(WoodyDryShade)
<5% of the water, and fewer than 10 woody plants taller than 3 ft shade it, or all surface water is
flowing.
<5% of the water, but more than 10 woody plants taller than 3 ft shade it.
5 to <25% of the water.
50 to 95% of the water.
>95% of the water.
F16 All Ponded Water as a When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, but surface water still occupies >1,076 sq feet
Percentage (Driest) (100 sq meter) OR >1% of the AA (whichever is more), the water that is ponded (either visible or
(PondWpctDry) concealed by vegetation) in the AA occupies:
<1% or none. Surface water is completely or nearly absent then, or is entirely flowing. Enter 1 and
SKIP TO F22.
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
true.
>75% of the AA.
F28 Fish & Waterborne Pests Select All that apply:

(FishAcc)
Fish (native or stocked) are known to be present in the AA, or can access it during at least one day
annually.
F29 Non-native Aquatic The following are known or likely to have reproducing populations in this AA, its wetland, or in water
Animals (PestAnim) bodies within 300 ft that connect to the AA at least seasonally. Select All that apply:
Carp.
Non-native fish that prey on tadpoles or turtles (e.g., bass, walleye, crappie, brook trout).

F33.
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:

F48 Abovewater Wood The number of horizontal wood pieces thicker than 4 inches that are partly submerged during most of
(WoodOver) the spring or early summer, thus potentially serving as basking sites for turtles, birds, or frogs and
cover for fish is:
None.
Few.
Several (e.g., >3 per 300 ft of channel or shoreline).
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(UpTreePctPer)
S1 Aberrant Timing of Water Final score=
Inputs (AltTiming)
S3 Accelerated Inputs of Final score=

Contaminants and/or
Salts (ContamIn).
S4 Excessive Sediment Final score=

Loading from Runoff
Tidal Function
Contributing Area
(SedRCA).
Indicators None, or <1%.

1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
T4 Width of Vegetated Zone
at Daily High Tide
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(WidthLoT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T7 Outflow Duration The most durable surface water connection (outlet channel, ditch, tidegate, pipe, overbank water
(OutDuraT) exchange) between the AA and marine waters, which allows fish passage, is:
Regular (nearly all of the daily high tides, >9 months/year).
Seasonal (14 days to 9 months/year, not necessarily consecutive, at least monthly).
Temporary (mainly during "king tide", "spring tide", or peak discharge flow in an associated river; <14
days per year, not necessarily consecutive).
No tidal connection allows fish passage between marine waters and the AA.
T9 Blind Channels - total Within the intertidal part of the AA, the approximate density of tidal channels that remain wetted during
length and branching low tide on most days of the year (i.e., MLLW) is:
(BlindChT)
<100 linear ft per acre, or none, or all have been artificially straightened.
100-1000 linear ft per acre, and most tidal channels are unbranched.
100-1000 linear ft per acre, and most tidal channels are branched.
>1000 linear ft per acre and most tidal channels are unbranched.
>1000 linear ft per acre and most tidal channels are branched.
T10 Tidal-Nontidal Hydro- This tidal wetland is : Select first one that applies.
Adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water at least seasonally. Anadromous
fish can access both wetlands during spring. Mostly not separated by a dike or other barrier.
fish can access both wetlands during spring. Mostly separated by a dike, road, or other partial barrier.
fish cannot access both wetlands during spring.
Not adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water. Has a freshwater tributary
that allows fish passage during the springtime to a nontidal wetland < 1 mile upstream.
that allows fish passage during the springtime to a nontidal wetland > 1 mile upstream.
Not adjacent to a nontidal palustrine wetland that contains surface water. Lacks a freshwater tributary
that provides fish access to an upstream wetland that contains surface water at least seasonally.
T15 Overhanging Vegetation At average daily high tide, the percentage of the AA's water surface that is overhung by vegetation
at High Tide (ShadeHiT) within the AA is:
<5%, or no water is present in the AA at average daily high tide.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95%.
T16 Overhanging Vegetation At average daily low tide, the percentage of the AA's water surface that is overhung by vegetation
at Low Tide (ShadeLoT) within the AA is:
<5%, or no water remains in the AA at low tide.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95%.
T26 Large Woody Debris Within the part of the AA and its internal channels that remain underwater during daily low tide, the
(LwdT) extent of fish cover provided at that time by partly submerged vegetation, inchannel pools, incised
banks, and pieces of wood (thicker than 6 inches and longer than 4 feet, or smaller pieces in dense
accumulations) is:
None or few.
Intermediate.
Many (>1 piece per 5 acres or per 10 channel widths).
(PerimPctPerT)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
T29 Type of Non-Perennial Within 300 ft. upslope of the AA's upland edge, the area that is NOT perennial cover is mostly: Select
Cover in Buffer only ONE.
(ImpervBuffT)
Impervious surface ( e.g., paved road, parking lot, building, exposed rock).
Value
Bare pervious surface (e.g., recent clearcut, landslide, unpaved road, dike, dunes).
Artificially landscaped or heavily grazed areas, lawn, annual crops.
Other type of non-perennial cover.
Indicators Fish habitat (FH)

(ConDesig)

Z Function Score of Function Score for Feeding Waterbird Habitat
Dependent Group
Function Subindices
Function Score for Anadromous Fish Ha

Values Score for Anadromous Fish Ha
FA
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0 0.00
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1.00
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
1.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0
Data X
Points
0 0.00
0 0.00
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
HydroRegime 0.00
Structure 0.00
Cool Water 0.00
Landscape 0.00
Stressors (lack of) 1.00
Tidal 0.00
e for Anadromous Fish Habitat F 0.00

e for Anadromous Fish Habitat V 0.00
Rationales
Even when not immediately adjoining fish-occupied waters, perennial vegetation helps maintain or cool
the temperature of runoff and processes pollutants before they reach occupied waters.
Forest cover in particular helps maintain or cool the temperature of runoff and processes pollutants
before they reach occupied waters.
This is the most reliable predictor of salmon use in the vicinity, although not necessarily of a specific
wetland. Regardless of the accessibility and quality of a wetland, if anadromous fish cannot access the
larger watershed of which it is a part, the wetland will be unable to currently support anadromous fish.
Sedimentation, turbidity, contaminants, and warm water are harmful to a wetland's capacity to support
anadromous fish. This indicator receives a score of 0 (negative impact on fish) if at least one of the
parameters is marked as being present; if no data are available it becomes a blank and is not included
in the calculations.
More persistent flows of polluted water into the AA increase the risk of exposure to toxic substances.
This indicator is scored only if OF28 was answered positively.
Water quality problems downstream can limit anadromous fish use of the wetland by limiting upstream
migration of adults. This indicator receives a score of 0 (negative impact on fish) if at least one of the
parameters is marked as being present; if no data area available it becomes a blank and is not
included in the calculations.
If a wetland is connected more persistently to a polluted area downstream, that polluted area is more
likely to be a barrier to upstream movements of anadromous fish into the wetland. This indicator is
scored only if OF30 was answered positively.
Wetlands lower in a river basin are closer to marine waters and are more likely to have flows that allow
them to be constantly accessible to anadromous fish. Aquatic productivity also tends to be higher due
to the associated milder temperatures, less acidic conditions (Eilers et al. 1993), and higher fertility.
However, thermal stress, contaminants, and competing non-native fish are also more prevalent lower in
a river basin.
In the Seattle area, coho salmon were dominant only in streams whose contributing areas contained
less than 5% impervious surface. Coho were essentially absent from streams draining areas with more
than 35% impervious surfaces (May et al. 1997).
See above.
Wetlands that are never inundated cannot directly support anadromous fish, and ones that are
inundated for just a few days only allow brief opportunities for anadromous fish to visit and feed. Those
periods, however, may be critically important.
Wetlands with deeper water provide more habitat space. Except when spawning, most anadromous
fish spend most of their time in deeper water because of the typically cooler temperatures and cover it
provides. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Aquatic plants provide important cover for juvenile anadromous fish, but if stands become too dense,
they may restrict fish access. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for
more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent
vegetation.
Shade is essential because most anadromous fish are highly sensitive to water temperature, requiring
cool waters. However, extensive shading can also reduce fish species diversity and/or productivity
(Murphy et al. 1981). This indicator is dropped from the calculation if the wetland is in the upper third of
a major watershed because harmfully warm temperatures are less likely to occur, making this indicator
less influential there. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than
The greater the proportion of a wetland's surface water that is connected to channels, the less the
danger of fish being stranded in pools that may dry up in summer, and the greater the proportion of the
wetland that can be accessed and used by anadromous fish. This indicator is used only if some surface
Excessive growths of algae and duckweed can reduce diffusion of oxygen into the water and thus
deprive wetlands of dissolved oxygen that is critical to salmon survival. This indicator is used only if
some open ponded surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing
season.
Many studies in the Pacific Northwest have demonstrated the importance to anadromous fish of river
floodplains for foraging coho (Baker 2008, Henning et al. 2008) and chinook (Somer et al. 2001, 2005,
Teel et al. 2009) as well as the importance of streams and wetlands that are inundated only seasonally,
provided fish can enter and exit them then (e.g., Brown & Hartman 1988, Nickelson et al. 1992, Steiner
et al. 2005, Wigington et al. 2006, Freeman et al. 2007, Meyer et al. 2007, Welsch & Hodgson 2008,
Colvin et al. 2009). Even during brief periods of high water, fish enter those areas and gorge
themselves on invertebrates made more available by the flooding. Wetlands that contain water
persistently are often dominated by exotic fish that prey on young salmon, whereas this is less an
problem in wetlands that flood only seasonally. Seasonally inundated areas tend to have greater
vegetation cover than persistently inundated areas, and this cools the water and provides more cover.
The model applies this indicator only if the wetland is flow-through or fringe, e.g., on a seasonal
floodplain.
Without access, fish cannot use a wetland.
Non-native fish, once they invade a wetland, compete with and prey upon some anadromous species.
Carp are especially detrimental so they are assessed separately.
Fish access to wetlands is better if an outlet is present and outflows from the wetland are persistent.
Although isolated wetlands with persistent surface water can support some anadromous fish, a
permanent connection to other surface waters increases the ability of fish to move among wetlands
and other surface waters in search of food and other needs. Connectivity between tributaries and more
permanent mainstem streams is important to several native fish.
Diffuse flow paths and large spatial complexity of channels within a wetland support a wider variety of
microhabitats for fish and their invertebrate foods. This indicator is used only if an tributary channel is
present and water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14 days of the growing season.
Especially in riverine wetlands, groundwater (hyporheic flow) that discharges into wetlands is extremely
important to salmonids because of its cooler temperature. However, in some instances groundwater is
deficient in oxygen critical to salmonids. Groundwater influx is sometimes indicated by an orange stain,
indicating the presence of iron oxidizing bacteria (Dickman & Rygiel 1998).
Large woody debris helps protect young fish from aerial predators and provides cooler water preferred
by salmonids. Only the wood that is at or above the water surface is assessed because of the
impracticality of assessing underwater wood accurately when using a rapid assessment method. This
indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape
that would normally support woodlands.
Streams adjoined by natural vegetation provide shade that helps maintain water temperature, as well
as supporting richer and healthier aquatic invertebrate communities. The same should be true of
anadromous fish in wetlands.
See above.
Forest cover in particular helps maintain or cool the temperature of runoff and processes pollutants
before they reach occupied waters.
Life histories of anadromous fish are closely synchronized to natural hydrologic patterns. Wetlands
where that has been disrupted will have lower capacity to support anadromous fish.
Presence of contaminant sources suggests the potential for long-term harm to anadromous fish
populations.
Presence of large sources of sediment suggests the potential for long-term harm to spawing and
rearing areas for anadromous fish.
Rationales
The longer during each tidal cycle an intertidal area is accessible to salmonids seeking food and cover,
the more important it may be (Healey 1982, Salo 1991, Quinn 2005, Simenstad et al. 2000, Young
2009).
This is an indicator of the extent of high marsh. High marsh provides a buffer that helps filter and
process polluted runoff before it reaches waters used by anadromous fish. Intertidal vegetation also
provides invertebrate foods for several salmon species (Congleton et al. 1982, Levy and Northcote
1982, Salo 1991, and Simenstad et al. (1982, 2000).
This is an indicator of the extent of high marsh. High marsh provides a buffer that helps filter and
process polluted runoff before it reaches waters used by anadromous fish. Intertidal vegetation also
provides invertebrate foods for several salmon species (Congleton et al. 1982, Levy and Northcote
1982, Salo 1991, and Simenstad et al. (1982, 2000).
Wetlands flooded at high tide provide a large amount of invertebrate foods for anadromous fish. Width
is an indicator of their extent.
More frequent tidal connections support greater opportunity for anadromous fish to use tidal wetlands.
Complex channel networks within intertidal areas facilitate fish access to invertebrate foods and
thermal refugia (Congleton et al. 1982, Levy and Northcote 1982, Simenstad et al. 2000, Gray et al.
2002; Bottom et al. 2005; Beamer et al. 2005; Koski 2009; Craig 2010; Hering et al. 2010, Gewant &
Bollens 2012). By providing gaps for sunlight to penetrate dense vegetation cover, they can increase
production of epiphytic algae favored by many invertebrate prey.
Where non-tidal wetlands are contiguous to tidal wetlands, this often provides pockets of lower-salinity
water in conjunction with rich food resources important to salmonids, and both are important to juvenile
salmon as they transition to ocean environments (Simenstad et al. 2000).
Overhanging vegetation is a source of terrestrial insects important to foraging juvenile salmonids
(Romanuk and Levings 2003).
See above.
Large woody debris helps protect young fish from aerial predators and strong currents.
Waters adjoined by extensive perennial vegetation support a greater abundance of insects important to
foraging juvenile salmonids.
See above.
In the Seattle area, coho salmon were dominant only in streams whose contributing areas contained
less than 5% impervious surface. Coho were essentially absent from streams draining areas with more
than 35% impervious surfaces (May et al. 1997).
Rationales
Among anadromous species, salmonids are particularly valued, at least in the Pacific Northwest, so
wetlands that may support these species may be considered to be of greater value.
In the future, the need for (and value of) fish habitat as provided by wetlands may increase the most
where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development often reduces or
impairs fish habitat. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be considered
more valuable.
Fish are valued as a key food for many waterbird species.
AVERAGE(Hydropd,PondWpctDry,SeasPct, DepthDom,OutDura)
IF((NeverWater+TempWet>0),"", ELSE: AVERAGE(ThruFlo,EmPct,WoodOver))
AVERAGE(WoodyDryShade,ForestPct,UpTreePctPer, Groundw,Elev)
AVERAGE(BuffWidth,PerimPctPer,PerCovPct, ImpervRCA, ImpervSCA)
AVERAGE(WQin,ConnecUp,ContamDown,ConnDown,ContamIn,AltTiming,SedRCA, PestAnim,Algae)
IF((NoTconnec=1),0, ELSE: (4*AVERAGE(LowMarshT,OutDuraT) +

AVERAGE(TnonT,ShadeHiT,ShadeLoT,LwdT,BlindChT) +
AVERAGE(PerimPctPerT,BuffWidthT,ImpervBuffT,WidthHiT,WidthLoT))/6)
IF(Tidal=1),TidalScoreFA, IF((FishAcc9 + ConsDesig_ESH9v=0),0, IF((NeverWater=1),0, ELSE:

AVERAGE(Hydro,Stress,Struc,CoolWater,Lscape))
MAX(ConsDesig_ESH, AVERAGE(GISscoreFishV,Zoning,FscoreWBF)))
Literature Cited
Baker, C. F. 2008. Seasonal floodplain wetlands as fish habitat in Oregon and Washington. Doctoral
Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Beamer, E., A. McBride, C. M. Greene, R. Henderson, G. Hood, K. Wolf, K. Larsen, C. Rice, and K. L.
Fresh. 2005. Delta and Nearshore Restoration for the Recovery of Wild Skagit River Chinook Salmon:
Linking Estuary Restoration to Wild Chinook Salmon Populations. Supplement to Skagit Chinook
Recovery Plan, Skagit River System Cooperative, La Conner, WA.
Bottom, D. L., K. K. Jones, T. J. Cornwell, A. Gray, and C. A. Simenstad. 2005. Patterns of chinook
salmon migration and residency in the Salmon River estuary, Oregon. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 64:79-93.
Brown, T. G. and G. F. Hartman. 1988. Contribution of seasonally flooded lands and minor tributaries
to the production of coho salmon in Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 117:546-551.
Colvin, R., G. R. Giannico, J. Li, K. L. Boyer, and W. J. Gerth. 2009. Fish use of intermittent
watercourses draining agricultural lands in the Upper Willamette River Valley, Oregon. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 138:1302-1313.
Congleton, J. L., T. C. Bjornn, B. J. Burton, and B. D. Watson. 1982. Effects of Stress on the Viability of
Chinook Salmon Smolts Transported from the Snake River to the Columbia River Estuary. Progress
Report No. 2 Idaho Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,
OR.
Craig, B. E. 2010. Life History Patterns and Ecology of Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Within a Tidal Freshwater Estuary. Master's Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Dickman, M. and G. Rygiel. 1998. Municipal landfill impacts on a natural stream located in an urban
wetland in regional Niagara, Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 112:619-630.
Eilers, J. M., D. H. Landers, A. D. Newell, M. E. Mitch, M. Morrison, and J. Ford. 1993. Major Ion
Chemistry of Lakes on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 50:816-826.
Freeman, M. C., C. M. Pringle, and C. R. Jackson. 2007. Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution
of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales 1. Wiley Online Library.
Gewant, D. and S. M. Bollens. 2012. Fish assemblages of interior tidal marsh channels in relation to
environmental variables in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes 94:483-
499.
Gray, A., C. A. Simenstad, D. L. Bottom, and T. J. Cornwell. 2002. Contrasting functional performance
of juvenile salmon habitat in recovering wetlands of the Salmon River estuary, Oregon, USA.
Restoration Ecology 10:514-526.
Healey, M. C. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaimo River estuary by juvenile chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Fishery Bulletin 77:653-668.
Henning, J. A., R. E. Gresswell, and I. A. Fleming. 2006. Juvenile salmonid use of freshwater emergent
wetlands in the floodplain and its implications for conservation management. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 26:367–376.
Hering, D. K., D. L. Bottom, E. F. Prentice, K. K. Jones, and I. A. Fleming. 2010. Tidal movements and
residency of subyearling Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in an Oregon salt marsh
channel. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:524-533.
Koski, K. V. 2009. The fate of coho salmon nomads: the story of an estuarine-rearing strategy
promoting resilience. Ecology and Society 14:4.
Levings, C. D., D. E. Boyle, and T. R. Whitehouse. 1995. Distribution and feeding of juvenile Pacific
salmon in freshwater tidal creeks of the lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Fisheries Management
and Ecology 2:299-308.
Levy, D. A. and T. G. Northcote. 1982. Juvenile salmon residency in a marsh area of the Fraser River
estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:270-276.
May, C. W., R. R. Horner, J. R. Karr, B. W. Mar, and E. B. Welch. 1997. The Cumulative Effects of
Urbanization on Small Streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. University of Washington,
Seattle, WA.
Meyer, J. L., D. L. Strayer, J. B. Wallace, S. L. Eggert, G. S. Helfman, and N. E. Leonard. 2007. The
Contribution of Headwater Streams to Biodiversity in River Networks1. JAWRA Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 43:86-103.
Nicholson, P. S., M. S. Whittingham, G. C. Farrington, W. W. Smeltzer, and J. Thomas. 1992. Solid
State Ionics, 91, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Solid State Ionics, Lake Louise,
Alberta, Canada, October 20-26, 1991. 2. Preface. Pages R8-R8 in Solid State Ionics.
Quinn, T. P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
Salo, E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Pages 231-310 in C. Groot and L.
Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon: Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C.
Simenstad, C. A. and J. D. Cordell. 2000. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous
salmonid habtiat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering 15:283-302.
Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington, USA
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus-spp): an unappreciated function.
Pages 343-364 in V. S. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Sommer, T. R., W. C. Harrell, and M. L. Nobriga. 2005. Habitat use and stranding risk of juvenile
Chinook salmon on a seasonal floodplain. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1493-
1504.
Steiner, J. J., G. R. Giannico, S. M. Griffith, M. E. Mellbye, J. L. Li, K. S. Boyer, S. H. Schoenholtz, G.
W. Whittaker, G. W. Mueller-Warrant, and G. M. Banowetz. 2005. Grass seed fields, seasonal winter
drainages, and native fish habitat in the south Willamette Valley. Pages 79-81 in W.C. Young III, editor.
Seed Production Research at Oregon State University, USDA-ARS Cooperating 2004. Department of
Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Toft, J. D., J. R. Cordell, C. A. Simenstad, and L. A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish distribution, abundance, and
behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
27:465-480.
Welsh Jr, H. H. and G. R. Hodgson. 2008. Amphibians as metrics of critical biological thresholds in
forested headwater streams of the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 53:1470-1488.
Wigington, P. J., J. L. Ebersole, M. E. Colvin, S. G. Leibowitz, B. Miller, B. Hansen, H. R. Lavigne, D.
White, J. P. Baker, M. R. Church, J. R. Brooks, M. A. Cairns, and J. E. Compton. 2006. Coho salmon
dependence on intermittent streams. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:513-518.
Wissmar, R. C. and C. A. Simenstad. 1988. Energetic constraints of juvenile chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta) migrating in estuaries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
45:1555-1560.
Young, C. D. 2009. Shoaling Behavior as a Tool to Understand Microhabitat Use by Juvenile Chum
Salmon, Oncorhynchus keta. Master's Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Resident Fish
Non-Tidal Function
The capacity to support an abundance and diversity of native non-
anadromous fish (both resident and visiting species). Accurate rapid
Habitat indicators could not be identified for tidal wetlands.
Issues (WQin)
Indicators labeled as being 303d, Water Quality Limited (categories 3B-5); Potential Concer; or TMDL Approved
<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.
ONE.
and SKIP to F5.
continue.

>95% of the AA.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
F6 Depth Class Distribution Within the area described above, and during most of the time when surface water is present, the water
(DepthEven) area has:
Select only one.
One depth class covering >90% of the AA’s inundated area (use the classes in the question above).
One depth class covering 51-90% of the AA’s inundated area (use the classes in the question above).
Neither of above. There are 3 or more depth classes and none occupy >50%.
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
(EmPct)
SKIP TO F22.
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
Vegetation (SAV)
continuous weeks.
Enter 1, if true.
F28 Fish & Waterborne Pests Fish (native or stocked) are known to be present in the AA, or can access it during at least one day
(FishAcc) annually.
Carp.

F33.
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:

cover for fish is:
None.
Few.
S1 Aberrant Timing of Water Final score=
Inputs (AltTiming)
S3 Accelerated Inputs of Final score=

Contaminants and/or
Salts (ContamIn).
S4 Excessive
Value Sediment Final score=
Loading from Runoff
Contributing Area
(SedRCA).
OF17 Non-anadromous Fish According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare non-anadromous fish species in the
Species of Conservation vicinity of this AA is:
Concern (RareFR)
High (≥ 0.75 for maximum score, or ≥ 0.90 for this group's sum score), or there is a recent (within 5
Indicators years) onsite observation of any of these species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to
what now occur.
Intermediate (i.e., not as described above or below).
Low (≤ 0.33 for both the maximum score this group's sum score, but not 0 for both).
Zero for both this group's maximum and its sum score, and no recent onsite observation of these

F70 Consumptive Uses Fishing.
(Provisioning Services)
(Hunt)
T41 Consumptive Uses Fishing.

(UsesT)

Dependent Group
Function Subindices
Function Subindices
Function Score for Resident Fish Hab
Values Score for Resident Fish Hab

FR
Data X
Points
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 1 0
0 0.00
0 0.00
1.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0 0.00
0 0.00
0.00
HydroRegime 0.00
Structure 0.00
core for Resident Fish Habitat F 0.00
core for Resident Fish Habitat V 0.00

Rationales
Toxic substances limit productivity of fish, reduce aquatic foods, and the fish may be less suitable for
consumption. This indicator receives a score of 0 (negative impact on fish) if at least one of the
parameters is marked as being present; if no data are available it becomes a blank and is not included
in the calculations.
If accessible and otherwise suitable for fish, wetlands lower in a river basin are more likely to support a
larger variety of resident fish (Vannote et al. 1980, Beecher et al. 1988). Aquatic productivity tends to
be higher due to the associated milder temperatures, less acidic conditions (Eilers et al. 1993), and
higher fertility.
Stream fish species richness in western Oregon increases with warmer local temperatures in summer
(Rathert et al. 1999), which may correlate with GDD.
Wetlands that are never inundated cannot directly support resident fish, and ones that are inundated
for just a few days only allow brief opportunities for resident fish to visit and feed.
Persistent surface water is essential to resident fish in isolated wetlands, and is important to resident
fish even in wetlands that connect seasonally to other water bodies. This indicator is used only if some
Most resident fish spend much of their time in deeper water because of the cover it provides. Wetlands
with deeper water provide more habitat space. This indicator is used only if some surface water
persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Different resident fish species have different habitat needs, and a variety of depths within a wetland
implies greater capacity of the wetland to meet the needs of multiple species. This indicator is used
only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing
season.
Fish species richness increases with increase in wetland or lake area (Barbour and Brown 1974,
Matuszek et al. 1988). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than
Aquatic plants provide important cover for resident fish, but if stands become too dense, they may
restrict fish access. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
consecutive weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Aquatic plants provide important cover for resident fish, but if stands become too dense, they may
restrict fish access. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Presence of both flowing and ponded water increases the variety of fish species likely to be present, as
species differ in their water velocity preferences and types of prey associated with those. This indicator
season.
SAV provides extensive cover and invertebrate foods for foraging fish. This indicator is used only if
season.
During long periods of ice cover, with decaying organic matter in bottom sediments, deprives some
wetlands of dissolved oxygen, which kills native fish that cannot escape to unfrozen water. This seldom
occurs in wetlands that have water flowing through inlets and outlets (Tonn & Magnuson 1982). Ice-
free sites are also more likely to have warmer annual temperatures that favor higher aquatic
production. The model uses this indicator beneficially only if the wetland is ice-free for much of the
winter; if the wetland is ice-covered much of the winter that condition does not draw down the function
score. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive
weeks of the growing season.
This is direct evidence of the function.
In Oregon streams, native fish species richness is correlated negatively with the number of non-native
fish species (Rathert et al. 1999).
Fish access to wetlands is better if an outlet is present and outflows from the wetland are persistent.
Although isolated wetlands with persistent surface water can support some resident fish, a permanent
connection to other surface waters increases the ability of fish to move among wetlands and other
surface waters in search of food and other needs. Connectivity between tributaries and more
connection to other surface waters increases the ability of fish to move among wetlands and other
surface waters in search of food and other needs. Connectivity between tributaries and more
microhabitats for fish and their invertebrate foods. This indicator is used only if an tributary channel is
Groundwater supports temperature stability, surface water persistence, and a relatively steady input of
nutrients that in turn supports algal production and the invertebrate foods important to fish.
Instream and abovewater wood also provides extensive cover and invertebrate foods for foraging fish.
This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a
landscape that would normally support woodlands
Life histories of fish are closely synchronized to natural hydrologic patterns. Wetlands where that has
been disrupted will have lower capacity to support resident fish.
Presence of contaminant sources suggests the potential for long-term harm to fish populations.
Presence of large sources of sediment suggests the potential for long-term harm to fish spawing and
rearing areas.
Rationales
These species contribute disproportionately to regional biodiversity because they are relatively rare in
this region.
In the future, the need for (and value of) fish habitat as provided by wetlands may increase the most
impairs fish habitat. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be considered
more valuable.
A direct indicator of value, at least for some species.
A direct indicator of value, at least for some species.
Fish are valued as a key food for many waterbird species.
AVERAGE(Hydropd,PermWpct,PondWpctDry,DepthDom,DepthEven,Groundw,OutDura))
IF((NeverWater+TempWet>0), "", ELSE: AVERAGE(ThruFlo,SAV,EmArea,EmPct,WoodOver)

AVERAGE[PestAnim,AVERAGE(AltTiming,ContamIn,SedRCA,WQin,ConnecUp),
average(GDD,IceDura)]
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreFA, IF((FishAcc=0),0, IF((NeverWater+Playa>0),0, ELSE:

AVERAGE(Hydro,Struc,Stress))
IF((Tidal=1),MAX(RareFish, AVERAGE(RareFish,FscoreWBFv,FishingT,Zoning)),MAX(RareFish,
AVERAGE(RareFish,FscoreWBFv,Fishing,Zoning)))
Literature Cited
Barbour, C. D. and J. H. Brown. 1974. Fish species diversity in lakes. The American Naturalist
108:473-488.
Beecher, H. A., E. R. Dott, and R. F. Fernau. 1988. Fish species richness and stream order in
Washington State streams. Environmental Biology of Fishes 22:193-209.
Eilers, J. M., D. H. Landers, A. D. Newell, M. E. Mitch, M. Morrison, and J. Ford. 1993. Major ion
chemistry of lakes on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 50:816-826.
Hernandez, O., R. W. Merritt, and M. S. Wipfli. 2005. Benthic invertebrate community structure is
influenced by forest succession after clearcut logging in southeastern Alaska. Hydrobiologia 533:45-59.
LeSage, C. M., R. W. Merritt, and M. S. Wipfli. 2005. Headwater riparian invertebrate communities
associated with red alder and conifer wood and leaf litter in southeastern Alaska. Northwest Science
79:218-232.
Matuszek, J. E. and G. L. Beggs. 1988. Fish species richness in relation to lake area, pH, and other
abiotic factors in Ontario lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1931-1941.
Rathert, D., D. White, J. C. Sifneos, and R. M. Hughes. 1999. Environmental correlates of species
richness for native freshwater fish in Oregon, USA. Journal of Biogeography 26:257-273.
Tonn, W. M. and J. J. MacNuson. 1982. Patterns in the species composition and richness of fish
assemblage in northern Wisconsin lakes. Ecology 63:1149-1166.
Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.
Wipfli, M. S. and J. Musslewhite. 2004. Density of red alder (Alnus rubra) in headwaters influences
invertebrate and detritus subsidies to downstream fish habitats in Alaska. Hydrobiologia 520:153-163.
Wipfli, M. S., J. S. Richardson, and R. J. Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and
downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater
channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:72-85.
Amphibian & The capacity to support an abundance and diversity of native
amphibians (frogs, toads, salamanders) and native wetland-dependent
Reptile Habitat
Non-Tidal Function reptiles (e.g., turtles).
OF1 Distance to Extensive The distance from the AA edge to the edge of the closest patch or corridor of perennial cover (see
Perennial Cover definition in column E) larger than 100 acres is:
(DistPerCov)
Indicators <100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
0.5 mile to 2 miles.
> 2 miles.
OF3 Distance to Ponded The distance from the AA edge to the closest (but separate) body of nontidal fresh water (wetland,
Water (DistPond) pond, or lake) that is ponded all or most of the year is:
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
OF6 Distance to Nearest The distance from the AA center to the nearest road with an average daytime traffic rate of at least 1
Busy Road (DistRd) vehicle/ minute is:
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to < 0.5 mile.
0.5 to <1 miles.
1 to 2 miles.
>2 miles.
OF7 Size of Largest Nearby Including the AA's vegetated area, the largest patch or corridor that is perennial cover and is
Patch of Perennial Cover contiguous with vegetation in the AA (i.e., not separated by roads or channels that create gaps wider
(SizePerenn) than 150 ft), occupies:
<.01 acre.
1 to <10 acres.
10 to <100 acres.
100 to <1000 acres.
>10,000 acres.
OF9 Perennial Cover
<5% of the land.
>90% of the land.
OF13 Local Wetland Within a 0.5 mile radius of the AA center:
Connectivity
(ConnLocalW) There are NO other wetlands.
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), but NONE are connected to the AA by a corridor of perennial
vegetation. The corridor must be at least 150 ft wide along its entire length and not interrupted by
roads with regular traffic.
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), and ALL are connected to the AA by the type of corridor
described.
There are other wetlands (or a wetland), and ONE or MORE (but not all) are connected to the AA by
the type of corridor described.
OF14 Wetland Number & According to the ORWAP Report, this AA is located in one of the HUCs that are listed as having a large
Diversity Uniqueness diversity, area, or number of wetlands relative to the area of the HUC. Select All of the following that
(HUCbest) are true:
Yes, for the HUC8 watershed

None of above.
Data are inadequate (NWI mapping not completed in HUC).
OF27 Hydrologic Landscape According to the ORWAP Report, the wetland is in a hydrologic landscape unit classified as:
(Arid)
Arid.
Semi-arid.
Dry.
Moist.
Wet.
Very Wet.

Nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, or algae.
OF29 Duration of Connection
the AA (ConnecUp)
<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.
F2 Ponded Condition At least once every 2 years, some part of the AA contains a cumulative total of >900 sq.ft. of surface
(Lentic) water that is ponded. The water persists for >6 days and may be hidden beneath emergent vegetation
or scattered in small pools.
Enter 1, if true.

>95% of the AA.
(EmPct)
(PondWpctWet)
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
(WaterMixWet)
(WaterMixWet)
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
SKIP TO F22.
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
Distribution - (Driest)
(WaterMixDry)
Vegetation (SAV)
F22 Beaver (Beaver) Use of the AA by beaver during the past 5 years is: Select most applicable ONE.
Evident from direct observation or presence of gnawed limbs, dams, tracks, dens, or lodges.
Very likely based on known occurrence in this part of the region and proximity to ALL of the following
(a) a persistent freshwater wetland, pond, or lake, or a perennial low-gradient (<5%) channel, and (b)
average valley width is > 150 ft and (c) >20% cumulative cover of aspen, cottonwood, alder, and willow
in vegetated areas within 150 ft of the AA's edge. Or there is evidence of beaver just outside the AA.
Somewhat likely based on known occurrence in this part of the region and proximity to ALL of the
following (a) a persistent freshwater wetland, pond, or lake, or a perennial low or mid-gradient (<10%)
channel, and (b) average valley width is >50 ft, and (c) >20% cumulative cover of hardwood trees and
shrubs in vegetated areas within 150 ft of the AA's edge.
Unlikely because site characteristics above are deficient, and/or this is an area where beaver are
routinely removed. But beaver occur within 2 miles.
None. Beaver are absent from this part of the region.
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
Conductance (Salin)
F27 Salinity, Alkalinity,
Conductance (Salin)
Unknown.
(FishAcc) annually.
Non-native amphibians (e.g., bullfrog) or reptiles (e.g., red-ear slider).
Carp.
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
following extent:

cover for fish is:
None.
Few.
F49 Downed Wood The number of downed wood pieces longer than 6 ft and with diameter >4 inches that are not
(WoodDown) submerged during most of the growing season, is:
Few or none.
Several.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.
F68 Core Area 1 (VisitNo) The percentage of the AA almost never walked or driven by humans during an average growing
season probably comprises: [Note: If more than half the wetland is visible from areas within 100 ft of
the AA, include visits by people to those areas that are actually walked or driven (not simply viewed
from].
F68 Core Area 1 (VisitNo)
<5% and no inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA.

<5% and inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA.
5 to <50% and no inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA.
5 to <50% and inhabited building is within 300 ft of the AA.
50 to 95% with or without inhabited building nearby.
>95% of the AA with or without inhabited building nearby.
F69 Core Area 2 (VisitOften) The part of the AA visited by humans almost daily for several weeks during an average growing season
probably comprises: [The Note in the preceding question applies here as well].
<5%.
5 to <50%.
Tidal Function 50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.

(EstPosT)
Indicators Lower 1/3 (often on a bay and distant from the head-of-tide of a major river; includes most saline tidal
wetlands).
Mid 1/3.

Unknown.
None, or <1%.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T7 Outflow Duration
(OutDuraT)
(PerimPctPerT)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
Value
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
OF8 Wetland Type Local Select EACH of the vegetation types below that comprise more than 10% of the AA AND less than
Uniqueness (UniqPatch) 10% of a 0.5 mile radius around the AA. (See Column E).
Herbaceous vegetation (perennial grasses, sedges, forbs; not under a woody canopy; not crops).
Indicators
Unshaded shrubland (woody plants shorter than 20 ft).
Trees (woody plants taller than 20 ft).
None of above.
OF15 Landscape Functional
Deficit (GISscore)
Amphibian habitat (AM)

OF18 Amphibian or Reptile of According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare amphibian or reptile species in the
Conservation Concern vicinity of this AA is:
(AmphRare)
High (≥ 0.60 for maximum score, or >0.90 for sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of any
of these species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
Low (≤ 0.21 for maximum score AND <0.15 for sum score, but not 0 for both).
(Arid)
Arid.
Semi-arid.
Dry.
Moist.
Wet.
Very Wet.

Dependent Group
Function Subindices
Function Score for Amphibian & Reptile Hab
Values Score for Amphibian & Reptile Hab

AM
Data X
Points
0.00
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 8 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0
0 1.00
1.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 4 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
Data X
Points
1.00
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 0
0.00
0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
Waterscape 0.00
Landscape 0.00
Hydro Regime 0.00
Aquatic Structure 0.00
Terrestrial Structure
0.00
(Nonbreeding habitat)
Physical & WQ Stressors
0.00
(Lack of)
Bio Stressors (Lack of) 0.50
Tidal 0.00
Amphibian & Reptile Habitat F 0.33
Amphibian & Reptile Habitat V 1.67

Rationales
Amphibians require upland habitat as well as aquatic habitat. Uplands that are dominated by natural
vegetation usually provide the most suitable microclimates and habitat structure. Unvegetated or
artificially vegetated surfaces can inhibit movements of some species to productive upland habitats.
Wetlands located close to other wetlands are more likely to be used by frogs and aquatic salamanders,
because many species in these groups commonly need to disperse among wetlands.
Roads and/or traffic are a significant barrier to dispersing amphibians (Mader 1984, Fahrig et al. 1995,
and see review by Fahrig & Rytwinski 2009). In Ontario (Eigenbrod 2008a) and Virginia (Marsh 2007),
“accessible habitat” -- defined as the habitat available to pond-dwelling amphibians without individuals
needing to cross a major road -- was a better predictor of amphibian species richness than simply the
amount of habitat within some distance of breeding ponds (Eigenbrod 2008b). Narrow roads gated to
exclude traffic were crossed more often than roads with traffic by terrestrial salamanders in Virginia
(Marsh 2007). Remarkably, even some narrow logging roads that had long been abandoned continued
to impair movements and densities of salamanders in North Carolina; the road effect appeared to
extend about 115 ft into the adjoining woods on both sides of the road (Semlitsch et al. 2007).
Larger contiguous tracts of nearby natural land are more likely to meet the habitat needs of dispersing
amphibians than small or fragmented patches. In B.C., scattered tree patches of 2.0 to 3.7 acres,
preferably in riparian locations, were the minimum needed to allow successful overland passage of one
frog species (Chan-McLeod & Moy 2007).
Uplands that are dominated by natural perennial vegetation usually provide the most suitable
microclimates and habitat structure for amphibians during their terrestrial phases. Abundance of some
amphibians correlates with the proportionate extent of perennial cover within a few hundred meters
(e.g., Guerry & Hunter 2002, Skidds et al. 2007).
Uplands that are dominated by natural perennial vegetation usually provide the most suitable
microclimates and habitat structure for amphibians during their terrestrial phases. Abundance of some
amphibians correlates with the proportionate extent of perennial cover within a few hundred meters
(e.g., Guerry & Hunter 2002, Skidds et al. 2007).
Corridors of perennial vegetation that connect wetlands help protect pond-breeding amphibians during
their nonbreeding phase as they disperse to other wetlands. In B.C., scattered tree patches of 2.0 to
3.7 acres, preferably in stream locations, were the minimum needed to allow successful overland
passage of one frog species (Chan-McLeod & Moy 2007).
Because amphibians depend heavily on the presence of many wetlands in close proximity, small
watersheds with extensive or numerous wetlands are likely to help support amphibian production in
wetlands individually.
Amphibian survival may be greater in wetter regions because of greater moisture in nonbreeding
habitats as well as more small wetlands for breeding and dispersal.
High levels of these substances, such as from livestock or wastewater effluent, can harm amphibian
populations and reduce amphibian diversity, e.g., Schmutzer et al. 2008). This indicator receives a
score of 0 (negative impact) if at least one of the parameters is marked as being present; if no data are
available it becomes a blank and is not included in the calculations.
Higher productivity of aquatic insects ultimately helps support higher productivity of amphibians. Those
conditions are described by increasing number of GDD.
Ponded areas tend to be more suitable for wetland-associated amphibians than flowing waters.
Surface water that persists for all or nearly all of the year provides reproductive as well as feeding and
overwintering habitat for most amphibian species. However, risk of fish predation may be greater in
some persistently inundated wetlands if they are fish-accessible. Ideally, a wetland should exist as part
of a mosaic of wetlands with different water regimes. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Emergent plants (especially thin-stemmed ones) provide sites for amphibian egg deposition.
Populations of many pond-breeding amphibians are correlated with local extent of emergent vegetation
(Adams et al. 2011). Aquatic plants provide some degree of shelter from excessive ultraviolet radiation
as well as from predators. However, excessive plant cover can shade out ephiphytic algae important to
some larval amphibians. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more
than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent
vegetation.
Some open water is beneficial for larger individuals, but dense cover provided by flooded vegetation is
preferable for egg-laying and early stages (e.g., tadpoles). Pools that remain isolated from other
surface waters provide amphibians with the most protection from predatory fish. More amphibian
species prefer ponded water than water flowing in channels. This indicator is used only if some surface
When aquatic vegetation is well-interspersed with open water, the unshaded open water areas
potentially provide warmer conditions favored by many amphibians, while nearby areas with vegetation
cover provide protection from predators. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in
the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Wider bands of wetland vegetation provide better cover for young frogs and salamanders as they
transition to upland nonbreeding areas. This indicator is used only if some open surface water persists
Pools that remain isolated from other surface waters provide amphibians with the most protection from
predatory fish. More amphibian species prefer ponded water than water flowing in channels. This
growing season.
Submerged aquatic vegetation provides abundant cover for tadpoles and young salamanders. This
indicator is used only if some open ponded surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Beaver ponds often provide abundant aquatic vegetation for attachment of eggs of frogs and
salamanders, as well as cover for adults. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in
Egg masses of many frogs and aquatic salamanders are more susceptible to stranding in wetlands with
large water level fluctuations.
Productivity of most amphibian species is greater in fresh rather than saline water.
Productivity of most amphibian species is greater in fresh rather than saline water.
Populations of some amphibians (e.g., four-toed salamander, foothill yellow-legged frogs) seem to
thrive best in fishless wetlands; predatory fish (especially, exotic species) can cause extirpations of
native species (Pearl et al. 2005).
These non-native species prey on or compete with native amphibian and turtle species, or (in the case
of carp) can drastically alter vegetative cover. However, their influence on many amphibian
populations appears to be quite minor (Adams et al. 2011).
Most amphibian species prefer ponded rather than flowing-water habitats, and ponding is more likely to
occur in wetlands with minimal gradient.
When vegetation height is reduced by grazing or mowing throughout a wetland, cover that maintains a
moist wetland microclimate and helps protect adult amphibians from predators is reduced.
Large woody debris helps protect frogs and young turtles from aerial predators, as well as providing
important basking sites for frogs and turtles. This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in
the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally support woodlands
Downed wood provides food, cover, and a stable microclimate for many wetland-associated
salamanders and frogs during their nonbreeding phase (Kluber et al. 2009). This indicator is used only
if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally
support woodlands.
In the Willamette Valley, wetlands with >35% of their perimeter with trees had the lowest probabilities of
local extinction (Adams et al. 2011). Where forests are thinned rather than clear cut, vegetated buffers
as narrow as 55 ft may be enough to offset changes in riparian microclimate that would otherwise have
occurred from the thinning (Olson & Chan 2005).
To meet all their life history requirements, most amphibians require uplands in close proximity to, or
interspersed within, suitable wetlands. Uplands that are dominated by natural vegetation usually
provide the most suitable microclimates and habitat structure. When radiotracked frogs were released
inside clusters of trees amidst otherwise unsuitable habitat (clearcuts), the proportion of frogs
abandoning the tree cluster was greater the smaller the cluster. Frogs were less likely to leave tree
patches intersected by a running stream or where neighborhood stream density was high. Scattered
tree patches of 2.0 to 3.7 acres, preferably in stream locations, were the minimum needed to allow
successful overland passage of one frog species (Chan-McLeod & Moy 2007). However, as noted by
Cushman (2006), “The suggestion that forest cover in the [buffer] landscape benefits amphibians may
not apply to all species that are fully aquatic or that depend on nonforested upland habitat.”
Although many frogs and turtles benefit from warmer temperatures associated with sparser ground
cover within a wetland, dense ground cover provides better protection from predators and maintains a
moist microclimate. Thus, intermediate levels are scored highest.
Complex microtopography provides many suitable microclimates important to survival of adult

amphibians during the late summer, fall, and winter.
Humans visiting wetlands commonly bring dogs, which are known to prey on native turtles and frogs.
Increased visitation by humans and pets can increase the spread of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis
(BD), a fungus lethal to many amphibians.
Humans visiting wetlands commonly bring dogs, which are known to prey on native turtles and frogs.
Increased visitation by humans and pets can increase the spread of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis
(BD), a fungus lethal to many amphibians.
See above.
Rationales
The portion of estuaries closest to the ocean is likely to have salinitly levels harmful to amphibians, as
well as waves and tidal currents that disrupt egg masses, and increased access by predatory fish.
Amphibians in this region do not breed in salt marshes because physiologically they are unable to
endure prolonged inundation by full-strength or moderately saline seawater.
Daily tidal fluctuations in the low marsh environment probably preclude successful breeding by most
amphibians due to the high risk of stranding of egg masses which amphibians attach to underwater
vegetation.
Wider tidal wetlands are more likely to include pockets or seeps of fresher water where salt-intolerant
amphibians can survive. They also provide more cover and isolation from predatory fish.
Tidal wetlands that are inaccessible to fish may be more supportive of amphibians because fish are
significant predators on eggs and tadpoles. If seawater intrudes into a tidal wetland only seasonally or
temporarily, water from rain and runoff may reduce salinity to levels that amphibians can tolerate for
short periods.
Tidal wetlands that are inaccessible to fish may be more supportive of amphibians because fish are
significant predators on eggs and tadpoles. If seawater intrudes into a tidal wetland only seasonally or
temporarily, water from rain and runoff may reduce salinity to levels that amphibians can tolerate for
short periods.
Tidal wetlands that are contiguous with non-tidal wetlands or which have tributaries sourced in nearby
uplands are more likely to have reduced salinities that allow amphibians to survive physiologically.
See F52.
See F53.
Rationales
Dependency of amphibians on a particular wetland increases if no other natural vegetation of

comparable or greater extent is available in the vicinity. If any of these cover types is very limited in a
localized area but is significantly present in the wetland, it imbues the wetland with greater importance
and value to the species that use and depend on it.
this region.
Wetlands are scarcer in drier parts of the region. Thus, amphibians there might be assumed to be
especially dependent on whatever few wetlands are present, making those wetlands more valuable.
In the future, the need for (and value of) amphibian habitat as provided by wetlands may increase the
most where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development often reduces or
impairs amphibian habitat. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be
Amphibians produced by wetlands are important foods for some waterbird species, e.g., herons. Thus,
wetlands that have good amphibian habitat are more valuable if they also support better waterbird
habitat.
AVERAGE(ConnLocalW,DistPond, HUCbest))
AVERAGE(DistPerCov,PerCovPct,SizePerenn,Arid)
AVERAGE(Lentic,Gradient,Fluctu,Beaver,PermWpct, PondWpctDry,PondWpctWet)
AVERAGE(WidthWet,MAX(EmPct,SAV,WoodOver), PondWpctWet,PondWpctDry, WaterMixWet,
WaterMixDry))
AVERAGE(Gcover,Girreg,WoodDown,GDD,VegCut,BuffWidth,PerimPctPer)
AVERAGE(DistRd, Salin, WQin,ConnecUp)
AVERAGE(FishAcc,PestAnim,VisitNo,VisitOften)
SalinT x [3*AVERAGE(EstPosT,LowMarshT,SalinT) + 2*AVERAGE(WidthHiT, OutDuraT,TnonT) +
AVERAGE(DistPond,DistRd,PerimPctPerT,BuffWidthT)] /6
IF Tidal=1,Tidal11, ELSE: AVERAGE(Waterscape, PchemStress,
AVERAGE(Hydro,AqStruc,TerrStruc,Lscape,BioStress))
MAX(AmphRare, AVERAGE(AmphRare,GISscoreAMv,UniqPatch,Arid,Zoning,FscoreWBFv)))
Literature Cited
Adams, M. J., C. A. Pearl, S. Galvan, and B. McCreary. 2011. Non-native species impacts on pond
occupancy by an anuran. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:30-35.
Brosofske, K. D., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman, and J. F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic
gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7:1188-1200.
Chan-McLeod, A. C. A. and A. Moy. 2007. Evaluating residual tree patches as stepping stones and
short-term refugia for red-legged frogs. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1836-1844.
Chen, J. and J. F. Franklin. 1990. Microclimatic pattern and basic biological responses at the clearcut
edges of old-growth Douglas-fir stands. Northwest Environmental Journal 6:424-425.
Chen, J., J. F. Franklin, and T. A. Spies. 1995. Growing-season micro-climatic gradients from clearcut
edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 5:74–86.
Cushman, S. A. 2006. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and
prospectus. Biological Conservation 128:231-240.
Dignan, P. and L. Bren. 2003. Modelling light penetration edge effects for stream buffer design in
mountain ash forest in southeastern Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 179:95-106.
Eigenbrod, F., S. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2008a. Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects
of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology 23:159-168.
Eigenbrod, F., S. J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2008b. The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover
on anuran populations. Biological Conservation 141:35-46.
Fahrig, L. and T. Rytwinski. 2009. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and
synthesis. Ecology and Society 14:21. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss21/art21/
Fahrig, L., J. H. Pedlar, S. E. Pope, P. D. Taylor, and J. F. Wegner. 1995. Effect of road traffic on
amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177-182.
Guerry, A. D. and M. L. Hunter. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture:
An examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conservation Biology 16:745-754.
Hennenberg, K. J., D. Goetze, J. Szarzynski, B. Orthmann, B. Reineking, I. Steinke, and S. Porembski.
2008. Detection of seasonal variability in microclimatic borders and ecotones between forest and
savanna. Basic and Applied Ecology 9:275-285.
Kluber, M. R., D. H. Olson, and K. J. Puettmann. 2009. Downed Wood Microclimates and Their
Potential Impact on Plethodontid Salamander Habitat in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Science
83:25-34.
Mader, H. J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation
29:81-96.
Marsh, D. M. 2007. Edge effects of gated and ungated roads on terrestrial salamanders. Journal of
Wildlife Management 71:389-394.
Moore, R. D., D. L. Spittlehouse, and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature
response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:813-
834.
Olson, D. H. and S. Chan. 2005. Effects of four riparian buffer treatments and thinning on microclimate
and amphibians in western Oregon headwater forests. Page 369 in C. E. Peterson and D. A. Maguire,
editors. Balancing Ecosystem Values: Innovative Experiments for Sustainable Forestry, General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-635. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, OR.
Pearl, C., M. Adams, N. Leuthold, and R. Bury. 2005. Amphibian occurrence and aquatic invaders in a
changing landscape: implications for wetland mitigation in the willamette valley, Oregon, USA.
Wetlands 25:76-88.
Ries, L., R. J. Fletcher, J. Battin, and T. D. Sisk. 2004. Ecological responses to habitat edges:
mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics
35:491-522.
Semlitsch, R. D., T. J. Ryan, K. Ramed, M. Chatfield, B. Drehman, N. Pekarek, M. Spath, and A.
Watland. 2007. Salamander abundance along road edges and within abandoned logging roads in
Appalachian forests. Conservation Biology 21:159-167.
Skidds, D. E., F. C. Golet, P. W. C. Paton, and J. C. Mitchell. 2007. Habitat correlates of reproductive
effort in wood frogs and spotted salamanders in an urbanizing watershed. Journal of Herpetology
41:439-450.
Waterbird The capacity to support an abundance and diversity of wetland-
breeding waterbirds, such as ducks, grebes, bitterns, and rails. No
Nesting Habitat model is provided for tidal wetlands because waterbirds in Oregon
Non-Tidal Function
seldom nest in them.
(DistPerCov)
Indicators <100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
> 2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
OF4 Distance to Lake The distance from the AA edge to the closest (but separate) body of nontidal fresh water (wetland,
(DistLake) pond, or lake) that is ponded during most of the year and is larger than 20 acres (about 1000 ft on a
side) is:
<1 mile.
1-5 miles.
>5 miles.
OF5 Distance to Herbaceous The distance from the AA edge to the closest patch of herbaceous openland larger than 10 acres and
Open Land (DistOpenL) in flat terrain is:
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
OF11 Herbaceous Open Land Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center, the amount of herbaceous openland in flat terrain is:
Percentage (OpenLpct)
<5% of the land.
5 to <20%.
20 to <50%.
OF11 Herbaceous Open Land
50 to 80%.
>80%.
OF12 Landscape Wetland Within a 2-mile radius of the AA center:
Connectivity
(ConnScapeW) There are NO other wetlands.
described.
Connectivity
described.
(HUCbest) are true:

None of above.
OF43 Growing Degree Days
(GDD)
<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.
Enter 1, if true.
ONE.
and SKIP to F5.
continue.

>95% of the AA.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
F5 Depth Class
(Predominant)
(DepthDom)
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.

1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
Select only one.
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
F9 Cattail or Tall Bulrush The percentage of the emergent vegetation cover in the AA that is cattail (Typha spp.) or tall bulrush is:
Cover (Cttail)
<1% of the emergent vegetation, or cattail and bulrush are absent.
1 to <25% of the emergent vegetation.
25 to 75% of the emergent vegetation.
>75%, of the emergent vegetation.
(WoodyDryShade)
flowing.
>95% of the water.
(WaterMixWet)
SKIP TO F22.
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
F17 Ponded Open Water When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, the AA's ponded open water occupies a
Area (Driest) cumulative area, including adjacent ponded waters, of:
(OWareaDry)
<0.10 acre (< 4356 sq. ft). Enter 1 and SKIP TO F24.
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <1 acres.
1- 4 acres.
5 to <50 acres.
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi).
640 to <1000 acres.
1000 to 2500 acres.
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi).
Distribution - (Driest)
(WaterMixDry)
true.
Vegetation (SAV)
F21 Width of Vegetated Zone When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, but surface water still occupies >400 sq feet or
(Driest) (WidthDry) >1% of the AA (which ever is more), the width of the vegetated wetland that separates the largest
patch of open water within or bordering the AA from the closest adjacent uplands, is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
F22 Beaver (Beaver)
F23 Isolated Island (Island) During June, the wetland contains (or is part of) an island that is isolated from the shore by water
depths >3 ft. The island may be solid, or it may be a floating vegetation mat suitable for nesting
waterbirds. The island must be larger than 400 sq.ft and without inhabited buildings. Enter 1, if true.
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
>75% of the AA.
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
F38 Unshaded Herbaceous The annual maximum areal cover of herbaceous vegetation (excluding SAV, ferns, and mosses, but
Vegetation (Extent) including forbs & graminoids) that is not beneath a woody canopy reaches:
(HerbExpos)
<5% of the vegetated part of the AA. Enter 1 and SKIP to F42.
5 to <25% of the vegetated part of the AA.
50-95% of the vegetated part of the AA.
(HerbExpos)

following extent:

true.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(UpTreePctPer)
from].

<5%.
Value 5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
Indicators
Waterbird habitat (WB)

OF16 Conservation (c)The AA is within an Important Bird Area (IBA), as officially designated, according to the map layer of
Designations of the AA that name.
or Local Area
(ConDesig)
OF20 Nesting Waterbird According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare nesting waterbird species in the
Species of Conservation vicinity of this AA is:
Concern (RareWBN)
High (≥ 0.60 for maximum score, or ≥1.00 for this group's sum score), or there is a recent breeding-
season observation of any of these species onsite by a qualified observer under conditions similar to
what now occur.
Low (≤ 0.09 for maximum score and for sum score, but not 0 for both).
species during breeding season by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
(Arid)
OF27 Hydrologic Landscape
(Arid)
Arid.
Semi-arid.
Dry.
Moist.
Wet.
Very Wet.

F66 Visibility (Visibil) The maximum percentage of the wetland that is visible from the best vantage point on public roads,
public parking lots, public buildings, or public maintained trails that intersect, adjoin, or are within 300 ft
of the AA is (Select ONE):
<25%.
25 - 50%.
>50%.
Function Subindices
Function Score for Nesting Waterbird Ha
Values Score for Nesting Waterbird Ha

WBN
Data X
Points
0.00
0 10 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 8 0
0 7 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 7 0
0 5 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
Waterscape 0.00
Landscape 0.00
Water Regime (Hydro) 0.00
Structure & Size (Struc) 0.00
Productivity 0.00
Stressors 0.00
e for Nesting Waterbird Habitat F 0.00
e for Nesting Waterbird Habitat V 0.00

Rationales
Perennial cover is essential for concealing the nests of breeding waterbirds, and for sheltering young
birds from predation and the elements. These are the distances at which nests of upland-nesting
waterbirds are most often found.
Waterbirds prefer landscapes where multiple wetlands are present in close proximity, so that if birds are
disturbed in one area, they can fly to alternate sites that serve as refuge and which may provide
different but complementary water regimes and foods. Although they will fly much farther than 2 miles
to reach other wetlands and water bodies (Haig et al. 1997), 2 miles is used as a practical distance for
assessing such features in aerial images.
Larger ponded areas are preferred by swans, loons, grebes, cormorants, and some other waterbird
species. That is because they provide greater buffer against predators, are more likely to have
productive fish populations, and are sufficiently long for waterbird species that cannot take flight by
leaping directly upward.
Many species shorebirds, ducks, and geese favor wetlands situated in agricultural or other open
landscapes, which offer additional foods (e.g., waste grain) and where advancing predators are easier
to detect (Lovorrn et al., Taft & Haig 2003). Although they will fly much farther than 2 miles to reach
such areas, 2 miles is used as a practical distance for assessing such features in aerial images.
See above.
See above.
See above. Corridors can be important to ducks that must walk overland with their young to find other
wetlands in which to feed or molt.
Corridors of mostly undisturbed perennial vegetation are essential to the overland movements of some
waterfowl hens with their broods.
Feeding waterbirds are supported to a greater degree when large numbers, type diversity, and
cumulative area of wetlands are present within a small area. Birds are more likely to find feeding
opportunities and refuge from disturbance somewhere within such complexes for longer periods during
migration and winter.
Contaminants in food webs are detrimental in the long term. This indicator receives a score of 0
(negative impact) if marked as being present; if no data are available it becomes a blank and is not
included in the calculations.
Areas with longer growing season, if not subject to frequent drought, may sustain a higher level of
productivity overall.
Areas with longer growing season, if not subject to frequent drought, may sustain a higher level of
productivity overall.
Most waterbird species prefer ponded areas, due to usually greater food availability and reduced energy
expenditures to maintain position in space. Especially at times of high water in channels, larger ponded
areas provide refuge for many species.
The ducks, cormorants, loons, grebes, terns, and others which comprise the most waterbird species
mostly prefer wetlands which contain at least some permanent surface water, so that is weighted the
highest. However, wetland productivity is often greater in seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands, and
shorebirds may use those the most. Preference for particular hydroperiods varies by season as well as
by species, so it is particularly important to maintain a variety of wetland hydroperiods within a
landscape.
Surface water that persists for all or most of a year (and especially, during the early summer) provides
more physical habitat for waterbirds. If no surface water persists, waterbird use can still be substantial if
the wetland borders a lake or large river. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the
AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Most waterbirds prefer depths of 1- 2 ft. Wetlands with greater depths will nonetheless usually have
some portion of their area in this and shallower depth classes. Even the shallowest areas are important
to many species. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Different waterbird species prefer different water depths, so a diversity of depth classes in a wetland is
likely to support a more varied mix of waterbirds. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Submersed and partly submersed vegetation is an essential food for many duck species, either directly
or because of the higher densities of invertebrate foods that it supports (Epners et al. 2010). Potholes
smaller than about 0.5 hectare are less likely to be used late in the nesting season, and are less likely to
contain water then (Keith 1961). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for
more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Most waterbirds favor emergent herbaceous vegetation rather than woody vegetation, partly because it
provides food as well as cover. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for
vegetation.
These plant species provide particularly dense cover for nesting waterbirds (e.g., American bittern,
rails), as well as supporting abundant invertebrate prey. This indicator is used only if some surface
water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a
minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Tall vegetation near water edges discourages use of those areas by some waterbird species, probably
because it potentially conceals or provides a perch for predators such as falcons (Shepherd & Lank
2004, Sprague et al. 2008). Shade itself is not known to affect waterbird use directly, but is used as a
surrogate for tall features that conceal approaching predators. This indicator is used only if some
Interspersion of patches of open water amid patches of vegetation, in about equal proportions, provides
waterbirds with the best access to aquatic foods, and waterbird use of such wetlands has been shown
to be significantly greater (Murkin et al. 1982, Rehm & Baldassarre 2007). This indicator is used only if
Most wetland birds nest in or near ponded areas. If these isolated pools areas persist well into the
summer, they allow waterbird populations to establish more breeding territories within the site, as well
as concentrating invertebrate foods. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA
for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Larger ponded areas -- if they have few motorized boats -- are preferred by grebes, cormorants, and
some other waterbird species. That is because they provide greater buffer against predators, are more
likely to have productive fish populations, and are sufficiently long for waterbird species that cannot take
flight by leaping directly upward. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for
more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
to be significantly greater (Kaminski & Prince 1981, Murkin et al. 1982, Rehm & Baldassarre 2007). This
indicator is used only if some surface open water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks
of the growing season.
to be significantly greater (Kaminski & Prince 1981, Murkin et al. 1982, Rehm & Baldassarre 2007). This
indicator is used only if some surface open water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks
These plants are known to be important foods for many waterfowl species. This indicator is used only if
season.
These plants potentially increase waterbird habitat suitability by adding considerable habitat space and
structure for invertebrates important as foods for waterbirds. This indicator is used only if some open
ponded surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season.
Wider wetlands provide feeding waterbirds with more buffer against disturbances occurring in adjacent
uplands. This indicator is used only if some open ponded surface water persists in the AA for more than
At least in the short term, open water areas created by beaver dams provide excellent nesting and
foraging habitat for several waterbird species (Hood & Bayley 2008). This indicator is used only if some
At least in the short term, open water areas created by beaver dams provide excellent nesting and
foraging habitat for several waterbird species (Hood & Bayley 2008). This indicator is used only if some
Waterfowl nests on Islands that are inaccessible to skunks, raccoons, and other mammalian predators
are more successful in this region (Keith 1961). This indicator is used only if some surface water
Large water level fluctuations during the nesting season (late spring and early summer), can flood the
nests of birds that nest along wetland edges. However, annual fluctuations (described here) do not
necessarily parallel propensity of water levels to fluctuate during the nesting season.
Wetlands with extensive persistent water provide more habitable space for waterbirds, but wetlands that
flood only seasonally tend to be more productive, thus providing more food to breeding waterbirds, if
there are also nearby wetlands with more persistent water.
Sloping wetlands typically lack ponded surface water and thus are seldom used by most waterbird
species.
Herbaceous vegetation usually is the most attractive nesting cover for waterbirds.
Nesting cover for most waterbirds is not provided by wetlands whose vegetation has been grazed or
mowed intensely and repeatedly. However, limited grazing can create gaps in dense cover that benefits
plant productivity and diversity (Keith 1961).
Moss-dominated wetlands tend to be less fertile and thus may support lower numbers of nesting
waterbirds.
See below.
In herbaceous wetlands, the type of adjoining upland cover is very important to many nesting waterbird
species. Most upland-nesting waterfowl nest within about 1000 ft of wetlands. Maintaining mostly non-
woody but natural vegetation in such areas makes it difficult for predators to find nests, and hinders
frequent intrusions by humans.
Wooded wetlands and wetlands surrounded by trees tend to be used less by most waterbird species.
Nest predation from corvids (crow, raven, magpie) that typically nest in trees and shrubs is potentially
greater.
Humans visiting wetlands commonly bring dogs, which potentially harass waterbirds, and human
presence can attract crows and ravens, which prey on nests. Even the simple presence of people on
foot and without dogs will cause many waterbirds to take flight. Repeated intrusions that drain the
energy of waterbirds are especially damaging during the period when adult birds are searching for food
to feed their young.
See above.
Rationales
Dependency of nesting waterbirds on this wetland increases if no other natural herbaceous vegetation
of comparable or greater extent is available in the vicinity.
Wetlands existing in landscapes whose other wetlands perform this function to only a limited extent may
be considered to be more valuable because scarcity typically increases value.
Most of these areas have been recognized based on regular use by waterbird species that are
regionally rare or sensitive.
this region.
Wetlands are scarcer in drier parts of the region. Thus, waterbirds nesting in wetlands there might be
assumed to be especially dependent on whatever few wetlands are present, making those wetlands
more valuable.
Wetlands are scarcer in drier parts of the region. Thus, waterbirds nesting in wetlands there might be
assumed to be especially dependent on whatever few wetlands are present, making those wetlands
more valuable.
In the future, the need for (and value of) waterbird habitat as provided by wetlands may increase the
impairs waterbird habitat. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be
Human enjoyment of waterbirds (birding, hunting) is facilitated where wetlands are largely visible from
major access points. This increases the value of any level of feeding waterbird function.
AVERAGE(DistPond,DistLake,HUCbest,ConnScapeW,ConnLocalW)
AVERAGE(DistOpenL,OpenLpct, WoodyDryShade,UpTreePctPer, PerimPctPer,BuffWidth)

AVERAGE (Hydropd,AVERAGE(Lentic,Gradient), AVERAGE(OWareaDry,PondWpctDry),
MAX(SeasWpct, PermWpct),DepthDom, DepthEven, Fluctu))
AVERAGE (EmArea, AVERAGE(HerbExpos, WidthDry,VegCut), AVERAGE(Islands,WaterMixDry,
Cttail, EmPct))
AVERAGE(Moss,Algae,SAV,GDD)
AVERAGE(VisitNo,VisitOften,WQin,ConnecUp)
IF((Tidal=1),0, IF((TooSteep=1),0, IF((NeverWater+TempWet >0),AVERAGE(Wscape,
Hydropd,HerbExpos, Lscape,Stressors), ELSE: (2*AVERAGE(Hydro,Struc, Wscape) +
AVERAGE(Stressors,Lscape,Produc)) /3)
IF((Tidal=1),0,MAX(RareWBN, ConDesigIBA,
AVERAGE(RareWBN,UniqPatch,GISscoreWBv,Visibil,Arid,Zoning)))
Literature Cited
Epners, C. A., S. E. Bayley, J. E. Thompson, and W. M. Tonn. 2010. Influence of fish assemblage and
shallow lake productivity on waterfowl communities in the Boreal Transition Zone of western Canada.
Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland connectivity in
landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12:749-758.
Kaminski, R. M. and H. H. Prince. 1981. Dabbling duck and aquatic macro-invertebrate responses to
manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:1–15.
Keith, L. B. 1961. A study of waterfowl ecology on small impoundments in southeastern Alberta. Wildlife
Monographs 6.
Lovvorn, J. R. and J. R. Baldwin. 1996. Intertidal and farmland habitats of ducks in the Puget Sound
region: a landscape perspective. Biological Conservation 77:97-114.
Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic
invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:2324-
2332.
Rehm, E. M. and G. A. Baldassarre. 2007. The influence of interspersion on marsh bird abundance in
New York. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:648-654.
Shepherd, P. C. F. and D. B. Lank. 2004. Marine and agricultural habitat preferences of dunlin wintering
in British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:61-73.
Sprague, A. J., D. J. Hamilton, and A. W. Diamond. 2008. Site safety and food affect movements of
Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla) migrating through the upper Bay of Fundy. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 3:1-22.
Taft, O. W. and S. M. Haig. 2003. Historical wetlands in Oregon's Willamette Valley: Implication for
restoration of winter waterbird habitat. Wetlands 23:51-64.
Waterbird The capacity to support an abundance and diversity of feeding
waterbirds, primarily outside of the usual nesting season.
Feeding
Non-TidalHabitat
Function
OF2 Distance to Tidal Waters The distance from the AA edge to the closest body of tidal water is:
(DistTidal)
<1 mile.
Indicators
1-5 miles.
>5 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
OF4 Distance to Lake The distance from the AA edge to the closest (but separate) body of nontidal fresh water (wetland,
(DistLake) pond, or lake) that is ponded during most of the year and is larger than 20 acres (about 1000 ft on a
side) is:
<1 mile.
1-5 miles.
>5 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
<5% of the land.
5 to <20%.
20 to <50%.
50 to 80%.
>80%.
(HUCbest) are true:

None of above.
For 9 or more continuous months annually.
the AA (ConnecUp)
Enter 1, if true.
ONE.
Ephemeral. Surfaceotherwise
duration described, water in the wettest
mark partlisted
the type of theabove
AA isit.]
present for fewer than 7 consecutive days
and SKIP to F5.
continue.

>95% of the AA.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
Select only one.
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
(PondWpctWet)
1 to <5% of the AA.
F12 All Ponded Water as
Percentage - Wettest
(PondWpctWet)

>95% of the AA.
F13 Ponded Open Water When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the AA's ponded open water occupies a
Area - Wettest cumulative area of:
(OWareaWet)
<0.10 acre (< 4356 sq. ft) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters. Enter 1 and SKIP TO F16.
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
0.50 to <1 acres of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi) of the AA and adjacent ponded waters.
(WaterMixWet)
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
true.
Vegetation (SAV)
F23 Isolated Island (Island) During June, the wetland contains (or is part of) an island that is isolated from the shore by water
depths >3 ft. The island may be solid, or it may be a floating vegetation mat suitable for nesting
waterbirds. The island must be larger than 400 sq.ft and without inhabited buildings. Enter 1, if true.
continuous weeks.
Enter 1, if true.
>75% of the AA.
(FishAcc) annually.
F30 Shorebird Feeding The extent of mudflats, very shallow waters, or shortgrass meadows, within the AA, that meet the
Habitats (Shorebd) definition of shorebird habitat for at least 3 months during the period of late summer through the
following May is:
None, or <100 sq. ft.

100 to <1000 sq. ft. within AA.
1000 to 10,000 sq. ft. within AA.
>10,000 sq. ft. within AA.
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
F36 Internal Gradient
(Gradient)
>10%.
F38 Unshaded Herbaceous The annual maximum areal cover of herbaceous vegetation (excluding SAV, ferns, and mosses, but
Vegetation (Extent) including forbs & graminoids) that is not beneath a woody canopy reaches:
(HerbExpos)
<5% of the vegetated part of the AA. Enter 1 and SKIP to F42.
50-95% of the vegetated part of the AA.
F40 Species Dominance - Determine which two native herbaceous (forb, fern, and graminoid) species comprise the greatest
Herbaceous (HerbDom) portion of the herbaceous cover that is unshaded by a woody canopy. Then select one:
Those species together comprise more than half of the areal cover of native herbaceous plants at any
time during the year, i.e., one dominant species or two co-dominants. Also mark this if <20% of the
vegetated cover is native species.
Those species together comprise less than half of the areal cover of native herbaceous plants at any
time during the year.
F41 Invasive or Non-native - Vegetative cover (annual maximum) is:
% of Vegetative Cover
(Invas) Overwhelmingly (>80% cover) non-native species AND >10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive
species.
(See ORWAP SuppInfo
Overwhelmingly file for non-native
(>80% cover) species designations).
species AND <10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive
species;
OR 50-80%
Mostly of cover
(50-80%) is non-native
native species. species regardless of invasiveness.
Overwhelmingly (>80%) native species.
true.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
(UpTreePctPer)
from].

<5%.
Tidal Function 5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.

1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthLoT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(BlindChT)
T9 Blind Channels - total
length and branching
(BlindChT)
T13 Shorebird Feeding Area The extent of mudflats or shortgrass meadows within the AA that meet the definition of shorebird
(ShorebdT) habitat (column E) for at least 3 months during the period of late summer through the following May is:
None, or <100 sq. ft.

100 to <1000 sq. ft. within AA.
1000 to 10,000 sq. ft. within AA.
>10,000 sq. ft within AA.
T17 Vegetation Forms The living vegetation forms that comprise >5% of the AA's vegetative cover in late summer is: Select
Significantly Present ALL that appy.
(VegformsT)
Macroalgae (seaweed).
Eelgrass.
Graminoids (other than eelgrass).
Forbs.
Shrubs and/or trees.
T21 Emergent Plants -- Area For the wetland as a whole, emergent plants cumulatively occupy an annual maximum of:
(EmAreaT)
<0.01 acre (< 400 sq.ft) or none.
0.01 to <0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <1 acres.
1 to <5 acres.
5 to <50 acres.
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi).
640 to <1000 acres .
1000 to 2500 acres.
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi).
T37 Flight Hazards In the AA or within 300 ft, there is an unsheltered fence, powerline, or public road with traffic at least
(FlightHazT) hourly that is located:
Within 15 ft of the AA's low marsh.
Within 15 ft of the AA's high marsh.
Neither.
T39 Core Area 1 (VisitNoT) The percentage of the AA almost never visited by humans during an average growing season probably
comprises: [Note: Only include the part actually walked or driven (not simply viewed from) with a
vehicle or boat. If more than half the wetland is visible from areas within 100 ft of the AA, include visits
by people to those areas but only count the part actually walked or driven (not simply viewed from).]

T40 Core Area 2 The part of the AA visited by humans almost daily for several weeks during an average growing season
(VisitOftenT) probably comprises: [The Note in the preceding question applies here as well].
<5%.
Value 5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
Indicators
OF16 Conservation (c)The AA is within an Important Bird Area (IBA), as officially designated, according to the map layer of
Designations of the AA that name.
or Local Area
(ConDesig)
OF19 Feeding (Non-breeding) According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare non-breeding (feeding) waterbird
Waterbird Species of species in the vicinity of this AA is:
(RareWBF) High (≥ 0.33 for maximum score, or there is a recent onsite observation of any of these species by a
qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
Low (< 0.33 for maximum score and for sum score, but not 0 for both).

<25%.
25 - 50%.
>50%.
F70 Consumptive Uses Recent evidence was found within the AA of the following potentially-sustainable consumptive uses.
(Provisioning Services) Select All that apply.
(Hunt)
Waterfowl hunting.
Function Subindices
Function Score for Feeding Waterbird Ha
Values Score for Feeding Waterbird Ha

WBF
Data X
Points
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 8 0
0 7 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 7 0
0 5 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0 9 0
0 10 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0
0
0 0.00
0.00
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 7 0
0 9 0
0 10 0
0 11 0
0 12 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0.00
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
Waterscape 0.00
Landscape 0.00
Water Regime (Hydro) 0.00
Structure & Size 0.00
Productivity 0.00
Tidal 0.00
for Feeding Waterbird Habitat F 0.00
for Feeding Waterbird Habitat V 0.00

Rationales
Non-tidal wetlands located in close proximity to tidal wetlands may receive more waterbird use because
they support a complementary variety of foods important to waterbirds, increasing the availability of
foods at all times.
Waterbirds prefer landscapes where multiple wetlands are present in close proximity, so that if birds
are disturbed in one area, they can fly to alternate sites that serve as refuge and which may provide
different but complementary water regimes and foods. Although they will fly much farther than 2 miles
to reach other wetlands and water bodies (Haig et al. 1997), 2 miles is used as a practical distance for
assessing such features in aerial images.
Larger ponded areas are preferred by swans, loons, grebes, cormorants, and some other waterbird
species. That is because they provide greater buffer against predators, are more likely to have
productive fish populations, and are sufficiently long enough for waterbird species that cannot take
flight by leaping directly upward.
See #14 below.
Many species of shorebirds, ducks, and geese favor wetlands situated in agricultural or other open
landscapes, which offer additional foods (e.g., waste grain) and where advancing predators are easier
to detect (Lovorrn & Baldwin 1996, Taft & Haig 2003). Although they will fly much farther than 2 miles
to reach such areas, 2 miles is used as a practical distance for assessing such features in aerial
images.
Feeding waterbirds are supported to a greater degree when large numbers, type diversity, and
cumulative area of wetlands are present within a small area. Birds are more likely to find feeding
opportunities and refuge from disturbance somewhere within such complexes for longer periods during
migration and winter.
These types of contaminants in food webs are detrimental in the long term. This indicator receives a
score of 0 (negative impact) if at least one of the parameters is marked as being present; if no data are
available it becomes a blank and is not included in the calculations.
Most waterbird species prefer ponded areas, due to usually greater food availability and reduced
energy expenditures to maintain position in space.
The ducks, cormorants, loons, grebes, terns, and others which comprise the most waterbird species
mostly prefer wetlands which contain at least some permanent surface water, so that is weighted the
highest. However, wetland productivity is often greater in seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands, and
shorebirds may use those the most. Preference for particular hydroperiods varies by season as well as
by species, so it is particularly important to maintain a variety of wetland hydroperiods within a
landscape.
Surface water that persists for all or most of a year (and especially, during the early summer) provides
more physical habitat for waterbirds. If no surface water persists, waterbird use can still be substantial if
the wetland borders a lake or large river. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in
Different waterbird species prefer different water depths, so a diversity of depth classes in a wetland is
likely to support a more varied mix of waterbirds. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Submersed and partly submersed vegetation is an essential food for many duck species, either directly
or because of the higher densities of invertebrate foods that it supports (Epners et al. 2010). Potholes
smaller than about 0.5 hectare are less likely to be used late in the nesting season, and are less likely
to contain water then (Keith 1961). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA
Most waterbirds favor emergent herbaceous vegetation rather than woody vegetation, partly because it
provides food as well as cover. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for
vegetation.
energy expenditures to maintain position in space. This indicator is used only if some surface water
energy expenditures to maintain position in space. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Most wetland birds tend to feed more in ponded areas than along channels. Especially at times of high
water in channels, larger ponded areas provide refuge for many species. This indicator is used only if
Interspersion of patches of open water amid patches of vegetation, in about equal proportions,
provides waterbirds with the best access to aquatic foods, and waterbird use of such wetlands has
been shown to be significantly greater. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the
uplands. This indicator is used only if some open surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
These plants usually indicate highly enriched conditions, and those tend to be more productive feeding
areas for most waterbird species. This indicator is used only if some open ponded surface water
These plants potentially increase waterbird habitat suitability by adding considerable habitat space and
structure for invertebrates important as foods for waterbirds. This indicator is used only if some open
Waterfowl nests on Islands that are inaccessible to skunks, raccoons, and other mammalian predators
are more successful in this region (Keith 1961). The model considers that If an isolated island is
present, it increases the score, but if absent it is considered to have no effect on the score for feeding
waterbirds. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Wetlands that remain unfrozen late into the fall and/or which thaw first during the spring, support use
by feeding waterbirds for longer periods. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in
Wetlands with extensive persistent water provide more habitable space for waterbirds, but wetlands
that flood only seasonally tend to be more productive, thus providing more food to breeding waterbirds,
if there are also nearby wetlands with more persistent water.
Fish are fed upon by many waterbird species, e.g., loons, grebes, cormorants, herons.
Mudflats in this region are often the result of a more-prolonged drawdown of water levels during the
spring and summer.
species.
species.
Herbaceous vegetation, even when not flooded, usually attracts a wider variety of feeding waterbirds
than does woody cover.
A variety of herbaceous vegetation types implies a variety of seed and foliage types that are available
to foraging waterbirds. This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01 acre.
The most prevalent invasive herbaceous plants in Oregon wetlands also produce less seed per plant
than native annual herbaceous plants (Evans-Peters et al. 2012) and this, combined with their
tendency to spread and rapily fill in areas of shallow water, reduces the suitability of invaded wetlands
as feeding waterbird habitat. This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01
acre.
The model considers that if moss is present, it decreases the score, but if absent it is considered to
have no effect on the score for feeding waterbirds.
Vegetated buffers that completely encircle wetlands provide visual screening of upland activities that
otherwise can disrupt waterbird feeding in some cases.
Wooded wetlands and wetlands surrounded by trees tend to be used less by most waterbird species.
Nest predation from corvids (crow, raven, magpie) that typically nest in trees and shrubs is potentially
greater.
Humans visiting wetlands commonly bring dogs, which potentially harass waterbirds, and human
presence can attract crows and ravens, which prey on nests. Even the simple presence of people on
foot and without dogs will cause many waterbirds to take flight. Repeated intrusions that drain the
energy of waterbirds are especially damaging during the period when adult birds are searching for food
to feed their young, or are making short stops during long intercontinental migrations.
See above.
Rationales
To feed effectively, waterbirds require at least a few inches of water depth. Tidal wetlands that flood
more extensively and for longer during each tidal cycle are thus more likely to support feeding
waterbirds.
uplands.
On outgoing tides, tidal channels concentrate fish and other animal foods consumed by wading birds
and thus improve feeding success and habitat capacity (Lourenco et al. 2005, Lamberson et al.2011).
On outgoing tides, tidal channels concentrate fish and other animal foods consumed by wading birds
and thus improve feeding success and habitat capacity (Lourenco et al. 2005, Lamberson et al.2011).
Many wetland birds make greater use of tidal wetlands that are close to non-tidal (generally fresher)
wetlands, because they provide fresh drinking water, roosting sites protected from extreme coastal
windstorms, and can support amphibians and some fish that do not tolerate saline conditions.
Shorebirds are a major component of waterbird diversity, and generally prefer to feed in unvegetated
mudflats.
The calculation takes into account both the type of forms present and the diversity of these forms
present, and considers the two metrics to be of equal importance.
Other factors being equal, intertidal emergent wetlands tend to attract a greater density of waterbirds,
partly because they are likely to have more habitat niches and provide a larger buffer against
disturbance from uplands.
Waterbirds (particularly swans) collide frequently with these features and are killed. The model
considers that if such hazards are present, they decrease the score, but if absent they are considered
to have no effect on the score for feeding waterbirds.
Humans visiting wetlands commonly bring dogs, which potentially harass waterbirds. Even the simple
presence of people on foot and without dogs will cause many waterbirds to take flight. Repeated
intrusions that drain the energy of waterbirds are especially damaging during the period when adult
birds are making short stops during long intercontinental migrations (Pfister et al. 1992, Lafferty 2001).
See above.
Rationales
Dependency of nesting waterbirds on this wetland increases if no other natural herbaceous vegetation
of comparable or greater extent is available in the vicinity.
Most of these areas have been recognized based on regular use by waterbird species that are
regionally rare or sensitive.
this region.
In the future, the need for (and value of) waterbird habitat as provided by wetlands may increase the
impairs waterbird habitat. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be
considered more valuable. However, agricultural lands provide some feeding habitat for waterbirds.
Human enjoyment of waterbirds (birding, hunting) is facilitated where wetlands are largely visible from
major access points. This increases the value of any level of feeding waterbird function.
This is a direct measure of one way that wetland waterbirds are valued.
AVERAGE(DistPond,DistLake,DistTidal, HUCbest)
AVERAGE(DistOpenL,OpenLpct, UpTreePctPer,PerimPctPer)
AVERAGE (Hydropd,Lentic,Gradient, AVERAGE(OWareaWet,PondWpctWet),
MAX(SeasPct,PermWpct), DepthDom,DepthEven))
AVERAGE (EmArea, Shorebd, AVERAGE(EmPct,HerbDom,HerbExpos,WidthWet),
MAX(Islands,WaterMixWet))
AVERAGE(Moss,Algae,SAV,IceDura,Invas,FishAcc)
AVERAGE(VisitNo,VisitOften,WQin,ConnecUp)
(3*AVERAGE(EmAreaT,LowMarshT,WidthLoT) + 2*AVERAGE(BlindChT,TnonT,ShorebdT,VegformsT)
+ AVERAGE(FlightHazT,VisitNoT,VisitOftenT)) /6
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreWBF, IF((TooSteep=1),0, IF((NeverWater=1), AVERAGE(Wscape,

Hydropd,HerbExpos,Lscape,Stressors), ELSE: AVERAGE[Hydropd, (3*AVERAGE(Hydro,Struc,
Waterscape) + AVERAGE(Stress,Lscape,Produc))/4]
IF(Tidal=1),MAX(RareWBF, ConDesigIBA, AVERAGE(UniqPatch,RareWBF,Zoning)), ELSE:

MAX(RareWBF, ConDesigIBA, AVERAGE(UniqPatch,RareWBF,Visibil,Zoning))
Literature Cited
Epners, C. A., S. E. Bayley, J. E. Thompson, and W. M. Tonn. 2010. Influence of fish assemblage and
shallow lake productivity on waterfowl communities in the Boreal Transition Zone of western Canada.
Evans-Peters, G. R., B. D. Dugger, and M. J. Petrie. 2012. Plant community composition and waterfowl
food production on Wetland Reserve Program easements compared to those on managed public lands
in western Oregon and Washington. Wetlands 32:391-399.
Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland connectivity in
landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12:749-758.
Keith, L. B. 1961. A study of waterfowl ecology on small impoundments in southeastern Alberta.
Wildlife Monographs 6.
Lafferty, K. D. 2001. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by
human activity. Biodiversity & Conservation 10:1949-1962.
Lamberson, J. O., M. R. Frazier, W. G. Nelson, and P. F. Clinton. 2011. Utilization Patterns of Intertidal
Habitats by Birds in Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Report EPA/600/R-11/118. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Newport, OR.
Lourenco, P. M., J. P. Granadeiro, and J. M. Palmeirim. 2005. Importance of drainage channels for
waders foraging on tidal flats: relevasnce for the management of estuarine wetlands. Journal of Applied
Ecology 42:477-486.
Lovvorn, J. R. and J. R. Baldwin. 1996. Intertidal and farmland habitats of ducks in the Puget Sound
region: a landscape perspective. Biological Conservation 77:97-114.
Pfister, C., B. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a
migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-126.
Shepherd, P. C. F. and D. B. Lank. 2004. Marine and agricultural habitat preferences of dunlin
wintering in British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:61-73.
Sprague, A. J., D. J. Hamilton, and A. W. Diamond. 2008. Site safety and food affect movements of
semipalmated sandpipers (Calidris pusilla) migrating through the upper Bay of Fundy. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 3:1-22.
Taft, O. W. and S. M. Haig. 2003. Historical wetlands in Oregon's Willamette Valley: Implication for
restoration of winter waterbird habitat. Wetlands 23:51-64.
Aquatic The capacity to support an abundance and diversity of invertebrate
animals which spend all or part of their life cycle underwater or in
Invertebrate moist soil. Includes dragonflies, midges, crabs, clams, snails, water
Habitat
Non-Tidal Function beetles, shrimp, aquatic worms, and others important to supporting
salmon and other species.
Indicators

<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.

>95% of the AA.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
Select only one.
F6 Depth Class Distribution
(DepthEven)
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
(PondWpctWet)
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
Vegetation (SAV)
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
>75% of the AA.
Evidence (Groundw)
F37 Groundwater Strength of
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:

Few or none.
Several.
F51 N Fixers (Nfix) The percentage of the vegetated area in the AA or along its water edge (whichever has more) that
contains nitrogen-fixing plants (e.g., alder, baltic rush, scotch broom, lupine, clover, alfalfa, other
legumes) is:
<1% or none.
1 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 75%.
>75%.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
- % of Perimeter
(PerimPctPer)
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.
S1 Aberrant Timing of Water Stressor subscore=
Inputs (AltTiming)
S3 Accelerated Inputs of Stressor subscore=

Contaminants and/or
Salts (ContamIn).
Loading from Runoff
Contributing Area
(SedRCA).

Tidal Function
Assessment Area
(SoilDisturb).

1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(BlindChT)
T14 Waterborne Pests Select only the FIRST statement that is true:
(AqPestT)
Non-native invertebrates (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail, mitten crab, rusty crayfish, oyster drill) are
known to be present in the AA or in connected waters within 300 ft.
A regularly-used boat dock is present within or contiguous to the AA.
A regularly-used boat dock is not within the AA, but there is one within 300 ft of the AA and there is a
persistent or tidal surface connection between the dock and the AA.
Large ships that empty ballast water are regularly present in nearby contiguous waters.
None of the above.

5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95%.
T19 Vegetation Form From the above list, the number of macrophyte groups that comprise >5% of the vegetated area in the
Diversity (VegFormDivT) specified zone during late summer is:
one.
2 or 3.
>3.
T20 Species Dominance Within the form identified as the predominant macrophyte, the 2 most common native species together
(VegSpDomT) comprise:
<20% of the AA's vegetated area (most species-rich, no dominants or co-dominants).
20 to <40% of the AA's vegetated area.
60 to 80% of the AA's vegetated area.
>80% of the AA's vegetated area (monotypic or nearly so).
T25 Driftwood (DriftwoodT) The extent of driftwood on the land surface is:
None or little.
Intermediate (~ 1 piece/200 ft. of shoreline, or >1,000 square feet).
High (>1 piece/100 ft. of shoreline, or >1,000 square feet ).
T26 Large Woody Debris Within the part of the AA and its internal channels that remain underwater during daily low tide, the
(LwdT) extent of fish cover provided at that time by partly submerged vegetation, inchannel pools, incised
banks, and pieces of wood (thicker than 6 inches and longer than 4 feet, or smaller pieces in dense
accumulations) is:
None or few.
Intermediate.
Many (>1 piece per 5 acres or per 10 channel widths).
(GcoverT)
T32 Bare Ground &
Value
Indicators

None of above.
Aquatic invertebrate habitat (INV)

OF22 Invertebrate Species of According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare invertebrate species in the vicinity
Conservation Concern of this AA is:
(RareInvert)
High (≥ 0.75 for maximum score, or for this group's sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation
of any of these species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
Low (< 0.75 for maximum score AND for this group's sum score, but not 0 for both).

Z Function Scores of Function Score for Resident Fish Habitat
Dependent Groups
Function Score for Amphibian & Reptile Habitat
Function Score for Feeding Waterbird Habitat
Function Score for Nesting Waterbird Habitat
Function Score for Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat
Function Score for Aquatic Invertebrate Hab
Values Score for Aquatic Invertebrate Hab

INV
Data X
Points
0
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
1.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
Structure 0.00
Hydroperiod 0.00
Landscape 0.00
Stressors (Lack of) 1.00
Tidal 0.09
r Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat F 1.67
r Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat V 0.02

Rationales
Excessive suspended sediment limits the production of algae important to aquatic invertebrates, and
toxic substances Iespecially pesticides) are directly harmful. This indicator receives a score of 0
(negative impact on invertebrates) only if at least one of the below are marked as causing the concern
AND either a persistent or intermittent surface connection exists with the downstream AA.
Comparing data from multiple regions, Utz et al. (2009) reported that aquatic invertebrates sensitive to
impervious cover were generally lost when impervious cover was in the range of 3% (most sensitive
taxa) to 23%. Macroinvertebrate and fish community composition is impacted beginning at about 5%
impervious surface, a number that varies depending on the proportion of agricultural land as well (e.g.,
Waite et al. 2006).
Wetlands in which surface water persists longer are capable of supporting a wider variety of
invertebrates, e.g., those that require many months or years to complete their life cycle, as well as
those that mature more rapidly (Driver 1977). However, where predation from fish in persistently
flooded wetlands is severe, wetlands with less persistent water may have more species, especially if
species are tallied among successive years with different amounts of precipitation. Thus, retaining both
permanent and ephemeral wetlands is essential to maintaining biodiversity overall. This indicator is
used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing
season.
Provided that they hold surface water for several weeks, shallow areas support greater primary
production, support higher vascular plant densities, and consequently greater invertebrate production.
This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks
Different invertebrate groups thrive at different water depths in boreal wetlands (Corcoran et al. 2009).
Thus, a variety of depths may promote greater invertebrate richness for the wetland as a whole. This
growing season.
Different invertebrate groups thrive at different water depths in boreal wetlands (Corcoran et al. 2009).
Thus, a variety of depths may promote greater invertebrate richness for the wetland as a whole. This
growing season.
Emergent herbaceous vegetation typically hosts extensive growths of epiphytic algae, which along with
the supporting herbaceous plants, provide food and cover for a wide variety of invertebrates. This
growing season.
Emergent herbaceous vegetation typically hosts extensive growths of epiphytic algae, which along
with the supporting herbaceous plants, provide food and cover for a wide variety of invertebrates.
Intermediate cover conditions allow more light penetration of the water column, higher algal
productivity, greater oxygenation, and thus tend to support a wide variety of invertebrate groups. This
growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Isolated pools provide invertebrates with some isolation from predatory fish that mainly inhabit
channels. However, some predatory fish do inhabit pools that are perennial. A mix of both isolated
pools and flowing water in channels favors a wider array of invertebrate assemblages, adding to the
overall diversity of invertebrates in the wetland. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Greater invertebrate diversity overall may be supported by wetlands with a relatively even mix of open
water and vegetation, interspersed throughout (Murkin et al. 1982). Such conditions reflect a variety of
light, temperature, and oxygen regimes as well as edge habitats (ecotones) that together provide more
niches for invertebrates. This indicator is used only if some open ponded surface water persists in the
Due to its being almost completely and constantly surrounded by water and providing complex
structure, SAV is especially important for aquatic invertebrates. This indicator is used only if some open
Dynamic water levels in wetlands with outlets usually imply more productive wetlands and greater
export of organic matter, whereas stable water levels typically imply less export. However, if water level
fluctuations are too severe (e.g., greater than plant height) production of organic matter can diminish.
Also, more stable water levels may benefit aquatic invertebrates the most in areas where many
streams are prone to sudden fluctuations from melting snow and storms.
The parts of a wetland that are inundated only seasonally may contain water long enough for many
invertebrates to complete their life cycle, while providing fresh food resources (e.g., plant litter). They
also tend to be shallower and less deficient in dissolved oxygen, making them suitable for a wider
range of species.
microhabitats for invertebrates, so should result in greater species richness. This indicator is used only
if an tributary channel is present and water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14 days of the
growing season.
For invertebrates, groundwater provides a relatively steady input of nutrients that supports algal
production. It also provides relatively warm temperatures during cool periods, and cool temperatures
during warm periods (Brown et al. 2007, 2011). Groundwater also helps sustain low flows, potentially
increasing the annual production of aquatic invertebrates
For invertebrates, groundwater provides a relatively steady input of nutrients that supports algal
production. It also provides relatively warm temperatures during cool periods, and cool temperatures
during warm periods (Brown et al. 2007, 2011). Groundwater also helps sustain low flows, potentially
increasing the annual production of aquatic invertebrates
The second condition implies greater diversity of plants, which sometimes is associated with greater
diversity of aquatic invertebrates. This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or
<0.01 acre.
Downed wood provides food, cover, and a stable microclimate for many invertebrates that live in soil
and peat of wetlands that seldom flood. This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the
AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally support woodlands.
At least in nutrient-poor water bodies, the leaves of nitrogen-fixing plants such as alder have been
shown to support higher densities and richness of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (Wipfli 2007,
Wipfli & Musselwhite 2004, Hernandez et al. 2005, LeSage et al. 2005). On a per-surface-area basis,
deciduous trees often support higher levels of insect biomass than conifers, at least among nocturnal
flying insects [Ober and Hayes 2008).
A 30-ft wide buffer along perennial streams in British Columbia was found to be insufficient to protect
stream invertebrate communities from clear-cut logging, although the terrestrial insects the buffer
provided were noted as a potentially important food source for fish using the streams (Hoover et al.
2007). Another study of BC perennial streams found uncut riparian buffers of at least 30 ft were needed
to limit changes from clear-cut logging to aquatic life in headwater forested watersheds; those changes
included increase abundance of aquatic invertebrates and algae (Kiffney et al. 2003). Increased
sunlight from vegetation removal can increase stream and wetland productivity and thus the density of
some invertebrate groups, where nutrients and elevation (stream temperature) are not severely limiting
(Moldenke & Linden 2007).
A 30-ft wide buffer along perennial streams in British Columbia was found to be insufficient to protect
stream invertebrate communities from clear-cut logging, although the terrestrial insects the buffer
provided were noted as a potentially important food source for fish using the streams (Hoover et al.
2007). Another study of BC perennial streams found uncut riparian buffers of at least 30 ft were needed
to limit changes from clear-cut logging to aquatic life in headwater forested watersheds; those changes
included increase abundance of aquatic invertebrates and algae (Kiffney et al. 2003). Increased
sunlight from vegetation removal can increase stream and wetland productivity and thus the density of
some invertebrate groups, where nutrients and elevation (stream temperature) are not severely limiting
(Moldenke & Linden 2007).
Comparing data from multiple regions, Utz et al. (2009) reported that once urbanization in a watershed
reached 60%, all taxa remaining responded either neutrally or positively with respect to continued
urbanization. Most were harmed at much lower levels. The importance of streamside vegetation,
especially trees, for sustaining the health of aquatic systems has been documented in the Pacific
Northwest (e.g., Gregory et al. 1991, Naiman et al. 2000, Richardson et al. 2005, Wipfli et al. 2007).
Streams adjoined by natural vegetation support richer and healthier aquatic invertebrate communities
(Richards et al. 1996), and the same should be true of wetlands. However, the effects of buffers and/or
tree canopy closure on aquatic life in perennial streams can be variable, with some studies showing
little effect on native fish (Roy et al. 2005, Fischer et al. 2009) and others a positive effect especially
when buffer width was at least 100 ft (Frimpong et al. 2005, Horwitz et al. 2008).
Vegetation provides more food and cover to invertebrates than do bare areas, so invertebrate density
and diversity is typically greater.
Greater microtopography implies greater heterogeneity of water, vegetation, and disturbance regimes,
which together should indicate higher capacity to support a wide variety of invertebrates.
Life histories of most invertebrates are closely linked to specific thermal and light (seasonality)
conditions as those interact with specific hydrologic patterns. Abnormal patterns of inundation to which
invertebrate communities are not adapted may reduce populations of many intolerant invertebrate
species, thus diminishing local biodiversity (Kaster & Jacobi 1978, Cushman 1985).
Some invertebrates, such as amphipods, are highly sensitive to pesticides.

Aquatic invertebrate communities (both benthic and planktonic) are harmed by excessive
sedimentation and/or turbidity from sediment runoff (Gleason et al. 2003). The deposition of fine
sediment can limit populations of grazing invertebrates even when algal foods become more available
following canopy removal (Kiffney & Bull 2000).
Many wetland invertebrates inhabit the soil, and potentially are harmed by soil disturbance such as
from tillage or compaction. In Oregon's Willamette Valley, farmed wetlands were found to support
lower biomass and richness of aquatic invertebrates compared to native wet prairie (Wyss 2011).
Rationales
Tidal wetlands that contain both low and high marsh are more likely to support both terrestrial insects
and diverse array of aquatic invertebrates, including species encompassing a wider range of salinity
and inundation tolerances (Kneib & Wagner 1994).
Tidal channels diversify the microtopography and tidal inundation regime, and this can diversify
associated aquatic invertebrate prey types. Complex networks of tidal channels within a wetland
provide access routes for incoming tides, invertebrates, and detritus carried in from subtidal areas
(Minello et al. 1994, Minello & Rozas 2002). In contrast, tidal channel networks that have been
straightened or simplified support less invertebrate diversity (Balling et al. 1980). By providing gaps for
sunlight to penetrate dense vegetation cover, tidal channels can increase production of epiphytic algae
favored by many invertebrates.
The most diverse invertebrate communities may occur where there exists a spatial continuum of salinity
and inundation regimes, as is likely to occur where tidal wetlands adjoin nontidal wetlands or contain
freshwater tributaries.
Populations of some native invertebrates could be displaced by exotic species. Those are often
associated with increased traffic of boats, especially those that have traveled from distant regions of
similar latitude.
Overhanging vegetation provides organic matter (detritus) that helps support a greater biomass and
diversity of aquatic invertebrates.
Different invertebrate groups thrive on different food sources, which correlate with vegetation forms.
Thus, a variety of vegetation groups promotes greater invertebrate richness for the wetland as a whole.
Tidal wetlands that are richer in plant species can be assumed to also be richer in invertebrate species,
because many invertebrates require a variety of sources of food and cover.
Driftwood provides food, cover, and a stable microclimate for many soil-dwelling invertebrates (Brennan
et al. 2009).
Large woody debris in channels provides vertical attachment surfaces that support greater total
invertebrate biomass.
Although important to clams and some burrowing invertebrates, sand substrates tend to be less stable
and usually support lower biomass and diversity of tidal invertebrates, compared with other substrates.
Rationales
If any of these cover types is very limited in a localized area but is significantly present in the wetland, it
imbues the wetland with greater importance and value to the species that use and depend on it.
this region.
In the future, the need for (and value of) aquatic invertebrate habitat as provided by wetlands may
increase the most where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development often
reduces habitat. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be considered
more valuable.
In the future, the need for (and value of) aquatic invertebrate habitat as provided by wetlands may
increase the most where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development often
reduces habitat. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be considered
more valuable.
Aquatic invertebrates produced by wetlands are important foods for animals in all these other groups.
Thus, invertebrates are potentially more valuable in wetlands having better habitat for those groups.
AVERAGE(WaterMixDry,ThruFlo, SAVpct, AVERAGE(EmArea,EmPct,HerbDom,DepthEven,

Gcover,Girreg,WoodDown,Nfix)))
AVERAGE(PermW, AVERAGE(Groundw,SeasPct, DepthDom,Fluctu,PondWpctWet))
AVERAGE(ImpervRCA,BuffWidth,PerimPctPer)
AVERAGE(ContamIn,SoilDisturb,SedRCA,AltTime,WQin,ConnecUp)
(3*LowMarshT + 2*AVERAGE(SoilTexT,BlindChT,TnonT, VegFormDivT,VegSpDomT, AltTime) +
AVERAGE(AqPestT,ShadeLoT,DriftwoodT,LwdT,GcoverT))/6
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreINV, ELSE: AVERAGE(Structure,AVERAGE(Hydropd,Lscape,Stressors))
IF((Tidal=1), AVERAGE(FscoreFR,FscoreWBF,FscoreSBM), ELSE: MAX

[RareInvert,AVERAGE(RareInvert,UniqPatch,
(AVERAGE(FscoreFR,FscoreAM,FscoreWBF,FscoreSBM)),GISscoreINVv,Zoning))]
Literature Cited
Brown, J. 2007. Groundwater and Biodiversity Conservation. in: A. Wyers, A. Aldous, and L. Bach,
editors. A Methods Guide for Integrating Groundwater Needs of Ecosystems and Species into
Conservation Plans in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR.
Balling, S. S., T. Stoehr, and V. H. Resh. 1980. The effects of mosquito control recirculation ditches on
the fish community of a San Francisco Bay salt marsh. California Fish Game Scientific Journal 66:25-
34.
Brennan, J., H. Culverwell, R. Gregg, and P. Granger. 2009. Protection of Marine Riparian Functions in
Puget Sound, Washington. Washington Sea Grant, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Seattle, WA http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00693.
Brown, J., L. Bach, A. Aldous, A. Wyers, and J. DeGagné. 2010. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems
in Oregon: an assessment of their distribution and associated threats. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 9:97-102.
Cushman, R. M. 1985. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from
hydoelectic facilities. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 5:330-339.
Driver, E. A. 1977. Chironomid communities in small prairie ponds: characteristics and controls.
Freshwater Biology 7:121–133.
Fischer, J. R., M. C. Quist, S. L. Wigen, A. J. Schaefer, T. W. Stewart, and T. M. Isenhart. 2010.
Assemblage and population-level responses of stream fish to riparian buffers at multiple spatial scales.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:185-200.
Frimpong, E. A., T. M. Sutton, K. J. Lim, P. J. Hrodey, B. A. Engel, T. P. Simon, J. G. Lee, and D. C.
LeMaster. 2005. Determination of optimal riparian forest buffer dimensions for stream biota-landscape
association models using multi metric and multi variate responses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 62:1-6.
Gleason, R. A., N. H. Euliss, D. E. Hubbard, and W. G. Duffy. 2003. Effects of sediment load on
emergence of aquatic invertebrates and plants from wetland soil egg and seed banks. Wetlands 23:26-
34.
Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of
riparian zones: Focus on links between land and water. Bioscience 41:540-550.
Hernandez, O., R. W. Merritt, and M. S. Wipfli. 2005. Benthic invertebrate community structure is
influenced by forest succession after clearcut logging in southeastern Alaska. Hydrobiologia 533:45-59.
Hoover, S. E. R., L. G. W. Shannon, and J. D. Ackerman. 2007. The effect of riparian condition on
invertebrate drift in mountain streams. Aquatic Sciences 69:544-553.
Hornung, J. and A. L. Foote. 2006. Aquatic invertebrate responses to fish presence and vegetation
complexity in western boreal wetlands, with implications for waterbird productivity. Wetlands 26:1-12.
Horwitz, R. J., T. E. Johnson, P. F. Overbeck, T. K. O'Donnell, W. C. Hession, and B. W. Sweeney.
2008. Effects of riparian vegetation and watershed urbanization on fishes in streams of the mid-Atlantic
piedmont (USA). Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44:724-741.
Kaster, J. L., and G. Z. Jacobi. 1978. Benthic macroinvertebrates of a fluctuating reservoir. Freshw.
Biol. 8:283-290.
Kiffney, P. M. and J. P. Bull. 2000. Factors controlling periphyton accrual during summer in headwater
streams of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15:339-351.
Kiffney, P. M., J. S. Richardson, and J. P. Bull. 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to
experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology
40:1060-1076.
Kneib, R. T. and S. L. Wagner. 1994. Nekton use of vegetated marsh habitats at different stages of
tidal inundation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 106:227–238.
LeSage, C. M., R. W. Merritt, and M. S. Wipfli. 2005. Headwater riparian invertebrate communities
associated with red alder and conifer wood and leaf litter in southeastern Alaska. Northwest Science
79:218-232.
Minello, T. J. and L. P. Rozas. 2002. Nekton in Gulf Coast wetlands: fine-scale distributions, landscape
patterns, and restoration implications. Ecological Applications 12:441-455.
Minello, T., R. Zimmerman, and R. Medina. 1994. The importance of edge for natant macrofauna in a
created salt marsh. Wetlands 14:184-198.
Moldenke, A. R. and C. V. Linden. 2007. Effects of clearcutting and riparian buffers on the yield of adult
aquatic macroinvertebrates from headwater streams. Forest Science 53:308-319.
Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic
invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:2324-
2332.
Naiman, R. J., R. E. Bilby, and P. A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific
Coastal Rain Forest. Bioscience 50:996-1011.
Ober, H. K. and J. P. Hayes. 2008. Influence of forest riparian vegetation on abundance and biomass
of nocturnal flying insects. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1124-1132.
Richards, C., L. B. Johnson, and G. E. Host. 1996. Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and
biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:295-311.
Richardson, J. S., R. E. Bilby, and C. A. Bondar. 2005. Organic matter dynamics in small streams of
the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:921-934.
Roy, A. H., C. L. Faust, M. C. Freeman, and J. L. Meyer. 2005. Reach-scale effects of riparian forest
cover on urban stream ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:2312-
2329.
Utz, R. M., R. H. Hilderbrand, and D. M. Boward. 2009. Identifying regional differences in threshold
responses of aquatic invertebrates to land cover gradients. Ecological Indicators 9:556-567.
Waite, T. A. and L. G. Campbell. 2006. Controlling the false discovery rate and increasing statistical
power in ecological studies. Ecoscience 13:439-442.
Wipfli, M. S. and J. Musslewhite. 2004. Density of red alder (Alnus rubra) in headwaters influences
invertebrate and detritus subsidies to downstream fish habitats in Alaska. Hydrobiologia 520:153-163.
Wipfli, M. S., J. S. Richardson, and R. J. Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and
downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater
channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:72-85.
Wyss, L. A. 2011. Effects of grass seed agriculture on aquatic invertebrate communities in seasonal
wetlands of the southern Willamette Valley, Oregon. Master's Thesis. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Native Plant The capacity to support a diversity of native, hydrophytic, vascular
plant species, communities, and/or functional groups, at either the site
Diversity
Non-Tidal Function scale or through contribution to regional-scale native plant diversity.
(DistPerCov)
Indicators <100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
> 2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to < 0.5 mile.
0.5 to <1 miles.
1 to 2 miles.
>2 miles.
<.01 acre.
.01 to < 1 acre.
1 to <10 acres.
10 to <100 acres.
100 to <1000 acres.
1000 to 10,000 acres.
>10,000 acres.
Connectivity
described.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
Select only one.
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
(WaterMixWet)
(WaterMixWet)
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
F25 Water Fluctuation Range
- Maximum (Fluctu)
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
>75% of the AA.
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:

vegetated covertogether
Those species is nativecomprise
species.less than half of the areal cover of native herbaceous plants at any
species.
(See ORWAP SuppInfo
species;
OR 50-80%
Mostly of cover
(50-80%) is non-native
native species. species regardless of invasiveness.
following extent:

F50 Exposed Shrub Canopy Within the vegetated part of the AA, shrubs shorter than 20 ft that are not overtopped by trees occupy:
<5% of the vegetated AA and <0.01 acre (400 sq ft).
5 to <25% of the vegetated AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer).
50 to 95% of the vegetated AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer).
>95% of the vegetated part of the AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer).
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
F55 Weeds - % of Upland Along the AA's edge (perimeter), the cover of invasive woody or herbaceous plants occupies:
Edge (UpWeed) [If vegetation is so senesced that apparently-dominant edge species cannot be identified even to
genus, answer "none"].
<5%, or none.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
>95%.
Intermediate.


No.
from].

<5%.
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
S1 Aberrant Timing of Water stressor score=
Inputs (AltTiming)
S5 Soil or Sediment stressor score=
Tidal Function
Assessment Area
(SoilDisturb).

(EstPosT)
Mid 1/3.

Unknown.
None, or <1%.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(BlindChT)
T9 Blind Channels - total
length and branching
(BlindChT)
T19 Vegetation Form From the above list, the number of macrophyte groups that comprise >5% of the vegetated area in the
Diversity (VegFormDivT) specified zone during late summer is:
one.
2 or 3.
>3.
(EmAreaT)
0.01 to <0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <1 acres.
1 to <5 acres.
5 to <50 acres.
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi).
640 to <1000 acres .
1000 to 2500 acres.
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi).
T24 Invasive or Non-native - The maximum annual areal cover of herbaceous plants is:
% of Herbaceous Area
(InvasT) Mostly (>50% cover) non-native species AND >10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive species.
Mostly (>50% cover) non-native species AND <10% of the herbaceous cover is invasive species.
Mostly (50-80% cover) native species.

Overwhelmingly (>80% cover) native species.
(PerimPctPerT)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
T31 Mowing or Grazing There is evidence that grazing by domestic or wild animals -- or mowing (multiple times per year),
(VegCutT) plowing, herbicides, or harvesting -- has repeatedly reduced the AA's vegetation cover (plants that
normally grows taller than 4 inches) to less than 4" over the following extent:
0% (such activities are absent).

1 to <5% of the AA (grazing or the other activities occur but vegetation height effects are mostly
unnoticeable).
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95%.
T33 Ground Irregularity In the high marsh (flooded less than daily), the number of small pits, raised mounds, hummocks,
(GirregT) boulders, upturned trees, islands, natural levees, wide soil cracks, and microdepressions is:
Few or none (minimal microtopography; <1% of the area that isn't persistently inundated); e.g., many
flat sites having a single hydroperiod.
Intermediate.

<5%.
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
Value
S1 Aberrant Timing of Water stressor score=
Inputs (AltTiming)
(DistPerCov)
<100 ft.
Indicators
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
> 2 miles.

None of above.
OF23 Plant Species of According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare wetland-indicator plant species in
Conservation Concern the vicinity of this AA is:
(RarePspp)
High (≥ 0.75 for maximum score, or > 4.00 for sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of
any of these species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.

Low (≤ 0.12 for maximum score AND < 0.20 for sum score, but not 0 for both).

F72 Wetland Type of Does the AA contain, or is it part of, any of these wetland types? Select All that apply.
(RareType)
Mature forested wetland (anywhere): a wetland in which mean diameter of trees (d.b.h., FACW and
FAC species only) exceeds 18 inches, and/or the average age of trees exceeds 80 years, or there are
>5 trees/acre with diameter >32 inches.
Bog or Fen: contains a sponge-like organic soil layer which covers most of the AA and often has
extensive cover of sedges and/or broad-leaved evergreen shrubs (e.g., Ledum). Often lacks
tributaries, being fed mainly by groundwater and/or direct precipitation.
Playa, Salt Flat, or Alkaline Lake: a nontidal ponded water body usually having saline (salinity >1 ppt or
conductivity >1000 µS ) or alkaline (conductivity >2000 µS and pH >9) conditions and large seasonal
water level fluctuations (if inputs-outputs unregulated). If a playa or salt flat, vegetation cover is sparse
and plants typical of saline or alkaline conditions (e.g., Distichlis, Atriplex) are common.
Hot spring (anywhere): a wetland where discharging groundwater in summer is >10 degrees (F)
warmer than the expected water temperature.
Native wet prairie (west of the Cascade crest): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a
naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and dominated primarily by native graminoids often including species
in column E.
Vernal pool (Willamette Valley): a seasonally inundated wetland, underlain by hardpan or claypan, with
hummocky micro-relief, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and with native plant
species distinctly different from those in slightly higher areas, and often including species in column E.
Vernal pool (Medford area): a seasonally inundated acidic wetland, underlain by hardpan, with
hummocky micro-relief, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and having concentric rings
of similar native vegetation, often including species in column E.
Vernal pool (Modoc basalt & Columbia Plateau): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a
naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, located on shallow basalt bedrock and often having species in column
E.
Interdunal wetland (Coastal ecoregion): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a naturally-
occurring inlet or outlet, located between sand dunes where wind has scoured the sand down to the
water table (deflation plain, blowout pond), and often with significant cover of the native species in
column E.
Ultramafic soil wetland (mainly southwestern Oregon): a low-elevation wetland, usually with a sponge-
like organic soil layer, occurring in an area with exposed serpentine or peridotite rock, and/or in soils
with very low Ca:Mg ratios.
None of above.
T47 Wetland Type of The AA comprises all or part of (a) a wooded tidal wetland (>30% cover of trees and/or shrubs), OR (b)
Conservation Concern an undiked tidal freshwater wetland (surface salinity <0.5 ppt during most of spring and summer).
(RareTypeT) Enter 1, if true.
Z Score for Dependent Score for Pollinator Habitat Function

Group
Z Score for Dependent
Group
Score for Songbird, Raptor, and Mammal Habitat Function
Function Subindices
Function Score for Native Plant Div
Values Score for Native Plant Div

PD
Data X
Points
0.00
0 8 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 5 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 3 0
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0 8 0
0 9 0
0 10 0
0 11 0
0 12 0
0 13 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0
0 0.00
0.00
0.00
Species - Area 0.00
Landscape 0.00
Aquatic Fertility 0.00
Competition/ Light 0.00
Stressors 0.14
Tidal 0.14
Score for Native Plant Diversity F 0.36
Score for Native Plant Diversity V 0.00

Rationales
Most plants have relatively limited dispersal capacities. Perennial cover contains more plant species
than highly disturbed land cover. Thus, wetlands nearest to perennial cover and which are not farmed
usually support a wider diversity of native plant species, other factors being equal (Smith & Haukos
2002). Genetically modified invasive plants that are resistant to herbicides and thus imperil native
wetland plants are more likely to occur in wetlands surrounded by non-perennial land cover types such
as croplands and urban areas where herbicides are widely used (Bollman et al. 2012).
Wetlands that are more geographically isolated from other wetlands and water bodies are more likely to
have lower plant species richness than those that are near (Nekola & White 1999, Sebastian-Gonzalez
et al. 2012). However, cumulatively their contribution to regional plant diversity may be greater
because of increasing likelihood that climate and elevation will be different the farther apart the
wetlands, and the more likely they will support species with low dispersal capacities, which tend to be
non-generalists.
Road corridors are a significant vector for non-native plants that can reduce native plant richness if they
invade nearby wetlands.
Large habitat patches support more species. Depending on their shape, forest patches sized about 10
acres or larger may provide habitat capable of sustaining a diverse array of bryophyte functional groups
in temperate rainforest landscapes. (Baldwin & Bradfield 2007). A leveling off of the plant species-area
accumulation curve in Alberta forests appeared at a forest patch size of about 27 acres (Gignac & Dale
2007). Blocks of forest smaller than about 9 acres may be less capable of supporting the expected
array of mosses in British Columbia (Baldwin & Bradfield 2007), although a study in Washington found
that forest patches as small as 2.5 acres, if not narrow, may be large enough to have a microclimate
supportive of most plants and animals (Heithecker & Halperin 2007).
Wetlands that are more geographically isolated from each other are likely to have lower plant species
richness than those close together (Nekola 1999). Although urbanization typically reduces the diversity
of plants in the forest understory, plant community composition in a Wisconsin study was better
explained by the amount of surrounding forest than by environmental factors within the studied forests
(Rogers et al. 2009). In Ontario, forested wetlands with the most plant species were those with the
largest areas and the largest proportion of upland forest within ~ 800 ft of the wetlands (Houlahan et al.
2006).
With regard to emergent and submersed aquatic plants, shallower areas generally have greater plant
richness due mainly to greater availability of light and sediment oxygen (Vestergaard & Sand-Jensen
2000).
A greater variety of depth classes usually supports a wider range of wetland plant species. This
growing season.
Larger patches of native vegetation tend to have more species, and better resist invasion by non-native
species that otherwise harm native plant diversity. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Intermediate densities of emergent plants tend to be most floristically diverse. This indicator is used
season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Relatively even mixes of emergent plants and open water imply that both submerged aquatics and
emergents may be present, thus adding to diversity. However, the addition of deep water may replace
substrate that otherwise could be colonized by emergent plants. If some wetland vegetation is not
water-covered when water levels are highest, it indicates generally shallow conditions that support high
plant species richness. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more
Relatively even mixes of emergent plants and open water imply that both submerged aquatics and
emergents may be present, thus adding to diversity. However, the addition of deep water may replace
substrate that otherwise could be colonized by emergent plants. If some wetland vegetation is not
water-covered when water levels are highest, it indicates generally shallow conditions that support high
plant species richness. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more
Wetlands with wider vegetated areas are more likely to contain more plant species and rarer and more
sensitive plants, as well as being more insulated from some upland disturbances (Rooney & Bayley
2012, Sebastian-Gonzalez et al. 2012). This indicator is used only if some open surface water persists
Beaver impoundments increase richness of wetland plants locally, especially a few years after they are
abandoned (Pollock et al. 1998, Wright et al. 2002, 2003; Bayley & Guimond 2008, Hood & Bayley
2008). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive
weeks of the growing season.
Wetlands with naturally fluctuating water levels tend to have greater plant species richness (Pollock et
al. 1998). Duration, frequency, and timing of inundation may be more important than magnitude of
fluctuation, but cannot be estimated during a single visit to an ungaged wetland. Prolonged deep
flooding can reduce plant species richness (Bayley & Guimond 2009).
Wetlands with naturally fluctuating water levels tend to have greater plant species richness (Pollock et
al. 1998). Duration, frequency, and timing of inundation may be more important than magnitude of
fluctuation, but cannot be estimated during a single visit to an ungaged wetland. Prolonged deep
flooding can reduce plant species richness (Bayley & Guimond 2009).
Wetlands with extensive seasonal flooding tend to have greater plant species richness, provided
flooding is not of long duration (Pollock et al. 1998). Seasonal inundation brings in external nutrients to
riverine wetlands, and is necessary in all wetlands for seed germination of many wetland plant species.
Hydrologic connection to other waters tends to increase onsite plant richness unless invasive species
are prevalent in the catchment.
Increasing channel complexity within a wetland suggests more varied microtopography and durations
of inundation, and those promote greater plant diversity. This indicator is used only if an tributary
channel is present and water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14 days of the growing season.
Partly because of the greater nutrient levels and hydrologic stability of most groundwater, several plant
species thrive best where a wetland's surface water originates most directly from groundwater (e.g.,
Radies et al. 2009).
Wetlands not dominated a one or two plant species are, by definition, more diverse. This indicator is not
used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01 acre.
Invasion by non-native species typically results in a reduction in native plant species richness. In some
regions, a change of only 4 inches in mean water level or a change of only 1 inch in the degree of
fluctuation may cause a shift from native to non-native species (Magee & Kentula 2005). This indicator
is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01 acre.
When vegetation is not achieving its normal height (e.g., due to excessive grazing) this often is
accompanied by reduced native plant diversity. However, mowing, mild grazing, and occasional low-
intensity fires can sometimes increase such diversity. Fire reduces woody cover (shade) and plant litter.
In some cases this can increase the germination of a wider variety of plant species, particularly forbs
(Pendergrass et al. 1998, Clark & Wilson 2001).
Plant diversity is often greater without the shading and nutrient-competitive effects of trees (Hanley &
Brady 1997). Thus, intermediate canopy cover usually supports the most diverse native plant
assemblages. Wetter soils tend to have smaller trees and support less tree cover, and the trees that
survive are also more prone to being blown down.
Shrubs contribute to onsite plant diversity, but are generally less diverse than herbaceous plants, which
are often more diverse without the shading and nutrient-competitive effects of shrubs. Sparse shrub
cover sometimes indicates overgrazing by deer, which reduces plant diversity (Allombert et al. 2005).
Such damage to shrubs and ground cover occurs in places where fragmentation of forests has created
deer densities of more than about 1 per 25 acres (Thiemann et al. 2009, Martin et al. 2010). This
indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape
that would normally support woodlands.
The less that perennial vegetation surrounds a wetland, the more likely it is that water quality and plant
richness in the wetland will be impaired.
Microclimate, which strongly influences plant species richness, can be altered by removal or thinning of
vegetation within upland buffers of wetlands. Lichens and mosses in wetlands have been affected by
edge-induced microclimate changes extending at least 50 ft into their forested upland buffers (Hylander
et al. 2002, Boudreault et al. 2008) and as far as ~150 ft from the forest edge (Baldwin & Bradfield
2005). Studies in western Washington found the light regime on the forest floor was affected ~100-200
ft from the edge, while humidity and air circulation were affected as far as ~800 ft into the forest (Chen
et al. 1990, 1995). A second study of riparian areas in western Washington suggested a wooded
buffer of about 150 ft might be necessary to approximate the natural microclimate gradients around
streams (Brosofske et al. 1997). The influence of adjoining clear-cuts on microclimate within a forest
normally extends about 160 ft into the forest, but in extreme cases can extend as far as 500 ft (Dignan
& Bren 2003, Ries et al. 2004, Moore et al. 2005, Hennenberg et al. 2008).
Although not all invasive upland plants are capable of establishing sustained populations in wetlands,
many can. When they do they reduce plant diversity.
Different plant species occur under different moisture regimes, which correlate with different elevations
(Samonil et al. 2010), so a greater diversity of elevations (i.e., complex microtopography) often
supports a wider variety of plants. Adding small ridges and furrows to constructed depressional
wetlands was found in one study to increase their percent cover of obligate wetland species (Alsfeld et
al. 2009). Especially In floodplains, wetlands with more varied topography tend to have greater plant
species richness because this creates different flood frequencies within the wetland (Pollock et al.
1998).
Coarse soils tend to be less productive and in some cases this results in reduced species richness of
wetland plants. Wetland soils with higher organic content often support greater plant species richness
(e.g., Alsfeld et al. 2009) but only if not too acidic (e.g., fens are not). However, when organic soils are
acidic (e.g., bogs) they often support species uncommon in wetlands elsewhere.
Unless (or even when) new wetlands are sown with native wetland plants, the number of species may
remain low for years as colonization gradually occurs and diverse plant communities become
established.
Seeds of non-native plants commonly are carried by humans and their pets. Non-native plants can
decrease plant species richness of the wetland.
See above.
The germination of many plant species is triggered by the interaction of water conditions and season
(light). Homogenization or alteration of the natural water regime can thus encourage invasive species
at the expense of native flora. Inundation at aberrant times of the year can reduce native plant diversity
because most native species have evolved in close synchronization with natural seasonal water
regimes. Monthly timing of first soil moistening may be more important than duration of moist period
before inundation and length of inundation for determining the number of plants and number of species
that germinate (Bliss & Zedler 1997). Any development that involves increasing the area of lawn or
impervious surface is likely to increase runoff amount and concentrate it within shorter time periods, i.e.
“pulses” “flashiness” (Booth & Jackson 1997, Booth et al. 2002, DeGasperi et al. 2009). This has been
shown to make wetlands more susceptible to invasion by non-native plants (Magee & Kentula 2005).
However, one study found that forested wetlands in developed landscapes had community composition
and structure similar to those in undeveloped landscapes, with number of exotic species being no
greater (Ehrenfeld 2005).
Such factors potentially result in smothering or erosion of vegetation, and facilitate the invasion by
exotic species.
Rationales
Among Oregon tidal marshes, plant richness increases slightly with increasing salinity (Adamus 2005,
Weilhoefer et al. 2013), which is greater closer to the ocean. Invasive plants in Oregon may reach their
greatest dominance in the mid-estuary (Weilhoefer et al. 2013).
Although California studies report reduced plant richness with increasing tidal salinity (Tuxen et al.
2011), among Oregon tidal marshes, plant richness per unit area is either uncorrelated with (Adamus
2005) or increases slightly with (Weilhoefer et al. 2013) increasing salinity . Many freshwater plants
begin declining at about 1 ppt salinity, and few can endure more than about 4 ppt salinity (Smith et al.
2009).
On a per-unit-area basis, species richness of vascular plants tends to be greater in high marsh than in
low marsh in Oregon tidal marshes (Jefferson 1978, Frenkel et al. 1981, Adamus 2005), due partly to
the stress of prolonged inundation in the latter. Nonetheless, a few low marsh species do not occur in
high marsh, and lower tidal elevations support more seaweed species (Janousek & Folger 2012) so a
combination of both zones may be optimal. In California, enrichment of low marsh with nitrate
decreased plant richness by increasing the dominance of pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica) (Ryan &
Boyer 2012). By one perspective, high marsh might be valued to a greater degree than low marsh
because it is more likely to be imperiled by rising sea levels, due to limited opportunities for upgradient
"migration" (Watson & Byrne 2012).
Oregon tidal wetlands with wider vegetated areas are more likely to contain more plant species
(Adamus 2005, Weilhoefer et al. 2013) and perhaps rarer and more sensitive plants, as well as being
more insulated from some upland disturbances.
In Oregon tidal wetlands, plant diversity is often greatest along tidal channels (Adamus 2005), perhaps
partly because soils are often better-oxygenated (Weilhoefer et al. 2013) and diversified
microtopography creates diverse inundation regimes (Howes et al. 1981). Thus, more tidal channel
complexity is expected to support greater plant diversity within a tidal wetland.
In Oregon tidal wetlands, plant diversity is often greatest along tidal channels (Adamus 2005), perhaps
partly because soils are often better-oxygenated (Weilhoefer et al. 2013) and diversified
microtopography creates diverse inundation regimes (Howes et al. 1981). Thus, more tidal channel
complexity is expected to support greater plant diversity within a tidal wetland.
Plant species richness commonly parallels plant form richness, which is assessed by this indicator.
Dominance by one or a few species is a direct indicator of reduced overall plant species richness.
Larger patches of native vegetation tend to have more species, a more protected microclimate, and are
better resist invasion by non-native species that otherwise harm native plant diversity. Plant richness in
Oregon tidal marshes has been shown to correlate with marsh area (Adamus 2005, Weilhoefer et al.
2013).
Invasion by non-native species typically results in a reduction in native plant species richness. Oregon
tidal marshes with greater frequency and cover of non-native species have been found to have fewer
native species (Adamus 2005, Weilhoefer et al. 2013).
The less extensively that perennial vegetation adjoins a tidal wetland's upland edge, the more likely it is
that water quality and plant richness in the wetland will be impaired. Plant richness was found by
Weilhoefer et al. 2013 to be lower in Oregon tidal marshes with more development within 100 m, but
salinity and the proportion of wetland that surrounded the sample site had greater influence.
See above. The composition of plant communities among tidal wetlands of the Oregon Coast is
correlated more with land cover measured within 100 m (~300 ft) than with land cover measured within
250 and 1000 m (Weilhoefer et al. 2013). Unexpectedly, species richness is less in tidal wetlands
where surrounding areas (within 250 m) are undeveloped and are more than 60% comprised of other
wetlands (Weilhoefer et al. 2013).
Prolonged or intense grazing of tidal high marsh increases the extent of bare areas, relative cover of
invasive plants, and reduces native plant richness (Wasson & Woolfolk 2011).
Different plant species occur under different tidal inundation regimes, which correlate with different
elevations (Frenkel et al. 1981). Thus, a greater diversity of elevations (i.e., complex microtopography)
often supports a wider variety of tidal wetland plants (Pollock et al. 1998).
In many wetlands coarser-grained soils tend to be less fertile. In some cases this results in reduced
species richness of wetland plants. Coarser soils often drain faster during each tidal cycle, inducing
drought stress among some plants, but also supporting more aerated conditions in sediments which in
turn can support greater plant richness, whereas clayey and organic soils tend to be slower-draining
and less well oxygenated in the root zones (Eilers 1975, Eilers 1979, Ewing 1983, Bertness and
Pennings 2000)
Seeds of non-native plants commonly are carried by humans and their pets. Non-native plants can
decrease plant species richness of the wetland.
See above.
Tidegates and other features that restrict or otherwise alter timing of water inputs typically reduce the
richness of tidal wetland plants (Fetscher et al. 2010, Wasson & Woolfolk 2011).
Rationales
The vegetation in a wetland may be considered more valuable if it is the only such patch of vegetation
of its size within a large area.
Dependency of wetland plants on this particular wetland increases if no other natural vegetation of
comparable or greater extent is available in the vicinity, thus conferring greater value to this wetland. If
the site is in a landscape that typically does not support trees (rangeland, prairie), only the first choice
is counted by the model.
These wetland species are particularly valued because of their rarity and/or declining populations as
listed by agencies.
In the future, the need for (and value of) native plant habitat as provided by wetlands may increase the
impairs this habitat function. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be
impairs this habitat function. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable lands could be
Value generally correlates with scarcity, and these wetland types are among the least common types in
the region according to local experts.
These are recognized as the rarest of the tidal wetland types in this region, so higher value can be
assumed.
Wetlands with greater plant richness are likely to be more valuable to pollinators if other factors already
suggest the wetland has high capacity to support pollinators.
Wetlands with greater plant richness are likely to be more valuable to supporting a variety of songbirds
and mammals if other factors already suggest the wetland has high capacity to support those.
AVERAGE(WidthWet, EmArea, BuffWidth,PerimPctPer, SeasPct)
AVERAGE(SizePerenn,DistPerCov,ConnLocalW,DistPond,Beaver)
AVERAGE(Inflow,ThruFlo,WaterMixWet,Fluc, DepthDom, DepthEven,SoilTex,Groundw, NewWet)
AVERAGE(EmPct,HerbDom,Girreg, WoodyPct, ShrubExpos)
AVERAGE[Invas, AVERAGE(UpWeed, VegCut,VisitNo,VisitOften,DistRd,AltTiming,SoilDisturb)]
IF(InvasDomT=1),0, AVERAGE [InvasT,AltTimingT,AVERAGE(SalinT, EstPosT),

AVERAGE(LowMarshT,EmAreaT,WidthHiT), AVERAGE(VegFormDivT,VegSpDomT,VegCutT),
AVERAGE(PerimPctPerT,BuffWidthT), AVERAGE(BlindChT,GirregT,SoilTexT)]
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScorePH, ELSE: IF(InvasDom=1),0, (3*SppArea + 2*Stress + AqFertil + Compet +

Lscape)/ 8))
IF((Tidal=1),MAX(RareTypeTv,AVERAGE(RarePsppv,Zoningv,ScoreSBMv, ScorePOLv), ELSE:

MAX(RarePsppv,RareTypev, AVERAGE(RarePsppv,UniqPatchv,DistPerCovv,Zoningv,ScoreSBMv,
ScorePOLv))
Literature Cited
Adamus, P. R. 2005. Science Review and Data Analysis for Tidal Wetlands of the Oregon Coast. Coos
Watershed Association, Charleston, OR, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, OR and
Oregon Department of State Lands, Salem, OR.
Allombert, S., S. Stockton, and J.-L. Martin. 2005. A natural experiment on the impact of overabundant
deer on forest invertebrates. Conservation Biology 19:1917-1929.
Alsfeld, A. J., J. L. Bowman, and A. Deller-Jacobs. 2009. Effects of woody debris, microtopography,
and organic matter amendments on the biotic community of constructed depressional wetlands.
Biological Conservation 142:247-255.
Baldwin, L. K. and G. E. Bradfield. 2007. Bryophyte responses to fragmentation in temperate coastal
rainforests: a functional group approach. Biological Conservation 136:408-422.
Bayley, S. E. and J. K. Guimond. 2008. Effects of river connectivity on marsh vegetation community
structure and species richness in montane floodplain wetlands in Jasper National Park, Alberta,
Canada. Ecoscience 15:377-388.
Bayley, S. E. and J. K. Guimond. 2009. Above ground biomass and nutrient limitations in relation to
river connectivity in montane floodplain marshes. Wetlands 29:1243-1254.
Bertness, M. D. and S. C. Pennings. 2000. Spatial variation in process and pattern in salt marsh plant
communities in eastern North America. Pages 39–57 in M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger, editors.
Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.
Bliss, S. A. and P. H. Zedler. 1997. The germination process in vernal pools: sensitivity to
environmental conditions and effects on community structure. Oecologia 113:67-73.
Bollman, M. A., M. J. Storm, G. A. King, and L. S. Watrud. 2012. Wetland and riparian plant
communities at risk of invasion by transgenic herbicide-resistant Agrostis spp. in central Oregon. Plant
Ecology 213:355-370.
Booth, D. B. and C. R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds,
stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 33:1077-1090.
Booth, D. B., D. Hartley, and R. Jackson. 2002. Forest cover, impervious-surface area, and the
mitigation of storm water impacts. Journal of American Water Resources Association 38:835-845.
Boudreault, C., Y. Bergeron, P. Drapeau, and L. M. Loopez. 2008. Edge effects on epiphytic lichens in
remnant stands of managed landscapes in the eastern boreal forest of Canada. Forest Ecology and
Management 255:1461-1471.
Clark, D. and M. Wilson. 2001. Fire, mowing, and hand-removal of woody species in restoring a native
wetland prairie in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Wetlands 21:135-144.
DeGasperi, C. L., H. B. Berge, K. R. Whiting, J. J. Burkey, J. L. Cassin, and R. R. Fuerstenberg. 2009.
LIinking hydrologic alteration to biological impairment in urbanizing streams of the Puget Lowland,
Washington, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45:512-533.
Ehrenfeld, J. G., B. Ravit, and K. Elgersma. 2005. Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 30:75-115.
Eilers, H. P. 1975. Plants, plant communities, net production and tide levels: the ecological
biogeography of the Nehalem salt marshes, Tillamook County, Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR.
Eilers, H. P. 1979. Production ecology in an Oregon USA coastal salt marsh. Estuarine Coastal Marine
Science 8:399-410.
Ewing, K. 1983. Environmental controls in Pacific Northwest intertidal marsh plant communities.
Canadian Journal of Botany 61:1105–1116.
Fetscher, A. E., M. A. Sutula, J. C. Callaway, V. T. Parker, M. C. Vasey, J. N. Collins, and W. G.
Nelson. 2010. Patterns in estuarine vegetation communities in two regions of California: Insights from a
probabilistic survey. Wetlands 30:833-846.
Frenkel, R. E., H. P. Eilers, and C. A. Jefferson. 1981. Oregon coastal salt marsh upper limits and tidal
datums. Estuaries 4:195–205.
Gignac, L. D. and M. R. T. Dale. 2007. Effects of size, shape, and edge on vegetation in remnants of
the upland boreal mixed-wood forest in agro-environments of Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Botany 85:273-284.
Hanley, T. A. and W. W. Brady. 1997. Understory species composition and production in old-growth
western hemlock - Sitka spruce forests of southeastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue
Canadienne De Botanique 75:574-580.
Heithecker, T. D. and C. B. Halpern. 2007. Edge-related gradients in microclimate in forest aggregates
following structural retention harvests in western Washington. Forest Ecology and Management
248:163-173.
Hood, G. A. and S. E. Bayley. 2008. Beaver (Castor canadensis) mitigate the effects of climate on the
area of open water in boreal wetlands in western Canada. Biological Conservation 141:556-567.
Houlahan, J. E., P. A. Keddy, K. Makkay, and C. S. Findlay. 2006. The effects of adjacent land use on
wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26:79-96.
Howes, B. L., R. W. Howard, J. M. Teal, and I. Valiela. 1981. Oxidation-reduction potentials in salt
marshes: spatial patterns and interactions with primary production. Limnology and Oceanography
26:350–360.
Hylander, K., B. G. Jonsson, and C. Nilsson. 2002. Evaluating buffer strips along boreal streams using
bryophytes as indicators. Ecological Applications 12:797-806.
Janousek, C. N. and C. L. Folger. 2012. Patterns of distribution and environmental correlates of
macroalgal assemblages and sediment chlorophyll a in Oregon tidal wetlands. Journal of Phycology
48:1448-1457.
Jefferson, C. A. 1975. Plant communities and succession in Oregon coastal salt marshes. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Keer, G. H. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. Salt marsh canopy architecture differs with the number and
composition of species. Ecological Applcations 12:456-473.
Magee, T. K. and M. E. Kentula. 2005. Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions.
Martin, J. L., S. A. Stockton, S. Allombert, and A. J. Gaston. 2010. Top-down and bottom-up
consequences of unchecked ungulate browsing on plant and animal diversity in temperate forests:
lessons from a deer introduction. Biological Invasions 12:353-371.
Nekola, J. C. 1999. Paleorefugia and neorefugia in the influence of colonization history on community
pattern and process. Ecology 80:2459-2473.
Nekola, J. C. and P. S. White. 1999. Distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. Journal
of Biogeography 26:867–878.
Pendergrass, K. L., P. M. Miller, and J. B. Kauffman. 1998. Prescribed fire and the response of woody
species in Willamette Valley wetland prairies. Restoration Ecology 6:303-311
Pollock, M. M., R. J. Naiman, and T. A. Hanley. 1998. Plant species richness in riparian wetlands - a
test of biodiversity theory. Ecology 79:94-105.
Radies, D., D. Coxson, C. Johnson, and K. Konwicki. 2009. Predicting canopy macrolichen diversity
and abundance within old-growth inland temperate rainforests. Forest Ecology and Management
259:86-97.
Rogers, D. A., T. P. Rooney, T. J. Hawbaker, V. C. Radeloff, and D. M. Waller. 2009. Paying the
extinction debt in southern Wisconsin forest understories. Conservation Biology 23:1497-1506.
Rooney, R. C. and S. E. Bayley. 2011. Relative influence of local- and landscape-level habitat quality
on aquatic plant diversity in shallow open-water wetlands in Alberta's boreal zone: direct and indirect
effects. Landscape Ecology 26:1023-1034.
Ryan, A. B. and K. E. Boyer. 2012. Nitrogen further promotes a dominant salt marsh plant in an
increasingly saline environment. Journal of Plant Ecology 5:429-441.
Šamonil, P., K. Král, and L. Hort. 2010. The role of tree uprooting in soil formation: A critical literature
review. Geoderma 157:65-79.
Sebastian-Gonzalez, E., J. A. Molina, and M. Paracuellos. 2012. Distribution patterns of a marsh
vegetation metacommunity in relation to habitat configuration. Aquatic Biology 16:277-285.
Smith, L. M. and D. A. Haukos. 2002. Floral diversity in relation to playa wetland area and watershed
disturbance. Conservation Biology 16:964-974.
Smith, M. J., K. M. Ough, M. P. Scroggie, E. S. G. Schreiber, and M. Kohout. 2009. Assessing changes
in macrophyte assemblages with salinity in non-riverine wetlands: a Bayesian approach. Aquatic
Botany 90:137-142.
Tuxen, K., L. Schile, D. Stralberg, S. Siegel, T. Parker, M. Vasey, J. Callaway, and M. Kelly. 2011.
Mapping changes in tidal wetland vegetation composition and pattern across a salinity gradient using
high spatial resolution imagery. Wetlands Ecology and Management 19:141-157.
Vestergaard, O. and K. Sand-Jensen. 2000. Aquatic macrophyte richness in Danish lakes in relation to
alkalinity, transparency, and lake area. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:2022-
2031.
Wasson, K. and A. Woolfolk. 2011. Salt marsh-upland ecotones in Central California: Vulnerability to
invasions and anthropogenic stressors. Wetlands 31:389-402.
Watson, E. B. and R. Byrne. 2012. Recent (1975-2004) vegetation change in the San Francisco
Estuary, California, tidal marshes. Journal of Coastal Research 28:51-63.
Wright, J. P., A. S. Flecker, and C. G. Jones. 2003. Local versus landscape controls on plant species
richness in beaver meadows. Ecology 84:3162–3173.
Wright, J. P., C. G. Jones, and A. S. Flecker. 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases
species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia 132:96-101.
Pollinator
Non-Tidal Function
The capacity to support pollinating insects, such as bees, wasps,
butterflies, moths, flies, and beetles.
Habitat
(DistPerCov)
Indicators <100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
> 2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
<.01 acre.
.01 to < 1 acre.
1 to <10 acres.
10 to <100 acres.
100 to <1000 acres.
1000 to 10,000 acres.
>10,000 acres.
<5% of the land.
>90% of the land.
<5% of the land.
OF11 Herbaceous Open Land
5 to <20%.
20 to <50%.
50 to 80%.
>80%.
>75% of the AA.
F39 Forb Cover (Forb) Within parts of the AA having herbaceous cover (excluding SAV), the areal cover of forbs reaches an
annual maximum of:
<5% of the herbaceous part of the AA.
5 to <25% of the herbaceous part of the AA.
50 to 95% of the herbaceous part of the AA.
>95% of the herbaceous part of the AA.
species.
(See ORWAP SuppInfo
species;
Mostly (50-80%) native species.
F46 Woody Diameter Select All the types that comprise >5% of the woody canopy cover in the AA or >5% of its wooded
Classes (TreeDiams) upland edge if any:
Deciduous 1-4" diameter (DBH) and >3 ft tall.
Evergreen 1-4" diameter and >3 ft tall.
Deciduous 4-9" diameter.
Evergreen 4-9" diameter.
Deciduous >21" diameter.
Evergreen >21" diameter.
F47 Snags (Snags) The number of large snags (diameter >12 inches) in the AA plus 100 ft uphill of its edge is:
Few or none.
Several.
Few or none.
Several.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.
F59 Cliffs or Banks (Cliff) Within 300 ft of the AA, there are elevated terrestrial features such as cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, or
Tidal Function
unarmored stream banks that extend at least 6 ft nearly vertically, are unvegetated, and potentially
contain crevices or other substrate suitable for nesting or den areas.
Enter 1, if true.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T22 Forb Cover (ForbT) Within parts of the AA that have herbaceous cover (excluding SAV), the areal cover of forbs reaches
an annual maximum of:
T22 Forb Cover (ForbT)
<5% of the herbaceous part of the AA.

50 to 95% of the herbaceous part of the AA.
>95% of the herbaceous part of the AA.
(PerimPctPerT) <5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
T36 Cliffs or Banks (Clifft) Within 300 ft. of the AA, there are elevated terrestrial features such as cliffs, talus slopes, or unarmored
Value banks along nontidal channels that extend at least 6 ft nearly vertically, are unvegetated, and
potentially contain crevices or other substrate suitable for nesting or den areas. Enter 1, if true.
Indicators Herbaceous vegetation (perennial grasses, sedges, forbs; not under a woody canopy; not crops).

None of above.
OF23 Plant Species of According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare wetland-indicator plant species in
Conservation Concern the vicinity of this AA is:
(RarePspp)
High (≥ 0.75 for maximum score, or > 4.00 for sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of
any of these species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.

Low (≤ 0.12 for maximum score AND < 0.20 for sum score, but not 0 for both).


<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
Function Subindices
Function Score for Pollinator Ha
Values Score for Pollinator Ha

POL
Data X
Points
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 8 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0
Data X
Points
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Pollen Onsite 0.00
Pollen Offsite 0.00
NestSites 0.00
Tidal 0.00
on Score for Pollinator Habitat F 0.00
es Score for Pollinator Habitat V 0.00

Rationales
The median foraging distance of insect pollinators is about 1.5 km (Cane 2001). In some landscapes,
distance to riparian vegetation can measurably influence pollinator occurrence (Wojcik & McBride
2012).
Herbaceous openlands tend to support more forbs that provide pollen to pollinating insects.
Perennial cover provides more pollen sources than many other cover types, and exposure to pesticides
is less. In prairie landscapes, plants in larger, more contiguous blocks of perennial cover may be more
successfully pollinated than those in smaller isolated ones (Mannouris & Byers 2013). However,
pollinator diversity does not always correlate with size of prairie or wetland fragments (Hendrix et al.
2010).
The proportion of surrounding land cover that is relatively natural and has perennial cover is a
significant predictor of pollinator density and diversity (Garibaldi et al. 2011). Pesticides can
significantly impact pollinator populations (e.g., Mullen et al. 2010, Gradish et al. 2012). Exposure to
pesticides is less where cover is mainly perennial (Belden 2012)l.
Wetlands comprised almost entirely of persistent water usually have much less vegetation cover, so
fewer plants per unit area are available to pollinators.
Flowers from forbs (including some crops such as alfalfa, Gathmann et al. 1994) provide the most
opportunities for a diverse array of pollinator species, although some graminoids (e.g., native
bunchgrasses) are used as well. This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or
<0.01 acre.
Presence of a wider variety of plant species suggests greater availability of pollen and nectar
throughout the year, and supports a greater diversity of pollinators (Gardiner et al. 2010). This indicator
Although some non-native plants attract pollinators (e.g., Woods et al. 2012), many of those plants
tend to be invasive, reducing the overall diversity of plant species available for pollination at different
times of the season, with adverse effects on some pollinators (Moron et al. 2009, Hanula & Horn 2011,
Fiedler et al. 2012). A broad seasonal distribution of available pollen and nectar sources is critical to
many pollinator species. This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01 acre.
A mix of diameter classes may indicate a wider variety of woody species available for pollination. The
formula gives equal weight to the variety of classes and increasing mean diameter. Deciduous trees
allow more light penetration and thus tend to support more flowering plants in the understory. Larger
trees provide more deadwood for bee and wasp colonies. This indicator is used only if >5% of the
vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally support
woodlands.
trees provide more deadwood for bee and wasp colonies. This indicator is used only if >5% of the
woodlands.
Dead wood provides critical nesting habitat for many pollinators. Although some types of vegetation
disturbance benefit pollinator reproduction the removal of dead wood, which often accompanies
lakeshore development, has been associated with reduced pollination (Trant et al. 2010). This indicator
is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would
normally support woodlands.
Downed wood provides nest sites and shelter for some pollinators (Cane 2001). This indicator is used
only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally
support woodlands.
Perennial cover usually provides more pollen sources than other cover types, and exposure to
pesticides is less.
pesticides is less.
A small proportion of bare earth is important to some pollinators because it can provide mud and
nesting burrows (Rust 1993), which are often limiting. But too much bare earth comes at the expense
of plants that provide pollen.
Many pollinating species depend on such microtopographic features for nest sites and cover. That is
because many or most bee species nest underground (Cane 2001).
Such areas can provide shelter for pollinator nests and mud for hive construction. If present they
contribute positively to the score, but if absent do not detract from it (the spreadsheet sets the score to
blank).
Rationales
Low marsh contains relatively few insect pollinated plant species, and plants are submerged for long
periods.
Tidal marsh width often correlates with greater extent of high marsh, and high marsh tends to have
more forbs important to pollinators than does low marsh.
A wider variety of plant species suggests greater availability of pollen and nectar throughout the year.
Flowers from forbs provide the most opportunities for a diverse array of pollinator species, but some
graminoids (e.g., native bunchgrasses) are used as well.
Flowers from forbs provide the most opportunities for a diverse array of pollinator species, but some
graminoids (e.g., native bunchgrasses) are used as well.
pesticides is less.
Such areas can provide shelter for pollinator nests and mud for hive construction. If present they
contribute positively to the score, but if absent do not detract from it (the spreadsheet sets the score to
blank).
Rationales
if this is the only wetland that provides habitat suitable to pollinators,the value of whatever habitat it
provides to pollinators could be considered to be greater.
Pollinators are especially valuable if the wetland contains a rare plant species dependent on insect
pollination.
Although not all land with a zoning designation of Agriculture has crops that require pollination, where
agricultural lands do have such crops, the economic value of pollination services can be considerable.
Wetlands that more effectively support pollinators are thus more valuable in those situations, provided
they are not highly exposed to pesticides.
Although not all land with a zoning designation of Agriculture has crops that require pollination, where
agricultural lands do have such crops, the economic value of pollination services can be considerable.
Wetlands that more effectively support pollinators are thus more valuable in those situations, provided
they are not highly exposed to pesticides.
The services of pollinators are valued more where cropland or other cover that is poor in natural
sources of nectar is the dominant land cover around a wetland.
AVERAGE[Forb,AVERAGE(Gcover,Invas,HerbDom)]
[AVERAGE(BuffWidth,PerimPctPer,SizePerenn,DistPerCov,PerCovPct)
+AVERAGE(OpenLpct,DistOpenL)] 2
AVERAGE(TreeDiams,Snags,WoodDown,Girreg,Cliff)
2*AVERAGE(ForbT,LowMarshT,WidthHiT) + AVERAGE(VegSpDomT,CliffT))/3
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScorePOL, IF((AllPermWater=1),0,AVERAGE(PollenOn,PollenOff,NestSites)
IF((Tidal=1),AVERAGE(UniqPatch,PerimPctPerT,Zoning,RarePspp),AVERAGE(UniqPatch,PerimPctPe
r,Zoning,RarePspp))
Literature Cited
Belden, J. B., B. R. Hanson, S. T. McMurry, L. M. Smith, and D. A. Haukos. 2012. Assessment of the
effects of farming and conservation programs on pesticide deposition in High Plains wetlands.
Environmental Science & Technology 46:3424-3432.
Cane, J. H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation and native bees: A premature verdict? Conservation Ecology
5:3 http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art3/.
Cartar, R. V. 2005. Short-term effects of experimental boreal forest and logging disturbance on bumble
bees, bumble and bee-pollinated flowers and the bee–flower match. Biodiversity & Conservation
14:1895-1907.
Fiedler, A. K., D. A. Landis, and M. Arduser. 2012. Rapid shift in pollinator communities following
invasive species removal. Restoration Ecology 20:593-602.
Gardiner, M. A., J. K. Tuell, R. Isaacs, J. Gibbs, J. S. Ascher, and D. A. Landis. 2010. Implications of
three biofuel crops for beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. Bioenergy Research 3:6-19.
Garibaldi, L. A., I. Steffan-Dewenter, C. Kremen, J. M. Morales, R. Bommarco, S. A. Cunningham, L.
G. Carvalheiro, N. P. Chacoff, J. H. Dudenhoffer, S. S. Greenleaf, A. Holzschuh, R. Isaacs, K.
Krewenka, Y. Mandelik, M. M. Mayfield, L. A. Morandin, S. G. Potts, T. H. Ricketts, H. Szentgyorgyi, B.
F. Viana, C. Westphal, R. Winfree, and A. M. Klein. 2011. Stability of pollination services decreases
with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters 14:1062-1072.
Gathmann, A., H. J. Greiler, and T. Tscharntke. 1994. Trap nesting bees and wasps colonizing set-
aside fields: Succession and body size, management by cutting and sowing Oecologia 98:8-14.
Gradish, A. E., C. D. Scott-Dupree, A. J. Frewin, and G. C. Cutler. 2012. Lethal and sublethal effects of
some insecticides recommended for wild blueberry on the pollinator Bombus impatiens. Canadian
Entomologist 144:478-486.
Grundel, R., R. P. Jean, K. J. Frohnapple, G. A. Glowacki, P. E. Scott, and N. B. Pavlovic. 2010. Floral
and nesting resources, habitat structure, and fire influence bee distribution across an open-forest
gradient. Ecological Applications 20:1678-1692.
Hanula, J. L. and S. Horn. 2011. Removing an invasive shrub (Chinese privet) increases native bee
diversity and abundance in riparian forests of the southeastern United States. Insect Conservation and
Diversity 4:275-283.
Hendrix, S. D., K. S. Kwaiser, and S. B. Heard. 2010. Bee communities (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of
small Iowa hill prairies are as diverse and rich as those of large prairie preserves. Biodiversity and
Conservation 19:1699-1709.
Mannouris, C. and D. L. Byers. 2013. The impact of habitat fragmentation on fitness-related traits in a
native prairie plant, Chamaecrista fasciculata (Fabaceae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
108:55-67.
Moron, D., M. Lenda, P. Skorka, H. Szentgyorgyi, J. Settele, and M. Woyciechowski. 2009. Wild
pollinator communities are negatively affected by invasion of alien goldenrods in grassland landscapes.
Biological Conservation 142:1322-1332.
Mullin, C. A., M. Frazier, J. L. Frazier, S. Ashcraft, R. Simonds, D. vanEngelsdorp, and J. S. Pettis.
2010. High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: Implications for honey
bee health. Plos One 5.
Rust, R. W. 1993. Cell and nest construction costs in 2 cavity nesting bees ( Osmia lignaria propinqua
and Osmia ribifloris biedermannii)(Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of
America 86:327-332.
Trant, A. J., T. B. Herman, and S. V. Good-Avila. 2010. Effects of anthropogenic disturbance on the
reproductive ecology and pollination service of Plymouth gentian (Sabatia kennedyana), a lakeshore
plant species at risk. Plant Ecology 210:241-252.
Wojcik, V. A. and J. R. McBride. 2012. Common factors influence bee foraging in urban and wildland
landscapes. Urban Ecosystems 15:581-598.
Woods, T. M., J. L. Jonas, and C. J. Ferguson. 2012. The invasive Lespedeza cuneata attracts more
insect pollinators than native congeners in tallgrass prairie with variable impacts. Biological Invasions
14:1045-1059.
Songbird, The capacity to support an abundance and diversity of native
songbird, raptor, and mammal species and functional groups,
Raptor, & especially those that are most dependent on wetlands or water.
Mammal
Non-Tidal Function Examples include marsh wren, northern harrier, muskrat.
Habitat
(DistPerCov)
Indicators <100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
> 2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to < 0.5 mile.
0.5 to <1 miles.
1 to 2 miles.
>2 miles.
<.01 acre.
.01 to < 1 acre.
1 to <10 acres.
10 to <100 acres.
100 to <1000 acres.
1000 to 10,000 acres.
>10,000 acres.
<5% of the land.
>90% of the land.
<5% of the circle.
5 to <20%.
20 to <50%.
50 to 80%.
>80%.
Connectivity
described.
Connectivity
described.
(HUCbest) are true:

None of above.
Linear: a significant proportion of the wetland's upland edge is straight, as in wetlands bounded partly
<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
F9 Cattail or Tall Bulrush The percentage of the emergent vegetation cover in the AA that is cattail (Typha spp.) or tall bulrush is:
Cover (Cttail)
<1% of the emergent vegetation, or cattail and bulrush are absent.

1 to <25% of the emergent vegetation.
25 to 75% of the emergent vegetation.
>75%, of the emergent vegetation.
(WoodyDryShade)
F10 Water Shading by AA's
Woody Vegetation -
Driest
(WoodyDryShade)
flowing.
>95% of the water.
(WaterMixWet)
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
>75% of the AA.
following extent:

F46 Woody Diameter
Classes (TreeDiams)
F47 Snags (Snags) The number of large snags (diameter >12 inches) in the AA plus 100 ft uphill of its edge is:
Few or none.
Several.
Few or none.
Several.
F50 Exposed Shrub Canopy Within the vegetated part of the AA, shrubs shorter than 20 ft that are not overtopped by trees occupy:
<5% of the vegetated AA and <0.01 acre (400 sq ft).
50 to 95% of the vegetated AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer).
>95% of the vegetated part of the AA or the water edge (whichever is greater in early summer).
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(UpTreePctPer)
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.
F59 Cliffs or Banks (Cliff) Within 300 ft of the AA, there are elevated terrestrial features such as cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, or
unarmored stream banks that extend at least 6 ft nearly vertically, are unvegetated, and potentially
contain crevices or other substrate suitable for nesting or den areas.
Enter 1, if true.
from].

<5%.
5 to <50%.
Tidal Function
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
Indicators Saline (>25 ppt salinity, undiluted seawater).

Unknown.
None, or <1%.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(VegformsT)
Eelgrass.
Forbs.
(EmAreaT)
0.01 to <0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <1 acres.
1 to <5 acres.
5 to <50 acres.
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi).
640 to <1000 acres .
1000 to 2500 acres.
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi).
T25 Driftwood (DriftwoodT) The extent of driftwood on the land surface is:
None or little.
Intermediate (~ 1 piece/200 ft. of shoreline, or >1,000 square feet).
High (>1 piece/100 ft. of shoreline, or >1,000 square feet ).
(PerimPctPerT)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
- % of AA's Edge
(PerimPctPerT)
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
T36 Cliffs or Banks (Clifft) Within 300 ft. of the AA, there are elevated terrestrial features such as cliffs, talus slopes, or unarmored
banks along nontidal channels that extend at least 6 ft nearly vertically, are unvegetated, and
potentially contain crevices or other substrate suitable for nesting or den areas. Enter 1, if true.
Value
Indicators
None of above.
OF21 Songbird, Raptor, According to the ORWAP Report, the score for occurrences of rare songbird, raptor, or mammal
Mammal Species of species in the vicinity of this AA is:
(RareSBM) High (≥ 0.60 for maximum score, or >1.13 for sum score), or there is a recent onsite observation of any
of these species by a qualified observer under conditions similar to what now occur.
Low (≤ 0.09 for maximum score AND <0.13 for sum score, but not 0 for both).
(Arid)
Arid.
Semi-arid.
Dry.
Moist.
Wet.
Very Wet.

<25%.
25 - 50%.
>50%.
Function Subindices
Function Score for Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Ha
Values Score for Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Ha

SBM
Data X
Points
0.00
0 10 0
0 8 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 7 0
0 9 0
0 10 0
0 11 0
0 12 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0
0 0.00
0 0.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
Waterscape 0.00
Landscape 0.00
Structure 0.00
Productivity 0.00
Stressors 0.00
Tidal 0.00
rd, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat F 0.00
rd, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat V 0.00

Rationales
Wetlands that are closer to perennial land cover are more likely to support a large diversity of songbird
and mammal species. Wetlands that are closer to forest are even more likely to support a large
diversity of songbird and mammal species. Forests provide additional vertical habitat structure. The
probability that a forest-dwelling bird will fly in the open between two patches of forest decreases
rapidly as the distance separating those patches increases (Desrochers & Hannon 1997, St. Clair et al.
1998). Forest bird species usually prefer to detour under forest cover even if the forested route is
longer, but if the detour is too long, they will prefer a shortcut across openland. However, when
possible most forest bird species avoid venturing farther than about 100 ft from a forest edge (St. Clair
et al. 1998).
See above.
Traffic poses a hazard to songbirds and mammals that attempt to cross roads (Forman et al. 2002,
Clevenger et al. 2003, Massey et al. 2008, Minor & Urban 2010, Tremblay & St. Clair 2010, and see
reviews by Fahrig & Rytwinski 2009, Benitez-Lopez et al. 2010). Roadsides also may channel the
movements of predators. Noise from heavy traffic interferes with bird reproduction because some birds
cannot hear singing of prospective mates (Wood & Yezerinac 2006, Slabbekoorn & Ripmeester 2008,
Barber et al. 2010) and road noise can restrict habitat use by bats (Schaub et al. 2008).
Many songbirds and mammals occur only in larger tracts of natural land cover. Fragmentation of
wooded riparian areas by residential development or clearcuts can, over the long term, reduce the
diversity of songbirds nesting in the remaining patches (e.g., Smith & Wachob 2006). Breeding wetland
birds sometimes do persist in small disturbed wetlands as long as much larger undisturbed wetlands
nearby remain productive (e.g., Vermaat et al. 2008). Theoretical and limited empirical data suggest
that 30% or more forest cover across a large area is the threshold value above which landscapes might
provide sufficient habitat and connectivity for many forest species, allowing those species' populations
to survive even in small remaining patches (Andren 1994). However, a study in British Columbia found
patch size had little to do with the abundance or diversity of birds in patches of old growth forest
(Schieck et al. 1995).
nearby remain productive (e.g., Vermaat et al. 2008). Theoretical and limited empirical data suggest
that 30% or more forest cover across a large area is the threshold value above which landscapes might
provide sufficient habitat and connectivity for many forest species, allowing those species' populations
to survive even in small remaining patches (Andren 1994). However, a study in British Columbia found
patch size had little to do with the abundance or diversity of birds in patches of old growth forest
(Schieck et al. 1995).
The total proportion of the land that is natural land cover, as well as its proximity, can affect songbird
and mammal richness in wetlands. In Ohio, migrant songbirds had the strongest positive correlation
with natural land cover near streams when it was measured within ~820 ft of streams, rather than in
areas closer or farther. Some migrant songbirds were much less likely to occur where there were many
buildings within that distance of streams (Pennington 2008). However, one study found that migrant
bird abundance was statistically unrelated to either percent urbanized land or percent forest cover
within 0.6 mile (Rodewald & Mathews 2005).
Forests provide additional vertical habitat structure for nesting songbirds and perches for raptors.
Wetlands in areas dominated by forest generally support more diverse songbird and mammal
assemblages, especially in landscapes where forest historically was the dominant land cover.
Habitat gaps caused by placement of roads, driveways, or homes – as well as by natural features such
as rockslides and wide channels -- can impact movements of mammals and birds (Trombulak & Frissell
2000, Ortega & Capen 2002). This is especially true when the gaps are wider than about 100 feet (Rich
et al. 1994, Rail et al. 1997, St. Clair et al. 1998, Belisle & Desrochers 2002, Laurance et al. 2004,
Tremblay & St. Clair 2010), and definitely when wider than 200 ft (Creegan & Osborne 2005,
Bosschieter & Goedhart 2005, Awade & Metzger 2008, Lees & Peres 2009). Species that prefer low
vegetation may be particularly reluctant to cross forest clearings. The presence of small clusters of
trees scattered within very wide forest gaps may be sufficient to encourage some forest bird species to
cross those gaps (Robertson & Radford 2009).
At least for most forest-dwelling bird species, linear clearings should cause no gap in the forest canopy
wider than about 100 feet (Belisle & Desrochers 2002, Tremblay & St. Clair 2010) or bird movements
will be measurably hindered. The 2 mile scale is more appropriate for raptors and mammals.
Wetland-dependent songbirds, raptors, and mammals are supported to a greater degree when large
numbers, type diversity, and cumulative area of wetlands are present within a small area. Larger birds
are more likely to find feeding opportunities and refuge from disturbance somewhere within such
complexes for longer periods.
Many wetland-dependent songbirds, raptors, and mammals require nearby uplands for breeding or
foraging. Wetlands with greater edge-to-area ratios (i.e., convoluted edges) provide that condition
optimally.
A longer growing season supports generally higher productivity and diversity of songbirds and
mammals.
Whether woody or herbaceous, vegetation provides more habitat structure for songbirds and most
mammals than does open water. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA
Whether woody or herbaceous, vegetation provides more habitat structure for songbirds and most
mammals than does open water. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA
for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a minimal area of
emergent vegetation.
Cattail and bulrush in particular provide robust nest sites and perches for a variety of wetland-
dependent mammals (e.g., muskrat) and birds (e.g., marsh wren, blackbirds). This indicator is used
season, and only if there is a minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Where a large portion of the water surface is shaded, this suggests that a relatively closed wooded
canopy is present, and that is important to many songbirds and mammals. Shade itself is not known to
affect songbird or mammal use of wetlands directly. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Where a large portion of the water surface is shaded, this suggests that a relatively closed wooded
canopy is present, and that is important to many songbirds and mammals. Shade itself is not known to
affect songbird or mammal use of wetlands directly. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Species-area curves indicate that the more habitat that is available, the greater the diversity of bird
species. Wider or at least larger wetlands are used disproportionately by some species of nesting
wetland-dependent songbirds. Smaller identical wetlands of equal cumulative area probably support
lower numbers and cumulative richness of songbirds and mammals, unless they are close together and
connected with corridors of undeveloped land. Wider vegetated zones within wetlands provide more
nesting space and structure for songbirds and mammals, as well as better concealment from avian
predators (Marzluff et al 2007). This indicator is used only if some open surface water persists in the
Beaver impoundments, especially after they are abandoned and revert to early successional shrubs,
are very species-rich with songbirds compared with other land cover types (Grover & Baldassarre
1995, Aznar & Desrochers 2008). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA
Parts of wetlands that remain flooded most of the time will support fewer small mammals and
songbirds. However, wetlands with at least a little persistent water are important to aerially-foraging
swallows, swifts, and flycatchers, as well as bats, muskrat, beaver, moose, and many other mammals.
A variety of plant species, without one or two being strongly dominant, tends to support a greater
diversity of songbirds and small mammals (Martin 1988, Nur et al 1996; Knops et al. 1999). This
indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01 acre.
Overgrazing or frequent fire reduces the vertical structural diversity of vegetation in wetlands, and thus
can reduce use by some songbirds and mammals.
Trees along a water edge are especially attractive to songbirds and raptors. Some openings are valued
by aerial foragers such as bats and swallows, and raptors that hunt from perches. Gaps also increase
the richness of plants, thus diversifying birds and mammals. Logs associated with tree cover provide
shelter for dispersing amphibians. Woody vegetation usually supports a wider diversity of songbirds,
raptors, and mammals than does herbaceous vegetation, partly because it provides more vertical
structure and produces downed wood snags that have other habitat benefits. Woody vegetation helps
shelter the water in wetlands from high winds, facilitating the aerial foraging activities of birds and bats
(Whitaker et al. 2000)
Larger-diameter stands tend to be older and provide more structure useful to a variety of songbirds and
mammals. Tall snags are especially useful to raptors as hunting perches. A mixture of tree species,
especially mixtures that include aspen, is necessary to sustain populations of most boreal woodpecker
species [Drever & Martin 2010]. This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is
woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally support woodlands.
Larger-diameter stands tend to be older and provide more structure useful to a variety of songbirds and
mammals. Tall snags are especially useful to raptors as hunting perches. A mixture of tree species,
especially mixtures that include aspen, is necessary to sustain populations of most boreal woodpecker
species [Drever & Martin 2010]. This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is
woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally support woodlands.
Tree cavities are needed by many nesting songbirds and mammals, and by roosting bats. Tall snags
are especially useful to raptors as hunting perches. This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative
cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally support woodlands.
Downed wood provides cover for many small mammals. Downed wood is often the result of natural
windthrow, which also creates small patches of semi-open canopy within blocks of forest and in so
doing can support a larger number of wildlife species, despite the temporary loss of nest trees
(Zmihorski 2010). This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the
AA is in a landscape that would normally support woodlands.
Shrubs that are not under a tree canopy are preferred by many nesting songbirds, such as song
sparrow, Lincoln's sparrow, and common yellowthroat. This indicator is used only if >5% of the
woodlands.
Many wetland-dependent songbirds, raptors, and mammals also require undeveloped uplands nearby,
and prefer perennial cover to annual cropland, water, or other non-perennial cover.
Upland cover with perennial vegetation is very important to many songbirds and mammals that occur in
wetlands or along a wetland's upland edge. Wetlands that contain or are close to natural land cover,
and not separated from that by roads that interfere with movements across the landscape, are more
likely to support a wide variety of species. Wider riparian buffers in British Columbia supported a
greater density of deciduous trees important to wildlife diversity(Shirley 2004).
Intermediate levels of tree cover provide conditions suitable to the most songbird, raptor, and mammal
species.
Although scattered open spots provide feeding opportunities for some species, most songbirds and
mammals prefer dense ground cover as concealment from predators.
Complex microtopography supports diverse water regimes and provides more extensive habitat for
small mammals and some songbirds.
Some of these features are important to bank-living beavers, swallows, and kingfisher.
Human presence can attract crows and ravens, which prey on nests. Dogs and house cats which prey
on wetland songbirds and mammals also tend to be more prevalent in areas frequently visited by
humans.
See above.
Rationales
Although some brackish marshes attract large numbers of aerial-feeding swallows, no wetland
songbirds in this region prefer to nest in saline or moderately saline marshes. Freshwater tidal wetlands
may provide more insect prey.
Songbird nests are destroyed by tidal flooding, so wetlands with a larger proportion of high marsh that
is less susceptible to flooding provide more secure habitat. Tidal marshes that flood for long duration
on each tidal cycle provide shorter feeding opportunities for foraging songbirds and raptors (Martin
1988, Nur et al 1996).
Wider vegetated zones within wetlands provide more habitat space and structure for songbirds and
mammals. Where vegetated width is large even at high tide, it indicates the tidal wetland is mainly high
marsh, and high marsh provides better nesting habitat for songbirds than does regularly flooded low
marsh.
Many wetland songbirds and mammals make greater use of tidal wetlands that are close to non-tidal
(generally fresher) wetlands, because the non-tidal wetlands are more likely to contain woody cover as
well as drinkable water. The non-tidal wetlands also provide diversified foods and shelter during
storms.
In intertidal wetlands, a variety of vegetation forms is likely to provide a wider and more seasonally
constant source of foods to songbirds and mammals.
Although some intertidal wetlands that are vegetatively homogeneous can support many wetland
songbirds, those which have multiple native plant species (none strongly dominant) are expected to
support a wider variety of songbirds and mammals.
The diversity of songbirds and mammals in tidal wetlands is likely to increase with increasing wetland
size due to the usually correlated increase in microhabitat and water regime diversity.
Larger pieces of driftwood provide perches for raptors, and other driftwood can be a source of insect
prey for wetland songbirds and mammals.
Upland cover with perennial vegetation is very important to many songbirds and mammals that occur in
wetlands or along a wetland's upland edge. Although upland buffers along tidal marshes have not been
studied in this region, other studies of wetland buffers have shown positive benefits for songbirds and
mammals.
Although scattered open spots provide feeding opportunities for some species, most songbirds and
mammals prefer dense ground cover as concealment from predators.
Some of these features are important to bank-nesting swallows and kingfisher.
Rationales
Dependency of wetland-dependent songbirds, raptors, and mammals on this wetland increases if no

other natural vegetation of comparable or greater extent is available in the vicinity, thus conferring
greater value to this wetland. The score gives equal weight to the number of locally unique types and
the weights of those types.
These wetland species are particularly valued because of their rarity and/or declining populations as
listed by agencies.
Many mammals and songbirds are more dependent upon wetlands and water availability in parts of the
region with the least precipitation.
In the future, the need for (and value of) songbird, raptor, and mammal habitat as provided by wetlands
may increase the most where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because such development
often reduces or impairs this habitat function. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially developable
lands could be considered more valuable.
Human enjoyment of songbirds, raptors, and large mammals is facilitated where wetlands are largely
visible from major access points.
AVERAGE(ConnLocalW,ConnScapeW,DistPond, Beaver,HUCbest)
AVERAGE(PerimPctPer,BuffWidth, DistPerCov,PerCovPct, SizePerenn, ForestPct, UpTreePctPer,
EdgeShape))
AVERAGE(EmArea,AVERAGE(WaterMixWet,Girreg,Gcover,Cliff,Cttail, EmPct,HerbDom, ShrExpos,
WoodyPct, WoodyDryShade,Snags, WoodDown, TreeDiams))
AVERAGE(SeasPct,WidthWet, GDD)
AVERAGE(VisitNo,VisitOften,DisRd,VegCut)
IF((RareTypeT=1),1, ELSE: (3*AVERAGE(EmAreaT,LowMarshT,WidthHiT) +

2*AVERAGE(TnonT,SalinT,PerimPctPerT,BuffWidthT) +
AVERAGE(VegformsT,VegSpDomT,GcoverT,CliffT)) /6)
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreSBM, ELSE: (3*Structure + 3*Produc +2*Lscape + Wscape + Stress) /10)
IF(Tidal=1),MAX(RareSBM, AVERAGE(RareSBM,UniqPatch,Zoning,Arid)), ELSE: MAX(RareSBM,

AVERAGE(RareSBM,UniqPatch,Visibil, Zoning,Arid))
Literature Cited
Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different
proportions of suitable habitat – a review. Oikos 71:355-366.
Awade, M. and J. P. Metzger. 2008. Using gap-crossing capacity to evaluate functional connectivity of
two Atlantic rainforest birds and their response to fragmentation. Austral Ecology 33:863-871.
Aznar, J. C. and A. Desrochers. 2008. Building for the future: Abandoned beaver ponds promote bird
diversity. Ecoscience 15:250-257.
Barber, J. R., K. R. Crooks, and K. M. Fristrup. 2010. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial
organisms. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25:180-189.
Belisle, M. and A. Desrochers. 2002. Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for
parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landscape Ecology 17:219-231.
Benitez-Lopez, A., R. Alkemade, and P. A. Verweij. 2010. The impacts of roads and other
infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. Biological Conservation 143:1307-
1316.
Bosschieter, L. and P. W. Goedhart. 2005. Gap crossing decisions by Reed Warblers (Acrocephalus
scirpaceus) in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 20:455–468.
Clevenger, A. P., B. Chruszczc, and K. E. Gunson. 2003. Spatial patterns and factors influencing small
vertebrate fauna road-kill aggregations. Biological Conservation 109:15-26.
Collins, J. N. and V. H. Resh. 1985. Utilization of natural and man-made habitats by the salt marsh
song sparrow, Melospiza melodia samuelis (Baird). California Fish and Game 71:40–52.
Creegan, H. P. and P. E. Osborne. 2005. Gap-crossing decisions of woodland songbirds in Scotland:
an experimental approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:678-687.
Desrochers, A. and S. J. Hannon. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-
fledging period. Conservation Biology 11:1204-1210.
Drever, M. C. and K. Martin. 2010. Response of woodpeckers to changes in forest health and harvest:
Implications for conservation of avian biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management 259:958-966.
Fahrig, L. and T. Rytwinski. 2009. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and
synthesis. Ecology and Society 14:21. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss21/art21/
Flaherty, E. A., W. P. Smith, S. Pyare, and M. Ben-David. 2008. Experimental trials of the Northern
flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) traversing managed rainforest landscapes: perceptual range and
fine-scale movements. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 86:1050-1058.
Flaherty, E., M. Ben-David, and W. Smith. 2010. Diet and food availability: implications for foraging and
dispersal of Prince of Wales northern flying squirrels across managed landscapes. Journal of
Mammalogy 91:79-91.
Forman, R. T. T., B. Reineking, and A. M. Hersperger. 2002. Road traffic and nearby grassland bird
patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management 29:782-800.
Grover, A. M. and G. A. Baldassarre. 1995. Bird species richness within beaver ponds in south-central
New York. Wetlands 15:108-118.
Knops, J. M. H., D. Tilman, N.M. Haddad, S. Naeem, C.E. Mitchell, J. Haarstad, M.E. Ritchie, K.M.
Howe, P.B. Reich, E. Siemann, and J. Groth. 1999. Effects of plant species richness on invasion
dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters 2:286-293.
Lawrence, R., A. Bunn, S. Powell, and M. Zambon. 2004. Classification of remotely sensed imagery
using stochastic gradient boosting as a refinement of classification tree analysis. Remote Sensing of
Environment 90:331–336.
Lees, A. C. and C. A. Peres. 2009. Gap-crossing movements predict species occupancy in Amazonian
Forest Fragments. Oikos 118:280-290.
Martin, T. E. 1988. Habitat and area effects on forest bird assemblages: is nest predation an influence?
Ecology 69:74-84.
Marzluff, J. M., J. C. Withey, K. A. Whittaker, M. David Oleyar, T. M. Unfried, S. Rullman, and J. Delap.
2007. Consequences of habitat utilization by nest predators and breeding songbirds across multiple
scales in an urbanizing landscape. The Condor 109:516-534.
Massey, B., R. Bowen, C. Griffin, and K. McGarigal. 2008. A classification-tree analysis of nesting
habitat in an island population of Northern Harriers. The Condor 110:177-183.
Minor, E. and D. Urban. 2010. Forest bird communities across a gradient of urban development. Urban
Ecosystems 13:51-71.
Nur, N., C. J. Ralph, S. Laymon, G. Geupel, and D. Evans. 1996. Save Our Songbirds: Songbird
Conservation in California’s Riparian Habitats: Populations Assessments and Management
Recommendations, Annual Report, Project No. 94-232. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
Washington, D.C.
Ortega, Y. K. and D. E. Capen. 2002. Roads as edges: effects on birds in forested landscapes. Forest
Science 48:381-390.
Pennington, D. N. 2008. Riparian bird communities along an urban gradient: effects of local vegetation,
landscape biophysical heterogeneity, and spatial scale. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities, MN.
Rail, J. F., M. Darveau, A. Desrochers, and J. Huot. 1997. Territorial responses of boreal forest birds to
habitat gaps. Condor 99:976-980.
Rich, A. C., D. S. Dobkin, and L. J. Niles. 1994. Defining forest fragmentation by corridor width: the
influence of narrow forest-dividing corridors on forest-nesting birds in southern New Jersey. Conserv.
Biology 8:1109-1121.
Robertson, O. J. and J. Q. Radford. 2009. Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented
landscape. Austral Ecology 34:435-446.
Rodewald, P. G. and S. N. Matthews. 2005. Landbird use of riparian and upland forest stopover
habitats in an urban landscape. The Condor 107:259-268.
Schaub, A., J. Ostwald, and B. M. Siemers. 2008. Foraging bats avoid noise. Journal of Experimental
Biology 211:3174-3180.
Schieck, J., K. Lertzman, B. Nyberg, and R. Page. 1995. Effects of patch size on birds in old-growth
montane forests. Conservation Biology 9:1072-1084.
Shirley, S. 2004. The influence of habitat diversity and structure on bird use of riparian buffer strips in
coastal forests of British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne
De Recherche Forestiere 34:1499-1510.
Slabbekoorn, H. and E. A. P. Ripmeester. 2008. Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and
applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 17:72-83.
Smith, C. M. and D. G. Wachob. 2006. Trends associated with residential development in riparian
breeding bird habitat along the Snake River in Jackson Hole, WY, USA: Implications for conservation
planning. Biological Conservation 128:431-446.
St. Clair, C. C., M. Bélisle, A. Desrochers, and S. Hannon. 1998. Winter responses of forest birds to
habitat corridors and gaps. Conservation Ecology 2:1-13 http://www.consecol.org/vol12/iss12/art13/.
Tremblay, M. A. and C. C. St. Clair. 2009. Factors affecting the permeability of transportation and
riparian corridors to the movements of songbirds in an urban landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology
46:1314-1322.
Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30.
Vermaat, J. E., N. Vigneau, and N. Omtzigt. 2008. Viability of meta-populations of wetland birds in a
fragmented landscape: testing the key-patch approach. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:2263-2273.
Wood, W. E. and S. M. Yezerinac. 2006. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban
noise. Auk 123:650-659.
Zmihorski, M. 2010. The effect of windthrow and its management on breeding bird communities in a
managed forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:1871-1882.
WATER The effectiveness for maintaining or reducing summertime water
temperature, and in some cases, for moderating winter water
COOLING temperature.
Non-Tidal
Function Indicators
F3 Water Regime The water regime (hydroperiod) of the most permanent (usually deepest) part of the AA is: Select only
(Hydropd) ONE.
and SKIP to F5.
continue.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
(EmPct)
(WoodyDryShade)
flowing.
>95% of the water.
F15 Width of Vegetated When water levels are highest, during a normal year, the width of the vegetated wetland that
Zone - Wettest separates the largest patch of open water within or bordering the AA from the closest adjacent uplands,
(WidthWet) is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
SKIP TO F22.
1 to <5% of the AA.

>95% of the AA.
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:
<5% of the vegetated AA, but more than 10 trees are present.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Value
Indicators
Thermoregulation (WC)
(ConDesig)

Beween AA & Water
(ConnDown)
Is a stream or water body that connects these areas intermittently (at least once annually, but for less
(WetPctRCA)
<1% of its RCA.

<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
% of (WetPctSCA)

<10%.
SCA (ImpervSCA)
10 to 25%.
>25%.

<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.

F33.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
Function Score for Water Coo
Value Score for Water Coo

WC
Data X
Points
0.00
0 4 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
Data X
Points
0 0.00
0 0.00
0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
nction Score for Water Cooling F 0.00
Value Score for Water Cooling V 0.00

Rationales
When water remains entirely belowground water temperatures in summer remain cooler than if
exposed aboveground.
Wetlands with greater water depth overall tend to have cooler outflows (depending on elevation of the
outlet) because water depth provides insulation from solar warming. This indicator is used only if some
Shade from vegetation and other features is an important factor in cooling surface water and runoff
before it reaches water bodies farther downstream (e.g., Rounds 2007). A study of many Seattle-area
wetlands found that summertime temperatures ranged higher in wetlands that were characterized by
relatively large open pools (Reinelt & Horner 1990). This indicator is used only if some surface water
persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing season, and only if there is a
minimal area of emergent vegetation.
Shade from vegetation and other features is an important factor in cooling surface water and runoff
before it reaches water bodies farther downstream (e.g., Rounds 2007). However, in higher-gradient
intermittent headwater streams, the cooling effect of shade is often much less than the effect of
groundwater on stream temperatures (Janisch et al. 2012). Cooling effects may extend about 150 m to
4 km downstream from an individual source of cooler water, depending on the temperature and
discharge rate from the source relative to those of the receiving waters (Caldwell et al. 1991, Lewis et
al. 2000). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Wider vegetated zones provide more shade. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists
Ponded water tends to heat up more rapidly than flowing water. For example, a study of many Seattle-
area wetlands found that summertime temperatures ranged higher in wetlands characterized by
relatively large open pools (Reinelt & Horner 1990). However, ponded wetlands are likely to be
deeper, and if wetland outlets export water from the deeper parts, the exported water may be cooler
than input water. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Groundwater discharging into wetlands supports a wetland's capacity to cool surface runoff during
summer, because groundwater in most cases is cooler than surface water during that time (Mellina et
al. 2002).
Densely vegetated areas within a wetland have the greatest potential for providing shade which cools
or maintains temperature of runoff.
Rationales
Some fish species, salmonids in particular, are adversely affected by warm water because it can retain
less dissolved oxygen. Wetlands that maintain or cool the water temperature are especially beneficial
to these fish species.
Wetlands that flow into water bodies that have violated temperature standards are potentially more
valuable, if they also cool or maintain runoff water temperature.
Wetlands connected for longer to downstream water bodies have greater potential to influence the
temperature in those water bodies.
The need to cool surface waters is likely to be greatest at locations lower in a watershed.
Wetlands that are in or near a stream headwater have more opportunity to affect stream water
temperature for a longer distance downstream, whereas the effect of an individual lowland wetland on
a large river's temperature is likely to be minimal, due to large volumetric differences. A wetland that is
large relative to size of its contributing area is likely to be (or function as) a headwater wetland.
The need for (and thus the value of) the water cooling function potentially provided by wetlands is
greater when upland runoff is rapid, as occurs when much of the contributing area contains impervious
surface. Such unshaded dark surfaces also are more likely to export heated water.
Wetlands that are in or near a stream headwater have more opportunity to affect stream water
temperature for a longer distance downstream, whereas the effect of an individual lowland wetland on
a large river's temperature is likely to be minimal, due to large volumetric differences. A wetland that is
large relative to size of its contributing area is likely to be (or function as) a headwater wetland.
The need for (and value of) the water cooling function potentially provided by wetlands is greater when
upland runoff is rapid, as occurs when much of the contributing area contains impervious surface.
Such unshaded dark surfaces also are more likely to export heated water.
The need for (and value of) the water cooling function potentially provided by wetlands is greater when
upland runoff is rapid, as occurs when much of the contributing area contains impervious surface.
Such unshaded dark surfaces also are more likely to export heated water.
The need for (and value of) water temperature maintenance and cooling provided by wetlands may be
expected to increase the most in the future where zoning allows higher-intensity development, because
such development typically increases runoff water temperature.
Longer growing seasons imply hotter air and water temperatures, increasing the need for cooling of
surface waters necessary to support aquatic functions.
Wetlands that have no outflow are likely to have only minimal effect on temperature of other water
bodies.
Water-cooling functions of wetlands are more valuable where upland vegetation is not providing that
function, as is often true where perennial vegetation is sparse around the wetland perimeter.
Water bodies whose contributing areas have less perennial cover and narrower vegetated buffers have
higher temperatures. However, overall vegetation patterns in a watershed frequently have an equal or
greater influence on stream temperature and aquatic productivity than vegetation just within buffer
areas adjoining a shoreline (Brosofske et al. 1997, Sridhar et al. 2004, Stephenson & Morin 2009).
One study found that maximum air temperature within a 100-ft wooded buffer was only slightly cooler
than in a 16-ft wide wooded buffer (Meleason & Quinn 2004).
IF((Tidal=1),0, IF((NeverWater or TempWet), [2*Groundw + AVERAGE(Gcover,WoodyPct)]/3, ELSE:

[2*Groundw + AVERAGE[WoodyDryShade,AVERAGE(WidthWet, WoodyPct,EmPct, Gcover) +
AVERAGE(Hydropd,DepthDom,PondWpctDry)] /4
IF(Tidal=1),0, IF((outflow is temporary or none),0, ELSE:

AVERAGE(Zoning, (OutDura + 4*MAX(ESH,ConnDown, GISscoreWC) +
AVERAGE(BuffWidth,PerimPctPer,ImpervRCA,ImpervSCA) +
AVERAGE(WetPctRCA,WetPctSCA,Elev,GDD))/ 7))
Literature Cited
Brosofske, K. D., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman, and J. F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic
gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7:1188-1200.
Meleason, M. A. and J. M. Quinn. 2004. Influence of riparian buffer width on air temperature at
Whangapoua Forest, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand. Forest Ecology and Management
191:365-371.
Mellina, E., R. D. Moore, S. G. Hinch, J. S. Macdonald, and G. Pearson. 2002. Stream temperature
responses to clearcut logging in British Columbia: the moderating influences of groundwater and
headwater lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1886-1900.
Reinelt, L. E. and R. R. Horner. 1990. Characterization of the Hydrology and Water Quality of
Palustrine Wetlands Affected by Urban Stormwater. King County Resource Planning Section, Seattle,
WA.
Rounds, S. A. 2007. Temperature Effects of Point Sources, Riparian Shading, and Dam Operations on
the Willamette River, Oregon. Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5185. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR.
Sridhar, V., A. L. Sansone, J. LaMarche, T. Dubin, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2004. Prediction of stream
temperature in forested watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40:197-
213.
Stephenson, J. M. and A. Morin. 2009. Covariation of stream community structure and biomass of
algae, invertebrates and fish with forest cover at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 54:2139-
2154.
Organic The effectiveness for producing and subsequently exporting organic
matter, either particulate or dissolved.
Nutrient
Non-TidalExport
Function
(Arid)
Indicators Arid.
Semi-arid.
Dry.
Moist.
Wet.
Very Wet.
<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
F7 Emergent Plants -- Area
(EmArea)
0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <5 acres.
5 to 50 acres.
>50 acres.
(EmPct)
(PondWpctWet)
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
Vegetation (SAV)
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
F25 Water Fluctuation Range
- Maximum (Fluctu)
0.5 to < 1 ft.

1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
>75% of the AA.

F33.
(Constric)
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:

true.
legumes) is:
<1% or none.
1 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 75%.
>75%.
(Gcover)
F56 Bare Ground &
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.

Tidal Function
No.

(EstPosT)
Mid 1/3.

T2 Salinity (SalinT)

Unknown.
None, or <1%.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(WidthLoT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
T6 Internal Gradient Within the AA, the gradient from the upland boundary (or part closest to it) and the lowest point in the
(GradientT) AA is:

2 to <5%.
5 to 10%.
>10%.
T8 Outflow Confinement In the places where tidal water exits the AA after an average daily high tide, the tidal water is:
(ConstricT)
Impeded partially by a pipe, culvert, narrowly breached dike, berm, beaver dam, or other obstruction
(other than natural topography).
Not impeded by anything other than (possibly) natural topography.
Exported more quickly than usual due to ditches or pipes within the AA or connected to its outlet.
(BlindChT)
T11 Gradient of nontidal The gradient of the largest nontidal freshwater input tributary or ditch, averaged 150 f. from where it
Input Channel enters the AA, is:
(SlopeInChanT)
<1%.
1 to <3%
3 to 6%
>6%
T15 Overhanging Vegetation At average daily high tide, the percentage of the AA's water surface that is overhung by vegetation
at High Tide (ShadeHiT) within the AA is:
<5%, or no water is present in the AA at average daily high tide.
T15 Overhanging Vegetation
at High Tide (ShadeHiT)
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95%.
(VegformsT)
Eelgrass.
Forbs.
T18 Vegetation Form- The living vegetation form that occupies the largest part of the AA's vegetative cover in late summer is:
Predominant
(VegFormDomT)
Eelgrass.
Forbs.
Function Subindices
Function Subindices
Function Score for Organic Nutrient Exp
Values Score for Organic Nutrient Exp

OE
Data X
Points
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 7 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 4 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
Historical Accumulation 0.00
Productivity (Current) 0.00
Frozen Duration 0.00

Plant Cover 0.00
Nutrient Availability 0.00
Export Potential 0.00
Tidal 0.00
e for Organic Nutrient Export F 0.00
e for Organic Nutrient Export V

Rationales
Greater amount and intensity of precipitation potentially results in greater transport of wetland-
produced carbon into downstream waters.
Wetlands lower in watersheds experience more water flow and consequently greater export of organic
matter (Fitzgerald et al. 2003). They also are likely to have shorter duration of ice cover that otherwise
potentially impedes export. However, in some situations ice may scour vegetation and thus facilitate
export of organic matter.
see above.
Annual productivity is generally greater in shallower areas where light is more available and sediments
are subject to aeration from wind mixing. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in
Aquatic plants, especially those in acidic environments and/or with fibrous tissue, usually add more
carbon to wetlands than they lose in the form of CO2 from decomposition. More extensive areas of
plants in contact with water imply greater opportunity for waterborne export of organic matter. This
growing season.
carbon to wetlands than they lose in the form of CO2 from decomposition. More extensive areas of
plants in contact with water imply greater opportunity for waterborne export of organic matter. This
growing season.
The probability that organic matter from wetland plants will be exported increases in relation to the
percent of the inundated area containing such plants. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Hydrologic factors govern the export of organic carbon from most types of wetlands (DeVito & LaZerte
1989). The greater the proportion of a wetland that is connected to outflowing channels, the greater the
proportion of its annual production that may be exported. This indicator is used only if some surface
Plant material from narrower (fringe) wetlands is often more vulnerable to transport into adjoining
waters. This indicator is used only if some open surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Because SAV plants are constantly submerged, their organic matter is likely to be more susceptible to
export from wetlands than is organic matter from wetland plants that are not completely immersed in
water. This indicator is used only if some open ponded surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Prolonged inundation can stifle plant productivity, whereas seasonal inundation encourages it, and is
often associated with exporting hydrologic conditions, e.g., river floods. Seasonally high water levels
promote decomposition (Bayley & Mewhort, 2004) and thus facilitate the export of carbon.
Annual export of accumulated organic matter to downslope water bodies is greater in wetlands with
outlets, especially those with persistent outflow. Nonetheless, even wetlands that lack outlets may
export variable amounts of dissolved carbon via subsurface infiltration and "pipes" created by decayed
subsurface peat and tree roots which cannot be evaluated in a rapid assessment.
limiting export of organic matter. The types of outlets described here are ones that typically are more
constricted than natural channels, which usually have adjusted over time to local runoff and thus are
wider relative to volume of flow received. This indicator is used only if water exits the AA or its wetland
Increased channel complexity implies greater interspersion of open water and vegetation, which
provides more opportunity for organic matter to be in contact with moving water and thus be exported.
This indicator is used only if an tributary channel is present and water exits the AA or its wetland for
more than 14 days of the growing season.
Steeper gradients imply a greater likelihood that whatever organic matter is produced will be
transported offsite.
Groundwater often brings nutrients to the surface, supporting greater plant production. Groundwater-
fed wetlands also remain ice-free for longer, thus lengthening the growing season and plant production,
and increasing the potential for organic matter to be exported if the wetland is connected to other water
bodies.
Moss wetlands (peatlands) tend to have relatively low productivity and rates of carbon sequestration,
and typically occur where opportunities for export of that organic matter is hydrologically limited. If
moss dominates, this score goes to 0. If moss is absent it is considered to have no effect on the score.
Nitrogen added to a wetland by N-fixing plants can increase the wetland's overall plant productivity
(Bormann & Sidle 1990, Mead & Preston 1992, Chapin et al. 1994), potentially making more organic
matter available for export. Presence of alder in conifer woodlands also can speed the decomposition
of organic material from the conifers (Fyles & Fyles 1993) perhaps making it more useful for supporting
aquatic life. The presence of nitrogen-fixers such as alder can benefit soil productivity for decades
Alder basal area has been shown to increase the total understory biomass and net production of
shrubs and herbs (especially forbs) (Hanley et al. 2006).
More extensive ground cover may imply more organic matter is available for export. Excessive litter
buildup implies a lack of significant exporting forces, e.g., currents.
Soils with a thick organic layer have the most carbon available for export. However, moderately coarse
soils (silts, loams) are better-aerated, less acidic, and thus can have greater plant productivity. Very
coarse soils, unless flooded regularly by rivers, tend to be nutrient-poor thus limiting plant productivity.
Their presence may indicate periodic exposure to water currents capable of exporting carbon.
Soil organic matter is slow to accumulate in constructed wetlands (Alsfeld et al. 2009), so might be less
to be available for export.
Rationales
Wetlands lower in an estuary may experience stronger tides, currents, and wave action which
facilitates carbon export to nearby marine waters. However, productivity may be less than in fresher
upriver parts of the estuary.
Among tidal wetlands, annual production of vascular plants tends to be greater in brackish or fresh
parts of estuaries, so more carbon may be available for export. Wetlands lower in an estuary may
experience stronger tides, currents, and wave action which facilitates carbon export to nearby marine
waters.
Among tidal wetlands, annual production of vascular plants tends to be greater in brackish or fresh
parts of estuaries, so more carbon may be available for export. Wetlands lower in an estuary may
experience stronger tides, currents, and wave action which facilitates carbon export to nearby marine
waters.
Plant production from low marsh elevations is more likely to be exported due to longer inundation
times. However, intermediate marsh elevations may support greater productivity.
Wetlands that have large portions that are not flooded by daily high tide ("high marsh") probably export
less carbon because high marshes tend to be less productive than low (regularly flooded) tidal marshes
and their accumulated biomass is removed less frequently. However, at some point a marsh may
become so narrow that its vegetation is vulnerable to catastrophic loss from waves and erosion.
Tidal wetlands that show wide vegetated area at daily low tide indicate a high potential for regular daily
export of organic matter from the most productive part of the wetland.
Annual export of accumulated organic matter to downslope water bodies is greater in wetlands with
outlets, especially those with persistent outflow. Nonetheless, even wetlands that lack outlets may
export variable amounts of dissolved carbon via subsurface infiltration and "pipes" created by decayed
subsurface peat and this cannot be evaluated in a rapid assessment.
limiting export of organic matter. The types of outlets described here are ones that typically are more
constricted than natural channels, which usually have adjusted over time to local tidal regimes and thus
are wider relative to volume of flow received.
Channels increase the edge length between vegetation and water, and thus provide a mode for
transporting organic matter out of a wetland.
Water energy capable of exporting organic matter from wetlands is often greatest where tidal wetlands
are intersected by tributaries or are bordered on their upslope side by freshwater wetlands.
Steeper tributaries increase the energy available in a tidal wetland for exporting the wetland's organic
matter.
Water energy capable of exporting organic matter from wetlands is greatest where tidal wetlands are
located on shorelines with more wave exposure.
Where a large portion of the water surface is overhung by vegetation, this implies greater opportunity
for plant material to fall into the water and be exported downcurrent.
Where a large portion of the water surface is overhung by vegetation, this implies greater opportunity
for plant material to fall into the water and be exported downcurrent.
See above.
In general, macroalgae and eelgrass tend to be less productive than other plant forms. Herbaceous
plants are highly productive in tidal settings. In tidal wetlands, woody plants may produce less carbon
per unit area than herbaceous plants, but do so for longer periods of time.
See above.
AVERAGE(SoilTex, Moss)
AVERAGE(FrozDur,PlantCov,NutrAvail)
AVERAGE(GDD,Groundw)
AVERAGE[EmArea,AVERAGE(Gcover,EmPct,DepthDom)]
AVERAGE(SeasPct,Fluctu,PondWpctWet,Nfix,NewWet)
IF((NoOutlet=1),0, ELSE: AVERAGE(OutDura, Gradient, Arid, AVERAGE(Constric, ThruFlo,

PondWpctWet,WidthWet,Elev,SAV)))
(3*AVERAGE(LowMarshT,OutDuraT,BlindChT) +
AVERAGE(GradientT,SlopeInChanT,ConstricT,WavesT,WidthHiT,WidthLoT) + MAX(EstPosT,SalinT) +
AVERAGE(ShadeHiT,GcoverT, VegformsT, VegFormDomT,TnonT)) /6
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreOE, IF((NoOutlet=1),0, ELSE: (3*ExportPot + 2*Productiv + HistAccum) /6))
NOTE: No indicators addressing VALUES of this function are proposed because its benefits are
diffused throughout all receiving water bodies.
Literature Cited
Bayley, S. E. and R. L. Mewhort. 2004. Plant community structure and junctional differences between
marshes and fens in the southern boreal region of Alberta, Canada. Wetlands 24:277-294.
Devito, K. J., P. J. Dillon, and B. D. Lazerte. 1989. Phosphorus and nitrogen retention in five
Precambrian shield wetlands. Biogeochemistry 8:185–204.
Fitzgerald, D. F., J. S. Price, and J. J. Gibson. 2003. Hillslope-swamp interactions and flow pathways in
a hyper-maritime rainforest, British Columbia. Hydrological Processes 17:3005-3022.
Fyles, J. W. and I. H. Fyles. 1993. Interaction of Douglas-fir with red alder and salal foliage litter during
decomposition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere
23:358-361.
Carbon The effectiveness for retaining both incoming particulate and dissolved
carbon, and through the photosynthetic process converting carbon
Sequestration dioxide gas to organic matter (particulate or dissolved), and then
retaining that organic matter on a net annual basis for long periods
Non-Tidal Function
while emitting little or no methane (a potent “greenhouse gas”).
Indicators <256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.
>95% of the AA.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.

(EmPct)
(EmPct)
(PondWpctWet)
Enter 1 and
1 to <5% SKIP
of the TO F22.
AA.
>95% of the AA.
is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
- Maximum (Fluctu)
<0.5 ft or stable.
0.5 to < 1 ft.
1 to <3 ft.
3 to 6 ft.
>6 ft.
>75% of the AA.
Conductance (Salin)
Conductance (Salin)
Unknown.

F33.
(Constric)
(Gradient)
2 to <6%.
6 to 10%.
>10%.
Evidence (Groundw)
local wetlands, OR
The AA's wetland:

true.
(Gcover)
F56 Bare Ground &
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
No.

Assessment Area
(SoilDisturb).
Tidal Function

(EstPosT)
Indicators
T1 Estuarine Position
(EstPosT)
wetlands).
Mid 1/3.

Unknown.
None, or <1%.
1 to <10%.
10 to <25%.
25 <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 90%.
>90%.
(WidthHiT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(WidthLoT)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(VegformsT)
Eelgrass.
T17 Vegetation Forms
Significantly Present
(VegformsT)

Forbs.
T18 Vegetation Form- The living vegetation form that occupies the largest part of the AA's vegetative cover in late summer is:
Predominant
(VegFormDomT)
Eelgrass.
Forbs.
T35 Restored Wetland The AA was originally a wetland (tidal or nontidal), was artificially drained for many years (and was not
(RestoredT) a nontidal wetland during that time), and has since had its water regime partly or wholly restored or
rehabilitated (e.g., by ditch plugs, berms, tile breakage, non-maintenance).
Yes, and time of restoration unknown.

Yes, and restored within last 3 years.
Yes, and restored 3-7 years ago.
Yes, and restored more than 7 years ago.
No.
Unknown if wetland is restored, created, or naturally occurring.
Function Subindices
Function Subindices
Function Score for Carbon Sequestra
Values Score for Carbon Sequestra

CS
Data X
Points
0.00
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 7 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0 8 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 0 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 5 0
0.00 1.00
Data X
Points
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 4 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 4 0
0 4 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 4 0
0
Historical Accumulation 0.00

CURRENT PRODUCTIVITY:
Warmth 0.50
Plant Cover 0.00
Nutrient Availability 0.00
Physical Accumulation 0.00
Methane Limitation 0.00
Tidal 0.00
core for Carbon Sequestration F 0.42
core for Carbon Sequestration V

Rationales
Wetland emissions of methane increase with warming temperatures (Sha et al. 2011). Although plants
responsible for much of the carbon sequestration in wetlands grow fastest at warmer soil or sediment
temperatures, they also decompose faster. With colder temperatures (fewer degree days), the
concentration of mobile DOC in forested wetland soils and streams decreases, suggesting more
immobile carbon is sequestered onsite rather than being exported downslope in groundwater (D’Amore
et al. 2010).
Persistently high water tables or flooded conditions result in greater carbon loss from emissions of
methane (Glatzel et al. 2004, Keller et al. 2004, Pelletier et al. 2007, Altor & Mitsch 2008) and
occasionally CO2. This occurs as many methane-generating microbes flourish in anaerobic
environments (those with low redox potential) that are typical of wetlands with prolonged inundation.
Methane emissions in one study occurred mostly when water content of the soil exceeded 25% (Smith
et al. 2000). However, peat accumulation is fostered by persistently high water tables or flooded
conditions, due to the anaerobic and acidic conditions which slow decay of organic matter and are
typically associated with prolonged inundation (Belyea & Malmer 2004). In some wetlands primary
production also increases with wetter conditions, but increases with drier (especially, intermittently dry)
conditions in others. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Waters that are persistently deeper than 2 ft, and especially deeper than 6 ft, usually support much
less vascular plant production which otherwise could be sequestered while acidifying the soil and thus
dampening methane emissions. In a flooded pasture of wild hay, plant production declined if continual
flooding exceeded 50 days at a depth of 7 inches (Rumberg & Sawyer 1965). On the other hand,
methane emissions can decrease with increasing depth of surface water over the range of 0 to 1m
depth (Pelletier et al. 2007, Cheng et al. 2007). One study found methane emissions were greater from
a lake than a bog (Edwards et al. 2001). This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in
carbon to wetlands than they lose in the form of CO2 from decomposition. They also trap and deposit
particulate carbon carried into a wetland from upslope. However, decomposition of the organic matter
from plants in some wetlands generates methane, and the plants themselves can facilitate its
movement from sediments into the atmosphere. This indicator is used only if some surface water
carbon to wetlands than they lose in the form of CO2 from decomposition. They also trap and deposit
particulate carbon carried into a wetland from upslope. However, decomposition of the organic matter
from plants in some wetlands generates methane, and the plants themselves can facilitate its
movement from sediments into the atmosphere. This indicator is used only if some surface water
Annual plant productivity (and thus potentially-storable carbon) is often less in isolated pools than in
areas where periodic water circulation replenishes nutrients(Thormann & Bayley 1997). Also, methane
emissions may be higher from isolated pools (pannes) because of they are more likely to develop
anaerobic conditions (Magenheimer et al. 1996). Aerobic conditions can increase the proportion of
plant production that is allocated to belowground tissue, which benefits carbon storage because such
tissue is more likely to resist erosion and be incorporated into longterm storage in soil. However,
organic matter stored in pools is less subject than organic matter in channels to being washed
downstream and thus could be more likely to become incorporated into soils, resulting in carbon being
sequestered. This indicator is used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4
Wider bands of vegetation represent more biomass to be sequestered, and are more effective in
trapping organic matter carried to the wetland by upland runoff. This indicator is used only if some open
Very large water level fluctuations can reduce plant productivity, but small seasonal fluctuations are
important to maintaining fertility of a wetland, and thus its ability to store carbon. Maintaining steadily
moist soil conditions may minimize methane releases (Tuittila et al. 2000, Price et al. 2003).
Methane emissions are partially suppressed in waters with higher salinities.

Wetlands that lack outlets retain most carbon that enters them or is produced within. However,
methane emissions may be higher due to greater likelihood of anaerobic conditions developing.
Wetlands that connect to downslope water bodies for only part of the year would be expected to export
less carbon annually than those with persistent outflow.
causing water to back up into the wetland, which allows more time for sedimentation of carbon to
occur, although methane emissions may be higher due to greater likelihood of anaerobic conditions
developing. The types of outlets described here are ones that typically are more constricted than
natural channels, which usually have adjusted over time to local runoff and thus are wider relative to
volume of flow received. This indicator is used only if water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14
days of the growing season.
Flatter wetlands are more likely than steep ones to slow runoff, facilitating more deposition of organic
matter that is associated with it. However, methane emissions may be less from sloping wetlands, due
to greater aeration of their soils (Tauchnitz et al. 2008).
Low levels of dissolved oxygen in groundwater can support greater methane emissions, as can the
circumneutral acidity typical of groundwater (Updegraff et al. 1995). As a result less carbon may be
sequestered in some groundwater-fed wetlands (Smemo &Yavitt 2006). This may not be the case if
groundwater also increases the levels of iron, calcium, and sulfate in surface water, which inhibit
methane emission. Local geology may determine.
Moss wetlands (peatlands) tend to have relatively low productivity and rates of carbon sequestration.
Peatlands and forested wetlands also tend to have lower methane emissions than fens, marshes, and
other wetlands with standing surface water for longer periods (Liblik et al. 1997). Methane emissions
are especially large from wetlands that are fertile and have plants partially submerged in water for long
periods (Hines et al. 2008). The model considers that if moss is present, it decreases the score, but if
absent it is considered to have no effect on the score.
Although wooded wetlands tend to be less productive than herbaceous wetlands, the carbon they fix
(as decay-resistant wood or deep roots) is kept out of the atmosphere for longer periods. Plants that
routinely shift much of their annual production belowground (as roots), rather than aboveground (as
leaves) potentially allow more carbon to be sequestered (Crow & Wieder 2005). Also, trees and deep-
rooted herbs such as Equisetum bring to the soil surface nutrients from deeper soil horizons that
otherwise are unavailable to shallow-rooted herbaceous plants (Marsh et al. 2000), and thus increase
plant community productivity overall. Belowground tissue is less subject to erosion and rapid
decomposition, and living roots can minimize methane emissions by oxidizing the soil (however, roots
of some species may facilitate movement of methane from deep soil to the surface). Most trees and
shrubs also tend to grow more rapidly in wetlands that are less prone to long duration flooding, and
thus are less likely to emit much methane. However, lso inhibit methane generation in anaerobic
sediments by translocating oxygen from the surface to their roots. One study (Smialek et al. 2006)
found willow enhanced methane emissions more than soft rush (Juncus effusus). But deep-rooted
plants can also inhibit methane generation in anaerobic sediments by translocating oxygen from the
surface to their roots.
Larger trees represent larger stores of sequestered carbon. Although research originally suggested
that younger trees are better for carbon sequestration than older trees, because they are more
productive and thus accumulate carbon faster (Ryan 2005), more recent research (Law et al. 2008) has
shown a significant continuation of sequestration by tree stands that are hundreds of years old.
Evergreen plants tend to decompose more slowly and foster acidic conditions. Such conditions further
slow decomposition of organic matter (Collins and Kuehl 2001), thus leading to greater carbon
sequestration. Acidic conditions and/or slowly-decomposing (recalcitrant) evergreen vegetation also
can repress both methane generation (Valentine et al. 1994, Updegraff et al. 1995) and methane
oxidation, but not necessarily CO2 emissions (Bridgham & Richardson 2003). Carbon can be
sequestered more effectively under such conditions (Blanco-Canqui & Lal 2008). The formula used
here gives equal weight to the variety of classes and increasing mean diameter. This indicator is used
only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is in a landscape that would normally
support woodlands.
Denser stands of vegetation, although sometimes less productive than more open stands, typically
sequester a larger proportion of their organic matter. However, methane emissions per unit area also
can be high in floating mats of vegetation (Moosavi et al. 1996) and in shallow areas with dense cover
of vascular plants (Smith et al. 2000, Cheng et al. 2007) whose roots facilitate the movement of
methane from soils to the surface, as compared with lower methane emissions in areas of open water
(Rose & Crumpton 2006) or mats of submersed aquatic vegetation (Smith et al. 2000).
Denser stands of vegetation, although sometimes less productive than more open stands, typically
sequester a larger proportion of their organic matter. However, methane emissions per unit area also
can be high in floating mats of vegetation (Moosavi et al. 1996) and in shallow areas with dense cover
of vascular plants (Smith et al. 2000, Cheng et al. 2007) whose roots facilitate the movement of
methane from soils to the surface, as compared with lower methane emissions in areas of open water
(Rose & Crumpton 2006) or mats of submersed aquatic vegetation (Smith et al. 2000).
The presence of peat or muck implies the presence (at least historically) of a microclimate favorable to
long-term retention of particulate carbon. Peat is also a poor substrate for methanogenesis (White et al.
2008), as is true also of typically well-oxygenated coarse soils. However, in very coarse soils the
annual productivity of plants is often less than in clay/ loam soils because unless the coarse soils are
flooded regularly by rivers, they tend to be nutrient-poor (Boss 1983). Moderately coarse soils (silts,
loams), especially those with a large component of soil aggregates in the 2-8 mm range (Hossler &
Bouchard 2010), tend to have neutral pH and support greater plant biomass and thus produce more
soil organic carbon.
The initial sparseness of vegetation in new wetlands suggests that overall carbon stores are less than
in some of the more mature wetlands with greater plant cover, diversity, and structural complexity.
Aboveground production and soil organic matter have been shown to be less in lands newly restored to
wetland conditions than in long-established wetlands (Fennessy et al. 2008). “New” inundation can
increase the amount of carbon exported as methane and sometimes, as CO2 (Kelly et al. 1997,
Petrone et al. 2005, Blodau et al. 2007, Tuittila et al. 2000, Price et al. 2003). For example, new
inundation resulting from beaver activity has been shown to increase methane emissions (Roulet et al.
1997). However, many pioneering plants in new wetlands (especially on fertile soils) grow rapidly and
thus are fixing large amounts of carbon per plant per unit time. And although most wetlands become
more enriched in nutrients as they age, leading to increased biological production, decomposition rates
may also increase, thus resulting in less net gain in sequestered carbon. Moreover, some wetlands
become more dilute and acidic with time as vegetation and soils mature (Engstrom et al. 2000) and this
can inhibit further plant growth and consequently carbon sequestration.
Tillage and regrading accelerate the decay of soil organic matter rather than supporting sequestration.
Farming of drained hydric soils is a particular concern, because such soils typically have substantial
organic matter that converts to greenhouse gases when tilled and planted annually. However, tillage of
compacted soils can reduce methane emissions (Willey & Chameides 2007). Despite associated soil
disturbance, selective logging in forested wetlands in some cases may eventually increase carbon
sequestration if the tree stands and other components of the forest ecosystem become more
productive after thinning (Li et al. 2004).
Rationales
Generally correlated with salinity (see below), and used where those data are lacking.
Generally correlated with salinity (see below), and used where those data are lacking.
Higher salt content represses methane production and thus loss of carbon via that route (Magenheimer
et al. 1996, Baldwin et al. 2006, White et al. 2008).
High marshes tend to be more productive than low marshes (Jefferson 1975, Eilers 1975, 1979,
Frenkel & Morlan 1990, Kirwan & Murray 2008) and biomass is less likely to be exposed to waves and
currents that could export it. Raised elevation of tidal wetlands in some cases may be due at least
partly to a long history of organic matter accumulation. However, elevation within a tidal marsh may
have limited effect on carbon sequestration rate (Callaway et al. 2012).
Wider bands of vegetation represent more biomass to be sequestered, and are more effective in
trapping organic matter carried to the wetland by upland runoff or tidal currents.
See above.
Although productivity of herbaceous plants is often greater, woody plants typically store carbon for the
longest periods.
Although productivity of herbaceous plants is often greater, woody plants typically store carbon for the
longest periods.
See above.
Denser vegetation, although sometimes less productive than more open patches, typically sequesters
a larger proportion of the organic matter produced.
Coarse soils are tend to be nutrient-poor and thus potentially support less production. In many tidal
areas, coarse sediments also indicate greater exposure to waves and currents that result in organic
matter being exported rather than retained. However, coarser soils tend to be better-aeriated.
Particularly in tidal wetlands, aeration significantly increases plant productivity, although aeration may
also enhance decomposition which results in less carbon sequestration.
Aboveground production rates and (in some cases) soil organic matter have been shown to be less in
lands newly restored to wetland conditions than in long-established wetlands (Morlan 1991, Frenkel &
Morlan 1991, MacClellan 2011).
IF((NotNewWet=1), AVERAGE(Moss,SoilTex,SoilDisturb, AVERAGE(GDD,WoodyPct,WidthWet,

Constric)), ELSE: NewWet)
AVERAGE(1-GDD,Groundw)
AVERAGE(WidthWet,AVERAGE(Gcover,MAX(WoodyPct,EmPct),DepthDom))
AVERAGE(SeasWpct, Fluctu)
AVERAGE(OutDura,AVERAGE(Gradient,Constric,PondWpctWet)))
AVERAGE(Salin,TreeDiams,Moss,PermW)
AVERAGE(SoilTexT,(VegformsT + 2*VegFormDomT)/3, MAX(EstPosT,SalinT),
AVERAGE(WidthHiT,WidthLoT,LowMarshT,GcoverT), RestoredT)
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreCS, ELSE: (MAX(HistAccum, PhysAccum) + AVERAGE(Warmth, PlantCov,
NutrAvail) + 2*MethLimit) /4
NOTE: No indicators addressing VALUES of this function are currently proposed because its benefits
are diffused throughout the entire planet.
Literature Cited
Altor, A. and W. Mitsch. 2008. Pulsing hydrology, methane emissions and carbon dioxide fluxes in
created marshes: A 2-year ecosystem study. Wetlands 28:423-438.
Augustin, J., W. Merbach, and J. Rogasik. 1998. Factors influencing nitrous oxide and methane
emissions from minerotrophic fens in northeast Germany. Biology and Fertility of Soils 28:1-4.
Baldwin, D., G. Rees, A. Mitchell, G. Watson, and J. Williams. 2006. The short-term effects of
salinization on anaerobic nutrient cycling and microbial community structure in sediment from a
freshwater wetland. Wetlands 26:455-464.
Belyea, L. R. and N. Malmer. 2004. Carbon sequestration in peatland: patterns and mechanisms of
response to climate change. Global Change Biology 10:1043-1052.
Blanco-Canqui, H. and R. Lal. 2008. No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: An on-farm
assessment. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:693-701.
Blodau, C., B. Mayer, S. Peiffer, and T. R. Moore. 2007. Support for an anaerobic sulfur cycle in two
Canadian peatland soils. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 112:G02004.
Bormann, B. T. and R. C. Sidle. 1990. Changes in productivity and distribution of nutrients in a
chronosequence at Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. Journal of Ecology 78:561-578.
Boss, T. R. 1983. Vegetation ecology and net primary productivity of selected freshwater wetlands in
Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Bridgham, S. D. and C. J. Richardson. 2003. Endogenous versus exogenous nutrient control over
decomposition and mineralization in North Carolina peatlands. Biogeochemistry 65:151-178.
Callaway, J. C., E. L. Borgnis, R. E. Turner, and C. S. Milan. 2012. Carbon sequestration and sediment
accretion in San Francisco Bay tidal wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts 35:1163-1181.
Chapin, F. S., L. R. Walker, C. L. Fastie, and L. C. Sharman. 1994. Mechanisms of primary succession
following deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecological Monographs 64:149-175.
Cheng, W., K. Yagi, H. Akiyama, S. Nishimura, S. Sudo, T. Fumoto, T. Hasegawa, A. E. Hartley, and J.
P. Megonigal. 2007. An empirical model of soil chemical properties that regulate methane production in
Japanese rice paddy soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1920-1925.
Collins, M. E. and R. J. Kuehl. 2001. Organic matter accumulation and organic soils in wetland soils
genesis, hydrology, landscapes, and classification. Pages 137- 159 in J. L. Richardson and M. J.
Vepraskas, editors. Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscape, and Classification. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Crow, S. E. and R. K. Wieder. 2005. Sources of Co-2 emission from a northern peatland: Root
respiration, exudation, and decomposition. Ecology 86:1825-1834.
D'Amore, D. V., J. B. Fellman, R. T. Edwards, and E. Hood. 2010. Controls on dissolved organic matter
concentrations in soils and streams from a forested wetland and sloping bog in southeast Alaska.
Ecohydrology 3:249-261.
Edwards, G. C., G. M. Dias, G. W. Thurtell, G. E. Kidd, N. T. Roulet, C. A. Kelly, J. W. M. Rudd, A.
Moore, and L. Halfpenny-Mitchell. 2001. Methane fluxes from a wetland using the flux-gradient
technique; the measurement of methane flux from a natural wetland pond and adjacent vegetated
wetlands using a TDL-based flux-gradient technique. Water, Air and Soil Pollution: Focus 1:447-454.
Engstrom, D. R., S. C. Fritz, J. E. Almendinger, and S. Juggins. 2000. Chemical and biological trends
during lake evolution in recently deglaciated terrain. Nature 408:161-166.
Fennessy, M. S., A. Rokosch, and J. J. Mack. 2008. Patterns of plant decomposition and nutrient
cycling in natural and created wetlands. Wetlands 28:300-310.
Frenkel, R. E. and J. C. Morlan. 1991. Can we restore our salt marshes? Lessons from the Salmon
River, Oregon. Northwest Environmental Journal 7:119–135.
Gauci, V., D. J. G. Gowing, E. R. C. Hornibrook, J. M. Davis, and N. B. Dise. 2010. Woody stem
methane emission in mature wetland alder trees. Atmospheric Environment 44:2157-2160.
Glatzel, S., N. Basiliko, and T. Moore. 2004. Carbon dioxide and methane production potentials of
peats from natural, harvested, and restored sites, eastern Quebec, Canada. Wetlands 24:261-267.
Hanley, T. A., R. L. Deal, and E. H. Orlikowska. 2006. Relations between red alder composition and
understory vegetation in young mixed forests of southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 36:738-748.
Hines, M. E., K. N. Duddleston, J. N. Rooney-Varga, D. Fields, and J. P. Chanton. 2008. Uncoupling of
acetate degradation from methane formation in Alaskan wetlands: Connections to vegetation
distribution. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22:GB2017.
Hossler, K. and V. Bouchard. 2010. Soil development and establishment of carbon-based properties in
created freshwater marshes. Ecological Applications 20:539-553.
Keller, J. K., J. R. White, S. D. Bridgham, and J. Pastor. 2004. Climate change effects on carbon and
nitrogen mineralization in peatlands through changes in soil quality. Global Change Biology 10:1053-
1064.
Kelly, C. A., J. W. M. Rudd, R. A. Bodaly, N. P. Roulet, V. L. St. Louis, A. Heyes, T. R. Moore, S. Schiff,
R. Aravena, K. J. Scott, B. Dyck, R. Harris, B. Warner, and G. Edwards. 1997. Increases in fluxes of
greenhouse gases and methyl mercury following flooding of an experimental reservoir. Environmental
Science and Technology 31:1334-1344.
Kirwan, M. L. and A. B. Murray. 2008. Ecological and morphological response of brackish tidal
marshland to the next century of sea level rise: Westham Island, British Columbia. Global And
Planetary Change 60:471-486.
Law, C. 2008. Predicting and monitoring the effects of large-scale ocean iron fertilization on marine
trace gas emissions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 364.
Li, C., J. B. Cui, S. Ge, and C. Trettin. 2004. Modeling impacts of management on carbon
sequestration and trace gas emissions in forested wetland ecosystems. Journal of Environmental
Management 33:S176–S186.
Liblik, L. K., T. R. Moore, J. L. Bubier, and S. D. Robinson. 1997. Methane emissions from wetlands in
the zone of discontinuous permafrost: Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, Canada. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 11:485-494.
MacClellan, M. A. 2011. Carbon content in Oregon tidal wetland soils. Appendix 8 in L. S. Brophy, C.
E. Cornu, P. R. Adamus, J. A. Christy, A. Gray, M. A. MacClellan, J. A. Doumbia, and R. L. Tully,
editors. New Tools for Tidal Wetland Restoration: Development of a Reference Conditions Database
and a Temperature Sensor Method for Detecting Tidal Inundation in Least Disturbed Tidal Wetlands of
Oregon, USA. University of New Hampshire, Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine
Environmental Technology (CICEET), Durham, NH.
Magenheimer, J. F., T. R. Moore, G. L. Chmura, and R. J. Daoust. 1996. Methane and carbon dioxide
flux from a macrotidal salt marsh, Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Estuaries 19:139-145.
Marsh, A. S., J. A. Arnone, B. T. Bormann, and J. C. Gordon. 2000. The role of Equisetum in nutrient
cycling in an Alaskan shrub wetland. Journal of Ecology 88:999-1011.
Mead, D. J. and C. M. Preston. 1992. Nitrogen-fixation in Sitka alder by N-15 isotope-dilution after 8
growing seasons in lodgepole pine site. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De
Recherche Forestiere 22:1192-1194.
Mitsch, W. J., L. Zhang, C. J. Anderson, A. E. Altor, and M. E. Hernandez. 2005. Creating riverine
wetlands: Ecological succession, nutrient retention, and pulsing effects. Ecological Engineering 25:510-
527.
Moosavi, S. C., P. M. Crill, E. R. Pullman, D. W. Funk, and K. M. Peterson. 1996. Controls on CH4 flux
from an Alaskan boreal wetland. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10:287-296.
Morlan, J. C. 1991. Ecological status and dynamics of a salt marsh restoration in the Salmon River
Estuary, Oregon. Master's Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Pelletier, L., T. R. Moore, N. T. Roulet, M. Garneau, and V. Beaulieu-Audy. 2007. Methane fluxes from
three peatlands in the La Grande Riviere watershed, James Bay lowland, Canada. Journal of
Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 112:G01018.
Petrone, R. M., U. Silins, and K. J. Devito. 2007. Dynamics of evapotranspiration from a riparian pond
complex in the Western Boreal Forest, Alberta, Canada. Hydrological Processes 21:1391-1401.
Price, J. S., A. L. Heathwaite, and A. J. Baird. 2003. Hydrological processes in abandoned and
restored peatlands: An overview of management approaches. Wetlands Ecology and Management
11:65-83.
Rose, C. and W. G. Crumpton. 2006. Spatial patterns in dissolved oxygen and methane concentrations
in a prairie pothole wetland in Iowa, USA. Wetlands 26:1020-1025.
Roulet, N. T., P. M. Crill, N. T. Comer, A. Dove, and R. A. Boubonniere. 1997. CO2 and CH4 flux
between a boreal beaver pond and the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
102:313-319.
Rumburg, C. B. and W. A. Sawyer. 1965. Response of wet-meadow vegetation to length and depth of
surface water from wild-flood irrigation. Agronomy Journal 57:245–247.
Ryan, M. G. and B. E. Law. 2005. Interpreting, measuring, and modeling soil respiration.
Biogeochemistry 73:3-27.
Smemo, K. A. and J. B. Yavitt. 2006. A multi-year perspective on methane cycling in a shallow peat fen
in central New York State, USA. Wetlands 26:20-29.
Smialek, J., V. Bouchard, B. Lippmann, M. Quigley, T. Granata, J. Martin, and L. Brown. 2006. Effect of
a woody (Salix nigra) and an herbaceous (Juncus effusus) macrophyte species on methane dynamics
and denitrification. Wetlands 26:509-517.
Smith, D. G. and C. M. Pearce. 2000. River ice and its role in limiting woodland development on a
sandy braid-plain, Milk River, Montana. Wetlands 20:232-250.
Tauchnitz, N., R. Brumme, S. Bernsdorf, and R. Meissner. 2008. Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes of a
pristine slope mire in the German National Park Harz Mountains. Plant and Soil 303:131-138.
Thormann, M. N. and S. E. Bayley. 1997. Aboveground plant production and nutrient content of the
vegetation in six peatlands in Alberta, Canada. Plant Ecology 131:1-16.
Tuittila, E. S., V. M. Komulainen, H. Vasander, H. Nykanen, P. J. Martikainen, and J. Laine. 2000.
Methane dynamics of a restored cut-away peatland. Global Change Biology 6:569-581.
Updegraff, K., J. Pastor, S. D. Bridgham, and C. A. Johnston. 1995. Environmental and substrate
controls over carbon and nitrogen mineralization in northern wetlands. Ecological Applications 5:151-
163.
Valentine, D. W., E. A. Holland, and D. S. Schimel. 1994. Ecosystem and physiological controls over
methane production in northern wetlands. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 99:1563-
1571.
Waddington, J. M. and M. R. Turetsky. 2008. Peatland ecohydrology: Water-vegetation-carbon
interactions in a changing climate. Geophysical Research Abstracts 10:EGU2008-A-08409.
White, H. K., C. M. Reddy, and T. I. Eclinton. 2008. Radiocarbon-based assessment of fossil fuel-
derived contaminant associations in sediments. Environmental Science & Technology 42:5428-5434.
Willey, Z. and B. Chameides. 2008. Harnessing Farms and Forests in the Low-Carbon Economy. How
to Create, Measure, and Verify Greenhouse Gas Offsets. Duke University Press, Durham, NC,
USA/London, UK.
Public
Value
Use & Prior designation of the wetland, by a natural resource or environmental protection
agency, as some type of special protected area. Also, the potential and actual use of
Recognition a wetland for low-intensity outdoor recreation, education, or research.
<100 ft.
Indicators
100 to <300 ft.
300 to < 0.5 mile.
0.5 to <1 miles.
1 to 2 miles.
>2 miles.

F17 Ponded Open Water When water levels are lowest, during a normal year, the AA's ponded open water occupies a
Area (Driest) cumulative area, including adjacent ponded waters, of:
(OWareaDry)
<0.10 acre (< 4356 sq. ft). Enter 1 and SKIP TO F24.
0.10 to <0.50 acres (21,340 sq. ft).
0.50 to <1 acres.
1- 4 acres.
5 to <50 acres.
50 to <640 acres (1 sq. mi).
640 to <1000 acres.
1000 to 2500 acres.
>2500 acres (>4 sq.mi).
F61 Ownership (Ownership) Most of the AA is:
Publicly owned (municipal, county, state, federal).

Owned by non-profit conservation organization or easement holder who allows public access to this
AA.
Other private ownership, including tribal. Enter 1 and SKIP to F63.
F62 Special Protected Area The AA is part of an area designated as a Special Protected Area according to the USGS Protected
Designation (Desig) Areas Database of the U.S.
Enter 1, if true.
F63 Conservation Investment The AA is not a mitigation wetland, but public funds or community volunteer efforts have been applied
(ConsInvest) to preserve, create, restore, or enhance the condition or functions of the wetland. (e.g. CRP or WRP
wetlands, community projects).
Enter 1, if true. (If unknown, leave 0).
F64 Compensation Wetland The AA is all or part of a compensation site used explicitly to offset impacts elsewhere.
(MitWet) Enter 1, if true. ( If unknown, leave 0).
F65 Sustained Scientific Use Plants, animals, or water in the AA have been monitored for >2 years, unrelated to any regulatory
(SciUse) requirements, and data are available to the public. Or the AA is part of an area that has been
designated by an agency or institution as a benchmark, reference, or status-trends monitoring area.
Enter 1, if true. ( If unknown, leave 0)
<25%.
25 - 50%.
>50%.
F67 Non-consumptive Uses - Select All statements that are true of this AA as it currently exists:
Actual or Potential
(RecPoten) Walking is physically possible in >5% of the AA during most of year (e.g., free of deep water and dense
shrub thickets).
All or part of the AA (or an area within sight of the AA and within 100 ft) would be physically accessible
to people in wheelchairs (e.g., paved and flat).
Maintained roads, parking areas, or foot-trails are within 30 ft of the AA, or the AA can be accessed
most of the year by boat.
Within or near the AA, there is an interpretive center, trails with interpretive signs or brochures, and/or
regular guided interpretive tours.
from].

<5%.
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
F69 Core Area 2 (VisitOften)
>95% of the AA.

F70 Consumptive Uses Recent evidence was found within the AA of the following potentially-sustainable consumptive uses.
(Provisioning Services) Select All that apply.
(Hunt)
Low-impact commercial timber harvest (e.g., selective thinning).
Commercial or traditional-use harvesting of native plants, their fruits, or mushrooms.
Waterfowl hunting.
Fishing.
Tidal
Trapping of furbearers.
None of the above.
T38 Non-consumptive Uses - Select ALL statements that are true of this AA as it currently exists:
Actual or Potential
(RecPotenT) Walking is physically possible in >5% of the AA during most of year (e.g., free of deep water and dense
shrub thickets).
All or part of the AA (or an area within sight of the AA and within 30 m) would be physically accessible
to people in wheelchairs (e.g., paved and flat).
Maintained roads, parking areas, or foot-trails are within 30 ft of the AA, or the AA can be accessed
most of the year by boat.
Within or near the AA, there is an interpretive center, trails with interpretive signs or brochures, and/or
regular guided interpretive tours.

<5%.
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
T41 Consumptive Uses Recent evidence was found within the AA of the following potentially-sustainable consumptive uses.
(Provisioning Services) Select ALL that apply.
(UsesT)
Commercial or traditional-use harvesting of native plants, their fruits, or mushrooms.
Waterfowl hunting or furbearer trapping.
Fishing.
T41 Consumptive Uses
(UsesT)
None of the above.

T42 Ownership (OwnershipT) Most of the AA is:
Publicly owned (municipal, county, state, federal).

Non-profit conservation organization that allows public access to this AA.
Other private ownership, including tribal. Enter 1, if true and SKIP to T44.
T43 Special Protected Area The AA is part of an area designated as a Special Protected Area according to the USGS Protected
Designation (DesigT) Areas Database of the U.S.
Enter 1, if true.
T44 Conservation Investment The AA is on private lands and is not a mitigation wetland, but public funds have been spent to
(ConsInvestT) preserve, create, restore, or enhance functions of the wetland. Enter 1, if true. (If unknown, leave 0)
T45 Compensation Wetland The AA is all or part of a compensation site used explicitly to offset impacts elsewhere.
(MitWetT) Enter 1, if true. (If unknown, leave 0)
T46 Sustained Scientific Use Plants, animals, or water in the AA have been monitored for >2 years, unrelated to any regulatory
(SciUseT) requirements, and data are available to the public. Or the AA is part of an area that has been
designated by an agency or institution as a benchmark, reference, or status-trends monitoring area.
Enter 1, if true. ( If unknown, leave 0)
Score for Public Use &

PU
Data X
Points
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0 8 0
0 10 0
0 12 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0.00
0 0 0.00
0 0 0.00
0 0 0.00
Convenience & Outputs 0.00
Investment 0.00
Score for Public Use & Recognition 0.00

Rationales
If accessible, wetlands closer to roads are likely to be visited by more people on foot.
In the future, the need for (and value of) open space as provided by wetlands may increase the most
impairs open space and recreational opportunities. Thus, wetlands surrounded by potentially
developable lands should be considered more valuable.
People are naturally drawn to wetlands with more open water. This indicator is scored 0 if no surface
Public ownership generally implies greater public use.

In some cases these designations are partly due to outstanding levels of functions that wetlands
provide in supporting biodiversity.
Prior public investment for these purposes requires greater protection.
Mitigation wetlands represent an investment of funds in the public's interest, which should not be
wasted.
Collection of long term data from wetlands is in the public interest partly because it can lead to more
effective and fair regulations.
Public enjoyment of wetlands is assumed to be greater when most of the wetland can be seen without
obstruction by dense shrubs or other features.
The provision of trails, access for people with disabilities, and interpretive signs encourages greater
public use of wetlands.
The portion of a wetland that is accessible to visitors is assumed to be an important determinant of

frequence of visitation
See above.
See above.
Sustainable use of a wetland's natural resources can be considered to contribute value to the wetland.
Rationales
The provision of trails, access for people with disabilities, and interpretive signs encourages greater
public use of wetlands.
The portion of a wetland that is accessible to visitors is assumed to be an important determinant of

frequence of visitation
See above.
Public ownership generally implies greater public use.
In some cases these designations are partly due to outstanding levels of functions that wetlands
provide in supporting biodiversity.
Prior public investment for these purposes requires greater protection.
Mitigation wetlands represent an investment of funds in the public's interest, which should not be
wasted.
Collection of long term data from wetlands is in the public interest partly because it can lead to more
effective and fair regulations.
IF((Tidal=1),AVERAGE(VisitNoT,VisitOftenT,UsesT, RecPotenT), ELSE:

(AVERAGE(VisitNo,VisitOften,Zoning,Consumables, RecPoten,DistRd,Visibil,OWareaDry)))
IF((Tidal=1), MAX(DesigT,MitWetT,ConsInvestT,SciUseT), ELSE:
MAX(Desig,MitWet,ConsInvest,SciUse))
IF((Tidal=1), AVERAGE[OwnershipT,AVERAGE(Conven,Invest,Zoning)], ELSE:

AVERAGE[Ownership,AVERAGE(Conven,Invest,Zoning)]
WETLAND
Non-Tidal Sensitvity
A wetland's lack of intrinsic resistance and resilience to human and
natural stressors (higher score = more sensitive).
SENSITIVITY
(DistPerCov)
Indicators <100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
> 2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to < 0.5 mile.
>2 miles.
<.01 acre.
.01 to < 1 acre.
1 to <10 acres.
10 to <100 acres.
100 to <1000 acres.
1000 to 10,000 acres.
>10,000 acres.
None of above.
<5% of the land.
OF9 Perennial Cover

>90% of the land.
Connectivity
described.
Connectivity
described.
(HUCbest) are true:

None of above.
(Arid)
Arid.
Semi-arid.
Dry.
Moist.
Wet.
Very Wet.
OF34 Relative Elevation in
Watershed (Elev)

<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
Linear: a significant proportion of the wetland's upland edge is straight, as in wetlands bounded partly
<256.
256 - 1020.
1021-1785.
1786 - 2550.
2551 - 3315.
3316 - 4079.
> 4079.
(DepthDom)
>0 to <0.5 ft.
0.5 to < 1 ft deep.
1 to <3 ft deep.
3 to 6 ft deep.
>6 ft deep.
is predominantly:
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.

> 300 ft.
SKIP TO F22.
1 to <5% of the AA.
>95% of the AA.
>75% of the AA.

F33.
(Constric)
species.
(See ORWAP SuppInfo
species;
true.
<5% of the vegetated AA, but more than 10 trees are present.
F46 Woody Diameter
Classes (TreeDiams)

legumes) is:
<1% or none.
1 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to 75%.
>75%.
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
(Gcover)

No.
F72 Wetland Type of Does the AA contain, or is it part of, any of these wetland types? Select All that apply.
(RareType)
Mature forested wetland (anywhere): a wetland in which mean diameter of trees (d.b.h., FACW and
FAC species only) exceeds 18 inches, and/or the average age of trees exceeds 80 years, or there are
>5 trees/acre with diameter >32 inches.
Bog or Fen: contains a sponge-like organic soil layer which covers most of the AA and often has
extensive cover of sedges and/or broad-leaved evergreen shrubs (e.g., Ledum). Often lacks
tributaries, being fed mainly by groundwater and/or direct precipitation.
Playa, Salt Flat, or Alkaline Lake: a nontidal ponded water body usually having saline (salinity >1 ppt or
conductivity >1000 µS ) or alkaline (conductivity >2000 µS and pH >9) conditions and large seasonal
water level fluctuations (if inputs-outputs unregulated). If a playa or salt flat, vegetation cover is sparse
and plants typical of saline or alkaline conditions (e.g., Distichlis, Atriplex) are common.
Hot spring (anywhere): a wetland where discharging groundwater in summer is >10 degrees (F)
warmer than the expected water temperature.
Native wet prairie (west of the Cascade crest): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a
naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and dominated primarily by native graminoids often including species
in column E.
Vernal pool (Willamette Valley): a seasonally inundated wetland, underlain by hardpan or claypan, with
hummocky micro-relief, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and with native plant
species distinctly different from those in slightly higher areas, and often including species in column E.
Vernal pool (Medford area): a seasonally inundated acidic wetland, underlain by hardpan, with
hummocky micro-relief, usually without a naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, and having concentric rings
of similar native vegetation, often including species in column E.
Vernal pool (Modoc basalt & Columbia Plateau): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a
naturally-occurring inlet or outlet, located on shallow basalt bedrock and often having species in column
E.
Interdunal wetland (Coastal ecoregion): a seasonally inundated wetland, usually without a naturally-
occurring inlet or outlet, located between sand dunes where wind has scoured the sand down to the
water table (deflation plain, blowout pond), and often with significant cover of the native species in
column E.
Ultramafic soil wetland (mainly southwestern Oregon): a low-elevation wetland, usually with a sponge-
like organic soil layer, occurring in an area with exposed serpentine or peridotite rock, and/or in soils
with very low Ca:Mg ratios.
None of above.
Z Species Conservation Scores for occurrence, proximity, certainty of rare species or communities:
Scores
Non-anadromous Fish Species of Conservation Concern (RareFR)
Amphibian or Reptile of Conservation Concern (AmphRare)
Feeding (Non-breeding) Waterbird Species of Conservation Concern (RareWBF)
Nesting Waterbird Species of Conservation Concern (RareWBN)
Tidal Sensitvity Songbird, Raptor, Mammal Species of Conservation Concern (RareSBM)
Invertebrate Species of Conservation Concern (RareInvert)
Plant Species of Conservation Concern (RarePspp)
(WidthLoT)
Indicators <5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and subtidal water.
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
(VegformsT)
Eelgrass.
Forbs.
(VegformsT)


(GcoverT)
Abiotic Resis
Subindices
Biotic Resis
Subindices Resilience/ Recovery Duration - Colonizer Ava
Resilience/ Recovery Duration - Veg Growt
Score for Wetland Se

SENS
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 7 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 10 0
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 6 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 0.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 6 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0
0.00
0 1 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0.00
Abiotic Resistance/ Sensitivity 0.00

Biotic Resistance/ Sensitivity 0.00
ery Duration - Colonizer Availability Influence 0.00
covery Duration - Veg Growth Rate Influence 0.00
Tidal 0.00
Score for Wetland Sensitivity SEN 0.00

Rationales
Upland perennial cover can provide a source of organisms for recolonising wetlands that have been
temporarily damaged.
Many wetland-dependent species require ponded water. The farther a particular wetland is from such
waters, the more sensitive it could be considered to be.
Wetlands are likely to be more resilient (less sensitive, thus lower weighting factor) if large and/or
surrounded by other natural landscapes, and/or if they are near other wetlands of the same type,
because if an impact occurs to the wetland's vegetation, plant propagules from the surrounding
landscape may speed recovery. Presence of natural vegetation in the surrounding landscape also may
also help the wetland avoid the impact before it happens, by mitigating hydrologic and water quality
alterations.
If a wetland contains a vegetation forrm that is locally uncommon and that form is altered,
recolonization by that vegetation form is likely to be slower due to relative lack of propagules and/or
favorable geomorphic conditions.
Other wetlands, if located nearby, can provide a source of organisms for recolonising wetlands that
have been temporarily damaged.
See above
A large number and diversity of wetland types provides functional resilience at a watershed scale. If
wetlands are few and mostly similar, any one of those wetlands is likely to be less resilient to stress,
slower to be recolonized after disturbance, and thus more sensitive.
Wetlands in the driest parts of the region may be the most sensitive to activities that affect wetland
water regimes.
Wetlands high in a watershed are likely to be more sensitive to any pollution introduced upslope
because they usually are large relative to the size of their contributing area, and the pollution source is
likely to be closer. This is supported by hydrologic studies of BC wetlands (Fitzgerald et al. 2003).
Being at the upper end also means fewer opportunities for waterborne plant propagules to recolonize
following any impacts.
Wetlands high in a watershed are likely to be more sensitive to any pollution introduced upslope
because they usually are large relative to the size of their contributing area, and the pollution source is
likely to be closer. This is supported by hydrologic studies of BC wetlands (Fitzgerald et al. 2003).
Being at the upper end also means fewer opportunities for waterborne plant propagules to recolonize
following any impacts.
Intensely developed areas are less able to provide organisms for recolonising damaged wetlands.
Longer wetland-upland edge relative to wetland area (i.e., convoluted edge) implies a wetland may be
more vulnerable to invasive species, higher evapotranspiration, and other disturbances associated with
adjoining uplands.
Wetlands in regions with shorter growing seasons may be more sensitive because they are ice-covered
for longer and plant growth is slower.
Decreases in water inputs will have the greatest impact on shallow wetlands, even causing parts of
them to cease being wetlands, and causing major changes in species and biogeochemical processes
in the remaining wetland. Also, among wetlands having the same area, shallow wetlands have less
volume than deeper ones and thus experience less dilution of incoming contaminants. This indicator is
used only if some surface water persists in the AA for more than 4 consecutive weeks of the growing
season.
Narrow wetlands tend to be more susceptible to erosion from waves and currents. Their microclimate
also is more precarious, trees are more subject to windthrow (Martin & Grotenfendt 2007, Bahuguna et
al. 2010), and their wildlife may be more susceptible to predation. In narrow strips or small patches of
vegetation, the native plant communities are more vulnerable to invasion from non-native species from
adjoining lands (Hennings & Edge 2003). In Alberta forests, non-native plants were found to be most
abundant between 15 and 50 ft from the edge, and some of those species were found up to 130 ft
from the edge. Although larger patches of forest generally supported more non-natives species than
smaller fragments, the smallest fragments had the greatest number of non-native species per square
meter (Gignac & Dale 2007). Wooded buffers with dense vegetation tend to restrict wind-driven
dispersal of seeds of non-native plants into the area protected by a buffer (Cadenasso & Pickett 2001).
If the adjoining uplands are not forested, a greater proportion of the trees in narrow wetlands are
subject to blowdown, and the wetland’s plants and animals are more subject to extremes of the
surrounding microclimate as well as disturbance from humans in nearby uplands. This indicator is used
season.
meter (Gignac & Dale 2007). Wooded buffers with dense vegetation tend to restrict wind-driven
dispersal of seeds of non-native plants into the area protected by a buffer (Cadenasso & Pickett 2001).
If the adjoining uplands are not forested, a greater proportion of the trees in narrow wetlands are
subject to blowdown, and the wetland’s plants and animals are more subject to extremes of the
surrounding microclimate as well as disturbance from humans in nearby uplands. This indicator is used
season.
Wetlands whose late-summer surface water is confined mostly to pools may be more sensitive to
drought and slight changes in their water balance. Isolated pools also may be more susceptible to
developing oxygen deficits and bioaccumulating contaminants. This indicator is used only if some
Wetlands whose existence or extent depends on beaver are more sensitive in the sense that they may
not be sustained naturally over time if beaver populations and associated beaver dams decline. This
growing season.
Wetlands that contain surface water only seasonally are more susceptible to year-to-year differences in
precipitation, runoff, and flow. They also are more vulnerable to invasion by non-native upland plants
(Magee & Kentula 2005). In contrast, persistently-inundated wetlands tend to be deeper and have
more "buffer" against annual variation in available water.
If a wetland lacks surface water outflow, nearly all contaminants that enter it will remain and be
accumulated over time (Oberts 1977). This is particularly true of runoff-borne sediment, which can
eventually fill a wetland and thus destroy it (Whited 2001, Whigham & Jordan 2003, Leibowitz 2003).
Narrow outlets limit water outflow from a wetland and thus tend to cause the wetland to confine and
accumulate sediment that has been washed in. The types of outlets described here are ones that
typically are more constricted than natural channels. Natural channels usually have adjusted over time
to local runoff and thus tend to be wider relative to volume of flow received. This indicator is used only if
water exits the AA or its wetland for more than 14 days of the growing season.
Once wetlands become dominated by non-native (exotic) species, the plant community structure is
simplified (e.g., Perkins & Willson 2005) and there are fewer species left to lose, implying that such
wetlands dominated are more resistant to further change (Werner et al. 2002, Wigand et al. 2003). By
itself, increased species richness in a wetland does not always confer increased resistance (decreased
sensitivity) of a wetland’s functions to artificial changes (e.g., Engelhardt & Kadlec 2001). This
indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01 acre.
Wetlands already dominated by non-native invasive species are likely to be more resistant to further
impacts, at least to their remaining plant communities (Werner et al. 2002, Wigand 2003, Stohlgren et
al. 2002). This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01 acre.
Especially in the warmer and drier climate of the southern region, the sustainability of many moss-
covered wetlands may be hydrologically precarious, making them more sensitive.
Tree cover is slower to recover than cover of herbaceous plants, making wetland resilience less.
Larger-diameter trees are generally older, implying that recovery (resilience) from their loss will take
longer than from loss of young trees (Smith et al. 1975). Resilience is one component of wetland
sensitivity. This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is
in a landscape that would normally support woodlands.
Larger-diameter trees are generally older, implying that recovery (resilience) from their loss will take
longer than from loss of young trees (Smith et al. 1975). Resilience is one component of wetland
sensitivity. This indicator is used only if >5% of the vegetative cover in the AA is woody and the AA is
in a landscape that would normally support woodlands.
Because of its ability to fertilize soil, alder can speed biological recovery following disturbance [Gomi et
al. 2006]. Wetlands without alder may be slower to recover and thus more sensitive.
Wetlands without vegetated upland buffers, or with only narrow buffers, are more vulnerable to a wide
variety of contaminants and disturbances.
If vegetation cover in a wetland is already sparse, it is often more susceptible to further loss from
erosion and altered microclimate.
Organic soils are particularly sensitive because slight changes in the water table can cause rapid
decomposition and/or compaction (subsidence) of this substrate, resulting in major shifts in
characteristic plants and animal species as well as biogeochemical processes. Both organic and clay
soils are highly sensitive to compaction from off-road vehicles. Although coarse soils are most
resistant to compaction, they are less moisture-retentive and dry out quickly, imperiling their wetland
flora and fauna.
Man-made wetlands typically have less diverse vegetation and limited soil carbon, making them more
sensitive to extreme natural events and slower to recover.
These wetland types are not only rare in Oregon, but most are also highly sensitive to hydrologic and
water quality changes.
Rare species have often become rare because they are among species that are most sensitive to
environmental disturbances. In calculations, a 1 is assigned to each species group having a rarity
score of High. The maximum across all groups and the average across all groups is then taken, and
the two are then average.
Rationales
Narrow wetlands tend to be more susceptible to erosion from waves and currents. Their microclimate
also is more precarious (Martin & Grotenfendt 2007, Bahuguna et al. 2010), and their wildlife may be
more susceptible to predation. In narrow strips or small patches of vegetation, the native plant
communities are more vulnerable to invasion from non-native species from adjoining lands (Hennings
& Edge 2003).
Although not common in most jurisdictional intertidal wetlands, eelgrass tends to be particularly
sensitive. Especially in tidal wetlands, trees and shrubs often survive precariously in this region, and
when lost their recolonization and re-establishment time is long.
when lost their recolonization and re-establishment time is long.
When there are only one or two dominant species, this implies there are fewer species overall and
fewer left to lose, in turn implying more resistance to further change (Werner et al. 2002, Wigand et al.
2003). By itself, increased species richness in a wetland does not always confer increased resistance
(decreased sensitivity) of a wetland’s functions to artificial changes (e.g., Engelhardt & Kadlec 2001).
Wetlands not already dominated by invasive species are likely to be more sensitive to impacts of
invasives (Werner et al. 2002, Wigand 2003, Stohlgren et al. 2002).
If vegetation cover in a wetland is already sparse, it is often more susceptible to further loss from
erosion and altered microclimate.
Organic soils are particularly sensitive because slight changes in the water table can cause rapid
decomposition and/or compaction (subsidence) of this substrate, resulting in major shifts in
characteristic plants and animal species as well as biogeochemical processes. Both organic and clay
soils are highly sensitive to compaction from off-road vehicles. Although coarse soils are most
resistant to compaction, they are less moisture-retentive and dry out quickly, in some cases (e.g., high
marsh) imperiling some of their wetland flora and fauna.
MAX(OutDura, Raretype, AVERAGE(SeasPct, Elev,ImpervRCA,PondWpctDry, DepthDom, Constric),

SoilTex))
MAX(RareOnsite, AVERAGE(Invas,HerbDom,NewWet,Gcover,UniqPatch))
MAX (AVERAGE(WidthWet,BuffWidth,PerimPctPer, EdgeShape,DistPerCov,PerCovPct,SizePerenn),

AVERAGE(DistPond,ConnLocalW,ConnScapeW,HUCbest))
AVERAGE(Moss,WoodyPct,TreeDiams,Beaver,GDD,Arid,Nfix)
AVERAGE(WidthLoT, SoilTexT, RareTypeT, AVERAGE(VegformsT,VegSpDomT,InvasT,GcoverT))
IF((Tidal=1),TidalScoreSens, ELSE: AVERAGE(Raretype, AbioSens, BioSens, Colonizer, GrowthRate)
Literature Cited
Bahuguna, D., S. J. Mitchell, and Y. Miquelajauregui. 2010. Windthrow and recruitment of large woody
debris in riparian stands. Forest Ecology and Management 259:2048-2055.
Cadenasso, M. L. and S. T. A. Pickett. 2001. Effect of edge structure on the flux of species into forest
interiors. Conservation Biology 15:91-97.
Engelhardt, K. A. M. and J. A. Kadlec. 2001. Species traits, species richness and the resilience of
wetlands after disturbance. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 39:36-39.
Fitzgerald, D. F., J. S. Price, and J. J. Gibson. 2003. Hillslope-swamp interactions and flow pathways in
a hyper-maritime rainforest, British Columbia. Hydrological Processes 17:3005-3022.
Gignac, L. D. and M. R. T. Dale. 2007. Effects of size, shape, and edge on vegetation in remnants of
the upland boreal mixed-wood forest in agro-environments of Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Botany 85:273-284.
Gomi, T., R. D. Moore, and A. S. Dhakal. 2006. Headwater stream temperature response to clear-cut
harvesting with different riparian treatments, coastal British Columbia, Canada. Water Resources
Research 42:WO8437.
Hennings, L. A. and W. D. Edge. 2003. Riparian bird community structure in Portland, Oregon: habitat,
urbanization, and spatial scale patterns. The Condor 105:288-302.
Leibowitz, S. G. 2003. Isolated wetlands and their functions: An ecological perspective. Wetlands
23:517-531.
Magee, T. K. and M. E. Kentula. 2005. Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions.
Martin, D. J. and R. A. Grotefendt. 2007. Stand mortality in buffer strips and the supply of woody debris
to streams in Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37:36-49.
Oberts, G. L. 1977. Water Quality Effects of Potential Urban Best Management Practices: A Literature
Review. Technical Bulletin No. 97. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Perkins, T. E. and M. V. Wilson. 2005. The impacts of Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass)
invasion on wetland plant richness in the Oregon Coast Range, USA, depend on beavers. Biological
Conservation 124:291-295.
Stohlgren, T. J., G. W. Chong, L. D. Schell, K. A. Rimar, Y. Otsuki, M. Lee, M. A. Kalkhan, and C. A.
Villa. 2002. Assessing vulnerability to invasion by nonnative plant species at multiple spatial scales.
Environmental Management 29:566-577.
Werner, K. J. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation
respond to sedimentation. Wetlands 22:451-466.
Whigham, D. F. and T. E. Jordan. 2003. Isolated wetlands and water quality. Wetlands 23:541-549.
Whited, P. M. 2001. Sedimentation of depressional wetlands in agricultural settings. In: Wetland

Restoration, Enhancement, and Management
http://www.sedlab.olemiss.edu/projects/rodrigue/restoration_technote/IVB.pdf.
Wigand, C., R. A. McKinney, M. A. Charpentier, M. M. Chintala, and G. B. Thursby. 2003.
Relationships of nitrogen loadings, residential development, and physical characteristics with plant
structure in New England salt marshes. Estuaries 26:1494-1504.
Smith, D. W., R. Suffling, D. Stevens, and T. S. Dai. 1975. Plant community age as a measure of
sensitivity of ecosystems to disturbance. Journal of Environmental Management 3.
Wetland The integrity or health of a wetland, as defined operationally by its
vegetation composition. More broadly, the similarity of a wetland's
Ecological structure, composition, and function with that of reference a wetland of
Condition the same type and landscape setting, operating within the bounds of
Non-Tidal Condition natural or historical disturbance regimes.
Indicators is predominantly:

5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
true.
>75% of the AA.
Non-native amphibians (e.g., bullfrog) or reptiles (e.g., red-ear slider).
Carp.
Non-native invertebrates (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail, mitten crab, rusty crayfish).
Nutria.
None of above.
F40 Species Dominance -
Herbaceous (HerbDom)
species.
(See ORWAP SuppInfo
species;
following extent:

(Gcover)
hugging foliage.
Intermediate.
Z Scores for occurrence, Species of Conservation Concern Scores:
proximity, certainty of
rare species or Non-anadromous Fish Species of Conservation Concern (RareFR)
communities:
Z Scores for occurrence,
proximity, certainty of
rare species or
communities: Amphibian or Reptile of Conservation Concern (AmphRare)
Feeding (Non-breeding) Waterbird Species of Conservation Concern (RareWBF)
Nesting Waterbird Species of Conservation Concern (RareWBN)
Songbird, Raptor, Mammal Species of Conservation Concern (RareSBM)
Tidal Function
Invertebrate Species of Conservation Concern (RareInvert)
Plant Species of Conservation Concern (RarePspp)
Indicators
T31 Mowing or Grazing There is evidence that grazing by domestic or wild animals -- or mowing (multiple times per year),
(VegCutT) plowing, herbicides, or harvesting -- has repeatedly reduced the AA's vegetation cover (plants that
normally grows taller than 4 inches) to less than 4" over the following extent:
0% (such activities are absent).
1 to <5% of the AA (grazing or the other activities occur but vegetation height effects are mostly
unnoticeable).
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95%.
Score for Wetland Ecological Cond

EC
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 1.00
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
1.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
Data X
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
r Wetland Ecological Condition EC 2.00

Rationales
Although some unaltered wetlands have only narrow strips of vegetation, that condition is more typical
of wetlands that have been altered, e.g., by excavation, recontouring for agricultural uses. This
growing season.
The model considers the presence of this condition to indicate a somewhat degraded condition. This
growing season.
Wetlands with extensive areas that flood only seasonally (or with soils that remain saturated without
being covered by surface water) in some cases typify unaltered conditions, more so than wetlands
whose entire area remains water-covered throughout the year.
Presence of any of these species or groups is commonly accepted as evidence that a wetland has
been degraded in other ways, e.g., altered water regime.
Strong dominance by one or a few species, even if those are natives, is sometimes an indicator of
impaired ecological condition. This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01
acre.
Strong dominance by one or a few species, even if those are natives, is sometimes an indicator of
impaired ecological condition. This indicator is not used if herbaceous cover is <5% of the AA or <0.01
acre.
Alteration of a wetland's water quality or its normal water or sediment regime is usually followed by
invasion by non-native species, making these an indicator of past or ongoing alteration. This indicator
By some standards, a reduction in the normal height of vegetation implies that a wetland has been
degraded.
Lack of vegetative cover suggests a wetland may be in poor condition as a result of human-related
impacts, but could also be the result of natural limitations or events.
Under natural unimpacted conditions, many but not all wetlands will have extensive microtopography.
Rare native species are usually the first to disappear after a wetland is subjected to alteration of its
water quality, hydrologic connectivity, or normal water or sediment regimes. Thus, their absence is
sometimes indicative of past or ongoing impacts to the wetland's processes and condition. In
calculations, a 1 is assigned to each species group having a rarity score of High. The maximum across
all groups and the average across all groups is then taken, and the two are then average.
Rare native species are usually the first to disappear after a wetland is subjected to alteration of its
water quality, hydrologic connectivity, or normal water or sediment regimes. Thus, their absence is
sometimes indicative of past or ongoing impacts to the wetland's processes and condition. In
calculations, a 1 is assigned to each species group having a rarity score of High. The maximum across
all groups and the average across all groups is then taken, and the two are then average.
Rationale
Alteration of a wetland's tidal inundation regime is often followed by invasion by non-native species,
making these an indicator of past or ongoing alteration. Invasive species reduce the diversity of
species overall.
Overgrazing simplifies or eliminates the vertical structure of vegetation, typically reducing the diversity
of native species that are regularly present in tidal marshes.
IF((Tidal=1),AVERAGE(InvasT,VegCutT), ELSE: AVERAGE(Invas,Algae,

WidthWet,SeasPct,PestAnim, VegCut, RareOnsite, HerbDom,Gcover,Girreg)
Wetland The degree to which the wetland is or has recently been altered by, or
Stressor exposed to risk from, primarily human-related factors capable of
Stressors reducing one or more of its functions.
(DistPerCov)
Indicators <100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to <1000 ft.
1000 ft. to <0.5 mile.
> 2 miles.
<100 ft.
100 to <300 ft.
300 to < 0.5 mile.
0.5 to <1 miles.
1 to 2 miles.
>2 miles.
<.01 acre.
.01 to < 1 acre.
1 to <10 acres.
10 to <100 acres.
100 to <1000 acres.
1000 to 10,000 acres.
>10,000 acres.
<5% of the land.
>90% of the land.
OF10 Forest Percentage
(ForestPct)
<5% of the circle.
5 to <20%.
20 to <50%.
50 to 80%.
>80%.
Connectivity
described.
Connectivity
described.

Nitrates, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, or algae.
<10%.
10 to 25%.
RCA (ImpervRCA)
>25%.
Mostly true.
Somewhat true.
Mostly untrue.
Slight.
Moderate.
Severe.
Very severe.
<10%.
10 to 25%.
>25%.
(Constric)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
growing season.]
< 5 ft, or none.

- Width (Buffer)
(BuffWidth)
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
100 to 300 ft.
> 300 ft.
F55 Weeds - % of Upland Along the AA's edge (perimeter), the cover of invasive woody or herbaceous plants occupies:
Edge (UpWeed) [If vegetation is so senesced that apparently-dominant edge species cannot be identified even to
genus, answer "none"].
<5%, or none.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
>95%.
<25%.
25 - 50%.
>50%.
from].

<5%.
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
T8 Outflow Confinement In the places where tidal water exits the AA after an average daily high tide, the tidal water is:
(ConstricT)
Impeded partially by a pipe, culvert, narrowly breached dike, berm, beaver dam, or other obstruction
(other than natural topography).
Not impeded by anything other than (possibly) natural topography.
Exported more quickly than usual due to ditches or pipes within the AA or connected to its outlet.
(PerimPctPerT)
- % of AA's Edge
(PerimPctPerT)
<5%.
5 to <25%.
25 to <50%.
50 to <75%.
75 to 95%.
>95%.
< 5 ft, or none.
5 to <30 ft.
30 to <50 ft.
50 to <100 ft.
<5%.
5 to <50%.
50 to 95%.
>95% of the AA.
S1 Aberrant Timing of Water Stressor subscore=
Inputs (AltTiming)

Nutrients (NutrLoad)

Contaminants and/or
Salts (ContamIn).
Loading from Runoff
Contributing Area
(SedRCA).

Assessment Area
(SoilDisturb).
Subindices
Score for Stressors to We

STR
Data x
Points
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 4 0
0 5 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 6 0
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0
0.00
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 5 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0.00
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Hydrologic Stressors 0.00
Water QualityStressors 0.00
Fragmentation Stressors 0.00
Disturbance Stressors 0.00
Score for Stressors to Wetland STR 0.00

Descriptions
IF((Tidal=1),AVERAGE(AltTiming, ConstricT), ELSE: AVERAGE(AltTiming,Constric,TransRCA))
AVERAGE(NutrLoad,ContamIn,SedLoad,SoilDisturb,ErodeUp,WQin,ConnecUp,
ImpervRCA,ImpervSCA)
IF((Tidal=1),AVERAGE(DistPerCov,SizePerenn,ForestPct,PerCovPct,ConnLocalW, ConnScapeW,
BuffWidthT, PerimPerT), ELSE: AVERAGE(DistPerCov,SizePerenn,ForestPct,
ConnLocalW,ConnScapeW, BuffWidth, PerimPctPer))
IF(Tidal=1),AVERAGE(DistRd,VisitNoT,VisitOftenT), ELSE:
AVERAGE(DistRd,UpWeed,VisitNo,VisitOften,Visibil)
IF((WQin=1),1, MAX(HydroStress, WQstress,ConnecStress,DisturbStress)))

Foundation Formulation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundation Formulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment (ORWAP) V.3.2.

* Cover Page: Basic Description of

Predominant HGM Class: Estuarine=E, Lacustrine=L, Riverine=R, S= Slope, F= Flats,

What percent (approximate) of the AA were you able to visit?

>90% of the land. 0 PerennAll

Yes, for the HUC10 watershed 0

Aquatic invertebrate habitat (INV) 0 [WSv,WCv,SRv,PRv,INVv,FAv,AMv,WBNv]

Agriculture or Rural Residential. 0 [WSv,WCv,SRv,PRv,INVv,FAv,FRv,AMv,WBFv,WBNv,SBMv,PDv,POLv,PUv]

Forest or Open Space, or entirely public lands. 0

The AA's wetland: 0

<5% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0 [POL]

0% (No evidence of such activities). 0 NoMowGraze

Few or none. 0 [SBM,POL]

< 5 ft, or none. 0 NoUpPerCov

>10,000 sq. ft within AA. 0

<5% of the herbaceous part of the AA. 0 [POL]

Final score= 0.00

S2 Accelerated Inputs of Nutrients (NutrLoad)

Final score= 0.00

S3 Accelerated Inputs of Contaminants and/or Salts (ContamIn).

Final score= 0.00

Final score= 0.00

S5 Soil or Sediment Alteration Within the Assessment Area (SoilDisturb).

Final score= 0.00

Normalized Scores & Ratings for this Assessment Area (AA):

Function Rating Break Rating Break Function Score Values Score

Rating Break Rating Break

<1% of its RCA.

<1% of its SCA, or wetland is in the floodplain of a major river.

1 to <25% of the AA.

Persistent (>9 months/year).

The AA's wetland:

Indicators Water storage (WS)

<1% of its RCA.

Development (Commercial, Industrial, Urban Residential, etc.), or no undeveloped parcels exist

Function Score for Water Stor

ction Score for Water Storage F 0.00

Flood Damage (Fdam1) 0.00

Water Inputs (Yield1) 0.00

(2*AVERAGE(Hydropd,OWareaWet) +AVERAGE(Hydropd,PermWpct, Fluctu))/3

IF((Tidal=1),0, IF((NoOutlet=1),1, IF((NeverWater=1), (2*Gradient +

<1% of its RCA.

<1% of its SCA, or wetland is in the floodplain of a major river.

0.01 to < 0.10 acres (3,920 sq. ft).

<5 ft, or no vegetation between upland and open water.

Persistent (>9 months/year).

0% (No evidence of such activities).

Saline (>25 ppt salinity, undiluted seawater).

Indicators Sediment retention (SR)

Total suspended solids (TSS), sedimentation, or turbidity.

Never (or less than annually).

Total suspended solids (TSS), sedimentation, or turbidity.

<1% of its RCA.

<1% of its SCA, or wetland is in the floodplain of a major river.

Development (Commercial, Industrial, Urban Residential, etc.), or no undeveloped parcels exist

< 5 ft, or none.

< 5 ft, or none.

Function Score for Sediment Retention & Stabiliza

Values Score for Sediment Retention & Stabiliza

Live Storage 0.00

Hydrologic Entrainment 0.00

Interception and/or Erosion

Interception and/or Friction in

ment Retention & Stabilization F 0.10