Examining wetland loss and potential restoration opportunities in the Sandusky watershed, Ohio

Examining
wetland loss and
potential
restoration
opportunities in
the Sandusky
watershed, Ohio
Methodology for a
GIS-based wetland
function assessment

Outline of Today’s Topics
 Introduction
 Watershed Plans and Wetland Functions
 Modeling Historic Wetlands
 GIS Assessment of Wetland Functions
 Enhancing the National Wetlands Inventory
 Assigning and Mapping Wetland Functions
 Results
 Comparing historic and present conditions
 Conclusions and Next Steps
Introduction

Background &
Purpose Today
 Based on report
“Methods and
Results for a
Geographic
Information System
Landscape Model
of Wetland
Functions in the
Sandusky
Subbasin”
http://goo.gl/reEXoN
Introduction

Great
Lakes
Basin
Introduction

Sandusky
Watershed
 1,827 square miles
 USGS “HUC” 8 –
subbasin level
Introduction

Sandusky
Watershed
 Predominantly
cultivated and urban
land
 2012 Population
around 258,000
Introduction

Improving watershed plans
 Using landscape-level
wetland functional
analysis to make
watershed plan more
specific
 Percentage and type of
wetlands and functions
are part of complete
watershed plan
Watershed Plans

Comparing
Historic wetlands
 How to map historic
wetlands and
compare their
functions to current
conditions
Historic Wetlands

Modeling
wetlands
 Vegetation records
 Current soil maps
(NRCS)
 Current hydrologic
layers (or historic!)
Historic Wetlands

Modeling
wetlands
 Wetland model
results on a Digital
Elevation Model
surface
Historic Wetlands

Validating
the model
 Do we believe the
distribution of historic
wetlands is valid?
 Let’s check it against
other data
Historic Wetlands

Historic Versus
Current Wetlands
Historic Wetlands
Pre-European
Settlement Wetlands
Current Wetlands Difference
Forested
Wetlands
159,485 acres 15,436 acres 90% loss
Emergent
Wetlands
1,578 acres 11,859 acres
6.5-fold
increase
Scrub-Shrub
Wetlands
Open Water 14,676 acres 8,009 acres 55% loss
TOTAL 191,823 acres 37,788 acres 78% loss
Total vegetated
only

Physiographic
provinces
 Huron-Erie Lake
plains – ancient Lake
Maumee sediments
 Glacial till plains
 Isolated ancient lake
sediments
Historic Wetlands

Physiography
& wetlands
 Distribution pattern of
historic wetlands in a
physiographic context
 Reasonable
agreement
 Appears to be a valid
interpretation
Historic Wetlands

Enhancing the FWS’ NWI
 How to rapidly and
methodically assign
hydrogeomorphic
descriptors to the
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s
National Wetlands
Inventory
Enhancing the NWI

Origins &
previous work
 R.W. Tiner, original
descriptor keys (1995)
 Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
 Montana Natural Heritage
Program (MNHP)
 Conservation
Management Institute
(CMI) Virginia Tech (Long
Island, Delaware)
Enhancing the NWI

The LLWW descriptors
Geomorphic
 L andscape
position
 L andform
Hydrologic
 W aterbody type
 W ater flow path
Enhancing the NWI
…hydrogeomorphic descriptors

Partial Automation for LLWW
 Why automate?
 Sorting, selecting, and coding wetlands in the
GIS, based on:
 Whether within or outside of other layers (e.g.,
Hydrography, DEM analyses, and soils)
 Possessing traits already assigned (e.g. NWI
water regimes or acreage of wetland)
Enhancing the NWI

L andform
Slope
(SL)
Wetlands occurring on a slope of
5% or greater, as indicated by a
slope raster generated from the
OSIP 2.5-foot DEM
35.66%
(3,566/10,000 records)
Island
(IL)
A wetland completely surrounded by
water, as indicated by the NHD
Waterbody layer.
Less than 1 percent
(36/10,000)
Fringe
(FR)
Wetland occurs in the shallow water
zone of a permanent waterbody. *NWI
water regimes F, G, and H
27.13%
(2,713/10,000)
Floodp
lain
(FP)
Wetland occurs on an active alluvial
plain along a river and some
streams, as defined through the use
of FEMA floodplain data.
8.02%
(802/10,000 FP; 436 FPba,
366 FPfl)
Basin
(BA)
Wetland occurs in a distinct
depression.
*NWI water regimes C and E
15.2%
(1,520/10,000)
Flat
(FL)
Wetland occurs on a nearly level
landform.
*NWI water regimes A, B, and K.
13.63%
(1,363/10,000)
Enhancing the NWI

Slope – part of Landform
Enhancing the NWI

Floodplain –
part of Landform
 FEMA 100-year flood
data
Enhancing the NWI

L andscape Position
Enhancing the NWI
Lentic
(LE)
Wetland in or along lake (waterbody >= 5
acres) or within basin, defined as area
contiguous to lake affected by rising lake
levels. Contiguous area of effect found
through Arc Hydro GIS analysis. This
landscape position type should be analyzed
and assigned first.
5.54%
(554/10,000)
Lotic
River
(LR)
Wetland associated with (directly intersected
by) a river or its active floodplain.
7.89%
(789/10,000)
Lotic
Stream
(LS)
Wetland is associated with (directly intersected
by) a stream or its active floodplain.
13.97%
(1,397/10,000)
Terrene
(TE)
Wetland that is: 1. Located in or borders
pond, or wetland is a pond, (waterbody < 5
acres in size surrounded by upland); 2. Or,
adjacent to but is not affected by a stream
or river (located in or along, but NOT
periodically flooded stream); 3. Or,
completely surrounded by upland (non-
hydric soils).
72.60%
(7,260/10,000, of which
191, 1.91%, are
headwater wetlands)

L andscape Position
Enhancing the NWI
Lentic
(LE)
Lotic
River
(LR)
Lotic
Stream
(LS)
Terrene
(TE)

Lentic – part of L andscape
Position
 DEM analysis
 “ArcHydro” GIS tools
 Find drainage basins
 Define buffer
 Physiography & climate
 Lentic assignment
Enhancing the NWI

Headwaters – L andscape
Position
 Headwater
streams
 Terrene headwater
 Periodic flooding
 SSURGO data
Enhancing the NWI

W aterbody Type
Natural Pond
(PD1)
A natural pond that is less than 5 acres in
size.
6.4%
(640/10,000)
Diked and/or
Impounded Pond
(PD2)
A pond that is diked and/or impounded
and is less than 5 acres in size.
4.27%
(427/10,000)
Excavated Pond
(PD3)
A pond that excavated and is less than 5
acres in size.
26.17%
(2,617/10,000)
Natural Lake
(LK1)
A natural lake that is greater than 5 acres
in size.
Less than 1 percent
(62/10,000)
Dammed River
Valley
(LK2)
A lake (greater than 5 acres in size) and
created by damming a river valley.
Less than 1 percent
(40/10,000)
Excavated Lake
(LK3)
A lake that is excavated and greater than
5 acres in size.
1.06%
(106/10,000)
River
(RV)
A polygonal feature in the NHD (or Ohio
hydrography dataset) or NWI dataset.
Less than 1 percent
(28/10,000)

Cowardin codes
 Explain Cowardin codes
 Wetland code splitter
 Examples/show how waterbody type
descriptor comes directly from Cowardin code
[illustration, show and highlight]

W ater Flow Path
Enhancing the NWI
Outflow
(OU)
Water flows out of the wetland naturally, but does not flow into this
wetland from another source.
Less than 1
percent
(75/10,000)
Outflow
Intermittent
(OI)
Water flows out of the wetland intermittently, but does not flow into this
wetland from another source.
Less than 1
percent
(63/10,000)
Outflow Artificial
(OA)
Water flows out of the wetland, in a channel that was manipulated or
artificially created.
Less than 1
percent
(53/10,000)
Bidirectional
(BI)
Wetland along a lake and not along a river or stream entering this type
of waterbody; its water levels are subjected to the rise and fall of the
lake levels. Lentic wetlands with no streams intersecting them.
3.48%
(348/10,000)
Throughflow
(TH)
Water flows through the wetland, often coming from upstream sources
(typically wetlands along rivers and streams). Lentic wetlands with
streams running through them are classified as throughflow (or
throughflow intermittent, if stream is classed as intermittent).
19.15%
(1,915/10,000)
Throughflow
Intermittent
(TI)
Water flows through the wetland intermittently, often coming from
upstream sources (typically wetlands along streams).
11.02%
(1,102/10,000)
Throughflow
Artificial
(TA)
Water flows through the wetland, in a channel that was manipulated or
artificially created.
1.16%
(116/10,000)
Isolated
(IS)
Wetland is typically surrounded by upland (nonhydric soil); receives
precipitation and runoff from adjacent areas with no apparent outflow.
63.85%
(6,385/10,000)

W ater Flow Path
Enhancing the NWI
Outflow
(OU)
Outflow Intermittent
(OI)
Outflow Artificial
(OA)
Bidirectional
(BI)
Throughflow
(TH)
Throughflow
Intermittent
(TI)
Throughflow Artificial
(TA)
Isolated
(IS)

GIS data –
USGS Hydrography layers
Enhancing the NWI

Assigning wetland functions
 How to define your
functions of interest
and map the
wetlands that provide
them
Wetland Functions

 Flood water storage
 Streamflow
maintenance
 Nutrient
transformation
 Sediment retention
 Shoreline
stabilization
 Fish habitat
 Stream shading
 Bird habitat
 Amphibian habitat
Natural, physical, or
biological process
occurring within a
wetland – as well as
within connected
waterways and
ecosystems.
Processes may
sustain and
maintain wetland, or
may be an
incidental function
that the wetland
provides.
Wetland Functions

Defining significance of a
wetland function
 Significance is a relative measure - - comparison of
wetlands to each other
 Meant to classify and rank wetlands for ability to
perform natural processes
 “High” “Medium” and “Low” - - used without any
social/regulatory value or quantitative limits
 “High” simply means “performing process at
better/higher rate than other wetlands in area”
Wetland Functions

How is it performed?
NWI Cowardin
wetland type
designation
LLWW
hydrogeomorphic
descriptors
Additional GIS data
(soils, NHD)
Functional
significance
selection
criteria
Wetland Functions

Floodwater Results
Functional
Significance
Selection Criteria
Results
NWI Historic
High
 Wetlands along streams and rivers
 Island wetlands
 Ponds that are throughflow, throughflow
intermittent, bidirectional, and isolated and
that are = or > 0.59 acres
31.76%
(13,175
of 41,489
acres)
21.48%
(41,338 of 192,451
acres)
Moderate
 All of the above in the High category that
are < 0.59 acres
 Terrene basin isolated
 Terrene & outflow or outflow intermittent
wetlands
 Other ponds and terrene wetlands
associated with ponds connected to
hydrography network
 Terrene wetlands that are associated with
ponds
 All lake-side wetlands not already ranked
high
40.16%
(16,661
of 41,489
acres)
64.09%
(123,350
of 192,451 acres)
Low  All remaining wetlands
28.09%
(11,653
of 41,489
acres)
14.43%
(27,763
of 192,451 acres)

Floodwater storage
Wetland Functions

Nutrient transformation
Wetland Functions

Nutrient Results
Functional
Significance
Selection Criteria
Results
NWI Historic
High
 All headwater wetlands (hw) that
are = or > 0.59 acres
7.75%
(3,215 of
41,489 acres)
32.60%
(62,741 of
192,451 acres)
Moderate
 All headwater wetlands (hw) that
are < 0.59 acres
 Lotic stream and river floodplain
and fringe wetlands
 Lotic stream basin wetlands
 Throughflow & outflow ponds &
lakes
 Terrene outflow wetlands
associated with a pond
 Terrene outflow wetlands
outflowing to hydrography
network
21.62%
(8,972 of
41,489 acres)
19.35%
(37,246 of
192,451 acres)
Low  All remaining wetlands
70.63%
(29,302 of
41,489 acres)
48.05%
(92,464 of
192,451 acres)

Functional significance
 Total composite scores
 [Illustration of example table]

Total composite scores
Wetland Functions

Historic versus current wetlands
– the takeaway
Ideal targets for wetland management in the
Sandusky watershed –
 Wetland types
 Vegetated palustrine and lacustrine
 Non-open water
 Located
 In lowlands
 In geologic pre-history lake sediments
 Flood occasionally or frequently
Historic Wetlands

Full
Circle
 New questions to ask or
watershed plan strategies
to consider that may need
analysis?
Conclusion

Acknowledgements
 Conversations with members of the Conservation
Management Institute (CMI) at Virginia Tech provided
insight, as well as the published NWIPlus and LLWFA
datasets from CMI’s work with the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
 The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) is also in
the process of developing a LLWFA methodology and
their publications and presentations were a useful
resource.
 Current Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
(ORISE) fellowship-funded wetland function research was
also instrumental for methodology development.

Today’s
Topics
 How an analysis of wetland
function contributes to a
watershed plan
Introduction

Today’s
Topics
 How to add new
descriptors to the National
Wetlands Inventory for use
in the wetland function
analysis
Introduction

Today’s
Topics
 How to map wetland
functions using the newly
assigned descriptors as
well as other GIS data
Introduction

Today’s
Topics
 How to map historic
wetlands and compare
their functions to current
conditions
Introduction

Today’s
Topics
 Bringing it all back together
- - the watershed plan and
management strategies
Introduction

Floodwater storage
Wetland Functions
Functional
Significance
Selection Criteria
High
Wetlands along streams and rivers, Island wetlands, Ponds
that are throughflow, throughflow intermittent, bidirectional,
and isolated, and, that are = or > 0.59 acres
Moderate
All of above in the High category < 0.59 acres
Terrene basin isolated (moved from High in MDEQ criteria to
Moderate here)
Terrene & outflow or outflow intermittent wetlands
Other ponds and terrene wetlands associated with ponds
connected to hydrography network
Terrene wetlands that are associated with ponds
All lake-side wetlands not already ranked high
Low
All remaining wetlands

Nutrient transformation
Wetland Functions
Functional
Significance
Selection Criteria
High
Vegetated wetlands from NWI P_ (AB, EM, SS, FO, and
mixes) with water regime C, E, F, H, G. No open water types –
with SSURGO Flood Frequency of “Frequent” or “Occasional”
Moderate
Vegetated wetlands from NWI P_ (AB, EM, SS, FO, and
mixes) with water regime C, E, F, H, G. No open water types –
with SSURGO Flood Frequency of “Rare” or “None” (“Very
Rare” not found in this data set)
Seasonally Saturated and Temporarily Flooded Vegetated
Wetlands from NWI P_ (AB, EM, SS, FO, and mixes) with A,
B water regime or lacustrine vegetated wetlands (no open
water) – with SSURGO Flood Frequency of “Frequent” or
“Occasional”
Low All remaining wetlands

Examining wetland loss and potential restoration opportunities in the Sandusky watershed, Ohio

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Examining wetland loss and potential restoration opportunities in the Sandusky watershed, Ohio

Recently uploaded

Examining wetland loss and potential restoration opportunities in the Sandusky watershed, Ohio

Editor's Notes