Abstract
A numeric method is described for establishing the relative values of wetlands in regional planning. The method combines qualitative understanding of how local wetlands function with assessments of their regional values. The method, called the IVA (Indicator Value Assessment), is a rapid assessment method based on the assumption that wetlands having specific environmental indicators perform a wetland function better than those that do not. The importance of an indicator in the performance of a function is represented numerically. First, a performance score for a wetland is calculated by developing a numeric model for each function based on the importance scores assigned to the indicators. Performance scores are normalized on a scale of 0–100, relative to the wetland having the highest performance score in the planning region. Values for wetlands are then quantified by multiplying the area of the wetland by its performance score and by a rank score representing the relative social importance of that function. The performance and value scores can then be used to assess possible impacts from different development scenarios, identify compensation needs within a planning region, and assess the potential of different wetlands for enhancement. The IVA method is being tested and used in three wetland management plans in small watersheds: the Hackensack Meadowlands (New Jersey) Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), the Mill Creek (Washington State) SAMP, and the Snohomish Estuary Plan (Washington State).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Adamus, P. R. 1986. Uses and proposed revisions for the Adamus assessment methodology. p. 73–77.In J. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers Technical Report 1.
Adamus, P. R., E. J. Clairain, Jr., R. D. Smith, and R. E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume II: Methodology. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Operational Draft.
Adamus, P. R., L. T. Stockwell, E. J. Clairain, Jr., M. E. Morrow, L. P. Rozas, and R. D. Smith. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume 1: Literature review and evaluation rationale. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-2.
Ammann, A. P. and A. L. Stone. 1991. Method for the comparative evaluation of nontidal wetlands in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH, USA. NHDES-WRD-1991-3.
Brinson, M. M. 1993a. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13:65–74.
Brinson, M. M. 1993b. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.
Broadhurst, G. and C. D. Tanner. 1994. Development of restoration goals on a regional basis. p. 184–190.In M. Martz, A. Jarvela, K. Kunz, C. Simenstad, and F. Weinman (ed.) Partnerships and Opportunities in Wetland Restoration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, USA. EPA 910/R-94-003
City of Eugene. 1992. West Eugene Wetlands Plan: A product of the West Eugene wetlands special area study, Eugene, OR, USA.
Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America’s Wetlands: An Action Agenda. Washington, DC, USA.
Dahl, T. E., C. E. Johnson, and W. E. Freyer. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the coterminous United States, mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 28 pages.
Hausman, S. 1986. Special assessment needs and issues: The regulator’s perspective. p. 2–3.In J. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers. Chester, VT, USA. Technical Report 1.
Hirsch, A. 1988. Regulatory context for cumulative impact research. Environmental Management 12:715–723.
Kentula, M. E., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A. D. Sherman, and J. C. Sifneos. 1992. An approach to improving decision making in wetland restoration and creation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA. EPA/600/R-92/150.
Kusler, J. A. 1986. Wetland assessment: The regulator’s perspective. p. 2–3.In J. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers. Chester, VT, USA. Technical Report 1.
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY, USA.
National Governors Association. 1992. Water Resource Management: Wetlands. Policy Document revised and adopted February, 1992.
Polling, D. L. and E. T. McColligan, Jr. 1986. The use of FHWA’s wetland functional assessment methodology in New Jersey. p. 103–107.In J. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers, Chester, VT, USA. Technical Report 1.
Reed, R. H. 1986. Alternate methodologies: The Wisconsin experience in modification of the FHWA’s (Adamus) methodology. p. 96–97.In J. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers, Chester, VT, USA. Technical Report 1.
Reppert, R. T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Beyers. 1979. Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. U. S. Army Coprs of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. Fort Belvoir, VA, USA.
Richardson, C. J. 1994. Ecological functions and human values in wetlands: a framework for assessing forestry impacts. Wetlands 14:1–9.
Romesburg, C. 1981. Wildlife science: gaining reliable knowledge. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:293–313.
Roth, E. M., R. D. Olsen, P. L. Snow, and R. R. Summer. 1993. Oregon freshwater wetland assessment methdology. ed. S.G. McCannell. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem, OR, USA.
Smith, R. D. and C. C. Bartoldus. 1994. A snap-shot of the Corps new wetland assessment procedure. Wetland Journal 6:3–4.
Terrell, J. W., T. E. McMahon, P. D. Inskip, R. F. Raleigh, and K. L. Williamson. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Appendix A. Guidelines for riverine and lacustrine applications of fish HSI models with the Habitat Evaluation Procedures. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-82/10.A.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District). 1992. Mill Creek SAMP Wetland Evaluation Technique, inventory, and Washington State rating. July 27, 1992. draft report.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District). 1994. Draf #4, Mill Creek SAMP Wetland Management Plan, June, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Final report functional assessment of wetlands in New Jersey’s Hackensack Meadowlands. Prepared for U.S.EPA region II by the Maguire Group Inc.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC, USA. ESM 102.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards for development of habitat suitability index models. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC, USA. 103 ESM.
U.S. Forest Service. 1994. A federal agency guide for pilot watershed analysis. Version 1.2. January 1994. U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA.
Walbridge, M. R. 1993. Functions and values of forested wetlands in the southern United States. Journal of Forestry 91:15–19.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System: Western Washington. Second Edition. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hruby, T., Cesanek, W.E. & Miller, K.E. Estimating relative wetland values for regional planning. Wetlands 15, 93–107 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160663
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160663