FIGURE 4 ILLUSTRATION OF INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT FOR SITE A AND SITE B
(For details see Section 3.4 and Figure 1)
Each site is ranked for each of three wetland
functions using four subindices that range from 0 to 2 around an ˇ¦averageˇ¦
value of 1. For a site that is average
in every way, an x% change in functional capacity is expected to result in an
x% change in functions, services and values.
Site A and Site B have the same
functional capacity. However, the
landscape context of Site A is above average in every way and the landscape
context of Site B is below average in every way. In this illustration, Site A is assumed to be 20% above average
(Indices of 1.2 in all categories) and Site B is assumed to be 20% below
average (Indices of 0.8 in all categories).
WILDLIFE
HABITAT FISHERY SUPPORT NUTRIENT
TRAPPING |
||||||
|
SITE A |
SITE B |
SITE A |
SITE B |
SITE A |
SITE B |
FUNCTIONAL
CAPACITY INDEX |
Identical size, shape, bio-physical characteristics Score: 1.0
|
Identical size, shape, bio-physical characteristics Score: 1.0 |
Identical size, shape, bio-physical characteristics Score: 1.0 |
Identical size, shape, bio-physical characteristics Score: 1.0
|
Identical size, shape, bio-physical characteristics Score: 1.0 |
Identical size, shape, bio-physical characteristics Score: 1.0
|
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION SUBINDEX |
Wildlife Corridor open from North Score: 1.2 |
Wildlife
Corridor blocked from North by Highway 66 Score: 0.8 |
Traps agricultural sediment, near coast, adjacent to fishing grounds Score: 1.2 |
Little
sediment to trap, off the coast,
adjacent to boat channel Score: 0.8 |
Upslope
is farm land generating nutrient flow, natural water flow, non-point
discharge Score: 1.2 |
Upslope is industrial sites and forests (little nutrients) channelized water flow to point discharge Score: 0.8 |
SERVICE
CAPACITY SUBINDEX |
Near
residential areas, accessible, public land Score: 1.2 |
Surrounded
by industrial sites, inaccessible, private land Score: 0.8 |
Adjacent
to large healthy shellfish area, public access, nearby parking Score: 1.2 |
Few
shellfish nearby, little access if there were, near point source discharge Score 0.8 |
Adjacent
to large healthy shellfish area, public access, nearby parking Score: 1.2 |
Few
shellfish nearby, little access if there were, near point source discharge Score 0.8 |
VALUE
OF SERVICE SUBINDEX |
Accessible to residential population Score 1.2 |
Access
limited to few rich Score: 0.8 |
Aesthetic
recreational opportunities for many poor Score: 1.2 |
Access
limited to few rich Score: 0.8 |
General
water quality improvements, but also adjacent to healthy shellfish area
accessible to poor Score: 1.2 |
General
water quality improvements only Score: 0.8 |
RISK
OF SERVICE SUBINDEX |
Ag land in ag preservation district (corridor remains open) Score 1.2 |
Forest
zoned for development (habitat likely to decrease) Score 0.8 |
Local
area is built out ˇ¦ no new sources of sediment Score 1.2 |
Any
future development will generate more sediments (developed replaces forest) Score 0.8 |
New
development upstream would be on sewer Score 1.2 |
Future
development on septic Score 0.8 |