FIGURE 4   ILLUSTRATION OF INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT FOR SITE A AND SITE B

            (For details see Section 3.4 and Figure 1)

 

Prototype Indicators

 

Each site is ranked for each of three wetland functions using four subindices that range from 0 to 2 around an “average” 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).

 

Relative Value of Site A and Site B

                                                         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 – 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