Classification of Native Vegetation of the Pacific Northwest

REFERENCE COMMUNITIES: CLASSIFICATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

2019 Ecological Restoration Symposium: “Restoration Beyond the Reference System”

Tynan Ramm-Granberg, Vegetation Ecologist, WA DNR-Natural Heritage Program Most photos by Joe Rocchio OVERVIEW

• How does WNHP classify the native ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest? • How do we assess the conservation status of native ecosystems? • How do we assess the ecological integrity of individual occurrences? • What is the utility of the reference sites identified in that process?

Photo by Tynan Ramm-Granberg WASHINGTON NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM

• Established in statute (RCW 79.70) in 1972 to provide an objective means of setting conservation priorities

• State legislature established WNHP within DNR in 1981

• The ONLY comprehensive source of scientific information on rare plants and ecosystems in the state NATURESERVE & NETWORK OF NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS

• Sharing a common approach to gathering, managing, and analyzing scientific conservation data WHAT DOES WNHP DO?

Classify (Catalogue) • Fine filter: Rare species • Coarse filter: High-quality examples of ALL ecosystem types • Apply the US National Vegetation Classification Inventory • Are they common? Rare? • Where are they? Ecological condition? Conservation planning • What sites are in need of conservation action? • What are the management needs of the biological feature(s) and of the site(s)? BOG WORMS: SAVED BY THE COARSE FILTER!

Cognettia sphagnetorum

Photo courtesy GBIF Datase of Soil Zoology http://www.senckenberg.de/root/index.php?page_id=14684 CLASSIFICATION WHY CLASSIFY? WHY CLASSIFY?

Quercus garryana / Festuca idahoensis Woodland

Alnus rhombifolia / Cornus sericea Riparian Forest

Pseudoroegneria spicata / Festuca idahoensis Grassland

Photos by Tynan Ramm-Granberg

GOALS OF THE US NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (USNVC)

• Establish a national set of standards for classifying existing vegetation

• Define and adopt standards for vegetation data collection and analysis

• Facilitate inter-agency collaboration and product consistency

Photo by Tynan Ramm-Granberg THE US NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (USNVC) Ledum groenlandicum – Kalmia microphylla / Sphagnum Shrub Bog (G4/S2) USNVC HIERARCHY – HOW DO WE CLASSIFY?

Hierarchy Levels Example Analytical Upper Methods

Level 1 – Formation Class Shrubland & Herb Vegetation

Level 2 – Formation Subclass Shrub and Herb Wetland

Level 3 - Formation Temperate to Polar Bog & Fen

Mid Descriptive Level 4 – Division North American Bog & Fen

Level 5 – Macrogroup North Pacific Bog & Fen

Level 6 – Group North Pacific Bog & Acidic Fen

Lower

Level 7 – Alliance Ledum glandulosum – Ledum groenlandicum Shrub Acidic Fen Alliance Level 8 – Association Ledum groenlandicum – Kalmia microphylla / Sphagnum Shrub Bog Quantitative Analysis USNVC HIERARCHY – WHAT IS CONSIDERED NATURAL?

USNVC Level Natural Vegetation Cultural Vegetation

Vegetation’s structure / composition determined by a spontaneously growing set of plants species shaped by Vegetation structure / ecological processes composition determined by Ruderal - Vegetation with no regular human activity such Natural – Vegetation reflects apparent recent historical as planting, tilling, cropping, ecological and biogeographic natural analog; often composed mowing, and/or irrigating variables of invasive species that have expanded with human influence 1 - Formation Class 1 - Cultural Class 2 - Formation Subclass 2 - Cultural Subclass Upper 3 - Formation 3 - Cultural Formation 4 - Cultural Subformation 4 - Division 5 - Cultural Group Middle 5 - Macrogroup 6 - Cultural Subgroup 6 - Group 7 - Alliance 7- Cultural type Lower 8 - Association 8 - Cultural subtype WHAT IS A ‘NATURAL ECOSYSTEM’?

• Natural • Vegetation comprised of a set of plant species growing spontaneously (i.e. with little human influence) and shaped by abiotic and biotic

processes. (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2016) Photo by Carlo Abbruzesse

• Semi-Natural / Ruderal • Vegetation arises spontaneously from an anthropogenic source.

• Cultural • Vegetation with distinctive structure, composition, and development determined by regular human activity (regularly spaced rows, manipulated growth forms, would not persist w/o human intervention) BUT AREN’T THINGS GOING TO CHANGE?

• We need to know what we’re changing from

• Conserving existing diversity gives ecosystems the opportunity to develop/adapt to change

• A ‘living classification’ Image credit: NASA/GISS CONSERVATION STATUS ASSESSMENT WHAT IS THE CONSERVATION STATUS ASSESSMENT?

An evaluation of potential extinction or extirpation risk of a species or ecosystem considering

Rarity

at global, national, and subnational scales ELEMENTS OF CONSERVATION STATUS ASSESSMENT

Analysis of taxonomy, biology, ecology, geographic range, population size and trend, threats, and conservation efforts.

Rarity

Rarity Factors Threats Factors Trends Factors • Range Extent • Threats Or Intrinsic Vulnerability* • Long-term • Area of Occupancy • Short-term • Population Size • Number of Occurrences • Number of Occurrences with Good Viability • Or Environmental Specificity*

*Conditional Factors: used under special circumstances. CONSERVATION STATUS RANK CALCULATOR

1 Range Extent 2 Area of Occupancy: FILL OUT ONLY 1 OF FOLLOWING 3 FIELDS Direct estimate (ecosystems) OR 2 Rarity1 4 km grid cells (species) OR 1 km2 grid cells (linear species) 1 Number of Occurrences Rarity 2 Population Size

weight: 0.5 weight: 2 Good Viability/Ecological Integrity: FILL OUT ONLY 1 OF FOLLOWING 2 FIELDS

Rarity2 Number of Occurrences OR Percent Area

X 1 Environmental Specificity (opt.) Short-term Trend 2

0.3

Trends 1 Long-term Trend Threat Impact Trend/Threat 1

0.2

X Intrinsic Vulnerability (opt.) Threats 1 Minimum factors requirement met?

Calculated Rank Alw ays review the calculated rank. Assigned Rank* ALWAYS MANUALLY ASSIGN THE RANK HERE. (Verify or adjust the calculated rank.) Additional Info: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPmethods Download: http://www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/conservation-status- assessment WHAT IS THE CONSERVATION STATUS ASSESSMENT?

A relative rank that GNR describes the Unranked NNR SNR geographic scale and Unrankable GU NU SU extinction risk: Extinct GX NX SX Historic GH NH SH • Letter prefix of G, N, or S Critically Imperiled G1 N1 S1 indicates geographic scale Imperiled G2 N2 S2 • Numbers from 1-5 indicate extinction risk Vulnerable G3 N3 S3 Apparently Secure G4 N4 S4 Secure G5 N5 S5 ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

“the structure, composition, function and connectivity of an ecosystem operating within the bounds of natural or historical disturbance regimes”

“the summation of chemical, physical, and biological integrity”

“the ability of any ecosystem to support and maintain a full suite of organisms with species composition, diversity, and function comparable to similar systems in an undisturbed state”

Lindemayer and Franklin 2002; Young and Sanzone 2002; Parrish et al. 2003; Karr and Dudley 1981 ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT (EIA) CONCEPTUAL MODEL METRIC RATINGS

A Rank Variability

Natural Range of Range Natural Excellent Integrity

B Rank Good Integrity

C Rank Ecological Condition Fair Integrity D Rank

from NRV from Poor Integrity

Graph adapted from: Davies and Jackson. 2006. Ecol. Appl. 16(4) Significant deviation deviation Significant

None/minimal Human Disturbance Very High Excellent Integrity= “A” Good Integrity = “B”

Invasive Annual Grassland = Fair to Poor Integrity = New State “C” or “D”

Threshold Three-Level Approach of EIA

Level 1 EIA of National Wetland Level 1: Inventory polygons GIS-based landscape metrics http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHP-EIA

Level 2: Rapid, field-based metrics; qualitative / Most semi-quantitative measures Common

Level 3: Intensive field-based metrics, quantitative- based measures WETLAND / RIPARIAN METRICS LEVEL 2 EIA RANK MAJOR ECOLOGICAL FACTOR METRIC NAME FACTOR LAN1. Contiguous Natural Land Cover LANDSCAPE CONTEXT LANDSCAPE LAN2. Land Use Index CONTEXT BUF1. Perimeter with Natural Buffer BUFFER BUF2. Width of Natural Buffer BUF3. Condition of Natural Buffer VEG1. Native Plant Species Cover VEG2. Invasive Nonnative Plant Species Cover VEG3. Native Plant Species Composition VEGETATION VEG4. Vegetation Structure VEG5. Woody Regeneration CONDITION VEG6. Coarse Woody Debris, Snags, Litter HYD1. Water Source HYDROLOGY HYD2. Hydroperiod HYD3. Hydrologic Connectivity SOIL SOI1. Soil Condition SIZ1. Comparative Size (Patch Type) SIZE SIZE SIZ2. Change in Size (optional) WETLAND / RIPARIAN METRICS LEVEL 2 EIA RANK MAJOR ECOLOGICAL FACTOR METRIC NAME FACTOR LAN1. Contiguous Natural Land Cover LANDSCAPE CONTEXT LANDSCAPE LAN2. Land Use Index CONTEXT BUF1. Perimeter with Natural Buffer BUFFER BUF2. Width of Natural Buffer BUF3. Condition of Natural Buffer VEG1. Native Plant Species Cover VEG2. Invasive Nonnative Plant Species Cover VEG3. Native Plant Species Composition VEGETATION VEG4. Vegetation Structure VEG5. Woody Regeneration CONDITION VEG6. Coarse Woody Debris, Snags, Litter HYD1. Water Source HYDROLOGY HYD2. Hydroperiod HYD3. Hydrologic Connectivity SOIL SOI1. Soil Condition SIZ1. Comparative Size (Patch Type) SIZE SIZE SIZ2. Change in Size (optional) Metric Ratings Major METRIC RATING Rank Ecological Metric A B C D Factor Factor (excellent integrity) (good integrity) (fair integrity) (poor integrity) >99% relative cover of native vascular plant V1. Native Plant species overall, or in the 95-99% relative cover. 60-95% relative cover. < 60% relative cover. Species Cover most critical layer (tree or shrub/herb), whichever is lower. Invasive nonnative Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative V2. Invasive plant species in any species absent or cover is species in any stratum plant species in any Nonnative Plant stratum somewhat very low (<1% absolute present but sporadic (1- stratum very abundant Species Cover abundant (5-30% cover. 4% cover). (>30% cover). cover). Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation composition Vegetation composition Condition Vegetation V3. Native Plant composition with composition with minimally to not with minor disturbed Species Composition moderately disturbed severely disturbed disturbed… conditions… conditions… conditions… Vegetation structure is Vegetation structure moderately altered Vegetation structure is shows minor alterations Vegetation structure is at from minimally greatly altered from from minimally altered or near minimally disturbed natural minimally disturbed from minimally disturbed V4. Vegetation disturbed natural conditions. Structural natural conditions. natural conditions. Structure conditions. Little to no indicators of Structural indicators of Structural indicators of structural indicators of degradation are degradation are strong degradation are minor degradation evident… moderate (e.g., levels (e.g., levels of grazing, (e.g., levels of grazing, of grazing, mowing) mowing) … mowing)… … Metric Ratings Major METRIC RATING Rank Ecological Metric A B C D Factor Factor (excellent integrity) (good integrity) (fair integrity) (poor integrity) >99% relative cover of native vascular plant V1. Native Plant species overall, or in the 95-99% relative cover. 60-95% relative cover. < 60% relative cover. Species Cover most critical layer (tree or shrub/herb), whichever is lower. Invasive nonnative Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative V2. Invasive plant species in any species absent or cover is species in any stratum plant species in any Nonnative Plant stratum somewhat very low (<1% absolute present but sporadic (1- stratum very abundant Species Cover abundant (5-30% cover. 4% cover). (>30% cover). cover). Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation composition Vegetation composition Condition Vegetation V3. Native Plant composition with composition with minimally to not with minor disturbed Species Composition moderately disturbed severely disturbed disturbed… conditions… conditions… conditions… Vegetation structure is Vegetation structure moderately altered Vegetation structure is shows minor alterations Vegetation structure is at from minimally greatly altered from from minimally altered or near minimally disturbed natural minimally disturbed from minimally disturbed V4. Vegetation disturbed natural conditions. Structural natural conditions. natural conditions. Structure conditions. Little to no indicators of Structural indicators of Structural indicators of structural indicators of degradation are degradation are strong degradation are minor degradation evident… moderate (e.g., levels (e.g., levels of grazing, (e.g., levels of grazing, of grazing, mowing) mowing) … mowing)… … METRIC RATING EXAMPLE VEG4. Vegetation Structure • Overall structural complexity of the vegetation layers and growth forms. • Vegetation structure can have an important controlling effect on biotic composition and abiotic processes.

VEG4. Vegetation Structure Rating Metric Rating (varies by USNVC Formation) V1: FLOODED & SWAMP FOREST Variant Canopy a mosaic of patches of different ages or sizes; gaps also of varying size; number of medium live stems (30-50 cm /12-20 in dbh) and large live stems (>50 cm/ >20 in) dbh well within expected range; Large trees are present in mid- to late seral stands and only a few if EXCELLENT any large cut stumps; large trees may be absent in early seral stands but if so, then large (A) stumps are not present (or few) and evidence of natural disturbance event is present (e.g., large downed wood from wind storms or fire scars). Overall, no evidence of human-related degradation. Canopy largely heterogeneous in age or size; number of live stems of medium and large size very near expected range; Considering the natural stand development stage, there are more GOOD (B) large trees than large cut stumps; Some (10-30%) of the old trees have been harvested. Overall, evidence of human degradation includes minor cutting, browsing, or grazing. Canopy somewhat homogeneous in age or size; number of live stems of medium and large size moderately below expected range; Considering the natural stand development stage, FAIR (C) there are around as many large trees as large cut stumps; Many (over 50%) of the old trees have been harvested. Overall, evidence of human degradation includes moderate levels of cutting, browsing or grazing. Canopy very homogeneous, in age or size; number of live stems of medium and large size substantially below expected range; Considering the natural stand development stage, most, if POOR (D) not all, old trees have been harvested. No old trees present (or very rare). Overall, evidence of human degradation includes major cutting, heavy browsing or grazing. MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS

Wetland & Riparian EIA Manual / Upland EIA Manual / Field Form Field Form Download: SOON! Download: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHP-EIA ROLL-UP METRIC RATINGS Calculate:

• Major Ecological Factor Scores

• Rank Factor Scores

• EIA score/rank • weighted average of Landscape Context Rank and Condition Rank

• EORANK • EIA score + Size points ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY VS. FUNCTION ASSESSMENT Ecological Integrity Assessment • “How is the ecosystem doing?” • Consideration of composition, structure, and ecological processes relative to natural / historical range of variability • Ecological condition or integrity of the ecosystem itself

Function Assessment • “What is the ecosystem doing?” • Ability of an ecosystem to perform certain functions • Ecological role or purpose an ecosystem serves in the landscape • Value or benefit society derives from the ecosystem • Functions / services not always correlated to ecological integrity EIA Biotic condition = degraded Nutrient cycling = altered

Function Assessment Nutrient retention = high potential Sediment retention = high potential ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY VS. FUNCTION ASSESSMENT

• An occurrence that scores Metric Ratings VEG1. Native Plant Species Cover Rating poorly in an Ecological >99% relative cover of native vascular plant EXCELLENT species overall, OR in the key layer, either the Integrity Assessment may be (A) tree stratum or shrub/herb strata, whichever is highly functional as rare species lower 95-99% relative cover of native vascular plant habitat VERY GOOD species overall, OR in the key layer, either the (A-) tree stratum or shrub/herb strata, whichever is lower 85-99% relative cover of native vascular plant species overall, OR in the key layer, either the GOOD (B) tree stratum or shrub/herb strata, whichever is lower 60-84% relative cover of native vascular plant species overall, OR in the key layer, either the FAIR (C) tree stratum or shrub/herb strata, whichever is lower <60% relative cover of native vascular plant species overall, OR in the key layer, either the POOR (D) tree stratum or shrub/herb strata, whichever is NPS Photo lower EIA & CONSERVATION STATUS ASSESSMENT Element Occurrence – species population or ecosystem stand with conservation value

USNVC Plant Association Ledum groenlandicum – Kalmia microphylla / Sphagnum Shrub Bog EIA/EO Rank = “C”

G4 S2

EIA/EO Assessment Rank Global / State Conservation Status A B C D Rank Combination Excellent integrity Good Integrity Fair integrity Poor integrity G1S1, G2S1, GNRS1, GUS1 G2S2, GNRS2, G3S1, G3S2, GUS2 GUS3, GNRS3, G3S3, G4S1, G4S2, ≠EO G5S1, G5S2, any SNR G4S3, G4S4, G5S3, G5S4, G5S5, GNRS4, GNRS5, GUS4, GUS5 Red Shading = Element Occurrence EIA & CONSERVATION PRIORITIES

WNHP Element Occurrences http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer REFERENCE SITES

Photo by Tynan Ramm-Granberg UTILITY OF REFERENCE SITES

*Cartoon courtesy of Ramsar Convention on Wetlands • Establish natural range of variability • Calibrate assessment models/tools • Benchmarks for conservation acquisitions • Provide templates for restoration and mitigation performance standards EIA & REFERENCE CONDITIONS

MAJOR METRIC RATING RANK ECOLOGIC METRIC NAME A B C D FACTOR AL FACTOR (excellent integrity) (good integrity) (fair integrity) (poor integrity) >99% relative cover of native vascular plant V1. Native Plant species overall, or in the 95-99% relative cover. 60-95% relative cover. < 60% relative cover. Species Cover most critical layer (tree or shrub/herb), whichever is lower. Invasive nonnative Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative V2. Invasive plant species in any species absent or cover is species in any stratum plant species in any Nonnative Plant stratum somewhat very low (<1% absolute present but sporadic (1- stratum very abundant Species Cover abundant (5-30% cover. 4% cover). (>30% cover). cover). Vegetation composition Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation composition V3. Native Plant with minor disturbed composition with composition with minimally to not Species Composition conditions.* moderately disturbed severely disturbed disturbed.*

CONDITION conditions.* conditions.* VEGETATION Vegetation structure Vegetation structure is Vegetation structure is shows minor alterations moderately altered Vegetation structure is at greatly altered from from minimally altered from minimally or near minimally minimally disturbed from minimally disturbed disturbed natural V4. Vegetation disturbed natural natural conditions. natural conditions. conditions. Structural Structure conditions. Little to no Structural indicators of Structural indicators of indicators of structural indicators of degradation are strong degradation are minor degradation are degradation evident.* (e.g., levels of grazing, (e.g., levels of grazing, moderate (e.g., levels mowing).* mowing).* of grazing, mowing).* Tsuga heterophylla - Abies amabilis - (Pseudotsuga menziesii) / Vaccinium alaskaense Forest (G4/SNR)

Goat Marsh Research Natural Area (USFS)

Photos by Tynan Ramm-Granberg Pseudoroegneria spicata - Festuca idahoensis Palouse Grassland (G1/S1)

Kahlotus Ridgetop Natural Area Preserve (DNR) Picea sitchensis / Rubus spectabilis / Carex obnupta - Lysichiton americanus Swamp Forest (G2G3/S2)

Washington Reference Standard Wetlands Network STEPS TO CREATE A REFERENCE NETWORK

Steps WNHP Approach Identify Ecosystem • USNVC, WA Wetland Classification Types • Xwalk to HGM, Cowardin Identify Reference • Ecoregions Domain • Biogeography embedded in USNVC Conduct Inventory of • WNHP Element Occurrences Types Identify Range Of • Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) Conditions

Designate Reference • Best remaining examples • EIA Ranks Standard Sites • Protection status https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_ref_wetland_final.pdf CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF REFERENCE SITES

• Must understand function of undisturbed ecosystems before understanding anthropogenic impacts (Jenkins and Bedford 1973)

• Contribute to depth and scale of climate change monitoring programs (Massie et al. 2016)

• Avoiding “Shifting Baseline Marcellus Shrub Steppe Natural Syndrome” (Mcharg 1969; Area Preserve (DNR) Pauley 1995)

Photo by Tynan Ramm-Granberg “SHIFTING BASELINE SYNDROME”

Photos courtesy of Monroe County Public Library, Loren McClenachan, and NPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler) “SHIFTING BASELINE SYNDROME”

MAJOR METRIC RATING RANK ECOLOGICA METRIC NAME A B C D FACTOR L FACTOR (excellent integrity) (good integrity) (fair integrity) (poor integrity) >99% relative cover of native vascular plant V1. Native Plant species overall, or in the 95-99% relative cover. 60-95% relative cover. < 60% relative cover. Species Cover most critical layer (tree or shrub/herb), whichever is lower. Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative plant Invasive nonnative plant V2. Invasive Nonnative species absent or cover is species in any stratum species in any stratum species in any stratum Plant Species Cover very low (<1% absolute present but sporadic (1-4% somewhat abundant (5- very abundant (>30% cover. cover). 30% cover). cover). Vegetation composition Vegetation composition Vegetation composition V3. Native Plant Vegetation composition minimally to not with minor disturbed with moderately with severely disturbed Species Composition

disturbed.* conditions.* disturbed conditions.* conditions.* CONDITION

VEGETATION Vegetation structure shows Vegetation structure is Vegetation structure is minor alterations from moderately altered from greatly altered from Vegetation structure is at or minimally altered from minimally disturbed minimally disturbed near minimally disturbed V4. Vegetation minimally disturbed natural natural conditions. natural conditions. natural conditions. Little to Structure conditions. Structural Structural indicators of Structural indicators of no structural indicators of indicators of degradation are degradation are degradation are strong degradation evident.* minor (e.g., levels of moderate (e.g., levels of (e.g., levels of grazing, grazing, mowing).* grazing, mowing).* mowing).* EIA & BEST ATTAINABLE CONDITIONS

Metric Rating V1: Hydroperiod variant: RIVERINE (Non-tidal) Hydroperiod (flood frequency, duration, level, and timing) is characterized by natural patterns, with EXCELLENT no major hydrologic stressors present. The channel/riparian zone is characterized by equilibrium (A) conditions, with no evidence of severe aggradation or degradation (based on the field indicators listed in Table 13.1). Hydroperiod inundation and drying patterns (flood frequency, duration, level, and timing) deviate slightly from natural conditions due to presence of stressors such as: flood control dams upstream or downstream, small ditches or diversions; berms or roads at/near grade; minor pugging by livestock; or minor flow additions. If wetland is artificially controlled, the management regime closely GOOD (B) mimics a natural analog (it is very unusual for a purely artificial wetland to be rated in this category). The channel/riparian zone is characterized by some aggradation or degradation, none of which is severe, and the channel seems to be approaching an equilibrium form (based on the field indicators listed in Table 30). Hydroperiod filling or inundation and drying patterns (flood frequency, duration, level, and timing) deviate moderately from natural conditions due to presence of stressors such as: flood control dams upstream or downstream moderately affect hydroperiod ditches or diversions 1–3 ft. deep; two lane roads; culverts adequate for base stream flow, but not flood flow; moderate pugging by livestock that could channelize or divert water; orGoalmoderate flow additions. Outlets may be moderately FAIR (C) constricted, but flow is still possible. If wetland is artificially controlled, the management regime approaches a natural analog. Site may be passively managed, meaning that the hydroperiod is still connected(Bestto and influenced Attainableby natural high flows timed Condition)with seasonal water levels. The channel/riparian zone is characterized by severe aggradation or degradation (based on the field indicators listed in Table 30). Hydroperiod filling or inundation and drawdown (flood frequency, duration, level, and timing) deviate substantially from natural conditions because of high intensity alterations such as: flood control dams upstream or downstream moderately affect hydroperiod; a 4-lane highway; diversions > 3ft. deep that withdraw a significant portion of flow; large amounts of fill; significant artificial groundwater pumping; or heavy flow additions. Outlets may be significantly constricted, blocking most flow. If POOR (D) wetland is artificially controlled, the site is actively managed and not connected to any natural seasonal fluctuations, but the hydroperiodCurrentsupports natural functioning of the wetland. Hydroperiod is dramatically different from natural. Upstream diversions severely stress the wetland. Riverine wetlands may run dry during critical times. If wetland is artificially controlled, hydroperiod does not mimic natural seasonality. Site is actively managed for filling or drawing down without regard for natural wetland functioning. The channel is concrete or artificially hardened (see field indicators in Table 30).

Photo by Tynan Ramm-Granberg WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

• Restoration of degraded ecosystems to a reference standard is difficult (due to historical and contemporary stressors)

• Better to target “best attainable condition” than to grade on a curve.

• Important to state whether objective is restoring Ecological Integrity or Function

• Reference sites provide irreplaceable perspective

Photo by Tynan Ramm-Granberg “The prairie provides us with a background against which we may measure the success or failure of our own land use and management…[the prairie] is the outcome of thousands of years of sorting of species and adaptations to soil and climate. …prairie is much more than land covered with grass. It is a slowly evolved, highly complex entity, centuries old”

- John E. Weaver, North American Prairie

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program References Davies S.P. and S.K. Jackson. 2006. The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16(4):1251–1266.

Dyrness C.T., J.F. Franklin, C. Maser, S.A. Cook, J.D. Hall, and G. Faxon. 1975. Research natural area needs in the Pacific Northwest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. PNW-GTR-038.

Faber-Langendoen, D., T. Keeler-Wolf, D. Meidinger, D. Tart, C. Josse, G. Navarro, B. Hoagland, S. Ponomarenko, J-P. Saucier, A. Weakley, and P. Comer. 2014. Eco-Veg: a new approach to Vegetation Description and Classification. Ecological Monographs 84(4):533-561.

Faber-Langendoen D., T. Keeler-Wolf, D. Meidinger, C. Josse, A. Weakley, D. Tart, G. Navarro, B. Hoagland, S. Ponomarenko, G. Fults, and E. Helmer. 2016. Classification and description of world formation types. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. RMRS-GTR-346.

Jenkins R.E. and W.B. Bedford. 1973. The use of natural areas to establish environmental baselines. Biological Conservation 5(3):168–174.

Lemly J.M. 2012. Assessment of wetland condition on the Rio Grande National Forest. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. References (cont.) Massie M.H., T.M. Wilson, A.T. Morzillo, and E.B. Henderson. 2016. Natural areas as a basis for assessing ecosystem vulnerability to climate change. Ecosphere 7(11):1–17.

McHarg I. 1969. Design With Nature. The Natural History Press, New York, NY.

Pauly D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10(10):430.

Revised Code of Washington: 79.70.010

Photo by Joe Rocchio