Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T20:08:40.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: The North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM): Development of a Rapid Wetland Assessment Method and Use for Compensatory Mitigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2015

John R. Dorney ,
LeiLani Paugh ,
Alexander P. (Sandy) Smith ,
Thomas (Brad) Allen ,
Matthew T. Cusack ,
Rick Savage ,
Emily B. Hughes  and
Breda Muñoz
John R. Dorney*
Affiliation:
Moffatt and Nichol, Raleigh, North Carolina
LeiLani Paugh
Affiliation:
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Natural Environment Unit, Raleigh, North Carolina
Alexander P. (Sandy) Smith
Affiliation:
Axiom Environmental, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina
Thomas (Brad) Allen
Affiliation:
Atkins, North America, Raleigh, North Carolina
Matthew T. Cusack
Affiliation:
Atkins, North America, Raleigh, North Carolina
Rick Savage
Affiliation:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina
Emily B. Hughes
Affiliation:
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina
Breda Muñoz
Affiliation:
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
*
Address correspondence to: John Dorney, Moffatt and Nichol, 1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27609; (phone) 919-781-4626; (fax) 919-781-4869; (e-mail) jdorney@moffattnichol.com.
Get access

Abstract

The North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) was developed from 2003 to 2007 by a team of federal and state agencies to rapidly assess the level of wetland function. NC WAM is a field method which is science-based, reproducible, rapid, and observational in nature used to determine the level of wetland function relative to reference for each of 16 North Carolina general wetland types. Three major functions (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) were recognized along with 10 sub-functions. Sub-functions and functions are evaluated using 22 field metrics on a field assessment form. Data are entered into a computer program to generate High, Medium, and Low ratings for each sub-function, function, and the overall assessment area based on an iterative Boolean logic process using 71 unique combinations. The method was field tested across the state at more than 280 sites of varying wetland quality. Examples are presented for the use of NC WAM for compensatory mitigation notably to calculate functional uplift from wetland enhancement. Calibration and verification analyses to date show that the results of the method are significantly correlated with long-term wetland monitoring data and NC WAM has been verified for one wetland type (headwater forest) using these data.

Environmental Practice 17: 145–155 (2015)

Information

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 145 - 155
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, V., and Savage, R.. 2008. Development of a Wetland Monitoring Program for Headwater Wetlands in North Carolina. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC Division of Water Quality, EPA Final Report CD 974260-01, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Baker, V., Keyworth, A., Tufford, D., Bolich, R., and Savage, R.. 2013. Hydrologic Connectivity, Water Quality Function, and Biocriteria of Coastal Plain Geographically Isolated Wetlands. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC Division of Water Quality, EPA Final Report CD-95415809, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Bartoldus, C.C. 1999. A Comprehensive Review of Wetland Assessment Procedures: A Guide for Wetland Practitioners. Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland, 196 pp.Google Scholar
Brown, M.T., and Vivas, M.B.. 2003. A Landscape Development Intensity Index. Center for Environmental Policy, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida. Technical Report Submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
Burton, E.R. 2008. Classifying Wetlands and Assessing Their Functions: Using the NC Wetlands Assessment Method (NC WAM) to Analyze Wetland Mitigation Sites in the Coastal Plain Region. M.S. Thesis. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Dorney, J.R., Paugh, L., Smith, S., Lekson, D., Tugwell, R., Allen, B., and Cusack, M.. 2014. Development and Testing of a Rapid Wetland and Stream Functional Assessment Methods in North Carolina. National Wetland Newsletter 36(4):31–35.Google Scholar
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 92 pp.Google Scholar
Fennessy, M.S., Jacobs, A.D., and Kentula, M.E.. 2007. An Evaluation of Rapid Methods for Assessing the Ecological Condition of Wetlands. Wetlands 27(3):543–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, G.E., Omernick, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, V.B.. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000), Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025.Google Scholar
Liaw, A., and Wiener, M.. 2002. Classification and Regression by Random Forest. R News 2(3):18–22.Google Scholar
Mack, J.J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, Manual for Using Version 5.0. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin Wetland/2001-1-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
N.C. Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, 4th edition. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. Raleigh, North Carolina, 57 pp.Google Scholar
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. 401 Water Quality Certification Number 3771 as Modified. Issued to Mr. Ross Smith, PCS Phosphate, Inc. January 15, 2009. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NCWFAT). 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User Manual Version 4.1. Raleigh, North Carolina, 127 pp.Google Scholar
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, Version 5.0. Columbus, Ohio. Available at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/35/401/oram50um_s.pdf (accessed August 20, 2014).Google Scholar
Oregon Department of State Lands. 2012. Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol (ORWAP), Version 2.0.2. Salem, Oregon. Available at http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WETLAND/Pages/or_wet_prot.aspx (accessed August 20, 2014).Google Scholar
San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2008. California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). Available at http://www.cramwetlands.org/about (accessed August 20, 2014).Google Scholar
Savage, R., and Baker, V.. 2010. Field Verification of Wetland Functional Assessment Methods within Local Watershed Planning Areas. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. EPA Final Report CD-996433105-01. Available at https://sewwg.rti.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iBF4Fd4cOHM%3d&tabid=60 (accessed April 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Schafale, M.P., and Weakley, A.S.. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina, 325 pp.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. 1978. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. Ann. Stat. 6:461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, L.A., Stanfill, J.B., Haupt, D.M., Bruce, C.J., and Wuenscher, J.E.. 1999. NC-CREWS: North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance, a Report of the Strategic Plan for Improving Coastal Management in North Carolina. Division of Coastal Management, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Award No. 994548-94-5. Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Sutula, M.A., Stein, E.D., Collins, J.N., Fetscher, A.E., and Clark, R.. 2006. A Practical Guide for the Development of a Wetland Assessment Method: The California Experience. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(1):157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USACE and USEPA). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources: Final Rule. 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR Part 230. Federal Register 73(70):19594–19705.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. National Wetland Condition Assessment Survey. Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/assessment/survey/index.cfm (accessed April 1, 2013).Google Scholar