Program to identify and protect high value wetlands in Alaska's coastal districts

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

STATE OF ALASKA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY AND PROTECT HIGH VALUE
WETLANDS IN ALASKA COASTAL DISTRICTS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

June 28, 1994

Prepared By:

Three Parameters Plus
1000 Iroquois Drive
Wasilla, Alaska 99654

With Assistance From:

Sheinberg Associates
204 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1
Juneau, Alaska 99801

Property of CSC Library

~ ~ Financial assistance for this study was provided by the Coastal Zone Management
.O Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
p,- Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.C.
Department of Commerce.
I

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2.0 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 2-1

2.1 Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) 2-1

2.2 Coastal District Input 2-1

2.3 Wetland Survey Results 2-2

2.3.1 Aquatic Use Characteristics 2-3

2.3.2 Terrestrial Use Characteristics 2-4

2.3.3 Human Use Characteristics 2-5

2.4 Development of High Value Wetland Criteria 2-5

2.4.1 Wetland Functions (Nationwide) 2-6

2.4.2 Wetland Values (Nationwide) 2-7

2.4.3 Wetland Values (Alaska Coastal Districts) 2-8

2.4.4 Criteria for Wetland Developments in Alaska
Coastal Districts 2-13

2.5 Is A New ACMP Wetlands Standard Necessary? 2-16

3.0 ADDRESSING WETLANDS WITHIN EXISTING ACMP GUIDELINES 3-1

3.1 Issues, Goals and Objectives 3-1

3.2 Coastal Boundary 3-2

3.3 Resource Inventory 3-2

3.3.1 Guidelines for Incorporating Wetlands into
Existing Resource Inventory Tasks 3-2

CONTENTS (Continued)

3.3.2 Recommended Guidelines for the
Inventory of Wetlands 3-5

3.4 Resource Analysis 3-14

3.5 Subject Uses, Proper and Improper Uses 3-15

3.6 Enforceable Policies 3-16

3.7 Implementation 3-19

3.7.1 Acquisition 3-20

3.7.2 Conservation Easements 3-20

3.7.3 Public Education 3-21

3.7.4 General Permits 3-21

3.7.5 Mitigation 3-21

3.7.6 Mitigation Banking 3-22

3.7.7 Takings 3-22

4.0 ADDRESSING WETLANDS WITH A NEW ACMP STANDARD 4-1

4.1 Draft Standard Language 4-1

4.2 Draft Definitions 4-11

4.3 ADEC Policy Development 4-11

4.4 Enforceable Policy Development 4-11

5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1

APPENDIX A Summary of Survey Results A-1

APPENDIX B Bibliography B-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the State of Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC)
High Value Wetland Project is to assist coastal district's in identifying and
protecting high value wetlands. The contract anticipates accomplishing this by
requiring the contractor to:

* Create a bibliography of wetland references and literature for coastal
district use;

* Develop a list of criteria for high value wetlands; and

* Develop enforceable policy/standard language for incorporation into the
State of Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).

Three Parameters Plus (3PP), of Wasilla, Alaska, was awarded a contract to
complete this work in late March of 1994. Approximately three months were
allotted to the project; the contract expiration date being June 30, 1994. In order
to better address the requirements of the contract, 3PP sought assistance from
Barbara Sheinberg (Sheinberg and Associates; Juneau, Alaska), Jon Issacs (Issacs
& Associates; Anchorage, Alaska), Nicole Faghin (Reid Middleton; Anchorage,
Alaska), and Dr. James Buell (Buell and Associates; Beaverton, Oregon).

3PP also relied on input from a number of coastal district coordinators, local
government planners, and city managers. Input from the district representatives
and local governments occurred at several stages of the project. First, input was
solicited by means of a ten page questionnaire forwarded to each coastal district
coordinator. Secondly, project staff met with a number of coastal district
representatives at the ACMP conference in Juneau, April 13-14, 1994. Next,
draft policy language was mailed to all district coordinators for their comments.

Early in the project it became apparent that coastal districts were not in favor of
adopting a new wetlands protection or identification standard. Most indicated a
preference for addressing wetlands within the existing program framework. The
draft report presented an opportunity for agencies and districts to indicate their
final preference on this matter.

Fifty copies of the review draft report were submitted to those district
coordinators who had previously shown an interest in the project and
representatives of resource agencies involved in wetland issues in Alaska. The
draft reports were distributed-in mid-May, 1994. Comments received by June 25,
Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 1- 1

I """""""

1994 were incorporated into this report. Comments received after that date were
forwarded to DGC for future consideration and evaluations.

Those state agencies whose comments were incorporated into this report include
DGC, the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), the Department
of Natural Resources (ADNR), the Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), and the Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), Habitat and Restoration
Division. None of the federal agencies receiving review copies of the report
submitted comments.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 1-2

2.0 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

2.1 ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ACMP)

Coastal districts want to influence how all wetlands (both high and low value)
within district boundaries are being regulated and managed by state and federal
regulators. To do so effectively though the ACMP, the ACMP and local coastal
district programs must look at not just policy language, but rather the consistent
and comprehensive treatment of wetlands throughout the entire program. An
Alaskan coastal district preparing a district Coastal Management Plan, including
Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) Plans, must ensure the plan has the
following components (6 AAC 85):

* a statement of Issues, Goals and Objectives
* a Resource Inventory
* a Resource Analysis
a Coastal Boundary
list of Subject Uses, Proper and Improper Uses
* Enforceable Policies
* an Implementation chapter

In addition to exploring new policy language, regulations, or standards, this report
examines opportunities for Alaska coastal districts to more effectively interact
with the federal wetland regulatory program (Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act), within the existing program framework and process.

2.2 COASTAL DISTRICT INPUT

Survey results and discussions with coastal district staff at the ACMP Coastal
District Conference and during the wetland workshop at that conference, suggest
that coastal district's need with regard to wetlands is not additional help through
the ACMP to protect high value wetlands, but rather:

a) A better knowledge of what natural resource data already exist and are
available to help identify and classify wetlands within their district;

b) Help gaining state and federal agency recognition that locally-important
values and uses should be considered during wetland planning and
wetland permitting processes;

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-1

c) Help obtaining funding for jurisdictional wetland mapping and wetland
functions and values assessment projects which would ultimately be
approved by the regulating agencies;

d) Help facilitating development in lower value wetlands rather than
additional protection of high value wetlands;

e) Help in devising a state and federally acceptable wetland categorization
system for coastal districts which takes,into account locally-important
wetland uses and values. According to the district coordinators who
provided input to this project, the system devised should (at a minimum):

* Be consistent with existing federal policy and regulations.

* Consider what is a realistic level of effort for areas with limited
staffing and funding.

� Allow for the classification or "categorization" of wetlands into
locally relevant categories (i.e., recognize that within any coastal
district boundary not all wetlands can be higher value, even if all
the wetlands identified locally are of higher value than wetlands
within an adjacent district or locality).

� Allow for the assessment of impacts to wetlands as well as the
evaluation of mitigation options oropportunities.

* Allow periodic re-evaluation of the data to assess and document
relative value changes, especially in highly urbanized districts
where wetland resources are already limited.

* Allow assessment of cumulative impacts, both positive and
negative, to be tracked and evaluated over time; and

f) Avoid conflict with existing approved district wetlands management plans.

2.3 WETLAND SURVEY RESULTS

Approximately'40 questionnaires were distributed to Alaska coastal district
representatives. About 30 percent of the questionnaires were returned. No
written input was received from the Aleutians, the Kenai Peninsula, or northwest
Alaska. Therefore, the findings presented in this section of the report are
considered preliminary.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-2

I (Cih~u~~�d~lr

I ~~~A complete summary of the questionnaire results is presented in Appendix A.
Some of the results summarized below and all results found in Appendix A were
I ~ ~~grouped by geographic region and totaled. Results may not always add up to 1 00
percent as many respondents left some questions unanswered. Each geographic
region was given equal weight when totals were calculated, even though some
I ~ ~~regions had a higher number of respondents than others. The results are grouped
into aquatic, terrestrial, and human use categories.

2.3.1 Aquatic Use Characteristics

I ~~~Under the aquatic use support category, a number of questions regarding
flood control, water quality, and fish habitat and resources were developed.
In summary, respondents indicated:

a) Flooding ___ a major problem for residents of my district.

I ~~~~Is = 51% Is Not =49%

b) Drinking water availability ___a major problem for the residents of my
I ~ ~~~~~district.

Is = 37% Is Not = 63%

c) Drinking water quality ___ a major problem for the residents of my
* ~~~~~~district.

Is = 27% Is Not = 73%

d) Permafrost disturbance ____created major problems for my district.

Has = 20% Has Not = 80%

e) District representatives had a mixed level of understanding as to the
I ~ ~~~~diversity of fish species which inhabit local waters.

f) A reduction in fish resources would most affect.

Commercial users = 10%
Subsistence users = 30%

Both, equally = 43%

Three Parameters Plus
I~ ~~~~~G High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-3

g) Most districts agreed that a 0-5% reduction in fish resources
(anadromous, freshwater, shellfish, bottomfish) would be significant.

h) Districts were not in agreement as to whether compensatory mitigation
should be required to offset significant losses of aquatic habitats.

2.3.2 Terrestrial Use Characteristics

Under the terrestrial use support category, a number of questions regarding
vegetation, and wildlife resources were developed. In summary, respondents
indicated:

a) In general, they had little idea of what types of wetlands were present in
their districts, and could not provide a general percentage breakdown of
the types present.

b) Most respondents could name a wide variety of waterfowl, furbearing,
and seabird species which utilized wetlands within their districts.

c) A reduction of wildlife resources would most affect

Consumptive users - 37%
Non-consumptive = 6.0%
Both, equally = 27%

2.3.3 Human Use Characteristics

Under the human use support category, a number of questions regarding
recreation, access, subsistence food production, aesthetics, and medicinal or
non-food related cultural uses of wetlands were developed. In summary,
respondents indicated:

a) Residents and visitors use wetlands for: Hiking
Beachcombing
Fishing
Hunting
Picnicking
Wildlife Viewing

Three Parameters Pius
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-4

b) Residents also use wetlands for: Clamming
Egg Collecting
Berry Picking

c) The most popular kinds of wetlands
for recreation in Alaska are: 1. Estuaries, Muskegs (Valued Equally)
2. Tundra, Open Water (Valued Equally)

d) Residents travel from 0-200 miles to recreate in wetlands, primarily
traveling by ATV, boats, planes, or other motorized vehicles.

e) Subsistence activities taking place in wetlands are considered

Critical to Most Residents = 38%
Important to Most Residents = 27%
Enjoyed By a Few Residents = 21%

f) District representatives reported enough about key subsistence
use areas and practices within district wetlands to make good decisions
about potential impacts to subsistence resources.

Knowing = 24%
Not knowing = 59%

g) Wetland plants, animals, or other resources are very important to
residents of my district because they are (or provide) important
components of traditional practices or ceremonies.

Some = 68%
Most = 4%
All = 0%

2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH VALUE WETLAND CRITERIA

The development of criteria for the protection of high value wetlands requires an
understanding of wetland functions and values at both the regional and local level.
While local values are of great importance in the review process, the federal
regulatory program requires its administrators to evaluate any potential loss of
wetland function or value, not just those considered important by local residents.
Therefore, the careful articulation of local needs and values in the regulatory arena
is necessary if districts want due deference in these matters.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-5

I OHh~s~fnr.~

2.4.1 Wetland Functions (Nationwide)

Attributes generally given as functions of wetland ecosystems, as taken from
Richardson (1994) and others, are displayed below. Districts needing more
information on any of these functions should find the bibliography in Appendix
B helpful.

1. Hydrologic Flux and Storage

a. Aquifer (ground water) recharge to wetland and/or discharge from the
ecosystem.
b. Water storage reservoir and regulator.
c. Regional stream hydrology (discharge and recharge).
d. Regional climate control (evapotranspiration export = large scale
atmospheric losses of water).

2. Biological Productivity

a. Net primary productivity.
b. Carbon storage.
c. Carbon fixation.
d. Secondary productivity.

3. Biogeochemical Cycling and Storage

a. Nutrient source or sink on the landscape.
b. C, N, S, P, etc. transformations (oxidation/reduction reactions).
c. Denitrification.
d. Sediment and organic matter reservoir.

4. Decomposition

a. Carbon release (global climate impacts)
b. Detritus output for aquatic organisms (downstream energy source).
c. Mineralization and release of N, S, C, etc.

5. Community/Wildlife Habitat

a. Habitat for species (unique and endangered).
b. Habitat for algae, bacteria, fungi, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and wetland
plants.
c. Biodiversity.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-6

2.4.2 Wetland Values (Nationwide)

Attributes generally given as values of wetland ecosystems, as taken from
Richardson (1994) and others, are displayed below.

* Flood control (conveyance), flood storage [1, 2]11

* Sediment control (filter for waste) [3, 2]

* Waste water treatment systems [3, 2]

* Nutrient removal from agricultural runoff and waste water systems [3, 2]

* Recreation [5, 1]

* Open space [1, 2, 5]

* Visual-cultural [1, 5]

* Hunting (fur-bearers, beavers, muskrats) [5, 2]

* Preservation of flora and fauna (endemic, refuge) [5]

* Timber production [2, 1]

* Shrub crops (cranberry and blueberry) [2, 11]

* Medical (streptomycin) [5, 4]

o Education and research [1-5]

* Erosion control [1, 2, 3]

* Food production (shrimp, fish, ducks) [2, 5]

* Historical, cultural, archaeological resources [2]

Values in brackets denote that value is directly related to a numbered wetland function (displayed in
Section 2.4.1); or those functions which can be adversely affected by over-utilization of values. The
order of the numbers suggests which primary function is most directly or first affected. For example,
the value "hunting" is most affected by over-utilization of community/wildlife habitat (#5) and biological
productivity (#2).
Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-7

0 Threatened, rare, endangered species habitat [51

a Water quality [3, 11, and supply [1]

Because values are based on many intangible human perceptions, it is difficult
(if not impossible) to rate the importance of any one function over that of
another on a nationwide basis. Richardson (1 994) notes "The placement of
different functions and values on the wetland ecosystem by different interest
I ~ ~~~groups has resulted in major conflicts in society. I .. . /These conflicts often are
the result of serious ecological, economic, and ethical differences among
interest groups, scientists, and environmentalists."

On a local level, wetland functions can be rated for their importance, however,
there will always be individuals or groups that differ with any rating assigned.
I ~ ~~~On a state and nation -wide level, these groups are well organized and ready
to interact in every public review process. Local governments and districts
with specific development or protection values must be just as willing and
prepared to present their position to decision makers whenever a public review
is ongoing. Within the 404 program (the basis of federal wetlands
protection), failure to interact in the established public review process in a
timely manner will virtually guarantee local needs and values will not be
considered.

2.4.3 Wetland Values (Alaska Coastal Districts)

On a statewide level, Alaskans recognize many of the same values listed in
Section 2.4.2, however, appear more focused on those values directly related
to their lifestyles (hunting, fishing, etc.), than on those values which provide
less tangible results, such as education and research. It is appropriate to note
that some of the activities most valued by Alaskans (such as hunting) are not
always directly linked to wetlands. That is, upland areas providing similar
opportunities for hunting are probably just as valued as the wetland areas.

Alaskans, as a group, are probably more dependent on the direct harvesting
of natural resources to sustain their lifestyles than most other U.S. citizens.
Finlayson and Moser (1991) note that in Alaska and Canada, residents of
I ~ ~~~native communities owe as much as 75-80 percent of their total fat, protein,
and vegetable intake to the hunting, fishing, and trapping of animals and other
resources. Further, "the products of natural wetlands provide a source of
I ~ ~~food and are an essential component in a complex integration of economic,
social, and cultural factors."

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value. Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 2-8

H ~~~Many people come to Alaska to take advantage of the hunting, fishing, and
recreation opportunities; and as a result, do not want to see those
I ~ ~~opportunities compromised. Further, many resident's lifestyles are
economically dependent upon the harvest of our natural resources (commercial
fishing, mining, timber). The fishing industry in particular is dependent upon
wetland protection to sustain harvest levels.
Survey results (Section 2.3 and Appendix A) indicate that most coastal
I ~ ~~~districts value wetlands for the following characteristics (listed in order of
importance). These results are based on the survey and interviews with
coastal district representatives. Eight wetland characteristics contribute most
I ~ ~~~consistently to our perception of "high value". These are listed below with
a more detailed discussion directly following.

1. Food production (shellfish, anadromous fish, freshwater fish,
furbearers, game species, berries, greens, etc.)

2. Recreation (fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, etc.)

I ~~~~~3. Erosion Control (primarily shoreline and river bank stabilization)

4. Flood Control (water storage and discharge)

In many rural areas of Alaska, wetlands are also highly valued for:

5. Water Quality and/or Supply

6. Fiber and Medicine Production

1 ~~~~In densely urbanized areas of Alaska (and to a lesser extent areas of Alaska
which are densely forested), wetlands are also highly valued for:

7. Open Space/Visual Relief/Aesthetics

In mountainous regions of Alaska, suitable building sites are limited in their
distribution. In these areas, and in many areas where uplands are relatively
scarce, wetlands are also valued because they provide:
S. Room for Community Growth and Development.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project2-

I~~~~ue2,19 -

U ~~~~Function No. 1) Food Production,

The survey results indicate that the "food production" function of wetlands
is that most valued by Alaskans in coastal districts. District input consistently
specified that wetland fish and wildlife production and harvest areas (including
I ~ ~~~commercial harvest, recreational harvest, and subsistence harvest areas) are
the most important wetlands for people within their districts.

I ~~~~Aquatic resources appear to be the most valued, if controversy over habitat
loss or impacts can be directly linked to the importance of one resource over
another. Most districts indicated a loss of fish resources of 0 to 5 percent
I ~ ~~would be significant. This implies a high level of dependency on these
resources and may also imply Alaskan's already feel the impacts of decreased
resource availability. Certainly, recent fishery closures around the state imply
these resources are not always able to accommodate the growing demand.
Non-tidal "inland" wetlands, which contain permanent water regimes and are
relatively common in Alaska, are considered very valuable to fish (spawning
and rearing habitat), waterbirds (nesting) and furbearers (Bergman, et al.
1977; Lensink and Derksen, 1986). Therefore, if these resources are to
remain abundant, steps to provide adequate habitat protection are necessary.
* ~~~Wildlife resources are also highly valued by coastal district Alaskans.
However, unlike the aquatic resource consumptive use emphasis, wildlife
resource are valued by both consumptive and non-consumptive users.
Twenty-seven percent of the districts reported a loss of wildlife resources
would equally impact both consumptive and non-consumptive users.

Many animals in the arctic depend on wetlands for some part of their life cycle
(Finlayson and Moser, 1991). The barren ground caribou, musk ox, and even
polar bears depend on wetland vegetation to meet some of their nutritional
I ~ ~~~requirements. Similarly, animals in the boreal region also depend on wetlands;
the moose, woodland caribou, beaver, and bison being good examples.

Coastal and non-coastal wetlands are well known for their contributions to
wildlife and fish habitats; providing refuge for millions of migratory birds and
fish (Weller, 1981; Merrell and Koski, 1979). Numerous references supporting

wetland use by fish and wildlife species can be found in Appendix B.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project 21
June 28. 1994 21

Function No. 2) Recreation

Recreation, although closely linked to fishing and hunting (i.e., food
production), was also highly. valued in all geographic regions. Many other
forms of recreation in wetlands were noted, including other types of food
gathering activities such as berry-picking, green gathering, mushrooms, etc.

Hunting, trapping, and fishing activities can also be of significant economic
value to Alaska. The value to Canada of fur trapping has been as much as
$61 million dollars annually. Waterbird resources (i.e., waterfowl hunting and
bird-watching) have been estimated to bring an additional $104 million dollars
to the Canadian economy.

Muskegs and estuaries were noted as the most popular wetland types for
recreation in Alaska coastal districts (equal votes for each). Muskegs were
valued primarily in southeast Alaska, apparently for their hunting, berry
picking, and wildlife viewing potential.

The importance of estuaries for their commercial harvest values was
specifically recognized in the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. Within
that act, the coastal zone estuaries were described for their specific values to
humans:

Beyond their critical importance in man's harvest of economically useful
living marine resources, many estuaries, coves, and bays merit
consideration as visually attractive settings that support diverse life forms
of aesthetic value and as marine ecosystems of special interest (Federal
Register, Vol. 30, #174, Part III, pp. 61-66].

Certainly, the willingness of some coastal district residents to travel as many
as 200 miles to recreate (usually hunt or fish) in wetlands, also implies a high
degree of value (i.e., there is something these wetlands provide that other
areas cannot). On a nationwide basis, the recreational values of wetlands
have not been studied as extensively as most other wetland functions and
values (Sather and Smith, 1984).

Function No. 3) Erosion Control: Shoreline Stabilization

Globally, the role of wetlands in anchoring shorelines (i.e., preventing erosion)
is normally associated with tropical, mangrove-dominated coastlines. In
Europe and the Mediterranean, coastal wetlands occur mainly in areas of
strong deposition where their role in preventing erosion is limited. Coastal salt

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-1 1

marshes, however, are noted for their protection of shorelines from
approaching waves (Finlayson and Moser, 1991).

Nationally, wetlands provide a number of erosion control functions. Carter
(1978) concluded that wetland vegetation plays three significant roles in
erosion control: 1) it binds and stabilizes substrates, 2) it dissipates wave and
current energy, and 3) it traps sediments.

While there is little doubt that some coastal Alaska wetlands perform all three
of these functions at one time or another, Alaska coastal districts primarily
value wetlands for their role in shoreline stabilization (i.e., creating a buffer
against coastal erosion caused by currents and storms).

Function No. 4) Flood Control

The dynamics of water supply and loss are fundamental to the development,
maintenance, and functioning of wetlands. Generally, it is recognized that the
hydrology of a wetland is defined by three factors: how much water enters
it, how much water leaves it, and how much water the wetland is able to
store.

There has been general agreement for many years that wetlands associated
with streams provide flood storage, slow flood waters, reduce flood peaks,
and increase the duration of the flow (Carter et al., 1978; Verry and Boelter,
1978; Clark and Clark, 1979; Larson, 1981; Larson, 1982; Zinn and
Copeland, 1982). Although flood control is an important and recognized
function of wetlands, there is still little data which documents that one type
of wetland provides more effective flood control than another (Reppert et al.,
1979).

The hydrological transfer and storage of water in wetlands has been more
recently described by Richardson and McCarthy (1994). Johnston (1990,
1994) refined the relationship of wetland areas to peak flows and suggests
when less than 10 percent of a watershed is wetlands, significant peak flows
occur.

Flood control and water supply were noted as a valued wetland function by
approximately half of the coastal district respondents. The loss or reductions
of this function can have catastrophic impacts to humans and their property,
as evidenced by recent flooding throughout the midwest.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-12

Function No. 5) Water Qualitv and SUDDIV

Wetlands perform a variety of water quality functions, including removal of
nitrogen from agricultural or municiple wastewater runoff (Hammer, 1989).
The biogeochemical storage capabilities of wetlands are also important.
Metals, nutrients, and toxic organic compounds have been introduced into
many wetlands through natural or artificial means in many areas. Through
chemical/biological processes, these substances have been changed into
harmless substances (Sather and Smith, 1984).

Alaska coastal districts in western Alaska appeared to value wetlands for their
contributions to water quality. The lack of survey results throughout western
Alaska, and the availability of clean water in other parts of the state, made it
difficult to discern if Alaskans generally understand the contributions of
wetlands to their water quality.

Function No. 6) Fiber and Medicine Production

The ability of Alaska's wetlands to produce useful fibers and medicinal plants
is not well documented, although ethno-botanical studies are not uncommon
in Alaska. A correlation between wetland species, and species used for fiber
and medicinal purposes will be necessary before the extent of plant utilization
in Alaska's wetlands can be determined. Certainly, evidence exists that rural
Alaskan's have utilized some species found predominantly in wetlands for
centuries (Fortuine, 1988; Kari, 1987). A complete review of ADFG
subsistence utilization studies and other ethno-botanical works would be
required in order to determine the extent of wetland species utilization in
subsistence activities.

Function No. 7) Aesthetics

Visual relief, open space, and aesthetic values were considered important in
some coastal districts, but primarily those which are highly urbanized or
located within the highly mountainous or forested regions of the state. These
functions may be less valued by Alaskans living in rural areas because they do
not feel the crowding evident in most population centers.

The importance of recreation and aesthetic values to people has been
recognized by the Coastal Zone Management Program since it's inception.

... the coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational,

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-13

industrial, and aesthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the
present and future well-being of the nation (emphasis added). [Section
302(b) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972]

Section 920.13 of the same act defined areas of significant natural value or
importance as "areas which contain landforms, waterforms, exposed geology,
vegetational forms, and/or fauna of visual and intangible impressiveness"
(emphasis added).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 also recognized the
importance of visual and aesthetic resources, requiring that:

The Federal government use all practicable means .../to/.. assure for all
Americans .../aesthetically and culturally pleasant surroundings...[NEPA,
Section 101(b)] (emphasis added).

The scenic value of wetlands has been recognized in the scientific literature
since 1957 (Sather and Smith, 1984), however, no studies specific to Alaska
wetlands were identified in the literature search for this project. The Alaska
Region of the Forest Service developed a method for quantifying visual
resources in southeast Alaska a number of years ago. While the method is
not specific to wetlands, it provides a means to evaluate visual resources in
an objective manner.

Function No. 8) Room for Community Growth and Develooment

It is also important to recognize that within many Alaska coastal districts,
wetlands provide the only practicable alternatives for community expansion
and development. Many Alaska coastal communities are surrounded by public
lands which cannot be developed. Development is further constrained in
some areas by extreme mountainous topography. In these situations, while
it is not correct to say that wetlands themselves are valued for their
development potential, it is correct to note that the land or landforms which
these ecosystems occupy makes them highly valuable for community
development and expansion.

2.4.4 Criteria for Wetland Development in Alaska Coastal Districts

Wetlands and their buffer areas are valuable natural resources with significant
development constraints due to such natural hazards as: flooding, erosion,
soil liquefaction potential, and sewage disposal limitations (Association of

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 2-14

I 6 l~ al dd oD

State Wetlands Managers, 1992). Development activities in northern regions
of Alaska can also disrupt the thermal cover of permafrost, creating additional
construction problems.

While human ingenuity and technology have made development in many
wetland areas feasible, development activities in many wetlands still require
careful planning to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts.

The wetland sites which are most valued for development in Alaska coastal
districts typically include:

1 ) Those wetlands which are isolated or disconnected from larger
systems of wetlands and waterways;

2) Those wetlands which are adjacent to existing streets, roads, sewers,
and developed water or utility sources;

3) Those wetlands which are adjacent to or surrounded by other
developments; and

4) Those wetlands which have frontage on major highways or arterial
roadways.

Unfortunately, wetlands in these areas are not always valued just for their
development potential. Some may require protection to maintain other
important functions and values.

Wetlands in most need of protection, because they are highly valued by
Alaska coastal districts, include:

1) Those wetlands which provide habitat, harvest, and production areas
for fish, wildlife, and vegetation species;

2) Those wetlands that provide recreation opportunities;

3) Those wetlands that prevent shoreline erosion by stabilizing the
substrate;

4) Those wetlands that control flooding and stormwater runoff by
regulating natural flows;

5) Those wetlands that protect water resources by filtering pollutants,
processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 2-1 5

storing nutrients, recharging and discharging groundwater, and serving
as settling basins for both natural and un-natural occurring
sedimentation; and

6) Those wetlands that provide open space, visual variety, and relief
from intense urban development or otherwise homogeneous
landscapes.

2.5 IS A NEW ACMP WETLANDS STANDARD NECESSARY?

At issue is whether or not districts, in their quest to effectively manage and
regulate uses and activities in wetlands, need the added tool of an ACMP standard
specifically about wetlands. Or, if by following the steps outlined in Section 3.0,
districts will have gathered enough information and completed the necessary
analysis to develop enforceable policies under existing policy areas (such as
coastal development, recreation, habitat, subsistence) to manage and locally
regulate wetlands; specifically those that would be considered "valuable" by most
ccoast district residents.

As readers consider whether a new ACMP Wetlands Standard is necessary to
protect and identify high value wetlands, the authors encourage you to think of
a real or fictional development project in a wetland perceived to be of high value
in your district or region. Choose a plausible development scenario or land-use
conflict and evaluate how your district's needs and concerns could be addressed
using the existing ACMP framework or the new draft standard. Then, do the
same for a lower value wetland.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 2-1 6

I3.0 ADDRESSING WETLANDS WITH EXISTING ACMP GUIDELINES

If no new standard was created, districts would create enforceable policies within
fltheir coastal district plan, and use them to support their wetland-related
Udevelopment and protection interests. Sections 3.1 through 3.7 address how
components of an existing plan could be modified to address wetlands.

3.1 ISSUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES [6 AAC 85.0201

IDistricts would identify "issue, goal and objective statements" for wetlands within
their district in order to set the ground work for later resource inventory and
analysis and policy development.

Issues are needs, concerns, and problems expressed by local residents of a
coastal district. Issues are identified first and, as an example, could include
statements such as:

Our wetlands are being filled, destroying waterfowl habitat and
subsistence opportunities.

Wetlands are generally abundant throughout our district and in many areas
upland alternatives for development are not available.

Upland resources, where available, are very limited in our primarily wetland
district. These upland areas provide important subsistence resources that
cannot be found in other areas of our district.

Goals are broad statements of long term results or conditions that the residents
of a district wish to achieve. Goals are general statements of community intent.
As an example, goals relating to wetlands could include:
Goal A: Create a more stable economic environment by making land
use decisions more predictable.
Goal B: Develop a management scheme for wetlands that allows a
balance of development and preservation.
Goal C: Wetlands important for local flood control, drainage, water
quality, aquifer recharge, visual or cultural values or habitat
functions should be preserved or enhanced.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-1

UObiectives are specific actions or measurable steps that can be taken to
accomplish a specific goal or move closer to achieving it. Objectives related to
wetlands (and the goals provided above) could include:

Goal A, Objective 1: Classify wetlands within the coastal district by
assessing the hydrologic, biologic, habitat, and
human use functions deemed important and unique
for this region.

Goal B, Objective 1: Concentrate community development and growth
where infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, schools)
I ~ ~~~~~~~~already exist. Protect and preserve high value
wetland areas without community infrastructure.

3.2 COASTAL BOUNDARY [6 AAC 85.040]

Most coastal district boundaries have already been established. Districts
reviewing their district boundaries should, to the extent possible, see that large
contiguous wetlands and watersheds are included entirely within a coastal district
I ~ ~~and are not dissected (placing part of the watershed or wetland in the district and
part of it outside of the district). This will simplify impact analysis and decision
making because ultimately any project proposed for the wetland (or watershed)
I ~ ~~is reviewed by the district. If a wetland (or watershed) is split by two districts,
general confusion or significant cumulative impacts could result as projects are
proposed and reviewed independently.

Expanding coastal district boundaries beyond the "zone of direct interaction and
zone of direct influence" must be based on criteria found in 6 AAC 85.040.
Specifically, Part (c) notes (in part) that boundaries may include "all transitional
and intertidal areas, salt marshes, salt water wetlands, islands and beaches". Part
(d) notes that if other criteria are met, the inclusion of "watersheds" may be used
as a reason to expand the coastal district boundary.

Like all criteria, these are subject to differing interpretation and at times there have
been extended "negotiations" about whether areas may be included within a
coastal district boundary or not. If a district wants to include a large contiguous
wetland area or watershed within its boundary, it should determine if it is:

a) Either a coastal wetland or freshwater wetland (or watershed that
I ~ ~~~~contributes to a said wetland) that is likely to have a direct and significant
impact on marine coastal waters (which includes by definition "the living
resources which are dependent on these bodies of water"). If this is true,
a case can likely be built for its inclusion within the district boundary; or
Three Parameters Plus
I ~ ~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-2

b) An isolated inland wetland or watershed that impacts no coastal waters
or living resources dependent upon coastal waters, in which case it may
be difficult to justify its inclusion within a coastal boundary.

An good example of expanding district boundaries to protect wetland and district
resources is found within the NANA coastal district. Here, some watersheds were
ultimately included within the boundary because the management of [uses and
activities in] the watershed could have a direct and significant impact on marine
coastal waters [specifically anadromous fish, as the "living resource" dependent
upon the body of water].

3.3 RESOURCE INVENTORY [6 AAC 85.0501

Working within the existing program guidelines, districts would specifically add
wetlands to their resource inventory efforts, while keeping the existing ACMP
standards in mind. An example of this approach follows:

3.3.1 Guidelines for IncorporatingWetlands into Existing Resource Inventory
Tasks

Districts must "describe, in a manner sufficient for program development and
implementation" the following:

A. Under 6 AA C 85.050 (1) Habitats

Districts must identify and describe the habitats listed in 6 AAC 80.130.
The standard already includes offshore areas, estuaries, wetlands and
tideflats, rivers, streams, and lakes. Specifically, districts could identify
wetlands that must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow,
nutrient and oxygen levels, avoid adverse effects on natural drainage
patterns, and the destruction of important habitat and the discharge of
toxic substances into important habitats for policy development under the
Habitat Standard.

B. Under 6 AA C 85.050 (2) Major Cultural Resources

Districts could identify wetlands that contain significant cultural resources.
Further, districts could identify wetlands which provide medicines, fibers,
or other materials integral to historic or ongoing cultural practice(s).

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-3

C. Under 6 AA C 85.050 (3) Major Land and Water Uses and Activities

Districts could identify any such activities or uses which are conducted
within or adjacent to wetlands. Specifically, districts could:

� Districts should identify major watersheds, including wetlands, under
the Hydrology Standard.

* Districts should identify wetlands that may be important for the
protection of land, air, or water quality under the Climate and Air
Quality Standard.

� Districts should identify the soils typically found in wetlands and their
development constraints in the Soils Standard.

� Districts should identify those plant communities which are typically
found in wetlands in the Vegetation Standard.

� Districts should identify those wetlands which are important
components of viewsheds under the Visual Resources Standard.

� Districts should identify wetlands subject to flood hazards, erosion,
ice-hazards, storm hazards, landslides, etc. under the Geology and
Geological Hazards Standard.

* Districts should identify marine or anadromous species, birds, or
wildlife species which are dependent upon wetland habitats for their
survival under the Biological Environment, Species Use, and User
Groups Standard.

� Identify wetlands used for recreation and tourism for policy
development under Recreation and Tourism Standard.

� Identify wetlands that are or may be used for siting an energy facility
for policy development under Energy Facilities Standard.

* Identify wetlands that are or may be used for transportation or utility
routes underthe Transportation, or Utilities, Services, and Community
Finance Standards. Generally, if a wetland is to be impacted there
must be no feasible and prudent inland route alternative.

� Identify wetlands suitable for the siting of commercial fishing or
seafood processing facilities for policy development under Fish and
Seafood Processing Standard.

Three Parameters Plus
DOC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-4

I Identify wetlands suitable for the support of timber harvest and
processing activities (roads, log sort yards, log transfer facilities)
under the Timber Harvest and Processing Standard.

0 Identify wetlands that are or may be used for mining or mining
support facilities for policy development under the Mining and Mineral
Processing Standard.
* Identify wetlands that are or may be useful for urban, commercial, or
residential development under the Government and Private Economic
Activities Standard.

0 Identify wetlands that are or may be used for subsistence for policy
development under the Subsistence Standard.

D. Under 6 AAC 85.050 (4) Major Land and Resource Ownership and
I ~ ~~~Management Responsibilities

Districts should describe any significant land ownership or pre-existing
I ~ ~~~~resource management issues or direction which pertain to wetlands under
this standard.

E. Under 6 AA C 85.050 (5) Major Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeological
Resources

Identify wetlands that may be important to the study, understanding or
illustration of national, state or local history or prehistory

At a minimum, the above tasks could be done for wetlands on a general level,
and to the extent that the plan focuses on wetlands, this description and
identification should be as specific to particular wetlands as possible.

I ~~~3.3.2 Recommended Guidelines for the Inventory of Wetlands

It is would be helpful that the person doing inventory and classification work
for the district have access to appropriate wetland-related professional training
and experience. Currently, several proposed certification programs are
pending for persons completing this work, including one by the lead wetlands
regulatory agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The Anchorage
COE office maintains a list of contractors who are interested in working on
wetland related projects.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project3-
I~~~Jn 2,19 -

Districts may find existing information and data will assist with the
classification of wetland resources within their district. By collecting available
data prior to hiring a contractor, they can avoid paying someone else to
complete this portion of the work.

Once all existing data sources are located and compiled at the same scale, a
preliminary wetlands map can usually be produced for verification. The
simplest way of doing this is by digitizing or scanning each data source
independently and inputing them all into a geographical information system
(GIS) for analysis and plotting. The GIS allows data of all scales to be input
and displayed together at any scale desired. Districts who lack GIS
capabilities may choose to contract a firm to assist with this part of the
analysis. GIS can be expensive in the short term. However, if properly
managed it typically results in significant cost savings over the long term
because it can be easily updated.

Once a preliminary wetlands basemap is produced, it must be "ground
truthed" or "field verified" to be recognized and approved by the COE. Plots
which document both wetland and upland characteristics (soils, vegetation,
and hydrology) must be completed in representative areas of all vegetation
and landtypes identified to determine final jurisdictional wetland/upland
boundaries. After field data are compiled and analyzed, the preliminary
mapping must be finalized. Normally, a report documenting the methods used
is prepared, including copies of the field data forms. COE involvement, both
in the early stages of the project and during the field verification program, is
important to the overall success and credibility of any wetlands mapping or
classification project. Without this credibility and approval, any maps or plans
produced will not really simplify the permitting process for landowners, and
may ultimately complicate matters by adding another level of review.

The evaluation of wetland functions and values can be accomplished during
the initial mapping effort or as a separate effort at the completion of the
mapping project. There are pro's and con's to both procedures. It is typically
more cost effective to address both simultaneously, however, doing so
requires a larger up front investment. Districts with very limited budgets may
need to address wetlands mapping and categorization with a phased or task
oriented approach, over a five to ten year period. Wetland
classification/categorization will be more completely addressed in the
following section, Resource Analysis.

The following data sources may be helpful to districts when preparing for
wetland mapping and analyses:

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-6

Wetland Mapping

� U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Mapping

USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping is available for many
areas of the state, and more mapping is completed every year. NWI
mapping is based solely on vegetation characteristics and is not equivalent
to "jurisdictional" wetland mapping. However, these maps are very
helpful in identifying larger wetland systems. NWI mapping is completed
using high altitude aerial photography, therefore, smaller wetlands are
seldom identified. A user's manual is available for most mapped regions
and provides additional supporting data. NWI mapping is most accurate
in areas where the relief is limited (lowlands and gently sloping areas).
Forested wetland mapping in southeast Alaska is typically the least
accurate of all NWI mapping. Most maps are provided free of charge. For
a fee, some NWI mapping is also available in digital format or on uncoded
maps which can be scanned in lieu of digitizing.

The USFWS can also provide copies of the current lists of plant species
recognized as wetland indicators in Alaska. These lists are scheduled for
updating in fall of 1994.

John Hall, Coordinator
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska
(907) 786-3471

Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Wetland Mapping and Current
Delineation Guidelines

Jurisdictional wetland mapping is available for limited areas of the state,
however, it may be outdated in some instances. Contact the Regulatory
Branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Anchorage (Juneau or
Fairbanks) for more information. The COE can also supply copies of the
current delineation manual and general information regarding the 404
program. Training sessions are also held periodically.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898
Anchorage (907) 753-2712, outside Anchorage 1-800-478-2712

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-7

Vegetation Data

� Forest Service Vegetation Mapping (Viereck)

Broad, generalized vegetation mapping is available statewide in the map
pocket of "Alaska Trees and Shrubs" a Forest Service Publication available
through many bookstores and the University of Alaska Forest Experiment
Stations. Paperback versions of the book may not contain copies of the
map. The text provides more detailed descriptions of the map units and
is also an excellent botanical reference for identifying trees and shrubs.
Vegetation must be compared with wetland indicator plant lists (obtained
from the USFWS) to be of assistance in mapping or identifying wetlands.

� USGS Earth Resource Observation System (EROS) Alaska Field Office

One of the most under utilized sources of good aerial photography and
vegetation mapping is the EROS Alaska Field Office, also located in Grant
Hall at the Alaska Pacific University. The EROS office maintains extensive
files and remote sensing data for many remote areas in Alaska. Districts
with GIS or other graphic programs can obtain the EROS data in digital
formats. EROS also maintains a reference library of associated reports
and legend material.

Carl Markon
EROS Alaska Field Office
4230 University Drive, Suite 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
(907) 786-7023

Soil Mapping

� Soil Conservation Service; Soil Series Mapping & Hydric Soils List

Soil series mapping is available for limited areas of the state at no charge.
More detailed mapping is underway and several new surveys have been
completed in the last few years. Soil mapping available through the
"Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska" is helpful but not site specific. These
data should only be used to evaluate trends in soil types, not to predict
specific soils in specific locations. There are a number of small,
unpublished soil surveys which may be of help with specific area mapping.

SCS personnel are located throughout southcentral Alaska, primarily in the
Mat-Su and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs. Soil scientists may also be on

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-8

staff in local Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or University
of Alaska offices. Districts should keep in mind that even the best soil
mapping may not be specific enough to map wetlands with. By definition,
an SCS mapping unit (for instance a polygon which is mapped as a
specific soil) can include up to 50 percent of other soil types. Therefore,
field verification of wetland characteristics (including soils) is almost
always necessary.

Where soil mapping is available, districts should also obtain an updated
hydric soils list for Alaska. This list will identify which soil series are
considered hydric by the SCS. The presence of hydric soils is one of the
three parameters used in determining whether a specific site will be
considered a jurisdictional wetland by the regulatory agencies. These lists
are updated periodically, and the current list should be reviewed whenever
data are being initially evaluated or revisited.

Joe Moore, Soil Scientist
Soil Conservation Service
949 E. 36th Avenue, Suite 400
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
(907) 271-2424

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) Species

* Alaska Natural Heritage Program

Several resources agencies provide data on TES species and their habitats.
Nest sites are well documented for most raptors by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The University of Alaska, Natural Heritage Program
maintains a database of site specific data on both flora and fauna. These
data are provided at no charge, and typically take between 3-4 weeks to
obtain after submitting a written request. These data are helpful in
identifying sensitive or valuable wetland areas.

Julie Michaelson, Data Manager
Julia Lenz, Assistant Data Manager
ENRI - University of Alaska Natural Heritage Program
707 A Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 279-4523

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-9

Subsistence Utilization

* ADFG Subsistence Resource Utilization Mapping

Most areas designated as "rural" were extensively studied by ADFG
personnel and contractors during the mid to late 80s to determine the
extent and range of subsistence use practices. Reports and general
utilization maps were prepared as a result of this work. Local ADFG
offices should have copies of these products. If not, final results should
be available through the ADFG library in Anchorage. Many regional
offices have specific personnel who specialize in subsistence issues. The
USFWS also has staff who are knowledgeable about subsistence issues.
Existing district resource inventory maps and regional profit and non-profit
native corporations may also be good sources of subsistence data.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
(907) 267-2353 or 267-2105

General Habitat and Species Utilization Data

I ADFG Critical Habitat Maps, Habitat and Species Utilization Mapping

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) offers critical habitat
mapping in a few areas of the state. These, and other habitat utilization
data, can be used to determine which wetlands are of value to locally
important species. For example, a large portion of Kachemak Bay near
Homer is considered critical shell fish habitat. Such areas deserve special
protection measures and will contribute to a wetland being categorized as
"high value".

A large atlas of habitat utilization maps was prepared by ADFG in the late
70s. Data are available statewide for marine, freshwater, and terrestrial
species (both fish and game). These HabitatAtlas maps (and the Regional
Guides provide basic information regarding nesting, denning, calving
areas; as well as migratory routes used by large herds, etc. The maps are
very general and lack site specific detail, however, do provide basic
documentation of species distribution and important use areas.

Other areas of the state may have models which help to predict habitat
utilization by indicator species. These models contain data on elevation,
aspect, and vegetation community composition which may play a role in

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-10

predicting species utilization and overall habitat importance. In some
instances the models are prepared in cooperation with other federal
agencies. Contact local biologists to discern if models have been
developed for habitats within or adjacent to your district boundaries.

While local atlas data are probably available at local ADFG offices, copies
of all the maps available are available for reproduction at Ridgeways Mid-
town office in Anchorage (Mark Hartz 561-1555). There is a small charge
for each map produced, however. The maps are organized by region.

� ADFG Anadromous Fish Stream Mapping

ADFG is required by Alaska Statute 16.05.870 to "specify" and protect
various rivers, lakes, and streams of the state which are important for the
spawning, rearing or migration of anadromous fish. ADFG produces a
catalog and map atlas which documents these areas. These products are
updated frequently as more data is obtained from ongoing survey efforts.
ADFG should be contacted for the most current information. A mailing list
of interested persons is maintained by region, and notifications are sent
out annually for updated areas.

While these data are probably available at most local ADFG offices, copies
of all the maps are available for reproduction at Ridgeways Mid-town
office in Anchorage (Mark Hartz 561-1555). There is a small charge for
each map produced, however. The maps are organized by region.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
(907) 344-0541

Topographic & Hydrologic, Land Status Data

U.S. Geological Survey Topographical Maps

Topographical mapping is helpful in determining the hydrologic
characteristics or an area. The more detailed the data are, the more
useful they can be in determining where water comes from and why it
collects in a certain area.

Topographical mapping is available for purchase for all areas of the state,
although the level of detail and accuracy varies widely. Municipalities

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-1 1

with mapping capabilities, the State of Alaska Department of Community
and Regional Affairs (DCRA) Community Profile Maps, and AeroMap USA
are also potential sources of topographic maps at a community scale.

USGS also has high altitude color infra-red photography available for
purchase. Coverage area and quality can be reviewed via a special
machine in the Anchorage Office (Grace Hall, Alaska Pacific University).
USGS also has vegetation mapping, geologic mapping, and special
hydrologic studies available for some areas. Some data may also be
available in digital format from Fort Collins, Colorado.

U.S. Geological Survey
National Mapping Division (or Water Resources Division)
4230 University Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
(907) 786-7000

* FEMA Floodplain Mapping

Floodplain mapping and special study reports can be obtained from FEMA.
Most are available free of charge and take about two weeks for delivery.
Indexes are available for all mapped areas. Approximately 275 maps have
been prepared for Alaska.

DCRA, Municipal and Regional Assistance Division, is the FEMA National
Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP) coordinator for Alaska. In this
capacity, MRAD also maintains the FEMA floodplain maps for Alaska.
MRAD has also collected maps from other agencies, such as the Corps of
Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, USGS, and other special hazard
studies. The 23 Alaska municipalities participating in the NFIP also
maintain FEMA maps.

FEMA Floodplain Distribution Center or Christy Miller, DCRA
6930 San Thomas Road 333 W. 4th Avenue, #319
Baltimore, Maryland 21227-6227 Anchorage, AK 99501
1-800-358-9616 (907) 269-4567

A erial Photography

Available aerial photography should be indexed and registered to a
topographical base map. Lower-altitude, color photography is the most
helpful for wetland delineation, but black and white or high altitude

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-12

photography can also be used. Stereo-coverage should be obtained for
new photography, especially if the photography is obtained specifically for
resource inventory work. Stereo coverage allows the photographs to be
viewed in three-dimensions, by means of a stereoscope. Ortho-photos
may also be helpful, and are available for many areas through USGS.

A person experienced in aerial photograph interpretation and wetland
delineations may be needed to produce a credible base map from the aerial
photographs. The map can be produced at whatever scale of
photography is available, however, the accuracy of the mapping will be
heavily dependent on the scale and quality of photographs provided.

Existing photography can be obtained from a number of sources, including
USGS, DCRA, EROS Alaska Field Office, COE, Forest Service, BLM, and
private contractors. The Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT)
typically obtains current photography for most new and major road
upgrades. One of the most comprehensive databases of aerial
photography is maintained by AeroMap Inc., in Anchorage. However,
other private companies also have negatives on file and will probably be
interested in bidding new work. New photography is expensive, but
greatly reduces labor intensive field verification time for mapping efforts.
Talk with several contractors to determine appropriate specifications
before seeking bids or awarding a contract for this type of work.

� Local Land Status Maps (Plats, Etc.)

Districts with property taxes may have departments which track the
platting and ownership of local properties. These data, including any
applicable zoning restrictions, will be very helpful in addressing local
wetlands management.

To avoid takings disputes2, districts should be aware of the implications
when placing restrictions on lands which are privately owned, unless the
restrictions are supported by state or federal regulations.

District recorders offices (State of Alaska Department of Natural
Resources) also maintain records of ownership and plat maps. DCRA, the
BLM, and Native Corporations may also be able to provide land status
information.

2 Takings and other considerations are discussed in Section 3.7, Implementation.
Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-13

3.4 RESOURCE ANALYSIS [6 AAC 85.060]

To address wetlands in an ACMP plan, the "Resource Analysis" section should
specifically identify the environmental capability and sensitivity of local wetlands,
the cultural uses of wetlands, and should assess the present and anticipated
needs and demands on wetlands within the district. Like the Resource Inventory
effort outlined above, the resource analysis should be as specific as possible.

A wetland functions and values assessment, or classification/categorization effort,
is in many ways analogous to an ACMP wetland resource analysis. The data
sources described in Section 3.3 will provide some baseline data (i.e., habitat
utilization, subsistence utilization, flood zones, etc.) on important wetland
functions and values. However, to assure human use needs are fully considered
in the resource analysis, data sources in addition to those identified in Section 3.3
should be obtained. Some of these data may already be available through existing
inventory requirements of the ACMP. Data which should be available for wetland
resource analysis include:

1. Recreation Use (existing and potential)

2. Aesthetics (open space, visual relief, uncommon geomorphic features)3

3. Community Development Needs (Residential, Commercial, Industrial)

There are many different types of classification/categorization schemes for
wetlands. Most methods include assessing several different wetland functions
and values, a relative weighing of these functions and values, and the assignment
of some type of ranking system for management purposes, such as 'high,
medium, low' or 'development, preservation, etc.'

The evaluation parameters listed in the draft wetlands standard (Section 4.0)
provide the foundation for many functions and values assessments which are
completed in Alaska, and most were developed by a wetlands working group
composed of representatives from seven state and federal agencies. This list
includes more "value" parameters than some methods, because it is the intent of
DGC that human values and needs receive equal consideration with other species
needs and values in permit decisions.

The wetland resource analysis (i.e., functions and values assessment) and final
categorizations must take a balanced approach when weighing aquatic vs.

3 Districts looking for methods which allow a less subjective rating of visual resources should review Aesthetic
Resources of the Coastal Zone (Roy Mann Associates, 1975, for the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
�NOAA) and the Alaska Region of the U.S. Forest Service's Visual Resource Management (VRM) System.
Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-14

terrestrial vs. human use functions and values. Failure to do so may result in a
plan which is accepted and supported by the community at large, but fails the
I ~~~regulators needs for compliance with federal guidance.
District representatives have indicated they are concerned that all of their local
3 ~~~wetlands will be classified as "high value" using any new standard or existing
functions and values assessment method. Districts must work closely with the
wetland regulatory agencies (COE, EPA) when adopting or modifying any
I ~ ~~classification/categorization system if they ultimately want approval from these
agencies to implement their plan or approve their mapping. Failure to
communicate and cooperate with these agencies continuously throughout the
I ~ ~~preparation of a local wetlands management plan typically results in major cost
and time setbacks. Coordination with other resource agencies is important,
however, obtaining approval from other agencies does not guarantee compliance
I ~~~with the federal regulatory program.

Numerous classification and categorization schemes can be found in the literature
of federal and state agencies, private consultants, and locally in the Juneau and
Anchorage Wetlands Management Plans. The cities of Homer and Haines have
also completed plans for the management of local wetlands. Please refer to the
I ~ ~~bibliography (Appendix B3) for a listing of references related to wetland functions
and values. DGC has received a separate grant from the EPA to focus on the
development of a statewide wetland classification/rating system. Also, the COE
is currently developing a new approach to wetland classification which may
ultimately be implemented nationwide. However, many years could pass before
any single classification or categorization system is adopted state or nation-wide.

3.5 SUBJECT USES (6 AAC 85.070)
PROPER AND IMPROPER USES (6 AAC 85.080)

Regulation requires districts to:

a) Describe the land and water uses and activities that will be managed and
regulated by the district program.

b) Describe uses and activities that will be considered proper and improper
within the district.
Districts should specifically describe the uses and activities in and adjacent to
I ~ ~~wetlands that will be managed by the district, as well as uses and activities that
are proper and improper in and adjacent to wetlands. At a minimum, this should
be done on a general level, and to the extent that the plan focuses on wetlands,
this should be as specific as possible.

Three Parameters Plus
I ~ ~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-15

3.6 ENFORCEABLE POLICIES (6 AAC 85.090)

Policies that will be applied to land and water uses and activities must be
developed. The policies must be comprehensive, specific and enforceable.
Current policy areas include:

A. Coastal Development (6 AAC 80.040)
B. Geophysical Hazard Areas (6 AAC 80.050)
C. Recreation and Tourism (6 AAC 80.060)
D. Energy and Industrial Facilities (6 AAC 80.070)
E. Transportation and Utilities (6 AAC 80.080)
F. Fish and Seafood Processing (6 AAC 80.090)
G. Timber Harvest and Processing (6 AAC 80.100)
H. Mining and Mineral Processing (6 AAC 80.110)
I. Subsistence (6 AAC 80.120)
J. Habitats (6 AAC 80.130)
K. Air, Land and Water Quality (6 AAC 80.140)
L. Historic, Prehistoric and Archeological Resources (6 AAC 80.150)

Examples of policies to address wetlands using some of the existing ACMP
standards (listed above) follow. Note that the examples below4 are samples and
ideas only. Only a few have been approved by the Coastal Policy Council.

A. Coastal Develooment (6 AAC 80.040)

To avoid unnecessary impacts to wetlands, new growth and development
shall be located to take advantage of existing infra-structure such as roads,
utilities and schools, to the extent feasible and prudent.

Coastal development shall incorporate designs and measures to mitigate
potential significant adverse impacts to high value wetlands.

Coastal development shall be discouraged in wetlands (identified on Map No.
_):

1) Where rare plants or unique plant communities are present,

2) That are within the 100-year floodplain,

U4 ' These examples are modifications to address wetlands found in the City of Haines 1993 Update ACMP,
Juneau Wetlands Management PlanAMSA, Pelican Coastal Management Program, and State of Oregon,
Wetland Classification and Decision Criteria: West Eugene Wetlands Plan by Steve Gordon (State
Perspectives on Wetland Classification (Categorization) for Regulating Purposes, Association of State
Wetland Managers, March, 1992).
Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-16

I3) That are near perennial waterways,

I ~~~~~4) That are connected geographically or hydrologically to other wetlands
or waterways,

5) That contain a high diversity of wildlife habitats or contribute to the
diversity of wildlife habitat within the region, or

6) When protection of the wetland would further the goals and
objectives of this plan,

ICoastal development shall be acceptable in wetlands (identified on Map No._):

1 ) With previously approved Corps of Engineers 404 permits,

2) That are relatively isolated or disconnected from a larger system of
wetlands and waterways,

3) That are served by existing streets, roads, and utilities,

I4) That are adjacent to or surrounded by existing development, or

5) That have frontage on a major highway or street.

C. Recreation and Tourism (6 AAC 80.060)

Wetland areas described in the resource inventory and analysis chapter and
so noted on Map No. __as supporting significant recreation uses and activities
shall be reserved primarily for these uses. To the extent feasible and prudent,
activities which conflict with recreational uses in these designated recreation
areas shall be conducted in a manner which minimizes significant adverse
impacts to recreation resources and activities, including access.

Public owned shorelines, beaches, wetlands, and upland areas which are
vacant and have high recreation, scenic wildlife and/or water quality values
or are subject to natural hazards for development purposes, shall be
Iconsidered as public open space or recreation areas until such time as other
uses are required by the public interest.

E. TransDortation and Utilities (6 AAC 80.080)

I ~~~~Transportation and utility corridors shall be sited, designed, and operated to

Three Parameters Pius
I ~ ~~~~DOC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-17

Uavoid, and if avoidance is not possible, to minimize significant adverse impacts
to high value wetlands shown on Map No. _

Pipeline crossings of wetlands important to waterfowl and shorebirds shall
incorporate mitigation measures, to the extent feasible and prudent, to
minimize significant adverse impacts.

J. Habitats (6 AAC 80.130)

High value wetlands, depicted on Map No. __, that are owned by the City of
___will be retained by the City and managed for environmental protection.
High value wetlands depicted on Map No. __, that are not owned by the City
can be developed only if there is no net loss of individual functional values

within the wetland drainage basin.
Moderate value wetlands, depicted on Map No. _,can be developed if there
is no net loss of aggregate functional value in the-area served by public roads.
Low value wetlands, depicted on Map No. _,can be developed using best
management practices.
The ____wetland, depicted on Map No. _,shall be managed to protect
public safety; to maintain, wherever feas-ible and prudent, the natural
vegetation, beaches, tidal pools, and aquatic life bordering __ Cove; and to
maintain the scenic, recreation, and educational values along the waterfront.

K. Air, Land and Water Quality (6 AAC 80.140)

The watershed for the ____wetlands requires careful attention. Continuing
and future negative impacts from development must be minimized to the
extent feasible and prudent in order to maintain and enhance this wetlands
important sediment and toxicant retention functions.

Section 4.0 explores the need or opportunity for an additional standard which
specifically addresses wetlands. If such a standard is adopted, the development
Iof enforceable policies would be accomplished under a separate category. For
example:

N. Wetlands (Dredae or Fill Activities)

1) Avoid significant adverse impacts to important fish and wildlife habitat.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 31

2) Avoid significant interference with fish migration, spawning, and rearing,
and with wildlife during critical life history phases.

3) Limit areas of direct disturbance to as small an area as possible.

4) Minimize the amount of waterborne sediments traveling away from the
dredge or fill site.

5) Be conducted in compliance with all state and federal regulations.

3.7 IMPLEMENTATION (6 AAC 85.100)

Districts must describe the methods and authority that will be used to implement
the plan. An ACMP wetlands management plan or Area Meriting Special
Attention (AMSA) plan would be implemented using the same techniques as any
other coastal management plan, as well as some techniques specific to wetlands.
Some of the implementation techniques common to all ACMP plans include:

* Use of state consistency process conducted under 6 AAC 50.

* Incorporate a review of consistency with ACMP plan policies into local
land use permits/decisions (such as issuance of conditional use permits).

* Ensure that zoning and subdivision codes, as well as comprehensive plan
designations and policies comport with ACMP policies. For example, use
comprehensive plan designations for high value wetlands such as "public
use", "parkland", "greenbelts and open space", and "floodways". Zone
high value wetlands in categories such as, "floodplain district" or
"conservation districts".

� Ensure that local economic development projects and capital improvement
projects are consistent with ACMP policies.

� Review zoning and municipal ordinances to ensure that they incorporate
a consistency review process when appropriate.

* Work with project applicants to explain ACMP policies and concerns.

* Explain ACMP policies and goals clearly to local, state, and federal agency
staff so that they can assist in implementation efforts.

* Work with local, state, and federal planners to ensure that ACMP policies
and goals are incorporated into local, state, and federal plans.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-1 9

I ~~Under the heading "Recommended Environmental and Development Management
Programs, Ordinances, and Funding", districts might include a specific
recommendation for the management of wetlands. This might include plans for
a wetlands identification project (inventory and analysis), the production of draft
and final wetland management guidelines, local wetlands ordinances, etc.

Other management tools for addressing wetland protection and management
include:

3.7.1 Acquisition

Wetlands valued by the public may receive the highest level of protection
when acquired by local governments or a resource management agency. This
I ~ ~~~is particularly true of wetlands valued for recreation. Privately owned lands
are subject to use limitations/restrictions by the owners at any time.

I ~~~~Acquisition of high value wetlands can be accomplished in a number of ways,
but most require funding of one sort or another. Purchase (acquisition) of
easements, while reducing total acquisition costs, is constrained by the
difficulty of determining the exact value of the rights acquired.
Recently, the City of Haines was able to acquire some high value wetlands
adjacent to Sawmill Creek by providing the private land owners with tax
breaks or tax credits on the remainder of their properties. Not only did the
land owners reduce their tax burden on lands which they could probably never
develop (because of their wetland values), they received a credit for the value
of those lands against their remaining tax burden.

3.7.2 Conservation Easements

H ~~~~Another innovative protection technique is called a conservation easement.
Here, private landowners place irrevocable restrictions on their property,
I ~ ~~~primarily to preserve its ecological functions and values and in return receive
tax breaks or credits. Typically, the easement lands are designated for
conservation and wildlife habitat, but limited development activities are often
I ~ ~~~allowed. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has staff specially trained to work
with local governments and individuals interested in this type of program,
particularly when the lands in question are of biological significance. Donated
I ~ ~~conservation easements have also been used as negotiating tools for
development rights (in less fragile areas) by private corporations in Alaska.

Three Parameters Plus
IDGC High ValuerWetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-20

I ~~~3.7.3 Public Education

I ~~~Public education and outreach may be one of the most underrated wetland
protection techniques. Many people simply do not understand the importance
of these ecosystems and lack the skills to identify specific components of
I ~~~wetlands that may be of local interest or importance. For instance, many
Alaskan's -enjoy fishing and take pride in our state's vast fish resources.
Landowners with fish habitat on their property may be unaware of the
I ~~~~importance of that habitat or even how to identify the types of young fish
using the area. Outreach programs would identify and work with these
landowners to develop ways they can protect or even enhance the resources

on their properties.

I ~~~3.7.4 General Permit (GP) Acquisition

Several Alaska Coastal Districts/local governments have obtained "General
Permits" from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for limited dredge and fill
activities in wetlands. Typically, to obtain a GP requires an advanced
identification of wetlands within the GP area and a determination of value and
I ~ ~~~ecological significance. After negotiating the types of activities which would
be allowed under the GP and determining the cumulative impacts of multiple
fills in the area, the COE may grant a local government permitting authority
for fills in the "lower value" areas. Typically, the local government is required
by the COE to track the number and type of fills within the GP area.

3.7.5 Mitigation

Districts may also consider inventorying and evaluating mitigation
opportunities in their districts. Identifying wetland and other aquatic area
restoration needs and opportunities may be best accomplished with assistance
from local biologists, environmental groups, and recreation-oriented groups.

Establishing a quantitative method for evaluating mitigation actions is
important for districts that want to require mitigation for specific development
impacts (wetland fills, etc.). Without such a method, it is difficult to say
whether a specific mitigative action adequately offsets impacts from a
proposed development. Further, such a method also allows project
proponents the opportunity to present a suitable mitigation plan at the time
of application, eliminating time consuming negotiations, etc.
The ADFG Habitat and Restoration Division has recently completed an analysis

and database of restoration projects attempted in Alaska. This database

Three Parameters Pius
I ~ ~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 3-21

should provide districts with helpful information on the types of projects
which have the highest likelihood of success as well as general insight into the
restoration process.

3.7.6 Mitigation Banking

Although presently untested in Alaska, mitigation banking opportunities are
I ~ ~~~also worthy of consideration by local governments, especially if they have
identified large areas suitable for reclamation, restoration, enhancement, or
wetland creation.

In a mitigation bank, a project which is typically beyond the financial or
technical means of most individuals or groups is undertaken by the bank,
I ~ ~~~which then sells credits to developers required to mitigate other project
impacts. In some situations developers simply write checks which are used
by the bank staff to buy supplies, pay labor expenses, etc. In other situations
I ~ ~~~developers are assigned a specific part of the project (channel reconstruction,
plantings, etc.) which they must complete within a specified time period. The
State of Alaska is currently investigating potential mitigation bank
I ~ ~~opportunities in Alaska. The Association of State Wetland Managers also
compiles and provides information on mitigation bank projects throughout the
United States.

3.7.7 Takings

The ultimate issue in the regulatory environment is whether a regulation will
be deemed a taking of property for public use without just compensation, in
violation of the Fifth Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution. The typical
example of a takings by governmental action requires the government to pay
compensation when it physically takes possession of property by eminent
domain powers. Wetlands regulations do not take physical possession of
property, rather the government places restrictions on the use of land which
may have the ultimate effect of restricting all of an owner's profitable use of
the property.

Traditionally, the federal government has held significant authority to regulate
wetlands. There are a few cases in which a court has determined the exercise
of wetlands regulation constitutes a taking. The authority to regulate
I ~ ~~~wetlands is through the federal government's power over navigable waters.
Since 1979, the U.S. has begun to diminish this preeminent power.5 A court

5 Kaiser Aetna v. U.S., 444 U.S. 164 (1979).
Three Parameters Pius
I ~ ~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-22

may find a taking has occurred in navigable waters (or through the regulation
of wetlands) upon review of the following significant factors: "the economic
I ~~~impact of the regulation, its interference with the reasonable investment
backed expectations of the property owner, and the character of the
governmental acio.

When drafting regulations, a governmental entity must demonstrate there
exists a "nexus" or a rational connection between a permit condition and the
I ~~~problem to be created by a proposed development.7 Moreover, the regulation
may not deprive a landowner of all viable economic use of the land.' Most
recently, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that local governments must show
I ~~~a "rough proportionality" between the effects of new development and the
amount of land the government wishes to use, but not pay for, to protect the
public interest.9 These considerations will be important in the drafting of any
new wetlands management programs for Alaska.
The implementation of wetlands identification and protection through each
I ~~~district's local program appears to allow the flexibility and local control that
districts have indicated they need. However, there may be ways of standardizing
wetlands protection program-wide. An implementation manual, for instance,
I ~ ~~could provide districts with mandatory procedures and processes for addressing
wetlands within their local programs. Certainly, district representatives should
look to their peers in Anchorage, Juneau, Homer, and Haines for guidance on
what has worked and what has not worked in their local wetland planning efforts.

6Penn. Cent. Transo. Co. v. N.Y.C., 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978].
Nollan v. Calif. Coastal Comm., 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1 12 S.Ct. 2886 (1 992).

Dolan v. Citv of Tigard, __U.S. __(June 24, 1994).
Three Parameters Plus
I ~~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 3-23

4.0 ADDRESSING WETLANDS WITH A NEW ACMVP STANDARD

4.1 DRAFT STANDARD LANGUAGE

If a new Part 6 Alaska Coastal Policy Council Chapter 80 Standard on Wetlands
was developed for incorporation in the Alaska Coastal Management Program, it
I ~ ~would enable districts to create enforceable policies under the heading of
Wetlands. However, if a mandatory Wetlands Standard were adopted, it would
require compliance in all new and revised programs. At this time there does not
appear to be sufficient funding nor staffing to implement wetlands identification
and protection program-wide. DGC may wish to consider the implementation of
an "optional" wetlands standard, until sufficient funding and staffing can be
secured.

Extensive coordination and cooperation between state and federal resource
agencies and district coordinators would be necessary before this type of standard
could be implemented. Quantifiable fish and wildlife production and census data
are necessary to provide legally defensible significance thresholds. ADFG has
indicated these data may not be available for all coastal district areas and the
likelihood of obtaining such data in the near future is unrealistic.

The draft standard is followed by several pages of draft definitions which are
necessary to understand and further define the intent of draft standard. Changes
I ~ ~~to these definitions will enable the applicability and intent of this standard to be
altered in many ways. For instance, if the number or types of species defined as
"terrestrial species" is increased, the standard becomes more stringent.
I ~ ~~Conversely, if the number or types of species is reduced, the standard becomes
less stringent.

To assure maximum implementation flexibility for coastal districts, it is
recommended that the needed threshold data interspersed throughout the policy
(note shaded areas) be provided in range format within the standard. Coastal
I ~ ~~districts would then determine the level of sensitivity which best meets local
needs and concerns after coordination with local biologists and holding public
hearings.

Before a wetlands protection standard is adopted, overlap and redundancy
between such a standard and other existing standards should be eliminated. This
standard appears to overlap with the existing Habitat Standard [ACMP, 6 AAC
80. 130] and may overlap with other standards as well. District representatives
have indicated a need to reduce redundancy in the ACMP wherever possible.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 199441

ARTICLE 2
USES AND ACTIVITIES
6 AAC 80. Wetlands

(a) Mapping

Coastal districts shall identify wetlands using the current federal definition'
of a wetland in use at the time a new coastal program is implemented or an
existing program is re-authorized. Wetland delineations must be prepared in
accordance with the current method required by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and verified by this agency. Wetlands identified must be included
in the resource inventory section of a local district program.

Wetlands, including "high value" areas, occur in all sizes and shapes.
Importance and value are generally determined by the potential or ability of a
wetland to provide functions, many of which are independent of size. There
is no minimum size delineation for a wetland under this standard, unless a
minimum size delineation is subsequently adopted by the federal government.

Districts are not required to identify all wetlands within their boundary,
however, each district is encouraged to do so if sufficient resources are
available. Districts are also encouraged to determine the relative abundance
or scarcity of wetland types in their districts, and to include this information
in their resource inventory.

(b) Functions and Values Assessment

In order to ensure fair and predictable consistency determinations, wetlands
identified shall be evaluated according to their functions and values, using a
quantitative method which evaluates at least the following wetland functions
and values:

The Clean Water Act [33CFR Section 328.3(b) and 40 CFR Section 230.3(t)], defines the term wetlands
as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas."

The ACMP has several definitions of wetlands in 6 AAC 80.900 tideflats (13), freshwater wetlands
(19), and saltwater wetlands (19). However, any policy, mapping, classification, or categorization
which is not based upon or cross referenced to the federal definition will face a more intensive review
and possible opposition from the federal regulatory agencies. To minimize liabilities associated with
takings disputes or conflicts between federal and state law; local governments should work within the
existing federal regulatory program. Failure to do so will potentially complicate the approval process.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 4-2

(1) Aquatic Use Characteristics

* ~~~~~a. Hydrologic Connections
b. Water Regime/Flood Control
c. Extent of Open Water
I ~ ~~~~d. Water Quality (sediment retention, erosion, stability, tC2)
e. Fish Habitat

(2) Terrestrial Use Characteristics

a. Vegetation Composition
b. Wildlife Habitat
c. Edge
* ~~~~~~d. Interspersion

(3) Human Use Characteristics

I ~~~~~a. Food Production (fish, game, fruits, greens, etc.)
b. Cultural Resource Production (fibers, traditional medicines, etc.)
c. Recreation (including hunting, fishing, etc.)
I ~ ~~~~~d. Aesthetics
e. Economic & Community Development

I ~~~The Functions and 'Values Assessment and rating/categorization method
utilized shall be documented in the resource analysis section of a local area
program or appendix to that program. This assessment can be applied to all
wetlands within a district or on a case by case basis. However, once'such an
assessment is made, it must be documented in the next re-authorization of a
* ~~~~local district program.

The Functions and Values Assessment and rating/categorization method shall
* ~~~~also allow the quantitative assessment of both adverse and beneficial
development impacts and proposed mitigative actions. Districts must specify
in their program what will constitute a significant adverse impact to wetlands
in a quantitative manner3.

I ~~~~2 Wetlands perform additional water quality functions such as processing, removing or transforming
pollutants, and buffering receiving waters from the effects of pollutants. These characteristics are
difficult to observe and document in the field without expensive monitoring and laboratory work. Some
I ~ ~~~~~districts may wish to include an analysis of these parameters in their programs, however, they should
evaluate the costs and availability of data prior to doing so.
3 For example, districts might determine a 5 percent loss in of aquatic or terrestrial use characteristics
would constitute a significant adverse impact, a 1 0 percent loss in of combined use characteristics, a
1 percent loss of unique wetlands, etc.

Three Parameters Plus
I~ ~ ~~~~G High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 4.3

An analysis of the functions and values of district wetlands shall determine
which of these wetlands are "unique" or "valuable" within the coastal district
and therefore requiring protective measures.

(1) A "unique wetland", as used herein, shall refer to those wetlands having
special aquatic, terrestrial, or human use significance as inventoried in a
coastal management program. A wetland must have at least one of the
following characteristics before it can be categorized as "unique":

i) The documented presence of rare or endangered flora or fauna
appearing on state or federal endangered species lists (assumes
protection under the Endangered Species Act);

ii) Documented annual use by significant numbers (EVESi or more) of
migrating waterfowl, shore birds, marsh birds, or wading birds;

iii) Unusual wildlife diversity (greater than ;.: species); or local production
significance (__% greater than average production for that region) of
species utilized by subsistence-dependent residents;

iv) Presence of high overall visual quality as determined by approved
district program scenic quality criteria, or uncommon geomorphic
features encompassed by the wetland; or

v) Presence of archaeological evidence documented by the State of
Alaska Historic Preservation Office and recommended for maximum
protection under the National Historic Preservation Act.

(2) A "valuable wetland", as used herein, shall mean any non-"unique
wetland" which provides valuable aquatic habitat, valuable terrestrial
habitat, or valuable human use habitat, or any combination thereof, as
these terms are defined in this section.

i) "Valuable Aauatic Habitat" shall refer to:

a) Rivers, ponds, estuaries, and emergent aquatic habitats which are
characterized by unusual numbers of aquatic species diversity
[greater than E species] or significant production [__% greater
than average production for that geographic region] of freshwater,
anadromous, or saltwater species (including shellfish).

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 4-4

U ~~~~~b) Rivers, ponds, estuaries, and emergent aquatic habitats which
provide critical spawning, rearing, and overwintering areas
[mapped or defined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG) for private and state lands, or by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for federal lands].

c) Habitat for aquatic species appearing on official state or federal
I ~ ~~~~~~lists of endangered or threatened species (but only where there
has been documented evidence of, use by such a species).

d) Wetlands which provide measurable flood storage capabilities for
waters which flood on an annual or semi-annual basis, when these
wetlands occur immediately "upstream" of populated areas.

e) Wetlands which provide measurable filtration of sediments, heavy
metals, or other contaminants; which might otherwise affect
human water supplies or anadromnous fish habitats.

ii) "Valuable Terrestrial Habitat" shall refer to:

a) Those wetlands which are characterized by unusual seasonal or
I ~ ~~~~~~annual avian diversity [greater than __species], or providing
significant waterfowl production [_%greater than average
production for a region].

b) Habitat for terrestrial species appearing on official state or federal
lists of endangered or threatened species (but only where there
has been documented evidence of use by such a species).

c) Critical deer (wintering, fawning), moose (wintering), and caribou
(calving, summer) habitat areas which are also wetlands; as
previously mapped, or identified by ADFG through means of a
current habitat model (at the time a specific permit is under
consideration).

d) Areas which contain plants or animals at or near the limit of their
geographic range, but only when limited in their local distribution.

e) Wetland types which are determined to be "scarce" in the district
or region.

Three Parameters Plus
I ~ ~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 4-5

iii) "Valuable Human Use Habitat" shall refer to:

a) Undeveloped wetlands which, in their natural state, are frequently
and legally4 utilized for subsistence and recreation [hunting,
fishing, hiking, camping, boating, picnicking, berry picking, bird
watching, nature photography] by the public.

b) In densely populated or forested areas, includes undeveloped
wetlands that provide open space and visual variety.

c) Plant collection areas for medicinal or cultural use practices.

(3) If, upon completing a wetlands inventory (Mapping) and analysis
(Functions and Values Assessment) of a district's wetlands, it is
determined that more than :E percent of a districts wetland resources are
categorized as "unique" or "valuable", a district may adopt another
quantitative rating system which allows the categorization of wetlands
into low, moderate, and high value ratings (based on the range of scores
obtained during the quantitative analysis). However, such a rating system
must have written conceptual approval by the wetland regulatory agencies
prior to inclusion in a district program. Further, the rating system must be
fully documented in the local program.

Districts may categorize wetlands using other terminology (i.e.,
preservation, conservation, A, B, etc.), as long as wetlands are also
categorized as "unique" or "valuable". Districts with existing approved
wetland management plans or categorization systems must change
existing wetland management plans to include the new terminology
described in this standard during their next program re-authorization.

(d) Alternatives Analysis (For Projects Proposed in Any Wetland)

Planning by project proponents is required in order to:

(1) Avoid or minimize damage to wetlands wherever possible [Section
404(1)(b) Clean Water Act Alternatives Analysis].

(2) Require activities not dependent upon a specific wetland location be sited
within uplands or non-"unique" or non-"valuable".

'4 Illegal trespass on private property by the public shall not constitute a valuable human use rating.
Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 4-6

I {~~~e) Development Standards for Activities in Wetlands

(1) Development Activities In or Adjacent to "Unique Wetlands"

Development activities in wetlands categorized as "unique" shall be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable'. Likewise development
activities in areas which are bordering, neighboring, or contiguous with
1unique wetlands" shall be consistent to the maximum extent practicable
I ~ ~~~to prevent adverse impacts to "unique" wetland functions and values,
including potential impacts from flooding.

Unavoidable adverse impacts related to development activities in "Unique
wetlands" shall require the enhancement of existing wetlands or aquatic
habitats, the restoration of degraded wetlands or aquatic habitats, or the
I ~ ~~~~creation of new wetlands or aquatic habitats; to mitigate these impacts.
If unavoidable adverse impacts are identified which cannot be mitigated,
such development activities will be found inconsistent with the local
district program.

I ~~~~(2) Development Activities In or Adjacent to "Valuable Wetlands"

Development activities in wetlands designated as "valuable" shall be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable. Development activities in
sites bordering, neighboring, or contiguous with "valuable wetlands" shall
also be consistent to the maximum extent practicable; avoiding or
minimizing adverse impacts to those wetland functions which contribute
to the "valuable" categorization.

I ~~~~~Unavoidable adverse impacts related to development activities in "valuable
wetlands" may require mitigation in the form of enhancement of existing
wetlands or aquatic habitats, the restoration of degraded wetlands or
aquatic habitats, or the creation of new wetlands or aquatic habitats; to
offset adverse impacts which are unavoidable. Districts are required to
note which, if any, "valuable" wetland functions must be mitigated in their
local district program. If unavoidable adverse impacts cannot be mitigated
(and a district program requires mitigation for that function), the proposed
I ~ ~~~~development activities- will be found inconsistent with the local area
program.

It may be appropriate for projects sited in unique or valuable wetlands to be automatically placed in an
extended review period (i.e., unique 1 20 days, valuable 90 days). This will enable the district
representative and state reviewer adequate time to review existing data, coordinate with appropriate
agency personnel, and to develop appropriate protection stipulations.

Three Parameters Pius
I ~ ~~~~DOC High valuesWetlands Project
June 28, 1994 4-7

U ~~~(3) Development In Other Wetlands

Development activities are acceptable in wetlands not categorized as
"lunique" or "valuable", but only in areas where there are no practicable
upland alternatives. Development activities in such wetlands shall be
managed in such a way that:

a) The existing vegetation is preserved to the extent practicable.

b) Significant adverse impacts are avoided or minimized in areas that
serve as habitat, natural food sources, nesting places, wintering
I ~ ~~~~~places, or water sources.

c) The site plan is designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to
the existing natural topography, water sources, and trees.
d) Floodplain fills are minimized, or impacts on flood plains are calculated.

e) The development activity conforms to the existing water quality
standards-of all local, state, and federal agencies.

4.2 DRAFT DEFINITIONS

The following terms will be defined according to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and other related guidance. This is to assure uniformity and eliminate
confusion between the state and federal wetland protection efforts.
Adjacent
Alternatives Analysis
Dredged Material
Emergent
Fill Material
Wetlands.
Mitigation
Pollution
Practicable
Practicable Alternative

The following definitions are also applicable to the draft standard:

Avoid means to prevent from occurring.

3 ~~~~Aguatic means growing or living in water.

Three Parameters Pius
I ~ ~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 4-8

Aauatic SDecies means those species that grow or live in water.

Categorize means to place in a category; classify.

Classify means to arrange in classes according to a system.

Consistency means compliance with the standards of the ACMP, including the
enforceable policies of an approved district coastal program.

Consistent to the Maximum Extent Practicable means that uses, activities, and
projects directly affecting the coastal zone must be consistent with the
ACMP to the fullest degree permitted by law including approved district
programs, and federal uses, or activities (unless compliance would violate
another federal law as per 15 CFR 930.32.(a)).

Criteria means the technical basis on which a judgement or decision may be
made.

Critical Habitats are identified areas which support essential life history
requirements of fish or wildlife species. These essential areas encompass
one or more of the following: pupping, calving, colonial nesting,
spawning, rearing, wintering, migration, important feeding, and haul-out
areas; highly productive breeding and nesting areas; sites providing unique
population elements including high seasonal use and threatened or
endangered species; unique ecological systems; and areas supporting a
large population of the individuals or species of fish or wildlife population
in the region during specific seasons.

Function means the natural specialized action of a wetland.

Habitat means the natural environment of an organism; the place where it is
typically found.

Including means including but not limited to.

IntersDersion means a measure of how the wetland type is distributed in
relation to surrounding types or diversity within the wetland type.

Minimize means to select from a comprehensive review of alternatives the
option which uses the best available technology to limit or reduce impact
to the smallest amount, extent, duration, size, or degree.

Mitigate means to lessen an adverse impact or moderate its severity.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 4-9

Ranking means to assign a position to.

Regional -- currently undefined; possibly USGS Hydrological Subregions

Scarcity means of being scarce; inadequate supply.

Shall means mandatory and requires a course of action or set of conditions to
be achieved.

Should states intent for a course of action or set of conditions to be achieved
and implies that case-specific discretion may be applied for achieving the
intent of the action.

Significant Adverse Impact means an impact as indicated in AS 46.40.210(5)
of the Alaska Coastal Management Act.

Terrestrial means living on land.

Terrestrial Species means those species living on land (rather than in water).
This would include species who spend time on or in water but complete
at least part of their life cycle on land.

Value means the characteristics of a wetland which represent its worth, or in
other words an estimate, usually subjective, of the worth, merit, quality
or importance of a particular ecosystem or portion thereof.

Vegetation means all plant species in a particular region, typically consisting
of one to several plant communities.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 4--1 0

4.3 ADEC POLICY DEVELOPMENT

The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) developed
wetland policy/criteria language underthe heading "Freshwater Wetlands Pollution
Control" [Review Draft dated December 4, 1992]. ADEC indicated to 3PP that
these criteria have interagency agreement, however, all state and federal agencies
contacted by 3PP (for policy review and input) were unable to support the ADEC
language as presented.

There are many similarities between the ADEC policy and the policy presented in
Section 4.1, however. For instance, both seek protection of wildlife concentration
areas, including nesting and calving areas. Both seek protection of anadromous
fish habitats as well.

There are also significant differences between the ADEC policy and the policy
presented in Section 4.1. A few of these are discussed below.

The ADEC policy appears to restrict any development in state game refuges,
critical habitat areas, game sanctuaries, and state recreation river protection areas.
However, without supporting definitions it is difficult to determine what exactly
constitutes pollution, which triggers mandatory preservation of an area. As such,
the ADEC policy appears to preclude development of any kind in "preservation
wetlands", including parking, access, or educational facilities that might be
important to overall community development and tourism support industries.
Such a policy (if correctly interpreted by 3PP), would not meet the needs of many
coastal districts participating in this project.

The ADEC policy avoids takings disputes by exempting privately owned lands
from management assignments; except where they have the approval of private
property owners. This could allow impacts to areas that districts have indicated
need protection.

In the multiple use corridor section, the policy appears to allow fills [(c), (d)]
without a review of potential impacts. This is clearly contrary to existing federal
law and could also result in impacts to areas districts have indicated need
protection.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 4-11

4.4 ENFORCEABLE POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Adoption of an ACMP Wetlands Standard (such as the one presented in Section
4.1) would also require districts to create policies within their own local area
programs under a new "Policy" section or chapter (6 AAC 85.090) labeled
"Wetlands". Currently, the policy chapters are labeled A-L; therefore, a new
Wetlands policy section would probably be labeled M or N. For example:

N. Wetlands

1. Development projects proposed in, or that impact "unique" wetlands
within the district shall be...

2. Development projects proposed in, or that impact "valuable" wetlands
within the district shall be...

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 4--12

I ~~~~5.0 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

I ~~~Finding 1. Currently, most coastal district representatives do not have sufficient
data or staff resources to implement a wetlands protection standard
as part of their A CMP requirements.

Recommendations

H ~~~~Typically an ACMP plan must develop policies to address all "uses, activities,
habitats, and resources" listed as ACMP standards in 6 AAC 80. Because
wetlands may not be a significant issue for ail coastal districts or in all parts
of a coastal district, and because of the high costs of a major wetland
inventory effort, we recommend that if a new standard is created, that coastal
districts be given discretion to determine whether or not they will complete
inventory and other efforts to develop policies for this topic area.

In any case, the adoption of a mandatory new standard which specifically
addresses wetlands should be postponed until:

I~~~~ 1. A method of inventory and classification/categorization, which will
ultimately provide the support data necessary to validate and enforce any
proposed standard, should be prepared and tested in several regions of the
I ~ ~~~~state. As noted in Section 2.0 of this report (Preliminary Findings), any
inventory and classification method adopted should:

I *~~~~~ Be consistent with existing federal policy and regulations;

0 Consider what is a realistic level of effort for areas with limited
I ~ ~~~~~staffing and funding, or provide for a temporary increase in staff or
funding while the wetland inventory and classification work is
3 ~~~~~underway;

* Allow for the classification/categorization of wetlands into locally
relevant categories (i.e., recognize that within any coastal district
boundary not all wetlands can be higher value, even if all the wetlands
identified locally are of higher value than wetlands within an adjacent
district or locality);

* Allow for the assessment of impacts to wetlands as well as the
evaluation of mitigation options or opportunities;

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetands Project
June 28, 199451

I*Allow periodic re-evaluation of the data to assess'and document
relative value changes, especially in highly urbanized districts where
Iwetland resources are already limited; and

*Allow assessment of cumulative impacts, both positive and negative,
Ito be tracked and evaluated over time.

2. At least 50 percent of the districts have completed a resource inventory
and analysis with wetlands as a specific component of their approved
program. Comprehensive inventory and analysis of wetland functions and
values across the state's coastal districts should provide sufficient data
Ito allow the production and implementation of an enforceable wetlands
standard with appropriate flexibility to take into account important
regional and demographic differences.

3. Thresholds of significance can be determined with assistance from
resource management and protection agencies, or enforceable language
which does not require threshold data can be developed.
4. Redundancy between the proposed Wetlands Standard and the existing
Habitat Standard (or any other standards) can be eliminated.

IFinding B. Many coastal district representatives do not have access to, nor
training in, the use of many types of existing scientific data which
could contribute to their understanding of local wetland functions and
values. An understanding of these data are important if local district
representatives arg to make good decisions with regard to pending
developments in their communities, regardless of how wetlands are
addressed in the formal program guidelines.

Recommendations

The state's coastal management program should consider the preparation of
resource map sets, for distribution to each coastal district representative.
Each district representative should receive training in the proper use of the
maps at the time of distribution. A users guide should be prepared for each
I ~ ~~~regional or localized map atlas, which identifies proper and improper uses of
each type of resource map included in the atlas.

Regional map sets should be made available for public review in population
centers, statewide. It is important for potential applicants to determine, prior
to application, potential areas of concern. This allows the applicant to

address potential impacts with local resource agencies prior to application.

Three Parameters Pius
I ~ ~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 5-2

This will allow a higher degree of "predictability" in the permitting process,
and could help shorten review, coordination, and processing times.

Regional map sets should also be distributed to those DGC employees
responsible for oversight of the state's Coastal Management Program. This
will ensure both the local district and the state representatives have access
to the same baseline information, and again help ensure applicants also have
access to information that will be used in making consistency determinations.

DGC should coordinate the updating of map sets on an annual basis, providing
each district representative with replacement maps, etc. This will help ensure
that both local district and state personnel are making decisions based on the
best available data.

Finding C. Districts need additional support from the state and federal
governments in order to map and classify wetlands.

Recommendations

Sources of funding, training, and technical support should be identified by
DGC or other agency and provided to all district representatives. Coastal
district representatives would benefit from a workshop dedicated to
successful grant writing techniques for environmental projects, training in
wetland terminology and basic field observations, and statewide sources of
technical support.

Finding D. Both published and unpublished data on ethno-botanical uses of
Alaska plants are available, though many sources are difficult to
obtain and review in a timely manner. Data which are available are
not specific to wetlands (i.e., a prior understanding of which plants
occur in wetlands is necessary before the data can be used).

Recommendations

DGC, or other resource agency, should pursue an in-depth study of available
ethno-botanical and subsistence use literature. The goal of such a study
would be to prepare a summary document which identifies both common and
uncommon uses of hydrophytic vegetation (i.e. wetland dependent vegetation)
by Alaskans, and specifically identify those uses which are important
components of traditional ceremonies or practices and those uses which have
economic value to Alaska residents (such as the harvest of fibers used in
basket-making by western Alaskan villagers).

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 5-3

The study results should be cross referenced to the USFWS National List of
Wetland Indicator Species: Alaska Region. The summary document should
include a statewide list of hydrophytic species used by Alaskans as well as
more localized or regional lists (southeast Alaska, southcentral Alaska, etc.).
The commonness or rarity of all plant species identified as important to
traditional practices should also be documented in both the statewide and
regional sections of the final report.

Finding E. While many high value wetlands occur within Alaska's coastal
districts, the wetland functions which are most valued by Alaskans
are not necessarily limited to wetlands within recognized coastal
district boundaries.

Recommendation

If the identification and protection of high value wetlands is the State of
Alaska's goal, then a broader forum for implementation should eventually be
examined. A statewide policy to identify and protect high value wetlands may
be necessary to eliminate the possibility of a two-tiered standard within the
state (i.e., wetlands within coastal districts always being considered more
important than wetlands outside of coastal districts). While the protection of
coastal areas may be important to many residents, there are also important
food production and recreation areas within interior Alaska which probably
warrant similar consideration and protection measures.

In the interim, however, the development and implementation of a wetlands
standard through the state's coastal program should provide a good
foundation for progressive movement to a statewide policy. Further, by
testing such a policy within Alaska's coastal districts, the state will likely
identify specific areas of concern which should be addressed before a policy
is developed or applied statewide.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 5-4

I APPENDIX A

I QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

I
Three Parameters Plus
I ~~~~~DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994a
I

THREE PARAMETERS PLUS
COASTAL DISTRICT HIGH VALUE WETLAND
QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

Includes Input from Alaska Coastal Districts Who Responded By May 3, 1994. Approximately 40 Questionnaires Were Distributed.

Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Bristol Bay, I Western Alaska Arctic Alaska Total
Alaska Alaska Aleutians

5+ 1|3 2 12 .1 13

Southeast: Southcentral: Kodiak, Etc.: Western Alaska: Arctic Alaska:

1. Ketchikan Yakutat Bristol Bay Bethel North Slope Borough
2. Haines Valdez Kodiak Nome
3. Sitka Anchorage
4. Pelican
5. Juneau
6. Petersburg (did not return survey but forwarded some information)

Please Note: Data presented in the following pages should not be considered precise nor accurate. They provide, at best, a glimpse
into how the responding coastal district coordinators perceive wetland utilization and "values" within their districts. In
some cases, their answers may be well documented "facts", however, in most cases their answers are simply based on
local knowledge or personal perceptions. Some coordinators did not complete the survey because they were concerned
their answers would be closely scrutinized and readily accepted as fact. Where possible, 3PP combined the results by
grouping them geographically, to minimize the possibility of these data being misused in future evaluations.

The results contained in the following pages do reflect the diverse geographic and demographic characteristics found in
Alaska's many coastal districts. While it is possible that a more complete survey response would demonstrate a common
thread among the districts, the results which follow would seem to indicate a larger response would provide an even
broader spectrum of findings.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-1

Describe your district:

Characteristics Southeast Alaska Southcentral Kodiak, Bristol Western Arctic Alaska
Alaska Bay Alaska

Approximate Size (Square Miles) 8,000 8,100 60,000 70 90,000

Percent Wetlands 5-54% 10 ? - 20% 100 100
Percent Wetlands Tidally 2.5-23% 7 ? - 10% 8 1
Influenced

Percent Wetlands Freshwater 2.5-70% 3 ? - 90% 92 99
Influenced

Largest City, Town, or Village Juneau, Sitka, Anchorage Kodiak Bethel, Nome Barrow
Ketchikan, Haines Dillingham

Smallest City, Town, or Village Pelican, Yakutat Portage Creek -- Pt. Lay
Baranof Warm Springs Russian Villages

Number Cities, Towns, Villages 7 3 20 2 8
Approx. Number of Residents 54,000 250,000 20,000 9,200 6,000

Approx. Number of Seasonal 4,500 1,250 2,000 + 700 6,000
Workers

Approx. Number of Tourists 350,000+ 1,136,000 8,000 15,000 25,000

Regional Native Corporations Sealaska, Cape Fox, Cook Inlet Koniag Calista Arctic Slope
with Holdings Shee Atika Eklutna, Inc. Bristol Bay Bering Strait
Sealaska

Village Corporations with Klukwan, Eklutna, Numerous (Lists) Bethel Native 8 Village
Holdings Goldbelt, Sitka Tribe Yak- Sitnasuak Corporations
tatkwaan King Island

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-2

Characteristics ("C" = Current Use, Southeast Alaska Southcentral Kodiak, Bristol Western Arctic Alaska
"F" = Future Use) Alaska Bay Alaska

Agriculture C C
Fishing
Fin C C C C
Shell C C C F
Bottom C C C
Mariculture F C C
Mining Gravel Only C C C C
Oil/Gas C C
Timber C C
Tourism C C C C C
Transportation C C C C

National Parks (NPS) Wrangell St. Elias, Katmai Gates of
Glacier Bay, Russell Arctic
Fjords, Lake George Petroleum
Monument6 Reserve

National Refuges St. Lazaria Bird Togiak, Kodiak Yukon Delta ANWR,
Refuge Maritime, AK Noatak,
Peninsula Maritime

National Forests Tongass Tongass, Chugach

State Parks Chugach Wood-Tikchik
Shuyak Island

State Refuges Mendenhall Anchorage Coastal Walrus Island
Wetlands, Chilkat
Bald Eagle Preserve

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Steller Sea Lion, White-Fronted Spec. Eiders
Species/Habitat Bald Eagle Goose, Bald Eagle

6 This area was noted by a district, however, 3PP could find no evidence of state or federal lands with such a designation.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-3

Characteristics ("C" = Current Use, Southeast Alaska Southcentral Kodiak, Bristol Western Arctic Alaska
"F" = Future Use) Alaska Bay Alaska

Agencies ("SO" indicates a Staffed Office, "FV" indicates Frequent Visitation)

Fish & Game All except BLM All SO SO SO
Environmental Conservation SO SO FV
Natural Resources SO SO FV
Army Corps of Engineers FV FV
Bureau of Land Management SO FV
Environmental Protection Agency FV
Fish & Wildlife Service SO SO SO
Forest Service
National Marine Fisheries Service SO FV
National Park Service SO SO SO
Soil Conservation Service FV

In-House Resources (Numbers indicated are the number of respondents who had access to these resources)

Wetlands Management Plan 1, 1-In Progress 1 None Listed
COE Wetland Maps 1 1 1 1
National Wetland Inventory Maps 3 2 1
Critical Wildlife Habitat Maps 1 1 1
Anadromous Fish Stream Maps 4 2 2
Subsistence Resource Utilization Maps 1
FEMA Flood Hazard Maps 4 2 1 2
SCS Soil Mapping 1 2 2

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-4

Characteristics ("C" = Current Use, Southeast Alaska Southcentral Kodiak, Bristol Western Arctic Alaska
"F" = Future Use) Alaska Bay Alaska

Past Consistency Determinations

Involved Wetlands? 0-100% 0-100% -40% 0% 100%

Consistent With Local Guidelines? 100% 100% All 0% 97%

Consistent With State Guidelines? 100% 100% All 0% --

Controversial Projects Involving 3 10 3 0 10
Wetlands?

13. A list of high value criteria for wetlands will help me to do a better job in making consistency determinations, but only if:

1. Based on current state and federal guidelines.
2. Doesn't hinder development.
3. High value is defined. Policy or uses are also outlined.
4. Involves human factors, don't think it can be done on a statewide basis.
5. They are tailored geographically to clarify regional differences and include sensitive species (wildlife and plants) on a
regional scale and not just the Federal TIE lists. State Statutes should clearly indicate parameters for development,
protection, and standards.
6. There is more help in education and enforcement.
7. It was accompanied by a map which delineated wetlands and classified wetlands by their functions and values.
8. High value should be what the people of an individual town want.
9. It is specific and provides alternatives rather than strict non-development status. The local community/CZD must have
some flexibility for decision-making.

Conversely, such a list could make my job harder if:

1 . The list is more stringent than existing state and federal guidelines.
2. Does hinder development and has no flexibility.
3. It does not take into account the specific needs of my district.
4. There isn't a mechanism to resolve conflicts between the criteria and other rules, such as city codes.
5. COE continues it's no enforcement approach.
6. Areas which are needed for public/city facilities are designated for preservation.

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-5

14. An enforceable policy protecting high value wetlands will help me to do a better job making consistency determinations, but only
if:

1 . The policy is attached to state and federal enforcement.
2. Does not hinder development.
3. It is incorporated into state standards and into each local program, includes flexibility for exemptions and for takings
issues.
4. There are accurate maps defining where high value wetlands are. A GIS would be most useful.
5. Enforcement if performed by a non-local agency.
6. Identifies uses to be protected.
7. The criteria for identifying high value wetlands are understandable by the average person and if it is made available to
the district.
8. It is specific and provides alternatives rather than strict non-development status. The local community/CZD must have
some flexibility for decision-making.

Conversely, such a policy could make my job harder if:

I1. Required hired staff.
2. Placed all economic use of private property out of bounds, and required local districts to make such determinations.
3. Does hinder development.
4. Outlines specific uses to be protected.
5. There is no local support or input into the policy.
6. Enforcement if performed by a local agency.

15. What uses do residents make of wetlands within your district now?

Everything, from residential to institutional to industrial.
Recreation (Active and Passive) Viewing
Hunting Clamming
Fishing Flood Drainage, Storm water run-off
Subsistence (Major and Minor)

16. What uses of wetlands do residents want to insure receive the highest level of protection?

Fish (most frequently salmon, fishing & subsistence) Wildlife Resources (Hunting)
Recreation (Active), Viewing Subsistence (Habitat)
Flood Control, Water Quality House Construction, Dredge from harbor

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 A-6

FLOOD CONTROL

Flood Control Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

The residents and industry of my district are located:

Active Flood Hazard Area (%) 0-20% 1-5% 15% 1% -8.2
Occasional Flood Hazard Area (%) 1-10% 25% 20% 5% 12.0
Away from Flood Hazard Area (%) 0-99% 70-99% 65% 94% 71.4

Flood hazards in my district include:

Storm Wave (tidal influenced) 30% 45% 50% 50% 100% 55.0
Ice Dams/Break-up Flooding 10% 50% 12.0
Major Precipitation Events 30% 45% 50% 25.0

Flooding /_ is _ is not/ a major problem for the residents of my district.

Is a problem 20% 33% 100% 100% 50.6
Isnota problem 80% 66% 100% 49.2

WATER QUALITY

Water Quality Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western | Arctic | Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

The residents of my district get their drinking water from: (Many respondents indicated multiple sources with no percentages)

Community or Private Wells (%) 0-98% 75% 55% 12% 24-48.0
Surface Water/Rain/Snow 1%) 0-100% 40% 88% 23-45.6
Filtered/Treated Water Systems (%) 0-100% 25% 5% 100% 23-46.0

Drinking water availability / is _ is not/ a major problem for the residents of my district.

Is a problem 33% 50% 100% 36.6
Is not a problem 100% 66% 100% 50% 63.2

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 A-7

Water Quality, Industrial Influences Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

The rural or largely unpopulated areas within my district are:

Clearcut (%) 0-25% 5.0
Farmed or Ranched (%)
Mined (Placer or Hard-rock) (%) 0-2%
Oil/Gas Production (%) 1%
Undeveloped (%) 98-100% 65-99% 100% 75% 99% 95%

Drinking water quality / is is not/ a major problem for the residents of my district.

Is a problem 33% 100% 26.6
Is not a problem 100% 66% 100% 100% 73.2

Water Quality: Permafrost Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

Mostly, the wetlands in my district:

Occur over continuous permafrost (%) 100% 100% 40%
Occur over discontinuous permafrost (%)
Do not occur over permafrost (%) 100% 100% 50% 50%

The disturbance of permafrost I has has not/ created major problems for the residents of my district (erosion, stability,
water quality).

Is a problem 100% 20%
Is not a problem 100% 100% 50% 100% 70%

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-8

! m m mm mm Immm m MM

FISH RESOURCES

Fish Habitat, Species Diversity Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Bristol Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bay Alaska Alaska

Generally speaking, the freshwater wetlands and waters in my district provide significant spawning, rearing, or overwintering
habitat for anadromous or freshwater species.

3 or less Species 20% 50% 100% 34.0
4- 7 Species 20% 100% 50% 34.0
> 7 Species 40% 50% 18.0

Generally speaking, the tidally influenced wetlands and waters in my district provide significant habitat for __ species of shell or
bottom fish resources.

3 or less Species 40% 33% 50% 100% 44.6
4 - 7 Species 20% 66% 17.6
> 7 Species 20% 100% 24.0

In my district, if a loss of aquatic habitat resulted in a significant reduction in fish resources, that loss would most affect /_ the
commercial fishing industry, the subsistence-dependent residents, or both commercial and subsistence, equally/.

Commercial 20% 33% 10.0
Subsistence 50% 100% 30.0
Both, Equally 80% 33% 100% 42.6

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-9

Fish Resources, Threshold Limits Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Alaska Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of anadromous fish
resources in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 60% 33% 100% 38.6
5-10% = Significant Loss
10-25% = Significant Loss 40% 8.0
> 25% = Significant Loss 33% 6.6

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of freshwater fish
resources (trout, shee fish, etc.) in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 60% 33% 100% 38.6
5-10% = Significant Loss
10-25% = Significant Loss 40% 8.0
> 25% = Significant Loss 33% 6.6

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of shell fish
resources (crab, clams, abalone, etc.) in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 60% 33% 100% 38.6
5-10% = Significant Loss
10-25% = Significant Loss 40% 6.6
> 25% = Significant Loss

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of bottom fish
resources (halibut, black cod, etc.) in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 60% 33% 100% 38.6
5-10% = Significant Loss 20% 4.0
10-25% = Significant Loss 20% 4.0
> 25% = Significant Loss

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-10

Fish Habitat, Mitigation Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

If a significant amount of aquatic habitat were to be impacted would you want to see mitigation in the form of 1.
enhancement of remaining habitats or 2. creation of new habitat or 3. Neither.

1. Enhancement 60% 33% 50% 28.6
2. Creation 33% 7.0
3. Neither 40% 100% 28.0

If an insignificant amount of aquatic habitat were impacted would you want to see mitigation in the form of 1. enhancement
of remaining habitats or 2. creation of new habitat or 3. Neither.

1. Enhancement 20% 33% 10.0
2. Creation 33% 7.0
3. Neither 60% 50% 100% 42.0

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-1 1

Fish Resources, Conflicts Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

In addition to commercial or subsistence fisheries, my district is under increasing pressure by recreational fishing and harvesting
activities.

True 100% 66% 100% 100% 73.2

False 100% 20.0

Fish resources in (all, most. some) of my district are heavily utilized by fishing guides, residents, and tourists.

True 100% 66% 100% 100% 73.2

False 100% 20.0

The loss of even small amounts of aquatic habitat, because of the potential reduction of fish resources, creates major controversy
within (all. most. some) of my district.

True 60% 66% 100% 45.2

False 40% 100% 100% 48.0

There are ongoing disputes regarding fish resource allocations (subsistence, commercial, sport) within (most. a few areas) of my
district.

True |100% 33% 100% 50% 56.6

False 33% 50% 100% 36.6

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-12

VEGETATION RESOURCES

Vegetation Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

Generally, the wetlands in my district include the following broad types.

Muskegs, Tundra, or Moist Meadows 5-20% 8-25% 30% 75% 95% 49.0
Bogs, Fens, or Wet Meadows 5-15% 0-10% 3% 5.6
Riparian, Tall or Short Scrub-Shrub 5-10% 9-15% 15% 8.0
Forested (Broadleaf or Needleleaf) 20-30% 18-40% 20% 18.0
Estuarine 15-50% 20-40% 15% 21.0
Ponds, Lakes, Open Water 5-20% 5% 17% 25% 5% 14.4

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-13
A-1 3

WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Wildlife Habitat |Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

Generally speaking, the freshwater wetlands and waters in my district provide habitat for:

<5 Waterfowl Species 20% 4.0
>5 Waterfowl Species 20% 66% 50% 100% 47.2
<5 Furbearing Species 20% 33% 10.0
>5 Furbearing Species 20% 33% 50% 100% 40.6

Generally speaking, the tidally influenced wetlands and waters in my district:

<5 Waterfowl Species 20% 4.0
>5 Waterfowl Species 20% 33% 50% 100% 40.6
<5 Seabird Species 20% 33% 10.0
>5 Seabird Species 20% 50% 100% 34.0

In my district, if a loss of terrestrial habitat resulted in a significant reduction in wildlife resources, that loss would most affect:

Consumptive Users 33% 50% 100% 36.6
Non-Consumptive Users 33% 6.0
Both, Equally 80% 50% 26.0

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-14

Wildlife Resources, Threshold Limits Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of waterfowl
resources in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 20% 33% 100% 30
5-10% = Significant Loss 20% 4.0
10-25% = Significant Loss 33% 7.0
> 25% = Significant Loss 40% 8.0

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of furbearer
resources (beaver, muskrat, mink, otter, etc.) in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 33% 100% 26.6
5-10% = Significant Loss 20% 4.0
10-25% = Significant Loss
> 25% = Significant Loss 60% 33% 18.6

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of small mammal
resources (squirrel, rabbits, etc.) in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 33% 100% 26.6
5-10% = Significant Loss
10-25% = Significant Loss
> 25% = Significant Loss 60% 33% 18.6

Based on your experience in dealing with local residents and industry, what would constitute a significant loss of large mammal
resources (caribou, moose, deer, bear, etc.) in your district (0-100 percent)?

0- 5% = Significant Loss 33% 100% 26.6
5-10% = Significant Loss 20% 4.0
10-25% = Significant Loss 60% 33% 18.6
> 25% = Significant Loss

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28. 1994 A-15

//-- ---/ - ///I/IIm/mm /�

RECREATION

Recreation Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

Common recreational wetland use by residents (denote by an "R") and visitors (denote by a "V") in my district include:

Hiking/Beachcombing RV RV RV RV RV RV
Hunting RV RV RV RV R RV
Fishing RV RV RV RV R RV
Clamming R R R R R
Egg Collecting R R R R R
Berry Picking R R R R RV R
Picnicking RV RV R R R RV
Wildlife Viewing RV RV RV RV V RV

The most popular kind of wetlands used for recreation in my district are:

Muskegs 1,1,2 2 1,2 1
Tundra 1,2 1 2
Estuaries 1,1,1,2 1 1
Forests 2,2,2 2
Riparian 2 2
Ponds, Lakes 1 1 2 2

How far do people travel from towns or villages within your district to recreate in wetland areas?

Less than 1/4 mile 100% >
Between 1/4 and 1 mile 1 mile
Greater than 1 mile 50% 0-200
More than 10 miles 100% 33% 0-150 miles miles

How do they travel?

ATV All All ATV All All
Boats Boat
Cars/Trucks Planes 50%
Walk

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-16

FOOD PRODUCTION (SUBSISTENCE USE ONLY)

Food Production Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering activities, which take place in local wetlands are:

Critical to Most Residents 33% 50% 100% 37.6
Important to Most Residents 80% 50% 26.0
Enjoyed by a Few Residents 20% 33% 50% (City) 20.6

Of those residents in my district who rely on subsistence resources, what percent utilize local wetlands for:

Hunting 10-50% 100% 0-28% 35% 100% 62.6
Fishing 5-80% 100% 0-63% 75% 100% 83.6
Trapping 1% 30% 0-6% 17% 100% 30.8
Egg Collecting 1-20% 50% 1% 5% 15.2
Berry Picking 20-40% 100% 0-5% 50% 10% 41.0
Greens 5-50% 30% 0-2% 10% 4.0
Mushrooms 1-10% 75% - 17.0
Fibers/Grasses 0-1 % 30% 0-3% - 6.8

How much time do these residents spend in subsistence related activities in wetlands?

<30 Days/Year
>30 Days/Year 20% 100% 1 00% 44%

How do they travel to these wetlands?

Boats/Planes All All --- All All All
ATV
Cars/Trucks
Walk/Bike

I__ enough about the key subsistence use areas and practices within my district's wetlands to make good decisions about
potential impacts to subsistence resources.

Know 20% 100% 24.0
Do Not Know 80% 66% 50% 100% 59.2

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-17

AESTHETICS

Aesthetics |Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

The disturbance or filling of tidally influenced wetlands in my district would have a major impact on the tourism industry (cruise
ships, flight-seeing, etc.).

1. True 20% 66% 17.2
2. False 60% 100% 32.0

The disturbance or filling of tidally influenced wetlands in my district would be controversial among most local residents.

1. True |20% |66% l l| 0 17.2
2. False 100% 20.0

The disturbance or filling of inland wetlands in my district would have a major impact on the tourism industry (flight-seeing,
remote lodges, etc.).

1. True 20% I 4.0
2. False 40% 33% 50% 100% 44.0

The disturbance or filling of inland wetlands in my district would be controversial among most local residents.

1. True 40% 66% 21.2
2. False 20% 50% 100% 34.0

There are some vistas within my district that include world class views and should be preserved. [If true: These vistas
/ do, do not/ include wetlands.]

1. True (Do or Not Answered) 80% 66% 29.2
2. True (Do Not) 33% 7.0
3. False 50% 100% 30.0

Most of the vistas within my district are not uncommon for Alaska and my region.

1. True |40% |33% ||50% 100% 44.6
2. False 40% 66% 21.0

Three Parameters Plus
DGC High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-1 8

MEDICINAL OR OTHER CULTURAL VALUES

Other Cultural Values Southeast Southcentral Kodiak, Western Arctic Total
Alaska Alaska Bristol Bay Alaska Alaska

Wetland plants, animals, or other resources are very important to (some, most, all) residents of my district because, in addition
to providing food, they are important components of traditional practices or ceremonies.

Some 60% 33% 100% 50% 100% 68.6
Most 20% 4.0
All

Please list any specific cultural uses (other than food) you are aware of. For example, note if villagers use a specific tree bark to
make tea, collect certain reeds or grasses to make baskets, furs for clothing, etc.

1. Yanahey (medicinal) II33% Numerous INumerous----
2. Spruce Roots for Baskets 20% (List) (List)

Three Parameters Plus
DGc High Value Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994 A-1 9

I APPENDIX B

I BIBLIOGRAPHY

I
Three Parameters Plus
I DOC High Value, Wetlands Project
June 28, 1994a
I

Literature Search for
Alaska Coastal Management Program
Section 309 Project:

Program to Identify and Protect
High Value Wetlands in Alaska

Division of Governmental Coordination
Alaska Office of the Governor

April 1994

Financial assistance for this study was pro vided by the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic andA tmospheric Administration, U. C. Department of
Commerce.

I ~~~~~~~CONTENTS

Introduction

U ~~Overview....................... 1

Organization.......................2

Bibliography

Wetland values/functions references with general
I ~~~~or nationwide application.................3
Wetland values/functions references specific to Alaska ........11

Wetlands-related annotated bibliographies.............14

I ~~Fisheries-related references specific to Alaska ...........16

Mammal-related references, specific to Alaska and where
I ~~~relevant, other regions..................19

Avian-related references, specific to Alaska and where
I ~~~relevant, other regions..................23

Tourism-related references, including non-consumptive
I ~~~wildlife utilization....................29

Wetland vegetation/ecology references with general or
I ~~~~nationwide application..................30

Wetland ethno-botanical references, specific to Alaska ........33

This document was prepared by:

Division of Governmental Coordination
Alaska Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
(907) 465-3562

IINTRODUCTION

This report is part of a project funded under the authority of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (Section 309, PL 101 -508, November 5, 1990). The purpose of the
project is to develop specific regulatory guidance to identify and protect high value
wetlands. The initial information gathering stage of this project involved an extensive
review of wetlands literature and development of a bibliography of publications
addressing wetlands values and valuation. The resulting bibliography follows this
Iintroduction.

Overview

I ~The subject of wetlands is extremely complex and the volume of literature is
tremendous. Wetlands management is complex both socially and scientifically.
Socially, because the inherent conflict between use and preservation requires value
judgements concerning appropriate use of wetlands. Scientifically, because of the
inherent complexity and interdependency of natural ecosystems, as well as the
magnitude and variety of wetland environments.

Despite twenty years of intense scientific scrutiny and policy debate, there remain
significant disagreements over classification systems, assessment methods, and
management decisions. The same questions have been asked over and over again,
and casual use of simple sounding terms have often lead to confusion rather than
clarity.

Until quite recently, the terms "function" and "value" were used interchangeably or
in tandem in wetlands literature. Recently, however, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has decided to separate the two terms. Functions, after all, can be
assessed objectively, while values (by definition) are subjective. The word "value" is
Ifurther complicated by it's relation to monetary assessment, which can also be a
consideration when formally evaluating wetlands and other land types for land
exchanges or appraisals. The Corps is now developing a new hydrogeomorphic
wetlands classification system intended to facilitate data collection, functional
understanding, value assessment, and practical decision making.

IUnfortunately, most publications prior to 1993 (as well as some more recent
publications) did not consistently differentiate between the two terms, so this
bibliography covers both functions and values. Because of the tremendous volume
of literature on the subject, the greatest challenge was deciding how to organize the
references in a reasonably useful format. Some literature, while not specifically linked
to wetland studies, include important information about habitat utilization. These are

included in subcategories by species.

B-i

Organization

This bibliography is organized into nine sections.

� Wetland values/functions references with general or nationwide
application.

� Wetland values/functions references specific to Alaska.

� Wetlands-related annotated bibliographies.

� Fisheries-related references, most specific to Alaska, but where relevant,
other regions.

a Mammal-related references, most specific to Alaska, but where relevant,
other regions.

Avian-related references, most specific to Alaska, but where relevant,
other regions.

Recreation/Tourism-related references, including non-consumptive
wildlife utilization.

Wetland vegetation/ecology references, most with general or nationwide
application.

Wetland ethno-botanical references, most specific to Alaska.

B-2

WETLANDS VALUES/FUNCTIONS REFERENCES WITH GENERAL OR NATIONWIDE
APPLICATION

Adamus, P.R. 1983. A method of wetland functional assessment; Volume I. Report FHWA-
IP-82-23, Office of Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET); Vol. II: Methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report Y-87.

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), Vol. I: Literature Review and Evaluation
Rationale. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Technical Report WRP-DE-2.

Amman, A.P. and Stone, A.L. 1991. Method for the comparative evaluation of non-tidal
wetlands in New Hampshire. Bulletin No. 9, Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection.

Association of State Wetland Managers, 1992. State Perspectives on Wetland Classification
(Categorization) for Regulating Purposes. Proceedings of a national workshop. March 25,
1992.

Baca, B.J., and J.R. Clark. 1988. Coastal Management Practices for Prevention of Future
Impacts on Wetlands. In: D.D. Hook, et al (ed.). The Ecology and Management of
Wetlands, Vol. 2: Management, Use and Value of Wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Bardecki, M.J. 1984. What Value Wetlands? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol.
39:166-169.

Barnes, M. and C Rushmore. 1991. Columbia River Estuary Regional Wetland Management
Planning Framework. National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute for
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, Washington, D.C.

Batie, S.S. and L.A. Shabman. 1982. Estimating the Economic Value of Wetlands: Principles,
Methods, and Limitations. Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 10(3):255-278.

Beauvis, T.W. 1984. Evaluating Wetlands in Federal Land Exchanges. Wetlands, Vol. 4,
1984.

Bedford, B.L. and E.M. Preston. 1988. Developing the Scientific Basis for Assessing
Cumulative Effects of Wetland Loss and Degradation on Landscape Functions: Status,
Perspectives, and Prospects. Environmental Management, Vol. 12(5):751-775.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-3

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.

1993. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients.
Wetlands 13: 65-74.

Brown, T.C. 1984. The Concept of Value in Resource Allocation. Land Economics, Vol.
60:231-246.

Brown, Ralph J. and Jerome M. Schmitz. 1978. Appraising Wetland Easements. Appraisal
Journal. April, 1978, pp. 176.

Burke, David, et al. 1988. Protecting Nontidal Wetlands. American Planning Association,
Chicago.

Canadian-Committee on Ecological Land Classification, National Wetlands Working Group.
1987. The Canadian wetland classification system. Ecological Land Classification Series
No. 21, Land Conservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Toronto.

Carter, V., M.S. Bedinger, R.P. Novitzki, and W.O. Wilen. 1978. Water resources and
wetlands. Pages 344-376 In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. Proc. Natl. Symp. on Wetlands. Am. Water Resources Assoc.,
Minneapolis, MN.

Clark,J.R. and J. Clark (eds.). 1978. Scientists' Report, the National Symposium on
Wetlands, November 6-9, 1978. National Wetlands Technical Council, Washington, D.C.

Collins, J.N. 1985. Wetland Hydrology and Functional Assessment: A Pacific Coast Regional
Perspective. Workshop proceedings of Pacific Regional Wetland Functions. National
Wetlands Technical Council, Mill Valley, CA.

Costanza, R., and Sklar, F.H. 1985. Articulation, accuracy, and effectiveness of
mathematical models: A review of freshwater wetland applications. Ecological Modelling
27: 45-67.

Cowardin, L. M. 1982. Some conceptual and semantic problems in wetland classification
and inventory. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10:57-60.

Cowardin, L. M., D. S. Gilmer, and L. M. Mechlin. 1981. Characteristics of central North
Dakota wetlands determined from sample aerial photographs and ground study. Wildl.
Soc. Bull. 9:280-288.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C. Report No. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-4

Cowardin, L. M., and V. I. Myers. 1974. Remote sensing for identification and classification
of wetland vegetation. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:308-314.

Darnell, R.M., W.E. Pequegnat, B.M. James, F.J. Benson, and R. Defenbaugh. 1976. Impacts
of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR. Report No. EPA-600/3-76-045.

Detenbeck, N.E. and C.A. Johnson, D.A. Taylor, A. Lima, C. Hagley, and S. Bamford. 1991.
Effects of Disturbance on Water-Quality Functions of Wetlands. Final Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.

Dyer, P. (ed.). 1987. Northwest Wetlands: What are They? For Whom? For What?
Conference Proceedings. University of Washington, Institute for Environmental Studies,
Seattle, WA.

Dougherty, S.T. 1989. Evaluation of the applicability of the Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET) to high elevation wetlands in Colorado. Wetlands Concerns and Successes;
Proceedings, American Water Resources Association Symposium. D.W. Fisk, editor, 41 5-
427.

Eargle, M.F. 1991. WET-Its Efficacy in Wetland Functional Assessment. In: H.S. Bolton
(ed.). Coastal Wetlands. Coastal Zone '91. American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY.

Environmental Defense Fund and World Wildlife Fund. 1992. How Wet is a Wetland? The
Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to the Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Farber, S. and R. Costanza. 1987. The Economic Value of Wetlands Systems. Journal of
Environmental Management, 24:41-51.

Finlayson, M. and M. Moser. 1991. Wetlands. International Waterfowl and Wetlands
Research Bureau.

Foster, J.H. 1978. Measuring the Social Value of Wetland Benefits. In: The National
Symposium on Wetlands, Lake Vista, FL. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Fried, E. 1974. Priority Rating of Wetlands for Acquisition. In: Transactions of the Northeast
Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol. 31:15-30.

Galloway, G.E. 1978. Assessing Man's Impact on Wetlands. University of North Carolina
Sea Grant, Raleigh, N.C. Sea Grant Publication Numbers UNC-SG-78-17 and UNC-WRRI-
78-136.

Glooschenko, V. 1983. Development of an Evaluation System for Wetlands in Southern
Ontario. Wetlands, Vol. 3, 1983.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-5

Golet, F.C. 1973. Criteria for Identification of Outstanding Wetlands. University of Rhode
Island. Ph.D. Thesis.

Golet, F.C., and Larson, J.S. 1974. Classification of freshwater wetlands in the glaciated
Northeast. Resource Publication 116, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Gooselink, James G. and William J. Mitsch. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.

Gosselink, J.G., and R.E. Turner. 1978. The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland
ecosystems. Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential.
R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson, eds., Academic Press, New York, 63-78.

Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.). 1979. Wetland Functions and Values: The
State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Report No. TPS79-2.

Gucinski, H. 1978. A Note on the Relation of Size to Ecological Value of Some Wetlands.
Estuaries, Vol. 1(3):151-156.

Gupta, T.R. and J.H. Foster. 1973. Evaluation of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Freshwater
Wetlands in Massachusetts. Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Council, Vol.
2(2):262-273.

Hemond, H.F. and J. Benoit. 1988. Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality Functions of
Wetlands. Environmental Management, 12:639-653.

Henderson, J.E. 1993. A Conceptual Plan for Assessing Wetland Economic Values. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical
Report (in preparation).

Hollands, G.G. 1986. Assessing the relationship of groundwater and wetlands. Proceedings
of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium. In: J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (eds.).
Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium. Association of State
Wetland Managers, Chester, VT. ASWM Technical Report 1.

Hollands, G.G. and D.W. McGee. 1986. A Method for Assessing the Functions of Wetlands.
In: J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (eds.). Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment
Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers, Chester, VT. ASWM Technical
Report 1.

Horwitz, E.L. 1978. Our Nation's Wetlands - An Interagency Task Force Report. CEQ,
USDA, COE, NMFS, EPA, F&WS.

Hvenegaard, G.T., J.R. Butler, and D.K. Krystofiak. 1989. Economic Values of Bird Watching
at Point Pelee National Park, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17 (4): 526-531.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-6

Hyman, E.L. and B. Stiftel. 1988. Combining Facts and Values in Environmental Impact
Assessment: Theories and Techniques. Social Impact Assessment Series. Westview
Press. Boulder, CO.

Jeglum, J., et al. 1974. Toward a Wetland Classification for Ontario. Canada Forest
Service, Sault Ste. Marie. Ontario Information Report O-X-215, 54 pages.

Kusler, Jon A. 1980. Regulating Sensitive Lands. The Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, D.C.

Kusler, J.A. and P. Riexinger (eds.). 1986. Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment
Symposium, June 17-20, 1985. Association of State Wetland Managers.

Larson, J.S. 1981. Wetland value assessment - state of the art. National Wetlands
Newsletter 3(2): 4-8.

Leitch, J.A. 1983. Progress, Problems, and Prospects for Successful Economic Valuation of
Wetlands. Wetlands, Vol. 3, 1983.

Leitch, J.A. and B.L. Ekstrom. 1989. Wetland Economics and Assessment, an Annotated
Bibliography. Garland Pub. New York, New York.

Leibowitz, S.G., E.M. Preston, L.Y. Arnaut, N.E. Detenbeck, C.A. Hagley, M.E. Kentula, R.K.
Olson, W.D. Sanville, R.R. Sumner. 1992. Wetlands Research Plan FY92-96: An
Integrated Risk-Based Approach. J.P. Baker (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Report No. EPA 600-R-92-060.

Lonard, R.I. and E.J. Clairain. 1986. Identification of Methodologies for the Assessment of
Wetland Functions and Values. In: Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment
Symposium. Association of State Wetland Managers.

Lonard, R.I., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.T. Huffman, J.W. Hardy, L.D. Brown, P.E. Ballard, and J.W.
Watts. 1981. Analysis of Methodologies Used for the Assessment of Wetland Values.
U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C.

Lugo, A.E. and M.M. Brinson. 1979. Calculations of the Value of Salt Water Wetlands. In:
P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.). Wetland Functions and Values: The State
of Our Understanding. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands. American
Water Resources Association. Minneapolis, MN.

Marble, A.D. and M. Gross. 1984. A Method for Assessing Wetland Characteristics and
Values. Landscape Planning, 2:1-17.

Martz, M. 1993. Wetland Policy Change: Does Change Mean Learning? University of
Washington, School of Marine Affairs, Seattle, WA. MS Thesis.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-7

Messman, L., R. Reppert, E. Stakhir. 1977. Wetland Values: Interim Assessment and
Evaluation Methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources,
Fort Belvoir, VA.

Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method. Resources for the Future.

Morris, J. 1987. Evaluating the Wetland Resource. Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 24:147-156.

National Wetland Technical Council. 1985. Pacific Regional Wetland Functions. Proceedings
of a Workshop Held at Mill Valley, April 14-16, 1985. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation. U.S.
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Publication No. OTA-0-206.

Onuf, C.P. and M.L. Quammen. 1985. Coastal and Riparian Wetland of the Pacific Region:
State of Knowledge About Food Chain Support. In: Workshop proceedings of Pacific
Regional Wetland Functions. National Wetlands Technical Council, Mill Valley, CA.

Oregon Division of State Lands and Oregon State Parks and Recreation Division. 1989.
Oregon Wetlands Priority Plan. State Land Board, Salem, OR.

Preston, E.M. and B.L. Bedford. 1988. Evaluating Cumulative Effects on Wetland Functions:
A Conceptual Overview and Generic Framework. Environmental Management, 12(5):565-
583.

Preston, F.W. 1948. The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology 29: 254-283.

Redelfs, A.E. 1980. Wetlands Values and Losses in the United States. Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, OK. MS Thesis.

Reppert, R.T., W.R. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C.D. Meyer. 1979. Wetland Values:
Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute
for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. Research Report IWR-79-R1.

Richardson, C.J. 1994. Ecological Functions and Human Values in Wetlands: A Framework
for Assessing Forestry Impacts. Wetlands, Vol. 14 (1): 1-9.

1989. Freshwater wetlands: tranformers, filters, or sinks? pp. 25-46. In:
Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife, 1989. DOE Symposium Series No. 61.

Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An Overview of Major Wetlands Functions and Values.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy and Land Use Team, Fort Collins, CO.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Report No. FWS/OBS-84/18.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-8

Sather, J.H. and P.R. Stuber (technical coordinators). 1984. Proceedings of the National
Wetland Values Assessment Workshop. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy
and Land Use Team, Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.,
Report No. FWS/OBS-84/12.

Sather, J.H. and P.R. Stuber. 1984. Research Gaps in Assessing Wetlands Functions. In:
Transactions of the Wildlife Management Institute's North American Wildlife and Natural
Resource Conference, Vol. 49:304-311.

Semeniuk, C.A. 1987. Wetlands of the Darling system: A geomorphic approach to habitat
classification. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia. 69: 95-112.

Shabman, L.A. and S.S. Batie. 1978. Economic value of natural coastal wetlands: A
critique. Coastal Zone Management Journal 4: 231-247.

Siden, J.A. and A.C. Worrell. 1979. Unpriced Values: Decisions Without Market Prices.
John Wiley, New York, New York.

Smardon, R.C. 1983. State of the Art in Assessing Visual-Cultural Values, the Future of
Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values. Allenheld, Osmun and Co. Publishers, Inc.,
Totowa, New Jersey.

Smith, R.D. 1993. A Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Functions of Wetlands. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical
Report WRP-DE-3.

Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1979. Analysis of Selected
Functional Characteristics of Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Research Center.
Contract No. DACW73-78-R-0017.

Strickland, R. (ed.). 1986. Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific
Northwest. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

Theberge, L. and D.F. Boesch. 1978. Values and Management Strategies for Nonvegetated
Tidal Wetlands. Virginia Institute of Marine Science for Virginia Coastal Resources
Management Program. Special Scientific Report No. 90.

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Habitat Resources, Newton
Corner, MA. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Turner, K. 1991. Economics and wetland management. AMBIO 20: 59-62.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Protecting Coastal and Wetland Resources:
A Guide for Local Governments. Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Industrial Economics,
Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Report
No. EPA 842-R-92-002.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands:
National Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Washington, D.C. Report No. EPA-440-S-90-011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Technical Report: Literature Review of
Wetland Evaluation Methodologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Division, Region 5, Chicago, IL.

U.S. House of Represenatives, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 1988. Coastal
Waters in Jeopardy: Reversing the Decline and Protecting America's Coastal Resources.
December, 1988.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Manual. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Human Use and Economic Evaluation. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, D.C.

Verry, E.S., and D.H. Boelter. 1978. Peatland Hydrology. Pages 389-402 In: Wetland
Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Proc. Natl. Symp. on Wetlands.
Am. Water Resources Assoc., Minneapolis, MN.

Washington Department of Ecology. 1991. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for
Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No.
91-57.

Whitehead, J.C. 1990. Measuring Willingness-to-Pay for Wetlands Preservation with the
Contingent Valuation Method. Wetlands, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1990.

Wilcox, D.A. 1989. Making Wetlands Responsive and Responsible. Editorial in Wetlands,
Vol. 9, No. 2, 1989.

Williams, J.D. and C.K. Todd Jr. 1979. Importance of Wetlands to Endangered and
Threatened Species. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.). Wetland
Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources
Association. Minneapolis, MN.

World Wildlife Fund. 1992. Statewide Wetland Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and
Managing the Resource. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Zinn, J.A., and C. Copeland. 1982. Wetland Management. Congr. Res. Serv. Rep., Ser. 97-
11. 149 pp.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-10

WETLANDS VALUES/FUNCTIONS REFERENCES SPECIFIC TO ALASKA

Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. 1987. Juneau Wetlands: Functions and Values. City
and Borough of Juneau, Department of Community Development, Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1981. Wetlands Habitat Investigations in Sitka Sound.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division.

Allen, Hollis H. 1978. Role of Wetland Plants in Erosion Control of Riparian Shorelines. In:
Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, American Water
Resources Association.

Boto, K.G., and Patrick, William H. 1978. Role of Wetlands in the Removal of Suspended
Sediments. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding,
American Water Resources Association.

British Petroleum (BP) Exploration. 1989. Alaska Wetlands and Energy Development. BP
Exploration, P.O. Box 196612, Anchorage, Alaska. March, 1989.

Cederstrom, D.J., et al. 1964. Geology and groundwater resources of the Anchorage Area,
Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Supply Paper 1773.

City and Borough of Juneau. 1981. Juneau Wetlands Management Plan Concept Approved
Draft. Community Development Department, City and Borough of Juneau.

City and Borough of Juneau. 1989. Juneau Wetlands Management Plan Public Hearing Draft.
Community Development Department, City and Borough of Juneau.

City of Bethel. 1982. Bethel Wetlands Study. Environmental Science and Engineering for
the City of Bethel.

Dames & Moore. 1982. How to Get Your Corps Permit for Projects In/Near Alaska's Waters
and Wetlands. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation.

Ellanna, L.J. and P.C. Wheeler. 1989. Wetlands and Subsistence-Based Economies in Alaska,
U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 21(4):329-340.

Ertec NW, Inc. 1982. Wetlands Manual. Municipality of Anchorage.

Ford, J. and B.L. Bedford. 1987. The Hydrology of Alaskan Wetlands, U.S.A.: A Review.
Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 19(3):209-229.

Jorgenson, M.T. and E.E. Berg. 1987. Wetlands of Homer: Final Report. Alaska Biological
Research, Inc. for City of Homer.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-l 1

Kyle, A.D. 1982. Local Planning for Wetlands Management - A Manual for Districts in the
Alaska CatlManagement Program. Office of the Governor, Alaska Office of Coastal
Management, Division of Policy Development and Planning. March, 1 982.

Land Design North. 1981. Girdwood Coastal Wetlands. By Land Design North for the
Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.

Markon, C.J. 1980. Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Mapping Along the Alaska Natural Gas
Pipeline System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

Meehan, R. and T.W. Jennings. 1 988. Characterization and Value Ranking of Waterbird
Habitat on the Colville River Delta, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Municipality of Anchorage. 1980. Anchorage Wetlands Study. By Resource Analysts for the
Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.
___ 1982. Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan. Municipality of Anchorage,
Planning Department, Anchorage, Alaska.
___ 1982. Field Guide to Anchorage Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.

____ 1 982. Point Campbell-Point Woronzof Wetlands Master Plan. Municipality of
Anchorage, Planning Department, Anchorage, Alaska.

____* 1 982. Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan Responsiveness Training.
Municipality of Anchorage, Planning Department, Anchorage, Alaska.

___1989. Preliminary Feasibility of Mitigation Goals for Selected Wetlands in the
Municipality of Anchorage. By Resource Analysts for the Municipality of Anchorage,
Alaska.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1983. Wetland Use and Regulation: Alaska Case Study.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
Schempf, J.H. 1 992. Wetland Classification, Inventory, and Assessment Methods: An
Alaska Guide to their Fish and Wildlife Application. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Habitat Division, Juneau, AK.

Tobish, T. 1 992. Anchorage Wetlands Assessment Methodology Packet. Memorandum to
Resource Agency Reviewer. April 21, 1992. Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, AK.

Trustees for Alaska, 1986. A Guide to Wetlands Protection in Alaska. 725 Christensen
Drive, #4, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. May, 1986.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-i 2

Van der Valk, A. and J. Hall (organizers). 1986. Alaska Regional Wetland Functions:
Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Anchorage, Alaska, May 28-29, 1 986. University of
j ~~~Massachusetts, The Environmental Institute, Amherst, MA. Publication No. 90-1.

Walker, D. 1983. A Hierarchical Tundra Vegetation Classification Especially Designed for
Mapping in Northern Alaska. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Permafrost. Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
Wetlands Evaluation Working Group. 1 992. A Wetland Evaluation Technique for Use with

the Trans-Alaska Gas System. Joint Pipeline Office, Anchorage, AK.

LtrtrReiwPrgatoIdetf n rtc ihVleWtad
Jue2I19 -

WETLANDS-RELATED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES & LITERATURE REVIEWS

Boule, M.E., R.D. Kranz, and T. Miller. 1985. Annotated Wetland Bibliography of the State
of Washington. Shapiro and Associates, Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
Washington.

Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1983. Nonconsumptive Outdoor Recreation: An Annotated
Bibliography of Human-Wildlife Interactions. Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 252.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, and M. Witter (eds.). 1992.
Wetland Buffers: An Annotated Bibliography. Adolfson Associates, Inc. for Washington
State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Olympia, WA. Publication No. 92-11.

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, and M. Witter (eds.). 1992.
Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios: An Annotated Bibliography. Adolfson
Associates, Inc. for Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal
Zone Management Program, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 92-09.

Erickson, P.A. and G. Camougis. 1980. Highways and Wetlands: Vol. III: Annotated
Bibliography. New England Research, Inc. for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Office of Development, Washington, D.C. Report No. FHWA-IP-
80-11.

Leitch, J.A. and B.L. Ekstrom. 1989. Wetland Economics and Assessment, an Annotated
Bibliography. Garland Pub., New York, NY.

Luzar, E.J. and C. Gan. 1993. Economic Valuation of Wetland Functions and Values:
Literature Review, 1985-1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report (in preparation).

Kyle, A.D. 1982. Local Planning for Wetlands Management: A Manual for Districts in the
Alaska Coastal Management Program. State of Alaska, Office of the Governor, Office of
Coastal Management, Division of Policy Development and Planning, Juneau, AK.

Marine Law Institute. 1993. Methodology and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative
Coastal Environmental Impacts, Interim Bibliography. University of Maine School of Law,
Marine Law Institute for National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal
Ocean Award Program, No. NA26RG0247-01.

Newton, R.B. 1989. The Effects of Stormwater Surface Runoff on Freshwater Wetlands: A
Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography. University of Massachusetts,
Environmental Institute, Amherst, MA. Publication No. 90-2.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-14

Palfrey, R. and E.H. Bradley, Jr. 1981. Natural Buffer Areas: An Annotated Bibliography.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater
Admin., Annapolis, MD.

Shabman, L. and S. Batie. 1988. Socioeconomic Values of Wetlands: Literature Review,
1970-1985. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Literature Review of Wetland Evaluation
Methodologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Region 5,
Chicago, IL. Technical Report.

Wentz, W.A., R.L. Smith, and J.A. Kadlec. 1974. State-of-the-Art Survey and Evaluation of
Marsh Plant Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural, Vol. II: A Selected
Annotated Bibliography on Aquatic and Marsh Plants and Their Management. University
of Michigan, School of Natural Resources for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Wolf, R.B., L.C. Lee, and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. Special Issue: Wetland Creation and
Restoration in the United States from 1970 to 1985--An Annotated Bibliography.
Wetlands, 6:1-88.

Young, M.J. and S. Mauermann. 1989. Protection of Wetland Ecosystems Via Vegetated
Zones: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Olympia, WA.

June 28, 1994 B-15
I Ltrtr eiw rga oIetf n rtc ihVleWtad

FISHERIES-RELATED REFERENCES

Herring, Alaska

Cameron, J. A., and R. L. Smith. 1980. Ultrastructural effects of crude oil on early life
stages of Pacific herring. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:224-228.

Carlson, H. R. 1980. Seasonal distribution and environment of Pacific herring near Auke Bay,
Lynn Canal, southeastern Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
109:71-78.

Thorsteinson, F. V. 1962. Herring predation on pink salmon fry in a southeastern Alaska
estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91:321-323.

Salmon, Alaska

Bjornn, T. C., S. C. Kirking, and W. R. Meehan. 1991. Relation of cover alterations to the
summer standing crop of young salmonids in small southeast Alaska streams.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:562-570.

Bugert, R. M., T. C. Bjornn, and W. R. Meehan. 1991. Summer habitat use by young
salmonids and their responses to cover and predators in a small southeast Alaska stream.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:474-485.

Dolloff, C. A. 1987. Seasonal population characteristics and habitat use by juvenile coho
salmon in a small southeast Alaska stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 116:829-838.

Eiler, J. H., B. D. Nelson, and R. F. Bradshaw. 1992. Riverine spawning by sockeye salmon
in the Taku River, Alaska and British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 121:701-708.

Elliot, G.V., and J.E. Finn. 1984. Fish Use of Several Tributaries to the Kenai River, Alaska.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

Lisle, T. E. 1986. Effects of woody debris on anadromous salmonid habitat, Prince of Wales
Island, southeast Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:538-550.

Lorenz, J. M., and J. H. Eiler. 1989. Spawning habitat and redd characteristics of sockeye
salmon in the glacial Taku River, British Columbia and Alaska. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 118:495-502.

Merrell, T.R., and K.V. Koski. 1979. Habitat Values of Coastal Wetlands for Pacific Coast
Salmonids. In: P.E. Greenson, et al. Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. American Water Resources Association. pp. 256-266.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-1 6

Shellfish, Alaska and Other Regions

Anderson, E. E. 1989. Economic benefits of habitat restoration: seagrass and the Virginia
hard-shell blue crab fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
9:140-149.

Katz, P. L., and L. J. Bledsoe. 1977. Alaska shellfish regulations: present impacts on fishery
participants. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:505-529.

Trout and Burbot, Alaska

Armstrong, R. H. 1971. Age, food, and migration of sea-run cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki,
at Eva Lake, southeastern Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
100:302-306.

Breeser, S. W., F. D. Stearns, M. W. Smith, R. L. West, and J. B. Reynolds. 1988.
Observations of movements and habitat preferences of burbot in an Alaskan glacial river
system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:506-509.

Cope, O. B., C. M. Gjullin, and A. Storm. 1947. Effects of some insecticides on trout and
salmon in Alaska, with reference to blackfly control. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 77:160-177.

Elliott, S. T. 1986. Reduction of Dolly Varden population and macrobenthos after removal
of logging debris. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:392-400.

Johnson, S. W., J. Heifetz, and K. V. Koski. 1986. Effects of logging on the abundance and
seasonal distribution of juvenile steelhead in some southeastern Alaska streams. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:532-537.

Murphy, M. L., and K. V. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska
streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 9:427-436.

Needham, P. R., and R. J. Behnke. 1965. The effect of nematode (Philonema) and cestode
(Diphyllobothrium) parasites in rainbow trout of Tebay Lake, Alaska. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 94:184-186.

Netsch, N., and R. E. Putz. 1985. Wild trout in Alaska - now and future. Fisheries 10:8-12.

Oswood, M. E., and W. E. Barber. 1982. Assessment of fish habitat in streams: Goals,
constraints, and a new technique. Fisheries 7:8-11.

Reed, R. J. 1967. Age and growth of Prince of Wales, Alaska, Dolly Varden, Salvelinus
malma (Walbaum), and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 96:223-224.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-17

Roos, J. F. 1959. Feeding habits of the Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma (Walbaum), at
Chignik, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 88:253-260.

Sharp, D., and D. R. Bernard. 1988. Precision of estimated ages of lake trout from five
calcified structures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:367-372.

Trotter, P. C. 1989. Coastal cutthroat trout: a life history compendium. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 118:463-473.

Whitefish, Alaska

Alt, K. T. 1979. Contributions to the life history of the humpback whitefish in Alaska.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:156-160.

1971. Occurrence of hybrids between inconnu, Stenodus leucichthys nelma
(Pallas), and humpback whitefish, Coregonus pidschian (Linnaeus) in Chatanika River,
Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 100:362-365.

Clark, J. H., and D. R. Bernard. 1992. Fecundity of humpback whitefish and least cisco in
the Chatanika River, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
121:268-273.

Fechhelm, R. G., R. E. Dillinger, Jr., B. J. Gallaway, and W. B. Griffiths. 1992. Modeling of
in situ temperature and growth relationships for yearling broad whitefish in Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:1-12.

Griffiths, W. B., B. J. Gallaway, W. J. Gazey, and R. E. Dillinger, Jr. 1992. Growth and
condition of Arctic cisco and broad whitefish as indicators of causeway-induced effects
in the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
121:557-577.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-18

MAMMAL REFERENCES

Brown and Black Bear, Alaska

Albert, D. M., and R. T. Bowyer. 1991. Factors related to grizzly bear-human interactions
in Denali National Park. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:339-349.

Ballard, W. B., T. H. Spraker, and K. P. Taylor. 1981. Causes of neonatal moose calf
mortality in south central Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:335-342.

Bangs, E. E., T. N. Bailey, and M. F. Portner. 1989. Survival rates of adult female moose on
the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:557-563.

Gard, R. 1971. Brown bear predation on sockeye salmon at Karluk Lake, Alaska. J. Wildl.
Manage. 35:193-204.

Gasaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D. V. Grangaard, D. G. Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and
D. G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska
and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildl. Monogr. 120:1-59.

Mcllroy, C. W. 1972. Effects of hunting on black bears in Prince William sound. J. Wildl.
Manage. 36:828-837.

Schwartz, C. C., and A. W. Franzmann. 1991. Interrelationship of black bears to moose and
forest succession in the northern coniferous forest. Wildl. Monogr. 113:1-58.

Shuman, R. F. 1950. Bear depredations on red salmon spawning populations in the Karluk
River system, 1947. J. Wildl. Manage. 14:1-9.

Brown and Black Bear, Outside Alaska

Hellgren, E. C., and M. R. Vaughan. 1989. Demographic analysis of a black bear population
in the Great Dismal Swamp. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:969-977.

Hellgren, E. C., and M. R. Vaughan. 1989. Denning ecology of black bears in a southeastern
wetland. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:347-353.

Hellgren, E. C., M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1991. Macrohabitat use by black bears
in a southeastern wetland. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:442-448.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-19

Sitka Black-tailed Deer, Alaska

Fagen, R. 1988. Population effects of habitat change: a quantitative assessment. J. Wildl.
Manage. 52:41-46.

Kirchhoff, M. D., and J. W. Schoen. 1987. Forest cover and snow: Implications for deer
habitat in southeast Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:28-33.

Schoen, J. W., and M. D. Kirchhoff. 1990. Seasonal habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer
on Admiralty Island, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:371-378.

Yeo, J. J., and J. M. Peek. 1992. Habitat selection by female Sitka black-tailed deer in
logged forests of southeastern Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:253-261.

Caribou

Gasaway, W. C., R. 0. Stephenson, J. L. Davis, P. E. K. Shepherd, and 0. E. Burris. 1983.
Interrelationships of wolves, prey, and man in interior Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 84:1-50.

Jones, R. D., Jr. 1966. Raising caribous for an Aleutian introduction. J. Wildl. Manage.
30:453-460.

Servheen, G., and L. J. Lyon. 1989. Habitat use by woodland caribou in the Selkirk
Mountains. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:230-237.

Moose, Alaska

Kubota, J., S. Rieger, and V. A. Lazar. 1970. Mineral composition of herbage browsed by
moose in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:565-569.

Laperriere, A. J., P. C. Lent, W. C. Gassaway, and F. A. Nodler. 1980. Use of Landsat data
for moose-habitat analyses in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:881-887.

LeResche, R. E. 1968. Spring-fall calf mortality in an Alaska moose population. J. Wildl.
Manage. 32:953-956.

LeResche, R. E., and Davis James L. 1973. Importance of nonbrowse foods to moose on
the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 37:279-287.

Miquelle, D. G., and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1989. Impact of bark stripping by moose on
aspen-spruce communities. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:577-586.

Oldemeyer, J. L., A. W. Franzmann, A. L. Brundage, P. D. Arneson, and A. Flynn. 1977.
Browse quality and the Kenai moose population. J. Wildl. Manage. 41:533-542.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-20

Oldemeyer, J. L. 1983. Browse production and its use by moose and snowshoe hares at the
Kenai moose research center, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:486-496.

Risenhoover, K. L. 1989. Composition and quality of moose winter diets in interior Alaska.
J. Wildl. Manage. 53:568-577.

. 1986. Winter activity patterns of moose in interior Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage.
50:727-734.

Schwartz, C. C., W. L. Regelin, and A. W. Franzmann. 1988. Estimates of digestibility of
birch, willow, and aspen mixtures in moose. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:33-37.

Van Ballenberghe, V., and D. G. Miquelle. 1990. Activity of moose during spring and
summer in interior Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:391-396.

Goats and Sheep

Fox, J. L., and C. A. Smith. 1988. Winter mountain goat diets in southeast Alaska. J. Wildl.
Manage. 52:362-365.

Gasaway, W. C., R. 0. Stephenson, J. L. Davis, P. E. K. Shepherd, and 0. E. Burris. 1983.
Interrelationships of wolves, prey, and man in interior Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 84:1-50.

Gionfriddo, J. P., and P. R. Krausman. 1986. Summer habitat use by mountain sheep. J.
Wildl. Manage. 50:331-336.

Hjeljord, 0. 1973. Mountain goat forage and habitat preference in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage.
37:353-362.

Hobbs, N. T., and D. M. Swift. 1985. Estimates of habitat carrying capacity incorporating
explicity nutritional constraints. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:814-822.

Murphy, E. C., F. J. Singer, and L. Nichols. 1990. Effects of hunting on survival and
productivity of Dall sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:284-290.

Murphy, E. C., and K. R. Whitten. 1976. Dall sheep demography in McKinley Park and a
reevaluation of Murie's data. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:597-609.

Nichols, L. 1978. Dall sheep reproduction. J. Wildl. Manage. 42:570-580.

Riggs, R. A., and J. M. Peek. 1980. Mountain sheep habitat-use patterns related to post-fire
succession. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:933-938.

Risenhoover, K. L., and J. A. Bailey. 1985. Foraging ecology of mountain sheep: Implications
for habitat management. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:797-804.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-21

Simmons, N. M., M. B. Bayer, and L. O. Sinkey. 1984. Demography of Dall's sheep in the
MacKenzie mountains, Northwest Territories. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:156-162.

Tilton, M. E., and Willard E. Earl. 1982. Winter habitat selection by mountain sheep. J.
Wildl. Manage. 46:359-366.

Furbearers

Thompson, lan D. 1994. Martin populations in uncut and logged boreal forests in Ontario.
J. Wildl. Manage. 58(2): 1994.

Thompson, lan D. 1994. Martin activity in uncut and logged boreal forests in Ontario. J.
Wildl. Manage. 58(2): 1994.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-22

AVIAN REFERENCES

Bald Eagle, Alaska

Hodges, J. I., J. G. King, and F. C. Robards. 1979. Resurvey of the bald eagle breeding
population in southeast Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:219-221.

King, J. G., F. C. Robards, and C. J. Lensink. 1972. Census of the bald eagle breeding
population in southeast Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:1292-1295.

Bald Eagle, Other States

Andrew, J. M., and J. A. Mosher. 1982. Bald eagle nest site selection and nesting habitat
in Maryland. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:383-390.

Buehler, D. A., J. D. Fraser, J. K. D. Seegar, G. D. Therres, and M. A. Byrd. 1991. Survival
rates and population dynamics of bald eagles on Chesapeake Bay. J. Wildl. Manage.
55:608-613.

Buehler, D. A., T. J. Mersmann, J. D. Fraser, and J. K. D. Seegar. 1991. Effects of human
activity on bald eagle distribution on the northern Chesapeake Bay. J. Wildl. Manage.
55:282-290.

. 1991. Nonbreeding bald eagle communal and solitary roosting behavior and roost
habitat on the northern Chesapeake Bay. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:273-281.

Chester, D. N., D. F. Stauffer, T. J. Smith, D. R. Luukkonen, and J. D. Fraser. 1990. Habitat
use by nonbreeding bald eagles in North Carolina. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:223-234.

Hodges, J. I., J. G. King, and F. C. Robards. 1979. Resurvey of the bald eagle breeding
population in southeast Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:219-221.

Keister, G. P., Jr., and R. G. Anthony. 1983. Characteristics of bald eagle communal roosts
in the Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:1072-1079.

Leighton, F. A., J. M. Gerrard, P. Gerrard, D. W. A. Whitfield, and W. J. Maher. 1979. An
aerial census of bald eagles in Saskatchewan. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:61-69.

Mathisen, J. E. 1968. Effects of human disturbance on nesting bald eagles. J. Wildl.
Manage. 32:1-6.

Meyers J. Michael, and D. L. Miller. 1992. Post-release activity of captive- and wild-reared
bald eagles. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:744-749.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-23

Montopoli, G. J., and D. A. Anderson. 1991. A logistic model for the cumulative effects of
human intervention on bald eagle habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:290-293.

Steenhof, K., S. S. Berlinger, and L. H. Fredrickson. 1980. Habitat use by wintering bald
eagles in South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:798-805.

Other Raptors and Non-Game Avian Species

Beecher, W.J. 1942. Nesting Birds and the Vegetation Substrate. Chicago Ornithological
Society, Chicago, IL.

Boeker, E. L. 1974. Status of golden eagle surveys in the western states. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
2:46-49.

Brown, M., and J. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird
management. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:392-397.

Ryan, M. R. /. R. B. /. J. J. 1984. Marbled godwit habitat selection in the northern prairie
region. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1205-1218.

Serie, J. R., and G. A. Swanson. 1976. Feeding ecology of breeding gadwalls on saline
wetlands. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:69-81.

Szymczak, M. R., and E. A. Rexstad. 1991. Harvest distribution and survival of a gadwall
population. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:592-600.

Waterfowl, Alaska

Bart, J., and S. Earnst. 1991. Use of wetlands by grazing waterfowl in northern Alaska
during late summer. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:564-568.

Bergman, R.D., R.L. Howard, K.F. Abraham, and M.W. Weller. 1977. Water Birds and Their
Wetland Resources in Relation to Oil Development at Storkersen Point, Alaska. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 129.

Lensink, C.J., and D.V. Derksen. 1986. Evaluation of Alaskan Wetlands for Waterfowl. In:
Alaska: Regional Wetland Functions, Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Anchorage,
Alaska.

McKnight, D.E. 1962. A Population Study of Waterfowl on the Tetlin-Northway Area of
Interior Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman.

Murphy, S. M., B. Kessel, and L. J. Vining. 1984. Waterfowl populations and limnologic
characteristics of taiga ponds. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1156-1163.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-24

Strang, C. A. 1980. Incidence of avian predators near people searching for waterfowl nests.
J. Wildl. Manage. 44:220-222.

Weller, M. W. 1964. Distribution and migration of the redhead. J. Wildl. Manage.
28:64-103.

Shorebirds, Alaska

Andres, Brad A. 1994. Coastal zone by postbreeding shorebirds in northern Alaska. J. Wildl.
Manage. 58(2): 206-213.

Swans, Alaska

Hansen, H. A., P. E. K. Shepherd, J. G. King, and W. A. Troyer. 1971. The trumpeter swan
in Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 26:1-83.

Henson, P., and T. A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan
breeding behavior. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:248-257.

Nichols, J. D., R. J. Limpert, W. J. L. Sladen, and J. E. Hines. 1992. Annual survival rates
of adult and immature eastern population tundra swans. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:485-494.

Geese, Alaska & Other Northern Regions

Alisauskas, R. T., and C. D. Ankney. 1992. Spring habitat use and diets of midcontinent
adult lesser snow geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:43-54.

Budeau, D. A., J. T. Ratti, and C. R. Ely. 1991. Energy dynamics, foraging ecology, and
behavior of prenesting greater white-fronted geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:556-563.

Eberhardt, L. E., R. G. Anthony, and W. H. Rickard. 1989. Movement and habitat use by
Great Basin Canada goose broods. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:740-748.

Eisenhauer, D. I., and C. M. Kirkpatrick. 1977. Ecology of the emperor goose in Alaska.
Wildl. Monogr. 57:1-62.

Ely, C., and D. G. Raveling. 1984. Breeding biology of Pacific white-fronted geese. J. Wildl.
Manage. 48:823-837.

Errington, P. L., R. J. Siglin, and R. C. Clark. 1963. The decline of a muskrat population.
J. Wildl. Manage. 27:1-8.

Frederick, R. B., and E. E. Klaas. 1982. Resource use and-behavior of migrating snow geese.
J. Wildl. Manage. 46:601-614.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-25

Gauthier, G., Y. Bedard, and J. Bedard. 1988. Habitat use and activity budgets of greater
snow geese in spring. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:191-201.

Lebeda, C. S., and J. T. Ratti. 1983. Reproductive biology of Vancouver Canada geese on
Admiralty Island, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:297-306.

Macinnes, C. D. 1966. Population behavior of eastern arctic Canada geese. J. Wildl.
Manage. 30:536-553.

Malecki, R. A., F. D. Caswell, R. A. Bishop, K. M. Babcock, and M. M. Gillespie. 1981. A
breeding-ground survey of EPP Canada geese in northern Manitoba. J. Wildl. Manage.
45:46-53.

Mickelson, P. G. 1975. Breeding biology of cackling geese and associated species on the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 45:1-35.

Nelson, U. C. 1953. Cliff-nesting Canada geese on the Arctic slope of Alaska. J. Wildl.
Manage. 17:536-536.

Raveling, D. G. 1977. Canada geese of the Churchill river basin in north-central Manitoba.
J. Wildl. Manage. 41:35-47.

. 1989. Nest-predation rates in relation to colony size of black brant. J. Wildl.
Manage. 53:87-90.

1976. Status of giant Canada geese nesting in southeast Manitoba. J. Wildl.
Manage. 40:214-226.

Reeves, H. M., F. G. Cooch, and R. E. Munro. 1976. Monitoring arctic habitat and goose
production by satellite imagery. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:532-541.

Vogl, R. J. 1964. The effects of fire on a muskeg in northern Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage.
28:317-329.

Waterfowl and Avian Species, Other States

Bellrose, F. C., and J. B. Low. 1978. Advances in waterfowl management research. Wildl.
Soc. Bull. 6:63-72.

Diefenbach, D. R., and Jr. R. B. Owen. 1989. A model of habitat use by breeding American
black ducks. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:383-389.

Frazer, C., J. R. Longcore, and D. G. McAuley. 1990. Habitat use by postfledging American
black ducks in Maine and New Brunswick. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:451-459.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-26

Hammack, Judd and Gardner M. Brown, Jr. 1979. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bio-
Economic Analysis. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

Jessen, R. L. 1970. Mallard population trends and hunting losses in Minnesota. J. Wildl.
Manage. 34:93-105.

Kaminski, R. M., and E. A. Gluesing. 1987. Density- and habitat-related recruitment in
mallards. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:141-148.

Kaminski, R. M., and H. H. Prince. 1981. Dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate
responses to manipulated wetland habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:1-15.

Krapu, G. L. 1974. Foods of breeding pintails in North Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage.
38:408-417.

Krapu, G. L., L. G. Talent, and T. J. Dwyer. 1979. Marsh nesting by mallards. Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 7:104-110.

Leitch, W. G., and R. M. Kaminski. 1985. Long-term wetland-waterfowl trends in
Saskatchewan grassland. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:212-222.

Lokemoen, J. T., H. F. Duebbert, and D. E. Sharp. 1990. Homing and reproductive habits
of mallards, gadwalls, and blue-winged teal. Wildl. Monogr. 106:1-28.

Lovvorn, J. R., and C. M. Kirkpatrick. 1981. Roosting behavior and habitat of migrant
greater sandhill cranes. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:842-857.

Merendino, M. T., D. G. Dennis, and C. D. Ankney. 1992. Mallard harvest data: an index
of wetland quality for breeding waterfowl. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:171-175.

Morton, J. M., R. L. Kirkpatrick, M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1989. Habitat use and
movements of American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:390-400.

Parker, G. R. 1991. Survival of juvenile American black ducks on a managed wetland in New
Brunswick. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:466-470.

Parker, G. R., M. J. Petrie, and D. T. Sears. 1992. Waterfowl distribution relative to wetland
acidity. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:268-274.

Rave, D. P., and G. A. Baldassarre. 1989. Activity budget of green-winged teal wintering
in coastal wetlands of Louisiana. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:753-759.

Ringelman, J. K., and J. R. Longcore. 1982. Movements and wetland selection by
brood-rearing black ducks. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:615-621.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-27

Rotella, J. J., and J. T. Ratti. 1992. Mallard brood survival and wetland habitat conditions
in southwestern Manitoba. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:499-507.

1992. Mallard brood movements and wetland selection in southwestern
Manitoba. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:508-515.

Ruwaldt, J. J., Jr., L. D. Flake, and J. M. Gates. 1979. Waterfowl pair use of natural and
man-made wetlands in South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:375-383.

Serie, J. R., D. L. Trauger, and J. E. Austin. 1992. Influence of age and selected
environmental factors on reproductive performance of canvasbacks. J. Wildl. Manage.
56:546-556.

Stewart, R. E., and H. A. Kantrud. 1973. Ecological distribution of breeding waterfowl
populations in North Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 37:39-50.

Swanson, G. A., M. I. Meyer, and V. A. Adomaitus. 1985. Food consumed by breeding
mallards on wetland of south-central North Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:197-203.

Talent, L. G., G. L. Krapu, and R. L. Jarvis. 1982. Habitat use by mallard broods in south
central North Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:629-635.

Weller, M.W. 1987. Freshwater Marshes Ecology and Wildlife Management. 2nd edition,
University of Minnisota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

1989. Waterfowl Management Techniques for Wetland Enhancement,
Restoration and Creation Useful in Mitigation Procedures. In: Wetland Creation and
Restoration: The Status of the Science, Vol I. EPA, pp. 105-116.

. 1965. The Role of Habitat in the Distribution and Abundance of Marsh Birds.
Iowa State University. Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station Special
Report No. 43. Ames, Iowa.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-28

TOURISMIRECREATION-RELATED REFERENCES
(Includes Non-Consumptive Wildlife Utilization)

Ashton, R.E. 1991. The Development of "Ecozones," A Method of Protecting Natural
Resources from Overuse by Tourism. Water and Air Research, Inc., Gainsville, FL.

Bacon, P.R. 1987. Use of Wetlands for Tourism in the Insular Caribbean. Annals of Tourism
Research 14:104-117.

Barstow, R. 1986. Nonconsumptive Utilization of Whales. Ambio 15 (3):155-163.

Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife:
A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116.

Butler, J.R., and E. Butler. Fostering the Spiritual and Affective (Emotional) Values of
Protected Areas. Paper presented at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, February 1992.

Clark, J.R. 1991. Carrying Capacity and Tourism in Coastal and Marine Areas. Parks 2 (3):
13-17.

Davies, M. 1990. Wildlife as a Tourism Attraction. Environment 20 (3): 74-77.

Duffus, D.A., and P. Dearden. 1990. Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Orientated Recreation: A
Conceptual Framework. Biological Conservation 53: 213-231.

Edington, J.M., and M.A. Edington. 1986. Ecology, Recreation and Tourism. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Homan, McDowell Associates. 1975. Tourism in Alaska's Coastal Zone: An Economic
Study. McDowell, E. D., and Homan.

Shaw, W.W., and W.R. Mangun. 1984. Nonconsumptive Use of Wildlife in the United
States. Resource Publication 154. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington,
D.C.

Stoll, J.R., and L.A. Johnson. 1984. Concepts of.Value, Nonmarket Valuation, and the Case
of the Whooping Crane. Transactions of the 49th North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference, Vol. 49, pp. 383-393.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-29

WETLAND VEGETATION/ECOLOGY REFERENCES

Auclair, A. N. D., A. Bouchard, and J. Pajaczkowski. 1976. Plant standing crop and
productivity relations in a Scirpus-equisetum wetland. Ecology 57:941-952.

Auclair, A. N. D. 1979. Factors affecting tissue nutrient concentrations in a
Scirpus-Equisetum wetland. Ecology 60:337-348.

Baker, R. G., A. E. Sullivan, G. R. Hallberg, and D. G. Horton. 1989. Vegetational changes
in western Illinois during the onset of late Wisconsinan glaciation. Ecology
70:1363-1376.

Bernard, J. M. 1974. Seasonal changes in standing crop and primary production in a sedge
wetland and an adjacent dry old-field in central Minnesota. Ecology 55:350-359.

Birks, H. J. B. 1976. Late-Wisconsinan vegetational history at Wolf Creek, central
Minnesota. Ecological Monographs 46:395-429.

Brinson, M. M., H. D. Bradshaw, R. N. Holmes, and J. B. Elkins, Jr. 1980. Litterfall,
stemflow, and throughfall nutrient fluxes in an alluvial swamp forest. Ecology
61:827-835.

Gerritsen, J., and H. S. Greening. 1989. Marsh seed banks of the Okefenokee Swamp:
Effects of hydrologic regime and nutrients. Ecology 70:750-763.

Gorham, E., and R. H. Hofstetter. 1971. Penetration of bog peats and lake sediments by
tritium from atmospheric fallout. Ecology 52:898-902.

Grace, J. B., and R. G. Wetzel. 1981. Phenotypic and genotypic components of growth and
reproduction in Typha latifolia: experimental studies in marshes of differing successional
maturity. Ecology 62:789-801.

Griffin, K. 0. 1975. Vegetation studies and modern pollen spectra from the Red Lake
peatland, northern Minnesota. Ecology 56:531-546.

Hogg, E. H., and R. W. Wein. 1988. The contribution of Typha components to floating mat
buoyancy. Ecology 69:1025-1031.

Jordan, T. E., D. F. Whigham, and D. L. Correll. 1989. The role of litter in nutrient cycling
in a brackish tidal marsh. Ecology 70:1906-1915.

Kadlec, J. A. 1962. Effects of a drawdown on a waterfowl impoundment. Ecology
43:267-281.

Lesica, P. 1992. Autoecology of the endangered plant Howellia aquatilis; implications for
management and reserve design. Ecological Applications 2:411-421.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-30

Liu, K. 1990. Holocene paleoecology of the boreal forest and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
forest in northern Ontario. Ecological Monographs 60:179-212.

Lovvorn, J. R., and C. M. Kirkpatrick. 1982. Analysis of freshwater wetland vegetation with
large-scale color infrared aerial photography. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:61-70.

Meeks, R. L. 1969. The effect of drawdown date on wetland plant succession. J. Wildl.
Manage. 33:817-821.

Megonigal, J. P., and F. P. Day. 1992. Effects of flooding on root and shoot production of
bald cypress in large experimental enclosures. Ecology 73:1182-1193.

Merendino, M. T. /. L. M. 1991. Influence of drawdown date and reflood depth on wetland
vegetation establishment. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:143-150.

Moizuk, G. A., and R. B. Livingston. 1966. Ecology of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) in a
Massachusetts upland bog. Ecology 47:942-950.

Mooney, H. A. 1991. Emergence of the study of global ecology: Is terrestrial ecology an
impediment to progress? Ecological Applications 1:2-5.

Moran, M. A., T. Legovic, R. Benner, and R. E. Hodson. 1988. Carbon flow from
Lignocellulose: a simulation analysis of a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology
69:1525-1536.

Penfound, W. T., T. F. Hall, and A. D. Hess. 1945. The spring phenology of plants in and
around the reservoirs in north Alabama with particular reference to malaria control.
Ecology 26:332-352.

Penfound, W. T. 1953. Plant communities of Oklahoma lakes. Ecology 34:561-583.

Penfound, W. T., and T. T. Earle. 1948. The biology of the water hyacinth. Ecological
Monographs 18:447-472.

Raich, J. W., E. B. Rastetter, J. M. Melillo, D. W. Kicklighter, P. A. Steudler, and B. J.
Peterson. 1991. Potential net primary productivity in South America: application of a
global model. Ecological Applications 1:399-429.

Sanger, J. E., and E. Gorham. 1973. A comparison of the abundance and diversity of fossil
pigments in wetland peats and woodland humus layers. Ecology 54:605-611.

Schalles, J. F., and D. J. Shure. 1989. Hydrology, community structure, and productivity
patterns of a dystrophic Carolina bay wetland. Ecological Monographs 59:365-385.

Schweger, C. E. 1969. Pollen analysis of lola Bog and paleoecology of the Two Creeks
Forest bed, Wisconsin. Ecology 50:859-868.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-31

Smith, L. M., and J. A. Kadlec. 1985. Fire and herbivory in a Great Salt Lake marsh.
Ecology 66:259-265.

Smock, L. A., and K. L. Harlowe. 1983. Utilization and processing of freshwater wetland
macrophytes by the detritivore Asellus forbesi. Ecology 64:1556-1565.

Swan, J. M. A., and A. M. Gill. 1970. The origins, spread, and consolidation of a floating
bog in Harvard Pond, Petersham, Massachusetts. Ecology 51:829-840.

Van der Valk, A. G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology
62:688-696.

Walbridge, M. R. 1989. Managing global wetland resources - A review of Hook, Donal D,
and others (eds.). 1988. The ecology and management of wetlands. Volume 1:
Ecology of wetlands. Volume 2: Management, use and value of wetlands. Ecology
70:288-289.

Winkler, M. G. 1988. Effect of climate on development of two Sphagnum bogs in
south-central Wisconsin. Ecology 69:1032-1043.

Zedler, J. B., and P. H. Zedler. 1969. Association of species and their relationship to
microtopography within old fields. Ecology 50:432-442.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1 994 B-32

ETHNO-BOTANY & CULTURAL USES, ALASKA

Fortuine, R. 1988. The Use of Medicinal Plants By the Alaska Natives. Alaska Medicine.
Vol. 30, No. 6.

Ager, T.A., and L. P. Ager. 1980. Ethnobotany of the Eskimos of Nelson Island, Alaska.
Arctic Anthropology 17(1):27-47.

Anderson, J.P. 1939. Plants used by the Eskimos of the northern Bering Sea and arctic
regions of Alaska. American Journal of Botany 26: 714-716.

Bank, Theodore P. II. 1953. Botanical and ethnobotanical studies in the Aleutian Islands
II: Health and medical lore of the Aleuts. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science
38: 415-431.

Birket-Smith, Kaj, and F. De Laguna. 1938. The Eyak Indians of the Copper River Delta,
Alaska. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.

Black, Lydia T. 1977. The Konyag (the inhabitants of the island of Kodiak) by losaf [Bolotov]
(1794-1799) and by Gideon (1804-1807). Arctic Anthropology 14(2): 79-108.

-----. 1984. Atka. An ethnohistory of the western Aleutians. Kingston, Ontario:
Limestone Press.

De Laguna, F. 1972. Under Mount Saint Elias: The history and culture of the Yakutat Tlingit.
Part 1. Smithstonian Contributions to Anthropology. Vol. 7. Washington: Smithstonian
Institution.

DeLapp, T. and E. Ward. 1981. Traditional Inupiat health practices. Health and Social
Services Agency. Barrow, Alaska. North Slope Borough.

Jones, Anore. 1983. Nauriat niginaqtua = Plants that we eat. Kotzebue, Alaska.

Justice, J.W. 1966. Use of devil's club in southeast Alaska. Alaska Medicine 8(2): 36-39.

Kari, P.R. 1987. Tanaina Plantlore [Dena'ina K'et'unal, an ethonobotany of the Dena'ina
Indians of Southcentral Alaska. National Park Service, Alaska Region.

Lantis, Margaret. 1959. Folk medicine and hygiene: Lower Kuskokwim and Nunivak-Nelson
Island areas. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 8(1): 1-75.

McGregor, Marianne. 1981. Native medicine in southeast Alaska: Tsimshian, Tlingit, Haida.
Alaska Medicine 23(6): 65-69.

Oswalt, Wendell H. 1957. A western Eskimo ethnobotany. Anthropological Papers of the
University of Alaska 6(1): 16-36.

Literature Review: Program to Identify and Protect High Value Wetlands
June 28, 1994 B-33

IWennekens, Alix Jane. 1985. Traditional plant usage by-Chugach natives around Prince
William Son n ntelower Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. M.A. thesis, University of
Alaska, Anchorage.

LtrtrReiwPrgatoIdetf n rtc ihVleWtad
I~~~ue28 94B3