ASSESSING PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION for LENTIC AREAS Introduction The goal of this program is to bring people together to define issues, develop solutions, and implement practices that will restore and maintain healthy wetlands at a more rapid pace. What we do here today with this training is a first step in defining the issues. The proper functioning condition assessment is a tool that may be used to focus on the physical attributes and processes of a wetland and determine if they are doing the things they should in their landscape setting. Many of the issues that bring us to “stale mate” are the values that society places on the resources such as wildlife, water quality and quantity, recreation, flood protection and livestock forage. Focusing on the physical factors tend to lead to looking for solutions rather than pitting one person’s value system against another. This leads to collaborative planning for developing management practices that meet many of the desired resource values. Mostly this is done by keeping water on the land longer and allowing the natural processes to function. ASSESSING PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION for LENTIC AREAS Introduction 1 1

Riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Term “PFC” is used in two ways: Qualitative Method for assessing the physical function of riparian-wetland areas (which may include using quantitative data to validate checklist items) Condition Description: An on-the-ground condition of riparian-wetland areas determined by completing the “PFC” assessment process. This results in describing the “functionality” of a system (PFC, FAR, or NF) The term Proper Functioning Condition, or PFC, is used in two ways: It is a method for assessing the physical condition of a riparian-wetland area, which we will be describing today, and it is also used as an on-the-ground physical condition of riparian-wetland areas that will be defined later. 2

As a condition description, PFC describes: How well the physical processes are working How well the riparian-wetland area will hold together during wind & wave actions or overland flow The system’s ability to maintain and produce both physical and biological values The on-the-ground condition termed PFC refers to how well the physical processes are functioning. PFC is a state of resiliency that will allow a riparian-wetland area to hold together during a wind action, wave action, or overland flow event, sustaining that system’s ability to produce values related to both physical and biological attributes. 3

As an assessment technique or method, PFC: Is a qualitative procedure based on quantitative data Provides a consistent approach for considering hydrology, vegetation, and soil attributes and processes in a synthesized manner to determine the health of the site The PFC assessment is a qualitative procedure based on quantitative data. It provides a consistent approach for assessing the physical functioning of riparian-wetland areas through consideration of hydrology, vegetation, and soil/landform attributes. The PFC assessment synthesizes information that is foundational to determining the overall health of a riparian-wetland area. 4

The PFC assessment is: Intended to be performed by a trained and experienced ID team As with the Lotic PFC, the Lentic assessment is intended to be performed by an ID team trained and experienced in wetland hydrology, vegetation, soils. A biologist also needs to be involved because of the high fish and wildlife values associated with riparian-wetland areas. 5

How is information from the PFC Assessment used? Condition Description Communication Tool/Common Vocabulary Provide a general/broad scale assessment of the condition of riparian/wetland areas “Coarse filter” used to prioritize management, restoration & monitoring efforts How is information from the PFC Assessment used? As noted earlier information from the PFC assessment is used as a condition description. It provides a common vocabulary to help communications and provides a base from which to resolve issues. Each profession uses jargon particular to that discipline. The jargon is descriptive to someone familiar with the activity, but may not be understood by others. It provides a general/broad scale assessment of the condition of riparian/wetland areas. “Coarse filter” used to prioritize management, restoration & monitoring efforts. 6

The PFC Assessment Method is not designed to: Monitor Trend – PFC is too coarse of a tool to detect most changes in condition (trend). The PFC method can only detect gross changes Independently make management changes The PFC Assessment Method is not designed to: PFC is not designed to monitor trend – PFC is too coarse of a tool to detect most changes in condition (trend). It can only detect gross changes. Or to independently make management changes (grazing, road management, recreation, etc.,) 7

The Interdisciplinary Team Performing PFC Assessments Determines potential and capability Define issues that need to be addressed Determines appropriate monitoring Determines where to place Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) Helps select appropriate management practices The interdisciplinary team performing PFC assessments Determines potential and capability Defines issues that need to be addressed Defines appropriate monitoring parameters Determines monitoring locations Assists with selecting appropriate management practices. 8

PFC is not: A replacement for biological inventory or monitoring protocols The only methodology for determining the health of riparian or aquatic components of the riparian-wetland area PFC is not: Replacement for biological inventories and assessments of the biological part of the ecosystem or monitoring protocols necessary to determine habitat conditions. Nor is it the only method for determining the health of riparian or aquatic components of a riparian-wetland area. 9

“PFC” is not synonymous with: Potential Natural Community (PNC) Desired Plant Community (DPC) Desired Future Condition (DFC) Riparian Proper Functioning Condition Assessment (PFC) usually does NOT equate to Potential Natural Community (PNC), Desired Plant Community (DPC), or the Desired Future Condition (DFC). However, it is a prerequisite to achieving and in some cases, it may be equivalent. Many riparian/wetland areas can function properly before they reach the potential natural community. 10

Riparian Vegetation Recovery PFC Vegetation is usually the first component to show recovery. Below PFC, vegetation and physical attributes in riparian-wetland areas are vulnerable to degradation and most resource values are considerably below their production potential and are difficult to sustain. While in this state, improvement can occur. However, it is subject to reversal as a result of wind action, wave action, or overland flow. When a system is functioning properly, energy is dissipated enough to allow sustainable production of values. This we call the “decision space.” We have options to manage vegetation on a sustained basis to provide wetland characteristics needed for fish, habitat for birds, recreation, forage for livestock, protection of watershed values, and water quality. 11

Resource Status and Values This chart shows one possible scenario of determining the desired future condition of a wetland area. We show time on the x axis and condition on the y axis. Vegetation is shown with the long dashed blue line from bare ground to Potential Natural Community (PNC). Livestock forage is the dotted black line, and aquatic habitat by the dotted blue line. The state water quality standard is shown by the blue dashed line. As vegetation improves from nonfunctioning to functional-at-risk (FAR), there is little improvement in the other resource values. There is an increased recovery rate of all the resource values in FAR. There is some increase in forage and habitat values. Vegetation continues toward PNC, livestock forage increases, aquatic habitat improves. But we have not reached sufficient development to reach the state water quality standard. This requires development beyond PFC. This is probably the rule, rather than the exception. In our example, the desired future condition of production and development is selected at the point that water quality standards are being met. When the riparian area is functioning properly, there is an opportunity to make decisions as to the use or uses that will be emphasized. Vegetation Aquatic Habitat Livestock Forage Wetland Stability 12

PFC does not replace existing Forest Plan Standards or Guidelines BLM Land Use Plan Decisions Legal Requirements, e.g., ESA, CWA PFC does not replace individual agency standards, guidelines, land use plans, or other management requirements and legal requirements. It provides a common vocabulary and a recognized base level from which resource values and conditions can be produced and sustained. 13

Lentic Checklist Page 61-62 (TR 1737-16) Write-up area descriptions 20 Questions Hydrology Vegetation Erosion and Deposition Summary Determination Contributing Factors The Riparian Proper Functioning Condition Checklist has four parts: Write-up area description, so that we know where the area is, when the assessment was done, and who did it. Twenty questions that require a “yes,” “no,” or “N/A” answer. The questions are specific about factors that influence the way a lentic area is functioning. The N/A block is blocked out where N/A is not applicable. Hydrology Vegetation Erosion and Deposition Following completion of the checklist, a “functional rating” is determined based on an interdisciplinary team’s discussion (Proper Functioning Condition, Functional-At Risk, or Nonfunctional). If an interdisciplinary team agrees on a functional-at risk rating, a determination of trend toward or away form proper functioning condition is then made if possible. Contributing factors are recognition that the landowner may not be able to control some of the factors that contribute to unacceptable conditions. We will discuss the Checklist in detail, question by question. 14

General Instructions This checklist constitutes the Minimum National Standards required to determine proper functioning condition of lentic riparian-wetland areas. As a minimum, an ID team will use this checklist to determine the degree of function of a riparian-wetland area. An ID team must review existing documents, particularly those referenced in this document, so that the team has an understanding of the concepts of the riparian-wetland area they are assessing. An ID team must determine the attributes and processes important to the riparian wetland area that is being assessed. General Instructions for completing a Riparian Proper Functioning Condition Assessment This checklist constitutes the Minimum National Standard required to determine proper functioning condition of lentic riparian-wetland areas. As a minimum, an Interdisciplinary (ID) Team will use the checklist to determine the degree of function of a riparian-wetland area. An ID team must review existing documents, particularly those referenced in this document, so that the team has an understanding of the concepts of the riparian-wetland area they are assessing. The ID team must determine the attributes and processes important to the riparian-wetland area they are assessing. 15

General Instructions Mark one box for each element. Elements are numbered for the purpose of cataloging comments. The numbers do not declare importance. For any item marked “No,” the severity of the condition must be explained in the “Remarks” section and must be a subject for discussion with the ID team in determining riparian-wetland functionality. Using the “Remarks” section to also explain items marked “Yes” is encouraged but not required. Based on the ID team's discussion, “functional rating” will be resolved and the checklist's summary section will be completed. Establish photo points where possible to document the area being assessed. Mark one box for each element. Elements are numbered for the purpose of cataloging comments. The numbers do not declare importance. For any item marked “No,” the severity of the condition must be explained in the “Remarks” section and must be a subject for discussion with the ID team in determining riparian-wetland functionality. Using the “Remarks” section to also explain items marked “Yes” is encouraged but not required. Based on the ID team's discussion, “functional rating” will be resolved and the checklist's summary section will be completed. Establish photo points where possible to document the area being assessed. 16

Please get out your PFC checklist handout 17 The front side and backside of the checklist - The front side includes the list location, and the Hydrology, Vegetation, and Erosion-Deposition questions. You have a copy of the checklist in your packet. Note that questions 1, 4, 6, and 19 must be answered “yes” or “no” on all wetlands. The back side of the form has the remarks section (this is probably the most important part of the form.), the Summary Determination and Apparent Trend, and Other Factors (some forms have included a remarks section with each question). In the Summary Determination the ID team will review the questions, and determine if there is any factor or factors, marked “no” on the checklist that puts the area at-risk of degradation, or if the area is nonfunctional. If an interdisciplinary team agrees on a functional-at risk rating, a determination of trend toward or away from proper functioning condition is then made if possible. Preferably, trend is determined by comparing the present situation with previous photos, trend studies, inventories, and any other documentation or personal knowledge attained in a review of existing documents or interviews prior to the PFC assessment. In the absence of information prior to the assessment, indicators of “apparent trend” may be deduced during the assessment process. Recruitment and establishment of riparian-wetland species (or the absence thereof) that indicate an increase (or decline) in soil moisture characteristics can be especially useful. However, care must be taken to relate these indicators to recent climatic conditions as well as management. If there is insufficient evidence to make a determination that there is a trend toward PFC (upward) or away from PFC (downward), then the trend is not apparent. Provide written rationale for the finding. This last part recognizes that in some cases undesirable conditions are outside the control of the manager . Capability factors should be noted and described. 17

The PFC Assessment Tool Requires an interdisciplinary (ID) team Vegetation Hydrology Soils Biology The PFC assessment tool is intended to be performed by an interdisciplinary team trained and experienced in wetland vegetation, hydrology, soils, and biology. 18

PFC is a Qualitative Tool PFC is a qualitative assessment based on quantitative science. The PFC assessment is intended for individuals with local, on-the-ground experience in the kind of quantitative sampling techniques that support the checklist. These quantitative techniques are encouraged in conjunction with the PFC assessment for individual calibration where answers are uncertain or where experience is limited. PFC is also an appropriate starting point for determining and prioritizing the type and location of the quantitative inventory or monitoring that is necessary. 19

Development ID Team from the BLM, the FWS, and the NRCS with expertise in vegetation, hydrology, soils, and biology. Four year study period in the 12 Western States. Collected soil, hydrology, and vegetation information at field sites. An ID team of soil, vegetation, hydrology, and biology specialists from the BLM, NRCS, and FWS was formed to: 1) summarize state-of-the-art procedures for describing and/or classifying riparian-wetland areas, and 2) determine the feasibility of describing riparian-wetland areas using BLM's standard ecological site description method, which was designed for uplands. The ID team first conducted an intensive literature search of existing classification work on riparian-wetland areas. This 2-year effort resulted in publication of TR 1737-5, Riparian and Wetland Classification Review (Gebhardt et al. 1990). They then initiated inventories on a host of riparian-wetland sites. Over a 4-year period, numerous field sites were visited in each of the 12 Western States. First priority was given to inventorying lotic riparian-wetland sites, but lentic riparian-wetland sites were inventoried as well. The ID team made intensive soil, hydrology, and vegetation measurements at each field site. In each state, they were assisted by a number of resource specialists from Federal and State agencies and universities. This effort resulted in the development of Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) as a classification tool, and in publication of TR 1737-7, Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory—with Special Reference to Riparian-Wetland Sites (Leonard et al. 1992). Drafts of both TR 1737-5 and TR 1737-7 were reviewed by Federal agencies, State agencies in the Western States, and Western resource universities. 20

Development (continued) Identified common and important attributes/ processes that could be visually assessed. Incorporated these elements into checklists. Draft document TR 1737-9 & 11. Additional field test. Finalized TR 1737-9 & 11 Developed User Guides TR 1737-15 & 16 To develop the PFC method, the ID team reviewed the rigorous science (ESI) and identified attributes and processes that are common and important, and that can be judged visually to assess the condition of a riparian-wetland area. These attributes and processes were then incorporated into standard checklists for lentic and lotic riparian-wetland areas. A draft of TR 1737-9, which described the qualitative methodology and incorporated a checklist for lotic systems, was produced by the ID team in 1992. The document was reviewed by BLM field offices and other Federal and State agencies. In May 1993, the ID team presented the review comments to 49 resource specialists, including hydrologists, vegetation specialists, soil scientists, and biologists, to resolve and produce a final checklist for TR 1737-9. Because the PFC tool was being incorporated into the Department of the Interior’s Rangeland Reform effort, TR 1737-9 was given an additional round of field tests during the summer of 1993, and the checklist was reviewed extensively. Based on the positive results from these field tests, TR 1737-9 was finalized and published in December 1993, and the checklist was incorporated into the Rangeland Reform draft Environmental Impact Statement. A document for lentic riparian-wetland areas was developed through a similar process, and TR 1737-11 was finalized 1 year later. Later, TR 1737-15 1998 A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas and TR 1737-16 1999, Revised 2003 A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas were published. 21

TR 1737-16 TR 1737-16 1999, Revised 2003 A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas provides guidance for assessing the condition of any riparian-wetland area other than a lotic (riverine) area. 22

Lentic Systems Swamps Sloughs Cienagas Marshes Wet meadows Seeps Ponds Lakes Lentic areas not only include jurisdictional wetlands as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987), but also nonjurisdictional areas that provide enough available water to the root zone to establish and maintain riparian-wetland vegetation. Areas with standing water greater than 6.6 feet deep are deepwater aquatic habitats and not considered riparian-wetland areas. The term "wetlands" means 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. Some examples would be: Swamps Sloughs Cienagas Marshes Wet meadows Seep Ponds Lakes 23

Procedure ID team needs to review existing information Vegetation classifications Soil surveys reports Ecological site descriptions Existing files, maps, photos, etc., Any existing source material should be gathered prior to going to the field. The knowledge of individual team members about an area under investigation is a valuable component to the assessment. Existing inventory data aids in the interpretation and adds another dimension to the interpreters’ abilities to accurately assess an area’s condition. Previous data collected may also provide indications of prebaseline condition and subsequent trend. Ancillary source material may take several forms. An ID team should review TR 1737-9, TR 1737-11, and TR 1737-15 before assessing functioning condition of lentic riparian-wetland areas. The ID team should also review the other technical references identified in TR 1737-9 and TR 1737-15, which provide a basis for assessing PFC, as well as thought processes that will be useful in assessing the functional status of any riparian wetland area. Reviewing these documents helps an ID team develop an understanding of the concepts of the riparian-wetland area they are assessing. Other documents to review may include Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979), local riparian-wetland vegetation classifications, soil survey reports, and riparian-wetland ecological site descriptions. The level of information necessary to assess PFC for lentic riparian-wetland areas will vary. Some will require the magnitude of effort provided by an ecological site inventory (ESI) to assess functionality, while others can be assessed by using the lentic checklist in Appendix A. Information pertaining to ESI applications can be found in BLM’s TR 1737-7, Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory—with Special Reference to Riparian-Wetland Sites (Leonard et al. 1992a). When using the PFC method to assess functioning condition, existing files should be reviewed for pertinent information. For some riparian-wetland areas, enough information may exist to assess functionality without having to go to the field. However, field verification is desirable in most cases. Existing information is useful in establishing potential, capability or trend. 24

The ID Team Needs to Analyze the PFC Definition When assessing PFC for lentic riparian-wetland areas, the definition of PFC must be analyzed. One way to do this is by breaking the definition down as follows: 25

Proper Functioning Condition Adequate vegetation, landform or woody debris present to: Dissipate Energy (wind, wave, and overland flow) Filter Sediment Improve Flood-water Retention Develop Root Masses Restrict Water Percolation Develop Diverse Ponding Characteristics Support Greater Biodiversity Lentic riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to: dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites; filter sediment; improve flood-water retention; develop root masses; restrict water percolation; develop diverse ponding characteristics; support greater biodiversity Lentic riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when there is adequate stability present to provide the listed benefits applicable to a particular area. The analysis must be based on the riparian-wetland area's potential. If, for example, the system does not have the potential to support woody vegetation, that criteria would not be used in the assessment. 26

YIELDS Reduced erosion Improved water quality Floodplain development Ground-water recharge Stabilized islands and shoreline features Fish & wildlife habitat Yields: reducing erosion improving water quality aid floodplain development ground-water recharge stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting action provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterbird breeding, and other uses 27

Functional - At Risk Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to degradation. Functional—At Risk - Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition, but have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to degradation. A functional—at risk riparian-wetland area will possess some or even most of the elements in the definition, but have at least one attribute/process (Table 1) that gives it a high probability of degradation with wind action, wave action, and overland flow event(s). Most of the time, several “no” answers will be evident because of the interrelationships between items. 28

Nonfunctional Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris to dissipate energy associated with flows events, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. Nonfunctional - Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris to dissipate energies associated with flow events, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. Nonfunctional riparian-wetland areas clearly lack the elements listed in the PFC definition. Usually nonfunctional riparian-wetland areas translate to a preponderance of “no” answers on the checklist, but not necessarily all “no” answers. A riparian-wetland area may still be saturated at or near the surface or inundated in “relatively frequent” events, but be clearly nonfunctional because it lacks vegetation to protect the area from excessive erosion. The lack of vegetation and inability to buffer the sediment being supplied greatly reduces the extent of a wetland and can prevent it from recovering. 29

Unknown Riparian-wetland areas for which there is a lack of sufficient information to make any form of determination Unknown - Riparian-wetland areas for which there is a lack of sufficient information to make any form of determination. 30

Potential The highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given no political, social, or economic constraints Potential is defined as the highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given no political, social, or economical constraints; it is often referred to as the “potential natural community” (PNC). 31

Capability The highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attained given political, social, or economic constraints. These constraints are often referred to as limiting factors. Capability is defined as the highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given political, social, or economical constraints. These constraints are often referred to as limiting factors. Capability only applies to constraints that the land manager’s cannot eliminate or change through a management action. 32

The ID Team Needs to Identify Attributes and Processes for the System they are Assessing Assessing PFC involves understanding the attributes and processes occurring in a lentic riparian wetland area. An ID team must determine the attributes and processes important to the riparian wetland area that is being assessed. If they do not spend the time to develop an understanding of the processes affecting an area, their judgement about PFC will be incomplete and may be incorrect. The attributes and processes for the area being evaluated need to be identified. 33

Attributes Processes Hydrology Vegetation Groundwater Inundation Discharge Depth Recharge Duration Permafrost Frequency Continuous Semipermanently Flooded Discontinuous Shoreline Shape Flood Modification Vegetation Community Types Community Dynamics and Distribution Successions Density Recruitment/Reproduction Cover Root Characteristics Survival Some attributes and processes that the ID team needs to identify are: Hydrogeomorphic Ground-Water Inundation Discharge Depth Recharge Duration Permafrost Frequency Continuous Semipermanently Flooded Discontinuous Shoreline Shape Flood Modification Vegetation Community Types Community Dynamics and Community Type Distribution Succession Density Recruitment/Reproduction Cover Root Characteristics Survival 34

Additional Attributes and Processes Erosion/Deposition Water Quality Shoreline Stability Temperature Depositional Features pH Dissolved Solids Soils Dissolved Oxygen Soil Type Distribution of Aerobic/ Biotic Community Anaerobic Soils Aquatic Plants Annual Pattern of Soil Water States Recruitment/ Ponding Frequency and Duration Reproduction Restrictive Material Nutrient Enrichment Additional Attributes and Processes: Erosion/Deposition Water Quality Shoreline Stability Temperature Depositional Features pH Dissolved Solids Soils Dissolved Oxygen Soil Type Distribution of Aerobic/ Biotic Community Anaerobic Soils Aquatic Plants Annual Pattern of Soil Water States Recruitment/ Ponding Frequency and Duration Reproduction Restrictive Material Nutrient Enrichment

With an understanding of potential, capability, attributes and processes for the area they are assessing, an ID Team can then go through the checklist and answer whether each item is in a working order relative to the minimum conditions required for the area to function properly.