112 



Projects that attempt to restore natural wetland at or near their original water level through a 

 simple ditch block are the most common credit project and are generally quite easy to agree on. 

 Projects that involve increasinc the size of an existmg natural wetland and those which utilize 

 mechanical structures to partially restore a basin or manipulate water levels for wetland enhancement 

 or other water management purposes are more problematic. Determining a proper credit acreage for 

 such projects is done case-bv-case and often involves professional judgment to reach 'best guess" as to 

 the acreage that has material wildlife value and will be credited to the Bank. 



Cases involving credits for man-made wetland are so variable that it is difTicult to discuss a 

 typical situation. Varymg from easily evaluated small, shallow dams and stock ponds to very complex, 

 larce multipurpose reservoirs, each project must be considered separately, if not uniquely, by the 

 evaluation team. Thus far few rules for crediting man-made projects have been developed. In general, 

 full acreage credit is given for tnost small (less than S acres), shallow (less than 6' maximum water 

 depth) man-made wetland that meet other regulatory guidelines for determining material wildlife value. 

 For larger impoundments, only acreages a)vered by water less than 3 feet deep are considered for 

 credit; again, pending application of other regulatory guidelines for determining material wildlife 

 value. 



Undoubtedly, with more experience, additional methods, and guidelines for crediting man- 

 made wetland will be established. For the present, the evaluation team is very conservatively crediting 

 man-made wetland to attempt to give credit for only those acreages which clearly provide material 

 wildlife values. 



Wetland Debits : 



Debits to the Bank are similarly processed, but generally less problematic. In the case of 

 debits, the team must first reach agreement on the acreage to be drained and then check the statewide 

 account to determine whether or not the 2,500 acre debit limit will be exceeded. If the debit limit 

 would be exceeded, a drainage permit cannot be issued and no debit is made. Projects not requiring 

 permits are not subject to the 2,500 ace liinii, but are debited to appropriate accounts. 



In order to debit the Bank, the party proposing the drainage must acree to pay 10 percent of 

 the cost of replacement. A final function of tne debiting operations of the wetlands Bank is, therefore, 

 to determine wetland replacement costs. 



Wetland replacement costs are annually determined for each of the four biotic areas. These 

 costs are a composite of the average land value in each biotic area plus a statewide average 

 construction cost for wetland restoration projects. These per acre costs are jointly determined by the 

 aimmissioner and state engineer based on land values annually published by North Dakota State 

 University and actual ainstruction costs obtained from the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, Ducks 

 Unlimited and others involved in wetland restorations and developments. 



Although debits are generally less problematic to process, determination of the acreage of a 

 wetland to be (Trained is not always as simple as it may sound and certainly not immune from debate or 

 external criticism. The potential for disagreement over debit wetland acreage determinations arises 

 largely because of the 10 percent replacement cost-share that is required of the party desiring to dram. 

 This u)st is a per acre figure within each biotic area of the state and so obviously the larger the debit 

 determination (wetland size), the greater the amount payable The highly variable and often difficult to 

 determine boundaries of many wetlands offers consitierable room for debate and criticism. As outlines 

 in Section 81-02-03-1 1 of the drainage rules, the evaluation team is required to consider virtually all 

 available information in determining wetland acreages. The final determination may be arrived at as a 

 compromise or 'best guess" of the team. 



APPENDIX C HABITAT EVALUATION TECHNIQUES 



Several approaches to wetland evaluation for various community functions are in use, the 

 Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) of the Fish & Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers Wetland 

 Evaluation Technique (WET), and a less widely known, community-oriented, Guild Matrix Analysis 

 (GMA). The three differ markedly in approach and merits. Although all include habiut assessment, 

 they do so in quite different levels and for different reasons. Accuracy of all systems is reduced by 

 minimal data bases, but different goals may be more important than precision. 



The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) is wildlife species- oriented (Flood et al. 1977), 

 although several siiccies have been pooled in some studies to provide an assemblage or community- 

 level treatment. Tlie key feature of thi.<; analysis is the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI with a maximum 

 value of 1.0) based on the best-availahle-data on habitat use by a oarticular species. This index is 

 calculated for a .specific area and is multiplied by acreage to produce Habitat Units (HU). The logic of 



