If you’re keeping score at home, Island County wetlands have received passing grades, biologist Dr. Paul Adamus said at a public meeting Tuesday in Oak Harbor.

The biologist’s work was manifold. Retained by the county for the studies, Adamus achieved the goal of categorizing wetlands using the state Department of Ecology’s system. A separate objective was to evaluate the health of wetlands according to his professional opinion, which he formulated using his own system.

Adamus presented to the public results of the first phase of wetlands studies undertaken in the county over the last 12 months. The Phase I report provided a description of the local wetlands and their general health, utilizing information from extensive field studies, as well as aerial photographs and county permit files.

Of the more than 900 wetlands in the county, 102 were studied by Adamus and what he described as an able group of data collectors. Beginning in late June and extending to the onset of winter, the relatively short period of time allowed for vegetation study, a sound indicator in determining wetland health. Evaluation was narrowed to one indicator, as evaluating each criterion would be immensely more difficult and time consuming.

Scientists were able to study one wetland per day, Adamus said. In order to effectively evaluate the vegetative indicator, a substantial amount of time was required at each site, with two staff people working at a single wetland the entire day.

While the Department of Ecology has a recommended system for evaluating types of wetlands, no codified regulations currently exist.

The local areas examined were given grades of one to four, one being the highest functioning. Adamus emphasized that quantifying wetlands quality is an evolving science, and specialists are relegated to using the best available science.

“Ultimately, there is no silver bullet on this,” he said.

Adamus reported that only 20 percent of the county’s wetlands are dominated by invasive, non-native species, commonly known as weeds, which potentially choke out the native plants.

The biologist presented a scorecard for the wetlands, with most categories receiving good to excellent marks. The tree and trunk canopy in the 100-foot buffer was fair, he said. Additionally, the studies found a minimal amount of timber harvest in the wetlands, equating to a score of “good.”

From 1984 to present, permitted alterations to wetlands were insubstantial, the county data showing less than one-acre per year. Past interference was reportedly small and offset by natural recovery.

Summarizing the findings in layman’s terms, Adamus said the studies estimated 80 percent of the county’s wetlands are healthy. More importantly, the data provides a baseline for the Critical Areas Ordinance.

Many counties in the state have already adopted the Ecology’s rating system, which places wetlands into four categories.

Having presented the report’s conclusions, Adamus took on the issue of buffers, a contentious topic. Island County currently requires a buffer of 25 to 100 feet, depending on the state of the wetland. Other counties have used buffers of up to 300 feet, based on Ecology’s four category system. The department has recommended that all counties adopt the wetland classification system. The county’s recommendations will be released later in the year.

Adamus said he has crunched the same numbers as Ecology and studied new science since the department issued its recommendations.

Determining the best buffer zones for Island County will not happen in the immediate future.

“I can’t tell you tonight what the answer is,” he said.

The Phase II report is currently under way. The study will examine the county’s 1984 regulations and the Ecology department’s recommendations, and determine if changes are necessary.

Island County is unique among other counties not only in the characteristics of its wetlands, but in the extensive field review recently undertaken. The Ecology team visited one-tenth of one percent of the county’s wetlands. The county visited 11 percent.

A majority of the approximately 70 to 80 members of the public listened to intently to Adamus’ presentation with reports in hand. As the question and answer approached, one could see the wheels turning in the heads of attendees. Going into the community input portion of the event, the public fired away with questions about wetlands mitigation, their own personal wetlands, and the overall study process.

Inventorying the wetlands was a difficult undertaking, as the experts were forced to depend on aerial photos. One attendee of Tuesday’s meeting questioned the accuracy of the maps, but Adamus said the study complied with the state requirement of utilizing the best available science. The county was also able to use only the information that existed. To augment the information, a considerable time was spent on adding to the available science.

Another citizen said the report was insufficient, providing limited answers encased in a slew of tables and data.

“I submit this is more quantity than quality,” he said.

Adamus responded that the report included both quantity and quality, the former summarized in the report and the latter depicted in the scoring methods.

Regarding the fallibility of grading wetlands, Adamus again said the best available science is being employed, adding that the subjectivity of the studies bears further discussion.

In order for the issues of wetlands health and appropriate buffer sizes to be put to rest, federal regulators would have to produce a codified set of regulations or form a consensus in the scientific community.

“Lacking either of those, it’s always going to be an open question,” Adamus said.