Phalaris Arundinacea Carex Canescens Reed Canarygrass Gray Bog Sedge Rapid FQA–Methods Development

Development of a Rapid Floristic Quality Assessment

Michael Bourdaghs Introduction

Rapid Assessment Methods (RAMs) – Simple field observations – Qualitative/categorical – Coarse info quickly obtained in exchange for accuracy (EPA Level 2) – ‘Rapid’ = ½ day field + ½ day office Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) – Vegetation based approach – Condition measure – Detailed veg survey (EPA Level 3)

What is FQA? The Coefficient of Conservatism (C ) – Reflects the fidelity of a species to natural undisturbed habitats (0-10)

http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/ Acer negundo Carex lacustris Cypripedium candidum (Box elder) (Lake sedge) (Small White Lady’s Slipper) C = 1 C = 5 C = 10 Development of MN FQA C –value assignment project – Wetland spp. list C-value Description Plants with a wide range of ecological tolerances. Often these plant s are – Narrative guidance opportunistic invaders of natural communities (e.g. Phalaris 0 arundinacea) or native species typical of disturbed or ruderal communities (e.g., Ambrosia artemisiifolia or Hordeum jubatum ssp. – Critical Connections jubatum)

Ecological Services, Widespread t axa t hat are not t ypical of a part icular community (e.g., 1-2 Inc. Impat i ens capensisor Acer negundo) Plants with an intermediate range of ecological tolerances that typify a – Iterative process 3-5 st able phase of some nat ive communit ies, but persist under some • CCES initial disturbance (e.g., Carex comosa or Potamogeton richardsonii) assignment Plants with a moderately narrow range of ecological tolerances that 6-8 typify stable or late successional native plant communities (e.g., • Review panel Epilobium leptophyllum or Vallisneria americana) • DNR review Plants with a narrow range of ecological tolerances that exhibit very 9-10 high fidelity to a narrow range of stable habitat requirements (e.g., – Subjectivity? Aret husa bulbosa or Sa l i x candida)

What is FQA? Basic Steps – Collect some plant data at a site • Species composition • Abundance… – Calculate metrics • Basic – Native species richness (S ) – Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (Mean C ) – Floristic Quality Index (FQI = √S * Mean C ) • ‘Advanced’

– Abundance weighted C (wC = ∑piCi ) » pi = proportional abundance of spp. i » Ci = C –value of spp. i

Performance of FQA

Are FQA metrics responsive?

10 40 R2 = 0.50** R2 = 0.54** 8 30

6 i

Ci Ci 20

FQIi 4 FQI

10 2

0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 HDS HDS

- Depressional wetland IBI development data for the hardwood forest region Why the Rapid FQA?

Common FQA Criticisms – High level of botanical expertise & sampling effort required – What do the results mean? Objectives 1) Develop standard ‘rapid’ wetland vegetation sampling protocols that focus on common, easily ID’d species 2) Develop data driven assessment criteria Goal – Create a ‘rapid’ wetland condition assessment method that will allow natural resource professionals with moderate botanical expertise to make scientifically defensible wetland condition assessments Rapid FQA–Methods Development Methods Scoping (2008, 10) • Plot (releve) vs. timed meander • Aquatic shoreline rake vs. kayak • Monthly sampling May – October • Cover recorded over 10-minute intervals • A variety of types: Fresh Meadow/Hardwood Swamp/Open Bog/Shallow Open Water/Shallow Marsh Results • Sampling needs to be done by community type • Sampling effort has no effect on Mean C/wC • Mean C/wC are stable throughout the growing season • Meander sampling more stable than plot sampling • Shoreline rake sampling generally sufficient • wC most responsive metric  abundance needed What this means... • A single brief meander sample by community types can produce accurate results Rapid FQA–Methods Development

14 Community Types • Shallow Open Water • Deep Marsh • Shallow Marsh • Fresh Meadow* • Wet Prairie • Calcareous Fen • Sedge Mat • Open Bog • Coniferous Bog • Shrub-Carr • Alder Thicket • Hardwood Swamp • Coniferous Swamp • Floodplain Forest www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/

*class slightly modified Rapid FQA–Methods Development Some plant species are easier to ID than others

www.minnesotawildflowers.info wisplants.uwsp.edu Impatiens capensis Galium trifidum ssp. trifidum Orange Jewelweed Three-cleft bedstraw Rapid FQA–Methods Development Some plant species are easier to ID than others

wisplants.uwsp.edu wisplants.uwsp.edu

Alnus incana ssp. rugosa Salix planifolia Speckled alder Tea leaved willow Rapid FQA–Methods Development Some plant species are easier to ID than others

www.minnesotawildflowers.info

wisplants.uwsp.edu Phalaris arundinacea Carex canescens Reed canarygrass Gray bog sedge Rapid FQA–Methods Development

The ID Difficulty Score − 3 factors of ID difficulty − Each given a numerical rating − Sum of factors = ID Difficulty Score

Commonness Distinctness Dominance 1 - Very common 1 - Unique appearance 0 - Not dominant 2 - Occasional 2 - Several similar spp. -1 - Dominant 3 - Rare 3 - Many similar spp.

• Common • Rare • Unique 1 Range 6 • Not unique • Dominant • Not dominant Rapid FQA–Methods Development

ID Difficulty Score example

Scientific Name Common Distinct Dominance ID Difficulty Score Phragmites australis 1 1 -1 1 Carex lacustris 1 2 -1 2 Iris versicolor 1 2 0 3 Galium trifidum ssp. trifidum 1 3 0 4 Carex canescens 2 3 0 5 Poa paludigena 3 3 0 6

www.ec.gc.ca wisplants.uwsp.edu www.minnesotawildflowers.info wisplants.uwsp.edu Rapid FQA–Methods Development What happens to metric scores when hard to ID spp. removed? • ID Diff Score data simulations – DNR releve data for fresh meadows (N = 313)

50 7 45

6 35

5 25 Mean C

Frequency 20

15 4 10

3 0 All Species Rapid Species

Deviation Limiting field observations to the ‘rapid’ spp. provides an accurate assessment most of the time Rapid FQA–Methods Development Rapid Species List – 4 raters assigned ID Difficulty Scores to MN wetland spp. (1266) – A species was selected if • Majority of raters scored ≤ 3 • Average < 3.5 – Final list has 290 spp. – Covers all target community types – Arranged on a single data form – Target audience = natural resource professionals w/moderate botanical expertise Rapid FQA–Methods Development

Rapid FQA Sampling Method 1) Map approximate boundaries of the Assessment Area (AA) and plant communities 2) Confirm & correct AA and community boundaries onsite 3) Sample vegetation with a composite meander − Meander path should cover all communities within AA at approximately equal amounts of time − Base meander time = 30 min for first community + 20 min for each additional community − Record only Rapid Species List occurrences − If ≥ 3 spp. are observed during the last 10 minutes, continue sampling for an additional 10 minute period 4) If Shallow Open Water occurs within AA conduct shoreline sampling concurrently with meander − 3 stations @ aquatic/emergent interface 5) Make aerial cover estimations for all spp.

Rapid FQA–Primary Metric

% Weighted SciName Cover Mid p C pC Coefficient of Carex stricta 50-75% 62.5 0.428 5 2.14 Conservatism (wC) Calamagrostis canadensis 25-50% 37.5 0.257 4 1.03 Salix petiolaris 5-25% 15 0.103 5 0.51 – wC = ∑ pC Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% 15 0.103 0 0 – Uses all of the Typha angustifolia 1-5% 3 0.021 0 0 information Solidago gigantea 1-5% 3 0.021 3 0.06 Eupatorium maculatum 1-5% 3 0.021 4 0.08 – More responsive Thelypteris palustris 1-5% 3 0.021 7 0.14 than Mean C or Lysimachia thyrsiflora 0-1% 0.5 0.003 6 0.02 FQI Iris versicolor 0-1% 0.5 0.003 4 0.01 Caltha palustris 0-1% 0.5 0.003 6 0.02 Impatiens capensis 0-1% 0.5 0.003 2 0.01 Comarum palustre 0-1% 0.5 0.003 7 0.02 Carex lacustris 0-1% 0.5 0.003 5 0.02 Lycopus americanus 0-1% 0.5 0.003 4 0.01 Epilobium leptophyllum 0-1% 0.5 0.003 7 0.02 Total Cover 146 wC 4.1 Rapid FQA–Assessment Criteria

The Biological Condition Gradient (BCG)

US EPA. 2005. Use of biological information to better define designated aquatic life uses in state and tribal water quality standards: Tiered Aquatic Life Uses Rapid FQA–Assessment Criteria

Generalized wetland vegetation BCG

BCG Tier Description 1 Community composition and structure as they exist (or likely existed) in the absence of measurable effects of anthropogenic stressors representing pre-European settlement conditions. Non-native taxa may be present at very low abundance and not causing displacement of native taxa.

2 Community structure similiar to natural community. Some additional taxa present and/or there are minor changes in the abundance distrubution from the expected natural range. Extent of expected native composition for the community type remains largely intact.

3 Moderate changes in community structure. Sensitive taxa are replaced as the abundance distribution shifts towards more tolerant taxa. Extent of expected native composition for the community type diminished.

4 Large to extreme changes in community structure resulting from large abundance distribution shifts towards more tolerant taxa. Extent of expected native composition for the community type reduced to isolated pockets and/or wholesale changes in composition.

5 Plant life only marginally supported or soil/substrate largely devoid of hydrophytic vegetation due to ongoing severe anthropogenic impacts Tier 1 Composition & structure as they exist in the absence of measurable effects of anthropogenic stressors

Typha angustifolia/ X glauca Narrowleaf/Hybrid cattail Phalaris arundinacea C = 0 Reed canary grass C = 0

Tier 2 Similar to natural community, some additional taxa present, minor changes in the abundance distribution, native composition largely intact

Tier 3 Moderate changes in structure & composition, sensitive taxa replaced by more tolerant taxa

Tier 4 Large to extreme changes in community structure, wholesale changes in composition

Rapid FQA–Assessment Criteria

How to set scoring thresholds for condition tiers? – Link metrics scores to impacts & apply the ‘lowest scoring reference site’ concept – Need to define 3 groups of data • Pre-settlement • Minimally impacted • Severely impacted – General Human Disturbance Assessment (HDA) 1. Landscape Alteration (500 m buffer) 2. Immediate Upland Alteration (50 m buffer) 3. Within Wetland Physical Alteration 4. Hydrologic Alteration 5. Chemical Pollution 6. Invasive Species – Percentile breakpoints of the data groups  assessment criteria – Systematic/consistent/repeatable – Available Data • DNR releve • PCA • Army Corps • Targeted project data • 725 community samples

Rapid FQA–Assessment Criteria

Condition Tiers

*When non-native 10th percentile taxa < 1% total 2

of group cover

FQA Metric FQA 3

90th percentile of group 4

Pre- Minimally Severely settlement Impacted Impacted Pre Settlement % Group SciName Cover Mid p C pC • HDA = Minimally Carex stricta 50-75% 62.5 0.488 5 2.44 Impacted Calamagrostis canadensis 25-50% 37.5 0.293 4 1.17 • Composition Salix petiolaris 5-25% 15 0.117 5 0.59 consistent w/Tier Solidago gigantea 1-5% 3 0.023 3 0.07 Eupatorium maculatum 1-5% 3 0.023 4 0.09 1 narrative Thelypteris palustris 1-5% 3 0.023 7 0.16 criteria Lysimachia thyrsiflora 0-1% 0.5 0.004 6 0.02 • DNR Condition Iris versicolor 0-1% 0.5 0.004 4 0.02 rank A/AB Caltha palustris 0-1% 0.5 0.004 6 0.02 • Introduced spp. Impatiens capensis 0-1% 0.5 0.004 2 0.01 < 1% Comarum palustre 0-1% 0.5 0.004 7 0.03 Carex lacustris 0-1% 0.5 0.004 5 0.02 Lycopus americanus 0-1% 0.5 0.004 4 0.02 Epilobium leptophyllum 0-1% 0.5 0.004 7 0.03 Total Cover 128 wC 4.7 Minimally % Impacted Group SciName Cover Mid p C pC • HDA = Minimally Carex stricta 50-75% 62.5 0.428 5 2.14 Impacted Calamagrostis canadensis 25-50% 37.5 0.257 4 1.03 Salix petiolaris 5-25% 15 0.103 5 0.51 Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% 15 0.103 0 0 Typha angustifolia 1-5% 3 0.021 0 0 Solidago gigantea 1-5% 3 0.021 3 0.06 Eupatorium maculatum 1-5% 3 0.021 4 0.08 Thelypteris palustris 1-5% 3 0.021 7 0.14 Lysimachia thyrsiflora 0-1% 0.5 0.003 6 0.02 Iris versicolor 0-1% 0.5 0.003 4 0.01 Caltha palustris 0-1% 0.5 0.003 6 0.02 Impatiens capensis 0-1% 0.5 0.003 2 0.01 Comarum palustre 0-1% 0.5 0.003 7 0.02 Carex lacustris 0-1% 0.5 0.003 5 0.02 Lycopus americanus 0-1% 0.5 0.003 4 0.01 Epilobium leptophyllum 0-1% 0.5 0.003 7 0.02 Total Cover 146 wC 4.1 Moderately % Impacted SciName Cover Mid p C pC • Some stressors Carex stricta 25-50% 37.5 0.284 5 1.42 present Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% 37.5 0.284 0 0 Calamagrostis canadensis 5-25% 15 0.114 4 0.45 Salix petiolaris 5-25% 15 0.114 5 0.57 Typha angustifolia 5-25% 15 0.114 0 0 Solidago gigantea 1-5% 3 0.022 3 0.07 Impatiens capensis 1-5% 3 0.022 2 0.05 Eupatorium maculatum 0-1% 0.5 0.004 4 0.02 Thelypteris palustris 0-1% 0.5 0.004 7 0.03 Caltha palustris 0-1% 0.5 0.004 6 0.02 Comarum palustre 0-1% 0.5 0.004 7 0.03 Carex lacustris 0-1% 0.5 0.004 5 0.02 Lycopus americanus 0-1% 0.5 0.004 4 0.02 Epilobium leptophyllum 0-1% 0.5 0.004 7 0.03 Total Cover 132 wC 2.7 Severely Impacted • HDA = Severely Impacted

% SciName Cover Mid p C pC Phalaris arundinacea 75-95% 85 0.694 0 0 Salix petiolaris 5-25% 15 0.122 5 0.61 Typha angustifolia 5-25% 15 0.122 0 0 Solidago gigantea 1-5% 3 0.024 3 0.07 Impatiens capensis 1-5% 3 0.024 2 0.05 Carex stricta 0-1% 0.5 0.004 5 0.02 Eupatorium maculatum 0-1% 0.5 0.004 4 0.02 Lycopus americanus 0-1% 0.5 0.004 4 0.02 Total Cover 122.5 wC 0.8 Rapid FQA–Assessment Criteria

Hardwood Swamp Assessment Criteria – Pre Settlement n = 30 – Minimally Impacted n = 30 – Severely Impacted n = 10

8 Tier wC 1 > 4.6* 6

wC 2 > 4.2 4 3 2.5 – 4.2 2 4 < 2.5 0 Pre Minimally Severely Settlement Impacted Impacted

Step 1 • Map Approximate AA & Community Boundaries Step 2 • Confirm & correct AA and community types/boundaries on site Step 3 • Determine base meander time 30 + 20 + 20 = 70 Minutes Step 4 • Perform the composite timed meander • ‘Balanced’ by type • During last 10 min • If < 3 new spp.  STOP • If ≥ 3 new spp.  10 min END Step 5 • Make cover estimations

START Example

Community Type wC BCG Prop Prop Tier of AA x Tier Shrub Carr 3.3 3 0.50 1.5 Fresh Meadow 2.3 3 0.35 1.05 Shallow Marsh 1.4 4 0.15 0.6 Weighted Average Tier 3

Shallow Open Deep Shallow Fresh Wet Calcareous Coniferous Alder Hardwood Coniferous Floodplain Tier Water Marsh Marsh Meadow Prairie Fen Sedge Mat Open Bog Bog Shrub Carr Thicket Swamp Swamp Forest 1 > 4.9* > 4.2* > 4.4* > 6.4* > 6.2* > 7.3* > 7.3* > 4.5* > 3.9* > 4.6* > 5.6* > 3.3* 2 > 5.0 > 4.0 > 4.2 > 4.1 > 3.9 > 5.2 > 5.5 > 7.1 > 7.2 > 4.3 > 3.5 > 4.2 > 5.5 > 2.7 3 1.6 - 4.2 1.3 - 4.1 1.3 - 3.9 4.7 - 5.2 1.8 - 5.5 5.4 - 7.1 5.8 - 7.2 3.2 - 4.3 2.2 - 3.5 2.5 - 4.2 5.5 - 3.6 2.1 - 2.7 4 < 1.6 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 4.7 < 1.8 < 5.4 < 5.8 < 3.2 < 2.2 < 2.5 < 3.6 < 2.1 * Total introduced species cover < 1% Rapid FQA Applications

Anywhere you want to do wetland condition monitoring & assessment • Ambient/long term monitoring • Mitigation sequencing • Restoration success/mitigation performance standards • Local/regional planning • Preservation screening • Problem investigation

Corps Wetland Delineation

Delineation Manual (1987) & Regional Supplements (ca. 2010) • Vegetation Sampling • By community type • Representative • Species composition (recommended) & aerial cover • If rapid species list botanical level used, users should be able to derive Rapid FQA from delineation veg data MnRAM Veg Component

MN Routine Assessment Method • Practical functions & values assessment tool for MN Wetland Conservation Act • Qualitative/Best Professional Judgment • 12 functions (e.g., veg integrity, downstream water quality) • Rapid FQA can be substituted for the veg. integrity function and results can be plugged into MnRAM Management Classification

Rapid FQA MnRAM Management Class Tier 1 Exceptional Preserve Tier 2 High Manage 1 Tier 3 Medium Manage 2 Tier 4 Low Manage 3 Probabilistic Monitoring MN Wetland Condition Assessment • EPA NWCA intensification survey Wetland Condition Statewide • Describe overall wetland condition statewide & by major ecoregion 9% • All non-cultivated wetlands < 27% Tier 1 1m surface water 21% Tier 2

• 150 Points Statewide Fresh Meadow Tier 3 0.09ha (18%) – 50 points/major ecoregion Shallow MarshTier 4 – First 22 = National Points (red) 43% 0.12ha (24%) – Next 128 = State Points (green) • Modified FQA primary method • Began 2011/Results 2014 • Direct status & trends monitoring of wetland quantity & quality

Alder Thicket 0.29ha (58%) FQA Products www.pca.state.mn.us – Search for ‘Floristic Quality Assessment’ – Rapid FQA Manual – Datasheets – Excel calculator – Rapid FQA Development Report – Base FQA Report – C-values & synonymy in Excel format