New England Wetlands Webinar Series Wetland Assessment Methods

January 14, 2016

• Welcome and Introductions (10 min.)

• Ecological Integrity Assessment of Maine Wetlands (20 min.)

• Brief Q&A (5 min.)

• The Status of River Corridors: Assessment of Floodplain Forests

in Maine Watersheds(20 min.)

• Brief Q&A (5 min.)

• Discussion (30 min.)

• Wrap-Up

Agenda

Webinar Moderator

Kimberly Roth, Environmental Analyst, Wetlands Program NEIWPCC kroth@neiwpcc.org

Today’s Presenters

Andy is an ecologist with the Maine Natural Areas Program, where his responsibilities include ecological inventory and assessment, conservation planning, and training and outreach to foresters and land managers. Andy has worked at MNAP for more than 15 years, and he has also worked for NatureServe, The Nature Conservancy, the US Forest Service, and an environmental consulting firm. He is co-author of Natural Landscapes of Maine: A Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems (2010), and he holds a Master of Forestry degree from Duke University and a BA in Biology from Williams College

Andy Cutko Ecologist Maine Natural Areas Program Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Ecological Integrity Assessment

of Maine Wetlands

Andy Cutko

Maine Natural Areas Program

January 2016

Topics to Be Covered

• Background on Ecological Integrity

Assessment

• Development of EIA for use in Maine

• A Tale of Two Forests - Real Life Examples!

• Take Home Messages

Assessing Ecological Integrity

• A set of indicators of

ecosystem structure,

function, and

composition

• Emphasis on range

of natural variation –

and what’s outside it!

• Ensure links with

management needs

Comparison of current and previous Natural Heritage

methods for assessing ecological integrity

Component Previous Method Current Method (EIA)

Rank Factors 1) Size

2) Condition

3) Landscape Context

1) Size (may be independent)

2) Condition

3) Landscape Context

Criteria for Rank

Factor

Mix of qualitative and semi-

quantitative criteria in a single rank

factor field

Distinct sets of metrics, each

of which has its own rating

and thresholds

Ratings for Rank

Factor

Based on best professional judgment

after scanning the combination of

rank factor criteria

Based on roll-up of scores

from individual metrics

Use of Metrics Metrics embedded in text

descriptions

Metrics explicit, each with its

own associated attributes and

data

Level of Intensity Typically a rapid, ground-based

assessment 3-level approach to

assessment intensity: L1: Remote-sensing based

L2: Rapid field based

L3: Intensive field based

Integrity, Functions, and Values

Values Condition /

Integrity

Ecosystem

Services

Topics to Be Covered

• Background on EIA

• Development of EIA for use in Maine

• A Tale of Two Forests - Real Life Examples!

• Take Home Messages

Ecological Integrity Assessment in Maine

Goals:

• Review protocols and manuals

from NatureServe, NH, and others

• Field test EIA methods (and FQA)

on floodplain forests and red

maple swamps

• Adapt protocols and manual for

Maine use

• Share methods and manual with

other Maine agencies and

consultants

Ongoing dialogue with NatureServe

and NH staff on methods

Applied EIA to 70+ wetlands visited

from 2013 to 2015

Worked with ME DEP staff on red

maple swamps in 2015

EIA Project Status

In 2016:

• Review final NatureServe EIA materials

• Synch with and finalize Maine manual

• Outreach

Developed Access database to store, process data

Maine EIA Relational Database

Topics to Be Covered

• Background on EIA

• Development of EIA for use in Maine

• A Tale of Two Forests - Real Life Examples!

• Take Home Messages

Messalonskee Stream Waterville Maine

Hardwood River Terrace Forest

Size: 11 ac

Size Rank = C (Absolute Size = C, Relative Size = C)

Size Ranks for Maine Natural Communities (Acres)

Condition

Vegetation Composition

Regeneration

Invasive Cover

Structure

Hydrology Water source

Hydroperiod

Connectivity

Soils

Disturbance

Physical patch diversity

Condition

Hydrology

Soil

Vegetation

WC = 1.29

Stressors Checklist 1

LEVEL 2 STRESSOR CHECKLIST Stressors: direct threats; “the proximate (human) activities or processes that have caused, are causing, or

may cause the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of biodiversity and natural processes (e.g.,

ditching, logging, exotic pest diseases, septic tanks, or pesticide spray). Altered disturbance regime may

be stressor (e.g., flooding, fire, or browse).

Some Important Points about Stressors Checklists.

1. Stressors checklists must be completed for Landscape Context (LC), Vegetation, Soils, and

Hydrology.

2. Assessment of LC is for stressors found from system perimeter out to 250 m (not for stressors

beyond 250 m or the degree to which LC stressors may impact the wetland system being evaluated).

3. Stressors for Vegetation, Soils, and Hydrology are assessed for the very same area for which the

Level 2.5 metrics ratings were applied, i.e. to the wetland system (WS).

4. Threat impact is calculated considering only present observed or inferred stressors (if inferred, the

reason for the inference should be clearly stated).

Assess for up to next 10 yrs Threat Scope (% of system affected)

Small Affects a small (1-10%) proportion of the total occurrence

Restricted Affects some (11-30%) of the total occurrence

Large Affects much (31-70%) of the total occurrence

Pervasive Affects all or most (71-100%) of total occurrence

Assess for up to next 10 yrs Threat Severity (degree of degradation in Buffer or AA ( for Veg, Soil, Hydro)

Slight Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce occurrence

Moderate Likely to moderately degrade/reduce occurrence

Serious Likely to seriously degrade/reduce occurrence

Extreme Likely to extremely degrade/destroy or eliminate occurrence

LC [250 m] Vegetation [WS] Soil/Substrate [WS] Hydrology [WS] STRESSORS CHECKLIST Scope Sever Impact Scope Sever Impact Scope Sever Impact Scope Sever Impact Comments Residential D Industrial, commercial, military E Utility/powerline corridor V Sports field, golf course, urban parkland L Row-crop agriculture, orchard/nursery O Hay field P Roads (gravel, paved, highway), railroad Livestock, grazing, excessive herbivory Other [specify]: R Passive recreation (bird, hike, trample, camp) E Active recreation (ATV, mt bike, hunt, fish, boat) C Other [specify]: Woody resource extraction: logs, shrub cuts, debris V Vegetation management: cutting, mowing E Invasive exotic plant species G Herb-Pesticide, vector control, chemicals (give evid) Other [specify]: N Altered nat disturb regime [specify expected regime] D Other [specify]: Incr sediment/org debris, erosion, gully (logged sites) S Filling, spoils, excavation O Soil disturbance: trampling, vehicle, pugging, skidding I Grading, compaction, plowing, discing L Physical resource extraction: rock, sand, gravel, etc Trash or refuse dumping Other [specify]: H Dam, ditch, diversion, dike, levee, unnat inflow, reser Y Water extraction (lake/groundwat; wat table lowered) D Flow obstructions (culverts, paved stream crossings) R Engineered channel (riprap, armored bank, bed) O Actively managed hydrology (controlled lake level) L Tide gate, weir/drop structure, dredged inlet/channel O PS Discharge: treatmt water, non-storm disch, septic G NPS Discharge: urban runoff, farm drainage Y Other [specify]: Other [specify]: Overall Stressor Impact

Condition = D (2.6)

Vegetation 2.0 Composition D (1)

Regeneration C (3)

Invasive Species D (1)

Structure C (3)

Hydrology 2.0 Water source D (1)

Hydroperiod D (1)

Connectivity B (4)

Soils 3.0

Disturbance C (3)

Physical patch diversity C (3)

Landscape Context

50

250

500

Land Use Index

Using Land cover data in a GIS:

Each cover type is assigned a coefficient value

Current Land Use Coefficient

Paved roads / parking lots / domestic or commercially developed buildings / mining (gravel pit, quarry, open pit, strip mining) 0

Unpaved roads (e.g., driveway, tractor trail) / abandoned mines 0.1

Agriculture (tilled crop production) / intensively developed vegetation (golf courses, lawns, etc.) 0.2

Vegetation conversion (chaining, cabling, rotochopping, clearcut) 0.3

Heavy grazing on rangeland or pastures 0.3

Heavy logging or tree removal with 50-75% of trees >30 cm dbh removed 0.4

Intense recreation (ATV use / camping / sport fields / popular fishing spot, etc.) / military training areas (armor, mechanized) 0.4

Agriculture - permanent crop (vineyards, orchards, nurseries, berry production, introduced hay field and pastures, etc.) 0.4

Commercial tree plantations / Christmas tree farms 0.5

Dam sites and flood disturbed shorelines around water storage reservoirs 0.5

Recent old fields and other disturbed fallow lands dominated by ruderal and exotic species 0.5

Moderate grazing on rangeland 0.6

Moderate recreation (high-use trail) 0.7

Mature old fields and other fallow lands with natural composition 0.7

Selective logging or tree removal with <50% of trees >30 cm dbh removed 0.8

Light grazing / light recreation (low-use trail) / haying of native grassland 0.9

Natural area / land managed for native vegetation 1

* Modified from Hauer et al. 2002

Land Use Index Scoring Table

Overall land use index is then assigned a metric rating

Weight of index values in each of the three

concentric zones toward overall score…

• Buffer (0-50): 60%

• Surrounding land use (50-250): 25%

• Landscape connectivity (250-500): 15%

Metric Rating (Maine)

Excellent (A) Good (B) Fair (C) Poor (D)

0.95 - 1.0 0.85 - 0.94 0.67 - 0.85 < 0.67

Metric Rating (National )

Excellent (A) Good (B) Fair (C) Poor (D)

0.95 - 1.0 0.80 - 0.94 0.4 - 0.79 < 0.4

Landscape Context = 0.52 (D)

Landscape Context: Manual Override

LC =0.65

Ecological Integrity Assessment

Overall wetland rank = D (2.13)

LC

Stressor

Checklist

LC Rank Specs Size Rank Specs

Size Metrics Size = C

Condition Metrics Condition = C

LC Metrics LC = B

Condition Rank Specs

Condition Rank = D LC Rank = D

Condition

Stressor

Checklist

Size Rank = C

EIA Level Rapid Recon Form

Plot data

Post-

Field

General

Form

Field

LC Index GIS

Calculation

Metric1 Metric1

Metric2

Vegetation

Metric1

Metric2 |

Metric7 = C

Soil/Substrate

Metric1

Metric2

Metric3

Hydrology

Metric1

Metric2

Metric3

Pre-Field

A > 4.5

B = 3.5 – 4.5

C = 2.5 - 3.5

D < 2.5

Converting Numeric

Ranks to Letter

Grades (5 Pt Scale)

West Branch of the Pleasant River

Silver Maple Floodplain Forests

T6 R9 NWP

Size = 502 Acres (A)

Size Ranks for Maine Natural Communities (Acres)

Condition • Vegetation

• Hydrology

• Soils

WC = 4.35 (FQI)

Wood nettle

Ostrich fern

Condition = A (4.73)

Vegetation 5.0 Composition A (5)

Regeneration A (5)

Invasive Species A (5)

Structure A (5)

Hydrology 5.0 Water source A (5)

Hydroperiod A (5)

Connectivity A (5)

Soils 4.5

Disturbance B (4)

Physical patch diversity A (5)

Landscape Context = 0.92 (B)

Ecological Integrity Assessment

Overall wetland system rank = A (4.73)

LC

Stressor

Checklist

LC Rank Specs Size Rank Specs

Size Metrics Size = A

Condition Metrics Condition = A

LC Metrics LC = B

Condition Rank Specs

Condition Rank = A LC Rank = B

Condition

Stressor

Checklist

Size Rank = A

EIA Level Rapid Recon Form

Plot data

Post-

Field

General

Form

Field

LC Index GIS

Calculation

Metric1 Metric1

Metric2

Vegetation

Metric1

Metric2 |

Metric4

Soil/Substrate

Metric1

Metric2

Metric3

Hydrology

Metric1

Metric2

Metric3

Pre-Field

Some EIA Considerations

• Adherence to national protocols while adapting

to Maine’s wetlands – dual rankings?

• A regional (Ecoregional?) reference dataset of

scores would be useful for various habitat types

to calibrate A – D rank thresholds.

• Scale of classification matters (e.g., Ecological

Systems vs. NVC types)

EIA: Take Home Messages

• EIA provides a more consistent, repeatable

method for evaluating wetland condition and

conservation value

• Work by NatureServe, NH Heritage and others

has provided a foundation for use of EIA across

the region

• Further work is needed to develop a reference

set of EIA scores for wetlands (NWCA?) to help

calibrate scores

Questions?

andrew.cutko@maine.gov

Today’s Presenters

Justin Schalwin Ecologist/GIS Analyst Maine Natural Areas Program Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Justin has worked as an ecologist with the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) for three years, focusing on ecological inventory and monitoring, natural community classification, public lands management, and GIS analysis. Additionally, Justin helps to manage Maine’s conserved lands spatial database. Prior to working with MNAP, Justin worked with the Kennebec Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy of Maine. Justin graduated from Bates College with a B.A. in Environmental Studies.

The Status of River Corridors An Assessment of Floodplain Forests in Maine Watersheds

Justin Schlawin

Maine Natural Areas Program

Topics to be covered

• Context/ background

• Rare floodplain forest types in Maine

• Landscape analysis

• Landowner contact

• Field survey results

• Conservation outcomes

• Next steps

Floodplains Wetlands Increasingly a Conservation Priority

• Important habitats for SGCN – Rare species – Vernal pools

• Flood control/prevention

• Drinking water/ aquifers • Aquatic/riparian connectivity

• Convergence of ecological and recreational

values

• FP generally reduced from historic extent and are considered at risk – Logging – Agriculture – Invasive plants

Japanese knotweed (invasive)

Wood turtle (SC, G3)

Data: TNC

Relative Area of large river floodplain wetlands among Northeast watersheds

1 St Lawrence/Gaspe 23 Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal

2 St. John 24 Long Island

3 Atlantic Canada 25 Eastern Lake Erie

4 Chaudiere River 26 Allegheny

5 Penobscot 27 West Branch Susquehanna

6 Maine Coastal 28 Upper Susquehanna

7 Kennebec 29 Lower Susquehanna

8 Lower St. Francois River 30 Upper Delaware

9 Upper St. Francois River 31 Lower Delaware

10 Upper Connecticut 32 Lower Hudson

11 Androscoggin 33 Mid Atlantic Coastal

12 Saco 34 Upper Ohio-Beaver

13 Merrimack 35 Monongahela

14 St. Lawrence 36 Potomac

15 Lake Champlain-Richelieu River 37 Upper Chesapeake

16 Southwestern Lake Ontario 38 Upper Ohio-Little Kanawha

17 Southeastern Lake Ontario 39 Guyandotte

18 Northeastern Lake Ontario 40 Kanawha

19 Oswego 41 James

20 Upper Hudson 42 Lower Chesapeake

21 Lower Connecticut 43 Roanoke

22 Connecticut Coastal 44 Albemarle-Chowan

Data: TNC

Relative Condition of large river floodplain wetlands among Northeast watersheds

1 St Lawrence/Gaspe 23 Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal

2 St. John 24 Long Island

3 Atlantic Canada 25 Eastern Lake Erie

4 Chaudiere River 26 Allegheny

5 Penobscot 27 West Branch Susquehanna

6 Maine Coastal 28 Upper Susquehanna

7 Kennebec 29 Lower Susquehanna

8 Lower St. Francois River 30 Upper Delaware

9 Upper St. Francois River 31 Lower Delaware

10 Upper Connecticut 32 Lower Hudson

11 Androscoggin 33 Mid Atlantic Coastal

12 Saco 34 Upper Ohio-Beaver

13 Merrimack 35 Monongahela

14 St. Lawrence 36 Potomac

15 Lake Champlain-Richelieu River 37 Upper Chesapeake

16 Southwestern Lake Ontario 38 Upper Ohio-Little Kanawha

17 Southeastern Lake Ontario 39 Guyandotte

18 Northeastern Lake Ontario 40 Kanawha

19 Oswego 41 James

20 Upper Hudson 42 Lower Chesapeake

21 Lower Connecticut 43 Roanoke

22 Connecticut Coastal 44 Albemarle-Chowan

Topics to be covered

• Context/ background

• Rare floodplain forest types in Maine

• Landscape analysis

• Landowner contact

• Field survey results

• Conservation outcomes

• Next steps

Silver Maple Floodplain Forest (S3)

• Canopy: – Silver Maple – Bur oak – Basswood

• Understory: – Sensitive fern – Ostrich fern – Canada bluejoint – Wood nettle

• Large patch

Data Source: Little, E.L., Jr., 1977, Atlas of United States trees, volume 4, minor Eastern hardwoods: U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 1342, 17 p., 230 maps.

Data: TNC

Relative Condition of large river floodplain wetlands among Northeast watersheds

1 St Lawrence/Gaspe 23 Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal

2 St. John 24 Long Island

3 Atlantic Canada 25 Eastern Lake Erie

4 Chaudiere River 26 Allegheny

5 Penobscot 27 West Branch Susquehanna

6 Maine Coastal 28 Upper Susquehanna

7 Kennebec 29 Lower Susquehanna

8 Lower St. Francois River 30 Upper Delaware

9 Upper St. Francois River 31 Lower Delaware

10 Upper Connecticut 32 Lower Hudson

11 Androscoggin 33 Mid Atlantic Coastal

12 Saco 34 Upper Ohio-Beaver

13 Merrimack 35 Monongahela

14 St. Lawrence 36 Potomac

15 Lake Champlain-Richelieu River 37 Upper Chesapeake

16 Southwestern Lake Ontario 38 Upper Ohio-Little Kanawha

17 Southeastern Lake Ontario 39 Guyandotte

18 Northeastern Lake Ontario 40 Kanawha

19 Oswego 41 James

20 Upper Hudson 42 Lower Chesapeake

21 Lower Connecticut 43 Roanoke

22 Connecticut Coastal 44 Albemarle-Chowan

Hardwood River Terrace Forest (S2)

• Canopy – Sugar Maple – Basswood – Red Maple – Red Oak

• Understory – Ostrich fern – Maidenhair fern – Blue cohosh – Wild leek* – Wild garlic* – Goldie’s fern*

Balsam Poplar Floodplain Forest (S1)

• Canopy: – Balsam poplar

– American elm

– Black cherry

• Understory: – Speckled alder

– Ostrich fern

– Canada bluejoint

– Wood nettle

• Many existing records

– Old

– Bad

• Many known sites never visited

Maine Floodplain Forest Occurrences: 2012

Element Occurrence Rank

A - Excellent estimated viability

B - Good estimated viability

C - Fair estimated viability

H - Historical

D - Fair or poor estimated viability

Topics to be covered

• Context/ background

• Rare floodplain forest types in Maine

• Landscape analysis

• Landowner contact

• Field survey results

• Conservation outcomes

• Next steps

Landscape analysis

• GIS tool to ID sites

– Inputs

• 10m DEM

• NLCD

• 75m from large streams/rivers

– High error of commission, low error of omission

• Air photo interpretation

• 140 sites identified – 62 Penobscot

• (Larger, unfragmented)

– 78 Kennebec • (Smaller, more

fragmented)

• Sites ranked by inventory priority

Floodplain

Landscape Analysis Sites

Topics to be covered

• Context/ background

• Rare floodplain forest types in Maine

• Landscape analysis

• Landowner contact

• Field survey results

• Conservation outcomes

• Next steps

Landowner Contact- Penobscot

• Permission granted by: – 8 Industrial timber

companies

– 4 private non-profit foundations

– Penobscot Indian Nation

– 79 of 234 small private landowners

• Landowner permission received for 48/62 sites

Landowner Contact- Kennebec

• Permission granted by: – 4 Industrial timber

companies

– 2 private non-profit foundations

– 1 Hydroelectric company

– 126 of 313 small private landowners

• Landowner permission received for 50/78 sites

Topics to be covered

• Context/ background

• Rare floodplain forest types in Maine

• Landscape analysis

• Landowner contact

• Field survey results

• Conservation outcomes

• Next steps

Results- Penobscot Watershed

• 48 sites visited

• Silver Maple Floodplain Forest – 15 new

– 6 updates

• Hardwood River Terrace Forest – 8 new

– 8 updates

• Balsam Poplar Floodplain Forest – 1 new (first for watershed)

East Branch Penobscot

• Late successional characteristics

• One of the largest occurrences in the state (~3,300 ac macrosite)

• Silver Maple Floodplain forest and Hardwood River Terrace Forest present

East Branch Penobscot

• Silver Maple Floodplain forest EIA score 4.75/5- A rank

• Hardwood River Terrace Forest- 2 occurrences 4.67/5 and 4.29/5- A and B rank

• Highest FQA average calculated for any FP occurrence in Maine

West Branch Pleasant River

• One of the largest Silver Maple Floodplain occurrences in the state

• Large wood turtle population

West Branch Pleasant River

• EIA score: 4.73/5 – A rank

• High average FQA score

Additional results

• Other EOs – Rare plants

– Exemplary S4 communities

– Rare animal observations

• New floodplain natural communities identified

• Earthworms at every site

Preliminary Results- Kennebec Watershed • 27 sites visited through 2015 • Silver Maple Floodplain Forest

– 4 new – 2 updates

• Hardwood River Terrace Forest – 6 new – 1 update

• 13 new rare plant occurrences

Comparison with Penobscot Watershed:

• Sites richer: more rare plants

• Sites more fragmented/ disturbed

• More invasive species impacts

Topics to be covered

• Context/ background

• Rare floodplain forest types in Maine

• Landscape analysis

• Landowner contact

• Field survey results

• Conservation outcomes

• Next steps

Conservation Outcomes

• Landowners informed of important habitats on their land – Penobscot Nation

• Data integrated into state

database used for environmental reviews for forest management and development plans.

• Information supports conservation proposals – e.g. West Branch Penobscot – In Lieu Fee mitigation database

Topics to be covered

• Context/ background

• Rare floodplain forest types in Maine

• Landscape analysis

• Landowner contact

• Field survey results

• Conservation outcomes

• Next steps

New England Wetlands Webinar Series

Discussion

Thank you

Questions and Comments? Kimberly Roth kroth@neiwpcc.org 978-349-2525

Next Steps

Missed an episode?

Stay tuned for the New

England Wetlands Webinar Series webpage for archived

webinars and news!