IBIs AND WETLAND QUALITY STANDARDS: Using Empirical Data to Define Tiered Aquatic Life Uses In Pennsylvania Wetlands

Transcription

1 IBIs AND WETLAND QUALITY STANDARDS: Using Empirical Data to Define Tiered Aquatic Life Uses In Pennsylvania Wetlands Sarah J. Miller and Denice H. Wardrop Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center

2 From Data to Wetland Standards Field Sampling Condition Assessment Analysis Tiered Aquatic Uses Data Score Breakpoints Wetland Standards, Criteria, BMPS, performance criteria, etc.

3 From Data to Wetland Standards Field Sampling Condition Assessment Analysis Tiered Aquatic Uses Data Score Breakpoints Wetland Standards, Criteria, BMPS, performance criteria, etc.

4 What is an IBI? Multi-metric tool used to assess biological condition or health of habitat Comprised of 8-12 metrics Show specific and predictable response along gradient of human disturbance

5 Steps to Building an IBI 1. Classify environments to define homogeneous data sets (HGM classes) 2. Develop sampling protocol and collect data 3. Identify potential attributes 4. Test potential attributes to identify metrics 5. Score metrics 6. Conduct independent validation

6

7 Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province

8 Classifying Sites Headwater Floodplain Stream Order Spring Seep Riparian Depression Headwater Floodplain (1-2nd order) 2 Floodplain Mainstem Floodplain (> 3rd order) 1 Contribut ing Area Isolated Depression Mainstem Floodplain Riverine Slope 5 Fringing Impounde d Zone Riparian Depression 6 Human Impoundment 3 Slope

9 Headwater Complex Sites 4 Reference Sites (31 reference + 9 Juniata Wetland Monitoring Project) 15 Headwater Floodplains 1 Riparian Depressions 15 Slopes Remaining 47 Juniata sites used to test IBI

10 Data Collection Percent cover Species richness Shrub volume Tree dbh Canopy closure Herbaceous cover

11 Metric Development (y-axis) Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) Weighted Richness Metric Measures ecological conservatism of site

12 Rapid Assessment Score (x-axis) Quantification of disturbance - combination of landscape, buffer, and site-specific stressors cf ((% forested LC* 1 - # stressors) + (buffer score buffer hits)) 1 cf = 1/114

13 Land use within 1-km radius circle

14

15 Ecological Dose Response Curve 12 1 Attribute Rapid Assessment Score

16 Metrics Tested over 4 potential plant metrics Selected 8 to build IBI % Annuals % Non-natives % Invasives Adjusted FQAI % Vascular Cryptogams (ferns and fern allies) % Trees % Cover of tolerant plant species % Cover of Phalaris arundinacea Metrics are summed to derive IBI score

17 6 5 4 FQAI Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

18 18 16 % Vascular Cryptogams Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

19 Table 3. Metrics selected for Headwater Complex IBI Metric Category Metric Predicted response to increasing disturbance r P Functional group Communitybased Speciesspecific Adjusted FQAI score decrease * % Annual species increase.643 * % Non-native species increase.871 * % Invasive species increase.741 * % Trees decrease * % Vascular cryptogams decrease -.77 * % cover of tolerant plant species increase * % cover of Phalaris arundinacea increase.53 * * = P <.5

20 Scoring Metrics FQAI Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

21 Headwater Complex Species High CoC 25% of ferns 1 exotic spp aggressives Perennials Mix CoC Many graminoids 24% of all monocots No Exotics Low CoC 6% of exotics 4% aggressives 25% of monocot Annuals & forbs High CoC 5% of ferns 2 exotic/agg Most trees Perennials Low CoC 17% of cryptogams 33% of exotics 4% of aggressives 35% of annuals Many shrubs & forbs

22 From Data to Wetland Standards Field Sampling Condition Assessment Analysis Tiered Aquatic Uses Data Score Breakpoints Wetland Standards, Criteria, BMPS, performance criteria, etc.

23 Partition for IBI scores RSquare.95 N 87 Imputes IBI scores Non-natives>= Non-natives>= Non-natives< All Rows Annuals>= FQAI>= Non-natives< Annuals< FQAI< FQ... FQAI>= Annuals< Annuals>= Non-native... Non-natives>= Non-natives< Non-natives>= All Rows All Rows Count Mean Std Dev Non-natives< Count Mean Std Dev Non-natives>= Count Mean Std Dev Annuals< Annuals>= Non-natives< Non-natives>= Count Mean Std Dev Count Mean Std Dev Count Mean Std Dev Count Mean Std Dev Group 1 FQAI< Count Mean Std Dev FQAI>= Count Mean Std Dev Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

24 Sectioning Based on CART Groupings IBI Score (-1) % Annual Spp. SWH WH RWH1 RWH2 LQWH Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

25 Sectioning Based on CART Groupings IBI Score (-1) SWH WH RWH1 RWH2 LQWH Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

26 Sectioning Based on CART Groupings IBI Score (-1) % Non-Native Spp. FQAI SWH WH RWH1 RWH2 LQWH Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

27 1 SWH 9 8 IBI Score (-1) WH RWH1 2 1 RWH2 LQWH Rapid Assessment Score 3-5 stressors stressor cat 3-5 stressor cat 6-8 stressor cat 9+ stressor cat

28 1 SWH 9 8 IBI Score (-1) WH RWH1 2 1 RWH2 LQWH Rapid Assessment Score 8 1 Natural Forest, >1 m buffer Herbaceous or Other, -3 m

29 Boxplot of Rapid Assessment Score by CART Group Rapid Assessment Score F(4,82) = 41.45; P < CART Group 4 5

30 Mathematical Quadrisection of the 95 th Percentile IBI Score (-1) SWH WH RWH1 RWH2 LQWH Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

31 Boxplot of Rapid Assessment Score by Quadrisection Abb 1 Rapid Assessment Score F(4,82) = ; P < Quadrisection Abb 4 5

32 Assigning Breakpoints Tier CART Quadrisection Wetland Type SWH WH RWH RWH LQWH

33 IBI Score (-1) Mathematical Rapid Assessment Score CART IBI Score (-1) Rapid Assessment Score 8 1

34 Tier 1 Superior Wetland Habitat IBI Score (-1) Rapid Assessment Score 8 1 Annuals, non-native, and invasive sp typically < 1% FQAI score 4 Predominately forested/forested setting Tolerant cover < 3% Diverse assemblage of vascular cryptogams with high ( 6) coefficients No Phalaris arundinacea Tier 1 wetlands are those that are capable of supporting and maintaining a high quality plant community in terms of species composition, diversity, and functional organization. Although not pristine, wetlands in this category are typically thought of as reference wetlands and can be used to establish performance criteria for mitigation sites.

35

36 IBI Score (-1) Rapid Assessment Score 8 1 Tier 2 Wetland Habitat Annuals, non-natives, and invasives present but not dominant FQAI scores 3-4 Trees 2-3% of flora Tolerant cover 3-5% Diverse assemblage of vascular cryptogams, but decreasing C values Phalaris, if present, represented by only a few individuals Tier 2 wetlands are those that are capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrative, and adaptive plant community in terms of species composition, diversity, and functional organization.

37

38 IBI Score (-1) Rapid Assessment Score 8 1 Tier 3 Restorable Wetland Habitat Level 1 Annuals, non-natives, and invasives present, with some dominant FQAI scores 25-3 Trees 1-2% of flora Tolerant cover 5-6% Weedy vascular cryptogams Phalaris, present in small, localized infestations Tier 3 consists of wetlands that are degraded, but have the ability to be restored with a small to moderate investment of manpower and funds. For RWH1 wetlands, there is a high probability that restoration efforts will be successful.

39

40 IBI Score (-1) Rapid Assessment Score 8 1 Tier 4 Restorable Wetland Habitat Level 2 Annuals, non-natives, and invasives dominant FQAI scores 2-25 Trees <1% of flora Tolerant cover 6-7% Weedy vascular cryptogams dominant Phalaris present and may be dominant Tier 4 consists of wetlands that are degraded, but have the ability to be restored with a moderate to substantial investment of manpower and funds. For RWH2 wetlands, there is a lower probability that restoration efforts will be successful.

41

42 IBI Score (-1) Rapid Assessment Score 8 1 Tier 5 Limited Quality Wetland Habitat Annuals, non-natives, and invasives present with many dominant FQAI scores <2 Trees 5% of flora Tolerant cover 7-8% No vascular cryptogams Phalaris is dominant Tier 5 consists of wetlands that are seriously degraded and that do not have a reasonable potential for regaining the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive plant community.

43

44 Conclusions Biological data can be used to tier aquatic life uses - similar to streams Ecological thresholds more meaningful than statistically-valid sectioning methods Assigning tiers will facilitate pinpointing of stressors and assigning wetland BMPs