MORAM Missouri Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands ... · The Operations Manual is a guide to...
39
MORAM – Missouri Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands Operations Manual
Transcript of MORAM Missouri Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands ... · The Operations Manual is a guide to...
MORAM – Missouri Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands
Operations Manual
1
Section 1 – MORAM Intent and General Information
MORAM Operations Manual Summary
The Operations Manual is a guide to conducting a rapid wetland assessment using the MORAM methodology. The following document describes the intent, team composition, office and pre-field preparation, field sampling protocols, MORAM scores calculation and interpretation.
Table of Contents
Section 1 – MORAM Intent and General Information ............................................................................................................ 1 MORAM Operations Manual Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Intent of the MORAM ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 The MORAM Team .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 The MORAM Operations Manual ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Tasks before Going to the Field .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Desktop and GIS assessment of the Wetland Site .............................................................................................................. 4 Suggested Equipment List and Supplies for Fieldwork ....................................................................................................... 4
General Equipment for all Sites ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Plant Sampling Supplies and Equipment ........................................................................................................................ 5 Soil Sampling Equipment ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Post Data Collection Processing .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2 – Site Information.................................................................................................................................................... 6
Types of Information to be Collected: ................................................................................................................................ 6 Site Information .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Section 3 – Assessment Area Establishment .......................................................................................................................... 8 Types of Information to be Collected: ................................................................................................................................ 8 Assessment Area Size, Shape and Sketch ........................................................................................................................... 8 Dichotomous Key for Selecting AA Layout ........................................................................................................................ 10 Assessment Area Establishment ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Standard Circular AA ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 Standard Circular Obstacle AA Layout .......................................................................................................................... 10 Polygon AA (wide and narrow) ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Wetland Boundary AA Layout ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Nested Quadrat (1 m2) Establishment among Plots (100 m2) .......................................................................................... 14 Establish Quadrat Nests ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Section 4 – Wetland Classifications ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Types of Data to be Collected: .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Wetland Classification – Missouri, Terrestrial Natural Community and Cowardin .......................................................... 15 Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification (HGM) ............................................................................................................. 17
Hydrogeomorphic Classification key adapted from Smith (1995) key and EPA NWCA field operations manual for determining HGM. ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Section 5 - Vegetation Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Types of Data to be Collected: .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Overview of Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 19 Derivation of the Vegetation MORAM Scores .................................................................................................................. 19 Vegetation Sampling and Collection ................................................................................................................................. 20
Vegetation Sampling Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 20 Plant Specimen Collection............................................................................................................................................ 20 Rare or Sensitive Plant Species .................................................................................................................................... 20
2
Section 6 – Soil Description ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Types of Data to be Collected: .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Soil Description Procedure ................................................................................................................................................ 25
Section 7 - Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 Types of Data to be Collected: .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Hydrology Assessment Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 28 Hydrology Index Scores ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Section 8 – Buffer Assessment .............................................................................................................................................. 31 Types of Data to be Collected: .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Buffer Land Classes ........................................................................................................................................................... 31 Buffer Width Assessment .................................................................................................................................................. 32 AA Perimeter Buffer Continuity Assessment .................................................................................................................... 34 Total Buffer Area Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Section 9 – Final Assessment Value ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Generating the Final MORAM Scores ............................................................................................................................... 36
MORAM Field Data Processing ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Wetland Classification Assessment ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Wetland Soils Assessment ............................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Hydrology Assessment ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Buffer Assessment ........................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. MORAM Score Interpretation ....................................................................................................................................... 36 MORAM Metric, Score and Interpretation ................................................................................................................... 36
References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site information field data sheet. ............................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2. MORAM Assessment Area Establishment field data sheet. .................................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Standard AA with distributed four 100 m2 the vegetation plots (A) and Standard Circular Obstacle AA layout (B). .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4. Polygon AA Wide (A) and Narrow (B). ................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5. Wetland Boundary AA examples (A & B). .............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6. (A, B, & C) Additional types of wetland boundary AA layouts. ............................................................................. 13 Figure 7. Nested quadrats (1 m2) & Plot (100 m2) configuration. ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 8. Wetland classification field data sheet. ................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 9. Wetland classification field data sheet. ................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 10. Vegetation field data sheet (estimated % cover for all taxa) example. ............................................................... 22 Figure 11. Vegetation field data sheet (estimated % cover for all taxa) example. ............................................................... 23 Figure 12. Vegetation assessment raw scores. ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 13. Soil profile diagram. ............................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 14. Soil core example. ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 15. Soil description field data sheet. .......................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 16. Hydric soil indicator field data sheet. .................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 17. Soil assessment score field data sheet................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 18. Hydrology scores field data sheet. ....................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 19. Hydrology scores data sheet. ............................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 20. Buffer land class, undisturbed prairie. ................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 21. Non-buffer land class, row crop field adjoining wetland. .................................................................................... 31 Figure 22. Buffer width and continuity data sheet. .............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 23. Standard AA buffer width assessment diagram. ................................................................................................. 33
3
Figure 24. Wetland boundary AA buffer width assessment diagram. .................................................................................. 33 Figure 25. Buffer continuity assessment diagram. ............................................................................................................... 34 Figure 26. Buffer area score field data sheet. ....................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 27. Raw and final MORAM scores and interpretation. .............................................................................................. 37
4
Intent of the MORAM
The Missouri Rapid Assessment Method (MORAM) is intended to be a tool for natural resource professionals to assess wetland site conditions. An ecological definition of wetlands is used for this assessment. The MORAM is not intended to be used for delineating jurisdictional wetlands or to develop mitigation credits. Ecological wetlands include all the characteristics of jurisdictional wetlands but can also be broader in scope to include more geomorphic areas such as entire floodplains and alluvial terraces. The MORAM should take experienced natural resource professionals a half-day (3-4 hours) for office site preparation and GIS reconnaissance. The field sampling portion should take a half-day (3-4 hours) depending on site complexity.
The MORAM Team
MORAM team members should be natural resource professionals or individuals with a strong background in ecological sciences. Team members should have a working knowledge of botany\plant ID, soils, hydrology, and GIS. The team should consist of a soils\hydrology\buffer specialist and a lead botanist. It is not essential but very helpful for each specialist to be accompanied by an assistant to record data. Field crews conducting the MORAM should be competent or familiar in the following areas:
Botany and plant identification
Wetland classification (Hydrogeomorphic, Cowardin, etc.)
Basic soils terminology and profile description
Hydrology and watershed concepts
Reference book The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri (Nelson, 2010)
Soil and landform relationships
GIS and aerial photo interpretation
The MORAM Operations Manual
This field operations manual describes the procedures needed to conduct a MORAM wetland assessment. It guides the user through pre-field tasks, field data collection methods, and post-processing of data.
Tasks before Going to the Field
Field preparation is important for a successful MORAM data collection event. It is important to conduct a proper desktop reconnaissance, equipment check and team briefing before entering the field. The team leader should issue a sampling plan before fieldwork is started. All team members should be briefed on anticipated sites conditions and sampling logistics. The team leader should inspect and inventory equipment and supplies necessary for fieldwork. A list of equipment and supplies is provided later in the document.
Desktop and GIS assessment of the Wetland Site
Conduct a GIS reconnaissance of the wetland site. Examine the most recent aerial photography available for the wetland assessment location. Look for vegetative mosaics and communities. Note probable sources of hydrology for the wetland assessment area (AA). Note any human induced stressors that appear to be present. Print aerial photos and maps of the AA and buffer area for field use.
Suggested Equipment List and Supplies for Fieldwork
The list of equipment is suggested to conduct a MORAM wetland assessment. Some of the items may not be necessary for a particular MORAM sampling event.
General Equipment for all Sites
MORAM Operations Manual
MORAM field data sheets
Aerial photos and topographic maps of wetland site
Clipboard for datasheets
Compass for establishing the AA
GPS for marking points and features
5
Camera for recording AA, vegetation plots, etc.
Laser range finder for establishing AA and assessing buffer
Extra batteries for electronic devices
Pens/permanent markers/pencils
Two - 100 meter measuring tapes
Rod, stake or pin to mark AA center and secure measuring tapes
Boots, waders or other footwear appropriate for the site conditions
Survey flags (ca 1.5 m tall) for marking AA, vegetation plots and voucher specimens
Field pack or backpack for transporting equipment to wetland site
Field equipment vest
Water resistant note pads and paper
Binoculars
Plant Sampling Supplies and Equipment
Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri (1999, 2006 & 2013) and other updated taxonomic field guides
Hand lenses
Plant press, tightening straps, and newspaper
1 x 1 m frame (PVC, Wood, etc.)
DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) tape
White tall (13 gallon) trash bags
Binoculars (tree identification)
Small shovel (digging roots for plant specimens)
Hand pruners (woody voucher specimens)
Soil Sampling Equipment
Munsell soil color book
Trowel or soil knife
Soil probe with sampling tube
Sharpshooter or tiling style shovel
Plastic sheeting or tarp to display soil profile
Tape measure (centimeters)
Golf tees or similar items to mark soil horizon boundaries
Pruners for cutting roots
NRCS- Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils (optional)
NRCS- Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States Version 7.0, 2010
Post Data Collection Processing
Field data is entered into a MORAM digital spreadsheet and the MORAM scores are automatically calculated. Specifics of the process are given in Section 9-Final Assessment Values.
6
Section 2 – Site Information
Types of Information to be Collected:
Site ID number and date
Location, county and GPS coordinates
Aerial photographs
Evaluator information
Brief site description
Photo description
Site Information
Record administrative attributes on the Site Information field data sheet (Figure 1). Site information is determined based on project specific needs. Site ID or wetland name can be based on the naming convention of the user. Use a GPS to record site coordinates in decimal degrees. Record the county. Note the weather conditions of the day. List the names and affiliations of the MORAM team members and their contact information. Site description notes should include travel directions, landowner information and special access conditions. Photographs of the site should include sightlines along the four cardinal directions, the soil profile, and any special features present.
7
Figure 1. Site information field data sheet.
Missouri Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (MORAM)
Site Information
Wetland Site Name/ID:
Date of Evaluation:
County:
GPS Coordinates (Decimal Degrees) Latitude (N): Longitude (W):
Weather conditions on day of evaluation:
Contact (phone and e-mail):
Evaluator(s) Address:
Site Description/Notes:
Photos: (1)ID number (2)Direction of photo view (3)Description
Evaluator(s) and Affiliation:
8
Section 3 – Assessment Area Establishment
Types of Information to be Collected:
Assessment area layout used
Area of AA
Sketch of wetland AA, buffer and relevant features
Assessment Area Size, Shape and Sketch
The assessment area (AA) layout shape is dependent on several factors. These may include the goal of the investigator, size and shape of the wetland or special conditions on site. The complexity or mosaic of wetland types can also be a determinant of the type of AA layout used (Figure 2). Provide a sketch of the AA and buffer. The area of the AA can be calculated with GIS or in the field using a GPS with an area calculation function. Use the dichotomous key (following Figure 2) for determining AA layout.
9
Figure 2. MORAM Assessment Area Establishment field data sheet.
Standard Circular AA (0.5 hectare)
Polygon AA
Wetland Boundary AA
Area of AA (record m2 from
GPS field calcualtion or GIS ):
MORAM Assessment Area (AA) Establishment
AA Layout Used (choose one):
Sketch Map: Draw relevant wetland features including the AA boundary and buffer lines. Provide length
and width of AA. Draw and annotate each vegetation plot. Mark the location of the soil pit. Include
relevant features such as streams, roads, stressors and other human made features. Delineate different
wetland classes and land -use if applicable. Include a north arrow for reference.
10
Dichotomous Key for Selecting AA Layout
Use the following key to identify the appropriate plot layout for the AA.
1 Assessment area, any; obstacles absent to 100 m2 plot placement----------------------------------2 1 Assessment area; obstacles (deep water; wide, deep channels; cliffs; other physical barriers; etc.) to plot placement------------------------------------------------------obstacle plot layout (Figure #b)
2 Assessment area is a ½-ha circle – Circular assessment area (four plots on two axes, north – south and east – west) --------------------------- Standard plot layout (Figure #a)
2 Assessment area is not a circle or is < ½ ha, alternate plot layouts go to----------------3 3 Assessment area is a ½-ha polygon in which a ½-ha standard (Figure ##) does fit into wetland habitat---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 3 Assessment area < ½ ha, but > 0.1 ha; a polygon equaling wetland boundary wetland boundary plot
layout (plots distributed). 4 Assessment area width and length > 30m------------wide polygon assessment area plot layout
(plots on two axes) 4 Assessment area is ≤ 30m wide -----------------------narrow polygon assessment area plot layout
(plots on one axis)
Assessment Area Establishment
Standard Circular AA
The standard circular AA is a modification of the 2011 and 2016 National Wetland Condition AA. It can be used in an area with a uniform wetland type. It can also be applied in a wetland with a mosaic of wetland types where it is the intent to sample the various conditions that occur. In the MORAM, the Standard AA consists of four 100 m2 the vegetation plots in a 0.5 ha circular area. The position and location of the plots are along 40 m placement lines placed in cardinal directions (north, east, south, and west) from the center of the AA. Vegetation plots are positioned and numbered in clockwise order from the north, east, south and west placement lines at 20 m, 15 m, 10 m, and 15 m, respectively. Specifically, place vegetation plot 1 to the west side of the north placement line (e.g., to the left when facing outward from the AA center) 15 m from the AA center. Place plot 2 to the north side of the east plot placement line (e.g., to the left when facing outward from the AA center) 10 m from the AA center. Place plot 3 to the east side of the south placement line (e.g., to the left when facing outward from the AA center) 15 m from the AA center. Place Veg Plot 4 to the south side of the west plot placement line (e.g., to the left when facing outward from the AA center) 20 m from the AA center.
Standard Circular Obstacle AA Layout
In the obstacle plot layout AA, the four 100 m2 the vegetation plots are distributed as close as possible to the standard plot layout as possible while making adjustments for obstacles (Figure 3B). The plots with obstacles, the plots are placed adjacent to the obstacle with a 5 m buffer. Place plots along plot placement lines originating from the center and defined by long and short axes of AA.
11
Figure 3. Standard AA with distributed four 100 m2 the vegetation plots (A) and Standard Circular Obstacle AA layout (B).
Polygon AA (wide and narrow)
Wide Polygon AA with width > 30 m (Figure 4A). Place 100 m2 square plots in a configuration matching the standard plot layout as closely as possible. Wide polygon AA with width 30 to 40 m: Place 1 plot mid-way between the center and AA boundary along only one placement line of the short axis, and the other three Plots at uniform distances along long axis. Narrow Polygon AA Veg Plot Layout with width ≤ 30m (Figure 4B). Veg Plots on One Axis in ½-ha Polygon AA ≤ 30m wide. Number the 100 m2 plots starting from the north and proceeding south (Figure 4B). If the AA or polygon is on an east-west direction, start plot 1 on the east end of the AA and work westward until all plots are placed.
N
W E
S40 m
40 m
40 m
40 m
2
3
4
1
15 m
10
m
15 m
20
m
A
2
3
4
1
N
W E
S
40 m
40 m
40 m
40 m
B
12
Figure 4. Polygon AA Wide (A) and Narrow (B).
Wetland Boundary AA Layout
The wetland boundary AA is used when the wetland is abnormally shaped and is less than 0.5 ha circular area (5A & B). One must be able to place four 10 m x 10 m plots within the AA. Other possible wetland boundary AA layouts are shown in Figure 6A, B & C.
4
N
E
S
W 10 m
15
m
61 m
15
m
10 m2
1
3
82 m
4
N
E
S
W
3
2
1
40 m
125 m
A B
13
Figure 5. Wetland Boundary AA examples (A & B).
Figure 6. (A, B, & C) Additional types of wetland boundary AA layouts.
2
3
4
1
N
W E
S35 m
30 m
20 m
18 m
21
43
A B
43
2
1
W
N
S
E250 m
4
32
1
W
N
S
E
4
3
1
2
N
E
S
W62.5 m
20
m2
0 m
62.5 m
A
B
C
14
Nested Quadrat (1 m2) Establishment among Plots (100 m2)
Establish Quadrat Nests
Each nest is comprised of four 1 m2 quadrats within each 100 m2 plot positioned at each corner (NW, NE, SE, & SW). For example, outside edges of the 1 m2 quadrats are formed by the edges of the 100 m2 plot during plot establishment. Interior sides of the 1 m2 quadrat may be defined using (a) two 1 m PVC poles, (b) one meter square PVC quadrat frame, (c) two 1 m long wooden slats, or (d) a 2 m length of rope with the mid-point marked. Any of the items used for the inside quadrat edges can be placed on the ground in open or herbaceous vegetation, or threaded through or over the top of shrubby vegetation. If obstacles prevent leaving these materials in place, measure the distance to the quadrat corners and mark quadrat edges with surveying flags (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Nested quadrats (1 m2) & Plot (100 m
2) configuration.
1 m2 Nested Quadrats and 100 m2 Plot Layout
1
NW NE
SW SE
10 m
10 m
1 m 1 m
1 m 1 m
1 m
1 m
1 m
1 m
N
2
34
15
Section 4 – Wetland Classifications
Types of Data to be Collected:
Missouri wetland types (Epperson, 1992)
Missouri Terrestrial Natural Communities (Nelson, 2010)
National Wetlands Inventory (Dahl, 2006; Cowardin, 1979)
Percent AA by type, best estimate
Hydrogeomorphic type adapted for Missouri (Smith, 1995)
Wetland Classification – Missouri, Terrestrial Natural Community and Cowardin
The wetland classification data sheet requires a basic knowledge of wetland classification (Figure 8). First, determine the Missouri wetland type listed in the first column (Epperson, 1992). There are eight choices. Second, determine the Missouri natural terrestrial communities (Nelson, 2010). Third, determine the Cowardin classification. Last, record the wetland type or types in the AA. There may only be one type, however it is possible to have a mosaic of types within the AA.
16
Figure 8. Wetland classification field data sheet.
Missouri
Wetland Types
(Epperson 1992)
Missouri Terrestrial Natural
Communities (Nelson 2010 )
National Wetlands Inventory -
Cowardin (Dahl 2006)
Record Percent of
AA by type (can be
more than one type)
1 Swamp Swamp Palustrine Forested
Pond Swamp
2 Shrub Swamp Shrub Swamp Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
Pond Shrub Swamp
3 Forested Wetland Mesic Bottomland Woodland Palustrine Forested
Mesic Bottomland Forest
Wet-Mesic Bottomland Woodland
Wet-Mesic Bottomland Forest
Wet Bottomland Forest
Riverfront Forest
Dry-Mesic Bottomland Woodland
Dry-Mesic Bottomland Forest
Bottomland Flatwoods
Sinkhole Flatwoods
Upland Flatwoods
4 Marsh Freshwater Marsh Palustrine Emergent
Pond Marsh Lacustrine Littoral Emergent
5 Wet Meadow Wet Bottomland Prairie Palustrine Emergent
Wet-Mesic Bottomland Prairie
Prairie Swale
Hardpan Prairie
6 Fens and Seeps Ozark Fen Palustrine Emergent
Forested Fen
Prairie Fen
Limestone/Dolomite Spring
Glacial Fen
Seep
Acid seep
Saline Seep
7 N/A Palustrine Open Water
Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom
Palustrine Aquatic Bed
Lacustrine Littoral
8 Streams Sandbar River Upper Perennial
Gravelwash Riverine Lower Perennial
Streambank/Riverbank Riverine Intermittent Stream
Natural Ponds
and Lakes
17
Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification (HGM)
Determine the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type of the wetland (Smith, 1995). The data sheet (Figure 9) and classification key (see below) have been customized for wetlands that occur in Missouri. There are five main classes with their respective subclasses. Using the key, find the most suitable hydrogeomorphic type based on map reconnaissance and knowledge of the AA. Designate one class and subclass for the wetland (on rare occasions, it is possible to have more than one class and subclass based on human alterations or complexity).
Hydrogeomorphic Classification key adapted from Smith (1995) key and EPA NWCA field operations manual for
determining HGM.
Key adapted for Missouri Hydrogeomorphic Classes 1. Wetland is topographically flat and precipitation is a dominant source of water →2 1. Wetland is topographically flat and precipitation is not a dominant source of water→3 2. Wetland has a mineral soil → Flats Mineral Soil 2. Wetland has an organic soil →Flats Organic Soil
2. Either of the above with hydrology altered by human actions→ Flats –Human Altered 3. Wetland is associated with a nontidal stream channel, floodplain, or terrace → 4 3. Wetland is not associated with a nontidal stream channel, floodplain, or terrace → 5
4. Stream is 1st or 2nd order → Riverine Upper Perennial 4. Stream is 3rd order or higher → Riverine Lower Perennial 4. Wetland is part of a mosaic of small streams, floodplain features → Riverine Complex 4. Wadable channel has been impounded by beaver activity → Riverine – Beaver Impounded
4. Wadable channel has been excavated and deepened, the active floodplain has been excavated and\or is isolated Wetland is topographically flat and precipitation is a dominant source of water →2 1. Wetland is topographically flat and precipitation is not a dominant source of water→3
2. Wetland has a mineral soil → Flats Mineral Soil 2. Wetland has an organic soil →Flats Organic Soil from overbank flows from channel → Riverine Human Altered 4. Stream is constrained by a graminoid-dominated wetland supported primarily by groundwater → 8
5. Wetland is fringing a lake or reservoir → 6 5. Wetland is not fringing a lake or reservoir → 7
6. Wetland inundation controlled by relatively natural hydroperiod → Lacustrine Fringe 6. Wetland inundation controlled by dam releases → Lacustrine Artificially Flooded
7. Wetland is primarily supported by groundwater → 8 7. Wetland is associated with a topographic depression → 9
8. Water source is groundwater discharged to the surface on the side of a hill due to a geologic feature → Slope Stratigraphic 8. Water source is ground water discharged at the toe-of-slope → Slope Topographic 8. Slope wetland has been excavated to increase depth and amount of surface water → Slope-Human Altered
9. Topographic depression without surface water inlets, outlets or other connections → 10 9. Topographic depression with surface water inlets, outlets or other connections → 11
10. Wetland is a naturally occurring feature of the landscape → Depression Closed 10. Closed Depression is impounded by beaver activities → Depression – Closed Beaver Impounded 10. Closed Depression is impounded by human activities → Depression – Closed Human Impounded 10. Closed Depression is excavated by human activities → Depression – Closed Excavated 10. Closed Depression is excavated by and impounded by human activities → Depression – Closed Human Excavated and Impounded 11. Wetland is a naturally occurring feature of the landscape → Depression Open 11. Open Depression is impounded by beaver activities → Depression – Open Beaver Impounded 11. Open Depression is impounded by human activities → Depression – Open Human Impounded 11. Open Depression is excavated by human activities → Depression – Open Excavated 11. Open Depression is excavated and impounded by human activities → Depression – Open Human Excavated and Impounded
18
Figure 9. Wetland classification field data sheet.
Class Subclass
Closed
Closed Beaver Impounded
Closed Human Impounded
Closed Human Excavated
Closed Human Excavated and Impounded
Open
Open Beaver Impounded
Open Human Impounded
Open Human Excavated
Open Human Excavated and Impounded
Mineral Soil
Organic Soil (very rare)
Human Altered
Naturally Occurring
Artificially Flooded
Upper perennial (1st and 2nd order)
Lower perennial (3rd and higher)
Complex
Beaver Impounded
Human Altered
Slope-Stratographic
Slope-Topographic
Slope-Human Altered
Slope
Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classes Modified for Missouri
Depression
Flats (rare)
Lacustrine Fringe
Riverine
19
Section 5 - Vegetation Assessment
Types of Data to be Collected:
Inventory of all plant species
Estimated percent cover of all species (Adventive and Native)
Diameter at Breast Height (1.37 m) of all woody plants greater than 5 cm DBH
Overview of Vegetation Assessment
The vegetation portion of the MORAM is a rating index developed to assist natural resource managers to evaluate and assess wetland sites across the state of Missouri. The data to be collected include: species inventory, species percent cover and diameter at breast height (DBH) of trees. These data will be used to determine species richness, wetness (W) values, and coefficient of conservatism (C) values. Lastly, the final vegetation MORAM scores (Floristic Quality and Quantitative Indices or FQQA) will be generated during post data collection processing. The details of metrics used for the scores are given below.
Derivation of the Vegetation MORAM Scores
The vegetation rapid assessment is based on both quantitative and qualitative metrics. We use a combination of native species richness, adventive species richness, species abundance, C and W values in the calculation of a combined index. The history of the Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) is rooted with Swink and Wilhelm (1977). FQA summarizes floristic data from a floristic list including species richness, C, rare and adventive species. Other metrics often used to assess vegetation quality include species abundance, species diversity, W and C values. Floristic quality index (FQI) has been used with a weighted index of native species richness (N) or native to adventive species richness and/or the product of the average C and the square-root of species richness (√N). The square-root transformation of N limits the variable influence of area alone on native species richness (Swink and Wilhelm, 1979; Wilhelm and Masters, 1995). It has been shown that relatively degraded sites can have a FQI similar to or greater than high-quality natural areas if they support much greater native species richness. This may occur when there are significant differences in size, levels of habitat heterogeneity, or inventory effort among sites. Thus, rather than relying on a single index to describe floristic integrity, it is necessary to include more than one parameter beyond the composition to estimate more accurately and precisely site integrity.
For the floristic quantitative and qualitative metrics we recommend that calculations be made among all strata layers (aquatic and herbaceous, shrubs and understory, saplings, lianas and trees) using all native and adventive species information, wetness values, C, abundance values (estimated percent cover of all species and tree basal area or BA). The establishment of adventive or exotic species in a natural community often can result in the replacement of native species and interfere with disturbance recovery processes. Differences in these values among sites provide measures in changes of floristic and ecological integrity (Herman et. al., 2001; Swink and Wilhelm, 1979; Wilhelm and Masters 1995). The methods of data collection are a modification of the National Wetland Condition Assessment (2011, 2016) vegetation data protocols. The final MORAM vegetation floristic quality-quantitative index (FQQI) is the average FQI for each species among quadrats or plots.
The C and W values for the state of Missouri were recently updated (Ladd and Thomas, 2015). Unfortunately the adventive species CC values have not been determined. The latter is often expressed as “no value” or more detrimental a ‘0’. For example, Cynanchum leave or blue vine belonging to the milkweed family, Asclepiadaceae, has been assigned a C value of ‘0’. Many FQA’s and FQI’s place a ‘0’ value for adventive species and the results are biased or skewed. The MORAM procedure assigns a ‘-1’ for adventive species. More research is needed with respect to individual adventive species invasiveness and the precise negative C weight. The species FQQI formula of the MORAM is given below. All MORAM score formulas are automatically calculated in the digital spreadsheet.
20
Formula for the MORAM FQQI
𝐹𝑄𝑄𝐼𝑖 = [√𝐴𝑖
√∑ 𝐴𝑖𝑛𝑖=1
×√𝑆𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒
√𝑆𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
×𝑆𝑊
𝑆𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙× 𝐶𝑖]
Where 𝐹𝑄𝑄𝐼𝑖 is the floristic qualitative-quantitative index, 𝐴𝑖` is the abundance (estimated percent cover, height or basal area) for species i, 𝑆𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 is native species richness, 𝑆𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 is the total species richness, and 𝐶𝑖 is coefficient of conservatism for species i.
There are several caveats to the formula. First, if there are no adventive species (unlikely) the ratio of square root of the native species richness to the square root of the total species richness defaults to 1. Second, if there are no wetland species then ratio of wetland species richness to total species richness is ‘0’. Finally, if the site is composed of only 1 species then the FQQI value defaults to its coefficient of conservatism value. The FQQI formula is used for each species. The overall vegetation index is the sum of FQQI values. The overall FQQI for the AA is on a scale of 0-10, although individual quadrat and plot scores for FQQI may be more or less. The formula is the same for tree species except that basal area is used instead of estimated cover.
Vegetation Sampling and Collection
Most natural resource managers will be familiar with collecting estimated percent cover for each species, DBH for trees, and collecting voucher specimens.
Vegetation Sampling Procedure
Nomenclature Sources Use Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri (Yatskievych, 1999, 2006, 2013) for species identification and nomenclature.
Herbaceous species are composed of aquatic plants, herbaceous plants, woody plant seedlings less than 3.0 m tall, and species of vines. There may be exceptions to the height criteria. For example, Conyza canadensis and Ambrosia trifida may grow beyond 3 m but are still considered herbaceous. Woody plants that are too dense and/or prostrate to record in the usual manner are also included. Such taxa include are Rosa species, Rubus species, and etc.
Lianas are defined as any woody or non-woody vine.
Saplings and shrubs are defined as woody plants less than 5.0 cm DBH, but equal to or greater than 3.0 m tall.
Trees in this study are defined as woody plants that are equal to or greater than 5.0 cm in diameter at breast height (1.37 m) or DBH.
Plant Specimen Collection Specimens of all species, known and unknown identity, occurring in the sample area are collected for later identification or taxonomic verification. Press plant specimens as soon as possible. Write the species name or pseudonym, description, and collecting number on the associated newspaper print that is used for plant pressing. Also, record this information in a field collecting book.
Rare or Sensitive Plant Species It is important to avoid collecting plants that are listed as threatened, endangered, sensitive, or rare species. The investigator must be familiar with Missouri Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Species County Distribution (www.fws/midwest/endangered/lists/missouri-spp.html) and the Missouri Species and Communities’ of Concern Checklist (https://nature.mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/2017-SOCC.pdf). Photograph any species of concern.
21
Collecting Vascular Plant Species Data and Creating Species List Species percent cover data are collected from four nested quadrats located in the NW, NE, SE and SW from corners of each 100 m2 plot. Print the field data sheets on water resistant paper if possible (Figure 10). It is also recommended to use a graphite pencil for field durability and corrections. Specific procedures are as follows:
1) Suggested routine for the collection of data for each 1 m2 quadrat
Start at Plot 1 and work sequentially from Plot 1 to Plot 4. As each species is observed during sampling, enter its species name on the field data sheet under TAXON. Initiate a species list by recording the names of all species encountered in the first nested corner quadrat (NW). If the species identity is known, record the full binomial name (genus and specific epithet). If the species identity is unknown, give it a descriptive pseudonym.
For the MORAM, a plant is present if it is rooted in or overhangs the quadrat or plot.
Record all species encountered. 2) Assign pseudonyms for unknown plant species.
The investigator makes pseudonym assignments for unknown plant species using the rules from NWCA 2011, 2016. It is often useful to sketch a drawing to aid in identification later. Label all voucher specimens using a string tag and pseudonym.
3) Estimate Species Percent Cover
Once the initial plant species list is completed the estimated percent cover of each species is recorded for the first or NW quadrat. Additional species are added as one proceeds to work. Be sure to include any species that overhang the quadrat or plot. Sample the remaining quadrats using the above procedure.
Estimated percent cover for a given species in quadrats implicitly includes its presence in larger sample units (e.g., if a species is present in the 1 m2 quadrat it is also present in the 100 m2 plot, most likely with different values).
If a species does not occur in any of the quadrats, but occurs in the 100 m2 plot, write the estimated percent cover under the column ‘P’ for that particular plot number (1, 2, 3, or 4).
General Percent Cover Procedures The abundances of individual vascular plant species are assessed as cover within each 1 m2 quadrat and 100 m2 plot. Percent cover is defined as an estimation of the areal percentage (0 to 100%) of the plot area covered by a particular species. Percent cover will be estimated for all plants (aquatic, herbaceous, lianas, shrubs, and trees).
Use whole integers ranging from 1 to 100%. For all values less than 1% use a value of 0.1%. Please do not use cover class values to collect data. Cover class values (e.g. Daubenmire 1959) if used can be easily converted from raw values. One cannot convert cover classes back to original raw percentage values.
Tree Diameter at Breast Height The DBH will be measured for each woody species that is equal to or greater than 5 cm DBH. These data are
entered on the field data sheet (Figure 12) for the 100 m2 plots only and is used similarly to estimate basal area (an abundance measure similar to estimated percent cover).
22
Figure 10. Vegetation field data sheet (estimated % cover for all taxa) example.
Estimated Percent Cover for all Taxa (Aquatic, Herbaceous, Vines, Shrubs/Saplings and Trees)
C - Coefficient of Conservatism (Ladd & Thomas, 2015)
P - 100 m2 Plot
Q - 1 m2 Quadrat
Taxa in bold represent a Missouri Species of Concern.
TAXA IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS REPRESENT ADVENTIVE SPECIES OR NON-NATIVE.
Data: Estimated Percent Cover of All Species within Plot (including overlap & non-rooted vegetation).
Taxon Common Name CC W Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P4
A ll Taxa ( <3 m t all) - % C over ( 0 .1 - 10 0 )
Lianas ( >3 m From Ground) CC W Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P4
Shrub / Sap lings ( >3 m t all) - % C over CC W Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P4
Trees ( >3 m t all) - % C over CC W Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P4
W - Wetland Indicator Status or Wettness (Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014.)
23
Figure 11. Vegetation field data sheet (estimated % cover for all taxa) example.
Tree Diameter at Breast Height Data (cm)
C - Coefficient of Conservatism (Ladd & Thomas, 2015)
P - 100 m2 Plot DBH - Diamter at Breast Height (1.37 m) in Units of centimeters (cm).
Taxa in bold represent a Missouri species of concern.
TAXA IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS REPRESENT ADVENTIVE SPECIES OR NON-NATIVE.
C W P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4Trees (> 3 m Tall) Diameter at Breast Height (cm)
W - Wetland Indicator Status or Wettness (Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014.)
24
Figure 12. Vegetation assessment raw scores.
Vegetation Assessment
Estimated % Cover Raw Score
1 m2 All Taxa (< 3 m Height)
1 m2 All Taxa (> 3 m Height)
1 m2 Shrubs and Saplings (> 3 m Height)
1 m2 Trees (> 3 m Height)
1 m2 Plot Summary:
100 m2 All Taxa (< 3 m Height)
100 m2 Lianas (> 3 m Above Ground)
100 m2 Shrubs and Saplings (> 3 m Height)
100 m2 Trees (> 3 m Height)
100 m2 Plot Summary:
Diameter at Breast Height (1.37 m)
Tree (100 m2 Plot) Summary:
25
Section 6 – Soil Description
Types of Data to be Collected:
Soil horizon designation and depths
Soil textural class for hydric indicators (sandy, loamy, clayey, etc.)
Rock fragments
Matrix color and redoximorphic features
Hydric soil indicators (NRCS, 2010)
Summary of AA soil (narrative description with a respective index value)
Soil Description Procedure
Establish the pit location only after the vegetation plots are laid out. This will ensure that the plants within the vegetation plots are not disturbed. Identify a representative location for the soil pit based on geomorphic indicators in the AA. Choose a sample pit location that is representative of the landform taking into account the microtopography and variability in the wetland AA. If the sample team is unable to dig a pit, use a soil probe to collect a soil core for describing. The soil probe can also be used to collect several samples throughout the AA to help one determine the most representative location for the sample pit. Describe the soil pit using the following steps:
1. Excavate the soil pit to a depth of 50-60 centimeters (Figure 13). If possible, use a plastic sheet or something similar to contain and display the soil profile (Figure 14).
2. Record each soil horizon designation and depth using the soil description form (Figure 15). 3. Record soil texture using the three classes for determining hydric soil indicators - Sandy, loamy/clayey, or mucky
mineral. 4. Record the dominate soil matrix color using the Munsell color book. 5. Record presence and type of redoximorphic features. If needed, consult the NRCS Field Book for Describing and
Sampling Soils (2010). 6. Record the percentage of horizon composed of distinct or prominent redoximorphic features. 7. Record the color of most evident redoximorphic feature. Iron (Fe) or Manganese (Mn). 8. Determine if hydric soil indicators are present or not by interpreting the soil profile description. Use the NRCS
Field Indicators of Hydric Soil 2010 as your reference guide. If present, record indicator on data sheet (Figure 16) 9. Use the data collected on the soil description form and knowledge of AA conditions to assign a soil summary
score (Figure 17).
Figure 13. Soil profile diagram.
26
Figure 14. Soil core example.
Figure 15. Soil description field data sheet.
Texture:
#
Ho
rizo
n D
esig
nat
ion
( if
kn
ow
n)
Depth
to
lower
bndy.
(cm)
Mineral: 1 - Sandy; 2 -
Loamy/Clayey; or 3 -
Mucky Mineral.
Organic : 4 -Muck; 5 -
Mucky Peat; 6 -
Unspecified)
% R
ock
Fra
gmen
ts >
2m
m
Hue Value Chroma
Fe = Iron;
Mn =
Manganese;
C = Carbon;
S = Soft
masses;
NC = nodules
or
concretions;
P = Pore
linings;
D =
Depletions
OB =
organic
bodies;
MS =
Masked
sand
grains%
of
Ho
rizo
n w
/ d
isti
nct
or
pro
min
ent
feat
ure
s
Hue Value Chroma
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Notes on soil conditons with the AA. If applicable, record AA surface water depth or depth to water in soil pit:
Soil Description Form
Soil Matrix ColorHorizons Redoximorphic Features, Type and Color
Most prominent featureFeature Types
Soil pit located near veg plot: 1 2 3 4
27
Figure 16. Hydric soil indicator field data sheet.
Figure 17. Soil assessment score field data sheet.
Hydric Indicator Hydric Indicator Hydric Indicator
A1 - Histosol F1 - Loamy Mucky Mineral S1 - Sandy Mucky Mineral
A2 - Histic Epipedon F2 - Loamy Gleyed Matrix S3 -5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat
A3 - Black Histic F3 - Depleted Matrix S4 - Sandy Gleyed Matrix
A4 - Hydrogen Sulfide F6 - Redox Dark Surface S5 - Sandy Redox
A5 - Stratified Layers F7 - Depleted Dark Surface S6 - Stripped Matrix
A10 - 2 cm Muck F8 - Redox Depressions S7 - Dark Surface
A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface F12 - Iron-Manganese Mass
A12 - Thick Dark Surface F13 - Umbric Surface
No Hydric Soil Indicator
Hydric Soil Indicators (USDA Land Resource Regions M, N, and O - specific to Missouri)
Reference: Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0, 2010 -Natural Resources Conservation Service
All Soils Loamy and Clayey Soils Sandy Soils
Soil Description AA Score Enter One AA Score Comment
Hydric Soil Indicator(s) are present 10
Floodplain or floodplain terrace, or other
alluvial soil that experiences periodic
overbank flooding or ponding 10
Soil moisture is affected by groundwater
seep or spring 10
Soil is formed in flatwoods or upland
swale or other hydrogeomorphic position
that supports wetland functions 10
Soil profile is disturbed by minor
sedimentation or other human disturbance
but retains wetland value 7.5
Soil profile is disturbed by moderate
sedimentation or other human disturbance
but retains wetland value 5
Highly disturbed/ sedimentation is a
severe impediment to wetland function 2.5Soil/landform is not conducive to wetland
functions and/or soil is non-hydric and/or
non-alluvial 0
Summary of AA Soil (Select One)
28
Section 7 - Hydrology
Types of Data to be Collected:
Water sources present
Hydrologic characteristics or alterations
USACOE hydrology indicators
Hydrology score – ditching, fill or drainage alterations in the AA and buffer area
Hydrology score – alterations such as dikes, berms, levees or water control structures
Hydrology Assessment Procedure
Hydrology is a major component of wetland formation. Landscape position, soils, geology, precipitation, groundwater interaction and surface water runoff influence wetland hydrology (Tiner, 1999). Hydrologic conditions affect both plant composition and soil characteristics. Take a cursory walk the through the AA and buffer to observe the hydrologic characteristics that have the most influence on the wetland site and assessment area. The hydrology checklist (Figure 18) will be used as a record of site conditions, to assign a narrative description, and to determine an index value. First, record all water sources and provide a brief description of the hydrologic setting. Next, assess the AA and buffer to document the hydrologic characteristics and any alterations. Mark each applicable subclass and provide a brief description. Lastly, document the Hydrology Indicators from the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Although these indicators are used in jurisdictional wetland delineations, they are only used in the MORAM as additional data to record and assess site conditions. Provide any additional notes important to the assessment.
Hydrology Index Scores
Characteristics or alterations in the AA and buffer that affect site hydrologic conditions are scored in this section (Figure 19). Two hydrology index scores will be given to the AA and buffer based on the hydrology worksheet from the previous section and knowledge gained from walking the AA and buffer. The scores are derived by subjective knowledge and choosing the most appropriate score that matches the corresponding narrative. Assign the first hydrology score based on the level of ditching, fill placement, or drainage that has or has not occurred in the AA/buffer. The second hydrology score is based on the level of human alterations such dikes, berms, levees or water control structures in the AA and buffer. The two hydrology scores will then be entered into the final score sheet for the MORAM assessment.
29
Figure 18. Hydrology scores field data sheet.
Stream inflow Precipitation
Springs or seeps Groundwater
Lake levels Overbank flooding
Pipes or culverts Other
Damming Features:
Dikes Inflowing
Berms Outflowing
Dams
Railroad Bed Corrugated Pipe
Roads Box
Shallow Channels: Excavation/Dredging:
Animal Trampling Disturbed soil
Vehicle Ruts
Impervious Surfaces: outlets
Roads
Concrete Irrigation
Asphalt Water Supply
Recent Sedimentation:
sediment deposits
Stunted or Stressed
Plants
Microtopographic
Relief
Surface Water Soil Saturation
Geomorphic Position Shallow Aquatard
High Water Table
Water Marks Sparsely Vegetated
Concaves Surfaces
Algal Mat or Crust Marl Deposits
Water-stained Leaves Drift Deposits
Aquatic Invertebrate Surface Soil Cracks
Drainage Patterns Salt Crust
Sediment Deposits Biotic Crust
Iron Deposits Moss Trim Lines
Hydrogen Sulfide odor Salt Deposits
Dry Season Water Table Surficial Thin Muck
Crayfish Burrows
Evidence of Recent Inundation
Evidence of Current or Recent Soil Saturation
Notes on Hydrology Indicators:
Culverts:
Field Tiling:
Pumps:
Brief description of hydrolgic charateristics or alterations:
USACOE Hydrology Indicators (mark all that apply)
Observation of Surface Water or Saturated soils and other Site Conditions
Ditches:
Hydrologic Assessment of the AA and Buffer
Water Sources present (mark all that apply)
Brief description of water source(s):
Hydrologic Characteristics or Alterations (mark each applicable subclass)
30
Figure 19. Hydrology scores data sheet.
Hydrology score 1 - Ditching, fill or drainage alterations in the AA and Buffer Area Score Enter One Score
No ditching, fill or tile drainage evident. Wetland hydrology is intact. 10
Low - Very minor modifications to wetland hydrology. Trace amounts of human manipulation
are present but hydrology is still intact.
7.5
Moderate - Attempts to ditch, drain or fill wetland are apparent. Some effort is needed to re-
establish full wetland hydrology.
5
Severe -Ditching and or fill, and drainage is present. Major construction is needed to re-
establish wetland hydrology
2.5
Wetland hydrology has been essentially destroyed by ditching, fill or other drainage methods 1
Hydrology score 2 - Human alterations such as dikes, berms, levees or water control structures
in the AA and Buffer
Score Enter One Score
No alterations and/or berm, dikes, water control structures occur but water management has
allowed wetland to flourish.
10
Low-Berm or dikes, water control structures are present but allow wetland to function
properly
7.5
Moderate -Berm or dikes are present but the wetland still functions at a moderate level 5
Severe-Human alterations have severely altered the wetland hydrology 2.5
Wetland hydrology has been essentially destroyed by water diversion structures such as
levees, berms or dikes
1
Assign wetland hydrology scores based on the hydrology worksheet and knowledge of the area gained from walking the AA and
Notes:
Notes:
31
Section 8 – Buffer Assessment
Types of Data to be Collected:
AA buffer width
Buffer continuity -percent of AA perimeter adjoining buffer land classes
Total buffer area summary – estimated non-native or invasive species
Total buffer area summary – estimated human stressors
Buffer Land Classes
Buffer land classes are those land classes that are mostly natural and capable of protecting, or buffering, the wetland AA. Examples of buffer land classes include forests, prairies, and natural rock outcrops. Non-buffer land classes are those that do not serve to protect or buffer the wetland AA. Non-buffer land classes are things such as roads, mowed areas, or crop fields. Examples of buffer and non-buffer land classes are shown in Figures 20 and 21. A complete listing of buffer and non-buffer land classes is provided on the buffer width and continuity data sheet (Figure 22).
Figure 20. Buffer land class, undisturbed prairie.
Figure 21. Non-buffer land class, row crop field adjoining wetland.
32
Figure 22. Buffer width and continuity data sheet.
Buffer Width Assessment
The buffer width assessment is a measure of the buffer land classes from the AA boundary out to 100 meters and recorded on the buffer width and continuity data sheet (Figure 22). It is measured at each of the cardinal directions (N, S, E, W) and each of the ordinal directions (NE, SE, SW, NW). The buffer width can be measured in the field with a range finder or 100 meter tape measure. Another option to obtain width is to use GIS or web-based mapping tools and current aerial photography. Use the GIS measure tool to obtain the line lengths. Standard AA (Figure 23) and non-standard AA (Figure 24) shapes will require different measurement techniques. Figures 23 and 24 illustrate how to measure buffer widths on two different AA types. Assess the buffer width by starting at the AA boundary and measuring out 100 meters along each cardinal and ordinal line. If the 100 meter line course is through a continuous buffer land class, record 100 meters. If the buffer line intersects a non-buffer land class, record the distance at which the buffer land class changes to a non-buffer land class.
Buffer Width and Continuity
Buffer Land Cover Classes Non-Buffer Land Cover Classes
Open water Structures, buildings
Wetlands Artificial, non-vegetated land surfaces (parking lots,
feed lots
Natural, non-vegetated earth surfaces (rock outcrops,
gravel and sand)
Active mining areas
Natural vegetation (forests, non-impacted grasslands) Agricultural areas (hay, row crops, orchards, sod)
Trails (primitive foot, bike or horse) Lawns or sports fields, parks
Oldfields, abandoned agricultural fields Roads or railroads
ATV trails
Landfills, dumping, abandoned cars, etc.
Line from AA edge out to 100 meters Record the Assessment Area Buffer Width (0-100
meters)
North
NE
East
SE
South
SW
West
NW
Total buffer width (0-800 meters) 0
Percent of AA Perimeter Adjoining Buffer Land Classes Percent (%) - Record percentage of AA edge adjoining
buffer land classes measured during fieldwork or
using GIS
0-100%
Reference Table of Buffer and Non-Buffer Land Classes
Buffer Width Assessment
AA Perimeter Buffer Continuity Assessment
33
Figure 23. Standard AA buffer width assessment diagram.
Figure 24. Wetland boundary AA buffer width assessment diagram.
34
AA Perimeter Buffer Continuity Assessment
The AA perimeter buffer continuity assessment is simply the amount of buffer land classes that are in contact with the AA boundary (Figure 25). In many cases it will be 100 percent; however wetland AA boundaries could be in contact with non-buffer land classes such as gravel roads or crop fields. Assess the buffer continuity by measuring in a GIS, field measuring, or by best estimate and record as a percentage on the field data sheet (Figure 22).
Figure 25. Buffer continuity assessment diagram.
35
Total Buffer Area Summary
The Total buffer area summary (Figure 26) is an estimate of the buffer area for both invasive species and human induced stressors. To determine the summary score, the team member will walk the buffer area in a meandering course and observe the conditions surrounding the assessment area. The investigator should examine conditions in the buffer area for occurrence of non-native, invasive plants. Assign a value using a best estimate of invasive species covering the buffer area. Second, the investigator should examine the presence of human induced stressors such as mowing, vehicular damage and excavation. Note these human induced disturbances and assign a score.
Figure 26. Buffer area score field data sheet.
Score Enter One Score
absent No invasive or non-native plants present 10
trace < 5% cover non-native or invasive species 7.5
moderate 5 -25% cover non-native or invasive species 5
extensive 26-75% cover non-native or invasive species 2.5
dominant >75% cover non-native or invasive species 1
Score Enter One Score
absent No human land-use induced stressors present 10
trace
< 5% impacted by mowing, farming practices, excavation, filling, vehicular damage or
adverse hydrologic manipulation 7.5
moderate
5-25% impacted by mowing, farming practices, excavation, filling, vehicular damage
or adverse hydrologic manipulation 5
extensive
26-75% impacted by mowing, farming practices, excavation, filling, vehicular damage
or adverse hydrologic manipulation 2.5
dominant
>75% impacted by mowing, farming practices, excavation, filling, vehicular damage or
adverse hydrologic manipulation 1
Notes:
Notes:
Total Buffer Area equals the area extending out from the AA perimeter 100 meters in all directions
Total Buffer Area Summary, Estimated Human Stressors
Total Buffer Area Summary, Estimated Non-native or Invasive Species cover
36
Section 9 – Final Assessment Value
Generating the Final MORAM Scores
MORAM Field Data Processing using Excel Spreadsheet
Use the electronic Excel spreadsheet (Field data sheet TEMPLATE) to process field data after a MORAM field assessment. The file is programmed to populate the final assessment score sheet (Figure 27) as the individual parameter sheets (i.e. soils, vegetation) are entered. This procedure will generate the final vegetation, soil, hydrology, and buffer MORAM scores.
MORAM Score Interpretation
The design and formation of the MORAM score and interpretation descriptions are intended to give the investigator (State, Tribe, or natural resource manager) an ecological wetland evaluation tool. The final score is on a scale of 0 to 10 and is divided among ranking intervals. The intervals are:
Non-wetland-(Score ‘0’: 0<0.5)
Severely Degraded Wetland-(Score ‘1’: 0.5<2.0)
Degraded Wetland-(Score ‘2.5’: 2<4.5)
Functioning Wetland with Moderate Disturbances-(Score ‘5’: 4.5<7.5)
High Quality Wetland-(Score-‘7.5’: 7.5<8.5)
Nearly Pristine Wetland (or resembles a Pristine Wetland) -(Score ‘9’: 8.5<9.5)
Pristine Wetland (or resembles a Pristine Wetland)-(Score-‘10’: 9.5+)
Please note that score descriptions are based on an ‘ecological functioning wetland’ interpretation. For example, a forested wetland may be characterized by hydric soils that are undisturbed and is scored a ‘10’. The MORAM descriptor for the latter score (10) is ‘Pristine Wetland (or resembles a Pristine Wetland)’. The important clarifier on the interpretation description is ‘or resembles a Pristine Wetland’. A score of ‘10’ does not mean that the wetland has not been disturbed in the past but is currently functioning as a wetland that has not been noticeably disturbed.
MORAM Metric, Score and Interpretation
The final MORAM scores are given for soils, hydrology, buffer and vegetation metrics separately. A single score could not be combined due to the lack of independence among metrics. The investigator may have a wetland site that could have a score of 10 for all metrics except for vegetation. A particular example would be a wetland that is a monoculture of Phalaris arundinacea or reed canary grass but the hydrology, hydric soils and buffer are completely intact and is scored a ‘10’. Although the MORAM may be used as a single or a ‘snapshot in time’ assessment, it may also be used to sample over a longer time period to assess changes due to management or stochastic events.
37
Figure 27. Raw and final MORAM scores and interpretation.
Vegetation Assessment Raw Score MORAM Score
Estimated % Cover
1 m2 All Taxa (< 3 m Height):
1 m2 Shrubs and Saplings (> 3 m Height):
1 m2 Trees (> 3 m Height):
1 m2 Quadrat Summary:
100 m2 All Taxa (< 3 m Height):
100 m2 Lianas (> 3 m Above Ground):
100 m2 Shrubs and Saplings (> 3 m Height):
100 m2 Trees (> 3 m Height):
100 m2 Plot Summary:
Diameter at Breast Height (1.37 m)
Tree (100 m2 Plot) Summary:
Soil Assessment Raw Score MORAM Score
Soil Assessment:
Hydrology Assessment: Raw Score MORAM SCORE
Ditching and filling:
Alterations diking or control structures:
Buffer Assessment Raw Score MORAM Score
Buffer width meters:
Percent (%) AA adjoining Buffer:
Total Buffer Area Non-native Plant Occurrence:
Total Buffer Area Human Induced Stressors Buffer:
Soil, Hydrology and Buffer MORAM Score Interpretation Score
Non-Wetland 0
Severely Degraded Wetland 1
Degraded Wetland 2.5
Functioning Wetland with Moderate Dis turbances 5
High Qual i ty Wetland 7.5
Nearly Pris tine Wetland (or resembles a Pris tine Wetland) 9
Pris tine Wetland (or resembles a Pris tine Wetland) 10
MORAM Metric Score
Wetland Soil
Wetland Hydrology
Wetland Buffer
Wetland Vegetation
High Qual i ty Wetland with Matrix Species in Relatively Intact Habitats
with a Moderate Level of Botanica l Integri ty; Limited Opportunis i tic
and/or Adventive SpeciesNearly Pris tine Wetland (or resembles a Pris tine Wetland) with
Conservative Plants with High Fidel i ty to Intact Habitats ; High
Botanica l Integri ty with Few Opportunis tic and/or Adventive SpeciesPris tine Wetland (or resembles a Pris tine Wetland) with Conservative
Plants with the Highest Fidel i ty to Intact Habitats ; Maximum Botanica l
Integri ty without Opportinis tic or Adventive Species
Wetland Type, Soil, Hydrology, Buffer and Vegetation Raw and MORAM Scores and
Interpretation.
Non-Wetland
Nelson (2010) Wetland Type:
Interpretation
Non-Wetland
Non-Wetland
Non-Wetland
MORAM Final Vegetation Score:
Vegetation Moram Score Interpretation
Non-Wetland
Severely Degraded Wetland Characterized only with Opportunis tic
and/or Adventive Plant Species without Botanica l Integri ty
Degraded Wetland characterized by Opportunis tic and/or Adventive
Plant Species and Li ttle Botanica l Integri ty
Functioning Wetland with Moderate Dis turbances with Matrix species
in Relatively Intact Habitats with a Moderate Number of Opportunis tic
and/or Adventive Species and Some Botanica l Integri ty
38
References
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
Daubenmire, Rexford. 1959. A Canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64. Epperson, J.E. 1992 Missouri Wetlands: A Vanishing Resource, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Geology and Land Survey, P. 66. Herman, K.D., L.A. Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G.S. Wilhelm, W.W. Brodovich, and K.P. Gardiner. 2001.
Floristic Quality Assessment with Wetland Categories and Examples of Computer Applications for the State of Michigan – Revised, 2nd Edition. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife, Natural Heritage Program. Lansing, MI. 19 pp. + Appendices.
Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
Ladd, D. and J.R. Thomas. 2015. Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora for Floristic Quality Assessment. Phytoneuron 2015-12: 1–274. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 update of wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1–42. Missouri Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Missouri species and communities of conservation concern checklist. Missouri
Department of Conservation. Jefferson City, Missouri. P. 52. Nelson P.W. 2010. Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, 550 P. Smith, R.A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using
Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Function Indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.
Steyermark, J.A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State Press. Ames, Iowa. 1728 pp.
Swink, F.A. and G.S. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago Region, fourth edition. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, USA.
Tiner, R. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A guide to wetland identification, delineation, classification, and mapping. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
USEPA. 2011. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-10-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2016. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-15-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Missouri Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Species County Distribution (www.fws/midwest/endangered/lists/missouri-spp.html). Accessed July 2017.
Wilhelm, G.S. and L.A. Masters. 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment in the Chicago Region and Associated Computer Application Programs. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle IL.
Yatskievych, G. 1999. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Vol. 1, Revised ed. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City, Missouri. 1991 P.
Yatskievych, G. 2006. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Vol. 2, Revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, Missouri. 1181 P.
Yatskievych, G. 2013. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Vol. 3, Revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, Missouri. 1382 P.
