TRPD Site Highlights WHEP Preliminary Report 2012

Transcription

1 TRPD Site Highlights WHEP Preliminary Report 2012 Wetland Health Evaluation Program Hennepin County Erica Davis, Team Leader Slide background design by PresentationFx.com Redistribution Prohibited Image 2008

2 Background & Purpose WHEP developed in 1997 by Mark Gernes and Judy Helgen with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Methods of measuring wetland health using an index of biotic integrity (IBI) for wetland plants, invertebrates - plants and animals serve as indicators of wetland health - presence is directly connected to water quality and wetland bottom conditions - some more sensitive or tolerant to pollution Over time, data can be used to track changes in wetland health Slide background design by PresentationFx.com Redistribution Prohibited Image 2008 clix@sxc.hu

3 Background & Purpose Citizen teams trained by MPCA to conduct sampling, led by a trained team leader with education/work experience in natural resources Quality vs. Quantity: Wetland Conservation Act helps maintain wetland numbers, acreage. WHEP emphasis is on quality as reflected by the diversity of organisms that thrive in and depend on healthy wetlands Engage citizens, work with local government and partners to protect water quality WHEP MN co-managed by Hennepin and Dakota Counties, national model in volunteer wetland monitoring Volunteers Kelly, Dean, Shane, Gil team leader Jen Poate

4 Background & Purpose Quality assurance and technical support provided by Fortin Consulting Cross check of selected sites conducted by a different team to determine if two samples provide similar results Site scores can vary if wetland plant communities large, complex sample plot dimensions, location differ

5 Background & Purpose 8 wetland types recognized in Minnesota (Circular 39 classification system) WHEP focuses mainly on open water types (shallow marshes, deep marshes, shallow open waters) Classification of TRPD sites recommended, possibly some rare types based on location and unique plant communities

6 Background & Purpose Why Monitor Wetlands? Use of trend data to drive decision making Rationale for determining pollutant loading / stressors; implementing best management practices, design changes, plant restoration, buffers, etc. Adopt requirements to protect wetlands identified as high quality or in excellent health implement improvements to wetlands identified as low quality or in poor / declining health Volunteers David and Dean at CHP-1 (left); Erin and David at CHP-3 (center); Pete, Colleen, Skyler and team leader Erica Davis at ECP-1 (right)

7 Background & Purpose Establish baseline quality ratings for selected TRPD wetlands not previously monitored Facilitate conversation about how findings might be used? - TRPD, ECWMC, other partners - input on program design/monitoring for specific purposes - public relations / awareness - education / outreach - citizen volunteer recruitment and training

8 Macroinvertebrate IBI Monitoring Samples collected from 6 bottle traps (BTs) and 2 dip netting (DN) efforts ID to genus level Includes beetles, bugs, dragonflies, damselflies, caddisflies, mayflies, midges, leeches, fingernail clams, snails, crustaceans Number or kinds ID d & evaluated using MPCA metrics Emma and Michelle from Bloomington WHEP team, Lab photo courtesy of Normandale Community College

9 Vegetation IBI Monitoring 10 x 10 m OR 5 x 20 m = 100 m² ID to genus level Categorized based on ecological function or relationship (nonvascular, woody, grass-like, forbs) Forbs subdivided as submergent or emergent Number, coverage ID d & evaluated using MPCA metrics

10 Interpretation of IBI Scores Invertebrate IBI Vegetation IBI Point Score Quality Rating Point Score Quality Rating 6-14 Poor 7-15 Poor Moderate Mode rate Excellent Excellent IBIs differ (number of metrics) Ratings describe overall wetland quality POOR: low number of species, diversity; large number of pollution-tolerant species EXCELLENT: high number of species, diversity; includes species that are sensitive to pollution, human disturbance Caution in making comparisons (each wetland is unique) Determination for additional data or evaluation

11 Invertebrate IBI Scores Invertebrate IBI Vegetation IBI Point Score Quality Rating Point Score Quality Rating 6-14 Poor 7-15 Poor Moderate Moderate Excellent Excellent TRPD Site Leech Corixid Odonata ETSD (#, kinds of mayflies, caddisflies; presence of fingernail clams, dragonfly nymphs in DN and BT samples) Snail Total Taxa Score Assessment ECP Moderate ECP-1 (cross check) 16 Moderate CHP Moderate CHP Moderate CHP Poor LRP-1 22 Moderate LRP-2 22 Moderate

12 Vegetation IBI Scores Invertebrate IBI Vegetation IBI Point Score Quality Rating Point Score Quality Rating 6-14 Poor 7-15 Poor Moderate Moderate Excellent Excellent TRPD Site Vascular Non- Vascular Grasslike Carex Utricularia (Bladderwort) Aquatic Guild Persistent Litter Score Assessment ECP Moderate ECP-1 (cross check) 21 Moderate CHP Excellent CHP Moderate CHP Excellent LRP Poor LRP Poor

13 Highlights ECP-1: adjacent to the reconstructed Eastman Nature Center moderate invertebrate and vegetation IBI scores extensively managed: periodic draw-down to control the fathead minnow population, some planting, floating walkway dismantled and reinstalled TRPD trend data useful to track degradation (impact result of increased flows from Rush Creek Watershed) noted presence of regulated introduced and/or invasive species (Asian snail, reed canary grass) Volunteers Skyler, Pete, Dean, Mahi; Snail photo courtesy of MN DNR

14 Highlights CHP-1 and 2: located in open restored prairie (formerly agricultural land) in Crow Hassan Park Reserve noted as high quality and possibly rare because of location and plant community, including cord grass and other native species good candidates for reference wetlands) classification recommended bladderwort is well established at CHP-1, presence of this carnivorous plant is an indicator of wetland health

15 Highlights CHP-3: located in a woodland and is nearly surrounded by, and to a great extent, shaded by deciduous trees and shrubs poor invertebrate score attributed to low dissolved oxygen; excellent vegetation score important habitat for wildlife (amphibians, reptiles, etc.); consider gathering data using more than one evaluation tool Image courtesy of TRPD

16 Acknowledgements THANK YOU Three Rivers Park District in cooperation with Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission for your generosity, resources, assistance and facilities. Rich Brasch and Larry Gillette, Three Rivers Park District Judie Anderson, Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Mary Karius, Hennepin County Environmental Services Katie Farber, Fortin Consulting, quality control and technical assistance Mark Gernes and Joel Chirhart, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, technical experts Jen Poate, Hennepin County WHEP team leader and her volunteer team (ECP-1 cross check, LRP-1, 2) Elm Creek Volunteer Team Members: Shane DeGroy, Pete Knapp, Skyler Knapp, Colleen O Brien, David Liviske, Erin Liviske, Mike Newman, Mahilam Palanisami, Dean Pouliot, Abigail Davis, Kelly Rabe, Jay Whitaker TRPD staff: Curt Oien, Mitch Haag and Jeffrey Flory for volunteering after hours, assisting with invertebrate identification

17 Contact Information Comments and questions welcome! Erica Davis, Team Leader WHEP Hennepin County Mary Karius Hennepin County Environmental Services Visit for more information about the Wetland Health Evaluation Program