Minnesota’s Depressional Wetland Condition Assessment (a.k.a. ‘Status & Trends of Wetland Quality in Minnesota’) John Genet 6 th Annual Minnesota Wetlands Conference January 30 th 2013

Target Population Survey Design Site Evaluation Results Assessment Results – Statewide Condition & Stressors – Ecoregion Condition & Stressors Next Steps Overview Report available on web:

Natural Basins vs. Manmade Basins

Sample Frame: Minnesota’s Wetland Quantity Survey Plots ~ 5,000 one square mile plots statewide Wetland Quantity Survey Classification System: Wetland Types: Forested Scrub/Shrub Emergent Unconsolidated Bottom Aquatic Bed Cultivated Other: Deep Water Natural Agricultural Silvicultural Urban Rural Development

Rotating Ecoregion Schedule Mixed Wood Shield Mixed Wood Plains Temperate Prairies 2007 (n=61) 2008 (n=62) 2009 (n=59) Indicators of Condition*: Plant IBI Invert IBI Indicators of Stress*: Water variables Total P NO 3 + NO 2 Kjeldahl N Chloride Transparency Wetland Functions: MnRam, version 3.1 *Regionally calibrated

Biological Indicators Standardized Dipnet sweeps Full sample pick in lab Most IDs to genus, snails & leeches to species Common metrics: ETO, % Dominant 3 taxa, Total taxa, %Tolerant, # Scraper genera Macroinvertebrate IBIPlant IBI Sample plots (100 m 2 ) in representative area of wetland Species & cover estimates Common metrics: # Vascular genera, # Sensitive taxa, Carex spp. cover

Assessment Criteria/Benchmarks Condition or Stressor Indicator 50 th 75 th 5 th 95 th 25 th Least-disturbed Reference Sites Percentile Condition Category Good Poor Fair Stressor Category Low Low High Med OR

Desktop & Field Reconnaissance

Site Evaluation Results Evaluation Status 2007 Mixed Wood Shield 2008 Temperate Prairies 2009 Mixed Wood Shield Target Non-Target 821 Landowner Denial* 7127 Physical Barrier* 003 Total * Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) assumption not violated in any ecoregion

Statewide Condition Plant IndicatorInvertebrate Indicator Poor 46% Fair 25% Good 29% Poor 20% Fair 33% Good 47% n = 182

Statewide 158,435 Natural 107,812 Man-made 50,623 % Wetland Basins Macroinvertebrate IBI Plant IBI Invert IBI Not Assessed < 1% Poor 45% Fair 25% Good 30% Poor 11% Fair 32% Good 57% Not Assessed < 1% Poor 48% Fair 24% Good 28% Poor 38% Fair 35% Good 27% Small (< 1 ha) Medium (1 – 5 ha) Large (>5 ha) 116,55130,27911,605 Plant IBI Invert IBI Poor 50% Fair 26% Good 24% Poor 34% Fair 20% Good 46% Not Assessed 1% Poor 41% Fair 17% Good 41% Poor 23% Fair 34% Good 43% Poor 11% Fair 32% Good 57% Not Assessed 4% Poor 11% Fair 28% Good 57% Man-Made vs. Natural Wetland Size Categories

Indicators of Stress Low Medium High Not Assessed Stressor Levels Statewide Results

Invasive Plants Mixed Wood Plains Emergent Zone Not Assessed < 1% Temperate Prairies 35% 21% 44% 56% 5% 39% Mixed Wood Shield 6% 24% 70% > 50% 20-50% < 20 % % Cover of Invasive Species: % Wetland Basins 27% 14% 59% Manmade Not Assessed < 1% 31% 22% 47% Natural

Extent & Relative Risk of Stressors Relative Risk : the likelihood of having poor biology when specific stressors are high compared to having poor biological condition when stressors are low. Nitrate + Nitrite N Kjeldahl Nitrogen Transparency Invasive Plants Total Phosphorus Chloride % Wetlands with High Levels of each Stressor Relative Risk to Macroinvertebrates Relative Risk to Plant Community Extent of StressorRelative Risk

% Wetland Basins Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen Kjeldahl Nitrogen Transparency Total Phosphorus Chloride Relative Risk to Macroinvertebrates Relative Risk Extent of StressorsRelative Risk to Plants Relative Risk Could not be determined % Wetland Basins Kjeldahl Nitrogen Transparency Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Chloride Extent of Stressors Relative Risk to Macroinvertebrates Relative Risk Relative Risk to Plants Kjeldahl Nitrogen Transparency Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Chloride Extent of Stressors % Wetland Basins Relative Risk to Macroinvertebrates Relative Risk to Plants Relative Risk Could not be determined

Wetland Functions % Wetlands Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Water Quality--Downstream Flood Attenuation Statewide 158,435 Natural 107,812 Man-made 50,623 Low 18% Medium 37% High 45% Medium 61% High 39% Low 1% Medium 58% High 41% Medium 31% High 69% Low 35% Medium 45% High 20% Medium 83% High 17% Medium 60% High 40% Medium 77% High 23%

Assess contribution of regional variation between years on the results 3 sites/ecoregion sampled each year of the survey Analyzed data with repeated-measures ANOVA Neither IBI was significant at either spatial scale Lesson learned: random selection of these sites is not ideal for this purpose Interannual Variability macroinvertebrate IBI plant IBI Mixed Wood Shield AB Temperate Prairies Mixed Wood Plains Mean (±SE) IBI scores from annual sites (n = 9).

Status of MN Depressional Wetlands ~160,000 occur in MN (~50,000 are manmade) Veg community healthy in ~30% of these wetlands; varied regionally Invert community healthy in ~50% of these wetlands; varied regionally and by origin (natural vs. manmade) Cl & P are stressors to biological health of depressional wetlands Majority of depressional wetlands receive high or medium functional ratings; natural basins outperform manmade for most functions

Depressional Wetland Condition Assessment: Round Two 100 sites sampled statewide Data collected in summer 2012 Dropped MnRAM as an indicator Compare TP and MWP ecoregions to T 1 Conduct survey every 5 yrs. Report completed in 2014

MPCA led random survey 150 sites sampled statewide All wetland types included Floristic Quality Assessment Data collected in summers of 2011 & 2012 Conduct survey every 5 yrs. Intensification of National Wetland Condition Assessment Baseline report completed in 2015 Beyond Depressional Wetlands: Minnesota Wetland Condition Assessment

Acknowledgements Depressional Survey MPCA Staff: Mark Gernes, Mike Bourdaghs, Joel Chirhart, Harold Wiegner, Dan Helwig EPA Office of Research & Development: Tony Olsen, Tom Kincaid Interagency Project Steering Committee EPA Wetland Demonstration Pilot Grant

Questions?