Leipsic Watershed Report.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Erin E. Dorset Alison B. Rogerson Kenneth E. Smith Brittany L. Haywood Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Watershed Stewardship 100 W. Water St., Suite 10B Dover, DE 19904 The citation for this document is: Dorset, E.E., Rogerson, A.B., Smith, K.E., and B.L. Haywood. 2017. Condition of Wetlands in the Leipsic River Watershed, Delaware. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Watershed Assessment and Management Section, Dover, DE. 58p. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III Wetland Program Development Grant Assistances CD-96312201 and # CD-96316101 to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Tom Kincaid and Tony Olsen with the EPA Office of Research and Development Lab, Corvallis, Oregon provided the data frame for field sampling and statistical weights for interpretation. Andy Howard, Matt Jennette, Alison Rogerson, Maggie Pletta, Frank Davis, and Matt King participated in field assessments. The collection of these data would not be possible without the cooperation and assistance from private landowners, DNREC, the Forest Service, and other conservation partners. Leipsic River Watershed Wetland Condition Report ii CONTENTS Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................3 Watershed Overview………………………………………………………………………..5 Hydrogeomorphology ...........................................................................................................5 Land Use and Land Cover .....................................................................................................8 Wildlife Habitat and Outdoor Recreation ...........................................................................10 Methods..........................................................................................................................................12 Changes to Wetland Acreage ..............................................................................................12 Field Site Selection ..............................................................................................................13 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................14 Landowner Contact and Site Access....................................................................... 14 Assessing Tidal Wetland Condition........................................................................ 14 Assessing Non-tidal Wetland Condition ................................................................. 17 Rapid Sampling in Non-tidal Wetlands………………………………………...17 . Value Added Assessments in Non-tidal Wetlands……………………………..19 Wetland Condition Data Analysis ......................................................................................20 Wetland Health Report Card……………………………………………………………...22 Results ............................................................................................................................................23 Wetland Acreage .................................................................................................................23 Trends: Gains, Losses, and Changes……………………………………………23 Implications of Acreage Trends………………………………………………...26 Landowner Contact and Site Access ...................................................................................28 Wetland Condition ..............................................................................................................29 Tidal Estuarine Wetlands ........................................................................................ 29 Non-tidal Riverine Wetlands .................................................................................. 32 Non-tidal Flat Wetlands ......................................................................................... 34 Non-tidal Depression Wetlands .............................................................................. 36 Overall Condition and Watershed Comparison ...................................................................39 Value Added………………………………………………………………………………40 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..42 Tidal Estuarine Wetlands…………………………………………………………………..42 Non-tidal Palustrine Wetlands……………………………………………………………..43 Leipsic River Watershed Wetland Condition Report iii Non-tidal Wetland Value…………………………………………………………………..43 Management Recommendations ....................................................................................................40 Environmental Scientists, Researchers, and Land Managers………………..…………….44 . Decision Makers (State, County, and Local)………………………………………………46 Landowners………………………………………………………………………………..47 Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................49 Appendix A: Qualitative Disturbance Rating (QDR) Category Descriptions ...............................53 Appendix B: DERAP Stressor Codes and Definitions ..................................................................54 Appendix C: DERAP IWC Stressors and Weights........................................................................56 Leipsic River Watershed Wetland Condition Report iv FIGURES Figure 1. The four-tiered approach that is used to evaluate wetland condition across the Mid- Atlantic region………………………………………………………………………….................4 Figure 2. Proportions of hydrogeomorphic wetland types in the Leipsic River watershed……….6 Figure 3. LULC status in the Leipsic River watershed in 2012. Percentages shown are based on the 2012 NLCD……………………………………………………………………………………9 Figure 4. Standard assessment area (AA), subplot locations, and buffer used to collect data for the Mid-Atlantic Tidal Rapid Assessment Method (MidTRAM) …………...…………………..14 Figure 5. Standard assessment area and buffer used to collect data for the Delaware Rapid Assessment Procedure (DERAP) …………...…………………………………………………...17 Figure 6. An example CDF showing wetland condition. The black line is the population estimate and the dashed gray lines are 95% confidence intervals. The orange and green dashed lines show the breakpoints between condition categories…………………………………………………...22 Figure 7. Sampling success for all 4 HGM wetland classes. Shown are percentages of the total number of sites considered, i.e. the total number of sites that we attempted to sample for each HGM class……………………………………………………………………………………….28 Figure 8. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) for tidal estuarine wetlands in the Leipsic River watershed. The blue line is the population estimate and the dashed blue lines are 95% confidence intervals. The orange and green dashed lines show the breakpoints between condition categories……………………………………………………………………………...30 Figure 9. DNREC scientists measure bearing capacity, an indicator of marsh stability, in a tidal marsh using a slidehammer during a site assessment …………………………………………...31 Figure 10. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) for non-tidal riverine wetlands in the Leipsic River watershed. The blue line is the population estimate and the dashed blue lines are 95% confidence intervals. The orange and green dashed lines show the breakpoints between condition categories……………………………………………………………………………...32 Figure 11. Ditching and stream channelization were common stressors found in riverine wetland buffer regions in this watershed ………………………….……………………………………...33 Figure 12. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) for non-tidal flat wetlands in the Leipsic River watershed. The blue line is the population estimate and the dashed blue lines are 95% confidence intervals. The orange and green dashed lines show the breakpoints between condition categories…...................................................…………………………………………35 Figure 13. Clear or selective cutting, as evidenced by downed, clean-cut trees and skidder tracks, were common stressors in flat wetlands of this watershed.……………………………………...36 Leipsic River Watershed Wetland Condition Report v Figure 14. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) for non-tidal depression wetlands in the Leipsic River watershed. The blue line is the population estimate and the dashed blue lines are 95% confidence intervals. The orange and green dashed lines show the breakpoints between condition categories……………………………………………………………………………...37 Figure 15. An algal mat in a depression wetland in the Leipsic River watershed……………….38 Figure 16. Japanese stiltgrass was a common invasive species in non-tidal wetlands in the Leipsic River watershed………………………………………………………………………….38 Figure 17. Comparison of overall condition categories for assessed watersheds throughout Delaware. Overall percentages shown are based on combined condition category percentages for all wetland types (estuarine, riverine, flat, and depression) that are weighted based on wetland type acreage for each watershed…………………………………………………………………40 Figure 18. Percentage of sampled non-tidal, palustrine wetlands that scored in each of the three value added categories (n=62 sites)……………………………………………………………...40 MAPS Map 1. Location of the Leipsic River and Little Creek Watersheds and the major drainage basins in Delaware. Watersheds at the Hydrologic Unit Code 10 scale are outlined in gray…………….5 Map 2.