During 2015, the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) conducted wetland easement monitoring and wetland quality evaluations for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In total, 106 wetland easements were monitored within a 28 county area across central Illinois, including 4 Emergency Watershed Protection Program-Floodplain Easements (EWPP-FPE), 14 Emergency Wetland Reserve Program (EWRP) easements, and 88 Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) easements. We acknowledge that wetland easements have recently been re-classified as wetland reserve easements (WRE) within the Agriculture Conservation and Easement Program, but herein we have retained the former nomenclature to maintain consistency with existing management plans and agency documents.
Our goal was to visit at least 100 wetland easements in Illinois during 2015, meet with or contact landowners to verify ownership information, identify potential land uses or practices incompatible with program objectives and active authorized practices, and assess general habitat quality for wetland birds. Specifically, we completed an annual monitoring worksheet, conducted a rapid wetland assessment to estimate habitat quality for wetland birds, and provided general information regarding condition of easements.United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service Contract Number: 65-5A12-15-351unpublishednot peer reviewedOpe

Hagy, Heath, M.

McClain, Douglas, R.

English

IDEALS @ Illinois

NRCS Wetland Easement Monitoring and Wetland Quality Evaluation Final Report Period: 1 January 2015 – 31 December 2015

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

University of Illinois Prairie Research Institute  Mark R. Ryan, Executive Director  Illinois Natural History Survey  Leellen Solter, Acting Director  Forbes Natural History Building 1816 South Oak Street  Champaign, IL 61820 (217) 333-6830    NRCS Wetland Easement Monitoring and  Wetland Quality Evaluation  Final Report Period: 1 January 2015 – 31 December 2015  Prepared by:   Douglas R. McClain and Heath M. Hagy1  Forbes Biological Station  Frank C. Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center P.O. Box 590, Havana, IL 62644 1Phone: (217) 332–3825 1Email: hhagy@illinois.edu  Prepared for:   United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service Contract Number:  65-5A12-15-351   INHS Technical Report 2016 (21)   Submitted: 4 May 2016 Restricted Release1  Introduction During 2015, the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) conducted wetland easement monitoring and wetland quality evaluations for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).  In total, 106 wetland easements were monitored within a 28 county area across central Illinois, including 4 Emergency Watershed Protection Program-Floodplain Easements (EWPP-FPE), 14 Emergency Wetland Reserve Program (EWRP) easements, and 88 Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) easements.  We acknowledge that wetland easements have recently been re-classified as wetland reserve easements (WRE) within the Agriculture Conservation and Easement Program, but herein we have retained the former nomenclature to maintain consistency with existing management plans and agency documents.   Our goal was to visit at least 100 wetland easements in Illinois during 2015, meet with or contact landowners to verify ownership information, identify potential land uses or practices incompatible with program objectives and active authorized practices, and assess general habitat quality for wetland birds.  Specifically, we completed an annual monitoring worksheet, conducted a rapid wetland assessment to estimate habitat quality for wetland birds, and provided general information regarding condition of easements.   Methods We visited 106 easements during 5 May 2015 – 30 October 2015.  Site visits were divided approximately equally among three seasons corresponding to important periods for wetland birds: 1) spring (breeding habitat for waterfowl and marsh birds), 2) summer (migration habitat for shorebirds), and 3) fall (migration habitat for waterfowl and other wetland-associated birds).  Spring surveys were conducted during May and June, summer surveys during August and September, and fall surveys during October.  During 2015, 20 easements were visited during 2  spring, 50 during summer, and 36 during fall.  Due to extensive flooding along rivers and other waterways during late spring, a number of sites were moved to the summer and fall sampling periods that were originally scheduled for the spring sampling period.  Easement Level Metrics     We identified the percentage of each easement composed of various cover types, including forest, scrub-shrub, row crop, fallow field, upland grass and forbs (prairie), food plot, and inundated, which included any land that had standing water at the time of the survey (Table 1).  Our estimates of vegetation cover could exceed 100%, since an inundated area could simultaneously contain multiple cover types.  For example, an area could contain both a forested overstory and scrub-shrub vegetation in the understory.  In addition to cover type classification and mapping, we ranked easements on an 8-point scale for three different metrics: intensity of waterfowl management, wetland habitat complexity, and wetland connectivity to rivers and streams.  Higher scores indicate more intense management practices to benefit waterfowl, increased wetland complexity to maximize diversity of flora and fauna, or increased connectivity to rivers or streams to increase nutrient and sediment capture and flood attenuation (Appendix 1).  In addition to easement-wide metrics, we evaluated the discrete inundated area within each easement for various metrics, including cover types, water sources, wetland stressors, and others as flooded area provides the primary habitat for many wetland-dependent wildlife species.  Each inundated area was classified according to Cowardin et al. (1979).  Estimates are expressed as means with associated standard errors. Results and Discussion Overall, forest accounted for approximately 31.4 ± 3.2% of cover on easements, followed by upland grasses and forbs (19.4 ± 2.4%) and scrub-shrub (17.2 ± 1.9%) vegetation.  Food plots 3  (0.6 ± 0.2%), row crops (0.5 ± 0.3%), and fallow fields (0.5 ± 0.4%), comprised a small portion of surveyed easements (Table 2). Overall, the average proportion of an easement containing surface water was 28.2 ± 3.5%.  Approximately 22% (23 of 106) of all easements had no standing water at the time they were surveyed.  Inundated habitat made up approximately 30.6 ± 6.1% of the land in the easements surveyed during spring, 37.2 ± 6.1% of the land surveyed during summer, and 14.6 ± 3.8% of the land surveyed during fall.  The increased amount of inundated land during the summer was likely the result of extensive flooding across central portions of Illinois during July.  Unfortunately, only a small portion of easements surveyed during fall, an important time period for migrating waterfowl and other waterbirds, had surface water to make them usable as stopover habitat.   On average, easements ranked low for each overall metric, with waterfowl management intensity achieving a score of 1.92 ± 0.17, wetland habitat complexity receiving a score of 2.58 ± 0.2, and wetland connectivity to rivers and streams achieving a score of 2.34 ± 0.18.  In comparison, managed wetlands surveyed during a concurrent marsh bird monitoring project in Illinois received scores of 4.63 ± 0.32 for waterfowl management intensity, 5.03 ± 0.17 for wetland habitat complexity, and 2.63 ± 0.34 for wetland connectivity to rivers and streams.  On average, managed wetlands scored higher in all three categories when compared to NRCS wetland easements.  We suspect that, although river connectivity scores are similar between managed wetlands and WRP wetlands, the connectivity in managed wetlands is better controlled through the use of levees and water control structures and resulted in better habitat for waterfowl and increased wetland complexity for biodiversity.        4   Of all inundated areas surveyed, 70% of the 135 discrete areas observed were classified as unconsolidated bottom, 16% as emergent, 12% as aquatic bed, 1.5% as forested, and 0.7% as scrub-shrub, according to Cowardin et al. (1979).  Primary water sources appeared to be precipitation/snow melt (2.08 ± 0.08 on a 3 point scale), with overbank flooding being the second-most influential source of water (1.02 ± 0.1 on a 3-point scale).  Furthermore, of all the wetland areas surveyed, 31.9 ± 4.0% of the total wetland area, on average, was actively managed in some way, including both vegetation and water manipulation.    When examining community composition within inundated portions of easements, open water habitat composed about 69.9 ± 3.2% of the inundated area, while moist-soil vegetation made up approximately 11.7 ± 1.9%.  Submersed/floating leaf aquatic vegetation accounted for 8.2 ± 1.9% of the inundated area, while scrub-shrub (3.5 ± 0.8%) and forested (2.8 ± 1%) habitats were the smallest contributors (Table 3).  Community composition among the seasons was relatively consistent (Table 4).  Submersed aquatic vegetation cover decreased and open water habitat increased during the fall period, which could have been caused by vegetation senescence and drawdowns.  Moreover, pumping of water into impoundments in preparation for the waterfowl hunting season could have inundated moist-soil vegetation in the fall which was dry earlier in the year, which is a normal wetland management practice.                 Feedback from Landowners  While conducting these wetland evaluations, we would often speak with landowners about their property, including current management practices and schedules, future management goals and objectives, and their experiences with the easement program in which they were enrolled.  Many landowners expressed a desire for a closer connection among the state office, 5  county office, and the landowners themselves.  Many landowners noted a lack of interactions with NRCS regarding their easement since it had been enrolled in the program and the restoration activities had been completed.  Also, several landowners felt the restoration had been done incorrectly, and they were upset that the situation was not evaluated and rectified.  In general, landowners wished there were more funds allocated for management and maintenance activities on currently enrolled easements.    Landowners and INHS biologists noted that many of these easements consisted of bottomland property adjacent to rivers and streams that commonly flooded.  While overbank flooding provides benefits of sediment capture, nutrient removal, and flood attenuation, waterbird habitat is generally degraded and infrastructure for water management capabilities can be destroyed or disabled (Havera 1999, Opperman et al. 2009, Sparks 1995).  In addition, many easements were restored by planting hardwood, mast-producing trees in these bottomland areas affected by overbank flooding.  However, with little to no active management and frequent flooding of these areas, these hardwood trees were replaced by cottonwoods and sycamores through natural adaptations and ecological succession (King 1995, King and Allen 1996).  We noted many bottomland areas where few or no mast-producing hardwood trees had survived following the restoration phase and suggest that future restoration practices include the low survival probability in low-lying areas or implement management practices to reduce competition with less desirable species.  Generally, INHS biologists and landowners noted that planting of hardwood trees was a failed restoration practice on easements visited in 2015.     Notable Violations and Other Issues  There were few potential violations noted on the easements surveyed during 2015, but a few were of special note.  Two of the easements had oil/natural gas pipelines through the 6  property.  One easement contained active construction (Figures 2–3), and another easement was visited after a pipe was buried underground (Figure 4-5).  Several easements had water control structures that had been damaged or made inoperable, either intentionally or naturally (Figures 6, 8, 18–22).  Finally, dumping of garbage seemed to be the most common violation, whether intentionally by the landowner or by others trespassing on the property.  One easement in particular had river access, so it appeared to be frequented by boaters during the summer months and contained extensive amounts of garbage (Figures 9–14).  We note that it would probably be impractical to police this easement due to the nature of remote access.  Conclusions  In conclusion, the monitoring activities completed in 2015 seemed to receive a positive reaction from most landowners and were important to update landowner contact information (87% of easements), establish links between state and county offices, and prevent major violations.  Site visits in 2015 were an important start to evaluating the quality of wetlands on all NRCS wetland easements within Illinois, but at least 3 additional years would be needed to complete monitoring across all easements in the state.  Monitoring of all easements within Illinois within a 5-year rotation would give state and local NRCS officials a firm grasp on the functioning of the wetland easement programs within the state and the quality of wetlands on those easements (Collins 2008, Mack 2001).  We suggest continued monitoring in future years.       7  Literature Cited Collins, J. N., E. D. Stein, M. Sutula, R. Clark, A. E. Fetscher, L. Grenier, C. Grosso, and A. Wiskind.  2008.  California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for Wetlands, v. 5.0.2. 157 pp. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe.  1979.  Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. Havera, S. P.  1999.  Waterfowl of Illinois:  status and management.  Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 21.  Xliii + 628 pp.   King, S. L.  1995.  Effects of flooding regimes on two impounded bottomland hardwood stands.  Wetlands 15(3):272-284.   King, S. L., and J. A. Allen.  1996.  Plant succession and greentree reservoir management:  implications for management and restoration of bottomland hardwood wetlands.  Wetlands 16(4):503-511.   Mack, J. J.  2001.  Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5.0, User's Manual and Scoring Forms.  Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2001-1.  Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401/Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio. Opperman, J. J., G. E. Galloway, J. Fargione, J. F. Mount, B. D. Richter, and S. Secchi.  2009.  Sustainable floodplains through large-scale reconnection to rivers.  Science 326:1487-1488. Sparks, R. E.  1995.  Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains.  BioScience 45(3):168-182.   8  Table 1.  Definitions used for determining habitat coverage on wetland easements surveyed during 2015.  Habitat Type Description Forest Woody vegetation greater than or equal to 6 meters in height. Inundated Surface water present.  Prairie Grasses and forbs generally adapted to upland conditions.  Scrub-Shrub Woody vegetation less than 6 meters in height.   Food Plot Area planted for the purpose of luring, attracting, and/or feeding wildlife.  Can be found in upland or wetland areas.  Does not include row crops. Row Crop Areas planted for the purpose of harvesting a crop for income. Fallow Field Old fields, usually not managed in any way.  Also includes hay fields.            9  Table 2.  Average percent cover (± standard error) of each cover type on overall NRCS wetland easements that were monitored during 2015.    Cover Type Percent Cover Forest 31.4 ± 3.2 Inundated 28.2 ± 3.5 Prairie 19.4 ± 2.4 Scrub-Shrub 17.2 ± 1.9 Food Plot 0.6 ± 0.2 Row Crop 0.5 ± 0.3 Fallow Field 0.5 ± 0.4                10  Table 3.  Average percent cover (± standard error) of various cover types examined within inundated areas of wetland easements during 2015.   Cover Type Percent Cover Open Water 69.9 ± 3.2 Moist-soil Vegetation 11.7 ± 1.9 Submersed/Floating Leaf Vegetation 8.2 ± 1.9 Scrub-Shrub 3.5 ± 0.8 Forest 2.8 ± 1                 11  Table 4.  Average percent cover (± standard error) of various cover types within inundated areas of wetland easements during each sampling period in 2015.   Cover Type Survey Period   Spring Summer Fall Open Water 68.3 ± 7.5 69.2 ± 5.9 75.5 ± 5.2 Moist-soil Vegetation 17.6 ± 5.6 8.3 ± 3.0 11.5 ± 3.5 Submersed/Floating Leaf Vegetation 9.0 ± 4.3 11.5 ± 3.9 3.4 ± 2.6 Scrub-Shrub 4.2 ± 1.4 3.2 ± 1.2 3.3 ± 2.1 Forest 1.4 ± 1.0 3.7 ± 2.3 2.6 ± 1.4                 12  Figure 1.  Map of Illinois showing the locations of easements which were surveyed in 2015.       13  Figure 2.  Oil/gas pipeline being constructed through an easement in Fayette County, with accompanying road for equipment access.    Figure 3.  Oil/gas pipeline being constructed through an easement in Fayette County.    14  Figure 4.  Cleared area where an oil/gas pipeline had been buried underground through an easement in Fayette County.  Picture is looking north through the easement.    Figure 5.  Cleared area where an oil/gas pipeline had been buried underground through an easement in Fayette County.  Picture is looking south through the easement.    15  Figure 6.  Broken water control structure on an easement in Greene County.    Figure 7.  Exposed drain pipe due to soil erosion on an easement in Greene County.      16  Figure 8.  Water control structure filled with sediment on an easement in Christian County.    Figure 9.  Grill, chairs, and other associated garbage on an easement along the Illinois River in Bureau County.  17  Figure 10.  Garbage on an easement along the Illinois River in Bureau County.  Figure 11.  Garbage, as well as a homemade toilet, on an easement along the Illinois River in Bureau County.    18  Figure 12.  Picnic tables and garbage on an easement along the Illinois River in Bureau County.  Figure 13.  Garbage on an easement along the Illinois River in Bureau County.    19  Figure 14.  Garbage on an easement along the Illinois River in Bureau County.  Figure 15.  Reduced water clarity and matted down vegetation on an easement in Fayette County.  These conditions resulted from flooding from a nearby creek onto the easement.  Sedimentation has resulted in the water control structure becoming inoperable.   20  Figure 16.  Phragmites sp. growing on an easement in St. Clair County.    Figure 17.  Some easements are in urbanized areas, such as this easement along I-55 in St. Clair County.      21  Figure 18.  Screw gate that has been made inoperable near an easement in Madison County.  Figure 19.  Screw gate that has been made inoperable near an easement in Madison County.      22  Figure 20.  Screw gate that has been made inoperable on an easement in Madison County.    Figure 21.  Water control structure that has not been maintained on an easement in Greene County.   23  Figure 22.  Water control structure that has become inoperable due to sedimentation on an easement in Calhoun County.                 24  APPENDIX 1.  Data forms.  

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/2142/106675/2/INHS2016_21.pdf

NRCS Wetland Easement Monitoring and Wetland Quality Evaluation Final Report Period: 1 January 2015 – 31 December 2015

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IDEALS @ Illinois

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository