Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 45

MEMO______________________________________________

To: From: Date: Re: Rochester City Beautiful Commission Nina Ignaczak, on behalf of Friends of Howlett Park 12/1/2011 Howlett Pond Habitat Assessment and Recommendations

Overview At the request of Friends of Howlett Park, the City of Rochester contracted with Streamside Ecological Services/HRM to conduct a habitat assessment of Howlett Pond and to make recommendations on steps the City can make to manage habitat in the pond for the benefit of wildlife. The final report was received on September 28, 2011 Key Findings

o o

A total of twenty-five animal (mammals, birds, insects and fish), twenty-eight plant, and five herpetofauna species were observed within and adjacent to the pond Based on the July 12, 2011 field assessments, the contractors found that while the pond and surrounding areas support a variety of flora and fauna, poor water quality and lack of in pond habitat significantly limits animal use and the presence of submergent vegetation. The following recommendations are provided to help improve water quality and increase diversity of aquatic organisms.

Summary of Recommendations Low-Cost/Short-Term 1. Installation of woody structures to serve as basking sites for amphibians and habitat for fish and aquatic insects 2. Maintain existing vegetative buffer surrounding the pond 3. Avoid mowing adjacent to natural area edge in early morning and at all times in late May/early June MId-Cost/Medium-Term 4. Control of invasive and non-native plant species- Autumn olive, Canada thistle, Common buckthorn, Glossy buckthorn, Multiflora Rose, reed canary grass 5. Control Canada Geese (establish/maintain buffer zones, limit the amount of mowed areas, and employ harassment/removal techniques) 6. Convert lawn to prairie (priority: north and west sides of Howlett Pond) 7. Construct additional nesting structures for turtles 8. Install nature walk with interpretive signage High Cost/Long-Term 9. Increase rooted submergent vegetation (first sedimentation must be addressed) 10. Installation of first flush basins, holding and storing within vegetated areas or basins, and/or redirection of stormwater to vegetated areas at eastern and northwestern inlets and surface drainage from church 11. Remove/dredge sediment from pond 12. Aerate pond (mechanical, or via planting or rooted submergent vegetation, or through moving water through shaded/vegetated areas and over rock 13. Manage subsidized predators (raccoons, etc.)

Howlett Park Pond Ecological Assessment

Prepared For: The City of Rochester Department of Public Works

Prepared by:

and

September 10, 2011

Introduction Streamside Ecological Services, Inc. (SES) and Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC (HRM) conducted a preliminary ecological assessment of a pond located in Howlett Park, within the City of Rochester Hills (Figure 1). The assessment was conducted at the request of Mr. William Bohlen and Ms. Kerri Martin of the City of Rochester, Department of Public Works. The purpose of this work was to assess general ecological conditions of the pond, including plant and animal species present, and provide recommendations for passive use and improvement in quality of the aquatic resources present.

Methods The pond was assessed on July 12, 2011. The entire pond and adjacent terrestrial areas were assessed for macrophytes (rooted plants), aquatic insects, fish, water inputs, water quality, and wildlife use. In addition, HRM conducted a 12-hour survey for the presence/absence of reptiles and amphibians and habitat conditions present.

Water quality, macrophytes, and wildlife use were assessed by meander searches through the entire littoral zone of the pond, adjacent terrestrial areas, and specific areas of the ponds watershed suspected of providing hydrologic inputs. Aquatic insects and fish were sampled using 330 micron mesh dip nets and hand picking logs, rocks, and other submerged structures. Representative photographs (Attachment A) were taken of the pond and animal species collected.

Reptiles and amphibians were sampled by HRM using traps, turning cover materials, visual observations and anuran (frog and toad) calling surveys. No voucher samples were collected, but photographs were taken, when possible. All survey activities were in accordance with HRMs Scientific Collectors and Threatened and Endangered Species permits issued by the State of Michigan. Detailed methodologies used by HRM are presented in their full report in Attachment B.

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

Results and Discussion A total of twenty-five animal (mammals, birds, insects and fish), twenty-eight plant, and five herpetofauna species were observed within and adjacent to the pond. Tables 1 and 2 below list the species collected or observed.

Table 1. Animal species observed within or near pond


Animal Group Mammals Common Name Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Eastern Fox Squirrel White-tailed deer American Goldfinch American Robin Canada Goose Great Blue Heron Green Heron King Bird Mallard Mourning Dove Tree Swallow Monarch Butterfly Water Boatman Backswimmer Damselfly Dragonfly Giant Water Bug Predaceous Diving Beetle Water Scorpion Water Strider Whirligig Beetle Common Carp Fathead Minnow Goldfish Bullfrog Eastern American Toad Green Frog Midland Painted Turtle Northern Snapping Turtle Scientific Name Sylvilagus floridanus Sciurus niger Odocoileus virginianus Carduelis tristis Turdus migratorius Branta canadensis Ardea herodias Butorides virescens Tyrannus tyrannus Anas platyrhynchos Zenaida macroura Tachycineta bicolor Danaus plexippus Family Corixidae Family Notonectidae Suborder Zygoptera Family Aeshnidae Family Belostomatidae Family Dytiscidae Family Nepidae Family Gerridae Family Gyrinidae Cyprinus carpio Pimephales promelas Carassius auratus auratus Rana catesbeiana Bufo americanus americanus Rana clamitans melantota Chrysemys picta marginata Chelydra serpentina serpentina

Birds

Terrestrial Insects Aquatic Insects

Fish

Herpetofauna (Collected by HRM)

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

Table 2. Plant species observed within and near pond edge


Common Name Scientific Name

Autumn Olive* Elaeagnus umbellata Beggertick Bidens frondosa Blue Vervain Verbena hastata Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum Box Elder Acer negundo Bur Reed Sparganium americanum Canada Thistle* Cirsium arvense Common Buckthorn* Rhamnus cathartica Common Rush Juncus effusus Curly Dock* Rumix crispus Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoids Giant Goldenrod Solidago gigantea Glossy Buckthorn* Rhamnus frangula Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Bullrush Scirpus atrovirens Iris Iris versicolor Joe Pye-weed Eupatorium purpureum Multiflora Rose* Rosa multiflora Narrowleaf Cattail* Typha angustifolia Nettle Urtica dioica Reed Canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Sago Pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus Sandbar Willow Salix exigua sedge Carex vulpinoidea sedge Carex hystericina Softstem Bullrush Scirpis valadus Water hoarhound Lycopus americanus Watercress* Nasturtium officinale

*invasive species

The pond is surrounded by a shallow littoral zone with emergent, forested, scrub shrub and wet meadow wetland along and near the water/land interface. An approximate wetland boundary is shown in Figure 2. The remainder of the park consists mostly of maintained lawn, and surrounding land use is residential.

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

The flora and fauna encountered is consistent with an urban park setting. Substrates within the littoral zone of the pond consisted of silts and organics with little structure for fish, aquatic insects, or other aquatic animals. Aquatic insects present are generally associated with moderate to low water quality conditions. Numerous air breathing insects (whirligig beetles, and water striders) were noted indicating low dissolved oxygen conditions are likely present during warmer summer months. While extensive fish sampling was not conducted, the species collected are also considered tolerant of poor water quality conditions.

Five species of Herpetofauna were found within the study area. These species are considered generalist and can survive in a variety of environmental conditions, including poor water quality. Attachment B includes a full report by HRM discussing results of the Herpetofauna surveys.

Twenty native and eight non-native plant species were identified in the study area. These species were almost exclusively encountered at and near the pond edge. The remainder of the pond was void of submergent vegetation with the exception of two small beds of sago pondweed at the ponds south and west shore.

Stormwater discharges are present at the north, east and west shores of the pond (Figure 2). The northern discharge delivers stormwater from a paved parking lot north of the pond. A flow path is evident from the parking area through maintained lawn to a small depression, where an inlet pipe is present that discharges at the north shore of the pond. Significant erosion was noted where stormwater flows from the parking lot to the lawn area (Figure 2).

The eastern discharge appears to outlet stormwater from a residential development east of the park. An asphalt apron is present from the discharge pipe to the pond. Likewise the western outlets appear to discharge stormwater collected from residential developments west of the pond. A stone lined and vegetated channel is associated with the northerly outlet on the west shore carrying water to the pond from the stormwater outlet pipe. Heavy silt deposits were present at the mouth of each stormwater discharge.

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

Recommendations Based on the July 12, 2011 field assessments, it is our opinion that while the pond and surrounding areas support a variety of flora and fauna, poor water quality and lack of in-pond habitat significantly limit animal use and the presence of submergent vegetation. The following recommendations are provided to help improve water quality and increase diversity of aquatic organisms. Additional recommendations for improvements to reptile and amphibian habitats are presented in HRMs report (Attachment B). Non-native and invasive plant species have the potential to significantly alter the native plant communities and associated habitat for animals. Control of some of these species is important to maintain and improve plant species diversity. We recommend: o A treatment program be developed that provides long term control of non-native plants. Species of potential concern include autumn olive, Canada thistle, common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, and multiflora rose. o Although native to Michigan, reed canary grass can easily out-compete many other native species and should be included in any treatment program.

In-pond structure such as logs and rooted submergent vegetation are significantly lacking throughout the pond. These and other similar structures provide important habitat for aquatic organisms that use or could potentially use the pond. o According to HRM, basking sites were limited. Placement of woody structures (branched logs) will increase use opportunities for turtles and potentially increase reproduction. In addition finely branch cut limbs can be placed as cover and breeding sites for amphibians along the wetland edge of the pond. o Placement of woody structures will also increase habitat for fish and aquatic insects. o Increasing the presence of submerged aquatic beds will provide important cover, feeding, and spawning habitat for fish and aquatic insects. Lack of these plants is likely due to poor water quality and silty substrates. Increasing aquatic beds requires addressing water quality and sediment inputs.

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

Poor water quality and sedimentation is, in our opinion, likely due to discharge of uncontrolled and untreated stormwater. These stormwater inputs are also affecting water clarity and sunlight penetration required for plant growth. Improvements in water quality will require addressing the quality of the stormwater prior to entering the pond. o First flush basins, holding and storing water within vegetated areas or basins, and redirection of stormwater to vegetated areas are potential solutions to provide higher water quality. Design of these treatments will likely require engineering, knowledge of the volume and flow rate at each outlet, and topographic surveys. o The northern discharge likely carries sediment from erosion near the parking area. Stabilization of this area, re-channelizing flows through heavily vegetated areas, and construction of a sediment basin is recommended. o The eastern and northwestern inlets currently flow over asphalt and a stonelined/vegetated channel respectively. Construction of first flush basins at the pipe outlet and redirecting flows through vegetated swales or basins are potential options for water quality improvement. o The southwestern outlet discharges stormwater directly to the pond. Construction of an in-pond sedimentation basin and/or constructing an in-line treatment system (retrofit existing storm sewer) are options to consider, although retrofitting existing structures are typically costly. o Maintain existing vegetative buffer surrounding the pond. o Consider conducting a bathometric survey and sediment analysis and consider removal of sediment from the pond (e.g. dredging specific areas) o Control use of the pond by waterfowl, particularly Canada Geese.

Low dissolved oxygen appears to be a problem. To confirm this problem and improve conditions to be favorable to fish and other aquatic organisms : o Seasonal and diel dissolved oxygen monitoring should be conducted o The pond could be aerated throughout the year to provide higher levels of oxygen and avoid winter kill of fish.

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

With or without habitat and water quality improvements, the park offers passive recreational and educational opportunities. We recommend the City consider construction of a nature walk around the circumference of the pond with small platforms at key locations. Signage can be developed that provides educational opportunities such as turtle nesting areas, water quality impacts and treatments, plant and animal species that utilize the pond and specific habitats and plant community types.

Once improvements are implemented, there is a potential to develop a fish stocking program and provide opportunities for anglers. Fishing access could be incorporated into the pathway and observation points.

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

APPENDIX A Photographs

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A1

View west along south shore

Viewing east end of pond from south shore

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A2

Viewing north shore from south shore (stormwater discharge)

Viewing east from north shore

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A3

Discharge at east end of pond

Catch Basin southwest of pond

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A4

View east at western discharge

West Discharge

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A5

Inlet north of pond

Inlet north of pond

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A6

Stormwater discharge path from northern parking area

Stormwater discharge from northern parking area

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A7

Goldfish

Dragonfly and Whirligig

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A8

Giant water bug

Backswimmer

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A9

Goldfish

Fathead Minnow

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A10

Dragonfly

Whirligig

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A11

Water Scorpion

Fathead Minnow

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

A12

APPENDIX B HRM Full Report

37890 DePrez Ct., Harrison Twp, MI 48045

B1

Howlett Park Herpetological Report


July 18, 2011

Prepared by

Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC


Grass Lake, MI 49240 (313) 268-6189 Prepared for

Streamside Ecological Services


37890 De Prez Ct Harrison, MI 48045-1920

Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 1 Objective ............................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 Site Location and Description .............................................................................................. 2 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 2 Terrestrial Habitats........................................................................................................... 2 Aquatic Habitats .............................................................................................................. 3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 3 Discussion............................................................................................................................ 3 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 4 Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure................................................................................................................................... 6 Photos.................................................................................................................................. 7

Objective This assessment was conducted to ascertain herpetofaunal diversity within Howlett Park and determine restoration potential for amphibians and reptiles. Introduction Amphibians and reptiles are recognized as key bioindicators- gauges of environmental health. These groups of animals are highly sensitive to environmental pollutants and habitat disturbances. Their presence, distribution and relative abundance can be important tools in assessing ecosystem health. Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC (HRM) conducted a preliminary amphibian and reptile survey on July 12, 2011. This survey was conducted to better assess the overall health and function of this site and help identify potential restoration opportunities to improve water and overall habitat quality for wildlife with emphasis on amphibians and reptiles. During our survey a total of 12 person-hours were spent documenting site conditions and herpetofaunal diversity. Five species of reptiles and amphibians were observed during this time. Site Location and Description The project area (Figure 1) is located in the City of Rochester, Oakland County, Michigan. The site includes maintained lawn with scattered trees and a pond surrounded by woods and emergent marsh. The pond has multiple inlets and water clarity is poor. Adjacent land use includes a church on the north and residential on the south, east, and west. Roads border the south and west edges of the property. Methodology A herpetofaunal survey was conducted on July 12, 2011 by teams of trained herpetological surveyors. Various methods were employed to document species diversity and distribution. These included the use of traps, turning cover materials, visual observations and anuran (frog and toad) calling surveys. No voucher samples were collected, but photographs were taken when possible. All survey activities were in accordance with our Scientific Collectors and Threatened and Endangered Species permits issued by the State of Michigan. Terrestrial Habitats A number of techniques were employed in sampling for herpetofauna. Timeconstrained ground searches were used to inventory all terrestrial habitats for evidence of reptiles and amphibians. Ground searches consisted of investigation of potential basking and nesting areas as well as turning over natural and artificial cover objects (logs, boards, debris,

etc.). Amphibians and reptiles discovered during ground searches were identified by visual characteristics. Aquatic Habitats Aquatic searches involved examining each type of aquatic habitat. Aquatic habitats were searched for adult, juvenile, and larval amphibians and reptiles as well as amphibian egg masses. Sampling for these species involved capturing individuals by hand, trapping, dip netting, observation through binoculars and aural surveys. Data Collection Positively identified amphibians and reptiles were recorded. The following data were collected for each record: (1) species, (2) gender of each individual (when possible), (3) behavior of each individual, and (4) reproductive condition of each individual (if it can be determined). Observation locations were recorded using Trimble Geo XT and Juno SB GPS Units and mapped using ArcMap 9.3.1. A map of these observations is provided. Results Five species of native herpetofauna (3 amphibians and 2 reptiles) were recorded within the assessment area. These included the Eastern American Toad, Green Frog, Bullfrog, Midland Painted Turtle and Northern Snapping Turtle. Multiple age classes were documented for three of the five species (Table 1). Discussion HRM documented five species of native herpetofauna. The site currently supports a modest diversity of amphibians and reptiles. Species observed are more generalist in habitat selection and can occur in a variety of water quality conditions. Importantly, various life stages were documented for a number of species indicating successful reproduction and necessary habitat present to support these species at all life stages. Additional surveys would likely result in an increase in observed diversity; however, based on habitat type and availability only a few more species are likely to occur Diversity was highest near or within wetland and pond habitat. Invasive plants dominate many of the potential herpetofaunal habitats and may be restricting species distribution and habitat use. In addition, extensive mowed areas limit habitat availability and functionality for amphibians and reptiles. The park encompasses a somewhat diverse assemblage of habitats, and could be restored to support a wider range of reptiles and amphibians (Tables 2 and 3). and greatly benefit the herpetofanal community within Howlett Park.

Recommendations The following recommendations are provided to help attract and maintain a diverse assemblage of native amphibians and reptiles within Howlett Park as well as better understand species diversity and distribution: Control invasive plant species as these can change habitat structure to exclude herpetofauna or even chemically inhibit larval development. Consider Canada Goose control and discouragement around and in the pond. Avoid mowing adjacent to the natural area edge in early morning when snakes are likely to be basking there. Avoid mowing in late May and early June when turtles will be nesting in the lawn. Converting lawn to prairie can increase species diversity and require less maintenance. Provide additional nesting opportunities for turtles to help aid in population growth and stability. Control of subsidized predators such as raccoons would potentially increase nest success and juvenile survival of turtles and other species of herpetofauna. Basking sites were noticeably limited throughout the pond. Placement of woody debris in strategic locations will increase thermoregulation opportunities for turtles and potentially increase reproduction. Provide logs around perimeter of the pond and within the woods. Consider adding finely branch cut limbs as cover and breeding sites for amphibians along the wetland edge. Water quality and clarity appear to be a limiting factor in diversity at this location. Incorporating vegetated swales and first flush basins may help improve water quality. Also consider wetland plants, particularly submergent wetland vegetation. Because Geese forage on wetland plants, this effort should be done in conjunction to limiting use and access of Geese. Howlett Park has the potential to support a relatively diverse assemblage of herpetofauna beyond what was observed in this short survey. Additional surveys are recommended to better assess the diversity and distribution of these species in order to aid in management and conservation efforts within this park.

Tables

Observed Diversity 2011


Species Eastern American Toad Bullfrog Green Frog Midland Painted Turtle Northern Snapping Turtle Age Classes Observed Egg Larvae Juvenile x x x Adult x x x x x

x x

Table 1. A summary of observations from the 2011 site visit including age classes observed.

Observed and Potential Reptile Diversity


Common Name Turtle Midland Painted Turtle Northern Snapping Turtle Red-eared Slider Snake Eastern Garter Snake Butler's Garter Snake Northern Brown Snake Scientific Name Chrysemys picta marginata Chelydra serpentina serpentina Trachemys scripta elegans Occurrence Probability P P H

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Thamnophis butleri Storeria dekayi

H M M

P = Present, H = High, M = Moderate

Table 2. Reptile diversity and species probability of occurrence based on habitat and locality.

Observed and Potential Amphibian Diversity


Common Name Frogs Gray Treefrog Northern Leopard Frog Green Frog Bullfrog Scientific Name Hyla versicolor/chrysoscelis Rana pipiens Rana clamitans melanota Rana catesbeiana Occurrence Probability H M P P

P = Present, H = High, M = Moderate

Table 3. Amphibian diversity and species probability of occurrence based on habitat and locality.

Figure

Figure 1. Herpetological assessment area and amphibian and reptile species distribution.

Photos

Photo 1. View of pond facing east.

Photo 2. Wetland vegetation along pond inlet on west side of property. 7

Photo 3. Emergent edge along north side of pond. Photo also shows inlet and open field area where predated Midland Painted Turtle nest was found.

Photo 4. Potential turtle nesting area on north side of pond.

Photo 5. Woodland habitat along edge of north side of pond. Note the ample amount of woody debris and areas for cover for herpetofauna.

Photo 6. Numerous invasive shrubs and vines in wooded area around pond.

Photo 7. HRM crew surveying along ponds edge.

10

Photo 8. Turtle trap in pond along north edge.

Photo 9. Midland Pained Turtle basking on log on south side of pond.

11

Photo 10. Midland Painted Turtle caught in turtle trap.

Photo 11. Adult Northern Snapping Turtle and juvenile Midland Painted Turtle foraging.

12

Photo 12. Green Frog observed along the west edge of pond.

13

Memo
To: From: Date: Re: Mr. Bill Bohlen, City of Rochester Department of Public Works Michael Nurse, Streamside Ecological Services, Inc. and David Misfud, Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC September 28, 2011 Howlett Park Pond Ecological Assessment

Streamside Ecological Services (SES) and Herpetological Resource and Management (HRM) have received your request for additional information, recommendations and clarifications with respect to our September 10, 2011 report. Responses to your questions are provided below. Streamside Report On page 7, the consultants recommend in-pond structures such as logs and rooted submergent vegetation. Can the consultants provide any information, references or guides to establishing such woody structures, such as permitting requirements, sources of material, guidelines for placement, etc? As identified in the report, placement of woody debris in strategic locations was recommended to increase thermoregulation opportunities for turtles and potentially increase reproduction. Woody material also provides additional structure for use by other aquatic organisms. Placement of these structures within shallow zones and adjacent wetlands should be a relatively simple process. Portions of the structures should be above the water elevation for basking and should be heavy enough and/or anchored to avoid movement during times of flow (e.g. larger stormwater discharge event). Some of the woody material could be obtained, at least in part, from selective cutting in the wooded areas adjacent to the pond. While any additional structure will provide benefits, identifying specific placement locations would require additional analysis by HRM. Under Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, PA 451, as amended (NREPA), permits are required from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to construct, dredge, and/or enlarge a pond within 500 feet or an inland lake or stream. Additionally permits are also required under Part 303, Wetland Protection of NREPA to impact regulated wetlands, including placement of a pathway and habitat structures. Regulated wetlands are those areas either greater than 5 acres in size, and/or contiguous to an inland lake, stream or pond. The statute defines a pond as a water body with a permanent surface water area one acre in size or greater. It
1

is our understanding that the area of the pond is less than one acre in size with no connection to an inland lake, stream or other natural surface water system. In addition, the wetlands surrounding the pond are small and do not appear to include an area greater than 5 acres. Therefore based on available information, the pond and adjacent wetlands are not regulated under Parts 303 and 301. We recommend additional research be conducted to determine if the pond has an outlet to a nearby surface water. What species of submerged aquatic vegetation should be considered for placement in the pond? What are sources of plant material and planting guidelines? Should this measure be postponed until such time as water quality and sedimentation improves? Identifying specific species of aquatic vegetation is, under current circumstances, premature. Planting plans could be developed which include location and density of species planted, methods, and planting specifications. There are numerous sources of plant material within southern Michigan and adjoining states. However, developing a successful plan is dependent on water quality, substrates, depths, and ultimate goals. Improvements in water quality and potentially substrates within the pond (e.g. removal of sediments) should supersede development of a planting plan. On page 8, recommendations regarding water quality improvements are provided. Can the consultants provide any conceptual drawings, pictures, or examples of first flush basins of a similar size and function as what is being recommended? First flush basins are designed to capture the initial runoff during a storm event, which typically carries the majority of sediments and pollutants. These basins are generally sized for the first 0.5 inch of runoff, however alternative formulas are used. Therefore the size of the basin is specific to the contributing area of runoff. We recommend additional research be conducted that identifies the specific source of the runoff, and contributing area. Such information may be available at the City where stormwater plans are held on file. We also recommend a licensed engineer review this information and develop designs for the basin(s). Generally, the longer water is held and treated, the higher the quality of water and lower amounts of nutrient enter the receiving waters. Alternatives appear available to re-direct stormwater from most of the current discharge points to first flush, larger vegetated basins, and/or vegetated swales. Specific designs would require assessment of the topography, planned use of the space the basins or swales can be placed (e.g. are there other recreational uses planned for the park in these areas), and an understanding of the volume, frequency, and duration of water entering the system (i.e. contributing drainage area). What Canada Geese control methods are recommended? Control measures should be based on the size of the population, frequency of use, and timing. Our assessment identified approximately 12 geese on the pond. However this observation was during a one day assessment. Additional information would be helpful with respect to the frequency and timing of use. Generally speaking, control measures are most effective during spring and fall when goose abundance is high due to nesting and

Page 2

migration. If use is high and consistent during these times, we recommend measures that make the area unattractive to geese and possibly removal of the geese from the area. These recommendations include: Establish buffer zones (tall vegetation) in place of mowed areas around the waters edge. The wider the buffer the more effective the control. Other vegetation types can also be used providing the plant type is difficult for geese to move through. Prohibit feeding by the residents using the park. Contact the MDNR Wildlife Division (Southfield Operations Service Center, 26000 W. Eight Mile Rd., Southfield, MI. 48034-5916; Phone 248-359-9040). The biologists at MDNR have a variety of options available for goose control including a goose round-up program. This program is designed to address the permitting necessary for removal of geese and provides a list of private contractors who have the capabilities of capture and removal. The MDNR can also provide detailed information on other options such as scare and harassment tactics which include use of shell crackers, screamers, and harassment by dogs, among others. Physical barriers such as strands of string along the waters edge are also an option. Based on our conversations with the MDNR, the most effective option would be a combination of establishing buffer zones, limiting the amount of mowed areas, and employing harassment and removal techniques. The use of dogs (The MDNR has a list of companies available to provide this service) has been shown to be very effective on a number of golf courses in southeast Michigan. Regardless of technique, it is important to employ these tactics soon after the geese arrive in the area. On page 8, a recommendation regarding aeration is provided. What aeration methods are recommended? Aeration was included as a potential alternative due to the suspected low dissolved oxygen levels. Aeration can be accomplished through a variety of techniques including placement of diffusers or bubblers. However, implementation of the water quality improvements, additional designs incorporated into the improvements (e.g. moving water through vegetated/shaded areas and over rock) and planting of oxygen-producing plants may also result in increased dissolved oxygen levels. Electrical aeration systems should be considered only if levels remain too low for survival of fish (should the City wish to manage a fish population). On page 9, the consultants recommend a possible fish stocking program once improvements are implemented. What species of fish should be considered as targets? Would managing for fish in this habitat be in conflict for managing for herpetofauna? What course of action would be taken to try to improve amphibian habitats vs. fish habitat? Our report identifies the potential for a fish stocking program should the City find this desirable. However, increasing the diversity of herpetofauna would likely be impacted by the presence of fish. Therefore the ultimate goals of the restorations should first be examined. Regardless,

Page 3

numerous sunfish species, including fast growing hybrids, and bass are likely candidates and available from private sources for stocking. The majority of recommendations in the report and this memo are beneficial to both fish and herpetofauna. While we do not have specific information regarding the source of water entering the pond, we suspect it is limited to stormwater from surrounding residential development. Therefore, the current fish population was likely introduced by humans. Removal of the current fish could be accomplished through a pumping and netting program or the use of fish poisoning techniques. However, we would recommend a more comprehensive fish community assessment prior to employing either technique. According to HRM, poisoning would negatively impact herpetofauna but the species currently present would recover quickly. Certainly additional fish introductions should not be considered. Herpetological Resource and Management Report Page 4 provides a list of recommendations for habitat improvements. We ask for additional clarification and /or detail on the following: Which invasive plant species are most critical to control for improving herpetofaunal habitat? Of the species observed, common buckthorn and multiflora rose appear to be causing the most disruption to the current community. As indicated in the Streamside report, reed canary grass can quickly take over wetlands. What methods for controlling Canada Geese are recommended? As discussed earlier in this memo, there are a variety of techniques to control or discourage Canada Geese. One of the more effective techniques is to maintain tall vegetation around wetlands. If restoring wetland vegetation, incorporating a matrix of string and ribbons in and adjacent to wetlands will discourage them from damaging young vegetation during establishment. Which areas of the park are most critical for establishing no-mow zones to improve turtle nesting habitat? It is our recommendation that no-mow zones be established around the entire pond. The priority areas would be on the north and west sides. For the recommendation "Provide additional nesting opportunities for turtles to help aid in population growth and stability", can you provide any examples of the types of opportunities you are talking about? HRM recommends the construction of nesting areas on the north side of the pond with southern exposures to maximize solar radiation. HRM has designed numerous such structures and would be happy to assist in developing these habitat enhancements for Howlett Park.

Page 4

What species of submerged aquatic vegetation should be considered for placement in the pond? What are sources of plant material and planting guidelines? Should this measure be postponed until such time as water quality and sedimentation improves? There are a variety of native pants that would be suitable for use within Howlett Park. Oxygenating species and those that serve as food sources for wildlife are best. Prior to identifying which species to utilize, HRM recommends that a management plan be put in place which addresses water quality and sedimentation as some species will not thrive in high salinity, high turbidity environments. Can you clarify what is meant by a "subsidized predator" and elaborate on recommended control measures (traps, poisons?) Subsidized predation occur when humans directly or indirectly increase resource availability in such a way as to significantly increase the density of a predator population. Subsidized predators can drastically impact prey populations. Control measures can include trapping, chemical or physical birth control (castration), or euthanizing. The decision regarding which method to use requires additional analysis of predator density and City and County regulations. The final item states that Howlett Pond has the potential to support a relatively diverse assemblage of herpetofauna. Given the observed habitat conditions, which herpetofaunal species are most likely as a "goal" or "target" species? Is there a conflict between managing for fish vs. amphibian populations, and what course of action would be taken to try to improve amphibian habitats vs. fish habitat? We would recommend using Gray Treefrog and Northern Leopard Frog as target species for restoration. There is a potential conflict in managing for both fish and amphibians based on the current morphology of the pond. Many species of amphibian will not use habitat that supports fish. Removal of fish (especially nonnative fish) is recommended if amphibians are a target of restoration. If fish are removed via poisoning, an amphibian and reptile rescue could be conducted beforehand to lower the impact to non-target species. What type of survey effort is recommended to better ascertain existing herpetofaunal diversity? Can volunteers be employed to this effort? If so, how? Our assessment was based on one site visit. We would recommend additional surveys be conducted. This can include using volunteers who have experience with frog and toad calls. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has a frog and toad program. It is not recommended that management plans be based solely on frog

Page 5

and toad calling surveys. If more detailed surveys are desired it is recommended that a professional conduct the surveys or work with the volunteers. Overall: Which recommendations do you feel should be highest priority? Addressing water quality including the establishment of no mow zone would be a very high priority. Additionally control of invasive species would be beneficial. Once these items have been addressed incorporating basking logs, breeding sites, and nesting areas would benefit wildlife. Which recommendations will provide the greatest impact for the least cost and effort? More detailed study of the site and greater discussion would be necessary to evaluate the cost benefit of each recommendation. I mentioned to David prior to this study that the City has been regularly applying algaecide to the pond. What impact would this have on herpetofaunal diversity? What non-chemical methods of algae control could be employed should algae become problematic in the pond? Algaecides can be very dangerous to both herpetofauna (particularly amphibians) and aquatic macroinvertebrates. It is strongly recommended that an alternative be sought to control algal growth. Addressing water quality through some of the recommendations provided here, including nutrient loading, is necessary to reduce algal growth. A no-mow zone surrounding the pond is one initial step that can be taken to slow nutrient input.

Page 6

I
c

'

'

I
"

;,

I
,

"

I'

I j I I Reptile Nesting.
' I

I:

I
I,

i-I I

I
.
I

I:
,-

:
"

'
'I

'
I

'1'

I:" .
,

I' I
i

I . ..-. ., . I' """,,~LJI\J

6,0 I I "l . . .:,j /LIt-'.I" ~ , ., .' ,


--'"
"

I
I

t
I

. "'.

1,
' I

~ .' ;;;Jrf' 'I. 'J , "


I -

. D ,41,

. ~: 40
' I
,

~: I,

if
I 1

I
I

I
-I
it'"

' I

!
- 'I -, ' -

I '

I
I

, "
-

! .~.. . -~',I
'

I
I I

1
I

I .:.:~:.', '.f" 'I .


-

I
r

.+.:'1'...~'",,, '" ., I

""'.',4.

5.0 '
I

:
','
-

Str~ctu~e--,~,

i
:

.,

I
'

'

-. .

i
i

'

i I
I

'
1

'

URt\ R R7i 1 r'II


,

J l UN q1R p
'

'

i
,

~,-,
'1-' 1

r
!
-

I, '
I

I
, I
-

v,

: '
I

I! .I I
1

I
'

'I
,

'.
I,

I!
I

fro ~IK 151OE.,. !ol'il6


,

"

~
',I

'

'C

'-"

. I I :
,I

, I
I

~M,lliE~r~f<SOlJr1WE~; :-I I
'I
"

I-+--

'I

I, ,
"

I
I

.
I ,

IT,I
.
,

I
1

I I

1
I

I:
.

I
1

'
I
IlL

'I, I
I
J
1
:

'I
u; j

I
-

I 1 I , L_Ll,.

-.
1.1_1

. 1 I'.': r~AINi yrJe.W!


: I

l
'

,I: I
'

I'-~

1
I
',I

r I '1..,!,
1

r
I

aRiOSS~~ c;]UPNJl I I
:

I :!
I

~-

rr roiTf :
,
",

..-~

IIi

I -..I
I
I

I
I

I
!
1

I
I'

, , I

L I Ilrl_~
1

I -.

"".

I 1
, .C

:!-~=tl
_

J
'

I'
'

I
"

I
I

i
,

ji-I :
1 1
,

I :- I:
1

,-

'I'
,.

I
1,-'!110: flPP~o. I .I ,
-

I
: -

I
1
1

II,'
I

+
-

,~

I I

I
,I
I

I I I
I
d-

I I I I I I : i '6 e.N6RA , AIfl?J1 I J 'Nf?EI.>


~ n

! I
I

I ,
!
I'

1
r

.
I
'

jlt!~Jirtr-W-: ' =i irI. r 1


I
,

t j~-+~
I

-- (J'

-"

..

1+
1

,-'-

---~

.I

I
r

'I_.

I,

i Rock tBaskmg :~ Struc ure


1

+
"

{-i-Ii
'I,

;--~

'

'

:x
_:~
~-!

l!\ ~I
1
. I

- I

.I I

I
i

-,

1
I

l'
I

111'-' ,~~ IIJIrJ{'f'LR rA~ .


1

-~
I

I
I

l
,

i' I

I
r

I,:
I
I

\II
I

r IJD YTI

t
!

I '.

I
I

ji
';

I
III
"

':.!'

' ,

~l
If

~i Y I/Ur-f'AFI -,I ~ ~
~ CljAS
'

II
'

i
,I
,

OWNER

I LOCATION

SEC.

T _N,
COUNTY,

RIOWA

W
-~-~

'"

r-I. l' 11

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

- .~

NATURALRESOURCESCONSERVATION SERVICE

O~E-1fPl~-S' E ~
I

'

I I

-I

Designed

,.

~,

II

L f
Drown

- I

Dote Approvedy b Title

~V~r:tv1> -f- -II 16,


j'

I ,~,

I
I

I I' I

i
t

II Stoked

I --No. Sheet rrr-I

DrawingNo.

IIIChecked, T "I Ti

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi