Upper St. Clair River Habitat Restoration Wildlife Monitoring

Report

September 2012

Prepared for: Community Foundation of St. Clair County

516 McMorran Blvd. Port Huron, MI 48060

Prepared by:

Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC P.O. Box 110

Chelsea, MI 48118 www.HerpRMan.com

(313) 268-6189

1

Suggested citation: Mifsud, D. (2012). Upper St. Clair River Habitat Restoration Wildlife Monitoring Report. Herpetological Resource and Management Report 2012. Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5 

Methods............................................................................................................................... 7 

Site Location and Description ......................................................................................... 7 

Herpetofaunal Surveys .................................................................................................... 7 

Bird Surveys.................................................................................................................... 8 

Macroinvertebrate Surveys ............................................................................................. 8 

Results ................................................................................................................................. 9 

Herpetofauna ................................................................................................................... 9 

Birds ................................................................................................................................ 9 

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................................ 9 

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 11 

Herpetofauna ................................................................................................................. 11 

Birds .............................................................................................................................. 12 

Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................................................... 13 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 15 

Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 17 

Reduce Wave Velocity at the Shoreline ....................................................................... 17 

Create Grassland/Upland Habitats ................................................................................ 18 

2

Create Snake Habitat ..................................................................................................... 19 

Create Mudpuppy Shoal ............................................................................................... 19 

Provide Turtle Basking Structures ................................................................................ 20 

Create Turtle Nesting Areas .......................................................................................... 20 

Provide Public Education Opportunities ....................................................................... 21 

Control Exotic and Invasive Plant Species Colonization ............................................. 21 

Tables ................................................................................................................................ 22 

Maps .................................................................................................................................. 29 

Photos ................................................................................................................................ 35 

Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 48 

Herpetofaunal Species Profiles ..................................................................................... 48 

Mudpuppy ............................................................................................................. 48 

Northern Map Turtle ............................................................................................. 48 

Eastern Fox Snake................................................................................................. 49 

Northern Water Snake ........................................................................................... 50 

Queen Snake ......................................................................................................... 50 

Bird Species Profiles ..................................................................................................... 51 

American Black Duck ........................................................................................... 51 

Green-winged Teal ................................................................................................ 51 

Northern Harrier .................................................................................................... 51 

Common Tern ....................................................................................................... 52 

Pied-billed Grebe .................................................................................................. 52 

Eastern Towhee ..................................................................................................... 53 

3

Trumpeter Swan .................................................................................................... 53 

Macroinvetebrate Profiles ............................................................................................. 54 

Order Ephemeroptera: Mayflies ........................................................................... 54 

Order Trichoptera: Caddisflies ............................................................................. 54 

Order Plecoptera: Stoneflies ................................................................................. 55 

Order Amphipoda: Scuds ...................................................................................... 55 

Family Dreisseniidae: Zebra Mussels ................................................................... 56 

Orconectes rusticus: Rusty Crayfish ..................................................................... 56 

References ......................................................................................................................... 57 

4

Executive Summary

In 2011, Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC (HRM) was contracted

by the Community Foundation of St. Clair County to conduct baseline studies on

amphibian, reptile, bird, and aquatic macroinvertebrate richness, abundance, and

distribution within a portion of the upper St. Clair River that has been proposed for

habitat restoration. The results of these surveys will be used to help guide habitat

restoration design, as well as provide baseline data to evaluate restoration success and

wildlife response.

During 2011 and 2012, 35 bird species, ten families of macroinvertebrates, one

reptile species, and one amphibian species were observed. Twenty bird species and two

families of macroinvertebrates were documented during surveys in 2011. Twenty-nine

bird species, nine families of macroinvertebrates, one amphibian species (Mudpuppy,

Necturus maculosus maculosus), and one reptile species (Midland Painted Turtle,

Chrysemys picta marginata) were documented during surveys in 2012.

The Upper St. Clair River study site has great potential to provide critical wildlife

habitat in an area currently deficient in functional habitat. Carefully designed and

implemented ecosystem restoration would increase the number of wildlife species present

and increase abundance in the species currently present. In addition to providing wildlife

habitat and increasing the ecological function of this degraded landscape, the proposed

restoration project will also provide the community with much needed opportunities to

recreate and enjoy nature in an urban landscape.

5

Introduction

Amphibians, reptiles, birds and macroinvertebrates are 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 identifying the need for and success of habitat restoration

projects.

Historically, this site has been part of a major shipping lane on the St. Lawrence

Seaway, and is part of an important international trade route. Frequent, heavy wake and

contaminates from vessels have negatively impacted water and riparian habitat quality.

Urban and industrial land use adjacent to the Upper St. Clair River also likely increase

rates of stormwater runoff from natural conditions, and this runoff likely carries

pollutants such as heavy metals and hydrocarbons to the river. Recently, the St. Clair

Community Foundation, along with project partners, has spearheaded efforts to reclaim a

portion of the Upper St. Clair River for natural area.

The riparian communities along the Upper St. Clair River have been severely

impacted by development and channelization; however, amphibian, reptiles, bird, fish, and

macroinvertebrate species were observed within the study site in 2011 and 2012. The

overall environmental health, habitat types, and functionality within the study site could be

greatly enhanced through restoration of critical habitat and creation of structures that mimic

natural components of wildlife and fisheries habitat at the study site. Ecological restoration

can promote biodiversity by supporting increases in species richness and abundance for

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and macroinvertebrates.

6

In 2011 and 2012, Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC (HRM) was

contracted by the Community Foundation of St. Clair County to conduct baseline studies

on amphibian, reptile, bird, and aquatic macroinvertebrate richness, abundance, and

distribution within a portion of the upper St. Clair River where habitat restoration is

planned to start fall of 2012. This project was undertaken to identify species presence and

abundance along a portion of the St. Clair River and establish a baseline for comparison to

post-restoration communities. This study will provide a comprehensive assessment of

species and family richness, distribution, and relative abundance for amphibians, reptiles,

birds, and aquatic macroinvertebrates that occur within the study site. The assessment is

intended to help guide the project team to determine how to maximize habitat restoration

effectiveness and functionality for target taxa. Additionally, the information obtained

from these surveys provides baseline data to evaluate changes in species richness, spatial

distribution, and relative abundance following restoration.

Surveys were conducted from September 2011 to June 2012 within the City of

Port Huron in St. Clair County, Michigan. Survey objectives were to provide a detailed,

comprehensive inventory of taxonomic richness and distribution of the amphibians,

reptiles, birds and aquatic macroinvertebrates that occur within the study site. Results of

surveys prior to and following restoration will allow for a meaningful comparison of

species distribution and richness to demonstrate the efficacy of the project. Surveys

included techniques aimed at documenting both relatively common and rare species. The

results of this survey will provide a point of comparison for future studies and help guide

restoration and management decisions.

7

Methods

Site Location and Description

The study site occurs along the St. Clair River, which flows southward about 40

miles, connecting the southern tip of Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair (Map 1). The project

area is located within the City of Port Huron, St. Clair County, Michigan, directly across

the river from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The study site is approximately 250m long north

to south, and approximately 40m wide east to west, centered on the shoreline,

encompassing upland and wetland habitats (Map 2). The study site includes emergent

marsh dominated by invasive species and some submergent aquatic vegetation, as well as

open water (Photos 1-4). Gravel and broken concrete make up the majority of the

shoreline with some areas containing clay. Upland habitat includes lower quality urban

grassland/meadow habitat with some shrubs.

Herpetofaunal Surveys

Methods to detect and identify amphibian and reptile species included visual

encounter, examination of cover objects, and trapping. These techniques were conducted

to determine species presence, spatial distribution, and to help estimate the relative

abundance of rare reptiles (Heyer, Donnelly et al. 1994; Olson, Leonard et al. 1997;

McDiarmid, Foster et al. 2012). Herpetofaunal surveys were conducted three days in

2011 and five days in 2012. Surveys for Mudpuppy were conducted in the near-shore

area (up to approximately 1m deep water) by turning cover objects (i.e., rocks). Surveys

for turtles were conducted using traps baited with sardines (Photos 5 and 6; Map 2).

Surveys for other herpetofaunal species were conducted using time-constrained ground

8

searches (Photo 7). Ground searches included investigation of potential basking and nesting

areas as well as turning over natural and artificial cover objects (logs, boards, debris, etc.).

No voucher specimens were collected, but photographs were taken when possible.

Bird Surveys

Bird surveys were conducted five days from September 24 – December 2, 2011,

and on 12 days from January 22 – August 3, 2012. Bird communities were assessed

using unlimited-radius 10 minute point-count surveys to detect and identify bird species

and number of birds (Howe, Niemi et al. 1997). Survey points were at least 250m apart

and located adjacent to the river (Photos 8 and 9; Map 3). Observations were recorded

for birds on the water, in air, and on land.

Macroinvertebrate Surveys

Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted at five sample points along the shore

of the study site on December 20, 2011, March 23, 2012, and June 14, 2012 (Map 4).

Shallow areas with a gravel or cobble bottom were selected for sampling (Photos 10 and

11). Sampling was conducted using D-frame nets. Rocks, submerged wood, and leaf

litter (when present) were also sampled because macroinvertebrates often use these

structures for foraging and cover. Upon completion of sampling at each location,

collected specimens were stored in 95% ethanol for later identification (Cooperrider,

Boyd et al. 1986).

9

Results

Herpetofauna

The herpetofaunal species observed within the study site in 2011and 2012 were

Midland Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata, Photo 12) and Mudpuppy (Necturus

maculosus maculosus, Photo 13; Table 1; Map 5). Potential species of herpetofauna that

may be present during pre-restoration surveys include Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis

sirtalis sirtalis), Eastern Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina) and Eastern

Spiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera spinifera).

Birds

A total of 52 species of birds were observed during our surveys, 48 of which were

native species (Tables 2 and 3, Photos 14-19). Twenty species were observed during fall

2011 and 49 during winter, spring, and summer 2012. Great Blue Heron (Ardea

herodias) and Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus), though not counted in the bird species

total, were also observed at the study site before and after the designated point-count time

periods. The six most-abundant native bird species observed were waterfowl or seabirds,

and 40% of observed native species were waterfowl or seabirds.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Ten families of macrointertebrate were observed (Table 5). Identified families

include Hydrophilidae (Water Scavenger Beetle ), Dreissenidae (Zebra Mussel),

Hydropsychidae (Net Spinner Caddisfly ), Hirudinea (Leech), Oligochoeta (Earthworm),

Amphipoda (Scud), Isopoda (Waterlouse), Coenagrionidae (Damselfly), Planorbidae

10

(Rams-horn Snail), and Cambaridae (represented by the nonnative Rusty Crayfish,

Orconectes rusticus. Chironomidae (midges) were not observed; however, they are

ubiquitous and their presence would be expected due to their tolerance for disturbed

conditions.

11

Discussion

Herpetofauna

Although only two species of herpetofauna were observed, the presence of

Mudpuppy and Midland Painted Turtle (Map 5; Photo 12-13), indicate potential for the

Upper St. Clair River to support a diverse assemblage of amphibians and reptiles,

especially once proposed restoration is completed (Table 1). The observed Mudpuppies

were young, which indicates that this area may serve as a nursery for this species and that

near shore areas greater than 3 feet in water depth likely support a breeding adult

population. Once restored, this area could be highly suitable mudpuppy habitat which

could result in increases in abundance and distribution of this SGCN species that is also

an obligate host to the endangered salamander mussel (see Herpetofaunal Species

Profile: Mudpuppy).

Based on existing and proposed habitat, potential amphibian species that may

occur within the project area include Eastern American Toad (Bufo americanus), Bullfrog

(Rana catesbeiana), and Green Frog (Rana clamitans). Potential turtle species include

Eastern Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina), Northern Map Turtle

(Graptemys geographica; Photo 20), Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), and

Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera spinifera). During surveys, no snake

species were observed; however, possible snake habitat and habitat components (i.e.,

rock for basking and hibernation, grass and herbaceous vegetation for foraging grounds)

were observed for several species. Based on existing and proposed restoration Northern

Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon; Photo 21), Eastern Fox Snake (Elaphe gloydi;

12

Photo 22), Queen Snake (Regina septemvittata; Photo 23), and Eastern Garter Snake are

potentially present or may colonize once habitat restoration is completed.

Birds

A diverse assemblage of native songbirds were observed at the Upper St. Clair

River study site including those in ground-foraging, foliage-gleaning, and air-sallier

feeding guilds. Avian species richness was highest in spring and summer (March through

August) likely because birds utilized this area as a critical migratory pathway and as

breeding season feeding grounds during those times. The conditions present at the Upper

St. Clair River study site likely provided feeding, nesting, breeding and stop-over sites for

observed bird species (Tables 2 and 3) and various non-observed bird species that are

likely present at the site (Table 4).

Two of the observed bird species (Trumpeter Swan, Cygnus buccinators;

Common Tern, Sterna hirundo) are listed as federally or state threatened or endangered.

Five bird species observed during our surveys (American Black Duck, Anas rubripes;

Canada Goose, Branta Canadensis; Greater Scaup, Aythya marila; Mallard, Anas

platyrhynchos; and Mourning Dove, Zenaida macroura) are of management concern due

to recreational value (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010), and seven bird species

(American Black Duck, Northern Flicker, Colaptes auratus, Killdeer, Charadrius

vociferous; Trumpeter Swan; Spotted Sandpiper, Actitis macularius; Northern Harrier,

Circus cyaneus; Northern Flicker) are listed as a rare or declining bird species in

13

Michigan (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005). In addition, several non-observed birds

that likely use the study site are declining bird species (Table 4).

Other observed bird species with populations that have declined or which may be

in decline include Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Greater Scaup (Aythya marila),

Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca; Photo 17), Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), Long-

tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca), and Northern

Harrier (Photo 18) (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005; Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

Green-winged Teal, Bufflehead, Greater Scaup, Long-tailed Duck and White-winged

Scoter feed on mollusks. Restoration of habitat conditions suitable for these bird species

may increase their numbers and perhaps reduce local zebra mussel populations that

threaten the local ecology and game fish populations. Additional rare or declining

species which were not observed but may use this area include Common Tern (Sterna

hirundo; Photo 24), Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus; Photo 25), and Pied-billed

Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps; Photo 26). As habitat is restored and expanded more bird

species will likely occupy the study site. Profiles for bird species in decline that may

benefit from restoration activities are listed below.

Macroinvertebrates

Several identified aquatic macroinvertebrates are important to the local food web

by filling the roles of detritivores, scrapers, scavengers and decomposers. Many of these

groups also provide a valuable food source for other invertebrates, fish, amphibians,

reptiles and birds. Two groups of macroinvertebrates identified, zebra mussels and rusty

14

crayfish (Table 5), are exotic invasives that alter the ecosystem, thus negatively

impacting game fish populations and overall habitat and ecosystem quality. Some native

herpetofauna including Northern Map Turtles and Northern Water Snakes will eat these

invasive species and help control the negative effects of these invasives on other native

fauna and fisheries. Some native waterfowl species, such as Greater Scaup, Long-tailed

Duck and White-winged Scoter, Bufflehead, and Green-winged Teal, also feed on

mollusks and can contribute to control of zebra mussels.

Ecosystems with high water quality allow a much greater diversity of organisms

to inhabit them. Although some macroinvertebrate groups detected are facultative of

disturbed or polluted conditions, the number of groups within the described community

indicates at least a moderate level of ecosystem health. This diverse community also

demonstrates potential for ecosystem resilience. The restoration will most likely result in

increased richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates within these reaches of river.

Additional macroinvertebrate families, including those in Order Ephemeroptera

(mayflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies), Diptera (flies), and Plecoptera (stone flies), could

result from conditions associated with emergent and overhanging vegetation, and would

indicate increased ecosystem health. Summaries for some important groups observed

during pre-restoration surveys and those that could colonize post restoration are provided

below.

15

Conclusion

Surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 within the Upper St. Clair River resulted in

the detection of herpetofauna, birds, and macroinvertebrates. The observed number of

herpetofauna and macroinvertebrates was low and bird species richness was moderate in

this highly disturbed landscape. For all studied communities, the observed species

demonstrate the ability of wildlife to utilize this area, even in a degraded state. Although

amphibian and reptile species richness was comparatively low, the presence of

Mudpuppies is significant to the overall quality of the site and the potential for

restoration. A number of rare or sensitive species of herpetofauna, particularly reptiles,

may occur or could colonize the site once it is restored. A number of these species feed

on and thus help control populations of invasive and non-native species. Aquatic

macroinvertebrate family richness was lower than anticipated. Lack of substrate and

frequent large waves hammering the shoreline likely influenced our findings. Based on

water clarity and avian use of this area, it is likely that species richness was higher than

observed. When restoration activities are complete the number of species and spatial

distribution of these organisms will likely increase. Bird use of the St. Clair River region

is well known, and the high species richness observed during spring migration (Table 3)

demonstrates a portion of the bird community that may potentially use the study site.

This area serves as an important fly-over area for migrating bird in the spring and fall. In

addition, this site provides habitat for bird species with declining populations, and has

potential to provide habitat for several other bird species (Table 4). The family and

species richness and abundance of herpetofaunal and macroinvertebrate communities

may increase in part due to vegetation restoration efforts.

16

Overall, habitat within the asses degraded. Lack of available habitat and severe

wave action from large water vessels were likely significant contributing factors to the

low observed number of taxa. The site also supports a variety of invasive and nonnative

species which are likely negatively affecting habitat quality and species richness and

abundance. However, this area does support some uncommon and sensitive species and

can with appropriate restoration support a rich assemblage of amphibians, reptiles, birds,

and macroinvertebrates.

The presence of locally occurring source populations of herpetofauna and

macroinvertebrates and the ability of vegetation structure and composition to contribute

to wildlife habitat suitability may help to increase richness and abundance of

communities at the study site. The 2011 and 2012 pre-restoration surveys can be used to

help guide restoration efforts and serve as a base-line with which to compare post-

restoration communities. This area once restored will represent a critical corridor for

wildlife and a refuge for migrating or transient wildlife traveling along the St. Clair

River.

17

Recommendations

Based on HRM’s knowledge of the herpetofauna, bird, and aquatic

macroinvertebrate communities at the Upper St. Clair River survey site and in the region,

the following recommendations are made to improve or retain desirable habitat features

that enhance the local ecosystem, including target taxa and other important communities

such as game and nongame fish. Although some of these recommendations cannot be

implemented completely at this site, any efforts made to accommodate these

recommendations will provide improved habitat for reptiles and amphibians.

Reduce Wave Velocity at the Shoreline

Each day many small boats and shipping vessels pass through the studied portion

of the Upper St. Clair River. These watercrafts create wake that causes a dramatic

increase in wave action along the shores. Sudden intense wave action is highly disruptive

for amphibian, reptile, bird, and macroinvertebrate communities within the study site.

Protective velocity reducing submerged structures, submerged logs, and bank

configuration could be implemented to diminish wave action. The resulting calmer

conditions would likely increase species richness and abundance for flora and fauna

communities and provide for great establishment of submergent and emergent wetland

habitats.

Create Emergent and Submergent Marsh

There is little submergent or emergent vegetation along the shoreline of the Upper

St. Clair River, and the existing emergent vegetation consists primarily of invasive

18

species (i.e., Phragmites australis). Improving the density and diversity of native aquatic

vegetation in selected areas, restoring areas impacted by Phragmites, and creating

submergent and emergent wetland habitat would be beneficial to overall ecosystem

function, though care should be taken not to damage important Mudpuppy habitat in the

process.

Create Grassland/Upland Habitats

Restoring areas of natural grassland or lakeplain prairie along the Upper St. Clair

River will benefit snakes, frogs, small mammals, birds, and other wildlife that require

grassland vegetation for their life requisites. Plants bearing berries, seeds, and fruit

throughout the year should be selected to provide food for resident and migratory bird

species. The lack of vegetated permeable surfaces in urban areas often increases the

volume and decreases the quality of surface water runoff entering urban water bodies.

Upland vegetation areas intercept surface water runoff which can reduce the volume that

enters the river. Once surface water is absorbed, the soil can filter particulates and

transform some pollutants into less harmful forms. Restoration of riparian vegetation can

also help to stabilize the bank of the Upper St. Clair River and reduce erosion.

To optimize benefits to birds and herpetofauna and to increase bank stabilization

and infiltration potential areas planted in upland and grassland vegetation should not be

mowed. Mowing vegetation poses a severe danger to many species of herpetofauna,

including Eastern Fox Snakes. Eastern Fox Snakes prefer to bask concealed in short

grass, and are therefore drawn to mowed areas adjacent to taller grassland. This species

19

usually chooses to hide rather than flee from a potential threat, so may not move out of

the path of an approaching mower. If mowing is necessary in some areas, encounters can

be minimized by mowing in late fall when most species and activity has ceased. In

addition, setting mower blades eight or more inches above the ground would likely lesson

impacts to snakes, turtles, frogs, and other wildlife. Mowing some distance away from

the edge of a grassland first to give the snakes time to move may help, as would not

mowing in early morning when they are most likely to be basking.

Create Snake Habitat

Due to its location and potential value as habitat, the Upper St. Clair River study

site would be a good location to add more appropriately-sized limestone riprap for

providing snake habitat. Though not a natural habitat type, riprap is a preferred habitat

for many snakes, including Eastern Fox Snakes, and is often the safest, warmest location

for hibernation. HRM can work with project partners in locating potential areas and

design consideration.

Create Mudpuppy Shoal

Retaining the rocky shallow area that currently exists along much of the shoreline

of the Upper St. Clair River study site should be an important component of restoration.

This feature could be enhanced by placing additional flat rocks in shallow waters to

provide structure for Mudpuppies. Rocky structures would also increase shallow water

habitat for various fish and fry. Mudpuppy habitat would also be enhanced through a

reduction in wave action from water vessels. These restoration and enhancement

20

activities will retain and restore crucial habitat for Mudpuppy nesting and provide

protection for the larvae against predatory fish.

Provide Turtle Basking Structures

Currently there is a lack of appropriate logs, stumps or other woody debris for

turtle basking. Basking opportunities are a limiting factor controlling the presence and

density of some species, and these structures would also likely provide cover for fish and

a greater number of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Any trees felled as part of the

restoration or as part of local city maintenance could be used for this purpose, and could

be anchored in place if necessary. HRM is available to consult with project partners

regarding proper placement and arrangement of such structures.

Create Turtle Nesting Areas

Sufficient turtle nesting habitat around the restoration area is currently lacking.

Riprap and steep slopes are also barriers to turtles leaving the water to nest. Habitat

along the shoreline could be modified and restored to provide much-needed turtle nesting

habitat. Providing nesting areas for turtles through clearing of brush along the river or

creating sandy nesting areas along the edge of water bodies would help sustain turtle

population. Nesting beaches could be created with predator exclusion systems, if desired,

as predation pressure on turtle eggs is often unsustainably high (up to 100%) in many part

of Michigan. HRM can work with the project team to design and locate such nesting

areas to optimize them for turtles. The gravel and sandy soil of these nesting areas could

also provide habitat for a greater number of invertebrates, shorebirds, and other wildlife.

21

Provide Public Education Opportunities

Presenting information about habitat restoration objectives and methods and

wildlife communities can enhance public perception of a restoration project and increase

public support and likelihood of long-term success. Installation of interpretive signage at

key locations could help demonstrate the benefits from restoration activities and how

community members can participate to conserve wildlife communities.

Control Exotic and Invasive Plant Species Colonization

Exotic and invasive species compete with native species for resources. Exotic

and invasive plants can decrease the ability of native flora to establish in the water by

outcompeting it for space and light. Some invasive plants are allelopathic; these plants

release chemicals that prevent the native plants from growing. Invasive plant populations

can also decrease diversity, species richness, and relative abundance of native fauna

communities. Continued control of invasive species should benefit rare and common

native wildlife species.

22

Tables

Table 1. Reptile and amphibian species observed on the Upper St. Clair River in 2011 and 2012 and species predicted to be present before and after planned restoration activities. Potential Species Scientific Name Observed Pre-restoration Post-restoration Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus X X X Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata X X X Eastern American Toad Bufo americanus americanus X Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana X Green Frog Rana clamitans X Eastern Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina serpentina X X Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica X Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus X Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera spinifera X X Eastern Fox Snake a Pantherophis gloydi X X Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon sipedon X X Queen Snake b Regina septemvittata X Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis X X a Michigan Threatened species (Department of Natural Resources 2009) b Michigan species of special concern (Michigan Natural Feature Inventory 2010)

23

Table 2. Bird species observed on the Upper St. Clair River in 2011. Date

Species 09/24/11 10/15/11 10/30/11 11/11/11 12/02/11American Crow 3 5 5 3 2 American Goldfinch 5 0 9 16 0 American Tree Sparrow 0 0 0 0 4 Blue Jay 12 2 7 1 0 Bonaparte's Gull 0 0 3 4 0 Bufflehead 0 0 0 4 14 Canada Goosea 60 44 19 10 52 Chipping Sparrow 5 0 0 0 0 Dark-eyed Junco 0 0 0 1 5 Double-Crested Cormorant 7 5 3 0 0 European Starling 29 1 6 40 8 Gray Catbird 4 0 1 0 0 Green-winged Teal 0 0 0 0 1 Herring Gull 1 1 2 1 11 House Sparrow 14 0 8 22 5 Killdeer 6 0 0 0 0 Mallard 45 25 28 3 57 Northern Cardinal 1 1 6 1 0 Red-breasted Merganser 0 0 0 0 51 Ring-Billed Gull 31 108 82 61 87 Total Number of Species 14 9 13 13 12

a Species of management concern by the U.S. FWS in the Midwest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).

24

Table 3. Bird species observed on the Upper St. Clair River in 2012.

Date

Common Name 1/22 2/12 2/26 3/9 3/23 4/6 6/22 4/29 5/11 5/26 7/13 8/3 American Black Duckab 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 American Crow 13 1 4 3 6 16 5 0 6 0 4 0 American Goldfinch 0 0 0 1 7 12 10 5 3 7 6 13 American Robin 0 0 0 1 5 4 5 9 9 7 3 1 Barn Swallow 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 17 3 3 3 Belted Kingfisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Jay 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 232 19 1 2 0 Bonaparte's Gull 0 0 0 0 159 19 0 4 0 1 0 0 Brown Headed Cowbird 0 0 0 0 9 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 Bufflehead 12 8 4 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Goosea 80 0 3 5 12 10 21 4 4 34 57 13 Cedar Waxwing 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Chimney Swift 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 6 14 8 2 Chipping Sparrow 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Cliff Swallow 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 2 6 Common Golden-eye 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Common Grackle 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 6 1 0 0 Common Merganser 38 404 203 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Double-crested Cormoranta 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 92 9 2 0 12 European Starling 0 10 0 4 43 22 195 41 37 33 46 15 Gray Catbird 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 3 2 1 Great Black-backed Gull 3 4 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25

Table 3. (Cont.)

Date

Common Name 1/22 2/12 2/26 3/9 3/23 4/6 6/22 4/29 5/11 5/26 7/13 8/3

Greater Scaupa 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Herring Gull 5 55 250 7 2 3 1 5 1 8 2 5 House Finch 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 House Sparrow 0 0 0 4 9 17 16 5 2 12 18 6 Indigo Bunting 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Killdeerb 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 4 5 8 8 2 Long-tailed Duck 26 4 2 5 42 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 Mallarda 49 23 18 9 10 4 6 6 7 18 2 9 Mourning Dovea 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 0 2 7 Mute Swan 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nashville Warbler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Northern Cardinal 0 0 0 1 3 5 3 3 2 3 0 1 Northern Rough-winged Swallow 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 Northern Flickerb 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Harrierb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Red-breasted Merganser 61 73 168 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red-winged Blackbird 0 0 0 1 12 9 14 13 18 23 20 1 Ring-Billed Gull 55 171 375 24 21 22 60 15 24 24 84 96 Rock Pigeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 Song Sparrow 0 0 0 0 8 4 6 4 8 4 7 6

26

Table 3. (Cont.)

Date

Common Name 1/22 2/12 2/26 3/9 3/23 4/6 6/22 4/29 5/11 5/26 7/13 8/3 Spotted Sandpiperb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Tree Swallow 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 Trumpeter Swanab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Warbling Vireo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 White-winged Scoter 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Willow Flycatchera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 YellowWarbler 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 5 1 1 Total Number of Species 12 14 11 16 21 19 28 22 26 25 21 22 a Species of management concern by the U.S. FWS in the Midwest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). b Denote species considered to be in decline (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005).

27

a Species in decline (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005). b Species of management concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). c Species has been observed at the study site within the last three years.

Table 4. Potential bird species that could be present at the Upper St. Clair River study site. This list is based on conditions present and local observations of birds from personal observations, data from the Breeding Birds of Michigan, the Breeding Bird Count, Christmas Bird Count and eBird.org. Changes in bird habitat at this site could greatly affect bird species richness. Common Name Common Name Alder Flycatcher Horned Grebebc American Kestrel Horned Lark American Wigeon House Wren Bald Eagleab Iceland Gull Baltimore Oriole King Eider Bank swallow Laughing Gull Blue-winged Tealab Lesser Black-backed Gull Broad-winged Hawkc Lesser Scaupb Canvasbackbc Northern Pintailb Caspian Ternac Northern Shoveler Common Loonac Ospreya Common Nighthawka Parasitic Jaeger Common Ternabc Peregrine Falconab Common Yellowthroat Pied-billed Grebeab Cooper's Hawka Purple Martina Downy Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker Eastern Bluebird Redheadc Eastern Kingbirda Red-Tailed Hawk Eastern Phoebe Ringed-necked duck Eastern Screech-Owl Rose-breasted Grosbeak Eastern Towheea Rough-legged Hawk Forster's Ternac Ruby-throated Hummingbird Gadwall Ruddy Duck Glaucous Gull Sandhill Craneb Great Egret Sharp-shinned Hawk Great Horned Owl Snow Bunting Great-crested Flycatcher Thayer's Gull Green Herona Tufted Titmouse Hairy Woodpecker Turkey Vulture Harlequin Duck White-breasted Nuthatch

28

Table 5. Aquatic macroinvertebrates observed on the Upper St. Clair River in 2011 and 2012.

2011 2012

Group Taxon Common Name All

Sites Site #1 Site #2 Site #3 Site #4 Site #5 Total Beetles Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger

Beetle 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Fingernail Clams

Dreissenidae Zebra Mussel 3 0 3 1 1 7 15

Caddisflies Hydropsychidae Net Spinner Caddisfly 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 Segmented Worms

Hirudinea Leech 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

Segmented Worms

Oligochaeta Earthworm 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Crustacean Amphipoda- Scud 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 Crustacean Isopoda- Sow Bug 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 Crustacean Orconectes

rusticus Rusty Crayfish 4 0 0 0 0 1 5

Dragonflies and Damselflies

Coenagrionidae Damselfly 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Snails Planorbidae Ramshorn Snail 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

29

Maps

Map Text Map 1 – Extent of the planned Restoration Project Area at the Upper St. Clair River. Map 2 – Turtle trap locations within the study site for the Upper St. Clair River Habitat Restoration Project in 2011 and 2012. Map 3 – Bird sampling points within the study site for the Upper St. Clair River Habitat Restoration Project in 2011 and 2012. Map 4 – Aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling points within the study site for the Upper St. Clair River Habitat Restoration Project in 2011 and 2012. Map 5 – Observed locations of herpetofauna within the study site for the Upper St. Clair River Habitat Restoration Project in 2012.

30

31

32

33

34

35

Photos

Photo 1. Rocky shoreline and herbaceous vegetation composed of predominately weedy and non-native vegetation. Photo taken facing south.

Photo 2. Vegetation and structural conditions present during sampling of the St. Clair River study site in 2011 and 2012. This site supports bird, herpetofaunal, and macroinvertebrate communities. Photo taken facing north.

36

Photo 3. Vegetation and structural conditions along the shoreline present during sampling of the St. Clair River study site in 2011 and 2012. These conditions are suitable for some herpetofauna and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Photo taken facing north.

Photo 4. Vegetation and structural conditions along the shoreline present during sampling of the St. Clair River study site in 2011 and 2012. These conditions are suitable for some herpetofauna and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Photo taken facing north.

37

Photo 5. Funnel Trap used to catch turtles.

Photo 6. Funnel trap thrown on shire by heavy wave action likely from commercial vessels.

38

Photo 7. Herpetofaunal survey team conducting surveys along the edge of the St. Clair River survey site in 2012.

Photo 8. HRM team conducting bird point-count survey in early fall. Photo taken facing south.

39

Photo 9. HRM brid team conducting point-count survey in spring 2012 along the Upper St. Clair River.

Photo 10. HRM team conducting macroinvertebrate surveys along the Upper St. Clair River in 2012.

40

Photo 11. Macroinvertebrate surveys along the Upper St. Clair River in 2012. Photo taken facing south.

Photo 12. Midland Painted Turtle captured in a turtle trap set along the Upper St. Clair River in 2012.

41

Photo 13. Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) observed along the Upper St. Clair River in 2012.

Photo 14. Canada goose (Branta canadensis) observed while conducting point-count survey in spring 2012 along the Upper St. Clair River.

42

Photo 15. American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) were observed at the Upper St. Clair River study site in 2012. Photo by Land Elliott (Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

Photo 16. Shoreline and near shore habitat of St. Clair River with Mallard Ducks. Mallards were observed during point-count surveys. Photo taken facing north.

43

Photo 17. Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) were observed at the Upper St. Clair River study site in 2011. Photo by William L. Newton (Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

Photo 18. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) were observed at the Upper St. Clair River study site in 2012. Photo by Arthur Morris (Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

44

Photo 19. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) were observed at the Upper St. Clair River study site in 2012. Photo by William L. Newton (Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

Photo 20. Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) have potential to be present after restoration activities at the Upper St. Clair River study site.

45

Photo 21. Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) were not detected during pre-restoration activity surveys; however, these snakes would likely use this site based on habitat conditions at the Upper St. Clair River study site in 2012.

Photo 22. Eastern Fox Snake (Elaphe gloydi) were not detected during pre-restoration activity surveys; however, these snakes may colonize this site post restoration.

46

Photo 23. Queen Snake (Regina septemvittata) have potential to be present after restoration activities at the Upper St. Clair River study site.

Photo 24. There is potential for Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) to be present at the Upper St. Clair River study site after restoration activities are complete. Photo by Brian E. Small (Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

47

Photo 25. There is potential for Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) to be present at the Upper St. Clair River study site after restoration activities are complete. Photo by Marie Read (Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

Photo 26. There is potential for Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) to be present at the Upper St. Clair River study site after restoration activities are complete. Photo by Jean Kuns (Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

48

Appendix

Herpetofaunal Species Profiles

Mudpuppy

Mudpuppies are large, entirely aquatic salamanders (Photo 13). They are easily

recognized by their large size (up to 1.5 feet long) and large external gills just behind the

head (Harding 1997). Small Mudpuppies might resemble the larvae of other salamanders,

but have only four toes on each foot instead of five. In Southeast Michigan, this species

is the only amphibian which normally inhabits the open water of large lakes and rivers,

spending most of its time hiding under flat rocks. They are highly carnivorous and are

often caught by fishermen, even in winter. Because of their unique appearance and

unjustified reputation as predators of game fish, they are often killed when captured, even

though they are harmless. Mudpuppies breed in fall, entering shallow water as the

temperatures cool, but do not nest until the following spring. Females require moderately

shallow water with plenty of large, flat rocks on the bottom beneath which they can

deposit their eggs. Mudpuppies are the obligate host species for the larvae of the

Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua), a State Endangered species (Michigan

Natural Feature Inventory 2010).

Northern Map Turtle

This species gets its name from the complex pattern of lines on the shell.

Northern Map Turtles are most commonly found in flowing water, and can be seen

basking high on logs only to jump in at the slightest threat (Photo 20). Males and females

are dramatically different in size at maturity, with males reaching six inches and females

49

growing to more than ten inches. While this is primarily to allow the females to carry

large clutches of eggs, it has resulted in other differences. Males feed on insects while

females use their enlarged jaws to crush snails, clams, and mollusks, such as zebra

mussels, so this species can only thrive in habitats with good water quality which support

a diverse assemblage of invertebrates. Females take at least ten years to reach maturity,

while males can reach maturity in as little as three (Harding 1997).

Eastern Fox Snake

Eastern Fox Snakes (Photo 22) have a small range restricted to areas along and

adjacent to the shores of Lake Huron and Lake Erie (Harding 1997). They are a State

Threatened species in Michigan (Michigan Natural Feature Inventory 2010), and are

listed as Endangered in Canada. Fox Snakes require grassland habitat that is rarely

mowed or burned, and often prefer to shelter and overwinter in adjacent riprap or similar

habitat. Although they spend much of their time in uplands feeding on small mammals,

they are very strong swimmers, and it is not uncommon for them to use waterways to

travel significant distances. Despite their size, these snakes are often preyed upon by

large raptors and medium-sized mammals. In the fall, Fox Snakes enter hibernacula,

which sometimes include communal sites, and do not emerge until mid-April or May.

Breeding occurs in spring, and eggs are laid in June or July, hatching about two months

later. Fox Snakes are often senselessly killed because they are mistaken for Copperheads

(Agkistrodon contortrix, a U.S. species not present in Michigan), because of the orange

head, or rattlesnakes because they will vibrate their tail against dry vegetation when

threatened, producing a loud buzz.

50

Northern Water Snake

This species inhabits the edges of permanent wetlands or riparian zones of rivers,

where it hunts small fish and amphibians, keeping prey populations healthy by culling the

sick and weak. This species has been documented repeatedly feeding on the invasive

Round Goby, making them a potentially important species in the control of this exotic

fish that competes with native fisheries. Recognized by its pattern of dark blotches and

saddles on a gray background, this species is often assumed to be a water moccasin (a

venomous species not found in Michigan) and thus is killed. It is also wrongfully

accused as impacting game fish populations. When disturbed, Water Snakes flee to the

water and dive to the bottom. Females give birth to dozens of live young in late summer

(Harding 1997).

Queen Snake

This species prefers to live in shallow warm streams that are rocky-bottomed and

inhabited by crayfish. This snake species primarily feeds on crayfish and also occupies

other areas where crayfish live, including ponds, lakes, marshes, ditches, and canal edges.

Queen Snakes have brown, olive, or gray coloration on their back, light yellow stripes on

the side of the head that continues the length of the snake, and a light colored belly.

Queen Snakes are non-venomous and do not consume game fish, but still often suffer

persecution. This species may be an important asset in the control of rusty crayfish.

These snakes mate in spring and in late summer through early autumn; the female gives

birth to live young (Harding 1997).

51

Bird Species Profiles

American Black Duck

American Black Duck (Photo 15) is a year-round resident in Michigan and

resident and relies on shallow waters of lakes, ponds and lakes for food (Cornell

Ornithology Lab 2012). This species nests on the ground in protected areas, such as a

brush pile or edge of thick grasses. Continued threats to American Black Duck

populations include habitat fragmentation, altered hydrologic regimes, invasive plants &

animals, and water pollution. Also, American Black Ducks are a popular game species.

Creation of additional suitable habitat for American Black Duck could provide potential

ecological and recreational benefits.

Green-winged Teal

Green-winged Teal (Photo 17) are found in Michigan during migration and the

summer breeding season. Freshwater marshes and rivers provide mudflats and shallow

water ideal for Green-winged Teal to eat seeds, weeds, grasses, aquatic insects, mollusks,

crustaceans and tadpoles. Ideal nesting conditions for Green-winged Teal include an

abundance of emergent vegetation (Ducks Unlimited 2012).

Northern Harrier

Northern Harrier (Photo 18) use a variety of open habitats including prairie, old

field, shrubs, forest edge, wetlands, and riparian areas. This hawk species hunts for small

mammals, birds, reptiles, and frogs by soaring low over open habitats. Northern Harrier

52

populations have experienced declines chiefly due to wetland conversion and other land

development. These birds formerly nested state-wide in Michigan, but currently nest

most commonly in the eastern Upper Peninsula (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005;

Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012; Michigan DNR Wildlife Division 2012).

Common Tern

Common Tern (Photo 24) is a State Threatened colonial water bird that has

declined due to habitat loss competition with gulls, predation, and environmental

contaminants. These migratory birds rely on inland emergent wetlands, lakes and rivers,

and eat by hovering above the water and diving to catch small fish (e.g., shiners, chubs,

and other minnows), insects, and crustaceans. These ground-nesting birds generally nest

in areas with little disturbance and few ground predators. Most current nesting colonies

are located in small islands in the Great Lakes. Historic nesting colonies existed on

mainland shorelines; however, shoreline development has substantially reduced areas for

breeding habitat (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005; Michigan DNR Wildlife Division

2012).

Pied-billed Grebe

Populations of Pied-billed Grebe (Photo 25) are scattered throughout the state of

Michigan and may be declining, due primarily to loss of habitat. Habitat for this

waterfowl species includes emergent wetlands, ponds, and riparian corridors. Pied-billed

Grebe dive to escape predators and eat small fish, crustaceans, and aquatic insects. This

species builds nests on floating vegetation, and chicks leave the nest soon after hatching,

53

living entirely on the water after four weeks (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005;

Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

Eastern Towhee

Eastern Towhee (Photo 26) use open fields, shrub lands, and forests throughout

Michigan. These ground foraging songbirds eat a variety of foods, including: seeds,

fruits, insects, and snails. These orange, black, and white songbirds are often solitary and

males will display by lifting their wings and fanning their tails to defend their territories

from other Eastern Towhees. These ground nesting birds are susceptible to brood

parasitism by Brown Cowbird (Molothrus ater) which will remove an existing egg from

an Eastern Towhee nest and replace the egg with one of its own. Eastern Towhee has

experienced declines due to conversion of lands into agriculture and urban areas (Eagle,

Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005; Cornell Ornithology Lab 2012).

Trumpeter Swan

Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinators; Photo 19) is a State Threatened bird

species that uses inland wetland areas to fulfill its life requisites. These swans eat

wetland vegetation and use small islands, usually in the form of muskrat lodges, for

nesting. Since swan reintroduction efforts for this species began in the 1980s, the

population has increased to over 400 individuals. Threats to this species include wetland

development and water pollution. The presence of invasive Mute Swans (Cygnus olor) in

Michigan also increases competitive pressure for food and other resources. The

protection and restoration of wetlands in Michigan will help to ensure the continued

54

recovery of Trumpeter Swan populations (Eagle, Hay-Chmielewski et al. 2005; Michigan

DNR Wildlife Division 2012).

Macroinvetebrate Profiles

Order Ephemeroptera: Mayflies

The presence of mayfly larvae is important indicator of water quality. The larvae

of all species of mayflies are aquatic and are generally very sensitive to water pollution.

Since nearly all mayflies are herbivores and/or detritivores, they help to keep the plant

life under control as well as contribute to the decomposition of organic matter. They also

serve as a valuable food source for reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish, and other insects.

The short-lived adults do not feed and devote all of their time to swarming, mating, and

in some species short upstream migrations. The adult mayflies are easily distinguished

from other insects by primitive traits such as their inability to fold their wings flat over

their bodies. Larva are often confused with those of damselflies and stoneflies, however

they are distinct in that they have single claws, rows of abdominal gills, and in some

cases, three cerci (Voshell 2003; Merritt, Cummins et al. 2008).

Order Trichoptera: Caddisflies

There are more species of Trichoptera than is in any other aquatic order (Voshell

2003). These insects span a large range of water conditions; however, as most species of

Trichoptera live in clean freshwater streams and are sensitive to pollution, high species

richness and relative abundance of Trichoptera communities compared to other aquatic

55

macroinvertebrate communities indicate high quality stream systems. Trichoptera may

fulfill important ecological roles as they facilitate the creation of detritus from vegetation

that falls into streams, and are a food source for fish and birds.

Order Plecoptera: Stoneflies

Stoneflies are among the most sensitive groups of insects to water quality,

requiring high levels of dissolved oxygen. The greatest diversity of species occurs in

fairly fast-flowing streams where the larvae are scavengers or active predators. Larvae

are also food for many birds, game and nongame fish and other animals. Adults are fairly

short-lived, generally do not feed, and are comparatively weak fliers, not forming aerial

mating swarms like many other aquatic insects. Larvae are generally recognizable by

their flattened form, paired cerci, widely spreading legs and armored appearance (Merritt,

Cummins et al. 2008).

Order Amphipoda: Scuds

Amphipods are an extremely important benthic organism in a pond community.

Not only are they good indicators of water quality, they also play a valuable role in the

food chain. Scuds, also called side-swimmers, are able to live in a variety of aquatic

environments, including lakes, ponds, streams, brooks and springs. However they require

high concentrations of dissolved oxygen as well as unpolluted water. Many species are

sensitive to pesticides and heavy metals. While many species of scuds are detritivores,

helping to decompose plant and animal matter, some live on aquatic vegetation eating the

film of algae, fungi, and bacteria that coats the plant. Aside from preventing detritus

56

from accumulating, amphipods serve as a food source for other invertebrates,

amphibians, water birds, and fish (Voshell 2003; Merritt, Cummins et al. 2008).

Family Dreisseniidae: Zebra Mussels

These introduced mussels are not native to North America and is lives in well

oxygenated water bodies, including lakes and other slow moving waters. These mussels

prefer to colonize hard surfaces and bottom substrates. Zebra mussels are filter feeders

and are able to outcompete native mussels for food, thus reducing native mussel

populations. High populations of zebra mussels remove significant amounts of

zooplankton and other detritus from the water which reduces food sources for other

native macroinvertebrate populations. Decreases in these native macroinvertebrate

populations could lead to reductions in fish populations and other unknown repercussions

through the food chain. Though zebra mussels require high concentrations of dissolved

oxygen, they are facultative to a variety of disturbed and stressful conditions, thus

increasing their success in the United States. However, zebra mussels are a food for

some animals; some waterfowl species and Northern Map Turtles have been known to eat

zebra mussels and regulate population growth of local zebra mussel colonies (Voshell

2003).

Orconectes rusticus: Rusty Crayfish

Crayfish are another important benthic organism; however, the introduction of the

rusty crayfish to Michigan’s waters has negatively impacted habitats this species has

colonized. These crayfish reduce the amount of aquatic plants, invertebrates, and some

57

fish species present in water bodies. Specific fish species impacted by rusty crayfish

include: bluegill, smallmouth and largemouth bass, lake trout and walleye. Rusty

crayfish also outcompete native crayfish populations for food sources. Rusty crayfish are

identified by their five pairs of legs, a lobster-like appearance, and dark ‘rusty’ spots

appear on each side of the carapace. Some bird and larger game fish species eat rusty

crayfish, and therefore may benefit from the presence of this exotic species (United States

Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 2005) . Mudpuppies, Northern Map

Turtles, Eastern Snapping Turtles, Queen Snakes, and other herpetofauna have been

documented eating this species and their role in helping control invasive species may be

significant.

References

Cooperrider, A. Y., R. J. Boyd, et al. (1986). Inventory and monitoring of wildlife

habitat. Service Center, Denver, CO, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Cornell Ornithology Lab. (2012). "All About Birds." from http://www.allaboutbirds.org/Page.aspx?pid=1189.

Department of Natural Resources, W. D. (2009). Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division endangered and threatened species, Department of Natural Resources.

Ducks Unlimited. (2012). "Green-winged Teal." Retrieved 2012, from http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/green-winged-teal.

Eagle, A. C., E. M. Hay-Chmielewski, et al. (2005). Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan. Lansing, MI, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Harding, J. H. (1997). Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. Ann Arbor, The Michigan University Press.

Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, et al. (1994). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity Standard Methods for Amphibians. Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press.

Howe, R. W., G. J. Niemi, et al. (1997). "A Standard Method for Monitoring Songbird Poplulations in the Great Lakes Region." The Passenger Pigeon 59(3): 12.

McDiarmid, R. W., S. F. Foster, et al. (2012). "Reptile Biodiversity Standard Methods for Inventory and Monitoring." 412.

58

Merritt, R. W., K. W. Cummins, et al. (2008). An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Dubuqe, IA, Kendall Hunt

Michigan DNR Wildlife Division. (2012). "Wildlife Species: Birds." from http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12145_12202---,00.html.

Michigan Natural Feature Inventory. (2010). "Michigan's Special Animals Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, and Probably Extirpated." Retrieved 10/27/2011, 2011, from http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/data/special_animals_list_categorized.pdf.

Olson, D. H., W. P. Leonard, et al. (1997). Sampling Amphibians in Lentic Habitats. Hong Kong, Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). "Migratory Birds: Midwest Birds of Concern." 2012, from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/birds_of_concern.htm.

United States Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. (2005). "Rusty Crayfish." from http://www.anstaskforce.gov/spoc/rustycrayfish.php.

Voshell, J. R., Jr. (2003). A guide to common freshwater invertebrates of North America. Blacksburg, VA, The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company.