DRAFT - Bid4Michigan… · Web viewPumps, three-phase electrical power equipment, spill gates,...

EPA Assistance ID # GL-00E00506-0Version 1

December 21, 2010

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

RIVER RAISIN WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AND HABITAT EVALUATION

Prepared for:US Environmental Protection AgencyGreat Lakes National Program Office

EPA Assistance ID Number: GL-00E00506-0

Prepared by:Parks & Recreation Division

Michigan Department of Natural Resources530 West Allegan Street

PO Box 30257Lansing, Michigan 48909-7757

December 21, 2010


December 21, 2010

SECTION A – PROJECT MANAGEMENT

A.1 Title of Plan and Approval

Quality Assurance Project PlanRiver Raisin Wetland Enhancement and Habitat Evaluation

Prepared by:Michigan Department of Natural Resources

_______________________________________________ Date: _______________Glenn R. Palmgren, Michigan DNR, Project Manager/Principal Investigator

_______________________________________________ Date: _______________Ray D. Fahlsing, Michigan DNR, Quality Assurance Manager

_______________________________________________ Date: _______________Marcia Damato, EPA GLNPO, Project Officer

_______________________________________________ Date: _______________Louis Blume, EPA GLNPO, Quality Manager


December 21, 2010

A.2 Table of ContentsSection A – Project Management..................................................................................2

A.1 Title of Plan and Approval....................................................................................2A.2 Table of Contents.................................................................................................3A.3 Distribution List.....................................................................................................5A.4 Project/Task Organization....................................................................................6A.5 Problem Definition/Background..........................................................................10A.6 Project/Task Description.....................................................................................10

A.6.1 Water Control.............................................................................................10A.6.2 Phragmites Control....................................................................................10A.6.3 Habitat Evaluation and Monitoring.............................................................10

A.7 Quality Objectives & Criteria...............................................................................14A.8 Special Training/Certification..............................................................................17A.9 Documents and Records....................................................................................18

Section B – Data Generation & Acquisition...............................................................20B.1 Data Collection Process Design.........................................................................20B.2 Data Collection Methods....................................................................................20B.3 Data Handling & Custody...................................................................................22B.4 Analytical Methods.............................................................................................22B.5 Quality Control....................................................................................................22B.6 Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance..............................................24B.7 Equipment Calibration and Frequency...............................................................24B.8 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies & Consumables..........................................25B.9 Data Acquisition Requirements for Non-Direct Measurements..........................25B.10 Data Management............................................................................................25

Section C – Assessment and Oversight.....................................................................26C.1 Assessments and Response Actions.................................................................26C.2 Reports to Management.....................................................................................27

Section D – Data Validation and Usability..................................................................28D.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation...........................................................28D.2 Verification and Validation Methods...................................................................28D.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements..............................................................29

List of TablesTable 1 Responsibilities and Tasks............................................................................7Table 2 Project Schedule..........................................................................................12


December 21, 2010

List of FiguresFigure 1 Project Organization Chart...........................................................................6Figure 2 Project Area Map........................................................................................11

AttachmentsA: Work Plan (from the grant application package)..................................................A1


December 21, 2010

A.3 Distribution ListEach of the following individuals will receive a hard copy of this Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). A copy of the final signed QAPP should be retained by each of these individuals until the completion of all data collection and analysis and final acceptance of the final monitoring report. All individuals listed below must receive a hard copy of any changes or addendums to the QAPP:

Marcia Damato, Project OfficerGreat Lakes National Program OfficeUS Environmental Protection Agency77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, Ilinois 60604-3590

Louis Blume, Quality ManagerGreat Lakes National Program OfficeUS Environmental Protection Agency77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, Ilinois 60604-3590

Glenn Palmgren, EcologistMichigan DNRPO Box 30257Lansing, Michigan 48909-7757

Ray Fahlsing, Stewardship Unit ManagerMichigan DNRPO Box 30257Lansing, Michigan 48909-7757

Robert Clancy, Ecological Restoration SpecialistMichigan DNRPO Box 30257Lansing, Michigan 48909-7757

Kristen Bennett, Pontiac District PlannerMichigan DNRSouthfield Operations Service Center26000 West 8 Mile RoadSouthfield, Michigan 48034-5916

Jamie Allen, Sterling State Park SupervisorMichigan DNRWm. C. Sterling State Park2800 State Park RoadMonroe, Michigan 48162

Phragmites Control Contractor(s) – To Be Determined

Water Control/Dike Repair Contractor(s) – To Be Determined

Wetland Characterization/Survey Contractor(s) – To Be Determined

Shorebird Monitoring Contractor(s) – To Be Determined

Fish Monitoring Contractor(s)/Staff – To Be Determined


December 21, 2010

A.4 Project/Task Organization

Figure 1 – Project Organization Chart

EPA GLNPOProject Officer

DNRProject Manager

PhragmitesLead Water Control Lead

Water Control Contractor(s)

Phragmites Control Contractor(s)

Habitat Evaluation & Monitoring

Lead

Habitat Evaluation & Monitoring

Contractor(s)

EPA GLNPOQA Manager

DNRQA Manager

DEQ Aquatic Nuisance Permitting

Staff

DEQ Wetland Permitting Staff

US Army Corps of Engineers Permitting

Staff

Other DNR Staff (Fish, Wildlife)

DNR Federal Aid Coordinator

Partner landowners

Sterling State Park Supervisor

DEQ Area of Concern Coordinator


December 21, 2010

Table 1 – Responsibilities and Tasks

Individuals Assigned Responsible for: Authorized to:Marcia Damato EPA GLNPO Project

Officer Grant oversight Technical guidance Review reports Process financial

reimbursements

Review and approve QAPP Review and approve work

plan and budget Review and approve final

deliverables

Louis Blume EPA GLNPO Quality Assurance Manager

Review and approve QAPP

Glenn Palmgren Project Manager Grant oversight and

budgeting Habitat Evaluation &

Monitoring Lead Coordinate Michigan

DNRE project support Coordinate permitting Prepare progress reports Prepare final report

Keep project on track and ensure deadlines are met

Ensure project activities follow the approved work plan

Coordinate permit application process

Ensure data quality is maintained

Prepare specifications and bid out phragmites control project annually

Prepare specifications and bid out habitat evaluation and monitoring work

Review and approve specifications for water control work

Review and approve all contractor deliverables

Prepare Aquatic Nuisance Control permit applications and reports

Submit all required project reports

Ray Fahlsing DNR Quality Assurance Manager

Review and approve QAPP Ensure all analytical

procedures adhere to approved QA/QC standards

Review data quality indicators

Robert Clancy Phragmites Lead Coordinate

landowner/partner contacts

Phragmites control contract oversight

Primary contact for landowners/partners involved in phrag control

Coordinate partner agreements

Oversee all phragmites control contract work

Review and ensure phragmites control


December 21, 2010

contractor compliance

Individuals Assigned Responsible for: Authorized to:Eric Sink DNR Federal Aid

Coordinator Financial

Administration/Oversight

Oversee financial administration of the grant

Respond to EPA questions about financial administration of the project

Kristen Bennett Water Control Lead Michigan Dept of

Technology Management and Budget (DTMB) liaison

Water control contract oversight

Prepare Project Development Outlines (PDOs), work statements/specifications for water control and dike repair

Serve as the primary contact for DTMB

Prepare wetland permit applications in conjunction with contractor

Oversee all water control project contract work

Review and ensure water control contract compliance

DEQ Water Resources Division field staff

Assist with wetland permitting process

Review and issue wetland permits for water control project


US Army Corps of Engineers – Detroit District staff



DEQ Aquatic Nuisance program staff

Review and issue Aquatic Nuisance Control permits for phragmites control

Review and issue Aquatic Nuisance Control permits for phragmites control

Michelle Selzer DEQ River Raisin Area of Concern Coordinator

Communicate with the River Raisin Public Advisory Council (PAC) about the project

Ensure project meets the stated goals related to the River Raisin Area of Concern

Advise the project team on issues related to the River Raisin Area of Concern

Jamie Allen Sterling State Park Supervisor

Advise the project team on issues related to day-to-day operations of the park, impacts of the project on park visitors and neighbors, and local public outreach (e.g., meetings, signage, brochures)

Jeff Braunscheidel DNR Fisheries Division liaison

Advise the project team on issues related to fish populations and fish


December 21, 2010

habitatJoe Robison DNR Wildlife Division

liaison Advise the project team on

issues related to wildlife populations, wildlife habitat, and water level management

Individuals Assigned Responsible for: Authorized to:Phragmites Control Contractor (TBD)

Control phragmites in designated areas and assess current extent

Implement phragmites control activities on the ground according to specifications

Assess/measure phragmites population size and density at the time of treatment according to specifications

Water Control Contractor (TBD)

Design/engineer appropriate water level control (dike specifications, equipment, layout, etc.) for the Hunt Club and Union Camp marshes to meet project goals

Procure and install water control equipment according to specifications

Repair dikes according to specifications

Design/engineer an appropriate water control system to meet the project goals

Implement dike repair work and water control equipment installation according to specifications

Monitoring Contractor(s) (TBD)

Develop a shorebird monitoring plan and specifications to meet project goals

Implement the shorebird monitoring (baseline and follow-up) according to the plan

Design a fish monitoring plan and specifications to meet project goals

Implement the fish monitoring according to the plan

Implement the wetland mapping

Develop monitoring plans for approval by project manager

Conduct monitoring and assessment activities within the parameters of the approved plans

Produce monitoring reports

Phragmites Control Partners/Landowners

Work with Phragmites Lead to facilitate control of phragmites and mapping/monitoring of phragmites on lands they own or administer

Sign a written agreement between landowner and DNR outlining the terms of the project and level of cooperation

Authorize access to their lands for phragmites


December 21, 2010

control contractors and Phragmites Lead, under criteria jointly agreed between the landowner and DNR

Provide input to the Phragmites Lead and the project manager on phragmites control activities

A.5 Problem Definition/Background

The Full Project Description in the work plan (Attachment A) contains a detailed description of the problem and background.

The River Raisin Area of Concern (AOC) on the west shore of Lake Erie has several Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs), two of which include “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat” and “Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations”. This project is designed to address these two BUIs by 1) repairing dikes and installing water control ability in 310 acres of marsh at Sterling State Park to provide much needed stopover habitat for shorebirds and invasive plant control; 2) controlling phragmites (Phragmites australis) in north River Raisin delta wetlands, approximately 1,100 acres, on public and private lands (10 partners) for 5 years; and 3) collecting baseline data and monitoring wetland communities and key species.

A.6 Project/Task Description

The Full Project Description in the work plan (Attachment A) contains a detailed summary of the project and associated tasks. There are 3 major components of this project: 1) water control, 2) phragmites control, and 3) habitat evaluation and monitoring.

A.6.1 Water ControlThis component of the project will involve repairing dikes and installing water control structures in 310 acres of marsh at Sterling State Park. Two marshes will be involved, the Hunt Club Marsh and the Union Camp Marsh (Figure 2). The purpose is to provide much needed stopover habitat for shorebirds and to facilitate invasive plant control in these marshes. Fish passage will also be enhanced. The assessment of the effectiveness and success of this component will be done as part of “Habitat Evaluation and Monitoring” below.

A.6.2 Phragmites ControlIn this project component, phragmites (Phragmites australis) will be controlled in north River Raisin delta wetlands (Figure 2), approximately 1,100 acres, on public and private


December 21, 2010

lands for 5 years. Phragmites control will improve the quality of wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat. The phragmites control component includes monitoring of the phragmites population for the duration of the project to determine the success of this component of the project.

A.6.3 Habitat Evaluation and MonitoringThis project component includes a baseline mapping of the wetlands within the project area (Figure 2), shorebird and shorebird habitat monitoring designed to assess the effectiveness of the water control component of this project (above), and fish monitoring to assess the fish community within the project area.

Figure 2 – Project Area Map


December 21, 2010

Table 2 – Tentative Project Schedule

Milestone Lead DeadlinePhragmites partner letters/contacts Clancy/Fahlsing 11/30/2010Project Development Outline (PDO) for water control Bennett 11/30/2010Press release draft completed Fahlsing 12/03/2010Phragmites partner meeting Clancy 12/10/2010Monitoring contract specifications outline completed Palmgren 12/15/2010Water control projects to DTMB to bid out design Bennett 12/15/2010DNR Project Accounts set up Palmgren 12/31/2010Quality Assurance Project Plan first draft Palmgren 12/31/2010Set up meeting with permitting agencies (DEQ and ACOE) Bennett/Palmgren 12/31/2010Press release issued Palmgren/Fahlsing 01/07/2011Letters sent out to neighbors inviting them to public meeting Clancy 01/07/2011Initiate bid process for monitoring projects Palmgren 01/07/2011

Public meeting at Monroe County Community CollegePalmgren/Fahlsing/ Clancy 01/19/2011

Monitoring contract in place (shorebirds in spring at minimum) Palmgren 02/28/2011Identify all wetlands to be treated for phragmites control("treatment zones") Clancy 03/30/2011Signed partner agreements in place for phragmites control Clancy 03/30/2011Interpretive Panel developed Palmgren 03/30/2011Shorebird monitoring plan complete Palmgren 03/31/2011Baseline shorebird monitoring start Palmgren 04/15/2011Permits in place for water control project Bennett 04/30/2011Design complete for water control Bennett 05/01/2011Bid out construction of water control project Bennett 05/31/2011Brochure/handout drafted Palmgren 05/31/2011Specifications drafted for phragmites control Palmgren 05/31/2011Monitoring contract(s) in place (for remaining work) Palmgren 05/31/2011Interpretive Panel purchased Palmgren 05/31/2011Wetland mapping start Palmgren 06/01/2011Phragmites control out to bid Palmgren 06/30/2011Brochure/handout printed Palmgren 07/15/2011Secure Aquatic Nuisance Control permit for phrag control Palmgren 07/15/2011Phragmites control contract awarded Palmgren 07/31/2011Interpretive Panel installed Allen 08/01/2011Construction start for water control project Bennett 09/01/2011Baseline shorebird monitoring complete Palmgren 10/31/2011Phragmites control completed for the year Clancy 10/15/2011Initial fish assessment field work complete Palmgren/Braunscheidel 10/31/2011Wetland mapping complete Palmgren 10/31/2011Follow-up with partners on phragmites control - concerns/improvements for next year? Clancy 12/31/2011Baseline shorebird monitoring progress report Palmgren 02/28/2012Report on wetland mapping Palmgren 02/28/2012Initial fish assessment report Palmgren/Braunscheidel 02/28/2012Shorebird monitoring start Palmgren 04/15/2012


December 21, 2010

Table 2 – Tentative Project Schedule (continued)

Milestone Lead DeadlineEvaluation of phragmites treatments based on contractor data and field work Clancy 04/30/2012Specifications drafted for phragmites control Palmgren 05/31/2012Construction complete for water control project Bennett 06/30/2012Phragmites control out to bid Palmgren 06/30/2012Secure Aquatic Nuisance Control permit for phrag control Palmgren 07/15/2012Phragmites control awarded Palmgren 07/31/2012Phragmites control completed for the year Clancy 10/15/2012Shorebird monitoring complete Palmgren 10/31/2012Follow-up with partners on phragmites control - concerns/improvements for next year? Clancy 12/31/2012Shorebird monitoring progress report Palmgren 02/28/2013Shorebird monitoring start Palmgren 04/15/2013Evaluation of phragmites treatments based on contractor data and field work Clancy 04/30/2013Specifications drafted for phragmites control Palmgren 05/31/2013Phragmites control out to bid Palmgren 06/30/2013Secure Aquatic Nuisance Control permit for phrag control Palmgren 07/15/2013Phragmites control awarded Palmgren 07/31/2013Shorebird monitoring complete Palmgren 10/31/2013Phragmites control completed for the year Clancy 10/15/2013Follow-up with partners on phragmites control - concerns/improvements for next year? Clancy 12/31/2013Shorebird monitoring progress report Palmgren 02/28/2014Shorebird monitoring start Palmgren 04/15/2014Evaluation of phragmites treatments based on contractor data and field work Clancy 04/30/2014Specifications drafted for phragmites control Palmgren 05/31/2014Phragmites control out to bid Palmgren 06/30/2014Secure Aquatic Nuisance Control permit for phrag control Palmgren 07/15/2014Phragmites control awarded Palmgren 07/31/2014Shorebird monitoring complete Palmgren 10/31/2014Phragmites control completed for the year Clancy 10/15/2014Final fish assessment field work complete Palmgren/Braunscheidel 10/31/2014Follow-up with partners on phragmites control Clancy 12/31/2014Final fish assessment report Palmgren/Braunscheidel 02/28/2015Shorebird monitoring progress report Palmgren 02/28/2015Evaluation of phragmites treatments based on contractor data and field work Clancy 04/30/2015Specifications drafted for phragmites control Palmgren 05/31/2015Phragmites control out to bid Palmgren 06/30/2015Secure Aquatic Nuisance Control permit for phrag control Palmgren 07/15/2015Phragmites control awarded Palmgren 07/31/2015Phragmites control completed for the year Clancy 10/15/2015Follow-up with partners on phragmites control Clancy 12/31/2015


December 21, 2010

Evaluate phragmites treatments based on contractor data and field evaluation Clancy 04/30/2016Final report written and submitted to EPA Palmgren 09/30/2016

A.7 Quality Objectives and Criteria

The general outcomes of this project will include all three outcomes identified for the Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Focus Area of the original EPA grant RFP. Restoration of wetland habitats will increase within the project area, the conditions of native fish and wildlife are expected to improve as a result of the habitat restoration, and Great Lakes decision makers (in this case local and state governmental agencies, private organizations and individual property owners with Great Lakes wetlands) will be using available information to initiate wetland restoration actions on their properties.

The primary output of this project, consistent with the expected outputs identified in the Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Focus Area, will be the restoration (through water level management and/or phragmites control) of at least 1,100 acres of wetland habitat in the River Raisin AOC and immediate vicinity.

Expected results for this project are: Phragmites will be controlled within 1,100 acres of wetlands in the northern River

Raisin delta on public and private lands. Phragmites control is a critical component, and often the most critical component, in restoration of these wetlands.

310 acres of wetland will be restored such that water level control can be used to manage invasive plant populations and to provide suitable shorebird stopover habitat during migration.

The following specific measurements will be used to quantify the outcomes, outputs, and results of this project:

The number of acres of wetland included in the phragmites treatment contract(s) will be reported each year. The acreage will include all wetland areas surveyed and treated each year by the contractor(s), including dense, sparse, patchy, and isolated phragmites populations. To achieve the expected results, a minimum 1,100 acres of wetlands within the project area will be surveyed and treated under the phragmites control contract(s).

The number of acres of actual phragmites treated each year will also be mapped using GPS, and the quantity of chemical required to treat the extant phragmites will be recorded. The project will be considered a success (achieving expected results) if the number of acres of actual phragmites found and treated in the final year of the project is less than 50 percent of the number of acres of phragmites found and treated in the same wetland area in the first year of the project. Also, the quantity of annual chemical use should decrease, corresponding to a decrease in the density and vigor of phragmites. It is anticipated that the


December 21, 2010

reduction in cover will be closer to 80 percent or more, but local site factors may reduce the effectiveness or length of time required for follow-up treatments.

The number of acres of wetland within which water level management is functioning at the conclusion of the project will be measured. The project will be considered a success (achieving expected results) if at least 310 acres of wetland has functioning water level management capability.

Habitat within the diked wetlands will be assessed to determine the number of acres of suitable habitat for migratory shorebirds during the fall migration season. This partially addresses the outcome of improving the condition of wildlife in the project area. The project will be considered successful if, by the conclusion of the project, at least 150 acres of suitable stopover habitat for migratory shorebirds can be made available during the spring or fall migration season. Suitable habitat attributes to be evaluated will include substrate (flooded, mudflat, or saturated); depth of water (moist soil to 24 cm depth); vegetation height (none to medium height); vegetation density (sparse to moderate); and size of area (patches greater than 2 acres) as defined and described in the report titled Migratory Bird Stopover Site Attributes in the Western Lake Erie Basin (www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/gund_stopover_rpt_2006apr20_final.pdf).

Relative populations of shorebirds within the project area will be estimated annually. Periodic ocular surveys and point counts (using Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II point count protocols available at www.michigan.gov/documents/mbba_handbook_119710_7.pdf) will be conducted from dikes surrounding the wetlands with water control during the fall migration season. This measurement addresses the outcome related to the condition of native wildlife. The project will be considered successful if the number and diversity of shorebirds, as measured by point counts, is increased during the project period.

In general, the quality of the data collected under this project must be sufficient to determine whether the expected results of the project are attained. Each of the measurements identified above must meet quality standards outlined in this plan to adequately determine success of the project.

The data quality objective for all acreages and geospatial locations listed as “specific measurements” above is for all measurements and locations to be based on field-collected Global Positioning System (GPS) data that meets Tier 3 Geospatial Accuracy Standards (6-25 m accuracy and precision) established under the National Geospatial Data Policy (EPA CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002). The target accuracy (precision and bias) for this project is < 15 m on all field-collected geographic data, but data will be accepted with up to 25 m error (precision and/or bias) if necessary. By ensuring all geospatial data meets this minimum standard, the location and acreage calculations will be sufficient to determine whether the expected results of this project have been attained.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mbba_handbook_119710_7.pdf

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/gund_stopover_rpt_2006apr20_final.pdf



December 21, 2010

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)-compliant metadata will be required for all permanent geospatial datasets produced under this project. It is expected that all final geospatial datasets produced as part of this project will be transmitted to EPA to be made publicly available. Examples of geospatial data to be collected include perimeters of wetlands with water-level control, phragmites control treatment areas and stands, wetland cover type maps, and point locations for shorebird or fish monitoring data collection. Geospatial datasets will be stored in ESRI ArcGIS shapefile format, using the Michigan Georef projection and NAD 1983 Datum.

Dike repair and water control structure engineering and design will likely require more accurate geospatial data down to Tier 2 or Tier 1 standards. The accuracy requirements will be determined and specified in the final engineering/design plans and specifications for the dike repair and water control equipment installation. Contractors executing the earthmoving and equipment installation must have the capability and appropriate equipment to carry out the work to meet the design specifications developed by the engineers and designers.

Shorebird population size will be calculated by periodic, complete counts of the number of individuals by species within each of the two marshes (Hunt Club and Union Camp). Shorebird population data will be collected in the field by experienced observers capable of identifying all shorebird species regularly found in southeast Michigan to the species level. Shorebird species classification and names will follow the most recent American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) checklist of North American birds (currently the seventh edition with associated supplements). Shorebird monitoring data will meet the minimum standards established by the International Shorebird Survey (ISS) and the Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (PRISM) (standards available for both programs at www.shorebirdworld.org). Data from this project will be input into the ISS eBird portal (www.ebird.org/content/ebird/iss). More specific data quality objectives for shorebird monitoring, including sampling/observation timeframes and protocols, will be developed by an experienced contractor and incorporated into a shorebird monitoring plan during the course of this project. Shorebird species diversity will be measured by calculating both Species Richness (S) and Shannon’s Diversity Index (H’) based on the shorebird population data collected in the field for each season and year. This aspect of the project will be considered a success if the total number of individual shorebirds AND either one or both of the above diversity indices at the conclusion of the project are greater than the baseline conditions (2011) measured before implementation of the project. It is understood that migratory shorebird populations at any given local site fluctuate widely from year to year and season to season based on regional climate, local weather patterns, breeding and wintering habitat and population limitations, and many other factors beyond the scope of control of this project. Therefore the long term trend in total population and species diversity at the site is more important than monitoring data collected in any individual season or year.

http://www.ebird.org/content/ebird/iss

http://www.shorebirdworld.org/


December 21, 2010

Fish population size and diversity data will also be collected in the field by experienced observers capable of identifying all fish species regularly found in southeast Michigan Great Lakes-associated aquatic environments to the species level. Standard sampling techniques will be used, following Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment protocols. All fish population data will be reviewed by a Michigan DNR fisheries biologist. More specific data quality objectives for fish monitoring will be developed prior to the initiation of fish monitoring.

Wetland mapping will follow the geospatial data quality objective described above. The 2009 aerial imagery acquired under the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) will be used as a basemap to map the wetlands in the project area (www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prog&topic=nai). Other available imagery from the state, county, or other sources may be used to supplement the NAIP imagery. Aerial photo interpretation and field surveys will be used to assess cover type and natural community classification. Wetlands will be delineated and classified based on the Cowardin wetland classification system (at the subclass level), the Michigan DNR IFMAP land cover classification system (at level 4), and Michigan Natural Features Inventory’s natural community classification system. Boundaries will be mapped at approximately 1:4,000 scale, with a minimum mapping unit (“stand”) size of 0.5–1 acre. The classification of each mapped unit will be done by observers experienced and trained with the wetland classification systems, and proper identification of the biotic and abiotic attributes necessary to accurately classify each unit.

A.8 Special Training/Certification

All individuals applying herbicide to phragmites must be Certified Commercial Pesticide Applicators in Michigan. Certification cards/numbers will be checked by the Phragmites Lead prior to any herbicide application, and certification numbers will be included in final treatment reports produced by the contractor(s).

Individuals designing the specifications for the water control infrastructure (dike repairs and all equipment) must be properly licensed and have a minimum of one year of experience completing designs similar in scope to this project. Qualifications will be verified by the Water Control Lead prior to design.

Contractors performing the dike repairs and equipment installation must be experienced and properly licensed to operate the applicable equipment, such as earthmoving equipment and other heavy machinery.

Individuals collecting geospatial data must be trained in proper use of the specific brand and model of Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment being used. The people who decide which specific GPS equipment to use for collecting project data must be sufficiently trained to be able to choose an appropriate GPS unit capable of collecting data at a level of precision and accuracy necessary to meet the standards outlined in

http://www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prog&topic=nai


December 21, 2010

this document. The individuals who process the field-collected GPS data to create GIS datasets must also be trained in the procedures for downloading and processing the data, as well as the creation of metadata to meet the standards outlined in this document. The required skills will be specified in contract specifications.

Shorebird monitoring must be conducted by individuals capable of identifying all species of shorebirds typically found in migration in southeast Michigan by sight in typical field conditions, in the typical plumage to be expected in spring and fall migration seasons. Contractors and staff will be screened for such knowledge by the Project Manager.

Fish population data must be collected by individuals capable of identifying all species of fish typically found in southeast Michigan Great Lakes-associated aquatic systems in typical field conditions. Contractors and staff will be screened for such knowledge by the Project Manager and DNR Fisheries Division liaison for this project.

A.9 Documents and Records

The Project Manager will distribute this QAPP document electronically and in hard copy to all individuals listed in section A.3 upon approval by the EPA Project Officer, EPA Quality Manager, Michigan DNR Project Manager and Michigan DNR Quality Manager, within 30 days following approval. Any subsequent revisions will also be distributed to the individuals listed in A.3 within 30 days following approval.

The Project Manager will also ensure that all individuals involved in the project (the “project team”) are aware of their responsibilities and deadlines. The project manager will meet with the project team regularly (approximately monthly, either in person or via conference call/GoTo Meeting) and will ensure minutes are taken and distributed to the project team. The Project Manager will retain electronic copies of all project-related correspondence and meeting minutes, field data sheets, original shorebird and fish survey data, geospatial data, monitoring plans, contractor reports, QA/QC inspections, and other pertinent documents or records until the completion of the final report for the project. All documents and records will be retained for an additional period of time by the Project Manager as determined by the applicable State of Michigan, DNR, Parks & Recreation Division record retention policies. Documents, records, and data transmitted to EPA will be retained by EPA according to current agency policies.

All shorebird monitoring data will additionally be entered into the International Shorebird Survey database through the ISS eBird web portal for permanent archival purposes and integration with national and international datasets.

The Project Manager or designee will input and update project information (as it relates to goals, objectives, and measures of the GLRI Action Plan) electronically into the Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) database quarterly by January 15, April 15, July 15, and October 15 each year, beginning in 2011 and ending at the conclusion of the project. The GLAS is available on the web at https://restore.glnpo.net/glas/login.htm.

https://restore.glnpo.net/glas/login.htm


December 21, 2010

In addition, semi-annual progress reports will be prepared by the Project Manager and submitted to the EPA Project Officer electronically by April 30 and October 30 each year, beginning April 30, 2011 and ending at the conclusion of the project. These progress reports will address: work accomplished during the period, budget changes, corrective actions, projected new work, percent completion, percent of budgeted amounts spent, any change in Project Manager, any change needed in project duration, date and amount of last drawdown request, and delays or adverse conditions.

A final report will be written for this project by the Project Manager and submitted to the EPA Project Officer at the conclusion of the project. A draft (electronic) is due within 45 days of the project end date, and the final version (electronic and hard copy) must be submitted within 90 days. The final report will also be shared with project team members and other partners (including the River Raisin Area of Concern Public Advisory Council). The final report will include all information specified for the semi-annual progress reports, plus a summary of project outcomes, outputs, and results, an analysis of data, and conclusions. All data described in this QAPP will be submitted along with the final report, including QA/QC reports, identification of any significant QA problems, performance evaluations, and photographic documentation.

Field data sheets and other project forms will be developed as needed prior to field data collection and incorporated into future revisions of this QAPP.


December 21, 2010

SECTION B – DATA GENERATION & ACQUISITION

B.1 Data Collection Process Design

Shorebird data collection will be done according to the minimum standards established by the International Shorebird Survey (www.shorebirdworld.org). The ISS defines minimum sampling frequencies and timeframes. This will ensure compatibility and usability of the data with larger regional and international monitoring efforts. A more specific sampling process for collecting shorebird data will be defined in the shorebird monitoring plan, which is under development.

Fish data collection will be done according to minimum standards established by the Michigan DNR. A more specific sampling process for collecting fish data will be determined prior to collecting any field data.

Geospatial data will be collected by contractors and project staff for several purposes. The final acreage of marsh with functioning water control will be calculated by recording a GPS track around the area of marsh impacted by water control. Wetland mapping boundaries will be field-verified where necessary by using GPS data. Shorebird and fish monitoring point locations will be recorded by contractors or individuals conducting the monitoring activities. Phragmites control contractors will record the locations and extents of all individual phragmites stands using GPS at the time of treatment.

For quality control purposes, all geospatial data collected in the field must include at least 3 known “control” points collected every day that a GPS receiver is used. These control points must be known locations within or immediately adjacent to the project area easily visible on aerial photography and available in existing GIS data layers.

The contractor retained to design the water control structures and dike repairs will develop the standards and requirements for the earthmoving and contouring of the dikes and the minimum equipment performance specifications for the water control structures and any pumping equipment. The contractors retained to complete the work on the ground will be required to meet those design specifications.

B.2 Data Collection Methods

On each day designated for shorebird monitoring under the shorebird monitoring plan, the person conducting shorebird monitoring will navigate to and stand at each designated point that provides good visibility of the Hunt Club or Union Camp Marsh. They will count and identify to species every shorebird visible in the marsh from that point. They will view the marsh from that point for a designated minimum period of time. The protocol will be compatible with the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II point count protocol (www.michigan.gov/documents/mbba_handbook_119710_7.pdf). The specific point locations will be determined in the shorebird monitoring plan. The number of individual shorebirds observed by species will be recorded on a field data form for each


http://www.shorebirdworld.org/


December 21, 2010

point. In addition, the shorebird monitor will collect information on a data form characterizing the relative quality of the shorebird habitat visible in each marsh. Suitable habitat attributes to be evaluated will include substrate (flooded, mudflat, or saturated); depth of water (moist soil to 24 cm depth); vegetation height (none to medium height); vegetation density (sparse to moderate); and size of area (patches greater than 2 acres) in each of the classes described in report titled Migratory Bird Stopover Site Attributes in the Western Lake Erie Basin (www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/gund_stopover_rpt_2006apr20_final.pdf). A more specific sampling method will be defined in the shorebird monitoring plan, which is under development.

Fish data collection will be done according to minimum standards established by the Michigan DNR. A more specific sampling process for collecting fish data will be determined prior to collecting any field data.

Wetland mapping will be done by a contractor. The contractor will initially map all wetlands by type by on-screen digitizing in suitable Geographic Information System (GIS) software, such as ESRI ArcGIS. Suitable aerial imagery and any other available datasets (e.g., soils, geology, hydrology) will be used to assist in preliminary delineations. The quality (especially geographic precision, bias, and classification accuracy) of each existing dataset will be considered and weighed appropriately while using those data to draw lines. There are no specific minimum limits to quality or scale of existing datasets that may be used for this preliminary wetland mapping, but the 2009 NAIP imagery (described in A.7 above) shall be used as the primary basemap. Following preliminary mapping from GIS data, the contractor will conduct field surveys to visit every mapped wetland on the ground that can be accessed. The field visit will include a verification and adjustment of the preliminary wetland boundaries and assignment of the wetland to the appropriate classifications based on biotic and abiotic features visible in the field. Stands that cannot be visited in the field (due to physical inaccessibility and/or lack of permission from the landowner) will be viewed remotely if possible (from the nearest adjacent viewing point such as a public road or trail) and assigned to the appropriate classifications based on all available information.

Geospatial data will be collected by contractors and project staff as described in B.1 above. Standard commercially-available handheld GPS receivers will be used, provided they are capable of achieving the accuracy requirements specified in A.7 above (as determined by the specifications provided in the equipment manual). These GPS receivers will be used to collect point locations (waypoints) and lines (tracks), following the procedures outlined in the product manual. Geospatial data (coordinates and associated attributes) will be stored in the GPS unit’s internal memory until downloaded and processed in the office.




December 21, 2010

B.3 Data Handling & Custody

Original field data from shorebird monitoring, fish monitoring, and wetland mapping will be retained by the contractor or individual performing the fieldwork until the conclusion of the field season. Original field data will then be transferred to the Project Manager (in an electronic format to be specified in the contract specifications), along with the specified metadata and monitoring/survey report. All original paper field forms will be scanned and saved in Adobe PDF file format prior to transmittal to the Project Manager. Original geospatial field data will be downloaded off GPS receivers and saved in ESRI ArcGIS shapefile format. These shapefiles will be transmitted electronically, along with metadata, to the Project Manager by the contractor or staff person who collected and downloaded the data.

The Project Manager will retain all original field data and geospatial data for the duration of the project, plus the applicable timeframe specified in the State of Michigan, DNR, and Parks & Recreation Division record retention policy in effect at the time.

B.4 Analytical Methods

The only analyses anticipated for the data generated by this project are calculation of population size and diversity of shorebirds and fish, acreage of mapped wetlands by type, and acreage of phragmites mapped each year at the time of treatment. The procedures for shorebird population analysis will be developed in the shorebird monitoring plan. The procedures for analyzing fish data will be developed by the DNR prior to collecting any fish data. The wetland acreage by type will be calculated by summing the size (acreage) for each mapped wetland by type. The phragmites acreage treated each year will be calculated by summing the size (acreage) of each mapped phragmites stand treated. Wetland and phragmites stand sizes will be calculated using ESRI ArcGIS software, version 9.1 or higher.

Quality control analyses are described below (section B.5). ESRI ArcGIS software will be required to perform the quality control analyses, along with standard desktop software such as Microsoft Excel, Access, and Word.

B.5 Quality Control

Data Quality will be evaluated and controlled as follows:

AccuracyAccuracy is defined in this project as a combination of precision and bias. Precision is a measure of the reproducibility of results. Bias is the degree of agreement between a measured value and the “true” or expected value. Accuracy, as defined here, also includes specificity, or the ability to correctly identify plants, animals, and wetland types for monitoring purposes.


December 21, 2010

For all geospatial data, the data collector (contractor or project team member) will overlay the data in a GIS with known geospatial data (orthophotography, roads and other base features, streams, USGS topography data) to verify that the control point data collected in the field (per the requirements in B.1 above) match existing data sets. Control points within each new data set must be within 25 meters of the known location on the ground (per A.7 above), otherwise they will be rejected and the geospatial data must be re-collected. The Project Manager will also independently perform this data comparison. Specific GPS equipment to be used by contractors or staff will be reviewed by the Project Manager for ability to meet minimum accuracy standards based on the equipment specifications stated in the product manual. GPS field skills of contractors and staff will be verified by random spot checks (once per season) by the Project Manager and/or Phragmites Lead performed in the field during data collection activities.

For wetland mapping, the Project Manager will compare the final shapefile submitted by the contractor with known wetland locations and types, known non-wetland areas, and other features within the project area. The Project Manager will also visit a minimum of 5% of the mapped wetlands in the field to verify that the accuracy of boundaries and classification meet the data quality standards described in A.7 above.

The Project Manager will perform random field visits to coincide with times when the shorebird monitoring contractor is on site, or find another qualified independent observer skilled in shorebird identification to do so. Field data (counts of numbers of birds by species, and assessment of habitat conditions) will be collected independently of the contractor at that time. These random field visits will be performed a minimum of once each season of data collection. The contractor’s and Project Manager’s field data will be compared. If the total counts of individual shorebirds, species detected, or acreage by habitat type differ by greater than 25% then the data will be rejected.

RepresentativenessRepresentativeness is the degree to which data accurately reflect the characteristics of the entire population of interest. The primary representativeness concern for this project applies to the shorebird data. For shorebird monitoring, an attempt is made to count the complete population of shorebirds within the shorebird habitat in the designated marshes. The representativeness of the shorebird counts will depend on the location of birds in relation to observation points and whether they are obscured by vegetation or other obstacles. While there is no practical way to eliminate all potential for representativeness errors, the observation points will remain consistent from season to season throughout the project so that data are directly comparable among seasons.

CompletenessCompleteness is the amount of valid data collected compared to the requirements and expectations. All data will be evaluated by the Project Manager to ensure field forms are filled in completely and all expected geospatial data were actually collected and are present in the datasets. Metadata generated by contractors and staff will be examined by the Project Manager for compliance with appropriate standards.


December 21, 2010

ComparabilityComparability is the confidence with which one dataset can be compared to another. Comparability will be ensured for shorebird data by keeping the observation points consistent over the course of the project. An attempt will also be made to use the same observers each season as much as possible for the duration of the project. Geospatial data will be collected and stored in standard file formats with a commonly-used geographic projection and datum so it can be compared to future data and historical data.

Other project-level quality control not directly related to data will also be performed. For dike repair and water control work, the Water Control Lead will perform periodic on-site inspections to ensure contract specifications are being met. For phragmites control work, the Phragmites Lead will perform random on-site inspections during and after phragmites chemical treatments annually to ensure contractor compliance with specifications.

B.6 Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance

GPS receivers will be inspected daily prior to field data collection according to the manufacturer’s recommendations specified in the operator’s manual. Also, when GPS operators navigate to the specific control points (as specified in B.1 above), they will view their position on the GPS receiver’s screen in the field in relation to the control points to ensure that the unit is functioning properly. All GPS equipment will be maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications.

All equipment used for phragmites control (e.g., chemical sprayers and vehicles) and all equipment used for dike repairs and water control installation (e.g., construction machinery) will be tested, inspected, and maintained according to manufacturer’s recommendations and any applicable federal, state, or local regulations. This requirement will be built into all contract specifications.

Any other equipment used for shorebird monitoring, fish monitoring, and wetland mapping that could potentially impact data quality will also be tested, inspected, and maintained according to manufacturer’s recommendations.

B.7 Equipment Calibration and Frequency

While the types of GPS receivers expected to be used on this project cannot be calibrated, the GPS receivers will be set to manufacturer’s defaults (related to PDOP, signal-to-noise ratio, and position filters) to ensure maximum possible accuracy.

Any other equipment used for shorebird monitoring, fish monitoring, and wetland mapping that could potentially impact data quality will be calibrated according to manufacturer’s recommendations.


December 21, 2010

In addition, chemical application equipment used by phragmites control contractors will be calibrated according to manufacturer’s recommendations, permit requirements, and Michigan Department of Agriculture requirements for pesticide application.

B.8 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables

No significant supplies or consumables that would affect data quality are required for this project.

B.9 Data Acquisition Requirements for Non-Direct Measurements

Background geospatial data will be required for this project, primarily to be used to draw preliminary wetland boundaries, select control points for GPS data, and display monitoring data on maps. National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery from 2009 will be used as the primary base for the above purposes. The NAIP imagery has a horizontal accuracy of +/- 6 meters, with 1 meter pixel resolution, which is well within the Tier 3 Geospatial Accuracy Standard specified for this project. Other data may be used for control points if it is at least as accurate as the NAIP imagery, as determined by reviewing the metadata. No specific acceptance criteria will be used for other geospatial data used to supplement wetland mapping, map generation, or other similar tasks, but the user should review the metadata for any dataset and consider the data quality when it is used.

B.10 Data Management

See sections B.1 and B.2 for data collection procedures. See section B.3 for data handling procedures. After collection, data will be analyzed according to section B.4 above. Quality Control measures will be used as specified in section B.5 above to assess data quality, and all quality control measures will be documented. After data are received by the Project Manager and quality control analysis has been performed and documented, datasets will be forwarded to the DNR Quality Manager for an additional data quality review for compliance with Section B.5 above. The DNR Quality Manager will report back to the Project Manager regarding any errors or discrepancies found.

Metadata will be prepared by the originator of geospatial data, prior to delivery of the data to the Project Manager. Metadata will meet current Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards, and will be stored and transmitted with the data that it supports at all times.

The Project Manager will transmit data with associated metadata and QA/QC reports to the EPA Project Officer with the final project report. The Project Manager will retain all original field data and geospatial data for the duration of the project, plus the applicable timeframe specified in the State of Michigan, DNR, and Parks & Recreation Division


December 21, 2010

record retention policy in effect at the time. The EPA Project Officer will ensure data are retained and stored pursuant to current EPA data storage and retention policies.


December 21, 2010

SECTION C – ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT

C.1 Assessments and Response Actions

Project Outcomes, Outputs, and ResultsThe Project Manager will assess the current status of project outcomes, outputs, and results and include the results in the GLAS, semi-annual, and final reports. Assignments, tasks, and deadlines will be adjusted as needed if sufficient progress is not being made towards the outcomes, outputs, and results each reporting period.

Project-level Management Systems ReviewThe DNR Quality Manager will review the QAPP and assess data quality as described in sections B.10 and B.5 above annually at minimum to ensure that the QAPP is still adequate and being correctly implemented. He will provide written feedback to the Project Manager. Any data quality or QAPP deficiencies will be addressed by the Project Manager through adjusting tasks and assignments, revising the QAPP, and/or re-collecting data as appropriate.

Quality Assurance AssessmentsAll data collectors (contractors or project team members) will evaluate the quality of the data they collect as described in section B.5 above, and compare their data to all applicable quality objectives and criteria outlined in section A.7 prior to submission of data to the Project Manager. Non-conforming data will be excluded, re-collected, or included with a clear notation that it does not meet the specified quality objectives.

The Project Manager will similarly assess the quality of all datasets upon receipt to ensure they meet the quality objectives and criteria. The Project Manager will also perform field audits of the accuracy of wetland mapping and shorebird monitoring as described in section B.5 above. Non-conforming data will be referred back to the data collector for re-evaluation, exclusion, or re-collection. If the quality cannot be resolved in any practical manner and the data are still useful then they will be retained with a clear notation by the Project Manager that they do not meet the specified quality objectives.

After the Project Manager’s assessment is complete and documented, the DNR Quality Manager will perform a similar review as described above.

Contractor Compliance InspectionsThe Phragmites Lead, Water Control Lead, and Project Manager will conduct periodic random field inspections of all contractors for compliance with contract specifications. All deviations will be reported to the contractor for resolution. All unresolved deviations that impact data quality or project outcomes, outputs, or results will be reported to the Project Manager. The Project Manager will make adjustments to future specifications and implement any prudent corrective actions to mitigate possible impacts on the final project results.


December 21, 2010

C.2 Reports to Management

The Phragmites Lead, Water Control Lead, and other project team members will each report to the Project Manager throughout the project during regular project team meetings (approximately monthly) on the performance of the contractors they are overseeing, and the status of all tasks outlined in section A.6 and Table 2 above. The Project Manager will report to the EPA Project Officer according to the schedule specified in the grant agreement on the performance and quality of all aspects of the project (water control, phragmites, and monitoring/evaluation). See section A.9 for a detailed description of reports and deadlines. The status of tasks outlined in A.6 and Table 2 will be included in these reports.


December 21, 2010

SECTION D – DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY

D.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation

The Project Manager will make a final decision regarding the validity and usability of data collected during this project. The overall data quality – including data collection, analysis, custody and reporting/documentation – will be reviewed and compared to the data quality objectives and specifications given throughout this QAPP. Any deviations from the overall quality requirements, and any corresponding impacts on the ability to assess project results, outputs, or outcomes will be documented in the final project report.

Data will be verified by the Project Manager, to include an assessment of completeness and adherence to QAPP and monitoring plan procedures and requirements. Data will be validated by comparing shorebird and fish monitoring data with any existing data from nearby areas to assess whether it appears to be reasonable and within the realm of expected results. Field observations will also be compared to any available casual observations by recreational birders and anglers in the project area. Birders frequently report shorebirds found at Sterling State Park to several statewide birding email listservs; these will be monitored regularly by the Project Manager during migration season. Geographic data will be validated by overlaying the collected points, lines, and polygons with base features visible on aerial orthophotography, topography, soils, and road/trail features. Any outlier data points that do not meet Tier 3 standards (25 meter accuracy) will be re-assessed and excluded if the source of the error cannot be corrected or resolved.

D.2 Verification and Validation Methods

Data verification and validation will follow the procedures outlined in sections B.5, C.1, and D.1 above.

The shorebird and fish monitoring contractors shall also take photographs in the field during each monitoring session to capture a visual image of the monitoring location and habitat characteristics in the area. This will also verify that they were actually collecting monitoring data at the correct location each time. In addition, any rare species or those of questionable identification should be photographed if possible. Photographs will be examined by the Project Manager and outside experts to confirm correct identification.

In addition, extremely unusual shorebird observations reported by the monitoring contractor must each be well documented in writing, to include a detailed description of the bird(s) and the circumstances of the observation. Reports of any species determined to be very rare in Michigan (“review species” as described in http://www.michiganaudubon.org/research/recordscommittee/review_list.html) will be submitted to the Michigan Bird Records Committee for an independent evaluation (http://www.michiganaudubon.org/research/recordscommittee).

http://www.michiganaudubon.org/research/recordscommittee

http://www.michiganaudubon.org/research/recordscommittee/review_list.html


December 21, 2010

D.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements

As stated in D.1 above, the Project Manager will make a final decision regarding the usability of data collected during this project. All data will be compared to the data quality objectives using the procedures already specified in several sections above. Any concerns with the quality, quantity, or usability of the data will be reconciled between the data collector/contractor, Project Manager, and DNR Quality Manager during the data transmittal, review, and acceptance process. If necessary, the data quality objectives may be revisited to determine whether a lower quality of data could still be accepted to sufficiently document the project’s results. The EPA Project Officer will be consulted if this is the case. The bottom line is that the data must be of sufficient quality to document the results of this project and whether they have fulfilled the grant requirements. If the data can be accepted to meet that overall goal, then they will be accepted, with any deviations from the original data quality objectives noted. If not, then follow-up data will be collected at the end of the project to supplement the original data until they are of sufficient quality to determine the results of the project. The data quality and any reconciliation that occurs will be documented in the final project report.


December 20, 2010Page A1

ATTACHMENT A – WORK PLAN

1. Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-R5-GL2010-1Focus Area: Habitat and Wildlife Protection and RestorationProgram: I.D.2. Habitat Restoration in Great Lakes Area of Concern

2. Name of Proposal

River Raisin Wetland Enhancement and Habitat Evaluation

3. Point of Contact

Glenn PalmgrenMichigan Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentStevens T. Mason Building530 West Allegan StreetPO Box 30257Lansing, MI 48909-7757Phone (517) 335-4823Fax (517) 373-4825Email: [email protected]

DUNS Number805339991

4. Type of Organization

State agencies or interstate agencies

5. Proposed Funding Request

$1,350,000

6. Brief Project Description

Repair dikes and install water control for 310 acres of marsh at Sterling State Park to provide much needed stopover habitat for shorebirds and invasive plant control. Control phragmites (Phragmites australis) in north River Raisin delta wetlands, approximately 1,100 acres, on public and private lands (10 partners) for 5 years. Collect baseline data and monitor wetland communities and key species. This project addresses delisting targets for the River Raisin Area of Concern’s Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations Beneficial Use Impairments.

7. Project Location

HUC Code: 04100001 and 04100002Latitude/Longitude: 41°55’ N, 83°21’ WState: MichiganCounty: MonroeCity: MonroeZIP Code: 48162

mailto:[email protected]



8. Full Project Description

A portion of the River Raisin was designated as a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) in 1987 and is located in southeastern Michigan in Monroe County. The AOC includes the lower 2.6 miles of river from the low head dam at Winchester Bridge downstream to the River’s outlet. It further extends one-half mile into Lake Erie following the federal navigational channel and one mile along the near shore zone of Lake Erie, both north and south of the river mouth. Loss of fish and wildlife populations and habitat Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) for this AOC were listed as a result of legacy chemical contamination and loss of habitat due to urban and industrial land use practices. Since being designated as an AOC, significant clean-up and remediation efforts from state, federal (including the EPA), and local stakeholders have focused on non-habitat related remedial actions. Limited fish and wildlife habitat restoration activities have occurred, mainly because the River Raisin AOC encompasses an active harbor and located within an industrial area in the City of Monroe. A limited number of potential habitat restoration opportunities exist. It is also recognized by wildlife experts that this area of River Raisin and Lake Erie shoreline is an important stopover site for migratory birds, especially shorebirds.

To address these impairments, a technical committee convened by the River Raisin AOC Public Advisory Council (PAC) explored the AOC and the immediate vicinity for specific areas of valuable but degraded shallow water habitat that had a direct, or potential, connection to the River Raisin. Habitat restoration project concepts were developed focused on the idea of restoring these areas for fish passage and enhancement of the habitat for fish and wildlife species that may utilize this area for all or part of their life cycle. The Delisting Targets for Fish/Wildlife Habitat and Population Related Beneficial Use Impairments for the River Raisin Area of Concern (Fish and Wildlife Delisting Target) document was developed to identify habitat and population BUI delisting targets, including actions (i.e., site-specific projects) that could help achieve those targets and result in the removal of the two fish and wildlife-related BUIs (see www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/monroe/published_documents/City%20of%20Monroe/Reports%20and%20Studies/Raisin%20River%20Area%20of%20Concern%20Delisting%20Target%20Final%20Report%20120508.pdf).

This project consists of three major components. The first component is to restore water level management capability in 310 acres of wetlands to provide critical stopover habitat for migratory shorebirds during spring and fall migration and to facilitate control of invasive plants. The control of phragmites and other invasive plant species will allow much enhanced fish production in years when water control structures will be opened, allowing a hydraulic connection with Lake Erie. The second component is to implement phragmites control in approximately 1,100 acres of wetlands through a partnership among key public and private landowners. By controlling phragmites, native marsh vegetation and wildlife species will benefit. The third component is to collect baseline data on wetland community conditions and key species in the project area and monitor changes in those conditions after three to five years. This will allow us to assess and quantify wetland community changes and changes in key species resulting from the management actions taken under this grant and other restoration projects in the delta. A project area map is attached as Map #1 in the appendix.

Water Level Management

The first component of this project is to install water control structures and repair dikes surrounding two marshes within Sterling State Park (see Map #2 in appendix). The goal is to use water level management to seasonally provide critical stopover habitat for migratory shorebirds, as well as

http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/monroe/published_documents/City%20of%20Monroe/Reports%20and%20Studies/Raisin%20River%20Area%20of%20Concern%20Delisting%20Target%20Final%20Report%20120508.pdf





control invasive plants such as phragmites, narrow-leaved cat-tail (Typha angustifolia), and glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). Water control may be one of the only effective ways to prevent or control the invasion of glossy buckthorn. The intent is to manage these wetlands to allow passage of fish and other aquatic animals in and out of the diked wetlands at all times when the water is not being maintained artificially low or high for shorebird stopover habitat and invasive plant control, respectively. Historically both marshes were surrounded by dikes and at least one of the marshes had functioning water level control capability. The northern marsh (the “Hunt Club Marsh”) has an approximately 250-foot breach in the dike on the south side where an old water control structure was previously removed. The southern marsh (the “Union Camp Marsh”) has at least 5 breaches in the dike, mostly on the east side, and it is unclear whether water level control was entirely functional in the past. As part of the Union Camp Marsh dike repair, fish passage will also be enhanced by improving the canal connection between the Mason Run Drain and the River Raisin at the north east corner of the Union Camp Marsh. The Mason Run Drain is known for its popular spring fishery. A universally accessible shorefishing structure was recently added near the area where fish passage will be enhanced.

The control of invasive plants like phragmites will greatly enhance highly productive, shallow water habitat of game and forage fish. While fish migrations will be blocked during the plant control phase, once these invasives are greatly reduced and more native marshes are created, fish will be allowed to migrate in and out of the marsh if water levels are sufficient (dependent on Lake Erie water levels). Dense monocultures of phragmites will allow only very limited fish and wildlife benefits, but restored native marsh – even if only open to aquatic migrations during times of high water – will be very productive for fish, amphibians and reptiles. The net gain in fish production over time will be far improved over the present where dense stands of phragmites exist.

Many marshes in the western Lake Erie region are managed specifically for waterfowl habitat, but few are managed on a regular basis specifically for migratory shorebird stopover habitat. While the habitat requirements can sometimes overlap during portions of the year, the requirements for shorebirds are often given less weight than waterfowl, and as a consequence there is a shortage of prime shorebird habitat during migrations. Monoculture stands of phragmites have destroyed mudflats and shallow water shorebird habitats. Glossy buckthorn seems poised to impart additional habitat damage. The importance of shorebird habitat in the western Lake Erie basin is further described in Section 10 of this proposal.

This project would fund engineering of the water control infrastructure and dike repair design on both marshes in 2010-2011. The engineering design will ensure that water levels can be manipulated to high and low enough levels to provide for suitable shorebird habitat (including mudflats) and flooding capability of sufficient depth to control invasive vegetation. The design will take advantage of wind events to exclude or capture water in a cost effective manner. The design will also ensure that fish passage is facilitated during times when the marsh is not drawn down for shorebirds or flooded for invasive plant control. Immediately upon completion of the engineering and design, earthmoving contracts for dike repair would be bid in 2011, with dike repairs expected to commence in 2011. Equipment, including pumps, tubes, control gates, and any needed electrical power installation will also be procured and installed in 2011. The expectation is that water level control will be completely functional in both marshes by 2012. All work will be done by contract, under the guidance of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) Ecologist and DNRE engineers, with continual input from DNRE wildlife biologists who have experience with similar water control projects. Cost estimates for this component of the project were developed by consulting with DNRE wildlife biologists with experience in water-level management and dike repairs, DNRE engineering staff, and Ducks Unlimited engineering staff. As described in the RFP, this component of the project includes activities related to “planning and project design” (through the engineering of the dike and



water control structures), “implementation” (through the installation of water control and dike repairs), and “stewardship” (through managing water levels to control invasive species and provide habitat for shorebirds).

Phragmites Control Partnership

At least 10 public and private landowners in the northern portion of the River Raisin delta have indicated an interest in controlling phragmites in wetlands they own (see Section 10 below). The goal of this component of the project is to fund 5 years of phragmites control across all of these participating ownerships (see Map #3 in appendix). Phragmites is the most widespread and damaging invasive plant in the River Raisin delta. Many species of wildlife, including wetland-dependent birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, have already lost hundreds of acres of emergent marsh and wet prairie habitat in the project area to expanding stands of phragmites. Native plants populations have declined as well. Many landowners in the area recognize phragmites because it has become so ubiquitous in the local area, but are either unaware of the damage it causes, unaware of the proper control techniques, or are financially unable to afford initial control. This phragmites control partnership represents one of the few opportunities to improve habitat for fish and wildlife on private lands in the River Raisin AOC.

DNRE, Recreation Division (RD) has been controlling phragmites successfully since 2003, at Sterling State Park (within the project area) and at many other state parks and recreation areas throughout Michigan. Phragmites cover can be reduced dramatically through an initial herbicide application, and can be further reduced and maintained at low coverage levels through annual follow-up targeted herbicide application. Control techniques to be used in this project are consistent with those recommended in A Guide to the Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites (www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ogl-ais-guide-PhragBook-Email_212418_7.pdf), a publication by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that RD co-authored with many other experts on the topic. An initial herbicide application of a glyphosate and/or imazapyr-based chemical approved for use in aquatic environments is made by a combination of aerial (helicopter) and ground-based (truck, tractor, marsh vehicle, boat, or backpack/hand) techniques depending on the density, size, and context of the phragmites stand. After the initial treatment, phragmites is typically reduced considerably, but approximately 10-20 percent of the plants often re-sprout from the extensive rhizomes. Prescribed burning or mowing can be done after chemical treatments as needed to remove thatch and stimulate sprouting from the rhizomes and seed, increasing efficacy of follow-up treatments. Follow-up chemical treatments are typically done annually to further control the remaining plants and any new plants that have invaded a site. Phragmites in southeast Michigan, particularly Monroe County, is extremely prevalent and will likely be for the foreseeable future. However, once existing stands are controlled the population can be reduced to manageable levels where it is possible to do relatively simple annual control. Similar to controlling weeds in a lawn or garden, periodic control will be necessary. Control in a larger area will reduce sources for re-infestation.

The goal is to reduce phragmites cover in 1,100 acres of the most important wetlands in the northern River Raisin delta to a low cover level that can be maintained with relative ease by individual property owners. It is anticipated that it will require four years of follow-up treatments (after the initial treatment) to get the phragmites cover down to such a manageable level, for a total project period of five years. The project budget assumes the initial year of treatment would cost approximately $100,000 to $120,000 and annual follow-up treatments thereafter would be approximately $50,000 to $100,000 until a maintenance level is achieved. These numbers are based on actual costs of contracts to treat phragmites at Sterling State Park from 2003-2009.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ogl-ais-guide-PhragBook-Email_212418_7.pdf



Throughout this project RD staff will work closely with partner landowners to identify and delineate phragmites populations on their lands, educate them on the significant problem of phragmites and other invasive species, and train them on proper control techniques and/or how to work with contractors to control phragmites. These partners, some of whom are public entities, will then possess the knowledge and ability to perform control on the lands they administer, and the ability to transfer that knowledge to others.

The timeline for this component of the project is to identify phragmites stands on all partner lands, write treatment specifications, and bid out contract(s) for control in spring-summer 2011. Work with partners, mapping, and specification development will commence immediately (within one month of receipt of the grant). Contractors will conduct the initial treatments in late August-September 2011 (during the window when herbicide treatment of phragmites is effective). Follow-up coordination with partners and development of follow-up maps and specifications will occur over the winter and following spring each subsequent year. Follow-up treatment contract(s) will be issued and executed each summer-fall. This component of the project is “shovel-ready” in the sense that field survey work and contract specification development will begin immediately upon award, with chemical control activities occurring in the first summer as soon as the phenology of the plants allows. As described in the RFP, this component of the project includes activities related to “inventory and assessment” (through working with partners to locate phragmites patches for treatment), “planning and project design” (through the coordination with partners to facilitate treatments), “implementation” (through contracting for chemical treatment of phragmites), “stewardship” (through control invasive species to improve habitat for native wetland-dependent plants and wildlife), “monitoring” (re-mapping phragmites patches annually in conjunction with treatments), and “education and outreach” (educating partners and neighbors about the importance of Great Lakes wetlands, the impacts of invasive species, and implementation of phragmites control).

Habitat Evaluation

The third component of this project is to collect baseline data and monitor conditions over time for wetland communities and key terrestrial and aquatic species in the project area. The baseline data will serve as the starting point to determine improvements in wetland communities and habitat utilization by target species. Follow-up surveys, using repeatable methods and protocols, will be used measure the changes in wetland communities and species’ habitat utilization.

Baseline data will be gathered on migrating shorebirds, aquatic species (such as mussels, fish, and macro-invertebrates), and wetland communities. Wetland communities will be mapped using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Cowardian system and compiled into a GIS database. The NWI wetland types will be cross-walked to the Michigan Natural Features Inventory natural community classification. Fixed monitoring points will be established and standard surveying protocols will be used to facilitate year to year comparisons and monitoring. As described in the RFP, this component of the project includes activities related to “research and study”, “inventory and assessment”, and “monitoring”.

This proposal includes approximately $12,500 allocated for technical assistance from the Water Resource Division (WRD) of the DNRE. The WRD oversees permitting issues regarding inland lakes and streams, wetlands, floodplains, and Great Lakes bottomlands. Restoration of lake, stream and wetland resources frequently results in the alteration of existing aquatic resources or in potentially unanticipated impacts to floodplains. WRD staff will work closely with grantees to ensure that all regulatory aspects of the project are identified, help to identify any necessary project modifications, aid grantees in navigating the permit process and to avoid proposing unpermittable projects. This technical assistance will facilitate implementation of restoration projects, and support efficient and



coordinated review of necessary permits. The WRD has agreed to waive pre-application meeting fees for these projects.

DNRE field staff, including wildlife biologists from Wildlife Division and fisheries biologists from Fisheries Division, support this project.

Project Relevance to GLRI, EPA Strategic Plan, and the Regional Collaboration Strategy

The River Raisin Wetland Enhancement and Habitat Evaluation Project addresses EPA’s Strategic Plan target of delisting eight AOCs by making a large step towards removing the loss of fish and wildlife habitat and degradation of fish and wildlife populations BUIs in the River Raisin AOC, The project addresses Subobjective 4.3.3 of the EPA Strategic Plan (www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm). This project will contribute to an overall improvement in the ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by restoring Great Lakes coastal wetlands that provide critical habitat for many species of fish and wetland-associated wildlife, including stopover habitat for migratory birds. Wetlands also serve to filter pollutants and sediments, so increasing wetland quality at this project site could help to reduce the pollutant and sediment loading in Lake Erie.

The River Raisin Wetland Enhancement and Habitat Evaluation Project addresses long-term goals, interim objectives, and principal actions identified in the GLRI Action Plan for Focus Area 4, Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration (greatlakesrestoration.us/action/wp-content/uploads/glri_actionplan12032009.pdf). Specifically, this proposal directly addresses long term goal 1 (protection and restoration of Great Lakes aquatic and terrestrial habitats) and goal 4 (high priority actions identified in strategic plans). The fourth interim objective (restoring 125,000 acres of wetlands and associated habitats), fifth objective (data collection on coastal wetlands to support restoration), and sixth objective (delisting habitat-related BUIs in Areas of Concern) will all be addressed directly by this project. The principal actions listed in the GLRI Action Plan directly addressed by this project include enhancing wetlands and restoring habitat functioning in Areas of Concern. This project would contribute 1,100 acres of wetland restoration to the specific targets identified in the measures of progress.

The River Raisin Wetland Enhancement and Habitat Evaluation Project is also highly consistent with the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Protect and Restore the Great Lakes (www.glrc.us/strategy.html). This project addresses and would make some progress towards all six of the long-term goals for wetlands that are identified in the Habitat/Species Issue Area of the plan:

“Wetland conditions should be sufficient to provide a full range of ecosystem services including hydrologic retention, nutrient and sediment trapping, spawning, nesting, and nursery habitats, and other habitat needs of fish and wildlife.”Control of invasive plants such as phragmites will improve nesting and foraging habitats for many species of wildlife. Provision of mudflats through water level control will provide critical stopover habitat for feeding and resting migratory shorebirds.

“Fish, wildlife, and plant communities and their habitats are protected and conserved.”This project restores the Great Lakes marsh plant community within significant areas of the north River Raisin delta.

“Wetlands in hydrologically modified environments are maintained and improved.”The diked wetlands included in this project will have water level control restored, allowing management of water levels to support wetlands dominated by native plants, with seasonal mudflats for migratory shorebirds, and allow fish passage.

“Non-native plant and animal species are managed or prevented.”Phragmites is targeted for control on public and private lands in the north River Raisin delta. Non-native species will also be addressed by managing water levels in the diked wetlands.

http://www.glrc.us/strategy.html

http://greatlakesrestoration.us/action/wp-content/uploads/glri_actionplan12032009.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm



“One million acres of high-quality wetlands in the basin are protected or restored.”This project would restore approximately 1,100 acres of wetlands through invasive plant control and/or water level management.

“Self-sustaining non-endangered population levels for all currently listed wetland wildlife species, as determined by the state Departments of Natural Resources.”Some of the wetlands within the project area contain documented occurrences and habitat for populations of state-listed wildlife, including the state-endangered king rail (Rallus elegans), the state-threatened eastern fox snake (Pantherophis gloydi), and the state-threatened common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus). The activities proposed in this project would improve habitat for all three of these species by reducing the dominance of phragmites and promoting native marsh plant populations.

This project addresses three of the four short-term wetland goals of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy:

“Restore or protect 550,000 acres of wetlands and associated uplands (1.1M acres).”As stated above, this project would restore approximately 1,100 acres of wetlands.

“Achieve at least 1.54 million breeding pairs of waterfowl”By restoring and maintaining the wetlands as described in this proposal through phragmites control, habitat will be maintained or improved for waterfowl.

“Update inventory and mapping of wetland habitat types in the Great Lakes basin.”This project includes mapping of wetlands in the River Raisin delta.

This project also addresses one of the five goals that are identified in the Area of Concern/Sediments section of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy:

“by the end of 2010, 10 AOCs should be delisted (restored to target goals)”This project would make a large step towards removing the loss of fish and wildlife habitat and degradation of fish and wildlife populations BUIs in the River Raisin AOC. Through this project, together with DNRE’s William C. Sterling State Park Marsh and Prairie Restoration project and the Restoring Fish Passage from Lake Erie to the River Raisin proposal submitted by the City of Monroe, the targets for these two BUIs can be met.

Project Schedule

Water-level componentEngineering and design of water control structures and dikes Sep 2010-Mar 2011Secure DNRE Land and Water Management permit Sep 2010-Mar 2011Solicit bids on dike repair and water control structures Mar-Jun 2011Perform dike repair (earthmoving) Jul 2011-Jun 2012Install water control structures and associated infrastructure Jul 2011-Jun 2012Prepare report on water-level component* June 30, 2015* Report to be combined and submitted with phragmites component

Phragmites componentContact partners Jul-Dec 2010Identify and map wetland areas to be treated Jul-Dec 2010Secure DNRE Aquatic Nuisance Control permit Jan-Jun 2011Prepare contract specifications and solicit bids May-Jul 2011Perform initial chemical controls & map phragmites treated Aug-Sep 2011Follow-up with partners and evaluate treatments Oct-Apr (annually)



Secure DNRE Aquatic Nuisance Control permit Apr-Jun (annually)Prepare contract specifications and solicit bids May-Jul (annually)Perform follow-up chemical controls & map phragmites treated Aug-Sep (annually)Prepare report on phragmites component June 30, 2015

Habitat Evaluation/monitoring componentEstablish monitoring partnership/contract Jul 2010-Mar 2011Baseline field surveys of wetlands, aquatic species, and shorebirds Apr-Oct 2011Data analysis Nov 2011-Mar 2012Initial status report March 31, 2012Follow-up field surveys of wetlands, aquatic species, and shorebirds Apr-Oct, 2014Data analysis Nov 2014-Mar 2015Final report on status of wetlands, rare species, and shorebirds March 31, 2015

Final Project Report (summarizing all three components) June 30, 2015

Cost-effectiveness and Efficiencies for EPA Oversight

DNRE, RD has conducted annual follow-up phragmites control in portions of Sterling State Park for several years. Efficiencies are gained by building on existing staff experience and time already dedicated to phragmites control. With very little additional staff time we can administer the greatly expanded scope of the work proposed under this grant and integrate partners. The grant would fund relatively small amounts of staff time; the remaining staff time needed to complete the project and coordinate with partners will be absorbed by other existing funding sources currently covering those individuals’ time spent at Sterling State Park.

If grants are awarded for both this project and the William C. Sterling State Park Marsh and Prairie Restoration project, both projects would be administered by the same agency, have the same lead staff, and would occur within or adjacent to Sterling State Park. Additionally, if the Restoring Fish Passage from Lake Erie to the River Raisin proposal submitted by the City of Monroe is funded, EPA oversight for all three projects could be coordinated to minimize site visits and increase efficiency of administration. If all three projects are implemented with fiscal year 2010 GLRI funds, it is estimated that 90-100 percent of the restoration actions identified in the Fish and Wildlife Delisting Target document will be achieved.

The budget and timeline of the project and individual components are straightforward, with a small number of large expenditures rather than many small expenditures expected, due to the emphasis on contracting phragmites control and earthmoving work and funding large equipment for water control. The type of work proposed in this project is relatively easy to monitor and inspect; phragmites reduction should be highly visible and lagoon water control structures should be easy to access and view. The DNRE is currently gaining experience with ARRA reporting. This experience will inform DNRE’s proper and timely preparation of the necessary progress reports in the format required.

Education and Outreach

Interpretive panels along paved pathways that border the project marshes currently describe wetland resources and many of the ongoing restoration activities at the park, including the impacts of phragmites. Through this, many park visitors have become aware of importance Sterling’s wetlands and the necessity of invasive plant control. DNRE will develop new panels to inform the public on



shorebirds and their habitat at two or more observation locations. Additional interpretive signage will be installed along the newly constructed trail along the Union Camp Marsh as DNRE funding allows.

The collaboration with partners for cooperative phragmites control is another education and outreach aspect of this project. Many neighboring residents, businesses, and other governmental agencies have phragmites on their properties, but little or no effort has been made to date to engage them in a cooperative effort to conduct River Raisin delta-wide control. This project would greatly enhance cooperation among these varied landowners, increase their awareness of the issue of invasive species locally and in the Great Lakes basin, and enhance information transfer between partners, including federal, state, and local government agencies, private business, and residents. While there is good information currently available on phragmites control, there is always much to be learned from others’ experience with control efforts.

Another form of outreach will be in the form of “observable local impacts” from the reduction in phragmites along roadsides (including the heavily-traveled I-75, a gateway route into Michigan) and trails (including the newly constructed universally accessible trail between the City of Monroe and Sterling State Park), at the local golf course, and in the yards of local residences along Sandy Creek. Phragmites is highly visible throughout Monroe County; a major reduction in phragmites cover in this project area will be noticeable to the public. Sterling State Park is visited by at least 500,000 people annually. A heavily-used 2.5 mile universally accessible trail with interpretive panels surrounds the Hunt Club marsh and extends along the northern and western boundaries of the Union Camp marsh. Spotting scopes are available on the east side of the Hunt Club marsh for wildlife viewing. Through DNRE’s state park explorer program, a seasonal explorer guide presents programs to park visitors throughout the summer at Sterling State Park. Additional programming will be designed to emphasize shorebirds and Great Lakes marsh. With the combination of interpretive displays and accessible viewing opportunities at a busy park, this project will be highly visible and the information gained from the project can be easily communicated to a large audience.

This project could be used as a model for other similar AOC-level or watershed-level invasive species control efforts. All partners involved in this project will inevitably learn things that work and things that don’t work when it comes to combined phragmites control efforts. The federal and state partners in the project can use the information in other projects elsewhere in the Great Lakes basin. The information can also be shared in this project’s final report, available publicly to other groups interested in initiating a local invasive species control partnership.

A final educational component is that the River Raisin AOC PAC and other stakeholders in the AOC vicinity will benefit from the baseline and monitoring data collected on wetlands and key species as part of this project. These data will be useful in future restoration planning efforts.

9. Outcomes, Outputs, and Expected Results

Outcomes of this project will include all three outcomes identified for the Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Focus Area of this RFP. Restoration of wetland habitats will increase within the project area, the conditions of native fish and wildlife are expected to improve as a result of the habitat restoration, and Great Lakes decision makers (in this case local and state governmental agencies, private organizations and individual property owners with Great Lakes wetlands) will be using available information to initiate wetland restoration actions on their properties. This project, together with DNRE’s William C Sterling State Park Marsh and Prairie Restoration project and the Restoring Fish Passage from Lake Erie to the River Raisin proposal submitted by the City of Monroe, will meet 90-100 percent of the delisting targets for the two fish and wildlife habitat-related BUIs in the River Raisin AOC.



The primary output of this project, consistent with the expected outputs identified in the Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Focus Area, will be the restoration (through water level management and/or phragmites control) of at least 1,100 acres of wetland habitat in the River Raisin AOC and immediate vicinity.

Expected results for this project are consistent with the expected results described for the Habitat Restoration in Great Lakes AOC program area in this RFP. The RFP specifies that expected results should include acres restored and wildlife condition improvement. Expected results of this project are as follows:

Phragmites will be controlled within 1,100 acres of wetlands in the northern River Raisin delta on public and private lands. Phragmites control is a critical component, and often the most critical component, in restoration of these wetlands.

310 acres of wetland will be restored such that water level control can be used to manage invasive plant populations and to provide suitable shorebird stopover habitat during migration.

The following specific measurements will be used to quantify the outcomes, outputs, and results of this project:

The number of acres of wetland included in the phragmites treatment contract(s) will be reported each year. The acreage will include all wetland areas surveyed and treated each year by the contractor(s), including dense, sparse, patchy, and isolated phragmites populations. To achieve the expected results, a minimum 1,100 acres of wetlands within the project area will be surveyed and treated under the phragmites control contract(s).

The number of acres of actual phragmites treated each year will also be mapped using GPS, and the quantity of chemical required to treat the extant phragmites will be recorded. The project will be considered a success (achieving expected results) if the number of acres of actual phragmites found and treated in the final year of the project is less than 50 percent of the number of acres of phragmites found and treated in the same wetland area in the first year of the project. Also, the quantity of annual chemical use should decrease, corresponding to a decrease in the density and vigor of phragmites. It is anticipated that the reduction in cover will be closer to 80 percent or more, but local site factors may reduce the effectiveness or length of time required for follow-up treatments.

The number of acres of wetland within which water level management is functioning at the conclusion of the project will be measured. The project will be considered a success (achieving expected results) if at least 310 acres of wetland has functioning water level management capability.

Habitat within the diked wetlands will be assessed to determine the number of acres of suitable habitat for migratory shorebirds during the fall migration season. This partially addresses the outcome of improving the condition of wildlife in the project area. The project will be considered successful if, by the conclusion of the project, at least 150 acres of suitable stopover habitat for migratory shorebirds can be made available during the spring or fall migration season. Suitable habitat attributes to be evaluated will include substrate (flooded, mudflat, or saturated); depth of water (moist soil to 24 cm depth); vegetation height (none to medium height); vegetation density (sparse to moderate); and size of area (patches greater than 2 acres) as defined and described in the report titled Migratory Bird Stopover Site Attributes in the Western Lake Erie Basin (www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/gund_stopover_rpt_2006apr20_final.pdf).

Relative populations of shorebirds within the project area will be estimated annually. Periodic ocular surveys and point counts (using Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II point count protocols available at www.michigan.gov/documents/mbba_handbook_119710_7.pdf) will be






conducted from dikes surrounding the wetlands with water control during the fall migration season. This measurement addresses the outcome related to the condition of native wildlife. The project will be considered successful if the number and diversity of shorebirds, as measured by point counts, is increased during the project period.



10. Collaboration, Partnerships, and Overarching Plans

DNRE, RD has been participating in an effort lead by The Nature Conservancy to bring partners together to provide stopover habitat for shorebirds in the western Lake Erie basin.

A critical component of this project is the collaborative phragmites control effort. The lead agency (DNRE, RD) will work with partners to control phragmites on public and private lands within the project area. Current partners in the phragmites control effort who have written letters of support include: Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Michigan Department of Transportation, River Raisin Marina and Campground, and Frenchtown Charter Township Resort District Authority. Other potential partners who have expressed an interest in participating in the project include: International Transmission Company, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Homrich, Inc., City of Monroe, River Raisin Golf Course, and various Detroit Beach subdivision private landowners. By initiating this collaborative project, many critical stakeholders in the River Raisin delta will become active in a coordinated effort to control phragmites. This will facilitate the dissemination of knowledge about the impacts of phragmites, the importance of controlling invasive species, and the importance of maintaining and restoring wetlands on private lands in the River Raisin delta. It is expected that partners will assist in identifying and delineating phragmites infestations to be controlled, and facilitating the work of contractors on their lands. DNRE, RD will work closely with the partners, develop the control specifications, and contract for annual control and follow-up phragmites treatments.

The River Raisin Wetland Enhancement and Habitat Evaluation Project complements two other projects currently being proposed under the same EPA funding program. This project, together with the “Restoring Fish Passage from Lake Erie to the River Raisin” proposal submitted by the City of Monroe and the “William C. Sterling State Park Marsh and Prairie Restoration” proposal submitted by DNRE would complete 90-100 percent of the work recommended to achieve the loss of fish and wildlife habitat BUI target in the River Raisin AOC. This statement is validated by Michigan’s draft Strategy for Delisting Michigan’s Great Lakes Areas of Concern (www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-AOC-delisting-strategy_306163_7.pdf - reference pages 3 and 4 of the tracking table). The River Raisin AOC’s Fish and Wildlife Habitat Plan, titled “Delisting Targets for Fish/Wildlife Habitat & Population Related Beneficial Use Impairments for the River Raisin Area of Concern” (http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/monroe/published_documents/City%20of%20Monroe/Reports%20and%20Studies/Raisin%20River%20Area%20of%20Concern%20Delisting%20Target%20Final%20Report%20120508.pdf) lists four restoration projects to be implemented to achieve delisting of the impairments. This application includes a large portion of “Restoration Project 1” and “Restoration Project 4”. The “William C Sterling State Park Marsh and Prairie Restoration” project completes “Restoration Project 1”. The “Restoring Fish Passage from Lake Erie to the River Raisin” project being submitted by the City of Monroe addresses “Restoration Project 3”.

This project is consistent with and is being proposed under the guidance of Michigan’s Strategic Framework for the 2010 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/MIStrategicFrameworkfor2010GLRIDec09_305297_7.pdf).

The Remedial Action Plan for River Raisin Area of Concern was first published in 1987 (www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rvraisn/1987_River%20Raisin%20RAP.pdf). The major impairments discussed in the original plan revolved around PCB contamination. A River Raisin Remedial Action Plan Update (www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rvraisn/2002_Raisin%20RAP%20update.pdf) was issued in 2002, at which time a list of 10 BUIs were listed and described. These included the “loss of fish and wildlife habitat”. The River Raisin PAC established a goal in the 2002 plan to address this BUI,

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rvraisn/2002_Raisin%20RAP%20update.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rvraisn/1987_River%20Raisin%20RAP.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/MIStrategicFrameworkfor2010GLRIDec09_305297_7.pdf




http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-AOC-delisting-strategy_306163_7.pdf



which was stated as “Maintain or increase the quantity and quality of wetlands in the watershed.” In addition, a “natural features inventory” was identified as a need to address causes of impairment.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (now DNRE) produced a Biennial Remedial Action Plan Update for the River Raisin Area of Concern in 2007 (www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rvraisn/2007_RaisinUpdateRap.pdf). This document again listed the loss of fish and wildlife habitat BUI, as well as degradation of fish and wildlife populations BUIs as currently impaired. In 2008, the fish and wildlife technical committee formed for the River Raisin AOC and developed the delisting targets (or restoration criteria) and identified potential restoration actions to address these two BUIs. These targets were developed pursuant to the Guidance for Delisting Michigan’s Great Lakes Areas of Concern (www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-aoc-delistguide_247421_7.pdf). As described above, this project would complete “Restoration Project 4” and a large portion of “Restoration Project 1” in the fish and wildlife habitat plan, making large progress towards delisting the fish and wildlife habitat BUIs.

This project is also consistent with the most recent draft of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (www.co.monroe.mi.us/government/departments_offices/planning_department_and_commission/docs/MONROE_COUNTY_COMPREHENSIVE_PLAN___draft.pdf). Specifically, this project would be consistent with the land use objective “Preserve unique natural and cultural resources”, and with the natural resource objective “Inventory existing wetlands, woodlands and other natural habitats and develop mechanisms to protect their functions and values.” As part of this natural resource objective, the plan states that the county should “Participate in state and national efforts to prevent the spread of introduced, exotic species which destroy natural areas.”

The Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lamp/le_2008/le_2008.pdf) has several ecosystem management objectives (section 3.3.3). The Land Use tactical objective states “Land use activities result in gains in the quantity and quality of natural habitats in order to support the maximum amount of native biodiversity and community integrity that can be achieved and be sustained for the benefit of future generations.” This project would result in a gain in the quality of natural marsh habitat, which would promote native biodiversity and community integrity. The Non-native Invasive Species tactical objective states “Non-native invasive species should be prevented from colonizing the Lake Erie ecosystem. Existing non-native invasive species should be controlled and reduced where feasible and consistent with other objectives.” It further states that “The LaMP has identified invasive non-native species as one of the key problems impairing the Lake Erie ecosystem.” The proposed project would control invasive species in wetlands in the north River Raisin delta, through phragmites control and water level manipulation. The Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan Habitat Strategy identifies three objectives that would be addressed by this proposed project: “Restore, rehabilitate or reclaim functional habitats and ecosystems”, “Prevent further introductions of aquatic and terrestrial non-native invasive species and reduce their impacts on habitat in the Lake Erie basin”, and “Increase public awareness and involvement in protecting and restoring Lake Erie habitats.” Public awareness would be increased by involving partners to control phragmites across multiple private and public ownerships. Property owners involved in the partnership include many of the key landowners in the River Raisin delta.

The draft Raisin River Watershed Management Plan (riverraisin.org/raisin_projects/319grant/wmp_draft_sept_07) describes invasive species as “one of the biggest threats to the significant natural features of the River Raisin watershed” (section 3.8.3). Phragmites is specifically mentioned as one of the “most problematic invasive plants in the watershed” (section 3.8.3.2). In the Watershed Goals portion of the plan, a goal relevant to this proposed project is to “Create wetlands map – identify potential wetland areas.” The draft plan does not yet have a detailed implementation plan and many relevant portions of the watershed action plan section are still blank; no specific sites are listed yet as targets for restoration.

http://riverraisin.org/raisin_projects/319grant/wmp_draft_sept_07

http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lamp/le_2008/le_2008.pdf

http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/government/departments_offices/planning_department_and_commission/docs/MONROE_COUNTY_COMPREHENSIVE_PLAN___draft.pdf

http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/government/departments_offices/planning_department_and_commission/docs/MONROE_COUNTY_COMPREHENSIVE_PLAN___draft.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-aoc-delistguide_247421_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-aoc-delistguide_247421_7.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rvraisn/2007_RaisinUpdateRap.pdf



The River Raisin Wetland Enhancement and Habitat Evaluation Project also dovetails well with many of the broad goals outlined in the MI Great Lakes Plan (www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/MI-GLPlan_262388_7.pdf). One specific goal is to restore 500,000 acres of wetlands by 2079, and 18,000 acres within 3 years. The Species Management and Habitat Protection Goal also supports the type of work being proposed in this project. Key MI Great Lakes Plan recommendations include the advancement of habitat restoration in AOCs, especially in urban areas, and to develop scientifically valid methods to track and evaluate the effectiveness of restoration activities.

The Upper Mississippi Valley/ Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/downloads/UMVGL5.doc), a component of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, states that “Managed wetlands are valuable because they can provide optimal habitat for shorebirds when natural wetlands are affected by drought or flooding.” The plan also states “Installation of water control structures, pumping systems, and dikes on developed sites should be a priority within the region to increase management capabilities and options for individual basins or wetland complexes.” This shorebird plan lists “restoration of wetlands and grasslands” and “habitat management activities and infrastructure, including water control structures, pumping systems, dikes, impoundments, and farming equipment” as regional priorities for funding.

The project site lies within the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network’s dedicated “Lake Erie Marshes” site (www.whsrn.org/western-hemisphere-shorebird-reserve-network), further supporting the project’s regional significance to migratory shorebirds.

The “Western Lake Erie Basin” has also been identified at the state level as an Important Bird Area (iba.audubon.org/iba/stateIndex.do?state=US-MI), primarily because of the area’s importance for wintering and migrating waterfowl.

The report titled Migratory Bird Stopover Site Attributes in the Western Lake Erie Basin (www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/gund_stopover_rpt_2006apr20_final.pdf ) describes the important stopover habitat attributes required by shorebirds, waterfowl, songbirds, and other birds. The modeling completed in this plan specifically identified portions of Sterling State Park and wetlands in the northern River Raisin delta as “Very High Priority” stopover habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and landbirds.

This project would also benefit many species of greatest conservation need as defined in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_30909---,00.html), especially several wetland-dependent birds (e.g., king rail, common moorhen, marsh wren), amphibians, and reptiles (e.g., eastern fox snake). The focus of this project is on the “coastal emergent wetland” landscape feature. Invasive species are identified in the Wildlife Action Plan as one of the two highest priority threats statewide to Michigan’s species of greatest conservation need and the landscape features that support them. Invasive species are identified as the highest priority threat in the Lake Erie basin. Priority conservation actions identified in the Lake Erie basin and addressed by this proposed project include “prevent and control introduction and establishment of aquatic invasive species,” “protect and rehabilitate wetlands,” and “expand the education programs for the general public regarding natural processes, invasive species, hydrologic cycles and stewardship issues.”

Moving forward with this project to restore and enhance wetlands in the north River Raisin delta would clearly be in concert with all of the major natural resource-related plans in the watershed, and would take a large step towards removing the fish and wildlife habitat BUI in the River Raisin AOC.

11. Programmatic Capability and Past Performance

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_30909---,00.html



http://iba.audubon.org/iba/stateIndex.do?state=US-MI

http://www.whsrn.org/western-hemisphere-shorebird-reserve-network

http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/downloads/UMVGL5.doc

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/MI-GLPlan_262388_7.pdf



Michigan DNRE has a long history and significant experience working with federally-funded grants (competitive and apportioned) and other assistance agreements, annually totaling over $20,000,000. DNRE has dedicated federal aid staff that is very familiar with all the reporting requirements and intricacies of administering federal grants. Recent large-scale grants to DNRE include:

C-2-L-1 “Bete Grise Coastal Wetlands Acquisition” – USFWS: Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program administered NCWC grant – $1,000,000 federal funds matched with $488,443 in state and partner funds – 2005-2009

2008-0116-022 “Incentives for Hayland and Pasture Management” – NFWF administered NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) – $402,500 in federal funds matched by $402,500 in state funds – 2008-2011

E-17-HCP “Development of a Multi-state Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat Conservation Plan” – US FWS: Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program administered CESCF grant – $880,000 in federal funds matched with $97,777 in state and partner funds – 2006-2009

W-148-M-5 “Comprehensive Operations and Maintenance of Wildlife Management Areas” – US FWS: Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program administered PR grant – $2,649,750 in federal funds matched with $583,250 in state funds along with $300,000 in program income – 2008-2009

T-9-T-1 “Michigan’s Comprehensive State Wildlife Grant” – US FWS: Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program administered SWG grant – $1,058,574 in federal funds matched with $1,058,574 in state funds with $455,780 in partner contributions – 2008-2009

Michigan DNRE is audited regularly under the above grants and others and no recent problems have been reported. Required progress and financial reports were submitted in a timely manner on all of the above grants. DNRE, RD has also received funds and administered several Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants (federal funds passed through Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (now part of DNRE), including a $531,000 grant to conduct lakeplain prairie and Great Lakes marsh restoration at Sterling State Park from 2003-2005 (Project # 02CR-1.08). All requirements of this grant were met, including meeting the stated measurable goals of the project, producing quarterly progress reports, and producing a final report on time as required.

DNRE, RD has seven years of experience successfully controlling phragmites at Sterling State Park (within the project area) and extensive experience controlling phragmites and other invasives at many other state parks and recreation areas throughout the state. The primary staff involved in planning and executing this project (project lead Ray Fahlsing and ecologist Glenn Palmgren) are the same individuals who have been planning and implementing successful phragmites control activities at Sterling State Park and elsewhere on state park lands for many years. At Bay City Recreation Area, the project team has quantitatively documented successful phragmites reduction within 43 acres of Great Lakes marsh from a starting point of 74% coverage of phragmites down to 22% coverage in 3 years and further down to 15% coverage after 5 years of follow-up treatment. Resumes are attached for these individuals. Ray Fahlsing and Glenn Palmgren routinely field questions about how to successfully control phragmites from others within DNRE and persons outside the organization. Letters of support from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy are attached to further support the merit of the proposed project.

Michigan DNRE also has extensive experience constructing and maintaining hundreds of acres of diked wetlands and water control structures. While most of the prior experience has been on state game and wildlife areas administered by Wildlife Division, the individual personnel with such experience are easily accessible and available to provide expertise and guidance on this project. Michigan DNRE employs engineers and biologists with ample expertise and experience to successfully design or oversee the design and implementation of dike repair and water control structure installation, maintenance, and operation.



DNRE also has extensive experience bidding and administering contracts for services including invasive plant control, earth-moving, and natural feature-related research and assessments. Contracts of this nature are routinely administered by the Department almost every year. The personnel dedicated to this project have personally been extensively involved in the contracting and contract administration process for over 10 years. DNRE buyers will oversee all procurement for this project and DNRE accountants will oversee all accounting for this project. Dedicated DNRE Federal Aid staff will ensure all federal grant requirements associated with this project are met or exceeded.

The personnel involved in this project have extensive experience contracting for invasive plant control and ensuring that control activities are carried out correctly according to specifications and in a timely manner during the optimal window for effectiveness. These personnel are also familiar with the time it takes to plan and execute contract projects from start to finish, and have used this knowledge to build an appropriate and realistic timeline for this project that should be feasible to achieve.

12. Budget

Personnel/Salaries0.030 FTE/year for Michigan DNRE Ecologist

(contract specification development and monitoring)0.020 FTE/year for DNRE Aquatic Nuisance permitting staff0.114 FTE for DNRE Water Resource staff

$ 24,810

Fringe Benefits $ 11,825Travel $ 1,000Equipment

Pumps, three-phase electrical power equipment, spill gates,and related equipment for water control in 2 lagoons

$ 410,000

Supplies $ 300Contract Costs

Phragmites control contracts (annual for 5 years)Engineering of dikes and water controlEarth moving for dike construction and repairInstallation of water control equipmentHabitat evaluation and monitoring

$ 890,589

Total Direct Charges $ 1,338,524

Indirect Charges18.84% of Salaries and Fringe)0.34% of project cost for Audit

$ 11,476

Total Cost $ 1,350,000

13. ACORN Statement

The State of Michigan, DNRE is not affiliated or allied with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and will not provide any funds under this grant to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.

14. Attachments



Attachments include a resume for Ray Fahlsing, a curriculum vitae for Glenn Palmgren, letters of support and commitment, and three maps referenced in the text.

DRAFT - Bid4Michigan… · Web viewPumps, three-phase electrical power equipment, spill gates,...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT - Bid4Michigan… · Web viewPumps, three-phase electrical power equipment, spill gates,...