Summary of Volunteer Effort

Similar documents
Frog and Toad Survey 2014 By Jessica Kitchell, Andrew Badje, and Tara Bergeson

Wildlife Introduction

Lye Brook Amphibian Monitoring. Update. For the Vermont Monitoring Cooperative

HOP TO IT!! GUNFLINT TRAIL FROGS & TOADS

Amphibian Calling Survey Summary 2011

Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Field Notes Summer 2010 Welcome

Amphibian Calling Survey Summary 2008

Species and Habitat Studies: Amphibian and Other Aquatic Species Research Update

Frog and Toad Survey, 2000 By Brian Dhuey, and Bob Hay

AQUATIC HABITAT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS PREDICT DISTRIBUTION OF AMPHIBIANS IN ELKHORN SLOUGH. January 16 th, 2007

Bear Lake. Final Results Portage County Lake Study. March 31, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Portage County Staff and Citizens

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

Salamanders and Frogs!

Thunder Bay River Assessment

DELAWARE WILDLIFE JUDGING LEADER S GUIDE 2018

Deer Management Unit 252

Wisconsin Frog and Toad Survey

Frogs of Anderson County, TN

SUMMARIZING FROG AND TOAD COUNT DATA

INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE DOS PALMAS AREA

Information needs for resource management in and around Florida Bay

Rouge River Benthic Monitoring Program Spring 2013 Report

/ FACEBOOK / TWITTER / INSTAGRAM:

Pre-skit set up Lay temporary pool rug under center of curtain. Cover water with both leaf overlays with the smaller center cover on the top.

Amphibian Monitoring on Mt. Mansfield, Underhill, Vermont

Grandpa s Farm. Where are the frog songs? I asked, as I hopped over to the railing.

7 8 Mahogany Creek views downstream and upstream along creek corridor from Manotick Main Street (1, 2), Bridgeport Avenue (3, 4) and Century Road

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Mt. Mansfield Amphibian Monitoring. Update

Assessment of Baseline Geomorphic Features at. Proposed Stream Crossings On The Proposed County Road 595. Marquette County, Michigan

Association of Wetland Stewards for Clayoquot & Barkley Sounds June 2015 SPLAT UPDATE

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: CANADA COAST TO COAST

AFTER HOURS/URGENT CARE CENTERS

Brook Trout in Massachusetts: A Troubled History, A Hopeful Future

Gator Hole Graphics. There is usually a six-month period

Wildlife. Contest Details: The contest shall be divided into team and individual activities. The following is a breakdown of the scoring to be used.

Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Trevor Oussoren, program manager, Columbia region. CRT Workshop, Fauquier, June 15, 2013

THE IMPACT OF RECREATIONAL CRABBING ON NORTH CAROLINA S CRAB POPULATION

Results from the 2012 Quail Action Plan Landowner Survey

LIVING WITH WILDLIFE: PACIFIC TREEFROG

A Comprehensive Swimmer s Itch Control Program for Higgins Lake

Cold Small River. A Brief Ecological Description of this Michigan River Type

Upper Iowa River Watershed GIS Analysis

A Survey of Bone Lake s Frogs and Toads in 2012

Ontonagon River Assessment

Directions to Huron League Schools

Aquatic Biological Assessment. Lassen 15 Restoration Project. Modoc National Forest Warner Mountain Ranger District

Aquatic Plant Point-Intercept Survey for Pike Lake, Scott County, Minnesota

Ranchers create ponds, wetlands in Owyhee County in partnership with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Searsville Dam Removal

Eastern Brook Trout. Roadmap to

Rip Currents: A Survey of Beach Users

Executive Summary. Map 1. The Santa Clara River watershed with topography.

Eastern Brook Trout: Status and Threats

Python Management in South Florida

MARKET STUDY FOR BOATING ON THE MINNESOTA WATERS OF LAKE SUPERIOR

MDWFP Aerial Waterfowl Survey Report. December 18-23, 2018

Wildlife Ad Awareness & Attitudes Survey 2015

Summer Steelhead Surveys North Fork Trinity River Trinity County, California

Winter Drawdown Issues of Concern

2018 New Hampshire Envirothon: Fish and Wildlife Test. 1. barred owl 13. Canada lynx. 2. bobolink 14. porcupine. 3. spring peeper 15.

An Assessment of Quality in Underwater Archaeological Surveys Using Tape Measurements

Proposed Changes to the Catch Sharing Plan

Kensington Valley Classic Founders Park Farmington Hills, MI May 19-20, U

Amphibian Monitoring on Mt. Mansfield, Vermont

Results of the 2015 nontidal Potomac River watershed Smallmouth Bass Young of Year Survey

SECTION 2 HYDROLOGY AND FLOW REGIMES

Rouge River Watershed 2016 Winter Stonefly Search

Observations of Deer and Wolves during the 2017 Moose Survey

Newsletter Spring 2014

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,

Reduction in Biological Diversity Section 4.1 p Section 4.3 p

A REVIEW OF OTTER RECORDS FROM THE BRUE VALLEY

Deer Management Unit 152

2018 South Carolina FFA Association State Wildlife Contest

The Leopard Frogs of New Jersey

Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. Update

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

PASER Road Survey. For Berrien County, Michigan

Community Engagement Process

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES SURVEY: Prepared by: Heather E. Milligan

CHAPTER 10 TOTAL RECREATIONAL FISHING DAMAGES AND CONCLUSIONS

Columbia Lake Dam Removal Project

INVENTORY OF VERNAL POOLS ALONG THE MASSACHUSETTS PORTION OF THE GREATER SPRINGFIELD RELIABILITY PROJECT

Goldfish Removal Millar s Pond. Resort Municipality of Whistler

Real Time (RT) Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) Simulation April 14, 2014 Sierra Nevada Mountains, California

Table 1. Physical Characteristics of Your Lake.

ELIZABETH RIVER FACTS

Real Time (RT) Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) Simulation February 25, 2014 Sierra Nevada Mountains, California

Last Call for Master Plan Comments

PASER Road Survey. For Berrien County, Michigan

Real Time (RT) Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) Simulation May 26, 2014 Sierra Nevada Mountains, California

Data Analysis February to March 2018 Identified safety needs from reported collisions and existing travel patterns. SFMTA Board of

Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Oregon and Washington

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DUFFINS CREEK AND CARRUTHERS CREEK JUNE, 2004

GRAHAM PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Species at Risk. Provincial Government Overview. September 13 rd, Kendra Morgan, R.P.Bio.

Hunter Perceptions of Chronic Wasting Disease in Illinois

Transcription:

2010 Rouge River Watershed Frog and Toad Survey Friends of the Rouge University of Michigan-Dearborn 4901 Evergreen Road 220 ASC, Dearborn, MI 48128 www.therouge.org The Rouge River Watershed Frog and Toad Survey is a volunteer listening survey that has been coordinated by Friends of the Rouge since 1998. Volunteers are trained to recognize local frog and toad breeding calls and survey quarter-square-mile blocks within the Rouge River watershed from March through July. The purpose of the survey is to collect baseline data on the distribution of frogs and toads within the watershed as well as to give residents of an urbanizing area a positive experience with their local natural areas. The survey is supported by a grant from the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project and donations from Rouge communities and participants. Summary of Volunteer Effort This was the thirteenth year of the Rouge River Watershed Frog and Toad Survey. There were 348 attendees at the four survey training workshops and 521 volunteers signed up to survey 400 blocks in 278 teams. We received data for 179 survey blocks (see Table 1 below). Figure 1: Rouge Subwatersheds Table 1: Survey Blocks by Subwatershed # blocks surveyed average # species heard Subwatershed Main 1-2 51 2.6 Upper 26 2.6 Middle 1 48 3.9 Lower 1 30 3.8 Lower 2 5 2.8 Middle 3 10 2.0 Main 3-4 8 1.4 Total 179 2010 Survey Results 2010 Survey Results In 2010, the subwatershed (Figure 1) with the highest average number of species heard was the Middle 1 with an average of 3.9 species calling per block. Middle 1 contains Salem Township, Northville, parts of Plymouth and Plymouth Township, south Walled Lake and Novi and is in the headwaters. A close second was the Lower 1 subwatershed with an average of 3.8 species per block. The Lower 1 contains Superior and Canton Townships, part of Plymouth, Romulus, and Van Buren. The subwatershed with the lowest average number of species heard was the Main 3-4 with only 1.4 species per block. The Main 3-4 is the most industrialized downstream portion of the Rouge River so this would be expected. It was very encouraging that three species were heard by 1

volunteers in the midst of industry at the Ford Rouge plant in Dearborn in some recently created wetlands. It was a good year for frogs and toads in the watershed. All species except wood frogs were heard in a higher percentage of blocks than last year and wood frogs were heard in the same percentage of blocks as last year. Compared to average, western chorus frogs and spring peepers were heard in fewer blocks while wood frogs, American toads, northern leopard frogs, gray treefrogs, green frogs and bullfrogs were heard in a higher percentage of blocks than average. Table 2: Percent of blocks in which species was heard, 1998-2010 species 2010 20092008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Average, 2002 2001 2000 1999** 1998* 2001-10 Wood Frog 27 27 24 29 19 29 19 23 20 17 14 30 55 23 Western Chorus Frog 49 46 47 57 49 57 46 48 52 49 50 64 80 50 Spring Peeper 49 46 56 62 55 57 41 45 50 47 48 67 83 51 American Toad 88 84 89 87 78 74 61 62 71 58 49 50 54 74 Northern Leopard 19 14 18 21 12 22 5 Frog 18 8 9 5 5 14 Gray Treefrog 62 48 53 64 48 57 37 40 35 37 47 40 47 Green Frog 72 68 74 70 70 64 51 53 39 38 15 30 59 Bullfrog 17 12 22 17 10 22 10 13 5 7 0 2 13 *Only Middle 1subwatershed surveyed **Only Middle 1 and Lower 1 subwatersheds surveyed 2

Wood Frogs were heard in 27% of all watershed blocks and all but the Middle 3 subwatersheds. The percentage of blocks with Wood Frogs calling was the same as last year and above average for what has been heard 2001-2010. 3

Western Chorus Frogs were heard in 49% of survey blocks and in all seven subwatersheds. In comparison to last year, there were more Chorus Frogs heard but less than the average. 4

5 Spring Peepers were heard in 49% of survey blocks and in all but the Main 3/4 subwatershed. They were heard in more blocks than last year but less than average over time.

The American Toad was the most commonly heard frog or toad as it has been since 2001. Heard in 88% of all blocks, the American Toad was heard in a higher percentage of survey blocks than last year and more than average. 6

Northern Leopard Frogs, one of the most sensitive species in the watershed, were heard in 19% of the survey blocks this year. This is higher than last year and above average for the species. They were not heard in the Lower 2, Middle 3, or Main 3-4 subwatersheds. 7

Gray Treefrogs were heard in 62% of the survey blocks and in all seven subwatersheds for the first time. They were heard in far more blocks than last year as well as far more than the average of 47%. 8

Green frogs were heard in over half of the survey blocks (72%) and in all seven subwatersheds. This is up from last year and above the average of 59% for Green Frogs. 9

10 Bullfrogs were heard in 17% of survey blocks and in all seven subwatersheds. This is up from last year and above the average.

11