Chapter 6 - Land Acquisition and Management

Five-Year Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2013-2017

Chapter 6: Land Acquisition and Management – Page 1

CHAPTER 6

Land Acquisition and Management CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Reasons to Acquire New Parkland ................................................................................................................................. 3 Conservation Planning ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Physical Landscape ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Natural Heritage ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Water Resources – Watershed Planning ..................................................................................................................... 12 Water Resources – Wetland Conservation .................................................................................................................. 14 Green Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Natural Resources Management Philosophy .............................................................................................................. 18 Environmental Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 20 Redevelopment and Adaptive Re-Use ......................................................................................................................... 21 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Land Evaluation Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Map Section ................................................................................................................................................................. 26 References ................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28

FIGURES Figure A: Eco-Regions of Michigan ................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure B: Pre-European Settlement Map ..................................................................................................................... 10 Figure C: Status of Watershed Planning in Southeast Michigan.................................................................................. 12 Figure D: Watersheds in Oakland County .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure E: Wetland Map of Oakland County ................................................................................................................. 15 Figure F: Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision ............................................................................................. 17 Figure G: 2011 Land Use Map ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure H: Composite Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 24

TABLES Table 1: List of Natural Communities Occurring in Oakland County ........................................................................... 11 Table 2: Watershed Plans in Oakland County .............................................................................................................. 12


Page 2

This page left intentionally blank



Introduction Oakland County has a diverse community base, ranging from the very rural to the very urban. OCPRC manages just over 6,700 acres of parkland in 13 parks in Oakland County, which includes 3,146 acres of undeveloped natural areas. The reserve of natural areas in OCRPC’s parks is part of Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision. Most of these areas are within the headwaters of five river systems, all of which are important to the long-term health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Acquisition of land to protect water and natural resources remains a high priority for OCPRC and has been cited as a top priority for respondents to state and regional surveys, including OCPRC’s 2010 Community Survey (Leisure Vision, 2010).

While OCPRC has traditionally focused on more rural types of outdoor recreation, the growing trend toward livable and walkable communities is an impetus to increased integration of Oakland County parkland and recreation programs into the heart of the urban parts of our county. Ensuring recreational access in the more urbanized parts of the county may require investigating land that has not traditionally been considered optimal for recreation. OCPRC will assess a variety of possibilities, including post-industrial and other already developed sites. Excellent examples exist of cities, such as Minneapolis, Minnesota and Columbus, Ohio, which have assembled the necessary partnerships and funding to convert brownfields to public parkland. In many cases, park development worked hand-in-hand with economic development – creating jobs and new commercial and entertainment space.

This chapter provides an overview of the land resources available for the establishment of additional parkland in Oakland County and is one component of a comprehensive land acquisition protocol for OCPRC. The need for a land acquisition strategy was identified in OCPRC’s 2008 Strategic Plan (PROS Consulting, 2008). It is also a best practice identified by the Commission on the Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA)1: The agency should have established policies and procedures for the acquisition of lands for park, recreation, conservation, and historical-cultural purposes (Standard 7.1) (NRPA, 2012). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources in its Guidelines for Recreation Plans provides the following: Identify open space land that may be desirable for future protection and/or public access through acquisition or other means due to the natural features present, as well as an account of land that is already protected (MDNR, 2012).

Reasons to Acquire New Parkland The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) has developed a set of criteria for acquisition of parkland in the region (SEMCOG a, 2012). They are provided here as a resource for the development of OCPRC’s land acquisition strategy and are intended as an aid in making a subjective decision to acquire land using objective information.

Natural resource frontage If a natural feature (such as a river system) is integral to the community’s quality of life, acquisitions along the feature which protect or enable better public identity and use of this asset should be highly rated.

Community-wide system balance/geographic distribution The location and type of acquisition being evaluated should be considered in relation to what other facilities are nearby. System balance refers to open space, natural areas, and recreation opportunities convenient to all.


Page 4

Natural resource protection Consider how a proposed acquisition may protect an existing open space from urban degradation, protect a historic or cultural site, or incorporate unique and valuable natural features into the park system.

Environmental enhancement Some parcels available for open space may have been subject to possible environmental contamination based on prior use. The community can significantly improve the quality of life for its residents by expediting mitigation and making that land available for public use. Parcels with low risk and a strong possibility of successful mitigation would rate high.

Open space and green space imagery/aesthetics An acquisition, which contributes to the visual enjoyment of the community and parks, would rate high.

Enhance access and linkage Connectivity and linking traffic corridors for both pedestrians and wildlife, would rate high.

Appropriate to adjacent land use A site that enhances, protects, provides connectivity, or adds missing recreation opportunities to an adjacent park property, would rate high.

Protection of watersheds and water quality Areas that protect or restore the watershed by incorporating fragile or important watershed features into the park system would rate high.

Suitability for intended use Sites that meet a specific need to enhance recreation opportunities or provide better balance of park or recreation facilities would rate high.

Recreation value Provides an opportunity to meet a specific need that was missing in a particular location, and has land for fields or structures.

Method of acquisition/direct costs Provides the opportunity to rate a site’s value relative to how it will be acquired. Grants or gifts would rate higher than purchases. Dedications, easements, and leases may also be preferable.

Multiple use benefit Sites which provide opportunities for many recreation activities, active and passive, should be rated high.

Community benefit While it is important that the benefit for the entire OCPRC parks system be considered when evaluating a parcel of land for acquisition, a parcel of land that would benefit the entire community would rate highest.

Provides for future needs/anticipates growth If the community is growing, future needs for residents must be anticipated and accommodated. A site that addresses future growth and recognizes other agency plans and impacts would rate highest.



Overall cost/benefit to parks system Each proposed acquisition should be rated according to how well it meets park system objectives of balance and accessibility. Sites benefiting larger constituencies, satisfying recreation needs not otherwise met, or resolving gaps in connectivity would rate higher.

Long-term development and maintenance costs Excessive development and maintenance costs that a potential acquisition site requires would be a factor in the perceived value of the acquisition. Sites requiring minimal anticipated development and/or maintenance costs would rate higher.

Urgency for acquisition Certain parcels of land may require a faster decision-making process because there is a high potential for development that would lead to a loss of desirable land.

Consistency with parks and recreation plan Any proposed acquisition should contribute to fulfillment of the parks and recreation plan based on projected needs. A site specifically identified in the plan for acquisition would receive the highest rating.

Conservation Planning Conservation planning can be defined as a process to identify and assess conservation targets (species, communities, ecosystems, or processes) and linking them to implementation strategies that will protect enough critical area to protect those targets and to long-term management to maintain and improve the viability of those targets. Conservation planning is a key process for OCPRC’s strategy to protect land and water resources in Oakland County. The process considers many factors that are explored in this chapter, including the physical landscape, natural heritage, water resources, and identified community green infrastructure.


Page 6

Physical Landscape Geological History Southeast Michigan landscapes were created by the retreat of glaciers as they melted away more than 14,500 years ago. Fluctuating water levels in the pre-glacial Great Lakes created dramatic topographic features such ground moraines, end moraines, kettles, kames, and outwash plains.

Nearly all of the hills, valleys, lakes, and rivers in Oakland County were formed during the retreat of the last continental glacier, approximately 14,500 years ago. Prior to this, North America experienced four episodes of glaciation spanning 2 million years (the Quaternary Period). The last of these was the Wisconsinan Glaciation (80,000 – 10,000 years ago) of the Pleistocene Epoch during which time, the state of Michigan was completely covered by ice.

As the earth warmed, the Wisconsinan glacier retreated. Rocks and soil materials were carried on top of and in the glacial ice. During periods of intermittent glacial retreat, enormous quantities of sediment and debris were deposited across the landscape. Depending on the rate of melt, glaciers deposited both poorly- sorted sediment known as “till” and finely- sorted sand and gravel. During several periods the climate stabilized and glaciers remained stationary. During these intervals, long, steep-sided hills known as terminal and lateral “moraines” were formed along the edges of the retreating ice sheet that dammed and diverted melting floodwaters. The intermittent retreat of the glacier shaped additional, diverse landforms including drumlins, eskers, kames, and outwash plains.

As the weight of a 2-mile thick layer of ice was removed, the land rebounded. At the landscape-scale, the result was a series of glacial lake stages, ranging from 540 to 800 feet. At a finer scale, many lakes formed when large blocks of ice were surrounded by outwash sands as the glacier melted. When these ice blocks melted, deep depressions, known as kettles, remained as lakes. Lakes also formed in linear depressions that had been scoured out by the retreating glacier. Today the surficial geology of Southeast Michigan is dominated by the patterns of these glacial sediments and changing lakeshores. Subsequent erosion of original glacial deposits influenced the formation of soils and gave rise to associated pre-European settlement plant communities in Oakland County.

Development of Eco-Regions The present landscape of Michigan is comprised of four distinct eco-regions: Southern Lower Michigan; Northern Lower Michigan; Eastern Upper Michigan; and Western Upper Michigan. Each eco-region is distinct in its climate, physiography, soils and vegetation. These distinctions are a result of the peninsular configuration of the state, which dramatically affects the climatic differences of both peninsulas. The distinctiveness of warm, vegetatively diverse Southern Lower Michigan and cold Upper Michigan is largely due to their latitudinal positions and the continental land masses on their southern borders. The four Great Lakes that surround the state also provide a significant influence upon the climate in portions of both peninsulas (Albert D. A., 1995) (Albert, Cohen, Kost, Slaughter, & Enander, 2008).

Regional landscape ecosystems delineated by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory2 (MNFI) are largely influenced by the legacy of the glaciers. Oakland County comprises three distinct regional landscape ecosystems known as the Maumee Lake Plain, Ann Arbor Moraine, and Jackson Interlobate regions, which are the predominate systems throughout southeast Michigan. Ecosystems are the natural holistic units of the landscape that can be identified and mapped over wide areas or locally (from large regional geographic units such as outwash plains or till plains to small units such as rocky knobs or marsh-filled depressions).



Maumee Lake Plain (Sub-Subsection VI.1.1) This sub-subsection is a flat, clay lake plain dissected by broad glacial drainageways of sandy soil. The lake-moderated climate and productive loamy soils resulted in early and intensive agricultural development. Most of the clay lake plain supported either upland or wetland forest. In contrast, the sand lake plain supported oak barrens (savanna) on the uplands and wet prairies or marshes in the lowlands (Comer P. J., et al., 1993).

The clay soils of this sub-subsection were among the first areas in the state farmed by European settlers. Most clay lands have been ditched and tiled and are among the most valued agricultural lands in the State. Portions of the sand plain were also ditched for agriculture, but the wettest areas remain, either as swamp forest, wet prairie, or marsh. Diking and pumping have allowed vast expanses of wet prairie and some areas of marsh to be farmed. The only remaining tracts of forest are small, usually only 40 – 80 acres.

Ann Arbor Moraines (Sub-Subsection VI.1.2) This sub-subsection is a long, narrow band (120 miles long and 20 – 24 miles wide) of fine- and medium-textured end moraine and ground moraine bordered by flat lake plain on the east and by sandy outwash, end moraine, and ice-contact features to the west. The moraines of the sub-subsection continue south into Ohio.

Almost all the ground moraines have been farmed, but the steeper moraines remain forested with oak. Most of the land was cleared for agriculture by the mid-19th century. Agricultural use of lands in the sub-subsection has been extensive. Few ecologically intact areas are known; these are generally flood-plain forests or small woodlots (Albert D. A., 1995).

Jackson Interlobate (Sub-Subsection VI.1.3) The Jackson Interlobate sub-subsection comprises over 50% of Oakland County. This sub-subsection, located between three glacial lobes, is more than 150 miles long. It is characterized by relatively steep end moraine ridges surrounded by pitted outwash deposits; kettle lakes and wetlands are common within the outwash.

Most of the uplands have been farmed, except the steepest end moraines and ice-contact ridges, which have been maintained as woodlots or are now either recreational or wildlife management areas. Many of these steep ridges have been pastured in the past. Oak savannas either have been converted to farm land or have grown into closed canopy oak forests due to fire suppression.

Both agricultural lands and the steeper forested lands are now being rapidly converted to residential developments, especially near metropolitan Detroit. Both residential development and agricultural land use have resulted in rapid eutrophication of lakes and degradation of many wetlands. Road construction and ditching have also modified the hydrology of many wetlands. Oak savannas, once prevalent on large parts of the landscape, have been destroyed by agriculture or degraded by fire exclusion. Urban and residential development is destroying many of the lakes and wetlands of the sub-subsection, especially northwest of Detroit. Upland forests, important for wildlife habitat and migration corridors, are also being rapidly fragmented by residential developments (Albert D. A., 1995).


Page 8

Figure A: Eco-Regions of Michigan Source: (Albert D. A., 1995)



Natural Heritage Natural Areas are places on the landscape dominated by native vegetation with various potential for harboring high quality natural areas and unique natural features. In addition these areas may provide critical ecological services such as maintaining water quality and quantity, soil development and stabilization, pollination of cropland, wildlife travel corridors, stopover sites for migratory birds, sources of genetic diversity, and floodwater retention.

Surveys results indicate the presence of more than 800 remaining natural areas within Oakland County that represent the least disturbed natural areas remaining within the county (potential natural areas) (Paskus & Enander, 2004). The actual ecological value of these potential natural areas is determined through on-the-ground biological surveys. Extensive biological field inventories have not been conducted for the entire county. Several agencies, including Oakland County Parks and Recreation, have conducted inventories for selected areas throughout the county.

Elements of Biodiversity Natural heritage methodology provides a rigorous set of procedures for identifying, inventorying, and mapping species and ecosystems of conservation concern; for gathering related information on conservation sites and managed areas; and for setting conservation priorities. Because biodiversity encompasses the variety of life at all levels, not just species, natural heritage methodology is designed to deal with both species and ecological communities, referred to collectively as "elements of biodiversity." At the core of the methodology is the concept of the element occurrence, the spatial representation of a species or ecological community at a specific location. An element occurrence generally delineates a species population or ecological community stand, and represents the geo-referenced biological feature that is of conservation or management interest.

Pre-European Settlement Plant Communities The pre-European settlement (circa 1800) vegetative patterns for the state are based upon an interpretation of the Federal General Land Office (GLO) surveys of 1816-1856. Between 1816 and 1856 Michigan was surveyed by the GLO, with surveys of the Lower Peninsula beginning in 1816 and surveys of the Upper Peninsula beginning in 1840. The GLO survey maps are considered a consistent landscape level perspective of the circa 1800 cover types of the entire state. The maps are useful for assessing broad post-settlement trends for different cover types, the type and scale of pre-European settlement disturbance regimes, and for consideration in the restoration of selected cover types (Comer & Albert, 1997).

Independence Oaks County Park


Page 10

Figure B: Pre-European Settlement Map Source: (Comer & Albert, 1997)

Natural Communities MNFI has described and abstracted 76 distinct natural community types within the State of Michigan (Kost, 2010). According to MNFI, the following 40 natural communities occur within Oakland County at varying degrees (ranging from ‘prevalent to infrequent’). Communities documented as ‘absent’ or ‘likely absent’ were not included.

State and Global Rankings The State Rank and Global Ranks refer to the conservation status of the ecological community. The ranking status was developed for ranking or categorizing the relative imperilment of a natural occurrence of the community on the global or range-wide (G ranks), national (N ranks) or state (S ranks) levels. The numbers include:

1= Critically imperiled; typically having five or fewer occurrences, or 1,000 or fewer individuals. 2= Imperiled; typically having six to twenty occurrences, or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals. 3= Vulnerable; rare; typically having 21 to 100 occurrences, or 3,000 to 10,000 individuals. 4= Apparently secure; uncommon but not rare, but with some cause for long-term concern, usually having

more than 100 occurrences and 10,000 individuals. 5= Secure; common, widespread, abundant, and lacking major threats or long-term concerns. U or ?= ‘Indeterminate’; recorded on a higher level, but local status is not available or not yet determined.

Presumed higher level rank.



Table 1: List of Natural Communities Occurring in Oakland County Source: (Albert, Cohen, Kost, Slaughter, & Enander, 2008)

Name of Community State Rank Global Rank Frequencya Eco-Regionb Bog S4 G3G5 F, I 2,3 (F)/1,4 (I) Coastal Plain Marsh S2 G2 I 3 Dry Sand Prairie S2 G3 I 2,3,4 Dry Southern Forest S3 G4 F,I 2,3 (F)/1,4 (I) Dry-mesic Prairie S1 G3 I 2,3,4 Dry-mesic Southern Forest S3 G4 F, I 2,3,4 (F)/1(I) Emergent Marsh S4 GU F All Floodplain Forest S3 G3? F All Hardwood-Conifer Swamp S3 G4 F All Inland Salt marsh S1 G1 I 1,2,4 Intermittent Wetland S2 G2 I 3,4 Inundated Shrub Swamp S3 G4 F,I 2,3 (F)/1,4 (I) Lakeplain Oak Openings S1 G2? I 1 Mesic Sand Prairie S1 G2 I 1,2,3 Mesic Southern Forest S3 G2G3 F,I 1,2,4 (F)/3 (I) Oak Barrens S1 G2? F,I 2,3 (F)/4 (I) Oak Openings S1 G1 F,I 2,3 (F)/4 (I) Oak-Pine Barrens S2 G3 I 3 Poor Conifer Swamp S4 G4 I 2,3,4 Prairie Fen S3 G3 F,I 2,3 (F)/4 (I) Rich Conifer Swamp S3 G4 I 2,3,4 Rich Tamarack Swamp S3 G4 F,I 2,3,4 (F)/1 (I) Southern Hardwood Swamp S3 G3 F All Southern Shrub-Carr S5 GU F All Southern Wet Meadow S3 G4? F All Submergent Marsh S4 GU F All Wet Prairie S2 G3 I 2,3,4 Wet-mesic Flatwoods S2 G2G3 I 1 Wet-mesic Prairie S2 G2 I 2,3,4

a Frequency: F=Frequent; Prevalent or likely Prevalent or I=Infrequent or likely infrequent b Eco-region (See Figure A): Regional Landscape Ecosystems: V1.1 Washtenaw subsection= 1-Maumee Lake Plain (SE corner of county), 2-Ann Arbor Moraines (E end of county), 3-Jackson Interlobate (majority of county). V1.4 Ionia subsection= 4 (.1)-Lansing (extreme NW portion of county).


Page 12

Water Resources – Watershed Planning Oakland County encompasses the headwaters of five major rivers: Clinton, Rouge, Huron, Shiawassee, and Flint. Land use and land management within Oakland County plays a significant role in determining the ecological health of regional river systems. The watersheds and/or subwatersheds where Oakland County Parks are located, with the exception of the Shiawassee, are covered by subwatershed management plans approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Clinton, Rouge, Huron and Flint watersheds are also served by watershed organizations that help facilitate the implementation of the subwatershed management plans.

Table 2: Watershed Plans in Oakland County Source: (MDEQ, 2012) Watershed Watershed Organizations and Initiatives Subwatershed Plans Clinton River Clinton River Watershed Council3 Clinton River Main Watershed

Pontiac Creek Clinton River East Watershed Clinton River North Watershed Red Run Watershed

Bear Creek (Oakland County) Stony/Paint Creek

Stony Creek (Oakland County) Flint River Flint River Watershed Coalition4 Swartz Creek Huron River Huron River Watershed Council5 Kent Lake Watershed Rouge River Friends of the Rouge6

Alliance of Rouge Communities7 Rouge Green Corridor8

Rouge River Main 1-2 Subwatershed

Shiawassee River None None

Specific recommendations related to subwatershed plans are addressed in individual park master plans beginning in 2012. Oakland County is in the Southeast Michigan District of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). All subwatershed plans are available from the local watershed organization or from MDEQ.

OCPRC participates with other Oakland County agencies and departments in complying with Oakland County’s Phase II Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) permit (Certificate of Coverage MIG610042). The SWPPI permit for Oakland County is managed by the office of the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner (WRC).

OCPRC conducts land management and plans capital improvements within a watershed context and in consultation with watershed management plans and pollution prevention plans and their managing agencies.

Figure C: Status of Watershed Planning in Southeast Michigan Source: (MDEQ, 2012)



Figure D: Watersheds in Oakland County


Page 14

Water Resources – Wetland Conservation A similar comparison of wetland loss has been done for Oakland County as a whole. Comer found that, historically, the county contained 113,937 acres of wetland (19.6% of the total county area). Pre-European settlement percentages of lowland hardwood swamp, lowland conifer swamp, and emergent wetlands were all similar in aerial extent (5 to 7.4%). Scrub-shrub wetland was only a minor component of the county wetland acreage. By the mid-1990s, Oakland County contained only 61,029 acres of wetland. While this value included significantly more scrub-shrub wetland acreage, the county had lost 46% of its wetlands overall (Comer P. J., et al., 1993).

State Wetland Policy Michigan’s wetlands program can be a vehicle for local governments and land conservancies to accomplish land conservation, green infrastructure and recreation goals. Part 303, Wetlands Protection of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, states that a person may not perform certain activities in a wetland without a permit from the MDEQ. Additionally, the MDEQ may impose conditions on a permit that are designed to remove an impairment to the wetland benefits, to mitigate the impact of a discharge of fill material, or to otherwise improve the water quality. The purpose of wetland mitigation is the replacement of unavoidably lost wetland resources with created or restored wetlands, with the goal of replacing as fully as possible the functions and public benefits of the lost wetland (MDEQ, 2013).

Wetland Restoration as Mitigation Part 303 indicates that the restoration of previously existing wetlands is preferred over the creation of new wetlands where none previously existed. Wetland restoration is defined as the reestablishment of wetland characteristics and functions at a site where they have ceased to exist through the replacement of wetlands hydrology, vegetation, or soils. Enhancement of existing wetlands cannot be considered as wetland mitigation (MDEQ, 2013).

Wetland Preservation as Mitigation Part 303 indicates that the preservation of existing wetlands may be considered as mitigation only if the Department determines that all of the following conditions are met (MDEQ, 2013):

(i)The wetlands to be preserved perform exceptional physical or biological functions that are essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the state or the preserved wetlands are an ecological type that is rare or endangered.

Lyon Oaks County Park – Wetland Conservation and Mitigation Project



(ii) The wetlands to be preserved are under a demonstrable threat of loss or substantial degradation due to human activities that are not under the control of the applicant and that are not otherwise restricted by state law.

(iii) The preservation of the wetlands as mitigation will ensure the permanent protection of the wetlands that would otherwise be lost or substantially degraded.

Wetland Mitigation Banking Within Part 303, wetland mitigation provides a mechanism for the establishment of new wetland areas, or “banks” in advance of anticipated losses. Wetlands established in a mitigation bank provide “credits” which can be sold to permit applicants, or used by the bank sponsor to meet permit conditions. The goals of the MDEQ wetland mitigation banking program are (MDEQ, 2013):

Reduce permit processing time and costs, and by increasing certainty regarding the availability of adequate mitigation sites.

Benefit the state’s wetland resources by providing for establishment of new wetlands in advance of losses; by consolidating small mitigation projects in larger, better-designed and managed units; and by encouraging integration of wetland mitigation projects with watershed based resource planning.

Figure E: Wetland Map of Oakland County Source: (MDEQ, 2005)


Page 16

Green Infrastructure Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision The Conservation Fund offers the following definition for green infrastructure: “When you hear people talk about infrastructure, they usually mean highways, energy sources and buildings. But there’s more to it. Just as we plan networks of roads, we can plan networks of open spaces and natural resources that connect communities and regions.” (www.conservationfund.org)

Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision was developed through a series of work sessions, facilitated by Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services between 2005 and 2009. Community participants inventoried existing natural features, established collaboration opportunities, and considered how to set and achieve future conservation goals.

The Oakland County Parks system, as a major landholder within Oakland County has an important role in the implementation of Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision. The purpose of the Green Infrastructure Vision is to provide a structure for preserving Oakland County’s natural assets by developing and understanding the county’s natural heritage and creating a shared long-term preservation vision. This long term, interconnected vision was created at the local level by engaged communities.

The building blocks for Green Infrastructure are hubs, sites, and links. The following definitions were used throughout the Oakland County Green Infrastructure community work sessions and visioning process:

Hub: These large, contiguous areas are the foundation of the network and contain a large amount of core habitat for plants and animals. Hubs act as origins and destinations for a wide variety of living things, are typically greater than 250 acres in size, and include at least one Priority One Potential Natural Area. Priority One Conservation Areas are by MNFI defined as places on the landscape dominated by native vegetation that have the highest potential for harboring high quality natural areas and unique natural features. Due to a community’s individual level of development, however, some hubs may be smaller in size and may not include Potential Natural Areas.

Site: These areas are smaller than hubs in size and contain less core habitat; however, they are an essential component to the natural network. These areas include smaller wetland complexes, small woodlots, and other open space.

Link: The linear connections between hubs and sites are a vital component to the functionality of the entire network. Without linkages, the hubs and sites, in essence, become fragmented islands within the landscape.

(OCPEDS, 2009)

http://www.conservationfund.org/



Figure F: Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision Source: (OCPEDS, 2009)


Page 18

Natural Resources Management Philosophy The following discussion describes the philosophy that is the foundation for Oakland Parks and Recreation’s science-based natural resources management program and describes the fundamental strategies of the program.

Natural Resource Management Plans Park-specific plans identify unique natural areas and provide best management practice guidelines for their protection and restoration and to guide appropriate public use and facility maintenance and development.

Adaptive Management The basis for stewardship management actions is provided by scientifically-conducted surveys, application of best land management practices, and collaboration with leading ecological consultants and qualified land management professionals. Stewardship practices are continually evaluated against the most up-to-date information available and adjusted to achieve management objectives and improve progress toward desired outcomes. This approach acknowledges that uncertainties exist, allows for flexibility in decision-making, and provides latitude to change direction based on a constantly improving understanding of the ecological systems with the parks.

Prioritization of Natural Areas Emphasis is placed on prioritizing the protection and restoration of high-quality natural areas over and above highly disturbed areas within parks. Management efforts focus on maintaining and augmenting landscape connectivity between natural areas falling both within and outside of park boundaries with the goal of enhancing both local and regional ecological connectivity. Prioritization of natural resource management efforts is rooted strongly in the framework provided by the Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Department’s Green Infrastructure Vision Planning Document, based on the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Priority Conservation Areas.

Management Techniques This management approach utilizes a number of management techniques ranging from allowing natural succession to occur to mowing and prescribed burning. Non-native invasive species of plants and animals should be controlled to the extent possible within staffing and budgetary efficiencies. It may also be necessary to manage wildlife populations to maintain a balanced ecosystem within the natural areas of Oakland County Parks. Active management includes, but is not limited to, prescribed burning, mowing, herbicide application, and planting. Prescribed management actions entail the following phases: ecological inventory and natural community mapping; identification of system stresses and sources of stress; active natural area restoration; monitoring and analysis; and subsequent adaptive management.

Native Species For restoration projects in natural areas, the Natural Resource Management program uses only Michigan genotype native plants, with non-invasive ornamentals being allowed in formal landscaping areas outside of natural areas.

Connectivity and Green Infrastructure Management activities take into account ecological connectivity within individual parks as well as between remaining natural areas throughout the county. The importance of maintaining and creating ecological connections beyond park borders cannot be overemphasized as these connections provide the conduit for preserving ecological function of remaining natural areas, facilitating species dispersal, and maintaining wildlife populations in a highly fragmented landscape.



The importance of connectivity is central to Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision, which is the result of open space and natural areas mapping and prioritization conducted by Oakland County Planning and Economic Development. The open space network mapped identifies areas that provide crucial green infrastructure services, including water and air quality, flood protection, pollination and nutrient cycling. Oakland County Parks function as hubs, the key anchoring pieces in a network of open spaces that provide both an origin and destination for wildlife. Parks may also serve as links to other hubs and to smaller sites that also serve as origin or destination points for wildlife.

Maintenance and Development Best Practices It is important to remember that OCPRC is providing public access to natural resources and recreational opportunities, which brings with it maintenance responsibilities as well as natural resource management. The natural resources management staff currently engages in the development of best management practices (BMPs) in partnership with the facilities maintenance team to ensure that maintenance of facilities and public areas works in harmony with the Natural Resource Management Program. BMPs will be helpful in designing capital improvement projects and recreational programming that is compatible with, and does not detract from, the ecological integrity and function of the natural resource base.

Recommended BMPs may include:

Installation of non-native species plantings, such as ornamentals, only outside of and not adjacent to defined natural areas

Prohibition from planting of invasive non-native species and provision of a list of prohibited species Extending control of invasive plant and animal species outside of defined natural areas in order to support

effective control within the natural area Equipment cleaning standards to help prevent the spread of invasive plants within and between parks Appropriate timing of maintenance activities, such as mowing, tree removal, herbicide application, in

order to accommodate the breeding cycles of wildlife Carefully planned development of new public facilities that preserves the integrity and ecological function

of both wetland and upland natural areas Carefully planned development that minimizes fragmentation and habitat destruction to the greatest

extent possible, in order to facilitate connectivity and access to critical habitat for wildlife

Effective wildlife-friendly soil erosion control measures during construction

Elimination of any trails, roads, or buildings that are no longer part of the facility plan, when improvements are made to parks,

Wildlife-friendly perimeter fencing Carefully planned development of new

trails that minimizes impact to natural areas of significance, wetlands, critical habitat, fragmentation effects, and the spread of invasive species within parks.

Boy Scouts Helping with Stewardship at Waterford Oaks County Park


Page 20

Environmental Sustainability Oakland County Parks manages more than 6,700 acres of public land, including significant and rare natural areas. Its goal is to protect and sustain these areas for future generations. One of objectives in meeting this goal is to incorporate energy-efficient practices into all facets of parks operations and management.

Many procedures for energy conservation have been identified and made a requirement for Oakland County buildings by the Department of Facilities Management’s Energy Management Procedures, adopted on October 5, 2009. The Oakland County Parks and Recreation Commission supports and staff follow these procedures. However, because the majority of properties owned by OCPRC are parks and recreation facilities, not buildings, OCPR has expanded on the procedures developed by the Department of Facility Management by establishing the following green initiatives:

Green Fund The Green Fund is a grant program administered internally within OCPRC. Any unit or supervisor can apply for

funding for green project. Examples include as energy efficient lighting conversion and establishing recycling programs.

Energy Conservation Energy audits have recently been conducted at facilities to identify improvements for efficiency. These audits

have provided valuable roadmaps for upgrades that will be done as funding sources allow. Lighting changes funded through energy conservation grants have reduced energy consumption. Employees participate in energy management procedures to eliminate the use of personal electronic devices

at the workplace. Energy management of HVAC systems is conducted at all park facilities through a computer program. Equipment replacement with Energy Star Equipment is practiced.

Recycling Parks employees recycle paper, plastic, metals, batteries, lights and ink cartridges in special collection

containers. Recycling programs for patrons at all campgrounds, waterparks, golf courses and day use parks are being

established.

Cleaning products All park facilities now utilize “green” cleaning products that are low in volatile organic compounds, reducing

the amount of toxins in the air.

Bio-fuel All diesel-engine equipment runs on bio-diesel fuel. Maintenance staff uses bio-lubricants for cleaning and lubricating equipment.

Land & Water All parks now have designated “no mow zones,” which will decrease the amount of gas and energy used in

maintaining park property and allows for natural plant progression. Integrated Pest Management principles have been established system-wide to reduce the use of chemical

pesticides. Efforts are being made to propagate native plant material in OCPRC’s newly acquired greenhouses, for use on

park property.



An exemplary storm water management project has been installed at Waterford Oaks County Park to protect water quality in the Clinton River Watershed.

As parking lots at the parks are renovated, bio-swales are installed to collect storm water and help protect streams and tributaries within the watershed.

Certification Groveland Oaks County Park is the first (non-golf course)

park in Michigan to be environmentally certified by the Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program. All five Oakland County golf courses have also achieved certification.

As master planning for the individual parks are completed, OCPRC is committed to incorporating these and more environmentally sustainable practices in all aspects of park design, facility construction, and park operation and maintenance.

Redevelopment and Adaptive Re-Use Opportunities for acquiring land to increase parkland and recreational opportunities available to Oakland County residents are not limited to the natural areas and water resources that are identified by Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision. Park and recreation agencies are increasingly exploring opportunities to collaborate with state and federal agencies and private developers to acquire land that has already been developed. This may include sites that have buildings that can be adapted for re-use, such as big box stores and parking lots. It may also include contaminated brownfield and post-industrial sites that have the potential for clean-up and conversion to healthy ecosystems and places for outdoor recreation.

Red Oaks County Park is a perfect example of successful redevelopment and adaptive re-use. Red Oak facilities, including the Youth Soccer Complex, Golf Course, Waterpark and Dog Park, are situated above the George W. Kuhn Retention Treatment Basin (GWK), which has a capacity of 126 million gallons and manages pollution from a catchment area of 38.51 square miles. The course of the basin forms the centerline of Red Oaks, as evidenced by the manholes located through the park. OCPRC’s management of Red

Oaks is a continuing partnership with the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner’s office that manages the GWK (OCPRC, 2012).

Groveland Oaks County Park

Red Oaks Golf Course


Page 22

Land Use The 2011 Land Use Statistics for Oakland County indicate the following top Land Use categories (OCPEDS, 2012)

Rank 2011 Land Use Area (acres) Area (%) 1 Single Family Residential 225,091.5 38.8% 2 Recreation/Conservation 82,437.3 14.2% 3 Vacantc 64,524.2 11.1% 4 Road Right-of-Way 58,670.9 10.1% 5 Water 35,242.7 6.1% 6 Agricultural 26,008.3 4.5%

Rank Composite Future Master Plan Land Use Area (acres) Area (%) 1 Single Family Residential 323,352.5 55.7% 2 Recreation/Conservation 71,341.2 12.3% 3 Road Right-of-Way 58,167.3 10.0% 4 Water 35,225.7 6.1% 5 Industrial 21,350.2 3.7% 6 Commercial/Office 20,084.6 3.5%

The statistics indicate that “single family residential” land use was the most prevalent in 2011, and will greatly increase and remain the top land use type in the future. Land classified in 2011 as “agricultural” will likely be converted to developed land for future homes or recreation/conservation purposes in the future. Note on the two maps in Figures G and H how most of the dense, more urbanized areas occur in the central/southeast portions of the county, or along major roadways.

c "Vacant" means parcels that are unimproved areas that are not in a committed use and not in a use that is an accessory to an adjacent parcel with a use other than water, road right-of-way, or railroad right-of-way.



Figure G: 2011 Land Use Map Source: (OCPEDS, 2012)


Page 24

Figure H: Composite Land Use Source: (OCPEDS, 2012)



Land Evaluation Practices Land Inquiry Methodology The Land Inquiry process was developed in 2010 by OCPRC and is used to evaluate any parcel or parcels of land under consideration for acquisition. The process provides a consistent way of looking for land and clearly points out the relative merits of a parcel of land from a natural resource viewpoint.

Connectivity Studies - Green Infrastructure Connectivity The Land Inquiry protocol is also used to investigate connectivity between large public and private holdings in Oakland County. The projects usually connect an Oakland County Park with a state, regional or municipal green space or a major trail or pathway network.

A majority of the inquiries connects hubs within Oakland County’s Green Infrastructure Vision, are wetland corridors identified by the National Wetlands Inventory, and are identified by MNFI as a Potential Natural Area. Connections usually include an intact, undisturbed, quality upland or wetland habitat, or are along roadway right-of-ways to connect to area pathways.

Adjacent Land Studies - Wetlands Study The preservation of wetlands is an important conservation target for OCPRC, not only inside Oakland County Parks, but as potential acquisitions that expand park boundaries. Preservation as mitigation through MDEQ’s wetland program is a potential mechanism for accomplishing such acquisitions. In addition, OCPRC has partnered with the Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy’s Wetland Program as it identifies potential wetlands for acquisition and long-term stewardship.

According to Michigan law, anyone planning to perform activities that impact wetlands must apply for a permit from the MDEQ. When MDEQ approves wetland permits, they may also impose conditions on the permittee to offset any resulting impairment to wetland benefits or water quality. These conditions may take the form of a requirement to construct new wetlands or to permanently preserve additional existing wetlands (reference earlier section).

Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy’s Wetland Preservation as Mitigation program is not involved with MDEQ’s permit approval process and does not seek to influence the outcome of a permit application. The purpose of the program is to assist with the implementation of an approved permit that requires off-site wetland preservation, with the ultimate goal of preserving important natural and hydrological resources within a green infrastructure network (Six Rivers, 2009).


Page 26

An outcome of the Six Rivers’ program is a portfolio of parcels that are potential candidates for preservation to fulfill a wetland permit. This portfolio is made available to MDEQ to review for appropriateness with specific wetland permit needs. The goal of OCPRC’s adjacent land wetlands study is to identify parcels that will be included in the Six Rivers’ portfolio and therefore be targeted as potential candidates for future acquisition by OCPRC that will expand park boundaries and increase natural resource protection.

Map Section Appendix D provides two maps (Green Infrastructure and Land Use) for each of the 25 geographic townships in Oakland County (50 maps). It is provided as a resource to staff as a preliminary step for investigating the characteristics of various areas of the county.



References Albert, D. A. (1995). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. Regional Lanscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota and

Wisconsin: a working map and classification, Tech. Rep. NC-178. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/rlandscp/index.htm

Albert, D., Cohen, J., Kost, M., Slaughter, B., & Enander, H. (2008). Distribution Maps of Michigan's Natural Communities. 166. Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Report No. 2008-01.

Comer, P. J., Albert, D. A., Scrimger, T., Leibfried, D., Schuen, D., & Jones, H. (1993). CZM Project 309-5. Historical wetlands of Michigan's coastal zone and southeastern lakeplain, 110. Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

Comer, P., & Albert, D. (1997). Michigan Nature Features Inventory. Retrieved September 22, 2012, from Vegetation circa 1800 Maps: http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/data/veg1800.cfm

Kost, M. (2010). Report Number 2007-21. Version 1.2. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Lansing, MI: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

Leisure Vision. (2010, April). Community Survey Final Report. Waterford, MI: OCPRC.

MDEQ. (2005, December 15). Oakland County Final Wetland Inventory. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Oakland_prelim_wi_54425_7.pdf

MDEQ. (2012, August 21). Southeast Michigan District Watersheds with Approved Watershed Plans. Retrieved January 13, 2013, from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682_3714_31581-96489--,00.html

MDEQ. (2013). Protection of Wetlands. Retrieved January 13, 2013, from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: http://michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3687---,00.html

MDNR. (2012, December 13). Guidelines for the Development of Community Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Plans. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Grants Management: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/IC1924-Guidelines_for_the_Development_of_Community_Park_Recreation_Open_Space_and_Greenways_Plans_-_2012_373874_7.pdf

NRPA. (2012). Commission on Accreditation of Parks and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA). Retrieved October 31, 2012, from National Recreation and Parks Association: http://www.nrpa.org/CAPRA/

OCPEDS. (2009, October 9). Green Infrastructure Vision Map. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from Advantage Oakland: http://www.advantageoakland.com/Maps/Pages/Environmental-Stewardship-Maps.aspx

OCPEDS. (2012). Land Use Maps. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from Advantage Oakland: http://www.advantageoakland.com/Maps/Pages/Land-Use-Maps.aspx


Page 28

OCPRC. (2012, June 6). DRAFT Red Oaks Park Vision and Facility Concepts 2013-2022. Waterford, MI: Oakland County Parks and Recreation Commission.

Paskus, J., & Enander, H. (2004). Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2004 Oakland County: Potential Conservation / Natural Areas Report. Pontiac, MI: OCPEDS.

PROS Consulting. (2008, April). Summary Report. Oakland County Parks Strategic Plan. Waterford, MI: OCPRC.

SEMCOG a. (2012). Green Infrastructure - Parks and Open Space. Retrieved September 22, 2012, from Southeast Michigan Council of Governments: http://www.semcog.org/GreenInfrastructure.aspx

Six Rivers. (2009, March 18). Wetland Preservation as Mitigation. Rochester, MI: Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy. Retrieved from www.sixriversrlc.org

Notes

1 Commission on Accreditation of Parks and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA): The Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA) recognizes park and recreation agencies for excellence in operation and service. CAPRA accredits departments and agencies that provide park and recreation programs and services. Agency accreditation is available to all entities administering park and recreation systems, including municipalities, townships, counties, special districts and regional authorities, councils of government, schools, and military installations (NRPA, 2012). 2 Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI): The mission of MNFI is "To actively contribute to decisions that impact the conservation of biological and ecological diversity by collecting, analyzing, and communicating information about rare and declining plants and animals, and the array of natural communities and ecosystems native to Michigan." MNFI gets its information from teams of scientists with expertise in botany, zoology, aquatic ecology, and ecology. Information about Michigan's native plants, animals, aquatic animals and natural ecosystems is collected through field surveys, museum and herbaria records, aerial photography studies, and collaboration with other scientists. http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/ 3 Clinton River Watershed Council (CRWC): The Clinton River Watershed Council (CRWC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting, enhancing and celebrating the Clinton River, its watershed and Lake St. Clair. It provides programs and services in the areas of watershed management and stormwater education. See www.crwc.org. 4 Flint River Watershed Coalition (FRWC): The Flint River Watershed Coalition was formed in the fall of 1997 and is a collaboration between educational institutions, local government, local business, environmental groups, and concerned citizens who feel strongly that the Flint River and its tributaries are a vital resource we all need to protect. See www.flintriver.org. 5 Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC): Founded in 1965, the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC) is southeast Michigan’s oldest environmental organization dedicated to river protection. The Huron River Watershed Council works to inspire attitudes, behaviors, and economies to protect, rehabilitate, and sustain the Huron River System. See www.hrwc.org.

http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/

http://www.crwc.org/

http://www.flintriver.org/

http://www.hrwc.org/



6 Friends of the Rouge (FOTR): Friends of the Rouge is a non-profit organization created in 1986 to raise awareness about the need to clean up the Rouge River in southeast Michigan. See www.therouge.org. 7 Alliance of Rouge Communities (ARC): The Alliance of Rouge Communities is a voluntary public watershed entity currently comprised of 35 municipal governments (i.e. cities, townships and villages), three counties (Wayne, Oakland and Washtenaw), Henry Ford Community College, University of Michigan-Dearborn and four cooperating partners (i.e. other organizations). The purpose of the ARC is to provide an institutional mechanism to encourage watershed-wide cooperation and mutual support to meet water quality permit requirements and to restore beneficial uses of the Rouge River to the area residents. See www.allianceofrougecommunities.com. 8 Rouge Green Corridor (RGC): The Rouge Green Corridor is located in the Cities of Birmingham and Southfield and the Village of Beverly Hills within the Rouge Main 1-2 subwatershed of the Rouge River watershed. Four collaborative, grant-funded projects have focused on the RGC. Participating partners in RGC projects have included: Alliance of Rouge Communities; City of Birmingham; City of Southfield; Friends of the Rouge; Oakland County Parks & Recreation; Oakland County Planning & Economic Development Services; Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy; Southeast Oakland Resource Recovery Authority; and the Village of Beverly Hills. See http://www.destinationoakland.com/parkplanning/Pages/ConsPlanning.aspx.

http://www.therouge.org/

http://www.allianceofrougecommunities.com/

http://www.destinationoakland.com/parkplanning/Pages/ConsPlanning.aspx

Documents

Chapter 6 - Land Acquisition and Management