Ecological Restoration of Seneca Lake State Park

Ecological Restoration of
Seneca Lake State Park
Katelyn Zatwarnicki WS’ 11
Completed Fall 2010
Senior Integrative Experience
Advisors Professor Neil Laird and Sarah Meyer, Finger Lakes Institute
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 2
Historical Record of Seneca Lake State Park Property……………………………………………………………….… Page 2
Seneca Lake State Park Today…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 6
The Restoration Site...…………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 7
Understanding Wetlands……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 8
Invasive Plant Species……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… Page 10
Biological Surveys…………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………….… Page 12
Two Site Restoration Scenarios
1) Wildlife Restoration……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 14
2) Community Engagement – Public Education & Recreation…………………………………………. Page 16
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 18
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 19
Sources……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 19
Historical Map Sources………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 19
Introduction
This paper represents the first phase of a comprehensive project initiated by Tom Hughes intended for
the Seneca Lake State Park. Over time, the layout of the park has changed to adapt to the needs of the
park visitors, with limited consideration to preserving its natural habitat. Currently, park officials are
considering options to restore the wetland habitat within the Nature Area of the park. This paper
provides an overview of fundamental information applicable to the restoration of the existing Nature
Area to a functional wetland ecosystem. The investigation begins with a brief overview of the history of
the area’s land use and a detailed description of the existing Nature Area site. The basics of wetlands
restoration and their relevance to this site are then discussed with an overview of invasive species and
recommended biological surveys. Lastly, this research provides two restoration scenarios – one with a
focus on wildlife habitation, and the other on public use through education and recreation. The goal of
this project is to develop recommendations for modifying the current layout in a way that is suitable for
both public users and the preservation/conservation of the wildlife and wetland habitats. Continued
analysis of the recommendations presented herein is necessary before they can be implemented as part
of the larger project.
Historical Record of Seneca Lake State Park Property
Determining the history of the park was a daunting task, as there were time constraints and limited
available authoritative sources. Two of the most heavily relied upon published sources were: Geneva’s
Changing Waterfront 1779-1989 and The County Between The Lakes: A Public History of Seneca County,
New York, 1876-1982. Historical maps from the city of Geneva and New York State (see listing page 20)
were also very useful for determining the changes in the canal and NYS routes 5 & 20. These resources
helped sketch an understanding of land use throughout the 1900’s. Interpretation of this data was
confusing at times, since
the names of the canal
(Cayuga-Seneca) and
roads (NYS routes 5& 20)
were used
interchangeably, even
when their locations
changed.
Figure 1. Fishing in the canal, 1929-1935, in the 1900s canal largely inhabited by
carp and mostly fished by children (Grover 81). The willow trees in the background
of the photo still continue to line the shoreline of the lake today.
Land use on the north
shore of Seneca Lake has
changed numerous times
over the past 200 years.
As industry developed
from the 1800’s through
the early 1900’s, the
mostly bucolic setting
was transformed into an
industrial center
occupied by railway lines,
canals and harbors.
During the 1800’s
transportation routes
from southern Finger
2
Lakes communities passed north on Seneca Lake, through the Cayuga-Seneca canal, and to destinations
throughout the state. Access to the city of Geneva was made through a branch of the early canal along
the north and northwest border through today’s state park. As industrial development slowed in the
early 1900s, the canal was no longer needed for transportation and was filled in over a period of years. A
portion of the lakefront area just west of the city was preserved for aesthetic purposes, and in 1922, the
city dedicated this land as Seneca Lake Park and opened it for public use. The city continued to expand
the park area eastward with adjacent land purchases from the towns of Waterloo and Fayettte until
1929.
Initially, the city park was enticing to
locals, but after the Great Depression,
the city struggled to raise the funds
necessary to run the free city park, and it
deteriorated greatly due to lack of
upkeep. By the late 1940s, the park area
included businesses such as a dance hall,
fish fry and hot dog stands, a few
restaurants and a trailer park. Health
concerns arose, especially after heavy
rains, because the natural wetland on
the western side of the park site and the
abandoned canal became a repository
for muddy pools of standing water that
did not properly drain. The park had
become an eyesore and was criticized by
a citizens committee as being a “glorified
garbage dump with an unused and
unusable beach and a recreation area
with no appeal - no facilities - no future”
(Figure 2) (Grover, 92). To fix this
problem, it was suggested that the
wetland should be dried by raising the
land another four feet and draining it
into the existing canal. The city’s
encouragement of residents to dump
garbage to fill parts of the area (Figure 3)
(Grover, 97) may have been an attempt
to achieve this goal.
Figure 2. Geneva Committee for State Control of Seneca Lake Park
published ‘Forever Is Too Long To Wait’ pamphlet in 1954
(Grover 93).
The park remained rundown for over thirty years because people disagreed on the type of development
it needed and the city was financially unable to undertake such a costly project, even if there was
agreement. A solution came about in February 1953, when the State Parks Council recommended that
3
the area become a State Park (Watrous, 172). Initially Governor Averill Harriman did not want the city
park land due to concerns about its poor condition as a dump site. He vetoed the park proposal twice.
Figure 3. An example of the poor condition of the lakeshore area. This photo was taken between
1901-1912, and is now the site of today’s Ramada Inn (Grover 89).
By 1957, it was agreed that Seneca Lake Park would be a good addition to the nine other state parks in
the Finger Lake Region, and the governor approved the transfer of the city park land to the state (Grover
94). However, since this involved the transfer of acquired lands and no new developments, no official
date for state park opening was available. It is logical to assume that the transfer would have occurred
around 1960, to allow 3 years for the construction of the marina. The official opening of the marina in
the park occurred in 1963 (Watrous, 176). After the mid 1960s, scant information is found on the early
facilities and use of Seneca Lake State Park.
Table 1 (below) provides a summary of important events leading up to the creation of the park.
1922
1922-1929
1930-1950
1953
1954
1954-1958
1957
1960
1963
City of Geneva opens Seneca Lake Park
City expands park with land purchases
Park deteriorates, dumping allowed as fill
State Parks Council recommends park transfer to state
Geneva Committee for State Control of Seneca Lake Park publishes ‘Forever is
Too Long to Wait’ pamphlet (Figure 3)
NYS Routes 5 & 20 relocated from lakeshore (Lakefront Trail in park) to near
current location
NY Governor Averill Harriman approves park transfer to state
Estimated opening of Seneca Lake State Park
Official opening of Seneca Lake State Park marina
Table 1. History timeline of events relevant to the development of Seneca Lake State Park.
4
The following map was made of the old Cayuga-Seneca canal paths in ArcMap10, using a 2007 state park
map, and by georeferencing historic park maps from 1923, 1958 and 1965 (Figure 4). The old hardcopy
maps were scanned in, and features that have remained the same over time (canal entrance, pier etc.)
were selected as reference points. This method was used in order to stretch the historic maps so they
overlaid accurately with the current map. The 1923 map was the oldest map that could be found (an old
city park map) and showed the furthest extension of the canal outlined in blue. It shows that there were
many connecting water bodies along this branch of canal, surrounded and identified by wetlands on the
historic map. The 1958 and 1965 digitized canals sections, outlined in red and yellow show how the land
was reclaimed over time.
Figure 4. The Cayuga-Seneca Canal can be seen on the southeast corner of the map flowing into Seneca Lake
where the State Park Marina is constructed and used today. The extent of the canal is shown the years are
represented by different colors; 1923 blue, 1958 red and 1965 yellow.
Canal use waned and road development boomed in the first half of the 1900’s, prior to the development
of the Seneca Lake State Park. New York State Route 9 & 20 (also called Lake Front Road) was located
along the lakeshore directly along the southern edge of the land site. Due to increased motor traffic
through the 1940’s, it was proposed to move this lakefront route and build an arterial outside of the
park. The lakefront arterial was completed in two phases between 1954-1958. By 1958, the “nonsignalized median loopback ramp,” outside the park and along the route, was completed. In 1983, more
plans were made to move NYS Routes 5 & 20 further northward and replace the ramps with the current
5
turning lanes (Grover 26). This new location can be seen in Figure 4, on the northern perimeter of the
state park.
Seneca Lake State Park Today
The average number of visitors to the 142 acre park each year is approximately 250,000-300,000 people,
with the two busiest months being July and August (Figure 5). The park manager, Steve Garlick,
estimates that 30-40% of the overall (300,000) visitors visit the park during July and August. These
numbers are based on vehicles entering the park. The attendance is calculated using a NYS guideline
formula assuming the average number of people per vehicle is 3.5, then multiplying it by the number of
vehicles that came in that day (since admission prices vary due to Empire Passes and senior discounts).
In the summer, the number of vehicles entering the park is determined by the number of admission
tickets issued by the ticket booth staff, and during the off season a traffic counter is used. Garlick
assumes that the minimum number of walkers to visit the park during the summer months is 500
people. The mechanism for determining the number of walkers into the State Park is estimated by park
staff throughout, the day as there is no way to accurately determine this number.
Figure 5. Current Seneca Lake State Park Map ©2007 JMF Publishing, reprinted with permission
Usage of the ball fields at the park has decreased in recent years. Many local groups such as: the Finger
Lake Vikings -- a rugby team, Twilight Softball, and De Sales High School used the fields regularly in the
past (Figure 5). However, Twilight Softball team no longer exists, DeSales teams have moved their games
to other fields, and overall use within in the past 5 years has decreased. The park manager roughly
estimates that about 30-40% of the people that come to the park stop and visit the present Nature Area.
Visitors include: pet owners, bird watchers, outdoor enthusiasts, cross country runners, and, in the
winter, cross-country skiers. He has also noticed that families with young children are especially drawn
to the area (Garlick).
6
The Restoration Site
The two land areas considered in this wetland restoration project include the existing Nature Area,
defined as “Site A,” and the proposed expansion, defined as “Site B.” (Figure 6). The northern half of Site
B is comprised of a soccer field and the southern half is sparsely populated by mixed deciduous and
evergreens. The length of the eastern border is separated from additional recreation fields by a drainage
ditch.
Figure 6. The present (2010) layout of Site A: trails, wood duck box, and pond.
Site A is distinguished from other portions of the park by its pond and trail system (Figure 6). As you
walk along the trails, the area is relatively flat and the soil appears saturated. The current tree
population includes a stand of evergreens along the northern side of the fence line, another stand near
the pond, and a few others scattered randomly around the area. Deciduous trees, such as cotton woods,
oaks, maples, chestnuts, and other ornamental trees are planted sporadically around the area. A few
invasive plant species include phragmities or the common reed, a perennial wetland grass, purple
loosestrife, and buckthorn (described in more detail below). The phragmities define the northeastern
side of Site A and create a visual barrier blocking the view of NYS Routes 5 & 20. There is an
establishment of cattail around the pond and a few phragmities clusters encroaching on the pond. Other
plants in the site include goldenrod, native raspberry, grape vine, and some very dense patches of
smooth sumac. There were no fish introduced to the pond by state park officials and it is unknown
whether there is a naturally established fish population.
7
The meandering trails throughout Site A are often very muddy, uneven, and unmarked, which likely
deters some visitors. Currently, access to Site A is limited as there is no parking allowed along the main
Entrance Road. The closest parking is accessed just off the main Entrance Road on the edge of the
Lakefront Trail. This trail is the old Lake Road that runs along the edge of Seneca Lake, just outside the
southern border of Site A. Some trees have been planted along the trail in Site A, but they are not
identified for visitors. There is also one wood duck nesting box on the eastern side of the pond (Figure
6). No wood ducks were observed in the area. The eastern edge of the site currently ends abruptly at a
drainage ditch that is over grown with wetland plants. These issues will be addressed in the proposed
future scenarios with recommendations for modifying the layout in a way that will be more inviting for
visitors and wildlife.
Figure 7. Google Earth aerial photo from April 14, 1995. The start of the pond is visible since it is
only partially filled with water.
Steve Garlick explained that in an attempt to manage the water drainage problem in the existing Nature
Area, the previous park manager, Bill Acomb, started a project to install a small pond sometime prior to
1995. This initial work can be seen in Google Earth historical imagery (Figure 7). The project was halted
due to a machinery malfunction, and was unfinished until 1997 when Garlick was appointed as park
manager position and continued the pond excavation. He completed the project in early 1998.
Maintenance has primarily focused on a regular schedule of grass mowing. Since the early attempts to
establish the current nature area and make it more accessible, there is little formal record of its use
(Garlick).
Understanding Wetlands
The goal of this project is to restore the natural area of Seneca Lake State Park. To accomplish this, it is
important to define what that restoration may entail. Wetland restoration is the rehabilitation of
previous wetland areas and/or marshes that are no longer functioning or in a degraded state, by
reestablishing the land to an improved functioning wetland ecosystem (Kentula). Restoration entails
altering the current landscape by, filling, digging, removing, expanding, draining, planting, burning,
cutting, etc., in order to develop the site into a functioning wetland again. The key to a successful
8
restoration, however, is an essential understanding of the distinctive nature and function of a wetlands
ecosystem.
Wetlands are unique ecosystems that play a critical role in the greater environment because they help
recycle nutrients, filter sediments, provide stabilization and increase wildlife habitats for waterfowl and
plants. Even though wetlands make up only a small percentage of the Earth’s surface, they help to
reduce and recycle the world’s nutrients such as sulfur, nitrogen, phosphate and carbon. Without the
work of wetlands, these gases would otherwise buildup within the atmosphere and could completely
alter the global environment. Some of them form greenhouse gases and other toxins in abundance.
Wetlands not only recycle nutrients and provide great benefits for wildlife, but they also are important
in flood, erosion, and pollution control (Schiavone 10-11). Due to wetlands’ vital and irreplaceable
ecological qualities, to the Earth they function almost as living organisms themselves.
Wetlands are identified by important characteristics: wetland hydrology, water logged (hydric) soils,
water loving (hydrophytic) plants, such as cattails, mosses, pondweeds, and animals such as, waterfowl,
fish, salamanders, ducks, frogs and toads among many other species (Browne et al., 1-57). Hydrophytes
(water plants) inhabit wetland areas and have special adaptations that allow them to thrive in this type
of environment. The National List of Plants that Occur in Wetlands is a national inventory of wetland
plants that are related based on their occurrences in wetlands within different regions of the United
States (Table 2). The list is accessible at: http://plants.usda.gov/wetland.html. This catalog system can
serve as an aide to determine which wetland plants are most abundant in wetland areas around New
York. Plants in the OBL category (Table 1), for this region, would be appropriate for this restoration
because they are almost always found in wetland sites. A few tree species in wetland sites include:
Atlantic white cedar, red maples, swamp cottonwood, willows and others. Some wetland plants include:
American white water lilies, broad leaf cattail, New York aster and fern, among many others. Plants
already identified in Site A include: cattails, willow and red maples.
Wetland Indicator Categories
Obligate Wetland (OBL)
Facultative Wetland (FACW)
Facultative (FAC)
Obligate Uplands (UPL)
Occurrence in wetlands
>99% of the time (almost always occur in wetlands)
67% - 99% of the time (usually occur in wetlands but may occur
in uplands)
Usually occurs in non-wetlands 67% to 99% but may occur in
wetlands 1% to 33%
Almost always found in non-wetlands (99% of time) A + or - sign
may also be included on the indicator to refine the probability
of occurrence, with a + sign indicating a higher probability of
being found in wetlands
Table 2. This table shows the four different categories wetland plants. OBL plants would be most useful at this site
since they are almost always found in wetland areas. Source: New York State Wetlands Forum article published
Winter 1998, Beall.
There are different degrees to which animals are dependent on wetlands. Those that need the wetland
is needed in order to survive are referred to as “wetland specialists.” Others that live near wetlands are
called “facultative wetland animals.” Typical wetland specialists include but are not limited to: saltmarsh snail, aquatic insects, crayfish, fiddler crabs, bull frogs, painted turtles, herons, ducks, beavers and
muskrats. Facultative wetland animals that use wetlands for food or nesting purposes include, American
9
toad, red-winged black birds, yellowthroat, yellow warbler and others (Tiner 81-92). This information is
useful to determine if a healthy wetland ecosystem has been established.
Wetland restoration activities have been increasing as an understanding of their true purpose becomes
known. Today, the ecological importance of wetlands in their natural state is greater than that of
agricultural or developed land. New York State has lost almost 60% of its wetlands to development and
agriculture, but restoration is in progress with help from many organizations, such as the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Schiavone 10-11). These organizations can be utilized as a
resource to provide valuable information and guidance in every stage of the wetlands restoration
process.
The restoration of previous marsh/wetland sites, which have been degraded due to encroaching
development, occurs all over the United States. One case study in Palm Beach County, FL was
particularly successful in restoring Pond Apple Habitat. The wetland habitat was restored by the
expansion of an existing canal site and the addition of more trees and native plants. The results were
very promising with increased bird species such as herons and limpkin, the endangered wood stork, and
other egrets and ibis. Community members and a local college helped provide funding and the labor
necessary to complete the project and the site is now used as an outdoor classroom for many local
schools (Phipps, and Vare). In New York State, two local projects currently underway to expand a
wetland habitat include the Canoga Creek Marsh in Seneca County, near Fayette, NY, on the west side of
Cayuga Lake, ("Canoga Creek Farm and Conservancy"), and the Owasco Flats in Cayuga County, on the
south end of Owasco Lake, (Murphy, Bell, Kautz, and Robins).These restoration endeavors provide
regional examples of communities working together to improve the ecology. Site visits to these projects
in order to evaluate particular methods, equipment, resources, and overall information gathering are
suggested.
Invasive Species
GIS analysis was used to provide a visual depiction of the present and proposed nature areas and
includes the distribution of the invasive buckthorn throughout Site A. Site A is estimated to be 27.7 acres
(red rectangle), and Site B is estimated to be 9.2 acres (green rectangle) (Figure 7). The yellow dots show
the distribution of the invasive buckthorn plant species around the site. Most of the buckthorn is located
around the current trail system and has grown in a ring around the base of larger evergreen or
deciduous trees. The points were given a 3 meter (9.84 feet) buffer to account for this ring and any
possible seed dispersal by wind. There is one spot where coverage of buckthorn bushes was too difficult
to individually mark, so the corners were plotted to make a rectangle. This dense area is represented
with the yellow rectangle. The current trails were digitized using the GPS coordinate track system and
are depicted by the green line.
Buckthorn is an invasive plant species from Europe that has quickly been colonizing the northeastern
and central United States. Buckthorn invades in colonies of thick dense bushes and grows up to 6 meters
in height (19.7 feet) with a very rapid growth rate of 12 to 18 inches per year ("Michigan State University
Extension"). Buckthorn readily invades certain areas because it is very adaptable to a wide variety of
habitats and can quickly colonize an area. The bushes effectively crowd out native species with their
long branches; preventing native species from properly growing by restricting the amount of sunlight
they receive ("Minnesota Department of Natural Resources"). These bushes also serve as hosts for
parasites like the crown rust fungus (Puccinia coronata) and the Asian soybean aphid (Aphis glycines
10
Matsumura). Buckthorn leaves have a high concentration of nitrogen which can increase soil pH levels
during decomposition. This new soil chemistry is more favorable for more buckthorn bushes to grow
and persist.
Figure 8. This map shows the two different sections of the park considered for ecological restoration. The reddish
brown is the existing Nature Area, and the green is the proposed extension. The yellow dots show the distribution
of buckthorn, and the yellow rectangle an extremely high density of buckthorn.
Buckthorn is a major issue in Site A, as it has spread throughout the area in dense rings around many of
the larger trees along the current trail system (Figure 8). The estimated percent coverage of buckthorn
in the site is about 5%. This seemingly small percent is significant because if no action is taken soon,
buckthorn will continue to colonize more of the area. Since buckthorn has already become established
throughout Site A, their propagation will increase more rapidly and its removal will become more
involved and costly.
Physical controls such as mowing, excavating, cutting and burning are the most common methods of
removal of invasive colonies. Identification and awareness of adjacent plants is important, as it is
difficult to remove the invasive buckthorn without disturbing the roots of other plant species. Burning is
not considered as effective, because sprouting can still occur from the roots and trunks. Chemical
herbicides have been used to control this re-growth and are usually applied to the cut trunks to prevent
new growth. At this time, there is no known biological control for buckthorn, but research is in progress
11
("New York Invasive Species Information, The New York Invasive Species Clearinghouse"). Herbicides are
not recommended as a method of removal for the buckthorn in this wetland area. The chemicals can
infiltrate the ground water and may drain into the pond or lake and negatively impact the ecosystem.
The best method of removal for this invasive species would be to cut and remove the buckthorn. This
process can be done gradually over time and should include a regular schedule of new growth
monitoring. Monitoring is a crucial step in the eradication of buckthorn, as its seeds can still remain
viable in the soil for up to 5 years.
Wetlands across America have been invaded by Lythrum salicaria, commonly known as purple
loosestrife, a semi-aquatic perennial plant native to Europe. The plant colonizes rapidly due to the
millions of seeds it produces annually as well as its ability to spread through root propagation. As a
result of this rapid colonization, water flow in rivers and canals can be dramatically disrupted and a
sharp decline in biological diversity can be observed. Life cycles of organisms from waterfowl to
amphibians and algae are negatively affected due to the dense root systems that are not suitable for
food or as nesting sites for birds (Lym). Seed dispersal is another major issue with purple loosestrife.
One plant can produce 2.5 million seeds in one year ("Montana Weed Control Association"). The purple
loosestrife in both Sites A and B seemed located only in the drainage ditches along the perimeters. It is
not known whether additional locations of purple loosestrife exist in Sites A and B since the identifying
purple flowers were past their season and the plant had gone to seed. Additional research is
recommended to confirm the distribution of purple loosestrife in both sites. When it flowers, typically
from late June through August, the purple flower would be easy to identify and map out or remove.
The removal of purple loosestrife is similar to that of buckthorn, and includes mechanical controls such
as cutting, digging, and burning. Chemical methods of applying herbicides to the plant are not favorable
since they can be rinsed away in rainstorms and will contaminate ground water. There are three beetles
that can be used as biological control agents for purple loosestrife. Galerucella pusilla is a leaf feeding
beetle, Hylobius transversovittatus is a root-mining weevil, and Galerucella calmariensis a leaf feeding
beetle is most often used in case studies and has been found to be most successful in decreasing the
overabundance of purple loosestrife in many sites. In laboratory studies, beetle herbivory has been
shown to significantly reduce plant, leaf, shoot and root growth (Blossey et al., 439-445). The beetles
from NYSDEC Northern Montezuma Wetlands Project have been recommended for use at Canoga Creek
Marsh ("Canogta Creek Farm and Conservancy"). Results were inconclusive as no articles or case studies
to date could be found showing long-term effects the beetle has on purple loosestrife populations.
Biological controls may be useful for removal in large areas. However, since little is known about the
long-term environmental effects the beetle will have after the loosestrife is gone, it may be considered
experimental. Since the purple loosestrife is in localized areas it would be not be too difficult to
manually dig the plants out of the ditches. Monitoring after removal would again be key to make sure
that no new seeds re-colonize the area.
Recommended Biological Surveys
Three field samples need to be collected before any renovation of the area is performed: a soil survey, a
biodiversity index of animals, and a catalog of plant species. To determine if another pond should be
added to the present grass field, a soil core survey should be conducted to determine the soil saturation
level. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the area is mostly comprised of
Schoharie silt loam with 2% to 6% slopes ("Web Soil Survey"). A more accurate test would be to
physically go to the site and take soil cores around the area to determine the level of soil saturation. This
is important for determining if there is enough water to support a wetland area. The general rule is to
12
interpret the sample based on color. Typically, soils that have been wet for an extended period of time
are gray and dry soils are bright red ("Maryland Department of the Environment"). If the soils are found
to be saturated (hydric), then the site is truly a wetland location and must be carefully restored to
support the flora and fauna of a functioning wetland ecosystem for this region.
A plant survey is essential to determine what native and invasive plant, tree, shrub, and wildflower
species are in the area. A botanist or horticulturist can help identify the current native and invasive plant
species. This is useful to determine what invasives need to be removed, and if more variety of native
plants should be added in replacement (Walters and Kei l 5-8). For this project, two invasive plant
species were identified: buckthorn and purple loosestrife. The distribution of buckthorn was mapped
and purple loosestrife was located in both Sites A and B (Figure 8). A Before After Control Impact (BACI)
statistical analysis can be conducted on the site to determine species richness. This is an investigation
where random GPS points are selected in a control area of the restoration site, and any plant or
organism within a determined radius is catalogued. The results will provide a reasonable assessment of
species diversity and their distribution in the area (Cushman). It will also give a baseline for future
improvements to be made ("Biodiversity Counts”). A diverse population is ideal because diversity
provides stability to an ecosystem by lowering the risk of significant change due to an environmental
disturbance. Cataloging is an important technique to use, not only before and after restoration but also
in future monitoring, for example at five years post-restoration.
The three main types of fauna in Sites A and B are birds, small mammals, and aquatic life. To properly
survey and identify the animal populations, experts should be consulted. For example, an ornithologist,
an expert on birds, could investigate the area in certain times of the day or year to survey what type of
birds are using the habitat. They can also evaluate tree heights appropriate for proper nesting and food
sources of different wetland bird species. Small mammal trapping could be used to survey the small
animals that live around the pond. The catch and release traps could be set up at dusk and data
collected at dawn. Aquatic life within the pond and channel also need analysis. Dr. Susan F. Cushman, at
Hobart and William Smith Colleges, could assist with surveying the benthic macro invertebrate, and
important organism in the food chain of a water environment.
Two Site Restoration Scenarios
Recommendations for the restoration of wetlands in the Seneca Lake Park have two distinct features:
one of rehabilitation and expansion of the land and its plant and animal occupants, and one of the
development of the facilities on the land for public use and education. These two scenarios are distinctly
different, yet both contribute unique and important qualities to the whole restoration procedure. The
wildlife restoration scenario will utilize much of the technical information provided in this paper on
wetlands, invasive species and biological surveys. It is dedicated to the establishment of a natural
wetlands ecosystem by applying up to date scientific information in order to rebuild land that has been
degraded by human use over hundreds of years. The second scenario describing potential public use of
the land builds on the first, but expands in an alternate direction. It redefines human use and provides a
sustainable way for the community to interact with this restored environment through the practices of
land stewardship while including public education and recreation. Some of the expertise for this
development is cited in the paper, and other examples of local restoration or environmental public
education websites can inspire the process and involve community members in creative new ways.
13
Scenario 1) Wildlife Restoration
Wildlife restoration should begin with a primary focus on the removal of invasive plant species and their
replacement with a diverse native plant species population. The recommended method for removal of
invasive plant species, specifically buckthorn and purple loosestrife, at both sites would be mechanical
labor -- to cut or dig the plants, since they appear to be located in small, isolated areas. Additionally, it is
recommended to regularly monitor the areas to make sure that all plants are eradicated and check that
purple loosestrife and buckthorn seeds do not re-populate the area. The phragmities clusters near the
existing pond in Site A should be removed to prevent encroachment on the native cattail.
Restoring the population of native plants will benefit the pond ecosystem as a whole. To determine
what types of trees and plants to add, the “National List of Plants that Occur in Wetlands” can be used.
Jim Engel, proprietor of White Oak Nursery in Canandaigua, NY has worked on a few restoration projects
and had successful plantings using the following native wetland herbaceous plants: Duck potato
(Sagitaria latifolia), Giant Burreed (Sparganium eurycarpum), Hard stemmed bulrush (Scirpus acutus),
Soft stemmed bulrush (Scirpus validus), Joe Pye (Eupatorium maculatum), Blue flag iris (Iris versicolor),
Blue lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), and Swamp milkweed (Aclepias incarnate) (Engel). Native shrubs that
are adaptable to wetland conditions or moist soils and should be included in this restoration area are:
Wet soils to standing water
Winter berry (Ilex verticillata)
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Red twig dogwood (Cornus sericea)
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Grey dogwood (Cornus racemosa)
Arrowood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum)
Moist to average soils
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa)
Black elderberry (Sambucus americana)
Spice bush (Lindera benzoin)
Nannyberry (Viburnum lentago)
Cranberrybush viburnum (Viburnum trilobum)
It is recommended to expand the Nature Area of Seneca Lake State Park to incorporate Site B and
include an additional pond, if a soil survey indicates saturated soils (Figure 9). Adding the present day
soccer field of 9.2 acres (green rectangle) to the current nature area would increase the acreage to 36.9
acres total, out of the parks current 142 acres (Figure 8). Building a pond somewhat close to the road
will provide a visual attraction to people on their way in or out of the park along the main Entrance
Road. This pond would provide an attractive environment for both humans and wildlife. Also, this new
pond can be used as an urban fishery to attract local novice fishermen, since it is difficult to fish from
the Seneca Lake shore because it is very shallow. The pond can be stocked with bluegill or pumpkin seed
sunfish, brown bullhead, and large mouth bass (Hughes). Suitable nest boxes in appropriate locations
need to be added to the site to encourage different birds to live near the pond(s).
14
Figure 9. Proposed new layout of the expanded Nature Area (Sites A and B), including a pond and benches (Site
B); observation decks, trails and native wetland plants (Sites A and B); parking and picnic area (Site A).
To address the overall issue of drainage, a topographic map with smaller contour intervals of 2 feet
would be more effective for planning rather than the 10 foot contour intervals used in the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) map. The 10 foot interval was not as useful because the actual site’s slope
gradient is very small. One other possible resource of an existing topographic map might be the New
York State Department of Transportation, since NYS Routes 5 & 20 ran through and around the site. If
they are unable to locate a valuable topographic map, it is highly recommended to conduct a
topographic survey utilizing one or two foot contour intervals in order to record the small elevation
changes. This will provide the level of detail important for planning water flow and drainage estimations.
There is little to no water flow in the existing ditches throughout both Sites A and B. As a result, seeds
from plants accumulate and their progeny fill in the drainage ditches, which then cannot drain the soil
effectively. It is recommended to clear the ditches free of plants more frequently than the annual spring
removal by the fire department, in order to allow for better drainage during precipitation events. Adding
a few potholes (vernal pools) to both Sites A and B, and regular ditch clearing would help establish
submerged aquatic wetland vegetation and allow amphibians and macro-invertebrates to live in a fish
free environment ("Canoga Creek Farm and Conservancy"). Some specific amphibians and reptiles that
live in potholes include: spotted salamanders, spring peepers, wood frogs, Blanding’s and spotted turtles
(Schiavone 10-11).
15
It is not practical to adjust the drainage ditches to connect to Seneca Lake. This is because the change in
gradient is so slight that the water will not freely flow from the lake to the pond or from the pond to the
lake. If the existing pond was connected to Seneca Lake it would form a channel with relatively still
water that might have a flow only during precipitation events. Connecting the lake to the pond is not
compatible with the restoration of this wetland, and none of the maps indicate a previous natural
connection to the lake.
A section of the old Cayuga-Seneca Canal once flowed through Site A, near the existing pond (Figure 4).
Currently, what remains of the old canal empties into Seneca Lake and forms the eastern border of the
Seneca Lake State Park. This distance is too far from the existing pond for it to be practical to try to
connect it with the old canal. Additionally, to avoid interference with roads and park fields a ditch would
have to be dug along the fence line. Since there is little to no gradient change along this path, it would
be difficult to prevent the same problems with overgrowth that occur in existing ditches. This would
eventually block any water movement and inhibit wetland species from thriving. Also, the canal was
initially an artificial water source and serves no practical purpose in the restoration of this wetland.
Scenario 2) Community Engagement - Public Education & Recreation
Expanding the current Nature Area to include Site B is recommended only if the soil is shown to be
hydric. The area of Site B where an existing soccer field is located is a good spot for another pond (Figure
8). More trails could be added to the expanded area to allow people to walk around, and view the pond
with native wetland vegetation. If the new trails are connected to the Lakefront Trail, more people will
have access and likely use them. Since the current Lakefront Trail is heavily used, people could be
enticed to use the new nature loop by a few signs indicating that it has a connecting access trail.
Refurbishing current trails with appropriate materials such as crushed stone or wood chips and/or
boardwalks would provide a dry area for walking and a pleasant experience for visitors.
Trail improvements are needed for greater accessibility in the nature area. The existing nature trails are
currently maintained by grass mowing; however, it is often muddy or even waterlogged (other
indicators of saturated soils). The muddy and uneven terrain makes the site averse to visitors, and
completely inaccessible for the disabled. Mulching the trails would improve the site and/or adding
boardwalks in the most year-round saturated locations. A good example of the boardwalk improvement
is in Huckelberry Swamp, North Rose, NY, which has extensive wooden boardwalk trails, allowing visitors
to walk above a wetland.
The trails would also be more interesting to visitors if there were small interpretive history and nature
signs about unique wetland features, including identification of trees and plants. Some signs could also
describe relevant history of the location, explaining how the area has changed over time, and provide
details about the old abandoned canal including indications of where it extended into the area. Nature
signs and history signs could create two different interpretative walks for visitors and would provide
them with knowledge about local history, while enabling them to understand the significance of the
Nature Area and why it has changed.
Building an observation deck over the current pond and new pond would also provide a new experience
for people to enjoy being able to be closer and observe the pond without getting wet. The observation
deck in Site B could allow people to fish there (Figure 9) as well. An educational sign on the deck could
explain about the wildlife that lives in and around the pond, such as fish, turtles, and ducks. This sign
16
could be a useful way to teach visitors to understand the unique and important value of the wetland
habitat.
Another way to make the site more accessible for visitors would be to create additional parking and a
picnic area in Site B (Figure 9). A small parking lot with approximately 12 car spaces, with wheelchair
access and a sign explaining that it is for use of the Nature Area may entice more people to use it, as
presently there is no legal parking nearby. A picnic area nearby will draw more people, including those
with physical disabilities, to the area and encourage them to spend time enjoying and learning about a
wetland ecosystem. For example, people can watch ducks in the pond while having lunch, and benches
along the trails will provide visitors with a place to sit and relax along the path, offering a different view
from the picnic area. A few randomly placed benches will be useful for birdwatchers and other
recreationalists who want to stop and spend some time enjoying the wetland atmosphere.
Conclusion
Historical research has shown that the salient characteristics of the land, both as a wetland and its
proximity to the lakeshore, which comprise the Seneca Lake State Park, is at the heart of its use and
misuse throughout the last hundred years. The research supporting this conclusion relied on many
things: careful scholarship of historians published in the nineteen eighties; maps filed in the city of
Geneva’s historical archives and that of New York State; up to date environmental science research;
sophisticated 21st century mapping technology; and the generous knowledge of individuals’ memories.
Historical events such as: the construction of the Erie Canal (of which the Cayuga-Seneca canal is but a
link), the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, growth in the use of the automobile as a main
source of personal transportation along with roads on which to drive them, and the role of many
individuals, both official and ordinary, blend together in a story from which this paper bases
recommendations for the wetland restoration and future use of the Nature Area of the park.
Wetland restoration in the Nature Area of the Seneca Lake State Park actually began with the
establishment of a pond with trails for public enjoyment. The environmental science provided in this
paper explains the significance of this natural wetland ecosystem and provides a guide for its
restoration. The content and resources contained herein are tailored to the needs of the site and can
form the basis for future discussion on the next phase of the larger project. One step that could be
considered a vital part of the restoration process can be undertaken as soon as practically possible This
step, the removal of invasive species, is a recommendation of topmost importance. The next step in the
process of restoration will require the completion of recommended biological surveys on the soil and
plant and animal populations with assistance from other wetland science experts of each survey field, as
well as the procurement of a more detailed topographic map to help understand wetland water flow.
With these tools in hand, a plan can be drawn, guided and implemented with the characteristic wetland
flora and fauna specified in this paper.
Additional research is necessary to help evaluate the recommended scenarios which focus on wildlife
restoration and public education and recreation. Case studies of projects in similar natural areas give
successful details and additional examples can be found with more internet searches. The best
restoration scenario is likely a combination of the two proposed ideas, as they can be integrated to
benefit both the wildlife and public. Continued research can identify details such as which plants should
be planted where, why hydric soils support the creation of another pond, how deep a pond must be to
support certain fish species, et cetera. Public use and recreation planning could be augmented by future
outreach programs such as collaboration with the Finger Lakes Institute and Hobart and William Smith
17
Colleges. The inclusion of students, community members, and state park officials together on a project
to improve the local environment, along with the expertise of wetlands science experts, can enhance
the potential for the successful restoration of the Seneca Lake State Park.
Acknowledgements
This research could not have been completed without generous help from:
Tom Hughes, Natural Resource Steward Biologist, for his ideas and work with the Finger Lakes Institute
to start the preliminary research for this extensive restoration project at Seneca Lake Park. Steve Garlick,
current Seneca Lake Park Manager, for his knowledge of local and recent park history, and for providing
many of the historic state park maps. Sue Poelvoorde, Senior Natural resources Planner, for providing a
historical map of Seneca Lake State Park from 1958. Neal Braman for his assistance in scanning the
historic state maps and providing the two old City of Geneva maps. Ariella Korn and William Greer IV for
their expertise in creating the Cayuga-Seneca Canal map and buckthorn GIS maps. Robert Beutner for
providing the most current 2010 map of Seneca Lake State Park. John Marks, Curator of Collections for
Geneva Historical Society, for suggesting books for the historical research component of this paper. Jim
Engel, proprietor of White Oak Nursery in Canandaigua, NY, for his interest in this project and providing
information on the native wetland plant species that can be used in this restoration project. Susan
Cushman, Director of Introductory Biology Laboratories and Interim Research Scientist for the Finger
Lakes Institute, for her biological recommendations for the site based on her experience with stream
restoration projects. Lastly, advisors Professor Neil Laird, Associate Professor of Geoscience, and Sarah
Meyer, Community Outreach Coordinator at the Finger Lakes Institute, for providing feedback and
valuable ideas for the research project.
Sources:
Beall, Barbara."Wetland Words and What They Mean: Vegetation." New York State Wetlands Forum.
New York State Wetlands Forum, Winter 1998. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://www.wetlandsforum.org/wetlands/wetword3.htm>.
Blossey, , Bernd, Schat, and Marjolein. "Performance of Galerucella calmariensis (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) on Different North American Populations of Purple Loosestrife ." Environmental
Entomology. 26.2 (1997): 439-445. Print.
Browne, Steve, Scott Crocoll, Diane Goetke, Nancy Heaslip, and Ted Kerpez. United States. New York
State Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual. , 1995. Web. 28 Nov 2010.
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/wdelman.pdf>.
"Buckthorn." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, 2010. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/index.html>.
"Canoga Creek Marsh Wetlands Enhancement Initiative." Canoga Creek Farm and Conservancy. Canoga
Creek Conservancy, n.d. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://www.canogafarms.com/wetlandprog.html>.
Cushman, Susan. Personal Interview by Katelyn Zatwarnicki. 02 Dec 2010.
Engel, Jim. Telephone Interview by Katelyn Zatwarnicki. 03 Dec 2010.
Garlick, Stephen. Telephone Interview by Katelyn Zatwarnicki. 01 Dec 2010.
Grover, Kathryn. Geneva's Changing Waterfront 1779-1989. Geneva, NY: Geneva Historical Society,
1989. 73-98. Print.
"How to Calculate a Biodiversity Index." Biodiversity Counts. American Museum of Natural History, n.d.
Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://www.amnh.org/learn/biodiversity_counts/class_prep/biodiversity_index.htm>.
18
Hughes, Thomas. Telephone Interview by Katelyn Zatwarnicki. 29 Nov 2010.
"Invasive Plants: Buckthorn." New York Invasive Species Information The New York Invasive Species
Clearinghouse. Cornell University, 2008. Web. 26 Nov 2010.
<http://nyis.info/plants/Buckthorn.aspx>.
Kentula, Mary. "Restoration, Creation, and Recovery of Wetlands Wetland Restoration and Creation."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Jan 2002. Web. 26 Nov 2010.
<http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/restoration.html>.
Lym, Rodney. "Identification and Control of Purple Loosestrife." North Dakota State University , June
2004. Web. 26 Nov 2010. <http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/w1132w.htm>.
"Montana's Noxious Weed List." Montana Weed Control Association. Montana Weed Control
Association, 14 October 2010. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://www.mtweed.org/library/index.php/tag/montanas-noxious-weed-list/>.
Murphy, Mike, Tom Bell, Marie Kautz, and Jeffrey Robins. "Owasco Flats Wildlife Management Area A
Conceptual Management Plan." New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife, 21 July 2008. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/owasco.pdf>.
Phipps, Janet, and Carman Vare. "Construction of the Pond Apple Habitat Wetlands Restoration
Project." Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management, n.d. Web.
27 Nov 2010. <http://www.pbcgov.com/erm/lakes/freshwater/pdf/pondapplereport.pdf>.
"Rhamnus frangula--Glossy Buckthorn ." Michigan State University Extension. Michigan State University
Extension, 12 November 1999. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/modzz/00001231.html>.
Schiavone, Michael. "Managing Habitat on Your Land." New York Hunting & Trapping . October 2010:
10-11. Print.
Tiner, Ralph. In Search of Swampland: A Wetland Sourcebook and Field Guide . 2 nd. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 2005. 81-92. Print.
Walters, Dirk, and David Keil. Vascular plant taxonomy. 4th edition. Atlanta, GA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company, 1996. 5-8. Print.
Watrous, Hilda. The County Between The Lakes: A Public History of Seneca County, New York, 1876-1982.
city : company, 1982. Print.
"Web Soil Survey: Area of Interest (AOI)." Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, 11
November 2009. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>.
"The Wetlands Restoration Guidebook." Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland
Department of the Environment, Nontidal Wetlands Division , n.d. Web. 27 Nov 2010.
<http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wetlandswaterways/restore.pdf>.
Engel, Jim. "Wetland Restoration." White Oak Nursery. N.p., 31 March 2010. Web. 30 Nov 2010.
<http://www.whiteoaknursery.biz/wetland_restora.html>.
Historical Map Sources:
Neal Braman – Seneca Park, Geneva, NY, Engineering Department, Board of Public Works, Geneva, NY,
October 9, 1923.
Neal Braman – Map of Seneca Park, Geneva, NY from Pre-Emption Street to the Barge Canal,
Engineering Department, Board of Public Works, Geneva, NY, September 14, 1932.
Sue Poelvoorde – Outline Map of Seneca Lake State Park at Geneva, NY, Finger Lakes State Parks
Commission, Carl Crandall Secretary- Engineer, Drawn by E. J. Beasley, March 10, 1958.
Steve Garlick – General Development Plan for Seneca Lake State Park, Geneva, NY, Finger Lakes State
19
Parks Commission, Ithaca, NY, Carl Crandall Secretary- Engineer, Drawn by C. H. Dunlap
Landscape Architect, April 1958.
Steve Garlick – Preliminary Location Plan for Entrance Road at Seneca Lake State Park, Geneva, NY,
Thomas G. Miller Engineer and Surveyor, 203 N. Aurora Street, Ithaca, NY, October 1961.
Steve Garlick – Location Plan Seneca Lake State Park Geneva, NY, Finger Lakes State Parks Commission,
R.D. 3 Trumansburg, NY, Thomas G. Miller Engineer and Surveyor 203 N. Aurora Street,
Ithaca, NY, May 31, 1963.
Steve Garlick – Seneca Lake State Park, Finger Lakes State Parks Commission, Trumansburg, NY, Site Plan
Drawn by R de A, MAF, Holt & Downing Architects, 121 East Buffalo St, Ithaca, NY
March 18, 1965.
20