What kind of ponds make the best habitat for homeowners and
frogs? Some answers to this question have emerged from two
surveys. Resident attitudes toward stormwater ponds in Illinois
were recently sampled by Emmerling-DiNovo (1995). The study area
included seven residential subdivisions that employed two
different stormwater management strategies‹large wet ponds and
dry detention ponds. The ponds were large, ranging from two to
twelve acres in size. Most of the wet ponds had rectangular
shapes and had little shoreline vegetation. Similarly, the dry
detention basins were flat and rectangular and had a mown grass
cover. All ponds had common access and were maintained by a
homeowner¹s association. The flat and level landscape of the
study area had few water features.
The study surveyed over 140 homeowners in the affluent
subdivisions. The respondents all owned single-family homes,
and had lived in them for an average of eight years. The survey
was structured to compare the attitudes of homeowners toward wet
and dry ponds and queried not only residents who live adjacent to
ponds, but also those that did not. In addition, the survey asked
homeowners to rank the value of ponds relative to other amenities
in the subdivision. Survey results indicate that residents
clearly preferred wet ponds to dry ponds. For example, 82 percent
of all respondents were willing to pay a premium to live next to
a wet pond. By contrast, 67% percent of residents were unwilling
to pay any premium to live next to a dry pond, and 10% felt that
such a lot should be discounted.
Residents were asked to estimate the value of lots adjacent to and
distant from both wet ponds and dry ponds. On average, wet
ponds were perceived to add 4 to 24% to the value of an adjacent
lot. In contrast, dry ponds were felt to subtract from 3% to 10%
from the value of an adjacent lot. The wet pond premium is
consistent with that reported by U.S. EPA (1995) for twenty
stormwater wet ponds and wetlands in other regions of the
country. It is also comparable to the results of a similar
homeowner survey of two residential subdivisions in Canada.
Baxter et al. (1985) found that 17% of residents who were distant
from a wet pond but living within the same subdivision would be
willing to pay a premium to live next to one, and nearly half of
all residents who lived next to one felt it enhanced their
property value.
The attractiveness and image of the subdivision, along with
potential resale value, were the three primary factors considered
in purchasing a home according to the survey. If these factors
were held constant, however, the presence of a wet pond was very
important in individual lot selection. For example, over half of
the respondents indicated that the presence of a pond had a strong
or very strong influence of their selection of a lot. In fact,
wet ponds outranked five other common subdivision features -
natural areas, cul-de-sacs, golf courses, public parks, and the
dreaded dry pond. What is perhaps the most striking about the
Emmerling-DiNovo survey is that the poorly landscaped and
geometrically simple wet ponds scored so highly. How much more
value might they have had if they were designed with more natural
shapes and better landscaping?
Amphibians, such as frogs, toads and spring peepers, also exhibit
similar preferences for living next to wet ponds compared to dry
ponds, according to a survey by Bascietto and Adams (1983). These
wildlife researchers conducted an evening count of frogs and toads
at 14 stormwater ponds in Columbia, Maryland. The ponds were
divided into three categories - wet ponds, dry ponds, and dry
ponds with streams. As might be expected, dry ponds without
streams were very poor amphibian habitat, with only one species
recorded in the survey, the American toad. On the other hand,
wet ponds and the dry ponds with streams were much better habitat
with five species frequently recorded. More true frogs favored
wet ponds, whereas toads and treefrogs preferred dry ponds with
streams. The greatest amphibian diversity occurred when ponds
had shallow pools, gentle slopes, dense emergent vegetation, and
adjacent forest habitats.
The clear implication is that wet ponds are better habitat than
dry ponds and provide an important link to increased diversity.
A designer that makes a wet pond more attractive to both amphibians
and humans can expect to increase the marketability of their
subdivision.
Environmental Systems Analysis, Inc. (ESA) takes an
interdisciplinary approach, using both water resource engineers
and natural resource management specialists in their water
resource design efforts, whether it be stormwater management
facilities, ponds, lakes, wetlands, retrofits and/or stream
restoration.
After performing detailed field analysis, the ESA design effort
considers the best methodologies for hard and/or soft (bio)
engineering, hydrological budget, quality/quantity controls,
pre-treatment options, construction access, restoration, and
grading. Planning then goes further to address ecological
parameters such as habitat enhancements, fisheries, aeration,
landscaping, aesthetics, future maintenance/management
requirements, trails, interpretive signage, and any necessary
corrections to the receiving stream.
As indicated in the results of these studies, the cost of
ecological design and subsequent implementation can ultimately be
recognized as a net economic gain. It behooves the developer
and land manager to add this layer of professional ecological
design throughout the site plan process and beyond.
