Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3. Water Quality Conditions People tend not to realize the impact of their actions until long after damage has been done. - Unknown The Relevance of Impervious Cover The physical, chemical, and biological integrity of a given stream system has been shown to be strongly correlated to the amount of impervious cover (the area covered by rooftops, streets, parking facilities, and other hard surfaces) in the subbasin or watershed (Schueler, 1994). Imperviousness appears to be one of the principal indicators of watershed “health.” Analysis of stream systems across the country seems to indicate that there are thresholds at which watershed imperviousness results in degradation of water quality and physical stream processes. The conversion of natural landscapes (i.e. farmland, forests, and wetlands) into urban landscapes creates a layer of impervious surface. Urbanization has a significant impact on hydrology, morphology, water quality and ecology of surface waters. The amount of impervious cover in a watershed can be used as an indicator to predict how severe differences are in character of urban watersheds and natural watersheds. In natural settings, there is very little runoff, with most of the rainfall being filtered by the soils, and supplying deep water aquifers. In urbanized areas, however, less and less rainfall is infiltrated, and as a result, less water is available to streams. Additional changes in urban streams due to increased impervious cover include enlarged channels; upstream channel erosion contributing greater sediment load to the stream; in-stream habitat structure degradation; and declining water quality. “Even small increases in impervious change stream morphology and degradation of aquatic habitat. The relationship between impervious cover and subwatershed quality can be predicted by a simple model, projecting current and future quality of streams and other water resources.” (Center for Watershed Protection 2003) Macroinvertebrates Animals that are visible to the naked eye, but do not have backbones. Typical macroinvertebrates include insects (may flies, black flies, caddisflys and stone flys), aquatic worms, crustaceans, snails, and worms. Source: Cheo and Murdoch, 2001. Research indicates that zones of stream quality exist, most noticeably beginning around 10% impervious cover with a second threshold appearing at around 25-30% impervious cover. These thresholds are powerfully modeled in The Impervious Cover Model, classifying streams into three categories; sensitive, impacted, and non-supporting. Watersheds with less than 10% imperviousness appear to exhibit natural chemical, physical, and biological quality. Between 10 and 25 percent imperviousness, river systems show signs of degradation. Beyond 25 percent imperviousness, the damage to physical, chemical, and biological integrity may be irreversible. It is important to understand that the Impervious Cover Model, although a powerful tool predicting quality of streams based on impervious cover change, is not without its limitations. (Schueler, 1994) Each land use type in the Grand River watershed was given an assumed percent impervious value. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to develop a composite of the impervious surfaces in the watershed. This method was designed to be utilized for urban areas by determining the percent impervious of each subwatershed. Section 3: Water Quality Conditions 3-1
Habitat and Populations The habitat and biota populations were identified by reviewing previously conducted and published studies performed predominantly by the MDEQ and MDNR. These studies are summarized and presented below in discussions regarding the Looking Glass River and Vermillion Creek. Figure 3-1 presents a visual summary of the data discussed in this section. Looking Glass River Only a few studies are available regarding the habitat conditions and biota populations in the Looking Glass River Watershed defined by this plan. The most comprehensive study was conducted in 1975. Macroinvertebrate populations and diversity was identified as good to excellent at Hollister Road, west of Laingsburg. At Williams Road east of DeWitt populations were slightly more impaired and lacked any evidence of intolerant or sensitive macroinvertebrates. Downstream of DeWitt the study identified significantly impaired populations and diversity of macroinvertebrates and a complete absence of intolerant species. The populations and diversity rebounded by the time the river reached Wright and Howe Roads, downstream of this watershed planning area (Evans 1976). Turbidity, although not observed during the study, was also identified as a potential problem as rapid runoff from agricultural ditches increased the potential for erosion. Biota includes all of the plant and animal life in a particular region. Caddis Fly Larvae in Case Watershed.org, 2004 A 1992 study conducted by staff members from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) investigated two sites within this planning watershed. At Lowell Road the habitat and macroinvertebrate were in good condition and at Chandler Road, the habitats were rated in poor condition while the macroinvertebrate conditions were rated in fair condition. The study suggested that macroinvertebrate and fish population and diversity fluctuated between moderately and slightly impaired for the entire stretch of the Looking Glass main channel. Habitat on the other hand improved from severely impaired near Laingsburg to slightly impaired at Lowell Road (Scott 1993). Stone Fly Watershed.org, 2004 Upstream of the planning area sediment deposits were a significant factor in habitat loss for macroinvertebrates. Within the watershed between Laingsburg and DeWitt the channel and its banks become more stable. It is important to state that the study found several small gravel pits within this reach, and at least one, located at Howe Road, was found to be discharging highly turbid storm water (Scott 1993). Two additional studies conducted in 1996 and 1999 as part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ’s) Quality Assurance Evaluations of Qualitative Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols, recorded the conditions at DeWitt Road. Both of these studies rated habitat as good or slightly impaired with acceptable macroinvertebrate and fish populations (Alexander 1997, Wolf 2000). In 1975 the DeWitt and DeWitt Township waste water treatment plants (WWTP) were identified as the primary sources of water quality impairments effecting biota in the lower Looking Glass River. In 1980 the Southern Clinton County Municipal Utility Authority (SCCMUA) began operating a WWTP with tertiary treatment. Recent studies (Scott 1993, Alexander 1997, Wolf 2000) show that the implementation of a more efficient 3-2 Looking Glass River Watershed April 2007 Crayfish Aquatic Worms Watershed.org, 2004 Watershed.org, 2004
Page 2 and 3: GLRC on Phase II Looking Glass Rive
Page 4 and 5: P:\1666001\09 Looking Glass WMP\WMP
Page 6 and 7: Table of Contents Organization of t
Page 8 and 9: SECTION 10 - Plan Sustainability In
Page 10 and 11: FIGURES Figure 1-1 Watershed Locati
Page 12 and 13: Organization of the Plan This plan
Page 14 and 15: 9. Evaluation and Revision Section
Page 16 and 17: ! ! ! ! ! ! Forest Hill ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 18 and 19: The goals and objectives were then
Page 20 and 21: Looking Glass Watershed The Looking
Page 22 and 23: • methods for evaluation of progr
Page 24 and 25: References Center for Watershed Pro
Page 26 and 27: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 28 and 29: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 30 and 31: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 32 and 33: The majority of wetlands in the wat
Page 34 and 35: commonly classified as hydrologic s
Page 36 and 37: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 38 and 39: Significant Natural Features to be
Page 40 and 41: References Centers for Disease Cont
Page 44 and 45: sanitary sewer treatment system has
Page 46 and 47: Section 3: Water Quality Conditions
Page 48 and 49: Data Analysis Tetra Tech summarized
Page 54 and 55: Table 3-4 explains the problems fou
Page 56 and 57: Vermillion Creek Assessment Vermill
Page 58 and 59: Volunteers identify the species bas
Page 60 and 61: Watershed Fish Consumption The Mich
Page 62 and 63: The coldwater fishery use does not
Page 64 and 65: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 66 and 67: Interpretation of Watershed Conditi
Page 68 and 69: 4. Community Outreach A watershed p
Page 70 and 71: Public Comment on Draft Plan A draf
Page 72 and 73: Public Education Plan Public educat
Page 74 and 75: determining goals and desires for t
Page 76 and 77: Table 5-1 Status of Designated Uses
Page 78 and 79: Sources The main sources of sedimen
Page 80 and 81: the time for the specified month. (
Page 82 and 83: Altered Hydrology Stream flows vary
Page 84 and 85: day as it is at a USGS gauging stat
Page 86 and 87: Figure 5-2 R-B Index at Eagle (USGS
Page 88 and 89: It should also be noted that the su
Page 90 and 91: Detergents are becoming a serious t
Page 92 and 93:
Physical Pollutants Physical pollut
Page 94 and 95:
Oil and grease are often referred t
Page 96 and 97:
Table 5-14 Pesticide: Sources and C
Page 98 and 99:
Introduction 6. Goals and Objective
Page 100 and 101:
equirements, some objectives go bey
Page 102 and 103:
Goal 3: Encourage Water Quality Fri
Page 104 and 105:
general health of wetlands, primary
Page 106 and 107:
References DAS Manufacturing. “Cu
Page 108 and 109:
Several programs are available loca
Page 110 and 111:
Better Site Design Better site desi
Page 112 and 113:
Non-Storm Water Discharges Non-stor
Page 114 and 115:
producers to meet personal objectiv
Page 116 and 117:
Michigan Turfgrass Environmental St
Page 118 and 119:
8. Action Plan Source: Basetree, 20
Page 120 and 121:
Table 8-1 Benefits of Goals No Goal
Page 122 and 123:
9. Evaluation Mechanisms “Not eve
Page 124 and 125:
Evaluation Mechanisms Level One - A
Page 126 and 127:
Program Implementation Program impl
Page 128 and 129:
The MDEQ/MDNR have conducted analyt
Page 130 and 131:
Assessing the evaluation mechanisms
Page 132 and 133:
Goal 3: Encourage Water Quality Fri
Page 134 and 135:
Goal 6: Protect and Increase Wetlan
Page 136 and 137:
Evaluation Action Plan At the end o
Page 138 and 139:
Evaluation Mechanisms Municipal Sta
Page 140 and 141:
The committee defined appropriate w
Page 142 and 143:
“It is the purpose of this Memora
Page 144 and 145:
each other about how to protect and
Page 146 and 147:
A-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 148 and 149:
B-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 150 and 151:
C-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 152 and 153:
D-2 Looking Glass River Watershed A
Page 154 and 155:
Appendix E Road Stream Surveys Appe
Page 156 and 157:
Appendix F Vermillion Creek Corresp
show all

Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?