Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The coldwater fishery use does not apply to any waters within the watershed as none have been designated as such by the MDEQ. Pollutant Load Analysis The intent of a pollutant load analysis is to derive the potential pollutant contributions to a system for a given area to assist in prioritizing problem areas. Pollutant load analyses are often developed by extrapolating existing data or developing theoretical data from a model. There is limited data on existing pollutant loads within this watershed. Therefore, it is practical to calculate the pollutant loadings by utilizing a model. The pollutant load analysis conducted for this watershed was modeled utilizing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL). Phosphorus, 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), and sediment loadings were all calculated on a subwatershed basis using this program. The methods used to calculate urban loadings of phosphorus, sediment, and BOD primarily utilized the runoff volume and land use specific pollutant concentrations for each subwatershed to provide an average annual loading. Agricultural sediment calculations utilized the universal soil loss equation (USLE), which is used widely to calculate average annual soil losses from sheet and rill erosion (EPA, 2004). Phosphorus and BOD were calculated for agricultural areas by multiplying the soil load by a pollutant concentration for nutrients in sediment. Land Use Specific Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant concentrations for the watershed were not available, therefore published concentrations from national studies were considered for their applicability to this watershed. Table 3-10 presents the range of urban pollutant load concentrations found in a literature review. Table 3-10 Urban Pollutant Load Concentrations Reference Commercial Industrial Institutional Transportation Residential Pasture Land Forest BOD TP TSS BOD TP TSS BOD TP TSS BOD TP TSS BOD TP TSS BOD TP TSS BOD TP TSS EPA, 1983 9.3 0.2 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 0.38 101 -- -- -- -- -- -- EPA, 2004 9.3 0.2 75 9 0.4 120 7.8 0.3 67 9.3 0.5 150 10 0.4 100 13 0.3 -- 0.5 0.1 -- MPS, 1992 16 0.26 30 23 0.36 142 -- -- -- -- -- -- 43 0.57 205 -- -- -- -- -- -- Pitt, 2004 11 0.22 74 9 0.26 78 8.5 0.18 17 8 0.25 99 9 0.3 49 -- -- -- -- -- -- The data in Table 3-10 illustrate the diversity in land use specific pollutant load concentrations and the potential for error in the pollutant load estimates. For the purposes of this watershed; the concentrations identified in STEPL (EPA, 2004) were chosen for the pollutant load calculations. These values were chosen with the understanding that the pollutant load analysis is a theoretical calculation of the loadings within the watershed and Section 3: Water Quality Conditions 3-21
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Looking Glass River ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! that the results would be used to draw conclusions and prioritize subwatersheds, in concert, with the published water quality data discussed previously. Pollutant Load Results The current unit pollutant loads (lbs/ac/yr) for sediment, phosphorus, and BOD are illustrated by subwatershed in Figure 3-7, Figure 3-8, and Figure 3-9, respectively. Tabular unit pollutant load data for each subwatershed is provided in Table 3-11. Locations and names of subwatersheds are provided in Figure 2-1. Figure 3-7 Sediment Pollutant Load Riley Twp Olive Twp £¤ 127 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Victor Twp CLINTON COUNTY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! SHIAWASSEE COUNTY Sciota Twp Woodhull Twp ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! City of Dewitt Watertown Twp Legend Waters of the State Sediment State Roads 135 - 258 lb/ac/yr County Boundary 258 - 400 lb/ac/yr Municipal Boundaries 401 - 541 lb/ac/yr Watershed 542 - 567 lb/ac/yr CLINTON COUNTY EATON COUNTY INGHAM COUNTY Dewitt Twp Lansing Twp City of Lansing ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! City of East Lansing ! ! ! ! ! ! ! §¨¦ 69 Bath Twp 4 Meridian Twp ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Williamstown Twp 0 1 2 3 4 Miles 3-22 Looking Glass River Watershed April 2007
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 42 and 43: 3. Water Quality Conditions People
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 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?