Looking Glass River Watershed Management Plan - Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

day as it is at a USGS gauging station. The challenge with gauging station data is in interpretation based on all of the other variables affecting flow, for example precipitation, temperature, wind, length of records, etc. Flashiness indices are one method of analyzing flow records. The term flashiness reflects the frequency and rapidity of short term changes in stream flow, especially during runoff events. A variety of indices have been developed to describe natural flow regimes, their degree of alteration, and progress in their remediation. Other indicators of changes in hydrology look at the impact left behind such as streambank erosion, embeddedness, and population and biodiversity of organisms. Erosion of streambanks is a natural process; severely eroding streambanks may be an indicator of changes in the hydrology regime. Various methods are available to monitor the rate of eroding streambanks; these typical center around some type of reference marks or pins. Photographic monitoring also provides some reference framework for this. Fallen trees into the river may be an indicator of active erosion although this may be difficult to tell. The presence of exposed roots on the riverbanks with the fine roots present (looks like the roots are hairy) may indicate actively eroding streambanks. The loss of storage may be calculated based on mapping, survey data, and perhaps modeling and used as an indirect measurement of the hydrologic change. Water Quality Standards Water quality standards specific to altered hydrology are not available. The water quality rules discussed under the MDEQ’s administrative rules focus on chemical composition, taste or odor producing substances, radioactive substances, plant nutrients, microorganisms, dissolved oxygen, and temperature. The rules surrounding floodplains also do not address altered hydrology specifically but rather look to net increases to the floodplain, typically the one percent probability floodplain (100-year). Since hydrology variations are in and of themselves not regulated, attention must be focused on the impacts associated with the changes of hydrology. Available Data Stream flow data is available at the USGS gauging stations (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/rt). There is only one USGS gauging site located on the Looking Glass River and it is downstream of the watershed of interest. For data analysis purposes this site is still considered. • Station ID 04114498 located on the Looking Glass River near Eagle Michigan. This site is located on the right bank at the downstream side of the bridge at Tallman Road, 1.9 miles northeast of Eagle, and 11 miles upstream from mouth. The gauge collected data in August of 1944 and continued uninterrupted to September 1996 and then was put back into service in October 2001 and continues today. The drainage area tributary to the gauge is 280 square miles. The gauge is currently managed by the Lansing Field Office of MDEQ. Land use data and aerial mapping is available to estimate percent imperviousness. Soil mapping information is available from the NRCS 5-10 Looking Glass River Watershed April 2007
which is used in hydrology computations. Some flow conveyance information is available from the respective County Drain Commissioner’s offices, the MDEQ and as well as from some municipalities. Information on indicators is available in the form of organism biodiversity and population data, and physical characteristics as observed from the various inventory and screening efforts are all discussed in Section 3. Load Estimates Load estimates for altered hydrology are not specifically available rather surrogate estimates are used, namely the stream flow variations, flashiness indices and the amount of imperviousness within the watershed. Average annual stream flow statistics (annual minimums, maximums and average annual flows) are provided in Figure 5-1. This data shows that the Looking Glass River experienced much higher peak flows during the period of record than it has in the last 10 years. What is not evident in this information is the cause of the maximum flows, i.e. the combination of land use, conveyance pathways and precipitation. A detailed historical flow characterization of the Looking Glass River is beyond the scope of this watershed management plan. Figure 5-1 Stream Flow at Eagle (USGS 04114498) 1200 1000 Streamflow (cfs) 800 600 400 200 0 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 The term “flashy” as applied to stream flow has no set definition and in general flashy streams have rapid rates of change and stable streams have slow rates of change. The Richards-Baker Flashiness Index (abbreviated R-B Index) was calculated for the available stream flow data (Baker 2004). The R- B Index measures oscillations in flow relative to the total flow. The calculated R-B Index has varied over time with an average value of 0.10 based on the USGS gauging station data, refer to Figure 5-2. According to the paper on the R-B index (Baker, 2004) an index value of 0.10 for these size watersheds is in the lowest quartile of flashiness when compared to the data from other sites. It should be noted that in the Baker study the flashier streams were outside of Michigan. For comparison purposes one of the most stable streams in Michigan is the Au Sable River which has an R-B Index of 0.043 computed on the South Branch near Luzern. Another way to look at the R-B Index is to consider the trend over time. Based on the graph the Looking Glass River appears relatively stable over the last 50 years. Section 5: Stressor Summary 5-11
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 50 and 51: ! ! ! ! ! ! Forest Hill ! ! ! ! ! !
Page 52 and 53: ! ! ! ! ! ! Forest Hill ! ! ! ! ! !
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 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?