Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report Final

LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS

Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act

August 2017

Prepared By: Caroline Keson, Water Quality Specialist Lauren Dey, Water Quality Technician

Acknowledgements: Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. James Keiser, GIS Coordinator Kira Davis, former Water Quality Specialist

319 Assessment Report LTBB

CONTENTS List of Tables ...... iv List of Figures ...... iv List of Appendices ...... v OVERVIEW ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 3 Water Quality Monitoring ...... 3 Wetland Monitoring ...... 4 GIS Analysis ...... 5 LAND USE SUMMARY ...... 6 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY ...... 10 Surface Water ...... 13 Groundwater ...... 15 RESULTS ...... 19 Overview of Results ...... 19 Boyne River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050205) ...... 22 Brush Creek Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040203) ...... 22 Burt Lake Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040209) ...... 25 Carp Lake River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050602) ...... 25 Cold Creek-Maple River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040206) ...... 26 Crooked River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040208) ...... 27 Douglas Lake Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040205) ...... 30 Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake MI Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050605) ...... 31 Four Lakes/Maple River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040204) ...... 33 French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050601) ...... 33 Horseshoe Bend-Frontal Lake MI Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050604) ...... 34 Loeb Creek-Lake Charlevoix Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050207) ...... 35 Maple Hill Cemetery-Bear River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050103) ...... 36 Maple River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040207) ...... 37 Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700030101) ...... 39 Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed (HUC code: 04070040201) ...... 40

319 Assessment Report LTBB

North Branch Boyne River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050203) ...... 40 Pickerel Lake Subwatershed (HUC code: 04070040202) ...... 41 Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake MI Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050606) ...... 42 South Arm Lake Charlevoix Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050206)...... 45 Spring Brook Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050101) ...... 47 Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050607) ...... 47 Walloon Lake-Bear River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050102) ...... 50 Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050603) ...... 51 DISCUSSION ...... 54 NPS Pollution Category: Agriculture and Aquaculture ...... 55 NPS Pollution Category: Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management ...... 55 NPS Pollution Category: Other ...... 57 NPS Pollution Category: Transportation Infrastructure ...... 57 NPS Pollution Category: Urban ...... 57 SELECTION OF BMPS ...... 58 Core Participants ...... 59 Public Participation and Governmental Coordination ...... 59 Existing BMPS ...... 60 Pollution Reduction...... 60 EXISTING NPS CONTROL PROGRAMS...... 62 National Focus...... 62 State/Regional Focus ...... 63 Local Focus ...... 64 CONCLUSIONS ...... 65 ACRONYMS ...... 67 REFERENCES ...... 68

iii

319 Assessment Report LTBB

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Land use within reservation boundary. Cover types used as undeveloped land are highlighted in green, while developed cover types are highlighted in red...... 8 Table 2. Land use on LTBB-owned properties. Cover types used as undeveloped land are highlighted in green, while developed cover types are highlighted in red...... 9 Table 3. LTBB’s number of enrolled citizens (4,564 as of October 2016) can be compared to select municipalities on reservation...... 9 Table 4. Categories and subcategories of NPS pollution identified in and around LTBB reservation...... 10 Table 5. Atlas of watersheds within and adjacent to LTBB reservation...... 12 Table 6. Atlas of water resources on LTBB reservation...... 13 Table 7. Water quality standards are derived from various sources, but are not approved by the EPA. (All standards are taken directly from source unless otherwise noted.) ...... 14 Table 8. LTBB drinking water systems...... 18 Table 9. Rankings and mean scores for nonpoint source pollution in the assessment area...... 21

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The model from an analysis on Potential for Nonpoint Source Pollution...... 6 Figure 2. Most of the reservation is in Emmet County, which has more people getting their water from private drinking wells than public supplies. Charlevoix County is split almost in half, with 50% of the population served by private drinking wells, and 50% served by public supplies...... 16 Figure 3. In Emmet County, both public and self-supplied sources of water are from groundwater. Charlevoix County’s public supply is both groundwater and surface water, while the self-suppliers get all of their water from the ground...... 16 Figure 4. Industry is the main user of water in Charlevoix County, while in Emmet County it is mostly domestic users (everyday people) and irrigation...... 17 Figure 5. Larks Lake is 15% developed and some residences have turf grass almost to the shoreline...... 23 Figure 6. Wild rice in the northern area of Larks Lake needs minimal nonpoint pollution to ensure it can grow. It is also subject to predation from waterfowl that live on turf grass shorelines...... 24 Figure 7. Conductivity at Larks Lake has significantly increased (R²=0.84) over the monitoring period. ... 24 Figure 8. Chloride at Larks Lake has significantly increased (R²=0.68) over the monitoring period...... 25 Figure 9. Conductivity at Round Lake has significantly increased during the monitoring period...... 29 Figure 10. Conductivity in the north and south arms of Spring Lake has significantly increased over time. Conductivity in the south arm has increased more than the north arm...... 30 Figure 11. Five Mile Creek total phosphorus spikes in the summer months...... 32 Figure 12. Five Mile Creek total nitrogen spikes in the summer months...... 32 Figure 13. Five Mile Creek total suspended solids spike in the summer months...... 33 Figure 14. Downstream of the VNC2 monitoring site and fish hatchery. Culverts are not adequately sized...... 39 Figure 15. Left: Van Creek crossing at US-31 Hwy is characterized by two undersized culverts. The creek runs alongside the highway and then has to turn to get through the culverts. Right: The same culverts that cannot be seen during a heavy flooding event...... 39

319 Assessment Report LTBB

Figure 16. Temperatures at TYC1A almost always exceed the threshhold for rainbow trout spawning. Threshold temperatures for rainbow trout life stages are shown in colored lines: red (spawning), green (embryo survival), and black (growth)...... 44 Figure 17. Temperatures at TYC2A nearly always exceeded the threshold for Rainbow trout spawning. Less frequently, temperatures exceeded the threshold for embryo survival and growth. Threshold temperatures for Rainbow trout life stages are shown in colored lines: red (spawning), green, (embryo survival), and black (growth). Temperatures were also higher at the downstream, urban TYC1 than they were at the upstream, more rural TYC2A...... 45 Figure 18. Increasing trend in total phosphorus at CXL1...... 46 Figure 19. Increasing conductivity trends at CXL1...... 47 Figure 20. Increasing trend in total suspended solids at Susan Creek...... 48 Figure 21. Decreasing trend in macroinvertebrate scores at Susan Creek...... 49 Figure 22. Increasing trends in total phosphorus at Susan Creek...... 49 Figure 23. A steep, eroded bank just downstream from the North Lakeshore Drive crossing of Wycamp Creek...... 52 Figure 24. Sedimentation and deposition upstream of the North Lakeshore Drive crossing of Wycamp Creek...... 52

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Summary Table of Surface Water Quality Monitoring

Appendix B. Summary Table of Wetlands Monitoring

Appendix C. Potential for Nonpoint Source Pollution

Appendix D. Geology

Appendix E. Soils

Appendix F. LTBB Land Cover

Appendix G. LTBB Properties

Appendix H. LTBB Monitoring Sites

Appendix I. DRASTIC

Appendix J. Impairments by Subwatershed

Appendix K. Impairments by Category

Appendix L. Existing BMPs

Appendix M. Potential BMPs

OVERVIEW The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB) is located in the upper Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan with the western border of the reservation consisting of Lake Michigan’s shoreline. LTBB’s prosperity is and was dependent on the water resources that are in and surround the reservation.

The LTBB Nonpoint Source Assessment Report is a stand-alone document that details impairments caused by non-point sources based on data collected by LTBB and other data collecting entities. This report will not only be one of the required documents to apply for Section 319 CWA funds but provides direction for the non-point source management program plan and the Surface Water Protection Program (SWPP). LTBB will use this report to prioritize individual non-point source impairments and individual watersheds based on the number and severity of impairments.

With the completion of a ten year baseline assessment on specific water bodies, continuing assessments on wetlands, and water quality impairments identified from sources outside the Tribe, LTBB has a clear understanding of Tribal water quality and the quality of contributing watersheds. In order to address impairments, implementation funds are needed. Currently, the SWPP have only been able to address a fragment of these impairments through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) competitive programs. However, GLRI funds are not perpetual and do not address all non-point issues identified in this report.

The following report provides the methodology, land use summary, surface water quality, and results of LTBB waters. Also included are a discussion of results, a process for selecting BMPs, and a section on existing NPS programs. Major categories of concern are: “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Urban,” “Transportation Infrastructure,” and “Other”.

Many of these impairments are due to the impact of increasing development and population that the LTBB land base and surrounding area will continue to see. LTBB and the surrounding community depend on Nibiish (“water” in Anishinaabemowin, the language of the Odawa) for economic prosperity through commercial fishing and tourism. Fishing is one of the most evident ways that LTBB uses its treaty rights. The tourism industry is one of the main financial contributors for sustainment of LTBB because visitors come to this area for the quality of natural resources, primarily water. Therefore, the need to sustain, improve, and/or restore these waters is vital to LTBB.

319 Assessment Report LTBB

INTRODUCTION The LTBB are people of the water. The Odawa people originated from the water and will return to the water. The plants, wildlife, and aquatic life that are dependent on clean water are used for cultural, ceremonial, medicinal uses, and for sustenance.

LTBB were able to stay in their homeland and migrate due to their ability to navigate on the Great Lakes and through the inland waterways. The Odawa people have historically known how to utilize wetlands, inland lakes and creeks, rivers, and streams. These skills to utilize these resources did not go unnoticed. The French became an alliance with LTBB and sought out knowledge from LTBB on their abilities to use these land and water resources. LTBB people still depend on water resources for hunting, fishing, gathering, water filtration, groundwater recharge, and medicinal purposes. LTBB understands the responsibility to protect, prevent, and sustain water resources for the next seven generations.

LTBB was federally recognized through reaffirmation on September 21, 1994. Reaffirmation allowed LTBB to pursue our treaty rights. These rights and LTBB’s traditional beliefs are the basis of having LTBB natural resource and environmental programs. The influences of natural resources are identified in the LTBB Natural Resource Department’s (NRD) mission statement. The LTBB NRD mission statement is as follows:

“We will continue to lead in the enforcement, conservation and management of tribal natural resources by successfully and responsibly preserving the LTBB's sovereign right to hunt and fish, both on the inland lands and waters as well as commercial and subsistence fishing on the 1836 Great Lakes [treaty area] . We will wisely utilize our natural resources in order to promote, honor and respect our traditional, spiritual and physical relationship with the land and waters. We will implement management strategies that protect our resources on, above, below and within the land and waters for the future benefit of our Tribe.”

In addition to this overarching mission statement, each program within the NRD has its own goals regarding specific resources all of which contribute to this mission statement.

The goal of this report is to collaborate, form partnerships, and address non-point source issues by securing Section 319 CWA funds to restore and sustain LTBB waters and contributing watersheds. The report fulfills the requirements to secure funds under the Section 319 CWA. Currently, LTBB NRD programs collaborate and have partnerships with local, state, and other tribal governments to address non-point source issues. The SWPP are partners in the Burt Lake, Lake Charlevoix, Little Traverse Bay, and Larks Lake Watershed Management Plans. The goals and activities within these management plans point out where we can partner in these watersheds. These goals and activities have been integrated into this report. As goals and activities are implemented, LTBB will provide documentation, before and after data analysis when applicable. LTBB will evaluate this report every five years to identify any other non-point source impairments. More partnerships and collaboration will be secured for any waters that are not currently in trust but considered reservation land (i.e. having non-point source impairments where restoration efforts are anticipated). LTBB will provide a venue and the capacity for the public to

2 319 Assessment Report LTBB comment on LTBB’s goal of securing 319 funds for activities related to non-point source issues on LTBB waters and contributing watersheds.

METHODOLOGY Water Quality Monitoring

Water bodies monitored during the LTBB baseline assessment of water quality were chosen to be monitored based on their geographical location within and adjacent to the 1855 LTBB reservation boundary area. Waters adjacent to the reservation were monitored if waters or uses on the reservation can be affected by those waters. These water bodies were monitored to assess baseline conditions and/or current water quality conditions in order to sustain, protect, and when applicable, improve water quality conditions for the uses of these water bodies for the next seven generations. Additional water bodies have been monitored due to Tribal concerns such as land acquisition, future or present land use, water quality degradation, etc. and/or based on baseline assessment recommendations. See Appendix A for a summary of all water bodies ever monitored, for which parameters they were monitored, and when they were monitored.

Water quality sites are monitored for twelve physical/chemical parameters, which include dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, temperature, total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), chloride, total suspended solids (TSS), velocity/discharge rates, depth, water clarity, and chlorophyll a.

Chlorophyll a and clarity are only recorded on lakes, while velocity and total suspended solids are only recorded on rivers, stream, and creeks. On lakes, baseline water quality sites were established in one of the deep areas of each lake basin. If the lake has more than one basin that is unique in physical characteristics and/or parameter results, those basins are monitored using the same deepest depth method. At lakes that are ten feet or deeper, water samples and Sonde measurements are collected at the surface, mid, and bottom of the vertical profile. If the lake experiences mixing and/or stratification, Sonde measurements are taken every meter vertically to determine the thermocline. If the lake is less than ten feet deep, water samples and Sonde measurements are taken only at mid depth.

On creeks and streams, there are two water quality sites. Each creek or stream has a fixed site downstream near the mouth and upstream at the origin. On rivers, the same applies except there is an additional monitoring site approximately in the middle of these two sites due to longer geographical coverage. Creeks, rivers, and streams are monitored using the Equal Width Increment Method (USGS, 2006). This method determines the cross section width and then measures or collects water samples every 2 feet within the cross section width. Water is collected in a one gallon jug every 2 feet and then the sample is shaken before every pour into the water bottles. Velocity readings were taken with a Marsh-McBirney flow meter until May of 2012, but a Sontek Flowtracker is now used to calculate discharge.

Macroinvertebrates are collected at fixed baseline sites and have been used to determine diversity, percentage of specific orders, and percentage of specific family within orders. Collection of aquatic

3 319 Assessment Report LTBB macroinvertebrates occurs in May every year. Lakes have five grab sites where collection occurs in different sediment substrates in the littoral zone. Grabs are collected using an Ekman bottom sampler.

Rivers, streams, and creeks have three kick sites within the 100 meter reach of each baseline water monitoring site. These kick sites are in riffle areas unless riffles are absent. If riffles are absent than grab sites have been chosen by substrate types. Collection is accomplished by using a kick-net or dip net depending on the velocity of each lotic system. Substrate components within the site are kicked into the net and then gathered into bottles containing 95% ethanol. The ethanol preserves the sample until the sample can be sorted at a later date.

The sampling methods described for the macroinvertebrate study allows a holistic approach to represent all types of habitat present at each water body. With fixed sites, results can be compared year by year to measure if an increase or decrease in perturbation occurs over time.

Macroinvertebrate samples are sorted utilizing a random sampling method with a target reach of 100 organisms. Human bias can occur if the sorter only sorts out the larger organisms to reach their target. Random sampling decreases this bias. Random sampling is done by choosing numbers off of a random number chart and then only sorting those numbers that correspond to one inch by one inch grids. Once all samples are sorted within a field season, they are contracted out for identification to genus level. Each entomologist has their own methods and reference material to identify to genus level. All contracted entomologists submit 10% of their identified aquatic macroinvertebrates to another entomologist for quality assurance purposes. These methods and reference materials are available upon request. Sorting, identification, and calculation of metrics are a long and extensive process. Reporting on aquatic macroinvertebrates is always one 106 Water Quality Assessment Report behind.

In July, qualitative habitat assessments are conducted at water bodies where the assessment is deemed to be representative. The protocol used on streams, creeks, and rivers is from EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols Second Edition. Forms 2 and 3 of the Rapid Bio-assessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Field Data Sheets are used depending on the determination of whether or not the stream, creek, or river is of high or low gradient. This determination was concluded at the beginning of the baseline assessment. Habitat is assessed by observing the 100 meter reach within an area on a lotic system using the fixed water quality site as the reference point. The habitat assessment form for lakes is an EPA & LTBB modified habitat assessment that originally came from the "Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical Guidance Document" EPA 841-B-98-007, August 1998.

Wetland Monitoring

See Appendix B for a summary of all wetlands ever monitored, for which parameters they were monitored, and when they were monitored.

 Floristic Quality Assessments Floristic Quality Assessments were completed in accordance with procedures as out lined in Section A.6 of the LTBB Surface Water Quality Protection Program QAPP (2015). Wetlands are surveyed regularly to ensure compliance of the Wetland Protection and Management Statute

4 319 Assessment Report LTBB

and Interim Regulations. The procedure for performing FQA’s is summarized below. A more complete sampling protocol is found in the Floristic Quality Assessment for the State of Michigan (Wetland Program QAPP, Appendix G). The FQA is performed by walking through different plant communities on a property, in order to come across as many different plants as possible and recording their occurrences. The FQA continues until the assessor does not find any new plants within about 10 minutes. Realistically, sites may require follow up visits to ensure that all community types are represented, and some species accounts may become apparent through other observations as opposed to specific time-meander surveys. Data collected in the field is recorded in a field notebook, datasheets, or an iPad. In order to assess the abundance of select plants and communities, the procedure below will be followed: . Determine the types and number of different plant community types present at the site. . Perform plant inventory by identifying all vascular plant species along the path. Plants that cannot be identified in the field will be collected and identified later in the lab. When feasible, plants will be photographed for later reference. . For invasive species, record a point or the area of infestation using a GPS, noting size/extent and density of the invasive population, as well any other useful information including if known threatened or endangered species are located/found nearby. . For culturally significant species, record species, extent of population, and general (or specific) location in the field notebook and with the GPS unit when possible.

 Wetland Boundary Identification Non-regulatory wetland boundaries were identified by the Wetland Specialist and mapped using ArcMap, with the assistance of the LTBB GIS Director. Maps were then converted to pdf and jpeg formats.

A regulatory wetland delineation was completed by an independent contractor with the assistance of the LTBB Wetland Specialist for the Drier Rd property using the US ACE Wetland Delineation Protocols.

GIS Analysis

A GIS analysis was performed on the assessment area (see Discussion section for a description) to predict potential areas of nonpoint source pollution (Appendix C). Hydrology buffer, roads buffer, soils, land use/land cover, percent slope, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus layers were included in the analysis. (TN and TP data are from the USGS SPARROW mapper and they are watershed-wide. LTBB data includes TN and TP data, but the dataset is not large enough to cover the entire assessment area.) The

5 319 Assessment Report LTBB attributes of each layer were ranked by equal intervals and added with equal weights to produce a value that describes the pollution potential (

Figure 1).

6 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Figure 1. The model from an analysis on Potential for Nonpoint Source Pollution.

LAND USE SUMMARY The LTBB reservation includes the northwest tip of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula along with two islands in Lake Michigan (Garden and Hog Islands in the Beaver Island Archipelago) (Appendix F). The mainland part of the reservation includes all of Emmet County west of North Ayr Road and the three northern townships of Charlevoix County. Nearly 77% of reservation land is undeveloped, however agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial lands could impair water bodies on the abundant pristine land (Table 1). Much of this pristine land resides in nature preserves and state parks/lands. LTBB only owns pieces of its reservation in a “checkerboard” fashion. The percentage of LTBB-owned land that is considered undeveloped is 76%, correlating with the total reservation land. The percentage of developed LTBB-owned land also correlates with the percentage over the total reservation; however, the developed land owned by LTBB is heavier in the higher intensity categories (Table 2).

7 319 Assessment Report LTBB

The geology of the entire assessment area includes Antrim Shale, Bell Shale, Bois Blanc Formation, Coldwater Shale, Detroit River Group, Dundee Limestone, Ellsworth Shale, and Traverse Group (Appendix D). Within the assessment area, there are 297 different types of soil. The soil types are most commonly loamy sand or sandy loam, especially of the Blue Lake and Emmet varieties. These major soil types are most likely to be found in the Crooked River, Four Lakes-Maple River, and Roaring Brook- Frontal Lake Michigan (Appendix E). The large tracts of one type of soil on the map are usually mucky soils, denoting wetlands, or sands (e.g. north-south Carbondale muck tract in Brush Creek and Four Lakes-Maple River.

Multiple cities, villages, and townships are within the reservation, including Charlevoix, City of Harbor Springs, City of Petoskey, Mackinaw City, Cross Village Township, Bliss Township, Village of Alanson, and the Village of Pellston (Table 3). These are often frequented by tourists and seasonal residents; in fact, Petoskey and Harbor Springs populations double in the summer. There are numerous seasonal resort properties and private housing associations. A number of golf courses and resorts are also contained within the reservation. Many tourists visit here to see the beauty and abundance of natural resources. With so many tourists in the area, the economy is largely based on catering to them (i.e. small businesses, outdoor recreation, watercrafts, entertainment, spas, casino, restaurants, golfing, hotels etc.). As explained in the introduction, these natural resources are especially important to the Tribe for cultural and traditional activities.

These land uses contribute to categories and subcategories of NPS pollution (Table 4).

8 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Table 1. Land use within reservation boundary. Cover types used as undeveloped land are highlighted in green, while developed cover types are highlighted in red.

Land Cover Type Area (ac) % of Total Deciduous Forest 83766 38.85 Row Crops 34708 16.10 Wooded Wetland 32827 15.22 Grasslands/Herbaceous 17691 8.20 Evergreen Forest 14957 6.94 Pasture/Hay 11651 5.40 Mixed Forest 8476 3.93 Open Water 5212 2.42 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 2114 0.98 Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 1052 0.49 Urban/Recreational Grasses 978 0.45 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 970 0.45 High Intensity Residential 598 0.28 Low Intensity Residential 292 0.14 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits 291 0.13 Transitional 50 0.02

Undeveloped 166,013.00 76.99 Developed 49,620.00 23.01 Total 215633 100

9 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Table 2. Land use on LTBB-owned properties. Cover types used as undeveloped land are highlighted in green, while developed cover types are highlighted in red.

Land Cover Type Area (ac) % of Total Deciduous Forest 177.95 21.19 Woody Wetlands 174.07 20.73 Evergreen Forest 122.77 14.62 Grassland/Herbaceous 70.72 8.42 Cultivated Crops 66.00 7.86 Development, Low Intensity 65.23 7.77 Barren Land 45.40 5.41 Development, Open Space 33.46 3.98 Herbaceous Wetlands 21.45 2.55 Mixed Forest 16.77 2.00 Development, Medium Intensity 15.06 1.79 Hay/Pasture 11.37 1.35 Shrub/Scrub 11.01 1.31 Development, High Intensity 7.90 0.94 Open Water 0.56 0.07

Undeveloped 640.70 76.30 Developed 199.02 23.70

Total 839.72 100

Table 3. LTBB’s number of enrolled citizens (4,564 as of October 2016) can be compared to select municipalities on reservation.

Municipality Population (2010) Population Density City of Petoskey 5670 1072 Charlevoix 2513 1158 City of Harbor Springs 1194 918 Mackinaw City 806 106 Village of Alanson 738 724 Village of Pellston 822 430 Bliss Township 572* 12 Cross Village Township 93 9 *2000

10 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Table 4. Categories and subcategories of NPS pollution identified in and around LTBB reservation.

Non-Point Source Pollution Categories and Sub-Categories Category Sub-Category Animal feed lots/grazing Erosion Fish-related Agriculture and Aquaculture Fertilizer runoff General agricultural practices Pesticide and herbicide spraying Erosion General forestry practices Forestry Removal of riparian vegetation Road-building Animal-related Channel modification Erosion Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management Historical land use Landscape/maintenance practices Riparian zone modifications Unknown Other Atmospheric deposition Erosion Right-of-way maintenance Transportation Infrastructure Road maintenance Trails Erosion Human health Urban Illegal dumping and litter Land use planning Stormwater Runoff

SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY The reservation’s water bodies are part of two different watersheds, Cheboygan (0407004) and Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105). These two watersheds flow in different directions; Boardman- Charlevoix (1664 sq. mi.) drains west to Lake Michigan, while Cheboygan (over 1406 sq. mi) drains east towards Lake Huron. Subwatersheds from both of these larger watersheds were used in the assessment area (Table 5).

The Cheboygan and Boardman-Charlevoix watersheds are important to protect, as shown by the receipt of $10,698,696.00 from GLRI (Great Lakes Restoration Initiative). The seven GLRI projects in these watersheds are: Paradise Lake Pilot Boat Washing Station, Habitat and Water Quality Improvements to the Bear River Watershed, Tribal Capacity Program-Little Traverse Bay, Little Traverse Bay Stormwater

11 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Management Initiative, Sustainable Approach for Wetland Biodiversity, Purchase of Development Rights through Conservation Easement Program, and Assessment of Three Michigan Beneficial Use Impairments.

Of the 24 12-digit HUC sub-watersheds in and around the reservation, 14 are in the Boardman- Charlevoix, 9 are in the Cheboygan, and one is in the Lone Lake-Ocqueoc. 14 sub-watersheds total are or have been monitored by LTBB for surface water quality, while 10 have or have had wetland monitoring. Three sub-watersheds in this assessment have wetland monitoring sites only: French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay, Horseshoe Bend-Frontal Lake Michigan, and Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron. Seven subwatersheds are not monitored at all: Burt Lake, Douglas Lake, Four Lakes-Maple River, North Branch Boyne River, Minnehaha Creek, Pickerel Lake, and Spring Brook. The lack of monitoring outside the reservation is the result of 106 funding requiring monitoring efforts to be inside the reservation. Although some of these watersheds are not monitored, they have been included in the assessment because they are used by Tribal citizens, and are still important water bodies to the Tribe. One subwatershed completely outside the reservation has been monitored for surface water quality—Boyne River—however it flows into the Lake Charlevoix watershed, which is adjacent to the reservation. Data from other organizations was used to assess sub-watersheds in which LTBB has limited or no monitoring capacity. All but one sub-watershed in the assessment area have impairments (Table 5 and Appendix H). The only lakes on the reservation that are not monitored are Lawrence Lake, Lake Maria, and Sorry Burn Lake. Both Lake Maria and Sorry Burn Lake are located on the Beaver Island achipelago, and Lawrence Lake flows into O’Neal Lake.

12 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Table 5. Atlas of watersheds within and adjacent to LTBB reservation.

LTBB Monitoring* # 12 Digit HUC Code Name of Sub-Watershed Watershed Area (ac) Impairm Surface Water Quality Wetlands ents 1 040601050205 Boyne River 34293.04 2 X 2 040601050602 Carp Lake River 29588.20 6 X Five Mile Creek-Frontal 3 040601050605 12939.60 8 X Lake Michigan French Farm Creek- 4 040601050601 11194.94 4 X Frontal Trails End Bay Horseshoe Bend-Frontal 5 040601050604 11808.03 2 X Lake MI Loeb Creek-Lake 6 040601050207 63258.95 22 X X Charlevoix Maple Hill Cemetary- Boardman-Charlevoix 7 040601050103 16579.15 9 X X Bear River 8 digit HUC code: 04060105 8 040601050203 North Branch Boyne River 11657.88 2 Roaring Brook-Frontal 9 040601050606 24763.80 20 X Lake Michigan South Arm Lake 10 040601050206 21045.30 9 X Charlevoix 11 040601050101 Spring Brook 24237.63 7 Susan Creek-Frontal Lake 12 040601050607 14734.63 12 X X Michigan 13 040601050102 Walloon Lake-Bear River 33444.22 12 X Wycamp Creek-Frontal 14 040601050603 34196.77 7 X X Lake Michigan 1 040700040203 Brush Creek 10968.48 8 X 2 040700040209 Burt Lake 40777.33 2 3 040700040206 Cold Creek-Maple River 15772.15 8 X Cheboygan 4 040700040207 Maple River 19492.15 13 X X 8 digit HUC code: 5 040700040208 Crooked River 38482.67 24 X X 0407004 6 040700040205 Douglas Lake 28043.18 2 7 040700040204 Four Lakes/Maple River 32855.15 1 8 040700040201 Minnehaha Creek 20354.34 8 9 040700040202 Pickerel Lake 38559.61 6 Lone Lake-Ocqueoc Mill Creek-Frontal Lake 8 digit HUC code: 1 040700030101 2205.90 3 X Huron 0407003 * See Methodology on when/where surface water or wetlands were monitored by LTBB.

13 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Surface Water

Table 6. Atlas of water resources on LTBB reservation.

Resource Amount Surface Area of Reservation (ac) 215,954 Total miles of rivers and streams on Reservation 408 Number of chemical and physical monitoring points on rivers or streams 24 Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds on Reservation 232 Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds on Reservation 7,987 Number of chemical and physical monitoring points on lakes/reservoirs/ponds 16 Acres of wetlands (including coastal) 34941 Number of functional and culturally monitored wetlands 12 Miles of Great Lakes shoreline 103.5

There are 408 miles of streams, creeks, and rivers along with 7,987 acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds (Table 6). The surface water quality of the LTBB reservation is good overall with all water bodies attaining Tribal standards. The water quality monitoring performed by LTBB rarely shows exceedances for water quality standards, however, the occasional exceedance can indicate future impairments (Table 7). For instance, conductivity and chloride have increased over time in some water bodies; if this increase continues, the water bodies will fail to meet standards. Low dissolved oxygen and warm temperatures have caused some creeks and lakes to need further review. High nutrients and total suspended solids have also occurred in certain water bodies. PCBs and/or mercury affect many water bodies that are used for fishing. Erosion is a factor on many streams/creeks/rivers, and some lakes are losing their natural shorelines due to residential development. Most of the time water bodies meet standards, but this assessment and program plan is meant to ensure that they do not continue to degrade.

14 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Table 7. Water quality standards are derived from various sources, but are not approved by the EPA. (All standards are taken directly from source unless otherwise noted.)

Criteria Standard Derived From Chloride 230 mg/L (50 mg/L monthly average) State of Michigan Chlorophyll-a ˂10 µg/L Lillie & Mason (1983) Conductivity 0-600 µS/cm trend analysis of pristine waters1 ≥ 7 mg/L (coldwater fishery) Dissolved Oxygen State of Michigan ≥5mg/L warmwater fishery

130 E.coli/100 mL (30-day geometric mean) E. coli State of Michigan 300 E.coli/100 mL (geometric mean of 3 samples)

Macroinvertebrates trend analysis Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index pH 6.5--9 pH units State of Michigan Thresholds dependent on coldwater or Temperature State of Michigan warmwater fishery. Total Nitrogen 0-5 mg/L Wetzel (2001) Total Phosphorus 10-50 µg/L Wetzel (2001) Total Suspended Solids 0-25 mg/L Lloyd (1987)2 1 Ranges for each water quality site have been determined during a baseline analysis. If there are outliers or a large range that does not appear to be consistent with waterbodies with similar physical characteristics, it will be noted and will be analyzed further in future monitoring designs. 2 The recommendation for a “high” level of protection is used because, although Michigan’s lotic systems differ in morphology, LTBB waters rarely see TSS levels higher than 20 mg/L.

Because this area attracts so many people, the threat of development is always looming. Many creeks and lakes have undeveloped shores, but their water quality could be threatened in the future with pollution from development. Wetlands are the water body type that is most being affected by development currently, and many of the Tribe’s wetlands are in close proximity to roads, water access sites, and buildings. Wetlands currently face run-off from parking lots and roads, trash, and the possibility that they will be built up for Tribal enterprises. The Tribal Nibiish Naagdowen “The Care of Water”: Clean Water Act gives the authority to protect all wetlands at least 1/3 acre in size and located on lands held in trust for LTBB and those greater than 5 acres in size or meeting different criteria on the 1855 reservation (WOS: 2016-008). Maintenance that occurs on Tribal properties, utility/transportation right-of-ways, and paved surfaces is often a detriment to wetlands. Drier Road wetland is now the site of LTBB’s fish hatchery. The Tribe’s past, present, and future developments can impact wetlands in a negative manner. The purpose of this plan is to mitigate current non-point source pollution inputs and deter future inputs to wetlands and water bodies.

One development (not associated with the Tribe) has already affected water quality. The Bay Harbor Resort development, which is situated on the southern side of Little Traverse Bay (in Susan Creek- Frontal Lake Michigan watershed), was built on the site of an old cement factory. In 1994, cement kiln dust was piled into four areas of the development along with the installation of a leachate collection system, per a plan and permit by the State of Michigan. 10 years later, the piles became a problem when elevated pH levels were found along the beach. The cement kiln dust had been leaching down the hills

15 319 Assessment Report LTBB into the water, causing the water to become very alkaline, concentrated with mercury, and unfit for swimming. CMS Land Company, an original business partner in the development, has assumed environmental responsibility since 2002. From 2006-2011, contaminated water was shipped to a deep injection well in Johannesburg, MI. Instead of continuing the shipping, water is now treated on site in a privately-funded facility. The input concentration of mercury is 60 parts per trillion, but the output water is 0.5 parts per trillion. After treatment, water is further diluted to a concentration of little or no mercury.

Since 2000, new drinking water wells are entered into a Michigan-based online database, called the Wellogic System, and electronically scanned well documents prior to 2000 are also searchable. The number of wells on the large scale of the reservation/assessment area is unknown, but information needed about the location and state of wells in small areas could be found.

Groundwater

The water supply on the reservation is characterized by public and self-suppliers, groundwater and surface water withdrawals, and domestic, industrial, and irrigation users (agriculture and golf courses). Both Emmet and Charlevoix County have more self-suppliers than public-supplied people, although the discrepancy is greater in Emmet County (Figure 2). In Emmet County, all sources of water come from the ground, while the public suppliers take surface water in Charlevoix County (Figure 3). Water is used by domestic people, industry, and for irrigation in both counties of the reservation, however, Charlevoix County accounts for most of the industrial use of groundwater. Industrial use of water in Charlevoix County is greater than all other users combined (Figure 4) (USGS, 2005).

16 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Water Suppliers

35.000 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 Charlevoix County

Thousands 10.000 5.000 Emmet County 0.000

Total population Public Supply, total population Self-supplied population Water Suppliers

Figure 2. Most of the reservation is in Emmet County, which has more people getting their water from private drinking wells than public supplies. Charlevoix County is split almost in half, with 50% of the population served by private drinking wells, and 50% served by public supplies.

Where Our Water Comes From

4.00

3.00

2.00 Mg/d 1.00 Charlevoix County 0.00 Emmet County Public Supply, groundwater Public Supply, surface-water Self-supplied groundwater Self-supplied surface-water Groundwater Source

Figure 3. In Emmet County, both public and self-supplied sources of water are from groundwater. Charlevoix County’s public supply is both groundwater and surface water, while the self-suppliers get all of their water from the ground.

17 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Water Use

16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 Mg/d 4.00 2.00 0.00

Charlevoix County Emmet County

Water User

Figure 4. Industry is the main user of water in Charlevoix County, while in Emmet County it is mostly domestic users (everyday people) and irrigation.

According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) WaterChem Database, it is uncommon but not impossible to find levels of arsenic, nitrates, and VOCs in groundwater on the LTBB reservation. Arsenic has mostly been absent from groundwater, although there have been some low detections of less than 10 µg/L. Nitrates are usually absent from water as well. Many samples are recorded as having concentration less than 5 mg/L, but a few outliers have concentrations greater than 10 mg/L or even 20 mg/L. A few positive volatile organic carbon (VOC) samples have occurred around the reservation, but these positives have been found around the Crooked Lake, Little Traverse Bay, and Mackinaw City areas only (MDEQ, 1983-2003).

An aquifer vulnerability study conducted by Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan in 2001 shows the potential for aquifer contamination on the reservation. “Hot spots” for vulnerable aquifers are scattered throughout the reservation, however largest areas of vulnerable aquifers are located in the Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan and Four Lakes-Maple River watersheds. The most vulnerable areas in these watersheds are located around wetlands. In the Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed, Wycamp and O’Neal Lake are adjacent to wetlands and vulnerable aquifers. These lakes are important as cultural and fishing areas for Tribal citizens. In the Four Lakes-Maple River watershed, the vulnerable aquifer is located beneath the Pleasantview Swamp (Appendix I).

The watersheds in HUC code 04060105 recharge their groundwater from Lake Michigan. The groundwater then flows towards the east and south in those watersheds. Generally speaking, the reservation area has groundwater that is very close to the surface, with wells between 10 and 50 feet

18 319 Assessment Report LTBB deep. Groundwater flow varies as there are many recharge areas (wetlands). In fact, most of the reservation is a groundwater recharge area, unlike the eastern tip of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula (HUC codes 0407004 and 0407003), which is a groundwater discharge area (Kevin Hurrell, LTBB Environmental Response Specialist, personal communication)

Within the 1855 treaty-delineated reservation boundary, large, non-tribal public supply systems serve the City of Petoskey, City of Harbor Springs, Little Traverse Township, and West Traverse Township. Public supply systems also serve several large residential developments including Birchwood Farms, Boyne Highlands Resort, L’arbre Croche, Bayshore Estates, Trout Creek Condominiums, Tannery Creek Condominiums, Lakeside Club Condominiums, Hidden Hamlet Association, and several smaller systems (MDEQ, 2009). Homes and businesses outside these areas are served by private wells.

LTBB owns and maintains two community water systems, two non-community, non-transient water systems, and one transient water system (Table 8). LTBB also maintains several individual wells that serve small structures or seasonal use facilities located on trust properties.

Table 8. LTBB drinking water systems.

PWS# Name Location Type 55293802 Mtigwaakiis Housing Charlevoix Community 55293801 Wah Wahs Noo Da Ke Housing Harbor Springs Community 50593801 LTBB Administration Building Harbor Springs Non-Transient Non-Community 50593802 Biindigen Petoskey Non-Transient Non-Community 50593803 Odawa Casino Resort Petoskey Transient

Excepting the Odawa Casino Resort, the government’s Public Water Specialist in the Facilities Department collects analytical data for compliance and maintains the systems. The Environmental Services Program ensures compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act via the Environmental Protection Agency. The Odawa Casino Resort drinking water system is managed separately by operators at the resort’s wastewater treatment system. Testing for the community systems varies according to the type of system, analyte, historical data and waiver status, but occurs at least monthly.

Overall water quality for the region is good. Previous well testing programs (LTBB, 2006) indicate that the only parameter commonly exceeded drinking water standards was hardness. Groundwater is considered “hard” if the ionic composition contains high concentrations of dissolved magnesium and calcium. Much of the geologic structure of Northern Michigan is predominately composed of minerals containing magnesium and calcium carbonates, which accounts for the commonly “hard” groundwater. As hardness poses no health risk, all wells tested during this program were considered safe to drink. However, it should be noted that this program was limited in scope and many private wells on the reservation have not been tested since installation or in several years.

LTBB’s public water systems are continuing to be monitored on a weekly basis through a contractor. Most chemical tests analyzed met required drinking water standards. Coliform bacteria were present in wells at both housing sites at different times during the year. Upon investigation and additional testing,

19 319 Assessment Report LTBB it was determined that the groundwater source was not contaminated; rather, positive bacteria results were due to operation and maintenance issues including under-utilization of pressure systems (i.e. systems designed for larger capacities with ‘dead’ ends in the lines), testing after repairs before proper flushing, and lack of regular system flushing. Lead and copper results did not exceed drinking water standards overall; however, many of the copper results were close to the thresholds. Although copper is a common mineral within the source aquifers in Michigan, increased concentrations are likely from older piping and distribution systems. Increased maintenance activities, including flushing, will likely improve keep copper within drinking water limits. LTBB’s septic systems will begin to be monitored in 2017.

Source Water Assessments for the susceptibility of LTBB’s elder housing at Heynig Road (Wah-Wahs- Noo-De-Ke), Tribal Administration Building, Natural Resource Department, pow wow grounds at Government Complex, pow wow grounds at Osborne Road, and Biindigen gas station were completed by Inter-Tribal Council (ITC) of Michigan in 2005. A Source Water Assessment and Source Water Protection Plan for the Odawa Casino and Resort were completed by ITC in 2010. Mtigwaakiss housing community at Murray Road in Charlevoix has been assessed for a source water protection plan. ITC found that LTBB wells ranged from low-risk to moderate/high-risk. More information on these wells can be found in the next section.

RESULTS Overview of Results

Of the 197 impairments in and around the assessment area, 60% (119) are from the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management” category. Most of these impairments are caused by “Channel modifications”, which includes many instances of erosion and obstructed fish passage.

The “Urban” category has the second-most number of impairments. There are mostly “Stormwater runoff” impairments, followed by “Human health.” Mostly medium to high severity impairments fall within “Stormwater runoff.”

The “Other” category has “Unknown” and “Atmospheric deposition” which is always ranked high, except for Little Traverse Bay, which is medium. The Bay is not on Michigan’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, and the Tribe has conducted a mercury in fish tissue study to fill in this data gap. The study found that “[c]urrent [2012] mercury concentrations in fish from the Bay are not likely to present a significant risk to the health of fish consumers.” Mercury concentrations in a bio-indicator fish species (the Round Goby) were found near one site, but that is expected to be from a point-source (the Bay Harbor CKD site) (LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program, 2013a).

“Transportation Infrastructure” is another large source of nonpoint source pollution impairments. This category has mostly “Road maintenance”-caused impairments, which are usually chloride and conductivity.

All “Agriculture and Aquaculture” impairments are rated high. Most are “Fish-related”.

20 319 Assessment Report LTBB

There are no impairments in “Forestry” at this time.

Four sources of impairments are unknown: the increasing trend of temperatures and nutrients in Big Sucker Creek, the decreasing trend of dissolved oxygen in Big Sucker Creek and in Walloon Lake. The reason for the unknowns in Big Sucker Creek is due to its remote location and meanders through state land. More monitoring and research must be done to better understand and mitigate these impairments.

The Crooked River watershed has the most impairments of any watershed in this assessment. It has 24 impairments total in the four big categories with mostly high severity. The Crooked River watershed is also the start of the Inland Waterway, which makes this watershed even more important to protect and restore.

The following sources were used to assess water bodies for impairments:

 LTBB 2011 Wetlands Assessment Report  LTBB 2014 Water Quality Assessment Report  LTBB Baseline Water Quality Assessment Report  Lake Charlevoix Watershed Management Plan  Little Traverse Bay Watershed Protection Plan  Larks Lake Watershed Planning Project  2016 State of Michigan 303(d) program  Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council lake profiles— Headwaters of the Inland Waterway and Northern Michigan’s Great Lakes Bays  Michigan Beach Guard System—Beach closings  LTBB 2008 Wetlands Technical Report  Conservation Resource Alliance road/stream crossing inventory for: o Moderate and severe crossings only--Lake Charlevoix watershed, Carp Lake River watershed, Maple River watershed, and Crooked River watershed o Severe crossings that were identified as priority by TOMWC only—Little Traverse Bay

The assessment area was also looked at through the lens of GIS analysis. The layers used in the analysis are related to nonpoint source pollution. Each watershed received a ranking predicting the potential for nonpoint source pollution in that watershed (Table 9).

21 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Table 9. Rankings and mean scores for nonpoint source pollution in the assessment area.

Pollution Pollution Potential Ranking (1 is most, Name of Sub-Watershed Potential 24 is least) Score

1 South Arm Lake Charlevoix 9.612 2 Loeb Creek-Lake Charlevoix 8.835 3 Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan 8.547 4 Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron 8.445 5 Burt Lake 8.421 6 Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan 8.027 7 Maple Hill Cemetary-Bear River 7.434 8 Horseshoe Bend-Frontal Lake MI 7.311 9 Carp Lake River 7.263 10 Crooked River 7.262 11 Walloon Lake-Bear River 7.259 12 French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay 7.241 13 Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan 7.206 14 Douglas Lake 7.066 15 Maple River 7.014 16 Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan 6.985 17 Pickerel Lake 6.635 18 Minnehaha Creek 6.494 19 Spring Brook 6.35 20 Four Lakes/Maple River 6.226 21 Cold Creek-Maple River 6.187 22 Brush Creek 6.114 23 North Branch Boyne River 5.872 24 Boyne River 5.833

The severity of impairments was ranked using the following system:

High (any one or combination of the following):

a. The water body is already impaired on the Michigan 303(d) list (reasoning code 1), or b. Tribal water quality or wetlands data explains the source or severity of the impairment (reasoning code 2), or c. The impairment has been identified in another watershed plan or assessment on that water body/watershed (reasoning code 3).

Medium: Observations or local knowledge (reasoning code 4). There may be little to no data on

22 319 Assessment Report LTBB

the contaminant affecting water quality, but overall the pollution needs more data to show it is impairing the water body.

Low: Water quality impairments have not been observed, but there is a possibility water quality could be impaired in future (reasoning code 5)

Reasoning codes have been assigned to this criteria. Each impairment has its own reasoning code(s), which can be found in Appendix J or K.

Only known or expected impairments have been included. All parameters not mentioned can be assumed to be meeting standards and designated uses at this time. See Appendix K for a table of impairments organized by subwatershed.

Boyne River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050205)

The Boyne River watershed contains two impairments, one caused by the “Other” category and one caused by “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management”. The watershed received a score of 5.833 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, making it the watershed with the least potential for pollution in the assessment area.

A section of the Boyne River, from the dam to Dam Road is experience severe erosion due to heavy fishing pressure. According to the 2016 Michigan 303(d) list, the Boyne River has PCB in the water column. This is likely caused by atmospheric deposition. Because PCB’s presence is likely transferrable into the fish tissue, fish consumption is not supported.

The land surrounding the Boyne River impairments is a combination of privately-, city- , and State of Michigan-owned. The Tribe will collaborate with those entities to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Brush Creek Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040203)

The Brush Creek watershed contains eight impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Other,” “Transportation Infrastructure,” and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 6.114 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 22 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Land cover surrounding Larks Lake is seasonal and/or year round residential housing, a county park area with a sandy beach, a public access and boat launch area, but the lake is mostly surrounded by forested lowland and wetland. In the 1900’s, there was a saw mill operation adjacent to Larks Lake and a dam at the headwaters of Brush Creek. According to the local community, the dam was taken out approximately 35 years ago. Historical information was provided by the local individuals attending the first meeting in accordance to the creation of the Larks Lake Watershed Plan. There is one site monitored by LTBB on Larks Lake. Habitat assessments show that most shorelines are wooded right to the shore, but some look like (Figure 5). The landscape and maintenance practices could further affect surface water for wild rice propagation (Figure 6). LTBB data shows an increasing and correlating trend of

23 319 Assessment Report LTBB conductivity and chloride on the lake over a 16-year period due to road maintenance (Figure 7 & Figure 8). The residential portions of the lake decrease shoreline habitat for fish and bird species because of riparian zone modifications and contribute to stormwater runoff with their landscape/maintenance practices.

Figure 5. Larks Lake is 15% developed and some residences have turf grass almost to the shoreline.

24 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Figure 6. Wild rice in the northern area of Larks Lake needs minimal nonpoint pollution to ensure it can grow. It is also subject to predation from waterfowl that live on turf grass shorelines.

Larks Lake Conductivity 280 260

240 R² = 0.8388 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 7. Conductivity at Larks Lake has significantly increased (R²=0.84) over the monitoring period.

25 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Larks Lake Chloride 7 R² = 0.6747 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 8. Chloride at Larks Lake has significantly increased (R²=0.68) over the monitoring period.

According to the 2016 Michigan 303(d) list, Brush Creek has PCB in the water column, which is likely caused by atmospheric deposition. Because the PCB’s presence is likely transferrable into fish tissue, fish consumption is not supported.

The land surrounding the Larks Lake impairments is a combination of privately-, Township of Center- (Pioneer Park), and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)-owned (boat launch and 105 acre parcel). The land on which Brush Creek impairments occurs is almost entirely state-owned. The Tribe will collaborate with those entities to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Burt Lake Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040209)

The Burt Lake watershed contains two impairments caused by the “Other” category. The watershed received a score of 8.421 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 5 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Burt Lake is not monitored by LTBB; however, it is on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list of impaired waters for having mercury in fish tissue, which is likely due to atmospheric deposition. LTBB’s Examination of Mercury in Fish Tissue study showed that mercury concentrations in Burt Lake walleye increased from 2001-2012. However, of all the lakes studied in 2012, Burt Lake walleye had the fourth-highest concentrations of mercury and perch had the third highest (LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program, 2013b). Within the same watershed, Hasler Creek, Little Carp River, and the Maple River have PCB in the water column, also due to atmospheric deposition.

The land surrounding the Burt Lake impairments is a combination of privately-, and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)-owned land. The Tribe will collaborate with those entities to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Carp Lake River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050602)

The Carp Lake River watershed contains six impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat

26 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Alteration, and Riparian Management” and “Other” categories. The watershed received a score of 7.263 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 9 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

The Carp River suffers from erosion at road/stream crossings, as a result of channel modification. The road/stream crossing at East Gill Road is rated as ‘severe’, and noted as having zero fish passability. CRA has plans to restore it in 2018. Six other road/stream crossings are rated as “moderate” severity. These crossings are at Cecil Bay Road, two crossings of Munger Road, Reed Road, US-31 HWY, and North Country Trail. Wilderness Park Drive has been downgraded from “moderate” severity to “minor” severity. Details of the erosion at these sites can be found on CRA’s inventory website as www.northernmichiganstreams.org.

According to the 2016 Michigan 303(d) list, Carp Lake has PCB in the water column, which is likely caused by atmospheric deposition. Because the PCB’s presence is likely transferrable into the fish tissue, fish consumption is not supported.

The land surrounding the Carp River impairments has large Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)-owned tracts of land, along with some County of Emmet- and privately-owned parcels. One side of the crossing at Gill Rd. and a 0.9-mile stretch of the river is owned on both sides by LTBB. The right-of- ways on the road/stream crossings are owned by Emmet County. The Tribe will collaborate with those entities to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Cold Creek-Maple River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040206)

The Cold Creek-Maple River watershed contains eight impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management” and “Other” categories. The watershed received a score of 6.187 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 21 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

The West Branch of the Maple River is monitored by the Tribe and has experienced some episodes of dissolved oxygen (DO) being too low to support cold fisheries. BCMR2 had 5 events out of 46 monitoring readings where DO concentrations were below 7 mg/L. Temperature pollution and low DO are related, as cooler temperatures can hold more dissolved oxygen. The sources for these impairments were channel modifications, due to the severely-rated culvert at Ely Bridge Road. Reasons for this “severe” ranking is stream bank erosion along the crossing, embankment erosion, erosion at the culvert outlet, and erosion at the shoulder/ditch. This culvert was restored in 2014, so in the next assessment we will look for these impairments to be resolved.

The channel modification at the road/stream crossing of Robinson Road was rated “moderate” severity by CRA. The crossing was restored in 2015, so in the next assessment we will look for these impairments to be resolved.

Cold Creek also has an impairment due to channel modifications. The channel modification at Camp Road, Ely Road, and two crossings at Tower Road were rated “severe” by CRA. The channel modification at the crossing of Van Road is rated “moderate”. It is responsible for erosion into Cold Creek, due to

27 319 Assessment Report LTBB erosion at the shoulder/ditch. There are also wetlands nearby which can be impaired by the eroding sediment.

According to the 2016 Michigan 303(d) list, Cold Creek has PCB in the water column, which is likely caused by atmospheric deposition. Because the PCB’s presence is likely transferrable into the fish tissue, fish consumption is not supported.

The land on which the West Branch of the Maple River impairments occur is within the right-of-ways of county and state roads and trails. Much of the rest of the Maple River is privately-owned, but there are some MDNR- and Emmet County- owned stretches. Cold Creek is privately-owned except for the final stretch that flows into the West Branch of the Maple River, which is owned by the MDNR. The Tribe will collaborate with the county road commission, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and any applicable private land owners upstream and downstream to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Crooked River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040208)

The Crooked River watershed contains twenty-four impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Other,” “Transportation Infrastructure,” “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 7.262 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 10 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

There is a variety of lakes, wetlands, and creeks within the Crooked River sub-watershed that have impairments. This group of water bodies is important because it serves as the Headwaters to the Inland Waterway, a traditional waterway that Odawa take from Little Traverse Bay to Lake Huron.

Within the watershed, the Tribe owns a gas station with a wetland on the same property. The gas station area is characterized by moderately high development along US-131 and a small industrial development on the southeast side of the highway. It is well-situated in a relatively intense development corridor that has manufacturing, underground storage tanks with gasoline and diesel fuel, a car sales lot and service center, highway, and parking lots with storm drains. The relatively high amount of development, potential contaminants, and some aspects of the underlying geology provide the elements for a “moderate/high-risk” groundwater susceptibility determination. The Tribe’s Environmental Response Specialist participates in ITC’s underground storage tank inspections. The wetland experiences trash blowing into it from illegal dumping and litter, herbicides from landscaping due to landscape/maintenance practices, and gas pollutants from land use planning and stormwater runoff. In previous years, there has been talk of expanding the gas station to include a car wash. More development at this site could decrease and/or further impair the nearby wetlands.

Crooked Lake is a part of the 45 mile Inland Waterway. The Inland Waterway begins in Pickerel Lake, goes through the Pickerel Channel, which connects to Crooked Lake. Crooked Lake flows into Crooked River to Burt Lake; from Burt Lake through Indian River connecting to Mullett Lake; and from Mullett Lake through the Cheboygan River to Lake Huron.

28 319 Assessment Report LTBB

In 3 different surveys since 2008, Crooked Lake has been ranked in the top 3 or 4 lakes used by tribal citizens for fishing, swimming, and boating. In recent years, the lake has been used by LTBB citizens as the beginning point for the annual Jiimaan (canoe) crossing. The annual Jiimaan crossing celebrates and recognizes our ancestors’ journeys on the Inland Waterway.

Crooked Lake has been put on the 2016 Michigan 303(d) list for having mercury in fish tissue, which comes from atmospheric deposition. LTBB’s Examination of Mercury in Fish Tissue study showed that mercury concentrations in Crooked Lake walleye has neither significantly increased nor decreased from 1989-2012. However, of all the lakes studied in 2012, Crooked Lake walleye and perch had the highest concentrations of mercury (LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program, 2013b).

A loss of shoreline habitat has also been observed due to riparian zone modifications by lake residents and marinas. LTBB data shows an increasing trend of chloride in the lake, which is expected to be caused by nearby road maintenance. The Tribe reports an abundance of aquatic vegetation, the cause of which is unknown. Decreased primary productivity has resulted from the presence of invasive zebra mussels, which filter out nutrients.

The Crooked River flows out of Crooked Lake, and one of its tributaries (only known as “Unnamed Tributary to Crooked River”) has two impairments. The Crooked River Tributary starts south of Maple River Road, just east of US-31 HWY and the small community of Brutus. It flows southeast to join the Crooked River near Mission Road. The channel modifications at the road/stream crossing of Crooked River Road have caused erosion and a possible fish passage problem and is rated as moderate. Snider Road also has erosion at the culvert outlet and pooling at the outlet and is rated severe. Another tributary to the Crooked River, McPhee Creek is has several channel modifications along its route and most are rated moderate. However one crossing is rated as sever due to an unstable retaining wall and plugged inlets.

Round Lake is a small shallow spring-fed lake with an inlet creek connected to the north arm of Mud Lake and an outlet creek connecting it to Crooked Lake. Historically, Odawa people frequently portaged their canoes over the sand dunes near Petoskey to and from Round Lake, and then followed river courses connecting Crooked, Burt, and Mullett Lakes to Lake Huron. Round Lake’s present land coverage consists of seasonal and residential homes, condominiums, two nature preserves (Fotchman and Round Lake), a small beach, a public boat launch, and access site. The Tribe’s monitoring of Round Lake has yielded an increasing trend in chloride and conductivity, which is expected to be caused by nearby road maintenance (Figure 9). Round Lake also experienced its first incidence of low oxygen levels in the winter of 2014, creating the possibility for a fish kill. E. coli is a health impairment, and the loss of shoreline habitat occurs because of riparian zone modifications.

29 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Round Lake Conductivity 450

400

350

300 R² = 0.7919

250

200

150

100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 9. Conductivity at Round Lake has significantly increased during the monitoring period.

Spring Lake has also been monitored by the Tribe and Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. Spring Lake has two basins, the North Arm (also called Mud Lake) and South Arm. These arms are separated by a road and a park with a boardwalk through an adjacent wetland area. This lake is located adjacent to M-119, a highly used road from the city of Petoskey to Harbor Springs. On the south side of the South Arm there is a steep slope that is forested and on top of this slope are condominiums. There is only one residential home on the north arm; however, these lake arms are surrounded by infrastructure like roads, commercial buildings, condominiums, and park facilities. Both arms are shallow in depth, with the south arm having a surface area of 6.7 acres and the north arm consisting of a 10.1 acre surface area. The lakes could be classified as ponds due to their size and characteristics. The water level is controlled by a water structure between the two arms (an open/close culvert) to prevent flooding.

Overall, the lakes have high total nitrogen, with values ranging from 1500-2000 ppb, and have experienced the loss of shoreline habitat. The total nitrogen impairment is caused by stormwater runoff while the loss of shoreline habitat is from riparian zone modifications. They both have increasing trends of chloride and conductivity (Figure 10), both caused by road maintenance. Similar sources contribute to the warm temperature and also an increase in chlorophyll-a. Warmer stormwater runoff may also be causing the warm temperatures and exacerbating the chlorophyll-a increase. Channel modification may also be contributing to both impairments, since there is a water control structure beneath the road that separates each arm of the lake. Closures of this control structure may cause the water to become stagnant, which could further increase temperatures. The north arm of Spring Lake has a narrow buffer of vegetation between the lake and road, which has resulted in erosion. The road cuts between the two arms of the lakes and a culvert regulates the water in between.

The Crooked River, McPhee Creek, and Whites Creek are all on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list for having PCB in their water columns, due to atmospheric deposition.

The land on which the impairments at Biindigen gas station and the adjacent wetland occur is in Tribal

30 319 Assessment Report LTBB trust. The land on which the impairments around Crooked Lake occur is all private, except for the public MDNR boat launches. The Cooked River is bordered by private landowners, the Village of Alanson, and the MDNR. The Crooked River Tributary, McPhee Creek, and Whites Creek, are completely bordered by privately-owned land. Spring Lake’s south arm is owned by the Township of Bear Creek and private landowners, while the north arm (Mud Lake) is owned by Emmet County and privately landowners. Round Lake is all private except with access from a MDNR public boat launch, but it also has preserve property owned by Little Traverse Conservancy. The right-of-ways on the road/stream crossings are owned by the County of Emmet and State of Michigan. The Tribe has jurisdiction to implement non- point source pollution activities on its own land, but it will collaborate with land owners adjacent to water bodies in the Crooked River Subwatershed, including Little Traverse Conservancy if needed.

Spring Lake Conductivity 800 South Arm R² = 0.8951 700 North Arm

600

500 R² = 0.7423 400

300

200

Yearly Average Yearly ConductivityAverage (uS/cm) 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Year

Figure 10. Conductivity in the north and south arms of Spring Lake has significantly increased over time. Conductivity in the south arm has increased more than the north arm.

Douglas Lake Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040205)

The Douglas Lake watershed contains two impairments caused by the “Other” category. The watershed received a score of 7.066 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 14 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Lancaster, Certon, and Cope Creeks have PCB in the water column and are on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list of impaired waters. The PCBs come from atmospheric deposition.

The land on which the Lancaster Creek impairments occur is half-owned by the State of Michigan and the rest is privately owned. Cope Creek is surrounded by privately-owned land, except at its mouth at Sherett Lake, where it is owned by the MDNR. Certon Creek, is privately-owned except for about 30 acres owned by the Emmet County Road Commission between Keiser Lane and US-31 HWY. The Tribe will collaborate with adjacent landowners to implement nonpoint source pollution activities.

31 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake MI Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050605)

The Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed contains eight impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 7.206 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 13 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Five Mile Creek is the second largest tributary of Little Traverse Bay, and is a cold water spring-fed perennial creek. The creek flows into a pond used as a trout pond by a local landowner, then flows into an old mill pond also on private land, then through a cedar swamp owned by the local conservancy, and finally meanders through forested private land until it discharges into Little Traverse Bay. The old mill pond was breached in early 2016, resulting in flooding downstream. The creek has since returned to its normal flow, however the diminished mill pond is still present as well as an old dam that the water has found a way around.

LTBB water staff has seen salmon and trout downstream of FMC1. Whether or not the anadromous salmonids migrate up to FMC2 has not been confirmed. The temperature impairment at Five Mile Creek is expected to be caused by historical land use. An old mill pond just upstream of both sites may be warming the water. It is stocked with fish by the landowner. The decomposition of the fish’s excrement may also be warming the water. In 2016 the mill pond was breached. In our next assessment, these impairments may be resolved.

Five Mile Creek has nutrient and TSS impairments. The Tribe’s monitoring has shown an increase in total N and total P in August and September (Figure 11 and Figure 12). TSS also has increased in August and sometimes September (Figure 13). The cause of these impairments may be from erosion and fertilizer runoff from a farm upstream.

Two road/stream crossings are causing impairments on Five Mile Creek. At Geary Road, a perched culvert makes fish passage difficult and there is also erosion and is rated as “severe” by CRA. The crossing at Lower Shore Drive has erosion. Its perch prevents fish passage and is rated severe by CRA. Both of these culverts have been identified as priority sites by CRA. Additionally, the road/stream crossing of Five Mile Creek at M-119 is rated as “moderate” by CRA due to erosion, and Five Mile Creek Tributary at Lower Shore Drive is rated “moderate” and was found to have no water flow, ‘possibly due to being plugged’, when assessed in 2014. Birchwood Creek flows into Little Traverse Bay and has 2 severe road stream crossings which contribute to erosion and allow for no fish passage.

One beach on Little Traverse Bay (at Thorne Swift Nature Preserve) has been closed due to high E. coli levels. The beach was closed for only one day in the summer of 2006. This is a health impairment.

The land on which the Five Mile Creek impairments occur is owned by private landowners, including Little Traverse Conservancy and one landowner who is interested in protecting water quality. The Tribe will collaborate with the Conservancy and landowner, both who own large stretches of the creek, including the sections monitored by LTBB.

32 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Five Mile Creek Total Phosphorus 70

µg/L) 50

30 FMC1 20 FMC2

10 TotalPhosphorus TP or ( 0

Month

Figure 11. Five Mile Creek total phosphorus spikes in the summer months.

Five Mile Creek Total Nitrogen 1.6

1.4

1.2 mg/L) 1

0.8

0.6 FMC1 FMC2 0.4

TotalNitrogen or TN ( 0.2

Month

Figure 12. Five Mile Creek total nitrogen spikes in the summer months.

33 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Five Mile Creek Total Suspended Solids 60

mg/L) 40

30 FMC1 20 FMC2 10

0 TotalSuspended Solids TSS or (

Month

Figure 13. Five Mile Creek total suspended solids spike in the summer months.

Four Lakes/Maple River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040204)

The Four Lakes/Maple River watershed contains one impairment in the “Other” category. The watershed received a score of 6.226 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 20 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Maple River has PCB in the water column according to Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list, which is from atmospheric deposition.

The land use at the pow wow grounds on Osborne Road is very rural and mostly wooded. ITC’s recommendation for this well is annual bacteria and nitrate/nitrite testing. The Osborne Road pow wow grounds received a “low-risk” determination in the 2005 Source Water Assessment.

The land on which the Maple River impairments occur is within the right-of-ways of county and state roads and trails. Much of the rest of the Maple River is privately-owned, but there are some MDNR- and Emmet County-owned stretches. The Tribe will collaborate with the county road commission, MDOT, and any applicable private land owners upstream and downstream to implement non-point source pollution activities.

French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050601)

The French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay watershed contains four impairments caused by the

34 319 Assessment Report LTBB

“Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Transportation Infrastructure,” and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 7.241 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 12 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

The Tribe owns a 60-acre property located on Pond Street in Mackinaw City, Emmet County. The property contains wetlands and is comprised of several adjacent parcels. An unpaved public road (former single-track railroad) bisects the property and runs parallel to a public utility easement, and I-75 borders the eastern edge of the property. A closed, clay-capped city dump is located to the south of the property. Small pits that were dug out to provide gravel to build I-75 dot the northern and western parts of the property. Ecosystem types include open/emergent, scrub-shrub and forested wetlands and uplands, as well as water-features such as permanent pools, seasonally flooded ponds filled with tadpoles and snails, and intermittent creeks. Much of the property is covered in sandy or marl substrate, and supports forested, coastal wetland communities dominated by Northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis), White spruce (Picea glauca), Tamarack (Larix laricina), and Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). A shallow, mucky, groundwater-fed fen is located near the south-central part of this property and is surrounded by thick willow, alder, and dogwood thickets. Open areas on the property support disturbance-loving plants such as Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) and White birch (Betula papyrifera).

Overall, a high quality plant community resides on Pond Street, including the Federally-threatened Houghton’s goldenrod. This property is bordered on one side by a freeway, which allows for the entrance of trash from illegal dumping and litter and road contaminants from stormwater runoff into the wetland. There is also the chance of erosion and habitat destruction from off-road vehicles on nearby trail, since the property is adjacent to open-access properties owned by the Village of Mackinaw City and State of Michigan. Right-of-way maintenance BMPs are not always used, which can also impair the wetlands.

This property is located along one of the most important bird migration routes in North America. The area around this property sees tens of thousands of migrating raptors (hundreds by the day can be seen from this property in the spring), waterfowl, sandhill cranes, herons, and diverse flocks of songbirds such as warblers, thrushes, and blackbirds. It also provides important natural habitat for birds that are forced to wait to cross due to bad weather. The lack of development and diversity of habitats on this property is important for the preservation of high quality habitat for plants and animals.

The land on which these impairments occur is in Tribal trust. The Tribe has jurisdiction to implement non-point source pollution activities on this land.

Horseshoe Bend-Frontal Lake MI Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050604)

The Horseshoe Bend-Front Lake Michigan watershed contains two impairments caused by the “Urban” category. The watershed received a score of 7.311 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 8 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

The Tribe owns property near the Port of Cross Village, which has a beach and wetland. The public

35 319 Assessment Report LTBB beach has closed 3 times for a total of 4 days in 2006. A failed septic system uphill was reported to have happened at the same time. The wetlands hold a high quality plant community, including the State- listed threatened Lake Huron tansy on LTBB property. Pitcher’s thistle, Dwarf lake iris, and Houghton’s goldenrod have been found nearby and are also threatened. The property contains critical habitat and confirmed nearby nesting of federally-endangered Great Lake Piping Plovers, a shore-nesting bird. The Bald eagle, Red-shouldered hawk, Merlin, and green frogs are also found onsite or nearby. The wetlands and its inhabitants are subject to illegal dumping and litter by goers of the beach and boat launch.

The land on which the wetland impairments occur is in Tribal trust. The Tribe has jurisdiction to implement non-point source pollution activities on this land. The beach is owned by the Township of Cross Village, but the septic tanks belong to private landowners. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Loeb Creek-Lake Charlevoix Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050207)

The Loeb Creek-Lake Charlevoix watershed contains twenty-two impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management”, “Transporation Infrastructure”, “Other”, and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 8.835 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 2 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area. (Note that the water body of Lake Charlevoix is split between two subwatersheds. Most of Lake Charlevoix is in the Lake Charlevoix subwatershed, but the south arm is in the South Arm Lake Charlevoix subwatershed. The impairments on these two subwatersheds were reported separately. See the section on page 42 for the South Arm Lake Charlevoix impairments.)

Lake Charlevoix is used for recreational activities and fishing. Because of the large amount of residences and urban areas surrounding the lake, nutrients and septic discharge can run off into the water with stormwater. Pharmaceuticals meant for human consumption that are dumped or excreted into septic tank systems could end up in Lake Charlevoix. Chronic exposure to low levels of pharmaceuticals in water can affect organisms by creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria and causing endocrine disruption which debilitates reproduction. Many of the residences implement landscape/maintenance practices that cause an increase in nutrients. Septic tanks along the lake could also cause nutrients to enter the lake, in addition to being a health concern. Beaches along the Lake have been closed from 1-3 days every year since 2006 due to an abundance of E. coli. PCBs from atmospheric deposition have been found in fish tissue according to Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list. LTBB’s Examination of Mercury in Fish Tissue study showed that mercury concentrations in Lake Charlevoix walleye decreased from 2006- 2012. However, of all the lakes studied in 2012, Lake Charlevoix had the lowest concentrations of mercury in both walleye and perch (LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program, 2013b).

One road crossing on or near Lake Charlevoix cause impairments in the lake. The parking lot on Chicago Ave. is rated “moderate” severity by the CRA. Stormwater runs off into the lake from this parking lot.

Nine tributaries running into Lake Charlevoix have erosion and fish passage problems caused by channel modifications. These tributaries are Adams Creek, Loeb Creek, Porter Creek, Stover Creek (outlet south of Stover Road), Stover Creek (outlet near Pine Lake Club Drive), Stover Creek Tributary (confluence with

36 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Stover Creek east of Barnard Road and west of Marion Center Road), Stover Creek Tributary (confluence with Stover Creek east of Barnard Road, north of Ferry Road, and south of Paddock Road), Moyer Creek, and Horton Creek. Their severity ranges from moderate to severe. More information on the impairments at each of these tributaries can be found on CRA’s inventory website at www.northernmichiganstreams.org.

Lake Charlevoix riparian land is owned privately, except for a few MDNR boat launches, state parks, and township parks. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Maple Hill Cemetery-Bear River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050103)

The Maple Hill Cemetery-Bear River watershed contains nine impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management” and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 7.434 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 7 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

There are seven impaired channel modifications in this watershed that were rated “severe” and a priority for CRA. Obstructed fish passage is caused by perched culverts on the Bear River at Sheridan Road, a caved in culvert with high velocity and a cascade on Fineout Creek at Clute Road, shallowness on a tributary at Cedar Valley Road, a perched culvert on a second tributary on Cedar Valley Road, and another perched culvert on a third tributary on River Road Erosion is also occurring as a result of the road/stream crossing on Fineout Creek on Shadow Trail Road.

The Tribe owns a property within the Bear River watershed that contains a wetland. This wetland is present on the same property as the Tribe’s old casino, called the “Victories Casino.” The site is being repurposed in 2016 to be a multi-use shopping center. The new casino, Odawa Casino and Resort, is also on this watershed, but a small corner of the property is in the Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed. Odawa Casino and Resort has its own wastewater treatment plant. The plant’s well-heads need physical protecting, and it also has a problem with recreational vehicles (RVs) pumping their waste tanks directly into storm sewers. The plant’s operators conduct classroom demonstrations, elder’s luncheon presentations, and tours to educate on wastewater treatment.

The wetland occurs at the bottom of a steep slope, which is subject to erosion. As of 2012, erosion was caused by landscape/maintenance practices, right-of-way maintenance, and stormwater runoff. The erosion could potentially cause sediment to enter the wetland, which could fill it in, and decrease its wetness. The steep slope erosion is exacerbated by runoff from the parking lot, wildlife browsing on vegetation, and the presence of invasive species. Canada yew (Taxus canadensis) is a high quality, naturally good stabilizing plant, which has declined due to the eroding slopes. The wetland is within the right-of-way of an electrical utility, which has used herbicides on native plants in the past, furthering soil erosion. We will reassess the impacts of the multi-use shopping center construction on the wetland after its completion.

The land on which these impairments occurs is in Tribal trust. The Tribe has jurisdiction to implement

37 319 Assessment Report LTBB non-point source pollution activities on its own land, but it will collaborate with the electrical utility to work on the rest of the wetland as well.

Maple River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700040207)

The Maple River watershed contains thirteen impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Other,” and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 7.014 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 15 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

The Tribe owns land along Van Creek, which includes a wetland. This wetland is home to State- threatened red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), beavers, and culturally significant black ash trees, and different species of frogs. The property is used by Tribal Citizens as a place to collect traditional plants/medicines and hunt. A Tribal fish hatchery has been built on the property, which has increased impervious surfaces, but no water quality impacts have been observed.

Van Creek is currently monitored by the Tribe and is experiencing flooding upstream from a beaver dam and reduced flow below the dam. Downstream of the property lies Reed Road, which contains culverts for the passage of Van Creek. Bars across the culvert openings are frequently obstructed by debris (woody debris, leaves). Debris buildup is presumed to be a result of a combination of local upstream beaver activity as well as from natural creek floods and flow that pick up and transport materials. During flooding after heavy rainfall, the creek can increase flow up to 22x and the Tribe has documented the inadequacy of the culverts at Reed Road and US-31 HWY with pictures (Figure 14 and Figure 15). The culverts and any debris preventing water flow could also obstruct fish passage. These culverts are planned to be improved by CRA and MDOT in 2017. CRA has rated three Van Creek road-stream crossings. Two of these are rated “minor” severity, but the crossing at Reed Road is rated “moderate” severity because of embankment, shoulder, and ditch erosions, as well as sand over the crossing. Temperatures at the downstream site may not support a coldwater fishery because of the fluctuation in the volume and level of water. Low levels of dissolved oxygen have been observed, however more monitoring is needed to understand the scope and source of the problem.

The Maple River is on the 2016 Michigan 303 (d) list for having PCBs in the water column due to atmospheric deposition. Channel modifications at various road/stream crossings have caused erosion and fish passage impairments. CRA has rated crossings on the Maple River as “severe” severity for erosion: two at Woodland Road, two at Brutus Road, and Maple River Road All of these crossings have embankment erosion and pooling at the outlet. The two crossings at Woodland Road also have fish passage problems. The culverts are too high and short, causing pooling of water at the outlet. The crossings are at the outlet of Lake Kathleen; the dam there is buried, but not completely closed off.

The East Branch of the Maple River suffers from similar impairments at the main stem of the Maple River. Channel modifications at various road/stream crossings have caused erosion and fish passage impairments. Three crossings with erosion are rated “severe” severity by CRA: Robinson Road, Douglas Lake Road, and Pipeline Road off of Robinson Road The crossing at Robinson Road is adjacent to

38 319 Assessment Report LTBB wetlands, Douglas Lake Road has a problem with the diversion outlet placed over the culvert, and Pipeline Road off of Robinson Road has severe erosion of the embankment and erosion at the shoulder/ditch. Pipeline Road off of Robinson Road also has a fish passage problem. A crossing on a tributary of the Maple River at Old State Road is rated as moderate due to erosion issues. More information on the road/stream crossings on the Maple River and East Branch of the Maple River can be found on CRA’s inventory website at www.northernmichiganstreams.org.

The land on which the Maple River impairment occurs is within the right-of-ways of county and state roads and trails. Much of the rest of the Maple River is privately-owned, but there are some MDNR- and Emmet County- owned stretches. The Tribe will collaborate with the county road commission, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and any applicable private land owners upstream and downstream to implement non-point source pollution activities.

The land on which the Van Creek and Drier Road wetland impairments occur is in Tribal trust. The Tribe has jurisdiction to implement non-point source pollution activities on this land. Sections of Van Creek are also owned by the MDNR, University of Michigan, and a variety of private landowners. The right-of- ways on the road/stream crossings are owned by the County of Emmet and State of Michigan. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

39 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Figure 14. Downstream of the VNC2 monitoring site and fish hatchery. Culverts are not adequately sized.

Figure 15. Left: Van Creek crossing at US-31 Hwy is characterized by two undersized culverts. The creek runs alongside the highway and then has to turn to get through the culverts. Right: The same culverts that cannot be seen during a heavy flooding event.

Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron Subwatershed (HUC code: 040700030101)

40 319 Assessment Report LTBB

The Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron watershed contains three impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management”, “Transportation”, and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 8.445 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 4 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

The Tribe owns a property that used to be the site of an old hotel called “King’s Inn.” The property, which is mostly wetlands, is surrounded on three sides by highways and freeways. The wetlands are a high quality, intact, and relatively undisturbed bit of northern boreal forest swamp. They have structure, diversity, and function, providing room for flood water from the roads. Black and orange Baltimore checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas phaeton) are found there; the presence of this sensitive species showcases the high quality of the wetlands. The nearby roads allow for road contaminants to enter the wetland. There are some issues with landscape maintenance, as the vegetation is mown too much and too often. Herbicides may also be being used on the property. The showy lady’s slipper has been absent since 2007, which may be a result of these landscaping practices.

The Tribe recently decided to build a small satellite casino in 2015 on the part of this property that was already filled in for a former water park.

The land on which the King’s Inn wetland impairments occur is in Tribal trust. The Tribe has jurisdiction to implement non-point source pollution activities on this land.

Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed (HUC code: 04070040201)

The Minnehaha Creek watershed has eight impairments caused by the “Other” and “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management” categories. The watershed received a score of 6.494 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 18 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

There are seven road stream crossings in the Minnehaha watershed that are causing erosion and or fish passage issues. Three crossings on Pickerel Lake Road, one crossing on Maxwell Road, and one on Berger Road are all rated as severe. Two moderate crossings are located on Channel Road and Silver Creek Road.

The Minnehaha Creek, Silver Creek, and the West Branch of Minnehaha Creek are all on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list for having PCB in their water columns. The PCBs are from atmospheric deposition.

The land on which the Minnehaha and Silver Creek impairments occur is a combination of privately- and MDNR-owned land. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

North Branch Boyne River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050203)

The North Branch Boyne River watershed has 2 impairments. One caused by the “Other” category and one caused by “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management”. The watershed received a score of 5.872 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 23 out of 24 in potential

41 319 Assessment Report LTBB for pollution in the assessment area.

Schoolhouse Creek has a crossing under the railroad track that is rated as severe due to a perched culvert and high velocities.

Cramer Creek, Kuznick Creek, Licks Creek, North Branch Boyne River, and Schoolhouse Creek are all on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list for having PCB in their water columns. The PCBs are from atmospheric deposition.

The land on which the North Branch of the Boyne River impairments occur is mostly privately-owned land, which a large parcel owned by Little Traverse Conservancy and MDNR-owned land at the headwaters. Kuznick Creek’s junction with the North Branch of the Boyne River is surrounded by Little Traverse Conservancy land. The rest of Kuznick Creek is owned privately. Both the midsections of Licks Creek and Cramer Creek are owned by the State of Michigan/MDNR, but the sources and mouths of these creeks are owned privately. Schoolhouse Creek also has a combination of privately and MDNR- owned last. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Pickerel Lake Subwatershed (HUC code: 04070040202)

The Pickerel Lake watershed has six impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Transportation Infrastructure,” and “Other” categories. The watershed received a score of 6.635 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 17 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Both Cedar Creek and Mud Creek are on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list for having PCB in their water columns. The PCBs are from atmospheric deposition.

At the mouth of Cedar Creek, the stream bank has been deteriorating and eroding. The turf covering the embankments does not offer enough stabilization for the channel. A culvert and bridge upstream of the mouth are experiencing erosion. The mouth of Cedar Creek has changed in the last three years as more sediment has accumulated from the upstream sources.

Pickerel Lake has endured a trend of increasing chloride and a continual loss of shoreline habitat. The gravel at the lake’s boat launch could potentially compromise water quality because there is a very small vegetative buffer and drainage directed towards the lake. The mouth of Cedar Creek and the shoreline of Pickerel Lake are both used by walleye for spawning and these impairments could affect that. Pickerel Lake is also on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list for having mercury in fish tissue. The mercury comes from atmospheric deposition. LTBB’s Examination of Mercury in Fish Tissue study showed that mercury concentrations in Pickerel Lake walleye decreased from 1989-2012. However, of all the lakes studied in 2012, Pickerel Lake walleye had the second-highest concentrations of mercury and perch had the fourth highest (LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program, 2013b).

The land on which the Cedar Creek impairments occur is owned by Emmet County. Pickerel Lake has adjacent land owned by Emmet County, MDNR, and private landowners. Stretches of Mud Creek are

42 319 Assessment Report LTBB owned privately and by the MDNR. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake MI Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050606)

The Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed has twenty impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Other,” “Transportation Infrastructure,” and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 6.985 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 16 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians’ elder housing, Wah-Wahs-Noo-De-Ke, at Heynig Road, is located north of Little Traverse Bay (Lake Michigan) in West Traverse Township in Emmet County, Michigan. There are currently eleven houses on an 80 acre parcel with infrastructure in place for a total of thirty houses. The area around and to the north of the housing site is rural and largely wooded with rolling topography. Nearby lands on the shore of Little Traverse Bay/Lake Michigan is under development pressure for high income summer homes. Land has been increasingly carved up closer to the lakefront, golf courses, and ski resorts. High intensity land uses are currently outside or down gradient of the Tribe’s housing groundwater flow. 21 residential septic systems are the only potential sources of contamination identified within the community well Source Water Protection Area (SWPA) and there are no known sources. Septic systems could contaminate drinking water by introducing E. coli and pathogens into source water.

The Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan studied the SWPA characteristics and determined that the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indian’s community water has adequate protection to be deemed “low- risk”. “Low-risk” in source water assessments means that if the present conditions continue, the groundwater/drinking water will likely remain uncontaminated.

The Tribal Administration Building has approximately fifty offices. Situated four miles to the southeast of the housing site, it is located in Little Traverse Township, Emmet County, Michigan. The land uses around the Administration Building are very similar to that of the housing site. The area is characterized by open lands, residential land located to the south, resort/recreation lands located to the north, and the Emmet County waste transfer station and a former landfill are also located approximately ½ mile to the east of the Tribal Administration building.

There are no known contamination sources identified within the non-community non-transient well system (NTNCWS) SWPA. Within the SWPA are three potential sources of contamination: Emmet County Waste Transfer Station underground storage tanks, Little Traverse Township Dump, and 103 septic systems. With the exception of the LTBB administration building septic system, the remaining systems pose little risk of affecting the water at this location because of separation distance and/or they reside down gradient from the groundwater flow direction.

A “moderate-risk” determination for the NTNCWS well is the result of the three potential contamination sources located relatively close, but also having positive characteristics such as clean water test results, newer construction, deep well/large surface separation, and partially confining conditions. The pow

43 319 Assessment Report LTBB wow grounds and Natural Resource Department building wells on the same 80-acre parcel have the same “moderate-risk” determination. With this determination, it is recommended that the Tribe consider developing a Source Water Protection Plan (ITC, 2005). No Source Water Protection Plan has been completed at this time.

The Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed hugs the inner Little Traverse Bay, making it a main contributor to Little Traverse Bay. Most impairments are from developed areas within the watershed. The urban areas allow stormwater runoff to enter the Bay, carrying with it pharmaceuticals, PAH’s (polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons from asphalt surfaces), and chloride (from road maintenance). Pharmaceuticals meant for human consumption that are dumped or excreted into sewage could end up in Little Traverse Bay, by way of the effluent from wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks. Pharmaceuticals in water can affect organisms by creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria and causing endocrine disruption which debilitates reproduction. Chloride has increased from 10-12 ppm over the last 23 years, according to Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. E. coli has impaired the Bay at various beaches since 2006; 3 beaches have been closed a total of 6 days in that time period. The Bay is also experiencing a loss of shoreline habitat as many people like to live and build near the water. Erosion is another concern, but its severity depends on if the shoreline is vegetated, propped up with rip rap or a seawall, or left alone. Decreased primary productivity is a concern because invasive mussels are disrupting the natural nutrient cycle of the Bay. PCBs are also expected to be in the Bay and the fish species that inhabit it. PCBs are likely from atmospheric deposition. Mercury has been found in fish tissue in Little Traverse Bay. At this time fish consumption rates are not a concern, but a new fish consumption survey by LTBB (due in 2016) will be able to make more accurate recommendations.

A few unnamed tributaries to the Bay have problems, such as the outlet on Bayfront Drive, which has severe erosion at Arlington, along with perched culverts and fast velocity at both ends. The tributary with an outlet near Beach Road has obstructed fish passage from high velocity at both Beach Drive and Page Hill crossings. Little Traverse Bay is mostly impacted by the Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed, however, Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan, Maple Hill Cemetery-Bear River, and Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan watersheds also directly contribute. The impairments for Little Traverse Bay are kept in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan, however, any of the impairments in the three watersheds mentioned could also affect Little Traverse Bay.

Tannery Creek is the one creek in the reservation that is highly impacted by urban areas. The adjacency of urban development allows for the possibility of nutrients to run off in storm water. The Tribe’s monitoring program has recorded a difference in flow regimes from the site in a mostly undeveloped area to the site downstream of the developed land—this difference suggests that the impervious surfaces of the urban development are causing a flashy flow regime in Tannery Creek. The temperature of the creek often exceeds optimal temperatures for the draft Tribal designated use of a coldwater fishery, which may be caused by warmer stormwater runoff inputs, riparian zone modifications that reduce shading, and the culverts that modify the channel (Figure 16 and Figure 17). Undersized culverts and perching are a problem at the crossing at Boyer Road, as well as embedded culverts and slow velocity at Mitchell Road between Boyer and Alcan Roads. The culverts may be causing obstructed fish passage and there is road ditch erosion causing instability at Mitchell Road. These undersized culverts

44 319 Assessment Report LTBB could be the cause of temperature pollution as well. Chloride ranges are wider with a higher maximum at the site downstream of the urban area. The downstream site also has the remnants of old infrastructure, such as old rusty pipes in the streambed and ravine. Culverts were recently replaced with a bridge on Little Traverse Wheelway, near the downstream monitoring site.

Although there are no impairments on Wah-Wahs-Noo-De-Kee and the LTBB Government Complex, the Tribe has jurisdiction to implement non-point source pollution activities on this land if they were to occur. Little Traverse Bay’s riparian landowners include the City of Petoskey, City of Harbor Springs, MDNR, and a variety of private landowners. The Tannery Creek corridor is owned entirely by private landowners, however, the Tribe already works closely with one of the landowners. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Tannery Creek Temperature Pollution (Downstream Site TYC1) 20 18 2002 16 2004

14 C) º 2006 12 10 2008 8 2010

Temperature( 6 2013 4 2 0 February May June July August September October Month

45 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Tannery Creek Temperature Pollution (Downstream Site TYC2A) 20

18 2004

16 2006

14 C) º 2008 12

10 2010 8 2013 Temperature( 6

0 February May June July August September October Month

Figure 17. Temperatures at TYC2A nearly always exceeded the threshold for Rainbow trout spawning. Less frequently, temperatures exceeded the threshold for embryo survival and growth. Threshold temperatures for Rainbow trout life stages are shown in colored lines: red (spawning), green, (embryo survival), and black (growth). Temperatures were also higher at the downstream, urban TYC1 than they were at the upstream, more rural TYC2A.

South Arm Lake Charlevoix Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050206)

The South Arm Lake Charlevoix watershed contains nine impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” and “Urban,” categories. The watershed received a score of 9.612 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 1 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area. (Note that the water body of Lake Charlevoix is split between two subwatersheds. Most of Lake Charlevoix is in the Lake Charlevoix Subwatershed, but the south arm is in the South Arm Lake Charlevoix Subwatershed. The impairments on these two subwatersheds were reported separately. See the section on page 42 for the main body Lake Charlevoix impairments.)

Lake Charlevoix is used for recreational activities and fishing. Because of the large amount of residences and urban areas surrounding the lake, nutrients and pharmaceuticals can run off into the water with stormwater. Many of the residences implement landscape/maintenance practices that cause an increase in nutrients. LTBB’s monitoring site in the south arm is showing increased trends in total phosphorus, conductivity, and chloride (Figure 18 and Figure 19). Septic tanks along the lake could also cause nutrients to enter the lake, in addition to being a health concern. One beach at East Jordan Tourist Park in the South Arm of Lake Charlevoix was closed 3 days in 2005 due to an abundance of E. coli.

46 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Both the south arm of Lake Charlevoix and some of its tributaries have impairments from channel modifications. Three tributaries running into the South Arm of Lake Charlevoix have erosion and fish passage problems caused by channel modifications. These tributaries are Ironton Drain, Sears Creek, and Monroe Creek. More information on the impairments at each of these tributaries can be found on CRA’s inventory website at www.northernmichiganstreams.org.

South Arm Lake Charlevoix Total Phosphorus 9.00 R² = 0.7364 8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

TotalPhosphorus (ug/L) 2.00

1.00

0.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Year

Figure 18. Increasing trend in total phosphorus at CXL1.

47 319 Assessment Report LTBB

South Arm Lake Charlevoix Conductivity 365.00 360.00 R² = 0.845 355.00 350.00 345.00 340.00 335.00

330.00 Conductivity(uS/cm) 325.00 320.00 315.00 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Year

Figure 19. Increasing conductivity trends at CXL1.

Spring Brook Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050101)

The Spring Brook Subwatershed has seven impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management” category. The watershed received a score of 6.35 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 19 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Gimlet Creek has obstructed fish passage due to a blocked culvert at Springbrook Road. The main branch of Spring Brook has both obstructed fish passage and erosion, including the highest priority site in the inventory at Slashing Road where the condition of the culverts is very poor and perched. Fish passage is of concern in the Middle Branch of Spring Brook at Chandler Hill Road due to high water velocity. The North Branch of Spring Brook has erosion at Springvale Road, Bachandler Camp Road, and Chandler Hill Rd; additionally, the culvert at Chandler Hill Road is perched and there is fencing with debris buildup causing fish passage concerns. The South Branch of Spring Brook has erosion at Springbrook Road and Chandler Hill, and perched culverts obstructed fish passage at Chandler Hill Rd and Slashing Road.

The land surrounding the impairment on Gimlet Creek is privately owned. The impairments on the main and middle branches of Spring Brook are all State-owned. The North branch has a mix of private and State-ownership at its impairments, except for the crossing at Bachandler Camp Rd., which is all State- owned. The sites of the South Branch of Spring Brook’s impairments are all State-owned, except for the crossing at Chandler Hill, which is owned privately on the west side. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050607)

The Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed has twelve impairments caused by the

48 319 Assessment Report LTBB

“Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Transportation Infrastructure,” “Agriculture and Aquaculture”, and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 8.547 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 3 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Susan Lake occasionally contains E. coli and the parasite that causes Swimmer’s Itch. This lake has many residences with natural shorelines, however loss of shoreline is still a concern as some residences keep little to no vegetation on their shorelines and practices could change if ownership changes hands.

Susan Creek drains from Susan Lake. A farm is located at the headwaters of the creek, but no impairments currently are expected to be a result of farming practices. The Creek has some instances of channel modification and legacies of historical land use. An upstream monitoring site is near a collapsed stream crossing on a nearby property. The downstream monitoring site has the remnants of an old dam still in the ravine and creekbed. Susan Creek dries up in the summer and these obstacles may exacerbate the reduced flow. The Tribe’s data also shows that the water may be too warm for warmwater fish species at certain times. The downstream monitoring site (SNC1A) on Susan Creek is also experiencing an increasing trend in total suspended solids as well as a decreasing macroinvertebrate score (Figure 20 and Figure 21). A possible explanation for this could be due to erosion occurring upstream. The Taimi Hoag Natural Area is adjoining the Susan Creek preserve managed by the Little Traverse Conservancy, who has plans to expand the trail systems in 2017. There is also an increasing trend in total phosphorus at the downstream site and the causes for that are unknown based on the location of this creek (Figure 22). Further research needs to be conducted to determine the cause.

SNC1A Total Suspended Solids 4

3.5

3 R² = 0.7536

2.5

1.5

1 TotalSuspended Solids (mg/L) 0.5

0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 20. Increasing trend in total suspended solids at Susan Creek.

49 319 Assessment Report LTBB

SNC1A Macroinvertebrate Score 40

25 R² = 0.3333

10 R² = 0.7311 5 R² = 0.4681

0 R² = 0.8081 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Richness (margalefs) Shannon Weiner HBI NLF Score

Figure 21. Decreasing trend in macroinvertebrate scores at Susan Creek.

SNC1A Total Phosphorus 16 R² = 0.8914 14

8 TotalPhosphorus (Ug/L) 6

4 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 22. Increasing trends in total phosphorus at Susan Creek.

Nine Mile Point on Little Traverse Bay is a common place for commercial tribal fishermen to put in their boats. The access point used to have severe erosion coming down from the road, but the launch was

50 319 Assessment Report LTBB improved in 2016.

Within this watershed, the Bay has two tributaries with impairments. The tributary with an outlet near Shores Drive has heavy erosion and a perched culvert at the Old US-31 Highway and Townsend Road crossings. The tributary with an outlet near Bay Harbor Lake has a perched culvert and obstructed fish passage at Cedar Bluff Drive, where it is too shallow, without flow, and the erosion barriers are not working. Another tributary at Wildwinds Drive and the Little Traverse Wheelway has water that is too shallow and a perched culvert, both of which obstruct fish passage.

A small corner of the Tribe’s Odawa Casino and Resort is also a part of this watershed.

The land on which the Susan Creek impairments occur is in Tribal trust. The Tribe has jurisdiction to implement non-point source pollution activities on this land. The upstream stretches of Susan Creek are also owned privately, including Little Traverse Conservancy. Susan Lake is entirely privately owned except for an access boat launch owned by the MDNR. One owner is the Greensky Hill Indian Mission, a church that has ties to the Tribe. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Walloon Lake-Bear River Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050102)

The Walloon Lake-Bear River watershed has twelve impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management,” “Other,” and “Urban” categories. The watershed received a score of 7.259 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 11 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Three tributaries of Walloon Lake have impairments caused by channel modifications; two of these tributaries also have perched culverts. Haymarsh Creek has erosion at US-131 Railroad (railway fill is washing into creek on both sides, and a possible blocked culvert due to lack of flow), Bauman Road (erosion on both stream banks, needs channel realignment, new culverts, and a bigger road buffer), and Holms Road (road is falling into stream, needs a longer culvert and a wider road buffer). Schoof’s Creek has erosion at William’s Road (near Deere Road) as well as fish passage concerns during dry weather and possible perched culverts at Resort Pike Rd (‘Middle’). Fineout Creek has 2 impaired crossings. One is located under East Shadow Lane and has erosion on the upstream side and one crossing under Clute Road that is a caved culvert.

The LTBB monitoring site located at the headwaters of the Bear River is experiencing a decreasing trend in dissolved oxygen and the reason is unknown at this time.

Walloon Lake occasionally contains both E. coli and the parasite that causes Swimmer’s Itch; one beach was closed for 2 days in 2006 due to high E. coli levels. The Lake is listed on Michigan’s 2016 303(d) list for having mercury in fish tissue, which is from atmospheric deposition. LTBB’s Examination of Mercury in Fish Tissue study showed that mercury concentrations in Walloon Lake walleye had neither significantly increased nor decreased from 2006-2012. However, of all the lakes studied in 2012, Walloon Lake walleye had the third-highest concentrations of mercury and perch had the second-

51 319 Assessment Report LTBB highest (LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program, 2013b).

Walloon Lake is also subject to erosion and a general loss of shoreline (especially wetland) habitat due to suboptimal vegetative cover and development all around the lake. Roads, highways, and bridges contribute stormwater runoff to the lake as well.

The land on which the Walloon Lake impairments occur is privately-, MDNR-, and Melrose Township- owned. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan Subwatershed (HUC code: 040601050603)

The Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan watershed has eight impairments caused by the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management” and “Other” category. The watershed received a score of 8.027 in the GIS analysis for pollution potential, ranking it 6 out of 24 in potential for pollution in the assessment area.

Wycamp Lake water levels are set by Act 194 of Michigan Public Acts in 1939. Optimum lake levels were surveyed from 1959 to 1960, taking into consideration future development, boating, swimming, fish, wildlife, shoreline erosion, ice, and flood damage to shoreline installations, and flooding of timber (Jansma, 1960). In 1961, lake levels were legally set at 611.8 feet above sea level in the summer and 611.0 feet above sea level in the winter. To set these lake levels, a dam was constructed at the west outlet of Wycamp Lake. The levels are now controlled by adding and removing stop logs (Felon, 1961). In 2005, two property owners on Wycamp Lake received a letter from North Star Land Surveying, with records that showed the water level was above the legal lake level from 2002-2005 (Swenor, 2005).The lake level was legally set to solve the problem of water level fluctuations from beaver dams, their removal, erosion, and man-made control structures. The dam keeps the lake levels consistent. The majority of the land surrounding Wycamp Lake is owned by a single owner who uses the land and lake to attract game hunters. Right now the riparian areas are kept mostly intact, but the lake could face a loss of shoreline habitat if the owner decided to change management practices or sell the land.

Steep banks were found upstream and downstream of the road/stream crossing on N Lake Shore Drive. A steep bank downstream of the crossing/culvert was barely vegetated and eroded (Figure 23). Sedimentation and sand deposition were occurring upstream of the culvert (Figure 24).

52 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Figure 23. A steep, eroded bank just downstream from the North Lakeshore Drive crossing of Wycamp Creek.

Figure 24. Sedimentation and deposition upstream of the North Lakeshore Drive crossing of Wycamp Creek.

O’Neal Lake is oriented north-south, draining a large, relatively shallow basin into a narrow channel where water flows southwards towards a dam and unimproved boat launch, after which it becomes known as Big Sucker Creek. The dam failed in October of 2014. For the most part, the lake has a fairly sandy bottom, with some accumulation of organic material especially in the narrow channel (wild rice is planted there), and flocculent mucky sediments in some places. Historic scientific literature states that in times before the impoundment was in place, the vegetation around the O’Neal Lake basin was boggy

53 319 Assessment Report LTBB in nature (Gates, 1942). The lake’s water levels were sometimes too deep for wild rice to grow during its impounded phase. The dam created by the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 (Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration) causes water to back up unnaturally in the lake. State-threatened Bald eagles, loons, and osprey nest along the lake. The lake has not experienced any riparian zone modification, as the MDNR and private landowners prefer natural shorelines. There are no residences within site of the lake’s shoreline. If the practices of the riparian owners change, however, the loss of shoreline could occur. There is an effort to replace the dam, which could be beneficial for wild rice propagation.

There are three impairments on Big Sucker Creek that drains from O’Neal Lake and into Lake Michigan. It has decreasing trends of dissolved oxygen and increasing nutrient and temperature trends. The cause of these impairments is still unknown given the remote location of this site.

The land on which the Wycamp Lake impairments occur is privately-, MDNR-, and Emmet County- owned. There are only two private landowners on Wycamp Lake. Access to Wycamp Creek is also owned by the MDNR, a variety of private landowners, including a preserve property, and a little over 300 feet of frontage is owned by LTBB. The land on which the O’Neal Lake impairments occur is owned by the MDNR and a few private landowners. Big Sucker Creek access is owned by the MDNR exclusively. The Tribe will collaborate with these groups to implement non-point source pollution activities.

54 319 Assessment Report LTBB

DISCUSSION NPS Pollution Categories ranked by number of Impairments (most to least):

1. Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management (119) 2. Urban (35) 3. Other (25) 4. Transportation Infrastructure (15) 5. Agriculture and Aquaculture (3) 6. Forestry (0)

Subwatersheds (12-digit HUCs) were chosen to comprise the assessment area if (a) they are completely or partially within the reservation, (b) their water bodies are culturally significant, (c) their water bodies are used by Tribal citizens for any draft uses, and/or (d) they contribute to water bodies in (a), (b), or (c). The following sources were used to assess water bodies for impairments:

 LTBB 2011 Wetlands Assessment Report  LTBB 2013, 2014, 2015 Water Quality Assessment Report  LTBB Baseline Water Quality Assessment Report  Lake Charlevoix Watershed Management Plan  Little Traverse Bay Watershed Protection Plan  Larks Lake Watershed Planning Project  2016 State of Michigan 303(d) program  Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council lake profiles— Headwaters of the Inland Waterway and Northern Michigan’s Great Lakes Bays  Michigan Beach Guard—Beach closings  LTBB 2008, 2010, 2014 Wetlands Technical Report  Conservation Resource Alliance road/stream crossing inventory for Lake Charlevoix watershed, Carp Lake River watershed, Maple River watershed, and Crooked River watershed (moderate and severe road/stream crossings only)  2013 LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Mercury Assessments

Impairments were included for a water body if related water quality parameters were increasing over time or had ever exceeded thresholds. Impairments based on those criteria were found in LTBB and Tip of the Mitt data. Impairments were also included if a watershed plan or CRA’s road/stream crossing inventory had already assessed them. Cause and effect relationships between source and impairments were made using best professional judgment, field observations by LTBB staff, and/or prior analysis by watershed plan preparers.

In addition to individual impairments, a GIS analysis was performed to understand the potential for nonpoint source pollution in the assessment area (Appendix C). The higher-scoring areas were most affected by an abundance of roads and/or road/stream crossings, highly erodible soils, the presence of land use that would cause nonpoint source pollution, steeper slopes, and the presence of wetlands. Roads and road/stream crossings most affected urban areas like Petoskey, Harbor Springs, Boyne City,

55 319 Assessment Report LTBB and Charlevoix. Soils most affected around Lake Charlevoix and in Wilderness State Park (mucky soils in the park). Developed land use most affected urban areas, while wetlands most affected Wilderness State Park and Wycamp Lake. Steep slopes, TN, and TP most affected around Lake Charlevoix.

What follows is a discussion of impairments organized by pollution category. See Appendix J for an easy- to-use table.

NPS Pollution Category: Agriculture and Aquaculture Subcategory: Erosion

 TSS in Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Increase in TSS in August and September from farming practices or runoff from wetlands

Subcategory: Fertilizer runoff

 Nutrients in Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Increase in nitrogen and phosphorus in August and September from farm upstream

Subcategory: Land use planning

 Total Phosphorus in Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan o Increasing trends in total phosphorus due to upstream land use practices

NPS Pollution Category: Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management Subcategory: Animal-related

 Reduced flow in Maple River subwatershed o Beaver dam  Bacteria in Brush Creek watershed o E. coli from waterfowl  Temperature exceedances in Crooked River Subwatershed o Fish stocking

Subcategory: Channel modification

 Dissolved oxygen in Cold Creek-Maple River watershed o Culvert causes higher temperature in water, which can then hold less oxygen  Dredging in Crooked River subwatershed  Erosion throughout the assessment area o Culverts at road/stream crossings o Destabilized streambank in Pickerel Lake watershed only  Obstructed fish passage throughout the assessment area o Culverts at road/stream crossings

56 319 Assessment Report LTBB

 Temperature in Cold Creek-Maple River, Crooked River, and Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatersheds o Culverts at road/stream crossings  Reduced flow in Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Collapsed culvert at two-track/stream crossing  Sedimentation in Pickerel Lake subwatershed o Could hurt walleye spawning habitat

Subcategory: Erosion

 Sedimentation in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Increased size of sand bars

Subcategory: Historical land use

 Temperature in Five Mile Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan, Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatersheds o Fish pond upstream in Five Mile Creek o Dam may be warming water at the headwaters of Wycamp Creek  Old infrastructure in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Concrete from old infrastructure within the streambed, old rusty pipes within the creek  Sediment in Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Rebar left over from the remnants of an old dam

Subcategory: Landscape/maintenance practices

 Erosion in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan and Bear River subwatersheds o Shoreline erosion in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan and absence of native stabilizing plants in Bear River  Habitat for fish and bird species in Brush Creek subwatershed o Shoreline residences decrease the amount of habitat and shading  Herbicides in Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron and Crooked River subwatershed o Absence of Showy Lady’s Slipper in wetlands since 2007; FQA Score  Mowing too much and too often in Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron subwatersheds o Absence of Showy Lady’s Slipper in wetlands since 2007  Nutrients in Lake Charlevoix and South Arm Lake Charlevoix subwatersheds o Residential shoreline nutrient runoff  Stormwater runoff in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan and Brush Creek subwatershed o Stormwater does not have a chance to filter out, slow down, or cool down before it enters water bodies.

Subcategory: Right-of-way maintenance

57 319 Assessment Report LTBB

 BMPs not used on right-of-ways in French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay and Maple Hill Cemetery-Bear River watershed o Occurs on wetlands

Subcategory: Riparian zone modifications

 Loss of shoreline habitat throughout the assessment area o Shoreline development decreases shoreline habitat, which could lead to other water quality impairments (e.g. temperature increase, sediment)

NPS Pollution Category: Other Subcategory: Atmospheric deposition

 Mercury in fish tissue throughout the assessment area  PCB in fish tissue throughout the assessment area  PCB in water column throughout the assessment area

Subcategory: Unknown

 High temperature in Susan Creek  Wycamp Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan o Unknown causes for decreasing trend in dissolved oxygen and increasing trends of temperature and nutrients

NPS Pollution Category: Transportation Infrastructure Subcategory: Erosion

 Sediment in Crooked River subwatershed o Narrow buffer of vegetation between Spring Lake-North Arm and road  Erosion in Loeb Creek-Lake Charlevoix subwatershed o Boat launch access

Subcategory: Road maintenance

 Chloride increasing over time throughout the assessment area  Conductivity increasing over time throughout the assessment area

Subcategory: Stormwater runoff

 Chloride in Van Creek o Road runoff from US 31

Subcategory: Trails

 Erosion and/or habitat destruction in French Farm Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan and Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatersheds

58 319 Assessment Report LTBB

o Due to access opened by nearby trails

NPS Pollution Category: Urban Subcategory: Human health

 E. coli throughout the assessment area o Reports of E. coli outbreaks on Michigan Beach Guard or knowledge from LTBB staff  Swimmer’s itch in Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan and Walloon Lake-Bear River subwatersheds (usually from waterfowl)  Nutrients in Lake Charlevoix and South Arm Lake Charlevoix subwatersheds o Septic tank failures Subcategory: Illegal dumping and litter

 Trash in Cooked River, French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay, and Horseshoe Bend- Frontal Lake Michigan subwatersheds Subcategory: Land use planning

 Chloride in Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan  Pollutants in Crooked River subwatershed o Pollutants from gas station and roads so close to wetland  Threats to natural habitats in Maple River subwatershed o Building of a fish hatchery near a wetland will result in more impervious surfaces, increased run off, loss of water infiltration capacity, overall decreased habitat for wetland and wetland edge flora and fauna. Subcategory: Stormwater runoff

 Erosion in Lake Charlevoix and Bear River subwatersheds o Stormwater in the Bear River subwatershed from parking lot runs down a steep slope, eroding into the wetland below o Stormwater in the Lake Charlevoix subwatershed runs off from a parking lot directly into Lake Charlevoix  Flashy flow regime in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Stormwater runs quickly into waterbodies without slowing down, causing an unnatural flashy flow regime during storm events.  Nutrients in Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatershed o Stormwater carries nutrients into Tannery Creek  Conductivity in Susan Creek-Frontal Lake Michigan  Pharmaceuticals and/or PAHs in Lake Charlevoix, South Arm Lake Charlevoix, and Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan o People often flush their unneeded pharmaceuticals, which then enter the water through stormwater and effluent from wastewater treatment plants o PAHs from asphalt applications can run off into waterways  Temperature in Crooked River and Roaring Brook-Frontal Lake Michigan subwatersheds

59 319 Assessment Report LTBB

o Stormwater goes directly into waterbodies, often over hot pavement, which keeps the water warm. Warmer water inputs into water bodies can warm the water bodies overall. Especially occurs in moderate to high intensity developed areas.  Total nitrogen in Crooked River subwatershed o Ranges from 1500-2000 ppb  Pollutants in Crooked River subwatershed o Runoff with gas in it from gas station  Increasing chloride trends in Maple Hill Cemetery-Bear River subwatershed  Erosion in Maple Hill Cemetery-Bear River subwatershed  Road contaminants in French Farm Creek-Frontal Trails End Bay and Mill Creek-Frontal Lake Huron subwatersheds o Roads and highways at higher elevations around wetland—stormwater runs off and down into the wetlands.  Runoff from roads in Walloon Lake-Bear River subwatershed

Roads directly adjacent to Walloon Lake

SELECTION OF BMPS Core Participants

The following entities will be a part of BMP selection:

 Tribal o Environmental Services Program o Natural Resources Department o Planning Department o Natural Resources Commission o Tribal Council . Land and Reservation Committee  Local entities o Local and county governments o County Road commissions o Any partners that are a part of: . Lake Charlevoix Watershed Plan Committee . Little Traverse Bay Watershed Plan Committee . Burt Lake Watershed Plan Committee  Private landowners  Michigan Department of Transportation

Public Participation and Governmental Coordination

60 319 Assessment Report LTBB

The model for the tribal decision making process regarding choosing BMPs most suitable to address each category and subcategory of nonpoint source pollution identified in our NPS assessment is as follows: 1. Conduct or continue more monitoring on impairments that have been identified as needing more information and/or with the potential to become severe. 2. Identify all BMPs that are appropriate to each type of NPS pollution through research and consultation. 3. Determine which of the above BMPs are suitable in terms of scale, environment, and existing infrastructure. 4. Determine likely effectiveness of locally appropriate BMPs in reducing NPS loading through research, modeling, and consultation. Rank BMPs based upon likely performance. 5. Consult with other relevant agencies, jurisdictions, and partners to determine which of the BMPs may best be used in coordination with their efforts. Develop formal cooperative agreement(s) when indicated. Identify multiple funding options where possible. 6. Determine which BMPs will have the most favorable results per unit cost. 7. Present options to Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to allow tribal leadership to consider options, provide comment, and shape the implementation of the proposal. 8. Implement BMP with adequate resources to perform necessary maintenance and monitor performance. 9. Provide regular updates on BMP status and effectiveness to NRC and other relevant agencies.

Existing BMPS

The following sources were used to compile a table of existing BMPs in the assessment area (Appendix L):

 Lake Charlevoix Watershed Management Plan  Little Traverse Bay Watershed Management Plan  Larks Lake Watershed Management Plan  Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, “Lake Charlevoix Local Ordinance GAPs Analysis”  Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, “Emmet County Local Ordinance GAPs Analysis”  Conservation Resource Alliance, “River Restoration BMPs”  Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, “Understanding, Living With, and Controlling Shoreline Erosion”

Pollution Reduction

Appendix M shows the BMPs and actions that LTBB staff members have identified as appropriate based on the pollutant sources addressed in this assessment. Some sources/references for more BMPs are included under some categories. Education is not specifically mentioned in the table, however, education will be a part of reducing all categories of NPS pollution. The EPA’s “National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodifications” document will also be used

61 319 Assessment Report LTBB for impairments in the “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management” category. Protecting threatened, endangered, and culturally significant flora and fauna will be taken into consideration when choosing how to reduce pollution.

Funding for the implementation of these BMPs will be garnered from CWA 319 funds, NRCS, BIA, LTBB, and other entities applicable to nonpoint source pollutant clean-up and prevention. This list of BMPs is not all inclusive and BMPs may be changed or added as needed. LTBB staff will rely heavily on watershed partnerships and future capacity building to choose and implement BMPs. The severity rankings for each impairment will be used to identify priority impairments.

62 319 Assessment Report LTBB

EXISTING NPS CONTROL PROGRAMS Varieties of federal, state, and local programs are currently being used or may be used in future to control NPS pollution in our area.

National Focus

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has multiple funding opportunities available yearly. Some of them could be used to control NPS pollution, such as Acres for America (land acquisition to conserve important habitat).

The Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Water Resources coordinates the process of soliciting water- related funding proposals from tribes, among other duties. The Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development program assists tribes in managing, conservation, and utilizing trust water resources.

Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) is a competitive grant program from EPA that addresses the risks from multiple sources of toxic pollution in the environment. It focuses on implementing local solutions to reduce toxic pollutant releases and exposures to people.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a competitive-grant program called Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) which uses innovative conservation approaches and technologies to enhance and protect environments and agricultural production. CIG’s intent is to accelerate technology transfer and the adoption of promising technologies/approaches to natural resources concern. There are also occasionally state-wide CIG grants. This may be a future funding source for NPS pollution control programs, especially because up to 10% of the awards are set aside for tribes and a few other demographics. Those in these groups are also able to receive a higher percentage of project matching funds from in-kind contributions. NRCS also has funding available for land and water conservation through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP).

The USDA Farm Service Agency’s Conservation Reserve Program uses rental payments and cost-sharing to assist producers in using environmentally sensitive lands for conservation benefits. Enrolled producers voluntarily plant long-term, resource conserving cover crops to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and develop wildlife habitat.

The NRCS’s Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) focuses on encouraging agricultural and forest producers to improve, maintain, and manage their conservation activities. Private/Tribal agricultural land and nonindustrial private forest land is eligible for the program.

The Five Star Restoration program through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation aims to support community-based wetland, riparian, and coastal habitat restoration projects. The program hopes to build diverse partnerships (must have at least 5 partners) and foster local natural resource stewardship through education, outreach, and training activities.

63 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Patagonia, Inc. funds environmental work on projects that identify and work on the root causes of problems. Through small grants, Patagonia helps local groups protect local habitat, produce measurable results, and enforce laws. For example, in Michigan, Patagonia has funded efforts to protect the health of the Kalamazoo River, promote environmental education and civic engagement, and collect water quality information.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Tribal Wildlife Grant program funds projects that benefit fish and wildlife resources and their habitat. This grant can apply to species of cultural significance and species that are not hunted or fished.

State/Regional Focus

The Bay Harbor Foundation, located within the reservation, is a charitable, nonprofit organization that distributes grants in the arts, education, a scholar program, the environment, and health & human services.

The Clean Michigan Initiative program is funded by a $675 million bond. The program uses the fund to improve and protect Michigan’s water resources with administration by the Departments of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Natural Resources (DNR), and Community Health (MDCH). The majority of the fund is put into brownfields, but local/state parks, waterfronts, contaminated sediments, lead, pollution prevention, nonpoint source pollution, and the Clean Water Fund are also categories that utilize this money. Some of the programs funded by this initiative are the Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA) monitoring program and the Cooperative Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP), which is mainly volunteer based.

FishAmerica Foundation and NOAA Restoration Center have teamed up to provide for Community- based Habitat Restoration Projects. Projects in the Great Lakes could restore habitat for diadromous sportfish such as lake sturgeon, walleye, and brook trout in the Great Lakes and their tributaries.

Sustain our Great Lakes is on a mission to sustain, restore, and protect fish, wildlife, and habitat in the Great Lakes basin. The Stewardship Grants Program is for large-scale projects of the same nature that will benefit the entire Great Lakes basin. Tribes are eligible for both of these programs.

The Frey Foundation, located in Grand Rapids, MI, gives grants for protecting the environment in the Grand Rapids area, along with Emmet and Charlevoix counties. The Foundation funds new ventures or program expansions to promote innovation and change. As an example of the Foundation’s work in this area, the Conservation Resource Authority has used funds from the Frey Foundation in road-stream crossing restorations.

The Great Lakes Protection Fund supports supplemental projects for existing efforts to protect and restore the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Fund supports a wide-range of activities, and projects are graded on their anticipated benefits to the entire Great Lakes basin.

64 319 Assessment Report LTBB

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a federal action plan focusing on the Great Lakes from 2015- 2019 funds different projects to restore and care for the Great Lakes. “Urgent issues” rotate from year to year and non-point source problems can be addressed by grants written for certain issues.

Freshwater Future, located within the reservation, provides funding for grassroots organizations in a variety of environmental areas. Freshwater Future administers grants from the Healing Our Waters- Great Lakes Coalition program, which provides financial support to aid in development/implementation of GLRI and other projects. The organization also has small grants for river, lake, wetland, and groundwater protection efforts. Freshwater Future’s goals focus on the protection and restoration of aquatic habitat, shorelines, inland lakes, rivers and wetlands in the Great Lakes basin.

The Michigan BeachGuard System provides a place for all Michigan beach monitoring information to be publicly shared. The MDEQ administers GLRI grants that are implemented by local health departments to monitor beaches for E. coli.

A multi-county medication drug take back system, called Prescription and Over-the-Counter Drug Drop Off, operates in Northern Michigan. The program installs drop-off boxes at secure sites for unused or unwanted medications. Disposing of the drugs properly ensures that they are kept out of water bodies, which in turn protects the health of humans, fish, and other aquatic species.

The Restoration Remedies Program, also from Tip of the Mitt Watershed council, controls erosion and sedimentation along shorelines and stream banks. Using biotechnical erosion control, the Watershed Council develops restoration designs, deals with the permitting process, and coordinates the installation for riparian property owners.

The Conservation Resource Alliance’s River Care Program has a permanent fund to provide long term, consistent river care across political boundaries. Using a partnership approach, the River Care Fund plans to guarantee fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreational opportunities in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.

Local Focus

LTBB’s Bear River Habitat Restoration Project improved the physical, chemical, and biological health of the Bear River watershed and the waters that flow into Little Traverse Bay and Lake Michigan. These improvements include fixing erosion sites, inventorying/eradicating harmful invasive species, and improving greenbelts.

The City of Petoskey incorporates the Bear River into the City of Petoskey Master Plan. Protection of the water quality of this river is one of the goals of the master plan and mentions stream bank erosion and storm water runoff as potential sources of pollution.

LTBB’s Examination of Mercury in Fish Tissue project provides an updated perspective on mercury contamination and fish consumption, allowing fish consumers to make educated decisions based on the most up-to-date contaminant information. Mercury is of particular concern for Native American tribes which have strong recreational and subsistence fisheries populations that are sensitive to contaminants. This study has resulted in more knowledge on nonpoint and point source methylmercury production in

65 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Little Traverse Bay and northern Michigan inland lakes. This study has been compared to health advisories regarding fish, finding some of them too restrictive, but continued monitoring and education will help to correct health advisories.

LTBB’s Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) program addresses key environmental concerns in the Lake Michigan Basin ecosystem including human disturbances, invasive species, water quality issues, pollutants, and the need for collaboration. The LTBB Great Lakes Policy Specialist participates in Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) meetings, provides Tribal input on LaMP documents and Great Lakes policies, provides education and outreach, provides technical expertise along with cultural knowledge, develops and plans future projects, shares data as appropriate, and serves as a liaison among collaborative partners.

The Little Traverse Bay Protection and Restoration Fund, started in 2010, supports environmental projects along Little Traverse Bay. The fund is guided by the Little Traverse Bay Protection Plan (a nine- element plan), and most of the funds currently come from CMS Land Company. CMS Land contributed $250,000 to the fund and issued a challenge to the community. If the community matched this amount, they would add another $250,000. Efforts spearheaded by the Community Foundation and Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council brought in the community $250,000 match. Then CMS added the final amount. All of Little Traverse Bay and much of the Bay’s watershed are within LTBB’s reservation boundary.

CONCLUSIONS One of the key findings of this assessment report is that the largest nonpoint source contributing category in the assessment area is “Hydromodification, Habitat Alteration, and Riparian Management.” Road-stream crossing data from CRA coupled with observations by LTBB staff shows that our rivers are plagued by channel modifications. Channel modifications, in the form of culverts, bridges, or dredging, cause erosion, obstructed fish passage, warm temperatures, and high nutrients.

This report also found that temperature impairments were common in both lakes and rivers. Temperature impairments come from four different categories, including the “Unknown” category, making the true source (and thus mitigation) of this impairment increasingly elusive. The criterion used for determining temperature pollution is derived from Alaskan lakes: temperature thresholds are calculated for maximum weekly average temperatures. LTBB data is only taken once per month or once per season, often at the hottest part of the day. It is unknown whether the sampling frequency and time causes water bodies to be falsely assessed as impaired for temperature. This assessment did the best job of determining sources with the data available. Only more research and monitoring can determine the actual severity of the warmer temperatures.

Mercury and PCBs (from atmospheric deposition) in fish tissue or ambient water is another glaring impairment in this assessment. Unfortunately, the time for preventing this impairment is long past, but monitoring can help us understand where to fish and how much to eat to stay healthy. In fact, recent monitoring by LTBB found that current fish advisories were too restrictive.

66 319 Assessment Report LTBB

Channel modifications and temperature impairments most affect the fisheries use of water bodies, because fish cannot find spawning and hiding places in heavily-sedimented stream, nor can they survive above certain temperatures. Mercury and PCBs in fish or fish habitat could make the fish dangerous to eat. Fish are an important resource for LTBB because fishing is one of the most obvious uses of Tribal treaty rights.

Hunting and gathering are also important rights exercised by Tribal citizens. For this reason, efforts should be made to preempt nonpoint source pollution from affecting any aquatic or semi-aquatic organisms and aquatic plants. Many aquatic and wetland plants are used as medicines or food by Tribal people. Wild rice (Z. palustris or Z. aquatica)., “manoomin” in Annishinaabemowin, is of increasing interest, as there is a movement towards a rice harvesting culture, much like that of tribes in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Wild rice is sensitive to nutrient inputs, which are often caused by nonpoint source pollution. Land use changes on a watershed scale can also affect habitat for wild rice, including water chemistry, water clarity, sediment thickness, sediment chemistry, water temperature, and water levels.

Although the Tribe only has draft designated uses currently, these uses are a reflection of attitudes and behavior of Tribal citizens and interests. For the purposes of this assessment, the draft designated uses should be viewed as important criteria for protection and mitigation efforts. The designated uses are planned to be submitted to the EPA in 2016 and they may be approved by the time this assessment plan is approved.

A special concern in this report is wetlands. LTBB culture relies heavily on wetlands for traditional medicines and cultural activities. To raise awareness on this issue, a Native Plants Initiative was launched with a booklet that identifies culturally significant plants and uses for conservation, and develops a guide to aid in incorporating culturally significant plants into management plan. LTBB- monitored wetlands have impairments that could be mitigated and further prevented with more education and better planning. Wetlands have also increased the potential for nonpoint source pollution in many watersheds because they are more sensitive to pollution than other ecosystems.

In addition to wetlands affecting the pollution potential scores, other criteria were found to have more of an impact on nonpoint source pollution in the assessment area. Areas were ranked high because of roads, road/stream crossings, highly erodible soils, developed land uses, and steep slopes. Any area that was rated high in any or a combination of these factors should also be given more priority for nonpoint source pollution work.

The findings of this assessment report would recommend that every effort be taken to protect wetlands in any condition and pristine water bodies. Restorative/improvement BMPs should be used on impaired waters. Priorities should be based on the severity of the impairment, cultural significance of the water body/wetland that is impaired, and nonpoint source pollution potential for the watershed. These recommendations will ensure that the largest and purest amount of natural resources stays available for the use of the Tribe, which is important because water has, and will continue, to represent a way of life for the LTBB.

67 319 Assessment Report LTBB

ACRONYMS CRA: Conservation Resource Alliance

CWA: Clean Water Act

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code

LTBB: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

MDNR: Michigan Department of Natural Resources

MDOT: Michigan Department of Transportation

NPS: Nonpoint Source

NRC: Natural Resources Commission

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service

NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community Water System

SWPA: Surface Water Protection Area

TN: total nitrogen

TP: total phosphorus

TSS: total suspended solids

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

WOS: Waganakising Odawak Statute

68 319 Assessment Report LTBB

REFERENCES Conservation Resource Alliance and Huron Pines. (2012). River restoration in Northern Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.northernmichiganstreams.org/.

Felon, E.H. (1961). Decree: “In the matter of establishment of and maintenance of normal levels of water for Wycamp Lake.”

Gates, F.C. (1942.) The bogs of northern lower Michigan. Ecological Monographs.

Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan Inc. (ITC). (2005.) Source Water Assessment for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan Inc. (ITC). (2010.) Source Water Protection Plan: Public Water Supply for Little Traverse Bay of Odawa Indians’ Odawa Casino and Report.

Jansma, K.R. (1960). “Wycamp Lake level control.”

Lillie, R. A., & Mason, J. W. ( 1983 ). Limnological characteristics of Wisconsin lakes. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Lloyd, D. S. (1987). Turbidity as a water quality standard for salmonid habitat in Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management , 34-35. Conductivity: A trend will be considered if approximately seventy percent (R²=.7 or higher) of the variation in the response variable can be explained by the explanatory variable using a simple linear regression.

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB). (2006.) LTBB Ground Water Quality Program Technical Report.

LTBB Surface Water Quality Program. (2011). Surface Water Quality Assessment Report.

LTBB Surface Water Quality Program. (2012). Baseline Assessment Report. Retrieved from http://www.ltbbodawa-nsn.gov/Departments/Environmental/SWPP/Baseline%20Report.pdf.

LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program. (2013a). An Assessment of Mercury Levels in Commonly Consumed Fishes and an Evaluation of a Bio-indicator Species of Little Traverse Bay and Sturgeon Bay, Lake Michigan.

LTBB Great Lakes Fisheries Program. (2013b). An Assessment of Mercury Levels in Commonly Consumed Fishes and Water Chemistry from Inland Water-bodies within and Adjacent to the 1855 Reservation Boundary of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

LTBB Wetlands Protection Program. (2008) 305b Technical Report.

LTBB Wetlands Protection Program. (2011). Wetlands Assessment Report.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). (1983-2003.) WaterChem Database, Emmet County Arsenic Samples, Charlevoix County Arsenic Samples, Charlevoix County Nitrate Samples, Emmet County Nitrate Samples, Charlevoix County VOC Samples, Emmet County VOC Samples. Retrieved from

69 319 Assessment Report LTBB

http://michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3675_3690-76500--,00.html.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). (2009). Michigan Community Public Water Supplies. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wb-dwehs-cws-CWSList_247568_7.pdf.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). (2012) Michigan Beach Guard System. Retrieved from http://www.deq.state.mi.us/beach/.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). (2012). Water quality and pollution control in Michigan Sections 303(d), 303(b), and 314 integrated report. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/deq/1,1607,7-135-3313_3686_3728-12711--,00.html.

Quality, M. D., & Bureau, W. (January 13, 2006). Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 (as amended) Administrative Rules Part 4 Water Quality Standards. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Secretary of State.

Swenor, T.D. (2005). “Measured elevation of water flowing over the Wycamp Lake Dam” (letter). Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. (2005). Little Traverse Bay watershed protection plan. Retrieved from http://www.watershedcouncil.org/water%20resources/local%20watersheds/little%20traverse%20water shed/files/epa%20approved%20lt%20bay%20protection%20plan_06-07_withmapsweb.pdf.

Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. (2006). Larks Lake watershed planning project. Retrieved from http://www.watershedcouncil.org/water%20resources/local%20watersheds/larks%20lake%20watershed /files/Larks%20Lake%20Watershed%20Plan.pdf.

Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. (2012). Lake Charlevoix watershed management plan. Retrieved from http://www.watershedcouncil.org/water%20resources/local%20watersheds/lake%20charlevoix%20wate rshed/files/final-%20lk%20chx%20watershed%20management%20plan%2010.29.12.pdf

Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. (2012). Northern Michigan’s Great Lakes bays. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/watershedcouncil/docs/2012_northern_michigan_great_lakes_bays?mode=window&vi ewMode=doublePage.

Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. (2012). Pickerel-Crooked Lakes. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/watershedcouncil/docs/headwaters_of_the_inland_waterway_profile?mode=window &viewMode=doublePage.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2005). Estimated Use of Water in the United States. Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2006.) Collection of water samples, version 2: U.S. Geological Survey techniques of water-resources investigations, Book 9, Chapter A4, p. 42

Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology; Lake and River Ecosystems . California: Academic Press.