DOCSLIB.ORG

Rouge River Watershed Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rouge River Watershed Assessment STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Number 22 September, 1998 Rouge River Assessment Jennifer D. Beam and Jeffrey J. Braunscheidel FISHERIES DIVISION SPECIAL REPORT MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISHERIES DIVISION Fisheries Special Report 22 September 1998 Rouge River Assessment Jennifer D. Beam and Jeffrey J. Braunscheidel The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and for access to Michigan’s natural resources. State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, age, marital status, height and weight. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, please write the MDNR Equal Opportunity Office, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909, or the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, 1200 6th Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226, or the Office of Human Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 20204. For more information about this publication or the American Disabilities Act (ADA), contact, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Box 30446, Lansing, MI 48909, or call 517-373-1280. Printed under authority of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Total number of copies printed 300 — Total cost $1,775.70— Cost per copy $5.92 Rouge River Assessment Suggested Citation Format Beam, Jennifer D. and Jeffrey J. Braunscheidel. 1998. Rouge River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 22. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2 Rouge River Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................... 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................................... 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 13 RIVER ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 16 Geography.........................................................................................................................................16 History...............................................................................................................................................17 Biological Communities ...................................................................................................................19 Original Fish Communities...........................................................................................................19 Factors Affecting Fish Communities.............................................................................................20 Present Fish Communities ............................................................................................................22 Aquatic Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................24 Amphibians and Reptiles...............................................................................................................26 Birds ..............................................................................................................................................26 Mammals .......................................................................................................................................26 Other Natural Features of Concern..............................................................................................26 Pest Species...................................................................................................................................27 Geology & Hydrology.......................................................................................................................27 Geology .........................................................................................................................................27 Climate ..........................................................................................................................................28 Annual Stream Flows ....................................................................................................................30 Seasonal Flow ...............................................................................................................................31 Daily Flow.....................................................................................................................................34 Channel Morphology ........................................................................................................................34 Gradient ........................................................................................................................................34 Channel Cross-Section..................................................................................................................36 Rouge River mainstem...............................................................................................................36 Upper Rouge River ....................................................................................................................37 Middle Rouge River...................................................................................................................37 Lower Rouge River ....................................................................................................................37 Dams and Barriers.............................................................................................................................38 Soils and Land Use Patterns .............................................................................................................39 Bridges and Other Stream Crossings ................................................................................................41 Special Jurisdictions .........................................................................................................................42 Navigability ...................................................................................................................................42 Storm Water Management.............................................................................................................42 County Drain Commissioners .......................................................................................................43 State and Local Parklands ............................................................................................................43 3 Rouge River Assessment Water Quality ................................................................................................................................... 44 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 44 Point Source Pollution.................................................................................................................. 44 Combined Sewage Overflows ....................................................................................................... 45 Nonpoint Pollution Sources.......................................................................................................... 45 Contaminated Ground water and 307 Sites.................................................................................. 46 Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Nutrients, and Bacteria........................................................... 46 Summaries by River Segment........................................................................................................ 47 Rouge River Mainstem Upstream of Confluence with Upper Rouge River (MAIN-1) ............. 47 Upper Rouge River.................................................................................................................... 48 Rouge River Mainstem between Confluences with Upper and Middle Rouge River (MAIN-2)48 Middle Rouge River................................................................................................................... 49 Rouge River Mainstem between Middle and Lower Rouge River (MAIN-3)............................ 49 Lower Rouge River.................................................................................................................... 50 Rouge River Mainstem from Confluence with the Lower Rouge River to Mouth (MAIN-4).... 50 Sediment Contamination............................................................................................................... 51 Fish Contaminants........................................................................................................................ 51 River Classification by Fisheries Division ................................................................................... 52 Recreational Use............................................................................................................................... 53 Fishery Management .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rouge River Rouge River
    Rouge River State of the Watershed Report Surface Water Quantity Goal: Surface waters of a quantity, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to: $ protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; $ protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; $ contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; $ support sustainable agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supply needs; $ support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and $ contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern. Surface Water Quantity Key Findings: The Main Rouge subwatershed has been subject to significant urbanization with an approximate total impervious cover of 18% as of 2002. Several studies suggest that the maximum impervious cover that a watershed can withstand before experiencing severe hydrologic changes and consequent geomorphic and ecological impacts is approximately 10%. There has been significantly less urbanization in the Little Rouge subwatershed and impervious surfaces make up only 2% of the subwatershed area. As a result, hydrologic impacts and related effects are much less severe than on the Main Rouge River. Average annual flows in the Main Rouge River show a long-term increasing trend of over 1.3% per year in the past 40 years. This rate of increase is significantly greater than that on the Little Rouge River or nearby rural watersheds and is indicative of the effect of urbanization on the hydrologic cycle. The Rouge River has become flashy and now generates high flows in response to rainfall events that caused almost no response in the river prior to widespread development.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017
    DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Case Study
    NOAA Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Case Study Fordson Island Debris Removal and Habitat Restoration Contributor: Sally Petrella (Friends of the Rouge) and Timothy McGahey (AKT Peerless) Project Overview Reason for project: The overall goal was to initiate the restoration of the natural onshore and offshore habitat in the oxbow around Fordson Island. Date initiated: August 2010 Project duration: 21 months Project Location Location: Rouge River, Dearborn/Detroit, MI Site Name(s): Fordson Island Oxbow General description of location: In the oxbow around Fordson Island, a six acre island in the Rouge River. Vessels were in the channel, on the banks of the island and on the banks of the adjacent shoreline. Average Site Depth: 2 ft. Habitat/Substrate Type Impacted: soft bottom, wild celery (Vallisneria americana). Shoreline dominated by reed canary grass (Phragmites australis). Jurisdictions: Cities of Dearborn (island) and Detroit (adjacent land), Wayne County, State of Michigan Project Narrative History: The approximately six acre Fordson Island was created in 1917 by the dredging and channeling of the Rouge River to the Ford Motor Company - River Rouge Plant, which is located approximately 1,800-feet upstream. The Ford Motor Company was contracted during World War I to build submarine chasers (known as Eagle Boats) at the plant. The dredging provided a deeper channel allowing these newly constructed boats a means to travel down the Rouge River into the deeper water of the Detroit River. This excavation removed the adjoining properties to the north and east, and created the unique feature of this land – the island is located within the limits of the City of Dearborn, but land access is provided via a bridge from the City of Detroit.
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Public Notification Plan
    Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Public Notification Plan NPDES Permit No. MI0022802 August 2018 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 II. System Description ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 III. Potentially Affected Public Entities ..................................................................................................................... 3 IV. CSO Discharge Volumes .............................................................................................................................................. 5 V. Signage ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 VI. Initial and Supplemental Notification Protocol ............................................................................................ 9 VII. Annual & Public Notifications ............................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibits Exhibit A. Outfall Map Exhibit B. Public Comments Exhibit C. Untreated Gravity Flow Monitoring Protocol Exhibit D. Treated and Untreated Outfall Signs 2 I. Executive Summary The Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) has developed a public notification
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Township of Northville 2020 Consumer Annual Report on Water
    WhatCanBeFoundInWater? For Those with Special Health Concerns Charter Township of Northville Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants beexpectedtocontainatleastsmallamountsofsome in drinking water than the general population. Immuno- 2020 Consumer Annual Report On Water Quality contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not compromised persons such as persons with cancer necessarilyindicatethatwaterposesahealthrisk.More undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone information about contaminants and potential health effects organtransplants,peoplewithHIV/AIDSorotherimmune canbeobtainedbycallingtheEnvironmentalProtection system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791. particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. Thesourcesofdrinkingwater(bothtapandbottledwater) EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the WheredoesourWaterComeFrom? includerivers,lakes,streams,ponds,reservoirs,springsand risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through contaminantsareavailablefromtheSafeDrinkingWater Your source water comes from the Detroit River, situated the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in Hotline (800) 426-4791. If present, elevated levels of lead within the Lake St. Clair, Clinton River, Detroit River, Rouge some cases, radioactive material
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Election Charter Township of Northville, Michigan November 3, 2020
    NOTICE OF ELECTION CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE, MICHIGAN NOVEMBER 3, 2020 TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF NORTHVILLE TOWNSHIP: Notice is hereby given that a General Election will be held in Northville Township on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. The polls will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. At the following locations: Precinct 1 Moraine Elementary 46811 Eight Mile Road Precinct 2 Moraine Elementary 46811 Eight Mile Road Precinct 3 Northville High School 45700 Six Mile Road Precinct 4 Northville High School 45700 Six Mile Road Precinct 5 Township Hall 44405 Six Mile Road Precinct 6 Winchester Elementary 16141 Winchester Precinct 7 Meads Mill Middle School 16700 Franklin Precinct 8 Silver Springs Elementary 19801 Silver Springs Drive Precinct 9 Silver Springs Elementary 19801 Silver Springs Drive Precinct 10 Ridge Wood Elementary 49775 Six Mile Road Precinct 11 Ridge Wood Elementary 49775 Six Mile Road Precinct 12 Meads Mill Middle School 16700 Franklin PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Northville Township residents in Precinct 7 will be voting on the following: • Board Member Plymouth-Canton Community School District • Board Member Plymouth-Canton School District Partial Term Ending 12/31/2022 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Northville Township residents in Precinct 1-6 & 8-12 will be voting on the following: • Board Member Northville Public School District PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all Northville Township residents will be voting on the following: • Electors of President and Vice-President of the United States • United States Senator • Representative in Congress
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Rouge River Rouge River
    Rouge River State of the Watershed Report Cultural Heritage Goal: Recognition, preservation, and celebration of cultural heritage in the Rouge River watershed to increase awareness and understanding of past human relationships with the environment . Cultural Heritage Key Findings: • For 10,000 years, the Rouge River Watershed has been used by humans in some way, beginning with aboriginal hunters and farmers, explorers, traders, men of God, soldiers, surveyors, and finally settlers. • Over 1,360 archaeological and heritage sites located in the Rouge River watershed and historical accounts reveal the watershed is rich in heritage value. Knowledge gained from these sites and many more potential sites can provide an appreciation of past human relationships with the environment. • Early aboriginal inhabitants were nomadic hunters and later farmers and villagers with the introduction of agriculture about AD 700. The 3 acre Milroy site, overlooking Little Rouge River, is an example of a Late Woodland Iroquoian longhouse village, and one of a dozen such sites in the watershed. • European settlement began in Markham Township in the eighteenth century with the German-speaking Berczy settlement. Settlement in other parts of the watershed was slower due to absentee owners. • By 1861 there were 54 mills on the River. • Over 22 architectural styles lend a unique identity to the 19 th century Rouge River landscape. This array of architecture has arisen due to the sophistication and complexity of its Euro-Canadian settlers. • The 2001 Canadian census showed that in the Rouge River watershed people of Canadian or British heritage make up 31% of the population, with the remainder being Chinese (21%), East Indian (9%) and over 35 other cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on Proposed Transfer of Trca and Zoo Lands to Rouge National Urban Park
    INFORMATION ON PROPOSED TRANSFER OF TRCA AND ZOO LANDS TO ROUGE NATIONAL URBAN PARK Parks Canada, Toronto Zoo and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are responding to public statements made by interest groups concerning proposed revised boundaries of the Toronto Zoo’s lease with TRCA and the City of Toronto, as well as the subsequent transfer of TRCA lands to Parks Canada for Rouge National Urban Park. As a result of some misleading and inaccurate statements, there is a need and obligation to respond to ensure that accurate information is shared on the proposed boundary changes jointly planned and agreed to in principle by the Toronto Zoo, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Parks Canada for the Rouge National Urban Park. Parks Canada: Created in 1911, Parks Canada is the world’s first and oldest national park service and manages one of the finest and most extensive systems of protected areas in the world, including 47 national parks, 171 national historic sites, four national marine conservation areas and, since 2015, Rouge National Urban Park. In 2017, the Government of Canada passed amendments to the Rouge National Urban Park Act to prioritize ecological integrity in the management of the park, while also providing long-term certainty for the park's farmers. The amendments ensure the Rouge Valley will have the strongest ecological protections in its history, while affirming the role of park farmers so they can continue to provide food for Canadians as they have been doing for centuries. Once fully established, Rouge National Urban Park will span 79.1 km2 in the heart of Canada's largest and most diverse metropolitan area, overlapping the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering and the Township of Uxbridge.
    [Show full text]
  • RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS, RESILIENT CITIES: a High-Level Vulnerability Assessment of Toronto’S Food System
    HL28.03Section 3 | Extreme Weather Attachment Events and Impact Areas in Toronto 1 RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS, RESILIENT CITIES: A High-Level Vulnerability Assessment of Toronto’s Food System Kimberly Zeuli, Austin Nijhuis and Zachary Gerson-Nieder July 2018 Resilient Food Systems, Resilient Cities | 0 Acknowledgements This report was prepared for Toronto Public Health (TPH). It benefited from a partnership between TPH and the Environment & Energy Division. The Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) and Meister Consultants Group (MCG) would like to thank Toronto Public Health, the Project Advisory Committee, and Project Manager Ronald Macfarlane, for their leadership and insight. We are grateful for the valuable contributions provided by Project Advisory Committee members David T. MacLeod, Taryn Ridsdale, Brian Cook, and Barbara Emanuel. We also want to thank the public and private sector stakeholders from Toronto who shared expertise with us through interviews and meetings. The strength of the report is due to the contributions of our partners and the authors claim responsibility for all errors and omissions. For inquiries about this report, please contact Kim Zeuli at [email protected]. Project Team Kim Zeuli, Austin Nijhuis and Zachary Nieder at ICIC, in partnership with the Project Advisory Committee, led the study. The Project Advisory Committee included Ronald Macfarlane (Project Manager), Barbara Emanuel, David T. MacLeod, Taryn Ridsdale, and Brian Cook. Kathryn Wright, Julie Curti and Joyce Lam at Meister Consultants Group supported the study. The Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) ICIC is a national, nonprofit research and advisory organization focused on driving urban economic development since 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Year in Review
    2020 Year in Review Ed Hore, Chair, Waterfront for All, February 10, 2021 Waterfront for All is an umbrella group of residents associations and other groups interested in the revitalization of the Toronto waterfront from the Rouge River in the east out to the Etobicoke boundary in the west. We love the waterfront and are interested in what happens to it. Here’s a brief run-down on things that happened in 2020. Water Levels Before the pandemic, a major concern along the waterfront was whether 2020 would bring flooding as happened in 2019 and 2017. There was a well-attended meeting about this at the Brigantine Room at Harbourfront on March 3, 2020, attended by politicians and hundreds of residents. This was the last crowded big meeting I went to before Covid shut-down public meetings. In early 2020, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) carried out some quick projects on Toronto Island to alleviate the effects of future floods. For example, they built “beach curbs” east and west of the Ward’s Island ferry dock. These consist of rectangular stones weighing three to five tonnes laid end to end to provide some protection if the water rises. The beach curbs were in place by the end of March. TRCA also raised some sections of the roadway from Wards to Hanlans Point around six inches, so that emergency vehicles could get through in the event of a flood. But in fact no flood happened; the water level of Lake Ontario peaked on May 5, 2020, around 20 inches lower than the peak level in 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Rouge River Remedial Action Plan Revision Thank You!
    2004 Rouge River Remedial Action Plan Revision Thank You! The 2004 RAP is dedicated to two RRAC members who passed away during its development: Mr. Charles Moon and Mr. John Donohue. The leadership, advice and support of these exceptional attorneys will be missed by all who had the pleasure of working with them. The Rouge River Advisory Council would like to thank the many agencies, organizations and individuals who contributed to the completion of this document. The following are those who have served on the drafting and review teams: Rich Badics, Brandy Bakita, Zachare Ball, Dan Ballnik, Jack Barnes, Cathy Bean, Larry Bean, Matt Best, Caroline Biribauer, Jeff Braunscheidel, Jonathan Bulkley, Bill Craig, Julie Craves, Phil Crookshank, Lillian Dean, Orin Gelderloos, Kurt Giberson, Linda Ginsburg, Barbara Goryca, Larry Harris, Kurt Heise, Martin Hendges, Chuck Hersey, Carl Johnson, Barry Johnson, Meroe Kaericher, Steven Kitler, Matthew Kobylarz, Carolyne McCaughey, Allison McCormick, Noel Mullett, Chris O'Meara, Jodi Peace, Sally Petrella, Joe Rathbun, Jim Ridgway, George Rinke, Phil Sanzica, Tom Schram, William Serchak, Raj Sinha, Tracy Slintak, Jack Smiley, Ted Starbuck, Dean Tuomari, Susan Vignoe, Cheryl Wilson, Thomas Wilson, Dick Wolinski, Gary Zorza, Jim Zoumbaris. RRAC expresses special acknowledgement to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and its outstanding document, Forty Steps to a New Don: Report of the Don Watershed Task Force. The Rouge RAP has modeled its major sections based on this report. Photos used in this report came from the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, Friends of the Rouge, Dan Ballnik, Jeffrey Braunscheidel, Bill Craig, Julie Craves, Phil Crookshank, Lillian Dean, George Rinke, Jim Zoumbaris, the Dearborn Historical Museum, the Environmental Interpretive Center at University of MI- Dearborn, Hubbell Roth and Clark, the City of Troy, Wayne County Parks and Recreation Department, and a variety of internet sources.
    [Show full text]