DOCSLIB.ORG

Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan: Section 1 Biological

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan: Section 1 Biological RAPID WETLAND ASSESSMENT FOR MICHIGAN SECTION 1: BIOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Prepared by: Dennis A. Albert, Paul Adamus, David Campbell, John Christy, Joshua G. Cohen, Theadore Cook, Helen Enander, Linda Hardison, Michael A. Kost, Katie Mitchell, Jennifer Sackinger, and Bradford S. Slaughter Of: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Oregon State University, and Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. For: Michigan Department of Transportation September 2008 Report Number 2008-06 Cover image taken by: D. Albert Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Field Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 2 4.0 Plant Community Classification and Distribution Map Development ........................................................ 4 5.0 Quantitative Metrics for Wetland Quality, Function, and Value ................................................................. 5 6.0 Hydrologic Metric - Relationship to Plant Communities and Species ........................................................ 5 7.0 Characteristic Plant Species for Each Wetland Type ................................................................................ 10 8.0 Photos and Diagrams of Plant Communities ............................................................................................ 10 9.0 Endangered and Rare Wetland Types ........................................................................................................ 11 10.0 Tables of Rare Plants and Animals by Plant Community........................................................................ 11 11.0 Plant Cummunity Analysis Based on FQA Species Lists of Natural Communities ................................ 11 11.1 Methods................................................................................................................................................... 14 11.2 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 12.0 Wildlife Habitat Models .......................................................................................................................... 25 13.0 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 26 14.0 Achnowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 26 15.0 Literature................................................................................................................................................. 27 Figures Figure 1. Relationship Between FQI and MiRam Scores ................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Relationship of Mean C Scores to MiRam Scores ............................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Bog distributions along DCA axis 1 and axis 2. .............................................................................. 12 Figure 4. Bog distributions shown by county along DCA Axis 1 and Axis 2. ............................................... 13 Figure 5. Bray-Curtis ordination of species at 180 sites representing the Marsh community group. ............. 16 Figure 6. Bray-Curtis ordination of species at 43 sites representing the Wet Prairie community group. ........ 18 Figure 7. Bray-Curtis ordination of species at 144 sites representing the Fen and Bog community group..... 20 Figure 8. Bray-Curtis ordination of species at 6 sites representing the Shrub Wetland community group. .. 22 Figure 9. Bray-Curtis ordination of species at 121 sites representing the Forested Wetland community. ....... 24 Tables Table 1. Primary and Secondary Water Source for Wetland Communities of Michigan. ................................ 6 Table 2. Inundation or saturation condition associated with each type of Michigan wetland. ......................... 8 Table 3. Endangered (S1) and rare (S2) wetland types. ................................................................................. 11 Table 4. Analysis of communities by community group per Kost et al. (2007), but with bog and fen groups combined................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Reclassification of Marsh community group based on floristic similarity ........................................ 17 Table 6. Reclassification of Wet Prairie community group based on floristic similarity................................. 19 Table 7. Reclassification of Fen and Bog community group based on floristic similarity. ............................. 21 Table 8. Classification of Shrub Wetland community group based on floristic similarity .............................. 22 Table 9. Reclassification of Forested Wetland community group based on floristic similarity. ...................... 25 Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan Page - i Appendices APPENDIX I. Key to the Natural Commuunities of Michigan. .................................................................. A-2 APPENDIX II. Distribution of Michigan’s Natural Plant Communities by Ecoregion. .............................. A-8 APPENDIX III. Distribution Maps of Natural Communities .......................................................................CD APPENDIX IV. Association of wetland types to common landforms of Michigan. .................................... A-9 APPENDIX V-A. Crosswalk of Michigan Natural Features Inventory and National Wetland Inventory Wetland Classifications ......................................................................................................................... A-11 APPENDIX V-B. Crosswalk of Michigan Natural Features Inventory and NatureServe Wetland Community Names ................................................................................................................................................... A-14 APPENDIX VI. NWI map codes ..................................................................................................................CD APPENDIX VII. Characteristic Plant Species of Michigan Wetlands....................................................... A-16 APPENDIX VIII-A, VIII-B, VIII-C and VIII-D. Photographs of Natural Communities .............................CD APPENDIX IX-A. Diagram of Wooded Dune and Swale Complex.......................................................... A-63 APPENDIX IX-B. Diagrams of Interdunal Wetland ................................................................................. A-64 APPENDIX IX-C. Diagrams of Prairie Fen .............................................................................................. A-65 APPENDIX IX-D Diagrams of Bog in Kettle Lake .................................................................................. A-66 APPENDIX X-A. Rare Animals Occupying Michigan’s Wetland Plant Communities. ............................ A-67 APPENDIX X-B. Rare Plants Occupying Michigan’s Wetland Plant Communities................................. A-90 APPENDIX XI. Rare species and number by wetland community. .............................................................CD APPENDIX XII-A. Reclassified groupings for Marsh communities based on floristic similarity. ......... A-104 APPENDIX XII-B. Reclassified groupings for Wet Prairie communities based on floristic similarity. .. A-108 APPENDIX XII-C. Reclassified groupings for Fen and Bog communities based on floristic similarity. A-110 APPENDIX XII-D. Reclassified groupings for Shrub Wetland communities based on floristic similarity. .................................................................................................................................................................. A-114 APPENDIX XII-E. Reclassified groupings for Forested Wetland communities based on floristic similarity. .................................................................................................................................................................. A-115 APPENDIX XIII-A. Importance Values > 50 for species in Shrub Wetland community group, by group number. ............................................................................................................................................... A-118 APPENDIX XIII-B. Importance Values > 25 for species in Forested Wetland community group, by group number. ............................................................................................................................................... A-120 Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan Page - ii 1.0 Introduction This project was focused on developing a Rapid MNFI staff and Paul Adamus participated in the Wetland Assessment protocol (MiRAM) and providing evaluation of MDEQ’s draft MiRAM protocols by associated biological data that would assist users in conference call and by submitting email comments. more efficient and accurate identification of wetland Dennis Albert, Phyllis Higman, and Suzan Campbell types, their hydrology, and other important attributes. also met with MDEQ and MDOT staff
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Department of Natural Resources
    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION SPECIAL LOCAL WATERCRAFT CONTROLS (By authority conferred on the department of natural resources by sections 80113 and 80121 of 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.80113 and MCL 324.80121) Regulation No. 0, General provisions. R 281.700.1 Definitions. Rule 1. The words and phrases defined in Act No. 303 of the Public Acts of 1967, being SS281.1001 to 281.1199 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, have the same meaning when used in the rules prescribing special local watercraft controls, whether such rules were promulgated before or after this rule becomes effective. History: 1979 AC. R 281.700.2 "Airboat" defined. Rule 2. As used in these rules, "airboat" means a vessel or contrivance, other than a conventional seaplane, helicopter, or autogiro, that makes use of motor-powered propeller, air vane, or other aerostatic force to support or propel, or both to support and propel, the vessel on or over the surface of the water. History: 1979 AC. R 281.700.3 High-speed boating and water skiing prohibited; time. Rule 3. (1) On the waters of this state where special local watercraft controls have been established prohibiting high-speed boating and water skiing from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. of the following day, the hours shall be 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. of the following day when and where eastern daylight saving time is in effect. (2) "Daylight saving time" means the advancing of the standard time by 1 hour, commencing at 2 o'clock antemeridian on the second Sunday of March of each year and ending at 2 o'clock antemeridian on the first Sunday of November of each year in conformity with the federal uniform time act of 1966, as amended by the energy policy act of 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • (Neonympha M. Mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report — 2000
    Surveys for the Recovery of Mitchells Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report - 2000 Prepared by: Daria A. Hyde, Mary L. Rabe, David L. Cuthrell, Michael A. Kost Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Endangered Species Office Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, MN 55111 Report Number 2001-05 Submitted March 31, 2001 Cover Photo Identification and Credits: Prairie fen habitat photo by: Michael A. Kost Mitchells satyr photo by: Daria A. Hyde Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mitchells Satyr Surveys and Threat Assessment ......................................................................................................... 4 Surveys for Associated Rare Species ........................................................................................................................... 4 Mitchells Satyr Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Michells Satyr Oviposition Observations and Larval Searches .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wet-Mesic Flatwoods Communitywet-Mesic Flatwoods, Abstract Page 1
    Wet-mesic Flatwoods CommunityWet-mesic Flatwoods, Abstract Page 1 Historical Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Suzan L. Campbell Overview: Wet-mesic flatwoods is a somewhat Rank Justification: The acreage of wet-mesic poorly drained to poorly drained forest on mineral flatwoods present in Michigan circa 1800 is difficult soils dominated by a mixture of lowland and upland to determine because the community type has hardwoods. The community occurs exclusively on characteristics that overlap those of several of the glacial lakeplain in southeastern Lower Michigan, forest types mapped based on General Land Office where an impermeable clay layer in the soil profile (GLO) survey notes, primarily hardwood swamp and contributes to poor internal drainage. Seasonal beech-sugar maple forest (Comer et al. 1995a, Kost hydrologic fluctuations and windthrow are important et al. 2007). Analysis of GLO survey notes reveals natural disturbances that influence community structure, that lowland forest dominated by hardwoods covered species composition, and successional trajectory of wet- approximately 570,000 ha (1,400,000 ac) of southern mesic flatwoods. Lower Michigan circa 1800 (Comer et al. 1995a). These stands were characterized by mixed hardwoods Global and State Rank: G2G3/S2 (490,000 ha or 1,200,000 ac), black ash (77,000 ha or 190,000 ac), elm (5,300 ha or 13,000 ac), and silver Range: Flatwoods communities characterized by maple-red maple (4,000 ha or 10,000 ac). The majority relatively flat topography, slowly permeable to of lowland forest acreage in southern Lower Michigan impermeable subsurface soil layers, and seasonal was associated with stream and river floodplains, hydrologic fluctuation occur scattered throughout the and is classified as floodplain forest (Tepley et al.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • Tree Canopy Walkway, Autumn, Galien River County Park, New Buffalo Photo by Clyde Brazie Jr., Used with Permission
    Tree Canopy Walkway, Autumn, Galien River County Park, New Buffalo Photo by Clyde Brazie Jr., used with permission. It is the mission of Berrien County Government to provide: Leadership Cooperation with all units of government Sound fiscal management and planning Thereby promoting public safety, health, well-being and prosperity in order to improve the quality of life for present and future generations. St. Joseph River, north of Buchanan. Photo courtesy of "Michigan in Pictures" via michpics.wordpress.com. MAPS OF BERRIEN COUNTY Detailed maps are available through the Berrien County GIS Department. Contact them at 269-983-7111 ext. 8300. HISTORY Berrien County has received a wide range of accolades. According to American novelist James Fenimore Cooper, Berrien lies in "a region that almost merits the lofty appellation of the Garden of America." A 1718 French official reported, "Tis a spot, the best adopted of any to be seen, for the purpose of living." And John Harner, one of the county's first settlers, wrote in 1834, "it looks pretty good to me; and others are sure to follow." Harner was right. Many did follow, and basing its development on a trinity of fruit, tourism and industry, Berrien County has become one of the state's wealthiest and most populated counties. Located on Lake Michigan in the southwest corner of the state, and bisected by the St. Joseph River, Berrien County has a long history that begins with the earliest explorers of the Great Lakes. Jacques Marquette was the first white man to visit the region. But it was Rene’ Robert Cavelier Sieur de la Salle who had the first real impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Berrien County
    MICHIANA Produced by: Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships, Michigan Department of Technology, and Budget Management, Technology, of Department Michigan Partnerships, andTechnology Solutions Center by: for Shared Produced E as t C W t h it e C reek GRAND BEACH Source:TIGER/Line, 2009 U.S. Census Bureau, MichiganGeographic Framework, v10a G ra n d B e a c h R Shedd Rd d C S X T R A N S P O R T A A T L M IO u T b R N A k K Kluver Rd e R d 12 S t B ro m u f e f r a l R o BUFFALO NEW d Rose City Rd S t W h i Galien River t t a k e r S t C la y P S u t l Kinst Rd a L s a P k o r i t e H R d New Buffalo Twp w W F y a i r l SOKOL CAMP s m o e n r R R d d M C S X R GORDON N a ur T e BEACH s u ery RA d Rd d N l S A i P n r OR r 94 T o R AT w d I ON H LAKEVIEW w y Hoder Rd R a z R d UNION PIER Yasko Rd S o u t h B U r G n a l a n s i s c o m W a h n d R n G a P P l i e Lake Michigan u i n e R l i r a v e , 08/05/10 r s R k d i Lakesid LAKESIDE e Rd H Lakeside Rd Lakeside Rd w HOOKS CORNER y S Mydra Rd TURNER SHORES t i c k l Brown Rd e s R R d Bass e wood Rd Basswood Rd d W A a r r r o A r Chikaming Twp Chikaming K w e M r n T H u E BIRCHWOOD R W w g l A Witt R m d F e y K o o r V o r a e R d l s l e d s M t y a R L R r a t d d Oaks Twp Three i n w Schwark Rd R n Prairie Rd HARBERT d HAZELHURST R d Shorewood-Tower Hills-Harbert CDP S E p a r s i t n unn St Y D R W g o d C u THREE n A r OAKS e g s e r e k h n SHOREWOOD HILLS R H T d hree Oaks Rd Elm St a r TOWER HILL SHORELANDS E b S Th T ree Oaks Rd h e L t a r A r o e t r e
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Pere Marquette River System Drains an Area of Approximately 740 Square Miles
    5 I. THE WATERSHED AND STUDY AREA A. General Characteristics 1. The Watershed. Located in portions of Lake, Mason, Newaygo and Oceana counties, the Pere Marquette River system drains an area of approximately 740 square miles. Roughly 53 percent of the watershed is in Lake County. The mainstream starts at the confluence of the Middle Branch and Little South Branch, known as the "Forks" and flows in a westerly direction for approximately 67 miles to its mouth at Pere Marquette Lake, just south of the City of Ludington. 2. The Study Area. The area of study included the entire mainstream from its mouth at Pere Marquette Lake, its four major tributaries, the Baldwin River, Little South Branch, Big South Branch and the Middle Branch, as well as the numerous smaller tributaries which make up the system. B. Physiography and Soils The topography of the watershed is rolling to flat. The eastern portion of the basin is characterized by its hilly nature, with the western portion generally being more broad and flat. Like other watersheds in the area, the effects of glaciation are evident. Rolling, hilly moraines, flat outwash plains, kettle and oxbow lakes, eskers, drumlins, and kames can all be found in the watershed. The majority of the watershed is dry sand plains and rolling sandy hills. These well-drained droughty soils make them generally unsuitable for agriculture, and hence, are in pine - scrub oak forests. Poorly drained muck and peat soils are fairly common along the lower portion of the mainstream and the headwaters of the Big South Branch, some of which serve as agricultural drains.
    [Show full text]
  • Pere Marquette Charter Township Comprehensive Plan
    PERE MARQUETTE CHARTER TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FEBRUARY, 2016 PERE MARQUETTE CHARTER TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN February, 2016 PERE MARQUETTE CHARTER TOWNSHIP Board of Trustees Paul Keson, Supervisor Rachelle Enbody, Clerk Sara McCallum, Treasurer Joanne Kelley, Trustee Andy Kmetz, Trustee Jim Nordlund, Sr., Trustee Paul Piper, Trustee Planning Commission Jim Nordlund, Jr., Chairman Jim Hinman, Vice-Chairman Doug Busch, Secretary Andy Kmetz Bill Perry Rex Pope Mike Romansik Building and Zoning Administrator Terry L. Wahr Plan Update Prepared by: LIAA 324 Munson Ave. Traverse City, MI 49686 Cover Photo Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 SECTION II COMMUNITY PROFILE .................................................... 17 CHAPTER 1 NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT ....... 18 CHAPTER 2 POPULATION ............................................................. 31 CHAPTER 3 INCOMES, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ................. 36 CHAPTER 4 EXISTING LAND USE ................................................. 43 CHAPTER 5 TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ....................................................................... 47 SECTION III COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................................................... 60 CHAPTER 6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................... 61 CHAPTER 7 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING PLAN ......... 71 CHAPTER 8 IMPLEMENTATION
    [Show full text]
  • Danaher Creek, Lake County –2016 Fisheries Survey Report Mark A
    Danaher Creek, Lake County –2016 Fisheries Survey Report Mark A. Tonello Fisheries Management Biologist October, 2017 Environment Danaher Creek is a small, second order tributary to the Pere Marquette River in southwestern Lake County, Michigan. The creek originates from springs in the vicinity of M-37 with some reports indicating the stream begins as underground flow from L Lake #1 (also known as Little Lake #1). The stream channel becomes more defined downstream of the railroad tracks in Section 28 (Pleasant Plains Township). From there it flows generally northwest for approximately 4 miles before joining the Pere Marquette River. Danaher Creek has one tributary, Jenks Creek. Over that distance, Danaher Creek has a gradient of approximately 18 feet per mile. Over its course, Danaher Creek flows through both private and federally owned land (Manistee National Forest). The lower ½ mile of the stream flows through the Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club (PMRGC), which is a private hunting and fishing club. One prominent feature in the Danaher Creek watershed is a large dam/impoundment that is located approximately 800 feet upstream of the confluence with the Pere Marquette River, on Rod and Gun Club property. The dam blocks all upstream fish passage and significantly warms the water in Danaher Creek downstream of the dam. The dam was originally constructed in 1928 or 1929. It washed out in the flood of 1986, and despite objections from MDNR Fisheries Division, the dam was reconstructed in 1987 and 1988 (Anonymous 2013). The dam has approximately 20 feet of head and creates an impoundment of 15 acres.
    [Show full text]