DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Flint River Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Flint River Assessment Michigan STATE OF MICHIGAN DNR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Number 27 July 2001 Flint River Assessment Joseph M. Leonardi and William J. Gruhn www.dnr.state.mi.us FISHERIES DIVISION SPECIAL REPORT MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISHERIES DIVISION July 2001 Flint River Assessment Joseph M. Leonardi and William J. Gruhn The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended, (1976 MI P.A. 453 and 1976 MI P.A. 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write the MDNR Office of Legal Services, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909; or the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, State of Michigan, Plaza Building, 1200 6th Ave., Detroit, MI 48226 or the Office of Human Resources, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs, 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. 22203. For information or assistance on this publication, contact the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Box 30446, Lansing, MI 48909, or call 517-373-1280. This publication is available in alternative formats. Printed under authority of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan DNR Total number of copies printed 440 — Total cost $2,743.50 — Cost per copy $6.24 Flint River Assessment Suggested Citation Format Leonardi, J.M., and W.J. Gruhn. 2001. Flint River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report.27, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2 Flint River Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................6 LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................8 LIST OF APPENDICES ...........................................................................................10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................13 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................17 RIVER ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................21 Geography ..................................................................................................................... 21 Upper South Branch Flint River ................................................................................ 21 Middle South Branch Flint River................................................................................ 21 Lower South Branch Flint River ................................................................................ 21 Upper Flint River....................................................................................................... 21 Middle Flint River ...................................................................................................... 21 Lower Flint River....................................................................................................... 22 History............................................................................................................................ 22 Geology and Hydrology................................................................................................ 24 Geology ....................................................................................................................... 24 Climate.........................................................................................................................25 Annual Stream Flow..................................................................................................... 25 Seasonal Water Flow................................................................................................... 26 Daily Water Flow.......................................................................................................... 27 Consumptive Water Use, Irrigation............................................................................... 28 Flooding ....................................................................................................................... 28 Soils and Land Use Patterns ........................................................................................ 29 Soils............................................................................................................................. 29 Upper South Branch Flint River ................................................................................ 29 Middle South Branch Flint River................................................................................ 30 Lower South Branch Flint River ................................................................................ 30 Upper and Middle Flint River..................................................................................... 30 Lower Flint River....................................................................................................... 30 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 31 Agriculture.................................................................................................................... 31 Urban Development ..................................................................................................... 32 Channel Morphology..................................................................................................... 32 Gradient....................................................................................................................... 32 Channel Cross Section ................................................................................................ 33 Dams and Barriers ........................................................................................................ 33 Upper South Branch Flint River ................................................................................ 35 Middle South Branch Flint River................................................................................ 36 Lower South Branch Flint River ................................................................................ 36 Upper Flint River....................................................................................................... 36 Middle Flint River ...................................................................................................... 37 Lower Flint River....................................................................................................... 38 Bridges and Other Stream Crossings........................................................................... 38 3 Flint River Assessment Special Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................39 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Jurisdiction...............................................39 Coastal Zone Management...........................................................................................39 Navigability ...................................................................................................................39 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)..........................................................40 Natural and Scenic River Designation...........................................................................40 County Drain Commissions...........................................................................................40 Federal Government.....................................................................................................41 State Government.........................................................................................................42 Water Quality..................................................................................................................42 Overview.......................................................................................................................42 Point Source Pollution...................................................................................................43 Nonpoint Source Pollution.............................................................................................44 Sites of Environmental Contamination (Part 201 Sites).................................................44 Water Parameters.........................................................................................................45 Bacteria ........................................................................................................................45 Sediment Parameters ...................................................................................................46 Fish Contaminants........................................................................................................46 Summary by valley segments .......................................................................................47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2008 and 2013 Flint River Watershed Biosurvey Monitoring Report
    MI/DEQ/WRD-17/009 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION APRIL 2017 STAFF REPORT A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE FLINT RIVER AND SELECTED TRIBUTARIES IN GENESEE, LAPEER, OAKLAND, SANILAC, SAGINAW, SHIAWASSEE, AND TUSCOLA COUNTIES JUNE-SEPTEMBER 2008 AND 2013 Qualitative biological sampling of the Flint River watershed was conducted by staff of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Surface Water Assessment Section (SWAS), from June-September of both 2008 and 2013 as part of a five-year watershed monitoring cycle. The Flint River watershed is a vast watershed that falls within two ecoregions: the Southern Michigan Northern Indiana Till Plain and Huron and Lake Erie Till Plain ecoregions (Omernik and Gallant, 1988). Land use in the Flint River watershed is predominantly agriculture and forested with portions also being urban. The Flint River is a major tributary to the Saginaw River/Bay ecosystem. OBJECTIVES These biological surveys were conducted to: • Assess the current status condition of individual waters to determine attainment of Michigan Water Quality Standards (WQS). • Evaluate potential impacts from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-regulated sources to water quality in the watersheds. • Identify potential nonpoint sources (NPS) of water quality impairment. • Satisfy monitoring request submitted by internal and external customers. The locations of the surveyed biological stations are illustrated in Figures 1a (2008) and 1b (2013) and Tables 1a (2008) and 1b (2013). For the 2008 data, detailed macroinvertebrate, fish, and habitat sampling results are provided in Tables 2a and 2b, 3a and 3b, and 4, respectively. Water (14 locations) and sediment (2 locations) chemistry samples were collected during the 2008 watershed assessment; locations and results can be found in Tables 5 and 6.
    [Show full text]
  • GRAND RIVER MARKETPLACE & MCNICHOLS RD DETROIT, MI Type: Lease WAYNE COUNTY
    SEQ OF GRAND RIVER AVE GRAND RIVER MARKETPLACE & MCNICHOLS RD DETROIT, MI Type: Lease WAYNE COUNTY PROPERTY TYPE: Shopping Center DESCRIPTION: Great opportunity to be part of an exciting RENT: Endcap: $29.00/SF new development on Grand River Ave in Inline: $25.00/SF Detroit. This property will be situated on the NNN EXPENSE: Est. at $5.00/SF southeast corner of Grand River and McNichols, right across the street from a AVAILABLE SPACE: Bldg A: 1,400 SF, land lease new Meijer. This area is extremely dense Bldg B: 7,700 SF, divisible with over 53,600 households in a 3-mile Bldg C: 9,000 SF, divisible radius and Grand River is a heavily travelled TENANT ROSTER: Meijer (across the street) – road in Detroit with 24,292 vpd. Call us to be coming spring 2015 part of this opportunity! TRAFFIC COUNT: Grand River northwest of McNichols = 24,292 cpd McNichols east of Grand River = 20,060 cpd CONTACT: John Kello Scott Sonenberg (248) 488-2620 Radius: 1 Mile 3 Mile 5 Mile Pop. Density: 15,811 134,922 345,587 Avg. HH Income: $39,100 $49,140 $51,737 LANDMARK COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES – Licensed Real Estate Brokers. The information above has been obtained from sources believed reliable. While we do not doubt its accuracy, we have not verified it and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is your responsibility to independently confirm its accuracy and completeness. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates are used for example only and do not represent the current or future performance of the property.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulk Water Pricing Framework to Foster Sustainable Water Management in Ontario
    Bulk Water Pricing Framework to Foster Sustainable Water Management in Ontario by Guneet Sandhu A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies in Sustainability Management (Water) Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2018 © Guneet Sandhu 2018 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Amidst rising concerns for sustainability of water resources, the province of Ontario has placed a temporary moratorium expiring on January 1, 2019 on bulk groundwater extraction by new water bottlers while considering broader reforms in water management policies. Given the projected impacts of climate change, coupled with population and economic growth, episodes of water scarcity are expected to rise in Ontario. Even though measures for sustainable water management are slowly gaining momentum, Ontario’s economy is likely to remain water- intensive with a burgeoning water demand. Therefore, to assure sustainability of water resources, proactive policies need to be developed that can effectively communicate water scarcity and change the consumption behavior of all water-using sectors. Bulk water pricing is an effective economic instrument to manage demand, incentivize use-efficiency and conservation by signaling to users the economic value of water. However, current water extraction charges imposed on few industrial sectors are very small, and hence insufficient not only to foster sustainable water use but also to recover the costs of various resource management initiatives undertaken by the Province of Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4
    Attachment 4 City of Toronto Official Plan Five-Year Review Neighbourhoods and Environmental Policies Consultation Summary Report Appendix C – Public Open House Meeting Summaries Prepared by Lura Consulting for: The City of Toronto December 2014 City of Toronto Official Plan Review – Neighbourhood and Environment Consultations Public Open House #1 North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge Street November 18, 2014 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Public Meeting Summary Five Public Open House meetings were organized by City Planning to inform participants of the proposed changes to the Official Plan’s neighbourhood and environment policies and to obtain feedback from members of the public. The meetings encouraged broad public participation in the revision of the City’s neighbourhood and environment policies, and included several opportunities for participants to provide comments and feedback including in person, online and email submissions. The following provides a summary of the feedback collected from Public Open House #1. Please be advised this is not a verbatim summary. Attendance 12 Presentations 1. Draft Healthy Neighbourhoods, Neighbourhoods, and Apartment Neighbourhoods Policies – Gerry Rogalski, Senior Planner, City Planning Division 2. Draft Environmental Policies – Jane Welsh, Project Manager, Environmental Planning, and Jane Weninger, Senior Planner, Environmental Planning Key Items Raised The key issues raised during the discussion were: Healthy Neighbourhoods, Neighbourhoods, and Apartment Neighbourhoods Policies Section 2.3.1 Healthy Neighbourhoods . Apartment neighbourhoods should be re-characterized as dynamic high-rise areas prime for reinvestment and diversification as opposed to “built-out and physically stable areas” as identified in Policy 2, Section 2.3.1. Section 3.2.1 Housing .
    [Show full text]
  • LAND USE ACTIVITIES in ELEVEN AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS in SOUTHERN ONTARIO, CANADA, 1975-76 by R. Frank
    LAND USE ACTIVITIES IN ELEVEN AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO, CANADA, 1975-76 by R. frank & B. D. Ripley Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food March, 1977 LAND USE ACTIVITIES IN ELEVEN AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO, CANADA, 1975-76 PROJECT 5 - LAND USE ACTIVITIES TASK GROUP C (CANADIAN SECTION) ACTIVITY 1 INTEWIONAL REFERENCE GROUP ON GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION PROJECT 80645 EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD RICHARD FRANK AND BRIAN D. IUPW PROVINCIAL PESTICIDE RESIDUE TESTING MORATORY ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE: AND FOOD GUELPH, ONTARIO MARCH, 1977 DISCLAIMER The study discussed in this document was carried out as part of the efforts of the Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group, an organization of the International Joint Comnission, established. under the Canada - U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972. Funding was provided through Education, Research and Special Services Division, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Project No. 80645. Findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necess- arily reflect the views of the Reference Group or its recornendations to the Commission. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to the enumerators in each watershed who worked with farmers and land owners to complete the questionnaire that formed the basis of this survey. Thanks are extended to all farmers and land owners for their cooperation in providing the pertinent details on their agricultural activities. TECHNICAL COMMITI'EE: PROJECT 5 Project Dr. R. Frank, Director, Leader: Provincial Pesticide Residue Testing Laboratory, OMAF Project B.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Point Source Water Contamination Module Was Originally Published in 2003 by the Advanced Technology Environmental and Energy Center (ATEEC)
    From the POINT SOURCE Technology and Environmental Decision-Making WATER Series CONTAMINATION This 2017 version of the Point Source Water Contamination module was originally published in 2003 by the Advanced Technology Environmental and Energy Center (ATEEC). The module, part of the series Technology and Environmental Decision-Making: A critical-thinking approach to 7 environmental challenges, was initially developed by ATEEC and the Laboratory for Energy and Environment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and funded by the National Science Foundation. The ATEEC project team has updated this version of the module and gratefully acknowledges the past and present contributions, assistance, and thoughtful critiques of this material provided by authors, content experts, and reviewers. These contributors do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse these modules. Any errors in the modules are the responsibility of ATEEC. Authors: Melonee Docherty, ATEEC Michael Beck, ATEEC Editor: Glo Hanne, ATEEC Copyright 2017, ATEEC This project was supported, in part, by the Advanced Technological Education Program at the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE #1204958. The information provided in this instructional material does not necessarily represent NSF policy. Cover image: Ground water monitoring wells, Cape Cod, MA. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey. Additional copies of this module can be downloaded from the ATEEC website. i Point Source Water Contamination Corroded pipes from Flint’s water distribution system.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Supply Development and Management Alternatives for Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, Michigan
    Water-Supply Development and Management Alternatives for Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, Michigan By K. E. VANLIER, W. W. WOOD, and J. 0. BRUNETT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1969 Prepared in cooperation with the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1973 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600363 For ...e by the Superintendent of Doewnenta, U.S. Government PrintintJ Oftiee Wuhin-'on, D.C. 20402-Priee 13.20 (paper eover) Stoek Number 2401-02422 CONTENTS Page ~bstract ------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction --------------------------------------------------- 1 Purpose and scope -·---------------------------------------- 2 ~cknowledgments _ ----__ ------------------------------------ 2 Characteristics of the region ------------------------------------- 3 The economic base and population ---------------------------- 5 VVater use ------------------------------------------------- 9 VVithdrawal uses --------------------------------------- 9 Nonwithdrawal uses ------------------------------------ 12 Sources of water ----------------------------------------------- 13 The hydrologic cycle ---------------------------------------- 13 Interrelationship of ground and surface waters ------------ 14 Induced recharge --------------------------------------- 16 Water in streams -------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Saginaw River/Bay Fish & Wildlife Habitat BUI Removal Documentation
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 6 MAY 2014 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF Mr. Roger Eberhardt Acting Deputy Director, Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 525 West Allegan P.O. Box 30473 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 Dear Roger: Thank you for your February 6, 2014, request to remove the "Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat" Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) from the Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern (AOC) in Michigan, As you know, we share your desire to restore all of the Great Lakes AOCs and to formally delist them. Based upon a review of your submittal and the supporting data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hereby approves your BUI removal request for the Saginaw River/Bay AOC, EPA will notify the International Joint Commission of this significant positive environmental change at this AOC. We congratulate you and your staff, as well as the many federal, state, and local partners who have worked so hard and been instrumental in achieving this important environmental improvement. Removal of this BUI will benefit not only the people who live and work in the Saginaw River/Bay AOC, but all the residents of Michigan and the Great Lakes basin as well. We look forward to the continuation of this important and productive relationship with your agency and the local coordinating committee as we work together to fully restore all of Michigan's AOCs. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (312) 353-4891, or your staff may contact John Perrecone, at (312) 353-1149.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Human Impacts on the Grand River
    Historical Human Impacts on the Grand River Even before Europeans settled on the east banks of the Grand River, in what is now downtown Grand Rapids, humankind had been affecting the water quality of the Lower Grand River Watershed. Many native peoples used the Grand River for fishing, transportation, and other daily activities. 1“The Grand River is Michigan’s largest stream. It extends 270 miles through Jackson to Grand Haven. The Indians knew it as ‘Owashtanong’, meaning ‘far away waters’.” The Grand River Times in 1837 mentioned the Grand River as “one of the most important and delightful [rivers] to be found in the country” with “clear, silver-like water winding its way through a romantic valley.” Europeans impacted the river greatly in the next one hundred years as industrialization spread across the country. As early as 1889, Everette Fitch recorded the detrimental effects humankind was having on the Grand River. She wrote, “The channel was, as usual, covered with a green odiferous scum, mixed with oil from the gas works.” Even more than a century ago the Grand River was deteriorating, its banks clogged with mills and factories and its water clogged with logs and dams. In its history the river has been abused with waterpower, river-dependant industries, large increases in population, stripping of the forests, and discharges of chemical and sewage wastes. The prediction in 1905 by the Grand Rapids Evening Press was that by the year 2005 the Grand River would be more a sewer than a river. Today’s Human Impacts on the Grand River Today, technology and knowledge have been used to improve water quality in the main channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Flint River Flood Mitigation Alternatives Saginaw County, Michigan
    Draft Environmental Assessment Flint River Flood Mitigation Alternatives Saginaw County, Michigan Flint River Erosion Control Board FEMA-DR-1346-MI, HMGP Project No. A1346.53 April 2006 U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region V 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60605 This document was prepared by URS Group, Inc. 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Contract No. EMW-2000-CO-0246, Task Order No. 138. Job No. 15292488.00100 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ iii Section 1 ONE Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Authority..........................................................................................1 1.2 Project Location and Setting........................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................2 Section 2 TWO Alternative Analysis .......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative.........................................................3 2.2 Alternative 2 – Dike Reconstruction and Reservoir Construction (Proposed Action) ........................................................................................3 2.2.1 Project Segment
    [Show full text]
  • Flint River GREEN Notebook Table of Contents Section One - Introduction to Flint River GREEN
    Flint River GREEN www.FlintRiver.org Flint River GREEN Notebook Table of Contents Section One - Introduction to Flint River GREEN a. FRWC b. GREEN c. Earth Force d. MSU Extension; 4-H Youth Development e. School Administration Letter (Phase II & Participant Appreciation) f. Flint River GREEN Objectives Section Two – Information for Mentors a. Who are mentors? b. Timeline for Teachers and Mentor Interactions c. Importance of Mentors d. Inquiry Training e. How to talk to youth f. Sample Presentations for Mentors Section Three – BEFORE River Activities a. Curriculum Benchmarks and Standards i. 8th Grade Earth Science Standards ii. 10th Grade Biology Standards b. Incorporating Other Teachers iii. Civic Engagement: Social Studies, Language Arts iv. Technology: Media Support, Presentations v. Sharing Testing: Chemistry, Mathematics c. Ordering Materials vi. Shelf Life of Chemicals vii. Disposal of Old Chemicals d. Inquiry Training: Why is the Data Important viii. How Can the Information Be Used ix. Who Is Currently Interested in the Data e. Selecting A Testing Site / Finding A Good Fit f. Preparing Kids for the Day at the River x. Attire Flint River GREEN www.FlintRiver.org xi. Who Does Which Test g. Run Through the Tests h. Looking at Historical Data i. Permission Slip/Photo releases j. Notifying the media and elected officials xii. Sample Press Release k. Optional Activities xiii. Model Watershed Activity xiv. Watershed Planning – Desired & Designated Uses xv. ELUCID – Flint River Watershed by MSU Institute of Water Research Section Four – Day At the River a. Deciding Who Goes to the River b. Checklist for Things to Take Out to the River c.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Indicators
    SECTION 4 - WATER QUALITY INDICATORS RIVERINE HABITAT STUDIES Fisheries Studies The original fish communities of the Great Lakes region are of recent origin. Melt water from the Wisconsinan glacier created aquatic environments for fish. Original fish gained access through migration from connecting waterways. A description of the fish community in the Flint River Watershed at the time of European settlement (early 1800’s) is not available. However anecdotal accounts of the time mention several species. Surveys on the Flint River and several tributaries in 1927 provide a reasonable account for additional indigenous fish species (MDNR, Fishery Division). Seventy-seven species are believed to indigenous to the Flint River Watershed. The Original fish habitat of the Flint River watershed has been greatly altered by human settlement. The 1900’s gave rise to the industrial era and the urbanization of the Flint River watershed. City’s and towns located near the river became more developed as their population increased. The discharge of human wastes and synthetic pollutants into the river degraded water quality to the extent that only the most tolerant fish species could survive. Dams were built for flood control, flow augmentation, and water supply to municipalities and industry. The biologic communities in the Flint River and its tributaries have improved significantly since the 1970’s with water quality improvements. Continued efforts to improve water quality will most probably result in greater biological integrity and diversity. Although 77 species of fish remain present, at least 5 fish species that once used the Flint River for spawning (lake sturgeon, muskellunge, lake trout, lake herring, lake whitefish) are believed extirpated from the river.
    [Show full text]